Loading...
City Council Packet - 11/16/1999 1 pp -a'w;t'f~5 :1'.3: itlL'Y Il°v'~. ,d '.r ',~45~„ r4 :1 ,1'. ,liffJ:Jt'~J';rNF'fv'1 t. '3"- 44 yi=.: rr":i ; yc. „r r".f . V'~' H: ry;i: R.Y~' Y ^ ` { if, ?1"~ :'t :r •yr ,•G - ,'c 4r [ r.6 f x- #{'c.tit . T r ,••J' .7txSJH ":;Ct i ~:'c?`t °.~..4 •.`~rn r3};' ,.>r_-),,a' r•1; J,'%~`, `:3^ ,,n;,, ~ ; j;' 1..~ . N,r}l , ,,ht'' tv u I .r.t:ur,{ :v' y, ,`L,) 5:. C.;'',. ..tYi at d,Y.:Y!~! ,}.yyt; , 2j [ r,..., y. +,e„af 4 y iir-vg ,P .JFa. .a, ,_Y=r:t?: ~y?;., rar y= :v .a. ,'P:,// R::^ ~!;v ryt,p:t .">v-. ',i',~S air'y' ,•x « G1 _rJ; -.)if 'N. i, ,X7.'. ~r:13^"• ,.7r rf. t~Y R,. n, tr't':,v' r w9.1•Y ii'a ;5... gg.~~, fy r1. 'c' f'. h: t.}Y^ ',j:,• r\.. u„ S„ 4 ,zle ,.l >,r. •rG .1r'" `t k -a •Nt°%''" . rS .,vt 4• ,1',. " 1.a,,,;f „'3 ,.y r.4 .d";•...:;1 7% :.:.i`5- :.y, d... r•`:'Y' J •r IT =n1. a , .qv w1 • `,d' ,~,l.,T,. ..,,J: }•rU. i + . ,4_ , f. s. r` t'"le '7 i.'L` ~y :n,. :~,.1•' J. C. ,t.7 t t.9' 1':r;`, .'•tt;'„'ih,::s y y ;tr ~a„.k`:. k'A t ..4 .t, roY, t,^.I%,~57'..r:t.' .i° ':ti:t~•f. ,.r,, ..q :'v,r 'y''+ .r `,d'Ttjs:iL; f• :fly`, t;:rf ci kv:;i;. 3 :7ry S'l.^~t, .'E'i,`r` fr%;~`~e .1• •''t "2i:'7.ti. w,,, 16r•en t. ~''i:i,, 1''. 1=j:, - •a .'t'+1 t,':i, :i:'r.J ir.1r.~•v.. ;r^Lr''' @~,•. ,av•t ''~,Y.• 1 .7, ''h. i,^i'f, •,41, ;1v I ';tS , ';l -C1n.% ='tv,cl ~_t, • &px:jani, y. art Fl„ .~!t ,.,>rf1'_t 'ab:p'ti +i''ti", t u,J, "f'.a,',''r, .r.,y3.; , s ;G .,t, rzr'`;,L.. it ! ,?~`"•r dl ,L,y9. ,,tr 1' fr.~,. .7 ! Y`''' - 0.:',F 7 . 1 y : ~.,-'.J'i. tr:-tT •Y, ri'• „v ~.n•`; r,:,. ,a..v°, .l ?r 1, r. i T;:::.-! Jj r ,H a.1 ~j : %KJt l' r xl a }a;ir: P+ sr ::{,M1Ti'• .t. i. r: ~f". ,'v, s 'y,., •t3 'T.;, °7!i~ ,.1'.~..; ~•p..,,.•. 1T 5" :t'ax'i; a- ~'i ' q' ' rt :d1•.'f' l a°.•r ,t.l'' .r',' a ff .4. 1„ ^1'•' • :'1'+ w r,n^ ^:.t :f. ' ~~11yy ,'L . fFr:; 'r,...rA 1e':. +`97 - t'r. :j`::`r.`+ r•4`",;,,v;^ ,,r .,-e., 1..,`4•., s .4f'i: nFC. .a h; . e.xr; ,n. t r i •a''. „i . z,'6', h J h; : i:4r , : _ c4d> ,.3., rwr ,.ti. , 'a - s'f- t,t ' r: 4'..r§ r ",4r. f.r't•~"~' n , ua. st f'. ~sY; ,r-. 'J:, !,r' :ST _ , , art.. N.. t; t1„ ;r-: s..^,.,'• 6r 3r•v a +a •a,S 1 N v r 7f: v' :.a, r•~y , ';V .~~L((x,, a r.r ~4. .y:.c :~i' - .r,.^7r ~!~^,~•!S,.{,.. i''~'. ..d~f, ~'.{1("• _A,t.,:,, y ,;r' 'i•+ ~tt::~: :T' 5F°.:•.r1•' t = 'Y, ',fa! f . 'f'".i:a' 7 i',1 ?'t'. Iva .,y, .,ya ,vYtYL `Lr.'~ ~:fF'r,, :iT', :;r .,Y :4, . .!c ,-a r•Ltt=' i.+'•: : . ~ , 'Rl•Y''. ' 3r > .'St i". • 'r 1(~ k , . a1'^:~( ,Ft. .f?; d.'f•; ,c. sH. ,a ti' ;.N~' .F°r'r -Y', f,. .7' 'p' l „ 1 •-r. . ,•L•1 , f '1 p . k . A, ,,P I, S, Y r` / J.°i'."r' aD" v r✓' ,.t° t F_. ! 1..r ^ vr -f'`f'w, ,7 4 n' r f FS f'r tiF 1 'S'a Y ,•~`5`.~-0 ;'i f,t r^ 'N r .S j4r'i''' „i., "1'. .zr17.. 'i„ f.4ir :1..,. :2?^" ci"`.' I .;i r;i7; i•/r-,y t. •...1,~' Via" r:37 3,; !t rS!1 ,+R, C R t 4 d r ,rh... a •J vl' s: :q' y• • Sf , . .Lt a f~.i ,tt a.~'u',1d it :7..,;`r'`• t,k.:•s',.t . ,L''.,, ''t , a a:, Irv, rtL••' ./a ~ '3'tta 'r,-;, ^?',`;•,x5' °t...• •;v,..:., ,r.f.;I':;F.' '.."7w :4a✓fl:..*:,~..~,. S V J•u art, s., i f:.r. ,.~,~o o,(' as '~r•a=: ' t.Y-~ . '•a .7 S'= `3 •f i.1.` •i 1- ,.a.. :4r i,',_ •r:. t••' 1,-r. ;mid( :°,~4. .\t :•'E,T,~. .l ,5:: -t„ i!' ,P,., ,q':^ N.fr ..£t• 1'°=__: ,•1i;' 1,-,,. rLk{•.- ,,r('~ i'~•, ♦.Y.r1. A_a >~f~".,•J,,, .1ex•~L 5v :"M, ,wa'y'`'::'.'', {y„ ..,y„ v47:: `'✓a%A'f'!:"a+.: ..rt .l,. .GI--F,I,, b..,,..,.~CF :..r,.l i._%3 YrS''~2'J'` . v N a ra yr t.':, , ; , r,; r.1 A t':.h ,ySr',' n v . . p . .:.7t;°''( r.. 5' ra, - , t y''t: Wit. A ;e•3~. w', „"9.f, > rJ ',7. ,~•M t4 t,;k r~,, r.r:-, t .,.r .L:":„ rd'i!i .r., fie' f~1't t .ttr' at `1,:. d.,J',.. C, ,I °4e r,; 't} , ^2 U. 6',': t, r~i.,;, . r.•ti': r.' s.• i.h ` R' y °Y' i'~r 2•' vv,1 r, ,.1 r 7. rdkr.Y .TM} Y •:y,:i~ l" ,..'r,, I,,,1::n,f. ,'r = 5.1.:..1 :•~,L, 4, rL .trr,p, lY' 1-,-,1, e,(::~;.". .:.C:~,L ,Vy w Y +f: , ••.1., ,t ''I ~,t., ,',:ti .k ^ '1151,;'i4e't: ~,n•.1^,'i/a• :L'; "J'a JJ.v ii'; Si x. yr.lr > •0'4.::'r ~•1 -k7., . 1.. <•,u :1 _{=r„l. F'. r7. ~P~r. ':5,- - r{' ,6' , L'.c- lt. r)Y -r+5. 1i", i^. r- :ri :4•;: :7.. :ij:-tu.. i....u~v:,. nr r. R': y - {J y _ t, a -p','' 1 ' 'r i' F t. - o, Il- rl'il 4if' , 'ri•' 1 ins'; .f . b,,t r`'w: J= :t , F" f •+f 1 'a%' tN~ ••4A" r/,. t,r, .:h r :b, 4: 1 r 5 } g•. 1- %t: ?z.- N 'E' ,+Y 1, l 1!. _ '':7Yt~ - f:rs l~~'ia f.;c,J... ri' r '1 ,4, a:'cr °r: ~u =i ;v , x tip; ,-y. r. i~ ''i .A ,,tv ) L •^a 1. ".s,'o-. S~i'..i':-. 1 7.. :t: r.. t ,1. s A•! "1^ ~Yy ..,r a f: .,1 Kr •,x.l a'I t r: r y_, i° :,r ` l' r 1. J. rn . Y 'llt~~ ,,rr . :.5''.. 1 t- V t . 1 .Ifr :,:fir. "'ti .C+':.,r::, i y, )r - A 7 ..°C } I a, ',l`~rir~I • n t , v~i~; i. y. F {i `:fJ -L ,t' r ,r:,, 4L' ~ fi;e. a' .1 . _ v .t ~~jui' ~,t i:. `S 4 1 ` fit tY s.,. 'J •f 1', f ~t:'t ' i ,5 i - ' t E- - r' , 4 i,. t .4:, 't:i r 1' ' 4.':'': C.?.''tr. } e{ ~7 , 5.:i t': V i t` - 1' v ,I: ♦ l' h', ' ` f r 1 4~'' t . n T -r~H y'7 ~1 ;r ~ =,rii. ,J,~, , {j. r t 'r n,? ~ it "'l•::i.,,. t,. ~^r~,y, 3~~~ - f, r M t J' tl`t i, ' .I ..a, F: 'A 7 ::t '!t ^'Yl - x,1'`,4 N'•t. , ice` F n•, i7 ti' P '3, t, ' L' Y _ ti~\',AJ~ r't+.' 1 t' .'i. 1'r ; 3, `1 ,~tA iV 1; r'4i-" c.'Y . a. 'tr' r' :''t, t _ ` jf'. ,J.,, y. _ ?j.r i8^ _ _ri ..;1 a . ;ilk..;.-_.: °ii~ ' 'i.9!' a•r. "1 :'fTi':1.y, •'t .y., 'z, +k. :L: =J . ti`, - ff~y', •f t 1 Y ' ® : a; t• :I J ,r sv?.' , ,{;iir. 4~ 1"i, t - ' 1.Ir - r X,.~,t f • ;1 , %5: , yi.' yi . .1'i': Y r• t'. , a.: r ra , r,:. , „?i. ui: :N , I. .1'± I. f:.'A u. r'C . " Y _ ,T Hr' h, .`t u 'a' _ r', i- C-'- 1r:` - r. i 1i, _ ;?f Kr.% r.' :.A,.,,,... r ;t•. ,Y C` _ _ ,r'. a ,r ,Jf:.r.:~ - - -1 ti. - '~G r;. 4. "l.: '1' rSj bi%'4. rf'l: W r .f. ,1-. ',1.r''r - - ' x,,; f, ' :Iv „ss, ;r ,{'t ,r L 1. ,4, .,y:.r :.i : , l'.'.. t'. o~ '~'Id • Y , `V F . i.!•7 ~ r i ~i" Y• doc .t - tz. oc m :led ''r; t,*. y.. ';',fit.;. y.. i": n"' ."i.r .hn ,I' l' S •i,O . y`, , y :'Y r: yi rF ~1, qy:j, :tr -I t... r. 2' <i+ ;.y. L'. u f' J : _ ; i ; , :d:.. :x i t. r< x? ` , ~i 57 R .La r - - 5 3 it i'•':t ; 1•. i . K i ='1'i y, ,r . N t. , i+ ti' t ` ,~:r, i F ~a• H N - '~Jt ra.r.ti b. ' • • r ctr( ,C °Z. j.. ad s ti ' 4 ;nit'",',.' .~:'r^. 5'; f .t . ^ n c •':.r wen, Z .7.-,..1_ W,-r ":t';ti ~ v S'r :'=r c n. T t 1% w k ?F i''• f t r• f s 7 ,~r" v' , r• n, ~ r, Tt F d i'{ 1-r E u o.. •a. , J ,"f ,Y",' r1-,i F ' d•; t } 1.j X r vs vi:a.v . q. ,,i,:. ~ i iC ' >r~s S .v..•rH- qv t yi,er. Z.. 4 j,,}', _ ,.xf^ r :7,) * , ::i Y°! ..L' ,Sfy ,:''4..' i.• :a,.a}r :M1r•i 1,.' Yt."',f-ir': K.• 's~l.:r ''F 17.A v't~ CITY OF TIGARD r. 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 6842772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead-time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or i 684.2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). i SEE ATTACHED AGENDA i 3 COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 16,1999 - PAGE I i AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING NOVEMBER 16,1999.6:30 PM 6:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING • Call to Order: Mayor Nicoll • Pledge of Allegiance • Council Communications & Liaison Reports m Call to Staff and Council for Non Agenda Items 6:35 PM 2. MEETING WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVE MAX WILLIAMS • Introduction: Administration Department Staff 7:05 PM 3. DISCUSS OPTIONS TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY IN SUMMER CREEK • Staff Report: Engineering Department • Council Discussion and Direction to Staff 8:05 PM 4. MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) TO DISCUSS EFFORTS TO ADDRESS ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TUALATIN RIVER BASIN • Staff Report & Introduction: Administration Department • Council Discussion and Input to USA 8:35 PM 5. UPDATE ON PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT • Staff Report: Community Development Department • Council Discussion and Direction to Staff 9:00 PM 6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:10 PM 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 16,1999 -PAGE 2 a 'v o 9:20 PM 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.560 (1) (d), (e), (h) & (f) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and exempt public records. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 9:45 PM 12. ADJOURNMENT 1:1ADM%CATHY%CCA1991116.D0C COUNCIL AGENDA • NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - PAGE 3 Agenda Item No._ -I-L, TIGARD CI'T'Y COUNCIL Meeting of WORKSHOP MEE'T'ING MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16,1999 1. WORKSHOP MEETING o Call to Order Mayor Nicoli called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Joyce Patton, Brian Moore and Ken Scheckla Staff Present: Asst, to the City Manager Liz Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Utility Manager Mike Miller; Public Works Director Ed Wegner 2. MEETING WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVE MAX WILLIAMS Representative Max Williams discussed his work at the legislature this year on the transportation package of $625 million in modernization revenues ($125 million to be spent in Region 1, $18 million in Washington County, and $400,000 to the City of Tigard). He described the battle fought on the House floor to pass the package, including going to a third vote. He noted that AAA has referred the issue to the voters. He mentioned his concern with respect to the campaign by those supporting the gas tax increase, fearing that the voters would reject the gas tax increase. Representative Williams commented that he did not know what the legislature would do next time because they were caught in a "Catch-22" situation: AAA referred the package to the voters because of their objection to the weight mile tax changes but the trucking industry would do the same thing without modifications to the weight mile tax. He pointed out that Oregon was still one of the most inexpensive places to operate a motor vehicle, taxing the user at the pump as opposed to a sales tax, a property tax or high license and registration fees. He argued that high registration fees disproportionately taxed those who did not use their cars much; a user tax was more equitable. Councilor Scheckla asked if Oregon was in better shape than Washington State now, with respect to the recent vote. Representative Williams commented that Washington was going to have to make substantial changes to their system as a result of this last election. He mentioned the lack of understanding about why gas prices were so high in Oregon. He pointed out that, given a choice between implementing a tax or not implementing one, most voters would choose not to implement a tax. Representative Williams indicated that the legislators were open to suggestions from the s community leaders on what to do about this issue. He explained that the reason why gas was expensive was that a limited supply of this commodity came into Oregon through a four-inch pipe (Oregon has no refineries). Consequently when any changes in the market occurs, the gas companies tend "to gouge the customers." He pointed out that Oregon also has few independent gas stations left to compete with the national chains, since most went out of business when the state CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 1 forced them to pull up their underground storage tanks. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Representative Williams described in detail the work that he, Representative Bruce Starr, and Representative Rob Packridge did to get the Democrat/Republican coalition of 36 votes needed to pass the package. Representative Williams mentioned that the funding for the commuter rail project seemed to be falling into place, including federal money. He reported that they also convinced some folks on the Ways and Means Committee to set aside additional money for the interim a-board allocation for a study of a state park in Washington County with overnight camping facilities. He noted that Washington County (with a population of 400,000 plus) had no state parks with overnight camping facilities. He mentioned that the County and State park people have already identified a potential site. He spoke of possibly having a new state park in Washington County within a couple of years. Representative Williams discussed his hard fought battle to add Tigard to the list of cities allowed to have photo radar and photo red-light. Representative Williams stated that he thought that, overall, the session was relatively good for the region and the county. He noted that the issue of the franchise fee would return at the next legislature session. He mentioned a compromise he brokered between the League of Oregon Cities and the utility people to put together a study group. He commented that he was not certain that there was any way to mediate between those two groups. Councilor Scheckla asked if the legislature would address the affordable housing issue in the future. He asked if the legislature was concerned about the people killed on the MAX line, and the need for more safeguards for commuters. Representative Williams stated that the legislature was very concerned about the situation. He discussed learning lessons from the MAX trains for use in setting up the commuter rail line and its stops. He pointed out that commuter trains were not as quiet as light rail and ran on existing tracks for which the public already associated with trains. Councilor Patton concurred that they should be able to benefit from the lessons Tri-Met was learning with respect to the Westside Light Rail. She discussed the need, in the design of commuter rail, to consider the fact that people tended to be easily distracted and to not pay attention to where they were. She observed that a certain percentage of people just did stupid things and there was not anything they could do about that. Representative Williams mentioned another factor with people using the light rail tracks: because the communities have not provided adequate pedestrian travel routes, the light rail track became an automatic pedestrian byway. Pedestrians were off the road and could get use the trackway to get from one place to another more conveniently than they could before. Councilor Scheckla reiterated his question about affordable housing. Representative Williams discussed his desire to use the $2 billion plus that the State received as part of the tobacco settlement to set up a trust fund to serve as a reserve fund for the State. He pointed out that Oregon was one of five states in the nation that had no reserve fund. He spoke to spending the interest money on health-related programs, specifically affordable housing and senior and disabled transportation services. Representative Williams stated that there was a disagreement on whether or not to spend the money on education, and that they could not come to a resolution. He said that they referred out a tobacco settlement plan, which created a trust fund and used 30% of the interest for affordable housing and senior and disabled transportation. He noted that both programs needed more money than that but CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 2 WERE argued that some funding was better than no funding. Representative Williams mentioned the intent of the hospital associations to run a competing measure that would restrict the money to paying for the expansion of the Oregon Health Plan. He indicated that, while he liked the Oregon Health Plan, it was costing four times more than anticipated 12 years ago when they started it. He spoke to drawing boundaries with respect to how much money was spent on a particular item. Councilor Scheckla asked about the status of revenue sharing. Representative Williams indicated that the idea of cutting the revenue sharing (popular when times were tight) appeared to be off the table at the Revenue Committee. He said that it did not even arise at the Committee during this session. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Indian casinos would pay their fair share. Representative Williams explained that the State was in a tough spot with respect to the Indian casinos. Once the Governor proclaimed that the State could engage in gambling and entered into the original agreement with the first tribe to allow them to gamble also, the legislature's hands were tied with respect to how much they could intervene on Indian gambling. Representative Williams explained that the State discovered that the gambling machines had a limited lifespan before the players became bored and moved on to a new game. The revenues were flattening out from video poker, etc., partly due to the more attractive games offered by the Indian casinos. He said that the pressure now was to allow electronic slot machines. Councilor Scheckla asked if the State got the same tax revenue from the Indian casinos as it did from the horse and dog tracks. Representative Williams said that they were limited in how much they could tax the Indian casinos because they were sovereign nations within the state. He reiterated that once the State allowed gambling in Oregon, it opened the door for the Indian casinos. Representative Williams pointed out that the restaurants and businesses that installed video poker machines, as well as the State, were now hooked on the revenue coming in from video poker. He spoke to instituting a period of decline in which the legislature capped the number of machines allowed and downsized over several bienniums how many machines it allowed to operate in the state. He observed that if the State did not wean itself off the video poker dollars, the market would do it for them. Councilor Scheckla commented that the reveruc at the dog and horse tracks has gone down while the owners paid more money to Salem than others. Representative Williams said that the complaint of the dog track and horse people was that they got to keep less. He pointed out that the dog track and horse track were c, better gamble than the State because the gambler had better odds of winning and better payouts than available through the State. He observed that, by law, the State forced the dog track and horse track owners to have a certain payout but did not pay out at the same rate itself. Representative Williams discussed his refusal to take a position on one side or the other with respect to the legislative bill that would have directly affected the City's situation with a pending judicial case. Representative Williams informed the Council that his interim assignments were the Interim Judiciary Committee, the Joint Interim Judiciary Committee, the Legislative Counsel Committee, the Oregon Law Committee, the Higher Education Finance Task Force, and the Interim Revenue Committee. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MI'NUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 3 • Title 3 Tim Ramis, City Attorney, recalled that Tigard was one of the petitioners in the Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA) case challenging Title 3. He mentioned that LUBA ruled that they had no jurisdiction over those issues that would have killed Title 3 and sent them to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). He reported that LUBA ruled favorably on the issue Tigard promoted for inclusion in the brief: Title 3 was no different than any other part of the Functional Plan. He explained that this ruling effectively delayed the implementation date of Title 3 because of the statute stating that local governments could not be forced to implement the Functional Plan until two years after acknowledgment. He noted that it was likely that the issue would be appealed, thus delaying implementation even further. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 7:10 p.m. v Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. o Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Joyce Patton, Brian Moore and Ken Scheckia Staff Present: Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; City Attorney Tim Ramis; Utility Manager Mike Miller; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; City Engineer Gus Duenas; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Development Review Engineer Brian Rager; Building Official Gary Lampala; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff, Engineer Greg Berry o Council Communications: None 0 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 3. DISCUSS OPTIONS TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY IN SUMMER CREEK a STAFF REPORT Gus Duenas, City Engineer, presented the staff report using a PowerPoint presentation. He indicated that there were two issues of concern for discussion tonight: Merestone Pond on SW 1215` Avenue and Summer Lake at Summerlake Park. He noted the configuration of the lake i separated into two sections by a pedestrian bridge and running down to the dam, over the spillway, and into the Merestone Pond area. H ad i 7 a a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 4 Mr. Duenas reviewed the history of the regulations impacting Summer Creek, including the Clean Water Act, the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan, and the Endangered Species Act. He noted that the concerns with fish passage and water temperature led to regulatory agencies discouraging impoundment of water throughout the Fanno Creek basin. Mr. Duenas discussed the beaver dam at Merestone Pond, built by a beaver some time in the early 1980s and reinforced by concrete in the mid-1980s. He discussed the1993 edict from the State Department of Water Resources requiring the City to either remove the dam or to obtain a permit for it. He described the City's work to get a permit, including hiring a consultant to design the clam and an in-stream pond. He mentioned that the Army Corps of Engineers informed the City at a neighborhood meeting that it would not approve an in-stream pond, so the City redesigned the project for an off-line pond. He said that the Corps did not approve the City's redesign because it wanted off-line ponds to drain immediately after a storm. Mr. Duenas presented pictures of the debris in the stream as a result of the storm over the weekend, and of the beavers repairing the damage to their dam. Mr. Duenas advised the Council that the City still had a compliance order from the Department of Water Resources. He said that staff did not proceed with the redesign of the project because the residents at the time wanted ponds that filled with water. He mentioned the rejection of the wetland enhancements by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife because they wanted it redesigned to meet their requirements. He said that the City needed to take action either to remove the dam or to design a project to meet all concerns. Mr. Duenas reviewed the options. He said that they could redesign the project to meet the ODFW requirements, using SDC funding and obtaining necessary easements. They could resubmit a permit application for the existing design, knowing it was unlikely to be approved. They could leave the dam alone and bear the consequences of failure to comply with the Department of Water Resources compliance order. They could partially remove the natural materials or remove the dam entirely. Mr. Duenas recommended removing the natural materials initially as a way to keep the flood level down and to help protect the road, and then redesigning and resubmitting the wetland enhancement project in accordance with the ODFW requirements. He said that the long-term project was to create a creek with some off-line ponds that would drain. He asked for direction from the Council with respect to the Merestone Pond situation. s COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Councilor Scheckla asked if staff had a timeframe within which to meet the objectives. Mr. Duenas said that they could start the redesign project right away (they set aside funding in this fiscal year for the project) but they did not have a deadline date for completion. He mentioned that the Public Works staff needed to pick up the debris that washed out over the weekend. i Councilor Patton asked why the ODFW required the pond to drain. Mr. Duenas said that he thought that they were concerned with fish being trapped in an off-line pond. Councilor Scheckla asked how much this project would cost. Mr. Duenas said that staff set aside $260,000 for the original project design. He commented that he did not think that the cost would change much for the redesign. He pointed out that the project hinged on getting the easements from the neighbors. Councilor Scheckla asked if doing a redesign guaranteed approval from the ODFW. Mr. Duenas CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 5 indicated that he did not see difficulties with ODFW if the City did what the agency wanted them to do. He commented that the main question was what level of acceptance would a redesign receive from the neighborhood. Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, asked if the Council agreed that staff would take out the natural debris in order to prevent flooding of the street. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to do so. Bill Monahan, City Manager, asked for clarification on whether staff was to remove the debris that has been accumulating or to seek approval for the off-line ponds and to not take down the dam until they received that approval. The Council discussed the issue. Mr. Monahan summarized the Council direction as removing the debris from the ponds that the beavers brought in. Ron Wridge pointed out that the debris washed out of the dam by the storm and the debris placed by the beavers as part of their dam were two different things. He indicated that it was not clear exactly what staff would take out. Mr. Wegner said that staff intended to take out all the natural debris and to leave the structured dam that was there. Mr. Wridge argued that none of the structured dam that was there 10 years ago remained only some rocks. Mr. Wegner said that they called the rocks "the structured dam." Mr. Wri dge contended that the dam shown in the pictures was 100% beaver dam. He said that if staff removed the natural debris, then they were actually removing the beaver dam. The Council discussed the issue of what constituted the beaver dam. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the federal and state agencies were requiring the City to remove the dam. Mr. Wridge stated that the new beaver dam was upstream of the original beaver dam (the one fortified with concrete). He explained that, while the beaver dam itself was quite sturdy, the mud foundation was not. Consequently the structure sloughed down because of water seeping underneath it, part of it blew out during the storm. He noted that the beavers were currently repairing the problem. Mr. Wridge agreed that ODFW did not want a manmade dam put in but argued that the agency did not regulate natural beaver dams. He said that it was the human reinforcement of the natural beaver dam that stepped over the bounds. Mr. Duenas said that the original Department of Water Resources compliance order listed both the beaver and the manmade dams for removal. Mr. Wridge asked to see that letter. Councilor Moore stated that his concern with the dam (manmade or natural) was the hazard it created with flooding on SW 121 He spoke to removing a portion of the dam to prevent the flooding. Mr. Wridge contended that the City's consultant told the neighbors four years ago that the dam did not create a flooding problem. Greg Berry, Engineer, indicated that the surveys determined whether or not the dam affected the 100-year flood plain, not flooding in general. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Duenas to finish his presentation. He said that he would open the meeting for additional public comment following the staff presentation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 6 CONTINUATION OF STAFF REPORT Mr. Duenas listed the problems with Summer Lake: weeds, algae blooms, poor water quality, too many water fowl, and stagnant water during the summer. He reviewed the City's response to the neighbors' concerns voiced in 1996: development of a Summerlake Management Plan that recommended annual weed harvesting, placing a membrane, and an alum treatment. He noted that, although the City implemented the weed harvesting, DEQ strongly discouraged the alum treatment. He mentioned the option of dredging which was very expensive. He indicated that the regulatory agencies favored the option of reducing the lake to a stream in order to improve water quality and enhance fish passage. Mr. Duenas reviewed the City's options. These included spending $8,400 a year to cut the weeds three times a year, placing the membrane, determining the feasibility of reducing the lake to a stream, and considering an off-line pond as part of the Summerlake Park Master Plan. Mr. Duenas recommended determining the feasibility of reducing the lake to a stream for purposes of improving water quality while, at the same time, considering a water feature for the park. He held that a proper design could satisfy the neighbors, the park users, and the regulatory agencies. He described an option for creating a pond that left the creek free-flowing (an option staff has been discussing with USA). Mayor Nicoli asked to hear the presentation from USA (Item No. 4) before continuing the discussion. 4. MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Rill Gaffii, Unified Sewerage Agency General Manager, introduced Kendra Smith, Program Coordinator for the Endangered Species Act. He mentioned USA's role in urban Washington County to treat and manage waste water and storm water. He noted a lesser known USA role of regulating river flows to maintain water quality as part of its interest in one-quarter of the stored water in the basin behind Hagg Lake and Barney Reservoir. Mr. Gaffe reviewed the status of USA's work with respect to the Endangered Species Act. He said that they were presently developing a scope of effort and cost estimate to use in working with all interested agencies and jurisdictions in formulating a response strategy for this basin. He indicated that all the agencies with which they have discussed this idea universally supported the basin trying to develop a strategy to respond to the listing. Mr. GaPfi mentioned the need to coordinate with the Governor's Willamette Restoration initiative in developing a network of urban interests throughout the Willamette River watershed to help develop practices and strategies for use by everyone. He mentioned working with the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) as well. i Mr. Gaffe noted that the increased activity on Title 3 temporarily drew USA's focus away from the ESA issues but they hoped to return to the matter shortly. He described their intended process to select a consultant to develop the plan. He commented that if their budgeted resources were insufficient to meet the cost, they would ask other jurisdictions to contribute. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 7 Mr. Gaffi commented that part of the problem they had in addressing specific issues was the fact that the process to address those issues in the State of Oregon has not yet been clearly defined. He noted that NMFS would focus its attention on issues, such as obstructions to fish passage. He mentioned discussions of whether or not the designation of the Fanno Creek Basin as critical habitat for endangered steelhead would remain, and of whether or not the cut throat trout residing in the tributaries and main stem of the Willamette would be listed as endangered in the future. Mr. Gaffi mentioned a question before the basin on whether they wanted to approach this matter just to avoid take or did they want to pursue a recovery plan and register approval of a recovery plan that would ultimately eliminate consultation on individual projects. He said that USA recommended formulating information to frame those issues for discussion by policy makers in the region. Mayor Nicoli asked if the federal and state had enough rules in place to allow the approval process to move forward in the next six to 12 months. Mr. Gaffi indicated that it could move forward. Mayor Nicoli informed the public that Councilor Hunt (who was unable to attend this meeting) expressed his dissatisfaction with the City's approach to weed removal in Summerlake, especially the high cost for the benefit, and asked the Council to revisit the issue. He said that Councilor Hunt spoke to deepening the lake for a one time large cost and eliminating the ongoing cost of cutting the weeds every year. He explained that, during that discussion, the Endangered Species Act became an issue, and changed the discussion. Mayor Nico1_i noted that the impact of the ESA could include regulation of how cities cleaned and maintained their streets, installed culverts, etc. He said that the ESA requirements would impact all the streams flowing through Tigard, including Summer Creek and Summer Lake. He indicated that the City consulted with USA with respect to the problem it had with Summer Lake under the ESA requirements (because they lacked the necessary expertise on staff to deal with the ESA). He emphasized that the Council has made no decisions yet He said that USA has been gathering information on the problem, and even found the possibility of funding available outside the City's own resources. Mayor Nicoli noted the attendance of a neighborhood group this evening. He stated that the Council did not intend to blindside anyone but the fact was that something was going to happen. o PUBLIC TESTIMONY Bob Rohlf, 1240 SW North Dakota Mr. Rohlf pointed out that Summerlake Park was one of two major parks in Tigard. He argued that it was unlikely that the City could acquire sufficient land to create a third major park. He spoke to looking at Summerlake Park as a "community park," not a "neighborhood park," and to considering N the investment that went along with a community park. Mr. Rohlf reviewed the numerous problems with Summerlake Park that have come to a head at the same time as they were completing their Summerlake Park Master Plan: a potential environmental 5 lawsuit over the dam, the Endangered Species Act, the visual problems created by the weeds, the obstruction of neighbors' views of the lake by trees, and the ongoing high cost of maintaining a temporary fix. He pointed out that the draw of Summerlake Park was the lake itself. He encouraged the Council to use the money available to keep a water feature in the park. Mr. Rohlf commented that it could take years for all the ESA requirements to hit the cities. He CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 8 noted that he slid not see other cities scrambling to comply with the listings. He spoke to making the necessary investment in time and money to make Summerlake Park a long-term community park. He suggested creating another community event based in Summerlake Park, similar to the Balloon Festival in Cook Park and the Tigard Daze in the downtown. Mayor Nicoli asked if the neighborhood would support creation of an off-line pond bypassed by the stream. Mr. Rohlf commented that he thought that the lake was what drew people to buy their homes around the park. He said that he was reluctant to talk about neighborhood issues because he saw Summerlake Park as a community park. He spoke to considering the wants of the community. He said that he did not think that the community wanted a big mud puddle in the middle of one of their parks. He remarked that he thought it was feasible to disconnect the stream from the pond but he was concerned at the talk of a pond that was not always full of water. Mr. Rohlf said that he thought that the Council was on the right track of having a major water feature in the park. He commented that the Council could get an idea of what the community wanted from the Summerlake Master Plan but noted that the committee put it together without addressing this issue. He suggested putting the plan on hold until the City addressed the issue. He mentioned that it would be interesting to put the matter out to the rest of the community to see if they cared as much about it as the adjacent neighborhoods. o Kaye Betton, 12480 SW Summercrest Drive Ms. Betton stated that her property was close to the permanent dam and the bridge; her yard was affected heavily by the flooding. She presented several photos taken on Thursday showing the flooding in her yard and the beavers taking down the willow tree in her yard. She said that, while she understood people's interest in maintaining a natural setting for the beaver, she was concerned that the water did not back up onto her property. She indicated that she could support retaining the beaver dam if the City built a berm to protect her property. She said that, as she doubted that would happen, she and her adjacent neighbors supported relocating the beaver and allowing a free flow of water. ® Bonnie Owens, 12450 SW Summercrest Drive Ms. Owens stated that her house flooded in 1996 because of its location on the down slope and the water flowing from the drain coming onto her property. She said that an engineer told them that another flood would ruin their foundation and house. Ed Halberg, AMART Summerlake Homeowners Association President Mr. Halberg stated that he r--presented the 214 homes immediately adjacent to Summerlake Park. i He stated that the residents did move to this area for a water feature. He agreed with Mr. Rohlf that this was a community park used by a variety of people in the community. He pointed out that the neighbors had a special stake in it because they lived right there and looked out at the lake. He indicated that they did not want to look out at a mud puddle but they did want a water feature. He said that the neighborhood would be interested in supporting a win-win solution that addressed their needs, the community's needs, and the regulatory agencies' needs. 5 CITY COUNCIL, MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 9 1, , 11 11~ 11-@11111 s Howard Banta, 12580 SW Glacier Lily Circle, Friends of Summer Lake Mr. Banta described a possible win-win solution for taking the lake off-line during the summer through the use of a ditch channeling water along the south side of the lake, and connected at the dam to the lower part of Summer Creek by a conduit that allowed fish passage. He mentioned controlling the water by an irrigation gate at the upper end of the lake. He presented a map showing what the solution would look like. Mr. Banta commented that USA's main data point was at SW 135t' above the dam. He argued that the bad data came from having a data point above the lake. Mayor Nicoli said that Council wanted to know if there was a direction that they could take to incorporate City staff, USA staff, the federal agencies, and the neighborhoods on a path that would lead to resolution. He asked Mr. Gaffe if his staff was ready to work on such a project. Mr. Gaffe said that USA would be happy to work with the City and the neighborhood to find a strategy to reach a solution that the federal and state agencies would permit. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Duenas for his opinion on creating a task force. Mr. Duenas said that he thought that it would be relatively easy to find something acceptable for the Merestone portion. He noted that staff has not addressed the Summer Lake portion from the standpoint of taking the dam out. He indicated that he thought both concepts were workable as long as they worked with the agencies and the neighborhood. Mr. Duenas asked if the Council wanted to address both situations as one issue or split them into two issues. Mr. Gaffe confirmed to Mayor Nicoli that USA saw them as one issue. He mentioned concerns with cooling the water temperature, which in-stream ponds did not help to do. Ms. Smith mentioned fish passage issues through the culvert at SW 1215` m Ron Wridge,12399 SW Winterlynch Drive Mr. Wridge recalled that in 1993 the City took to heart the neighborhood's input with respect to its initial intention to remove the beaver dam. He indicated that when the neighborhood understood that that keeping the dam would not be permitted, they got together to find a compromise solution that allowed them to keep something. He said that, although an off-line pond was not their first choice, they accepted it as a win-win solution. Mr. Wridge said that some of the information presented today was incorrect. He read from the Department of Water Resources January 6, 1993, letter which he interpreted as requiring removal of the artificially enhanced portion of the beaver dam, not the beaver dam itself. He reiterated that the State controlled man-made dams, not beaver dams. Mr. Wridge emphasized that there has been no rock dam for several years. He complimented the City on reviewing its position with respect to its plans to remove the dam last week, following the neighborhoods' objections. He stated that the beaver dam did not wash out last week; only a small portion of the underlying part of the darn slumped down because the silt underneath the dam washed away. Mr. Wridge pointed out that if the City removed part of the beaver dam, the beavers would come back and rebuild it. He noted that beaver dams were built by interlocking structures; what looked like debris from the backside was actually part of a dam structure so sturdy that he walked on it. He described beaver dams as "living structures" in which trees would actually start growing and lock the structure together. Mr. Wridge contended that it would be difficult for the City to remove the top portions of the dam because of the interlocking structure. He reiterated that the beavers would immediately start to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 10 repair the dam. He held that the solution was not to take part of the dam out (as long as the beavers were there), since removing the beaver dam also destroyed the lake. Mr. Wridge contended that the dam did not cause the flooding. He attributed the flooding to the old design of the SW 121" bridge which contained only two small culverts acting as flow restrictors at the control point. He said that the bridge acted as a dam with water going over the top when not enough could flow through the culverts. He commented that, although the water came up and went down quickly in this watershed, the City needed to look at redesigning the bridge. Mr. Wridge agreed that debris blocking the culverts did cause flooding. He conceded that a failure of the beaver dam could block the bridge with debris. He argued that, in this past event, the dam itself did not lose much debris and did not block the culverts. Mr. Wridge said that the neighborhood would be receptive to an off-line pond that was a pond, not a floodplain that drained immediately. He conceded that an off-line pond would trap fish but so did a five-foot tall beaver dam. He asked if ODFW understood the tradeoffs between removing the beaver dam that trapped all the fish and constructing an off-line pond that trapped a few fish. He suggested sitting down and talking with ODFW to discuss possible compromises. Mr. Wridge indicated that the neighborhood was willing to make compromises. He mentioned being sensitive to the high-water issues of the people upstream. He commented that he did not think that the City would have difficulty getting easements from most of the neighbors because of their support of the lake. He held that they could reach a win,-win solution. e Ed Gallagher, 12140 SW Merestone Court Mr. Gallagher said that he agreed with most of what Mr. Wridge discussed. He asked that a plan be environmentally sound and still safe for the property owners. He discussed his concern that the process was so convoluted that they would see no solution for several years. He referenced the latest effort that began seven years ago and ran into permit time limitation problems when the regulatory agencies changed their minds about what was acceptable. He said that a perfect example was how close they had come to finishing the Summerlake Master Plan with a free-flowing stream overflowing into an off-line pond, only to have the ESA issues come up. He commented that if fish could get up and down creeks and small waterfalls, he did not see why they could not get out of a one-foot high edge on a berm. Mr. Gallagher questioned the contradiction he heard of putting in an off-line pond at Summerlake when it was not okay to put one in at Merestone. He said that he thought that a free flowing stream with an off-line pond would work in his area (by the beaver dam). He disagreed with the perception that the City might have difficulty obtaining easements for an off-line pond. He said that the reason that the neighbors have not provided the conservation easements was because they have not seen a plan that told them what they would be providing those easements for. He held that, as long as the City kept the neighbors informed, they could work through this issue. Mr. Gallagher said that he was not clear on whether the City intended to remove the debris or the beaver dam itself. He agreed that, unless they trapped the beavers out, the beavers would work to repair the dam. He commented that he did not see a way to make a decision to remove the dam without making a decision with respect to removing the beavers. ® Brian Wegener, 9830 SW Kimberly Drive Mr. Wegener commented that ODFW would not have to compromise if an off-line pond did not CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 11 trap fish. He asked Ms. Smith if she could describe the design of an off-line pond that was not a fish trap. Ms. Smith said that Mr. Wegener was correct. The City had comeclose to obtaining a permit from ODFW but failed because of the design of the weir structures. She indicated that redesigning that element of the plan and working it through with ODFW should result in an acceptable plan for an off-line pond. She described a method that mimicked the natural "oxbow" scenario when a stream cut itself off and created an off-line pond. e COUNCIL COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION Mayor Nicoli asked the Council for a discussion about the beaver dam itself. He suggested that they direct staff to put together a proposal with staff time and costs and task force composition to handle the off-line pond project. Jim Ilendryx, Community Development Director, mentioned that staff was at a point where they could take a pause in the Summerlake Master Plan process (following the public meeting Thursday night), form a Task Force per Council direction, and plug back into the Master Plan process with the consultant at a later date. Mr. Monahan mentioned that MIG Consultants, the consultants doing the Summerlake Master Plan, were not the appropriate consultants for the off-line pond project. Mr. Duenas pointed out that the City already had a design for an off-line pond in the Merestone area that should be easy to tweak. Mayor Nicoli commented that Mr. Duenas was suggesting separation of the two ponds, and getting the Merestone Pond project out of the way. Mr. Monahan summarized the Council's direction to staff as to follow the concerns raised by staff during the presentation, to get compliance with all the regulatory agencies and to go through all the regulatory hoops while preserving as much of a water feature as they could. Mayor Nicoli spoke to working with the neighborhood and people concerned about the park on the aesthetic issues by bringing everyone together to see if they could find a win-win solution that satisfied the government agencies and the city residents. Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on the easements needed to make the plan work. Mr. Gallagher said that they identified six to seven properties as impacted by the project. He indicated that he has talked to all those property owners who, while some had minor concerns, were not refusing to sign off on easements. He reiterated that the neighbors did not know what they were signing for because the plans were not yet completed. Mayor Nicoli noted that the Council was unanimous in directing staff to proceed with this project. He indicated that if staff felt it necessary to hire a consultant to do the groundwork while the staff did the technical work, that was fine. He asked staff to inform the neighborhood when the plan was scheduled before Council, so that they could attend the discussion. Mayor Nicoli asked if Mr. Wegner (Public Works director) still intended to clean up the debris at the beaver dam. Mr. Wegner said yes. He stated that staff understood the balance that had to take place. He explained that the maintenance staff removed debris and beaver dams in other places in town in order to keep the water flowing through the culverts and streams. He said that they have not removed this dam because of the controversy. He reiterated that they needed to keep the undersized culverts of the SW 121" bridge open because SW 121" was a major collector. Mr. Wegner emphasized that the maintenance staff did annual maintenance on beaver dams and streams throughout Tigard. He commented that they did not relish tearing down the beaver dams but they had to do so in order to keep water moving throughout the community. He confirmed the plan to take out the woody debris across the top of the beaver dam. He mentioned that the City could remove up to 50 yards of debris without a permit. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 12 Mr. Wridge pointed out that the beaver dam and the woody debris were the same thing. Councilor Moore said that he favored removing the debris in order to ensure that they did not cause any property damage or safety hazard along SW 12151. He noted the concern raised by the neighbors that the beavers would naturally build the dam back up once it was removed. He asked what happened with all the trees in the area used by the beavers to rebuild the dam every year. Mr. Wegner said that beavers would build up the dam again next year, which the stormwater staff would then remove. He stated that they did not advocate trapping the beaver. Councilor Moore asked what was involved with trapping the beaver. Mr. Wegner said that they would contract it out with either the US Department of Agriculture or a private individual licensed by the State of Oregon. He said that, like coyotes, beavers could not be relocated or rehabilitated. Councilor Patton commented that the City has been treating the beaver dams throughout the community as a maintenance issue for years. The City removed the dams as necessary, the beavers built them back up again, and the City took them out again when they became a barrier. Mr. Wridge asked why the City considered the dams a barrier. Councilor Moore indicated that his main concern was flooding, such as was mentioned as occurring on SW 1215`. Mr. Wridge reiterated that the bridge backed the water up, not the beaver dam upstream. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the issue was maintaining the small culverts free of debris because they could not afford to plug those culverts. Mr. Wegner confirmed that the beavers would have to start from scratch after the staff removed the woody debris. He said that they would not take out more than they needed to in order to resolve the flooding issues. Mr. Duenas commented that he observed last week that the beaver dam backed up the water substantially, in addition to the street acting as a dam when the culverts flooded. Council discussion followed. Councilor Moore spoke in support of removing that portion of the dam to prevent flooding and property damage. Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Ramis if he has encountered this problem before. Mr. Ramis said that this was a common problem when he worked for Washington County. He mentioned the County's policy to do a similar kind of maintenance when properties were in danger. He noted that it was not unheard of for local governments to take this action to protect property from flooding. Councilor Patton characterized this as a maintenance issue that the City has consistently dealt with over the years. She mentioned that not trapping the beaver meant that there might be some damage to other trees in the neighborhood when the beaver rebuilt but emphasized that the City did not intend to trap the beaver. She supported taking maintenance action to avoid potential flooding this winter, especially when they could not immediately address the situation at the bridge. Mayor Nicoli concurred. Councilor Moore asked what timeframe staff looked at to construct the Merestone Pond. Mr. Duenas said that they intended to do the work in the summer of 2000. Councilor Moore pointed out that this maintenance measure of removing the dam would occur during this one winter. Councilor Scheckla stated his confidence in the staff's ability to make sure that this action was done appropriately. He indicated his belief that everyone would work well together to address all W the concerns raised tonight. a Mayor Nicoli stated that the staff had the unanimous consent of the Council to do what was necessary. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 13 Mr. Gallagher commented that, although he was not certain that his neighbors would agree, he was not disturbed at the beaver dam coming out if that was what needed to be done. He said that he thought that they all wanted an environmentally sound and safe solution. Mayor Nicoli asked if the City needed to put bigger culverts in SW 1213`. Councilor Moore suggested making that part of the study for the off-line pond. Mr. Halberg asked for clarification on the task force. Mayor Nicoli said that the Council asked staff to make a recommendation on how a task force would work and the funding needed. He indicated that staff would discuss it with the neighborhood first before bringing it to Council. He directed Mr. Halberg to talk with Mr. Duenas. Mr. Wridge asked for a commitment on the part of the City to proceed as soon as possible with the off-line pond. He commented that it would soften the impact of the loss of the beaver dam on the neighbors. Mayor Nicoli said that staff intended to separate the two projects in order to proceed with the Merestone off-line pond this summer. ® Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 9:53 p.m. ® Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting. 5. UPDATE ON PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT o STAFF REPORT Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, presented the staff report using a PowerPoint presentation. He recalled the staff discussion some time ago with the Council with respect to hillside development. He reported that a staff review committee composed of himself, Building Official Gary Lampala, City Engineer Gus Duenas, Development Review Engineer Brian Rager, Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff, City Attorney Tim Ramis and other key field staff looked at the process objectively to identify the changes made over the past five years and to make recommendations for future changes. Mr. Hendryx explained that staff broke the hillside development review process down into four stages: land use application phase, public improvement/construction plan review phase, public improvement construction phase, and home construction phase. He reviewed in detail for each of the four phases the current process, the changes made over the last five years, the concerns with the current process identified by staff, and the recommended changes to address those concerns. H a C7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 14 Mr. Hendryx mentioned a consistent concern in all phases with respect to the geotech report: a lack of expertise on City staff to adequately critique and review the geotech reports, a lack of consistent requirements for geotech reports between departments, and not all departments reviewing the report. He raised the issue of liability with respect to staff reviewing the reports if they lacked the necessary expertise. Mr. Hendryx commented that the three departments (Planning, Engineering and Building) each measured the slopes differently. He pointed out that the recommendation to require the developer and his subcontractors to provide warranty and indemnity for the work they performed shifted the burden of responsibility for that work to the applicant. He mentioned requiring a geotech engineer on site to make sure that the dirt from the foundation work was adequate'y dealt with (with daily reports sent each week to the City). He discussed the need for a geotech certification of the entire site, not simply for specific areas on the site. He noted the need for a grading inspection at the framing stage and a second inspection at the end of the construction in order to ensure that any changes made during construction were not a problem. Mr. Hendryx summarized the recommended changes. He mentioned requiring geotech reports for all sites with 10% or greater slopes and/or any site requiring cuts and fills. He indicated that all the departments Engineering, Planning, and Building - needed to review the geotech reports consistently at the application phase. However, since the staff lacked the necessary expertise to review those reports, he recommended putting a geotech engineer on retainer to assist the City with the review of the geotech reports. Mr. Hendryx recommended modifying the application forms to include warranty and acceptance of responsibility. The subdivision agreements should include warranty, indemnity and insurance requirements as well. He mentioned requiring the engineer and contractors to provide warranty and indemnity for work performed. He recommended including language stating that City approval of an application did not constitute independent verification by the City of the engineering. Mr. Hendryx recommended requiring easier- to- read grading plans (with a consistent method for identifying slopes), the geotech to stamp the grading plans, and two grading inspections. He mentioned requiring specific language in the typical geotech report and the geotech report certified for the entire site in order to give staff consistent ways to address the reports. He indicated the requirement of a transitional agreement or similar document, should the developer change his geotech engineer. He recommended (for lots with slopes over 20%) allowing staff to hire an independent geotech engineer to assist the City in finding consistent ways to measure the lots, and not allowing spoil on the downhill side of the house. Mr. Hendryx asked if these recommendations addressed the Council's concerns. He reviewed the proposed process (should Council give direction to proceed), including a public involvement process, determination of the necessary fee increases and code amendments, and a public hearing on amendments or fee changes. Mayor Nicoli raised the issue of directing the water runoff to the nearest street catch basin or storm drain line from lots located up the hill down through easements on the lots located down the hill. He spoke to requiring, during the subdivision stage, the identification on the plat of the location of this drainage system. He suggested requiring this for subdivisions with a majority of lots containing a 10% slope. He pointed out that if someone built his home downhill first, he needed to understand that the person building a home above him needed the right to bring a four inch drain line down his property line for discharge into the street. He cited the use of this practice by the City of Corvallis. Brian Rager, (Development Review Engineer, discussed how the staff currently addressed water CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 15 moil' runoff issues at the plan review stage. He mentioned that developers often suggested putting in a swale (as opposed to a pipe) but staff has seen the swales fail many times when the builders or landscapers (who did not install the swale) filled it up during the course of their work. He said that staff required the design engineer to solve the problem during the plan review stage. He indicated that the usual solution was to install a private storm line between the lots with lateral stubs. Mayor Nicoli discussed the implications of a private stonri drain line held in common by several neighbors. He pointed out that if the neighbors could not agree on the maintenance of the line (especially if it clogged), then they would ask the City to take over its maintenance. He spoke to requiring the installation of individual private drain lines for each property, thus making the individual property owner responsible for maintaining his own drain line and leaving the City out of it. He indicated that, while he did not oppose a larger line serving several homes, he thought that individual lines handled the accountability issue better. Mr. Hendryx described the two methods for handling the Mayor's concern. He said that they could require the builder to actually install the line or they could require an easement for utilities and drainage in order to allow the builder uphill to install the line. He mentioned the drawback of the downhill property owner upset at the builder for destroying his landscaping. He suggested including the expectation that the builder would return the yard to a reasonable condition. Mayor Nicoli agreed that that was an issue that had to be dealt with. He reiterated that, on a 10% and greater slope subdivision, the water coming off every lot had to be accounted for from that lot down to the nearest storm drainage collection point. He suggested charging a fee at the Building Department phase in order to ensure that the builder on the uphill lot showed where he would run the line. He mentioned including language warning developers and property owners at the time purchased their property about their responsibilities. Mr. Hendryx explained that staff intended to give Council an overview of this complicated process and to identify the changes made over the last five years. He asked if this address the Council's issues. Mayor Nicoli said that it addressed all his issues except for what he just mentioned. Mr. Rager commented that the development community would object to a require,.- -nt for individual private drainage lines. Councilor Moore emphasized that the number one priority of the City was to protect the homeowners. He said that he would support the staff recom"nendations despite objections from the developers. Councilor Scheckla asked if these recommendations applied to commercial hillside development as well. Mr. Hendryx indicated that these standards applied to hillside development, regardless of type. Mr. Ramis noted that another issue that the Council would hear during the citizen-involvement process revolved around the shifting of the liability to the builders and consultants and whether or not that was fair. The Council note developers should be responsible for their designs and construction work. Councilor Patton indicated her support of the staff direction and of putting the liability where it belonged - on the development community. She mentioned that the developers needed to make sure that they used qualified and professional subcontractors. Mayor Nicoli spoke to including a provision to require that all water sources on a lot with a greater than 10% (or a given percentage) slope on any portion of it be collected and put into a collection system. He discussed the need to collect point discharge water in order to avoid erosion and other CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 16 problems, including neighbor lawsuits. He indicated that the original developer should be responsible to install the system while a homeowner developing a point discharge on that property in the future should be accountable for collecting the water and getting it into the pipe already on site. Gary Lampala, Building Official, noted that Chapter 33 already contained provisions for drainage collection systems on cut and fills and slopes. He indicated that they could use the same language and reinforce it. Mayor Nicoli agreed that that was a good starting point. He pointed out that the City still had two-thirds of Bull Mountain to develop. He argued that creating these requirements now would prevent headaches in 30 years. In response to a question from Mr. Hendryx asked, the Council agreed to hold a work session with the Homebuilders. Mr. Monahan asked what the process was to apply these same standards to the unincorporated area of Washington County mentioned by the Mayor. Mr. Hendryx said that the process depended on how they adopted these changes. He said that he would work with Mr. Ramis on which changes they could adopt as administrative rules and which required code amendments. He commented that he preferred not to get into Development Code amendments because of the city-wide notification requirements of Measure 56. Mr. Monahan suggested previewing their process with the County. Mr. Hendryx said that they would iron out these issues before proceeding, keeping in mind the different interpretations. Mr. Rager mentioned including USA on the storm drainage issues. 6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Ramis announced that Jim Coleman was leaving their firm to become the Clackamas County Counsel. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None. 9. ADJOURNMEN'T': 10:46 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Rec rder Mayor., Q~, Brian J. Moore, Council President Date: Z` 5t)0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - Page 17 loll COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal Notice S 5 21 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard a 13 Tearsheet Notice 13125 S11 Hall Blvd. ®Tigard,Oregon 97223 ® 13 Duplicate Affidavit i •Accounts Payable t AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss- I, Kaj-hV 4nvr3Pr being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of therm crate Tiialni-i n `I hies a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at a rd in the aforesaid county and state; that the City Cnuncil K Tnr-al T2Ayit-w Rnarr1 1'jt-q a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: November 11,1999 I Subscribed and sworn to fore me thisl 11 1t-h ay of Pdov~mbe r , 19 9 9 OFFICIAL SEAL j No4 , u lic for Oregon SIN A. BURGH PUBLIC-OREGON MISSION NO. 062071 1 My Commission Expires: ` #:NOTARY ION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT TT y 5 a # ' . polished f©r your ~On.1 f4 t gas m>ky be obtained from-the City. gLecorder,,13123 SW Hall Boueevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or.by calling;639-4171. TIGARD CITY COUNCII. AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEET-IN G.. Novelfib6i`10 1999 6:30. P.M; TIGA.RD CM HALL d TOWN HALL 1312.'3 S1'V;RALL OTIGARED, OR~®N.' ? • Meet wadi R ntative M_= Williams.... . • Discuss Options ta;Impr-V6 Water Quality in Summer Creek : • Discuss with tNft d Sewerage Agency (USA) Rep. . Mativeizf- forts to My~*~esfs-thO, tftgg~d Species Act Requirements for the ' • date=; offProct`AtI`StaddardsAssoedated with Hillside 'i Devel L TTSSZ p: x~ , f ri s .f RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street MEMORANDUM Portland, Oregon 97209 (503) 222-4402 Fax: (503) 243-2944 TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Timothy V. Ramis, City Attorney DATE: November 16, 1999 RE: Title 3 Appeal On November 11, 1999, LUBA issued its decision in Commercial Real Estate Economic Coalition v. Metro, LUBA No. 98-116, holding that Metro cannot require local governments to implement Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan until Metro's Regional Framework Plan (RFP) is acknowledged by LCDC. The City of Tigard participated on the side of petitioners. LUBA held that because the Functional Plan (including Title 3) has been incorporated into the RFP, Metro's amended Title 3 regulations are part of the RFP. Metro therefore must comply with of ORS 268.390(5), which establishes timelines for local governments to comply with the RFP. The timelines are tied to acknowledgment of the RFP by LCDC. The RFP has not yet been acknowledged and is currently in the middle of a contested acknowledgment process. Unless the LUBA decision is overturned on appeal, the City is not required to implement Title 3 at this time. The City will have two years after acknowledgment of the RFP to adopt ordinances implementing Title 3 and one year after acknowledgment to make its decisions consistent with Title 3.t ORS 268.390(5). Metro may appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. LUBA also held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine whether Metro complied with the statewide planning goals in adopting Title 3, holding that LCDC has jurisdiction to review for compliance with the goals. `Other portions of the Functional Plan were adopted before they were incorporated into the RFP and are therefore not subject to the LUBA ruling. Future amendments to the Functional Plan, to the extent they also amend the RFP, should also be subject to ORS 268.390(5). EMINIMINIM AGENDA ITEM # Q- FOR AGENDA OF November 16, 14G9 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion with State Representative Max Williams PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL A discussion with State Representative Max Williams on issues of interest to Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Identify issues of interest or concern for Representative Williams. INFORMATION SUMMARY The 1999 Legislative Session adjourned in July. State Representative Max Williams intends to seek re-election. During the interim, he is interested in meeting with community leaders and citizens to talk about issues and concerns and develop strategies to move forward. He is interested in hearing about concerns and issues facing Tigard, and discussing those with Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Community Character and Quality of Life, Volunteerism, 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. FISCAL NOTES None i:%admlu:Nlaum 110499.doo AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF November 16. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Proposed Water Quality Improvements to Summer Creek PREPARED BY: G.Beny DEPT HEAD OK 044--- CITY MGR OK J ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discussion of options available to improve water quality in Summer Creek. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff requests input and direction from Council. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard, along with the other jurisdictions within the Tualatin River Basin, are currently under a compliance order to reduce the amount of discharge of certain nutrients as required by the Federal Clean Water Act. Additional standards for temperature and dissolved oxygen are also expected. The Unified Sewerage Agency is responsible for preparing plans that will result in compliance. The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan provides the planning for Summer Creek. In addition to water quality, the plan also recommends actions that would reduce flooding problems and degradation of fish habitat. The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan reports that in addition to not meeting standards for the discharge of certain nutrients anticipated standards for dissolved oxygen and temperature are also not being met. Summer Creek's dissolved oxygen levels were below the water quality standard 92% of the time and temperatures exceeded the standard of 64° F for 44% of the samples. Among the remedies to correct this are the recommendations that there be no new in-stream ponds and that existing ponds be made "off-stream by adding a berm, island or other feature to separate the stream and pond during the summer". The Plan further recommends that additional islands be created in Summer Lake to increase shade, that native vegetation be planted along the edge of the lake, and other habitat improvements. With the listing of Upper Willamette Spring Chinook and Winter Steelhead as threatened, the Endangered Species Act is expected to result in increasing concern for fish passage, dissolved oxygen and water temperature. The combined effect of these regulations and plans is to discourage continuation of stream impoundments throughout the Fanno Creek Basin. Impoundments cause the heating of the water beyond temperatures that desired species of fish could survive and reduce the amount of oxygen in the water. In addition, structures that create the impoundments, such as dams, may be an obstruction to fish passage. These concerns focus attention to two impoundments of Summer Creek. One is a pond upstream of SW 12151 Avenue and the other is the lake at Summerlake Park. The attached staff report provides a complete discussion on the background of the issues and describes options to improve water quality at these sites. Staff will discuss the options and recommendations with City Council, then request direction on the options that should be pursued henceforth. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternatives are discussed in the attached staff report. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. FISCAL NOTES Costs and funding sources will be determined once the Council direction is provided. IACitywide\Sum\Summer Creek Water Quality Improvements -oil, MINNOW=- III III I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III Proposed Water Quality Improvements to Summer Creek November 3, 1999 The Clean Water Act passed by Congress in 1972 required the EPA to develop a list of water pollutants to be regulated. In addition, it required states to identify "water quality limited" streams and mandated development of specific water quality standards (such as maximum levels of certain nutrients in a stream) for those streams. The specific standards were to be submitted by the states to EPA by June 1979. Oregon responded by classifying all of its rivers and their tributaries, including Summer Creek, as "water quality limited." However, Oregon failed to develop and submit the specific standards by the June 1979 deadline. As a result, in 1987 the Northwest Environmental Defense Center filed a suit against the EPA for failing to set the specific water quality standards. The lawsuit specifically identified the Tualatin River as not meeting water quality standards. In June 1987, a consent decree was entered into in which the state assumed responsibility for setting the standards. In September 1988, the Oregon EQC established the required standards. To provide a coordinated response from the Cities within the Tualatin Basin and Washington County, the responsibility for meeting the standards was delegated to Unified Sewerage Agency in 1990. The Agency's plan for Summer Creek is included in The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan completed in June 1997 and is being currently updated. In addition to water quality, the plan also recommends action that would reduce flooding problems and degradation of fish habitat. The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan reports that in addition to not meeting standards for the discharge of certain nutrients, anticipated standards for dissolved oxygen and temperature are also not being met. Summer Creek's dissolved oxygen levels were below the water quality standard 92% of the time and temperatures exceeded the standard of 64°F for 44% of the samples. Among the remedies to correct this are the recommendations that there be no new in- stream ponds and that existing ponds be made "off.-stream by adding a berm, island or other feature to separate the stream and pond during the summer." The Plan further recommends that additional islands be created in Summer Lake to increase shade, that native vegetation be planted along the edge of the lake, and other habitat improvements. With the listing of Upper Willamette Spring Chinook and Winter Steelhead as threatened, the Endangered Species Act is expected to result in increasing concern for fish passage, dissolved oxygen and water temperature. The combined effect of these regulations and plans is to discourage continuation of stream impoundments throughout the Fanno Creek Basin. Impoundments cause the heating of the water beyond temperatures that desired species of fish can survive and reduce the amount of oxygen in the water. In addition, structures that create the impoundments, such as dams, may be an obstruction to fish passage. These concerns focus attention to two impoundments of Summer Creek. One is a pond upstream of SW 12 151 Avenue and the other is the lake at Summerlake Park. Fond Upstream of SW 121st Avenue Background In January 1993, the District Watermaster notified the city (see attached letter) that an existing dam built on Summer Creek immediately west of 121 st on city greenway was constructed without the required state permits (1) to place a structure within the floodway and (2) to store streamwater. The city was given a deadline to apply for the required permits or remove the dam. The original dam was constructed in the early 1980's by beavers and added to over the years by residents of the Merestone neighborhood. In the mid-1980's, city crews reinforced the dam with boulders. After receiving the Watermaster's letter, a public information meeting was held to discuss the fate of the dam. Virtually all of the some fifty neighborhood residents who attended the meeting favored keeping the dam. The reason for this strong community support was, and continues to be, the natural values provided by the pond. Many recreational activities take place in and around the pond. Many people simply enjoy spending time viewing the pond, and the wildlife attracted to it, from their homes. Among many newer residents, proximity to the pond was one of the main reasons for deciding to purchase a home in the area. Given overwhelming neighborhood support, the city decided to address this controversy by applying for the appropriate pen-nits to either legalize the existing dam or replace it with an engineered structure. The decision to keep the dam was made in April 1993 by the City Administrator with the concurrence of Council. Neighborhood residents were informed of the city's decision by letter (see copy attached). Permits Water Resources Department Staff subsequently completed and submitted applications in June 1993 to the state Water Resources Department (WRD) to install a dam and impound streamwater. The purpose of the project was identified as wetland enhancement. At the time, the department had a backlog of eleven thousand applications for water use permits, which delayed their processing time. Objections to the project, filed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (later withdrawn) and by the private environmental group Waterwatch, added additional months to the time required for agency review. In late January 1996, after a wait of more than two years, Water Resources completed its review and issued final orders approving the city's applications. Permits were issued in March 1996. The dam structure permit covered the existing and a replacement structure. Under this permit, construction work on any new facility was required to be completed by October 1, 1998. The impoundment permit stipulated that the filling of the reservoir was required to be completed by October 1, 1999. While the permits expired in 1998 and 1999, the WRD Director had the Water Quality Improvements to Summer Creek Page 2 of 8 1811101VANNIaTMARW, lolls authority to grant individual extension requests, provided reasonable diligence was shown in the prosecution of work. FEMA Summer Creek is both a state and a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulated stream. Having obtained the state Water Resource Department permits, the city undertook a separate process to address FEMA regulations. These required an assessment of the impact of the dam on the flood flows through the stream corridor. Due to the level of detail required, Council authorized the hiring of an engineering firm that does this type of work to perform the required analysis. In addition to completing the technical work, two public meetings were held to inform citizens about the study, to present the study finding, and to discuss Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) management options being considered for the site. Briefly stated, the results of this analysis showed that the existing dam appeared to have no significant impact on water surface elevations. The sarrie was true for a potential replacement water retention structure. The study also documented that the pond had filled up with sediment and the average depth of the water at the time was a comparatively shallow two to three feet. Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan At the same time the "no-rise" study was underway, the City was a partner with USA in the development of a watershed management plan for the F umo Creek basin. The purpose of this plan was to outline long-term strategies for flood control and to protect and improve water quality. Summer Creek was included as a major tributary of Fanno Creek. The Summer Creek portion of the study considered all sections of the creek, including the 121 st Avenue pond site. Two management options for the pond were proposed. These options, which were displayed at October and March 1997 open houses, were: (1) restore the historic stream corridor by removing the dam; and (2) dredge and deepen the pond and replace the dam structure. There was strong homeowner and neighborhood support for option two. The Friends of Fanno Creek and the Tigard Chapter of the Northwest Stealheaders supported option one. The recommendation for the pond subsequently included in the draft version of the basin study was to allow the existing water control structure to degrade. This was consistent with the plan's general recommendation against so called in-stream ponds, or ponds located in the middle of streams. The following is an excerpt from the management plan report: In-stream open water ponds created by beaver are naturally occurring in the watershed. They are typically well shaded with trees and shnibs (beavers' main food source), have an irregular pond edge, and are occasionally "cleaned-out" during storm events when the beaver dams break. In-stream ponds that are human-made or are reinforced by humans (with concrete dams and weirs) typically lack the features and functions of beaver ponds. Human-made ponds are often part of an aesthetic landscape feature in a development or park. The lack of shade and periodic "flushing" of the system during storms causes these Water Quality Improvements to Summer Creek Page 3 of 8 a ponds to fill up with sediment and increase the water temperature. These ponds often have too many ducks, gulls, nutria, and lawn chemicals contributing nutrients to the water. The nutrient loading from animals, landscaping, and deposited sediment, combined with the warmer water, can trigger algae growth and eventually deplete dissolved oxygen in the water. Given the water quality problems caused by human-made ponds, USA recommends that no new in-stream ponds be installed. For existing ponds, the following actions are recommended in an effort to achieve the watershed vision and desired outcomes: • When possible, make the pond off-stream by adding a berm, island, or other feature to separate the stream and pond during the summer • Implement a duck and nutria management program (to keep populations at a sustainable level) • Enforce pet "poop scoop" laws ® Enhance park landscaping near water's edge and improve maintenance practices • Avoid or minimize chemical usage in or near pond areas After receiving additional public comment in support of keeping the dam, the project committee decided to compromise and recommend a "no change" or status quo option. The final plan, adopted in November 1997 into the USA Surface Water Management Masterplan, recommended adding vegetation along the sides of the creek and the 121" Avenue pond to reduce the temperature impact of the open water, but presented no recommendation on the dam. Dam Design Study In September 1997, Council authorized staff to hire a consultant to conduct a design study for a dam and in-stream pond as desired by the neighborhood. Some weeks later, following an open selection process, KCM, Inc. of Seattle and Tigard, was picked to conduct the study. Other project team members included the firms of Foundation Engineering for geotech engineering and Greenworks for landscape architecture. The elements of the study included the design of the dam structure, a design for the reconfiguration of the pond created by the dam, the development of a planting scheme for the bare and disturbed areas around the pond, the completion of a joint Division of a State Lands/Corps of Engineers fill/removal permit, and public involvement. i On February 19, 1998, staff and the City's consultant presented a preliminary plan for a dam and associated landscaping at a neighborhood meeting. As directed by Council, the plan featured widening of the creek to create an open water pond. A representative of the permit section of the Army Corps of Engineers attending the meeting said that the Corps was no longer permitting this type of pond because of water quality concerns. As a result, an application for a Joint Corps/ DSL permit was not submitted. Following meetings and discussions with various agencies including the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and neighbors, the plan was revised. To avoid the objections of the Corps, the Water Quality Improvements to Summer Creek Page 4 of 8 widening of the creek to create an open water pond was eliminated and was replaced by several ponds off to the side of the creek. A Wetland Enhancement Permit application instead of a Joint Corps/ DSL permit was submitted. An Enhancement Permit is simpler but requires approval from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. ODFW objected to the permit and required that any flow over the creek bank must be able to return to the creek as the water level recedes following a storm. As a consequence, there would be no ponds. Had this revised project been approved, it would have been eligible for Surface Water Management system development charges fi=nding. USA has authorized this funding through R&O 98-41 for $295,000 including consultant fees. This project also requires easements from the adjacent owners to allow the City to flood a portion of their property and to construct and maintain the facility. The owners have been requested to provide the easements but they have not yet been granted. In mid-1998, the city applied for time extensions for the Water Resources Department permits. These requests were denied because the department deemed the City had not shown reasonable progress in the prosecution of work. These denials do not preclude the City from reapplying for dam or stream impoundment permits for the same or a different project at this same location, should it decide to do so in the future. Current Conditions Beavers have returned to the creek and have partially restored the deteriorated dam. The existing dam now consists of man-made and natural material placed by the beavers. The resulting pond is much as originally requested by the neighbors. Summary of Key Facts o The compliance order by the Department of Water Resources is still in effect e The project to enhance the wetlands has been rejected by ODFW o The City of Tigard needs to take action to either remove the dam (both natural and man- made materials) or revise the project design to satisfy ODFW concerns. The following are options that the City should consider before taking any further action on this issue: Options 1. The project could be redesigned with off-line ponds to accommodate overflow from the existing stream in high water situations, but would drain immediately as the water level drops. This concept is in accord with the requirements of ODFW. The consultant that prepared the original design and permit application could be hired to provide the revisions. This option does include removal of the entire dam as part of the project. Surface Water Management system development charges would be available to fiord the project. The need Water Quality Improvements to Summer Creek Page 5 of 8 for the easements remains. Owners may be reluctant to grant the required easements since this project would not include the water-filled permanent ponds originally envisioned. 2. The permit application could be resubmitted as-is except as an ordinary cut/fill Joint Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands Application instead of a Wetland Enhancement Application. While this would provide an improved opportunity to challenge the requirements imposed by ODFW, success is unlikely since DSL has supported ODFW's position on this matter. In addition, Surface Water Management system development charges funding would not be available. 3. Both the natural and man-made portions of the dam could be allowed to remain without other improvements. However, since the Department of Water Resources order to remove the dam is still in effect, there would probably be subsequent consequences from electing to leave the dam as-is. Those consequences are unknown at this point. 4. Partial removal of the removable portions of the natural material while leaving the remainder in-place. This would alleviate the potential for winter flooding and reduce the possibility of the road being damaged by debris. This is considered routine maintenance and should be performed as necessary regardless of any other options selected. This still does not comply fully with the Department of Water Resources order and would leave the City open to any subsequent consequences. 5. Both the natural and man-made portions of the dam could be removed as currently ordered. This would probably leave unsightly mudflats upstream, which would need to be revegetated following removal. Recommendation Option 4 initially (to alleviate the problems associated with winter flooding) together with Option 1 (continue with the Wetland Enhancement Project) as the long-term solution are recommended. Removal of some of the natural material is necessary to address the potential problems created by winter flooding. Option 1 best advances the objectives of the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan and permits are readily available. If the easements required for this project are not available, Option 4 followed by Option 5 (removal of the entire dam) are recommended. Lake at Summerlake Park Background At its November 12, 1996 meeting, the residents adjacent to Summerlake Park voiced their concerns to Council about the deteriorated appearance of the lake. Council directed staff to explore options to improve the appearance of the lake. The staff report discussing proposed actions was presented to City Council on September 23, 1997. Following the presentation, Council directed staff to request proposals from consulting firms to prepare a preliminary lake Water Quality Improvements to Summer Creek Page 6 of 8 management plan to improve the appearance of the lake and appointed an Advisory Committee to guide the effort. The resulting Summer Lake Management Plan-September 1998, recommended that the appearance of the lake could be best improved at relatively low cost by mechanical harvesting of the weeds, treatment with alum to clarify the water, and the placement of mats on the bottom of the lake to retard weed growth in areas inaccessible to the mechanical harvester. The alum treatment proposal was strongly discouraged by Division of Environmental Quality and has not been pursued further. Weed harvesting has been completed several times with questionable results. The placement of the mats has been held in abeyance pending discussion of the issue with City Council. Dissatisfaction with the appearance of the lake remains. The Summer Lake Management Plan discussed hydraulic dredging (removal of lake sediment) as an option to improve the appearance of the lake, but did not recommend implementation because of cost and the uncertainty of the availability of disposal sites. To effectively prevent weed growth, dredging the lake to a depth of sixteen feet at an estimated cost of $2,430,000 would be necessary. This cost could be reduced to $197,000 if only one foot of sediment was removed. However, this would not prevent continued weed growth and would probably have to be repeated periodically. The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan has recommended projects that would provide shade to the lake and improve the shoreline. Removal of the lake, although consistent with the objectives of the Plan, was not recommended because of the City's intention to improve it's appearance and retain it. One of the suggestions from a recent meeting about the Summerlake Master Plan is the creation of an off-line water feature to enhance Summerlake Park and reduction of the lake to a stream for improved water quality and improved fish passage. This probably would be the best long-term option considering the tougher environmental climate and the increasingly strict regulations. Summary of Key Facts e Residents near Summerlake Park voiced their concerns to Council about the deteriorated condition of the lake. e The Summer Lake Management Plan prepared at Council direction to address the problems with the lake recommended mechanical harvesting supplemented with placement of membrane to deter weed growth. e Mechanical harvesting has been performed several times; however, the weeds grow back within a period of several weeks and the algae bloom continues. e Alum treatment has been strongly discouraged by DEQ. e Dredging is an extremely expensive option, and would have to be repeated periodically. e The option favored by the regulatory agencies is the reduction of the lake to a stream for improvement of water quality and enhancement of fish passage. The following are options that the City should consider before taking any further action on this issue: Water Quality Improvements to Summer Creek Page 7 of 8 Options 1. Continue current efforts to improve the appearance of the lake as described in the Summer Lake Management Plan and to improve water quality as described in the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. 2. Determine the feasibility of reducing the lake to a stream for the purpose improving water quality as described in the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Consider providing a water feature for the park as part of the Summerlake Park Master Plan development. Recommendation Option 2 is recommended since it best advances the objectives of the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. The feasibility of constructing an off-line park pond as part of the Summerlake Park Master Plan is also recommended. iAcnS\gn\parkV 21-sunup a lake staff report.doc Water Quality Improvements to Summer Creek Page 8 of 8 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Manager DATE: November 8, 1999 SUBJECT: Proposed Water Quality Improvments to Summer Creek (Agenda Item No. 3 - November 16, 1999, City Council Workshop Meeting) Attached are the following items relating to the above-referenced subject: s Tigard Times Article dated 11/4/99 m Letter & Petition from the Frieds of the Lake at 121St Avenue dated October 31, 1999 Letter from Bonnie L. Owens date November 3,1999 IAADM\CATHY\COUNCILWOVEMBER 99 WORKSHOP MEETING - SUMMER CREEK.DOC a,r d BMW MWIrV rn-e s a1 A Lake? New regulations state the city will be forced to remove the lake from the park, and councilors know neighbors won't like it BY JENNIFER BENT Of the Times TIGARD - The idea of moving Summer Lake out of the stream channel at Summerlake Park didn't gar- ner much support during a public planning workshop in early October. But new water quality regulations being set forth by the Endangered Species Act are forcing city officials to do just that - or something equivalent. i See LAKE, Page A3 LAKE: Must satisfy requireme*nts• ; A Continued from Page Al According to Smith, removing "An environmental group is the dam would clear the passage going to force us to remove the for the fish, and taking the lake out lake: from the park. We know the of the stream channel would neighbors there' are going to be decrease both harmful bacteria and NNI upset, but if we don't take action, water temperature in the stream. the courts will do it for us," said Native fish species. such •as cut- ;Mayor Jim Nicoli during a City throat trout do best in colder water . :Council work session Oct. 19. where the oxygen supply isn't Approximately five homes in eaten by bacteria. ''the surroupding neighborhood., Judging from comments made have a view of Summer Lake. at the council meeting, fish have i "We.can still. have a water fea- not been seen in the Summer Lake i ~ lure in the park, but we just have to waterway for some time but the i -open up the stream channel so the ESA regulations will apply any- fish can get through," said Nicoli. way. The original proposal presented What exactly the city will do to at the park-planning workshop by satisfy ESA requirements is not Kendra Smith, a United Sewerage certain. City planners are research- Agency ecologisi, included ing the new regulations. land removing at least one of the' two preparing'fout• different options for dams in the stream channel leading the City Council's meeting on to Summer Lake. She also recom- Nov. 16. Smith will also be on mended the "hydrological discon- nection" of the lake from the stream channel. FRIENDS OF THE LAKE AT 121 ST AVENUE C b 3i'! I October 31, 1999 EJ. ✓C f' City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Your Honor the Mayor and City Council Members Subject: Beaver Dam Removal at the Lake at 121s Avenue As indicated in the enclosed memorandum, dated October 29, 1999, the City has made a unilateral decision to remove the beaver dam on Summer Creek at 121' Avenue. This memorandum was hand delivered to the local residents on October 29`h and states that the dam's removal will take place on November 2"d or 3rd. We as the undersigned residents with property abutting or in close proximity to the lake at 121' Avenue, respectfully request that we be given the opportunity to meet with representatives of the City to discuss any actions prior to their implementation. In the past, the local residents have strongly supported the continued existence of the lake and would like to be involved in any future decisions affecting it existence. Please contact our spokesperson, Ron Wridge at 8084927 or 524-5881, if additional information or further discussions regarding this matter are necessary. Sincerely the Undersigned, Name Address Phone # Signature VJvt t` t W ~t 2_SW., r -V IZ40 S Sc.v ► k4 J13`l (L J~ ~ ~I n Yit ( / ~L~O ~i~l r I L t 1 1r , ri a ! 42 _ C-- 1 ture Si 1,14 Underst~ Contu►ued, J Addxess _oe 1 8 hey ° w 1 -5- '7~. / . l 1 C,~~~ 0 f 1151 of Tied d CF : City Me1ju or, Cit' of T~aT wwpublic Work 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Neighbors of Merestone Dam Kim FROM: Eric Hand, Wastewater/Storm Supervisor RE: Summer Creek just upstream from 121 st bridge DATE: October 29, 1999 As most of you are already aware, beavers have returned to Summer Creek and they have raised the level of Merestone Dam approximately three to four feet. Like many of you, the City of Tigard is concerned about the potential for winter flooding of private properties and possible damage to the roadway should the beaver dam breakdown this winter and block the culverts underneath 12151 Avenue. This is to notify each of you that on November 2"d or 3'; 1999 we will be lowering the level of the beaver dam approximately three feet to reduce the potential for winter}looding. Our Public Works Department has checked with all the necessary State and Federal agencies and have approval to perform this work. If you would like further information please call Eric Hand, Wastewater/Storm Supervisor, at 636-4171, extension 341. The City of Tigard thanks each of you in advance for your understanding with this project. f I Bonnie L. Owens 12450 S.W. Sutr mercrest Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 RECEIVED C.O.T. November 3, 1999 NOV 0 a1999 Mayor Jim Nicoli City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd 'Tigard OR. 97223 Dear Mayor Jim Nicoli, SUBJECT: SUMMER CREEK BEAVER DAM My husband and I are unable to attend this meeting but we have concerns about the safety of our property-namely flooding and the possibility of sluggish or backed-up drains-when the heavy rains begin. I hope this will serve to enter our concerns into the record. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In February, 1996, the lower level of our house was flooded. Initially we did not know exactly what caused the flooding. Summer Creek completely covered our backyard, up to the berm by our bedroom. It did not enter our house. As you recall, the conditions of frozen ground, followed by very heavy rains resulted in flooding in Ibrtland, 7halatin and other places in the Metropolitan area. Since our house is on sloping land, water flowing down and under our house backed up and overflowed the foundation wall between the original upper portion of our home and the addition, which is the lower portion of the house. In addition, the water table level was higher than it had ever been in the 23 years we had resided here. The water simply had no place to go but into our master bedroom, bath, darkroom and hallway. We received FEMA funds and a Small Business Administration Disaster Loan, yet we still incurred expenses exceeding those monies to remodel to a basic: level. We were not able to use our bedroom for a month. We had to search in several rooms every day to assemble clothing to wear to work. We had to install French drains along the side and back of our house. Now, of course we must have flood insurance in order to continue our homeowners insurance. We were more fortunate than many whom was flooded that winter and for that we were, and still are, very grateful. Yet I know what a traumatic experience it was for us. -2- November 4, 1999 Because of these and other hardships associated with the flooding, I do not intend to experience that again if I have any control over it at all. HISTORICAL INFORMATION: We have lived in this house for 26 years. The creek has changed significantly in that time. During the first 10-15 years we were here, we rarely saw the water. During heavy winter rains it would rise and sometimes extend into our yard 1-2 feet. It would recede as soon as the rains stopped or slowed. About 15 years ago we began to see a "lake" to the east of our house. Behind our house, the creek remained in its channel. It has gradually grown over the years and the "lake" expanded so it was behind our next door neighbor's house. It stopped there and stayed that way until this summer when we observed the water level rising daily in our yard. Please see photos enclosed. We now have a "lake" behind our.house and most of the tall grass is now flat. Ducks and geese swim in our yard. Slowly over the years, the tall grass has grown into our yard so it now covers about 10-12 feet of our property. The water is covering all of that area and about two feet more in some spots. Please see photos. It is very important to understand that in a very wet winter we had water about 3-4 feet into our yard. Now, in the dryness of the summer we began to have water covering 12 feet of our yard. When it rains hard, our entire yard may be covered. Certainly, a good portion of it will be covered. The situation will be right for flooding again and backed up drains. CURRE'N'T PROBLEM: Our toilet in the downstairs bathroom has been flushing sluggishly or coming close to overflowing recently. I have noticed this problem in conjunction with rainy days. I do not know if this is related to the high water, but we have not had any trouble with our toilet in 26 years. I do know the sewer line is under water so there could be some relationship. If there is a relationship what will occur when it begins to rain in earnest? It might be of interest to someone from the City of Tigard to look at our property. A i;}cerely, Bonrne and om Owens cc: Bill Monahan, City Administrator Members of the City Council Eric Hand THE GREEN HERON HERALD Summerlake Dam in Tigard In-stream Pond Hurts Trout Habitat and Water Quality By Brian Wegener, President, Tualatin Fish passage is the first reason for Non-native animal species are the Riverkeepers removing the dam at Summerlake Park. fourth reason for removing the dam The dam at Summerlake and the culvert at Summerlake Park. The pond at A great debate is now being downstream at 121st Street are barriers Summerlake Park is ideal habitat for waged over fish and dams on to cutthroat trout for their migration bullfrogs and non-native warm water the Columbia River. In simple between spawning and rearing areas. fish. These non-native species have terms, the debate is whether the eco- Removal of these barriers should be the been implicated in the decline of native nomic value of a system of dams is highest priority in the master plan for turtles, fish, and amphibians. Summer more valuable than the recovery of Summerlake Park. Creek is on the 303(d) list for Biological native salmon runs. Those in favor of Criteria, having low scores on the Index maintaining the dams point out the Water temperature is the second for Biological Integrity. Removing the economic benefits of electricity, irriga- reason to remove the dam at dam, and restoring Summer Creek to tion and shipping. Those in favor of Summerlake Park. Because the dam more natural conditions that do not breaching the dams point out the forms an in-stream pond, temperature favor non-native species could help ecological, cultural, and economic value loading occurs, raising water tempera- restore native cutthroat trout, red-legged of historically strong runs of salmon. ture above the 64°F federal standard frogs, western pond turtles and western for rearing salmonids. Temperature painted turtles. Closer to home, and on a much smaller loading decreases the ability of Summer scale, the decision on whether to breach Creek to support cutthroat trout both Continuing to maintain Summerlake a dam here in Tigard is much more at Summerlake Park and downstream, dam should not be supported by public obvious. The dam on Summer Creek where considerable effort and expense dollars and is not in the public interest. in Summerlake Park offers none of the have gone into restoring habitat. To The City of Tigard should examine its economic benefits of the Columbia River reduce temperature loading in Summer potential liability under the Clean Water dams: it generates no electricity, supports Creek, the dam at Summerlake Park Act and Endangered Species Act and no barge traffic and irrigates no farms. should be removed. weigh the cost/benefit of continuing to While there is no economic benefit from maintain a dam that contributes to the the dam at Summerlake, the impact on Water quality is the third reason for degradation of water quality and blocks native fish and wildlife is significant. removing the dam at Summerlake Park. fish passage to provide a few neighbors We applaud the City's effort to protect with a view. The Unified Sewerage Summer Creek is on the Oregon water quality by restoring native plants Agency has suggested a compromise Department of Environmental Quality's around the edge of pond and by restrict- that would move the pond out of the 303(d) list of "water quality limited" ing the use of fertilizers around the stream channel. In this way, Summer- streams. The creek is listed for failing in-stream pond. We encourage the City lake Park would still have its namesake to meet several water quality criteria: to expand the buffer area up the slope pond without the negative impact on excessive bacteria, high temperature, around the lake. Still, an in-stream pond habitat and water quality of Summer low biological diversity and low levels surrounded by lawn is very attractive Creek. We urge the City of Tigard of dissolved oxygen. While Summer to waterfowl. Nutrient loading from to remove Summerlake Dam and Creek is currently quite degraded, waterfowl manure and warm water implement restoration efforts to improve recent efforts have shown there is strong temperatures caused by damming the water quality and native wildlife. momentum in the community for restor- creek are the major factors promoting ing habitat for cutthroat trout in Summer the growth of milfoil, hydrilla, algae, You can help speed the process of Creek. This spring Governor Kitzhaber and other aquatic weeds which the restoring Summer Creek by attending visited Summer Creek to honor the City of Tigard pays to have removed the next Summerlake Park meeting on Unified Sewerage Agency, Fowler several times each summer. Waterfowl November 18th at Tigard City Hall. For Middle School and other partners for manure in the in-stream pond also adds more information contact: restoration efforts downstream from harmful bacteria (fecal coliforms), Summerlake Park. The Tualatin which diminish dissolved oxygen. Duane Roberts, Planner Riverkeepers believe that the City of Removing the dam at Summer Creek Community Development Department Tigard should build on this momentum will help reduce harmful bacteria, City of Tigard to restore Summer Creek. Removing aquatic weeds and increase dissolved 13125 SW Hall Blvd. the dam at Summerlake Park should be oxygen which is so important to strong Tigard OR, 97223 the first step in this effort for a number fish runs. (503) 639-4171 of reasons. 3 City Council Meeting to Consider: The Lake at Surnrnerlake Park and the Pond at 121 st Avenue 6:30 PM, November 16, 1999 Town Hall Room of City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. The purpose of the meeting is: • to provide Council with an update on the status of the existing management plans for the lake at Summerlake Park and the downstream pond immediately west of 121 St Avenue; • to discuss the potential for winter flooding of the 121St Avenue pond and possible damage to the roadway; • to discuss present and anticipated stream protection regulations that may apply to the future management of the lake and pond; • to consider ideas for the long term management of each water body, costs and possible funding sources associated with these ideas; and, • to request Council to provide direction to staff. Representatives from the city Community Development, Engineering, and Public Works Departments, and from the Unified Sewerage Agency will be present to discuss the issues and options with Council. The November 16th meeting will be a work session between staff and Council. The public is invited to attend the meeting and listen to .staff and Council discussion. Should you have any questions, need additional information, or wish a copy ' of the staff report for the meeting, please call Duane Roberts or Eric Hand at 639-4171. The staff report also is available on the City's web page: www.d.tigard.or.us under Summer Creek Ponds. 3 VIrpn/dr/121.notIco Information Summary The City of Tigard, along with the other jurisdictions within the Tualatin River Basin, are. currently under a compliance order to reduce the amount of discharge of certain nutrients as required by the Federal Clean Water Act. Additional standards for temperature and dissolved oxygen are also expected. The Unified Sewerage Agency is responsible for preparing plans that will result in compliance. The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan provides the planning for Summer Creek. In addition to water quality, the plan also recommends actions that would reduce flooding problems and degradation of fish habitat. The Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan reports that in addition to not meeting standards for the discharge of certain nutrients anticipated standards for dissolved oxygen and temperature are also not being met. Summer Creek's dissolved oxygen levels were below the water quality standard 92% of the time and temperatures exceeded the standard of 64° F for 44% of the samples. Among the remedies to correct this are the recommendations that there be no new in-stream ponds and that existing ponds be made "off-stream by adding a berm, island or other feature to separate the stream and pond during the summer". The Plan further recommends that additional islands be created in Summer Lake to increase shade, that native vegetation be planted along the edge of the lake, and other habitat improvements. With the listing of Upper Willamette Spring Chinook and Winter Steelhead as threatened, the Endangered Species Act is expected to result in increasing concern for fish passage, dissolved oxygen and water temperature. The combined effect of these regulations and plans is to discourage continuation of stream impoundments throughout the Fanno Creek Basin. Impoundments cause the heating of the water beyond temperatures that desired species of fish could survive and reduce the amount of oxygen in the water. In addition, structures that create the impoundments, such as dams, may be an obstruction to fish passage. These concerns focus attention to two impoundments of Summer Creek. Oiw is a pond upstream of SW 121St Avenue and the other is the lake at Sum, mcrlake Park. The attached staff report provides a complete discussion on the background of the issues an4 describes options to improve water quality at these sites. Staff will discuss the options and recommendations with City Council, then request direction on the options that should be pursued henceforth. THE GREEN HERON HERALD Summerlake Dam in Tigard In-stream Pond Hurts Trout Habitat and Water Quality By Brian Wegener, President, Tualatin Fish passage is the first reason for Non-native animal species are the Riverkeepers removing the dam at Summerlake Park. fourth reason for removing the dam The dam at Summerlake and the culvert at Summerlake Park. The pond at A great debate is now being downstream at 121st Street are barriers Summerlake Park is ideal habitat for waged over fish and dams on to cutthroat trout for their migration bullfrogs and non-native warm water the Columbia River. In simple between spawning and rearing areas. fish. These non-native species have terms, the debate is whether the eco- Removal of these barriers should be the been implicated in the decline of native nomic value of a system of dams is highest priority in the master plan for turtles, fish, and amphi)ians. Summer more valuable than the recovery of Summerlake Park. Creek is on the 303(d) list for Biological native salmon runs. Those in favor of Criteria, having low scores on the Index maintaining the dams point out the Water temperature is the second for Biological Integrity. Removing the economic benefits of electricity, irriga- reason to remove the dam at dam, and restoring Summer Creek to tion and shipping. Those in favor of Summerlake Park. Because the dam more natural conditions that do not breaching the dams point out the forms an in-stream pond, temperature favor non-native species could help ecological, cultural, and economic value loading occurs, raising water tempera- restore native cutthroat trout, red-legged of historically strong runs of salmon. ture above the 64°F federal standard frogs, western pond turtles and western for rearing salmonids. Temperature painted turtles. Closer to home, and on a much smaller loading decreases the ability of Summer scale, the decision on whether to breach Creek to support cutthroat trout both Continuing to maintain Summerlake a dam here in Tigard is much more at Summerlake Park and downstream, dam should not be supported by public obvious. The dam on Summer Creek where considerable effort and expense dollars and is not in the public interest. in Summerlake Park offers none of the have gone into restoring habitat. To The City of Tigard should examine its economic benefits of the Columbia River reduce temperature loading in Summer potential liability under the Clean Water dams: it generates no electricity, supports Creek, the dam at Summerlake Park Act and Endangered Species Act and no barge traffic and irrigates no farms. should be removed. weigh the cost/benefit of continuing to While there is no economic benefit from maintain a dam that contributes to the the dam at Summerlake, the impact on Water quality is the third reason for degradation of water quality and blocks native fish and wildlife is significant. removing the dam at Summerlake Park. fish passage to provide a few neighbors We applaud the City's effort to protect with a view. The Unified Sewerage Summer Creek is on the Oregon water quality by restoring native plants Agency has suggested a compromise Department of Environmental Quality's around the edge of pond and by restrict- that would move the pond out of the 303(d) list of "water quality limited" ing the use of fertilizers around the stream channel. In this way, Summer- streams. The creek is listed for failing in-stream pond. We encourage the City lake Park would still have its namesake to meet several water quality criteria: to expand the buffer area up the slope pond without the negative impact on excessive bacteria, high temperature, around the lake. Still, an in-stream pond habitat and water quality of Summer low biological diversity and.low levels surrounded by lawn is very attractive Creek. We urge the City of Tigard of dissolved oxygen. While Summer to waterfowl. Nutrient loading from to remove Summerlake Dam and Creek is currently quite degraded, waterfowl manure and Svarm water implement restoration efforts to improve recent efforts have shown there is strong temperatures caused by damming the water quality and native wildlife. momentum in the community for restor- creek are the major factors promoting ing habitat for cutthroat trout in Summer the growth of milfoil, hydrilla, algae, You can help speed the process of Creek. This spring Governor Kitzhaber and other aquatic weeds which the restoring Summer Creek by attending visited Summer Creek to honor the City of Tigard pays to have removed the next Summerlake Park meeting on Unified Sewerage Agency, Fowler several times each summer. Waterfowl November 18th at Tigard City Hall. For Middle School and other partners for manure in the in-stream pond also adds more information contact: restoration efforts downstream from harmful bacteria (fecal coliforms), Summerlake Park. The Tualatin which diminish dissolved oxygen. Duane Roberts, Planner Riverkeepers believe that the City of Removing the dam at Summer Creek Community Development Department Tigard should build on this momentum will help reduce harmful bacteria, City of Tigard to restore Summer Creek. Removing aquatic weeds and increase dissolved 13125 SW Hall Blvd. s the dam at Summerlake Park should be oxygen which is so important to strong Tigard OR, 97223 (lie first step in this effort for a number fish runs. (503) 639-4171 of reasons. 3 As furnished The Tigard Times for publication as SOAPBOX article in November 11, 1999 issue. The Times edited out the FACT headings for sentences the author believes are significant findings of fact. This copy contains the entire article without editing. As Tigard citizens get a look at the draft Summerlake Park master plan (City Hall, Nov. 18, 7 p.m.), not many people who regularly enjoy the beauty of its namesake lake know its destruction may become part of the plan. Most people probably didn't read the October 7 issue of this paper. It gave the dam destroyers lots of space to state why taking out Summer Lake's dam is necessary. Again, probably read by few was this paper's November 4 article. In it Tigard's mayor figuratively throws up his hands-he is ready to concede a major asset of the City is all but lost. Citing the overwhelming power of new endangered species regulations, he declared "an environmental group is going to force us to remove the lake from the park. [I]f we don't take action, the courts will do it for m" Maybe-maybe not. Summer Creek already provides as much habitat for Coldwater fish as can be used to their advantage. Some 94% of the 34 miles of streams in the Fanno Creek watershed are already open for migration from spawning to rearing areas-without breaching Summer Lake dam. No science or solid facts have been presented by the advocates of dam removal that say the key to fully restoring trout or threatened winter steelhead in Summer Creek or elsewhere in the Tualatin River basin rests on opening passage to the uppermost reaches of the creek. Tualatin Riverkeepers; the Unified Sewage Agency (USA) and others want the dam taken out to get more trout habitat and improved water quality. To people who haven't studied the situation, those might seem to be goals worth pursuing. They should ask: Are those goals achievable at reasonable cost? Several years ago, USA said dam removal would cost $350,000 but offered no basis for their estimate. What's the actual cost going to be? What about the tangible and intangible values that would be foregone? No one yet knows. What are the chances that the enunciated goals can be reached, even with dam breaching? Why has nothing authoritative been published about that? It is folly to use the arguments advocates have thus far advanced, because they have offered no facts to suggest breaching the dam would achieve their goals. Here are some solid facts on the other side of this issue that ought to get attention. They are based on literature research, actual measurement and on-the-ground examinations. FACT-Neither the public nor the City Council has seen an environmental impact study addressing dam removal because none exists. Nor has the public had a chance to comment on or question the validity of any facts purporting to prove that removal of the dam is vital to restoring cutthroat trout populations to some desired level in Summer Creek. Has the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) said dam breaching on Summer Creek is key to saving the listed winter steethead from extinction in the Willamette Basin? If so, why haven't we heard from them? CONCLUSION-Instead of simply caving in to pressure, the City Council owes it to Tigard citizens to sharply question USA and insist that good science and solid facts are used in deciding this issue. They ought to do that before the Council approves a master plan calling for destruction of Summer Lake. FACT-Cutthroat trout were identified by ODFW in Summer Creek behind Fowler Middle School as recently as 1997. They are probably there every summer because the site has a forest canopy, keeping it cool even in summer heat. FACT-Summer Creek is only one of 14 significant tributaries in the Fanno I 'pr Creek watershed. FACT-Summer lake dam is a barrier to only two miles (6%) of 34 miles of streams usable by ash in the Fanno Creek watershed. FACT-Those two miles are poor quality because summer flows are so low and what little rainwater feeds them is heated by contact with the surfaces of houses and streets. Nowhere are spawning gravel beds to be seen, but much phosphorus-bearing organic material and mud is-a consequence of clearing for homes in the past dozen years. CONCLUSION Tigard may be forced to sacrifice its only public take so that a tiny amount of poor habitat might become available, even though there are plenty of better sites elsewhere in the Fanno Creek yvatershed FACT-The Tualatin River basin has more than twice the national average of phosphorus in its easily eroded soils. During our boom in house construction, especially on hilly ground, much of that phosphorus was and is being taken into solution or moved as soil particles by streams. Our high phosphorus soils are a major problem for Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as it struggles to make its phosphorus load allocations politically and scientifically achievable. If it fails, it is probable DEQ's phosphorus standard can never be met. Maybe that's why DEQ and USA, the responsible agency for meeting the standard, continue to pressure the City about Summer Lake's water quality. They seem to be blindly following an inflexible rule that won't let them credit Summer Lake dam with helping keep the aforementioned phosphorus-rich water and a lot of mud from reaching downstream fish habitat. FACT- When rainfalls are sparse in summer-precisely when it is critical to meet the total maximum daily load (TMDL) standards for phosphorus, chlorophyll-A and water temperature at the mouth of Fanno Creek--the dam releases little or no water. Thus, it prevents unwanted phosphorus, blue-green algae and warm water from reaching the Tualatin River just when it is most important to do so. Rather than being a hindrance to water quality downstream, Summer Lake dam supports attempts to meet the standards DEQ has set. CONCLUSION-If the dam is breached, Summer Creek will likely send more mud, phosphorus and warm water downstream, not less. If so, the trout behind Fowler Middle School will be forced to go elsewhere. FACT-Consistency is a problem in how authorities deal with water quality issues in the Tualatin River basin. On Beaverton Creek where flooding is frequent, USA advocates "creating ponds to provide temporary storage of stormwater runoff and settle out sediment and pollutants" (The Oregonian, March 19, 1999). FACT-Which is exactly what Summer Lake does now-it temporarily stores water, settles out mud and traps phosphorus. Only a divide stands between the two watersheds, but on Summer Creek USA thinks its dam should be breached FACT-In the Dairy Creek watershed ODFW, of USA's behest, took a + cutthroat trout census to better understand how land uses affect clean water, fish and their habitat in the i Tualatin River basin (The Oregonian, September 18, 1999). Asked why take a census, a USA water resources expert responded: "Is it temperature? Is it chemical? Is it shade? Is it habitat? How do we start getting back to healthy streams? You have to have the data to know if what we're doing will bring a return 3 on the investment we're making." Why not apply that sound science in making decisions on Fanno and Summer Creeks? CONCLUSION-Presently, scientists don't know or agree on how best to make healthy streams in the Tualatin River basin. Guesses or mere opinions mustn't be the only basis for destroying Summer-Lake. 2 If you haven't enjoyed the gem of Summer Lake Park, go see what you can lase if no one takes these facts into account. If at its November 16 meeting the City Council expects to decide dam breaching must be part'of the park master plan, they ought to allow public comment on their proposed action. SOAPBOX article from Howard Banta, 12580 SW Glacier Lily Cir., a 14-year resident of Tigard, a retired national program director in natural resources for a Federal agency and a geological engineer. 3 1 City of Tigard Summedake Paris Master Plan Update Community Workshop Summary September 30, 1999 Preface The Cky of Tigard held a community workshop on Goals Thursday, September 30, 1999, at Mary Woodward Workshop participants were asked to discuss their goals School. The purpose of the workshop was to involve and vision for Summedake Park. Although participants citizens in updating the master plan for Summedake hold differing views about methods to achieve the goal, Paris, one of two community parks in Tigard. they have a common desire for a healthy body of dear water in the park. Several participants favor removing The workshop was widely advertised during the month the dam and restoring the aquatic habitat of Summer of September. Announcements were published in the Creek. Others support continued efforts to rid the lake City newsletter, Cityscape, and in the local newspaper, of algae. Neighbors, particularly those who live north the Tigard Tmes. Flyers were distributed at Citizens of the lake, value their dear views of the lake and the Involvement Team and Summer Lake Homeowners park beyond. Other goals for the park include Association meetings, and were mailed to people who enhancing natural areas for bird-watching, providing had participated in previous park workshops. recreational opportunities for families and the entire community, providing access for people with disabilities, Walking-tour guides were prepared and distributed in and improving safety. the park, and were made available in the lobby of City Hall, adjacent to a display about the master plan update. Issues and Opportunities Community members were encouraged to complete Next, workshop participants discussed their observations the self-guided tour in advance of the workshop. about various station points on the walking tour. They identified opportunities for new recreational activities Over twenty-five people from the community and facilities and made suggestions for improvements to participated in the workshop and/or submitted written problem areas. comments. A list of workshop participants is included at the end of this report. A transcription of comments General from Walking-tour guides and Comment sheets, and Blackberries are invading areas around bridges and in the copies of letters and newspaper editorials, are included woods. Several people, including Friends of Summer as appendices. Lake, expressed a willingness to assist parks and grounds maintenance staff in controlling blackberries and Introductions performing other upkeep on the park. Bill Monahan, Tigard City Manager, opened the meeting, welcomed participants, and introduced the The number of trash receptacles in the park has been consultants, Jane Henderson and Paul Tuttle of MIG, reduced because of dumping of home trash. Workshop Inc. Kendra Smith of Unified Sewerage Agency (USA), participants suggested providing locked trash receptacles and City staff members Jim Wolf, Tigard Police with small openings to provide park users a place to Department, Duane Roberts, Long-Range Planning, and dispose of animal waste and other trash and, at the same Jeff Munroe, Parks and Grounds Maintenance, were also time, prevent people from dumping home trash. introduced. Other suggestions included: Following an overview of the master planning process, Provide interpretive information about waterfowl workshop attendees participated in a facilitated and other wildlife. discussion about their goals for the park, issues and Place additional benches around the lake and near opportunities, and priority improvements. Jane the tennis courts. Henderson facilitated the discussion, and Paul Tuttle Provide picnic tables and small, family-sized shelters recorded and illustrated participant comments on a large throughout the park. wallgraphic. A reduction of the wallgraphic is attached to Restore irrigation to keep the grass green. this report. Install speed bumps to prevent cars from traveling too fast around the park. WINNER n • Provide security lighting throughout the park. Locate a less expensive type of sand for the play • Make facilities vandal-proof. area. • Institute voluntary patrols to reduce vandalism. Interior Woodland (Station Points 11, 12, and 13) City staff noted the following park-related efforts: The woodland is a good area for bird watching and Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department said the other nature study. Participants suggested adding City is interested in setting up a new community interpretive signs, soft trail surfacing, and boardwalks park patrol. People who are interested in being through the wetland to enhance the area. They would involved are urged to contact Jim. also like to offer other alternatives to youth who ride Jeff Munroe said that funds are available through the mountain bikes through the area. Specific observations City for tree planting. and suggestions included: • Mountain bike riders are causing major damage in Southeast (Station Points 1, 2, and 3) the wooded area. Provide an acceptable This area has the potential to be more highly utilized. alternative, such as a BMX facility. The play area is popular, but it is some distance from off- The southern entrance to the woodland is a nice street parking. Adults with small children tend to favor area for small children where they can see frogs and parking on the street and walking across the grass to tadpoles, but the bridge and path are muddy in wet reach the play equipment. Large areas are weather. Build a new bridge and boardwalk. undeveloped. Suggestions included: Numerous informal paths have been cut through Develop off-street parking and provide restrooms the woodland and are causing erosion. Identify a (portable toilets are okay) near the play area. trail system and upgrade the surfacing (perhaps • Provide play equipment, such as a spiral slide and gravel overlaid with wood chips). Block off and swings, for older children, replant eroded areas. Improve the field for infom-tal soccer and pick-up sports, frisbee, and kite flying. South (Station Point 14) Plant more trees along the property line. The existing house and garage are in poor condition. • Plant more trees close to the play area to provide The area, however, is well suited for storage, shade in the summer. mobilization, and workspace for maintenance staff. Cover the play structure with sun/rain screen. Workshop participants supported the tentative plan by the City to remove the house and replace it with a pole building for use by parks and grounds maintenance staff. North (Station Point 9) The pathway on the north side was the first constructed An open area just to the south was suggested as a good in the park. It is showing signs of age. location for an off-leash dog area. Participants suggested • Replace cracked asphalt pavement with concrete. installing attractive fences and shrubs to provide a • Install drainage to eliminate ponding north of the pleasing view for neighbors across the street. \valkway. Lake, Lake Edge, and Bridges (Station Points 4, 5, West (Station Points 10, 15, 16, and 17) 6, 7, and 8) This area is highly used and regarded favorably by the Several measures were suggested to improve water community. Suggestions for improvements included: quality, including aeration, installing barley bales, and • Resurface the tennis courts. " adding water from local wells. Kendra Smith of United Provide a skateboard/rollerblade facility, and post Sewerage /-agency suggested restoring Summer Creek signs prohibiting skateboards and rollerblades on and establishing a pond or small lake that is hydrologically the tennis courts. disconnected (of8ine) from Summer Creek. She Provide additional parking near the tennis courts. indicated that funds might be available through USA to • Add seating (bleachers or benches) near the existing assist the City in such an effort. Separating the pond and baseball field, restoring the creek would result in two distinctly Level the baseball infield. different areas for recreational activities. The restored Plant shade trees on the north side of the tennis creek would provide additional opportunities for bird courts, and wildlife watching, and the pond could become a Plant native trees near the creek. more aesthetically pleasing feature and could perhaps Provide new play equipment for toddlers. incorporate water play. Other suggestions included: .f Willows planted on the north side of the lake Workshop Participants provide little shading and block views of the lake. Jean and Van Camp, 12481 S4V Edgewater Court Plant lower-growing native plants as an alternative. Howard Banta, 12580 SW Glacier Lily E9and buffer plantings upslope from the water. Pam and John Cook, 12611 SW Bridgeview Court Remove the lawn and replace with native plants. May and Wally Turner, 11000 SW Summer Lake Drive Keep vegetation from overgrowing bridges. Harold Brown, 10900 SW Summer Lake Drive • Provide better access to water. Maye and Fliegle Walters, Glacier Lily Circle • Provide facilities for small boats. Bob Rohff, 12430 SW North Dakota • Save $7,000 per year by harvesting the ponds Linda Moore, 13122 SW Shore Drive Paula Bede, 13145 SW Shore Drive twice, rather than three times, each year, in late Megan Jones, 11621 SW Wnteriake Drive June and late August. Mike Curtis, 13401 SW Laurmont Court Install a fountain in the fake. Nicolette C'Brien, 11607 SW Winteriake Reverend and Mrs. Lee Karr, 11581 SW Shoreview Prior Ydes Place When asked what the highest priorities for improvement Brian Wegener, 9830 SW Kimberly Drive should be, workshop participants mentioned two areas: Greg Kaminski, 11600 SW Sheffield Creek • Clean, dear water, and Linda Heim, 12885 SW Glacier Lily Circle Restrooms and parking near the children's play area. Ted Forem, 11047 SW Eschman Way Megan Jones, 11621 SW Winteriake Next Steps Christie Smith, 11320 SW Ambiance Place Participants were asked to submit written comments to Duane Roberts, City Hall, no later than October 7, for City of Tigard incorporation in the draft master plan. MIG will present Bill Monahan, City Manager the first draft to the community in a second workshop Jeff Munroe, Parks and Grounds Maintenance on Thursday, November 18, 1999, 7:00 p.m., at City Duane Roberts, Planning Department Hall. Jim Wolf, Police Department Unified Sewerage Agency Kendra Smith M/G, inc. Jane Henderson, Project Manager Paul Tuttle, Senior Designer -lose Appendvr A Walking-tour comments B. Comment sheets C. Tualatin Riverkeepers letter dated September 29, 1999 D. °Soapbo)' column by Brian Wegener, October 7, 1999, Tigard Times City of Tigard Summerlake Park Master Plan Update Walking Tour Comments Note: A number in parentheses indicates the number of times the comment occurred. Isom • Provide new bathroom facilities at this end - portable toilets are okay. (8) • Improve field for informal soccer and other pick-up sports, Frisbee, kite flying. (8) • Develop more off-street parking. (7) • Provide small covered shelter. (3) • Irrigate this area. (3) • Plant more trees along the property line. (2) • Provide soccer nets. • Leave the area undeveloped but mowed. • Place interpretive nature kiosks at park entrances. • Provide swing sets for older children. • Allow small boats on the lake. • Maintain open spaces around the lake so those who use the walkways can see the lake. n s • Provide swings for the older kids. (5) • A nearby restroom would be nice. (4) • Provide covered picnic tables for shade/rain. (2) • Add slides for older children. (2) • The recent improvements to the play area are great. • The toys are just right for the little ones. Nice addition to the park. • Excellent. • It is great. Our grandchildren use it. So do many, many other families. • Time to update it - think of Tualatin's Ibach Park - water streams, cork floors. • Use nonsloping area south of walkway for play space and include a nice set of toys. • Provide 3 to 4 picnic tables in the open area. • Security lights are needed. Keep grass green and mowed. • Remove the lawn on the sIQpe around the lake and replant with native plants/flowers. • The trees "work" well around the play area. This area is eery hot during the summer - plant more trees. • Cover the play structure with a fabric cover to shield from heat and rain (please see the Westlake Park in Lake Oswego for a beautiful example). 0 0 • e • mom • The bench is a very nice addition. Several more placed around the lake would be nice. (4) • Great area. (2) • Algae scum floating on the lake detracts from what othervvise could be a beautiful view. (2) a The walkway and the new bench overlooking the lake are wonderful. Large swings and a bouncy bridge for the older children would be nice. • Add a restroom. • Provide picnic tables. It was fun to find snakes in the grass in the springtime. • 1 see several people exercise their retrievers off the side of the lake. ■ The view of the lake is destined to be lost when the shoreline red-twig dogwoods double in size, unless judicious tree removal/pruning is done to retain at least a few nice vistas. • The city has quit watering the north side lawn, and views from here are of brown grass in the summer-just at the time most people use the park! • The weathered silver-gray color and the pattern of the railing above the nice arch make it a beautiful bridge. It has been a great addition, enjoyed by all, and deserves to be maintained in good condition. (4) • Remove the damn and restore Summer Creek. (2) • Separate the creek and pond hydrologically. • Great area. • A fountain in the lake would move the water and keep it clear. • Add water to the lake from nearby wells. • Increase irrigation for greener grass. • Beautiful. The sound of water is always attractive. I hope they don't mess up the area to the east by digging up the grass and planting something less attractive. • o • Place additional benches here. (3) • Remove the lawn and plant more willows. • Maintain a buffer around the pond to enhance water quality. • Separate the pond and creek. • Provide a garbage can nearby. • Some watering is needed to keep it green in the summer. It would be a lot prettier from all around the lake. • The east edge of the park is mostly earthen dam. Lack of watering detracts in summer, making it only good for a path. ■ It wouldn't hurt to thin some of the willows for a better shore view. • Willow introduced at water's edge will obscure a beautiful vista in a few years - needlessly in terms of what the willow will do to the temperature of the lake water - nothing. Would like to see a vista or two maintained. kill" • Would like to see some garbage cans. (4) Use receptacles with small openings to prevent disposal of home garbage. • Provide additional benches here and throughout the park. (2) • Provide better access to the lake. • Use the lake for small boats as well as for the view. • Save the old willow tree on the bank. • Remove the lawn and plant more willows. • Provide picnic benches. • Irrigate the turf area. • The lake is almost obscured by the too-tall willow planted only a few years ago - over 50% of the view has been lost from this vantage point (on the path). The willow needs to be topped, if not taken out. It would offer the same shade to the lake at 5 ft height as at the existing 10-15 ft and would provide just as much buffer against incursions on the lawn by geese and ducks if lowered. IS ''III s s • Eliminate blackberries near the bridge. (3) • Improvements to this bridge were needed and well done. (3) • Put in redesigned garbage cans near the picnic tables. • Nice planting of ash and red osier dogwood under the bridge on south side. • Interpretive information on migrating waterfowl would be nice. • Great. • Algae mats detract from beauty of vistas. • The bridge is much improved from 2 years ago with new docking and rails, but the railing is already going bad from wet/dry cycling. It was shortsighted not to have used "wood like" plastic material that would withstand the weather much longer and save money in the long run. • o • e. • JAMIUM • Provide interpretive signage regarding waterfowl. (3) • The area needs more garbage cans. (2) • Improve the asphalt path. (2) • Remove the lawn on the slope and plant native plants/flowers. • This is a beautiful area, especially in the spring. • Remove some of the trees. • The lake view will soon be lost to recently planted willow that has no value in shading lake water. • Provide irrigation in this area. • On 920/99 about 80% of the remaining viewable lake was covered by mats of unsightly blue/green algae. The City should apply for the DEQ permit to use alum to rid the lake of algae. DEQ must have a valid reason for denying it, it can't be arbitrary or capricious in denial. Alum m be used without harm to fish or other aquatic organisms. mama • Provide additional garbage cans in this area. (3) • Eliminate the blackberries. (2) • Improve the walkway by improving drainage and replacing pavement. (2) • Provide pooper scoopers here. • Remove the nonnative plants/Ilowers (reed canary grass, teasel, blackberries) and replace with natives. • Remove the lawn. ■ Plant native ash and western red cedars. • Add trees and parking. • The new bridge needs security lights! This is a trouble spot. Youths gather under and around the bridge... M80s have gone off, empty beer bottles, etc. , • Lack of vegetative management and/or wrong plan prescriptions are especially prominent here. Willows growing in the shade of a clump of ash trees have been overtaken by gray mold. It shows no one cares enough to "weed out" undesirable plant materials. The aesthetic choice of design in the new concrete bridge is great, but the footbridge below is robbed of the view of that beautiful bridge from the east along the path. • Planting on the east side of the bridge is too close to the bridge. 0 o- . a • e • Install parking lot to relieve street parking during ball games and tennis matches. (4) • Plant more trees here and provide benches for people waiting to play tennis. (4) • Install speed bumpsAraffic calming on Winter Lake Drive. (2) • Provide better irrigation in this area. MMOMM • Provide good paths through the woods, possibly nature trails or boardwalks. ■ Build a boardwalk so you can see the wetlands. • Provide plant identification signs (vandalism may be a problem). • Reduce the number of trails and build for heavier use. • Work on instituting voluntary patrols to reduce vandalism in this area. • Remove the blackberries and replace with native plants/flowers. • Develop the path from here to the east side of the woodland - station 13. • Improve drainage to reduce mud in this area. • Foreclose this as a through street. j Pave the existing road with asphalt. • This path really "works" well as a refuge from summer heat and during the rest of the year as a place for seeing i birds, especially warblers. It does get muddy in rainy season. Improvement could be a thick layer of gravel overlaid by wood chips. Keep it pretty much as is. The woodland to the east provides very desirable habitat diversity and a sense of quiet and isolation that many people enjoy. 3 • • a o • Tear down the house and replace with a good storage building and shop for maintenance. (6) • Security lights are needed around shed to prevent theft. • Clean up the dirt piles. • Can this be made into a place for events, similar to Jenkins Estate? e • e~• o • Elevate the path between the blacktop path and the bridge enough to keep feet dry, or replace it with a boardwalk. (4) It's wet and muddy too often. • Eradicate the blackberries. (3) • Maintain the paths with woods chips. (2) ■ Safety is a concern. I don't always feel safe in the forest area. • Beautiful fems! • Remove nonnative vegetation and replant with native plants/I lowers. • It may be that nothing can be done about the blackberries since they are so invasive. The cost to eradicate them permanently may not be justifiable. ■ Restrict bicycle access. • The bridge was a nice addition, but, like the bridge across Summer Lake, it should have had materials used that are longer-lasting and cheaper in the long run. • Security lights here on one side of the bridge would discourage kids from smoking and drinking here - another trouble spot. ■ This area would make a very nice dog park. (4) One acre could be fenced off with GREAT access for parking. This is a smaller area and a good start!! Maybe a larger one later on somewhere else. Not expensive to fence!! • The flat grassy area should be used for bicyclists and skateboarders and possibly fenced for an exercise area for dogs. (2) • This would be a good area to put some facilities that would attract kids on bikes out of the sensitive areas in the woods. (2) • This would make a nice skateboard park. • I would like to see this become a dog park where no skating is allowed. • Leave this area pretty much as it is. The new sidewalks and curbside trees are a real asset, and the open area invites casual play (Frisbee and volleyball). The off-street parking lot is nice and well thought out, and, with the light, it allows for good police surveillance. I like the idea of bike jumps in this area to get them out of the wooded areas. • Security lighting along the perimeter of the parking lot. A BIG TROUBLE SPOT. Drug dealing, alcohol, and fights are just a few of the problems here. • Make this area a NO skateboarding and bike-riding area. • Irrigate for a desirable turf area. -Mom • Very useful! • Great area! • Plant some native trees around the creek. Nice facilities. • These are fine facilities - well designed and maintained. The City can be proud! Wouldn't change anything. • Install drainage on west side of shelter. • Another trouble spot. Picnic shelter and restrooms need security lighting, as does the parking lot adjacent to this structure. Graffiti and beer bottles are evident. Drug selling is going on here. • Replace the large slide with a shorter, nonmetal slide and crawling tube. (2) The metal slide is too high and it gets too hot in the summer/spring. • Great. • Kids enjoy dumping sand. • Need a play area for older children. • Very tastefully done and well maintained. • This area needs cheaper sand so that it can be filled more often. • The "safety features" concern me. More cork-type surfacing is needed instead of the existing concrete. • The material under the swings is great. • Pour concrete pads for picnic tables. • More security lighting around the play area is needed. Nearby residents can't see into the park at night without lighting. Driving patrols won't see either without better lighting. • This is the scene of graffiti, beer bottles, and broken glass. - o. - o. o • o• - o • This area needs bleachers or benches (2) - something to sit on. ■ The tennis courts need to be resurfaced and the baseball infield area needs to be leveled. • The tennis court surfaces need protection from Rollerblades, skateboards, bikes, etc. --they make the playing surfaces uneven. Signing to prohibit these might help. • Create parking in this area. • This area is too congested--please don't add anything to this area. • Lights on the tennis courts would be an improvement. • A nice improvement to courts and sports fields. If security lights were added, this would discourage vandalism and allow police to patrol more effectively as well as facilitate neighborhood watch programs. • o • • Thanks for having this workshop. (2) • The City needs to plan and execute methods of beautifying the lake - the gem of this park. It is being abused by failure to take effective steps to plan and maintain the lake as the central attraction. • I really like the mixture of recreation and wilderness in this park. Explore the idea of separating the creek from the ponds or other ways to keep the water clean. • Change the water/weed removal from 3 times to 2 times per year at a $7,000/year savings. Change the weeding to late June and late August. Weeding in May was too early and in July and September was too late. • More garbage cans are needed so we can dispose of dog droppings. ON III, Ill • We have a beautiful park. I'd like to see it stay that way. But there is trouble brewing here. There has been an increase in drugs, alcohol, vandalism, and theft, as well as children being threatened and harassed by gangs during the day! Our park needs police patrols on a regular basis both during the day and at night, security lighting to facilitate neighborhood watches, and police awareness of a growing gang problem. • Paul sure made a beautiful drawing! Minutes, please. n r \p +i• E g,. ~ L3 \ LL ~ .y~L '3 r Q.. f ~W f\ \ W x\. 3 v9. a~c. LLI CL , +a, ,f \ t t \ txKL l~ i Lli ti W4% ml, 7 _ T, i N \ \ ♦ 1 a \s 9 a\ \ 2.2:2... \ . r \ et.\ `2 2 J 6` \ v LLI w x R W tC YOB 'SC d i. y L11 < ~ ♦ 2 r x .9g@`A " tC, ~ • ~ \CV S¢ ~ \ ~ City of Tigard Summerlake Park Master Plan Update COMMUNITY WORKSHOP September 30, 1999 Comment Sheets 1. What are your goals for Summerlake Park? • Improve the water quality (2) • Provide more open space • Provide disabled access • Improve safety • Use of the lake for small boats • Maintain open areas around the lake so those who use walkways can see the lake Restore Summer Creek for cutthroat trout 2. What improvements should be made to meet the needs of the community? • Provide portable toilets (3) Near the eastside playground (2) At the end of 128th street Centrally located • Provide skateboard and roller-skating facilities Build additional off-street parking • Build a boardwalk through the woods • Develop a dog "off leash" area • Provide more benches Use volunteers to maintain landscaping and trees, since the City seems to have limited personnel and funds 3. What improvements should be made to meet the needs of the neighborhood? • No skateboarding/biking park in area 14 or I • Provide additional parking in area I • Cut back on willow thickets and tall grasses. Leave branches of willows that go over water to provide shade, but cut height so we can see the lake over grasses and trees. Height of trees on the north side provides no shade over the water. Cut grasses - they are a fire hazard to nearby houses. 4. What should be the highest-priority improvement? Remove the dam • Provide a restroom at playground in area I or 2 • Water quality Cutting weeds and willow thickets 5. Do you have any other comments or questions? • The City does not seem to take seriously the large investment that the nearby homeowners have in the park and the progressive loss we are experiencing. We paid $3,000 a house of our sales price toward park at purchase. Also we bought a view, which is now diminished greatly - and water is a health hazard. The City seems reluctant to balance the needs of the property owners with the general public. We have a lot invested in the park area that the general public does not. They have these meetings, then pat us on the head and don't pay any attention to us and do what they want anyway. I hope it will change, but it probably will take a class action lawsuit by the neighbors or the homeowners association. Thank you for your participation! TUALATIN Riverkeer ..n elk\ 16340 SW Beef Bend Rd. Sherwood, OR 97140 (503) 590-5813 fax: (503) 590-6702 • triverk@teleport.com www.tualatinriverkeepers.org September 29, 1999 Duane Roberts, Planner Community Development Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Ball Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Duane, The Tualatin Riverkeepers have grown to over 700 members working to protect and restore the Tualatin system through education, public access, citizen action and advocacy. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the planning process for Summerlake Park. We consider Summer Creek a valuable resource for our community, well worth restoring for wildlife habitat and water quality. Summer Creek is on DEQ's 3034 list of "water quality limited" streams for several criteria. While Summer Creek is currently quite degraded, recent efforts have shown there is strong momentum in the community for restoring habitat for cutthroat trout in Summer Creek. Recently Governor Kitzhaber visited Summer Creek to honor the Unified Sewerage Agency and other partners for restoration efforts downstream from Summerlake Park. It is our wish that the Summerlake Park Master Planning process builds on this momentum to, restore Summer Creek. Our first concern is with barriers to fish passage on Summer Creek. The dam at Summerlake, and the culvert downstream at 121 st Street are barriers to cutthroat trout for their migration between spawning and rearing areas. Removal of these barriers should be the highest priority in the master plan for. Summerlake Park. Our second concern with Summerlake Park is water temperature. Because the dam at Summerlake Park forms an in-stream pond, temperature loading occurs, raising water temperature above the 64T F federal standard for rearing salmonids. Temperature loading decreases the ability of Summer + Creek to support cutthroat trout both at Summerlake Park and downstream, where considerable effort and expense have gone into restoring habitat. Summer Creek is listed on the 303d list of water quality limited streams for excessive temperature. To reduce temperature loading in Summer Creek the dam at Summerlake Park should be removed. Our third concern is regarding water quality. We applaud the City's effort to protect water quality by restoring native plants around the edge of pond and by restricting the use of fertilizers around the in-stream pond. We encourage the City to expand the buffer area up the slope. Still, an in- stream pond surrounded by lawn is very attractive to waterfowl. Nutrient loading from waterfowl manure and warm water temperatures caused by damming the creek are the major factors promoting the growth of milfoil; hydrilla, and algae, which the city pays to have removed several times each summer. Waterfowl manure in the in-stream pond also adds harmful bacteria (fecal coliforms) which diminish dissolved oxygen. Summer Crew_ is on the 303d list for both bacteria and dissolved oxygen. Removing the dam at Summer Creek will help reduce fecal coliforms, aquatic weeds and increase dissolved oxygen. Our fourth concern is with non-native animal species. The pond at Summerlake Park is ideal habitat for bullfrogs and non-native warm water fish. These non-native species have been implicated in the decline of native turtles, fish, and amphibians. Summer Creek is on the 303d list for Biological Criteria, having low scores on the Index for Biological Integrity. Removing the dam, and restoring Summer Creek to more natural conditions that do not favor the non-native species . could help restore native red-legged frogs, western pond turtles and western painted turtles. We feel that in addition to removing the dam other steps can be taken to help improve habitat and water quality at Summerlake Park by removal of invasive non-native plants (himalayan blackberry, holly, reed canarygrass, teasels) and replanting with the appropriate native vegetation. The wooded areas of Summerlake Park are heavily impacted by foot and bicycle traffic, creating a jumble of trails through the woods. Measures to restrict bicycle traffic and re-direct foot traffic to established trails might help with this problem. Facilities could be located on the south edge of the park that could attract young bicycle riders out of the woods. The Tualatin Riverkeepers are eager to help with restoration of habitat in Summerlake Park. Our volunteers have worked on clean up and restoration projects throughout the Tualatin Basin. Please call on us to help. Dana Abel, our Director of Volunteer Programs can be reached at 503-590- 5813. Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in the Summerlake Park master planning process. Sincerely, Brian Wegener President, Tualatin Riverkeepers i S ELIE Times ant,etlp n- ®The untie weeds and increase dissolved h the Aftummerlake dawn e ability of Summer Creek to SUP- oxygen which is so import you can stick a fork th fish tuns. we've port cutthroat trout both at Summer- wh re strong the a s SOAPBOX ociety, s park and downstream. Non-native animal vinspecies e are air travel, conquered 's note: Soapboxes are lake fourth reason for remoieg nd at lions of the earth, ma` (Editor tat. To ood share guest opinions from our readers, considerable effort and eh b have gone into restoring in Sum- at Summerlake park p° haunted a g and anyone is welcome to write one. - erature loading Summerlake park is ideal habitat for inning to get a grit Brian Wegener is a Tigard-area seduce temp at Summerlake the mer Creek, the dam bullfrogs and non-native warm the sexes resident and president of -for cutthroat sttPh ngat Govt Kitzh bet visited water fish. What's more, we d Tualatin Riverkeepers organization. should be removed. Water quality is the third reason supported by Washington County to Creek to honor the Middle park the dam Washington e A ency, Fowler Middle for removing at Summer- Continuing to maintain Summer- now that we've Summer p great debate is now being Sewerag g partners for res- laud the city's ef- lake dam should not be suPpo we've wb, waged over fish in and dams on the School and other p lake park. We apP b res- ublic dollars and is not in the we want to know le terms, fort to protect water quality by P Were embarking Columbia River- torat'ton efforts downstream from und the edge of I ouldtexeamine its po potential ability county 20~•~+ to is whether the economic Summerlake Park. toring native plants a'O the debate on a P of us are wor value of a system of dams isof nab ve The Tualatin aRiverkeepetsrd of and and by restn g the under the Clean Water Act and En- the aintaining ex- unddangered Species Act and weigh subjects as neig valuable than the recovery believe that the city of Tig hborhr fertilizers around the the city to 't costftnefit of continuing to main- government, growth, N salmon runs. the should build on this momentum to pond. We encourage the slope hose in favor of m restore Summer Creek. Removing and the buffer area up rain a dam that contributes to the But we could ed on dams point out the economic around the lake. d sur- degradation of water quality our own, bas your and be the the dam at first step Sum nethis this for al P Still, an in-stream Pon blocks fish passage to provide a few your own* bas benefits of electricity, irrigation use s shipping- Those in favor of breach- number of reasons. rounded by lawn . very from attractive to neighbors with a view. worked out on Your of religion, technology, ing the dams point out the ecolog - Fish passage is the first reason waterfowl. Nutrient loading water Agency ships, families, transP cal, cultural and economic value of for removing the dam at Summer- waterfowl manure and a damming has The Unified a Sewerage compromise that historically strong runs of salmon. lake Park The dam at Summerlake 1emperetures caused by the creek are the major factors would move the pond out of the mumcraiion, our neig the decision tempted ose Closer to home, and on a much and the culvert dc s to cutth oat troutt wth of milfoil, stream channel. In this way, Sum- stazt with she premise smaller scale, r Street are barn promoting the gro untie for their migration between spawn- hydrilla, algae and other aq tnetlake Park would still have ► alive whether to breach a dam herein Removal of namesake pond without the neg Tigard is much more obvious. The ' and rearing hest weeds which the city of Tigard paYn quality Submissions (500 Summer Creek in Summer- go from hereT. to summhaveeT• removed several time impact on habitat and water Washington County dam on these barriers should b lathe n for highest d of Tigard to Sandburg SL, lake park offers none of the rlk in the master p s each of Summer Creek. Tigard priority merlake park. Waterfowl manure in the bac- We urge the city it ges er the Columbia Water temperature is the second stream pond also adds harmful remove Summerlake dam and im- They should should be call N. economic benefits it ge River dams: nerates traffic, which electricity, supports no barge teria (fecal coliforms), hi Remov- rove plement water restoration quality ~a~ uv m have questiOnst irrigates no farms- While there is no m reason erlake to park- Because removethe d, dam the at darn Sum- era- diminish dissolved oxygen. . Summeeconomicrlake, benefit from the dam at forms an in-stream P° -sin water ing the dam at Summer Creek will wildlifeP the impact on native lure loading occurs, raising help reduce harmful bacteria, a- ~ ~E~ fish and wildlife is significant- temperature above the 64-degree otrE a OREGON ®~PAR, Fahrenheit federal standard for rear- r M currently While Summer Creek is Best ~X4 ar Wom~n'a quite degraded, recent efforts have ing salmonids• decreases Ct)~CCItonal Facility arse = Advlsdry in shown there is strong resto morinme gntum habitat Temperature loading the community -Beat aOtopact sport ut"Itg or fio 089"'" rtment) is ~epicngapPl1~ ,.,~W"DInOif 0 PRESENT S~ -Autornof+ The Oregon DeParuT1ent of Correcttons (ceDa n a Avon n's Intokil ®{®n rtFar;,tw and MP ' HIM T E TIGARD'S ESTA rnrro ' A Mill Summerlake Park Community Workshop II WHEN: 7 p.m. Thursday, November 18 WHERE: Town Hall, Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard The City of Tigard is updating the master plan for Summerlake Park, so that the park can better meet recreational needs today and in the future. Please join us for-the presentation of the first draft of the new plan. The draft will incorporate comments received at the first Summerlake Park workshop held in September, as well as the many written comments and suggestions for park improvements submitted by citizens. This second workshop is an opportunity to view and suggest revisions to the draft master plan. If you care about the future of Summerlake Park, plan to attend this important meeting. Refreshments will be provided. Should you have any questions or need more information call Duane Roberts at 639-4171 x347. Lill I MME AK F. ' K. MA •l f _ ~ d ~ G~°CN(1i9~ PT11' - ~ ~ , ~'v9 Ea COANW co Iry ' OM % AiL G P N Ik4iL_ /6RDS ' "w Mw 11 l0 r 1 "`"r ° tP 1a tt,-~' • ,~P ~l tau V,dt~Cy ai I . , . a ,W • , , I Ow Vi ;y qv4c ! ~ I) ' II ~ W'd', YFJ • 11'114 u V DUI ~ Vi" f 1 N~ qr X LW1XVMtN - q ~ Lim '~u , wto Vilb wKrffPI D4M Pal G"ON Iry - - - - • I - I.~,~ is fT I del MA ()e N*A @14; : -Orry City of Tigard Community Workshop Summerlake Park Master Plan Update September 30, 1999 A Possible WILT-WIN solution to the Summer Lake problem Friends of Summer Lake believe that a win-win solution may be possible. Here is how taking the lake off-line during summer, as advocated by Unified Sewerage Agency in its 1997 Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan, might be done in ways satisfactory to reasonable people. The proponents of dam breaching, along with the City, would agree to help find ways to keep the lake, as nearly as possible at its existing size and depth. This could involve channeling water along the south side of the lake in a ditch (open or closed) of height at least equal to the elevation of the existing dam. The ditch (perhaps lined and made attractive to fish with boulders, rocks and gravel suitable for spawning, etc) would be connected at the dam to the lower parts of Summer Creek by a conduit placed in it such a gentle angle downstream that fish could pass up and down the ditch year around. The existing elevation difference for a pipe through the dam would be on the order of one or two feet. Water would be controlled so as to make fish passage in the ditch possible at all times by a device (an irrigation gate) at the upper end of the existing lake. In the fall, winter and spring, when there is ample water for fish passage in the ditch, water would flow into the lake as usual. In summer, the gate would be closed to the lake or opened only for short periods when there is water excess to the needs of the fish. If this idea is considered politically, technically and economically feasible, Friends of Summer Lake have indicated they would support it. If not, Friends of Summer Lake would continue in its objection to destroying, for reasons of doubtful merit, the highly valuable public property that is Summer Lake. Howard Banta, President Friends of Summer Lake November 16, 1999 oveRSizeD Docu~ne~rs MEETING Dire: AGENDA #m. * SEE 35MM ROLL FILM i.4ecoNSMicrofim\bryetabaUacum.tloc o r t' +r. .q~. 5 tai ^f r r 4 S r- r• y T" va3>. F._ ~ 1 ~ tin ~ ice- 1Zj~:~'~•'~~ ~a~ V` ~ {f I So P , 5 y+ t t: r 41 iV, tel.. tio':'a q. ~'♦i f: ~•.ti.. w,. t t~ ~ ~~'`'A•T , ~ ' + .r ,t`-' Y• .1 P dt:i':"\y. p~'~y. { . a f•~t, r~ ~P 1 r ~ ~117.. r t ~s yip ate'*~~ • •f ^ .1. , ~y i~ V 3. now n i J i ■ i i 3 ~y r ~y IBM= t c • r' 3 r r• r . N _~rrar• ~ M I I ,r .--,.:ate;-~.. A.•= i • ~w Q~ ~ K ~y w .al ! ~ dry' ff _ f O T 4 ~1•• •`l y .I t 1 { A 1 S a i d ~.rc.. •'`.~F. ~ ,r-~ 1 ~F :i•: r I'c A rte ~t 1F , ~ l p i+ I ~t ti r I~~ i, j f . r i ~ 1 :i LL t a :r r S~ e, A - -rs • aGr' t6 L - pR' 1 . ~SM: 1 dA r ~ J t N ~a h R WIN N-FMFW x. ,A M, cam, y, :t~ •Q~~ Y, ~ ~a~w ;t Y„d~ hd. ~ay ? ~ ~~^~4 . '~sh :A~x9," h 'R o ~~s. r• • V ¢ Y ai?i,' ~ t .YAK /r..: ~ yYi~.t • • *•M Y'r. f t t L ti _ 3 a tl [tf f. ~..r _ Y.:1r I I'llll 'r r S, .~M• t• down MASON ( 1 r L 1SL~ ,r~,~,`'J•~, 'fir rY.Y, d.?GLSy~,!'.j;',~~t r,. . ~F •f ~~\`',.,x 'i; - ~.:44;~ Ear • a - ~5` ;~~r,`c r '<:•.t~e~,i~'r?`.ii .;Tr= .r 'tic 1t I~3~`,. 't+L»_t.L,~'~. J, •t\~!v .l: Tn-fl.1j,r~ti Vt11' , •'~Y•,~'?,~•'~ l -w•r~".:;'fir y'.<^.: F. >.a f~5i~ r'{ t' ~ a i ~ r S ~ it , *r, f'`-`:``Y~. ` r.Se1~ r tt `7. +r:•~'a' "~d c ` t . r ,"3"•'~,rr r-. r i=';,•M.~..1~►. A Ji I UK. awrS Ltr r 3 t I~ ,'1 iE•~ .,11~~ , ~iK''+'m'r j'~i . ~14 f. .,:Y.. ::.r 4 .n. R ~.r. ~Li~. .fir` ~Y1~ i u..`y ' I ' II x '.r.~ a Sp ~~'J't~ ~ r ~1 'i DiaWbudon To: BILL MONAHAN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF TtGARD FROM: Bonnie Owens DATE; 11111/99 Enclosed are additional photos taken on 11/11/99 of our backyard. As you can see there has been considerable Increase in the water level. In the pictures which are darker, you can see the clucks swimming in the water. The fence you see in the pictures is about midway in our yard. 11/11/99 i r~ T T7~tR7 T~~Y T f", i '~:~i fi ~:i '.p'n?* ,r ~r3a . Y►' A~ ~ ~~i ~ q.. r Y A. { { i i i 6 • O I~ ':ry ~N ,r i tt ~i uQllty. EAPert O Lenient. ouick. .t r ctyl osed Water Quality rovem ents to Summer Creek Presentation to City Council November 16, 1999 A yeas of Concern ❖ Merestone Pond upstream of 121 st Avenue •d• Summer Lake at Summerlake Park 1 f i ral Background Clean Water Act in 1972 - Required states to identify water quality limited streams - Mandated development of specific water quality standards ❖ Tualatin River was identified as not meeting standards •o• The approach to water quality required developing subbasin plans to address the tributaries as well 2 z~ eral Background (cont'd) ❖ Responsibility was delegated to USA ❖ USA's plan for Summer Creek is the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan ❖ Endangered Species Act increases concern for fish passage, dissolved oxygen and water temperature ❖ Net effect is to discourage continuation of stream impoundments throughout the Fanno Creek Basin estone Fond B s F ~ 1 NO now, :.t . : er creek at 121st in r Creek y 1 me 1 1 a X3 ~ail' ~i,r. 4 es'tone fond ❖ Key facts - Existing Debris Dam built by beavers - Reinforced with concrete and boulders in mid- 80's - Department of Water Resources in 1993 issued a notice to the City requiring either dam removal or acquisition of a permit. - City decided to apply. for permits ♦ Water Resources Department permits were acquired o City completed FEMA "no rise" study tr`t CS' restone Pond - City hired a consultant to prepare a design for a dam and in-stream pond - Corps of Engineers representative indicated in- stream ponds would not be approved - Redesign for off-line ponds was not approved by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife - ODFW indicated off-line ponds would have to drain immediately after a storm 5 -slow ers at Wank and Dana estone pond 6 est®ne Dam ~A - t' All, estone Pond - „a z~ry--.• .~~ikS'"._-J~---.i+~"P'"..`~:.~.++.„/a• _ ' Vii, 7 Stone Fond v +m any of Status ❖ Compliance order by Department of Water Resources is still in effect e• The project to enhance the wetlands has been rejected by ODFW ❖ City of Tigard needs to take action to either - remove the dam - revise the project design to meet ODFW concerns 8 ions Redesign to meet ODFW requirements - SDC funds could be used for the project - Easements still needed ❖ Resubmit permit application for existing design ❖ Leave the dam (natural and manmade materials alone) ❖ Partial removal of the natural materials ❖ Remove the dam entirely Y t om m endation ❖ Remove the natural materials initially followed by redesign and submittal of the wetland enhancement project in accordance with ODFW requirements - Partial removal initially would help alleviate the potential for winter flooding and road damage - The long-term project best advances the objectives of the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan 9 mill ;3. merLake war r . fF l lem s on Sum m er L ake ❖ Excessive aquatic plants (weeds) ❖ Algae blooms ❖ Poor water quality ❖ Poor Aesthetics ❖ Lack of Wildlife ❖ Bank Damage ❖ Lack of Bank Vegetation ❖ Too many resident waterfowl 10 *merLake ❖ Key Fact,- - Residents voiced concerns in 1996 about deteriorated appearance of the lake - At Council's direction, staff engaged a consulting firm to prepare the Summer Lake Management Plan - The Plan recommended mechanical harvesting supplemented with placement of membrane and alum treatment f ) > 1 merLake ❖ Alum treatment has been strongly discouraged by DEQ ❖ Dredging is an extremely expensive option and would have to be repeated ❖ Option favored by regulatory agencies is reduction of the lake to a stream - would improve water quality - would enhance fish passage 11 y~Lake Dam _ ee~' .Lake 12 r. merLake ,o. MEN= 0 x merLake 13 *ons ❖ Continue current efforts - continue mechanical harvesting (3 times a year at $8,400 per cutting) place membrane in those areas that cannot be reached by the harvester ❖ Determine the feasibility of reducing the lake to a stream. Consider an off-line park pond as part of the Summerlake Park Master Plan *ommendation ❖ Determine the feasibility of reducing the lake to a stream for the purpose of improving water quality - Consider providing a water feature for the park ❖ This recommendation includes a comprehensive plan for removal of the dam, delineation of the creek bed, and restoration of the upstream area as part of the project 14 d t, .4 15 e f.' CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON Neighborhood Planning Organization Meeting Regarding "Merestone Dam" Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) 07 has scheduled a discussion of the dam on Summer Creek at 121st. The NPO meeting will start at 7:00 P.M. in the Town Hall meeting room of City Hall, located at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. The portion of the meeting dealing with the dam should start sometime after 7:45 P.M. The purpose of the dam discussion is to inform and update the NPO regarding the status of the dam. In brief, given the overwhelming neighborhood support for the dam, the City has decided to leave in the dam and to apply for the required Water Resources Department permits. The application process takes approximately two years. To comply with state requirements, the existing dam will need to be retrofitted with an outlet conduit or replaced with a new dam with a release valve. No decision has been made regarding the desired water level. Neighborhood wishes, legal considerations, and the general public interest will influence this decision, which will not be made for at least several months. NPOs are officially established citizen advisory groups to the Planning Commission and City Council on all matters affecting their neighborhood. The boundaries of NPO #7 generally include northwest Tigard between Walnut Avenue to Scho' is Ferry. Please call Duane Roberts at 639-4171 if you have any questions concerning the meeting or status of the dam. DPJNPO April 28, 1993 I 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 III InEl 1111 JAN-07-1993 13:54 FROM -NIFIED SEWERAGE TO 96847297 P.02 WATER RESOURCES January 6, 1993 DEPARTMENT Floyd Peoples Watermaster City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Peoples, A recent inspection of Summer Creek just to the west of 121st found a dam built on land owned by the City of Tigard that is impounding the public raters of Oregon. The property is further described se Washington County Tax Lot 1S134CC-2000. The structure appears to have been originally constructed by beavers and enlarged by local residents with rock and cement. by records indicate there are no water rights to store water at this site. Oregon law requires that a water right permit must be issued by the Water Resources Department rp for to storing public water. There are two options for the city to consider for the impounded water above what had been naturally stored by beaver activity. 1: Obtain the required permits to store water. 2: Remove any rock, cement, or other material artificially placed in the stream that impounds water, thereby lowering the water level to the original natural elevation. Either an application must be filed or the artificially enhanced portion of the structure removed vithin 60 days of the date of this letter. 11 there are wetland concerns, the Division of State Lands should be contacted at 378-3805. 1 would be glad to meet with you on site to discuss the issues and help decide what constitutes artificial fill. Sincerely, ey R64gers ,master Dis't IS 155 h. Firs: Aye. cc: T Paul Hillsboro. OR 97124 (503) 681-7018 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF November 16. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE. Discussion with Unified Seweraue Agency (USA) on the Endangered Species Act (ESA). PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK -W~~ ` ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL A presentation by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) on the status of their efforts to coordinate a response to the ESA for the Tualatin River Basin. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Listen to the USA presentation, ask questions or for clarification, and provide additional direction if appropriate. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the July 20, 1999 City Council meeting, Mark Jockers and Jim Jackson of the USA staff presented information on the ESA and its potential impact on the Tualatin River Basin. City Council consensus was to have USA rather than Metro take the lead in the response to the ESA (see copy of minutes attached). Since that July meeting, USA has met with representatives of most Washington County cities regarding a coordinated response to the ESA for the Tualatin River Basin. Bill Gaff, Jim Jackson and Mark Jockers of USA, will attend the meeting and discuss the status of coordinating a response for all Washington County jurisdictions. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Urban and Public Services, Parks and Recreation Goal #2. "The City educates and supports citizen efforts to understand the importance of floodplains and how the areas are managed and protected." FISCAL NOTES Compliance with the ESA will likely require some expenditures by the City. Specific costs and accounts will be identified with plans for implementation. I:\admk-=ftsum1105=.doe Councilor Scheckla stated that he could not know what community support there would be until he knew what the final boundaries of the district were. Ms. Davis agreed that that was a critical element which they needed to figure out. She explained that the school districts would contribute facilities. Ms. Davis asked how much the Council thought people were willing to pay for a parks and recreation district. Mayor Nicoli mentioned 30 to 40 cents per $1,000 for operating costs (with capital funding in addition to that) as a reasonable amount, given the other taxing entities in the City. He said that people would expect a lot more for 40 to 50 cents. He pointed out that the 30 to 40 cents assumed that 50% of the operating dollars came from fees and 50% from the taxpayers. He commented that he did not think that that range would pose a problem for the Tigard road bond. Councilor Hunt asked if this taxing district would increase 6% a year, the same as any other taxing district. He stated that he opposed this taxing district because he saw Measure 50 as a vote to limit taxes. He said that this was merely a way to get around that vote. He mentioned that another taxing district would hurt those on fined incomes. He indicated that he would campaign against the district unless the governance structure chosen was the association of governments format, with jurisdictions paying for it out of the existing tax structure. Ms. Davis said that a special district had to establish a permanent tax rate. She noted that under Measure 50 capital funds and a five year special operating levy were allowed in addition to the tax rate. She confirmed that the 6% increase for taxing districts no longer existed. She emphasized that the permanent tax rate could not increase; only assessed values could increase, and then only by a 3% maximum per year. She confirmed that cities did receive the.full value of new development and annexations. Ms. Davis pointed out that phasing in a program over time could be difficult because there was no way to expand the resources other than through fees, grants, etc.; the tax rate was fixed. e The Council considered Agenda Item 1 at this time 3. PRESENTATION: ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, introduced John Jackson and Mark Jockers from United Sewage Agency. John Jackson, USA Planning Division Manager, observed that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) were not new to the Tualatin River Basin: water quantity management, water quality management, and habitat restoration. He pointed out that Tigard has participated in water quantity and water quality management with USA since 1990 with the implementation of its surface water management program. He indicated that the new part under the ESA would be managing the habitat for the listed fish with more intensity and detail than previously. He mentioned that USA and its participating cities began discussions of fish habitat, protection and restoration a couple of years ago in anticipation of the ESA listing. Mr. Jackson reviewed the fish listings for the Willamette River watershed above Oregon Falls. He said that the Tualatin River basin had no spring Chinook but it did have steelhead and cutthroat trout. Mr. Jackson stated the meaning of "take" under the ESA: to harass or harm the listed species or any of its habitat that affected its life cycle. He mentioned examples of take, including CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 20, 1999 - PAGE 5 110 destruction of habitat by building close to a stream, water pollution, harvesting the listed species, impediments to migration (such as culverts), and spraying pesticides in such a manner that they got into the stream. Mr. Jackson referenced the document he obtained from the National Marine Fisheries website listing a variety of programs local governments could use to avoid taking. He said that USA was developing a checklist for use by itself and its member jurisdictions to review procedures and programs to see if a jurisdiction could be challenged on a take. Mr. Jackson mentioned the tradition in the Tualatin River watershed of jurisdictions working together in a collaborative fashion to address these tough issues that affected everyone, such as the Clean Water Act. He stated that USA expected to work collaboratively to find a reasonable solution and response on the ESA listings also. He asked the Council to think about its local response within its city limits to avoid take. He asked the Council to think about how the City wanted to participate in the watershed response, such as going beyond the take issues and into fish recovery. Mr. Jackson noted the discussion draft (compiled by USA at the request of the Washington County Commissioners) on a project to formulate a response to the ESA within the Tualatin River watershed. He mentioned the intent of the project as making sure that the response was a collaborative effort by everyone who impacted the Tualatin River watershed, not limited to a specific interest group within that watershed. He mentioned involvement from both property owners and elected officials. Mr. Jackson cited the motto of the Governor's Salmon Recovery Advisor Jim Martin -'Protect the best, restore the rest" - as a starting place for figuring out what they needed to do in response to the ESA. He reiterated that the project would allow plenty of opportunity for citizens to interact with the watershed policy and the decision makers. He emphasized. the watershed focus of the response. Mr. Jackson mentioned interacting with the Willamette Restoration Initiative. He noted that the Oregon Plan out of the Governor's Office and the Willamette Restoration Initiative have already indicated their interest in moving beyond the avoiding take issues and into fish recovery. He said that a decision point in the watershed response was whether or not to move into fish recovery. Mr. Jackson discussed another question of what kind of forum did the cities want to use for the discussion: independent city discussions or joint round table discussions? He cited the joint policy advisory committee formed in 1989 to respond to the total maximum daily load requirements (TMDLs) as an example of a successful collaborative effort. Mr. Jackson noted that, in addition to Coldwater fish (cutthroat trout and steelhead) in the Tualatin River and Fanno Creek, Tigard also had warmwater fish (bass) in its streams that needed protection, per both the Clean Water Act and the ESA. Mr. Jackson stated that, while they had no choice but to respond to the ESA, they did have a choice in how to respond. He reiterated that choosing their response was one of the first decisions that needed to be made by the affected jurisdictions. He commented that, while they did not yet know the cost of the response, they did have some hints from the Fanno Creek Watershed Plan which included projects dealing with stream restoration and riparian corridor restoration. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 20, 1999 - PAGE 6 Mr. Jackson reviewed the good things occurrigg throughout the Tualatin River basin. He mentioned the open and viable streams in the basin (as opposed to the culverted streams in east Portland). He said that water quality was improving in all the streams, with the Tualatin River healthier today than it has been in recorded history. He indicated that the hard work of everyone has improved the conditions in Fanno Creek and the other urban tributaries. He asserted that there was no reason why they could not continue to work collaboratively for the ESA. He said that the Tualatin River and Fanno Creek were community assets needing continued help from everyone. Mayor Nicoli spoke to the issue of USA versus Metro having control of the ESA response. He said that he thought that most of the cities preferred USA as the leader because it was already in the area and has overseen two successful programs. He mentioned discussion at the Washington County Coordinating Committee of city representatives meeting to work out the issues described by Mr. Jackson. He pointed out that individual cities working up individual responses to the ESA would be a waste of money because the federal government wanted a coordinated basin-wide response. Mayor Nicoli supported the cities working collaboratively with USA and the County to develop a watershed response. He commented that he thought that they were set to take the lead in the state on developing a compliance plan quicker than any other area. He asked if Mr. Jackson wanted the Council to make comments tonight or to respond with a letter. Mr. Jackson said that either way was fine, as long as they got a response. He said that they had a 45-day timeline to talk to all the jurisdictions and to receive input. Mayor Nicoli suggested that Mr. Jackson recommend to Commissioner Brian that he invite representatives from all the cities to a meeting within the next 30 days. He commented that one of Washington County's strengths was the ability of the cities to work well together on regional issues. Councilor Scheckla mentioned that Oswego Lake used Tualatin River water. He questioned how they could protect the fish when Oswego Lake was drained every few years. Mr. Jackson agreed that the effect of draining the lake was an issue that needed to be addressed. Councilor Scheckla mentioned an abandoned garbage dump located in the Beef Bend area. He asked how that sort of thing was cleaned up. Mr. Jackson stated that to hear these sorts of questions and concerns was why USA would include public open houses in the process. Ms. Newton asked if Mr. Jackson wanted comments back on the discussion draft. Mr. Jackson said that the City could return comments however it wished to. He mentioned that they would return for further discussion within the 45-day timeline. 4. UPDATE: WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, noted that Planning Commissioners Nick Wilson, Mark Padgett, and Jim Griffith were present. Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner, reviewed the history of Tigard's effort to comply with the Metro 2040 plan, including the formation of the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force. She mentioned the purpose of the Metro "regional center" designation as an area of concentrated mixed-use and high-density development. She explained that the purpose of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan was to allocate residential, employment, and commercial densities within Tigard in order to comply with the Metro plan. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 20, 1999 - PAGE 7 AGENDA ITEM # `J FOR AGENDA OF November 16, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Procedures and Standards for Hillside Development PREPARED BY: Jim Hendrvx DEPT HEAD OK &"&gMGROK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Update of procedures and standards associated with hillside development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action is necessary. INFORMATION SUMMARY Issues have arisen over the last few years associated with hillside development standards and procedures. Engineering, Planning, Building, and the City Attorney's office have been involved in reviewing the City's processes for hillside development. Staff wants to provide Council with an overview of our processes for hillside development, note changes made over the last three years, and discuss needed changes. Staff will be presenting the information in a Power Point format. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth & Growth Management, Goal 1, Strategy 1. Goal: Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established areas. Strategy: Create infill, increased densities and redevelopment policies to allow compatible accommodation of future growth. Action Plans: Protect natural resource areas from the impacts of increased growth. FISCAL NOTES Not applicable CdadmrJerreerJim/gen/hillside development sum.doc RAMIS .1 ~e~~✓ CREW L `1Pl CORRIGAN & BACHRACH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street _ MEMORANDUM Portland, Oregon 97209 (503) 222-4402 Fax: (503) 243-2944 TO: Jim Indryx, Community Development Director City of Tigard FROM: Timothy V. Ramis, James M. Coleman, Gary Firestone, City Attorney's Office DATE: September 2, 1999 RE:, Limiting City's Liability for Development Design and Construction Problems BACKGROUND The City of Tigard and other cities have been faced with lawsuits and threatened lawsuits arising from approvals of subdivisions that have faulty engineering or construction work. While the City has been successful in defending claims, the judge's decision in the Edwards case leaves open the possibility that the City may be vulnerable to such claims under slightly different circumstances. The City would like to reduce the likelihood of any such disputes and improve the position of the City in the event that any such disputes arise. This memorandum suggests options that are intended to clarify the respective responsibilities of the City and developers. The recommendations are intended to clarify that the City does not re-engineer work prepared by licensed professional engineers and relies on the professionalism of the engineers who prepare the materials submitted to the City. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION We recommend that the City modify its land use application forms, approval stamps, and subdivision compliance agreements, and amend its Community Development Code to: • Clarify the respective responsibilities of the City and. the developers; • Require developers/subdividers to indemnify the City; • Require developers and contractors to name the City as an additional insured and to IEJJ~il lwl~wj r Memorandum re: Limiting City's Liability for Development Design and Construction Problems September 2, 1999 Page 2 provide the City with a certificate of insurance; • Require that engineers and the general contractor (if different from the developer) have a more direct relationship with the City; • Clearly limit the approval to the approved plan, prohibiting any modification without City approval. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Modifications to Land Use and Subdivision Application Forms Land use and subdivision application forms should include the following provisions: Applicant warrants that all information provided by Applicant and Applicant's representatives to the City in connection with this application is accurate. Applicant acknowledges that the City has a right to rely on the information provided by Applicant and Applicant's representative and that the City is not responsible for any inaccuracies. Applicant further warrants that any materials submitted by Applicant that bear the stamp of an engineer or other professional have been prepared by or under the supervision of a licensed professional according to professional standards and that the City has a right to rely on the engineer's/other professional's stamp and has no obligation to check the stamped work prepared by a professional. Applicant and the engineer/other professional, not the City, are responsible for the accuracy and compliance with professional standards of all stamped drawings submitted to the City. Applicant acknowledges that the City's approval of any professionally engineered plan or other document indicates only that the applicant has met the requirement of submitting professionally engineered plans and does not constitute an independent review of those plans. Applicant is aware that Applicant may be required to indemnify the City as to actions taken by Applicant and Applicant's contractors, representatives and agents. Modifications to Subdivision Compliance Agreement The standard subdivision compliance agreement should include the following provisions: Petitioner shall undertake all action in accordance with the plans as approved by the City. Any construction or other action that is inconsistent with the approved plans is f Memorandum re: Limiting City's Liability for Development Design and Construction Problems September 2, 1999 Page 3 a violation of this agreement and of the Community Development Code. Petitioner may request City approval of modification of the approved plans. The Planning Director may approve minor modifications that are consistent with the overall approved plan and that are in full compliance with all standard criteria and applicable law. Any major modifications to the approved plan shall be reviewed under the appropriate procedures of the Community Development Code. City has relied on the information supplied by Petitioner as well as the professional ability and training of engineers and other professionals who have prepared materials submitted to the City on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner warrants that all the work to be performed by it or on its behalf will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards as well as the requirements of applicable federal, state and local law. Petitioner expressly acknowledges and understands that inspection or approval of the work by the City shall not operate as a waiver or release. Petitioner agrees to indemnify and defend the City, its officers, agents and employees and hold them harmless from any and all liability, causes of action, claims, losses, damages, judgments, or other costs and expenses including attorney fees and witness costs (in negotiation, arbitration, mediation, administrative process, trial, and appeal) that may be asserted by any person or entity that may arise from Petitioner's performance of its obligations under this agreement. This indemnity shall not extend to indemnification for negligence or other fault of the City and its employees. The indemnification by Petitioner shall cover claims brought against the City under any applicable workers' compensation laws or lien laws. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification. It is the intent of the parties that this agreement does not impose any obligation that would make the agreement invalid under ORS 30.140(1). Petitioner and-its contractors and subcontractors shall maintain insurance acceptable to City in full force and effect throughout the term of this agreement. Such insurance shall cover all risks arising directly or indirectly out of Petitioner's activities or work under this agreement, including the operations of contractors and subcontractors of any tier. Such insurance shall include provisions that such insurance is primary insurance with respect to the interests of the City and that any other insurance maintained by the City is excess and not contributory insurance with the insurance required hereunder. Memorandum re: Limiting City's Liability for Development Design and Construction Problems September 2, 1999 Page 4 Petitioner and its contractors and subcontractors shall maintain insurance that provide at least the following coverages and limits: Commercial General Liability Insurance Petitioner shall obtain, at petitioner's expense, and keep in effect during the term of this contract, Comprehensive General Liability Insurance covering Bodily Injury and Property Damage on an "occurrence" form (1986 ISO or equivalent). This coverage shall include Contractual Liability insurance for the indemnity provided under this contract. The following insurance will be carried: Coverage Limit' General Aggregate 5,000,000 Personal Injury 3,000,000 Each Occurrence 3,000,000 Additional Insured Provision The City of Tigard, Oregon, its officers, directors, and employees shall be added as additional insureds with respect to this contract. All Liability Insurance policies will be endorsed to show this additional coverage. Notice of Cancellation There shall be no cancellation, material change, exhaustion of aggregate limits or intent not to renew insurance coverage without 30 days written notice to the City. Any failure to comply with this provision will not affect the insurance coverage provided to the City. The 30 days notice of cancellation provision shall be physically endorsed on to the policy. Certificates of Insurance As evidence of the insurance coverage required by the contract, the petitioner shall fumish a Certificate of Insurance to the City. The certificate will specify and document all provisions ' We recommend that the City discuss with its insurers the amount of insurance that should be required. The amounts stated below are included as an example only and we offer no opinion as to whether these amounts are adequate. 11=111mll~ 1111M =J Memorandum re: Limiting City's Liability for Development Design and Construction Problems September 2, 1999 Page 5 within this contract. A renewal certificate will be sent to the City 10 days prior to coverage expiration. Primary Coverage Clarification All parties to this contract hereby agree that the Petitioner's coverage will be primary in the event of a loss. Cross-Liability Clause A cross-liability clause or separation of insureds clause will be included in all general liability, professional liability, pollution and errors and omissions policies required by this agreement. Petitioner's insurance policy shall contain provisions that such policies shall not be canceled or their limits of liability reduced without thirty (30) days' prior notice to City. A copy of each insurance policy, certified as a true copy by an authorized representative of the issuing insurance company, or at the discretion of City, in lieu thereof, a certificate in form satisfactory to City certifying to the issuance of such insurance shall be forwarded to: [name] City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Such policies or certificates must be delivered prior to commencement of the work. Ten days cancellation notice shall be provided City by certified mail to the name at the address listed above in event of cancellation or non-renewal of the insurance. y The procuring of such required insurance shall not be construed to limit petitioner's liability y hereunder. Notwithstanding said insurance, Petitioner shall be obligated for the total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by negligence or neglect connected with this contract. 7 We recommend that the following existing provisions of the Subdivision Compliance Agreement be modified as shown: (7) At such time as all public improvements except sidewalks, street trees and asphalt overlay of local streets within the subdivision have been completed in Memorandum re: Limiting City's Liability for Development Design and' Construction Problems September 2, 1999 Page 6 accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall submit a "certificate of installation conformance" to the City as notification to notify `h°'''`'• of readiness for conditional acceptance inspection. erg upenUpon notification by the , and Engineering Department, that the public improvements may be conditionally accepted by the City, the Petitioner will submit to the City a good and sufficient guarantee bond, if not already provided with the performance bond, in a form approved by the City to provide for correction of any incomplete work or any defective work or maintenance that becomes apparent or arises within one (1) year after conditional acceptance of the public improvements by the City. Petitioner may submit a guarantee bond for a duration longer than one year. Nothing in this section or in sections 8 or 9 of this agreement shall be interpreted as limiting in any way Petitioner's liability for defective work or design that becomes apparent more than one year after conditional acceptance. The Engineering Department's inspection is limited to a determination whether the engineered plans have been followed and whether the work appears complete. The Engineering Department shall have no obligation to perform independent tests and the City assumes no responsibility for the quality of the work by performing the inspection. (8) Upon receipt of the guaranty bond required by Section 7 and e ien notice from the Engineering Department that all r-equifements have been me the public improvements may be conditionally accepted by the City and a One Yeaf Guafantee B 2 the City agrees to conditionally accept the public improvement subject to the requirement of completion of all work and corrections of deficiencies and maintenance for a period of one year as set fi3i&J, abeve. (9)(h) Petitioner agrees to ^ et a def ^*i••^ w er4E and perform any maintenance, upon notification by the City, ar-ising during the ° ntee pe ed a Xh abeve that may be required for one year after conditional acceptance by the City. Petitioner guarantees the public improvements to be free from defect in design or construction and further guarantees that the public improvements will conform to the approved plans. Petitioner agrees to correct any defective work upon notification by the City at any time that the defective work becomes apparent. Defective work as used in this section includes defective engineering and design. The obligation to correct defective work shall remain in effect for 10 years. Memorandum re: Limiting City's Liability for Development Design and Construction Problems September 2, 1999 Page 7 Form of Submission from General Contractor and Engineers As discussed below, the Community Development Code should be modified to require developers to submit agreements from general contractors and engineers recognizing their responsibilities. The engineer's agreement should be submitted before or with any engineered drawings, plans, or calculations. The contractor's agreement should be submitted before any work is performed. The language may be incorporated into existing forms, such as the Developer-Engineer Agreement, or could be on a separate form. Engineers The engineer's agreement should include the following statement of the engineer: I am a professional engineer registered and licensed by the State of Oregon. I have prepared plans, drawings, specifications, designs or other documents submitted to the City of Tigard as part of a land use application. I understand that the City is relying on my professional training, experience, and expertise in preparing these documents and that the City has a right to rely on my professional experience. I warrant that the work I have performed meets applicable professional standards. I agree to hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability, causes of action, claims, losses, damages, judgments, or other costs and expenses including attorney fees and witness costs (in negotiation, arbitration, mediation, administrative process, trial, and appeal) that may be asserted by any person or entity that may arise from any defects, errors, or alleged defects or errors in the documents I have prepared that are being submitted to the City. Failure to comply with applicable professional standards constitutes an error or defect. This indemnity shall not extend to indemnification for negligence or other fault of the City and its employees. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification. I submit this form in order that the City may approve the project for which I have prepared plans or other documents. General Contractors Form We recommend the following be required of General Contractors: ("General Contractor") is a licensed and bonded general contractor qualified to act as a general contractor for the work approved by the City of 1 . Memorandum re: Limiting City's Liability for Development Design aid-Construction Problems September 2, 1999 Page 8 Tigard in General Contractor acknowledges that the approval requires that all work be performed according to the plans approved by the City. General Contractor agrees that General Contractor will not undertake, supervise or authorize any work on this project that is not in compliance with the approved plans without receiving written approval from the City of Tigard for such modifications. General Contractor acknowledges that General Contractor has read the insurance provisions of the Subdivision Compliance Agreement between Developer and the City and agrees to comply with those provisions. General Contractor agrees to indemnify;, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability, causes of action, claims, losses, damages, judgments, or other costs and expenses including attorney fees and witness costs (in negotiation, arbitration, mediation, administrative process, trial, and appeal) that may be asserted by any person or entity that may arise from any work performed by General Contractor or any subcontractors under the supervision, direct or indirect, of General Contractor. This indemnity shall not extend to indemnification for negligence or other fault of the City and its employees. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification. General Contractor submits this form in order that the City may authorize construction of the project that General Contractor will work on. Approval Stamp It is our understanding that the City uses a stamp to approve subdivision plans and other plans that require approval and that it does not normally issue an approval letter. It would be advisable to include language in the approval stamp that clarifies that the City's approval does not constitute an independent evaluation of the plans but that the City is relying on the information provided by the applicant and the professional qualifications and expertise of applicant's engineer. We suggest the following: This approval•is based on the information provided by the applicant. In granting this approval, the City is relying on the professional qualifications and expertise of the engineer who prepared the plans for the applicant and whose stamp appears on those plans. The City accepts the stamp as a certification by the engineer that the plans meet all applicable standards. Approval of these plans by the City does not constitute independent evaluation that the plans meet applicable standards. Applicant and the engineer whose stamp appears on this plan remain responsible for the plans and for compliance with all applicable standards. Approval of these plans does not transfer any responsibility or liability from applicant and the engineer to the City. HIM Memorandum re: Limiting City's Liability for Development Design and Construction Problems September 2, 1999 Page 9 Community Development Code Provisions Amend CDC 18.30.080E.1 to read: Prepare application forms made pursuant to the standards contained in the applicable state law, comprehensive plan, and implementing ordinance provisions. Each application form shall include the following: Appli~ant warrants that all information provided by Applicant and Applicant's representatives to the City in connection with this application is accurate. Applicant acknowledges that the City has a right to rely on the information provided by Applicant and Applicant's representative and that the City is not responsible for any inaccuracies. Applicant further warrants that any materials submitted by Applicant that bear the stamp of an engineer or other professional have been prepared by or under the supervision of a licensed professional according to professional standards and that the City has a right to rely on the engineer's/other professional's stamp and has no obligation to check the stamped work prepared by the engineer/other professional. Applicant and the engineer/other professional, not the City, are responsible for the accuracy and compliance with professional standards of all stamped drawings submitted to the City. Applicant acknowledges that the City's approval of any professionally engineered plan or other document indicates only that the applicant has met the requirement of submitting professionally engineered plans and does not constitute an independent review of those plans. Applicant is aware that Applicant may be required to indemnify the City as to actions taken by Applicant and Applicant's contractors, representatives and agents. Amend CDC 18.430.070 to add a new subsection C. C. Effect of Approval. In approving a subdivision final plat, the City has a right to rely on the information provided by the applicant and on the competence and expertise of the applicant's engineers, surveyors and other professionals. Responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided and for all engineering, surveying and other work prepared on behalf of the applicant ti Memorandum re: Limiting City's Liability for Development Design and Construction Problems September 2, 1999 Page 10 remains with the applicant and is not transferred in whole or in part to the City. Amend the first sentence of CDC 18.430.080 as follows: A. Improvement agreement required. Before City approval is certified on the final plat and before appr$ved construction plans are approved issued by the City, the subdivider shall: Amend CDC 18.430'080A to add new subsections: 3. Include in the agreement provisions requiring the applicant and all contractors and subcontractors to hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City from any claims arising out of the worlc to be performed by the applicant, contractors, and subcontractors. 4. Include in the agreement provisions requiring the applicant and all contractors to maintain insurance of types and amounts to be determined by the Director. The insurance must name the City as an insured. Applicant shall provide the City with satisfactory evidence of such insurance. 5. Provide a certificate from any engineer who has prepared construction drawings that states that the engineer is licensed and qualified, that the engineer accepts that the City is relying on the engineer's professional qualifications, and that indemnifies the City for defects or errors in the engineer's work. Add a new subsection C to CDC 18.430.080: C. Contractor's Certificate Required. As a condition of approving construction plans, the City shall require the subdivider to provide a certificate from its general contractor that states that the contractor is licensed and bonded, that the contractor agrees to perform all work according to the approved plans without modification except as authorized by the City, that the contractor agrees to provide insurance as required, and that the contractor agrees to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the City from claims arising from the work of the general contractor and its subcontractors. GAgfI\Tigud\Iiab1im.wpd s 7 f~ ~4. ~ was ~jw?u h~yb. 10 .f i 9 r. ~ -•-e~"-~ 'tom ~ :.ur . ~ r r s R{ jay P j t M` y •CtiY ~ t r i t~~ $K: i~3 s~fz,~ ~2r '4 a .:s~° tx P ° t@ j ~y ii ? T,7It {p 3,~ 9 ~ t 5 Rr '~7~ t ~4 ~oY[`~ t ~ i; \i ■ e~ ft';, ? k'tT 1, § ""77tt al degelc are 4 ~ p . ess • ryllere alatl c~~s ase 'review a pllca t~~~ ~la~ - La ~u~ll Phase base c~.~st~.e Se e e ® ARo 1 £ , aye- 149 ~ ~ ! I HIM ~ , ~'(''Y ~,~~lk res. 1~,•-. • ' =saw'. t ~ ~r~y 4 t•,. nil;. r i~' y t..'4 ,ice 17 ri~` 1.1 "WA 54 - ~ t y low- F Iwo 'S '44 ` f W iyt )j{ 1 r $ ,yi r 10 ~l~pe s~afv o . With t~ jueerlut re oTt f oT sites the e®tech p e~~e~s tl~ ~ :R s of approval". ~ Condltion site een 1.0 /o -h to be on ales bed ~eotee lots W, • er must f fag 0/0 . nglne ~.s over 2p pl th°se 20 +vrsi 'F k k i, ~tSR ~ f~i. c. 211, r!, ' ~ r .L4A ~sGa s . ° .r. rs e .b ~ a tk. M 3~..'a. . to t.: ` ' t a j ~ ~ 3j~ sM'~t L s t l~ Cfl~ € '2~33~ ~JS. ice. ~ 1)? <E. i I' O aff eats to Odin A. q gives Gamin ~ - ns reliminaly pia planni~`° • ®'S'eviews p ® e~teelieal rep°d• planning staff a g than S reater .~or steep slopes.) pla~.i is ng required for slopes g o ensitive ,ands review 25%. r I 1 •r 1 p ~ ~ 4 r'r Din I' -IV - _ T _ r.~_ 11 ) r~~t r s -!t t>• r~• , Y' T I^ r ~ :per ~ Y C i`5~ yF°F^ R*' 'c ~~iE F. ,F¢ _~1:+ ~,•3~~- ~;l i k~: { ~,y IJ ~k L ~ ~~:s_Y - tt d~ ..,k~FS ~ rf : , ~ i~$ a 4}1 f ,gr`.~~t {l, i Y]i t~'~ p rl ;t"st}i ~~.Y ~ ~ ,~f ,K '~9~ ~ ~a~ •~S + i '~c ,.~a~*t~~.R ~r" ~•r~1e;'s s@"Fslk ~~~:~+.`f.r~ ,"t.3y~ ~r'~I`i:..~!14'~ ~ r~~t,{,~ t~i~~~~_ Issues: Inconsistency in requiring geotech reports ® Staff may lack technical knowledge to adequately review geotech reports *Inconsistent requirement for geotech reports (10% slope - 25% slope) between departments @All departments do not review geotech reports ~~ggg_ ~ ~Ixy Y j y .i4i, ~ { S~ Fs ~ Jt• ~r 2 j-a[ .b ff ~ ~~ilt.`i43:.'3 l ~ :D~ 2:r~~::ec~ a ~ 7 ' ~:~,r,`tJ ` ...§s? '~~'y c'r•'~s~~ ~ ~s?'..''~ x +~c ~f~~}.::~~id ~`>k j f Rf h • . `~~~t+~. M tr+. r:+ ~ r~qt* k, ~x,~A 1'F3~'4r. ,S r ~ L t_ Y, ~v ~ Me Alf NOW- illim MINNOW rna S y ~ 3t t ff 'r{Kl" S~i`~ !kf ..;-.t 7 qtr 5 715- T ;i1A'Vt R„V `d. t,>. .V{t fir Y'~ Tt t ~-~Y p 3, :t t a P ed changes for this stage: ecoend site o , 0/ or greater' andlor any ch rapers • ith slopes •re g A.ny site w ills, would require requiring e4te cats and. ~ eView geoteeh aril ding need to r fanning, & ~ Engineering, P report at this stage. review ass's t with icy otech consultant on retainer to Have ge o applicant s geotech report. ~h3 y~1p~ V S.(_2 t t PYL3ti tdiN - ifs S f t, s 41 Ilk .Ml to Include arm vision appliesti®n ibi d subdivision e o respons N~od e an tans wawa lity for and us e~' ~~J' ~ nt and acc n~ by applies k • engineering wor. ' i t 3hj~ `tr Y0.' t. s S - . r ~ ,~tl ~3f~~,..'~7Nt~F~m; 3' t. AA r ~ t}. fr w~ rw 6S. II 4 • ~ } r e n` ,~f ~ ~L~rlY~~4.i 1 121' t f .':'Tr~y.ut, di: } ~i ri~iY;', ~ ~~wi ,4 r: Yob :,i rµ7 p~p t . x~v1~~ ~w~ ~r6`~ ~~'~,'s7~7a`'~`i>9 J ~ ' T fi'~'Y^e,k:eA , ~ n^.i~ ~ . r 1 • s,. t ~ ~~a t ~ s'x ~ t si 4 fit. 1 1 ~ ~ ~ Iii ~ i z~' -;M . 1. .'i~ ap 1• ~ ~ ` 3 ~ ~K ti , 1 y 4. a 'a~. i + J ~ 31~ 1~ y ~ 2{ . i' t(r of >yi~,, F ~ _ i i, i~ i ~'i j ; ~ ~ . ' a nu.1 Y ~ _ . } 4i, N 1 'e ~ J r r' ` i°`:exst Ft3Y '}^'r.pr; t4'.r f.j..y- ,i(`;...fir aK?q At iz~r~1~.ti' E s 3s` r. ~ '~'id.t s ~i ~ +~,-,''i f S° ~ 4T .t. ~ ;I yj„ r ~ ~~}'''j. f_ i~ ?t~fY~ ri,g qL ~ is~~~. : y1(`~`~' + ~l:Si~~ i ~ ~'~7~& ~t ~ `:~~xi~ ~ ' 1 1t ~i S ? h •T F 1 V 'y. Yt: t~ F" ~ t. HHNS[~ i ~.;r N. - 1 4 1 4 x *t .f - Y,4 t ° 7+;' :t' ':ix .1'R- fi+i„ C+'7 aro 4 ~ Y r ,~SJ'i{ F ..IE.+ _irYs~ r'~ F i - Y~ Aff~~. •yY! cl"~rY'Ria.Y x,•i..~ i~-;~`y _ Engineering Staff: ® Plans submitted with two copies of the geotech report. * * ® Plans routed for comment. Building Division receives plans plus geotech report. ® Requires engineer to flag lots with slopes between 10 - 20% and over 20%. ® Reviews geotech report. -will F --Maw f t S7t y l 1 1 r ~s 4 i y)1~d. l.$.. tiS ~t+ +~±7A 'i~ ks. {L4~~i*Y~ 't 1.7 prr - - ~;•c!, Y: nx -r-t- - •f ~l,c :.~~~i. i "?°..il:' i..- _ r r ;t RL -sr•= t 5 y•r ° - 3 +1te cxj, X'"4tt .~.~~'s. Ld "T ~t~~ ~ .'yY~~~~.~:.Fi;~~~.. •9 ~ ^x ~,~~*i ''Y~" ;q~i ~ a9'we -t.. F s Y,. Jrs Ss it e( 7 ' ~S'f. f; e.~ .f~E ti{i + S! g piE(~~p, #E SE' r!t f HE jt } t.?M. I.f!'y S~{, t'.''F.n ._!~'i]~,li 7{ y;~-.#r•'.r~r t''e. .6,T 1 L#,'"-'r,r,: •,nst '~~,`,i - TT IRON S.'1ri'rt x -%T1 t.1 eNote on the plan to require geotech presence during critical phases. * * @Incorporates comments from Building. eRequires the design engineer to either 1) provide letter from the geotech, or 2) have the geotech stamp and sign the plans. * * eRequires developer to enter into a Developer-Engineer Agreement. ~ls„ f 3 rL 1 1 i { _y a ~'t.~`k r+ ~ r11 u~it g ~'~'b i0h~~ rFV :f)+Qf.sS .i ~~dsOr~: j.: ~~;LK~l~r .3 `a Sys: 5 .•3.$3i-.>j ~ tr .t{~ 1N.\`.1. "'4s~Y7L~ ~t ..x~L 4-~.l§y s~~it .f t ,.gQF a v~7t t,y i)7{'!s•kT if 1' `~p~.J~ ~ 1 i Ytr~ 5~,' E~``I~e,~'~l ti'~~~. y(~~ t~:T~' t ~i* R I- .~~'7,tn sf`.r4 a c,I t ' S. r4. fn 1i I}._ 9 t It ~.i'°y~4'~y' t s }j 'ti j ~ ~ 'y "f P ♦`-t ' k~~9~~ 4,' 5.~ y°~ ~tqr R ; ~.J`T?:{t~, ~ :~''~;:1 "E- y• t•i. 1t. {tr. !E { Y ~N i t,tt 4y_ .i. 3r `;c~ s,~• I ~~,i tAf{ ( 4-a ~i.r C~ )•St~' _ •S~ 413 .s``"`l~„'xv~3r,~.a"„i1t. uildin" Staff: ®Review proposed construction plans and geotech report. ®Provide comments to Engineering. Planning Staff: *Not much interaction. Exception for slopes over 25% where sensitive lands permit is required. Z ° ~ t41~' 4 ~ `s t ! ~.r i / ~~~~i i .~t r . ~ 4~ x. ~1 .t ~ # .'.i ~ TJ.A- 'te 'P ~t xs4 er.! j 1j 1~- .>r:A•"i~.~3 .PL>~f~ •s`':4;.5.1[.r~u:...i.y~T:.x3.St~fixi.~'.:R.•.. _tiY. S. ...n a. ,:]rn..,c;i~':rr~. tF., V T TTir T ct T T TrrF=lI~rf [ r Y . i T l L 3 E j( ~ y ~ ` ~1y ~ 3 3 t j4; a•T"~4 k e., l ' ~ 1 _ ..y i t "~r , E 4 h' _ 1 4 ~ 4 4 _t y~} x t•~ ire 4 1.:• i' at+. j~ Ile J~ a _i MWO ~ t ~,Fi7ff~~ t s e r= r ` {~It ;43 } 4 'i .x'x1i • or cr~tl'Ale ie~ a~c~l uately rev o Issues". .11 to adeq laet . ~s• 10 jo s the abl eadatlo eater an tha ®staf f d recom~ 1®tswith slopes ohs eoteehre e t~ lr~ a mexits• rds for ld ee dep ~tada • eo,~s.~stent. e cliff er betty lames are In ivjnq slop on p s for Betel ®~ta~dard s, a kEGIBILITY STRIP I VA ^`~.~irvs}~ - ~ f' L~,4'~d "Y"~~' P• rr' r ; ~"Vt T~~ `K.~rY t -r t~.i✓r~i f L S4 ~ _ -~z~-. ~-T-:r-.:Y_~.3~~. ~ .1 J `~~L'^t'`'"'~-vs`~:~~', tr:...t ^/~~±t~y- ~S~ .'%s ' - •••V - ~ - -..i.e:~~.,bse.---- 1. _ - cn-~ 43.j$$jj~ rsT(~ a s a4 a r_ Y i +i f ~y 3#T~A. 3j'~rq._ Yl i?l ...+3; ` 5~ • .~#t.#. - T1;.... - £......`x:y' ~.5 ,.....u . ,x. t:. . . .-.i i.. . 3 rte...-~~,g r: f •t~t+' .cq p •f,.sx 'aL~' r $~j t c ~ r § C ta~7"~° ; d~ 'r:''r'~' i ~ ii f y;j~, i :s t a ~ a e t~ ~ ej},'.4. t z,;,l~y .t ~ Y" ~ 1 fa ,5 . Qf.Yi°`i~ t ,'ht ' sNky T, +l~ti ` >.s` a F• r-t w t .x a st g q i.. -pq ly!3 j t y i.. w. t.s_ k~ `-I } It p i n t S 1 fa .i' . t$r . Recommended changes for this stage: Require easier-to-read grading plans. (Trading plan clearly indicate lots that contain slopes between 10 and 20% and over 20%. Require the geotech to stamp the grading plan. Retain geotech consultant to assist City with review and recommendations of geotech reports. HfVi ~I7 i °7, It gx#h&,~~1 •tp ` ~ ~ .f ~ifsar 4 k r irr` t t. a.~ MW VM. ~ i}~ ~~r `r` ~~~~~~~F r W"r~" ~cra~ i cp= r^ % ft + 'i g :i +;:.,c r, '-r r r.,x- n-.r$-r a j i y} p~ r ~ yy }a py ~~l ; ~ rl •n ~t - `i3.i_F r 4 ' ~ 7 ~ t.) T i C`1 ~;~~i s i. 4,, !T . ~ rt r . ~t"'rr•• 'P~• ~ y i~¢L T ~ ri ,a. 4 ,~~i• ~''~g~'tR~~` # ~3i~3 r~~k ~t (l'~i Y 4 '~fir~i4.' ~'Y ' f~r' :i'p 6 PtYP 1 ,F ~ ~ yiw q f, fC~[ ~ ~ F ~'-j F`~.t. f. ~ 6• F a y r : b 11i, l,. ' ~!ti ~~'-.ii. a~+ ~'r 1 ? t, ~I; •_t:: ii F, i ,~•a y:•r~i fi f#( _ ~ ~€;i i ' • ~~i e "i ~ 3i. k {'l f ilk a r- 3 oui 7 rAi`4; ~•~r!.1.- -7ra,!~~'~~.~£~.~. .,r,z ~iY~rf i~i;x a 4°~ ~ ~ 'i,~'Fr.'~,FR~ ~ ~,..~j~~ --ir"3~~f~k~~ t- Zt~:`'~i~e~~ i Mod f subdivision agreement to include warranty by applicant, indemnity, and insurance requirement. Require engineers and general contractors to provide warranty and indemnity as to work they perform. Modify approval to state that approval does not constitute independent verification by the City of engineering work. PUS;~.t _ .i..1Y .dti..S~Y:.:15aXs~. .YN-1 s~ `1a- 5 ~'3l t4 u" . b +t~Mli'YX~'^ xy i M w,~y~rA „~~1:A7 ~ ilifi Y' M t ~ ( 1 I YEr•n'' 'T~ " ~r' ~ a 'A -t ~ x• yv ~';,i E'll ;.,I w LG! Y: ~•'y 9^ APiRI.^: w N ~t a s. •.fo a .tom. n• ff Ott {7. t-:. s. t".}^`.:~C t• x~ s~+7,1 t.~'ir !~i'e 4~yf~~ri f~ ~~i i»'t •c a.~c. ~ ~F;, r ~y.d ~y _ ~j 1 '-~i r~~,..t ; +'a~{}~i+' f `ti fe: X r j 4.~~ ~^lx ~ ~ ~P i":?~e~z~.~ ; h. 'S'•~ ~~r ~ ~L, f ~ .~~.1.'. F?~"~i } s a } ! .r' f ~ •~S 7 i 13.'~. ~ e3 i .cif ~2 • i! Fy i i ( ° t jj{. . ~~s r . j~'c~ ' ~}g~'. f ar y - f f. { ,ti j•# d,~ f• 1` i. i' s tai gal Ust 4'14,14 r.. j..- t- i. ~t#q~ tl at < ,i ,~(,?!,"s'•~ f R,t'~"' e~!C t,~o-"Yr., r ..e a'c's.. k .Jti l'f+iEngineering Staff: ® Make regular site visits - Ensure engineer is onsite - ]Ensure geotech is onsite * Require daily reports ® Make sure geotech reports are being sent to City. ® If Staff is not comfortable, STOP WORK orders can, and will, be issued. £ t~ { ,~,5:,~,yY t ~ ~ ~ i '.f • ~ _ G~~~y}`fa'~ ~ 1 '~kr ~+l` f¢,'4 i i ~T,'1. 3: fey S ~a X19'-. - t •S~ F .7&"g ~T' i _7 'FRe R'SZ ? '1"•. ^'1 t. 1 Y L'4 ~ asfR' 6 A F' '~rih fibk~3 7T' e~ ~~4 ~ ~L ~ « t .,LSF t~-t s'} cl3- j` ~ •pc. € . S .~~~~f; CCC iYp "YY W x` t 4'.f _.Y r%t t..~k Gf > A 'lSj 5 : H Y*Y ~ 5 4 4 ~ Y ? 2l~ pn Yt9.b ~~.t~ji-} i~+,~+: asl 414 .ff' '3r1 ! YtK~ ?~i7L't n t ,~~~*i~•I •Require developer's engineer to provide a certification and final report. ®Require the geotech final report. Building Staff: *Little or no interaction Planning Staff: ®Little or no interaction ~.Y Y~~.~ f. I.SR'' JS "~jty{ r~R ' I> ~•t~,Y r`. N` aOfA a ~ LS ~(A t~ j1 I . nY(_ Y$s, i f Ttrftgtti v"3 f R ati? ~T N ~F t t it, tt •'t' 1 u il'I ill , ~ • 1~, f' ~ : A e ' ^ + t D~ t '7+J ~ ,rPM ~i ~ ~ , t ~F j t l~~,i ~1, f f* +~rf,~ C• + .1 tt 'i 1 'A' i1 1 t: ~ ~r<Y ~ !L ~ •r~i +Y! r ~ ' {raj; r. i ' 9t i.'• 1; 3 ~ ~~y ` ;.fem. ~ r~ t i ~a j r f i~ } + + t.t v+ ) YY r1 t T 4 ~r ~ p rti rN J, 4- 1 ? 'Rt bY4rS _ •~Y hey s"consistent i~ es ; opts are n°t yeas. Issu ection rep Ot Specific a cotech eotec~ !asp . re site or or critiqu G . tie anti alnate an address' i•e 9 ef~0 e to evically lacl~s the c p but instead ®taff j re site, bn • the enter reports not cei ants does or issues, c~ consult ®Ge®tectl areas ~eote • es specific cr changes certifi if develop at'happe whns ro~eGtf tile co-use of a p I. ;Wig "T"ATE .T"T'Bxi~r ;3f fc;Y _~".a k i}}.4 . +.l'+ ,r; P ty C.fl}s. ~r& ~5~.~!1 ~~_ttr 3~. .4_,'; St -c¢^' ^ft. " S{, ~f +j .r}1i r!G } ¢ r` i~#} ~ ,_~is .i b•. y g t'-:t. ' 'i ,5. - r(~`.j~.''A~~ 1 11'1 _ a~•,~ ~ f. R 3~~~:z 7~Y ? t. 5,~.! _~~._qf :r, q~C t' f:.: > ~ ¢~y ~ ,~j~ T r r 7i c dig t y~ f s C k 1 1 T. ¢v~. ~c.~• 4df1 . vt. 4.{. V a . i 1 i 4 4 ' ! r { j r, #i 4 rl [iy`, e31 f' } n.s,~ t. Qy ~ `;'ijf ''ry .}f-. ~ ~3C'i .t ~ -i ~k !t ~.x , ~ 4 (<s•:P.r pit r~~."~+t~. +`~rY- ~:r.4~ i'tr i y'll Recommended changes for this stage: i the language in a typical geotech City should spec,, lso require the geotech to certify the inspection report, a entire site. City hire an independent geotech to assist in the evaluation of . geotech reports. Require "transition agreement"') or similar document, if geotechs change. ++~T ..F •~yi~~ rp~s• ~ ~,~t~~'yjy~A ~ ~ q y.. ~ tti ~7K.~~ g*.~~i f'~~ ~ ~ fit? j~~ Y1~`t]' gS Q.-.:r~~ :~llt E e~x: Y F•! r ! i " -Mill rK t1 ' +~~qr ~htY~• i r'~ ~i~t♦ ~~~1 ~t t { l>' Y rangy by agreement to ~~reMent. Avis d Z include on • s urancc rcq i d ~ subd-~i~', ai rovi'~c ho l~c • ant, i~dcm, ctors to p app eras co~~ra ors,. ..~ccrs and gen~' pc equirc cn,~ inrnnity as to _Work th~c e Warranty and r ^jS .a ~t a tB qt, ~N V ! ~ N i 1 Af !it y~ } t i > v ~~i' '~3~. ?p~C'J :7~`~ ti~~~~j fl ~'t91f 1~t,' ~ tm-t t ~ „ ,•i e 0' t.3y 1" 84$',• f,~{.t3 - .v J ~"1 4 F~t t S ~r i f~ nb' 41 ~Y 1{ 4:~$ 1 YtY . ~ t gT img 1, ~ ^ ! -'~'~+...-y' ¢~M gb• . 5 1 t K.. w W a tS, y r n u i A,1 t~iy 1~, ~ f +r ,jt }y~~~2 E~! t '1X u'Y L+ j' • r lima „_'r 'cy ar^~..-£ r~. t'=£ :'"i~XK j~;X' ~ rytf ,TR, i Ur~~: ~3k t ff•t t~~" ' s,~~fit`' ~n ~.~i :~i e ~ ~z r+~,y7;F .t ;i ~ f j i ~ ~ r;.~ 'j` { .t { }+^f~T ~I I ~ . ~ P. ~ £ ~ z ~.F.. r,~. 7 I '.~i. i Mal 4,, , 4 i i - ~rl; f 1,i r I`~g~ ? `,L $ 4 y$j$a fed ,7y)~ .i„f.ta 'fs +r ? aFE. a 'J i (t F•~f 1 Engineering Staff: 9 Reviews single family site plans for lots over 10% grade. ® Performs "grading inspections" for lots over 10% grade. ® Assist Building Inspectors at the footing inspection for lots over 20%. Building Staff: For lots over 20%, Building Inspector assesses spoils volume for the foundation backf 11. a t} .r.'S' r ri ~i~er,{~'~ v~ ..~~w sues. 4 ~~+'.•i '..i ~yy ;h~t3. ~ ~,-!-r~¢+ { rry t'~Fy jj,~ i,~+ `~r y _ 7 I7ha,:.i''ef:t 1JitltE6. ~f. r3';3.F'i't'..'t,.!r. ai5'4.t Fv. 73~R:o-~::5'.. L3, .'u'.4'.~ .•,ci~7.... a'~s:'ls. .i~L~. Fi ~~i~aYcx ._r 3` U r 3r t'"J1 ~1'•e l '•J!.a;y . Y`SsS~ ~w 6j.• ~ ,~i .c'4' "'r4e~~~ _ ra all F ` j • t • w t ffi® ~w gill % 1 21136 . r ' f~Yw Y1 Y~ .C t rsz° t f t 3 ~ r 'T t 000 gg i . '4 ~ ~y' *.at` ~ 4J X~y~ 1 l 1 f vgvi [if e, !I art t.. k 1'ta: • " xn „!~$"S". bey` r the ~ e~teC 10 • e ende~t ~ Is T®t have M o~s • qtly ~o~. ~ty d® e®$ec~ yep e d.~~-here ~ti~n of g ~res 1®t SlOp ev ll aff meas. the lot• i161Tl e t. ~v~tl~' • n tie B es 0 in depart er all ~1®~ spo~ls t c~~sld Tcsult e does no , s teed to .Lot sl®p Tadl is >2Qaf • b~lldl~ p ~f 0~ the ~.°u ~~,rcd twice 111 side o o 1dbe Teq aoWT6 eta®~~ slh adin~ iaspe Y~ Y g rtSA' e~ y Y 3z: ant x' P r x t" } 1 'u i 't T U1, tse' r: r z i i ''x `?29 TE ; ' r ~ '.t~¢. ~ i~l~~➢y a,~~s ~h `'_!T'ti. s tr i~''a P'~ ~ 1. `'"3 i tt f~ .`3~ P i`C~ ~~t~.~s~ ?r~ r~ .~`~.1 ~~-e_ 't~f - j r ~a ~r 1 i.r,. "1~ ~"~r.,:.i ~ ~ ~'~i~. ~ Y .RK ~ ` t ~ ,.s~ t # . 5 ~T,;t~ I F z' a F a ~°4 1f#~ ~ } ( f ,t J t ' }~t„'YQ ~ ri t.~~r~ uC~,~ ~lY~,~.'v.~'il~~~ r rC2 ~Kl•r1~ tl` Olt tit 7~.~b ~{'~5 ~ 9~k"jt'~ ~C^~2y.~ ~ i~.,, ~ ~ r"4 iY~E ~ v 1 , ReCOMMended changes, f or this stage. for lots >2D o9 City should have the ability to hire an independent geotech to assist City should develop consistent way of measuring slo e. p ®n lots >20% do not allow any spoils on the downhill side of the houses. Grading inspections should be required twice. ;~1 ~ r~4L~ ~t1~ ky,,` ~ ~ . Y~ j i~T;;~a'C ..r Y ` Y' Pr;~, i ~ - r 4•t! - ~17"` ~c'~ y rsF' a.1„aG'.: IC .1~Yri~ •el:~-.:7 ~*:d ..a INS+ rF}{ .j ry~~°f '!r• I 3~t 4 s ~r e S£ y ti -e { - `t• t ~ ii ~ j to '1L r 3 r a # r# t itv : C ~ F r~ r f ~`.,rtFN R ~ ~ k .....:.t ~ i ~:x;.s,. ..,5. s ..t.. ' a S.}.:".1.,,..~i _ a 9a.tia. 3 a•.: t3..1 ai.~... 33,a:.c Y}~...~ . ~K .4 + . t ~ 1 ` yx :i • tiF 1 i 1. . 3 5 i+3; {~gg, } x i i =3F. I#.~4'1 4 ~1rt.4 y .t 1iE~1 _ • ~ ~ 'a •x l I ny ~r greaser, and sites Over e®sec~ ~epGt ails w e®tec ~ cuts and d to revleg site requlring ~ullding nee ering9 planning~ E. ®nglne ti®n phase th pity revicr oTt at applica er to assist Wi rep on Tesaln c censultant ~sech rep°TIs eose daslons ®f geranty and and rec®nlmen to include wa licat1Qn° s Mcdj~fy app onsil~ility ~esp e Lance 0- acc p ailing plans 1er-t®-read gr ® has ~ , s; . k i,}{ , zt: i • ~ t t y )i 4,-~ L~ ~ `C r X t th { C~ ~ 1 ~ ~sj a`t ; JY~~( ♦jf r~$~~t-•~ ~ 3"`},.. } ~ A.;~: t. 7 ,rz; tT. t- '4~_k'' ?~{.'tm.+~64.y'~ 't ~3'.i7_ t l~?k t~b, x (s~.. S! t ti ie iTa ip rsx~.' ~'t '~~~~1~a~ '~t {'t }•c"+~ ~ ~ t ,ll .~~k Af._ l i a` ,°,~_~-2.•., ~ ¢ ~q- IiY. .tu 7.,, k-S . ~ 4f . ~ yi¢ 't gf.,. F r_~i6.1 g y, k y qq.~ t~ <:,y:4 ' ,y:, ~•r~~.-.a • ~ F} i mom pt F _ ! i r ~s ~.w {3% . ip{ t { S {ltt ~S ~3 ~ k Ott ! t 14 i v~ r~~ 7~{I k v~tli fit,. rt t. ~ 3 4i q~-t' tr`yc: tft izY97Ct to lots between 10 and 20°% ~ and Grading plan clearly indicate ® over 20% ® Geotech to stamp the grading plan include warranty, indemnity, and Subdivision agreement to ® insurance requirement provide warranty and indemnity ® Engineers and contractors for work they perform constitute independent verification by • Approval does not the City of engineering work ;s~`~ Mlwrloll ~ 1 S it 1Fr ~ ~yb4 u t 4.: p Fn q N Il M", VA V41 Y'Olt s Betio ti 8 } _ a typ1ea1 Seotech •f AalgM,age spee1 y tine site Bent, ~f Cl F h ee~tl en sim~la~ do axd geotee eement , or <<trans9t*.on age Require e i to hire an hS ehang ~e the abii geotee S,~o-~~d ha >'2601 City -F 0T lots eh to assist slope eident ge°te of meas~r~g ep t way doWT.ill s~- e • Conslsten oil, the Clt~ develop allow any sp 2o % ~ (10 not ® 0n lots > • . d ice of the houses should be Tequlte 11s 5 0.o , 0 `k f W 4F lpt 4't1p} i AA ty(J At - g/ gyp #j ~4 #g • ~ Y ' .'rF E , ! 9 ~ s<pa}R}.~y~z: J E Ai . t ,g z91 ~g$r', v ,3 } 4 ` 999,,, .~y i. lk' r ~~1 y,a ~i 9~~~} 4 _ rx k ~ ~q;F~~~ ~~~Fi~ ,;f • r ~ ~ ~t ~ f~~ r. s~~~ i't~g lL.t.~ 1f.. a.sS r > >1 ++Y F. c". 3, ti r . { +f~~,Ii s a : 41 " y F 1 M 1 t ,'1 f<.: ► l 4 x ds e n ate Fib' r a . 1(n . ® Get direction from City Council ® Establish public involvement process: - open houses - builders/City Council workshop ® Determine necessary fee increases and code amendments to address recommendations Y Public hearing on amendments and fees . ) i~.= ` ~~~y],k 1 1 ~ `A`'r~1F~s :i~ ~ g~~a~4' t t`~ ~.N: 4 € ~ i ~F~3 7} 1 4T '14 °~f• !t ` ~ if,3~ ' Ss +'~.3°~ 29 E"y x'R {i 'f a... Y~' ~ r ~ i y-•S r ~~i'~`'1 J'~ '~~r~rSs~~.'!LEL~ ~ . :e!t+... a=w i3 ii~F ,S: Y~-.Y~":'r~tr .s ~k.~fii'.. ~-.3~~~'•-c.~:e~iffid: a~ xt~: ~a-r~ %i~F^a ~r fi•.`. S'.;1 r .i' a. 1TV T e x .T.TTf(7TX)r TT