The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 05/11/1999 Cffy F TIGARD OREGON TIOA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11 1999 COUNCIL MEETING WILL TELEVISE I I I:\ADM\JESSICA\CCPKTI.DOC f 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 In aim 11111m, 011mm 111mms Revised on 5106199 r` n 7. t' r t '4 1 ~ ltyldh 1 K7 1 CITY OF TIGARD ^r xry t ~rl 3 ~ u~ ,l i ~ PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and 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: 6394171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 11, 1999 - PAGE 1 swz~lil TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 11, 1999 AGENDA 6:30 PM STUDY SESSION > 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 those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > Discussion: Metro Title 3 Compliance Update > Discussion: Proposed Public Education and Government (PEG) Tualatin Valley Cable Access (TVCA) services > Discussion: City of Tigard Policy on Memorials > Discussion: City Manager Review Criteria 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS a. Special Presentation > Curtis Tigard i~2 b. Green School Award > Administration Department C. Metro West Proclamation & Presentation > Mayor Presents Proclamation > Metro West Representatives to Make Presentation to the City 7:50 PM 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 11, 1999 - RAGE 2 8:00 PM 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve Tigard City Council Minutes of: March 16, 1999 4.2. Receive & File: a) Tentative Agenda b) Council Calendar 4.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Bid of New TV Inspection Equipment to Municipal Supply Company b. Award Bid for Bonita Road Improvements - Phase 3 - to Excel Excavation, Inc. 4.4 Approve Resolution Appointing John Olsen as a Planning Commission Representative on the Transportation Bond Task Force - Resolution No. 99--W • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 8:05 p.m. 5. STATUS REPORT FOR "TIGARD BEYOND TOMMOROW," CITY OF TIGARD VISIONING PROGRAM O City Administration 8:15 p.m 6. REPORT ON THE CITY OF TIGARD VOLUNTEER PROGRAM • City Administration 8:25 p.m 7. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR BABIES-R-US - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 98-0004/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 98.00271PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PD 98-0014 The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the Planning Commissions recommendation and receive public testimony on a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to remove a portion of the wetlands on the site from the significant wetlands inventory. This will allow the applicant to mitigate for the wetlands and construct the required parking. Site Development Review and Planned Development approval have also been requested to construct a 38,000 square foot retail store. This proposal includes several adjustments to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, as recommended by the Design Evaluation Team (DET). The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 3/15/99 on this application and voted to recommend that the City "ouncil approve the applicant's request. LOCATION: The subject site is located on the east side of SW Dartmouth Street, west of Red Rock Creek across from the existing Costco. WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 02000. ZONE: General Commercial (C-G) with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay. The purpose of the general commercial areas is to provide for majjor retail goods and services. Permitted uses in the C-G zoning district are public agency administrative services, lodge, fraternal and civic assembly, parking, amusement, animal sales and services, automotive sales and light equipment repairs, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.360, 18.380, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.790, 18.795, 18.797, 18.810 and Metro Title 3. COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 11, - PAGE 3 a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Option 1: Motion approving the proposed draft ordinance/findings as recommended by the Planning Commission. Option 2: Motion approving the proposed draft ordinance/findings as recommended by the Planning Commission with the condition recommended by staff. Option 3: Direct staff to prepare a revised proposed ordinancelfindings in accordance with Council modifications for consideration on May 25, 1999. 8:55 p.m 8. PUBLIC HEARING - MODIFY METRO GREENSPACES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Community Development Department C. Public Testimony d. Council Questions e. Close Public Hearing f. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99=`_it 9:10 p.m 9. INITIATE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE WALNUT AND TIEDEMAN AREA o Community Development Department • Council Questions Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99. -*-2;1-z 3 9:20 p.m 10. DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL GROUNDRULES e Administration Department 9:50 p.m 11. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10:00 P.M. 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 11, 1999 - PAGE 4 10:10 P.M. 13. 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 those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:30 p.m. 14. ADJOURNMENT kIADAACAiHY1CCA1990511. DOC COUNCIL AGENDA- MAY 11, 1999. PAGE 5 Agenda Item No. 3_„ ~ 'T'IGARD CI'T'Y COUNCIL Meeting of MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Library Director Melinda Sisson; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff; Associate Planner Julia Hajduk; Development Review Engineer Brian Rager > PEG DISCUSSION Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, explained that MACC was the board of 15 jurisdictions that oversaw the contract with TVCA for the provision of PEG cable service. She said that public, education and government (PEG) access was that portion of the cable service that was not commercial. She explained that Tigard received its fair share of the franchise fee paid by TCI based on subscribership. The distribution of the fee collected for Tigard was 57% to Tigard, 28% to MACC, and 5% to TVCA. She said that MACC sent 10% of its 28% to TVCA so that TVCA received a total of 15% and MACC 18%. She directed attention to page 7 of her memo outlining the dollar amounts involved. Ms. Newton explained that MACC decided to review the TVCA portion of the TCI 15 year contract after the TCI franchise contract renewal was completed. She directed attention to her memo summarizing the issues discussed by MACC relative to TVCA over the last several months and reporting the TVCA response to those concerns. She noted the questions listed in her memo that the MACC Board sent back to each jurisdiction to discuss and respond to at their May 19 meeting. Ms. Newton discussed the first issue of dissatisfaction with the way TVCA provided PEG access to the jurisdictions. She reported that most of the jurisdictions felt that TVCA emphasized the public aspect over the education and government aspects. She noted the TVCA proposals attempting to boost up the education and government portions of PEG access more closely to thirds, as requested by the Board. She read the first question: Is there a scenario proposed by TVCA that should serve as the basis for future PEG access? Ms. Newton reviewed the second issue of the franchisee fee shares sent to TVCA by the jurisdictions. She explained that some jurisdictions felt that all jurisdictions should give the same set amount while other jurisdictions proposed that each jurisdiction have the option of sending 0%, 5%, 10%, 15% or 17.5% at their discretion. She said that TVCA has asked for 15% and that Beaverton and Hillsboro were willing to go as high as 17.5%. She stated her and Councilor Scheckla's belief that the MACC staff would recommend allowing each jurisdiction I to choose its own level of support. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 1 Councilor Patton asked if selection of a lower franchise fee resulted in a lower level of service. Ms. Newton said that that was a question that for the MACC Board. She commented that she understood that that was probably what they would do. Councilors Moore and Patton questioned how they could do that. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that some of the smaller jurisdictions did not receive the same benefits as the larger jurisdictions, such as televised Council meetings, yet they paid a fee to TVCA. Ms. Newton discussed the third question: should MACC invite proposals for PEG access from other contract providers or just resume negotiations with TVCA? She stated out that Tigard was the only jurisdiction to ask that question initially and that most of the others did not know if doing so would be beneficial. She mentioned the informal staff poll of other providers in the area in which they found that none of them were very interested, although Mt. Hood might submit a proposal if MACC opened it up. Ms. Newton discussed the fourth question: concerns or comments regarding TVCA's funding proposals. She directed attention to her outline of the assumptions behind TVCA's four proposed funding scenarios. She reviewed the three pieces of their funding sources: the franchise fee controlled by MACC which TVCA relied heavily upon, the $200,000 incidental payment in the first four years of the TCI contract (MACC could distribute $150,000 of it at its discretion; $50,000 went directly to the Public Communications Network), and the large capital grant fund made available to MACC by TCI. Ms. Newton explained that TCVA assumed that it would get all of the $150,000 incidental payment and the lion's share of the capital grant funding, even though MACC could allocate funds from both those sources to the Public Communications Network also. She said that TVCA proposed using the capital grant money to build a building and lease out a portion of it to generate revenue to use for its own operations. She mentioned MACC's concern at TVCA's assumption that it would get most of the capital grant fund, despite PCN needs. She said that the Board asked TVCA to revisit its building proposal and consider options that did not rely so heavily on the capital grant dollars. Councilor Scheckla stated that TVCA wanted to build a new 11,000 square foot building, use 7,000 square feet itself, and lease out the other 4,000 square feet. He questioned TVCA using the City and MACC's money to build a new building when they could purchase an existing building and remodel it. He mentioned the new TVCA Board coming in. He said that, although TVCA assumed a 15 year contract, some jurisdictions wanted a shorter term to see if the problems that occurred with the previous Board were worked out before MACC committed its money. i The Council discussed the TVCA issues extensively. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the $750,000 for the capital grant fand went back to TCI as profit if MACC did not use it. He spoke in support of TVCA's scenario to build a new building, mentioning his understanding that the County was offering up a piece of property for a joint venture. Councilor Scheckla did not agree that the Mayor's description of the process for the $750,000 was completely accurate. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Mayor could document the names of the many people who have contacted him regarding TVCA. Mayor Nicoli indicated that he was averaging one to two letters a week. Bill Monahan, City Manager, said that those letters were from a wide variety of interests ranging from social service agencies to politicians. Councilor Scheckla argued that knuckling under and giving money to TVCA cost MACC CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 2 leverage in the negotiations. Ms. Newton pointed out that a MACC subcommittee would administer the capital grant fund. She concurred'with the Mayor that the money returned to TCI if MACC did not spend it. Councilor Moore asked if spending the money on a facility was that advantageous to the community. Mayor Nicoli held that it benefited the community because TVCA would not be renting or leasing buildable space any more, thus cutting their overhead. Ms. Newton confirmed to Councilor Patton that MACC could award the money for capital projects in general, not necessarily for this particular project. She mentioned that TVCA lost $500,000 in operational dollars and was looking for a way to make the capital fund help them. She explained to Councilor Moore that MACC retained control over the expenditure of the grant funds because it approved the proposals for specific projects. Ms. Newton agreed with Mr. Monahan that MACC could use the $750,000 itself to build or purchase a building and allow TVCA to use it rent free. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that that suggestion has not come to the MACC Board. He indicated that he could see problems arising from giving the money to TVCA. Ms. Newton reiterated that the TCI contract gave control of the capital grant fund to MACC. She reminded the Council that MACC asked TVCA to come back with different options for the building proposal because of the jurisdictions' concerns with the initial proposal. Councilor Moore asked for clarification. He stated that he understood the situation as the 15 members of MACC deciding what to do with the $750,000. TVCA made proposals for the use of the money but did not make the final decision. He indicated that he would be more concerned if TVCA made the final decision on what to do with the money but he understood that they did not. He said that he would rather see the capital grant money used for the benefit of the community rather than going back to TCI. The Council agreed to send the recommendation to MACC that MACC own the building and let TVCA use it rent-free. The Council discussed what percentage to send to TVCA. Mayor Nicoli supported 17.5%. Councilor Scheckla held that the City could send a lesser percentage and spend the difference in its own community. He disagreed with Councilor Moore that that money would necessarily be spent anyway by MACC. Mayor Nicoli said that he found 17.5% for operations a reasonable figure, given Portland's contribution of 30% to 50% of its franchise revenue to operate what TVCA operated on 15%. He held that the TVCA people received the message loud and clear that MACC wanted them to clean up their act. Councilor Scheckla asked if TVCA had proposed initially that they eventually operate independently. Ms. Newton noted that that had been TVCA's original intent but it did not work out. Councilor Patton referenced Ms. Newton's memo (page 2) in which she gave TVCA's response to that question. TVCA held that their transition to becoming independent of MACC i (begun in 1988) was interpreted as becoming independent of franchise fees. While they have succeeded in raising one-fifth of this year's operating budget from non-government sources, no similar organization in the US operated without government support. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 3 Councilor Moore asked what the dollar equivalent of 15% was. Ms. Newton said that, at a 15% level, the City retained $135,654.81 (based on this year's fee) while at the 17.5% level the City would retain $129,705:04. She noted that page 7 of her memo described what services Tigard would get for the baseline of 15%. Mr. Monahan commented that staff budgeted this year expecting to get the $135,654. Mayor Nicoli commented that he saw the 0% option versus every jurisdiction giving a certain percentage as shutting down the operation. He argued that no one could operate an agency like this if every year each city could decide what percentage to put in. Councilor Scheckla spoke to waiting to see how things worked out with the new Board, and then giving them more money if things went all right. He referenced the problems the City had with the Interfaith Outreach center. Mayor Nicoli remarked that he thought that Beaverton and Hillsboro would go with the 17.5%. He spoke in support of Tigard joining them. He said that they still held the purse strings. He reiterated that TVCA has responded well to the issues raised and has gotten the message to clean up their act. He disagreed that the situation was similar to the Interfaith Outreach Services situation. Councilor Scheckla argued that until the new Board and Director were up and operating, they could not tell if they have cleaned up their act. Councilor Scheckla asked to be replaced as the Tigard representative on the MACC Board. Councilor Moore commented that the Councilors appreciated the time each spent on the various committees. He stated that he represented the Council on the committees that he served on, he did not represent himself. Councilor Scheckla indicated that he thought that he had been representing the Council but he was no longer certain. He reiterated that he thought they were giving away leverage. Councilor Patton commented that, while Councilor Scheckla's concerns regarding TVCA having insufficient operating experience for MACC to judge whether or not they would change their operations were valid, she saw getting the necessary assurances, checks and balances, and reviews as part of the contract negotiation process. Ms. Newton pointed out that none of the MACC jurisdictions supported TVCA's request for a 15 year term contract. The MACC Board wanted direct and specific performance standards with a shorter term renewable contract. Ms. Newton asked the Council for direction on Tigard's position regarding the questions. Councilor Patton spoke to revising Scenario B. She said that, while she was comfortable with the 17.5% level, she was hesitant to move forward with options that created additional full-time a positions when she was not certain what those positions would do. She mentioned starting out N with the baseline of Scenario B that gave some additional flexibility with respect to the government portion and a limited outreach for the education portion. Councilor Scheckla asked if Tigard would have to pay for televising more meetings, regardless of the percentage level they contributed. Ms. Newton confirmed that they did pay more for additional meetings. She pointed out that if Tigard purchased a built-in camera system, then the $5,200 they currently paid each year for one Council meeting a month would go down to $2,100 a year. She suggested allowing other jurisdictions to use the room in order to make maximum use of the room. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 4 loll 1111111111111 Councilor Patton stated that she saw no harm in finding out if other providers were willing to submit proposals. She indicated that she did not like TVCA's assumptions that they would get the $150,000 incidental payment and most of the capital grant fund. She said that she was comfortable with the MACC Board's request that TVCA re-look at their building proposal. She commented that she would like to see TVCA look at some of its other assumptions also. Councilor Moore concurred with Councilor Patton's comments. He noted that either a 15% or 17.5% franchise fee was fine. Councilor Hunt said that he has not studied this issue and could not contribute meaningfully to the discussion. Councilor Scheckla reiterated that TVCA should look at getting an empty building as opposed to building a new building. He spoke to TVCA locating in a more central location than out by Hillsboro, given that the franchise vent down to Wilsonville. He discussed his concerns with TVCA's lobbying tactics. Mayor Nicoli concurred with Councilor Patton's comments. > MEMORIAL POLICY Mr. Monahan presented the staff recommendation for a memorial policy to put in place a process to accept gift memorials or to grant requests to name something after someone. He reviewed the three types of memorials identified by staff in its review of other communities' policies: small memorials within park facilities, distinct elements within City-owned properties, and naming an entire City facility Mr. Monahan recommended processing applications for the small memorials within park facilities (benches, trees, etc.) through the Parks Department to make sure that the memorial request fit appropriately within the scheme of the park. He recommended forwarding requests for distinct elements within City-owned property (athletic facilities, path, fountain, etc.) to Council for evaluation based on a set of guidelines provided by staff. He recommended forwarding requests to name City facilities to Council also. He pointed out that the policy allowed Council to initiate names also. Mr. Monahan noted that the County agreed to Mr. Cash's terms to name the property it bought from him "Cache Creek Park," and staff recommended that the Council give its approval also. Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the use of the conflicting terms "guideline" and a "standard." He supported the more flexible term "guideline" to allow for small mistakes. Mr. Monahan stated that staff hoped that people would consult with staff first before obtaining a plaque. He presented photos of acceptable and unacceptable plaques. He said that they did not i want rigid terms but they did want a plaque that would stand up, could not be vandalized, was not a hazard, and did not look like a gravestone. j The Council agreed by consensus that staff would return on May 25 with a resolution implementing the staff recommendation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 5 11: 15 1 ORION > SCHOOL DISTRICT MEETING Mr. Monahan reported on a meeting he attended today, called by the School Superintendent Russ Joki, to discuss youth issues. Attendees included Susan Stark-Hayden from the School District, Tualatin's Mayor, City Manager, and Police Chief, and Jack Schwab. He indicated that the group discussed the concept of a community center but mostly focused on what resources the various communities and agencies (Tigard, Tualatin, School District, churches, etc.) could bring to the table to assist parents and children. Mr. Monahan said that anyone who wanted to come to the next meeting (scheduled for May 25) was welcome. He noted possible additional attendees as Mayor Nicoli, Chief Goodpaster, students, parents, and Tualatin's 19 year old Councilor. Mr. Monahan mentioned that the School District has been criticized for not getting information out to the parents on its investigations of threats following the Littleton incident. He commented that they have been so busy following leads that they have not had time to get information out but they were now taking a more proactive approach. > ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Mr. Monahan mentioned that TVCA would replay the Council meeting at which the water decision was made several more times before the end of the week. Mr. Monahan advised the Council that Debbie Eckhart would appear under Visitors" Agenda to inform the Council that they were appealing the Erickson Heights decision to LUBA. Councilor Moore asked for staff to acknowledge the traffic report and the reason why it was not considered. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, explained that the Bernstein traffic report (dated March 5) came in after the close of the record on February 10, and therefore it could not be considered. He mentioned that, as of 4:00 p.m. today, LUBA did not indicate that an appeal had been filed. Mr. Monahan said that Ms. Eckhart told him this morning that they would file the appeal today. Mr. Hendryx advised the Council that LUBA's rules allowed the City to request independently a remand directly back to the City to allow reconsideration of the original decision and submittal of new evidence or testimony. He reported that, according to the City Attorney, the 120 day clock stopped when the Council adopted the findings on April 20. Councilor Hunt asked why the City would request a remand. Councilor Moore said in order to hear the new traffic report that indicated that there was some question as to whether the original traffic report was accurate. Mr. Monahan stated that staff did not recommend doing so because the Council had plenty of time to evaluate the issues in the appellant's petition (once it was filed) and to decide whether or not it wanted a remand. He pointed out that the applicant might 3 ask for a remand to fix things locally, once he saw the petition. a a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 6 o Mr. Monahan mentioned the land use decision on the Lincoln property. He noted that this Friday was the deadline for filing appeals. Mr. Hendryx explained that, under the new Code, the Council could no longer call up land use hearings on its own motion but rather it could direct staff to appeal the decision. Mr. Monahan clarified that staff provided Council with information on land use decisions for its information, not to see if Council wanted to pull them up any more. Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, reported that staff was working with other Washington County jurisdictions to meet the Metro mandate to amend their Comprehensive Plans to address the new Title 3 performance standards adopted by Metro for protection of water resources. He explained that they hoped to develop one set of rules for all jurisdictions in the County, building on the Stormwater Management program that has been operating in the County for 10 years. He confirmed to Councilor Moore that if they did not meet Metro's end of the year deadline for adopting a compliance package, then Metro might require Tigard to use Metro's model ordinance. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that staff was working in the direction of flexibility in the standards versus the strict rule of Title 3. He asked if the Council wanted to see a slide presentation on the Title 3 standards and how other jurisdictions were addressing them. The Council agreed to see the presentation. Mr. Roberts concurred with Councilor Patton that Tigard was doing well in meeting the Title 3 standards. > Mayor Nicoli adjourned the study session at 7:28 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla were present. 1.4 Council Communications: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 4 2. SPECIAL. PRESENTATIONS 2.1 Curtis Tigard N Mr. Tigard informed the Council that his sister, Grace Tigard Houghton, left one-third of the remainder of her estate to the City of Tigard Public Library for the "Houghton Browsing Room." He read the conditions stipulated in Mrs. Houghton's will. He mentioned that his sister was active in King City organizations and as a volunteer at the Library. He said that the dollar amount would be between $500,000 to $700,000. He donated a framed photo of Mrs. Houghton to the City to be placed under the bronze plaque in the browsing room. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 7 Mayor Nicoli thanked Mr. Tigard. He informed the Council that Resolution 99-29 would allow the City to start the process to accept these funds in conformance with the requirements of the US Bank Trust Department. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution 99-29. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-29, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM THE REVOKABLE LIVING TRUST OF GRACE T. HOUGHTON. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes.") Mayor Nicoli informed Council that he wanted to discuss how to proceed with this matter as a non-agenda item. Oregon Greenschool Award Loreen Mills, Administrative Risk Analyst, described the Oregon Greenschool program, a nationally recognized program, to recognize schools for their recycling efforts. She said that the focus was to train both staff and students on the logistics and value of recycling and to recognize the students and staff who made this time-consuming program actually work. She announced that the second school in the Tigard school district to receive this award was Mary Woodard Elementary. Mayor Nicoli presented a plaque to Principal Art Rutkin and congratulated him on his school's achievements. He presented another plaque to Phillip Slomiak, the student who took the lead in implementing the recycling program, and thanked him for his good work. Ms. Mills presented a short video from KGW Channel 8 on the Greenschool program at Mary Woodard Elementary School that highlighted Phillip's work and leadership. Emergency Medical Week J.D. Becton, MetroWest President and General Manager, introduced Jason Rogers, Paramedic. Mr. Rogers thanked the Council for its proclamation of the week of May 16 to May 22 as Emergency Medical Services Week. He stated that it was the goal of the providers of the excellent emergency health care system in Washington County to meet the emergency medical needs of the community in a compassionate, timely and professional manner. He invited the Council to a barbecue celebration on Thursday, May 20, at the Dawson Creek Office. Mr. Rogers presented a plaque to Mayor Nicoli. Mayor Nicoli presented the signed proclamation to Mr. Rogers. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 8 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA ® Deborah Eckhart, advised the Council that her attorney. Paul Norr, has filed an appeal of the Erickson Heights subdivision with LUBA. She distributed copies of letters from Mr. Norr to City Attorney Jim Coleman. She quoted from the January 26 City Council minutes in which Mr. Coleman predicted that a Council decision for approval would be appealed to LUBA and be remanded based on the issues raised in record. She agreed with Mr. Coleman's comment. She asked the Council to voluntarily withdraw the decision either for reconsideration based on the existing evidence or for consideration of new evidence. She indicated that they believed that the applicant's traffic analysis was defective. Mr. Hendryx explained that there was a process whereby the City could request a remand from LUBA for further discussion or allowance of new testimony. He asked for direction on whether or not staff should evaluate that process and report back to Council. Mr. Monahan reviewed the Council's options for action this evening. He said that the Council could give such direction now and avoid the time-consuming preparation of the record for LUBA or make the decision after the record was prepared and set this item for a future agenda. Councilor Moore spoke to the Council discussing what its options were as a future agenda item. Staff indicated that it had a short time period within which to prepare the record. Mr. Monahan suggested proceeding with the preparation of the record. Councilor Hunt requested that this item be scheduled for the meeting in two weeks, as he would be out of town next week. Councilor Patton supported discussing their options as soon as possible when Councilor Hunt was available. Ms. Eckhart mentioned that they were willing to extend the time needed to prepare the record if necessary. Mr. Monahan stated that staff would prepare the record for the May 25 meeting. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Moore reported that the Bond Task Force knew that it would have to replace a member, and the suggested individual volunteered. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, tc approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4.1 Approve Council Minutes of: March 16, 1999 4.2 Receive and File: a. Tentative Agenda b. Council Calendar 4.3 Local Contract Review Board a. Bid Award of New TV Inspection Equipment to be installed into existing vehicle 4.4 Appointment to the Transportation Bond Task Force CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 9 EMISSION IN 5. TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW Ms. Newton presented the quarterly update on the visioning program. She highlighted elements in each of the main categories described in the written report for the TV audience. These included the Central Downtown Business District, the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force, the City's Housing Code (effective May 3), staff work on distributing information on emergency preparedness, provision of summer recreation programs for young people, appointment of a Transportation Bond Task Force, the City/School librarians' partnership, the Atfalati Recreation Task Force, and the decision to develop a treatment plant on the Willamette River as a primary water source with Portland as a secondary source. 6. REPORT ON CITY OF TIGARD VOLUNTEER PROGRAM a Susan Koepping, Volunteer Coordinator, presented a 12 month update on the volunteer program. She stated that they have documented 356 unduplicated volunteers who have contributed over 9,500 hours. She explained that, while this number included the police reserve volunteers, it did not include the library volunteers. She mentioned the staff city-wide who worked closely with volunteers in identifying volunteer tasks, and providing support, materials and working space. Ms. Koepping narrated a slide presentation depicting the variety of volunteers and their tasks in contributing to the City. She mentioned the police reserve officers, the mentor students at the DARE summer camp, Eagle Scouts, the businesses, organizations, and families involved in the "Adopt A Street" and "Adopt a Path" programs, employee groups (such as Pacific Utilities Equipment and Red Lobster), and the Chamber of Commerce. She mentioned volunteer events or projects such as Trees 2000, Earth Day, Make a Difference Day, Train Days, and the Holiday Tree Lighting ceremony. Councilor Moore commented on how much they could accomplish with the help of the amazing number of volunteers. Ms. Koepping thanked the Council and staff for their support of the volunteer program. 7. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNCIL REVIEW OF BABIES "R" US (CPA 98-04/2DR 98-27/- PD 98-14) PROPOSAL: The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and receive public testimony on a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to remove a portion of the wetlands on the site from the Certificate of Wetlands Inventory. This will { allow the applicant to mitigate for the wetlands and construct the required + parking. Site Development Review and Planncd Development approval have also been requested to construct a 38,000 square foot retail store. This proposal includes several adjustments to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, as recommended by the Design Evaluation Team (DET). The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 3/15/99 on this application and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the applicant's request. LOCATION: The subject site is located on the east side of SW Dartmouth Street, west of Red Rock Creek across from the existing Costco; WCTM IS 136CD, Tax Lot 02000. CITY COUNCIL MEE'T'ING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 10 ZONING. DESIG- NA'T'ION: General Commercial (C-G) with a planned development overlay. The purpose of the General Commercial areas is to provide for major retail goods Lind services. Permitted uses in a C-G zoning district are public agency administrative services, lodge, fraternal and civic assembly, parking, amusement, animal sales and services, automotive sales and light equipment, repairs among other uses. APPLI- CABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.360, 18.380, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775 18.790, 18.795, 18.797 and 18.810; and Metro Title 3. a. Mayor Nicoll opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges Councilor Moore declared that, as a representative of PGE, he has been working with the applicant's engineer to provide electrical service to the project. He stated that he did not feel that that would compromise his standing. All Councilors indicated their familiarity with the record. There were no challenges. c. Staff Report .lulla Hajduk, Associate Planner, noted on the vicinity map the general area within which the project site was located. She explained that this application was before the Council because the applicant was requesting approval to remove and mitigate a portion of the wetlands. She indicated that this request required a Comprehensive Plan amendment because the wetlands were identified in the City's inventory of certificate wetlands and could not be developed without removal from the wetlands map. That action took a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Ms. 1-lajduk stated that the applicant provided an ESEE analysis and responses to Metro Title 3 water quality regulations. She indicated that the applicant has also received Division of State Land and US Army Corps of Engineers approvals for the fill and mitigation of this portion of the wetlands. She said that staff reviewed the proposal for compliance with the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and Metro Title 3. Staff recommended conditions of approval to the Planning Commission to insure that the application met the standards. Ms. Hajduk reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval with the deletion of the condition of approval requiring that the traffic signals at SW 68`h and Dartmouth and at SW 72`1 and Dartmouth be installed and operating prior to the final building inspection. She recommended reinstating the condition, as staff still felt that it was necessary, given the current unacceptable level of service "17" at both intersections. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 11 Ms. Hajduk explained that the City conditioned the Tri-County Center development to install these signals, but if the Tri-County project did not proceed as planned, these signals were still needed. She pointed out that it was not this applicant's burden to necessarily install these signals but the signals needed to be installed by someone prior to final inspection. She stated that no project should be approved that would continue to worsen these already overloaded intersections. Ms. Hajduk recommended approval of the Planning Commission recommendation with the addition of the condition stating that prior to final building inspection, the signalized improvements at 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth and at 68"' Avenue and Dartmouth would be completed and the signals operational. Ms. Hajduk submitted a letter from Michael Robinson, representing Regal Cinemas, stating that they would be willing to pay for the cost of the signal at 72nd and Dartmouth as part of their expansion proposal (currently under review), provided that any new development (including Babies "R" Us) was conditioned to reimburse Regal Cinemas a portion of the cost. She stated that staff felt that the staff condition adequately addressed the scenario, and that it was not good practice to add additional conditions that dealt with private developer issues. She held that if Babies "R" Us chose to enter into an agreement with another entity to pay their proportional share, then that was the applicant's method of addressing the staff condition with regard to one of the two intersections. Mayor Nicola questioned whether asking both the Tri-County Center development and Babies "R" Us to install the two traffic signals was going too far under the Dolan test. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, stated that staff was not asking Babies "R" Us to install the signals. They were asking that the signals be installed prior to occupancy. Mayor Nicoli commented that to him, the City was asking Babies "R" Us to put those signals in before they moved into their building. Mr. Bewersdorff explained that the issue related to the fact that the City had no guarantee that Tri-County Center would move ahead with its development and install the two signals. He emphasized that both intersections warranted signals now. He used an analogy of filling up a bathtub with water; at some point, any additional water caused the bathtub to overflow. He said that these two intersections were at the point of overflow. Mayor Nicoli stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Bewersdorff comments but he questioned whether or not the proportionality required by the Dolan test has been met here. Jim Coleman, City Attorney, reiterated that staff was not conditioning the applicant to build the traffic signals, rather staff was telling them not to put traffic into the system until the signals were built. He stated that they did not have a Dolan issue for the signals because staff was not asking the applicant to put them in. He commented that he understood that the applicant has agreed with the City's Dolan analysis for the street improvements. Councilor Patton pointed out that, although the City was not asking this developer to put the lights in, this developer would be placed in a position where he could not do anything without those lights. Mr. Bewersdorff commented that that was the situation in the Triangle, and staff would be hard pressed to approve any project in the Triangle without those lights. Mayor Nicoli concurred. d. Public Testimony CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 12 Mayor Nicoli read the land use hearing criteria. PROPONENT Jack Orchard, representing Babies "R" Us, noted that they discussed the condition regarding the traffic signals for one and a half hours before the Planning Commission. He stated that the applicant was comfortable with the Planning Commission's decision but their decision was not what the applicant had asked for, after seeing the original staff proposal. He explained that the applicant believed that he should pay his proportional share of the impact that his development caused at both of the two intersections. He pointed out that they did not make much impact. Mr. Orchard emphasized how the condition would apply to Babies "R" Us, if readopted: the store would not receive an occupancy permit unless both signals were installed and operational. He stated that they now had solid evidence that the Tri-County development was in a holding pattern and would not put those signals in later this year, as staff originally believed. He held that, without a Herculean effort by both the Council and someone, neither of the signals would be operable by the time Babies "R" Us was scheduled to open later this year. Mr. Orchard reiterated that the applicant was ready to contribute his proportional share, however the City would like him to. He stated that they were comfortable with the method suggested by Mr. Robinson of Regal Cinemas or with writing a check to the City and letting the City escrow the funds for later application to the signals. Mr. Orchard argued that the condition was fundamentally unfair and illegal, given the minimal amount of traffic generated by this store. He stated that the store generated no traffic during the am peak hour and minimal traffic during the pm peak hour because the store's patrons did not like to shop there during the pm peak hour. He pointed out that people did not stop on their way home from work to buy the kind of merchandise sold at the store. He said that the store's slack time was during the pm peak hour. Mr. Orchard spoke to two principles at play in this situation. He agreed with the Councilors that there was a Dolan issue because the traffic impacts and the impact of the condition on the owner were out of balance. He argued that any problem existing today was there because of existing impacts and the impacts of other approved developments, not because of impacts made by the store. He commented that if staff was right, and this same situation would occur regardless of what development application came in, then the City was facing a moratorium situation. Mr. Orchard reviewed how the City handled three larger projects within the Triangle during the past 11 months in order to demonstrate why he believed that there was a real hardship and unfairness in asking this applicant to act as the insurance policy for these two signals. He mentioned the Tri-County Center, a 331,000 square foot shopping center, conditioned last June to install both the signals. He stated that the City chose to handle the two applications approved in November (which dealt with the same intersections and same impacts a the Tri-County application) in a different fashion. Mr. Orchard said that the City required Eagle Hardware, a 148,000 square foot development, s simply to provide an LID waiver remonstrance; this store could open without the signals in a place. He indicated that City placed no conditions at all on the 'Tigard Triangle Office complex, a three building 122,400 square foot development, with regard to contributing to these two intersections. Mr. Orchard contended that, given the impacts of these other developments, if the City put CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 13 Babies "R" Us in a holding pattern until it cithTr installed the two signals or waited for someone else to do so, then the City was walking a difficult line between a moratorium on development in the Triangle and an imbalance between the impacts of the store and the burden placed on the store. He reiterated the applicant's willingness to pay his proportional fair share of the intersection improvement costs. Mr. Orchard pointed out that the transportation SDCs generated by this project were not being used for these signals. He argued that there was a limit to what could be expected from this applicant. He acknowledged that staff faced some tough issues but he contended that this was the wrong application to be exacting some of the hard choices from. ® Phil Worth, Kittleson & Associates, presented four graphics to illustrate the traffic impacts of the Babies "R" Us store. He pointed out that the store had no impact on either the 68"' and Dartmouth intersection or the 72"d and Dartmouth intersection during the am peak hour because the store was not yet open at that time. He indicated that, under existing conditions during the pm peak hour, the store would contribute 1% to the total vehicles entering the 68"' and Dartmouth intersection. After all the currently approved development was in, the 20 vehicles contributed by the store decreased to .7% of the total vehicles entering the intersection. He stated that, under existing conditions during the pm peak hour, the store added approximately 30 vehicles or 1.5% of the total vehicles entering the 72"d and Dartmouth intersection. He noted that this percentage dropped to 1.1% after all the approved developments were in. OPPONENT o Michael Robinson, 900 SW Fifth Avenue #2600, Portland, representing Regal Cinemas, stated that Regal Cinemas was willing to install the signal at 72" and Dartmouth, should the City approve its application to expand the Tigard Cinemas complex and the signal was not already installed at the time of its project's approval. He said that they would install this one signal if the City conditioned other land use applicants to reimburse Regal for their proportional share of the traffic coming through the one intersection. He noted that Mr. Orchard and he have agreed that the condition language he suggested in his letter was acceptable. Mr. Robinson disagreed with the staff contention that imposing this type of condition was not good public policy. He held that it was good public policy because it was a solution to the problem of funding expensive but necessary improvements identified by the City without placing the entire burden on the first developer through the door and allowing those coming in later to get the benefit of the improvement without having to pay for that benefit. Mr. Robinson contended that it was good public policy because the City would not be imposing a condition of approval against the applicant's will. He reiterated that Mr. Orchard was 1 comfortable with proposed language. He commented that Regal did not want to be responsible { for an expensive signal improvement without those also benefiting from the signal reimbursing Regal. Mr. Robinson pointed out that, according to ORS 227.178(3), the standards and criteria for permit applications were those in effect when the permit application was submitted. He described this application as a Comprehensive Plan amendment to amend the City's sensitive CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 14 IN! I water overlay and a permanent application that relied on the amended map. He argued that this site development review application could not rely on the amended map because it was submitted prior to the acknowledgment of the plan amendment, and therefore the plan amendment was not a standard and criteria that was in effect. Mr. Robinson stated that they did not want to oppose Babies "R" Us or file an appeal. He emphasized th,-t they wanted to see the issue of the signal reimbursement adopted as a condition of approval. He reiterated that Mr. Orchard and his client were both in agreement with the imposition of this condition. Councilor Hunt asked if Mr. Robinson was suggesting that only Regal Cinemas and Babies "R" Us share in the signal light. Mr. Robinson explained that Regal would ask for the same condition of approval on any development in the Triangle that impacted the 72°d and Dartmouth intersection. Councilor Hunt questioned making an agreement now on how to handle the signal when they did not know what Tri-County would do in the future. Mr. Robinson observed that if Tri- County built the signal, then Regal Cinemas would not have to, and Babies "R" Us was under no obligation to reimburse Regal Cinemas. He conceded that no one was obligated to reimburse Regal Cinemas if the Council did not impose a similar condition of approval. e. Council Questions Councilor Scheckla asked what standard Regal Cinema intended to use to assess a development's proportional share of the signal costs for reimbursement of its up front costs. Mr. Robinson referenced his letter proposing the percentage of pm peak traffic contributed by each development as that standard. He pointed out that this was an easy standard to identify because it was enumerated in the traffic reports. Councilor Scheckla indicated that it bothered him that the person coming in last received the benefit of the signal lights without having to pay for that benefit. Mr. Robinson said that that was what they were trying to avoid through their proposal. He pointed out that the Oregon land use system expected the first person through the door to make the improvement and did not provide a mechanism to require those coming in later to pay their fair share. He commented that was why people were reluctant to make improvements. Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Coleman if there was a way out of this dilemma. Mr. Coleman stated that those developments already approved and not conditioned were home free. He pointed out that those developments not yet approved would be home free if the City could not justify a condition based on a Dolan rough proportionality analysis, unless the applicant agreed, as this applicant apparently has. He commented that this was a difficult timing problem. Mr. Coleman mentioned the reimbursement district mechanism available to the City to deal with situations in which someone, like Regal Cinemas, fronted the money for the signal and the other users paid to use the system after the fact. He confirmed that people were required to contribute only if they connected during the first ten years of the district. He commented that the reimbursement district was not perfect either. Mr. Robinson agreed that they could go the route of a reimbursement district. He argued that his condition of approval was a simpler way to solve a narrow issue, given the complexities of a reimbursement district. He agreed that a reimbursement district was not a perfect solution. He held that his proposal was finely tuned to the problem identified. He reiterated that they simply CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 15 Miami wanted to make sure that, if they fronted the money and built the signal, the later developments did not get approvals without an obligation to reimburse them for their share of the traffic. Councilor Moore asked was the costs were to install the two signals. Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer, estimated at least $200,000 per signal. Mayor Nicoli raised a Dolan issue of whether or not proportionality should be based on the actual use requested by the applicant or on the allowed uses in the zone. He pointed out that if the Babies "R" Us store substantially changed its mix of merchandise in the future to draw people in during the pm peak hour, then it generated a greater impact on the intersections than it paid for originally. Mr. Robinson said that although there might be other alternatives to their proposal, they thought a simple way to handle it was to base the condition on the traffic study taken at face value. He stated that, in his personal opinion with regard to Dolan, the City should look at the application before it. He commented that that was the best information available to the City. He held that the City's ability to make the nexus connection declined as it moved away from examining the application before it. Mr. Orchard concurred. He pointed out that the Babies "R" Us application was before the Council because of the wetlands issue, not the traffic issue. He held that examining the universe of all possible uses in terms of traffic analysis and impacts took them into a near fantasy world of what level of improvements did the City want. He argued that, in the absence of a zone change amendment, the City should look at the specific characteristics of the use given in the application as the benchmark. He contended that otherwise they got into building hypotheticals on hypotheticals. Mr. Orchard commented that he did not think that Dolan gave much guidance on whether or not an applicant whose use became more intensive in time should have paid more up front or in midstream. He indicated that they could possibly make mid-term adjustments in a reimbursement district to reallocate based on a more intensive use. He reiterated that the Council needed to focus on the actual application in front of it, as all analyses were done based on the actual application. Councilor Moore asked staff for confirmation that Regal Cinemas would be responsible only for the 72" a and Dartmouth signal. Mr. Bewersdorff said that that was Regal Cinemas interpretation but staff would look at the 68"' and Dartmouth intersection as well. Mr. Robinson said that the 72" and Dartmouth signal light was their offer. He mentioned that their traffic study showed that their expansion added less than 10 trips to the 68" and Dartmouth intersection. Councilor Moore asked Mr. Orchard where this left Babies "R" Us with regard to the 68"' and Dartmouth signal. Mr. Orchard said that they were in the same place of agreeing to contribute their proportional share. He indicated that they saw proportionality as the measuring stick. He commented that the Planning Commission discussed these same issues and questions and eventually reached the conclusion that the condition made no sense at all. He reiterated that they did not ask the Commission to eliminate the condition, rather they asked to pay proportionally for their impact. He stated that they did not want the City to ask them to contribute disproportionately to two intersections whose current and future functions would be dictated by everyone else's traffic. Councilor Hunt asked how they could establish what someone else in the future might pay into this agreement to reimburse Regal Cinemas. Mr. Robinson reiterated that they were not asking CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 16 the Council at this time to look at a method for reimbursement by developments other than Babies "R" Us. He emphasized that they were asking the Council to look at the Babies "R" Us application and impose a condition, based on the applicant's traffic study, to reimburse Regal Cinemas for whatever the percentage of their traffic was. Mr. Robinson confirmed to Councilor Patton that they would come back to Council requesting a similar condition on any proposed project impacting these intersections. Mr. Orchard pointed out that the City did condition Tri-County to install both signals. He commented that he was not certain that the City needed to give up the burden placed on Tri- County, even if Regal Cinemas agreed to do the one intersection. He indicated that if the City wanted to tell Tri-County that Regal Cinemas would substitute for them on the 72id and Dartmouth signal, that was their prerogative. He noted that the history of projects in the Triangle showed that they were handled in a variety of ways. The City obligated two developments to do something at the intersections while placing no obligation on a third development. He agreed with Mr. Coleman that the office complex had a final land use decision. He stated that he was not certain that the City could bring the office complex back into the discussion. Mayor Nicoli commented that, while he did not agree with either of the attorney's answers to his question regarding Dolan, he did not disagree totally either. He spoke to looking at both the actual use and the potential use. He suggested asking the applicant to put $20,000 on deposit with the City for the 72nd intersection traffic light and $10,000 for the 68"' intersection light with no other obligation in the matter. He conceded that $30,000 was more than the applicant's 1% contribution but pointed out that it was also considerably less than the $400,000 needed to install both signals. He argued that this was a middle of the road solution between their specific use of the building and what the building could be used for. The Council discussed the Mayor's proposal. Mayor Nicoli confirmed that, under his proposal, Babies "R" Us could go in without the installation of the signal lights. He pointed out that the City would have the $30,000 to give to whoever put in the light, either Regal or Tri-County. He said that his proposal simply subsidized the Tri-County installation of the signals. Councilor Moore asked if the City would ask the developers of the other vacant property along Dartmouth to pay back the three earlier developments for the lights. Mayor Nicoli said no. He indicated that when the lights were paid for, the City stopped asking. He disagreed that he was asking Babies "R" Us, Regal Cinemas, and Tri-County to work something out together. He held that the traffic counts for Babies "R" Us did not warrant requiring them to install the signals. He spoke against hitting any one individual for the entire amount, especially when the City could not show substantial impact. Mayor Nicoli indicated that if Tri-Cinema could demonstrate through a traffic analysis that its customers did not use those intersections during the peak times, and they should not pay the entire amount, then he would feel the same way about them. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 17 Councilor Scheckla asked who paid for the lights. Mayor Nicoli said that if Tri-County developed now, they would have to pay the entire amount. He pointed out that the City did not know if Tri-County would deveiop under their original timeline, if at all, and his proposal asked people in the area to pay a fair amount towards those intersections. He stated that he did not have a problem with Mr. Robinson's suggested condition but he thought that his proposal was cleaner. Councilor Scheckla asked for staff discussion of the issue. Mr. Bewersdorff stated that whatever the Council did, it needed to be applicable to everyone else who came along. He mentioned that there would be other projects that would impact the intersections. He explained that staff did not realize at the time of the Eagle and Specht applications that Tri-County's timing was not what they thought it was going to be. He emphasized that they had intersections which warranted traffic signals. Ms. Hajduk stated that staff wrote the condition to allow the applicant to find a way to include others in installing the signals. She reiterated that staff needed to be sure that the signals were installed prior to the applicant occupying the building. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not think that the staff position came close to meeting the Dolan test. He indicated that he would not vote to require the applicant to install any traffic lights. He noted that he also did not think that, never in the life of the building, would the occupant not contribute traffic to those two intersections. He held that it was fair to ask the applicant to contribute some money and to let them move on. Mr. Bewersdorff mentioned staff's dilemma of wanting to approve projects that were done correctly but having this problem of traffic at these intersections exceeding the requirements. He said that he understood the policy issue that the lights might not go in right away. Councilor Scheckla asked staff how they determined which traffic analysis was correct when all traffic analyses seemed to come out favorably for the one paying the bill. Mr. Rager stated that staff reviewed all the traffic engineering reports. He explained that they made the assumption that the traffic engineers were reputable professionals. He said that occasionally staff did question a traffic report but they had to assume that the engineers were ethical in putting together their reports. Mr. Orchard commented that the Mayor's proposal was out of proportion to the impact of the Babies "R" Us store. He stated that it was a workable compromise, given the pragmatics of the situation, and rough justice. 0 Councilor Moore asked if staff thought the Mayor's idea was workable and would not cause problems down the road. Mr. Bewersdorff said that most of the engineering staff recommendations spoke to a reimbursement district as the best method. Mr. Orchard pointed out that putting together a reimbursement district took a lot time and money, as it was not an easy process. He said that it would been good if the City had established a reimbursement district for the Triangle at the very beginning of development. He argued that trying to set one up mid-stream was more problematic. Mr. Orchard reiterated that the Mayor's proposal was rough justice in view of the issues he raised. He pointed out that it accomplished the goal of getting the store open and it applied the money directly to the problem of the signals. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 18 MGM- 1111 11111 ==W Mr. Coleman advised the Council to be prepared for Regal Cinemas to request that a similar condition be placed on future developments. He told them to be prepared for a Dolan analysis in those circumstances not to justify the additional cost. He stated that the possible result was that the City could not require the developers to participate in the traffic signals. Mr. Coleman referenced the recent training which the Council had on Dolan issues. He noted that the issue of conditioning projects rested on a project not meeting the standards, for whatever reason. He said that the staff was telling the Council that the impact on these intersections took it above a City standard, meaning that there was a lack of public facilities to serve the developments. He emphasized that if the Council did not do something to address that issue, then it was approving developments that did not meet City standards. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that he did not see the proportionality issue being met in this situation, as $400,000 was significantly out of balance to the traffic impact. He stated that they needed to look at the zoned use of the property and the actual use in order to find an amount somewhere in between that range. He contended that the $30,000 would go towards resolving the problem, and that in a couple of years, they should have enough money to start putting the lights in. Mr. Coleman noted the discussion of the Regal Cinemas application which could come before the Council in the future. He cautioned the Council not to make up their minds about it at this time. Mr. Bewersdorff confirmed to Councilor Hunt that if the Council approved the 72"d intersection solution but took out the 68" intersection, the application still did not meet the standards because the situation required a signal at 68`x' and Dartmouth. Ms. Hajduk confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that staff addressed the wetlands compliance with Goal 5 and Title 3 , as described in the written staff report. Councilor Patton noted the staff condition regarding the Corps of Engineers' statement that the plans were different than what they approved a permit for. Ms. Hajduk concurred but said that the applicant informed her that they could return to the original plan if the Corps would not approve the minor change. Councilor Patton stated that, while she appreciated the staff dilemma with respect to this project, she would find it impossible to keep this condition on this project because of the proportionality issue. She said that she did not think that this application would have a tremendous impact on those intersections. She indicated that if the condition had come in with a significantly different percentage of impact, then she would have been amenable to considering the condition as stated by staff. L Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Council Consideration Ms. Hajduk commented that, for future reference, staff would like direction on how Council wanted them to handle this issue for future applications. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 19 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to direct staff to prepare a revised proposed ordinance and findings in accordance with the Council's modifications to require the applicant to provide the City with $20,000 for the 72"d and Dartmouth intersection and $10,000 for the 68`n and Dartmouth intersection which the City would put in a dedicated fund and make available to a future developer for installation of the lights or add to the fund by future developers until the traffic light was built. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes.") Unanimous. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:36 p.m. for a break. ® Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:45 p.m. 8. GREENSPACES IGA AMENDMENT Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, proposed revisions to the intergovernmental agreement to allow the City to expend the $200,000 remaining in uncommitted funds before the IGA was up towards the end of the year. He said that the main change was revising the scope of the Fanno Creek Corridor project to include trail construction and natural area enhancement. He mentioned also transferring unexpended funds from the overbudgeted bridge design project to cover the cost overruns on Bull Mountain land acquisitions. He said that if Council did not support the staff recommendation, then staff recommended reconsideration of two land acquisitions which the Council had decided not to pursue: a six acre site located above Cook Park and a one acre forest parcel located adjacent to Cache Creek Park. Mayor Nicoli opened up the issue to public testimony. o Robert Millett, 156065 SW Roshack Road, stated that he and five others from his neighborhood represented 30 families in the Standhurst Development off the west end of Bull Mountain with homes adjacent to or near the Cache Creek greenspaces area. He discussed their concern to protect the one acre forest parcel adjacent to the park from the impact of the recently proposed Hanson development. Dr. Millett noted that this forested parcel was located immediately to the south of the originally proposed Hanson development and had been part of it. He urged the Council to acquire this area using the remaining unspent greenspaces funds. Dr. Millett described the extremely high ecological value of the parcel to the area, quoting from a report by Dr. Bruce Markov, a research wildlife ecologist with the Forest Service, dated August 5, 1998. Dr. Markov described the parcel as providing older habitat for native birds, plants and wildlife in some of the only native forest remaining in the watershed. Dr. Millett, a PSU biology professor, concurred with Dr. Markov's conclusion that "the ecological per acre value of this site was significantly higher than most any other single acre" potentially selected for inclusion in the greenspaces program. Dr. Millett testified to his own observations of the variety of wildlife and birds living on the parcel. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 2 0 Dr. Millett spoke to the integrity of this parcel as critical to the stability and integrity of the adjacent Cache Creek Park. He stated that it was part of the Cache Creek drainage system and ecologically part of the Cache Creek forested area. He argued that logging and development of the parcel would have a substantial negative impact on the adjacent Cache Creek Park by removing the forest barrier. He explained that the forest barrier along the south edge of the Cache Creek area has protected its forest shade plant ecology from wind, sunlight, and the invasion of non-native noxious species. Dr. Millett quoted Dr. Markov's description of the destructive "edge effect" that development of this parcel would have on the Cache Creek area. He pointed out that development would further destabilize the soils and geology in the Cache Creek drainage basin. He mentioned that the proposed development had included falling the parcel with up to 12 feet of dirt to raise its elevation above the adjacent Cache Creek, creating drainage problems on the protected area. Dr. Millett asked the Council to save this valuable land for future generations to enjoy and for native wildlife and plants to survive. Councilor Scheckla asked how long had the neighborhood representatives lived in the area. Dr. Millett said that he had lived there approximately 15 years and the others for shorter lengths of time. Councilor Moore asked if this parcel was part of the Bull Mountain forested area that the City was trying to purchase with greenspace funds. Mr. Roberts said no. He stated that the City owned approximately 12 acres in the area and that its property was named Cache Creek Park. He explained that this parcel had been on the original list of greenspaces considered by Council but the Council decided not to pursue the property. Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on the parcel's location. Mr. Roberts confirmed that the parcel was contiguous to the 12 acre Cache Creek Park owned by the City. Mayor Nicoli suggested tabling this agenda item to a later meeting and asking Councilor Hunt and Mr. Roberts to walk the property and return with a recommendation. Mr. Monahan assured Councilor Moore that staff would provide the staff report on the parcel, including why the Council chose not to pursue it. The Council agreed to schedule the item on the June 8 agenda. Mayor Nicoli said that they would accept more comments within the timeframe. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that an issue for the Council in purchasing greenspaces was land priced out of the City's range. He emphasized that, if the parcel made the first hurdle of getting back on the City's list, it still had to make the second hurdle of a purchase price the City could afford to pay. 9. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA 99-0001) - WALNUT STREET/TIEDEMAN AVENUE AREA Ms. Hajduk explained that Council was not making a decision on annexation this evening but rather initiating the process to consider annexation of this area at a future date. She said that the City needed to annex this area in order to form a sewer reimbursement district for the sewer line extension along Walnut Street that the City was installing as part of the Walnut Street/Tiedeman Avenue realignment. She stated that, once Council passed the resolution initiating the process, staff would begin the notification process. She mentioned that the Engineering Department intended to hold a neighborhood meeting with the affected property owners. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 21 MA Councilor Scheckla asked if all 11 property owners were receptive to the annexation. Ms. Hajduk said that she did not know. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution 99-31. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-31, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY REFERRED TO AS ANNEXATION ZCA 99-0001 TIEDEMAN AND WALNUT STREET ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF TIGARD AS DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A AND FURTHER ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 10. COUNCIL GROUND RULES Councilor Moore commented that he saw no reason for any changes to the ground rules. Mr. Monahan explained that staff put this item on the agenda to allow Council to mention any issues it might want to discuss now instead of waiting until the August discussion. Councilor Patton suggested changing the ground rile of adjourning by 11:00 p.m. to adjourning by 10:00 p.m. and calling a point of order around 9:30 p.m. She indicated that she preferred an extra meeting to feeling like she could not make a decision because she was overly tired. The Council agreed to instigate Councilor Patton's suggested change immediately. Councilor Scheckla reported that several members of the public brought it to his attention that the Council did not consistently enforce the testimony time limits allowed under Visitors Agenda. He stated that some people felt intimidated by what they saw on TV night and therefore did not come to the meetings. 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Nicoli reviewed his request to the Council, following the defeat of the bond measure, to look at three different options in dealing with the short tern needs. He stated that he, City Manager Bill Monahan and the Library Director Melinda Sisson defined three different ranges of costs: $300,000, $600,000 and $900,000. He said that he and Mr. Monahan then asked Ms. Sisson to study what she could do with the three different sums of money. He commented that with the Houghton gift of between $500,000 to $700,000, they could eliminate the $300,000 option. i Councilor Moore asked for clarification of the terms of the gift. Mayor Nicoli explained that the ' conditions on the gift were that it be used for building and equipping a browsing room. Mr. Monahan noted that there would be some earnings from the money for the time period between the City's receipt of the money and its actual expenditure. f Mayor Nicoli asked for direction from Council. He proposed having Ms. Sisson present some I proposals to the Budget Committee on the issue of whether or not the City should add any money to the gift ($100,000 to $200,000). Councilor Hunt stated that he was reluctant to invest any more money in this building where they had an unworkable situation now. He suggested discussion of the feasibility of building an annex that could be added onto later. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that they needed to keep in mind that the terms of the gift were narrow. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 - Page 22 Mayor Nicoli concurred. He pointed out that funds for remodeling improvements to library facilities to support a major new addition could not come from the gift. He suggested, once they made up their minds on what they wanted to do, that the City front the money for the architect's design work and prorate those dollars to the addition versus the remodeling. Mr. Monahan noted that the proposed budget set aside $100,000 for public facilities. Mayor Nicoli spoke to starting the discussion. He suggested appointing a subcommittee of four people to do the footwork. He mentioned possibly discussing the matter at next week's study session. Mr. Monahan suggested that the Council wait until after the Library Board took them on a tour of the library. He said that the Council would have to make some fundamental decisions with regard to expansion on this site versus building a new facility (either on this site or elsewhere). He commented that it appeared to make sense to add a browsing room on to the present facility. He questioned whether it still made sense if the City planned to build a new library in a few years Melinda Sisson, Library Director, suggested that the Council consider in its discussion next week some of what the Library Board would present. She commented that she thought it likely that going out for public moneys was a few years out and construction a few years beyond that. She asked that any decision made with regard to relieving their overcrowded conditions be made in an abbreviated manner. Councilor Patton commented that she thought it important that the other members of the Budget Committee know what was going on and be given the opportunity to participate in the decision making process related to library issues. Mayor Nicoli proposed inviting Curt Tigard also to participate. Councilor Scheckla suggested that Ms. Sisson inform the Library Board with regard to the use of the gift money because the restrictions might cause them to rethink their planned presentation. Mayor Nicoli asked Ms. Sisson to inform the Council, the Budget Committee and the Library Board of how much square footage she could build based on the two largest amounts. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION 13. ADJOURNMENT: 10:20 p.m. Attest, Catherine Wheatley, City Re order yor, City of Tigar Date: -7o?~ q/; I: ADM\CATHMCM\990511.DOC CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 11, 1999 -Page 23 i COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 6B4-0360 Notice TT 9384 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising 1 eCity of Tigard ® ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SVI Hall Blvd. °Tigard,Oregon 97223 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit i ;Accounts Payable a AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. f, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the - ' ,imeS a newspaper of general circulation as efined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at T; Ra rd in the aforesaid county and state; that the I. R^bi c-_G "R" TC_ PA98-0004/SDR90-007.7/PD98-0014 j I a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the s entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: 1 April 29,1999 j i Subscribed and sworn Vtob a re me this 9 ck{-h d a m f Apri1,19 9 9 OFFICIAL SEAL i ROBIN A. BURGESS r Notary ublic for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON j COMMISSION NO. 062071 My Commission Expires: rev COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT _i The following will be considered by the Tig=A City Counce on Thes. dray, May 11, 1999, nit 730 P.M.. at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall j Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be con- ducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the } close of the hearing on the request accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the Hearings Authority and all pa.-ties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information is available at City Hall and may be obtained from the Community Develop- ment Director or City Recorder at the same location, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AMENDMENT [CPA] 98-00041 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [SDR198-00271 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [PD198.0014 > BABIES "R" US < The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and receive public testimony on a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to remove a portion of the wetlands on the site from the significant wetlands inventory. This will allow the applicant to mitigate for the wetlands and construct the required parking. Site Development Review and Planned Development approval have also been requested to construct a 38,000 square foot retail store. This proposal includes several adjustments to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, as recommended by the Design Evaluation Team (DET). The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 3/15/99 on this application' and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the applicant's re- quest. LOCATION: The subject site is located on the east side of SW a Dartmouth Street, west of Red Rock Creek across from the existing Costco. WCTM 15136Cp,ax LQi._p2Q00 7QME: Gene al Commercial i (C-G) wit6a Planned Dev3opmenf lru! vver[ay. Ttce~purp se-oz ine- general commercial areas is to provide for major retail goods and services. Permitted uses in the C-G zoning district are public agency administrative services, lodge, fraternal and civic assembly, parking, amusement, animal sales and services, automotive sales and light equipment repairs, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.360, 18.380, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.790, 18.795, 18.797, 18.810 and Metro Title 3. O~L izf l J ~1 i TT9384 - Publish April 29, 1999. Nil COMM SNIT Y NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9 3 9 8 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising o Ci i:y of Tigard w ❑ Tearsheet Notice 1.3125 St4 Hall 131vd. ®Tiga rd , Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 v ❑ Duplicate Affidavit OAccounts Pa),ahle AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi Bard-T»a 1 -,+i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at_SJ gard in the aforesaid county and state; that the Tigard c i t~ c'rn~nr; 1 r~o + g a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for- 017E successive and consecutive in the following issues: May 6 ,19.99 Subscribed and sworn to hQfore me thisF+h da~r-rat r ,1ggg OFFICIAL SEAL i ROBIN A. BURGESS Nota ublic for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: COMMISSION NO. 062071 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16. 20011 AFFI®AV- 'Me following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 SW Hall ' - Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING May 11, 1999 - 6:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Reports and updates to Council on the following topics: • Discussion - Proposed Public Education and Government (PEG) Tualatin Valley Cable Access (TVCA) Services * Discussion - City of Tigard Policy on Memorials • Presentation - Metro West Proclamation ° Green School Award Presentation - Mary Woodward School * Status Report - "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow," - City of Tigard Vision for 2017 * Report - City of Tigard Volunteer Program * Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Babies-R-US • Public Hear+''ng -Modify Metro Greenspaces Intergovernmental, Agreement {IGA) • Initiate Annexation Proceedings - Walnut & Tiedeman Area (9 properties with frontage along Walnut Street; 2 properties with frontage along Tiedeman) * Discussion - Council Groundrules i * Executive Session TT9398 - Publish May 6, 1999. AGENDA ITEM # 5(k6i Ses5j;rt. FOR AGENDA OF 5/11/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE Metro Title 3 PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK UV~~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL What are the new Metro Title 3 stream and wetland performance standards and how should the City respond to these standards? STAFF RECOMMENDATION This is an information item. No action is required. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Metro Council has adopted water quality and flood management requirements associated with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Tigard and the other jurisdictions within Metro are required to adopt code amendments that comply with these new standards by the first of next year. The City is participating with other Washington Country jurisdictions and USA in the development of a coordinated response strategy that builds on the SWM program. The city has many codes in place that comply with Title 3. This is because the model ordinance follows USA standards for floodplain protection and erosion control and also because a year ago the city adopted the Water Resource Overlay District in response to state Goal 5 standards for streams and wetlands. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth Management Goal #1 calls for Accommodating Growth while Protecting Livability, with natural resource protection identified as one of the action strategies listed under this goal. FISCAL NOTES The overall fiscal impact of the new Title 3 requirements probably will be to increase development costs. iAcirywide\ illelsum CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx INN , DATE: April 29, 1999 SUBJECT: Title 3: Water Quality, Flood Management and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Introduction In mid-1998, the Metro Council adopted performance standards for the protection of streams, wetlands, and floodplains, called Title 3 of the Functional Plan. Tigard and the other jurisdictions within Metro are required to amend their comprehensive plans and develop codes to address these new standards by January 1, 2000. A new portion of Title 3 relating to fish and wildlife habitat protection is due sometime in early 2000. As with the present portions of Title 3, local jurisdictions will be required to meet these proposed new standards within a set, although as yet unspecified, timeframe. In addition to Title 3 itself, Metro also has adopted a model ordinance that provides approved example of provisions that can be used by jurisdictions to comply with Title 3 performance standards. This model ordinance is discussed later in this memo. As noted, the deadline for Title 3 compliance is the end of this year. As Council is aware, Tigard is a party to a legal challenge to Title 3. According to Metro legal staff, this case is not expected to be settled until early 2000. In the meantime, since the opponents did not file a "stay" order to block implementation of Title 3, Tigard and other jurisdictions party to the challenge are required to comply with the title as it stands. If Tigard does not meet the January 1St substantial compliance deadline, Metro potentially could require the City to follow the model ordinance provisions. Title 3 Overview Title 3 contains standards for flood and erosion control and for stream water quality protection. The key flood control provisions relate to a requirement for the balancing of cut and fill within the floodplain, a prohibition on the storage of uncontained hazardous materials, and a requirement to supplement FEMA maps with 1996 flood and other pertinent data, if available. The most important provision related to water quality protection is the imposition of vegetated corridors around streams and wetlands. The width of the corridor is based on the attributes of the Mimi area adjacent to the stream. For year-round streams, the width varies from 50 to 200 feet. Streams with adjacent areas of 25% slope receive the widest setback. Other important provisions include a requirement to develop exception rules as a safety valve for lots that otherwise would be rendered unbuildable by the strict application of the setbacks, a requirement to allow density transfer for the area within the vegetated corridor, and the required use of erosion control techniques for all development. Planning Directors Title 3 Implementation Committee In response to Title 3, the Washington County Planning Directors and USA staff have formed a committee to investigate the feasibility of developing a consistent, county-wide set of measures for meeting the new Metro regulations. The goal of the committee, which includes a Tigard representative among its members, is to work together in the same way the jurisdictions and USA joined together some ten years ago to develop a coordinated storm water management program. This program, called SWM, provides one set of rules for all the jurisdictions to follow. In addition to building on SWM as a basis for meeting Title 3, a second key goal of the committee is to try to provide some measure of flexibility within whatever unified regulatory plan or response strategy is put together. So far, as part of its work program the committee has: looked at USA member city's existing compliance status (see attached), conducted a field exercise to see what the Title 3 regulatory setbacks look like on the ground, and developed options for achieving compliance with Title 3's vegetated corridor requirements. Most recently, committee members have met with key stakeholder groups in order to overview Title 3 and solicit feedback on the four corridor width options and two implementation approaches being considered by the committee. The stakeholder groups have included the Metro Homebuilders Association, the Westside Economic Alliance, the Tualatin Riverkeepers, the Friend Forum, and the county municipal engineers and managers groups. Locally, the Tigard Planning Commission heard a presentation on Title 3 and the committee's compliance ideas on March 19th. The committee also has solicited comments on its response strategy through informational and questionnaire mailings to other target audiences, such as the USA Advisory and SWM Plan Update Committees. The committee's target date for putting together a consensus recommendation of a consistent, baseline compliance package for Title 3 that would be used by all the jurisdictions in Washington County is June 1999. The target date for implementing this package is the January 2000 compliance deadline. Current Compliance Status The attached countywide and City charts highlight areas of compliance and non-compliance of existing codes with Title 3 standards. n For the most part, the Washington County jurisdictions meet or go beyond the Title 3 requirements related to floodplain and erosion control. As noted previously, this is because the jurisdictions within USA have had a coordinated water quality program since 1990. Two examples of areas where the jurisdictions' current codes comply include the requirement for balance cut and fill and the use of erosion control techniques. As seen in the Tigard compliance chart, the City has several codes in place that meet or exceed additional Title 3 provisions. Tigard is somewhat ahead of the rest of the county with regard to water quality protection, because the City adopted a water resource overlay measure last year. Under this overlay, a major area of compliance is the 50-foot regulatory corridor along Fanno Creek and other so-called major streams, a clearing ordinance that prohibits the removal of native vegetation within the corridor, and variance procedures for properties predominately within the regulatory setback area. The main Title 3 compliance issue facing the USA member cities is how to apply the vegetated corridor requirements and, correlatively, how to merge Title 3 with SWM. In Tigard's case an additional need is integrating Title 3 with the Water Resources Overlay District (WROD). Minor tweaking of existing standards is needed to address the other Title 3 provisions not covered by SWM or, in Tigard's case, WROD. These minor tweaking areas include Title 3 provisions related to the regulation of uncontained hazardous materials in the floodplain, density transfer of floor area within the regulatory setback areas, requirements that new stream crossing be as close as practicable to perpendicular to the stream, and a preference for bridges as opposed to culverts. Corridor Width Options The key ideas the committee is working on for meeting the regulatory setback requirements include four width options. These are outlined in detail in an attachment to this memo. In brief, The first two are based on fixed 25- and 50-foot setbacks, respectively. The rationale in the case of both options is the same. This is that USA requirements for an on-site water quality detention facility combined with a smaller setback meets the same level of water quality protection provided in the new Metro rules. The third option is based on the corridor widths prescribed in Title 3, but with flexibility for some encroachments and reduced widths based on design approaches that reduce the volume of run off and pollutants entering streams. These mitigation measures could include tree retention, eco roofs, disconnected downspouts, pervious pavement, landscape filtration, and also could include detention ponds and enhancement of degraded corridors. The fourth option is adopting all or part of the Metro Model Ordinance. The option of adopting this ordinance in its entirety is not supported by the Planning Director's committee because the model ordinance does not include any flexibility relative to the corridor widths and its provisions in many instances are more stringent than Title 3. Another area of focus is alternatives for implementing compliance measures. One alternative being considered is adoption into individual local codes through the land use and hearing process. Another is USA adoption of all or part of any necessary changes into its Design and Construction Standards, which all the cities within USA are required to follow as a minimum. Local land use hearings would not be needed under this approach. x /Irpn/dr/t4le3.com Main Title 3 Requirements Compared with Existing City Standards 't'itle 3 Requirements Existing City Standards Flood Management Balanced cut and fill required City regulations exceed Title 3: Balanced cut and fill required in com & indus zones Floodplain alteration prohibited in residential zones Floor elevation 1 R. above flood plain City complies Storage of uncontained hazardous materials City does not comply prohibited Use of flood zone data newer than existing 1981-84 New basin-wide flood zone study nearing FEMA maps required, if available completion Standards that encourage bridges vs. culverts & City does not comply stream crossing to be perpendicular to the stream required Water Quality Protection Imposes 50-200' vegetated corridor around City imposes 25-75' corridors: perennial streams, wetlands, lakes, springs, & 75' along Tualatin R. intermittent streams draining more than 100 ac. 50' along Fanno, Ball, and Ash Creeks 25' along Summer, N. Ash, Red Rock, D. Dell Cks Riparian slopes of 25% protected up to 200' from City severely limits but does not restrict stream edge development of 25% slopes Imposes 15-50 vegetated corridor around City does not protect intermittent streams; intermittent streams draining 50-100 acres replacement of intermittent streams by public facility allowed Maintain, enhance, restore vegetative cover within City complies: corridor, if disturbed City requires replacement of vegetation, if disturbed Restoration of degraded corridors "encouraged" City exceeds requirement: Restoration of degraded USA 25' corridor required Clearing provisions required (refers to removal of City complies: vegetation within corridor prior to development) City prohibits clearing of area within 25', 50', and 75' corridors Variance or "taking" provisions required for parcels Variance provisions included in Water Resource rendered unbuildable by Title 3 rules Overlay Zone Density transfer required for area within vegetated City partially complies: corridor Density transfer of residential units allowed for area within 25-75' corridor, plus 25% slope and Foodplain, if wider Density transfer of com/indus floor area not allowed Encourages placing corridor areas in separate lots City exceeds: City requires placement of corridors areas in separate lots Erosion control measures required City complies 1/1 rpn/d r/t RIO matrix AGENDA ITEM #5 1 d/ O • STREAM ARID FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION PLAN (URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN TITLE 3) Goal Performance Standards The goal of Metro's Stream and Floodplain Protection Plan as described in the Metro Flood Mitigation: The purpose of. these Urban Growth Management Functional Plan standards are to protect against flooding, and Title 3 is to address issues associated with prevent or reduce risk to human life and floodplain management, water quality and fish properties, by allowing for the storage and and wildlife habitat. Another goal is to protect conveyance of stream flows through these the region's health and public safety by reducing natural systems. Title 3 contains the following flood and landslide hazards, controlling soil performance standards: erosion and reducing pollution of the region's Limit development in a manner that requires waterways. Specifically, the intent of Title 3 is to balanced cut and fill; unless the project is implement Oregon Statewide LCDC Goal 6: Air, demonstrated, by an engineering study, that Water and Land Resources Quality and Goal 7: there is no rise in flood elevation or that it will Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards have a net beneficial effect on flood by protecting streams, rivers, wetlands and mitigation. floodplains with the Water Quality and Flood • Require minimum finished floor elevations at Management Area by avoiding, limiting or least one foot above the design flood height mitigating the impact on these areas from or other applicable flood hazard standard for development activities. new habitable structures in the Water Quality and Flood Management Area. Title 3 describes specific performance standards • The area being mapped for this standard is and practices for floodplain and water quality the FEMA 100 year floodplain and the area protection. It also requires that Metro adopt a of inundation for the February 1996 Flood. Water Quality and Flood Management Model Ordinance and map for use by local jurisdictions Water Quality: The purpose of these standards to comply with Title 3. Title 3 did not take effect is to protect and allow for enhancement of water until the model ordinance and map were adopted quality associated with beneficial uses as by the Metro Council. The Metro Water defined by OWRD and ODEQ. Title 3 contains Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC) the following performance standards: developed the model ordinance and the Title 3 • Require erosion and sediment control for all i maps were reviewed by local jurisdictions and development within the Metro boundary; the public. The model ordinance and map were • Require to the maximum extent practicable adopted by the Metro Council in June 1998. that native vegetation cover is maintained or re-established during development, and that . trees and shrubs in the Water Quality and Flood Management Area are maintained. a Prohibit new uses of uncontained areas of • hazardous materials as defined by DEQ. 05/33/00 - 15 III ONERVEME Water Quality Resource Areas Water Quality Resource Areas are rivers and 'which must be met by the plans implementing streams with a protected vegetated corridor ordinances of cities and counties. width depending on the slope of the stream or river bank and the number of acres drained by Model Ordinance and Map the stream. The protected area is 50 feet (on both sides of the stream) from top of bank for A model ordinance and map have been stream slopes of less than 25%, and the developed and adopted by Metro. Copies of the protected area is up to 200 feet from top of bank model code and maps are available upon for stream slopes of more than 25%. The request from Metro. protected area around wetlands is 50 feet from the edge of a wetland. Refer to the attached Implementation Process table for specific information on corridor widths. Cities and counties are required to amend their plans and implementing ordinances, if Lone Term Protection of Water Quality and necessary, to ensure that they comply with Title Flood Management Areas 3 in the following ways: • Either adopt the relevant provisions of the This section establishes standards so that local Title 3 model ordinance and map; or jurisdictions shall establish or adopt transfer of O Adopt a city or county field verified map of density within ownership to mitigate the effects of water quality and flood management areas development in the Water Quality and Flood based on Metro's Title 3 map; or Management Areas, or through transferable a Demonstrate that the plans and development rights (TDRs). In addition, the title implementing ordinances substantially encourages local governments to require that comply with the performance standards and approvals of applications for partitions, map in Title 3; or subdivisions and design review actions must be • Any combination of the three above that conditioned with protecting Water Quality and substantially complies with all the Flood Management Areas with conservation performance standards of Title 3. easements or through purchase or donation to public agencies or private non-profits for Variances preservation where feasible. City and county comprehensive plans and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area implementing regulations must include procedures to consider map errors and hardship Unlike the required performance standards variances for properties converted to unbuildable described above, the standards for this section by application of Title 3 standards. are only recommendations. It identifies the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas and describes For More Information: the exception process for development. Because this section is only recommended, it is Contact Rosemary Furfey in the Growth not being mapped and is not included in the Management Services Department at 797-1726 adopted model ordinance and map. if you have any questions regarding the Stream and Fioodpiain Protection Plan, the model code This section does, however, identify several or maps. tasks for Metro to accomplish within the 18 months after the effective date of the functional For black and white copies of maps, call plan. Metro shall establish criteria to define and 797-1833. identify regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat areas. Metro shall map regionally For comments or more information, call the significant fish and wildlife areas after examining Growth Management hotline at 797-1888 or visit existing Goal 5 data. Finally, Metro shall Metro's website at www.metro-region.org establish performance standards for protection of regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat 052)3:'00 - 16 Table I Protected Water Slope Adjacent to Starting Point for Width of Vegetated Feature Type Protected Water Measurements Corridor (see definitions) Feature from Water Feature Primary Protected < 25% ® Edge of bankful 50 feet Water Features' flow or 2-year storm level; • Delineated edge of Title 3 wetland Primary Protected > 25% for 150 feet • Edge of bankful 200 feet Water Features' or mores flow or-2-year storm level; e Delineated edge of Title 3 wetland Primary Protected > 25% for less than a Edge of bankful Distance from Water Features' 150 feets flow or 2-year starting point of storm level; measurement to top • Delineated edge of ravine (break in of Title 3 wetland >25% slope)', plus 50 feet.` Secondary < 25% C Edge of bankful 15 feet Protected Water flow or 2-year Features storm level; • Delineated edge of Title 3 wetland Secondary > 25% • Edge of bankful 50 feet Protected Water flow or 2-year Features= storm level; e Delineated edge of Title 3 wetland I Primary Protected Water Features include: all perennial streams and streams draining greater than 100 acres. Title 3 wetlands, natural lakes and springs secondary Protected Water Features include intermittent streams draining 50-100 acres. i 3Where the Protected Water Feature is confined by a ravine or gully. the top ofravine is the i break in the > 25% slope (see slope measurement in Appendix). ~A maximum reduction of 25 feet tray be permitted in the width of vegetated corridor beyond " { the slope break if a geotechnical report demonstrates that slope is stable. To establish the width of the vegetated corridor. slope should be measured in 25-foot increments away from the water feature until slope is less than 259'. (top of ravine). 3 f Vegetated corridors in excess of 50-feet for primary protected features. or in excess of i 5-feet for secondary protected features, apply on steep slopes only in the uphill direction from the protected water feature. EX14101T A Page 6 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A COMPLETE AND EXACT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL THEREOF. BEFORE THE METRO COUNCIL &ffa= V. 5himm Kifil-. a Clerk of the Metro Council FOR TIME PURPOSE OF AMENDING ) ORDINANCE NO 98-7300 ORDINANCE NOs. 96-647C AND NO.97- ) 715B, TO AMEND TITLE 3 OF THE ) Introduced by Councilors Naito and McLain URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT ) FUNCTIONAL PLAN, AND AMEND ) THE REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN, ) APPENDIX A, AND ADOPT THE ) TITLE 3 MODEL ORDINANCE AND ) WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD ) MANAGEMENT MAPS ) WHEREAS, the Regional Growth Goals and Objectives - Objective 12 identifies the need to manage watersheds to protect, restore and ensure to the maximum extent practicable the integrity of streams, wetlands, and floodplains. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 96-647C, the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP), adopted November 21, 1996, delayed implementation of Title 3 of the UGMFP until Metro adopted a Model Ordinance to demonstrate one method of implementing Title 3, and Water Quality and Flood Management Area maps. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 97-715B, the Regional Framework Plan, adopted December 18, 1997, incorporates the UGMFP at Appendix A. The Regional Framework Plan is awaiting acknowledgment before the Land Conservation and Development Commission, WHEREAS, the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee ` (WRPAC), during 1997, drafted a Model Ordinance and maps to comply with Title 3, Section 6 of the UGMFP. WRPAC released a preliminary draft of the proposed Model Ordinance and maps in August 1997, and a revised draft on September 4, 1997. The proposed Model Ordinance was then forwarded to the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) and the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) for review. WHEREAS, WRPAC and MTAC formed a joint subcommittee to further refine the Model Ordinance and maps and consider amendments to the UGMFP, Title 3, Sections 1-4. and Sections 6 and 7. The joint subcommittee met twice per month beginning September 26, 1997 and ending December 19, 1997. The joint subcommittee forwarded proposed amendments to Title 3, dated December 30, 1997. to WRPAC and MTAC. The same proposed amendments were released for *public comment prior ORDINANCE 98-7300 Page 1 to Metro's Stream and Floodplain Protection Plan workshops which began January 17, 1998. WHEREAS, MTAC reviewed the joint subcommittee's proposed y 8, 22, February 5, 19, March 5, 19, amendments to Title 3 at its Januar 26, April 2, 16, and May 21, 1998 meetings. WHEREAS, WRPAC reviewed the joint subcommittee's proposed amendments to Title 3 at its January 26, February 9, March 9, 25, April 13 and May 11, 1998, meetings. At the March 25 meeting, WRPAC members reviewed and commented on MTAC's proposed changes to Title 3 and provided those comments to MPAC at chair Judie Hammerstad's request. WHEREAS, the Metro Growth Management staff gave a presentation on Metro's "Stream and Floodplain Protection Plan" (Title 3) to MPAC at its February 11, 1998 meeting. MPAC also received a copy of the joint subcommittee's proposed Title 3 amendments. WHEREAS, MPAC reviewed the joint subcommittee's proposed amendments to Title 3 at its February 11, 25, and March 11, and 25, 1998 meetings. At its March 25, 1998 meeting, MPAC passed forward recommended changes to Title 3 to the Metro Council after considering a package of WR.PAC/MTAC recommendations. WHEREAS, concurrently with WRPAC and MTAC's review of the joint subcommittee's proposed amendments to Title 3, Metro held Stream and Floodplain Protection Plan workshops on January 17, 20, 27 and 31, 1998. Copies of the joint subcommittee's proposed amendments to Title 3, the September 4, 1997, draft Model Ordinance and Title 3 maps were available for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Committee considered proposed amendments to Title 3, the Model Ordinance and maps at a work session held on February 17, and at public hearings on March 17, April 7, May 5 and 28, 1998. WHEREAS, the Metro Council considered proposed amendments to Title 3, the Model Ordinance and maps at public hearings held on February 26, May 7 and June 4, 1998. WHEREAS, Title 3 of the UGMFP as adopted November 21, 1996, has a different effective date and compliance date than the UGMFP generally. The UGMFP has an effective date of February 19, 1997, with compliance required by February 19, 1999. Originally, Sections 14 of ORDINANCE 98-730C Page 2 kim Title 3 were not effective until 24 months after the Metro Council adopted a Model Ordinance and maps addressing Title 3 because it was anticipato3 that drafting the Model Ordinance would take three to four months. That drafting process took one year. MPAC, WRPAC and MTAC recommended that compliance be required within 18 months of Metro Council adoption of the Model Ordinance and maps. WHEREAS, through review at WRPAC, MTAC and MPAC, Sections 14 of Title 3 have been extensively reorganized. • For that reason, Exhibit A will fully replace Title 3, Sections 104 as adopted by. the Metro Council on November 21, 1996. WHEREAS, no significant changes have been made to Section 5 of Title 3. Sections 6 and 7 have been amended and clarified. Therefore, - Exhibit B only amends Title 3, Sections 5-7 as adopted by the Metro Council on November 21, 1995, now therefore, ORDINANCE 98.7300 Paige 3 THE METRO COUNCIL ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: action' 1. Ordinances No. 96-647C and No. 97-715B, Appendix A, Sections 3.07.3 10 through 3.07.340 are hereby replaced to read as shown in Exhibit A which is attached and incorporated by reference into this ordinance. Section 2. Ordinances No. 96-647C and No. 97-715B, Appendix A, Sections 3.07.3 50 through 3.07.370 are hereby amended to read as shown in Exhibit B which is attached and incorporated by reference into this ordinance. Section 3. As required by Ordinances No. 96-647C and No. 97-715B, Appendix A, as amended, the Model OrdiEmce . at Exhibit C, and the Water Quality and Flood Management Area maps at Exhibit D are hereby adopted to implement Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Flan. Section 4. To provide effective notice to affected property owners of the first city or county hearing on the ordinance to implement Title 3, the following effective dates, local hearing and property owner notice requirements are added to Title 8. Section I of Title 8 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan at Metro Code Section 3.07.810 is hereby amended to read: "A. All cities and counties within the Metro boundary are hereby required to amend their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to comply with the provisions of this functional plan within twenty-four months of the effective date of this ordinance. Metro recommends the adoption of the policies that affect land consumption as soon as possible. B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, cities and counties are required to amend their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to comply with Sections 1-4 of Title 3 within 18 months after the Metro Council has adopted the Model Ordinance and Water Quality and Flood Management Areas Map." Section 5. Section 2A of Title 8 at Metro Code Section 3.07.820 is hereby replaced to read: "A. On or before six months prior to the 24 month deadline established in Section IA. cities and counties shall transmit to Metro the following: 1. An evaluation of their local plans, including public facility capacities and the amendments necessary to comply with this functional plan; 2. Copies of all applicable comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances and public facility plans. as proposed to be amended; ORDINANCE 98-730C Paige 4 3. Findings that explain hove the amended city and county comprehensive plans will achieve the standards required in Titles 1 through 6 of this functional plan. In developing the evaluation, plan and ordinance amendments and findings, cities and counties shall address the Metro 2040 Growth Concept, and explain how the proposed amendments implement the Growth Concept." Section 6. Section 2 of Title 8 at Metro Code Section 3.07.820 is hereby amended to add a new subsection as follows: 44F. On or before six months prior to the 18 month deadline established in Section 1B, cities and counties shall schedule their first hearing on the ordinance to implement Sections 14 of Title 3, or a hearing on implementation of Title 3, if no code amendments are proposed to comply with Title 3, and transmit notice of that hearing and a copy of the proposed ordinance to Metro at least 30 days prior to the hearing. 1. Metro shall prepare and mail a notice of the city or county hearing to each affected property owner. 2. The Metro notice shall include the date, time, location and the title and number of any local ordinance; an explanation of the general requirements of Title 3, and an explanation of the implementation in the local ordinance, if no code amendments are proposed to comply with Title 3. 3. Metro shall review any amendments to Title 3 proposed by cities and counties based on the testimony of property owners." Section 7. Section 2 of Title 8 at Metro Code Section 3.07.820 is hereby amended to add a new subsection as follows: "G. On or before six months prior to the 18 month deadline established in Section I B, cities and counties shall transmit to Metro the following: 1. An evaluation of their local plans, including any relevant existing regulations and the amendments necessary to comply with Title 3 of this functional plan; 2. Copies of all applicable comprehensive plans, maps and implementing ordinances as proposed to be amended; ORDINANCE 98-730C Page 5 1101111 all 1~~ 11IM111 3. Findings that explain how the amended city and county comprehensive plans, maps and implementing ordinances will achieve the standards required in Title 3 of this functional plan. In developing the evaluation, plan and ordinance amendments and findings, cities and counties shall address the Metro 2040 Growth Concept,- and- explain how the proposed amendments implement the Growth Concept." Section 8. In accordance with Title 8, Section 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Ordinances No. 96-647C-and No. 97-715B, Appendix -A, any amendment of city or county comprehensive plans or implementing ordinances shall be consistent with Ordinances No. 96-647C and No. 97-715B, Appendix A, Sections 3.07.3 10 through 3.07.370 of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan as amended after the date this ordinance becomes effective. Section 9. Cities and countries are hereby required to comply-with Title 3, Sections 1-4 of the Urban Growth Management.Functional Plan, as amended herein, within 18 months of the adoption of this ordinance. Section 10. Ordinances No. 96-647C and No. 97-715B, Appendix A, Section 3.07. 1000 is hereby amended to add and replace definitions shown in Exhibit E which is attached and incorporated by reference into this ordinance. Section 11. The provisions of this ordinance are separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, subsection, or portion of this ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereof to any city, county, person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance or its application to other cities, counties, persons or circumstances. ADOPTED by the Metro Council this day of 998. Jo vista Presiding Officer ATT pprov d ~s to Form: rding Soc tary Daniel B. Coo r, Geis l Counsel ORDINANCE 98.7300 Page 6 n r r~ TITLE 3: WATER QUALITY, FLOOD bIANAGENENT AND FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Section 1. , Intent To protect the beneficial water uses and functions and values of resources within the Water Quality and Flood Management Areas by limiting or mitigating the impact on these areas from development activities, protecting life and property from dangers associated with flooding and working toward a regional coordination program of protection for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas. Section 2. Applicability A. This Title applies to: 1. Development in Water Quality Resource and Flood Management Areas. 2. Development which may cause temporary or permanent erosion on any property within the Metro Boundary. 3. Development in Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas when Metro's Section 5 analysis and mapping are completed. B. This title does not apply to work necessary to protect, repair, maintain, or replace existing structures, utility facilities, roadways, driveways, accessory uses and exterior improvements in response to emergencies provided that after the emergency has passed, adverse impacts are mitigated in accordance with the performance standards in Section 4. Section 3. Implementation Alternatives for Cities and Counties A. Cities and counties shall comply with this Title in one of the following ways: 1. Amend their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to adopt all or part of the Title 3 Model Ordinance or code language that substantially complies with the performance standards in Section 4 and the intent of this Title, and adopt either the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management Area Map or a map which substantially complies with the Metro map. Cities and counties may choose one of the following options for applying this section: a. Adopt code language implementing this Title which prevails over the map and uses the map as reference; or EXHIBIT A Page I b. Adopt a city or county field verified map of Water Quality and Flood Management Areas based on the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management map, updated according to Section 7, implementing this Title which prevails over adopted code language. Field verification is a process of identifying or delineating. Protected Water Features, Water Quality Resource Areas and Flood Management Areas shown on the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management Areas reap. This process includes examination of information such as site visit reports, wetlands inventory maps, aerial photographs, and public input and review. Ile field verification process shall result in a locally adopted Water Quality and Flood Management Areas map which: 1. Applies the Title, 10 definitions of Protected Water Feature, Water Quality Resource Areas and Flood Management Areas to all those protected areas on the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management Areas map to show the specific boundaries of those protected areas on the locally adopted Water Quality and Flood Management Areas map; and 2. Is subject to amendment by applying adopted code language to add Protected Water Features, Water Quality Resource Areas and Flood Management Areas and to correct errors in the local Water Quality and Flood Management Areas map as required by Section 7 and consistent with Section 3.D. 2. Demonstrate that existing city and county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances substantially comply with the performance standards in Section 4 and the intent of this Title. 3. Any combination of 1. and 2. above that substantially complies with all performance standards in Section 4. D. Cities and counties shall hold at least one public hearing prior to adopting _ comprehensive plan amendments, ordinances and maps implementing the performance standards in Section g of this Title or demonstrating that existing city or county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances substantially comply with Section 4. to add Protected Water Features, and wetlands which meet the criteria in Section 7.C.. to their Water Quality and Flood Management Area EXHIBIT ^ Page 2 map. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments, implementing ordinances and maps shall be available for public review at least 45 days prior to the public hearing C. Cities and counties shall conduct a review of their Water Quality and Flood Management Areas map concurrent with local periodic review required by ORS 197.633 (1997). D. Some areas which would otherwise be mapped as Protected Water Features, Water Quality Resource Areas and Flood Management Areas do not appear on the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management Areas map because streams had been culverted, wetlands had been filled or a fill permit had been approved, or the . area was demonstrated to have existing conflicting water dependent uses, or existing plans or agreements for such uses, or the area was developed or committed to other uses. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Title, cities and counties are not required to establish Protected Water Features, Water Quality Resource Areas and Flood Management Areas through adopted code provisions or mapping for areas which were examined but not included on the Water Quality and Flood Management Areas map adopted by the Metro Council. Section 4. Performance Standards A. Flood Management Performance Standards. 1. The purpose of these standards is to reduce the risk of flooding, prevent or reduce risk to human life and property, and maintain functions and values of floodplains such as allowing for the storage and conveyance of stream flows through existing and natural flood conveyance systems. 2. All development, excavation and fill in the Flood Management Areas shall conform to the following performance standards: a.. Development, excavation and fill shall be performed in a manner to maintain or increase flood storage and conveyance capacity and not increase design flood elevations. b. All fill placed at or below the dezign flood elevation in Flood Management Areas shall be balanced with at least an equal amount of soil material removal. C. Excavation shall not be counted as compensating for fill if such areas will be filled with water in non-storm winter conditions. EXHIBIT A Page 3 -d. Minimum finished floor elevations for new habitable structures in the Flood Management Areas shall be at least one foot above the design flood elevation. e. Temporary fills permitted during construction shall be removed. f. Uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by DEQ in the Flood Management Area shall be prohibited. 3. The following uses and activities are not subject to the requirements of Subsection 2: a. Excavation and fill necessary to plant new trees or vegetation: b. Excavation and fill required for the construction of detention facilities or structures, and other facilities such as levees specifically designed to reduce or mitigate flood impacts. Levees shall not be used to create vacant buildable lands. C. New culverts, stream crossings, and transportation projects may be permitted if designed as balanced cut and fill projects or designed to not significantly raise the design flood elevation. Such projects shall be designed to minimize the area of fill in Flood Management Areas and to minimize erosive velocities. Stream crossing shall be as close to perpendicular to the stream as practicable. Bridges shall be used instead of culverts wherever practicable. B. Water Quality Performance Standards 1. The purpose of these standards is to: 1) protect and improve water quality to support the designated beneficial water uses as defined in Title 10, and 2) protect the functions and values of the Water Quality Resource Area which include, but are not limited to: a. providing a vegetated corridor to separate Protected Water Features from development; b. maintaining or reducing stream temperatures; C. maintaining natural stream corridors, d. minimizing erosion, nutrient and pollutant loading into water; e. filtering, infiltration and natural :rater purification; EXHIBIT A Pmsc 4 f stabilizing slopes to prevcai landslides contributing to sedimentation of water features. _ 2. Local codes shall require all development in Water Quality Resource Areas to conform to the following performance standards: a. The Water Quality Resource Area is the vegetated corridor and the Protected Water Feature. The width of the vegetated corridor is specified in the table below. At least three slope measurements along the water feature, at no more than 100-foot increments, shall be trade for each property for which development is proposed. Depending on the width of the property, the width of the vegetated corridor will vary. GXIMIT A Prge 5 Fable 1 Protected Water Slope Adjacent to Starting Point for Width of Vegetated Feature Type Protected Water Measurements Corridor (see definitions) Feature from Water Feature Primary Protected < 25% a Edge of bankfut 50 feet Water Features' flow or 2-year storm level; a Delineated edge of rifle 3 wetland Primary Protected > 25% for 150 feet a Edge of bankful 200 feet Water Features' or more$ flow or 2-bear storm level; • Delineated edge of rifle 3 wetland Primary Protected > 25% for less than a Edge of bankful Distance from Water Features' 150 S€ae flow or 2-year starting point of storm level; measurement to top O Delineated edge of ravine (break in of Title 3 wetland >25% slope)', plus 50 et.` fe Secondary < 25% Edge of bankful 15 feet Protected Water flow or 2-year Features2 storm level; • Delineated edge of Title 3 wetland Secondary > 25% a Edge of bankful 50 feet Protected Water flow or 2-year Features2 storm level; a Delineated edge of Title 3 wetland t Primary Protected Water Features include: all percrrnial streams and strearns draining greater than 100 acres, Title 3 wetlands, natural lakes and springs 2Secondary Protected Water Features include intermittent streams draining 50-100 acres. Where the Protected Water Feature is confrned by a raviac or gully, the top of ravine is the break in the > 25%a slope (see slope measurement in Appendix). `A maximum reduction of 25 feet may be permitted in the width of vegetated corridor beyond the slope break if a geatechnical report demonstrates that slope is stable. To establish the width of the vegetated corridor, slope should be treasured in 25-fool increments away from the water feature until slope is less than 25% (top of ravine). ' Vegetated corridors in excess of 50-feet for primary protected features, or in excess of I5-feet for secondary protected features, apply on steep slopes only in the uphill direction from the protected water feature cxtttorT n Puge 6 b. Water Quality Resource Area shall be protected, maintained, enhanced or restored as specified in Section 4.B.2. C. Prohibit development that will have a significant negative impact on the functions and values of the Water Quality Resource Area, which cannot be mitigated in accordance with 21 d. Vegetative cover native to the Portland metropolitan region shall be maintained, enhanced or restored, if disturbed, in the Water Quality Resource Area. Invasive non-native vegetation may be removed from the Water Quality Resource Area and replaced with native cover. Only native vegetation shall be used to enhance or restore the Water Quality Resource Area. This. shall not preclude construction of energy dissipaters at outfalls consistent with watershed enhancement, and as approved by local surface water management agencies. e. Uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by DEQ in the Water Quality Resource Area shall be prohibited. f. Cities and counties may allow development in Water Quality Resource Areas provided that the governing body, or its designate, implement procedures which: I . Demonstrate that no practicable alternatives to the requested development exist which will not disturb the Water Quality Resource Area; and 2. If there is no practicable alternative, limit the development to reduce the impact associated with the proposed use; and 3. Where the development occurs, require mitigation to ensure that the functions and values of the Water Quality Resource Area are restored. g. Cities and counties may allow development for repair, replacement or improvement of utility facilities so long as the Water Quality Resource Area is restored consistent with Section 4.8.2(d). h. The performance standards of Section 4.8.2 do not apply to routine repair and maintenance of existing structures, roadways, driveways, utilities, accessory uses and other development. EXHIBIT A Page 7 BOOM a 1101 3. -For lots or parcels which are fully or predominantly within the Water Quality Resource Area and are demonstrated to be unbuildable by the vegetative corridor regulations, cities and counties shall reduce or remove vegetative corridor regulations to assure the lot or parcel will be buildable while still providing the maximum vegetated corridor practicable. Cities and counties shall encourage landowners to voluntarily protect these areas through various means, such as conservation easements and incentive programs. C. Erosion and Sediment Control 1. The purpose of this section is to require erosion prevention 'measures and sediment control practices during and after construction to prevent the discharge of sediments. 2. Erosion prevention techniques shall be designed to prevent visible and measurable erosion as defined in Title 10. 3. To the extent erosion cannot be completely prevented, sediment control measures shall be designed to capture, and retain on-site, soil particles that have become dislodged by erosion. D. Implementation Tools to protect Water Quality and Flood Management Areas 1. Cities and counties shall either adopt land use regulations, which authorize transfer of permitted units and floor area to mitigate the effects of development restrictions in Water Quality and Flood Management Areas, or adopt other measures that mitigate the effects of development restrictions. 2. Metro encourages local governments to require that approvals of applications for partitions, subdivisions and design review actions be conditioned upon one of the following: a. Protection of Water Quality and Flood Management Areas with a conservation easement; b. Platting Water Quality and Flood Management Areas as common open space; or c. Offer of sale or donation of property to public agencies or private non-profits for preservation where feasible. EXHIBIT A Page 8 3. Additions, alterations, rehabilitation or replacement of existing structures, roadways, driveways, accessory uses and development. in the Water Quality and Flood Management Area may be allowed provided that: a. The addition, alteration, rehabilitation or replacement is not inconsistent with applicable city and county regulations, and b. The addition, alteration, rehabilitation or replacement does not encroach closer to the Protected Water Feature than the existing structures, roadways, driveways or accessory uses and development, and c. The addition, alteration, rehabilitation or replacement satisfies section 4.C. of this Title. d. In determining appropriate conditions of approval, the affected city or county shall require the applicant to: I . Demonstrate that no reasonably practicable alternative design or method of development exists that would have a lesser impact on the Water Quality Resource Area than the one proposed; and 2. If no such reasonably practicable alternative design or method of development exists, the project should be conditioned to limit its disturbance and impact on the Water Quality Resource to the minimum extent necessary to achieve the proposed addition, alteration, restoration, replacement or rehabilitation; and 3. Provide mitigation to ensure that impacts to the functions and values of the Water Quality Resource Area will be mitigated or restored to the extent practicable. 4. Cities and counties may choose not to apply the Water Quality and Flood Management Area performance standards of Section 4 to development necessary for the placement of structures when it does not require a grading or building permit. ~ 5. Metro encourages cities and counties to provide for restoration and enhancement of degraded Water Quality Resource Areas through conditions of approval when development is proposed, or through incentives or other means. EXHIMT A Page 9 t 6. Cities and counties shall apply the performance standards of this Title to Title 3 Wetlands as shown on the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management Areas map and locally adopted Water Qualitysad Flood Management Areas maps. Cities and counties may also apply the performance standards of this Title to other wetlands. E. Map Administration Cities and counties shall amend their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to provide a process for each of the following: 1. Amendments to city and county adopted Water Quality and Flood Management. Area maps to correct the location of Protected Water Features, Water Quality Resource Areas and Flood Management Areas. Amendments shall be initiated within 90 days of the date the city or county receives information establishing a possible map error. 2. Modification of the Water Quality Resource Area upon demonstration that the modification will offer the same or better protection of water quality, the Water Quality and Flood Management Area and Protected Water Feature. 3. Amendments to city and county adopted Water Quality and Flood Management Area maps to add Title 3 wetlands when the city or county receives significant evidence that a wetland meets any one of the following criteria: a. The wetland is fed by surface glows, sheet flows or precipitation, and has evidence of flooding during the growing season, and has 60 percent or greater vegetated cover, and is over one-half acre in size; or the wetland qualifies as having "intact water quality function" under the 1996 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology; or b. The wetland is in the Flood Management Area, and has evidence of flooding during the growing season, and is five acres or more in size, and has a re tricted outlet or no outlet; or the wetland qualifies as having "intact hydrologic control function' under the 1996 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology; or EXHIBIT A Page 10 = 111121111111111111111 C. The wetland or a portion of the wetland is within a horizontal distance of less than one-fourth mile from a water body which meets the Department of Environmental Quality definition of "water quality limited water body" in OAR Chapter 340, Division 41(1996). Examples of significant evidence that a wetland exists that may meet the criteria above are a wetland assessment conducted using the 1996 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology, or correspondence from the Division of State Lands that a wetland determination or delineation has been submitted or completed for property in the city or county. 4. Cities and counties are'not required to apply the criteria in Seation 4.E.3. to water quality or stonmwater detention facilities. EXHIBIT A Page 1 1 APPENDIX EXHIBIT A Proposed Method for Determining Vegetated Corridors Next to Primary Protected Water Features . Figure t 9°O so No How treasure slope (Figure 1) " Measure 50 feet horizontally (L1) from the `Q stream (top of bank) and determine the slope (H1/L1 - the difference in elevation divided by the difference in horizontal distance multiplied by 100). If the slope in this 50-foot area is less than Figure 2 25%, the corridor width is 50 feet from the slope -c 25% top of bank (see Figure 2). I~ sa euitet 0 sa If the slope in the 50-foot area is 25% or greater, measure another 25 feet horizontally. If the slope in this incremental 25-foot area is now less than 25% (H2/L2 Figure 3 n~ < 250/v), the vegetated corridor width would 'ar Butter 25% ~ be 100 feet (50 feet for the horizontal distance from the top of bank with slope greater than 25% PLUS an additional 50 0 sa 75' tar feet). (See Figure 3.) If the slope is greater than 25% in this incremental 25-foot area, continue End Point mess idng the slope every 25 feet (H!L) Figure 4 -:s. 425% until yoG.either: 125 2sx j (a) find a slope less than 25% (see Figure 4), or 0 SQ 7S10C 925 a (When you find a slope less than 25%, the H vegetated corridor equals the distance from CQ the stream's top of bank to the end point of H the last surveyed 25-foot increment with a End POW slope greater than 25% PLUS an additional Figure 5 251tvenwr" > 25% • 25%r--4' a 50 feet). 20o e""n a (b) reach 200 feet (the maximum corridor width). (See Figure 5.) 0 sa 7St0012S'15Qt7S200 Advantages: • Provides protection for most steep slopes. yet corridor widths can be varied to fit a number of different situations (corridor widths include 50 feet to 100 feet, 125 feet, 150 feet, 175 feet and 200 feet) Provides flexibility. Disadvantages: • Does not protect slopes that rise steeply after a gradual `floodplain' area. I SM, 1! `15 Section S. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area A. The purpose of these standards is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat within the fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to be identified on -the grater quality and flood management area trap by establishing performance standards and promoting coordination by Metro of regional urban water sheds. B. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Recommendations These areas shall be shown on the Water Quality and Flood Management Area Map. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas generally include and/or go beyond the Water Quality and Flood Management Areas. These areas to be shown on the map or-ewnll be Metro's i al`-inventory of significant fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Metro hereby recommends that local jurisdictions adopt the following temporary standards: I . -Prohibit development in 4he4zf'rsh and Wwildlife 6conservation Aareas that adversely impacts fish and wildlife habitat. Exceptions: It is recognized that urban development will, at times, necessitate development activities within or adjacent to Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The following Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Mitigation Policy, except for emergency situations, applies to all the following exceptions: A project alternatives analysis, where public need for the project has been established, will be required for any of the exceptions listed below. The alternatives analysis must seek to avoid adverse environmental impacts by demonstrating there are no practicable, less environmentally damaging alternatives available. In those cases where there are no practicable, less environmentally damaging alternatives, the project proponent will seek alternatives which reduce or minimize adverse environmental impacts. Where impacts are unavoidable, compensation, by complete replacement of the impacted site's ecological attributes or,.where appropriate, substitute resources of equal or greater value will be provided in accordance with the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management model ordinance. a. Utility construction within a maximum construction zone width established by cities and counties. b. Overhead or underground electric power. telecommunications and cable television lines within a sewer or stormwater right-of-way or within a maximum construction zone width established by cities and counties. EXHIBIT 0 Page I C. Trails, boardwalks and viewing areas construction. d. Transportation crossings and widenings. Transportation crossings and widenings shall be designed to minimize disturbance, allow for fish and wildlife passage and crossings should be preferably at right angles to the stream channel. 2. Limit the clearing or removal of native vegetation from the Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Conservation Area to ensure its long term survival and health. Allow and encourage enhancement and restoration projects for the benefit of fish and wildlife. 3. Require the revegetation of disturbed areas with native plants to 90 percent cover within three years. Disturbed areas should be replanted with native plants on the Metro Plant List or an approved locally adopted plant list. Planting or propagation of plants listed on the Metro Prohibited Plant List within the Conservation Area shall be prohibited. 4. Require compliance with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) seasonal restrictions for in-stream work. Limit development activities that would impair fish and wildlife during key life-cycle events according to the guidelines contained in ODFW's "Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In-water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources." C. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Within eighteen (18) months from the effective date of this functional plan, Metro shall complete the following regional coordination program by adoption of functional plan provisions. 1. Metro shall establish criteria to define and identify regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat areas. 2. Metro shall adopt a map of regionally significant fish and wildlife areas after (4•g) examining existing Goal 5 data, reports and regulation from ) holding public hearings. cities and counties, and (3b 3. Metro shall identify inadequate or inconsistent data and protection in existing Goal 5 data, reports and regulations on fish and wildlife habitat. City and county comprehensive plan provisions where inventories of significant resources were completed and accepted by a LCDC Periodic Review Order after January 1. 1993. shall not be required to comply until their next periodic. review. EXHIBIT 0 Page 2 OMNI 4. Metro shall complete Goal 5 economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) analyses for mapped regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat areas only for those areas where inadequate or inconsistent data or protection has been identified. 5. Metro shall establish performance standards for protection of regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat that roust be met by the plans implementing ordinances of cities and counties. Section 5. Metro Model Ordinance Required Metro shall adopt a Water Quality and Flood Management Are-as Model Ordinance and map, a Model Ordinance shall represent ope method of complying with this Title. The Model Ordinance shall be advisory. and cities and counties are not required to adopt the Model Ordinance, or any part thereof, to substantially comply with this Title. However, cities and counties which adopt the Model Ordinance in its entirety and a Water Quality and Flood Management Areas Map shall be deemed to have substantially complied with the requirements of this Title. Sections 1-4 of this Title shall not become effective until 4418 months after the Metro Council has adopted e#lede eethe Model Ordinance and fnapYLater Duality and Flood Management ment Areas Ma . Section 5 of this Title shall be implemented by adoption of new functional plan provisions. The Metro-Council may adopt a Model Gede Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Model Ordinance and Map for protection of regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat. Section 7. Variances City and county comprehensive plans and implementing regulations are hereby required to include procedures to consider claims of map error and hardship variances to reduce or remove Fish and Wildlife Habitat pgrotection for any property demonstrated to be converted to an unbuildable lot by application of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Pprotection regulations. EXHIBIT Q Dube Planning Directors 't'itle 3 im lamentation Committee Vliashington Count P Title 3 Matrix OPTIONS FOR SUBST. WNERE DO JURISDiCT10 e3 ►{oNDLE THEE COMMENTS STANDARDS ISSUES Coy a to Sta aids es COMPLIANCE pSpypRMANCE EXIS nNO RELATED STD'S COMPLY? STANDARD LOCI option to false finished floor elevation sae e t in response to 1996 flood based on focal knowledge. -1996 flood not enough docUrntr tlon- H~w to deaf whh areas of recommend Using new just go with FEFAA Floodplains, Fi's 1996 inundation & other flood study. 6 work to update + 2 V , or flood areas w1-documented 0o with FEMA evidence of flooding"?? areas upstream to some int po put the 4A.1 Information in a purpose statement in X codeslcomP plans e wNnniNaltte4 - X Reduce dsing - X prove educe risk to lifetpro fly - X maintain goodPisin storage SHOW now conveyanca thru wdsting 6 natural systems a s 1) Kelp exisling std, or 2) II upstream Need to take care on these extend balanced cad crdAi We adopt: ofFEMA11 ociplains. wording standards maintain USA Balanced cuUfili, 25% slope occurs, or to 100 aero b flood storage, still USA: detention regmi's for drainage areas 6larger, some new dev. (Beaverton' requiring bat cufNill within I area Increase emay X a. development, excavation, 2S-year good inundation or withn vent to all the the buffer X X fill must maintetn once~se waterah~tB~sQ' Hedges storage & coroteys time X Increase flood elev. USA: balanced cuUfill In yes see above X cut R fill floodplains b. balanced C. balancing cuts must net norms be full of water 1 low Washington County Planning Directors Title 3 Implementation Committee Title 3 Matrix U0 U5A PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS FOR SUBST. STANDARD EXISTING RELATED STD'S COMPLY? COMPLIANCE ISSUES WHERE DO JURISDICTIONS HANDLE THESE? Coma Othe Local. USA pLQ o in St da ds ea COMMENTS 1.) stay as-is Metro should look at or 2.) add regmt for areas reconciling the deftntions of Stay as Isliocal option to upstream of FEMA floodpiains: "Design Storm Elevation' & review 25 year consider requiring either elevate 'Flood Mgmt Area': should storm/encourage d. Finished floors 1' above all require this for FEMA 1' above 25-yr storm or 1' above the FMA Include 25-yr decision based on design storm elev. fioodpialns yes for floodplains closest edge of WORA to bldg. storm areas? X X detailed basin studies. e. remove temp. constr. Fills no no add x X I. Prohibit uncontalned haz met in FMA no no add x X 4A.3. Examotions be cautious with language: In some areas with flooding prob's may need to require analysis S some a. planting of new restrictions • at least in trees/ahrubs no add floodway x X b. detention facilities, levees, etc. designed to reduce/mtttgats flood impacts. No levees to create vacant buildable lands. allowed w/ analysis yes x X Need to create clear, objective stds. May not c. culverfs/crossfngs If don't want clear span bridge so signit raise flood elev, can do detention behind minimize fill & min. erosive road embankment. velocities. Perpendicular as culverts & road crossings Desired conditions are practicable. Bridges allowed. But no language on consider writing the desired really WO and habitat Need roadway crossing wherever practicable. conditions no? conditions as policy statements. Items... X X X standards a e us 4.8.1. Purpose protect & Improve WO to Place in purpose statement In support beneficial uses codes/comp plans x X Also put in purpose statements 4 B u Ions E slues in codes/comp lens x X X 2 F Washington County Planning Directors Title 3 implementation Committee Title 3 Matrix VU UM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS FOR SUBST. STANDARD EXISTING RELATED STO'S COMPLY? COMPLIANCE ISSUES WHERE DO JURISDICTIONS HANDLE THESE? Comc Other Local USA pier o In Sands ds De_ sign COMMENTS USA 6 cities min: 25', plus Tigard: 50' on parts of Ash, a. provide vegetated corridor Fenno, Bell, 75' on Tualatin to separate PWF from R, Tualatin: 40' on Tualatin see vegetated corrWroptlons development R. at least anyy paper X X X Including b. malntaln/reduce water restoration 6 some see vegetated corridor options temp, enhancement at least partly paper X X X c. maintain natural stream see vegetated corridor options corridors at least partly paper X X X erosion control, 25' veg Corr, onsite WQFs, maim. existing programs listed Practices, public ed, stream should 'balance' any d. minimize erosion, nutrient, enhancement, regional see vegetated corridor options flexibility we place onto pollutant loading WQFa yes paper corridor widths X X e. filtering, Infiltration, natural see vegetated corridor options water purification veg. corridor, onslte WQFs yes ormost/y paper X X I. stabilize slopes to prevent landslides contrib. Sad. To see vegetated corridor options water features veg. corridor, erosion control st/eastpartly paper X X s see vegetated corridor options 50' H slo <25% see 4.B.1.a above 7 paper X X see vegetated corridor options 200' ff elo >_25% for 150+' ? paper X X btvm 50-200' it stopej25% for see vegetated corridor options 50-150 ft ? paper X X 15• if 50.100 ac Intermit, see vegetated corridor options slope <25% no 7 paper X X 50' If 50.100 ac Intermit, see vegetated corridor optlons slope>25% no 7 paper X X see 4.B.1.a above, USA b. protect, maintain, enhance requires restoration & some see vegetated corridor options or restore WQRA enhancement 7 paper X X USA Table 3.1 gives c. prohibit dev w/ sill neg conditions for buffer impact to WQRA, which cant disturbance, given buffer Define clear, objscttve How to dellne significant be mitigated condition 7 encroachment standards In code n allve Impact? X X 3 e VIM Title 31mplementation Commies planning Directors atrix DIETKESE4 Washington COL1C1ty Title 3 M AOJUFUSAtCT10NS p HAN t s~., coM ENTS YfµERE e SUBST• ISSUES C _ 9 ! - I S a da da esl OPTIONS FCR Par STANDARDS COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE EXts'tiNO RELATso STO S COMPLY? STANAERD see etaed cor r a ding .s X ps~r, Also, consI (per x X d, maintain, enhance of clearingnnio~n of % cover, it Matro restore native ve9 lace . pevelopment) disturbed (can rep Coesdt lnvasfve, non nmwa)• ? x pteetuds energy dissipaters no add x • at 0utisit% mal In X e. no uncontained hai no work og of existing USA WORA rddor eds allow language X QPA if: no bl, r USA.vag-co 'S115101 regarding dev in W buffevere9in9 , dons no more delall Fll Att, is itmiled, Wtons 6 exce maybe add ad cut & fill tack. re dev d proh d restoration & balanc lr, replacement, as X g, %mllty tape ORA X impt°vement OK if W yes X restored h, axemptton: r0utln° it list ink of etdaltn9 add to excep X repaitima roads, driveways. ? X structvms' & kalkies, accessory uses ofeatesoparata unbulidable other deveto-ment x A B 3 p9rcets made ination standard daterm x unbultds 6 ove tegrnIs no thin code roduce or rem v rovidin9 max 09 p0n take care of this tatted areas, vlnlle p no roquidn9 separate P to cotrfdom procficeble for veg e. bably % era to protect pro anccum 6 X areas through oonserv others men~, incentives, eaae x % 01 0 0 ° X requlre Measures yes x purpose nt sod discharge yes USA to pry construction yes u6n 4.C2-P antvistbtes y85.USA CZ. _ measurabto erosion yes nttol unpteventable USA A.C3 ons a measures yes erMlon e e t ttor 0015 4 Committee Washington County Planning Director Title 3 implementation Title 3 Ma PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS FOR SUBST. ISSUES WHERE DO JURISDICTIONS HANDLE THESE? EXISTING RELATED STD'S COMPLY? COMPLIANCE Cow Other c US STANDARD la o Sta ds a es COMMENTS 4.D.1. Authorize transfer of X permitted unilstdoor area or other measures would frequently be difficult to place such restrictions Expand existing mgmt's to add on floodplains outside of 4,D.2. Protect WORAa & yygRAs veg corridors: they are still FMAs wl cons easement, USA: raga now for 25' veg expend existing regmts to add developable, given e X X separato st open space platting, corridors but not for partly WQRA's andFMA's balanced cut 6 fill or sals/doneilons tloodplains 4.D.3 Additions, replacement X of sAaf(ng structures, roads, accessories me be allowed: a. not inconsistent wnocai r a X X b. III not encroach closer to pro! water feature X Existing USA EC code o. EC must to used wars yes d. require applicant to demonstrate no alt, project X X limits disturbance, mitigation r 'd goes this conflict with 4.0.4. Do not have to apply Does ti is of Development. X perm tds N no gradingibidg yes? which Includes clear ng? permit read same as existing ..sea veg, corridors options irenhancemant ri paper condition of approval, need - continue or expand to look at Issues of 4.D.S. to incentives, useEncouraged conddi tions of of e existing USA std requires this is enhancement regmts for part or proportionality: Impact of What is the nexus to ncent development vs. how X X X use new development? - give approval, etc. to enhance enhancement of veg corridor 'encouraged not aftuedons in much enhancement req'd degraded Vl~ORAs llSAdisturbed or 26 vaq co corridegdor raded ~d consider keailing existing USA USA 25' standard for all non-Title 3 currently tly applies to all 4.D.6. Apply wetlands orloca! Goal 5 X Title to Title 3 wattands 6 mitigation X X siginiticanf wetlands wetlands, but can cover more wetlands Maps Admin Se l0 6- a nitro 3 5 Omni ~rsmrsearrsa®nnAr~ miee . ,tie 31m iementati°n Cotta actors nin~'~ir Coon an Title 3 Matrix JURISO1CT10Ns u ~oM~+s ~asgein9ton IEREp° sta ORSU85t asas ISSUES CCo@1?- o n OPTIONS F ESQ STANO~DS COMPLIANCE Ci R~ISO STtYS COMPt-K4 P~O~~ANGE pC1ST1N STANCE Any other codes Qevelopmant.. .create new cieadn9 . a'," that results to the r Tigard ~ cocle remo+tsl oI more than 90 . cons[ de uiring the at No cieadng mss' out nt of 002 of 1n . continue rent ~ v star kPt R°sour s ngard, 9Ytn Current SA ennancarr>ent ttco r thaw %dell ned ~rdlnances. tamconidor T Area on the tot than ip distutDed or d top"ant...more etatlon sr quires ter+~etatton it ? rant ust cot mof v 4H,Nlth disturb paalot M $ecilon 4C' E mango entetion Committee -1tie lem pir ectots Wing s►+~oL~~ESEr . u~. coM*~~S Coun plan Title 3 M~triX o au~+~CICtION WashlMton ERE G_~ 0 a da OPStONSfGRSUg5T. ISSUES s a gtAN~~GS CaMP4tANGE pyGE EXIS fltit3 REt.ptED Siv GoMPt.Y4 PERfo SSF+Nfl ~ ut Ong nee ng~Pn & standards In USA rds (land coon Standards in ConstN Inct'etulrer tans for local E SA local use spat land use code sfcomP P includtn~atiowtng G nPeclai conditions? Existing cympinetton of U Cl /County Citles must . IndMduai s aniY std's (wnictt a1 codes for standards 3 code and s~ao,yetiad's ~ ater nisVatlon of 71t1e 3 roqutre~nts. 1 Locat edmi ProteetedWater Feature PWF- Wns emeRtAre% Fla A flood Ana e ment A en tin ~ere~~ an F~ oume Area Wa wate,t Ease YO-OfC~s iV rdousMstedats EG. Erosion Gontrot 1 Metro 2040 Functional Plan: Title 3 Vegetated Corridor Width Options for Washington County & Cities FINAL DRAFT: March 25, 1999 Prepared by. Washington County Planning Directors Title 3 Implementation Committee OPTION 1: Submit existing water quality related construction standards and land use codes as Substantial Compliance. Description: A. Vegetated Corridors. USA Design & Construction Standards currently require a 25-foot vegetated corridor from top of bank or delineated edge of wetland for all perennial streams, springs and wetlands, and for intermittent streams draining >100 acres. Corridors.disturbed during construction must be restored with native plants. Regardless, degraded corridors (with <25% canopy coverage and corridor areas with >I 0% coverage by blackberries or english ivy) must be enhanced with native plants. Some exceptions including gravel paths, some roads, utility construction, grading, water quality facilities encroaching up tc 10-feet. "Averaging" of vegetated corridor width may be allowed, with minimum width of 10 feet for up to 25% of corridor length on the development site, provided that the remaining 75% of length is widened such that the minimum average vegetated corridor width is 25'. Some Cities have wider corridor requirements for some specific locations (see matrix). B. Other Water Quality Requirements Related to Title 3 Vegetated Corridor Functions & Values. Water quality facilities required for stormwater treatment to remove phosphorus from the average summer storm for most new development (developments larger that a single house or duplex). These facilities also remove considerable sediment and other pollutants such as metals and oxygen demanding organic materials, prior to the pollutants entering stream corridors. 90% plus of new development required to build onsite water quality facilities. The remainder that can't feasibly build onsite pay fee-in-lieu into fund for USA and Cities to build regional water quality facilities. Documentation and estimation of pollutant removals provided in "Unified Sewerage Agency Program Compliance Report and 1998 Annual Report to the Oregon Department Of Environmental Quality" (February 1999). Maintenance practices that remove sediment and pollutants prior to entering stream corridors. These include: street sweeping of all curbed public streets at least once per month and catch basin cleaning once every 1 to 1.5 years. Documentation and estimation of pollutant removals provided in "Unified Sewerage Agency Program Compliance Report and 1998 Annual Report to the Oregon Department Of Environmental Quality" (February 1999). t C. Support for This Option. It is estimated that the removal of sediment loading by various management practices implemented by USA and the cities is at least 54%, and this does NOT account for erosion control, the 25' vegetated corridors or public education measures (Brown & Caldwell, Feb. 1999). The "Policy Analysis and Scientific Literature Review" for Title 3 prepared by Metro (July 1997) quotes buffer research showing sediment removal in the ranges of 50 - 85% for buffers used as filter strips for stormwater. However, urban stormwater from new development is typically piped through vegetated corridors to prevent erosion and therefore the buffer is not useful for treatment of these flows. Advantages: 1. No changes necessary, continue implementing same programs. 2. Gives credit to existing water quality improvement measures being implemented in the Tualatin River Basin. Disadvantages: 1. May not fully cover upcoming temperature regulations, Endangered Species Act requirements, or Goal 5 needs. 2. May not be sufficient to comply with Title 3 requirements. 2 OPTION 2: Adopt a 50-foot vegetated corridor standard for all perennial streams and wetlands (25-foot for intermittent streams with 50-100 acres of drainage area). Allowances for encroachment with water quality and detention facilities,and some buffer width reductions if certain enhancement or mitigation measures are applied. Description: A. Vegetated Corridors. USA Design & Construction Standards currently require a 25-foot vegetated corridor from top of bank or delineated edge of wetland for all perennial streams, springs and wetlands, and for intermittent streams draining >100 acres. This basic program would be changed to use a 50-foot vegetated corridor as the basis for compliance rather than the current 25-foot corridor. Corridors disturbed during construction must be restored with native plants. Regardless, degraded corridors (with <25% canopy coverage and corridor areas with >10% coverage by blackberries or english ivy) must be enhanced with native plants. Some exceptions include gravel paths, bike and pedestrian paths,. some roads, utility construction, and grading. Water quality facilities may encroach up to 25 feet into the vegetated corridor. All of these encroachment options, however, require the approval of Agency/City and land-use approval finding that no other reasonable or feasible options exist. "Averaging" of vegetated corridor width may be allowed for other encroachments, with minimum width of 25 feet for up to 25% of corridor length on the development site, provided that the remaining 75% of length is widened such that the minimum average vegetated corridor width is 50 feet. When "averaging" is permitted, then a corridor enhancement plan prepared by a registered landscape architect is required for any area that has evidence of blackberry, english ivy, or other non-native invasive species. For intermittent streams, without jurisdictional wetlands, with 50-100 acre drainage areas and any slope: require vegetated corridor width of 25' from top of bank (or 2-year storm elevation), with "averaging" as implemented in the existing USA Design & Construction Standards. Water quality and detention facilities may be allowed to encroach up to 25-feet from the outside edge into the vegetated corridor (15-feet for 50-100 acre drainage), so long as at least 25-feet of separation (10-feet of separation for 50-100 acre drainage) is maintained between the facility and the top of bank or delineated edge of wetland. Any portion of the water quality or detention facility that is vegetated with native trees, shrubs and groundcovers, designed to provide at least 50% canopy coverage at maturity, will not require any other mitigation. Access roads and areas of facilities that do not meet the vegetation and canopy standard must be mitigated by a widening of the vegetated corridor elsewhere on the development site by an equivalent amount of area Water quality and detention facility encroachment may be allowed only in areas of the corridor that currently (pre-development or prior to site stripping) are degraded (have less than 25% tree canopy coverage). The pre-existing vegetation must be preserved by a tree-clearing and native vegetation stripping prohibition prior to full development construction approval (see Tigard or Beaverton clearing prohibitions). Technical support for these facility encroachments is that this 3 OWNS all MMMR1MMF=M 11:111 Oil I Proposal can enhance degraded corridor areas (thr©ugh corridor is the goal. native plant re-vegetation); a ve eg_tated B. Other Water Quality Requirements Related to Title 3 Vegetated Corridor Functions & Values. Water quality facilities required for stormwater treatment to remove phosphorus from the average summer storm for most new development (developments larger that a single house or duplex). These facilities also remove considerable sediment and other pollutants such as metals and oxygen demanding organic materials, prior to the pollutants entering stream corridors. gal plus of new development required to build onsite water quality facilities. The remainder that can't feasibly build onsite pay fee-in-lieu into fund for USA and Cities to build regional water quality facilities. Documentation and estimation of pollutant removals provided in "United Sewerage Agency Program Compliance Report and 1998 Annual Report to the Oregon Department Of Environmental Quality" (February 1999). Maintenance practices that remove sediment and pollutants prior to entering stream corridors. These include: street sweeping of all curbed public streets at least once per month and catch basin cleaning once every l.to 1.5 years. Documentation and estimation of pollutant removals provided in "Unified Sewerage Agency Program Compliance Report and 1998 Annual Report to the Oregon Department Of Environmental Quality" (February 1999). C. Support for This Option. It is estimated that the removal of sediment loading by various management practices implemented by USA and the cities is at least 54%, and this does NOT account for erosion control, the 25' vegetated corridors or public education measures (Brown & Caldwell, Feb. 1999). The "Policy Analysis and Scientific Literature Review" for Title 3 prepared by Metro (July 1997) quotes buffer research showing sediment removal in the ranges of 50 - 85% for buffers used as filter strips for stormwater. However, urban stormwater from new development is typically piped through vegetated corridors to prevent erosion and therefore the buffer is not useful for treatment of these flows. Advantages: 1. Minor changes necessary; continue implementing same programs, with perhaps only increased construction inspection and post-construction vegetation-survival evaluation. 2. Gives credit to existing water quality improvement measures being implemented in the Tualatin River Basin, but provides wider vegetated corridors than are currently required by Cities, County or USA. 3. Supports the Title 3 functions and values. 4. Provides flexibility, as allowed by Title 3, through clear and objective conditions. 4 5. Encourages developers to institute environmentally friendly stormwater management practices that reduce runoff and pollution impacts, by offering opportunities for some vegetated corridor width reductions and averaging. 6. Helps meet density goals by allowing water quality and detention facilities to encroach into vegetated corridors, and by allowing some effective stormwater management practices to be used in place of some of the vegetated corridor width. 7. Should reduce the number of variances and case hearings requested by developers as compared to the 'T'itle 3 Model Ordinance. 8. Expected to provide considerable support toward meeting upcoming temperature and Endangered Species Act regulations, by encouraging substantial re-vegetation and existing tree canopy preservation. 9.- Doesn't require detailed evaluation of cross-slope for "buffer"-width determination. Disadvantages: 1. May not fully cover upcoming temperature regulations, Endangered Species Act requirements, or Goal 5 needs. 2. Wider than existing vegetated corridors will make it harder to profitably develop marginal, hard-to-develop lands. 3. Will require development and implementation of new types of controls and assurances to ensure that the enhancement/mitigation measures are properly applied and maintained over time, as compared to existing program in order to meet regional goals. 4. May not be sufficient to comply with Title 3 requirements. i i 3 5 1T+ l OPTION 3: Adopt the vegetated corridor widths presented in Title 3, with flexibility allowances under certain circumstances for "buffer-averaging", encroachment with water quality and detention facilities, and some buffer width reductions if certain enhancement or mitigation measures are applied. Description: For perennial streams, springs and wetlands identified on Title 3 maps and in local Goal 5 inventories: For slopes < 25% for 50 feet or more from top of bank or delineated edge of wetland, and for perennial streams and springs with any slope, but drainage area <50 acres: require 50-foot-minimum average corridor width. For slopes > 25% for 50 feet or more from top. of bank or delineated edge of wetland (except perennial streams and springs with drainage area < 50 acres): Require 200-foot maximum corridor width. Minimum average corridor width is per Metro Title 3 description (200' if slope>25% for 150' or more from top of bank or delineated edge of wetland; or the distance from top of bank/edge of wetland to slope break where slope becomes <25% plus 50' if slope > 25% for 50-150'). Also for slopes >25%: Minimum average vegetated corridor width may be reduced, to a minimum average width of 100-feet, with application of approved enhancement and/or development site mitigation measures that provide equivalent functions and values. Measures that may be considered by the local permitting jurisdiction are presented in the following table (any measure applied must meet all relevant codes and requirements of the local jurisdiction, such as plumbing codes). Other measures with supporting documentation of their effectiveness as related to Title 3 functions and values may be accepted as well. Vegetated Corridor "averaging": may be allowed to reduce vegetated corridor width to as small as 50%'of the minimum average width (as defined above) for up to 25% of the vegetated corridor length on the development site. In this case, the remaining 75% of the vegetated corridor length must be widened as much as necessary such that the average vegetated corridor width is at least the minimum average width. Untreated storm flows must be directed away from the section of reduced-width corridor. 6 OPTION 3: CORRIDOR WIDTH CREDIT TABLE Measure Details Credit Technical Support for Credit Enhancement of Degraded = less than 25% 2:1 credit (for every 2 square A Vegetated Corridor is the desired degraded corridor existing canopy coverage feet of enhancement, the credit result to meet Title 3 functions and areas and/or areas of primarily is 1 square foot allowable values. This provides an incentive blackberries. Enhancement = reduction of the vegetated to the developer to create the planting native trees, shrubs corridor, down to the indicated desired condition. With approval, & groundcovers, designed to minimum width) (ALSO - this can extend onto adjacent achieve at least 75% canopy SEE OPTIONS IN ITALICS properties that have degraded coverage, with 80'/o survival AT END OF TABLE) corridors, thus helping a larger after 2 years. section of the stream. Tree preservation Preservation and protection 1:1 credit for canopy area of Whether located in the outer portion of trees (6" caliper and preserved trees (for every of a vegetated corridor, or further larger) on the developable square foot of preserved upland, trees provide similar water portion of the site (outside of canopy, the credit is 1 square quality (and quantity) functions and vegetated corridor).. This foot allowable reduction of the values for water interception, includes protecting in a vegetated corridor, down to evapotranspiration, erosion control, pervious condition the full the indicated minimum width) and shading of land surfaces that area under the tree drip line.) could otherwise heat storm runoff. Water quality Stormwater treatment 2:1 credit for the amount of The facilities remove pollutants iii facilities facilities designed to meet the impervious surface treated (for stormwater before it gets to Tualatin Basin treatment every 2 square feet of corridors or streams, reducing the standard (65% total impervious surface treated, the need for corridor width for this phosphorus removal from the credit is '1 square foot purpose. Facilities do not treat all average summer storm) allowable reduction of the runoff, but do capture small, intense vegetated corridor, down to storms and the "fist flush" of the indicated minimum width) pollutants from all storms. Disconnected roof 1. Complete disconnection 1. 1:1 credit for roof area Disconnects, especially those in downspouts = direction of roof runoff disconnected. case 1 provide treatment and flow to vegetated areas or into 2. 2:1 credit for roof area reduction/ attenuation for all roof a rock-filled sump disconnected runoff. Case 1 effectively negates without an outlet. the presence of roof runoff for all 2. Partial disconnection = but large storms. Case 2 connection into rock- substantially reduces the runoff filled sump with impacts. University of Washington overflow to storm sewer studies suggest that control of or connection into impervious surfaces and flashy stormwater planter runoff is the highest priority for (Portland BES standards stream health improvements. for stormwater planter) Ero-roof or Roof Use Portland BES definitions 1:1 credit for roof area This completely negates the impact Garden & standards. covered or presence of buildings and roof i areas covered, except for the largest 0 of stoims. University of H Washington studies suggest that i control of impervious surfaces and flashy runoff is the highest priority for stream health improvements. Tilled or amended Additional topsoil/mulch 2:1 credit for area with A University of Washington study landscape areas and/or tilling site soil to a added/tilled soil (for every 2 shows approx. 400/6 decrease in (does NOT include depth of 1 foot (no vehicle or square feet of enhancement, runoff from pervious areas with V lawn areas) equipment will drive over the credit is l square foot of unconsolidated topsoil added. these areas after allowable reduction of the adding/tilling is complete), vegetated corridor, down to I Jusi prior io 1madsCapHig the indka"C d I 7 Measure Details Credit Technical Support for Credit Additional Additional landscape or open 1:1 credit for adding areas that Impervious area is a, primary driver LandscapetOpen space areas, not part of the will preserve substantial native of urban stream degradation. Less Space Area vegetated corridor, above that vegetation (areas must have > impervious area = less runoff, less required for landscape 50% native vegetation)'or that pollutants. University of standards are "nature-soaped" with all Washington studies suggest that native plants. 2:1 credit for control of impervious surfaces and other open/landscaped areas. flashy runoff is the highest priority Both of these are for preserved for stream health improvements. areas on developable land that are above the landscape standard. Pervious Pavement Paver blocks on sand, "grass- 1:1 credit This provides effective impervious crete", geo-grids filled with area reduction by allowing the small gravel and/or soil and smaller runoff flows to infiltrate, ground cover, and other and provides pollutant filtering. similar treatments (does NOT University of Washington studies include "open-mix" asphalt) suggest that control of impervious surfaces and flashy runoff is the highest priority for stream health improvements. Consider for all or some of the measures in the table: whether credit may be given for these being implemented off-site as well as on-site? Consider giving credit for tree planting in upland areas (something less than the credit for tree preservation)? Consider ways to encourage enhancement of 50' corridors? Could 50' be reduced if enhancement or mitigation measures applied? And/or, should the first 25' ofany corridor have enhancement required if degraded, on the presumption that this part of this "greenfrastructure " must be up to "public standards "for permits to be issued? For intermittent streams with 50-100 acre drainage areas and any slope: require vegetated corridor width of 25' from centerline of stream, with ".`averaging" as laid out in existing USA Design & Construction Standards. For wetlands not identified above: Require 25' vegetated corridor, with "averaging", as currently required in USA Design & Construction Standards. Other Encroachments: Water quality and detention facilities may be allowed to encroach up to 25-feet from the outside edge into the vegetated corridor, so long as at least 25-feet of separation is maintained between the facility and the top of bank or delineated edge of wetland. Any portion of the facility that is-vegetated with native trees, shrubs and groundcovers, designed to provide at least 50% canopy coverage at maturity, will not require any other mitigation. Access roads and areas of facilities that do not meet the vegetation and canopy standard must be mitigated by a widening of the vegetated corridor elsewhere on the developmcra s«e._ ~y ..,Y...~~►~ an eyuivaient amount of area. Water quality and detention facility encroachment may be allowed only in areas of the corridor that currently are 8 degraded (have less than 25% tree canopy coverage). Technical support for these facility encroachments is that this can enhance degraded corridor areas (through native piant revegetation); a ve eg tested corridor is the goal. Advantages: 1. Provides wider vegetated corridors than are currently required by Cities, County or USA. 2. Essentially maintains the vegetated corridor widths presented in Title 3. 3. Supports the Title 3 functions and values. 4. Provides flexibility, as allowed by Title 3, through clear and objective conditions. 5. Encourages developers to institute environmentally friendly stormwater management practices that reduce runoff and pollution impacts, by offering opportunities for some vegetated corridor width reductions and averaging. 6. Helps meet density goals by allowing water quality and detention facilities to encroach into vegetated corridors, and by allowing some effective stormwater management practices to be used in place of some of the vegetated corridor width. 7. Should reduce the number of variances and case hearings requested by developers as compared to the Title 3 Model Ordinance. 8. Expected to provide considerable support toward meeting upcoming temperature and Endangered Species Act regulations. DisadvantagLes: 1. Wider than existing vegetated corridors will make it harder to profitably develop marginal, hard-to-develop lands. 2. Fairly complex credits system may be difficult for some to understand or administer, will require strong technical and training support. 3. Would require additional time, staffing, and cost to Cities/County/Developers to implement. 4. Will require development and implementation of new types of controls and assurances to ensure that the enhancement/mitigation measures are properly applied and maintained over time. 5. Requires detailed evaluation of cross slope for buffer-width determination. 9 OP'T'ION 4: Adopt the 'T'itle 3 Model Ordinance sections related to vegetated corridor width and application. Description: Adopt Section 4 of the Metro Title 3 Model Ordinance ("Water Quality Resource Areas). Advantages: 1. Substantial Compliance approval is assured by Metro. 2. Provides substantial stream corridor protections, beyond the performance standards required by Title 3. 3. Expected to provide considerable support toward meeting upcoming temperature and Endangered Species Act regulations. Disadvantages: 1. Goes above and beyond the performance standards in Title 3, without technical water quality justification. 2. Does not allow for encroachment of water quality or detention facilities into vegetated corridors without widening the corridor (this reduces developable land). 3. Would require significant judgement calls and time-consuming process at the permit counter regarding allowing for encroachments into vegetated corridors or "averaging" of widths. 4. Requires detailed evaluation of cross slope for buffer-width determination. 10 Washington County Planning Directors Title 3 Implementation Committee Comment Sheet 1. Of the four corridor width options under consideration for meeting Title 3 requirements, which do you most support? Please explain why you support the option chosen. 2. Of the two approaches under consideration for implementing a joint compliance option, one through incorporation into the USA Design and Construction Standards and the other through adoption into individual land use codes, which do you support and why? 3. Do you have any other comments or questions about the various compliance options, adoption approaches, or any other aspect of the Title 3 compliance process? 4. What changes or refinements, if any, should be made to the "Compliance Matrix" and "Corridor Width Options" working papers developed by the Title 3 Implementation Committee? Please write on this sheet and additional sheets if necessary and route to Lori Faha (mailing address and fax number on reverse side). You also may send your comments to Ms Faha via e-mail (see reverse). Thank you for your participation. Washington County Planning Directors Title 3 implementation Committee Lori Faha 648-8730; fax: 640-3525 Unified Sewerage Agency FahaL(@USA-C1eanWater.ort? Public Services Bldg., Room 270 155 N. First Ave. Hillsboro, OR 97124 Jim Duggan 526-2442; fax: 526-3720 Development Services idugjzan(@ci.beaverton.or.us City of Beaverton P.O. Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97076 Veronica Smith 526-2458; fax: X26-3720 Community Development Dept. vsmith(a)ci.beaverton.or.us City of Beaverton P.O. Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97076 Tracy Lee 357-9112; fax 357-7775 City of Cornelius TracyLeeI23 @hotmail.com P.O. Box 608 Cornelius, OR 97113 Winslow Brooks 681-6156; fax 681-6245 Planning Dept. winkb@,ci.hillsboro.or.us City of Hillsboro 123 W. Main St. Hillsboro, OR 97123 Jim Jacks 692-2000; fax: 692-3512 City of Tualatin 18880 SW Martinazzi Ave. Tualatin, OR 97062 Duane Roberts 639-4171; fax: 684-7297 Community Development Dept. duane(@ci.tigard.or.us City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Brenda Bernards 797-1736; fax 797-1911 Growth Management Services bemardsb(a,metro.dst.or.us Metro 600 Northeast Grand Ave. Portland, OR 99232 2736 Jon Reimann 603-9933; fax 603-9944 WRG Design, Inc. spr@wrgd.com 10450 SW Nimbus Suite RA Portland, OR 97223 Name Address Phone/fax/email i/IrphYdr/tidelcom.list ' Agenda Item No l i DYl Meeting of- ,5-, Q MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William A. Monahan ~ RE: Memorial Policy DATE: April 20, 1999 As the City adds parks, open spaces and public facilities by acquisition and donation, the question of how such facilities are named is raised. In addition, the City is often approached by citizens and groups seeking direction on how individuals may be honored and remembered through placement of plaques, memorials, benches and other markers to commemorate an individual or their achievements. Jeff Munro of the Public Works Department has researched what other agencies have done in the past regarding memorials in parks and greenways. In addition, he has contacted the City of Portland to investigate how they have handled placement of memorials in public parks, placement of sculptures and other permanent artwork in public places, and designation of memorial gardens and plazas. Staff has reviewed the issue and has drafted a recommended policy for placing memorials in public places. The following is the proposal prepared by Jeff Munro which staff would like to preview with Council at the study session portion of the meeting of April 27. Upon receipt of Council direction, staff can prepare an agenda item for a future Council meeting so that the policy can be implemented in the near future. 1. Memorials within City Park Facilities - Memorials included within this category are memorials which would be placed on or near basic park amenities such as benches, picnic tables, trees, shrubs, and plaques. If the memorial meets park standards for construction and materials, the Parks Division will assume maintenance responsibility on an ongoing basis. Interested parties would submit a written request to the park/grounds division regarding the type of memorial, proposed location, and significance of the memorial. interested parties would be responsible financially for the purchase of the memorial. An extensive review process would not be necessary for these types of memorials. These requests couid be handled administratively by the parks/grounds division to 10 ensure that City standards are met. The parks/grounds division would reserve the right to adjust the location of the memorial. The parks/grounds division would notify the City Council of any actions taken to place new memorials within the City parks. Following are the standards that the parks/grounds division recommends we follow in regards to park memorials: a) Benches - Benches must be made of wood, contoured or flat-styled pedestal, outdoor benches. These benches must be purchased through a Parks Division approved manufacturer. A brass plaque may be attached to the bench but can be no larger than 2 Y2 x 6 inches. Examples of this type of bench are available for interested parties to look at before they purchase one. b) Trees - Trees planted at City facilities must be at least 2" caliper, native to the area, and fit into the existing landscape scheme of the park area or fit into the adopted plan for tree planting in that area. c) Plaques - Plaques need to be used in conjunction with a shrub or tree. As a stand-alone, they give the appearance of a graveyard marker which is unsettling in a park environment. Plaques much be made of bronze and no larger than 8 Y2 x 11 Plaques must be set in concrete, aggregate rock, or a boulder. Examples of this type of plaque are available for interested parties to look at before they purchase one. NOTE: Photos have been taken of current memorials which show examples of both acceptable and unacceptable memorials. 2. Distinct Elements within City Owned Properties - Memorials can be placed at distinct elements of City owned property such as shelters, sports fields, gardens, wetlands, tennis courts, rooms, fountains, ponds, paths, art, etc. Individuals interested in having a distinct element named after an individual would be required to submit a written request to the Tigard City Council regarding the particular type of amenity which they are interested in sponsoring. This category requires more extensive review due to the fact that the amenity desired may be either 1) designated as a memorial to an individual who has passed away, or 2) as an honorarium to someone who is living and has made a contribution to the City, either financially or through civic duty. Council approval is needed and guidelines need to ' be followed regarding signage. i Examples of current signs which designate distinct elements of City owned properties are: 3 a a) Mead Field - An acceptable sign located at Cook Park. h) Mary Woodard Park - An example of an unacceptable sign. mom Examples of both signs are available for viewing. The City of Portland has an extensive policy regarding memorials. Jeff Munro suggests that the City review that policy, narrow our choices, and select what best fits the needs of the City of Tigard. NOTE: An example of a memorial within a City building is the memorial at the Tigard Water Building where the auditorium is named after Dick Brown. Mr. Brown was a member of the Tigard Water District Board of Commissioners. The Tigard Water District passed a resolution naming the room in memory of former Commissioner Brown. 3. Naming of Buildings and Park Properties - The City does not presently have a policy for the naming of park property and City owned buildings. It is recommended that interested parties submit a written request to the Tigard City Council regarding the property or building which they are interested in having the City Council name. In addition, the Council by its own motion could consider naming a building or park. This category required extensive review and should require Council approval in the form of a resolution. Jeff Monroe recommends the City of Portland's policies be used as a guideline. Portland has had extensive experience in this area. The naming of a building or park property could be prompted by civic or financial contributions made by an individual. In some cases, persons donating or selling property to the City recommend as a condition of donation or sale that the donator or seller be given an opportunity to name the property or facility. Any such request should be considered by Council and a preliminary commitment obtained before a donation is accepted or a purchase authorized. Portland Policy - Attached is a copy of the policy on placing memorials in public parks adopted by the Portland City Council on April 12, 1989. Tigard staff recommends this policy be used as a starting point. A second Portland document named "Portland Parks and Recreation Policy for Naming or Renaming Parks, Facilities and Features" includes criteria and procedure for carrying out the program of naming facilities. Also attached is an inter-office memo prepared by Jeff Munro which reports his findings on the policies of other park districts and cities. It appears that Portland is the most experienced in the area and is the best starting point for our discussions. During the study portion of the meeting, staff will display photographs of what City staff considers to be acceptable and unacceptable plaques and signs which are presently in place in the City of Tigard. Staff will lead a discussion with Council to gain direction on the elements needed in the creation of a City policy. Staff can return to the City Council with a resolution creating a policy as early as May 11, or on May 25. 1:W DM\BILL\990420MEMO-COUNCIL-MEMORIALS.DOC #Fetr-17-99 10:02A Portland Parks & Rec 8235570 P.01 Policy on Placing mam=ials In Public Parts Adopted by city council on April 12, 198 7 he texture and cultuz-sl heritage of Portland is enriched by appropriately designed and appropriately sited memorials in public parks. In a wW. the pexks themselves are mlermarinis to opera space and the citizens %ho worked to pr rve them as open space. Ttee primzry use of a park or own space is to be open and usable by the public. Donors of new n»emarials should therefore be ar,Axd to broaden their search for an appropriate location and ccnsdder other public sus as well, tFftich may provide very, suitable locations for future memorials. Also to be considered are telporay or portable vials, and namring existing parks. Wiile appropriate memorials may enrich a park experience for park users, public dpen space is also a very precious commodity, and rmw memorials should be carefully reviewed to balance these two public befits to protect the greater good. Future memorial proposals should reprewmt community values, and be mindful of future generatioaas. The quality of timers should be considered in the signIficanree of the person or eiAmt being m rialized. Maintenance concerns skmld be a primary consideration. with adequate provision xade for continued future vedntenw=e. In all cases, memorials should be made from d=able materials that will stand up over time. It is recognized that a particular location may reach a saturation point and it would them be appropriate to consider limitations on future Imtasllations at that location. Requests for new memorials will be most apparent in central city and high visibility pates, and these limitations should be considered in that context. Improvements rmarle in a public space become the property of the public. DSFOITICM : A distinction is made between simple plaques and more elaborate memorials. The seven basic types of memorials will be categorized as follows: 1. Simple plates are thou mounted flush with the ground. The sire should be a mmacimmma of 3' x 31, preferably smaller. 2. Adoramd plaques are the Installed as part of a larger, more intrusive setting. Emsmp2e s include the "umic stand" petal maoamts. and plaques affixed to boulr4,rs. 3. Sculpture and other permwmat art work includes representational and abstract pieces. files include the Joan of Arc (Coe: Circle), Sacajasqea (Rtkshbigton Park), and Peace Chant (South Park -Blocks). Posttit' Fax Note 7671 Date 2 1 9 P1) !o FrdR 1 CoA)W. Co. Phone M Phone is IFuA P p~~~~~0 run I Feb-17-99 10:02A Portland Parks & Rec 8235570 P.02 d. laxmtaim may be fairly simple or large and telex. The=y should be considered eeparately because of the additional Infrastrwtvave required (plumbing and electrical) and additional Maintenance implied. E=Wles include SheuBnaki Fbritafn and Ira's (Fioraeourt) Smmtain. 3. @ '9ad Owdens mid any include of tPse objects listed above but go beyand that to include a spatial experience. files include the Vietnam Veeterans MemDrial and (bell Fbuntsin. 6. QtYY~JC Maas is a "catch-all" catep=V intended to cover prvposaals that may not fit into any of the ca+tegccie:s previously described. 7. Basic plc accesearlas include such typical park amenities as banches and picnic tables, trees and drinkiorj f=talne. As the seven basic types vary greatly in the ispact they have upon a park, the review and process for allowing them to occur within a park should reflect the differs. All aanarials, Yea r, eahould be judged for appraporiaterxm accm4ding to the fbllo lM criteria. Thane criteria are intended to sexy as guidelines for the reviewiM body: 0 The person Off' event being mmemarialimed is damned significant enough to am=rit such an hrmor. Xha pmv= moo hanare 3 shall have bmm deceased for a minion of two years. o The memorial represents broad ocu mmity values. o The memorial has timaleasvs qualities and makes a statement of sigaifica nce to future generations. o The location under colw1derautian is an rpriacte setting for the meunrial, in general,' there should be some, specific geographic justification for the memorial bebV located in that spot. o The location of the- mesoorial will not interfere with existing and prcposed circulation and tae patterns of the pain. As used in this policy, "in ganeral" 19 Intended to mwn that exceptions are poiasible for special c1rc=steanom. 2 Feb-17-99 10:03A Portland Parks & Roc 8235570 P.03 0 Me. Pl~riel is coapatible with the park's curswnt Or historic master plan, if existing. (If there is no current or historic master plan, the park B=vm shall propmv a "stmt n t of character.") The locaticn and design of the m=rial is oocrsisterat with the character =3 design intentions of the park. For a le, ai r i,al beSng proposed for Forest Tank should be consistent With the forested character of Forest Park. The gm2lty, sole, and character of the mewrial is at a level crxsurate with the particular perk setting. o The as~orial cautributes to the park setting from a functional or design standpoint. ""xe xaorial d=oor is to prey for the design, Installation, xmaufactura, and maintenance of the memorial. This should be spelled out in an agreemmt with the doaxor. MhErIENUM In general, 4 any proposed vial should be backed by in mn-axnOe, a bond or erAmmmt1und, or a maintemnce schedule by the memorial donor adequate to esssum Its cart so that this gift will remain in a cmdltlon satisfactory to the donor and the City. The posted insurance or bond should also cover costs of Installation and/or removal. If an adequate level of maintenance is not contimed, the City reserves time right to rem or modify the manorial or a pm ticn of the memorial. Viben the City eoemmits to maintaining a particular m~ol iml. and the City is not amble to maintain the mexxnrial at a level satisfactory to the d=onor, the donor shall have the opportunity to supplement maintenance as required. RPFU S FROCESS If the donor's proposal is not acceptable, time don= has the right after the review process is toWletra to appeal to the Commissioner in a h=W of the of Parke and Recreation, and to City Council for a reconsideration of their proposal. Cctrmrsely, if a memorial is approved and a citiaen opposes the project, that citizen also has the right to appeal to the o icner in charge of the Bureau of Parks and Recreation, and to City Co%xncIl for a reconsideration of the proposal., Tlae declslan of the City Council shall be finial and birnding upon the appellant mid the &uem of Parks and ration. H ° As used in this policy, "in gerbexa1" is Intended to mmm that emotions arc possible for special circtmmstames. y 3 we6-17-99 10:03A Pcwt7and Parks & Rec 8235570 P.04 The insta,2ation of Sisnple plaques will not change the character or use of park settings. Depandftv on their plat, hm*wer, theaY =Y iMwt park araist oe operaticm. As such, they should follow the follow review procedure. 1. A request to install a plaque will be submitted in writim to the Burew of mks amd Recreation. Tae proposal will include as march detail as I ible, ineluftV size and preferred locations, tiara fae~ and w=%Ung. a. The Park Planning sections will reca=mwd ac eptirq, rejecting, or modifying the proposal, and review it with park operatic. The proposal, with an2gested modifleatlem. (Inch alternate 3o=tl=. If cadre) will be zwlerxd by the Park Bareau ldwogews and the Commissioner's office. 3. Tf the me ia.l proposal is meted. the proposal with suggested modigicatlons should be reviewed with the doer. and a standard form sgreemmt on naintenwx:e and responsibilities should be prepared. The d== is to provide a site plan of the agreed an location. 0 H -1 H i 7 4 F~Es-17-99 10:04A Portland Parks & Roc 8235570 P.q5 mm instnliation of adorned plaques has mom of an Inpact cn the 1me and aaaint cif existing parks. Incorrectly placed, they laz interfere with use areas or circulation patterns. 7herefore, OM more step of MVIOW Is required before an mat can be reached on its existenoe- . 1. 7he Intention to install an adorned plate should be submitted in writing to the Bureau of Parks and Recreation. The proposal should include -as touch detail as possible, including size and preferred location, time frame and WaTtLim. 2. The Park Planning section will review the proposal for concurrence with the pant's master plan. If no current raster plan exists, or if there is reason to question the suited location in light of circulation or use patternAs, the pxcposal `sill be delayed until an analyaf s rm be dm e. There a ttzaster plan exists and a peed memorial is a varlw=e to the master plan. the pz l will be processed es an matt to the master plan. A response to the propoml will be requited within 120 days from thL: date the proposal is received by the City. 3. The Park Planning section will rid accepting, rejecting, or modifying the prcpossl, and review it with park operations. The proposal, with m*westsd modificaitiom, (including alternate location, if appZ%7,wiate) will be reviewed by the Park Bk+aau MrAkgers and the CocmissicnerIs office. 4. If the Memorial proposal is accepted, the proposal with suggested modifications will be reviewed with the donor, and a std form ant oa maintenance and r ibilities amld be prepared. Tfse dosmr is to p=rovide a site plan of the agreed on location. 5 'xaw~a - sae@■:.,. 'Fels-17-99 10:04A Portland Parks & Roc 8235570 P 06 SCMErM AM = The installation of aculpture in puic settings calls for another layer of review. The arts comity will be consulted t '1 t$ae Metropolitan Arts Coamaaissien e„nd the sign Ibeview Camis<sion. As exWe proposals are mom oo~lax. and can be more wive, the donor is required to go tbronxgh the entire par oc am twice: once at a ccnceptuaal• level and again 1han the design is developed. n7e review process is as folloats: 2. 2 he intention, to install sculpture will be submitted In writing to the Surem of Parks and Mica. The proposal sbo ld include as much detail as passible, including size and paeferrcd location, time fry and Wnterials. The doctor is required to go through the design review pmvicess with schematic designs for the mesaarial. If the design is conceptually approved, the da snot will be required to provide a site plan and detailed design drawings. 2. The Park Flaming section will review the proposal for candy with the park's master plan. If no current master plan exIsts, or if there is same areasm to question the suggested location in light of circulation or use patterns, the propel will be delaeyed until an analysis can be done. ire a master plan Mists and a pawed dial is a variance to time master plasm, the prvpasal will be processed as an ammdnmt to the master plan. .A sespaa = to the proposal will be required within 120 days fsnaa the date the proposal is received by the City. 3. Time Park Planning section will review the proposal with the Metropolitan Arts Ommniasion. The Arts Caainfssion, has jurisdiction over the acceptance of all art work tint is donated to the City. They will also advise the Park S e m as to suggested procedure for comilssioning art work and getting approval f.L the Arts Commission. 4. The Park PImming section will review the proposal with park operations, and suggest modifications to the proposal. The proposal, with w ggested modifications, will be reviamd, by the Park Bureau Managers and the Comm' iosaer's bffice. S. The semorial proposal gill be revia d by the Design R viaa4 Commission ( tied by an -8re3•eitect/landscape architect and a professional historian). 6. If the memDrial proposal is accepted, the propel with s stud modifications will be zeviewed with the donor, and a stwx1ard form agreement on maim weld responsibilities aramild be prepared. 6 JIM 11,1111111~imliii Feld-17-99 10:04A Portland Parks & Roc 8235570 19.07 Fountalns arm in ss category by theuisalves becae of the added emplenity of utilities necessary for insytallaticas. As thee, proposals are worse cmplex. the e 4o:mor is rel:jr.]Lired to go j:ju aagtj the entire design paVocess tl'ioe: Mce at a conceptual level and again when the design is developed.. 1. The intention to install a fountain will be submitted in writing to the Hur = .of Parks and recreation. The prcl should include as mach detail as possible, including size and preferred location, time frame al materials. The domr is required to go through the design review process with schemtic designs for the Trial. It the design is conceptually approved, the donor will be required to provide a site plan and detailed design drayrings. The donor will also resew utility hook vp necessary for Installation of the fountain, and be responsible for permits and book-up fees. This will be spelled out In an agreement with the party. 2. The Park Planning sections hill review the proposal for ccr=xrence with the Park's master plaza. If no current master Plan exists, or if them is some reason to question the surjested location in Light of circulation or use patterns, the proposal will be delayed uaatll an analysis can be dowse. Where a master plan exists and a proposed uaemerial is a variance to the master plan, the proposal will be processed as an alit to the master plan. A response to the pawl will be required within 120 days from the date the proposal is received by the City. e. The Park Pl.araning section will. review the proposal with the Vatropalitan Arts Commiisssion. The Arts Commission has j =lsdlctlon over the acceptance of all art work that is domted to the City. They will advise the Park Ruree= as to suggested procedure for comsssissiess3ng art work and getting approval from the Arts 0ollimnlsaion. 4. The Park Plazming section will review the proposal with pLrk operations. amid suggest modifications to the proposal. 71se mil, with suggested mol1ltiM-AS,• hill be reviemd by the Park Bureau ors and the loner's office. 5. The Park Planning section will review the proposal with the inter Efficiency Program of the Water B urema. F,Z Thee memorial proposal will be reviewed by the Design Review Commission taugmnnted by an architect/landscape architect and a professicrsal historian}. If the »rlal proposal is accepted, the Pz' 7 with suggested modifications will be reviewed with the dw=, and a standard fora agreement on maintezaaaoe should be prepared. 7 •Fe6-17-99 10:05A Portland Parks & Rec 8235570 P-08 1L GAEM= AND P?. M These types of installations can be truly m=Ewntal in scale, said can Change the character of a park. Other ispaCts can include mainte'TaMM. traffic, and circulation. P r these xeasions, the review procedure mast be > extensive and carefu-1. As theM ale; we more o~lex, and cats be MOM e>pensive, the donor is required to go through the entire process twice:. once at a omweptual level seed again when the design is developed. Steps; must include tare following: 1. The intention to install a memorial garden should be omitted in mr1ting to the Bureau of Patin and Recreation. The dal should include as mssch detail as posaibl,e, including general size and preferred locatIon, tisarC ftvne and ma ials. The donor is required to go through the de=sign review process with schamt4c designs for the zmarial. If the design is fly appxvved, the donor will be requite to provide a site plan and detailed design dmwings. 2. The Park Flaz=l7g section will review the pal for ~ with the parka master plan and park policies. If no current master plan exists. or if there is some reason to question the suggested location in light of the character of the park, circulation, traffic, or use patterns, the proposal will be delayed until an in-depth analysis can be dom. Whem a master plan exists and a proposed, Oa'ia1 is a varlm=e to the master plan, the yoposasl will be processed as an amenitmmt to the master pleas. If a total park master plan is required, the appliceart must share in the Cost. Tyre wmle of the study eehhvetld correspond directly to the scale of the prcpoeal. 3. The Pam planning section will review the prod with the Metropolitan Arts comission. The Arts Commission has jurisdiction over the acceace of all art work that is donated to the City. They will also advise the Park Burrow as to suggested procedure for cou issioning art work and gattim am=mal from the Arts Oaseenissica. 4. The Park Flaming section will review the proposal with park oparations, and suggest modifications to the proposal. The proposal, with suggested mid If Icatlons. will be reviened by the Park Dnwm Managers and the mmmdosioner*s office. 5. Mm saes ial prod will be reviewd by the Design Review (kMIMissiozn (auunmted by an architect/lass architect and a professiaasal historian). j 6. If the trial propogal is eaccepted, - the pawl with suggested modifications will be riavia4ed with the donor. and a standard farm agreement i cc interjance and respozssibilities should be prepared. a a tre!b-17-99 10:05A Portland Parks & Rec 8235570 P_09 Any memorial that does not fit C,-,Iy of the categories pre+viovsly described will be revia-ed according to the p=ess outlined muter "Nwrial ftrdes and Plazas." This will enmire that the process is a careful, public discussim. 9 OEM ~Mmll NONE, 'F--b-17-99 20=06A Portland Panics & Rea 82815570 P_10 PAC /1®C3S Basic Park womi.ties (such as bercbes and picric tables, trees tend shrubs) that maet park standards do not mils an extensive review pro,cess. Those may be hwid1ed administratively by, the Park Bwam to ensure that the location 1s date within the park. The Park Burs= resexves the right to adjust the locatica. If the 19, in ial mcet:s park standards for cm%str=ticn and mterlals, the Bure= x111 wmzw n8inter resPOOsibilities. If the donor requests materials aWor design that is not shard, the donor may be asked to ag=e to maint ribilities. 10 i 'Feb-17-99 10:06A Portland Parks & Rec 8235570 P_11 FmvnN PROCESS Fi rna l metal by Final approval C ft issioner & by modified Park Bureau staff* design Revie e Simple plaque x Adorned plaque x Sculpture and other permanent art work x Fbuntalps X Memorial gardens and plazas x Other X Park accessories x These mewrials will also be reviewed by Design Fj--view or Landmarks Commissions it they are in a Design Review or Lwx1marks overlay soave. Mie Design Review Commission is to be augmented by a landscape architect, if one is not already cn the panel, or an architect, if one is not already an the pwiel, as an advisory member amen wworials are belM reviewed. M-le Comissim. is also to be augmented by a professional historian as an advisory aem0xr when memorials are being reviewed. Reviews are to go through the entire process twice : the f irst review will be at the conceptual level; the second review will take place after the design is developed. In all cases if the location is in s historic district, Landmarks Commission has review authority. 11 Feb-18-99 '0-2xR4P Portland Parks & Rec 8235570 P.01 PORTLAND PARKS AND RECREATION POLICY FOR NAMING OR RENAMING PARKS, FACILITIES AND FEATURES PURPOSE: To outline the policy, criteria and process .Oav--offi~ial naming and renaming Portland Parks and Recreation properties, facilities and features within parks. BACKGROUND: Parks are integral to a community's identity. As a city agency devoted to public service through Parks and Recreation services, it is a goal of Portland Parks and Recreation to be seen as part of the fabric of that community. Stewardship of the public parks and recreation system for the greatest benefit of the community-at-large over the long term is a primary value. Geographic or names based upon distinguishing characteristics or commonly used names have as a result became the standard for this community. At the same time, it is recognized that individuals and commurrity organizations periodically wish to honor individuals or groups by naming parks and recreation assets after them. The challenge is to accomm this desire where warranted while still supporting the primary community values. POLICY: Land, facilities and features within the Portland Parks and Recr ation system will be named through an administrative process in accornce with established criteria that emphasize community identity and service to the community through the parks and recreation system. CRITERIA FOR NAMING OF PARKS. FACILITIES AND FEATURES: PARKS: First priority in naming parks shall be given to geographical location or natural or geological features. i Names in common uSage have ia secondary priority. Conditions of property donation or deed shall be honored regg{ding name y of park, although a geographic or characteristic name is preferred. Rcat-!Y Fax Note 7671 flaba To C Fmm TO Lt ° we ti coal Co ,-J r,~. a $23-5 1 ~ Far o Oa t,kv Fax . Fe6-18-9g 02:15P Portland Parks & Rec 8235570 P.02 Names that are similar to existing parks or properties in the PP&R system (or other systems in the Portland Metropolitan area) should be avoided in order to minimize confusion. Property type and intended use may be designated in the name according the definitions contained elsewhere in this policy. Parks named after an individual will include the geographic, natural or geological features as part of the name. COMMUNITY PROGRAM BUILDINGS and MAJOR FACILITIES: First priority in naming Community buildings and facilities shall be given to geographical location that identifies the community it serves. As a secondary priority, a building or major facility may be named after an individual with the following requirements: (a) Contribution to the community has been (was) through its Parks and Recreation system or programs (general contributions to the community can better be recognized in other ways). (b) Contributions to the P&R system were sustained over a long period of time. (c) The named resource is pertinent to or representative of the individuals contribution. Names that are similar to existing buildings in the system or other systems in the Portland Metropolitan area shall be avoided in order to minimize confusion. PROCEDURE: Initial Naming of Parks and Facilities PP&R staff recommends in writing a park or major facility name to the Director. In the'case of park properties, the asset often is already named when acquired. In most cases PP&R will adopt that name. The recommendation will include the following: (1) clearly show how the name is consistent with the criteria stated in this policy; (2) provide justification for the suggested park classification and its attendant development and service implications for the site. Point two does not apply to facilities. Where properties are jointly acquired with other public agencies or wholly acquired by other public agencies (but managed as part of the PP&R system) the other agency shall be consulted and their consent received for the proposed name. The Director approves or disapproves the recommendation. Fe;blr-18-99 02:15P Portland Parks & Rec 8235570 P.03 The Director may direct that a public comment process be followed which may include an ad hoc or other appropriate committee which is advisory to the Director on this matter. PROCEDURE: Renaming of Parks or Major Facilities INTRODUCTION: Renaming of parks and major facilities carries with it a greater burden of process compared to initial naming. Tradition and continuity of name and community identification are values that supersede fads and fashion. Each application must meet the criteria stated in this policy, but meeting all criteria does not assure renaming. The steps: PP&R staff or member of public recommends in a renaming proposal for a park or major facility to the Director. The written recommendation will include the following: (1) the proposed name change and the purpose of the change; (2) clearly show how the proposed name is consistent with the criteria established; (3) provide justification for the suggested park classification if it represents a change- If the proposal is to rename a park or facility after a person or persons, the application will describe the contributions to the Parks and Recreation system made by the person and why the specific naming proposal is an appropriate honor. Witten documentation of approval by the person to be honored (or next of kin, as appropriate) is required as part of the proposal. The recognized neighborhood association will be notified of the proposal when received by Portland Parks and Recreation. The proposal will be referred for revvkmiv to a standing committee whose membership are as follows: Director of Portland Parks and Recreation, staff member of the Commissioner(s)-in-charge of the Portland Parks Recreation, staff member of the Oregon Historical Society and Director of the Office of Neighborhood Associations. The Director may appoint a citizen at large member to this committee if helshe deems it desirable. 2 The committee reviews the proposal for adherence to the stated criteria { and authentication of statements relative to contributions in the case of an individual. The standing committee will present its report and recommendation to the ' Commissioner-in-Charge of Parks and Recreation who may determine that the proposal is denied. Or the Commissioner-in4rharge may direct Parks Mill III Sim Feb-18-59 02:16P Portland Parks & Rec 8235570 P-04 ,A and Recreation to hold a public meeting to gain additional public information. PP&R will report findings from the public meeting and make a recommendation to the Commissioner-in-charge. The Commissioner-in-Charge makes the decision. Appeals: Any person whose proposal is denied by the Commissioner-in- charge may appeal to the city council by petition through the city auditor. PARK CLASSIFICATIONS: INTRODUCTION: The properties managed by Portland Parks and Recreation are diverse in character, physical features and public use. It is desirable for the name of the property to suggest the level and type of development and the program intent of the asset. These descriptions are guidelines, not rigid standards; intended over time to help achieve consistent expectations from the public from the name itself. The policy intends that future park asset names be used as described. It does not imply that existing properties must be renamed so they are consistent with the policy. although there may be cases where this action would be advisable. For "developed urban parks" which are our most common public property, the term "park" is to be used. Members of the pubfic can expect some or alt of the following features: a developed landscape, pathways, playgrounds and playfieids, picnic facilities, park furniture and rest rooms- Major parks may contain large recreational facilities such as community centers, swimming pools or sports stadiums. For "developed.,naturo parks" such as Powell Butte Nature Park, the term "nature park" will be used. Members of the public can typically expect marked and maintained trails and identified access points. The size of a nature park typically would be substantial; large enough to serve as a single destination visit. For "undaveloped park land" where protection of natural resources is embraced by PP& R as tho primary objective, the term "natural area" will be used in the name. Where the park is small in size, the term "natural area" could be used even if the area has certain "nature park" development such as trails. Examples of "natural areas" include Rosemount Bluff, Elk Rock Island, Kelly Butte, Stephens Creek. For natural resource land used for a specific objective, the name might include an indication of that objective. Examples are Willamette Butterfly Park and Lents Floodplain Management Area. Fed-18-9~ 02:16P PortAand Parks & Rec 8235570 P.05 For undeveloped park land where the future. primary objective has not yet been determined, the term "properW should be used in the name. ` The use of the word "park" should he avoided to help prevent unwarranted public expectations. The implication is that this land does not fulfiil a recreational purpose nor does it receive regular maintenance for purposes of public use. r t q 7i in® ce memo Date: 1/4/99 To: Bill Monahan From: Jeff Munro RE: Memorial Policy I have done some research with other agencies regarding memorials in Parks and Greenways. The following is a list of agencies and their current policies or practices. ;TUALATIN HILLS PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT: Have no policy in affect and t> ; handle on a case by case basis. They will purchase trees and get reimbursed and they allow no plaquds,6r signs on or around trees. Will purchase benches and get reimbursed and also try to keep benches uniformed in type. No monuments allowed. y 4 r VVIQAL MALANE PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT: Currently working on a standard, ~zA,, not aYpohcy regarding memorials. Do not want to have to go to Board of Directors or Council over ai. r this issue so will come up with a department standard to work with. Have only 2 benches and 2 trees cuireritly.but have received a lot of request and feel they need to get a handle on it before it gets to big?Have thought about telling the public, for $ 100.00 you get this for $ 200.00 you get this etc..., but'feel that might not work out. So far they handle it on a case by case basis. CITY OF TROUTDALE: No policy in place. Take it case by case and try to channel in the direction of benches or trees. They provide info. as far as species and types preferred. Have named trails in the past and currently have one large memorial sign with name plaques on it for those who have drowned on the Sandy River. Went to one large sign after the request became too frequent and were putting up a lot of individual signs. CITY OF TUALATIN: No policy in place. Currently have one bench and 20 trees. Buy and bill citizen and then install to specifications. Must have a 4x8 brass plaque in concrete at the base of the tree inside the tree circle. All plaques are uniformed. Also map all locations of memorials. WEST LINN PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT: Have no policy in place. Currently handle on a case by case basis. Buy and bill citizen. Have standardized benches, but trees and plaques have no size or type limitations. They do prefer smaller signs but work with each case separately. Do have some signs as big as 12x18. CHEHALEM PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT: No current policy. Handle on a case by case basis and have no uniformity regarding trees or benches. 1 WILSONVILLE PARKS AND RECREA'T'ION: Have no currently policy and not sure they can implement one at this time. They have a park named Memorial Park where to this point citizens have donated whatever types of memorials they have wanted too. Trees, plaques, tables, benches, fountains and flagpoles have all been donated to this point. To quote the source, " it's starting to look like a graveyard down there". After speaking with these agencies, it is my recommendation that we establish a standard for which the Parks/Grounds Division can follow regarding memorial request within City owned properties. The standard should state that the plaques for trees and benches should be brass and no larger than 8"x 10" for trees and 2 " x 6" for benches. Trees must be at least 1" in caliper, native to the area and fit into the existing landscape scheme. Benches must fit with the current surroundings of the desired location and be approved by the Parks Division. Benches must be a wooden contoured or flat styled bench purchased through a Park Division approved company. This will insure that a quality and lasting bench is purchased. To date, this has not been a problem and I encourage the city to continue to stay out of the practice of buying and billing. It would be nice to get this issue resolved since I have received a request from a citizen to purchase and install a memorial bench at Summerlake Park. I informed them that we were reviewing our current practices and that I would get back to them as soon as a resolution was found. I would also recommend that an inventory and mapping of current and future memorials be done. 2 11 Mj AGENDA ITEM # Study Session FOR AGENDA OF _5 • ~f 9 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public Education and Government (PEG) Access Cable Services PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton f W4 DEPT HEAD OK Y MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL What Public Education and Government (PEG) Access Cable Services should be provided by who and at what cost. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review the attached information and get clarification on issues in preparation to provide staff direction on the issues at the May 18 Council meeting. INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 26, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 99-04, granting renewal of a cable television franchise to TCI. The new franchise agreement does not address PEG Access. Over the last few months, the MACC Board has met to review serious concerns about PEG Access. Issues raised by MACC jurisdictions included: • Community benefit of PEG Access. • More Public than Education and/or Government Programming. • The lack of programming. • Wasn't TVCA supposed to become financially independent of MACC? • The level of franchise fee support from MACC jurisdictions to PEG Access. • Should PEG Access be provided by another provider? • The length of the PEG Access contract. • TVCA's accounting practices. The memo attached briefly describes PEG Access, the issues raised by MACC jurisdictions, TVCA's proposals for PEG Access, costs and funding, the impact of TVCA's PEG Access on Tigard, and the decisions Council needs to make. The MACC Board has asked each jurisdiction to consider the following: • What services should form the basis for PEG Access? • What franchise fee level should MACC jurisdictions provide? • Who should provide PEG Access Services? • How should PEG Access be funded? The MACC Board will meet on May 19 to discuss PEG Access. The purpose of the discussion at the May 11 Council meeting is to clarify the issues and determine if more information is needed. Council will be asked to provide directions on the issues outlined in the attached memo on May 18. ~AUAWAIEWIMZAN~ M-111EM11111110 =01J OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternatives for PEG Access are outlined in the attached memo. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Community Character and Quality of Life Goal #2 "Citizen involvement opportunities will be maximized by providing educational programs on process, assuring accessibility to information, providing opportunities for input and establishing and maintaining a program of effective communication.. Strategy 1) Encourage public participation through accessibility and education." FISCAL.NOTES Fiscal impacts on the City depend on the level of franchise fee support provided. It is estimated that Tigard will pay $35,698.63 this year in franchise fees at the 15% level. iAadm\sheila\council agenda item sumnwy-PEG.dot i 1 1 1 i f I IBM MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: May 4, 1999 RE: Public Education and Government (PEG) Cable Access Programming On January 26, 1999, the City Council approved Resolution 99-04 granting renewal of a cable television franchise agreement to TCI. As Council may recall, the new franchise agreement does not specifically address Public Education and Government (PEG) Access or who will provide PEG Access programming. What is PEG Access? PEG Access generally refers to non-commercial cable channels and services available to the public, educational organizations, and governments. PEG Access channels provide a wide range of local information including public meetings, public affairs, educational, and cultural programming. PEG Access services typically include: Media Access - making technical support and production equipment available for the development of programs. Media Education - training that allows individuals and groups to learn how to create programs. Media Production - Producing coverage of local government meetings and co-producing other productions with governments, schools, and community organizations and Channel Management and Cablecasting - coordinating scheduling, cablecasting and publicizing programs over the PEG Access Channels. PEG Access television is currently managed by MACC's contract with Tualatin Valley Community Access (TVCA). The current contract with TVCA was extended by the MACC Board to June 30, 1999. Over the last few months, the MACC Board has met to review serious concerns regarding TVCA's management of the PEG, what PEG Access should include, how PEG Access should be funded, establish a process for awarding a contract to manage PEG Access, and award a contract. Page 1 M=g MACC JURISDICTION ISSUES At the MACC Board meeting of February 19, several issues were raised by various jurisdictions regarding PEG Access and/or TVCA. ➢ What is the benefit to the Community from TVCA services and Access programming and how is this documented? TVCA Response: "Viewership surveys over the years have determined that approximately half of cable subscribers watch community access programming. Although general viewership is important, the value of "narrowcasting" should also be considered. Many community access programs address particular needs within the community (e.g. Spanish language shows, programs for people with disabilities, youth or seniors). These shows can be considered a success if the people who need them know about them, without regard to audience share. At the same time, TVCA acknowledges the need to promote viewership of the access channels and increase general awareness of the programming available." A Can programming be adjusted to provide "equal time" for Public, Education, and Government o "erings? Currently, TVCA focuses more on Public or Community access. This concern is the basis for the TVCA proposals for PEG Access programming outlined in the next swt;on of this memo. ➢ How will the six channels (reduced from ten) be scheduled? TVCA Response: "As of March 15, the new TVCA Channel Lineup (including Public, Education and Government Access Channels) will include six channels instead of ten. The new lineup will be scheduled more fully with video programming; text community billboard messages will be limited. On the Government Access Channels, TVCA will expand the number of local government meeting replays and provide less 'gaps' between programming." ➢ The initial intent in making TVCA a nonprofit was for TVCA to be independent of MACC. How is TVCA moving towards independence? If TVCA is not independent of MACC, would it be more cost effective for TVCA to become part of MACC? TVCA Response: "When MACC formed TVCA in 1994, it was envisioned that a nonprofit organization would be able to raise and earn funds with more success than a cable company- managed or government-managed Access program. This has turned out to be true: TVCA has succeeded in earning/raising approximately one fifth of this year's operations budget through sources including grants, user fees, donations and Page 2 sillivilmillollillillll I min lillm===MPMJ contracts for production services. The "i VCA Sowd's Resource Development Committee, which includes fund development experts from St. Vincent Medical Foundation and Intel, provides guidance for ongoing resource development efforts. Unfortunately, TVCA's transition to becoming an "independent" organization has frequently been interpreted to mean "independent of franchise fee support from MACC or local governments." Based on TVCA's research, there is not one example in the U.S. of a self-sufficient community access organization serving a metropolitan area. This can be attributed to some key factors: (1) the community access mandate to be open to people of all income levels precludes hefty user fees; (2) foundations fund projects, not operations; (3) the First Amendment is generally challenging from a fund raising perspective; and (4) many community access operations are funded primarily through franchise fees, reducing the need for other fund development activities." ➢ Can individual MACC jurisdictions choose the level of franchise fee that goes to support PEG? The MACC jurisdictions are not in agreement on this issue. Some jurisdictions believe a minimum percentage (15%) should be agreed to by all jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions believe each City and the County should have the option to commit various levels of franchise support - including 0. MACC staff intends to recommend the optional support level at the May 19 meeting. ➢ The PEG Access contract should be opened up to other providers, should be shorter than the 15 year TCI franchise, and a selection process should be determined up front. Tigard is the only MACC jurisdiction that raised opening the process up to other providers. An informal poll conducted by the MACC staff indicates that there may be one other provider that may respond if a request for proposals is issued. The MACC staff envisions a three year renewable agreement for PEG Access with renewal tied to strict performance standards. ➢ TVCA's accounting practices need to improve. TVCA Response: "TVCA has established and maintained appropriate accounting policies and procedures at all times. TVCA has received spotless audits every year it has been in operation as a nonprofit organization and has consistently complied with all financial reporting requirements within the MACC-TVCA Access Management Contract. The TVCA Board's Finance Committee, which is chaired by a CPA, meets quarterly to provide oversight. TVCA's new Access Management Contract (which is in effect through June 30, 1999) incorporates strengthened financial reporting requirements. TVCA is now required to provide balance sheet information to MACC Page 3 quarterly (instead of annually), and the break out financial reports based on the two separate franchises (TCI-Washington County and TCI-Tualatin Valley) in the MACC- TVCA service area." MACC required stricter account reporting of TVCA as part of the recent contract extension. During the MACC contract negotiations with TCI, TVCA revealed a sizeable cash balance that had not been previously reported to MACC. TVCA PROPOSALS FOR PEG ACCESS As a result of the concerns raised by MACC jurisdictions, TVCA developed four proposed scenarios for improving PEG Access. These proposals attempt to address MACC jurisdictions request that PEG Access be more evenly provided for Public, Education and Government programming. A summary of each scenario follows: Scenario B (Revised) TVCA describes this as a baseline PEG Access Program with an increased emphasis on Government Access services and programming, and some enhancement of Educational Access Outreach. Under this scenario the installation of built-in television production systems in 13 locations would be phased in over a four year period beginning in the fall of 1999. Also included in this scenario is a series of customized Outreach workshops to promote the use of PEG Access by local governments and schools. Live and taped government meeting coverage throughout the MACC service area would increase up from an average of 13 meetings per month to 40. Additional meeting coverage would be based on jurisdictions individual needs. Examples include: *Planning Commission Meeting *School Board Meetings *Citizen Involvement Workshop *Budget Committee Meetings *Land Use Hearings Interested MACC jurisdictions could hold live interactive "Ask the Mayor and/or Council" programs once a month. This program would originate from the live link mini-studio. presently located in Aloha. Depending on the size of the jurisdictions, one - three outreach productions would be produced and aired. These productions could be special community meetings and/or events at the discretion of the local jurisdiction. a Finally, playback of government meetings would be expanded and cable casting hours would increase to 18 - 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Page 4 MINIMUM= Scenario C-1 (Revises!) This scenario is the same as B above, with the addition of a full-time Public Affairs Producer position. The addition of that position would allow for the production of a quarterly magazine - style Public Affairs series in cooperation with local governments. The series would promote citizen understanding of government and opportunities for involvement in the issues. This scenario would also allow the production of two - four town hall issue-based forums annually in cooperation with local governments and others. Examples of topics include: emergency preparedness, greenspaces, and transportation. Scenario C-2 (Revised) The scenario is the same as B above with the addition of a full-time Education Coordinator to develop media education and television production partnerships with area schools, school districts, community colleges and other educational entries. The expanded focus in this scenario would include a series of customized outreach workshops to promote the use of PEG Access by local governments and educators/schools. In addition, a quarterly education series produced in cooperation with i local schools and educators would promote awareness and understanding of education issues, success stories, and opportunities for involvement. Scenario D This scenario is the same as C-1 above along with the capacity to develop community specific governmental video newsletters in an interview format for each MACC jurisdictions two to four times per year depending on the size of the jurisdiction. COSTS AND FUNDING TVCA will spend an estimated $825,770 in fiscal year 1998-1999 for PEG Access operations. For purposes of estimating costs, TVCA projected 15 years out - the length of the MACC contract with TCI. Scenario B described above is the least expensive option proposed by TVCA. The total cost in fiscal year 1999-2000 is estimated at $795,000. The cost would go down to $754,476 in fiscal year 2012-2013. The decrease is due primarily to a reduction in staff needed for government meeting coverage as built-in systems are installed. e Scenarios C-1 and C-2 would cost about the same - $795,900 in FY 1999-2000 and an estimated $818,859 in 2012-2013. Although there would be some reduction in personnel as outlined to Scenario B, there would also be a corresponding increase to fund either the Public Affairs Producer or the Education Coordinator. Scenario D is the most expensive option presented costing $795,900 in 1999-2000 and $844,104 in 2012-2013. The increase in the final year over option B includes a Public Affairs Producer and a part-time Government Staff Producer. Page 5 NOW Some changes in federal law and the new MACC-TCI franchise agreement have altered the revenue available for PEG Access. Under the previous MACC-TCI franchise agreement, TO provided approximately $500,000 annually for PEG Access operations. That contribution is not in the new franchise agreement. Under the new franchise an "incidental payment" of up to $150,000 may be available for PEG Access at the discretion of the MACC Board. The "incidental payment" will only be in place the first four years of the franchise agreement. A sizable capital fund will be available for PEG Access capital needs at the discretion of the MACC Board. This fund is also available to the Public Communications Network (PCN). It is estimated that $730,730 total will be available in the first year and $1,441,749 in the last year of the franchise. This money can not be used for PEG Access operations. Due to the reduction in PEG Access operations funding, TVCA has down-sized its' operations almost exclusively in Public Access activities. The four proposals for PEG Access submitted by TVCA to the MACC Board for consideration all contain the same funding assumptions. The first assumption is receipt of $150,000 in "incidental payment" for four years. This money is also available to the PCN and in fact, may be used for any purpose allowed by law at the discretion of the MACC Board. The second assumption is the continuation of franchise fee support at least 15% from all MACC jurisdictions. TVCA also assumes earned income from changing fees, raised income from fund raising efforts, and spending down cash reserves. In addition, TVCA includes an assumption for rental income from leasing a portion of a new facility. To offset the loss of a substantial portion of their operations revenue, TVCA proposes construction of an 11,000 square facility. Leasing 4,000 square feet of the building would provide rental income that TVCA would spend on operations. Further, by owning a building, TVCA eliminates the cost of leasing space from the cost of operations. All of TVCA's proposed scenarios assume receipt of a large portion of the capital grant funds available from MACC over the next 15 years. In fact, TVCA assumes $687,000 in fiscal year 1999-2000 of the estimated $730,730 available. The capital funds are also available for the PCN. Many MACC jurisdictions and school districts have identified needs for the PCN. For example, the City Tigard may request PCN grant funds to install high speed cable that would increase modem speed and make the Internet connection faster. The MACC Board has expressed reservations to TVCA about their new building proposal. In fact, the Board has directed TVCA to consider construction of a smaller facility, purchasing an existing facility, or other options that would be less dependent on the MACC capital fund. 9 Page 6 fi o ~ IMPACT ON TIGARD At the 15% franchise fee level, Tigard will pay $35,698.63 this year to TVCA for PEG Access. An additionai 18% is paid to MACC. The City retains $135,654.81, or 57% of Tigard's share of the total franchise fees collected from TCI. Scenario B proposed by TVCA assumes the continuation of a 15% franchise fee to TVCA. Under scenario B, the City would be eligible for the installation of a built-in video production system in the Town Hall. If the City had to purchase the system, it would cost an estimated $60,430. The City budgeted $5,200 for fiscal year 1999-2000 to pay for cablecasting Council meetings. A built-in system would reduce the cost to an estimated $2,100 for one meeting a month in the first year. The installation of cameras in the Town Hall and the commitment under scenario B for TVCA to cablecast more government meetings would allow the City to cablecast more Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings or other meetings held in the Town Hall with an extended playback schedule. The City could take advantage of live monthly "Ask the Mayor/Council" program and request cablecasting of two special meetings or events per year. DECISIONS The next MACC Board meeting will be held May 19, 1999. At the last meeting, Member jurisdictions were asked to get direction from their Councils or Commissions on the following: 1) Which TVCA scenario proposed should for the basis for future PEG Access? 2) A recommendation on franchise fee shares for MACC jurisdictions. Should jurisdictions be provided with options or agree to a set amount? 3) Should MACC invite proposals for PEG Access or enter into contract negotiations with TVCA as the PEG Access provider? 4) Concerns or comments regarding TVCA's funding proposal: specifically the use of incidental payments, the capital grant fund or the construction of a PEG Access facility. The purpose of the discussion at the May 11 City Council meeting is the clarify the issues for Council members, answer questions and determine if Council members need additional information. Council members will be asked to provide direction on the items above at the May 18 Council meeting. Councilor Scheckla will represent the Council's positions to MACC at the Board meeting on May 19. I:\ADM\LIZ\990430ME MO-MACC-TVCA. DOC Page 7 r' AGENDA ITEM NO: 3 -VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : May 11, 1999 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF CONTACTED NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC Deb-ct EO h a0^ f-- LAB a pfa c o 1 o3go sw +Ctbl e-s-f- 61q-4432 Ca,c; scl 11-cl ~ts AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 DATE: May 11, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR BABIES-R-US COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 98-0004/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 98-0027/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 98-0014 PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS s AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 'ASE P13 IN' Proponent - (S kin In Favor) O ent - (S kin A ainst) utral Name, Address and Phone No. e, Address and Phone No. Na e, Address and Phone No. "Sac( O rc k ce t &4 W ~I6ww-j' ~ %I,* O O'krZ .tit Ce r H !'~aCR fo1 SW AAcetH St- ~J(7-, 2~ Por tlotf A, 4-204 / z -z sus~~~<t.1~ ~12D 0*- 1 14 Name, Address and Phone No. ame, Address and Phone No. N e, Address and Phone No. ill I( lam ~O r L 6"D S.w. AIdQ~, -5,4e• 700 ;2,44..,A o cz ~ 7 z° 5 zzs9 - s'z s c Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. OEM OEM AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 DATE: May 11, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING - MODIFY METRO GREENSPACES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACIIED SHEETS AGENDA ITEM NO. S PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (S kin In Favor) ® nent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. "sc o,- sws4 &P~ -F -71 7-Y 6'7r®-- rrozS, Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. e, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. m Name, Address and Phone No. JN' Name, Address and Phone No. ame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. -11 Emil lilem P6o. For Council Necwslettor dated MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON! TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder DATE: May 6, 1999 SUBJECT: Revised Agenda and Council Packet Material for the May 11, 1999 City Council Meeting Attached is a revised agenda for May 11, 1999. The only change to the agenda is the addition of Consent Agenda Item 4.3, which requests approval of a resolution to appoint Planning Commissioner John Olsen to the Transportation Bond Task Force. Commissioner Olsen volunteered to replace Commissioner David Anderson on the task force. Commissioner Anderson is moving out of the city and has resigned his position on the Planning Commission. Also attached is a replacement resolution for Agenda Item No. 8 along with a memorandum from Duane Roberts noting the reason for the change to the resolution previously submitted to the Council. IM M\CATHMOUNCIL\MEMORANDUM - REVISED 5-11-99.DOC I I 1 { i 3 I .l AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 5/11/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Presentation by Curtis Tigard PREPARED BY: Melinda Sisson DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL On behalf of his sister, Grace T. (Tigard) Houghton, Curtis Tigard will present a donation to the City of Tigard Library. City Council will accept this donation to benefit the Library. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That City Council adopt Resolution No._ accepting the donation to the Tigard Public Library from the Revocable Living Trust of Grace T. Houghton. INFORMATION SUMMARY Grace T. Houghton created a Revocable Living Trust with U.S. Bank as Successor Trustee at her death. Mrs. Houghton passed away on November 1, 1998. Upon her death, the trust terminates. The terms of the trust state that the remaining share shall go to various beneficiaries. Mrs. Houghton has specifically devised the following items to Tigard Public Library: "One of such parts (.3333% of the remaining residue of the trust estate) to the City of Tigard, Oregon, Public Library, established pursuant to ORS 357.400 et seq, or any successor, the principal thereof to be applied and utilized in establishing, furnishing, designating and supplying a room or area to be known as the "Houghton Browsing Room", marked by a bronze plaque; provided, that such funds may be so utilized only with respect to a library building constructed on lands owned by the City of Tigard, or its governmental successor; and further provided, that the income from said fund may in the discretion of the City Library administration, be utilized for general purposes of the Tigard City Library administration. It is my intent hereby that the principal of such fund shall remain intact except for expenditures as hereinabove stated." (see attachment) OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Library will have a stable funding base for the provision of basic services Seek alternatives to current tax base funding mechanism. 'e FISCAL NOTES The City Attorney's Office and the Finance Director both estimate the value of this donation to be approximately $500,000. I:\CITYW IDE\SUM\LIBRARYSUM051199.DOT 1 i i d 3 Y AGENDA ITEM # ~7 FOR AGENDA OF May 11, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Oregon Green School Recognition PREPARED BY: Loreen Mill 4-~DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Presentation of the Oregon Green School Certificate to Mary Woodward Elementary School. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Present the certificate and Green School window sticker. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard works in cooperation with the Washington County Cooperative Recycling Program. A component of the work program is school recycling. This year, Mary Woodward Elementary School has completed the five basic elements in the Oregon Greer. Schools Recognition Program. An Oregon Green School: Involves and educates students & staff about waste reduction; Conducts waste evaluations; °e Reduces their waste stream using all three R's (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle); ~g Defines a sustainable waste reduction program; and ~a Tracks and reports their results. Principal Art Rutkin and the school Recycling Coordinator Dovina Greco will be attending the Council meeting to accept the certificate. Philip Slomiak is a student at Mary Woodward who has been instrumental in the success of this program and will also be attending the Council meeting. A certificate of recognition will be presented to Philip. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Recycling activity and recycling awareness are not currently addressed in the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goals. _ FISCAL NOTES No impact on Tigard's budget. Applicant's Name A r+- R u _k i n Date 1/12/ 9 9 'm"'hcbhow%1 Apo'Alcation, Use this application to become an Oregon Green School. This application is both a tool forsetting up your waste reduction program and a record of your activities. Each boxed item (CI) represents important aspeR@&@ V ED successful, comprehensive waste reduction program. Please provide short, concise answers to the following questions, attaching additional sheets as necessary. If you have any questions about this application or 0W 16 M9 Oregon Green Schools, please contact your local Green Schools Coordinator. Ans' SCHOOL Mary Woodward F.1 Pmentary Snhnnl Address ] 23 S qw Ka heri nP Ti aard, Or_ 97923 Phone (503) 684-2282 pax (503) 684-2216 Number of Students h 7 S Number of Staff 55 Name of Garbage Hauling Company Pri do- INVOLVEMENT @ Identify a School Recycling Coordinator School's Recycling Coordinator Dovi na Grecg _ Coordinator's Job Title Schnol Recy -ling ronrdi natnr Phone (503) 684-2282 ❑ Provide training to students and staff on how to participate in the school's waste reduction program. Provide examples of how students and staff are regularly informed about participating in your school's waste reduction pro ram. *Through school sta?f bulletin and parent newsletter *We talk about recyling during morning announcments *We have posters distributed throughout the school *We have recycle bins in each classroom *Recycling is taught throughout grade levels as part of the school curriculum. EVALUATION ❑ Observe and describe the school's waste composition annually Write a brief summary on how your school identified the types and sources of materials found ~CkV- in the garbage during this school year. Briefly describe your findings. r,tc-,~ We recycle all-paper products at the school. As a result, our daily Jai. .5 garbage volume has decreased significantly. We estimate that over 95% Cjv of our recycling comes from the classrooms. We have set up a challenc \ to improve our cafeteria garbage volume that can'be recycled. This includes milk and juice containers as well as lunch bags. We have improved collecting pop cans through announcements and setting up pop can containers. ❑ Identify the School's Total Solid Waste Volume Indicate the total weekly volume of waste generated by the school. Weekly volume of Solid Waste: in cu Yards PERMANENCE ❑ Define written waste reduction goals and objectives Attach a copy of your school's plan to generate less waste. We now do an excellent job of recycling.in the classrooms and staff work room. We need to do a better job in the cafeteria. Our goal would be to reduce the 10 cubic yards of wasia per week to 8 cubic yard within the next school year. See attached school objectives. REDUCTION ❑ Demonstrate a reduction in the purchase or consumption of a product List the product(s) or material(s) your school has reduced in consumption over the last year. Provide a brief description of what your school did and estimate the amount reduced, any cost savings, and the impact (if any) on your school's waste stream. We have made a strong effort to reduce the amount: of copy paper used in the classrooms. First, teachers needed to be aware of the volume of copy paper used and how they might avoid using excess amounts. Not only did we discuss printing costs but ways of avoiding unnecessary printing, such as using double side when possible. We have also made inroads by reusing construction paper for class projects. ❑ Demonstrate the reuse of materials at the school Briefly describe how your school reuses materials to help reduce waste and conserve resources. We have begun to reuse construction paper whenever possible for class- room projects. The office staff will recycle paper in the staff work- room to use as message pads. Staff often works with recycled material brought from home for art and curriculum related projects. L7 Recycle at least 3 materials List and estimate the total weekly weight and'volume of each of the materials recycled. Recycled Material Weight Volume (in pounds) (in gallons) Paper 230 lbs. 110 gallons Pop Cans 1 lb. 14 gallons ko i a ' aaa wa~brW sneeze u roceuuy { { { REPORTING ❑ Report waste reduction efforts to key people in the school Provide waste reduction plan and Green School application to the following people at school: Ed Principal informed of school's waste reduction efforts. E Custodial Staff informed of waste reduction efforts ® Teaching Staff informed of waste reduction efforts * Food Service Provider informed of waste reduction efforts Principal's Signature ieYR~M97ilfilll~- Mary Woodward School Objectives Green School Application Permanence Objectives 1. Between September 1999 and June 2000 we will reduce our garbage service by one cubic yard per week. Please note: We are a growing in student population and can still reduce solid waste volume). 2. Reduce food waste in the cafeteria. This year our school salad bar contains at least seven items. We also have a daily menu with three main choices. This will give us an opportunity to start a food campaign next year to reduce waste by at least 20 "What you get is what you eat'. 3. We will do a classroom by classroom education on recycling. This will be in conjunction working with METRO on a recycling Woodward Garden project. We will have on site at least 10 recycling bins by the fall 1999. 4. Reeducate staff about paper and other recyclable items. This staff inservice will be in conjunction with the Woodward Garden recycling project. PAUL NORR ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 7we Hmrow Wp.ox Noum / 931 S.W. IOrw Avcxur- S=O" ftoort f l iqq FCMIAWO. Oet Wtj 07205 L E: (5031 229-3882 (J IY1 {~iU~`^~V Fiv(: (5035 225•1028 May 10, 1999 James M. Coleman O'Donnell Ramis Crew et al 1727 NW Hoyt St. Portland, OR 97209 Re: Erickson Heights Planned Development (City of Tigard SUB 98-0009; PDR 98-0010; VAR 98-0010) REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL VOLUNTARILY WITHDRAW AND RECONSIDER ITS DECISION AS ALLOWED BY ORS 197.830(12) (b) AND OAR 661-010-0021. Dear Jim: Enclosed is a copy of a Notice of Intent to Appeal which I have filed•with LUBA on behalf of my clients, Debra and William Eckhardt. As you know, state statutes and LUBA rules allow the City Council to voluntarily withdraw its decision in this case so that the Council can reconsider and change its decision. This letter is a request that the City Council do so in this case. Please inform the City'Council that they may now withdraw their decision rather than go forward with the LUBA appeal. It is my understanding that City staff expects'this case to be remanded to the City. Voluntary withdrawal will save'all parties time and money, and would allow a better and more legally defensible City Council decision to be made. My clients are willing to agree to additional time for the Record to be submitted if that would assist the City Council in. evaluating their option to withdraw and reconsider this case. R _ ully, Paul Norr PN/2 - c: All panties served with Notice of intent to Appeal City of Tigard Community rDeveropmetit ShapingA Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGA RE 13125 SW Half Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: City Council - FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: May 11, 1999 SUBJECT: Bernstein Traffic Report/Erickson Heights Subdivision The City Council held a public hearing on the Erickson Heights Subdivision on January 26, 1999. The Council continued the hearing to February 10, 1999. On February 10, 1999, the Council approved the plan subject to the applicant preparing the findings. The Council reviewed the findings and adopted them on April 20, 1999. A Bernstein Traffic Report dated March 5, 1999 was prepared for the Kable Street Neighborhood Group. This report was submitted after the record was closed and was not part of the record. The report was not part of the staff analysis, nor did staff review it. It is our understanding that the Erickson Heights Subdivision has been appealed to LUBA. In LUBA proceedings, the City is the respondent. The subdivision applicant can intervene in the proceedings to defend their findings. LUBA rules also allow for the City to request LUBA to remand the review directly back to the City. This can be done to allow reconsideration of their original decision and allowance of new evidence or testimony. There has been disagreement about whether and/or not the 120-day limit applies to a City initiated remand. Our City Attorney's office believes that this process is not subject to the 120-day rule. 1Acurp1nklickVettersV3emstein Traffic Report memo.dot Tigard Council Tentative Agenda 05125199 - Business Due 5113199 ~r or ksbOF gilt Timl 0511%199 - study $eSSion Trainin t Due; 516199 Ci Elections - A 1199 - $us►neSs workshop TOPics 0511 team nt ' 412$144 CIT -facilitator resource Due' fundu~ Presentation ion of the mt Broadwa'Rose study 5ess at the end ation n {rom 4120 valuatio- Com Dev. Cola moved Ci Mar'a er E date - cation Water eetin fiance u && Govt Boavc d 3 o`nt M access - L>z t Agenda Title 3 com Libra on (pF-G) cable 15 min- Consen metro P Pxo osed ublic Edu File: TV CAl uection Alliance - - 30 mini mutes Cable Access t Council D ortation 99'00 tGus R ~ A e rove l~ Discuss ion on V alle W estside Transp tpEGl Tualatin Clp projects for FY Proposed -1-ta cif Goal U services emorials Coup Re orts city Policy on M Council Liaison consent Agenda Receive & File: 1 A rove Minutes 3 enda 3 2a Tentative C lendar 3.2b. Council elinda e resentative M eeting ate Rev • " LOreen Atfalati RRe uestlResolutian - BusinessM Waste R Libra lrearin -Solid US public Babies It Loreen Activt Final order - f franchise - Critr►tnal ' to Schn'iAt transfer o Forfeiture Cha ter 1. i8 Pro e m AAminisuation m Business Meeting I oreew tion 3 Ott - Adminis Re Susa Dev. 0 S~m tra Visionresentation endmt•lCOn'tn' volunteer P plan Am min -Duane E Comp• aGes110 Babies-F-_ S MenO Greens Ptl - Modrf M West Ma Wood etro S Q - - proclamation at pxesentat10n d Green School A d -Lateen war School Session 30 mint BilUSand ,Executive TpoA Discussion - a nd ge true A to n Tigard Council Te 06122199 -Business Due; 6110199, orkshop Brody $ession 06115199 Due; 613199 ics 6108199 -Bus"Hess ~doxlcshoP T°p Loteen to tam Undate - Loteen 30m Due 5125199 Co.min lin U date - x Facili Com Hance stt~ay pion date -Loteen Y2kU enaa j date - LOT el Consent A~ ADP`Facili Receive 8 File: consent panda Receive & File. 3.l A love Minutes enda 3 2 a. Tentative A 3.2 b. Council Calendar W a ne eeting Ad lion- Wa el Business d et$eatin' & A Shaun 1999100 B venues(Revenue sniputes) share re Y 1999!00 (Gus - 20 State- for F ClP Budget 15 tnu►. oat u date dt's - Loteen Council Transfer - aste SIC golidw 'Bugg ess Meeting out volunteers ninon - V acation Volunteer Reco t,Street PEI _ Ross Swee Agenda Rom No. H. Meeting of • q If MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan DATE: May 4,1999 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, May 1999 - July 1999 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Cale :oars. May 03 Mon Budget Committee Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 10 Mon Budget Committee Meeting (6:30 p.m.) * 11 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session -Business Meeting 17 Mon Budget Committee Meeting (6:30 p.m.) * 18 Tues Council Workshop Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 24 Mon Budget Committee Meeting (6:30 p.m.) * 25 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting 31 Mon Memorial Day Holiday - City Hall Offices Closed une * 08 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting * 15 Tues Council Workshop Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 18-20 Thurs- Tigard Festival of Balloons Sun * 22 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting tl 04 Mon Fourth of July Holiday - City Hall Offices Closed * 13 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting * 20 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) * 27 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting 1Aadm\cathy\councH\ccca1.doc 7 AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of S. I1 CITY OF IGARD, GRiEGGIY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Bid Award of New TV Inspection Equipment to be installed into existing vehicle. PREPARED BY: Eric/ Hand, WW/STM Supervisor DEPT BEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Award Bad of New TV Inspection Equipment to Municipal Supply Ccupany for the bid mount of $83,476.20. The New TV Inspection Equipment includes installation of new flooring, wall covering, cabinetry, electrical components, monitor, VCR, cable reel and cable etc..., and a new swivel head camera, transporter, and mini-camera system. STAFF RECOWdENDATION Award bid to Municipal Supply Canpany, 1380 W. 10th, Coquille, OR 97423. The Municipal Supply Ccnpany met all bid specifications as written and this inspection will best meet the W/S7W Section's future inspection needs. The Municipal Supply Company is the exclusive Oregon dealer for R. S. Technical Services, Inc., based in Petaluma, CA. INFOR24TION SUI26RY This New TV Inspection Equipment will replace our existing 1990 Telespector Inspection System which is used daily to perform routine video inspection of storm and sanitary lines, preacceptance inspection of newly constructed lines, and timely response to customer service requests. Our current system has been a workhorse, inspecting approximately 270 miles of pipe over the past 9 years. It is now experiencing increased downtime for maintenance and repairs. Also, the mini-camera portion of the Telespector system is broken beyond repair. The New TV Inspection Equipment will be installed into our existing 1990 TV truck thus saving the additional cost of a replacement vehicle. The approximate cost of a new TV truck and inspection system is $130,000. This New TV Inspection Equipment includes a camera with a swiveling head that will allow the operator inspect a portion of each sanitary or storm service while inspecting the mainline. This will allow the WW/STM Section to improve customer service by notifying the property owner in the event their service line is in need of maintenance. ME ligolMME OTHER ALTERmTIVES CONSIDERED 1. Not replacing the existing Telespector Inspection Equipment. Reduction in customer service as crews are delayed due to increased equipment down time. Possibly not meeting annual video inspection objectives set forth by Unified Sewerage Agency. Potential reduction in funding. 2. Repair Telespector Inspection Equipment. Less expensive, but still increased equipment down time as older parts continue to wear out. Reduction in customer service. Mini-Camera not repairable. FISCAL NOTES Total cost of New TV Inspection Equipment: 1. Kunicipal Supply Ceupany, (RST) $83,476.20 including, $4,000 credit £or trade-in o£ Telespector equipment. 2. All West Underground, (PearPoint) $101,004.00 This equipment replacement, $85,000.00, was scheduled and budgeted for as part the Sanitary, (2120), & Storm, (2125) 98/99 budget. Installation and delivery will be completed by June 30th, 1999. IMIJ CITE' OF TIGARID "BED PROPOSAL" _ ONE (1) CURRENT YEAR (NEW) TV INSPECTION FV UirMENT for the City of Tigard Public Works Wastewater/Storm Drain Division. The undersigned proposes to furnish labor, equipment, transportation and materials at the price indicated, all in accordance with the specifications and provisions listed in this "Invitation to Bid. DESCRIPTION UNIT TV Inspection equipment (numerically) $ 97 14 7O. " Bid price per unit written: av ou (dollars) (cents) TRADE-IN d Existing Telespector Video Equipment (numerically) $ /-/0 O (As listed in Section 4) (dollars) (cents) Grand Total (numerically) $ 3- yf76. Q ° (dollars) (cents) Company Name: X4,V I C,a S', M/V 0 - Address: P0. Hox b a 7 L-t Contact Person: y to e K/e, Coo Title: PRe-9Wem i /0a),y eR 9 7 9 x 3 Phone: d 0 75.2 3 -9(0 Signature 7thorized Representative Date Title 22 CWVCF7MAIM ~~9pe~ s $ 106, 004.00 One-hundred,six thousand and four dollars, zero.cents ary..,.s~..~..~.osate tt..nttttttt..n~ipa~naMiiwaaot®s`..+s TUMM 5.000.00 (As lkftd tu Ogadm 4 $ ,v thoLGand dolls s an zero cents. Who) One-hundred one thousand and four dollars, zero cents. Allwest Underground Marnel Camp males Manager 360-576-1073 n Z7. N ®f f~~~ o.ygn~~.ss~..a~+~s...~s • $ lY6T V AGENDA ITEM # b FOR AGENDA OF May 11. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for Bonita Road Im rovements - Phase 3 PREPARED BY: Vannie Ng_uven DEPT HEAD OK: bus uenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahan ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of Bonita Road Improvements - Phase 3? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Excel Excavation, Inc. in the amount of $192,944.25 INFORMATION SUMMARY The Oregon Department of Transportation Order Number 96-009 and amended Order Number 98-013 directed improvements to the railroad-highway at-grade crossings at Bonita Road. All improvements are to be paid for by the City of Tigard. The project to upgrade the crossings and reconstruct Bonita Road from the Fanno Creek Bridge to the railroad tracks was included in the 1997-98 CIP (Capital Improvement Program) and carried over to the 1998-99 CIP. The project was split into three phases: Phase 1 is the utility relocation, Phase 2 is the reconstruction of the railroad crossings and installation of the railroad flashing signals, and Phase 3 is the roadway reconstruction and widening. Phases I & 3 are to be constructed by the City of Tigard while Phase 2 is to be performed by Portland & Western Railroad. Phase I has already been completed by the City via construction contract. Phase 2 was initiated by Portland & Western Railroad using their own railroad contractor. The work to reconstruct the crossings and signals has been completed. Approval of the contract award of Bonita Road Improvements - Phase 3 would complete the segment of Bonita Road between Hall Boulevard and 72nd Avenue. i The bid opening was conducted on May 27, 1999. The bid results are: i Crestview Construction, Inc. Hillsboro, OR $148,807.00 Excel Excavation, Inc. Tualatin, OR $192,944.25 Benge Construction Co. Tualatin, OR $194,425.00 Morse Bros. Sherwood, OR $206,280.00 Marshall Assoc. Contractors, Inc. Tualatin, OR $218,347.00 D & D Concrete & Utilities, Inc. Tualatin, OR $233,909.00 1111110 ONE-- WJ S Wayne Jesky Construction Clackamas, OR $238,034.17 Engineer's Estimate $252,971.00 Crestview Construction, Inc. has decided to withdraw their bid because they failed to include the cost of obtaining Railroad permit and flagging service that would have been $22,000 more than their original bid. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The improvements on Bonita Road meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Improve Traffic Safety. It improves and widens the existing street to encourage through traffic on major collectors and arterials. FISCAL NOTES This project was authorized in the FY 1998-99 CIP and funded from Traffic Impact Fees in the amount of $674,000. Phase 2 of the project expended $414,000 leaving $260,000 in the project fund. This amount is sufficient to award the contract of $ 192,944.25. iAeng\99cip\bn1ta-rc\counci1 agenda item.doc CITY OF TIGARID Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGAIM 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Phone (503) 639-4171 Fax (503) 684-7297 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Vannie Nguyen, P.E. Engineering Manager DATE: May 4, 1998 SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Bonita Road Improvements - Phase III The bid opening of the above-referenced project, which was conducted on May 27, 1999, shows Crestview Construction, Inc. as the lowest bidder with the bid amount of $148,807.00. Excel Excavation, Inc submitted the second lowest bid of $192,944.25 which is $44,137.25 higher than Crestview's bid. Please refer to the bid results shown on the Council Agenda Item Summary for the agenda of May 11, 1999. Crestview Construction has asked to be allowed to withdraw its proposal because it failed to include the cost of obtaining railroad permit and flagging services. After reviewing the bid tabs and the Standard Specifications of the. American Public Works Construction (APWA), the staff recommendation is to award the contract to the second lowest bidder, Excel Excavation, Inc. This appears to be the most appropriate and expedient course of action. The owner (City) has the option to allow this. Section 103.5.00, "Failure to Execute Contract" of the APWA says, "Failure on the part of the bidder to execute the contract in accordance with subsection 103.4.00 will be just cause for cancellation of the award and forfeiture of the proposal guaranty. The forfeited proposal guaranty shall become the property of the owner as liquidation of damages sustained by the breach of contract by the bidder. The owner may then award the contract to the next lowest acceptable bidder, re-advertise the work, or take such other course the owner deems expedient". The City could award the project anyway and if the bidder fails to execute the contract within saic, line, then the City could cancel the award and the bidder would forfeit the proposal guaranty. The forfeited proposal guaranty assumes that there are damages sustained by breach of contract by the bidder. At this point there may not be any actual damages sustained. If the contractor executes the contract and tries to complete the project, we are at risk of default by the contractor. This becomes a lose/lose situation for both the City and the contractor. The contractor could become insolvent, bankrupt, or just fail to make payments to subcontractors and suppliers. Most likely he will look for ways to save money, take shortcuts, and generally sacrifice the quality of the project. It appears to be in the best interest of the City to allow Crestview Construction, Inc. to withdraw their bid and award the project to Excel Excavation, Inc. Attachment: Section 103, "Award and Execution of Contract", of the APWA. C: Bill Monahan, City Manager Agustin Duenas, City Engineer 15 v 4 103 Award and Execution of Contract 103.1.00 Contents of Contract The contents of the contract may include, but not be limited to, the standard specifications and drawings, special provisions, plans, a bid schedule, the method of payment, the signed proposal, the performance and payment bond, and the executed agreement. 103,2.00 Award of Contract The award will be made by the owner to the bidder submitting the acceptable proposal with the lowest total bid. In determining the lowest acceptable bid, the owner may take into account, among other factors: a) The prices bid including discounts; b) The time of completion or delivery proposed between equal bids; c) The relative merits and performance of any item specifically proposed by the bidder; d) Any variation in maintenance and warranty period specially proposed by the bidder in excess of minimums specified; e) The realistic balance of prices in the proposals for various units of work; and, f) The experience and ability of the bidder to perform the work. The owner reserves the right to waive informalities or irregularities in the proposals. Determination of the lowest acceptable bidder and award may be subject to review and determination by the owner as to the legal sufficiency of any proposal submitted. The award of contract, or the rejection of all bids, will be made by the owner within 45 calendar days after the date of opening of the proposals. 103.3.00 Performance and Payment Bond The performance and payment bond to be furnished by the successful bidder shall be the bond of a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon. The bond must be acceptable to the owner. The amount of the performance and payment bond shall be the same as the amount of the contract. The performance and payment bond must be signed by the surety company's Attorney-in-Fact. The surety's seal must also be affixed to the performance and payment bond. Power of Attorney for the Attorney-in-Fact must be attached to the bond. 103.4.00 Execution of the Contract The bidder to whom the contract is awarded shall, within ten work days from the date of receipt, deliver to the owner the fully executed contract along with required insurance certificates and performance and payment bonds. The owner will execute the contract within ten work days and forward a copy to the contractor. 103.5.00 Failure to Execute Contract Failure on the part of the bidder to execute the contract in accordance with subsection 103.4.00 will be just cause for cancellation of the award and forfeiture of the proposal guaranty. The forfeited proposal guaranty shall become the property of the owner as liquidation of damages sustained by the breach of contract by the bidder. The owner may then award the contract to the next lowest acceptable bidder, re-advertise the work, or take such other course the owner deems expedient. 103.6.00 Notice to Proceed After the contract has been executed and the performance and payment bond and all required insurance certificates have been received and approved by the owner, the engineer will issue a written notice to proceed. 14 WINNOW pill, Is M AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF May 11 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appointment to the Transportation Bond Task Force ✓ PREPARED BY: Diane Jelderks (6~ DEPT HEAD O us ua CITY MGR OK Bill Monahan iSS1JE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council pass a resolution appointing John Olsen as one of the Planning Commission representative on the Transportation Bond Task Force? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council pass the resolution appointing John Olsen to the Transportation Bond Task Force. INFORMATION SUMMARY Resolution No. 99-19 appointed David Anderson as one of the Planning Commission representatives for the Transportation Bond Task Force. David Anderson is moving out of the city and has resigned his position on the Planning Commission. John Olsen has volunteered to be replace Mr. Anderson on the task force and has attended the first meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. The Planning Commission asked for a volunteer at their March 15, 1999, meeting and John Olsen volunteered. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The improvements proposed for funding through a Road Bond issue would meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goals of Improve Traffic Safety and Improve Traffic Flow. FISCAL NOTES No funding requirements at this point. i:\citywide\sum.dotl.WrVWLw etenMMgs%Aenaa 130 bite ooc loll 11milml I FAX TRANSMITTAL Date May 7, 1999 Number of pages including cover sheet 6 To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: Cathy Wheatley. City Recorder Co: Co: City of Tigard Fax Fax 684-7297 Ph 639-4171. Ext. 309 SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 5 - 5/11/99 Council Packet MESSAGE: Here is a staff report that should have gone in your Friday mail packet, which I inadvertently left out! The report gives you background information on the update for Tigard Beyond Tomorrow. Have a great weekend! 1:WNG%FAX.DOT AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OFS - l 1 , q q CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Update PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton L ~y~ 1 DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL An update on the implementation of the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action necessary. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is a written summary of the progress on implementation of the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Goals. A brief oral report of the program highlights will be presented to Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goals that are highlighted are listed in the attached report. FISCAL NOTES None. iNadniMbeilAouncil agenda item surnmury-tigard beyond tomorrow.dot TIOARD BEYOND TOMORROW UPDATE 1999 - First Report - January through April TARGET AREA GOAL ACTIONS THiS %QRP' R o o=R Community Character Volunteerism: #1 City will maximize s Articles appear in every issue of & Quality of Life the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit Cityscape to promote various to accomplish the greatest good for our volunteer opportunities. community. s On April 17, 1999, Volunteers participated in Earth Day activities - a new event for Tigard. ♦ The City has begun focusing on recruiting businesses to participate in Volunteer activities. CIT attendees review agendas quarterly and set priorities for future agendas. Members who can't attend are asked to call staff with concerns or suggestions. On average, a dozen calls are received before each meeting. Community Character Downtown: #1 Provide opportunities to The Central Business District Association & Quality of Life work proactively with CBD businesses has filed with the state as a C-3 and property owners and citizens of corporation. They will resume work on Tigard to set the course for the future their strategic plan when the state of the central downtown area. approves the filing. Community Character Community Events: #1 Develop The Social Services Subcommittee of the & Quality of Life overall approach for sponsoring Budget Committee recommended that community events that establishes City Council set a threshold for funding I balance among popular or traditional designated community events such as the standing events, requests for new Balloon Festival and 4th of July. events and limited City resources. Growth & Growth 41 Accommodate growth while The Washington Square Task Force Management protecting the character and livability of continues to meet. Recent topics of new and established areas. discussion include Density issues and Wetlands. The Task Force is scheduled to complete its work in June. #2 Urban services are provided to all At the direction of City Council, staff is citizens within Tigard's urban growth preparing information to analyze the boundary and recipients of services infrastructure needs and costs in the pay their share. Walnut Island. After a public information plan is implemented, a decision on annexation will be made by Council. #3 The City encourages and supports The City's Housing Code took effect on private sector programs to maintain May 3. The Housing Code will ensure diverse and affordable housing. that the housing stock meets minimum standards for heath and safety. The Housing Inspector investigated six complaints the first week of the new program. 6 TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW UPDATE 1999 - First Report - January through April TARGET AREA GOAL ACTIONS THIS QUARTER Community Character Volunteerism: #1 City will maximize o Articles appear in every issue of & Quality of Life the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit Cityscape to promote various to accomplish the greatest good for our volunteer opportunities. community. ♦ On April 17, 1999, Volunteers participated in Earth Day activities - a new event for Tigard. e The City has begun focusing on recruiting businesses to participate in Volunteer activities. CIT attendees review agendas quarterly and set priorities for future agendas. Members who can't attend are asked to call staff with concerns or suggestions. On average, a dozen calls are received before each meeting. Community Character Downtown: #1 Provide opportunities to The Central Business District Association & Quality of Life work proactively with CBD businesses has filed with the state as a C-3 and property owners and citizens of corporation. They will resume work on Tigard to set the course for the future their strategic plan when the state of the central downtown area. approves the filing. Community Character Community Events: #1 Develop The Social Services Subcommittee of the & Quality of Life overall approach for sponsoring Budget Committee recommended that community events that establishes City Council set a threshold for funding balance among popular or traditional designated community events such as the standing events, requests for new Balloon Festival and 4,h of July. events and limited City resources. Growth & Growth #1 Accommodate growth while The Washington Square Task Force Management protecting the character and livability of continues to meet. Recent topics of new and established areas. discussion include Density issues and Wetlands. The Task Force is scheduled to complete its work in June. #2 Urban services are provided to all At the direction of City Council, staff is citizens within Tigard's urban growth preparing information to analyze the boundary and recipients of services infrastructure needs and costs in the pay their share. Walnut Island. After a public information plan is implemented, a decision on annexation will be made by Council. 43 The City encourages and supports The City's Housing Code took effect on private sector programs to maintain May 3. The Housing Code will ensure diverse and affordable housing. that the housing stock meets minimum standards for heath and safety. The Housing Inspector investigated six complaints the first week of the new program. TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW UPDATE 1999 - First Report - January through April TARGET AREA GOAL. ACTIONS THIS QUARTER Public Safety #1 The community residents, business There are now 54 Neighborhood Watch owners, and service providers will form areas in Tigard. Meetings to organize partnerships to effectively enhance new Neighborhood Watch areas are held public safety and emergency services. on a regular basis. The sixth Police Citizens Academy was held this Spring. Twenty citizens participated. #3 The community is trained and The City's Emergency Management Staff prepared for emergencies. has met with the School District to ensure a coordinated response to emergency situations. The Police Department provided training for School District personnel. In addition, the City's Emergency Management is meeting on a County-wide level to coordinate emergency responses. Schools & Education #1 Schools and City government will Community-based leisure activities work together to provide a community- continue to be provided at school sites in based recreation activity program for coordination with the City. Ongoing young people. discussions focus on program development and facilities. #4 Government policies will permit the The School District's Long-range Tigard-Tualatin School District to Planning Committee will begin meeting in prepare for growth and control the the fall and will include a City quality of services it provides students. representative. Transportation and #1 Improve traffic safety The City Council has appointed a Traffic #2 Improve traffic flow Transportation Bond Task Force. The Task Force will consider traffic safety and capacity improvements and make a recommendation to City Council by the end of 1999. The City continues to address traffic calming safety and connectivity through the CIP process. Urban and Public #1 Library will have a stable funding The City and School District Librarians Services base for the provision of basic met in April and continue to coordinate services. 2) Identify entrepreneurial curriculum and resources. The School ® Library means of generating support for District has first right to accept any Library services. material being withdrawn from the City's ♦ Evaluate possibility of sharing staff collection. About 40 students per month between public Library and media take advantage of the homework center ! centers. which will be discontinued for the summer and resume in the fall I Bill TIGARD BEY®IV®TOMORROW UPDATE 1999 - First Report - January through April TARGET AREA GOAL. ACTIONS THIS QUARTER Urban and Public $1 Create a special parks and The Affalali Recreation Task Force has Services recrsation district with the City of been meeting. e Parks & Recreation Tigard spearheading the process and maintaining membership for its citizens. Urban and Public #1 Actively participate in regional After several months of review and citizen Services development of water sources and input, the Council voted to proceed with s Water adequate innovative funding plans to develop a treatment plant on the mechanisms to develop those sources Willamette River near Wilsonville. Staff is for Tigard users while exploring local assembling a critical path to determine option for water reuse and groundwater how to proceed on the project. sources. 2) develop plans for surface water production and supply. i/citywide/vision/99-191 Report-Mcloc 7 i a a a i 3 IM I 111, 11 - 05/10/99 08:25 *&503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 01001 ACTIVITY REPORT a## TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 5290 CONNECTION TEL 503 684 3636 CONNECTION ID JIM NICOLI START TIME 05/10 08:21 USAGE TIME 03'39 PAGES 6 RESULT OK FAX TRANSMITTAL IM% A4=a k Date May 7, 1999 Number of pages including cover sheet 6 To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: Cathy Wheatley. City Recorder Co: Co: C' of Tigard Fax Fax 684-7297 Ph 639-4171. Ext. 309 SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 5 - 5/11/99 Council Packet MESSAGE: Here is a staff report that should have gone in your Friday mail packet, which I Inadvertently left out! The report gives you background information on the update for Tigard Beyond Tomorrow. Have a great weekendI AGENDA ITEM # CL7 FOR AGENDA OF Ma 11 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Status Report on City of Tigard Volunteer Program PREPARED BY: Susan Koepping DEPT HEAD OK~, _ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL To provide information regarding the City of Tigard Volunteer Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action required INFORMATION SUMMARY This report is an overview of the first year of the City of Tigard Volunteer Program. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal #1, Strategy #1 of original Community Character and Quality of Life Goal Goal Strategy #2, of 1998 Progress Report "To enhance the current Volunteer Program" FISCAL NOTES None iAc;tywideV mAot City of Tigard Volunteer Program Status Report: May 1999 Statistics In the past year, from April 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999, 356 unduplicated volunteers contributed 9,504 hours. These numbers include Police Reserve hours but not Tigard Library hours. This equates to 4.5 FTE's. Appendix A shows the volunteer hours that were contributed in each Division. Planning Commission and Budget Committee Planning Commission: In December, four vacancies occurred on the Planning Commission when two Commission members resigned and two other terms expired. Fourteen applications were received for those openings. Two incumbents were reappointed and 2 new members were appointed for fill the unexpired terms of those who resigned. Budget Committee: Two members of the Budget Committee were elected to public office in the November elections; one was elected to Tigard City Council and one to the State of Oregon House of Representatives. There were seven applications for those vacated positions, including two who had previously applied for Planning Commission positions. Two new members were appointed by the City Council and two of the remaining five applicants subsequently served on the Water Advisory Task Force. Community Connections Strengthening bonds between the City of Tigard and the community continues to be a priority. Maintaining existing relationships and establishing new ones has been the basis of many activities in this quarter. This report details some of those new and existing relationships and demonstrates how the City's volunteer program reflects national trends in volunteerism. Employees of Landmark Ford and Don Morissette Homes and the Tigard Central Business District Association have all recently "adopted" Tigard streets. They join employees of Meadows Group Realty in the Adopt-A-Street program. Jim Hendryx recruited the Tigard Central Business District Association with help from Ed Wegner. Employees of Pacific Utilities Equipment planted trees in Cook Park on Earth Day as their first volunteer activity with the City. Red Lobster employees have helped several times and worked hard on soft trail maintenance during Earth Day. As a side note, finding a meaningful way to reward volunteers can sometimes be challenging. For Earth Day, Nancy Lof produced brightly-colored paper banners with the company names for Red Lobster and Pacific Utilities Equipment so the employees would know where to meet their group in Cook Park. They liked the banners so much we were pleased to give them to those companies at the end of the day. We also took pictures of them as they worked and enclosed the pictures with a letter signed by the City Manager. Volunteer groups such as Steelheaders, Fans of Fanno and Tualatin Riverkeepers are very active in Tigard. While these groups are not officially part of the City of Tigard Volunteer 11111= INS 1111110111111 11111111111M Program, they have a good working relationship with the Public Works staff and their efforts certainly benefit the community. Volunteering used to be almost exclusively an adult activity and was separate from their family time. Now, families often have little time together and so parents select volunteer activities in which the whole family can participate. They often want to help for a few hours when they have time rather than committing to a long-term project with designated start and end times. Projects such as Adopt-A-Street and Adopt-A-Path fit their needs and still help the community. Two new families adopted paths this spring and one family stenciled storm drains in their neighborhood. Schools are encouraging in some cases, requiring--students to volunteer. The City of Tigard has several active student groups such as Peer Court and Dare Camp mentors. The Durham Center students have adopted part of Durham Road, the HUGS club from Wilsonville High School prepared 50 fire hydrants for painting, and students from Tigard High School and Fowler Middle School helped decorate for the Tree Lighting ceremony in December. The City of Tigard contributes to the community by referring potential volunteers to other organizations whenever possible. For example, a caller who wanted to volunteer helping senior citizens has been referred to the Senior Center. Eddie, a skilled carpenter, recently stopped by the City Hall lobby counter. He had two days before he started a new job and he wanted to volunteer. He was referred to Community Partners for Affordable Housing and installed closet shelves at Villa la Paz. Community connections can also be strengthened when City of Tigard employees volunteer for other organizations in the community. Recently four City of Tigard volunteers became Lunch Buddies. This volunteer opportunity was made known to them through the Volunteer Coordinator. One day a week they use their unpaid lunch hour to go to C. F. Tigard Elementary School and spend time with a child who needs a good adult role model. They eat lunch, play games or just talk together. The Lunch Buddy program functions in elementary schools throughout Washington County. Another City employee recently talked to the Volunteer Coordinator to explore becoming a volunteer with the elderly. Being a resource for City of Tigard employees is an appropriate role for the Volunteer Coordinator. Employees' volunteer activities are not recorded or tracked in any way. Retired residents continue to step forward to volunteer and bring with them all the experience and skills they have developed during their careers. They require challenging activities. Some retirees may not have had the time to be involved while they were employed. Others want to "keep sharp" and "keep my hand in." Two recent retirees volunteered doing clerical work in City Hall for two months while they waited for their spouses to retire and are now traveling. They may return to volunteer; they may not. 'rends in Volunteerism As seen in the above examples, the volunteer program at the City of Tigard reflects national trends in volunteerism. Potential volunteers are becoming active as part of employee or special-interest groups. Families are volunteering together. Youngsters are becoming experienced volunteers by working with their parents or through their schools and often want to see immediate, tangible evidence of their efforts; i.e. a cleaner street. Retirees step forward to help and bring valuable skills with them. Some may stay for a long time; others will come and go quickly. Relationships with Volunteers All City of Tigard volunteers connect the City to the community and, as a result of their volunteer experiences, these people become more knowledgeable about the City government; the issues, the needs and the employees. I have not had a single complaint from volunteers about any employees in the past year, however there are have been many positive comments. Employees are good at letting volunteers know that their efforts are appreciated and that is an important reason why volunteers continue contributing their time and their skills. More employees are requesting volunteer assistance as they have come to see how helpful volunteers can be. Unfortunately, space at City lull - or the lack of space - continues to be a challenge. Employees are creative at finding a desk, a table, any space for volunteers to work but this often means that a volunteer may work at a different table each time he or she is here. Places to store necessary supplies are hard to find. One volunteer has indicated that lack of space creates such a problem while he tries to do what we have asked him to do that he may not continue. Appendix B lists the names of employees who have acted as project leaders for volunteers in the past twelve months. Even though these employees have been the designated project leaders, additional employees have worked along side the volunteers and contributed to productive, positive experiences. Appendix C lists the large Special ]Events in which the City volunteers are involved. The City of Tigard Volunteer Program activities and plans are designed to contribute to maintaining a high quality of life for the Tigard community as part of the City Council goals and the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow vision. Appendix A Volunteer Report by Division Report from 4/1/98 to 3/31/99 Division ADMIN Hours 815.95 COIV M DEV Hours 558.55 ENGIN Hours 185 FINANCE Hours 313.5 POLICE Hours 5209.15 PW Hours 2421.5 Grand Total Hours 9503.65 Printed on: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 Page 1 of 1 Report by: Susan Koepping Tuesday, May 04, 1999 Page 1 of 1 Append B Employee Project Leaders These City of Tigard Employees have been the primary contact of one or more volunteers in the past 12 months. Engineering Finance Gus Duenas Wayne Lowry Greg Berry Nadine Robinson John Hadley Dee Wise Diane Jeldirks Community Development Administrative Services Jim Hendryx Liz Newton Jerree Gaynor Sherrie Burbank Patty Lunsford Susan Koepping Laurie Nicholson Estella McLeod Duane Roberts Loreen Mills Matt Scheidecker Gary Smalling David Scott Cathy Wheatley Police Ron Goodpastor Tom Freedland Sheryl Huiras April Keller Kristen Paris Trace Schreiner Jim Wolf Public Works Ed Wegner Howard Gregory Eric Hand Sam Morrison Jeff Munro Mark Tuhey Appendix C Special Events April 1998 -April 1999 Volunteer Appreciation Dinner April 23, 1998 Balloon Festival June 12-14 Commuter Rail Demonstration Project September 12-13 Train Days September 23-26 Make A Difference Day October 24 Tree Lighting Ceremony December 5 Earth Day April 17, 1999 Volunteer Appreciation Dinner April 22 AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF: May 11, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE City Council Review of Babies "R" Us (CPA 98-04/SD 98-27/PD 98-14 PREPARED BY: Julia Hajduk60 DEPT HEAD OK Y MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve the Babies "R" Us proposal? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Planning Commission recommendation with one revision as discussed below. INFORMATION SUMMARY The applicants have requested approval to construct approximately 38,000 gross square feet of retail store (Babies "R" Us). There are wetlands identified on the City's inventory of significant wetlands. Therefore, a comprehensive plan amendment has been requested to allow for a small amount of fill and mitigation. Applicable sections of the Metro functional plan apply whenever a comprehensive plan amendment is proposed. In this case, the applicable functional plan policy is Title 3, which regulates water quality buffers. The site is in the Tigard Triangle and the applicants have gone through the DET process to allow some deviation from the Tigard Triangle Design standards. At the March 15, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission heard from Staff, the applicant and concerned citizens. After discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve the proposal with conditions. The Planning Commission recommendation varied from the Staff's recommendation slightly. Staff agrees with the changes the Planning Commission recommends with the exception of one item. Staff had originally recommended that a condition be attached requiring that the traffic signal at 72"d and Dartmouth be installed prior to occupancy of the building. The Planning Commission deleted this condition. Staff continues to recommend that this condition be required. The attached memo details the reasons staff feels this condition is necessary. It is not necessarily the responsibility of this developer to install the signal, but the City should not be permitting development that continues to make failing intersections worse. Staff, therefore, recommends that a condition be added that requires the traffic signal be installed at the intersection of SW 72"d and SW Dartmouth prior to 3 final building inspection and occupancy. An option would be that the applicant sign an agreement to share in the cost of the signal at the intersection of 72"d and Dartmouth. Once the signal is guaranteed for construction, building permits could be issued. Another prospective development is willing to install the signal as long as they are reimbursed by other projects that impact the intersection. Staff has prepared an Ordinance for the City Council consideration that includes the additional condition recommended by Staff. O'I'LER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny the application. Approve the application with additional or revised conditions. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A i:\curpln\julia\sdr\babiesais441599.dot J Elm i MEMORANDUM TO: City Council - FROM: Julia Powell Hajduk DATE: May 5, 1999 RE: Recommendation to add an additional condition onto the approval for the Babies "R" Us store. At the March 15, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, staff had recommended that a condition that a traffic signal at SW 72nd and SW Dartmouth be installed and operating prior to occupancy of the building. The Planning Commission recommendation deleted this condition, however, staff continues to recommend that this condition be attached. The reason for this condition is that this intersection is planned to be signalized as a part of the Tri-County project. The Kittelson report assumes these signals will be installed prior to completion of this project, which will ensure that the intersections will operate at acceptable Level of Service (LOS). The intersection now operates below acceptable LOS at F. It is not necessarily the burden of this applicant to install these signals. If the Tri-County project does not proceed as planned and assumed by the applicant's traffic study, then the signals must be completed by some party prior to a final inspection of this project. The applicant's representative presented argument that the requirement to install the traffic signal was an in- proportional burden. The intersection is already below capacity and no project should be approved that will continue to make that intersection worse. If the traffic signal is not in, the project should not be permitted to increase traffic at this intersection. Staff is not saying that Babies "R" Us must pay for the signal, but that the project should not be approved unless that intersection is at a capacity that can handle the increase in traffic. Many other projects in this area will be subject to the same issue. A major problem is that there is not a financing system to ensure necessary public improvements that will mitigate traffic problems. The applicant's representatives pointed out several decisions, made after the Tri-county project was approved, that did not have this condition attached, even though their traffic studies assumed the intersection would be signalized. Staff's response to this is that these decisions were made shortly after the Tri-County decision while Staff was still assuming that this project would proceed in the normal time frame. Because that project has still not progressed, Staff began to i realize that the assumption that this intersection would be signalized may not be true for a while and that there was no assurance that the conditions for Tri-County would be satisfied. In addition, the City Attorney has since advised Staff that we should consider using a condition 3 such as this when an applicant assumes an off-site improvement will be constructed by another party, and that off-site improvement is necessary to ensure that the system will function properly after the development is occupied. Again, it is not necessarily the responsibility of this developer, but we should not be permitting development that continues to make failing intersections worse. mom III 911111silimmmmom 1111111=11111milm Staff, therefore, recommends that a condition be added that requires the traffic signal be installed at the intersection of SW 72"d and SW Dartmouth prior to final building inspection and occupancy. An option would be that the applicant sign an agreement to share in the cost of the signal at the intersection of 72"d and Dartmouth. Once the signal is guaranteed for construction, building permits could be issued. Another prospective development is willing to install the signal as long as they are reimbursed by other projects that impact the intersection. Staff recommends that the condition be inserted as Condition # 32 with the following language: "Prior to a final building inspection, the signalized improvements at SW 72"d Avenue/SW (Dartmouth Street and at SW 68th and SW Dartmouth Street shall be completed and the signals operational." lwlwua~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 99- AN ORDINANCE APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 98-0004), SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR 98-0027), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR 98-0014), REQUESTED TO DEVELOP THE BABIES "R" US STORE. WHEREAS, the applicant has requested approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the City's Water Resources Overlay, Site Development Review and Planned Development Review to develop a store known as Babies "R" Us. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and received public testimony and recommended approval of the aforementioned land use applications on March 15, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City Council also held a public hearing on the aforementioned land use applications on May 11, 1999 and approved the aforementioned land use applications subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval contained within the attached "Exhibit A." NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all of the relevant criteria as noted in the attached Planning Commission recommendation to the Tigard City Council, also referred to as "Exhibit A." SECTION 2: The City Council approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Site Development Review, and Planned Development Review, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as set forth in the attached "Exhibit A." SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of '1998. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 1999. James Nicoli, Mayor i Acitywide\onMabiesord.dot ORDINANCE No. 99- Page 1 of 1 Imm 11111 IN Agenda Item: 4.1 Hearing Date: Monday - March 15" 1999 7:30 PM PLANNING GOISSIDN RECO ENDATION-T071 anrcRno . . Comuau Development TI O ITT C0®NCI! ,Sha ang A Better Comtnuni , . 120 DAYS W 5/26199 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: BABIES "R" US Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 98-0004 Site Development Review SDR 98-0027 Planned Development Review PD 98-0014 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove a portion of the wetlands on the site from the significant wetlands inventory. This will allow the applicant to mitigate for the wetlands and construct the required parking. Site Development Review and Planned Development approval have also been requested to construct a 38,000 square foot retail store. This proposal includes several adjustments to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, as recommended by the Design Evaluation Team (DET). APPLICANT: Toys "P." Us OWNER: Waremart, Inc. ENGINEER: Alpha Engineering Attn: Steve Clausell Attn: Paul Simmons Attn: Dave Humber 461 From Road PO Box 400 Plaza West, S-230 Paramus, NJ 07562-3524 Woodburn, OR 97071-0400 9600 SW Oak Street Portland, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial; C-G. ZONING DESIGNATION: General Commercial; C-G. The General Commercial Zoning District provides sites for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The property is also designated with the following overlay districts: 1) Planned Development Overlay; 2) Tigard Triangle Design Standards Overlay; and 3) Water Resources Overlay. The Planned Development Overlay was placed on the property to allow flexibility in development practices to permit more efficient use of the property. The Water Resources Overlay is a resource protection overlay that provides citywide protection standards for Water Resource areas designated as significant. LOCATION: The subject site is located on the east side of SW Dartmouth Street, west of Red Rock Creek across from the existing Costco; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 02000. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.360, 18.380, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.790, 18.795, 18.797 and 18.810; and the Metro Functional Plan Standards. SECTION II. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL for the above request subject to certain Conditions of Approval based on the findings and conclusions contained within this report. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 1 OF 29 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P111011 TO THE ISSUANCE OF-SITE-AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS--,., 'FHE FOLLOWING CON®ITIONMsHALL 6E.57ATIsFIE6 (Unless otherwise dated, the stiff contact shalib0 Brlan_ Lager, Engineerl ig Departrnent`(503) 639=41'1.1.) 1. Revise the plans to show the sidewalk along SW Atlanta Street will extend to the base of the building. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 2. Submit a revised plan that shows 3'/ inch trees will be planted 28 feet on center in the setback areas 5 feet in width and larger. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 3. Submit confirmation that the shrubs between the parking lot and the street will provide a 3-foot screen and a 90 percent opacity within one (1) year. 4. Submit a revised plan that shows trees along SW Dartmouth Street will be 27 feet on center. Provide confirmation that the trees along SW Atlanta Street are columnar and the trees along SW Dartmouth Street are broad spreading. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 5. Submit a revised site plan that shows wheel stops will be provided in all areas where the parking abuts landscaping, walkways, etc. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 6. Submit a lighting plan that shows the parking lot lighting will be arranged in such a way that it does not shine into the public right-of-way. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 7. Submit a revised parking plan that shows all standard spaces will be at least 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet and all compact spaces will be at least 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 8. Submit a revised plan that shows six (6) feet of the walkway will be maintained in the area of the bike rack or show the bike rack in an area that complies with the standards. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 9. Submit details of the bike rack to be used and show that it will accommodate 12 bicycle parking spaces. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 10. Submit a detailed plan that shows the size and location of all existing trees and those to be removed, and submit confirmation from a certified arborist that the removal of the trees and the proposed location of mitigation trees are acceptable. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 11. Submit a written sign-off from the franchise waste hauler that the proposed facility meets the waste hauler standards. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 12. Submit a revised lighting plan for review and approval by the Police Department that shows lighting will be provided at the southwest corner of the structure in the area of the plaza. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 13. Submit confirmation from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands (DSL) that the wetland mitigation plans shown are permitted, or revise the plan to meet the permitted mitigation. This condition will not be signed off until a letter of confirmation is received from Jan Stuart of the US Army Corps of Engineers and Bill Parks of DSL. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements.) Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" LIS RETAIL STORE PAGE 2 OF 29 15. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 16. Right-of-way (ROW) shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Dartmouth Street to provide a right-of-way width of 47 feet from the centerline, as shown on the preliminary plan. Since there appears to be no dedicated ROW for SW Dartmouth Street at this time, a formal centerline may not be established. The applicant will need to establish the centerline, if necessary, and tie the new dedication description to that centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 17. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Atlanta Street to provide a right- of-way width of 30 feet from the centerline, as shown on the preliminary plan. If the applicant is not successful in obtaining the proposed offsite right-of-way to the north, then the applicant will need to make adjustments to the site plan to enable all of the needed right-of-way to be dedicated within this site. Since there is no dedicated ROW for SW Dartmouth Street at this time, a formal centerline has not been established. The applicant will need to establish the centerline and tie the new dedication description to that centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 18. Prior to issuance of a site and/or building permit, the City shall be ensured that a half-street improvement along the site frontage of SW Dartmouth Street will be constructed and completed prior to a final inspection of the building on this site. The improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and shall include: A. 10-foot wide planted center median, centered at the roadway centerline, constructed along the full frontage of the site, except at approved driveway locations; B. Portland cement concrete pavement section (to match existing) from curb to the new median equal to 28 feet; C. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; D. concrete curb to match existing; E. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; F. 6 foot concrete sidewalk; G. street trees within a 7-foot planter strip, spaced per TTDS requirements; H. street striping; 1. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; J. underground utilities; K. street signs; and L. driveway aprons. 19. If the applicant is successful in obtaining the offsite right-of-way from the properties to the north, then prior to issuance of a site and/or building permit, the City shall be ensured that a 3/4-street improvement will be constructed along the new frontage of SW Atlanta Street and completed prior to a final inspection of the building on this site. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet, plus 8 feet of pavement on the north side of the roadway centerline such that a total of 24 feet of pavement width is provided; B. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; C. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff, D. 6-foot concrete sidewalk; CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 3 OF 29 E. street trees within a 7-foot planter strip, spaced per TTDS requirements; F. street striping; G. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; H. underground utilities; 1. street signs; and 1. driveway apron. 20. If the applicant is not successful in obtaining the proposed offsite right-of-way for SW Atlanta Street, then the applicant shall complete a %-street improvement in accordance with "Option #1", outlined in the memorandum from Alpha Engineering, dated March 9, 1999. Specifically, the improvements shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 12 or 13 feet, plus construction of a drainage ditch on the north side of the improvement; B. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed on the south side of improvement; C. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; D. 6-foot concrete sidewalk on the south side of improvement; E. street trees within a 7-foot planter strip, spaced per TTDS requirements along the south side of the improvement; F. street striping; G. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; H. underground utilities; 1. street signs; J. driveway apron; and K. "One Way" designation for this improvement to allow vehicles to travel eastbound only. All traffic control devices necessary to ensure efficiency and safety for this designation shall be provided by the applicant, and approved by the City Engineer prior to installation. The applicant shall also make provisions at the proposed private driveway onto SW Atlanta Street to ensure that trucks and vehicles can not exit that driveway until the north half of the street is completed. NOTE: This condition also includes a provision that the applicant will pay funds to the City in an amount to cover the remaining 3 or 4 feet of asphalt pavement width. An estimate of these funds shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The funds are to be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a site and/or building permit. 21. Prior to final inspection of the site, the City shall be ensured that the northbound lanes of SW Dartmouth Street at the intersection of Highway 99W will be reshiped or have assurance that it will be completed with the ODOT scheduled improvements. The restriping shall provide dual left-turning lanes and a through/right-turn lane. The restriping effort will require coordination with ODOT so that the timing of the restriping will coincide with ODOT's contract to relocate the loop detectors at that intersection. If the restriping improvements do not coincide with ODOT's project, the party that provides the striping may be responsible for relocating loop detectors as needed. A restriping plan will need to be submitted to both the City and to ODOT for review and approval prior to construction. a 22. Prior to issuance of the site and/or building permit, the applicant shall coordinate with the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) with regard to the new water line that must be installed in SW Atlanta Street. A permit will be required from TVWD prior to construction. 23. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency 3 Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 24. Prior to final inspection for certificate of occupancy, the City will need to verify that the twin culverts that cross SW Dartmouth Street at Red Rock Creek have been cleaned, or is on the city schedule to be cleaned. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" LIS RETAIL STORE PAGE 4 OF 29 In 1111==10111 ~El 25. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 26. Prior to issuance of a site and/or building permit, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $30.00 for this project. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: 27. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that the public improvements related to this project have been completed and given a conditional acceptance by the City. The improvements include, but are not limited to the street improvements along SW Atlanta Street, SW Dartmouth Street and the restriping of SW Dartmouth Street at Highway 99W. 28. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. 29. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. 30. Obtain City arborist's approval of proposed street tree planting methods prior to street tree installation. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. 31. Prior to final occupancy, all roof-mounted equipment must be screened. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, Planning Division. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 98 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CITIPS FINAL DECISION. SECTION 1111. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The site is currently vacant. The area received Site Development Review (SDR) approval for a 40,000 square foot Future Shop retail store and future building pad A (SDR 95-0019), however, that approval expired in August 1997. The Future Shop approval would have resulted in more wetlands being impacted than the current plans. Related Division of State Lands permits and Army Corps of Engineers permits were obtained for the wetlands fill and mitigation concept for the Future Shop. When the original permits expired, the applicant obtained a new wetland fill permit. The wetland fill permitted is greater than that being proposed with this development. The previous approval was made prior to the City's adoption of its significant wetlands inventory, Water Resources (WR) overlay standards and Metro Title 3; therefore, City review and approval of the wetland fill is required. Vicinity Information: The subject property is located on the east side of SW Dartmouth Street, south of the proposed SW Atlanta Street. The property to the east is developed with Winco Foods (formally Cub Foods). The property is bordered on the east by Red Rock Creek. The property abuts SW Dartmouth Street to the west and will be CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 5 OF 29 r 11 IN bordered to the north by SW Atlanta Street when it is constructed. The property is surrounded on all sides by property zoned and developed General Commercial. Site Information and Proposal Description: The proposai is to construct approximately 38,000 gross square feet of retail store (Babies "R" Us). Because there are wetiands identified on the City's inventory of significant wetlands, a comprehensive plan amendment has been requested to allow for a small amount of fill and mitigation. Applicable sections of the Metro functional plan apply whenever a comprehensive plan amendment is proposed, even if the City is not required to comply with all of the functional plan policies at the time. In this case, the applicable functional plan policy is Title 3, which regulates water quality buffers. The applicant held their pre-application meeting prior to the effective date of the revised Community Development Code (11-26-98); however, the application was submitted 12-23-98. Therefore, the standards in the new Code are the applicable review standards. The Code sections from the old Code are referenced in the narrative; however, all review was based on the new Code provisions. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Study: Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure that is required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. The applicant will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $74,763 based on the 38,000 square feet of commercial retail space proposed. Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $233,634 ($74,763 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $158,871. The applicant has committed to construct half-street improvements along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage and construct 3/-street improvements along the SW Atlanta Street frontage. The estimated cost of the improvements along SW Atlanta Street is $300-$350 per linear foot for approximately 465 feet ($139,500- $162,750). The estimated cost of improvements along SW Dartmouth Street is $300 per linear foot for approximately 1,100 feet, for a total estimated cost of $330,000. The traffic study provided indicates that the traffic impacts for this site necessitates widening of the roadway. The proposed street improvements along SW Dartmouth Street will also allow for additional traffic capacity and is, therefore, eligible for a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) credit. For this reason,, the full impact cost of the development ($233,634) is roughly proportional to the impact of the development. The rough proportionality test does not require a precise mathematical calculation. The test does not require a dollar-for-dollar exchange of conditions for impacts, nor does it require that the impacts outweigh or have a CPA 98-041SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 6 OF 29 higher estimated value than the conditions imposed. The estimated costs required of the applicant may be greater in estimated value of the unmitigated impact, provided the conditions are, in fact, proportional to the impacts of the development. Because the applicant is proposing access on SW Atlanta Street and the street does not currently exist, street improvements and right-of-way dedication are necessary to insure access is available on a street meeting City standards. The rough proportionality test, therefore, is not necessary for SW Atlanta Street. In any event, the applicant has proposed and concurred with the need for street improvements along SW Atlanta Street and SW Dartmouth Street. TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS: Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address. several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. The following design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. The criteria may be adjusted if the adjustment approval criteria, which are found in Section 18.620.090.0.1-4, have been met. The criteria provides that an adjustment may be granted if granting the adjustment will continue to meet the purpose of the standard(s) to be modified in an acceptable alternative manner; and the proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of an area and the proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area; and if more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments as well as each individual adjustment results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose, goals and standards of the zone; and granting the adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow the proposed use of the site; and any impacts reaulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practicable. The Design Evaluation Team (DET) has reviewed the following proposed adjustments in this application: • Building placement on Major and Minor Arterials • Ground floor windows The DET has recommended approval of the adjustments provided certain "mitigation" measures are provided. The required mitigation measures are discussed under each standard throughout this report. The DET determined that, with these mitigation measures, the DET approval criteria for each adjustment is met. The following are the approval criteria considered by the DET in reviewing the adjustments: • Granting the adjustment will continue to meet the purpose of the standard(s) to be modified in an acceptable alternative manner; and • The proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of an area and the proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area; and • If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments as well as each individual adjustment, results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose, goals and standards of the zone; and • Granting the adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow the proposed use of the site; any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 7 OF 29 Staff will review the site plan for compliance with the agreed upon mitigation measures and recommend conditions necessary to comply with these. A copy of the DIET report is attached as part of this staff report (See Attachment "A"). Street Connectivity All development must demonstrate how one (1) of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.134 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. Design Option: a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet; b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more that 330 feet. Performance Option: a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight (8) street intersections per mile; b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance; C. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. The applicant has indicated that they meet the performance option for this site. The length of SW Dartmouth Street is 4,100 lineal feet; therefore, approximately six (6) intersections would be required to meet this standard. Based on the number of existing and planned streets (including the intersections of SW Dartmouth Street at SW Pacific Highway, SW Dartmouth Street at SW Atlanta Street, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 72nd Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 70th Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 69th Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street at 1-5), this standard is considered to have been met without the extension of a street through this site. SW Atlanta Street is not fully constructed through the Triangle at this time. The Tigard Triangle Street Plan shows SW Atlanta Street extending from the 1-5 intersection to SW Dartmouth Street. Currently, SW Atlanta Street is not constructed east of SW 68th Parkway. The approximate length of SW Atlanta Street, once it is extended from 1-5 to SW Dartmouth Street, is approximately 2,922 feet. Based on this dimension, approximately five (5) intersections will be required to meet the performance standard. With the proposed construction of SW Atlanta Street along the property frontage, there will be six (6) existing intersections (SW Dartmouth Street, SW 70th Avenue, SW 69t Avenue, SW 68th Parkway, SW 67th Avenue and the 1-5 interchange). Once SW Atlanta Street is constructed as planned in the Tigard Triangle Street Plan, there will be eight (8) intersections. Based on this analysis, the performance option standard for 8 intersections per mile is satisfied for SW Atlanta Street and no additional street extensions are necessary through the site. The requirement that "the shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance standard" has been interpreted as the distance from a driveway entrance to a collector or larger classification street. In this case, the project meets this requirement because the frontage and proposed driveway access points abut Arterial Streets. The shortest pedestrian trip standard has been interpreted to mean that a pedestrian should not have to travel more than one and one-half (11,~) times the shortest straight line distance from the driveway entrance to the farthest proposed building entrance. In the plan proposed, the pedestrian path from the driveway entrance to the store entrance is the straight line distance. FINDING: Because the proposal meets the performance option for both SW Atlanta Street and SW Dartmouth Street the Street Connectivity Standards have been met. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Y BABIES W US RETAIL STORE PAGE 8 OF 29 Site Deslan Standards: All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1) acre or larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.134.050 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. Building placement on Major and Minor Arterials and the street: Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50 percent of all street frontages along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. The applicant has met this criterion for the SW Atlanta Street frontage by providing approximately 63 percent frontage. The applicant requested an adjustment to this standard for the SW Dartmouth Street frontage from the DET. The DET recommends approval of adjustment to this criterion provided the following mitigation measures are satisfied: • Locate the building at the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street and SW Atlanta Street, thereby reinforcing this intersection with a strong architectural presence. • The triangular shape of the site makes it impractical to extend a building along SW Dartmouth Street at the southern end of the property. Existing wetlands further constrain the site in this location. A low wall, constructed with the same materials and details as the base of the building, will be located along SW Dartmouth Street between the two parking lot entrances. The wall will be divided into a series of bays and will terminate at a pylon. This organization reflects the overall design of the building, and provides a continuous "architectural edge" along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage. The applicant's plan shows the building will be located at the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street and SW Atlanta Street. The applicant has submitted elevations showing a wall will be provided of the same materials as the base of the building. The applicant's plans, therefore, reflect compliance with agreed upon mitigation measures from the DET. Building setback: The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features, shall be 0 feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. The building setback is fully in compliance with the setback standard along SW Atlanta Street. The property line along SW Dartmouth Street is curved in such a way that, even with a portion of the building having a zero lot line, remaining portions of the building would be greater than 10 feet from the property line. Because of the shape of the lot frontage, it is impossible to fully meet the setback standard along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage. The DET members agreed that the building placement meets the intent of this standard and has met this standard in as much as is possible. Because the DET reviewed and approved this location, no variance is required. Front yard setback design: Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one (1) street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.620.070. The applicant has proposed landscaping and an arcade along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage. No trees are proposed in the landscape area between SW Dartmouth Street and the building (other than street trees). Shrubs are proposed, however, Staff cannot confirm if the shrubs will be 3 feet tall and reach 90 percent opacity within one year, as required by the L-1 landscape standards. The DET had recommended that the sidewalk along the SW Atlanta Street frontage be widened to eliminate landscaping and provide a hard surface expansion. The applicant has proposed to install a 6-foot-wide landscape strip between the building and the sidewalk. This is in conflict with the DET recommendation and will be discussed in more detail and conditioned further in this report. In either event, the landscaping or hard surface expansion along SW Atlanta Street meets the front yard setback design standard. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 9 OF 29 Walkway connection to building entrances: A walkway connection is required between the building's entrance and the public street or accessway providing access to the property. This walkway must be at least six (6) feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.620.070. The applicant has proposed a 10-foot-wide walkway from the building entrance to SW Dartmouth Street. The entrance is not located at the comer. Because an entrance at the corner is encouraged but not required, this standard has been satisfied. Parking location and landscape design: Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. The applicant's plan shows that parking will be located to the rear or side of the proposed building as opposed to between the building and the public right-of-way. FINDING: Because the applicant's plans show conformance with the DET recommended mitigation for building placement and building setback and compliance with the front yard setback, walkway connection and parking location, the TTDS Site Design standards have been satisfied. Building Design Standards: All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) are satisfied. Ground floor windows: All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three (3) feet above grade to nine (9) feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50 percent of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner. The applicant has requested an adjustment to this standard due to the nature of the use and due to existing topography. The DET has recommended approval of this standard with the following mitigation measures: 1. Along SW Dartmouth Street, provide six (6) glass-fronted poster display areas, three (3) "window areas" and four (4) enlarged icons; 4 2. Along SW Atlanta Street, provide two (2) glass-fronted poster display areas, one (1) "window area" and ten (10) enlarged icons; i 3. On both elevations, provide architectural detailing in the form of a strong building base, cornice line and regular bays separated by pilasters. Use high quality materials and colors to further articulate these facades; 4. Along SW Atlanta Street, extend the sidewalk to the building base; and 5. At the corner of SW Dartmouth Street and SW Atlanta Street, provide a small plaza area for use by the public. The plaza will contain seating and a landscape focus element, and will be differentiated 3 from the sidewalk. a a The applicant's proposal shows all of these mitigation measures will be met with the exception of #4, which required extension of the sidewalk along SW Atlanta Street to the base. The signed DET drawings include a note that the sidewalk must extend to the building instead of landscaping. The applicant's plan, therefore, does not fully comply with the DET recommended mitigation measures to allow a reduction in the ground floor window standard. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES W US RETAIL STORE PAGE 10 OF 29 Building facades: Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one (1) of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building off-set of at least 1-foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. The applicant's elevation plans show that the wall face will extend no further than 40 feet without a white splitface block pilaster breaking of the building line, thereby satisfying options a, b and d. Weather protection: Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Awnings and canopies shall not be back lit. The elevation plans provided indicate that a canopy will be provided at the entrance to the store. Building materials: Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. The applicant's narrative and elevation plans indicate that two (2) colors of decorative block with differing textures and two (2) colors of Exterior Insulating Finishing System (EIFS) will be provided, thus, satisfying this criterion. Roofs and roof lines: Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The applicant has proposed a flat roof. A parapet is proposed at the building entrance as is permitted. The applicant is also providing an additional parapet at the corner of SW Atlanta Street and SW Dartmouth Street at the suggestion of the DET. While this is not listed as a mitigation requirement, it is shown on the approved DET plans and seems appropriate to provide a more architectural presence at this intersection. Roof-mounted equipment: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. f The applicant has indicated that the proposed parapet will screen roof-mounted equipment. The applicant has indicated that a satellite dish will be located on the roof and, due to operational considerations, may not ' be able to be located with the other roof-mounted equipment. A condition of approval will be applied stating that all roof equipment, including the proposed satellite dish, must be screened prior to final occupancy. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicant has not meet all of the Building Design Standards and DET mitigation measures for adjustment. If the conditions specified below j are met, Staff can find that the Building Design Standards will be met. I CONDITIONS: o Revise the plans to show the sidewalk along SW Atlanta Street will extend to the base of the building. • Prior to final occupancy, all roof mounted equipment must be screened. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING CO~`JIMISSION BABIES 'R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 11 OF 29 IMZMM Signs: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code, the following standards shall be met: Zoning District Regulations: Pion-residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone (18.780.130.D). Sign Area Limits: The maximum sign area limits found in Section 18.780.130 shall not be exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Height Limits: The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs shall not extend above the roof line of the wall on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Sign Location: Freestanding signs within the Tigard Triangle shall not be permitted within required L-1 landscape areas. The applicant has not formally applied for sign permits. Signs must be approved through the sign permit process as administered by the City of Tigard Development Services Technicians. Compliance with sign standards will be reviewed at that time. A sign permit must be obtained for ANY sign located on the property. FINDING: Because compliance with sign codes will be required when a sign permit is applied for, these standards are not relevant at this time. Landscaping and Screening: Two (2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. L-1 (Low Screen): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a major or minor arterial, trees shall be planted at 3% inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3-foot high screen and a 90 percent opacity within one (1) year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. The setback along the frontage of SW Dartmouth Street has portions that are greater than 5 feet wide; however, no trees are proposed in this setback area. Groundcover and shrubs are proposed, however, Staff cannot confirm that they will provide a 3-foot screen and a 90 percent opacity within one year. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to submit a revised plan that shows the trees will be planted in the setback areas greater than 5 feet wide and submits confirmation that the shrubs will provide a 3-foot screen and a 90 percent opacity within one year. Staff estimates that six (6) additional trees will be required. CPA 98-"SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 12 OF 29 ram L-2 (General Landscaping): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. Trees shall be provided at a minimum 2'/s inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. The site does not abut a local street; therefore, the L-2 standards do not apply. FINDING: Because the applicant has not proposed 3'h inch caliper trees in the setback areas that are greater than 5 feet in width and has not submitted confirmation that the shrubs will provide a 3-foot screen and a 90 percent opacity within one year, the TTDS Landscaping and Screening criteria have not been met. If the applicant submits a revised plan that shows 3'h inch trees will be planted 28 feet on center in the setback areas 5 feet in width and larger and submits confirmation that the shrubs will provide a 3-foot screen and a 90 percent opacity within one year, these criteria will be met. CONDITIONS:- Submit a revised plan that shows 3Y2 inch trees will be planted 28 feet on center in the setback areas 5 feet in width and larger. - Submit confirmation that the shrubs between the parking lot and the street will provide a 3-foot screen and a 90 percent opacity within one (1) year. GENERAL APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: The Site Development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community Development Code Sections. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.350, 18.380, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.790, 18.795, 18.797, 18.810 and the Metro Functional Plan Standards. The proposal's consistency with these sections has been reviewed within this report. Planned Development (18.350): Chapter 18.350 allows the option for an applicant to create a more efficient, economically viable development that preserves natural land features while implementing the land use designation set forth for the property though the Comprehensive Plan. Section 18.350.020.8 states that the Planned Development Review is a three (3)-step process, as follows: 1. The approval of the planned development overlay zone; 2. The approval of the planned development concept plan; and 3. The approval of the Detailed Development Plan. The property has a Planned Development (PD) overlay. The Code requires that any development on property with a PD overlay be reviewed under the Planned Development standards. The applicant has requested a PD because that is what was required, however, the proposal does not seek to utilize any of the PD provisions. The applicant has also requested a Site Development Review. The applicant has requested Conceptual Planned Development and Detailed Planned Development approval with this application to comply with the second and third step of the PD process. Because the approval standards for the PD are the same as the SDR standards, with a few exceptions, combining these actions is appropriate. The SDR approval criteria are discussed throughout this report and conditioned as needed. FINDING: Because the criteria for the PD are essentially the same as the SDR and are addressed and conditioned within this report, the PD standards are satisfied. Sensitive Lands (18.775): Chapter 18.775 contains regulations for lards within 100-year floodplains, wetlands and drainageways that are subject to Sensitive Lands Review. Sensitive Lands Review of proposed developments in these areas is intended to implement protection measures and to protect rivers, streams and creeks by CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 13 OF 29 minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, and preserving scenic quality and recreational potential. The site contains a wetland that is regulated by DSL and the US Army Corps of Engineers. A city Sensitive Lands permit for development within the wetland is not required if the wetland is regulated by the state or federal government. In that event, the City must impose a condition of approval requiring the appropriate permits be obtained. In this case, the applicable permits have already been obtained; however, there is some question as to whether the plans shown reflect what was permitted. FINDING: Because the wetlands are jurisdictional and no other alteration of the natural drainage is proposed, the SLR criteria does not apply. Water Resources Overlay (18.797): This Chapter has standards for sites identified as significant on the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map. The standards identify Red Rock Creek as a Minor Stream, which requires no additional riparian setback other than the standard USA 25-foot setback. Removal of wetlands or buffer in the Water Resource overlay is prohibited. Section 18.797.140 states that in order to develop within a portion of the Water Resource area, a comprehensive plan amendment would be required. This section addresses the applicable criteria of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Section 18.797.140 requires the following criteria to be addressed to allow the proposed fill and mitigation of wetlands designated on the City's Significant Water Resources map: The analysis shall consider the Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use fully, consider both the impacts on the specific resource -Ke in comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area; The ESEE analysis compares several alternative plans for this site, including a no build plan. While the no build certainly protects the resource area, the social and economic possibilities on this site are not realized. If the development were to occur even in another area of the triangle, the potential for shared energy use by customers would not be realized due to the central location of other stores such as the Costco, Winco and the future Tri-County shopping center. The ESEE analysis concludes that the plan proposed provides a balance between negative and positive impacts for the Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy considerations. The mitigation plan proposes to enhance the existing wetlands that will remain. The applicant previously received permit approval for the mitigation plan from the Division of State Lands. Based on review of existing development patterns within the City Limits, the applicant's statement that no other largely undeveloped General Commercial Zone exists within the Tigard Planning Area is found to be correct. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss of the resource; Metro and the City of Tigard have designated the Tigard Triangle Area as an employment center. The applicant states that the project will create both long and short term employment as well as increase the City's tax revenue. The applicant is proposing to remove only a small portion of the existing wetland (.116 acres or 11 percent of the existing wetland and 2.3 percent of the entire site) and will greatly enhance. the remaining wetland. If the applicant were not permitted to fill the wetland, the proposed store would not be able to provide the industry standard parking and would, therefore, not be able to locate at this location. While other development could potentially use the site, given the cost of improvements and the size of the site, it is unlikely that another use would not face similar challenges. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-271PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 14 OF 29 III W11111 In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use; The applicant's analysis states that there are few undeveloped commercial sites in Tigard and fewer still in close proximity to the desired highway intersections and transportation corridors. The applicant states that, while there are still several sites in the Tigard Triangle, they have their own environmental constraints. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney, all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis; The applicant's wetlands determination was prepared by Dr. Martin Schott. The project manager is Dave Humber with Alpha Engineering who has extensive experience in compliance with land use regulations. In addition to the ESEE analysis itself, the applicant prepared a response to METRO Title 3 requirements which Staff has utilized in evaluating the ESEE criteria. The team that prepared the ESEE and response to Metro Title 3 consists of several people: Dave Humber of Alpha Engineering; Ball Janik, LLP; and Dr. Martin Schott. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. Because an existing map format was prepared for all designated sites, if this application is approved, Staff will undertake the appropriate revisions to the resource maps. Metro Title 3: In addition to the Plan amendment criteria specified above, because the proposal requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the applicable provisions of the METRO functional plan apply. In this case, Title 3 applies. Title 3 required a water quality buffer to be established which shall be protected, maintained enhanced or restored. Title 3 has a provision allowing cities to allow development in water quality resource areas provided that the City implement procedures which: 1) demonstrate that no practicable alternatives to the required development exist which will not disturb the Water Quality Resource Area; and 2) if there is no practicable alternative, limit the development to reduce the impact associated with the proposed use; and 3) where the development occurs, require mitigation to ensure that the functions and values of the water quality resource area are restored. The City has not incorporated Title 3 fully and, therefore, procedures for permitting development within the Water Quality Resource area have not been established. Advice from the City Attorney's office indicates that the applicant must show how they comply with these specific standards. Because the Water Resource overlay requires an ESEE and Comprehensive Plan Amendment approved by the City Council, the review authority for Title 3 review is appropriate. The following are the criteria for allowing development in the Water Quality Resource area followed by Staffs analysis: Demonstrate that no practicable alternatives to the required development exist which will not disturb the Water Quality Resource Area; and The development and land use history of the site demonstrate that alternative plans have been considered by prospective developers and the plan proposed for this review has the least impact and is the minimum impact necessary for the proposed use. The DSL and US Army Corps permits have been issued (twice) which required the applicant to demonstrate that no practicable alternatives exist and that the impact is the minimum necessary. The property is one of five in the Dartmouth Local Improvement District (LID), which was formed to fund the original street improvements. The LID and property tax assessments are based on the value of the property to be developed as commercial property. Given the financial constraint of the property, it is highly unlikely that a use could locate on the site that would require less area and still be able to contribute financially to the required improvements. While parking exceeds the City minimum, this is below the industry standard. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-271PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 15 OF 29 81 SIMMONS MM Staff has been informed that a reduction in parking is unacceptable and would likely result in the development not locating in this area. If there is no practicable alternative, limit the development to reduce the impact associated with the proposed use; and The impact to the wetland/resource area is limited to approximately 5,000 square feet. This represents 2.3 percent of the site and 11 percent of the existing wetland on the site. The store has been located in the deepest portion of the site with parking just at or below the industry standard and is well below the maximum permitted. The applicant's plan shows the impact to the resource area is the minimum necessary to allow a commercial development consistent with the area goals and existing development. Where the development occurs, require mitigation to ensure that the functions and values of the Water Quality Resource area are restored. The joint DSL/US Army Corps permit required mitigation and enhancement of the wetlands to remain. The applicant has indicated that they will be providing more enhancement than required for the fill they are doing because they will follow the mitigation plan for the previous approval, which involved filling in of more wetlands than this new proposal. Conditions of mitigation by DSL and the US Army Corps of Engineers requires erosion control measures and protection of chemicals, etc. from entering the water. Compliance with the permit approval from DSL and the US Army Corps of Engineers will insure that the wetland is appropriately mitigated and existing systems protected. Metro was given an opportunity to comment on the proposal and did not provide comments, objections or concerns during the comment period. FINDING: Based on the discussion above, the relatively small encroachment into the wetland is justified when compared to the affect on the development potential of the site if the wetlands were not permitted to be altered and the Water Resource buffer reduced. It is found that the applicant has met the standards for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and has demonstrated how they are consistent with the Metro Title 3 standards. Landscaping and Screening (18.745 and 18.350): Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.0. Section 18.745.040.E requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). This standard is modified by the Tigard Triangle Design standards. The property has approximately 850 feet of frontage on SW Dartmouth Street and 600 feet along SW Atlanta Street. The Tigard Triangle Design standards require street trees along SW Dartmouth Street to be broad spreading and planted 27 feet on center. Street trees along SW Atlanta Street are required to be columnar and planted 22 feet on center. The applicant has submitted plans that show Pyramidal European Hombeam will be planted along SW Atlanta Street 22 feet on center and Chancellor Linden will be planted along SW Dartmouth Street 40 feet on center. The spacing for the trees on SW Dartmouth Street does not meet the requirements, as they must be 27 feet on center. Staff referred to The Western Garden Book to determine if the trees proposed meet the type requirements. The Western Garden Book did not identify these particular trees; therefore, Staff cannot determine if the trees proposed are broad spreading or columnar. Land Use Buffering and Screening: Ses`.?on 18.745.080 requires that at a minimum the buffer between a proposed commercial use and detached single-family residences must contain the following: 1) a 20-foot width for parking lots of more than 25 spaces, 2) a row of trees at a certain spacing based on their height at maturity and shrubs of varying numbers based on their size at planting, 3) the buffer must also contain either a row of evergreen shrubs, a five-foot minimum height fence, or an earthen berm with evergreen shrubs which will provide a continuous six-foot screen within two (2) years. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15.99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 16 OF 29 The property does not abut a use other than commercial; therefore, buffering and screening between differing uses is not required. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall he three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Screening for the parking lot has been addressed previously. The landscape plan does not show the wall. The applicant has shown landscaped islands meeting the dimensional requirement. The trees, for the most part, are spaced equally with 1 for every 7 spaces, however, there are several areas in which there is not a tree for every 7 spaces. It appears that four (4) more trees will be necessary to meet this requirement. FINDING: Because the plan does not indicate whether the trees are columnar or broad spreading and does not show trees along SW Dartmouth Street will be 27 feet on center, the landscaping and Screening standards have not been met. If the applicant submits a revised plan that shows trees along SW Dartmouth Street will be 27 feet on center, and provides confirmation that the trees along SW Atlanta Street are columnar and the trees along SW Dartmouth Street are broad spreading, the criteria will be satisfied. CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows trees along SW Dartmouth Street will be 27 feet on center. Provide confirmation that the trees along SW Atlanta Street are columnar and the trees along SW Dartmouth Street are broad spreading. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): Chapter 18.795 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of- way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance points with a straight line. Upon review of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, the Clear Vision standards have been found to be superseded by newer Tigard Triangle Design Standards such as Building Placement. FINDING: Because the TTDS supercede the other standards of the Code, this criterion is found to be inapplicable. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765): Preferential long-term carpool/vanpool parking: Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5 percent of total long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040.N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. Due to the nature of the use (retail sales), long-term carpool parking is not anticipated; therefore, this criterion is found to be inapplicable CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 17 OF 29 Disabied-accessible parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. The applicant has proposed 164 parking spaces; therefore, six (6) ADA spaces are required. The applicant has proposed six (6) handicap spaces, one of which is van accessible. DEQ indirect source construction permit: All parking iots containing 250 spaces or parking structures containing two or more levels shall require review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to: 1. Acquire an Indirect Source Construction permit; 2. Investigate the feasibility of installing oil and grease separators. The applicant is only constructing 164 parking spaces; therefore, this standard does not apply. Access drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off- street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.12, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The access drive design meets the dimensional standards provided in the Code and provides for adequate emergency vehicle circulation. The proposal shows three (3) access points to the site, two (2) with a 30-foot width and one (1) with a width of 45 feet, whereas the code only requires one 50-foot-wide or two 30-foot-wide access points when more than 99 parking spaces are provided. The access drives are clearly identified and will be paved with asphalt. Pedestrian access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.1=. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Walkway requirements are discussed and conditioned, if necessary, further in this report. The site has no grade drop-offs; therefore, the other standards of this section do not apply. Parking lot striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The plans submitted show parking spaces clearly marked. Directional markings are not proposed; however, because all access drives are 2-way, directional markings are not required. Wheel stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from CPA 98.04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL. STORE PAGE 18 OF 29 the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant's plans do not indicate wheel stops will be provided in any area other than the parking along the building frontage. Lighting: All lights providing to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. The development does not abut a residential zone, however, this standard could also be construed to restrict the glare from lights into the public right-of-way. The applicant's lighting plan does not provide detail for Staff to confirm that the lighting will be arranged to be directed away from the public right-of-way. This standard can be met by submitting a detailed lighting plan that indicates parking lot lighting will be arranged to direct the light away from public right-of-way. Space and aisle dimensions: Except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2, the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5' x 18.5' for a standard space; 7.5' x 16.5' for a compact space; and as required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated disabled person parking spaces; the width of each parking space includes a stripe which separates each space. Aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width; The parking lot plan shows the standard stall dimensions will be 18 feet by 8.67 feet and the compact stall dimension will be 8 feet by 15 feet. The length for the standard space must be 18.5 feet and the length for the compact space must be 16.5 feet. The aisles provided are 24 feet wide, with the rear most aisle being over 30 feet wide. Because the width of the 30-foot-wide aisle is greater than required, Staff is comfortable that the dimensional standards can be adjusted to meet the requirements. Bicycle parking location and access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. The bike rack is 50 feet from the main entrance to the site and even closer to the exit. The location of the bike rack is within the walkway from the entrance to the street. Since the walkway is 10 feet wide and the Tigard Triangle Design Standards only require a walkway to be 6 feet wide, it may be possible to locate the bike rack in this area provided the 6-foot width is still maintained. A condition is recommended that the applicant submit a plan that shows 6 feet of the walkway will be maintained or the bike rack will be re- located in an area outside of parking aisles, landscaping areas or pedestrian ways. Bicycle parking design requirements: Section 18.765.050.C. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-tern (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 2% feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; required bicycle parking spaces CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 19 OF 29 I ===J may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At- cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well-drained. The applicant has not provided detail of the bike rack. Minimum bicycle parking requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.768.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. Table 18.768.2 states that for general retail sales, .3 bicycle parking spaces are required for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Because the building is approximately 38,000 square feet, 12 bicycle parking spaces are required. The applicant has indicated only seven (7) spaces will be provided. Minimum off-street parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. Table 18.765.2 states that the minimum parking for sales oriented retail is 3.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet and the maximum parking in Zone B (as defined by Metro) is 6.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet. In this case, the minimum parking is 140 and the maximum parking is 235. The applicant has proposed164 parking spaces. Off-street loading spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: a minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The building is less than 40,000 square feet; therefore, only one (1) loading space is required. The applicant has shown a loading space will be provided on the eastern side of the building. Off-street loading dimensions: Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and location; each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less than twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site; entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710; screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and indicated that the location of the loading area is acceptable. The loading area is screened from view by the building. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been met. Staff finds it is reasonably possible for the applicant to comply with all of the standards. If the conditions listed below are satisfied, the standards will be fully met. CONDITIONS: • Submit a revised site plan that shows wheel stops will be provided in all areas where the parking abuts landscaping, walkways, etc. • Submit a lighting plan that shows the parking lot lighting will be arranged in such a way that it does not shine into the public right-of-way. • Submit a revised parking plan that shows all standard spaces will be at least 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet and all compact spaces will be at least 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet. • Submit a revised plan that shows six (6) feet of the walkway will be maintained in the area of the bike rack or show the bike rack in an area that complies with the standards. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 20 OF 29 • Submit details of the bike rack to be used and show that it will accommodate 12 bicycle parking spaces. Access, Baress and Circulation: Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; This standard has been addressed previously in this report as part of the TTDS compliance review. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; The walkway provided does not cross a driveway or parking lot; therefore, this standard does not apply. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The plans indicate the walkway will be paved with concrete. Minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial use: Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with 100 or more parking spaces is 30 feet with 24 feet of pavement if 2 accesses are provided and 50 feet with 40 feet of pavement if one access is provided. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. As stated previously, the applicant has submitted plans showing tf a width requirements will be met. The parking lot is within 50 feet of the site entrance. FINDING: Because the access standards have been addressed previously in this report or do not apply, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been satisfied. Tree Removal: Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant has indicated in the narrative that there are 26 trees over 12 inches in caliper. Of the twelve, 13 will be removed as a result of improvements required for this project. Because only half of the existing trees over 12 inches caliper are being removed, the applicant is required to mitigate 50 percent of the total inches CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 21 OF 29 111,11111 1 removed. The applicant's narrative indicates that the totai inches removed are 203; therefore, 101.5 inches must be mitigated. They state this will be mitigated by planting 186 caliper inches as part of the wetland mitigation. The applicant has not provided information on how this data was obtained. Sheet 2 of 18 of the plans show the trees to be removed, however, it is difficult to read the size and type of tree to verify the applicant's calculations. In addition, the tree removal plan is required to be prepared by a certified arborist. FINDING: Because Staff cannot determine if the plans were prepared by a certified arborist and the plans are not detailed enough for Staff to confirm the information provided by the applicant, Staff cannot find that this standard has been met. If the applicant submits a detailed plan that shows the size and location of all trees on the site, and submits confirmation from a certified arborist that the removal of the trees and the proposed location of mitigation trees are acceptable, Staff can find that this standard has been met. CONDITION: Submit a detailed plan that shows the size and location of all existing trees and those to be removed and submit confirmation from a certified arborist that the removal of the trees and the proposed location of mitigation trees are acceptable. Signs: Chapter 18.780.130.D lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the C-G Zoning District. Signs have been discussed earlier in this report under Tigard Triangle Design Standards discussion; therefore, this standard has been satisfied. FINDING: Because signs have been addressed previously in this report, this standard has been satisfied. Public Facility Concerns: Streets: Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. In addition, TDC 18.620.010.6 states that developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. TDC 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. SW Dartmouth Street This site lies adjacent to SW Dartmouth Street, which is classified as a major arterial in the Tigard Triangle Design Standards (TTDS). This roadway classification requires a right-of-way (ROW) width of 94 feet. At present, there is no official ROW dedicated for SW Dartmouth Street along this site. Staff believes the ROW was never dedicated back when the Dartmouth LID improvements were completed. Now that this site is under development, the applicant should dedicate the necessary ROW to the roadway centerline. The applicant's plan indicates they will dedicate the necessary ROW. This roadway was improved as a part of a LID, but was not constructed to meet the current TTDS. The street is a concrete facility with a curb on the east side of the site for drainage control. The applicant is proposing two driveways for this site along SW Dartmouth Street. In order to meet the current TTDS and mitigate the impact of the additional traffic from this development, the applicant is proposing to widen the roadway and add additional features such as concrete sidewalk, street trees and a center planted median. The plans show that the street improvements will be constructed along the full frontage, which extends to approximately the centerline of the Red Rock Creek culvert crossing. The plans show that the sidewalk will connect to the existing sidewalk that was constructed adjacent to the Cub Foods site. There is one concern with the plan, in that there is no center median proposed along the section south of the south main driveway into the site. The TTDS requires the median to be constructed along the full frontage of the site. Therefore, the applicant should provide the center median to the south property line of the site. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 22 OF 29 1113 SW Atlanta Street The TTDS street plan indicates that SW Atlanta Street, a minor arterial, should be aligned adjacent to the north property line of this site and be an east/west connection between SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72"d Avenue. At present, there is no dedicated ROW for this roadway. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 30 feet of ROW on this property (half of the required width), and are indicating that they intend to make partial street improvements on the adjacent properties to the north. It appears that they would impact approximately 30 feet of property to the north. If the applicant can obtain the necessary offsite ROW, then Staff could support the proposed plan. Evidence of the offsite ROW acquisition would need to be submitted to the City prior to construction. If the offsite ROW cannot be obtained by the applicant, then they will need to make the necessary adjustments to the site plan to ensure that all of the street improvement impact will be contained within this site. The applicant is proposing one driveway from this site onto SW Atlanta Street. Their plans indicate that they will construct a %-street improvement of SW Atlanta Street adjacent to the site frontage. The street section for this section of SW Atlanta Street requires a 32-foot curb-to-curb pavement section, which allows for two 11-foot travel lanes and two 5-foot bike lanes. The 3/-street improvement is necessary because only half of the street section would not be wide enough to allow for two lanes of traffic. The additional 8 feet of pavement on the north side of the roadway will provide a total paved width of 24 feet, which will be adequate until the north side of the roadway can be improved in the future. As was stated above, the applicant's plans indicate they plan to construct a portion of the street improvements (the north on adjacent properties to the north. Again, if the applicant can obtain the necessary offsite ROW, Staff will support the proposed plan. If, however, the applicant is not able to obtain the offsite ROW, then they shall make any necessary adjustments to the site plan to ensure that all street improvement work will be confined to this site. Transportation Impact Analysis A traffic study was prepared by Kittelson and Associates, dated December 1998. The study analyzed the major intersections in this area, including: • Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street • SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72"d Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway • North Main Access/SW Dartmouth Street • South Main Access/SW Dartmouth Street • SW Atlanta Street/SW Dartmouth Street. Under existing weekday PM peak hour conditions, the all-way stop controlled intersections of SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72"d Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway operate over capacity and at level of service (LOS) "F". These intersections are planned to be signalized as a part of the Tri-County project later this year. The Kittelson report assumes these signals will be installed prior to completion of this project, which will ensure that the intersections will operate at acceptable LOS. Staff recommends this application be approved with a condition that these signals be installed and operating prior to a final building inspection. It is not necessarily the burden of this applicant to install these signals. But if, for instance, the Tri-County project does not proceed as planned and assumed by the traffic study, then the signals must be completed by some party prior to a final inspection of this project. The study also indicates that the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W will operate at LOS "D", with a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.98 during the PM peak hour, under 1999 background traffic conditions (without the impact of this project). Kittelson indicates that when the project traffic is added, the v/c ratio will continue to be 0.98 during the PM peak hour. Kittelson recommends that the northbound lanes of SW Dartmouth Street be restriped to provide dual left-turn lanes and a shared through/right-turn lane; with the restriping, the v/c ratio would drop to 0.95 during the PM peak hour. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3A 5-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 23 OF 29 Iml 1110110 IN 11111111 I ODOT Comments ODOT submitted comments with regard to this application, dated February 25, 1999. ODOT uses different software for determining LOS at signalized intersections. ODOT's SIGCAP2 software emphasizes the v/c ratio for determining the LOS, rather than vehicle delay, which Kittelson used in their study. A v/c ratio of 0.98 would equate to LOS E-F, not D as Kittelson reports. ODOT recommends the City require the northbound lanes of SW Dartmouth Street to be restriped by the applicant as a part of this project to ensure the v/c ratio will drop to 0.95. ODOT will be completing a project during the fall of 1999, which will relocate the loop detectors at the intersection. ODOT states that if the applicant can coordinate the restriping of the northbound lanes to be within the timeframe of their contract, the applicant would not need to adjust the loop detectors. Staff concurs that the restriping should be completed. Therefore, Staff has included a condition that would require the restriping to be completed prior to a final inspection of the building. ODOT's signal analysis indicates that with traffic generation from the proposed development, traffic is expected to queue 500 feet back from the SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W intersection without the restriping, and 460 feet back from the intersection with the striping improvements. The proposed northernmost driveway into this site would be approximately 600 feet back from the intersection. ODOT states that, with increased growth in the area, the traffic will likely queue back and block that driveway and block the left turning traffic into the site. ODOT also is concerned about the possibility of turning movement conflicts between the southernmost driveway and Costco's south driveway, especially after that driveway is signalized, as Costco is proposing. There would be only 100 feet separating the Costco driveway and the southernmost driveway into this site. ODOT is concerned about traffic moving from one site to the other and the potential for rear-end accidents and cross-traffic conflicts. To alleviate these two concerns, ODOT recommends the City require the applicant to consolidate the two (2) proposed driveways into this site into one(1) main access located midway between the proposed access locations. Staff acknowledges that there is a potential for the conflicts mentioned by ODOT, but recommends the applicant's traffic engineer (Kittelson) respond to ODOT's comments before a final decision is made by the City as to the access approval on SW Dartmouth Street. Water: This site is located within the Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. TVWD submitted comments concerning this application. They indicate that a new public water line must be extended within SW Atlanta Street, but are not sure at this time as to the size required. TVWD will need to review the City's TTDS street map and obtain information from the City concerning the allowed land uses along the street before they can determine a line size. Staff recommends the applicant also coordinate with TVWD with regard to the line size. Prior to construction, the applicant will need to obtain a permit from TVWD for the new waterline construction. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing public sanitary sewer line located in the future ROW of SW Atlanta Street. The applicant's plans indicate they will connect a service line from the site into that main line. Storm Drainage: Storm water runoff will be collected in a private drainage system and directed to a private on-site storm water quality system prior to its release into the mitigated wetland area. The system will consist of an extended dry detention pond that will eventually discharge into the created wetland area. Per the drainage calculations submitted by the applicant, no detention is required for this site because of its lower basin proximity to the Tualatin River. The storm drainage study assumes that the twin culverts that cross SW Dartmouth Street will be clean of any debris. The engineer indicates that the culverts are not presently clean and that they should be cleaned prior to the project being constructed in order for the storm water runoff to behave as assumed in the storm drainage study. Staff concurs and has included a condition that will require these culverts to be cleaned prior to issuance of a site and/or building permit for this project. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 24 OF 29 Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 86-44) lrrhich require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to issuance of the site and/or building permit, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant is proposing to provide an extended dry detention pond for this site. The preliminary calculations indicate the pond will be adequately sized to handle this site. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). For parcels within the USB, an addressing fee in the amount of $30 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final plat. For this project, the addressing fee will be $30. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, Staff finds that all the Street and Utility Improvement standards have not been fully met. If conditions 13 through 30, summarized at the front of this report, are satisfied, the standards will be met. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storaq : Chapter 18.755 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The applicant has not indicated which method they will meet. The applicant has not provided a written sign-off from the franchise hauler stating that the proposed facility location is acceptable. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided evidence of compliance with the mixed solid waste and recyclables standards, Staff cannot determine if this standard has been met. If the applicant provides a written sign-off from the franchise waste hauler that the location and size of the facility is adequate, this criterion will be met. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3.15.99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 25 OF 29 CONDITION: Submit a written sign-off from the franchise waste hauler that the proposed facility meets the waste hauler standards. ADDITIONAL SDR REVIEW CRITERIA Section 18.360.090.A.2 through A.15 provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed section. These other standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the following because the proposal does not Involve a residential development and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval criteria: Sections: 18.360.;090.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). The following Sections were discussed previously in this report and will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses); 18.360.090.A.8. (100-year Floodplain); 18.360.090.12 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.13 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.14 (Provision For the Disabled). Relationship to the natural and physical environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The building has been located at the corner of the development in an effort to preserve as much of the wetland and natural drainage area as possible. The site is relatively flat and not subject to ground slumping or sliding. The Building Division has reviewed the proposal and provided comments. None of the comments provided indicate that the building location will impede fire fighting ability or light and air circulation. The development is not residential; therefore, the requirement to be oriented with consideration to the sun and wind is not considered applicable. Tree removal and mitigation is discussed previously in this report. FINDING: Because the building has been located with consideration to the natural environment and trees have been discussed and addressed previously in this report, Staff finds that relationship to the natural and physical environment standard has been satisfied. Development within or adjacent to floodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/ bicycle plan. The property does not abut a floodplain; therefore, this criterion does not apply. FINDING: Because the site does not abut a floodplain, Staff finds that this standard does not apply to this application. Crime prevention and safety: A. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; CPA 98-WSDR 98-27/PD 96-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 26 OF 29 B. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; C. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; D. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall bo oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and E. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and In potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. Criterion "A" has been addressed previously in this report. Criteria "B" and "C" do not apply, as this is not a residential development. The Police Department has reviewed this proposal and requested that a lighting plan be submitted for the southwest corner of the structure near the cement plaza in order to satisfy "D" and „El, FINDING: Because information from the Police Department indicates that lighting is needed at the southwest corner of the structure and that has not been provided, criteria "D" and "E" have not been satisfied. If the applicant submits a revised lighting plan that shows lighting will be provided at the southwest corner of the structure in the area of the plaza, the criteria will be met. CONDITION: Submit a revised lighting plan for review and approval by the Police Department that shows lighting will be provided at the southwest corner of the structure in the area of the plaza. Public transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Viet review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. Tri-Met has provided comments which indicate that the area is served by Tri-Met line 12, which runs along SW Pacific Highway. Apparently, no bus line runs along the site frontage; therefore, bus stops, turnouts, etc are not required. Tri-Met provided recommendations to allow for a more pedestrian friendly design, however, the recommendations are contrary to agreed upon DET adjustments. FINDING: Because no bus lines run along the site frontage, this standard does not apply. Provisions of the underlyinga zone: All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a retail store to serve a single tenant use. This use is classified in Code Chapter 18.130 (Use Classifications) as General Retail - Sales Oriented. The proposed general retail use of the property is listed as a permitted use within the General Commercial Zoning District. Dimensional Requirements: The General Commercial Zoning District standards contained in Chapter 18.520 states that there is no minimum lot area and the average minimum lot width is 50 feet. Developments are required to provide a minimum of 15 percent landscaping or areas not developed with impervious surfaces. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3.15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 27 OF 29 The parcel width is greater than 50 feet. The applicant has provided calculations which indicate that slightly more than 15 percent landscaping will be provided. The landscaping has been discussed previously in this report. Setbacks: Chapter 18.520 states that no front, side, or rear yard setback is required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. This standard is superceded by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Building Height: Chapter 18.520 states that a maximum height of 45 feet is permitted in General Commercial Zoning District. The applicant's elevation plans and narrative show that the building will be no greater than 27 feet. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and has offered the following comments: 1) Storm drainage system shall be an engineered design. Submit design calculations. 2) Is fire hydrant private or public? Easements required for vault and fire hydrant line. Contact Mike Miller. 3) Keystone at fence must be engineered. Provide design calculations. The Operations Utility Manager has reviewed this application and provided the following comments: Sheet 8, water quality pond to be private. Sheets 1-6, wetland enhancement pond to be private. Sheet #2 of 6, need an access road to existing sanitary manhole. Paved? See sheet #2. Water is provided by Tualatin Valley Water District. Staff response: The issues raised by this department have been incorporated into the body of this report under Public Facility Concerns. The Property Manger/Operations Department has reviewed the proposal and offered comments which are summarized as follows: The property management section prefers no planted medians. They have questions regarding the types of trees removed and the tree replacement method. They have questions about the use of herbicides for landscaping, especially regarding the use in relation to the wetland. They have stated that the funny pipe needs to be deeper than 2-4 inches; they suggest 6-8 inches to insure that normal soil movement does not expose the pipe. The City arborist asks that root control be provided along SW Atlanta Street for the European Hornbeam in the planter strips. Staff response: The TTDS requires planted medians. The issue of the funny pipe depth will be discussed as part of the engineering review of the water quality facility. The street tree planting methods must be approved by the City arborist. A Condition of approval has been attached that requires the applicant to obtain City arborist's approval of tree planting methods prior to street tree installation. The Police Department reviewed this application and has offered the following comments: This office would like to have submitted "lighting plan" for southwest corner of structure near the "cement plaza". I did not notice any lighting in area (particularly "wall-paks") that would further illuminate the corner. Staff response: This comment has been incorporated into this report and a condition applied. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this application and has provided comments which have been discussed in the body of this report under Public Facility Concerns. CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES `R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 28 OF 29 GTE has reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: Developer to provide 4" conduits from equipment room to GTE manhole per GTE specs. Tualatin Valley Water 01strict has reviewed the application and provided the following comments: We have reviewed plans for project. We noted that a new street, SW Atlanta Street, is proposed along the north side of the proposed project site. TVWD requests a traffic circulation plan for the extended street. District required extension of water lines in public streets to extents of property under development. Connection point to water system may change from that shown to new line in SW Atlanta Street. Tri-Met has reviewed the proposal and provided comments that have already been discussed within this report. Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the application and provided comments which have been incorporated into the body of this report. Division of State Lands has reviewed this proposal and offered the following comments: This project has been authorized under state permit RF-10232 for Waremart, Inc. A copy of the permit and conditions were attached to comments provided by the DSL. US Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: These plans are different than we permitted. Enclosed is a copy of what we permitted. It is unclear whether they are still within the permitted footprint. Staff response: A condition of approval needs to be attached that requires the applicant to get confirmation from the US Army Corps of Engineers and DSL that the plans shown are permitted, or revise the plan to meet the permitted mitigation. This condition will not be signed off until a letter of confirmation is received from Jan Stuart of the US Army Corps of Engineers and Bill Parks of DSL. Metro was given an opportunity to review this application and did not provide Staff with any comments or objections TCI Cable Vision, US West and Portland General Electric (PGE) have reviewed this application and offered no comments or objections. i:\curplnl ulia\Babies revised 415-99.dot CPA 98-04/SDR 98-27/PD 98-14 3-15-99 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BABIES "R" US RETAIL STORE PAGE 29 OF 29 r T. loll. SW Atlanta~~ CCS)CC ~ to - •i ..;.t l / t om woo- 1 1 c I t 1( GAj t . ~Q~' • ~t • . ~ - '~tES°° a®~~a~~Cpa~ga-oooQr ~ ca®a' os-ooz~r ~ pLpN ~ ~ ipate~~as~p~ ~ o 'oa-oo1o El ~D Sint «o E~ e)CVJ1S T M e aFao ..moo is not to state It amommal-_ BMWOO-M INS d~~ ~„ISeW~~ a ~ i \ v off` i ~ .OWN 1 ~l -i--• r "ti~ ' HMI j T I LL_ Cu .7g 10 Pr-~ tom) aY<i i ; Ci=D t 1 I LAI alo as{soy c SW ATLANTA STREET Ny \ Boom MAY-11-99 04:36PM FROM-STOEL RIVES T-304 P.02/03 F-040 STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N s Y S nf STANDAM INSURANCE CENTER J 4W SW FIFTH AluarMp SUITE 2wA PORTLAND. OKEGON 97204.1268 Pkmrct503)2zs-3360 Fas(s03)vo-ziw ! ' e n y~ TDZ tL,4 5 _ I '1S \K.J lnamcr: et: ~.n WWA+stuel aim n 1.~ 1 L May 11, 1999 MiCHAP.L C. RONINSON Direcr DW (503) 294-9194 cmail mcrobiaso anod.com VIA. PACSIMD..E Mr. Dick Bewersdorff City of Tigard Community Development Deparunent 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard No. CPA 98-04/SDR 95-27/PD 95-14 Dear Dick: This law firm represents Regal Cinemas. As you know, we are monitoring the Babies "R" Us application because it will add additional traffic to the intersection of SW 7214 Avenue and Dartmouth Street. As Julia's memorandum to the City Council notes, Regal Cinemas ("Regal") has stated that it is willing to install a traffic signal at this intersection as long as other land use projects are conditioned to reimburse Regal for its cost of the traffic signal based on their proportionate sbsre of traffic through the intersection during the P.M. peak hour. I spoke with Jack Orchard, representing Babies "R" Us, earlier today. Jack told me that he will agree to a condition of approval whereby Babies "R" Us either provides funds to the City of Tigard for its share of the traffic signal or provides funds to Regal if Regal constructs the signal. I would like the City Council to adopt at least the following language as a condition of approval: I "In the event Regal Cinetims installs a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 72II4 Avenue and Dartmouth Street, the applicant shall be required to reimburse Regal Cinemas a portion of its cost of the installation of the traffic signal based an the appl'icant's P.M. peak hour traffic as shown in. its December 1995 traffic study." PDX I w-174W9.1 2S 1104" SL.TUR ram-ND VANCOwL6. WA bola[ S.LT L r4 Cm W„Shmmm. G.C MAY-11-90 04:37PM FROM-STOEL RIVES T-304 P.03/03 F-040 7i ' STOEL RIVES «P Mr. Dick Bewersdorff May 11, 1999 Page z Please glace this letter before the City Council at tonight's hearing. Very truly yours, 44 Michael C. Robinson MCR:ipc cc: Mr. John Roper (via facsimile) Mr. Jack Orchard (via facsimile) PDXI A-174039.1 25180-000a .v rE£: R:%#~:: a i+Y?.',.::f::: ~::SS{::;':{v~Y;:~#;•:`?<:~::~%:i;~7~ fir. a:::::`: p"~ ~::>i}.'o:Y.is ::::S..: N Y: i:::S{{:;s;::+{.5:::;`::::;!{<:::i•.`+>.'•'{:6;+9a:S::{{i::y{;~:.{.::ix:i::3`;::.:::::{sc:;shiSa:a::;:S`:..:i::a i.vv: ~s!s+a'.'•n'oi::....::y,.:.aas »::5:;• s....:.:.:a::;vS{:..... i. y . yr :sl s ys ..............................:.::.:.:::<:;.a;:.^:a:..:a;•.::.;•.:::,.::;,,:..,.;3:?a:<s+a;:9i.`;S<{s::S{::#:;:,s::{:.:::,:.::n:a:.::.::::a::... v:::.v::: v.:. i ; #t# n.: } sa: v:.::: v: v.::::.:........... Babies "R" Us 0.0% Existing Conditions + Site M. ' .x~n ~y ;;;s.{~ `<',f,'•,~''',>~`;sf~' ~ ~l~L i?y.S;z' BABIES m TEV = 1,29 Dux-: Triangle Babies "R" Us Corporate Center 5.9% 0.0% Existing Conditions Eagle Hardware 0.8% + Approved y Development Specht Office 5.3%- : ,sz Volumes ah. + Site Tri-County 5.0% >[:s'~i:i~%,'{,~%^~'~:r . .~;s:;:>:;a~s,'i,`,3`t;z>..%i::v~ o....•~atF~,'.,`'0~.3~~~:i; %{:i^::ak:: "~,v ~.d?t#:'a~, ;~'~:`>:s3t~S.;s,"'.~ss'~£~s•;~r+'E~'s; :4~rStktni ~:`_.>:><z#s •':w~a`ti~i> { > .:{3cs : aw `zra kz :::,.{s:s:ax 'k~rzry .>,}{;x:z`:4 t.ti:i.'•.''.o%'{`,57:'<v. ,~y ?Fa5'o~o- :OX e£?S*as'''Ar:;y:~:.:>%t ":w?+>^R$.tia?'4'a .t+~t~~>zJE:~~<`a,{3w'`b"isz:;ski;?%•~:.3c'.L~,:.z;p;~:s ~~td':;~:~::s a~>z?~;~.a~c~;;Z ' £y<;+ ys;'t~.a'',#:#. vt,.55•~{{.~.{s; ~3~x~~'%:~~.:33>:, t~?s;il"'nS ``,'t BABIES - 0 TEV 1,510 2262%N R K M32 $ 2 V 201.C 0 R MR, A* U .=k. t v >';•`=f %;F'~i%:':i:` : ~ u ~ :`:Rk2k:";:':'~ :jfij:'tj;:"'s'i,: :.:'s%;:C:,{`:>::~j'•:%'(i~:k j ~j:':;;:`' j? ':`'<''"k:~ i tr•; t; jj 3<' t: ~ ~>i<i°i>si>'~t<~•`:i `~i<`>3:az`~`''rtEi'?'•zzi>>~''>'. ~<i!t<i~i''~:%~ ~ ~'iiii~'z<~~:<> ~f3'i`i£~ i>< ~ Wyk Babies "R" Us 1.0% Existing Conditions Syr'' + Site IVERVE T'EV o 2,075 f iyYi~- fl • i"' RABIES o 20 Babies "R" Us Triangle 0.7% Corporate Center 6.3®/o Existing Conditions Eagle Hardware 1.9% + Approved Development h~F.C :fi'tiYjo Specht office 3.0®/®y¢': Volumes + Site ~ ksf`t Tri-(moo u nt 11 9~% 11 3{~?:: :a:~:.•. t z;;: rd„£,;:~:`Ffi^'~F'~.~.~Y '?;^rt :a:5.;r:r?~,F `i~>o``S~<iE~;;3?"`y°~::3°." ~j"i~:r.~l;yw t§ <9 • ~~'v 3'~!~';~,.^: . ::k:::,.ffi,~ itr'{Y r2':=.'o`: _ ti?t ...0';6Sr'::~.k`'J,,,O` t:~j.:,f.,;,.'+~.v;.<L:~. T EV 2,695 BABIES - 20 2262%MPRE W292 P201.C DR o <{Sri '~#':%'f ~":5;3:2:5Y:k~::::`y'y%:a':ii:Y#::{:f3:$`:;r,.~::;•r>°:::5;`:3::::3:`r}: i::r{r:::S.S,Y.:::;::~ `rr:wr.'.::v~n3rrt}:ir•t:p'.Sr<;.;rr.4:::; r:k.rr: r::r}r:;. .::::r;:o-:;r»:rr':.:or:^: rrr'atttor?:?:;tt:.r:: .:...:..•.YO:?;;;Gf3%y555i r:.:.::.: ,::,r c; xu;;< n:: 5:;%:C•;q,%SiS;:{::; :2.rr:T.:rir: t;r:c;r:r.y:.;y.r':6{:::r;5,:r:}2:tS;}rr tL x55 r::r:t?)r;: t::r+r:~yr;;:5: :£''~''~`•`•?":£::y}~:~:i:;{~``:: Snit: i:':•:•;•`.:2::#::~#:{::{: ; 5. a: : o: •r: .~5`!>~ .a.`"#'Ey t;. z#`>!'`'~~~'? ~ "A'`t~'.; a':??;`''<`:~ s(.`:<"';i`~`r'<' `~rrrr ~ -•;;::rr:.:3';:.{:; r:::: r ; >'f< > Babies "R" Us 0.0~/® Existing Conditions + Site 'IN TEV _ 640 /N,BABIES Triangle Corporate Center 3.2% Babies "R" Us 0.0% Eagle Hardware 2.6% Existing Conditions Specht Office 6.5°/®..;::..;. + Approved f =file r. Development o Tr ieCount ">>t :<25n . ' 4f ' x xfyft .w Volumes Y 10.1 /o + Site ,'y+o: ~?;~~'.n,~"'Srr h;+: r.3~;:;r Vii:::i•>.:~i?~' Srkx i::Y;.y s53zx' :.05M1 u?EZo 325 r ~J yF ~ir'k. o-~SSs. ri}:i5 n n`S t. i ;tYE: a;5r. oY s P6 5 R `'v k2' .t? v i?~1 ~3R 1+:L'44 2155: i 3>s Y 23:x; r ' O J:at: 5 o&4<'x fie ff; } ~x f; T 060 t 1s BABIES fi?: i`:ftS v ±ihrrr+ C'~55" +S~Sv .:r%:;, ~41J~\ oP ran ...:.:t~:~. . o'P....:.:::. . is :.`r;,. 3:; :;:.:r::;: j:: '.r: t,};'':a. Sl?:;f?;.n3:':i'.'3?5:i::S:jr55:::?i..iiii:::2"'•'.'i:..:':::?:r.%. ~';i5: ;:;:':'i:•5i:r:S ~.i ~ i:15>SC<5.2: j: t5<S;5S52"5:22x:5"x:5:>: . tt~" ~z>a>%~;>`«`gist;.yy.~>~'[>~a''><~^':>>•;#:x€~a`'€~_:`_~<<'><"?` ~~">~>:,`:.<i<~<':='<€;f~;>`!>~i">'`~~'<#??`: ; sCi: ms's s , s. v: t: s. ; t'ts #i •ssss::o::o;sys:.s:i{^i:i..#:`;::;##yyi t;.sss:t•':a'::A i.y y ' o:ccs ..........::...ss.`•::s:~:ss.::::::....s:.:...::.i::.ss:•ss;%s:{iu,.{{;.s:s::•..r..;s:?'.`.. .::::::.::ti; i; t.sv::: s;:....,::'::; y; ##.sss x:: sss•: s..::: s: v.,... v ,::.4:::::: s::::::. v::: .....::.:::.yt; {':;::::..:..,w:::...: ~::.ns; <;.s•:::;:.::: ^::::::::::s:%:si::::e::::t::`:2<:•r:: Babies "R" Us 1.5% Existing Conditions + Site WIM, El -r NE i fr. it r.. P TE V = 2 020 BABIES 30 Triangle Babies "R" Us Corporate Center 0.9% Existing Conditions Eagle Hardware 4.4% + Approved nv : Development 2.6% 'y Volumes Office iun,es + Site ir:t'.:`.. 'y. TrI-Count 17.2% IN, ix"s`a„:#t`~~~'iiwz .;s s':i': ;,:evV«;:'•`'>.,h8;~3$"~'A^ E5`a~:~:';~#:'?isj:~!.;,:,~s?'~3.~ F;F.i i#i;::h::~z:. Y.oov,~ ^';r,.,;i:;,Ay;`.i~.:,~i>:. 'z >fi >''s'M ,as I!ti:F.ti~~ :#:%xoi$FCk48~:5 <~#{.#?.;.'f:f~ 4%i3:Y##r`'a>t"4`zYyyx{.}:.3:.:'v :<,'°s?Sa' TEV - 29700 BABIES = 30 "•,~~'~~:zs%;v"s.Y{'~:s~;~r;~'•5 f'$~3a::#:z;~.;f z~F,'~'`bs~k.:~ 22S2%KPR ESN2S2P201.CDR ~.v.:::..: s, • s:: s:; ss: y; ss:;:{::; ssi::'.` Yss. s: »ssssY. Ty.'.~~~~•~~"~~~~~.'~~i ~#s;;.,'....?;{'.'s,;;...:;.;:;'.i ,.'~~yy.:~ .<!MR.....:::::::;.j;::::`:::'r':':"+'~Y:; `::::`~:::':C':<#.:<': F. : pig::'::l#'s:".:?`:'i>':`•>>':E?::?'::".;'s! { 4 etooaarKro rarearanoa ara*aA VICINITY MAP mammas GoNED CPA 90-0004 SDR 9R-0027 L- PD 98-00 1 4 \G I ~~o.uo■®® rsa- aaaas v ® mra QPO SUBJECT PARCEL T A RABIES °'R°° US ST I ST = v I.` N DARTMOUTH ST i---. 0 zoo too 000 Faat V- 472 faaf City of Tigard ST lnfommon on this map is for ganaral baudo D* and hed BoMwa Diviatan. should be wrifiad H1Ih 77125 25 6W Ha W Hap BNd Tigard, OR 07223 (507) 6304171 HERMOSO tO http:1h~.d.ugard.or.u6 Plot date: Feb 1,1999; C:unagic\MAGlC02.APR 6f3tid~ityt~trvolopment - MAY-11-99 04:36PM FROM-STOEL RIVES T-304 P.02/02 F-040 ° STOEL RIVES I LP A T T O R N E Y S STANDAW ENSUMNCE CENTHH 9W SW FIFTH AvEnt X SUITE 20W ?0RT"ND, 0MGON 9TA4-IW P1.mK(503)2ZS,3390 r- r(M22P29W TDD(5W)2-1J-1 S Inlema: Wwa -fst,I aim j' May 11, 1999 J MICHAEL. C. ROBINSON U Otrect Diu! f~ (503) 294-9194 V tarsi! mcrobima0swcLoom NV VIA PACSINM E - Mr. Dick Bewersdorff City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard No. CPA 9$-04/STAR 95-27/PD 95-14 Dear Dick: This law firm represents Regal Cinemas. As you know, we are monitoring the Babies "R" Us application because it will add additional traffic to the intersection of SW 7201 Avenue and Dartmouth Street. As Julia's memorandum to the City Council notes, Regal Cinemas ("Regal") has stated that it is willing to install a traffic signal at this intersection as long as other land use projects are conditioned to reimburse Regal for its cost of the traffic signal based on their proportionate share of traffic through the intersection during the P.M. peak flour. I spoke with Jack Orchard, representing Babies "R" Us, earlier today. Jack told me that he will agree to a condition of approval whereby Babies -R" Us either provides funds to the City of Tigard for its share of the traffic signal or provides funds to Regal if Regal constructs the signal. 1 would like the City Council to adopt at least the following language as a condition of approval: "In the event Regal Cinemas installs a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 72°1 Avenue and Darunouth Street, the applicant shall be required to reimburse Regal Cinemas a portion of its cost of the installation of the traffic sigW based an the applicant's P.M. peals hour traffic as shown In its December 1998 traffic study." P= IA-I74W9.1 2S Ir4 60 SE.TTtX Pom-00 VANCOUVU. WA beret S.LT L." Crn %VASt U D.C IONIC! INN WNINI MAY-11-99 04:37PM FROM-STOEL RIVES T-304 P.03/03 F-040 STOEL RIVES ALP Mr. Dick Bewersdorff May 11, 1999 Page 2 Please place this lever before the City Council as tonight's hearing. Very ugly yours, Michael C. Robinson MCR:ipc cc: Mr. John Roper (via facsimile) Mr. Jack Orchard (via facsimile) AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF May 11, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Greenspaces IGA Amendments PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK Zia &Z CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council pass a resolution amending its inter-governmental agreement with Metro for the pass through of Greenspaces Bond Measure funds? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the mayor to sign the resolution approving the IGA amendments listed in Attachment "A". INFORMATION SUMMARY The City's IGA with Metro for the pass through of local share Greenspaces funds expires 12/31/99. To date, the City has spent approximately $525,000 of its $758,000 entitlement, leaving approximately $233,000 in unspent funds. Two Fanno Creek Corridor land acquisition deals in the pipeline reduce the unspent amount to $200,000. Staff proposes two changes to the current IGA that will allow the City to expend these remaining entitlement dollars in a timely manner. Staff proposes a third, bookkeeping-type, change related to the Cache Creek Park acquisition. The proposed changes are depicted in Exhibit "A". Last year, Council authorized the acquisition of 4.3 acres of Bull Mountain forest land as an addition to 7.5 acres of abutting forest land acquired by Washington County and conveyed to the City at no charge. The combined 12-acre natural area is now designated as Cache Creek Park. The attached resolution adjusts the City's Greenspaces budget allocations to reflect the purchase of the 4.3 acre piece. Specifically, the resolution transfers to the Bull Mountain target area $59,925 in funds earmarked for Fanno Creek Corridor acquisitions together with $6,100 in funds allocated for Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge Design. These adjustments will allow the City to seek reimbursement from Metro for the full $345,025 in purchase and other costs associated with the acquisition in question. The current project list identifies $50,000 in local share funds for Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge Design. So far, a total of $6,500 of this amount has been expended or committed for feasibility and design work related to the project, with the City of Tualatin providing an equal amount. With the completion of the concept plan now in progress, no additional expenditures on this project are anticipated through the end of 1999. Staff proposes that most of the balance of $43,500 set aside for this project be re-allocated for the development of a master I~ plan, with public involvement, for the new Cache Creek Park. Also included in the proposed study area are two abutting properties: the Trust for Public Lands property, which ultimately may be added to the City's nature park, and the undeveloped portion of the Menlor Reservoir site located along the northern edge of the n *»re park. In addition to plan development, the master plan work would include a topographic survey and a significant tree survey for the area plus a natural resource analysis. The final IGA revision proposed is changing the scope of the Fanno Creek Corridor project to include trail construction and natural area enhancement. The original parameters of this project included only one element - the acquisition of land within the greenway corridor. Because the value of the floodplain that makes up the greenway is comparatively low and also because many owners have dedicated or have indicated a willingness to dedicate land or an access easement for a trail, the dollar amount needed for right-of-way acquisition is less than anticipated. Several creekside trail projects within the corridor are proposed for construction this year. Since trail construction is an eligible Greenspaces activity, including trail work as part of the Fanno Creek Corridor project would provide operational and standby projects, if needed, for the timely expenditure of the City's remaining Greenspace dollars. Identifying the corridor area as a whole for potential trail improvements rather than specific trail segments within the corridor will provide the flexibility needed to use funds for individual trail segments as they are ready to implement. Additionally, the City is in the process of acquiring two properties within the Fanno Creek Corridor that are highly degraded. Since restoration or enhancement of natural areas is an eligible Greenspaces activity, including restoration as another element of the Fanno Creek Corridor Project will provide additional flexibility with respect to the timely expenditure of City's Greenspaces funds. Approval of the proposed changes will allow the City to obtain reimbursement for the full cost of the Cache Creek Park purchase and also will provide various options for spending down the City's remaining local share Greenspaces bond measure entitlement before the IGA termination date of 12/31/99. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council could reconsider two previously identified land acquisitions, a six-acre natural area located above Cook Park and/or a one-acre forest parcel abutting Cache Creek Park, both of which are still available. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth Management Goal #1 calls for Accommodating Growth while Protecting Livability, with natural resource protection identified as one of the action strategies listed under this goal. FISCAL NOTES Council previously approved the acquisition of the forestland in question. Revision of the official City project list to reflect this change will allow the City to seek reimbursement of the full $345,025 project cost from the City's Greenspaces set aside. The remaining Greenspaces funds available to the City are $233,000. Under the existing IGA, these funds must be spent by the end of 1999. i:\cityveidc\sum\tn=spaceIGA.budgct adj. V ;4 I f r ~ fix 3 -ItLf,L 1~ 7, - ~ L - x 71.3 -L r ~ ;I I FBI - L A 1; n C r Q.~ q o fk) Q ~ w w z v Agenda Item No. Meeting ofd mum CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Cathy Wheatly FROM: Duane Roberts DATE: 5/6/99 SUBJECT: Greenspaces IGA Attached is an updated Resolution revising the City-Metro Greenspaces IGA. This new Resolution replaces the IGA Resolution included in the 5/11 Council packet. The new Resolution deletes the Cache Creek Park master plan project and reallocates the funds identified for this project to the Fanno Creek Trail Corridor project. This change is necessary because the Metro attorney determined that studies conducted after the purchase of Greenspace properties are not an eligible activity under the provisions of the Greenspaces bond measure. s I , CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION AMENDING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH METRO TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL ACQUISITION OR ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL SHARE COMPONENT OF THE METRO OPEN SPACES GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURE. WHEREAS, On May 19, 1995, the electors of Metro, a metropolitan service district, approved a ballot measure authorizing Metro to issue $135.6 million in bonds for open space, parks, trails, and streams (the "Measure"); and WHEREAS, the Measure provided $25 million from bond proceeds be expended by local parks providers for specified projects; and WHEREAS, the City is a local parks provider that has received approval for funding for projects as specified by the Measure; and WHEREAS, the City and Metro entered into a contract to expend the pass-through funds to implement certain listed projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City's project list, which was submitted to Metro in September 1997, is hereby modified as set forth and attached as Exhibit "A". The modification is based on the following findings. A. The Council finds that the purchase price of the Cache Creek forest parcel located within the Bull Mountain target area exceeds the amount allocated for land acquisition within this area. The Council therefore wishes to transfer $22,525 in funds budgeted for land acquisition within the Fanno Creek Trail target area and $43,500 in funds budgeted for the Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge Design to land acquisition within the Bull Mountain target area. B. The Council finds that the amount budgeted for the Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge Design exceeds the amount needed to complete this project by $43,500. Council therefore wishes to re-allocate this $43,500 in surplus funds to the Bull Moimtain target area. - C. Council finds that the Fanno Creek Trail Corridor project earmarks funds for the acquisition of land within the trail corridor. Council finds that the restoration and enhancement of disturbed areas and the construction of trails are eligible activities under the Greenspaces Bond measure. Council therefore wishes to modify the parameters of this project to include natural area restoration and trail construction as elements of the Fanno Creek Trail Corridor project. Council also wishes to extend RESOLUTION NO.99 Page 1 the northern boundary of the project area from Tiedeman Avenue to Tigard Street. This new boundary replicates the boundary of the Fanno Creek Trail Corridor Regional Target Area. D. The Council finds that a public process identical to the process used to select the initial sites was used to recommend the modification. The City Council considered the modification at its regular meeting on May 11, 1999. E. The Council finds that the modification has been discussed with and received tentative approval from Mel Huie, Local Share Coordinator of Metro's Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department. F. The Council acknowledges the modification to the list will not increase Metro's financial obligations under the existing intergovernmental agreement. PASSED: This day of 1999. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard is\citywide\gmenspacelGA.amend.doc RESOLUTION NO.99-_ Page 2 Exhibit "A" City of Tigard Greenspace Project List and Budget Old New Tualatin River Tracts 25,000 - Fern Street Forest Parcel 125,000 - Fanno Creek Trail Corridor 279,000 [-22,525] 256,475 Bull Mountain Forest Area 279,000 [+66,025] 345.025 Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge Design 50,000 [-43,500] 6,500 'dotal 758,000 758,000 I/Irpln/dr/greenspace.list.1999 a 7 a a AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF: May 11, 1999 - 7:30 PM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 99-0001 - Walnut Street/Tiedeman Avenue Area Annexation. PREPARED BY: Julia Powell Hajduk ~ DEPT HEAD OK / MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL. Should the Tigard City Council initiate annexation proceedings to annex 11 parcels of land within the Walnut Island area? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Resolution initiating the annexation process. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has the authority under ORS 222.750 to annex property that is within area completely surrounded by property within the City limits. The Engineering Department, as part of the Walnut/Tiedeman realignment, will be extending public sanitary sewer down SW Walnut Street. Because of this sewer extension, it will be possible for properties with frontage on SW Walnut Street to connect to City sewer. The City Engineering Department recommended that Council consider annexing the properties fronting SW Walnut Street, so that a reimbursement district could be formed and the properties benefiting could share in the cost of the sewer accessibility. At a prior City Council meeting, this issue was discussed with the City Council and staff was directed to begin the process. Because this is a City initiated annexation, the first step in the process is to initiate the annexation by approval of the attached resolution. Once the annexation has been initiated by adoption of the resolution, staff will begin the process by providing the required notice, requesting comments from other City staff and agencies and will prepare a staff report and Ordinance for consideration at the public hearing. The Engineering Department has indicated they will hold a neighborhood meeting with the owners of the affected parcels to discuss any questions and concerns those property owners have. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Take no action at this time. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY This request is consistent with Growth & Management "Goal 2." FISCAL NOTES As with any annexation under the current "no Boundary Commission" process, the City is responsible for paying the administration costs for Metro to make map changes, etc. The fee in this case will be approximately $150. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY is\citywide\sum\Tiedeman.sum Page I of 1 Julia P H 29-April-99 3:30 PM Agenda Rem No.~ Meeting of CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Review Council Groundrules PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council revise and update the Council Groundrules (Resolution 98-48)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review, revise and update the Council Groundrules. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are the following items: 1. Resolution No. 98-48 with Exhibit "A" - City Council Groundrules and Agenda Process. 2. June 2, 1998 minutes (Groundrules discussion). 3. August 25, 1998 minutes (Groundrules discussion). The purpose of this agenda item is to give Council members an opportunity to review and update the groundrules now in place. The City Council may choose to discuss, make recommendations for changes and conclude this item on April 20. However, it may be necessary.for staff to provide additional information for Council review, which would mean this item will be set over for further discussion on a later agenda. After receiving direction from the Council with regard to any changes to be made, staff will prepare an updated resolution for Council consideration at an upcoming meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Make no changes thereby affirming the groundrules as discussed in Exhibit "A" of Resolution 98-48. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A 1 Jilin CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 98-4 A RESOLUTION REVISING THE POLICY OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING COUNCIL GROUNDRULES CONCERNING CONDUCT OF CITY MEETINGS; INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CITY COUNCILORS, CITY MANAGER & STAFF; COMMUNICATIONS AMONG COUNCILORS; COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY/GENERAL PUBLIC; PLUS COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES IN GENERAL (SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NOS. 95-53,94-35,81-114A, 77-91, AND 75-30) WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council reviewed Council Groundrules, including Council agenda and meeting process on June 2 and August 25, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Council updated the procedures of operations and the manner in which it is to conduct business; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to supersede previous resolutions in the record as noted in the Resolution Title above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Council hereby adopts the Council Groundrules described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Lin PASSED: This - day of -.,1998. Mayor - C' of Tigard WARM ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard c H a~ i EXHIBIT "A" CITY COUNCIL GROUNDRULES AND AGENDA PROCESS The following information is intended to assist with preparation for and the conduct of City Council meetings. The City Charter, Article IV, Section 13, contains regulations that govern Council meetings. The Groundrules describe the process followed by Council in scheduling and conducting meetings. Council/Mayor Roles • The Mayor, or in the absence of the Mayor, the Council President, shall be the Presiding Officer at all meetings. The Presiding Officer shall conduct all meetings, preserve order, enforce the rules of the Council and determine the order and length of discussion on any matter before the Council, subject to these rules. The Presiding Officer may move, second, debate and vote and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Councilor. The Presiding Officer shall sign all ordinances, resolutions, contracts and other documents, except where authority to sign certain contracts and other documents has been delegated to the City Manager and all documents shall be attested to by the City Recorder. The Mayor shall appoint the committees provided by the Rules of Council. • In all other actions, decisions and other matters relating to the conduct of business of the City, the Mayor or President shall have no more or less authority than any other Council member. For the purposes of this written procedure any reference to the Council (unless otherwise specifically noted to the contrary) will include the Mayor, President and Council members. Conduct of Cif Meetings e Council will meet at feast once a month. Regularly scheduled meetings shall be on the second, third, and fourth Tuesdays of each month. • The Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays are "Business" meetings; the Council meetings on the third Tuesday of the month are "Workshop" meetings unless otherwise designated by the City Council. • Unless specifically noted otherwise, the meetings of Council shall begin at 6:30 p.m. at the established place of meeting. On the second and fourth Tuesdays the meetings will begin with a Study Session following by the Business meeting. On the third Tuesday, the Workshop meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. • Roll CallNoting Order: The roll shall be called in alphabetical order by last name. At each succeeding meeting at which a roll call vote is taken, the council person who a voted last during the previous meeting, shall vote first and the Council person who a voted first during the preceding meeting shall vote second and so on in a rotating fashion. It is the intent that the voting order remain fixed for each meeting and that a different Council person shall vote last during each separate meeting for the duration of the meeting. 1 x • The Chair, or other members if the Chair fails to remember, shall call for a Point of Order at or around 10 p.m. to review remaining items on the agenda with the Council. The Council may reset or reschedule those items, which it feels may not be reached prior to the regular time of adjournment. • The Council's goal is to adjourn prior to 11 p.m. unless extended by majority consent of all Council member then present. If not continued by majority consent, then the meeting shall be adjourned to either the next scheduled meeting or the meeting shall be continued to a special meeting on another date. • Definitions - Meeting Types, Study Sessions and Executive Sessions: > BUSINESS MEETINGS: Business meetings are regular meetings where Council may deliberate toward a final decision on an agenda item including consideration of ordinances, resolutions & conducting public hearings. Business meetings are open to the public. The first business meeting on each month is usually televised. Business meetings are generally scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m. with a study session preceding the Business Meeting at 6:30 p.m. Study Sessions are a workshop-type of meeting (see definition be!ow) which also provide an opportunity for the Council to review the business meeting agenda and to ask questions for clarification on issues or on prona3s. Study Sessions are open to the public. All Council meetings are open to the public with the exception of Executive Sessions. Executive Sessions can be called under certain circumstances and topics are limited to those defined by ORS 192.660. The "Visitor's Agenda" is a regular feature on the Council Business meetings. This item will be placed near the beginning of the Council Agenda to give citizens and visitors a chance to introduce a topic to the City Council. Council may decide to refer an issue to staff and/or schedule the topic for a later Council meeting. > WORKSHOPS MEETING: Workshop meetings are regular meetings where Council reviews and discusses agenda topics with no intent of deliberating toward a final decision during the meeting. Workshop meetings are not scheduled to be televised but are open to the public. Workshop agenda items are generally topics which Council is receiving preliminary information and providing direction for further analysis and staff information gathering for a later business meeting. Workshop topics may also include discussions with standing boards and committees, as well as other governmental units. Appropriate topics for Workshop meetings include: Introduce a Topic: Staff will bring up new items to determine whether Council wants to entertain further discussion and whether to schedule the topic as an item on a future agenda. 2 Y Educational Meetings: Council will review research information presented by staff, consultants, or task forces - usually as a process check; i.e. is the issue on the right "track"? Meet with individuals from City boards and committees or other jurisdictions to discuss items of common interest (examples: other Councils, the School District, and other officials). Administrative Updates: Items such as calendar information, scheduling preferences, process checks. > STUDY SESSIONS: Study Sessions precede or follow a Business Meeting or Workshop Meeting. As stated above, they are conducted in a Workshop-type setting to provide an opportunity for Council to review the Business Meeting Agenda and to ask questions for clarification on issues or on process. Information is also shared on items that are time sensitive. During Study Sessions, any Council member may call for a Point of Order whenever he or she wishes to stop the "discussion" because he or she feels that it is more appropriate for the City Council to discuss the matter during the Council meeting. If a Point of Order is raised, the City Council will discuss the Point of Order and determine whether the "discussion" should continue on to be held during the Council meeting. The decision on whether to continue the "discussion" or not shall be determined by the majority vote of the Council members present. If Council discusses a Council Agenda Topic in a Study Session prior to a Council meeting, either the Presiding Officer or City Manager will briefly state at the introduction of the Agenda Topic, the fact that Council discussed the topic in the Study Session and mention the key points of the discussion. > EXECUTIVE SESSIONS: Meetings conducted by the Council, City Manager, and appropriate staff in a setting closed to the public for deliberation on certain matters. Executive Sessions may be held during a regular, special or emergency meeting after the presiding officer has identified the authorization of ORS for holding the Executive Session. Among the permitted topics are employment of a public officer, deliberations with the persons designated by the Council to carry on labor negotiations, deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions, and to consult with legal counsel regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Policy Regarding Interrelationships Between the City Council and Its Appointed Commissions. Boards or Committees (hereinafter referred to as "Boards") • The Council shall follow the Procedure for Recruitment and Appointments to Boards and Committees established in Resolution No. 95-60. • Appointments to any committees not covered by Resolution No. 95-60 shall be made following the procedure provided within the Resolution or Ordinance, which created the committee. 3 MIME 1111;~WIIH~111111111101 • Appointments to intergovernmental committees shall be made by Council Action. • Appointments of Council members to internal City committees as the Council Liaison shall be made by the City Council. • It is Council policy to make known to the public, by notice in the Cityscape, of the occurrence of vacancies on City boards for the purpose of informing persons who may be interested in appointment. • Council will entertain regular representation by persons outside the City on those boards, which provide for such non-city membership. • The Mayor and one Council member will serve on the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee for the purpose of interviewing and recommending potential board members. Council members will serve on this Committee with the Mayor on a rotated basis for a term of six months. Terms shall begin January 1 and July 1. Communications Between City Councilors City Manager and Staff • Councilors are encouraged to maintain open communications with the City Manager, both as a group and individually in one-on-one sessions. • Councilors are encouraged to direct inquiries through the City Manager, giving as much information as possible to ensure a thorough response. • In the absence of the City Manager, Councilors are encouraged to contact the Assistant to the City Manager. In the absence of both the City Manager and the Assistant to the City Manager, Councilors are encouraged to contact the Department Head, realizing that the Department Head will discuss any such inquiries with the City Manager. • Contacts below the Department Head are discouraged due to the possible disruption of work, confusion on priorities, and limited scope of response. Council Agendas and packet Information • The City Manager will schedule agenda items while attempting to maintain balanced agendas to allow for discussion of topics while meeting the established 11 p.m. adjournment time. • The City Manager will schedule items allowing time for staff research and the agenda cycle deadlines. 4 • The agenda cycle calls for submittal of items 10 days in advance of a Council meeting. Add-ons are to be minimized, and handouts distributed at the start of meetings, except Executive Sessions. • Councilors and staff will prepare in advance of public meetings and issues should be presented fully in packets. • Council is supportive of the role staff should play in offering professional recommendations. Staff is aware of Council's right to make final decisions after considering the staff recommendation, public input, the record and Council deliberation on the matter. Communications Among Councilors Councilors are encouraged to suggest agenda topics at the bench or to contact the City Manager about scheduling an item into the Tentative Agenda. • Add-on Agenda items should be brought up at the start of the meeting and generally considered only if continuing to a later agenda is not appropriate. 9 Requests for legislative action of Council may be initiated by an individual Council member during a Council meeting. The City Manager will respond to the request consistent with resources and priorities, or refer the question of scheduling to Council as a whole. Communications with Community/General Public • Councilors and the General Public are reminded of the Agenda cycle and cut-off dates. Administrative staff is available to explain how public issues are handled and .,ow citizen input may be accomplished. • "Official" communication should come through City Mall and be provided by the City Manager. Direct submittal or inquiries to the Council or individual Councilors should be referred to the City Manager or Councilors may ask the City Manager to look into an issue. • Official "press releases" are encouraged, both to assure accurate reporting and to advise Council and Staff of the official position communicated to the press. Press releases are through the City Manager's Office. n General • Councilors are always Councilors in the eyes of the Administration, never simply private citizens. Thus, Councilors are always treated by Administration as Council Members. • Information that "affects" the Council should go to Council. The City Manager is to a decide on "gray areas," but too much information is preferable to too little. 5 i Budget cuts or increases are policy decisions. Budgets will not be cut "piece meal" or "across the board," but rather should be made in service or program areas, giving Staff full opportunity to provide data clearly defining the anticipated impact of the action. • It is the policy of the Council that if Councilors are contacted regarding labor relations during labor negotiations or conflict resolution proceedings, then Councilors have no comment. a Councilors and the City Manager agree to report and discuss any contact, which might affect labor relations with the entire Council in Executive Session. ® The Council Groundrules will be submitted for review by Council each year either in the July or August Workshop Meeting. The Groundrules can be reviewed and revised at any other time in the year when a specific issue or issues are identified requiring action prior to the established review period. ladm%cathftesexha.doc 6 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES June 2, 1998 1. Roll Call > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan II. DISCUSSION: COUNCIL GROUND RULES AND PROCEDURES Bill Monahan, City Manager, led the discussion on the Council ground rules and procedures. He referenced his May 29 memo that listed seven points for Council consideration and incorporated Councilor Hunt's comments regarding inconsistencies between the written documents, past practices and present practice. Mr. Monahan addressed the issue of who should appoint the Finance Officer: the Council, the Mayor or the City Manager? He noted the applicable Charter, Code, and 1987 Board and Committee workbooks sections which were inconsistent in listing who appointed the Finance Officer. He reviewed the confusion that existed on exactly who was the Finance Officer, given the changes in personnel and job titles over the years. He concluded that the Finance Director was the Finance Officer. The Council discussed the pros and cons of sending a Charter amendment to the people at this time to clarify this situation or to only change the Municipal Code. Mr. Monahan raised the first issue for consideration: the Council/Mayor role. Councilor Hunt expressed his frustration with the lack of clear direction on what the role of a Councilor was in working with committees as the Council representative. He cited the Cook Park Committee, asking when his role as Council representative was over, now that the Committee has completed its task and sent the matter on to the staff level (yet the committee was never officially disbanded). He asked for clarification on what a Councilor's relationship was with staff in regard to the Councilor as the Council liaison to a committee. He asked how much should he be involved in the details of the WWSA in working with staff. Mayor Nicoli commented that his management style was informal. He said that he believed that any Councilor who saw a problem on a committee would bring it to the Council's attention for discussion. He said that he was not opposed to giving clear written direction on a Councilor's role and authority as the Council liaison when a committee was set up. Councilor Rohif spoke to implementing a formal ending to a committee when its task was done or a discussion on what to do next. He commented that he depended heavily on the Council Liaison to present the issues and controversies of a particular committee. He said that he would CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 1 rather have the Council Liaison hear the details from staff regarding his committee because those details might trigger a red flag for the Councilor that they would not necessarily do for staff, who looked at things from a different point of view. Councilor Moore commented that he also depended on the Council Liaison to keep him informed on specific committee issues, and to return to Council if a decision or controversy arose that required a decision by the Council as a whole. The Council discussed adding an agenda item that allowed more in-depth Council Liaison reports than the brief opportunity at the beginning of the meeting. They agreed that sometimes deciding when to bring something back to Council was a matter of judgment in the individual situation. The Council discussed how to handle the formation and dispersion of a committee. They agreed that Council should set a goal for each committee. Once the committee's task was done, then the committee either be disbanded or the Council sets a new goal for the committee. Mr. Monahan commented on the value of the Councilor's perspective as a member of the committee on the staff work done after the committee completed has its charge. The Council discussed what the role of a Councilor was in relation to the staff work done on the committee's project, speaking to the Cook Park Committee's task in particular. They agreed to reconvene a committee on an occasional basis, after its task was completed, in order to inform the committee members on the progress of the project and to explain the reasons behind any changes made by staff. Mr. Monahan commented that the Councilor became the City spokesperson whom the committee members could call with questions regarding the staff work. Councilor Hunt commented that a Councilor could tell a committee that he would recommend the Committee's action to the Council but he could not make a commitment without talking to the Council as a whole. Mr. Monahan asked if the Council Liaison should also be the contact person with the media. The Council discussed referring media people who wanted the City position on an issue to the department manager or Councilor who knew the most about the issue. Mayor Nicoli said that he felt comfortable referring the media to the person whom the Council put in charge of an issue/committee. The Council discussed the importance of being very clear on when a Councilor was expressing his personal opinion and when he was giving the City Council's position. Councilor Rohlf pointed out that the Mayor was the figurehead for the City and would be contacted most frequently regarding the City's position on issues. The Council returned to the discussion of a separate agenda item for the longer Council liaison reports. They agreed to retain the agenda item for Council Communications/Liaison Reports at the beginning of the meeting and to add a new agenda item just before Non-Agenda items for the longer Council Liaison reports. Mr. Monahan said that staff could include a list of the known committee assign,►~enis with that agenda item. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 2 Mr. Monahan asked if the Council Liaison should also be the contact person for other governmental bodies or leave it to staff. The Council agreed that staff should serve as the contact point with other governmental agencies. Councilor Rohlf mentioned that the primary person assigned by Council as the Council liaison to a committee remained the City representative, even when another Councilor attended the committee meeting. Mr. Monahan reviewed the elements in the discussion that could be compiled into a guideline for the responsibilities of the Council Liaison to a committee. These included the following: • to participate in the committee's meetings; • to represent the Council's position rather than his personal position; • to report to Council on the committee's activities • to bring key issues to Council for direction before stating the Council position on a given issue; • to be the point of contact for the committee and the staff; • to represent the committee with the media; • to clarify to the committee (in conjunction with staff) what the future steps would be, once the work was completed; and • Other Councilors were invited to attend committee meetings but the voting and spokesperson role remained with the designated representative. Councilor Moore spoke to the issue of Council allowing staff to finish their staff reports before asking them questions. Councilor Moore asked what the Council's role was in relation to the day-to-day operations of the City, what the staff's role was, and whether or not Council was making decisions that were better left to the professional staff who had expertise. Mr. Monahan said that often staff brought an issue to Council to get guidance on what particular direction to take. The Council agreed that they should police themselves in their conversations with staff and back off when they were getting into the details better left to the professional staff. They discussed the City Manager's role in those situations. i The Council discussed staff presentations. Mr. Monahan mentioned that he had staff working on making more concise and informative presentations. He said that staff expected the Council to i read the agenda packets to get the detailed information, as they would present only a brief background, the key issues, and the decision Council needed to make. , Councilor Moore spoke to a staff summary that stated what the staff recommendation was and the reasons behind it as opposed to a detailed history of the item. Mr.'Monahan noted that the documentation was part of the record, given to Councilors for their information. He mentioned the cover sheet which identified the issue, the decision, and the implications of the decision. Mr. Monahan noted that they have discussed the CounciUMayor role, Council appointments, and the role of the Council representative to a committee or intergovernmental agency board. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 3 i He raised the next issue of Conduct of Council meetings. The Council agreed to maintain the current practice of rotating the voting order at each meeting and keeping the voting order throughout the meeting. The Council discussed how to handle Council discussion. They agreed to continue their current informal practice of letting any Councilor talk when he wanted to with the Mayor prompting discussion if necessary. The Council discussed whether or not the Mayor was allowed to make a motion. Mr. Monahan said that there was nothing in the written documentation prohibiting the Mayor from doing so. Mayor Nicoli said that he had been advised by a former Mayor to make very few motions, advice that he considered good advice because of public perception. Mr. Monahan reviewed language suggested by Councilor Hunt to clarify the responsibilities of the Mayor or the Council President as the Presiding Officer, including a statement that the Presiding Officer should not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Councilor but neither would he have any more or less authority than any other Councilor with regard to conducting the business of the City. The Council agreed that the Mayor was an equal member of the Council. Councilor Rohlf pointed out that while the Mayor had no more actual authority than any other member of Council, he did have more apparent authority because of his position as figurehead for the City. The Council discussed who made the Commission, Board and Committee appointments: the Mayor or the Council. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the City Attorney's opinion had been that the Mayor appointed the person who would represent the Council on a task force but all other appointments were done by the Council as a whole. The Council agreed that the inconsistencies between the Charter, the Code, and the Rules of Council needed to be cleaned up. Mayor Nicoli spoke for the Council voting on all appointments. The Council agreed that Mr. Monahan should use Councilor Hunt's language on the appointment process as he saw fit in drafting consistent language for the Charter, the Code, and the Rules of Council, based upon the Council's discussion. They agreed that the Council made the appointments. They agreed to put the Charter housekeeping amendments on the November ballot. Mr. Monahan reviewed the appointment process for the positions and committees listed in the Charter. The Council agreed to keep the language specifying that the appointment and removal of the Municipal Court. Judge and the City Recorder was done by the Mayor with prior consent of the majority of the Council. They agreed to change the language regarding the Library Board appointments to be consistent with present practice: the Council was the appointing authority. The Council agreed that the appointment or removal of the Finance Officer should fall under the City Manager's jurisdiction. They agreed to change the City Attorney, the Building Appeals Board, the Planning Commission, and the Budget Committee to appointment by the Council. The Council discussed the interview process described in the Council handbook and how it CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 4 worked with the appointment process. They agreed to retain the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Council (the Mayor and one other Councilor) to do the Board and Commission interviews. They agreed to change the language to state that the Advisory Council's recommendation would be brought to the Council who would make the appointments. > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting. Mr. Monahan mentioned the last two items: study session and workshop topics and Executive Session topics. He noted that Executive Session topics were clearly outlined in the statute as to what was appropriate. He recommended holding a training session by the City Attorney's office to review the appropriate Executive Session topics to help the Council self-police their closed- session discussions and avoid getting into open session discussion. Councilor Rohlf asked if he could discuss the Executive Session topic of another governmental committee in Tigard's Executive Session. Mr. Monahan said that matter should be handled on a case-by-case basis in order to avoid harming the work of the other agency. He pointed out that once that committee had completed their work, then the matter could be discussed in open session. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern with logistics of Executive Session, and the asking of the public to leave the conference room for the Executive Session after the Council study session has already started. Mr. Monahan said that he did not think that the public felt inconvenienced. He spoke to the importance of allowing the public into the conference room for the study sessions in order to avoid the appearance of "backroom politics." Mr. Monahan explained that study sessions were the times before or after a meeting when the Council and staff discussed things that were not Executive Session privilege. Workshops were the second Council meeting of the month. He commented that he has blended the two somewhat depending on which agenda had the time necessary for a given topic. He said that staff used the workshop to bring items to Council that were not yet fully formed and for which they needed further clarification or direction. In addition, he preferred to schedule discussions with other governmental bodies during workshops. Mr. Monahan explained that study sessions before the meeting were primarily for Executive Session information which the Council needed to hear prior to that evening's meeting. He noted that they have also used them to accommodate an attorney's schedule, to hear the City Attorney's advice on an item coming up or for Agenda Review. He mentioned that staff expected the Council to call them before the meeting with questions on the agenda packet so that they could get the information or make the appropriate person available at the meeting. Mr. Monahan mentioned his understanding that the Council did not want to use the study session for a proxy vote but to have the full topic discussion during the regular meeting. Councilor Hunt spoke strongly in support of holding full discussions during the regular session. He contended that the public saw these study session discussions in the conference room as "backroom politicking." He held that the physical setting in the conference room was CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 5 uncomfortable for the public and not encouraging to their attendance. The Council discussed when full discussion of a topic should occur. The Council agreed to set a ground rule that in the pre-Council meeting study session, any Councilor could call a point of order to stop discussion because he/she felt it was more appropriate to discuss the matter in the Council session. The Council would cease the discussion and determine by majority Council consent whether it was appropriate to continue the discussion or hold it for regular Council session. During the Council session on the item, the City Manager or the Mayor would briefly state the fact that the Council discussed the item in study session, and the key points of the discussion. Mr. Monahan commented that staff occasionally had to place an action item on a workshop agenda but they always got Council's permission in advance, and they did not intend it to become a routine practice. Councilor Hunt noted some ground rules that were inappropriate for this particular Council. The Council agreed that Mr. Monahan would edit the nzles to remove the negativity from them. The Council discussed when to hold a Council ground rules review for each new Council. They agreed to schedule an annual ground rules review and revision at the July or August workshop, and to review the rules at a study session for the benefit of new Councilors. Mr. Monahan noted Councilor Hunt's suggestion to add a statement clarifying that in the Board and Committee appointment process, the Council would follow an advertising process (as staff presently did). Councilor Hunt explained that he raised the issue in order to correct the statement that the Council asked the committees to make recommendations, which the Council did not do. Mr. Monahan commented that Board and Committee recruitment was a process rather than a Council ground rule. The Council discussed their ability to work as a team for the benefit of the community. III. Non-agenda items Mr. Monahan reported that staff received a letter from a citizen supporting Tigard using Portland water as a result of the Oregonian 's recent article about Portland's proposal to use Bull Run water as the region's water supply in future years. He pointed out that the article only a presented Portland's side of the issue. He noted an article last week in which Greg Knokes reported on the Consortium's meeting, and that Tigard was not the only community raising questions about the cost and implementation of Portland's proposal. Councilor Rohlf contended that Tigard was not doing a good job yet on public relations regarding their water options. Mr. Monahan advised that Kevin Hanway of Tualatin valley i Water District is making an effort for positive media coverage. Councilor Hunt pointed out that Tigard has not agreed to Portland's proposal, as Portland claimed. He mentioned that it was likely to take Portland 10 to 15 years to get the plant designed and built, provided they could even get the environmental permits (which was not a sure thing). He noted that although Tigard residents thought they have been drinking Bull Run CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 6 Councilor Hunt asked if there was a drawback to "planned inconsistency." Mr. Hendryx said that the drawback was certainty for the development community. He commented that the benefit was that each area was unique and that perhaps having different standards for each area was appropriate. Councilor Scheckla mentioned the former Tigard Design Review Board that was eliminated. Mr. Hendryx said that, as he understood it, the Board was eliminated as part of an effort to streamline the process and to have consistent standards incorporated into the Code. He stated that they were not advocating reestablishing the Board. Mayor Nicoli commented that often these Design Review Boards ended up practicing architecture instead of evaluating how a proposal would ft into the neighborhood. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, confirmed that the Tigard Board had gotten into specific details on projects instead of focusing on design criteria and neighborhood compatibility issues. Mayor Nicoli commented that the Tualatin process involved negotiation between the owner and the staff to reach a compromise on the design, a unique process. Councilor Hunt expressed concern over having separate standards for different areas within the city. Mayor Nicoli said that he had no problem with taking unique areas in the city and shaping them differently. He said that changing the design review standards to do so, as they did in the Triangle, was the best way. Mr. Hendryx commented that he had anticipated that the use of the Triangle design standards as development occurred in the Triangle would spur interest in evaluating design standards for the whole city. However, Council's interest has driven this matter forward before they had many examples in the Triangle. He reiterated Council's options: to wait and see what happened with the Triangle and the various planning efforts (revisiting this in six months to a year), to direct staff to develop administrative design standards for the entire city, or to go with a formal Board review process. Councilor Hunt favored the wait and see option. Councilor Moore stated that he did not favor a formal Board review process. He spoke in support of developing different design standards appropriate to the three unique areas in the city - the Triangle, the Downtown, and Washington Square. He said that he would support staff looking at design standards to insure consistency in the remainder of the city. Ms. Newton mentioned that Lake Oswego had different design standards for different parts of the city. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that staff should look at design standards as a future planning effort. 7. COUNCIL GROUND RULES Mr. Monahan mentioned that Council held an extensive discussion on ground rules at their June 2, 1998, meeting. He referenced several items in the packet, including Resolution 95-53, the June 2 minutes, and the draft of the revised ground rules. He reviewed the summary memo detailing the steps staff has taken since June 2 to implement the Council's direction, including a Charter amendment on how to fill a vacancy in the Council President position. He mentioned the removal negativity in the ground rules language. Mr. Monahan reviewed the ground rules (Exhibit A). He noted the paragraph on Council/Mayor roles, which utilized language suggested by Councilor Hunt. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 9 ,w Councilor Hunt commented that the language gave the impression that the Council would meet to 11 p.m. every night, which was not the case. Mr. Monahan suggested rewriting the sentence to read that it was the Council's goal to adjourn prior to l 1 p.m. Mr. Monahan noted the definitions for business meeting, workshops, and study sessions, including a description of the elements involved in each type of meeting. He mentioned in particular the ability for any Councilor to call a point of order and request that discussion of a study session item be moved to the regular session. In addition, if an item on the regular agenda was discussed during a study session, the presiding officer was to recap the earlier discussion for the regular meeting. Mr. Monahan pointed out the clarification on when Executive Sessions could be held. Councilor Hunt contended that, contrary to the statement in the ground rules, the Council did sometimes take final action during Executive Sessions. The Council discussed the issue. Mr. Ramis commented that it was important that the official action of any decision made during Executive Session take place during open session. The Council agreed to eliminate the last sentence of the Executive Session section. Mr. Monahan reviewed the clarifications to the section on the interrelationships between Councilors and appointed boards. Mayor Nicoli confirmed that it was his preference that the Council make the committee appointments. Mr. Monahan noted the new section on Council agendas and packet information, and the addition of regular review of the ground rules in July or August. Mr. Monahan mentioned Councilor Hunt's question regarding the statement that Budget cuts or decreases equaled policy decisions. Councilor Hunt contended that the first sentence made no sense. Councilor Moore concurred that it was confusing. Mr. Monahan explained that the intent had probably been to make sure that any changes to any part of the budget were reviewed within the context of the whole budget. Councilor Moore suggested retaining the first sentence and eliminating the second. Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on the phrase "information that affects the Council." Mr. Monahan explained that if he received information that affected Council, he sent it to Council. But if someone said that Council needed to get into some issue, he determined whether or not it was appropriate to send to Council. Mr. Monahan will bring back revised Council ground rules for final Council consideration on September 9, 1998. 8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Councilor Hunt reported that two members of the Space Committee have agreed to take the lead in distributing information to the public. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS STUDY SESSION Mayor Nicoli convened the study session at 9:16 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 10 W=j