Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 09/09/2003
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 9, 2003 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED r J D 1:%0f9%Do ne`s1CcW1 J 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Mayor's Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF TIGARD SEPTEMBER 9; 2003. 5:30 p.m, OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR..97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: s Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and a o Qualified bilingual interpreters. oc Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow _J as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the m Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 0 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). J SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 5:30 PM • STUDY SESSION 5:30 - 7 PM > Bull Mountain Communication Plan Discussion • Administration Staff • EXECUTIVE SESSION: EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss current and pending litigation under ORS 192.660(1) (h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council et Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. PROCLAMATIONS L 2.1 Proclaim the Week of September 29, 2003, as Race Equality Week r n Mayor: The City of Tigard, in conjunction with the National League of Cities, is committed to promoting racial equality and justice as a fundamental aspect of a healthy community. With the concurrence of this City Council, the City of Tigard proclaims the week of September 29, 2003 as Race Equality Week. 9 u 2.2 Proclaim October as Disability Employment Awareness Month COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 2 Mayor: In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted. This landmark legislation prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, public accommodations, transportation and telecommunications. Central to our democratic form of government are the precepts of equality and individual dignity, the value of self- reliance and the basic right of all citizens to live full, independent and productive lives. The City of Tigard supports the spirit and letter of the law to assure that all citizens with disabilities are fully included in our social, cultural and economic mainstream. With the concurrence of this City Council, the City of Tigard declares October 2003 as Disability Employment Awareness Month. 7:40 PM 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) ig di: ighrSciool Sfudent.Fm~oy Anga leis T LQ- y ed 'C airo°of, cc President all 7:50 PM 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes for July 29 and August 5, 2003 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Tigard-Tualatin School District to Allow a Three Million Gallon Water Reservoir to be Constructed on School District Property and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the Agreement 4.4 Approve Budget Amendment No. 2 to the FY 2003-04 Budget to Transfer Funds from the General Fund Contingency to Pay Tigard's Share of the COPS 4 More Crime Analysis Project - Resolution No. 3 -'3 • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion. Any items n. requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items y which do not need discussion. J_ 0 7:55 PM J 5. UPDATE ON THE LIBRARY SUMMER READING ACTIVITIES • Staff Report: Library Staff COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 3 8:05 PM 6. UPDATE ON THE NEW TIGARD LIBRARY Staff Report: Library Staff 8:15 PM 7. CONSIDER DIRECTING CITY OF TIGARD STAFF TO PREPARE AN ANNEXATION PLAN FOR THE BULL MOUNTAIN AREA FOR THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion c. Council Consideration: Resolution No. Councilor: 1 move for adoption of the proposed Resolution. Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. _ please say "aye. " Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. please say "nay. " Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. _(is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. C 4 i 1 i COUNCIL AGENDA - SEP T EMBER 9, 2003 page 4 8:30 PM 8. CONTINUATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION (SUB2003- 00010/PDR2003-0004/ZON2003-00003/SLR2003-00005/VAR2003- 00036/VAR2003-00037) ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 71, 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application to Subdivide 9.36 acres for a 29-lot single- family detached housing Planned Development Subdivision; Sensitive Lands Review for areas with steep (>25%) slopes, a drainage way and wetlands and; adjustments to the cul-de-sac length standard, maximum number of units permitted on a cul-de-sac, and to the street grade on SW 74'Avenue. The Planning Commission moved to deny the applications which failed in a 4.4 tie vote, then moved to approve the applications, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meets the relevant criteria of the Development Code. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74`" Avenue; WCTM IS 125 DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430,'l 8.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. a. Continue Public Hearing from 8/12/03 b. Declarations or Challenges Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? - Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's L Jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation r of any member of the Council? r c. Staff Report: Community Development Staff 0 j d. Public Testimony For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 5 Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Beard of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described by staff or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. Proponents Opponents Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Motion to approve or deny the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision and give direction on findings for Council consideration. 9:30 PM 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:40 PM 10. NON: JL'YVr.ITEMC 9:50 PM 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), L but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 10:00 PM 12. ADJOURNMENT I: W DMICATHYICCA\20031030909). DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 6 Agenda Item No. , Council Meeting of f D ( ~t , U3 COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 9, 2003 Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Griffith, Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Sherwood, and Wilson. • STUDY SESSION > Bull Mountain Communication Plan Discussion City of Tigard Assistant to the City Administrator Newton and Washington County Communications Officer Wait Peck Introduced the "Completing our Community - Bull Mountain Annexation Plan - Communication Plan." For over 20 years, Washington County and its partner cities have recognized that neighborhood services are best provided by cities and special service districts. When services are developed and delivered locally they tend to be more responsive to community needs. The County and City of Tigard have taken a number of actions to move in this direction. Ms. Newton reviewed information developed in response to key questions. Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed the Communication Plan, including the citizen outreach tools (coffee talks, Focus on Tigard programs, Cityscape articles, community group presentations, website updates, e-mails, Community Connectors, telephone calls, etc.). Councilor members indicated that they each could attend one or more of the coffee talks. An important component will be to disseminate information to Bull Mountain residents and current City of Tigard residents. Council members were asked to forward potential contact names to assist with the communication efforts. Additional information to questions being asked was noted by the Council including: A Misconception that annexation will affect school boundaries. Misconception that a change in land-use densities will occur if the area is annexed. Between now and the proposed election date (March 9, 2003), develop some information about what could happen as a result of a positive vote for annexation; Le., what could be done for parks? The next step will be to develop the communication tools. County and City staff anticipate this task could be completed by the end of September. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page I Council directed staff to keep moving forward with the development of the annexation plan. > Administrative Items - The following items were reviewed: o Bull Mountain Annexation Plan - Agenda Item No. 7 - No public testimony anticipated; however, people may sign in on the Visitor's Agenda to speak on this topic. o Ash Creek Estates - Hearing Continued - Agenda Item No. 8 - Council received a packet from Mr. Bob Storer as written public testimony, Mr. Storer signed up to speak at the last public hearing. He was unable to attend tonight's hearing and would like the written testimony to be entered into the record. Council discussed limitation on testimony by asking people to not repeat testimony and to direct testimony to the Municipal Code related issues. The goal is to conclude the meeting by 10 p.m. It was suggested that it be explained to the audience the criteria upon which the Council must make their decision; that the decision cannot be based upon how many people object. Council went into Executive Session at this time (6:50 p.m.) • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session to discuss current and pending litigation under ORS 192.660(1)(h). Executive Session concluded at 7:11 p.m. and Council resumed reviewing the following Administrative items: o "White house" discussion - the white house on the property adjacent to the new library property was destroyed by fire. There was discussion on what could be done at this location including building a park-like open shelter. It's possible the City could plant some trees for a street-noise buffer. More information will be available next week. The large tree in front of the home appears to be "in trouble" and, if that's the case, some mitigation action may be necessary. o Tour of Library Site - Saturday, September 20, 9 a.m. - Council declined the offer for a tour at this time, preferring to wait until the building is farther along. o League of Oregon Cities 2003 Legislative Briefing - Nearest one will be held at Beaverton Council Chambers on Thursday, October 16, 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Council r members will contact staff if they decide to attend. o Tigard Blast Parade - September 13, 2003 - If riding in the parade, meet at St. Anthony's School parking lot at 9:30 a.m. Parade starts at 10 a.m. Dave Owen of Tigard Central Business District Association plans to appear as a visitor during the business meeting tonight. Mayor Griffith and Councilors Dirksen, Sherwood and Wilson will ride In the parade. o Balloon Festival Meeting - Wednesday, September 10, 10:30 a.m. - Chamber of Commerce - Pearson Room. There was brief discussion on this meeting to be held tomorrow. There Is discussion underway about forming a new nonprofit organization to organize the event. Financial Information Is needed from the current organization. Councilor Sherwood and City Manager Monahan attended the last meeting and plan Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 2 to attend the September 10 meeting. Councilor Moore has also been in contact with Balloon Festival Organizer Bruce Ellis. o Update on Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge - Tualatin accepted Tigard's offer to match the Federal funds for this bridge project by a "contribution of resources" method. Tigard would contribute $230,000 (57.5%), Tualatin $160,000 (40% and the City of Durham would be asked to contribute $10,000 (2.5%). o City Attorney Review - Scheduled for the October 14, 2003, Study Session - Information needed from attorney's office or from City staff? No Information was requested. Study Session concluded at 7:26 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order Mayor Griffith called the City Council 8i Local Contract Review Board meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 1.2 Roil Call: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Sherwood, and Wilson. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 81 Liaison Reports - None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items - None 2. PROCLAMATIONS - Mayor Griffith proclaimed the following: 2.1 Proclaim the Week of September 29, 2003, as Race Equality Week 2.2 Proclaim October as Disability Employment Awareness Month 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA • Tigard High School Student Envoy Angela Jensen presented her first report of the school year to the City Council. She reviewed the upcoming activities noting that Homecoming Week is September 29 - October 4. • Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce President Dan Murphy reviewed the upcoming activities sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce including the golf toumament for which sign-ups are going extremely well. The Chamber will be holding a trade show at the Tigard Blast on Main Street on Saturday, September 13 and also will be selling Kdspy Kreme doughnuts. L e Dave Owen representing the organizers of the Tigard Blast distributed a flyer, "Cruisin the Tigard Blast." The event's activities include a pancake feed, parade, cash poker run, prize poker walk, music and other fun events. The event is scheduled from 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. on Saturday, September 13. • Stuart Byron noted he was present during the Communication Plan discussion regarding the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. He said the plan needs to include more open public forums. He noted that he does not receive the Cityscape now. In addition, he said the plan's timeline is too aggressive. i Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 3 City Manager Monahan advised that the Cityscape mailing routes will be expanded so Bull Mountain residents within the area identified in the annexation plan will receive Cityscape newsletters. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes for July 29 and August 5, 2003 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Tigard-Tualatin School District to Allow a Three Million Gallon Water Reservoir to be Constructed on School District Property and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the Agreement 4.4 Approve Budget Amendment No. 2 to the FY 2003-04 Budget to Transfer Funds from the General Fund Contingency to Pay Tigard's Share of the COPS More Crime Analysis Project - Resolution No. 03 - 34 The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes 5. UPDATE ON THE LIBRARY SUMMER READING ACTIVITIES Library Director Barnes presented this update. The theme this year for Summer Reading was "READ! DISCOVER! EXPLORE! Many families made weekly visits to the library all summer. Throughout the summer, the Library offered a series of special events and programs for children and teens. Several of these programs were L held in Fanno Creek Park behind the Library. The staff made efforts this year to visit r summer camps to promote the Summer Reading Program to children at various locations. a o This year, 984 young people registered for Summer Reading and 375 completed the a program. This is 37% completion rate. 1,951 people attended the many different programs making this a memorable Summer Reading program for the young people of our community. 6. UPDATE ON THE NEW TIGARD LIBRARY Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 4 Library Director Barnes presented this update. On May 21, 2002, Tigard voters passed a $13 million bond measure for the construction of a new library of approximately 47,000 square feet. This amount will pay for land acquisition, the design, construction and furnishing of the new library, parking and related street improvements. The site of the new library is a 14.7-acre property located along Hall Boulevard near O'Mara Street. The library building and parking will occupy about 5 acres of the site. The focus of this monthly update was to inform the Council on the progress of the new library during its first two months of construction. PowerPoint slides were presented showing the progress of construction on the site. In addition, the public can learn more by: ➢ Visiting the new library website: www.cl.tigard.or.us/library/new library ➢ Reading the Hard Hat Report in the Cityscape ➢ Check out the displays in the library and the Farmer's Market ➢ Contacting Paula Walker at paula@ci.tigard.or.us or call 503-684- 6537, x2508. Ms. Barnes also reviewed fundraising activities, including: ➢ Friends of the Library Book Sale, September 19-20 ➢ Building Bucks with Borders, September 25-28 Bricks for Books ➢ Change Your Library (spare change container at the Library) 7. CONSIDER DIRECTING CITY OF TIGARD STAFF TO PREPARE AN ANNEXATION PLAN FOR THE BULL MOUNTAIN AREA FOR THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed this agenda item. He noted that if the Council adopted the proposed resolution, staff would be directed to L prepare an annexation plan in coordination with Washington County for a possible c March 9, 2004, ballot. A public hearing on the annexation plan would tentatively occur on December 2, 2003, where Council would accept public testimony, take action on the annexation plan and, if approved, place the issue before voters on i March 9, 2004 or a subsequent election date. Councilor Dirksen noted that i annexation of this area has been talked about for a number of years. Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Dirksen, to adopt Resolution No. 03-35. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 03.35 - A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ANNEXATION PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED BULL MOUNTAIN AREA FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes 8. CONTINUATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION (SUB2003- 00010/PDR2003-0004/ZON2003-00003/SLR2003-00005/VAR2003- 00036NAR2003-00037) ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 71, 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application to Subdivide 9.36 acres for a 29-lot single- family detached housing Planned Development Subdivision; Sensitive Lands Review for areas with steep ( > 25%) slopes, a drainage way and wetlands and; adjustments to the cul-de-sac length standard, maximum number of units permitted on a cul-de-sac, and to the street grade on SW 74`h Avenue. The Planning Commission moved to deny the applications which failed in a 4-4 tie vote, then moved to approve the applications, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meets the relevant criteria of the Development Code. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74' Avenue; WCTM IS 125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. a. Mayor Griffith continued the public hearing from August 12, 2003. b. Declarations or Challenges: Mayor Griffith reviewed the following: Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 6 0 Do any members of Council wish to report any ex pane contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? No ex parte contact was reported. Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? Council members indicated they were familiar with the application. - Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? There were no challenges. C. Staff Report: The staff report was presented by Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff, who responded to the questions posed at the hearing opened on August 12. Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed background and summarized responses to issues raised at the previous hearing. The staff report is on file with the City Recorder and contains a summary of the process on this appeal to date; an August 29, 2003, memorandum from Associate Planner Morgan Tracy responding to issues raised regarding Ash Creek Estates; additional testimony and evidence received at and since the August 12, 2003, City Council hearing; prior written testimony received for the August 12, 2003, City Council hearing. An unidentified member of audience interrupted the staff report asking if the report being made by Mr. Bewersdorff was rebuttal. City Attorney Ramis advised this was not rebuttal, but clarification of issues raised from earlier testimony. A September 9, 2003, memorandum from Engineering Manager Brian Rager, was distributed to the Mayor and Council. Mr. Rager's memo is on file with the City Recorder and addresses additional questions with regard to the construction of a culvert across 741 Avenue and a new condition to address the question of sight distance on 741 Avenue as it may be impacted by the existing retaining wall on the property immediately north of the site. Council received a copy of a September 25, 2003, letter from the Oregon Department of Forestry, addressed to Patty Lunsford of the ! City of Tigard. This letter explained ORS 527.722 declaring that the Oregon Forest Practices Act applies outside urban growth boundaries unless a local government has adopted a local forest practice ordinance. As of January 1993, the Department of Forestry no longer administered the Forest Practices Act within the city limits of Tigard. Council asked questions about the tree mitigation plan, required Clean Water Services (CWS) setbacks for sensitive lands and vegetation and Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 7 whether there is a process to appeal the requirements by Clean Water Services. Staff advised It was beyond the authority to Impose buffers more than the requirements of CWS. Clean Water Services Provider Letter #2819 establishes the specific buffers for this project. City Attorney Ramis advised that a letter from CWS should be considered as a piece of evidence, but it Is not the ultimate defining item for a decision on this matter. The Council needs to make a decision based on all the facts. d. Public Testimony Mayor Griffith read the following: For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described by staff or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. The Mayor talked to the audience noting the Council must consider this application based on the criteria; the decision cannot be made on whether or not the Council likes what is being proposed. He asked people to limit their testimony and not be duplicative in their remarks. Proponents (spoke at the August 12, 2003 meeting) Opponents • Terry Crawford, 7100 SW Ventura Drive, Tigard, OR 97223, said he was concerned that speeding had not been addressed. The impacts have not been adequately studied. People will gravitate to the shortest and quickest route. He said the traffic impacts would be significant and referred to statistics from studies about increased traffic flow and the correlating numbers from the increased traffic that would exceed the speed limits. He suggested the developer be required to pay for speed humps. Mr. Crawford submitted a small ii map Illustrating which residents in the area wanted or did not want i speed humps. • Warren Aney, 9403 SW 74' Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, distributed a letter containing the main points of his testimony. A copy of Mr. Aney's letter is on file with the City Recorder. Mr. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 8 Aney supports the Idea of basic constraints on land use development; outlined that natural amenities need to be considered, and that the proposed development should do a better job of minimizing or mitigating its adverse effects on several environmental values (trees, wildlife, steam water quality and stream discharge patterns). Mr. Aney advised the adverse affects were related to density and that the development should be held to the low density residential district standards contained in the Community Development Code. In response to a question from Mayor Griffith about density, Mr. Bewersdorff responded that the minimum density for this application was 20 units and the maximum is 31. The applicant was proposing 29. He reviewed the density transfer allowed. He noted the applicant needs to convince the City Council of the merits of this proposal for the standards that are not defined (i.e., the tree plan). Bob Ward, 7162 SW Barbara Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, distributed written Information to the Council. A copy of Mr. Ward's Information Is on file with the City Recorder. Mr. Ward's concerns included the ability of the developer to find ways to go around the Code requirements. He noted that he was against "densification." Mr. Ward also submitted Information about lot sizes of properties adjacent to the proposed subdivision, which average 9,130 square feet and the proposed development's lots average 6,750 square feet. Mr. Ward said that Clean Water Services did not make an on site visit and only Inspected the proposed development at the request of concerned citizens. Additional points brought out by Mr. Ward Included statements that the cul de sac design was erroneous and flawed. He referred to concerns about drainage, inadequate traffic impact studies, setbacks, planter strip, streets not meeting City standards, solid waste flawed, lot depth, and undersized lot frontage. i Mr. Ward stated that "...the Ash Creek Estates Development is asking for many significant variances which serve no benefit to the community or the development. The variances only result in the ability of the developer to increase profits. But once the developer Is done, the community is left with the aftermath." Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 9 • Jim Monroe, 7005 SW Ventura Drive, Tigard, Oregon, testified that he would like to see the area preserved as much as possible. He said that construction of large homes on small lots will ruin the character of the neighborhood. He noted his concerns about safety should trees be damaged and then fall. Removal of the trees would affect the quality of the environment. He noted concerns about the disposal of storm water to which Engineering Manger Rager explained the onsite detention and water quality requirements which would hold back water so the flow would not increase. Mr. Monroe asserted that with more houses built, the runoff would increase. (Note: Kathy Meads and Dr. William Iron were signed in on the testimony sheets brought forward from the August 12 meeting; however, they were not present at this meeting.) • Marilyn Strum, 9475 SW 7411 Avenue, Tigard, Oregon testified she had lived at this location for 41 years. She noted the development activity including Washington Square and housing, yet no parks or sidewalks had been provided. She said the traffic has increased tremendously. She said Mr. Senn had wanted this property to be developed uniquely. (Note: Bill Dwyer was signed in on the testimony sheets brought forward from the August 12 meeting; however, he was not present at this meeting.) • Kathleen Allen, 9810 SW Ventura Court, Tigard, Oregon declined to testify. She noted her agreement with testimony by Mr. Crawford. (Note: Linda Culllson was signed in on the testimony sheets, but did not testify.) • Garald Culllson, 9815 SW Ventura Court, Tigard, Oregon noted L concerns about the traffic impact and decreased quality of life. He 2 also advised that it appears the R-4 rules are being bent for n profitability. o In response to a question from Mayor Griffith, Engineering Manager U Rager advised that a 3/a street improvement was being required along ' 74`x. Richard Allegretto, 7108 SW Barbara Lane, Tigard Oregon testified In opposition to the applications for most of the reasons Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 10 stated above. He said he did not understand how the density requirements for this area could change. Councilor Wilson and Planning Manager Bewersdorff reviewed the provisions for a Planned Development, which allows flexibility to vary lots sizes if certain conditions are met for "difficult sites." The rules are not being "bent"; three specific adjustments were being requested and it must be determined if the criteria has been met. Brian Wegner had signed in to testify at the August 12 meeting; however, he was not present at this meeting. A letter of testimony dated August 12, 2003, from Mr. Wegner on Tualatin Riverkeepers stationery was submitted into the record and is on file with the City Recorder. • Patricia Leonard, 7072 SW Barbara Lane, Tigard, Oregon declined to speak. Michael Trigoboff, 7072 SW Barbara Lane, Tigard, Oregon testified and presented a written outline of his testimony, which is on file with the City Recorder. He noted issues with the developer's proposal for setbacks for wetlands and sensitive lands, and had concerns about the geotech study provided by the applicant with regard to steep slopes and the measurements. Mr. Trigoboff also noted concerns about runoff and said that the stream would be Impacted with additional water and "degraded" water. Bob Storer, 7225 SW Ventura Drive was not able to attend this meeting. He submitted a packet of information for the Council to review and It Is on file with the City Recorder. • Nancy Tracy, 7310 SW Pine Street, Portland, Oregon was not in a attendance. N • Ronald Hobbs, 7205 SW Ventura Drive, Tigard, Oregon noted concerns about sink holes and described problems he has had with runoff. He thinks this subdivision would add to the problems with a~ sink holes. He said he agreed with Mr. Ward's comments about lot sizes. • John Goodding, 7925 SW Hemlock Street, Portland, Oregon, advised he purchased this property in 1955 and at that time, one could not build near the creek or floodplain. Mr. Goodding Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 11 =~J recounted the issues he has noted over the years with flooding and how it has impacted his property. He noted his agreement with Mr. Frewing's earlier testimony regarding the flaws In the report concerning drainage. Mr. Goodding disagreed that the retention pond would stop additional flow downstream. He said that the speed and flow of the water over the years has increased significantly and that while he is located 175 feet from the creek, the water will sometimes come very close to his property. He noted his disagreement to the statements about the topography and the steep slopes. He said he was concerned about any clearcut on the applicant's property. He referenced City of Tigard information about developing in the floodplain. He disagreed with the staff report statement that the granting of the requested adjustment would not be injurious. Mr. Goodding also disagreed with the staff report's representation about erosion and ground instability. Mr. Goodding said this was not good planning, disagreed with many of the "facts" presented, and recommended that this property be made a park. Barbara Talbot's name was on the sign-in sheet carried forward from the August 12, 2003, meeting, however, she was not present at this meeting. • Don Manghelli's name was on the sign-in sheet carried forward from the August 12, 2003, meeting; however, he was not present at this meeting. • Sue Beiike, 11755 SW 114' Place, Tigard, OR 97223, testified in opposition to the proposed application. She noted the past efforts of the neighbors to purchase this property to protect this natural resource and requested another opportunity for another attempt to purchase this site and protect it for future generations. A written L copy of the highlights of Ms. Bielke's comments is on file with the r City Recorder. 3 Meeting recessed at 10:06 p.m. o Meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m. i Sandra Savage, 7301 SW Barbara Lane, Tigard, Oregon advised she built a home on her property, managed to save all the trees and also planted additional trees. A written copy of Ms. Savage's testimony is on file with the City Recorder as well as reference materials referred to throughout her testimony with regard to water detention Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 12 facilities, water gardens as storm water infrastructure In Portland, Oregon, and water sensitive planning and design. She noted support for saving trees within the development and her concerns for the plant life. She also noted Issue with Clean Water Services Issuing approval without benefit of a topographical map. • Carol Paddock, 5001 N.E. Mineral Springs, McMinnville, OR testified in opposition. A written copy of the highlights of Ms. Paddock's testimony is on file with the City Recorder. Ms. Paddock's concerns were with solar access and she submitted information on the Western Red Cedar. Ms. Paddock also submitted photos showing landslides that occurred in an area in McMinnville after a clearcut. She said she was astonished that the City of Tigard would accept erroneous work from Clean Water Services. • Mike Shkolnik, 7025 SW Ventura, Tigard, Oregon, advised of his concerns with the variances requested; specifically, for the lots sizes, which he said appears to effectively change the zoning. Planning Manager Bewersdorff and Councilor Wilson explained the Planned Development process and how criteria must be met in all areas. The approval criteria were listed in the staff report and was also stated at the beginning of the hearing. Planned Development allows for a mixture of lot sizes and Mr. Bewersdorff disagreed with Mr. Shkionik's concern that this would represent rezoning if approved. Mr. Shkolnik opposed the application noting the lot sizes proposed in the development would be detrimental to the area. The developers, he said, could build 23 homes and would not need to get a variance, and he questioned why a variance request should be considered and suggested the developers be told to present a plan for 23 homes. 9 Neutral • Jack Morrison's name was on the sign-in sheet carried forward from the August 12, 2003, meeting; however, he was not present at this i meeting. i • Jack Lyon, 7501 SW Landau, Tigard, Oregon, referred to the Mayor's opening statements and noted agreement. He said, "I applaud your patience." Rebuttal Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 13 City Manager made a note that the following new information was being distributed to the City Council. This Information is on file with the City Recorder: 1. A September 3, 2003, letter to Morgan Tracy from Steve Kay of Kurahashi and Associates. 2. A September 9, 2003, letter from Greg Kurahashi 3. From Walter Knapp (9/9/03) - Ash Creek Estates Tree Species Composition 4. A September 9, 2003, letter from Steve Wolfe of Waste Management of Oregon-Washington County. Greg Kurahashi of Kurahashi and Associates introduced himself. His firm performed the civil engineering and planning for this project. He introduced Walter Knapp, the certified arborist, who worked on the project. Tree Issue - Mr. Walter Knapp, 7615 SW Dunsmear, Beaverton, Oregon referred to a handout (No. 3 referred to above). He noted the stand of timber on the property is beautiful and also has some characteristics that have been misrepresented. Sixty percent of the species in the stand are Western Red Cedar; the remaining forty percent are comprised of other species including Douglas Fir and various hardwood species. The Society of American Foresters defines a "pure stand" as "composed principally of one species, conventionally, at least eighty percent based on numbers, basal area, or volumes." Therefore, this stand is a mixed stand, which is common for Western Red Cedar. There are patches within the stand that are pure Western Red Cedar, but there is not a pure stand. The species itself is not rare in this area. It is the only Cedar that occurs within the greater metropolitan area as a natural species. 1 2 Mr. Knapp said that at the first portion of the appeal hearing, it was n pointed out that the upper portion of the site has been logged. Mr. r Knapp referred to a map, a "Tree Preservation Plan." He described o which trees would be cut and those that would remain. Mr. Knapp u referred to the Tree Species Composition handout, which delineated ' the tree species composition by topographic position. There are a total of 22 trees that are 36 inches or larger; 15 of those will not be cut. Mr. Knapp said there are no plans to clear cut. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Knapp then repeated the presentation on the tree plan with the tree plan map repositioned so the public could view the plan. Councilor Dirksen asked about Mr. Frewing's concern that sensitive lands and vegetative setbacks were not being observed. Mr. Kurahashi noted that the first submittal was completely by the applicant on the site. After that, there was a meeting with Clean Water Services on the site to define where the setbacks were. Mr. Kurahashi explained that he first made a topographic map of the whole site, showing where all of the trees were located. He explained how the trees could affect the overall grade of the site; therefore, this might not result in a completely accurate topographical representation of the whole area. A topographic map was sent to Clean Water Services. However, the grading and slope measurements were not used off of that map. Mr. Kurahashi explained how they went to the site and performed digital measurements and were able to determine the grade. After they took the measurements in a number of representative areas, they staked the property. They made more measurements than was required by the Code. At this point, Heidi Burke of Clean Water Services, was not able to inspect the property and Ms. Burke made her decision based on what Kurahashi and Associates had given her. People in opposition to the project sent information to CWS. It was then that Collin MacLaren from CWS visited the site and looked at the stakes and reviewed how the measurements were taken. Mr. Kurahashi said he had expected a letter from CWS agreeing with the topographic/slope information shown by Kurahashi and Associates. However, no letter had yet been received. In response to a question from Councilor Dirksen, Mr. Kurahashi said the measurements matched what had initially been shown in the topographical drawings. Mr. Kurahashi then reviewed for rebuttal, comments from the public: i` Storm detention has been provided on the site. Mr. Kurahashi reviewed the capacity of the stone detention systems. • Mr. Kurahashi described the provisions for water quality for storm water runoff as well as the wastewater management system. • Mr. Kurahashi explained why a culvert was selected rather than a bridge. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 15 • Mr. Kurahashi referred to his September 9, 2003, letter to the City Council to address the community members' concerns regarding tree preservation and property owners' privacy. The applicant will Install an evergreen hedge of Leyland Cypress along the northern property line of Lots 1-10 and the eastern property line of Lots 10-12. Item No. 2 in this letter said that the applicant will not cut any healthy trees within the designated open space tract. Furthermore, the applicant shall not cut any healthy trees In the tree preservation areas of Lots 1-18, which shall be defined as the area at least 15 feet from the rear of the building footprints. However, if an arborist determines that trees in these areas are dead, diseased, or pose a safety hazard, then the applicant shall remove affected trees from those areas. i Mr. Kurashashi referred to the Issues of traffic exceeding the speed limits on Ventura Drive. He acknowledged that speeding is a problem everywhere, but it should not be used as a reason to disapprove this development. He also said that there will be more traffic on Ventura until such time 74' Avenue goes through with future development. Mr. Kurahashi referred to a comment from an opponent regarding the tree ordinance and saving trees. He referred to the tree cutting that was allowable on the site. • Mr. Kurahashi referred to a comment on density transfer. The City of Tigard is no different than all the other jurisdictions, which all allow density transfer and have a planned development process. Washington County also has a direct density transfer (wetlands, trees, floodplains, sensitive areas) where you can take the full amount of the density and transfer it. The applicant is requesting a transfer within the limits L allowed by the Code. He noted how houses can be clustered in r small areas and then the rest of the site can be left as open space. He noted he believed the applicant's proposal is a good compromise advising the applicant has not requested the o maximum density that could be allowed. • Mr. Kurahashi referred to Mr. Warren Aney's comments. He noted he had already explained density transfers. • Mr. Kurahashl referred to Robert Ward's comments regarding grades and slopes. He noted he had already discussed what the Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 16 f situation is with grades and slopes. He said there was a comment made regarding cul de sac lengths and said that they had developed a cul de sac that Is much longer than the standards because of the limitations of the areas. On one side there Is a buffered area that cannot be accessed to develop connectivity. On the other side, there are lots developed by Washington Park Estates that do not provide any access. • Mr. Kurahashi referred to testimony on solar ordinances. Roads are developed to accommodate solar access unless limited by constraints of the site. • Mr. Kurahashi advised he had already answered the questions on storm detention and water quality. • Mr. Kurahashl referred to the testimony regarding sink holes. He explained sink holes are occurring because water is getting under the ground and travels to a point where it starts to wash sediment out. Also sink holes occur when water comes from an upland source that is moving through the area and draws the material down from the surface. This happens when the area has not been filled properly. He described how they would be required to prepare and fill the land to remove the possibility of water causing slides and moving dirt. He said there has been 25-30 years of development without detention systems, which probably is why some problems were being experienced in this area. New requirements are very strict with regard to detaining water. • Mr. Kurahashi referred to a comment from an opponent regarding the fact that detention doesn't work. He noted that it is true that this is a problem in any metropolitan area because i the creeks themselves have to take water for a longer period r time at whatever storm rate occurs. He noted that he is using the CWS requirements. o • Mr. Kurahashi said he did not know whether Held! Burke of CWS visited the site and whether she actually said that this is a u "pristine" site. 7 • Mr. Kurahashl referred to comments from the opponents with regard to erosion. He said that pictures submitted were from a site that had been clear cut or where a large amount of dirt had Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 17 been moved around. Erosion control measures must meet CWS requirements. • Mr. Kurahashi commented on the orientation of the streets and said that In this case the streets cannot be laid out In a north/south direction. • Mr. Kurahashi noted there were comments that conflicted on whether or not 741 Avenue should be connected. He said the burden of the traffic load should be shared and 741' Avenue should be connected to get some of the traffic load off of Ventura Drive. • Mr. Kurahashi referred to a comment regarding the issue of grouping the houses. He said that from a planned development standpoint, the applicant has met the requirements. Mr. Dale Richards of Windwood Construction also represented the applicant. Mr. Richards said that most of the technical information had been addressed by Mr. Kurahashi. A conscious effort has been made to comply with all of the Development Codes. The owner of the property has been there since 1952 and has managed their wood lot well. It is not a native stand of forest and there is a valid logging permit in place through the end of the year with a year extension available. They have verified with the Division State Lands (DSL) that wetlands buffers comply with their codes. They must comply with the CWS buffer line that was established by CWS at DSL. An unidentified member from the audience asked if the City would be responsible for the ponds if they silted up. Mr. Kurahashi responded that the City would be responsible. He also described the water quality manholes that would capture the normal slit. He also described how maintenance could be performed to remove silt from ponds. Project Engineer Rager clarified that there is a maintenance period for water • quality detention facilities. The maintenance period is usually for one i to three years which means that the developer would be "on the hook" to maintain the facility for up to three years. This is done because the City wants to make sure the vegetation is established and living. Also, often within the first year or two after construction begins, this is when the heaviest sediment occurs. Before the City takes over the facilities, staff makes sure the vegetation is established and that any slit that has collected has been removed. As far as long-tenn maintenance, yes, Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 18 once the City takes over silt removal will be done as a regular maintenance activity by the City. e. Staff Recommendation Planning Manager Bewersdorff acknowledged the review of this application was a challenge. He referred to what the Planning Commission "went through" and the viewpoints of the property owners and developer. Mr. Bewersdorff listed the options available to the Council: 1. Approve 2. Approve with conditions 3. Deny An area of discretion which Mr. Bewersdorff said he did not think had been addressed was whether or not the trees had been maintained to the maximum extent possible. This is a judgment call and based on the applicant's proposal, they have provided as much tree maintenance as possible. In some cases, the Council could require houses architecturally designed to save as many trees as possible; however, this is not a practice in the Tigard Code nor is it required by the Tigard Code. Approval with conditions requires meeting CWS requirements, DSL requirements, Corps of Engineers requirements, and forestry requirements. Based on those conditions, it appears that the preponderance of evidence shows that the applicant meets the Code. f. Mayor Griffith closed the public hearing. g. Council consideration: • Councilor Dirksen noted that he came to the hearing tonight with a couple of concerns. After all of the discussion and testimony, he said he feels comfortable that his concerns have been answered. He said his a_ major concern was regarding CWS's setback feedback. Cel mcilor Dirksen asked the City Attorney if people object to CWS's approval, } could they appeal CWS's decision regarding the developer's setback? City Attorney Ramis said he did not know the answer to this question. m c~ If CWS rendered a decision that was a land use decision and if they did not give notice of the decision, there may be still be an opportunity to appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Councilor Dirksen said that it was his understanding of the City's Code requirements that CWS must give their approval. So, if there Is a Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 19 problem with the CWS decision, then that Issue must be taken up with them. The developer's representative responded to this Issue completely. Councilor Dirksen noted that this was a difficult site and agreed that it would be nice to have a park there. He said apparently there was no money available to purchase this property for a park. The owners of this property are allowed to develop and do with the property as they wish within the Code requirements. The Council's job is to determine whether or not they have met the Code requirements. Councilor Dirksen said that he believes the applicant has met the requirements. In fact, he said he thought the developer had done a very a good job of turning a very difficult site into something that can be very nice. The developer has done a good job of maximizing its potential while attempting to provide as much protection as possible. Councilor Dirksen said he would support the application. • Councilor Sherwood advised that there are parts of the Code that she did not like. She said she did not like the density bonus and, at the same time, people have built in this area - all the way around this property. She said that she was sure that Mrs. Senn did not like it when all of those lots went in around her and suddenly she had water pouring onto her property including having the stream pushed onto her property. Councilor Sherwood said she did not care for the lot size averaging for the development; but it is in the Code. She said that she was comfortable with the application. • Councilor Wilson commented that some may remember that about 10 or 12 years ago, there was an election concerning Metro, our regional government. Prior to that time, Metro councilors were appointed by the Governor. This election was about Home Rule. If Metro's Charter was established, we would be able to vote for our Metro L councilors rather than have them appointed in Salem - at least that k was how it was advertised. What was missing in the fine print was the fact that the election essentially transferred power for development decisions from local cities to Metro. The cities still administer permits 6 such as this one, but the cities essentially have no power to regulate as they please. Metro's rules "trumps" all. Prior to being elected to the Council, Councilor Wilson said he was on the Planning Commission for seven years. He noted that Mayor Griffith and Councilor Moore also served on the Planning Commission. Shortly after Councilor Wilson started on the Planning Commission, Metro began developing their Framework Plan for the whole region. They looked at three different Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 20 options including a fourth option, which was the "base case." The "base case" was essentially "how would we grow as a region if we dust continued as we had been for the prior 30 years, I.e., low-density suburban development. They looked at the three other options with varying degrees of density from moderately higher density all. the way up to very high density. At the time, Metro adopted something more extremely dense than even their highest-dense proposal. Councilor Wilson said he remembers being appalled at the time. When Metro was considering these different options, Metro representatives went to citizens and conducted polls. They posed questions such as: "Would you rather build on farm land or would you rather preserve it?" That was a false choice. The real choice is, "Would you rather build on farm land, or would you rather build on the last remaining greenspaces in your neighborhoods?" Councilor Wilson said Metro made this decision several years ago. Right now, we are living with those consequences. As appalling as it Is, this was a choice that we all made as a region. Because we did not all speak up against it then, we are living with it now. Over the years, during his service on the Planning Commission, he and the Mayor and Councilor Moore watched as these developments became denser and denser and denser. "We have lost our backyards, we're living in row houses, and we're piled up on top of each other." This was a conscious regional choice. Councilor Wilson said that as much as he does not like this development, it actually does meet Tigard's Code in every respect that he could see. "The rules have been established and we have to live with them now, and that's unfortunate." • Councilor Dirksen indicated his agreement with Councilor Wilson's remarks. • Councilor Moore commented on the tremendous amount of growth i that has occurred for over the last 25 years. He said that, basically, he r was satisfied that the Code requirements had been met. While it n „ probably would have been better for this property to remain as greenspaces, it didn't "pan out that way." He noted that a lot of a property has been lost to development because we cannot keep up with 9 "their pocketbooks." Based on the fact that the Code requirements have been met, he would go along In approving this application. • Mayor Griffith said that at least a good portion of this property "will still be Intact." Metro's guidelines will be compiled with and he saw no other way of "working away from it." He noted a lot of large trees Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 21 would be saved and the property owner will have the rights of his ownership. Mayor Gdfflth said he was concerned about the traffic Impact to the area. He agrees with the people who testified that there will be some traffic problems. h. Motion by Councilor Dirksen for approval of the application. Planning Manager Bewersdorff said Council may want to ask the applicant to prepare the findings for the Council review. Councilor Dirksen amended the motion to comply with City Attorney Ramis' recommendation that the vote this evening be for a tentative decision of approval requesting the applicant to submit findings that the Council would then review for a final decision. Councilor Dirksen indicated he would further amend his motion when Councilor Wilson noted the staff recommendation for Condition 11 N., "Sight Distance certification at the new Intersection with 74' Avenue. The applicant shall show proof that they have obtained the necessary easement for their proposed retaining wall." Planning Manager Bewersdorff commented that another condition would be eliminated that was prior to this condition. Councilor Sherwood seconded the motion. Mayor Griffith asked the City Recorder to call the roll to record the votes on the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes The applicant will submit findings for Council consideration at the October 28, 2003, Council meeting. 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 22 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Not held 12. ADJOURNMENT: 12:02 a.m. ity ecor er Catherine Wheat le), Attest: Craig E. Dirksen, Council President Date: 1 H- (73 I:%.dm%r.tftyt =UW3W0909.dm L C i Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - September 9, 2003 Page 23 CompCeting Our Community 7Fie OuffWountainAnnexation Plan Communication Plan • introduction - The Context for the Annexation Plan Process Walt Peck - Communications Officer, Washington County Liz Newton - Assistant to the City Manager, City of Tigard • Key Questions - Information developed in response A review of the CompCeting Our Community handouts Liz Newton, Wait Peck • Citizen Outreach - A review of the Communication Plan Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, Tigard • Citizen Outreach - The City Council's role Jim Hendryx Coffee Talks - Distribute list of Contacts. Any others? Focus on Tigard, Presentations to Community Groups • Next Steps - Communication tools to be developed Jim Hendryx, Liz Newton, Walt Peck City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Notification CITY OF TIGARD In the Mattel- of the Proposed Notification of Meeting Time OREGON STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, ~U~~ being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose angsay: That I notified the following people/organizations by fax of the meeting time of the City Council meeting on with a copy of the Notice of City Council Meeting Time being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of _~EP71-- Ltd. 20 DO . Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) ffrLee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) LT Paige Parker, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) -C~~ ( y U, - kD - U09 cdup-~-- - - - - Signature of Person who Performk Notification Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of s5~~~ > ZO_a.~ . ti Signature of Notary Public for Oregon wrAw KSUC OFdWN COMIA16" "a 3V" wtv"exams OCT. 10 2M I:%ADMIGREER\FORMSVAFFIDAVITSIAFFIOAVIT OF NOTIFICATION - MTG TIME.DOC 09/08/2003 10:45 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard Q001 *a# MULTI TX/RX REPORT TX/RX NO 2042 PGS. 6 TX/RX INCOMPLETE TRANSACTION OK 1 0615035480724 IT Newsroom f 0915039686061 Oregonian 1 1115039687397 Regal Courier ERROR INFORMATION CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME Please forward to: Q/Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) 2"Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) 10alge Parker, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. S03.968-6061) SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 - 5:30 p.m. Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council Is meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 9, 2003. (The Council's customary meeting time Is 6:30 p.m.) The meeting will be held in City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. L C M agenda for the September 9, 2003 meeting is attached. • For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. i &4u.4 f \ r Le W City Recorder Post: City Hall Lobby Date of Notice: September 8, 2003 nA0KCATWCCA1CC MTG NOTICES NOTICE MTG TIME 9-9-03.000 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME Please forward to: "Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) LYLee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) [;VPaige Parker, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 - 5:30 p.m. Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council Is meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 9, 2003. (The Council's customary meeting time is 6:30 p.m.) The meeting will be held In City Hall, 13125 SW Hail Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. An agenda for the September 9, 2003 meeting is attached. For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. City Recorder Post: City Hall Lobby Z Date of Notice: September 8, 2003 » I:WDMICATHYICCAICC Ml'G NOTICESIN071CE MTG TIME 9-9-03.DOC 1 0 U J e~w■ers~l,. ~7GAD ~ ~ ~ NGCC_ r Mkt OREGON TIGARD SOT, E`C!I9E g, 03 ; ` O p 1m CITY hIG 1 LVaD 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 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and r • 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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 5:30 PM • STUDY SESSION 5:30 - 7 PM > Bull Mountain Communication Plan Discussion • Administration Staff • EXECUTIVE SESSION: EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss current and pending litigation under ORS 192.660(1) (h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM i . BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications ax Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PROCLAMATIONS 2.1 Proclaim the Week of September 29, 2003, as Race Equality Week 2.2 Proclaim October as Disability Employment Awareness Month Mayor Griffith . i 6 i 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy Angela Jensen • Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce President Dan Murphy COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 2 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes for ]uly 29 and August 5, 2003 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Tigard-Tualatin School District to Allow a Three Million Gallon Water Reservoir to be Constructed on School District Property and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the Agreement 4.4 Approve Budget Amendment No. 2 to the FY 2003-04 Budget to Transfer Funds from the General Fund Contingency to Pay Tigard's Share of the COPS More Crime Analysis Project - Resolution No. 03- Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion wi/I be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 5. UPDATE ON THE LIBRARY SUMMER READING ACTIVITIES • Staff Report: Library Staff 6. UPDATE ON THE NEW TIGARD LIBRARY • Staff Report: Library Staff 7. CONSIDER DIRECTING CITY OF TIGARD STAFF TO PREPARE AN ANNEXATION PLAN FOR THE BULL MOUNTAIN AREA FOR THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION N a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion J c. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 03- °m t7 W J COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 3 8. CONTINUATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION (SUB2003- 00010/PDR2003-0004/ZON2003-00003/S LR2003-00005/VAR2003- 00036/VAR2003-00037) ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 7", 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application to Subdivide 9.36 acres for a 29-lot single- family detached housing Planned Development Subdivision; Sensitive Lands Review for areas with steep ( > 25%) slopes, a drainage way and wetlands and; adjustments to the cul-de-sac length standard, maximum number of units permitted on a cul-de-sac, and to the street grade on SW 741 Avenue. The Planning Commission moved to deny the applications which failed in a 4-4 tie vote, then moved to approve the applications, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meets the relevant criteria of the Development Code. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74`' Avenue; WCTM 1 S 125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. a. Continue Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Staff d. Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation C f. Council Discussion g. Close Public Hearing i h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 03. i 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 4 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 12. ADJOURNMENT I:%DMCATHY%CCX2003k030909P. D0C F" J COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 5 City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD In the Matter of the Proposed Notice of Meeting Time OREGON STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, a copy of Notice of Meeting Time for the City Council meeting of oAl 9, with a copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of 20-J__. Si ature of Person who Perform Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this 45"V day of Signature of Notary Public for Oregon i i I OFFICIAL SEAL I GREER A OASTON I ' NOTARY COMMISSION NO.321609 AAY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 10, 2000 I:WDM\GREER\FORMS\AFFIDAVITSWFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - MTG TIME.000 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME Please forward to: [Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) (Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) EP/Paige Parker, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 - 5:30 p.m. Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council is meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 9, 2003. (The Council's customary meeting time is 6:30 p.m.) The meeting will be held in City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. An agenda for the September 9, 2003 meeting is attached. For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503-639-4171 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. 00'-'C~' , l~lJ City Recorder Post: City Hall Lobby Date of Notice: September 8, 2003 r I:%DM1GATH=CA\CC MTG NOTICES\NOTICE MTG TIME 9.9.03.00C J a i SEPTEMBER 9 2003 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY C]PUBLIC MEETING TIGARD C!TY 13125 SW HALTIGARD, OR 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 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: 0 Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. t 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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). I SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 5:30 PM • STUDY SESSION 5:30 - 7 PM > Bull Mountain Communication Plan Discussion • Administration Staff • EXECUTIVE SESSION: EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss current and pending litigation under ORS 192.660(1)(h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8I Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PROCLAMATIONS L 2.1 Proclaim the Week of September 29, 2003, as Race Equality Week C 2.2 Proclaim October as Disability Employment Awareness Month • Mayor Griffith =1 i 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) t • Tigard High School Student Envoy Angela Jensen • Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce President Dan Murphy COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 2 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes for July 29 and August 5, 2003 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Tigard-Tualatin School District to Allow a Three Million Gallon Water Reservoir to be Constructed on School District Property and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the Agreement 4.4 Approve Budget Amendment No. 2 to the FY 2003-04 Budget to Transfer Funds from the General Fund Contingency to Pay Tigard's Share of the COPS More Crime Analysis Project - Resolution No. 03- Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion wi/I be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 5. UPDATE ON THE LIBRARY SUMMER READING ACTIVITIES • Staff Report: Library Staff 6. UPDATE ON THE NEW TIGARD LIBRARY • Staff Report: Library Staff 7. CONSIDER DIRECTING CITY OF TIGARD STAFF TO PREPARE AN ANNEXATION PLAN FOR THE BULL MOUNTAIN AREA FOR THE CITY L COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION 2 a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion c. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 03- COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 3 8. CONTINUATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION (SUB2003- 00010/PD R2003-0004/ZON2003-00003/S LR2003-00005/VAR2003- 00036/VAR2003-0003 7) ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 71, 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application to Subdivide 9.36 acres for a 29-lot single- family detached housing Planned Development Subdivision; Sensitive Lands Review for areas with steep ( > 25%) slopes, a drainage way and wetlands and; adjustments to the cul-de-sac length standard, maximum number of units permitted on a cul-de-sac, and to the street grade on SW 74`' Avenue. The Planning Commission moved to deny the applications which failed In a 4-4 tie vote, then moved to approve the applications, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meets the relevant criteria of the Development Code. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74' Avenue; WCTM 1 S 125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. a. Continue Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Staff d. Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 03- i I 1 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 4 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go Into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 12. ADJOURNMENT 1:1ADMICATHYICCA120031030909P. DCC' 1 I I I I COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 page 5 AGENDA TiGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING 5:30 p.m. - Study Session - Red Rock Creek Conference Room 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon The Study Session is held In the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. Enter at the back of Town Hall. The Council encourages interested citkens to attend all or part of the meeting. If the number of attendees exceeds the capacity of the Conference Room, the Council may move the Study Session to the Town Hall. • STUDY SESSION 5:30 - 7 PM o Bull Mountain Communication Plan Discussion Administration Staff 7PM • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss current and pending litigation under ORS 192.660(1) (h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. • ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS o Bull Mountain Annexation Plan - Agenda Item No. 7 - No public testimony anticipated; however, people may sign in on the Visitor's Agenda to speak on this topic. o Ash Creek Estates - Hearing Continued - Agenda Item No. 8 - Attached is a packet received today from Mr. Bob Storer as written public testimony; Mr. Storer signed up to speak at the last public hearing. He is unable to attend tonight's meeting and would like the written testimony to be entered into the record. o "White house" discussion o Tour of Library Site - Saturday, September 20, 9 a.m. o League of Oregon Cities 2003 Legislative Briefing - Nearest one will be held at Beaverton Council Chambers on Thursday, October 16, 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. o Tigard Blast Parade - September 13, 2003 - if riding in the parade, meet at St. Anthony's School parking lot at 9:30 a.m. Parade starts at 10 a.m. Dave Owen of Tigard Central Business District Association plans to appear as a visitor during the business meeting tonight. o Balloon Festival Meeting - Wednesday, September 10, 10:30 a.m. - Chamber of Commerce - Pearson Room o Update on Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge o City Attorney Review - Scheduled for the October 14, 2003, Study Session - Information needed from attorney's office or from City staff? i A Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet In executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660(l) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660(l) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660(l) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital.. 192.660(l) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660(l) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660(l) (0- Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically identified In the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660(l) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660(l) (h) - Legal counsel - Executive session are appropriate for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660(l) (1) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (1) Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public Investments. 192.660 (1) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. I:\ADAA\CATHY\COUNCIL\CCLIST\030624.DOC C 7 f i i Draft COMPLETING OUR COMMUNITY For over 20 years, Washington County and its partner cities have recognized that neighborhood services are best provided by cities and special service districts. The reason for this approach is simple: when services are developed and delivered locally they tend to be more responsive to community needs. Together, the County and the City of Tigard have taken a number of actions to move in this direction. The first area of focus has been neighborhood service delivery to the Bull Mountain community. ➢ In 1983, the County and City signed an agreement confirming that Bull Mountain would be annexed to Tigard within 20 years. ➢ In 1984, the County adopted the Bull Mountain Community Plan acknowledging that neighborhood services would ultimately be provided by the City of Tigard or, in the case of parks, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. ➢ In 1997, Tigard Beyond Tomorrow, a 20-year vision was adopted. One of the goals of the Citizens Task Force was that "Urban Services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary and recipients of services pay their share." ➢ In 1997, the County contracted with the City to provide planning and building services to Bull Mountain. ➢ In 2003, the Tigard Urban Service Agreement was signed by the City, County, and special service districts that recognize Tigard as the appropriate provider of services residing within its boundaries and to adjacent unincorporated areas. ➢ Beginning July 1, 2004, the County will contract with the City to provide storm and sanitary sewer services for residents of Bull Mountain. Q: How are Bull Mountain residents involved in City of Tigard affairs? The City's comprehensive plan adopted in 1983 recognizes that all of Bull Mountain would ultimately receive services from the City of Tigard. Since then, residents of Bull Mountain have participated as members of the Tigard community: ■ As Neighborhood Planning Organization members As Citizen Involvement Team (CIT) facilitators As Community Connectors - neighborhood liaisons to the City On the Planning Commission ■ In the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow vision process as survey respondents, Task Force 'o members, and Action Committee members u ■ Serving on City Task Forces (Transportation Funding Strategies Task Force, Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force) ■ Enjoying existing City services and infrastructure. Draft Q: What's the status of neighborhood service delivery to Bull Mountain? Bull Mountain residents pay to receive neighborhood services on an interim basis through County service districts and through contract services provided by the City of Tigard: ■ Streetlights through street lighting special districts ■ Road maintenance through the Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) ■ Sheriff's patrol through the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District (ESPD) ■ Building and Planning services from the City of Tigard under contract with the County These services, as well as parks, code enforcement and traffic calming programs, would be provided by the City of Tigard and funded by City taxes as areas on Bull Mountain annex into the City. Once annexed, Bull Mountain residents would no longer pay ESPD, URMD, and street lighting district taxes to the County. Q: After being planned for twenty years, why is annexation of Bull Mountain being discussed now? • Park Opportunities - The City of Tigard would like to take advantage of the remaining opportunities to locate and develop parks and open spaces on Bull Mountain while land and financial tools are still available. The County has agreed to begin charging a park fee on new development (Systems Development Charge) for parks immediately after the City Council sets a date for an election on the Bull Mountain annexation plan. The funds would be collected by the City on new development and could only be used to purchase land for parks or open space once the area is annexed. • Other Services - The City would like to begin providing neighborhood services to at least a portion of the residents of Bull Mountain on July 1, 2004. The City would provide police services to the Bull Mountain community as they are annexed but must hire additional staff to maintain current officer to citizen ratios throughout the City of Tigard. In addition, the City would provide code enforcement services, road maintenance and streetlights to residents of Bull Mountain as areas are annexed. These services will be funded through property taxes as they are for all Tigard citizens. • Equity - Residents of unincorporated Bull Mountain enjoy many of the benefits of being in the Tigard community, such as parks and the City library without paying City property L taxes. For example, all county property owners pay for library services through the r Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) levy. The City of Tigard n receives only 53% of funding for library operations from WCCLS. The remaining 47% comes from the City's taxpayers. 3 o • Future Neighborhood Planning - Once an annexation plan is adopted, the City of i Tigard will involve the citizens of Bull Mountain together with the whole community to update the community plan to shape the future of Bull Mountain. The plan will address growth management, future infrastructure improvements and will include the new urban growth boundary expansion areas on the west side of Bull Mountain. How these areas develop will have an impact on the whole Tigard community, especially on the residents of Bull Mountain. Draft Q: What is the schedule? An annexation plan will be completed by mid-October for City Council review. Once the annexation plan draft is accepted by City Council, the public will have an opportunity to review and comment on the plan. Tigard City Councilors and City staff will welcome opportunities to discuss the proposal with Bull Mountain residents and existing City residents. A public hearing on the annexation plan is scheduled for December 2. If the plan is approved by the City Council, the residents of Bull Mountain and the residents of Tigard will have an opportunity to vote on the plan in 2004. Q: What is the annexation plan? The annexation plan is a comprehensive approach to annexation identifying: ■ The timing and sequence of annexing the area. The annexation plan will propose that the annexation of Bull Mountain be phased over a few years. ■ The schedule for providing (urban) neighborhood services; what services will be provided and when. ■ The effects annexation would have on existing service providers. ■ The long term benefits of annexation to Bull Mountain residents, existing City residents, and the service providers (City, County, and special districts) Q: Who is eligible to vote on the annexation plan? Registered voters on Bull Mountain and in the City of Tigard are eligible to vote since the whole community would be affected. Q: How would the annexation of Bull Mountain affect my neighborhood services? Residents of Bull Mountain would receive enhanced neighborhood services including increased law enforcement, park services, additional road maintenance services, and code enforcement. They would also gain a voice in local policy decisions through 5 elected officials, more opportunities to serve on city advisory committees, and as equal participants in the City's planning process for the expanded urban growth areas. Inclusion of the Bull Mountain area would mean that existing Tigard residents would receive L better coordinated infrastructure planning and improvements, including parks, sewers and r roads, as well as consistent standards for development and code enforcement. 0 Q: How would the annexation of Bull Mountain affect my pocketbook? i For enhanced neighborhood services, residents of Bull Mountain would pay a net increase of $1.6259 per $1,000 of assessed property value (after the rate for ESPD and URMD has been subtracted) minus their individual annual street lighting district assessment (averaging $35 - $40 per year). Example - home with an assessed value of $300,000: $300 x $1.6259 - $35.00 = $487.77 per year or about $40.65 per month. Existing residents of Tigard would share the cost of providing the current level of City services with Bull Mountain residents. J Bull Mountain Coffee Talks Schedule: From October - 22 weeks until election; minus Holiday weeks (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year) = 19 available weeks Council Commitment: How many coffee talks per week could Council attend e.g., 1, 2, vary the number (more some weeks, less others)? Will all coffees be held at night or will there be morning and afternoon coffee talks? Host Commitment: The host will hold a coffee talk in their home and invite friends and neighbors to attend. Will they provide the coffee? City Commitment: 1-2 staff members will attend each coffee talk. Will the City provide cookies? Who will call the potential contacts? Potential Contacts Steve Lowder/Susan Stark Haydon Involved parents Folks active in school activities, i.e., boosters, foundations, etc. Susan Morelli - Tigard-Tualatin School Dist. Foundation Sydney Sherwood Name of NW Medical Team contact Kevin Hogan Bill Uhle, Linda Patterson George Morgan Pizza Caboose owners - Lori Dolbeer 1 Bev Froude Charlie and Larie Stalzer Water District contacts Norm Penn, who else is there (Ed) ? Hartvicksen (Mountain Gate) People who have testified at Bull Mountain meeting John ? - representing 75 members of HO Association Brian McVicker, 503.590.0702 - firefighter from Lake Oswego who supports parks. Suggest purchase of a site. City staff, County staff Mountain Gate neighborhood - Mike Mills met during the recent neighborhood meeting. John Haunsperser - TWD Trevor and Monet Hammond John Nagy Emily Bohart Juli and Tenny Page Jo Schopp - suggestions of parents of Deer Creek 2 Planning Commission Mark Padgett Judith Anderson Jodie Bienerth Gretchen Buehner (suggestions) Bill Haack Glenn Mores Judy Munro Scot Sutton Eileen Webb Downtown Task Force Jerry Hanford - president of GrayHawk Owners Assoc., 503.590.8925; 0erry hanford0symantec.com Michael Freudenthal - Park & Rec Advisory Board; 16129 SW Palermo Lane, Tigard, 97223; 503.590.4005; mfreud (a)-pacificfoods.com Michelle Sayder, 14735 SW Peachtree Dr., Tigard 97224; 503.521.1881 (day) 503.521.1662 (msg); mlink(cDhevanet.com Heidi Lamar- on Board of Mountain Gate Subdivision; 503.579.2513; heidilamara-remax.net Paul Gwen, president Summerfield Homeowners Assoc. Library Board members? Former Council members? 3 4 Communications Plan for Bull Mountain Annexation Goal: To ensure all stakeholders are informed about the issues and process involved in an annexation of the unincorporated Bull Mountain area. Comply with required notification requirements for annexation public hearings. Stakeholders: Tigard residents Bull Mountain residents Tigard staff (all departments) Tigard Council and Planning Commission Washington County Staff County Commissioners i Communication Plan Key Themes: 1. For over 20 years, the City of Tigard and Washington County have recognized that unincorporated Bull Mountain and its citizens would be best served by the City of Tigard because when services are developed and delivered locally, they tend to be more responsive to community needs. 2. Residents in the Bull Mountain area have historically received many of the benefits of being part of the Tigard Community, such as participating in the visioning process, accessing Tigard library and parks, participating in task forces and in development code and comprehensive plan development. 3. Studies have demonstrated that in order to best serve the unincorporated Bull Mountain area, an annexation, sooner rather than later, is necessary. For example, the ability to provide for parks diminishes over time as land is developed, land costs increase, and funding mechanisms for new parks (SDC's) are reduced. 4. Tigard residents should have a say in whether this area is brought into the City of Tigard because they are part of the community and should have input L on how the community grows. r 5. An annexation plan is the most effective and efficient way to determine the issue of annexation of the Bull Mountain area because it is a comprehensive method of annexation that allows both the residents in the area to be annexed and the residents of the local jurisdiction to determine the issue. It will establish a timing and sequence for annexation, identify how and when ~ services will be delivered, identify the effects on existing service providers and the long term benefits for all stakeholders. 6. Knowledge and involvement of staff from all departments, the City Council, Washington County staff, and County Commissioners are important to make sure accurate information is conveyed to the Tigard and Bull Mountain citizens. 1 Key communication milestones and outreach strategies: September 9th - Council considers resolution to initiate annexation plan. Outreach strategies used prior to milestone: Development of communication outreach plan. Development of key information pieces. October 7th - Annexation plan presented at joint Council and County Board meeting. Outreach strategies used prior to milestone: Coffee talks with Bull Mountain and Tigard residents, Q&A Hotline, Cityscape article, Community Connectors, press releases, web site, informational brochure, displays, traveling display/information, Focus on Tigard presentation. December 2nd - Public hearing on whether to place annexation plan on the ballot. Outreach strategies used prior to milestone: Coffee talks with Bull Mountain residents and other stakeholders, Q&A Hotline, Cityscape article, Community Connectors, cable presentation (Focus on Tigard), press releases, web site, displays, public hearing notice as required by law, traveling display/information to service clubs, community groups and civic groups. December 9th - Council considers Ordinance to place annexation plan on the ballot. Outreach strategies used prior to milestone: Coffee talks with Bull Mountain residents and other stakeholders, Q&A Hotline, Cityscape article, Community Connectors, cable presentation (Focus on Tigard), press releases, web site, displays, public hearing notice as required by law, traveling display/information to service clubs, community groups and civic groups. L March 9th 2004- Election on annexation plan. Outreach strategies used prior to milestone: 'p Coffee Talks with other stakeholders, Q&A Hotline, Cityscape article, Community Connectors, Cable presentation, press releases, web site, J informational brochure, flyers, displays, traveling display/information to service clubs, community groups and civic groups. Outreach strategies used after milestone: Press release, web site, if annexation plan passes - welcome packets and/or informational letters mailed to all Bull Mountain residents. 2 Outreach Strategy Details: Coffee Talks Council will hold talks with small groups of interested individuals (Bull Mountain residents, Tigard residents and other stakeholders) at locations throughout the City to answer questions and convey accurate information about the issues surrounding a possible annexation. Timeframe: Initiation of annexation plan development to election (March 2004) Staff involvement: City staff will attend the Coffee Talks to support Council, however Council members will facilitate the discussions. Staff will schedule the Coffee Talks. Q&A Hotline A "hotline" will be set up for people to call with questions related to the annexation plan. Timeframe: Initiation of annexation plan development to election (March 2004) Staff involvement: City staff will develop and maintain the hotline. Web site A page dedicated to accurate and timely information will be developed and maintained. Will include important meeting dates and dates of additional public outreach elements. Also included on the website will be a link to an e-mail for questions. Timeframe: Initiation of annexation plan development to election (March 2004) Staff involvement: City staff will develop and maintain the web site. L Print media r The following resources will be used to convey information on a larger scale: 0 Cityscape - regular updates Press releases - bi-monthly updates Community Connectors - monthly updates Brochures - after annexation plan is initiated (September) and after Council decides whether to place it on the ballot (December) explaining facts and details. Cable TVTV Focus on Tigard segments will be taped to provide information and process updates at key intervals. It is anticipated that a segment will be provided in October to discuss the general concepts and the public outreach plans, in November once the annexation plan is released and in January prior to a March election (after Council hearing to place 3 annexation plan on the ballot). In addition, update notices of key meetings will be provided at every Focus on Tigard taping. Timeframe: Focus on Tigard segments anticipated for early October, November and mid- January. Also brief monthly updates provided at every Focus on Tigard taping. Staff Involvement: City staff will be responsible for coordinating (producing) Focus on Tigard segments. Council will be involved in presenting the information. Lobby displays Informational display in the lobby will be provided that has key facts, messages, maps, etc. Timeframe: From initiation of annexation plan through election Staff involvement: City staff will develop the display and ensure that updates (if needed) are provided. Traveling display/information A team of people (most likely the City Manager, CD Director and Planning Manager) will present information at civic organizations such as the Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, etc., and department meetings to update people on the process, the issues and the facts. It will also include a portable display with key facts, maps, etc. Timeframe: Periodically from initiation though election Staff involvement: City staff will prepare basic information and members of the team will take turns presenting the information. L Welcome packets and/or informational letters Direct mailings to all Bull Mountain residents after election informing them of when their effective date will be and what services they can expect, important phone numbers and contacts. If sequenced annexation is part of the annexation plan, additional welcome packets will be mailed when each area's annexation becomes effective. >o U Timeframe: Within 1 month of election, after votes are certified. If sequenced annexation is part of the plan, mailings will also be sent before each area is officially in the City. Staff involvement: City staff will prepare packets and informational letters. Welcome packet letters will come from the Mayor. 4 (2 Er A PCW4 How many public parks are on Bull Mountain? There is one piece of property (Cache Creek) that is intended as a nature park because the purchase was funded entirely with Metro Greenspaces dollars. Does the City of Tigard's Parks Master Plan address Bull Mountain? Tigard's Park Master Plan identifies the need and general location for 4 parks in the Bull Mountain area. Why doesn't the City of Tigard collect Systems Development Charges (SDC's) on new development on Bull Mountain for parks? By law, the City can only collect SDC's on new development within the city limits. Can Bull Mountain residents reserve City of Tigard park facilities? Yes, but they will be charged a non-resident fee. How many parks are available for active recreation in the City of Tigard? There are 11 parks available for recreation throughout the city from small neighborhood parks to large regional parks. How many acres of public open space are there in the City of Tigard? There are more than 300 acres of parks, greenways and natural areas in > Tigard. i What is the City of Tigard's park standard? Tigard's park standard is approximately 8 acres per 1000 residents. What is Washington County's park standard? The County does not provide local parks or have a parks standard. +n Agenda Item No. . / u t Meeting of q' 9.03 PROCLAMATION Disability Employment Awareness Month per: ' ~1t~Nht~l2 WHEREAS, the United States of America has prized itself on advancing the civil rights of individuals and guaranteeing liberty and justice for all. Central to the philosophy of our democratic form of government are the precepts of equality and individual dignity, the value s of self-reliance and the basic right of all citizens to live full, independent and productive lives; and WHEREAS, in keeping with that tradition, the United States Congress in 1990 enacted the b:c• °z Americans with Disabilities Act. This landmark legislation prohibits discrimination against ; . people with disabilities in employment, public accommodations, transportation and telecommunications; and WHEREAS, by joint resolution, Congress has designated October of each year as " National Disability Employment Awareness Month and ~ WHEREAS, the City of Tigard supports this resolution and the spirit as well as the letter of the law to assure that all citizens with disabilities are fully included in our social, cultural and Y ' .g economic mainstream; and WHEREAS people with disabilities represent a large untapped pool of talent. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, James E. Griffith, Mayor of Tigard, do hereby proclaim October as Disability Employment Awareness Month in Tigard, Oregon and urge its observance by all of our citizens. Dated this day of , 2003 L IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of.y. Tigard to be affixed. J liijltr`` James E. Griffith, Mayor D tt ? s City of Tigard '~,ii►tijrk„rx Attest: s~ City Recorder L: 8 5~ T h . ~ Yr¢af t . tyi~ _ i 9~ yy gld~ ~hnArvtllttetifftrt!}:Itat~l~ Hffflttllt~_ 2 Agenda Item No. 22- Agenda Meeting of 9- c7 -03 j+n ~.Kn 1V'~•~ f1Y' PROCLAMATION Race Equa[k y Week s 0' WHEREAS, the National League of Cities is committed to promoting racial equality and justice as 1i11i1C I a fundamental aspect of a healthy community; and 9 WHEREAS, the National League of Cities has urged local officials across the country to join together in a national campaign to promote racial equality and justice; and a r; WHEREAS, by resolution of the National League of Cities, we declare racism unjust and advocate 4d4litt equal rights for all; and WHEREAS, by Act of Congress of the United States dated July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act of s 1964 was adopted banning discrimination because of an individual's color, race, national origin, religion, or sex; andh ` ~~jllllh~;~s:, WHEREAS, by Act of Congress of the United States dated July 9, 1868, the 14" Amendment of the Constitution of the United States giving all persons born or naturalized in the United States ,liiiitn,: f.. the right to due process and equal protection under the law; and 6 M. ` NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, James E. Griffith, Mayor of Tigard, on behalf ; ! { of the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim: att the week of September 29, 2003 as 1(i 4 ~J =l; Race Equality Week ' in the City of Tigard, Oregon and urge all citizens to join together to support this effort and ; ..It ,~NIII reaffirm our commitment to ensuring racial equality and justice in our city. ;;..~Illt,;?L, Dated this day of 2003. s p~lt~i • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of ; i....... , Q~1 Tigard to be affixed. James E. Griffith, Mayor`--• t 1 City of Tigard ! `~'4= >=itlllt Attest: 1; INA { i-•,. Z . W r' W City Recorder aj G^rgM' [qiP ~t 1 1%,-. ''`'.~I111f c ° ^s to iii d 'N! *I lflt fit= z 1lntd,. 'ri . ~Ihr i, r ffNr. i 'e« r{ ' Tigard - Tualatin School District 23J Tigard High School 9000 SW Durham Road Tigard, Oregon 97224 503.431.5400 - fax 503.431.5410 www,ttsd.kl2.or.uVframe_ths.html Tigard High School Executive Student Council Report School's started! First Day: Thursday, September 4 Freshman Orientation Football: Tigard vs. Lakeridge 45-0!! Back to School Night Wednesday, September 24`h, at 7:00pm English Language Learners ELL) BBQ Friday, September 26 , from 4-7:00pm Homecoming Week: Sept. 29-Oct. 4 Sept. 30: Powder Puff Game/Bonfire Oct. 3: Homecoming Parade Homecoming Football Oct. 4: Homecoming Dance THS Associated Student Body President )/Nq- Angela Jensen thsasbprez@yahoo.com AGENDA ITEM NO.3 • VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED o vJ 2✓t 603-0160 s-rU6Fxr ar m , 1J E?A T~ ~ ~Stoso Sw X33 2D ASE or 30 ~SG~2D, 02 6t71ay grhs.5SY1 wtoL)n~/~ " i ii i VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. .3 • VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE ; SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED 9 i i VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 2 M AGENDA ITEM NO. j - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED L it _J n u VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 3 ~ws ~,Y, dom. -9/<i03 Sponsored by; Cruisin'the Tigard Blast Rod Runners West ® September 13, 2003 Tigard Central Business 7.30 AM `til 6:00 PM District Association Historic Downtown Tigard, Oregon • Club Participation Award l- • Pancake Feed • Parade ~~1~ • Cash Poker Run \l • Prize Poker Walk i • Drawings • Music • Fun Events tS`• r K-14 PRE-REGISTRATION ENTRY FORM Cruisin' the Tigard Blast 2003 Registration fee $15 per vehicle. T-shirts and Canvas Bags $10 each. Name Number Address Vehicles X $15.00 City/State/Zip T-shirts Phone_() E-Mail Medium @ $10.00ea Vehicle Year / Make / Model Large @ $10.00 ea Club Affiliation XL @ $10.00 ea XXL @ $10.00 ea 1 Signature Date XXXL @ $10.00 ea r Print Name Canvas Bag $10.00 ea 0 TOTAL $ 9 Mail to: ROD RUNNERS WEST P.O.Box 23992 Tigard, Oregon 97281 o For more information, call (503) 590-3425 or (503) 503-318-5892 No for Sale Signs or Trailers Please An acknowledgement with detail information will be sent to registrants in consideration of the acceptance of the right to participate, participants and spectators, by attending, release and discharge Rod Runners West, Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA), the City of Tigard, and their Officers, Directors, employees, agents, representatives and servants, and anyone else connected with the management or presentation of Cruisin' the Tigard Blast, from claims from any and all known or unknown damages, injuries, losses, judgements, and/or claims, from any cause whatsoever that may be suffered by any participant to his or her person or property. Further, each participant expressly agrees to indemnify all the forgoing entities, firms, persons and bodies, of and from any and all liability occasioned or resulting from the conduct of participants taking part in the event. AGENDA ITEM # CL, FOR AGENDA OF: September 9, 2003 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greer Gaston DATE: September 2, 2003 SUBJECT: Three-Month Council Calendar Regularly scheduled Council Meetings are marked with an asterisk September 1 Mon Labor Day Holiday - City Offices Closed 9 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session 16 * Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6 p.m. 23 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session October 7 Tues Special Council Meeting with County Commissioners - 6- 8 P.M. 14 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session 20 Mon Special Council Meeting with Tualatin City Council and Tigard-Tualatin School District - 6:30 p.m. 21 * Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 28 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session November 4 Tues Special Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session 11* Tues Veteran's Day- City Offices Closed Council Meeting Cancelled 18 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session 25 * Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 27 Thurs Thanksgiving Holiday - City Offices Closed 28 Fri Thanksgiving Holiday - City Offices Closed 11TIG3331USR1DEPTSIADKGREERICITY COUNCILI3 MONTH CALENDAR.DOC M N - E - - Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 9116103 - Workshop - 6 p.m. 9123103 - Business TV -Greeter 1017103 - Joint Meeting with County Due: 912103 @ 5 p.m. Due: 919/03 @ 5 p.m. Board of Commissioners (No TV) Workshop Topics Study Session 6-8 p.m. Update on W CL Formula and Proposed (No TV) ~ p.m: Police ep Holding ac: i :es our WCCLS Library Operational Levy - Margaret - Review Draft of the Bull Mountain Annexation ` V insurance Procurement Update - Loreen - 20 min Coordination Agreement with Wash. Co. - Amendments to Neighborhood ewer e:m urse- - iu min men District Program- - us - min Consent Agenda c Indonesian Delegation - PP I - Liz - blue Deadline for bid openings: 918103 Z Sheet u get, w ding Appeals, Tree, Park ec w Preview Bull Mountain Draft Annexation Plan - Appointments - - usan o 20 min - Jim H - no materials Coordination Agreement with Wash. Co. - oA Barbara Approve Budget Amendment 3 - Bonita Park - Q Michelle Approve Budget Amendment 4 - Bike Safety - raig Approve Budget Amendment 5 - Econ. Dev - - om Approve Budget Amendment 6 - Afford. Housing RES - Tom Approve Budget Amendment 7 - Sewer Reimbursement District Projects - RES - Tom Business Me-elling Proc - World Population Awareness Week Sen Burdick, Rep Williams - 1 hour - Cathy Review of Urban Planning Area Agreement - Barbara/Beth - 10 min 9/2/2003 Page 1 dlfl l iC f. ~ 1"9~a~e»~ LEGIBILITY STR{P Tigard city council Tentative Agenda 10121103 -Workshop 1011d/03 -Business TV -Greeter 10/20103 -Joint Meeting with City of Due: 101703 @ 5 p Tualatin Council & TTSD School Board Workshop Topics Due: 9130103 @ 5 p.m .m. . Study Session 6:30 p.m. - No TV Water Auditorium 1. Long-Term Water Supply Options - Jt Meeting ity Attorney Attends Meeting is ate set at ommurnca son an - ity riomey eAew ) - 3126/02 Council meeting - usually is a standing MOU - Tri-Met Transit Investment Plan -Duane - min 15 onsent gen a Deadline for bid openings: 9129/03 Downtown Revitalization Strategy - - Joint Meeting with Downtown Task Force Barbara/Beth - 30 min Preview of Street Maintenance Fee Ordinance and Resolution - Gus - 20 min usmess eetang VA -Student Envoy/Chamber New Library Update - PPT- Margaret - 10 min o an ooper nnexa ion - - Morgan - 20 min Amendments to the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program - us - in Page 2 9/2/2003 AGENDA ITEM # 4 3 _ FOR AGENDA OF September 9, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Intergovernmental Agreement With Tigard Tualatin School District: 550-Foot Zone Reservoir No. 2 PREPARED BY:_ Brian Rager DEPT HEAD OK '""CITY MGR OK L1/f~►'►`- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council authorize the City Manager to execute an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Tigard Tualatin School District that will allow a new 3 MG reservoir to be constructed on School District property? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council authorize the City Manger to execute the attached IGA. INFORMATION SUMMARY The School District owns land at 13040 SW Bull Mountain Road that will house the new Alberta Rider Elementary School. The City has been involved in discussions with the District regarding the potential of locating a new reservoir on the site that is critical to the City's 550-foot pressure zone. The City and the District believe that the reservoir and the school can coexist on the site and have reached agreement on a variety of issues contained in the attached IGA. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED There is vacant land to the east of the District property that is currently for sale. However, the expense of purchasing the entire site would be greater than the expense of purchasing an easement right on the District site. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth & Growth Management, Goal #1: Accommodate growth white protecting the character and livability of i new and established areas. Action plan: Evaluate infrastructure needs to accommodate infill, redevelopment and increased densities. ATTACHMENT LIST i i Proposed Intergovernmental Agreement FISCAL NOTES Under this alternative, the City agrees to compensate the District up to $200,000.00 as credit against development and construction permit fees. These funds are available as a part of the reservoir project funding, currently approved in the FY 2003/2004 budget. DRAFT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT This intergovernmental agreement effective as of July 2003, is between Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J, an Oregon school district organized under ORS Chapter 332 ("District"), and the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation ("City"). RECITALS a. The District and the City have authority to enter into this agreement under ORS Chapter 190, including ORS 190.010. b. The District owns certain real property (the "Property", which is sometimes referred to as "the Albert Rider School") fronting on Bull Mountain Road in Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described in attached Exhibit A. C. With the exception of two small wood frame houses, the Property is undeveloped. The District intends to develop the Property as a new public elementary school. d. The City has a need to site a three million gallon potable water reservoir in the general area of the Property. e. The City's proposed water reservoir shall be placed underground on the Property so that the above-ground area remains usable for school and recreational purposes. When built, the reservoir will not diminish the outdoor area usable by the District for school or recreation purposes. f. The Property is large enough to accommodate the City's underground reservoir without interfering with the construction or use of the Alberta Rider School. g. The City is willing to excavate, recontour, and landscape the portion of the Property located above and west of the reservoir as shown on attached Exhibit B 6 in return for the right to construct and maintain the reservoir on the Property. C h. The City has budgeted 3.7 million dollars for the project in the FY 2003/04 budget, 1.8 million dollars from the Water CIP fund and 1.9 million dollars from i the Water SDC fund. The total cost of the project is expected to be 4.2 million dollars. The City intends to include approximately $500,000 in the FY 2004/05 j budget to fully fund the project. The District has budgeted $ for the Alberta Rider School project and is committed to use those funds to both construct the school and all required public improvements. Recognizing that both parties are governmental entities with taxing powers that will continue to function for the foreseeable future, the City and District each accept the other's budget and 1 commitment to perform work as adequate assurances for completion of the work permitted or required of each party. i. The City's engineering contact for the project is Brian Rager, who worked 1.5 years for a Portland contractor as a Project Coordinator. Mr Rager is a registered professional engineer familiar with budgeting, scheduling, quantity take-offs and subcontractor procurement and coordination. Mr Rager has worked for more than 12 years for local municipalities in development review. He is very familiar with the land use process, construction process, neighborhood issues, and other matters relating to development of public improvements. Mr. Rager's current position in PW will allow him to focus much of his time on the reservoir project. j. The City's engineering consultant for the project is Murray Smith & Associates, Inc. (MSA). Their experience in the design of domestic water reservoirs is extensive and they have completed a variety of projects with local area public agencies. Some of their most recently completed projects include the City of Tigard's 3.5 MG Menlor Reservoir, the City of Sherwood's 3.0 MG Kruger Road Reservoir, and the City of Columbia City's 1.5 MG 9`h Street Reservoir All of these reservoirs are prestressed concrete, with the Sherwood and Columbia City reservoirs being partially buried. MSA recently designed the fully buried concrete Whitwood Reservoir for the City of Portland, a project that involved complex environmental and land use permitting for construction within the City's highly sensitive Forest Park. MSA is currently completing preliminary engineering and permitting for the City of Portland's two Forest Park "Low Tanks", which will each be fully buried 1.3 MG concrete reservoirs. AGREEMENT TERMS 1. Grant of Permanent Easement. On or before , 2003, the District shall grant to the City a permanent easement ("the Easement") for construction, maintenance and reconstruction (if necessary), of a three million gallon potable water reservoir and the closely associated pipes, control valves, access hatch, and vent. The Easement shall be substantially in the form attached as Exhibit C and shall be in the location shown in that Exhibit. 2. Limited Scope of the Easement. The Easement shall be confined to the purposes and uses described in Section 1 above. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City shall not have the right without written approval of the District to construct or maintain any of the following in the area covered by the Easement: chlorination equipment, filtration equipment, pumps, emergency generators, or any equipment situated above ground other than the access hatch and vent. 3. Reservoir Design Review. Both the City and the District desire to assure the safety of the proposed school students and other users of school facilities on the Property, as well as the structural integrity of the proposed reservoir. Accordingly, the City agrees to construct the reservoir in conformity with all appropriate engineering and construction standards. The City will provide engineering and construction designs and specifications 2 and a design/contracting/construction schedule for review by the District and its consultants. If the District has any concerns with the designs and specifications, it will immediately inform the City of those concerns. The City will provide the District with a response to the concerns. The City shall have sole and exclusive responsibility for the safe design, construction and operation of the reservoir. Prior to commencement of construction, the City shall furnish to the District a full and complete set of engineer's drawings and specifications for the reservoir and closely associated pipes, control valves, access hatch, and vent. 4. Location and Construction of Reservoir; Deadline for Completion. The City shall use its best efforts to construct the underground reservoir on the Property at the location and in accordance with the timelines attached as Exhibit "D," and the District agrees to cooperate with the City in order to comply with said timeline. The City shall make a good faith effort to complete all construction work on the reservoir by June 1, 2005. The reservoir shall be constructed so that it is underground and so that the area above and in the vicinity of the reservoir can be used by the District for school and recreation purposes. In the event that the City fails to complete the construction work on the reservoir (or the excavation and landscaping described in Section 5 below) by the deadlines stated in this agreement, the City and the District shall promptly meet to establish interim measures to protect public safety, which shall be undertaken at the City's sole expense, pending completion of the work. 5. Cityys Obligation to Grade and Plant Grass Seed; Deadline for Completion. As part of the consideration for the Easement, the City shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide finish grading and plant grass seeding the area of the Property shown in attached Exhibit B in accordance with the specifications developed by the City in consultation with the District. The earthen cover on top of the reservoir shall be at least three feet deep. In all areas of the excavation and landscaping (see Exhibit C) the layer of topsoil cover shall be at least 12 inches deep. 6. Maintenance of the, Reservoir; Parties' Division of Responsibility. The City shall retain ownership of the reservoir and associated pipes, control valves, access hatch and L vent until such time as the decommissing of those improvements is completed by the City in accordance with Section 20 below. At all times until such decommissioning is completed and the City abandons the Easement, the City shall have sole responsibility for all maintenance of the reservoir and associated equipment. J D Once the City completes the excavation and landscaping in accordance with Section 5 above, ownership of those improvements (i.e., the excavation and landscaping) u shall automatically transfer to the District and thereafter the District shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaping as the District sees fit. 7. The City's Property and Liability Insurance. At all times until the City decommissions the reservoir and associated equipment in accordance with Section 20 3 below and abandons the Easement, the City shall maintain the following insurance in effect: The City shall, at all times, cause the District to be named as an additional insured and loss payee under all such insurance policies, all of which shall require at least days' advanced written notice to the District prior to cancellation or modification of coverage. The District shall at all times have the right to require the City to furnish reasonable written evidence that the required insurance remains in effect. 8. The City's Access to the Easement Area, Prior Notice to the District. [This section will be revised once we know whether the City will be able to secure a second means of access to the reservoir from either the south or the east.] The City shall have the following access to the area covered by the Easement: (a) Before construction of the reservoir is commenced: (b) During active construction of the reservoir: (c) After construction of the reservoir is substantially completed: Notwithstanding the foregoing, commencing on the date of opening of the newly-developed Alberta Rider School, the City and its employees, consultants, independent contractors, guests and invitees shall not come onto the area covered by the Easement without reasonable prior notice to the District. L 9. Monitoring of the Reservoir by the City. Commencing on the date when the City C first begins filling the reservoir with water and continuing until the reservoir and related o equipment are decommissioned in accordance with Section 20 below and the Easement is abandoned by the City, the City shall monitor the reservoir and its operations in conformity with good and accepted practice. The City's current monitoring plans include continuous (24 hours per day, 7 days per week) telemetry monitoring, including j measurements of ph, turbidity, chlorine residual, conductivity, and pressure. The City's monitoring plan also addresses reservoir levels, security, and automated valve position and control. The City will follow its then current monitoring plan at all times, but may modify the monitoring plan consistent with applicable regulations and industry practice. The City will perform weekly visual inspections of the facility to check security and to determine if any acts of vandalism have occurred. 4 10. Reservoir Access Hatch and Vent. Among the City's improvements to be developed in the area covered by the Easement, only the access hatch and vent may be located on or above the surface of the ground. The engineer's drawings and specifications referred to in Section 3 above shall include detailed information on the access hatch and vent, including detailed descriptions of the proposed locations, dimensions, and appearances. 11. Safety of the City's Operations. At all times while the City's personnel, anyone acting on the City's behalf, or any guests or invitees of the City are present in the area covered by the Easement, the City shall maintain a level of safety and security befitting activity in an area likely to be frequented by elementary school children. This obligation on the part of the City shall include an obligation to ensure that all the City's employees, contractors, consultants, guests and invitees maintain the same level of safety and security. 12. Off-gassing of Chlorine, Ammonia and Any Other Substances Added to the Potable Water. The City has represented to the District that (a) the area covered by the Easement shall not be used to add chlorine, ammonia, or any other substances to the potable water; (b) all such substances shall be added to the potable water before it is pumped through any pipes situated on the Property; and (c) any off gassing from the potable water of chlorine, ammonia, or other substances that occurs while the potable water is in the reservoir shall be substantially less than the off gassing that occurs in a typical municipal swimming pool. 13. Isolation of Reservoir Area in the Event of Damage, Destruction or Other Unsafe Condition. In the event that any unsafe condition develops in the area covered by the Easement which condition is at all related to the construction, maintenance or operation of the reservoir, the City shall immediately fence off the unsafe condition from the surrounding area so as to minimize the risk to elementary school children and other persons associated with the Alberta Rider School. Thereafter, the City shall promptly remedy the unsafe condition so that the safety fencing can be removed. 14. Indemnity. Subject to the limitations and procedures of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, the City shall defend, indemnify and hold the District harmless from all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, and causes of suit or action arising out of or related to the C design, construction, or operation of the reservoir. Subject to the limitations and i procedures of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, the District shall defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, and causes of suit or i action arising out of or related to the actions of the District and its agents relating the ! Easement area. i f 15. Construction Blasting. The City shall take reasonable measures to minimize the blasting of rock during construction of the reservoir. In the event blasting becomes necessary, the City shall take all reasonable steps to provide prior notice to the residents in the vicinity of the construction. 5 16. Permits, Jurisdiction. The City shall have sole responsibility for securing all permits that may be necessary to construct, maintain, and operate the reservoir. The City has represented to the District that notwithstanding the fact that the Property has not yet been annexed to the City, the City already has jurisdiction for the issuance of any and all permits associated with construction of the reservoir, including any permits for blasting. 17. Easement In Gross, City's Assi nment of Rights Prohibited. The Easement is an easement in gross in favor of and benefiting the City. The District's strong and continuing relationship with the City--and its trust in the City and in the City's commitment to maintain safe conditions in the area covered by the Easement--was and is a vital factor in the District's decision to grant the Easement to the City. The Easement is personal to the City and may not be assigned to any person or to any other division or component of government, whether by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the District, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 18. Additional Consideration. In addition to the other legal consideration recited in this Agreement, the City agrees to reimburse the District Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00). The reimbursement shall be in the form of a credit for the costs expected to be payable by the District to the City for development permits, systems development charges and other costs associated with the development of the school on the subject site 19. Remedies. In the event of a material breech of this agreement, the nonbreeching party shall be entitled to all remedies available at law or in equity. 20. Attorney Fees. If an action is initiated to declare, interpret or enforce any of the terms or provisions of this agreement, then in addition to its costs, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its attorneys fees from the losing party, both at trial and on appeal. 21. Site Reconfiguration Upon Termination or Abandonment of Easement. If the Easement is terminated or if it is abandoned by the City, the City shall promptly remove all equipment associated with the reservoir and take actions necessary to leave the property in a safe condition as required by applicable code, which actions are anticipated to include partial demolition of the reservoir, and filling with compacted engineered fill. The City shall also cover the area with topsoil and reseed the surface of the area with i grass of the same species growing on other nearby portions of the Property. Voluntary cessation of work by the City on the project before completion for a period of two years shall be considered an abandonment of the easement, provided however, that no abandonment of the easement shall be deemed to have occurred if the cessation of work is due to factors outside the City's control. 22. Transfer/Assignment. The City will not transfer or assign its rights in this agreement or the easement without the express written approval of the District, provided however, that no approval is required if the transfer or assignment occurs as a matter of law without action by the City. 6 s IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this agreement effective as of the date first set forth above. TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL CITY OF TIGARD DISTRICT 23J By: By: Its: Its: Dated: Dated: 'r I Exhibits: A. Legal description for the Property B. Area to be excavated, recountoured and landscaped C. The Easement, including the related legal description D. Timeline C i 1 I I I 8 AGENDA ITEM # 4. FOR AGENDA OF September 9, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A resolution approving Budget Amendment #2 to the FY 2003-04 Budget to transfer funds from the General Fund Contingency to pay Tigard's share of the COPS More Crime Analysis proiect. PREPARED BY:_ Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council amend the FY 2003-04 Budget to appropriate $9,219 in the Police Department to pay a share of the regional COPS More Crime Analysis Project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Budget Amendment #2 INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Portland, Police Bureau received a grant in FY 2002-03 from the COPS More 2002 program to develop a regional Crime Analysis Data Warehouse Project. Because this project would be of benefit to Portland and Washington County law enforcement, four Washington County agencies agreed to share in providing the 25% match requirement. The four agencies include Washington County Sheriff, Beaverton, Hillsboro, and Tigard. Each agency is providing 25% of the $36,875 match. All four agencies are users of the Portland Police Data System. For a variety of reasons, Tigard's share of the match payment was not included in the FY 2003-04 Budget. This amendment transfers $9,219 from the General Fund contingency to the Police budget to allow payment of this obligation. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED L 1. Do not approve the Budget Amendment. Inform Portland and the other Washington County agencies that Tigard will not share in the cost of this match requirement. 2. Do not approve the Budget Amendment. Require the Police Department to identify savings within their current budget to make this payment. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY NA ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution, including Attachment A to the resolution. 2. A memo from Asst. Chief Al Orr to Chief Bill Dickenson explaining the need for this budget amendment, including an attachment to the memo entitled "COPS More 2002 - Crime Analysis Data Warehouse Project. FISCAL NOTES This amendment will transfer $9,219 from the General Fund Contingency to the Police Department Budget. MEMORANDUM TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE: July 29, 2003 TO: Chief William Dickinson (AW FROM: Assistant Chief Alan Orr SUBJECT: COPS More 2002 Crime Analysis Grant Attached are memos related to the COPS More 2002 grant. The purpose of the grant is to facilitate region-wide crime analysis. Tigard PD agreed to be a partner in this grant prior to my being hired in June of 2002. 1 was told after I arrived here that we were full partners with the Beaverton Police Department, Hillsboro Police Department and the Washington County Sheriffs Department. A more detailed description of the grants goals and objectives can be found in the attached document provided by the Portland Police Data System (PPDS). This program will provide a database for statistical processing of information for crime analysis purposes; something we have been pushing for since we have been here. Because this is a grant and we are just paying one-fourth of the matching funds, this is an inexpensive method to obtain access to this system. The cost to the Tigard Police Department is just $9,218.75. However, we did not budget for this expense. If you recall, I included this oxpense in the preparations of the FY 03/04 budget. During this time I also sent a lefter to PPDS to assure them that we were attempting to budget for the matching funds. Chief Goodpaster then told me that we did not have to budget for this amount because he had found funds for the matching funds and that the matching funds were 'taken care of.' I then eliminated the matching fund request from our FY 03/04 budget request. We were finished with the FY 03/04 budget document when I was informed that we had not paid for the matching funds and that it was too late to include the funds in our FY 03104 budget request. I then tried to L pay for this out of our 02/03 budget and was unable to do so. r This memo is a request to adjust our budget by $9,218.75 in order to pay for this important crime analysis tool. i i COPS More 2002 - Crime Analysis Data Warehouse Project Summary The City of Portland, Police Bureau has been awarded a COPS More 2002 grant. The purpose of this COPS More 2002 grant is to facilitate region-wide crime analysis. This will be accomplished by developing procedures to extract the data of the Portland Police Bureau Data System (PPDS) and to make that data available through user-friendly applications to officers and crime analysts in the region. PPDS regional partners, Beaverton Police Department, Hillsboro Police Department, Tigard Police Department, and the Washington County Sheriff's Office have agreed to participate in the project, and to share the 25% funding match. The total matching requirement is $36,875.00. The four agencies will share equally, or $9,218.75 each. The primary goals and objectives of the COPS More Crime Analysis Data Warehouse Project are to: 1. Replicate PPDS data in a SQL database. 2. Develop an infrastructure and mechanism for the distribution of PPDS data to the regional partners in the project. 3. Develop applications to run against the PPDS data in the SQL database to facilitate crime analysis. The proposed operating environment involves three loosely connected sites, i.e. Beaverton SQL Server, Portland SQL Server, and PPDS ADABAS. To achieve the current objectives and beyond, the project must lay a sound foundation by designing a database environment that is efficient to query, highly available, and resistant to synchronization failure. The proposed solution for this project will meet the current business needs as well as create a foundation for future applications such as: data reporting, querying, ad hoc analysis, analytical and statistical processing (OLAP), or even data mining. Contact For additional information, contact: Bill Wesslund Portland Police Bureau Sr. Information Systems Manager 503-823-0301 bwesslund aar)olice.ci.portland.or.us AGENDA ITEM # .S FOR AGENDA OF Seqptember 9, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Summer Reading Update - PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK j CITY MGR OK APL ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL To provide Council an update on the Summer Reading activities at the Library. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action necessary INFORMATION SUMMARY The theme this year for Summer Reading was "READ! DISCOVER! EXPLORE! Many families made weekly visits to the library all summer. Throughout the summer, the Library offered a series of special events and programs for children and teens. Several of these programs were held in Fanno Creek Park behind the Library. The staff made efforts this year to visit summer camps to promote the Summer Reading Program to children at various locations. This year, 984 young people registered for Summer Reading and 375 completed the program. This is 37% completion rate. 1,951 people attended the many different programs making this a memorable Summer Reading program for the young people of our community. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal #2: A wide array of opportunities for life-long leaming are available in a variety of formats and used by the community. ATTACHMENT LIST I 1 1. Set of PowerPoint slides. FISCAL NOTES None ~CV~~11.1► Y 51 K`F f ~ X ' a t n ,r iY ve~' . %At4 is~3, .a Ill OC Read' . AG IC OLASWAM L A ►,.EG►B►►-~ STRIP EI f ' k ~ r Y dJ1~ 1.eaP119 varp MUSIC L~Ca1tilLl f T 1 KIP r ~Aw - Y Wv s of 30- V a~1pupet p 133 ti3e ClOvv film goals L,EGIBfLf~Y ~TFilf' ai~ w 4 a•. C • ! J .1/ ~ 4 f i, i - - yJ~ u _ w i t .l- 1 ~ Ja. . cheY Rr r - ichard R. M a n ~ paradise the Rex 9tile Foals ,n marimba 13and LEGIBILITY STRIP k. Y ® k l 10111111 Anne L,outse Sterry Elizabeth Falconer ~►nn 4EG9F31LIt`~ S"R P y SS. j f _•f Ij : f • ; st"a picnic Magician LEGIBILITY STRIP s u S Everits 4 Crafts and stories Little People Story Time LEGIBILIfy SjR1P r WAW son _ ~ ~3~~117.f g t c . ~ f r. _ VVorkshoP rtOO n 5I Classes VVIth SUZY OM a i• t g, q~~,~1~11U1 W .11 ~ J .a own n~ 111 \x;.11\1\l\'.l\1\y ,,'t~~~l►`~~~~ ~ •~~~yl 1 r f 1 . N I a. 1 r y:: a rr ~'a 1 ■ woo vow agoo k- it: A41v>, ~,'~vC `rte 71 wv ►..EG100rY Slftip W 1 +s'7 {'i r 4~ ey ff£ ~ 14 t } 1 oak~ vnbUrc) crafts r Gre _ nd or®eS t a t low g uar h®~ Y LSGISILITY STRIP Now ~A E~ Mau CaMP a r et Friends T - h LEGIBILITY STRIP 5 r yr ~ i f , ® 3` Thriftway Tigard Public Library rs focal SR sponsor vol u ntee t 5 J ,1 lunte f ers #f i Public WOrks Tiar d df e DeI3~rtMent /'S'a// Administration e Services Tigard Citizens ®ffiC Lib anc~ rar Y Staff AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF Set3t.9, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update on the New Tigard Library PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Presentation by staff to update the City Council about the new library. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The purpose of this presentation is to communicate recent events and accomplishments related to the new Tigard Public Library. INFORMATION SUMMARY On May 21, 2002, Tigard voters passed a $13 million bond measure for the construction of a new library of approximately 47,000 square feet. This amount will pay for land acquisition, the design, construction and furnishing of the new library, parking and related street improvements. The site of the new library is a 14.7-acre property located along Hall Boulevard near O'Mara Street. The library building and parking will occupy about 5 acres of the site. The focus of this monthly update will be to inform the Council on the progress of the new library during its first two months of construction. The update will also distinguish between the library construction and the project to improve Hall Blvd. Information on how the public can follow the progress of the project and additional opportunities for them to support the new library will also be discussed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY L Goal #3: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all ages. J 'o ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Set of PowerPoint Slides FISCAL NOTES N/A LEGIBILITY STRIP ry J ~JJ J _ I J r ' y c 1t 'i r • Y .Y t ~1~tlv ~ y~r Ylt ~ai i fi p ~ '.f ~ tYY N -r 7 •1 1t a st ~ r~' S ts. J' r" s' i vt~ i w'v`f, II ♦ r ~S t " ,t t 1 ~e •'4 T I" '{M ,ti• 1 % ~S ,1 • i5 t 41 "lt 1~ let* V., N a, 71~ Cl) I's NE04 TIGAHI) LIBRARY HnF-VMArJ CONS rPlUCTION COMPANY [JAI F (i-(+ 11)C1 r; ti 'AIM F`5,.~i, irr. f. "fit' ~~y*~•~ eR 4 ~ tR P. ~ 'ski^• ~ r ~ 1. ! M + ~ ~ , •}r. Yeti 1 + ' tS,~•, ,t.~~, ryr. r ~ •441%-~" ~ 1 \ 4 fA .00t ® sM ~ ~,Pt; ~ ~ ; V Af ~ EW S1GARp O1BR pATE' ~-27.20 4 •~y ` f ~ lON COMPANY O~PMAN CONSTpUGT fool 't T , 5 i ~ r t- ~3.. o,~r, _ r' . is .,j - I y' b a f- _J m } W fi r LEG1$1t-I'[Y STRIP ~ , M .f rf;~ • r °t. i < i e, j = ~ r e .th , 4r ' _l w. r 1 _ l . w . • l IMF, i EY - y , r r ~i t JLVH 4 fh'. r - low- J r-. 'i _ ~i~ ~ S• ~ ~ i itx.: ~ r,~ "i' ' *.Nr~a l,: t + r~ w' ,.i- fr. ~ - - _ ar' T` ~i~ J.fT~`<./. j ~ ~ , ~~L1'ri~;~'`a ,'•;r/3 . ` ^ LL~ _ r , . ~„y.~- ~ i ` _ ~ `tiny o, r dry. ~ . ~ ' ' , _ ~ ~ C yy , 7 Ak imw7d-l a L s A IL!, 12 15 LEGIBILITY STRIP -44 r 4 ` e v ,Lai . ib _ ~ rW t -4 .;W ai s r y, ~ ~ ~ ~{'•I a ~ • r, ;t ~i . ~ r .+w~ =.t 1k. .wr- 4 : ~ ~ + y, , u , r~ t u~r . ~ ,t ~ ~ ~1 L :c Y's,,,1- r` err.. r ~ ~ ~ M y r _ ~ ~ ` . ~ l J ~r r°~~ - _ - • f II~w~1. • rv a LEGIBILITY STRIP j •r i J r ~ LEGIBUTY STRIP i a y h . ~ w T I'd f Y. p W 4 4 ` 01 --T dr w . „ „~•.+IF+.N~' ""btY r ~ 4.- tL' , ~ ,Lt ~ t• . s,.,~,. ~ ~~:.iZ' YT ~w.a~►•e,.»-ac....ar.+rdlR. -.r -'J~'R4t ~ ~-•yy,~w:~"~"`~L ~+b'~..p~ *'"lw. t...._ -~a+✓-•-a_ _ .,-+.'4'er.a1~:•n..~. ,yvY r a. - - loft R - - iyy~y •.Yr~. i. • 3. v dL t vUP' - ✓ -a a 1. "~r'~ . r ~ 41M 1 C i 11-1I971`%="I . _ z ~ yr err gm~ IN f t ~Y.s 1 Yu •~i.~, w,fi ~ ~i s i 15- S:" 2 ~lyy4 I . +xay 1 w A M 1 C 1 1 I-IMIN71a7 LEGIBILITY STRIP , M r • d s - n f YS Zvi. - ••~...u~, ' b ` .v~..k. 3 i • S ' wed. x ,r ',7w tl,!r{ . FTR [ P w tfw ~~~aft f _.s a ~xse*r B.e.`° -4:A f fk- f. k 3t M '+m.-._~ 4F ~ ~ 'yes, .1A~ ~ i y'91 -7=7' 1 • 'c - 1. - ~ y , _ ~<•.rYfT/II ~,F Ykri' . t,/si{L~6:v"-•' - r, s ~ ~ ~ _ yy; • ` 4e i kR'~a M ~r,. s r r ~ Try :s jr- fit rte" jt F, I , ~ if rr ~pr-+ ~ i n t , ~W v - W J LEGIBILITY STRIP Photo Gallery ■ sllde Sh.oW,, AOW& - s# Web t;a ;e~ LEGtBtL r s- p f r A Lt(jlt$ILl 1 Y 5 T RIP W.M.0,4 4 r: 47 5a r r ~ s> r ® _ Lib Bt k 'S'~ e+y !3 '+r}' ' _ "tr t r i ,e`rF^•". a ~ a~tx ,g+',~ i~~:"'.}iw;y ~ *~+s+ gy4 ~vl„ _ E: we YM'+x- ny - 4 c "K s A 3 ~ 13^ J7 wi `s „f+,~~" fQ the r ain 7 777 777 - - ' ' - r ~ - ~k';^} $ ~tF,~ $ gyp-' 'rr, ry'j' ,I x'44 „ iC -.x '0 Ur :TChange Li n ram, J. t ilk M" x 1 t i t x t 6 F J r Y fyk' x -'f _ c r ~ . f r AGENDA ITEM # 4- FOR AGENDA OF 9/09/03 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Bull Mountain Annexation Plan PREPARED BY: Jim Hendrvx DEPT HEAD OK 'YI Y MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL For over 20 years, the City of Tigard and Washington County have recognized that Bull Mountain and its citizens would be best served by the City of Tigard. In the last two years, the City of Tigard and Washington County explored the possibility of annexing the unincorporated portion of Bull Mountain. Based on these efforts, three annexation policy alternatives were developed and presented to Council and the County Board of Commissioners on July 29, 2003. Following the July meeting, Council concurred to proceed with preparation of an annexation plan in coordination with Washington County for a possible March 9, 2004 election. The attached resolution formalizes the direction Council provided at its July meeting. There are several steps leading up to a March election including preparation of an annexation plan, public outreach, public hearing (tentatively scheduled for December 2, 2003), preparation of ballot title, election, etc. At the public hearing in December, Council can decide to go forward with the annexation plan by placing it on the March 9, 2004 ballot or a later ballot. Voters within the portion of unincorporated Bull Mountain addressed in the annexation plan and within the City of Tigard would vote. A simple majority determines whether the annexation plan is approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution directing preparation of an annexation plan in coordination with Washington County for a possible March 9, 2004 ballot or subsequent election dates. A public hearing on the annexation plan would tentatively occur on December 2, 2003 where Council will accept public testimony, take action on the annexation plan, and if approved, place the issue before voters on March 9, 2004 or a subsequent election date. INFORMATION SUMMARY For over 20 years, the City of Tigard and Washington County have recognized that unincorporated Bull Mountain and its citizens would be best served by the City of Tigard. In recognition of this fact, in 2001, the Tigard City Council established a goal to develop an annexation policy for non-island areas, such as Bull Mountain, and directed staff to study the feasibility of annexing the unincorporated Bull Mountain area. Since July 2001, the City has been exploring annexation of the Bull Mountain area through: a focus group with residents, a study, and an r open house with residents, and most recently, a phone survey. In June and July 2003 the Council reviewed the i Draft Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report for the Bull Mountain Area. This information has been used in the development of three non-island annexation policy alternatives: 1) An annexation plan, which provides a plan for the sequence of annexation, local standards of service, a schedule of providing urban services, the effect on existing urban service providers, and long-term benefits of annexation; 2) Identification of "target areas" which would focus on annexation of specific areas; 3) Continuation of the existing approach, which does not require annexations but assists property owners if and when they wish to annex. These three annexation policy alternatives were developed and presented to Council and the Board of Commissioners on July 29, 2003. Following the July 29, 2003 meeting, Council concurred to proceed with preparation of an annexation plan in coordination with Washington County so the Council can consider placing a measure on the March 9, 2004 ballot. This date was chosen in order for the City to begin providing services those areas annexed as of July 1, 2004. Council's action on this resolution begins the process leading to the election. There are several steps leading up to a possible March election including preparation of an annexation plan: public outreach, a public hearing (tentatively scheduled for December 2, 2003), preparation of the ballet title, etc. At its August 26, 2003 Council meeting, Council was updated on the necessary steps to prepare an annexation plan and was advised that a resolution would be presented for Council action at its September 9, 2003 meeting. The resolution directs preparation of an annexation plan in coordination with Washington County for a possible March 9, 2004 election. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Not adopt the attached resolution. 2. Adopt the attached resolution with revised dates. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management Goal #2, Urban services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary and recipients of services pay their share. ATTACHMENT LIST #1- Resolution directing staff to prepare an annexation plan for the Bull Mountain area for Council's consideration FISCAL NOTES C N/A i I:\LRPLN\Barbara\annexation\Annexation Plan Production\CC agenda item summary 9 09 03.doc t 1 , I ~rl~'rue~ to q-Q-03 r AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-] U DICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION SUB2003-00010/PDR2003-00004 ZON2003-00003/SLR2003-00005 VAR2003-00036/VAR2003-00037 2 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony 0 u 1AWGREERICCSIGNUPIPH TESTIMONY 0J.D0C AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking- In Favor O onent - (Speaking A ainst Neutral Na e, Address LPhoe Name Address & hgne No. Name, Address & Phone No. P.o.n ' ~~~o sw LNAAQ.~'S✓/A ~tsA 'j °yc%7 ~~'3 -'Z~- S ~ Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Gor-+NfE 9rso~-~ Igo Timor ~ ~7zz3 -r .0. O r2 R?Z2 3 2~- pOS~ Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 4, 94x3 Sw -F4 me, ress & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 12 ,55 ~ 5 71G25Lj z~ 1"'4gb, a--R7z2J Name, Address & Phone N Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. J tm I`~Gr~RD~ Kaili [WeQdS t~40rU-(SO-) d0 5 S w v 8L wct L 1 t 'arch OR g72z3 r v3--246-(c S` 2- . me, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. a n Ka f,.WlI(1cLM :T-rCA a~®a 5 LA-1 v~«r~ G sw AVE T1 ~cf (d 09 g7Z23 6-k `lam )3 C,s -53~ 5~3-Zd~~ZZ(5. AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT _Proponent - (Speaking In Favor 0 onent - (Speaking Against) Neutral N e, A dre s & one o. Name, Address & ne No. Name, Address & Phone No. -r Jam`''' g'> J Name, Address & Phone No. N me, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. .~;I1 Dwyer 660 0 SW Vellum ar, TiJa►~, d2 97zt3 /3 a~ 6k C 503 - bYS-53' 3Z Name, Address & Phone No. Na e, dress & Ph ne No. Name, Address & Phone No. ciwleen vl ~i ra C~ tf ;yCA►a OIL Pa 2- i14,-8`!35 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, dress & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Sz-t'-A z/02 46111 'sotir- ~a. goy e ✓3 ~8/SS(tl fJ~~ 13~b511--33~ 7 s0'j-z Q~-~~6 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. scf~usr e~ ?l )acs Y 't Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone LName, ress & Phone No. 1~(Z SAN 11~J~CaEsU _ ~ : 83i~/ l ~5'd 7 5 w tZc~{ ,rw0J, 0 ~7 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor O onent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~ ~C~~cr~~~ j~/fl e1Gl/t}' L.Pahur~ 1 7 ym0 9~zz7 ySZ~t7~S~ Name. Address & Phone No, Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. C&t5~Uv~ir 072, StJ p t `tee Lill CO 07 1771- 5b8 `3q kS Z' a 652 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Bob St r c-T -vici& i-- Op 56 '7a;~,5 S W VOAV t 6, 75~ i SuJ t,-r>-)'P&L) uJ~w _T,5a'~l D~ Q~ ,?7Z3 563-2~y ~qY Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. I V Clot 1 i rot 7~ro A4j t_ ~~J'l~tmo1 6?~ 1,146 -Oclo Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. mehO L e qua 3 9-3 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Pho a No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~Zos ~ >'~vYit~ r ~5d g722 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor opponent - S eakin Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~}rk~f q~'77i 4?Z~-3 Name, Address & Phone No. !eA ldres Ph ne No. Name, Address & Phone No. G Name , Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. f S rem Vj Uetvr~ Sa3-- X4 4 -S'g~ l Name, Address & Phone No. Nam, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. go bh L U dUa- Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. T~.s'S Sam/ Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~b n Met V11 ~ P'1 t* ~ lGNts' s'w 93f~ v AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address $ Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~r„e, T.1 11,411W5 5~ 11y11^PL 0"2 q}2z3 X39 •3SIS Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~av l 5• ~J, fia~ba•rk Li &-I 2.5 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~d 1 N ~ i~h die-rca~ ~vp 1yL~►,~ 02~71 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. CL OC Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address Phone No. J m M W J r AGENDA ITEM No. 9 Date: September 9, 2003 Continuation of PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-] U DICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION SU B2003-00010/PDR2003-00004 ZON2003-00003/SLR2003-00005 VAR2003-00036/VAR2003-00037 L Due to Time Constraints e City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony I:WDM\GREER\CCSIGNUP\PH TESTIMONY OJ.DOC AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: September 9, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent -SEeakin In Favor Opponent - S eakin Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. t4j'K, S~ilKolrpk 70 ~5 50 Ve"tc wa D'r ol? C 0,2P-3 503- ;?LW -3646 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. :i i Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. CA A W A f) t r D AN R 0 'e A x M -e I ~oN (ye h. A 1 I So A/ ~~~_~~4~e~ ~R ~yabo F1C 25~oslape? i? NCy t±i j - t? N x~-.~ q0 - ~ ~ _ _ ~S ' boa c,~l-a. ~t►~ o o C co t ✓1 ~ t 4/Arsr= • _ ~c _ s 09L P- A r-, - -510 N __I c.__ AGENDA ITEM # B FOR AGENDA OF September 9, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Continuation of the Ash Creek Estates Planned Development Subdivision Appeal _ PREPARED BY: Mor agLn Tracy DEPT HEAD OK Y MGR OK //A4~w ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve or deny the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Uphold Staffs recommendation for approval of the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision subject to additional findings and testimony received. INFORMATION SUMMARY On July 7`h, 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application for a 29 lot subdivision and planned development on 9.36 acres. The property is located at 9750 SW 74`h Avenue. The proposal is to provide single-family detached housing on lots ranging between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet. The Planning Commission moved to deny the application, which failed in a 4-4 tie vote. The Commission then moved to approve the application, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meets the relevant criteria of the Development Code. The applicant, Dale Richards of Windwood Homes, filed an appeal of the application denial on July 15, 2003. His stated grounds for the appeal are "That applicant contends that the Planning Commission should have adopted specific grounds for denial. The denial should have been based on the proposed plan not meeting the Development Code. All specific requirements of the code were met. The applicant, therefore, proposes that the project should be approved through the appeal process." The City Council held a public hearing on the appeal on August 12, 2003, but did not have sufficient time to R! receive testimony from all interested parties. Therefore Council continued the public hearing to the September 91h W Council meeting to complete the public hearing and render their decision. Included in this September 9`h packet is ..t the testimony and evidence received at the August 121h hearing, written testimony received since that hearing (one letter and one email), as well as written testimony received prior to the August 12`h hearing that was not included in your previous packet. r At the August 12, 2003 hearing, Mr. John Frewing submitted five pages of testimony regarding a multitude of issues. Staff has been asked to provide a response. To date, the city has not received any additional information from the applicant. The attached memo responds to Mr. Frewing's issues to the extent that they apply to the development code criteria. Ultimately, the Council will have to review all testimony and evidence provided and determine whether the application meets code requirements or can be made to meet these requirements with the imposition of conditions of approval, or whether the application should be denied. The applicant will be required to provide the draft findings for Council's ultimate decision, if approved. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny or add additional conditions to the subdivision/planned development based on factual information provided. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Management Goal #1: Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established areas. ATTACHMENT LIST Staff Memorandum Responding to Issues Raised Regarding Ash Creek Estates Appeal Hearing 1. Additional Testimony and Evidence received at and since the August 12, 2003 City Council Hearing A. Aerial views of Ash Creek project and nearby area, circa 1969 and 1994 submitted by the applicant during the August 12, 2003 hearing. B. Tree species composition submitted by the applicant during the August 12, 2003 hearing C. Letter submitted by John Frewing during the August 12, 2003 hearing D. Letter and Photograph dated August 20, 2003 from John Frewing E. Email dated August 12, 2003 from William Morse F. Email dated August 27, 2003 from Patricia O'Brien G. Letter and attachments dated August 29, 2003 from John Frewing 2. Prior Written Testimony received for the August 12, 2003 City Council Hearing L A. Letter dated July 16, 2003 from Eileen Murche r B. Letter dated July 28, 2003 from Joe and Sheila Kasten C. Letter dated July 31, 2003 from Patti and Roger Garland D. E-mail dated August 4, 2003 from Patricia Leonard E. E-mail dated August 7, 2003 from Ken and Lisa Dahme. 1 F. E-mail dated August 7, 2003 from Diane Kostur. j G. Letter dated August 8, 2003 from Susanna Knight, State Dept. of Geologist Examiners H. Letter dated August 8, 2003 from Dan and Margaret Burd, et al. 1. Letter dated August 10, 2003 from Richard and Joan Morley J. Letter dated August 11, 2003 from "Residents of Washington Square Estates" K. E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from Merilyn Ferrara L. E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from Richard Williams M. E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from David Smith N. E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from Bob Fuquay 0. E-mail dated August 12, 2003 from The Gates Family P. Letter dated August 12, 2003 from Warren W. Aney, Certified Wildlife Biologist Q. E-mail dated August 12, 2003 from P. Sydney Herbert R. Letter dated August 12, 2003 from Brian Wegener, Tualatin Riverkeepers FISCAL NOTES Application fees and appeal fees have been paid by the applicant. 9 i CITY OF TIOARD Community (Development SfiapindA Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: City Council Members FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner,i DATE: August 29, 2003 SUBJECT: Specific Response to Issues Raised Regarding Ash Creek Estates The following memo responds to the issues raised by Mr. John Frewing as presented during the August 12th public hearing. These responses follow the organization of Mr. Frewing's August 12th, 2003 written testimony (included in your packet) Western Redcedar Forest and retaining trees to the greatest extent possible. The type and quality of trees on a development site are not an applicable standard to which the City may determine additional protection standards. Although the property is in timber deferral, and could conceivably log the property, retention of trees was an issue that was raised during the Planning Commission Hearing on July 7, 2003. Based on that hearing, the applicant revised the tree plan to add more trees in the preservation area outside the building envelopes. There is no specific criteria establishing "the extent possible" (18.350.100(13)(3)(a)(4)). The tree plan represents the applicant's attempt to develop the site within the allowable density with single family units. Sensitive Lands and Vegetative Setbacks. Clean Water Services (CWS) is the governing authority to establish the standards and required buffer areas for development proposals within Tigard. Clean Water Services Provider Letter #2819 establishes the specific buffers for this project. It is beyond the scope of the City's authority to impose buffers beyond the requirements of CWS. Conditions #37 and 44 ensure CWS sign-off. Condition #5 requires the areas be fenced and protected prior to and during construction. Surface Water Drainage. Design for surface drainage and runoff must meet the City adopted standards and are ensured through compliance with conditions of approval #12, 16, 18 and 34. The applicant and engineering staff can further respond to questions related to the drainage plan. The City Engineer, by imposing Condition 16, is not approving the project until final calculations and design plans are submitted pertaining to the proposed water quality and detention facility for the site. Arborist Report. An arborist did not prepare the initial tree plan since the property is in timber deferral and may be logged. Based on the revised tree plan to preserve some trees outside the sensitive lands area, an arborist's assessment of those trees and construction impacts will be needed during construction. According to the applicant, the tree plan has been revised under an arborist's direction. With regard to tree removal, 18.790.050 indicates that land registered as a woodland or in tree deferral does not require a tree removal permit. As a result, and because of the intent of the Tree Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council not to penalize those properties with deferral status, the City has not required mitigation or tree plans for deferral properties. This has been true of a number of developments including Erickson Heights, Hambach Grove, Bonita Townhomes, and other developments on Bull Mountain. The City Council may choose to revise this interpretation and require a tree plan and mitigation. Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Policies The Planned Development designation does not create a new underlying zone. It is authorized in all zones, is a planning process that is encouraged by the comprehensive Plan, and is only an overlay zone. Therefore, the standards for a quasi-judicial zone change are largely inapplicable, with the exception that a new PD designation is added to a property or project site. Traffic Impacts The applicant has provided a traffic analysis. This was reviewed and accepted by the City Engineering Staff. Traffic congestion relates to a street's carrying capacity. L Intersections within the study area were found to operate at a level of service B or better. 2 All other traffic issues are related to existing conditions that are off site. Based on the traffic report that we received the local intersections will operate at a level of service B or better. The applicant is constructing 3/4 street improvements on 74th Avenue, which involves changing the vertical alignment. The design of 74th Avenue will be in o compliance with City standards. We have no basis to find that the project is not mitigating its own traffic impact. Perimeter Setbacks Tigard Development Code (18.350.070(A)(4)) states that perimeter setbacks shall comply with the underlying zone. Perimeter setbacks are those on the property boundary of the project site. The only setbacks that are affected by this requirement in the applicant's plans are the rear of lots 1-13 and the side of lot 29 which comply or have been conditioned (#41) to comply with this requirement. Planter Strips The planter strip requirement applies only to public streets (refer to TDC 18.810.020(E) and 18.810.030(T)). The private street does not propose a planter strip to reduce the overall width of the street and reduce impacts to the sensitive areas and required grading. The public street within the development shows sidewalk planter strips on both sides. SW 74 h Avenue will have planter strips where shown outside the sensitive lands area, but for the creek crossing, the applicant has requested an adjustment to not propose planter strips so that the amount of fill within the wetlands may be minimized. The mitigation for this lack of planter strip is the large open space to the other side of the sidewalk and the preservation of the wetlands abutting the street. Any adjustment of standards found in 18.810 must meet the criteria of 18.370.020.0.11. This provision was cited verbatim in the staff report (see page 29 of 37). Staff found that in order to reduce the impact on the wetlands, sensitive areas and mature trees the planter strips should be eliminated. This would seem to be consistent with the following concerns listed in Mr. Frewing's 8/12/03 testimony: Major point #1 There was a concern about the mature western red cedars on this site. Major point #2 Mr. Frewing was concerned about sensitive lands and vegetative setbacks not being observed. Cul-De-Sac. The applicant has requested an adjustment to the cul-de-sac length and number of units served from a cul-de-sac based on the preexisting development and lack of street connection opportunities to the north and east as well as the presence of the stream corridor along the south and to reduce impacts on the sensitive lands areas. The resulting narrow width of the developable portion of the lot does not leave opportunities for a looped street. Therefore, the applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac to serve the allowable density on the site. Due to the required length of this cul-de-sac, the number of units taking access from it exceeds the 20 unit maximum. There are no feasible alternatives to serve the lots that would not require the adjustments. Page 17 of the staff r report addresses the adjustment criteria. The fire department's only comment was that the private street conforms to fire district standards with regard to parking. Fire Department and Engineering Staff review and approval of final construction drawings for conformance with these standards must be completed prior to construction. 0 Impact Study (Schools) The impact to schools are not listed in the impact study criteria. State statute does not allow consideration of school capacity as a reason to deny development. Subdivision Approval Standards Tigard Development Code section 18.430.040 requires that the preliminary plat complies with "the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations." These ordinances and regulations are addressed under their respective headings throughout the staff report, and are not repeated under this heading as it would be redundant. Street Improvements - 74th Avenue Mr. Frewing asserts that the applicant does not meet City standards by only providing a partial improvement of SW 74 h Avenue. 18.810.030.A.3 states that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards, but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. On this project the applicant will actually be constructing a % street improvement due to the vertical change required in the sag curve area. Therefore, the applicant exceeds the City standard. Regarding the sag curve, Mr. Frewing states that the City is violating its own standard. He refers to staffs comment on page 29 of 37 regarding a decision to allow a "steeper grade" on 74th to minimize the impact on the water transmission line and the wetlands. However, staff further found on page 31 of 37 that the applicant's plan did not result in a grade steeper than the City grade standard of 15% for distance no greater than 250 feet. Therefore, an adjustment was not needed. The comment on page 29 was simply background of discussions between the various jurisdictions agreeing that if an adjustment was needed then it should be granted. Lot Standards (18.810.060(A)) Lot depth, width, and area requirements are not applicable in Planned Developments per 18.350.070. Sight Distance (18.705) The applicant indicates that sight distance will be met (see page 6 of the traffic study). Condition #45 requires post-construction sight distance certification prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant has proposed relocating a portion of a neighboring retaining wall which is presently in the public right of way. Mr. Frewing is concerned that the applicant cannot meet the sight distance except by i constructing a wall on a neighboring property. What Mr. Frewing may not know is that • the applicant has been coordinating with this neighbor concerning the wall and is i confident that they will obtain the necessary easement for the wall. Regardless, the applicant will not be able to build the wall until they show proof of easement. If, for whatever reason, the applicant cannot obtain the easement they must find another i solution for meeting the sight distance criteria. Minimum and Maximum Density. (18.715) The number of proposed lots within the development is consistent with the assessment of required buffer areas provided by Clean Water Services. Street Trees (18.7 45 Street tree diversity is not an applicable criterion. The applicant has proposed a street tree planting scheme. The City Forester has guidelines for street tree planting which recommends using a variety of street tree species. The Forester reviews the street tree planting plan and the director has the final authority to approve the planting plan. Solid Waste (18.755) The applicant did not provide certification from the appropriate disposal company, based on generic information in the pre-app notes. The applicant has been directed to gain certification from Miller Sanitary Service. If is not provided, a condition of approval will be necessary. Steep slopes (18.775) The applicant has provided a geotech study which sets forth requirements for construction of the subdivision. Individual home building construction is reviewed by the building department which will require separate geotechnical evaluation. The subdivision geotech report establishes specific recommendations for slope setbacks, site preparation, engineered fill, fill embankment slopes, subsurface drains, wet weather earthwork, excavating, pavement design, foundations, retaining walls, seismic design, drainage, removal of existing fill, erosion control, and pavement construction. The report additionally sets forth limits of construction without additional geotech study being required. These recommendations and requirements are incorporated into the decision through conditions 19, 20 and 21. Construction within Drainageways (18.775) The CWS service provider letter represents a preliminary approval of the applicant's plans, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the service provider letter. Condition of approval #4 in the staff decision requires Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands and Clean Water Services approval prior to commencing site work. Department of Forestry (18.790) The city restricts tree removal through the standards of the tree removal section. These are the city's only adopted standards. The forestry department has been contacted with regard to obtaining a copy of a written agreement between ODF and the city, but they have not responded. i 74th Avenue Vertical Curve (18.810) i The city engineering staff indicates that this standard has been met. Planter Strip Requirements (18.810) The findings for the adjustment are listed under 18.370, Variances and Adjustments, on page 17 of the staff report. Block Design (18.810) The testimony suggests that a street stub to the north is not necessary due to topography and sight limitations where the future street would intersect Barbara Lane. This connection has been proposed to meet block length and connectivity standards, and ultimately provide a second access for residents within the subdivision when the northern property is developed, as well as eliminate the need for another street connection onto 74th. To vary form this requirement would require an additional variance or adjustment, and there is insufficient evidence to support such a request. Without this street connection, the cul-de-sac length would be increased, the number of units on the cul-de-sac would be increased, and the block length standard would be violated. Lot Depth (18.810) 18.350.070 provides that lot dimension standards do not apply. Moreover, the noted lots meet the standard, as the "special circumstances" include lots that are less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size as required by the applicable zoning district, or 11,250 square feet. Minimum Lot Frontage (18.810) Condition #25 requires that the lots meet minimum frontage requirements prior to approval of the final plat. Sidewalks constructed to City Standards (18.810) The private street is not subject to the requirement for constructing sidewalks on both sides of the street as it is not a public street, as discussed previously. SW 74th Avenue provides sidewalks along the %z street improvement that is the responsibility of this development. Sewer System (18.810) The sewer is already existing within the Ash Creek drainageway. No pumping of sewage has been proposed with this development. The requirement for upsizing is instituted in cases where new sewer lines are being placed. The 12" line is adequate for the anticipated capacity. Street Signage The engineering department establishes the conventions for street naming. Finding the private street will be no more complicated than finding private streets within any other i development, they are identified in City maps. Notice (18.390) The notice of the hearing did not include reference to the Tigard Development Code Section 18.775 relating to Sensitive Lands. However, it was described in the notice as well as addressed in the staff report on pages 24-27. The City Attorney suggests making note of the typographical error. The testimony further notes that sections 18.410 (Lot Line Adjustments), 18.420 (Partitions), and 18.780 (Signs) were also not listed as applicable criteria. They are not. No application has been made under these sections. Findings (8 775, 18 765, 18.795, and 18.810) Section 18.755 relates to solid waste which was previously addressed. The applicant will be required to provide sign off from the waste hauler to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 18.765 relates to off street parking which was addressed on page 12 of the staff report. 18.795 relates to vision clearance with findings found on page 27. 18.810, Street and Utility Improvements, was addressed on pages 28 through 34. Comments by staff and agencies, not specific to the code requirements are not review criteria subject to required findings. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue The fire agency has reviewed the development and notes that the 28 foot street width allows parking on one side of the street. Underground Utilities (18.810.120) The fee in lieu is an option provided where there is limited site frontage or when undergrounding would require the placement of additional utility poles. All new electrical services are required to be placed underground. Determination of location of other utilities is made by the Engineering Department and the utility companies desiring construction. Nevertheless, the applicant will be required to provide conduit for the 74~n Avenue crossing for all future extension of utilities. The staff report merely lays out the fee the developer will pay if it is deemed appropriate. Traffic Study The Engineering Department reviewed the applicant's Traffic Study as indicated earlier. This report establishes the basis for traffic findings. The engineering staff has no basis or evidence to refute the professionals' report. We have to rely on traffic studies prepared by licensed traffic engineers. We review those reports and as long as we concur with them we will support their recommendations. Street Grades for Fire District Standards Final construction documents and plans are reviewed by the Engineering Staff and the Fire District to ensure that the standards for street improvements are met. Preliminary documents and plans for land use approval are not sufficient for final construction. This is to avoid unnecessary costs in developing full detailed engineered construction plans L prior to obtaining land use approval. Some minor changes to the plans are necessary to r account for site specific issues that are discovered. If it turns out that, based on site specific factors, that the subdivision cannot be built as it has been approved and modified by the engineering design requirements (due to topographic constraints, depth to rock, or a myriad of other issues) then the plat cannot be recorded. 6 y J J ATTACHMENT I A. ik CITY OF TIOARD Community (Development S(aping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: City Council Members FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner DATE: August 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Additional Correspondence Regarding Ash Creek Estates Appeal Following the City Council's opening of the public hearing on August 12, 2003 regarding the Ash Creek Estates Planned Development, additional letters, exhibits, and an email have been received by the City and are hereto attached for your reference. These items are considered written testimony and evidence for the purposes of the continued appeal hearing on September 9, 2003, and are to be included in the official record of that hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial views of Ash Creek project and nearby area, circa 1969 and 1994 submitted by the applicant during the August 12, 2003 hearing. 2. Tree species composition submitted by the applicant during the August 12, 2003 hearing 3. Letter submitted by John Frewing during the August 12, 2003 hearing 4. Site Plan illustrating buffer requirements and right of way area, as prepared by John i Frewing presented at the August 12, 2003 hearing (OVERSIZED, not duplicated) i~ ~ 5. Letter and Photograph dated August 20, 2003 from John Frewing r 6. Email dated August 12, 2003 from William Morse 7. Email dated August 27, 2003 from Patricia O'Brien 8. Letter and Exhibits dated August 29, 2003 from John Frewing r~ ~'n -L~ his ~f r• [ ~4I' 1 r~ • r _ ~ s p ~r ~ ~tl C .'F t ~I r Wit, 5,,i. ~ kcl Olaf z Tree Species Composition Species Number % Class % Class Cedar 525 60% C Douglas-fir 147 17% C Pine 1 0% 77% C Alder 94 11% D Ash 1 0% D Bi leaf Maple 97 11% D Cher 6 1% D Oregon White Oak 5 1%__l 23% D Total 876 100% MAIN POINTS: 1. This is a mixed species stand, not a pure cedar grove. 2. Mang of the cedars are in the upland part of the site. 3. Western redcedar is not a rare species. 4. This site has been logged, and not too long ago. Alders in the upland areas show that there have been recent disturbances. 5. Cedars are not particularly vulnerable to windthrow except in bogs and swampy areas. Bef:,re Tigard City Council 8/12/03 In the Matter of Ash Creek Estates Testimony of John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 503-245-5760 I would like to start from the premise that the Tigard City Council is dedicated to doing what is best for all of Tigard. All of Tigard's citizens depend on you to protect our current interests here and provide for development of a livable city. We all depend on you to hear and consider, but not be seduced by any one strong interest - not a well spoken fish zealot, nor a money hungry developer, nor a staff reviewer looking for the easy way out, not just existing landowners, but also prospective businesses and residents. Otherwise we are ultimately a slum. The present application for a planned development known as Ash Creek Estates does not further the desirable ends of our. comprehensive plan. There well may be another application which will balance current interests with future needs, but it is not this one. As you well know, planned developments have long been a tool of flexibility for cities. The builder gets a good deal in bypassing some base zoning rules and the city is supposed to get a good deal in saving some great features or adding amenities, which would not otherwise be required. In the application for Ash Creek Estates, the good deal flows totally to the builder. Nothing for the future homebuyers in the way of common landscaping, nothing for the neighbors except traffic impact and nothing for Tigard such as abetter street system. I urge you to exercise your judgment wherever the regulations call for it (many places for a planned development) and declare that this is not the kind of future Tigard endorses. I will focus on three issues, but follow with a variety of substantive and procedural issues which individually and combined invalidate any current approval of this application: THIS IS THE LARGEST GROVE OF MATURE WESTERN RED CEDARS IN THE STATE OF OREGON. Only when I looked into the thick grove of trees marked for cutting did I ask myself,'where else do such trees growl I searched my own memory of countless hikes in the Gorge, at the coast and throughout the Willamette Valley and could think of no other site where we have 9 acres of nearly pure mature Western Red Cedar. I consulted with the USFS (several different branches), Metro, ODF, State Parks, OSU Forestry and staff at the World Forestry Center. I asked Audubon, ONRC, Trails Club and other environmental interest groups. I called people like Maynard Dawson, retired from ODF and author of `Oregon's Record Trees'. Sites like Opal Creek, Saddle Mountain and Oxbow Park were mentioned in discussion, but NO ONE could suggest a site comparable to that on the South Fork of Ash Creek in Tigard. They could locate larger individual trees, but no dense grove such as we have here. My pitch to you is that we have a truly unique natural feature of Oregon here in Tigard and it deserves maximum protection afforded by the existing development rules. I am not asking that you extend or add new protective rules for this feature - simply implement the current wording: Section 18.350.100 B3 states that planned developments are to be "designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest extent possible". It doesn't say `like the developer asks for' or `when convenient' - it says `to the greatest extent possible'. If a developer came in and proposed saving most of the trees and using piers/wlumns to minimize disturbance of the steep slopes, I think one could find that it was `to the greatest extent possible'. Such features ARE possible as seen by their application elsewhere in the Portland area, eg the West Hills. The developer here makes no such offer. SO -you should use your judgment to make a finding that the current application does not meet the above cited paragraph and therefore is denied. SENSITIVE LAND AND VEGETATATIVE SETBACKS ARE NOT OBSERVED. TDC Section 18.775 states that sensitive ` lands must be protected in accordance with City and other agency requirements. Such sensitive lands include wetlands and slopes greater than 25% The CWS standards for construction also consider these lands and include in Chapter 3 of their Design and Construction Standards instructions for setback from streams. For Ash Creek, a 35-foot vegetative setback from the edge of wetlands is required, where existing trees and bushes are not to be disturbed and no construction can take place. But the CWS standards also explain that for sites where the welland is bounded by a steep slope, the 35-foot setback measurement is to be started from the top of the steep slope, in particular, where the slope levels to something less than a 25% slope. A maximum 200 foot vegetative setback is specified by CWS for continuing steep slopes, however the TDC restriction on steep lands does not 1 include this 200 foot limit. I I Without access to this private land, I looked at compliance using the developer's drawing, "KAI #2129, Sheet 2 of 12, Preliminary Plat Map", dated 3/3/03, which is the topographic map of the proposed development. I constructed my own model of what a 250% slope looks like, which I show to you now - it consists of a one foot rise in four feet horizontal, or a 10 foot rise in forty feet. The topographic map has a scale of one reap inch equaling 40 feet on the ground - I checked it from the knowledge of the lot size overall. The map shows elevation increments of one foot. I then used a nder to find the top of the slope on the map - where there was an indicated 10 foot rise or more in one map inch. Proceeding from east to west, I located ten such points on the north side of Ash Creek and connected these ten points with a smooth curve. The result is shown as the red line on this drawing. I emphasize that these are not my made up facts, but the developer's facts shown in his application. I then marked with a green line the CWS vegetative setback line 35 feet or 7/8 map inch further north from the red line. Finally, I applied a further setback of some 53 feet which is the combine dimension of (lie street, sidewalk and code-required front setback for construction on any lot. The result is shown with a blue line. Similar map markings were made for the south side of Ash Creek. The conclusions from this measurement are important - instead of a proposed 29 lot development, I found 18 of the proposed lots eliminated in full, 4 additional lots reduced significantly, leaving only seven developable lots. Compliance with the CWS setback standards and steep slope restrictions in the TDC are also addressed at TDC 18.810.100 C and my comment p) below. I found out four interesting things in reviewing this matter: 1) The topographic drawing and development plan were "designed" and "checked" by the same person, as shown on the drawing (not a professional standard), 2) the map given to CWS for their review did not provide them with the topographic detail which I have shown you, 3) even though the map legend calls out a dashed line for the 25% slope boundary, it is nowhere drawn on the map and 4) the applicant has reduced the 35 foot vegetative buffer to 15 feet, which is only allowed provided that a stamped geotechnical ruport certifies that the resulting `slope stability can be maintained' - such statement is not found in the ge►technic al report accompanying this application. All these features argue against the adequacy of the analysis and staff ability to review against the TDC and CWS regulations. SO -you should use your judgment to make a finding that the proposed lots impinge on the required CWS vegetative setback aril TDC steep slope requirements (TDC 18.775) and deny this application SURFACE WATER STORM DRAINAGE PLANS ARE INADEQUATE. TDC Section 18.810.100 D requires that the developer provide for retention of stormwater flows such that there is no net increase downstream in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. This requirement is also found at TDC 18.810.100 C and at Additional City/Agency Concerns (page 35/37) where it is noted that "where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot". In the same regulation, the runoff retention facility is required to control drainage "fron its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development". Lots uphill from the proposed Ash Creek Estates will contribute to the managed stonnwater runoff and are not included in sizing calculations. No stormwater drains are shown which service the lower end of downhill lots. The applicant has disagreed with this requirement in stating that footing drains will be run directly to Ash Creek. SO - you should find that the applicant's plans do not demonstrate compliance with the above cited code paragraphs and therefore deny this application. NOW, for the rest of my comments and objections to approval of this planned development with its associated subdivision, zone change, sensitive lands review and adjustments: a) The application is deficient in that the TDC requires submittal of various reports and calculations AT THIS STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT and they are not included in the record. Se; for example the requirement of 18.790(page 27/37) regarding an arborist report Similarly, see the requirements for control of storm water quality (page 34/37), where it is stated that the storm water facilities shall be designed to remove 65% of the phosphorus contained in 100% of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces - no calculations are provided by the applicant or reviewed by staff. Or see the Sensitive Lands requirement (18.775) that the water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased. The applicant has proposed a box culvert at SE 74`x' with no calculations. Or seethe zone change requirement of 18.380 where a DEMONSTRATION of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies is demanded. All that is provided is a conclusionary statement - not one policy of the comprehensive plan is noted. These omissions are important because to enforce change at a later date will be expensive to Tigard and the developer and neighborhood. Without submittal of all the requirements in the code, my review is necessarily restricted and this is my last chance for review of these materials. Simply adding a condition that such information will be provided later does not allow my review. SO -you should use your judgment to conclude that the applicant has not provided required submittals and therefore the application is denied. b) I incorporate by reference my comments a. through n. regarding transportation issues submitted to the Planning Commission on July 7, 2003. They show that the traffic impacts of this development are not reasonably mitigated. SO - you should use your judgment to conclude that there is not a balancing of private and community interests regarding traffic and therefore the application is denied. c) TDC 18.350 provides required setbacks for the perimeter and front yards. These requirements are not met in this application. The applicant proposes setbacks much closer than found in the surrounding neighborhoods. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the setback provisions of TDC 18.350 are not met and the application is denied. d) TDC 18.370 requires a planter strip be provided between the street and sidewalk. This is not done in all cases of this application. SO - you should use yore judgment to find that the planter strip provisions of TDC 18.370 are not met and the application is denied e) TDC 18.370 limits a cul-de-sac length to 200 feet The applicant proposed a 620 foot cul-de-sac. This is longer than any previously approve cul-de-sac in Tigard and far exceeds any reasonable definition of a cul-de-sac. SO - you should use your judgment and find that the cut-de-sac length limits of TDC 18.370 are not met and the application is denied. f) TDC 18.370 limits the maximum number of homes on a cul-de-sac to 20. The applicant proposes 23. The only reason for exceeding the code limit is stated as "the length of the cul-de-sac". SO -you should use your judgment to find that the code limit is exceeded and therefore the application is denied. g) TDC 18.370 provides the rules for special adjustments. ALL of the conditions for approving an adjustment must be met. There are no special circumstances regarding planter strips, cul-de-sac length or maximum number of homes on a cul-de- sac in this case. None are cited in the staff report. This site is simply largely undevelopable. For the three adjustments mentioned in this section of the staff report, there is no showing of extraordinary hardship on the owner, which would result from strict compliance with the regulations. The adjustments of homes on cul-de-sac, setbacks and planter strip would indeed be injurious to the rights of other owners in the neighborhood. For example, there is more danger on a sidewalk without a planter strip than one with a planter strip. For example, a 620 foot cul-de-sac will result in traffic congestion, there being only one exit from the street. For example, having 23 homes on a cul-de-sac limits traffic circulation as desired in Tigard's transportation plan. In fact, considering the other 6 homes proposed in this development and three existing homes on SW 74's Ave, there will be a total of 32 homes on this dead end street system. SO - you should use your judgment to conclude that the adjustments are not warranted and the application is denied. h) TDC 18.390 requires an impact study on `the public at large, public facilities systems and affected private property users. The submitted study is grossly incomplete. For example, it does not examine the funding impact on the Tigard Tualatin School District, if these homes are sold to families with school age children. This is an obvious omission and, if properly included, would affect the proportionality analysis in the staff report. Similarly, providing only a partial street width for SW 74 h impacts the use of this street by neighbors. This decrement is not analyzed. SO - you should find that the impact study and proportionality analysis provided is insufficient and the application is denied i) TDC 18.430 sets forth criteria for subdivision plat approval. The staff report simply notes in a conclusionary statement that "as illustrated in this report" the proposed plat complies with applicable ordinances and regulations. Such conclusion does not support the necessary finding for TDC 18.430 SO - you should use your judgment to find that the staff analysis for subdivision plat approval is deficient in not documenting the reasons for their conclusion and therefore the application is denied j) TDC 18.430 requires that streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to city standards. The Staff report at this point ignores the fact that SW 74u' is a full street north of this development, is shown on the city transportation plan as a two- way neighborhood street, yet the developer proposes to only provide for a partial street width across Ash Creek. This is a negative impact on the neighborhood, since SW 7e will eventually be a principal route to Tigard, via Landau and Locust. Modification of the approved streettroad pattern is not warranted based on the public interest. Why should this neighborhood get only half a street when other neighborhoods get a full street? It is important that this issue be considered at this stage because a fill over Ash Creek is proposed and widening it in the future is not cost-effective. The public interest is defined by the approved transportation plan. The provision of a full street barrier across SW 74th at the south line of the proposed development is totally unreasonable in limiting access and circulation related to the proposed development. Many prospective residents will want to travel toward Tigard without taking a route north to at least Cedarcrest or east to Ventura Court and then south - both causing some 10 blocks of out of direction extra travel. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the current application does not comply with TDC 18.430 in providing conforming street plans and therefore the application is denied. k) TDC 18.510 sets lot development standards in residential zones. One requirement is that lots be an average 50 feet in width I find that lots 9, 12 and 28 do not meet this standard. At issue is the means of averaging front and back lot width - I believe the proper method is to measure width parallel to the boundary facing the street. If this is done, these lots do not meet the standard. SO- you should use your judgment to find that the lot width standard of 50 feet minimum is not met (TDC 18.510) and therefore the application is denied. 1) TDC 18.705 sets requirements for access, including adequate sight distance. The application drawings show that at SW 70 and `Street A', this is only met by building a wall on a neighboring lot (Lot 201) not owned by the developer. Thus this standard is not met. Similarly the neighborhood street classification of SW 74`s is not maintained by reducing its width and this same code requirement is not met. SO -you should use your judgment to find that building on a neighbor's lot is not consistent with meeting TDC 18.705, reducing the width of 7401 is not consistent with Tigard's Transportation System Plan and the application is therefore denio d. m) TDC 18.715 provides for calculating maximum and minimum density. If proper setbacks are made per C WS requirements, I calculate that the maximum number of lots is 20 and the minimum number of lots is 16. The area of the tract which is not developable should be dedicated to the homeowners association or City of Tigard, the resulting layout will yield only 7 lots as developable. SO - you should use your judgment to find that because of improper setback calculations, the density requirements of 18.715 are not met and the application is therefore denial. n) TDC 18.745 requires the provision of certain street trees. The staff has found that a greater diversity of street trees should be provided. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the provisions of 18.745 are not met and therefore the application is denied. o) TDC 18.755 calls for review of the development to ensure that solid waste and recyclable materials can be collected. The applicant has submitted a letter of approval from ?bride Disposal, but a different company, Miller Sanitary, collects solid waste and recyclable materials from this neighborhood. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the local solid waste collector has not reviewed the plans and therefore the application is denied. p) TDC 18.775 sets conditions for building on steep lands. Building on steep slopes is only allowed if ALL of several conditions are met. In this case, the lard form alteration is greater than that required for use (ie use pilings), the land form alteration will result in erosion (see construction on similar soils and slope on Ventura Court to the SE), the geo-tech report specifically notes that some structures would be sited on unstable and high water level soils, and the requirement for replanting cannot be met, where the minimum side clearance on lots is only three feet, not to be filled in any way per fire codes. The staff report mentions land form alteration for streets, sidewalks and utilities, but ignores land form alteration necessary for home construction - applicant has proposed some fills on his maps. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the applicant has not met the requirements of 18.775 for building on steep lands and the application is therefore denied q) TDC 18.775 sets conditions for building within drainageways. Building in drainageways is only allowed if ALL of several conditions are met. The applicant proposes a narrow SW 74'h St crossing of Ash Creek, which will require reconstruction to achieve the objectives of the City's Transportation System Plan which designates SW 74'h as a neighborhood route. Such reconstruction is not minimizing drainageway disturbance. CWS approval really has not been obtained, since it notes "revisions to floodplains may affect development". This must be resolved at this stage of development. SO - you should use your judgment to find that minimum disturbance of the drainageway has not been included in the design and therefore the application is denied. r) TDC 18.790 regards tree removal. The applicant has proposed to ctearcut most of the tract, with a notification to Oregon Department of Forestry saying so. Tigard staff defers to DOF for this action, but when I have called Brent O'Nion of DOF in Forest Grove, he has told me that there is a written agreement between Tigard and DOF that Tigard will regulate tree cutting in the city, providing regulations at least as restrictive as DOE Thus, Tigard should require a harvest plan, similar to the DOF requirement if arty trees within 100 feet of the stream are taken - some are shown so on applicants plans. A further complication is the fact that the DOF notification had a start date of 6/1/03 and an end date of 8/1/03 on it, so it is no longer valid. A new notification to DOF and appropriate reviews should precede any Tigard approval of tree cutting. SO -you should use your judgment to find that the applicant has not submitted a harvest plan and the applicandowner do not posess a valid tree cutting permit from the Oregon DOF, so the application is therefore denied. s) TDC 18.810 governs street and utility improvements. It is proposed that SW 74d be allowed to violate Tigard's standard for sag vertical curve. This stems from a discussion between Tigard, Tualatin and TVWD, where staff says "ALL PARTIES agreed that the applicant should be permitted to construct 74'h Ave with a steeper grade than the standard I object to this rational for finding, since this was a discussion between various staffs and there was no public input on this detail of the development. I believe that SW 74th should meet Tigard street construction requirements in all regards. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the staff assessment that `ALL PARTIES agreed' is a substantial error in the material presented to you, and that therefore, this application is denied t) TDC 18.810 requires a planter strip for sidewalks. The staff report endorses the developers proposal to eliminate such planter strips for the Ash Creek crossing. The staff report notes that the Director must make certain findings. There are no such findings by the Director - all that is in the record is that "staff recommends approval of this adjustment". Until the Director makes the required findings in the record, this action is in violation of the TDC. This problem exists with other adjustments proposed in TDC 18.810. SO -you should use your judgment to find that the Director has not provided the necessary findings re elimination of the sidewalk planter strips et al. and therefore this application is denied. u) TDC 18.810 states requirements for block design. The applicant has proposed a street stub to the north to meet this requirement, but it is clear that the block design maximum of a 1300 foot perimeter does NOT apply where street location is precluded by natural topography. The street stub to the north is not necessary or appropriate, since other lots fronting on Barbara extend to the north boundary of the Ash Creek Estates tract, the slope is steep at the intersection with Barbara, and visibility at the intersection of the proposed street and Barbara would be severely limited The staff report at the top of 32/37 states that there are no opportunities for pedestrian connection to the south due to pre existing development patterns. Providing a proper sidewalk with planter strip along 74'h is exactly what is needed for access to the south. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the street stub to the north is precluded by natural topography and is inappropriate for good circulation. A full street and sidewalk would provide access to the south. Changing these substantive elements would require a different development plan for the proposed. Ash Creek Estates; therefore the application is denied. v) TDC 18.810 prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width unless certain special situations occur (not found here). Lot 15 fails this test. It is 58 feet by 154 feet and sized at 8884 square feet. SO - you should use your judgment to find that this portion of 18.810 is not met by the application and it is therefore denied. w) TDC 18.810 requires a minimum lot frontage. Staff recognizes that lost 9, 11, 12, and 29 do not have the required frontage and it cannot be `adjusted'. Staff proposes that this be resolved at the final plat stage, but since this affects layout of other lots and not only construction details on a single lot, it should be resolved at this stage. SO - you should use your judgment to find that TDC 18.810 is not met in this regard and therefore the application is denied. x) TDC 18.810 requires sidewalks to be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of local residential streets. Staff proposes no FINDINGS on this feature of design and in fact their statement that sidewalks are proposed is true for only part of the planned development. This factual error and lack of a finding make the staff report insufficient. SO -you should use your judgment to find that staff error and a lack of finding makes the stall' report defective and therefore this application is denied. y) TDC 18.810 requires that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area The applicant's study and staff report neither consider development of the property south of Ash Creek and west of SW 74`h, which is likely in the near future (Tigard pre ap file 2003-00040). Some common sanitary sewer facilities should be considered, and perhaps eliminate the need to pump sanitary sewage across Ash Creek. SO - you should use your judgment to find that not considering development of property immediately across SW 70 from this proposal constitutes a significant deficiency of the application, fails to meet this portion of 18.810 and therefore the application is denied. z) In Section VII, Other Staff Comments, the report notes that the private cul-de-sac will be named separately from the public street, although the only access is via the public street. This tortuous layout is likely to confuse a variety of public, including public safety personnel, unless proper signage is placed at SW 74 h declaring that access to the cul-de-sac is through the dead end public street. Such should be added as a condition for whatever planned development may be eventually approved here. aa) The Tigard staff report and notice of final order and notice of appeal do not list all of the Tigard Development Code Chapters which contain criteria for review. Specifically, Section 18.775 is not listed. This is important, because it concerns Sensitive Lands, a major issue in this planned development. Sections 18.410, 18.420 and 18.780 are also not listed SO -you should use your judgment to find that the staff report, appeal notice and notice of hearing are all defective and therefore the application is denied. bb) The staff report for this proposed planned development does not contain FINDINGS for TDC Chapters 410, 420, the Adjustment of 18.370 regarding excessive homes on a cul-de-sac, Chapters 755, 765, 795, and 810 (except for street frontage requirements). Similarly, there are no FINDINGS for the additional city and/or agency concerns with street and utility improvement standards, other staff comments nor agency comments. SO - you should use your judgment to make a finding that the staff report is deficient in not making findings for all relevant review criteria and the application is therefore denied. cc) In agency comments (page 36/37), Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has noted that where a roadway is not more than 28 feet in width, there shall be NO PARKING on either side of the street. This impacts the private street proposed, since it is only 28 feet wide. For street widths above 28 feet and less than 32 feet there shall be NO PARKING on one side of the street and so signed. As currently designed, it appears that there shall be NO PARKING on either side of the cul-de-sac, but NO PARKING signs must be installed only on one side of the street. This NO PARKING limitation has the potential to cause traffic problems, difficulty with neighbors and is not a condition of adjoining streets of the neighborhood. SO - you should use your judgment to find that such a design is not in the best interests of Tigard public welfare and therefore deny the application. dd) TDC 18.810.120 makes a general requirement of undergrounding of utilities except for some special cases, when a fee in- lieu of undergrounding is required (the case in the staff report). However this exception applies only "where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development" For the proposed Ash Creek Estates, it is true that telephone and cable utilities run above ground on the west side of the SW 74s' right-of-way. But there is no electric service running on these poles, and to serve the lots south of Ash Creek, new service must be provided, which per the rule, must be underground. A compounding situation is that the pole supporting telephone and cable across Ash Creek appears to need relocation as a result of the fill and development of SW 74'b across the creek. Therefore it is logical to require that the developer should be required to provide underground utility service along the full length of his SW 74'h frontage. While putting the electric service underground, the telephone and cable service should also be put underground, both to avoid later construction work on the Ash Creek fill and to be consistent with underground service in the neighborhood. SO - you should use your judgment to make a finding that the present situation requires underground utilities and the staff finding re TDC 18.810.120 is not adequate for the best interests of the City and is wrong, therefore the application is denied ee) The staff analysis of the Traffic Study (page 36/37) is inadequate at best and more likely characterized as misleading. Even in citing the consultant's traffic study, staff notes that there will be some impact on 70 from the proposed development (little impact are the exact words). But the staff report does no analysis of its own, just citing the findings of the consultant's study - "Based on the findings of the traffic impact report, staff finds that this project will not have a p, negative impact There is an important difference between tittle impact, which I have disagreed with in earlier R referenced comments, and no impact which the staff finds. This casual change in words, with no supporting analysis, is l' not wan-anted and makes for a defective finding. SO - you should use your judgment to find that contrary to the staff to opinion re traffic impact, there will be some impact and therefore the applicattion should be denied. ff) Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue have noted that for their equipment to access a development, roadway intersections and d turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5% grade). The applicant's grading plan, sheet 8/12, shows that the finished grade ® across the h m round toward the east of the proposed development will be 7%. The private street plan, sheet 7/12, shows M a grade of 6.61/a. Both of these slopes exceed the safety requirements for fire protection. SO - you should use your J judgment to find that the proposed grading of this steep site does not meet fire protection requirements of the serving public agency and is therefore denied. RECEIVED AUG 2 0 2003 Aug 20, 2003 --mot Dear Mayor Griffiths and other Council members: OIYY OF IIQW~ RE: ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMROPOSAL The material provided by the applicant at the 8/12/03 opening of the public hearing has prompted additional comments. Please include in the record and consider in your decision the comments below in addition to my spoken and written comments provided on 8/12/03: 1. The applicant provided a list of trees by species which he has identified on the subject tract. His written annotation says that the stand is not pure western red cedar. I agree with him but note fiom the pictures which he also provided that the crown of trees over this tract is truly almost pure western red cedar. The alder which he lists is largely understory trees, now being overcome by the taller cedars. When an area is cut in this climate, alder trees come back faster than the conifers, but are soon overtaken by the conifers. This is happening here. My assertion that this is the largest nearly pure stand of western red cedar in Oregon stands, based on further research in the past week and public disclosure of the need for information on comparable sites. 2. The photographs provided by the applicant are interesting. They do show the significant loss of trees in the vicinity of the subject tract. This makes protection of the remaining trees and associated wetlands even more important to the city as a whole. While we cannot re-do the decisions of past years, we can and should do better today. The photographs clearly show not only the wetlands of the subject tract, but also in the stream corridor downstream (west) of SW 70 Ave. In order to make the wetlands both east and west of SW 70 more robust, I now believe that the proper thing to do is to require a BRIDGE over the South Fork of Ash Creek at SW 74 h Ave instead of a large fill. This would fulfill the requirements of the Tigard Development Code, Section 18,350.100 which call for preservation to the greatest extent possible the natural features of a site. I ask you to direct staff to request applicant to modify his plans in this regard before any approval of a planned development here. 3. Tigard efforts at protection of fish in the South Fork of Ash Creek seem inconsistent. Note the attached photo taken today looking north along SW 80" Ave where the South Fork of Ash Creek crosses SW 80'" Ave. The responsible public agency (Tigard?) has sprayed herbicide on roadside brush immediately adjacent to the creek. I think the occasion of the Ash Creek Estates application should inspire the City Council to ask for staff consistency in actions relating to fish protection. Hand clearing is the preferred method of roadside brushing next to fish bearing streams. I look forward to your action here as a result of public input on the Ash Creek Estates application. L C Sincerely, i i i Jo Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 503-245-5760jfrewing@teleport.com M' l N :r ✓ 3 Z'I r, ~ r ~ •}~.4 ~ft yf +r~. to J Y„ J'F'"~ s' r z. ' } P~ ~ I r' M Y }}}f 1 •h e1.. rS d A~ _J W J Page 1 of 1 Cathy Wheatley - (no subject) From: (GraylitninOaol.com) To: (mayorC@ci.tigard.or.us>, (craigdodtigard•or,us), (brianM0dti9ard.0r.u5), (sydneyOci.tigard.or.us>, (nickw@ci.tigard•or.us) Date: 8/12/03 5:13 PM Subject: (no subject) Tigard City Council Members, As a Washington Estates homeowner bordering Ash Creek. I was surprised to learn ofthe appeal to the City Council From the developer alter the Planning Copies to: Commission rejected that proposal. The Planning Commission concerns seem to Mayor/Council /L Others mirror the residents of the community and especially the Ash Creek area residents City Manager concerns by rejecting the proposal. Council File I am concerned about how this will impact my home. Will cleat cutting the Seen property weaken the existing trees bordering my property? This could endanger my home and family! How will this effect my property valve? Has a traffic study been required? (Increased traffic on Ventura Drive or does the proposal require development o(74th street? Other concerns) have are, regarding the water quality oFAsh Creek (State studies show that rivers downstream reflect the quality of it's contributaries upstream.) What about flooding? Are the Tigard City development standards being met? Is the City Council granting variances that are in the interest oFthe citizens or the developer? What is going to happen to the land outside the proposed building lots? Is the clear cutting going to be permitted? What will the developer provide along the creek buffer zone? When Tigard Citizens,Metro and others parntrnered to purchase the tract For open spaces, the City Government could see the great interest in the Senn Property to preserve it. I feel that reasonable alternatives could benefit all parties. Ifthe land is priced out reach ofthe Citizens and Metro, then possibly the purchase o(a smaller portion of the tract by the Citizens and Metro could the need for small lot sizes, reduce the number oFlots needed, save part the Western red ceder grove, reduce wind throw and reduce erosion. Sincerely, William Morse 7085 SW Ventura Drive Ti9ard,0P 97223 L C J a i file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW)00014.HTM 8/13/03 Morgan Tracy - Ash creek Page 1 From: "Mike Legg" <obrienlegg@msn.com> To: <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/27103 1:35PM Subject: Ash creek would like to see the opinions of residents respected. In the visionary survey, an overwhelming majority of people responded to protect open land. The city should come up with some money to assist in efforts to keep the land from development. The fact that no money has been offer by the city is disrespectful to residents in the survey. It is rather shameful that others are trying to protect the creek and its surrounding area and offer up money for purchase and you have offered nothing. Please consider the desires of your residents and protect Ash Creek. Patricia O'Brien L r r J 0 7 u RECEIVED Dear Mayor Griffith and City Council Members: 8/29/03 AU G 9 2003 Ot'TY OF TKWD This memo and comments supplements my earlier comments submitted 7/7/03 to the Pl1WM - A. IERING 8/12/03 to you at the City Council Meeting that date, and 8/20/03 regarding changes proposed by the applicant re Ash Creek Estates Subdivision. The gist of all these comments is that there is a lot of work and changes necessary to this application before it is even ready for your consideration and approval with conditions. I would ask that you consider these comments and give me the decency of responding individually to my three sets of comments before you make a decision regarding the proposed Ash Creek Estates. a) The applicant stated on 8/12 that he would add to the CCRs a condition that future home owners in this PD would NOT be allowed to cut any remaining trees (unless, I presume they were dead and a danger). The applicant has not filed anything called `CCRs', but has filed a draft charter for a homeowners association, which itself is lacking review by the City Attorney as called for in city rules. I have asked for documentation and exact wording of the new concession regarding tree cutting, but have not received it yet. Similarly, the applicant stated that he would leave 100% of trees in an area earlier marked for 50% cut of trees, but the exact words of his commitment are not in the written record. 1 would like for you to grant me a period of seven days to review this material when it becomes part of the written record. I will be out of the country 9/4 through 9/25, but will immediately comment to you if you will mail it to me before 9/25. The application should be denied based on lack of review of the homeowners association charter by the City Attorney. b) Regarding the importance of the riparian corridors associated with this PD application, I enclose two maps from METRO which are not yet part of the record in this proceeding. The first, "Regionally Significant Riparian Corridors", shows that the South Fork Ash Creek riparian corridor ranks very high j (greater than 25 points) on METRO's comprehensive analysis of habitat in the Portland area. This area, which encompasses almost half of the subject PD, is important not only on a Tigard scale, but on a regional scale. Those areas ranking equal or higher than 18 points are PRIMARY sites for METRO's protection efforts. This map also shows wetlands with the HIGHEST rating to exist just downstream from the proposed SW 70 crossing and fill. Such rating makes more important my earlier comment that a bridge should be the permitted crossing of South Fork Ash Creek by SW 74`h in order to connect and make more robust the combined Senn riparian corridor and the downstream wetlands. The combined areas amount to over 12 acres. This map reinforces my contention that the tract proposed for development here has unique values, which deserve the protection of the Tigard Development Code, when it says that natural features are to be protected "to the greatest extent possible". The second, "Potential Wildlife Habitat," encompasses almost the entire tract at issue in this proceeding. These two together argue for Tigard's participation in a conservation purchase of this tract, if it can be obtained in the next couple years. Denial of this application on legitimate grounds will allow time for such purchase to be arranged and would be consistent with the values expressed by Senn family members at the 8/12/03 City Council meeting. c) The City of Tigard is already deficient on a comparative basis and compared to its own goals in L providing park areas for its citizens. The Tigard Parks Master Plan dated 3/9/99 sets a goal of I 1 acres r per thousand residents compared to an existing 7.65 acres per thousand residents. The addition of q residents in any Ash Creek Estates creates the nexus for needed open space and park land in this sector of Tigard. The applicant should be required to donate a significant part of this tract to the city for park purposes. This property is technically suited to some public park purposes, eg a wetland boardwalk in a "p natural setting. A similar amenity was added some years ago elsewhere in the region (Eastmoreland Racquet Club on Johnson Creek) and serves as a model. I will later address the proportionality issue and conclude that donation of wetlands falls within a roughly proportional amount of total impact caused by Ash Creek Estates. d) ORS 498.351 and 509.605 et at are the state requirements for fish passage when a roadway crosses a fish bearing stream. The ODFW guidelines for selection of a design for fish passage start by calling for a consultation between developer and ODFW specialists. No evidence of such consultation is in the record for this development and should be required before the city accepts the applicant's proposed plan for stream crossing at SW 74a. For example, a stream crossing must provide for the weakest species of fish or fish at their weakest life stage; it appears that stream velocity at high design flow should not exceed 2 feet per second, depth should be at least 8 inches and timing of construction work should be coordinated with ODFW knowledge of fish movements. These same guidelines note that a bridge poses the least impact on the stream and associated riparian corridor and any more damaging alternatives must be justified. No such considerations show in the record of this proceeding. Thus, denial of this application is warranted on grounds of inadequate planning for fish protection. e) Tigard's Transportation System Plan adopted January 2002 states that our top strategy for development is to "fill in gaps in the network", including "complementing land use actions". The current application is an opportunity to move this plan forward. The narrow interpretation and waivers proposed by staff for this development do not implement the words and policies of your approved Transportation System Plan. As a beginning point, I note for you that the study done for the applicant starts by erroneously stating that the gravel road extending south from South Fork Ash Creek is private; it is shown on assessors maps as public right of way. The following items flow from the TSP and argue that the present application does not constitute `complementing land use actions' to bring Tigard closer to the goals of the plan: TSP Figure 5-1, which is the Pedestrian Master Plan, shows SW 74'h Ave as a street which should have sidewalks on both sides of the street. Such development is ranked No. 6 of 157 projects in the medium category for work. The text accompanying this portion of the TSP notes that "every attempt should be made to meet city standards." The present development, with a crossing fill serving only a % width street as the frontage on Ash Creek Estates does not meet this standard. The application should be rejected unless the applicant agrees to construct his share of a full size street (SW 70) fronting his development. - Connectivity is a major issue for the TSP. The city's "priority" sites for improving connectivity are shown on Figure 8-13, attached, which shows the SW 74"' Ave frontage of this development as in need of completion. Allowing the developer to make a fill with a street width of only % normal size (neighborhood street) is not consistent with the TSP `priorities". Money for interim paving of the gravel road south of South Fork Ash Creek can be obtained in the near future by delaying the paving of SW Mapleleaf St. in the vicinity of SW 71' Ave, an item already on the Tigard TIP and having no neighborhood or city-wide significance. - The TSP shows that a safety problem ALREADY exists on Taylor's Ferry Road near SW 74w Ave where one third of the incremental traffic from an Ash Creek Estates development is projected to travel. ANY incremental traffic will add to this safety problem, at a site where over 260 vehicles have been counted in EACH direction in the PM peak hour. The intersection of SW 70 Ave and Taylor's Ferry Road is most difficult. It has an east-west grade of about 15 percent, and because of view-blocking topography, the stop sign and street identification on SW 70 is set 15 feet back from the striped stopping point fronting Taylor's Ferry Road thereby not visible from Taylor's Ferry Road). Vehicles going north on SW 74' Ave and turning east onto Taylor's Ferry Road encounter a short stretch of travel where the grade is over 35 percent and L an error of six inches puts a car into the drainage ditch. Tri-Met bus stops exist opposite each other just east of SW 70, where in each direction there is a marked single east-west traffic lane of 10-foot width, then one foot of pavement, then one foot of gravel and then a 30-inch deep drainage channel with side slopes over 80 percent. There is no practical way to board or depart the bus except that it stop traffic on this steep street at a blind curve. Bus riders must stand in J the street, no more than six inches from the traffic lane in order that the bus driver can see them. All these conditions argue for improvement of this intersection before or as part of any Ash Creek Estates development. The applicant's analysis is void on this subject, the staff report ignores it and thus the Council should demand further information and deny the present application until improvements are agreed to by the developer. f) The applicant's traffic impact study finds that the Ash Creek Estates added traffic will not cause conditions meeting the state criterion for adding a left turn land for westbound traffic on Taylor's Ferry Road turning south onto SW 74'h Ave. In fact, the study finds (see attached CTS figure entitled `Left Turn Lane Criterion') that the criterion IS met for speeds >35 mph. My observation is that vehicles, in -0 part due to the downhill slope heading west, indeed do travel at speeds exceeding 35 mph at this location; I would welcome studies that show otherwise. Since the criterion is met, a left turn land should be added as a traffic impact of the proposed Ash Creek Estates, and the application should be denied until the applicant agrees to fund such safety improvement. g) I have earlier noted that the impact study (I8.390.040.B.e) is insufficient in that it ignores probably, the largest impact on public taxpayers caused by the proposed development - additional school services and facilities. In national studies, it has been estimated that the impact of single family residences on a community approximate, $25,000 per house. Applied to the current proposal, Tigard taxpayers will have to accept new one-time costs of $725,000 caused by this development. But to make matters more disproportionate, the developer will reap from platting of this tract the difference between forest land value and residential value - I estimate this to be in the range of $3 million based on statements by the applicant that individual units will sell for something like $400,000 each (for a total assessed value of $12-15 million), land value being about one quarter of the total sale value, and the current market price of the property being in the range of $500,000 ($3.5million platted value of land take away $500,000 forest value of land). The present land value is that estimated by the State of Oregon as submitted by the applicant in a letter from Kurahashi dated 5/27/03. Thus, I think the demands of Tigard for land or other improvements could reach as high as $3,725,000 without exceeding a fair "roughly proportional" standard. At present, Tigard is asking only for a TIF of $73,370 and land valued at $2,526. The balance in favor of the developer is a factor of 50 - not proportional at all. Many of the improvements which I have called for, eg a bridge, wetland boardwalk, traffic improvement at 70 and Taylors Ferry Road, could be accomplished within a "roughly proportional" test. h) Regarding my second major point on page one of my 8/12/03 testimony, I have recently discovered two additional errors in the applicant's assessment of setback from sensitive (18.775) and steep lands per CWS requirements. First, the applicant drew circles with DIAMETERS of 50 feet and 25 feet in determining slope rather than drawing circles with RADII of 50 feet and 25 feet. This makes a difference in assessing whether a slope of 25% is encountered in the first 50 feet of setback from the wetland area. The applicant's map, from his application, is attached to show you this work. Because of this error, the application should be denied. Second, the applicant has proposed and staff approves a reduction in riparian setback offset by equal granting of extra setback along the north side of South Fork Ash Creek. TDC 18.797.030 states that a riparian setback reduction (and offset) is allowable ONLY if ALL of five conditions are met: a) native plants are <80% of onsite riparian corridor area, b) that the riparian corridor was substantially disturbed before development, c) vegetation was not removed contrary to 18.797.050, d) no infringement of the 100-year floodplain and e) the average slope of the riparian area is not > 20%. This site does not meet several of these conditions, namely, items a), b), c) and e). Thus the staff approval does not meet its own rules and the application should be denied. See the attached topographic map of the site. i) At the August 12 City Council hearing, I noted that a harvest plan should be required by Tigard if its regulatory efforts are to match those of the Oregon Department of Forestry (per agreement). I want to suggest several items which should be in the plan: a) Weather or seasonality limits to prevent L operations on steep slopes during significant rains, b) Equipment limitations which will ensure that roots of saved trees are not damaged - eg rubber tired vehicles only, c) Clearing methods in areas near waterways or steep slopes - hand clearing where necessary, d) Erosion control methods to be employed before, during and after harvest, and e) Monitoring requirements during and following tree harvest. 1 3 would appreciate timely notice when Tigard does receive such plan for approval, in order that I might comment on it. a , i t7 5Y'' Ln y~ Lpty 1LTIqA-P t~ g72z~ C .rU-U-5, LEGIBILITY STRIP 24I----4-~~' - .co:o... ...o o.....:o. , b3- i-- I - .;<°':~'r~'rF lice 1w23..._ zl C1 _7, > tSSEy1lAR_3 S i/ v~l i s - s z19 Regionally Significant Z i -i_`- - 77-_, C,- I Riparian Corridors A- r' _ By Riparian Function - is .,'S-i+ l r __~'i^( i Score 4s ' s A y Ys ' ' Q ection Lines -Stream centeriines I z AI l r~ l I I.~ \ ~S< = Taxlots -metro Boundary f 11t119O1Z5.~9 ~4" - ]69T~j r r - - ` etro UGB GOQY111N _ 3r 4 I - t \ ~~r I ..y ,c - 1 I ~M OSite Boundaries Site Sub Boundaries i_ir X F Ii~ I y C County Boundaries [ i , 62ND Fish & Wildlife Stdy Area Bndry t07 }=UGB Study Area Boundaries • I ..r. 1 - 1 1 --1 1 I I EL4i3F.t3CF,~ .-'1 -:3River & Lake Areas -I Riparian Corridor Score N i of T i' 2 L 1~ T I I ~BUG~ER- l~ d r~-IL~y : I L Zr F P~"TC:_ C'„--J. { l- ,{l- cam. . '_'~6- 1 t=1 ck lAS tom 1 l i 1 > 1 L I _ I I - ~ i i = 12 - 17 L_t_ 1 If I saeZO =18 - 23 1siw26' TAXLORB (Site 12 P-~~-1,, 1 ~15~`~w~5 f l t [ ®24 - 29 ir11_-I PZ Ci r IL ®30 jT aiac l r_ . ~161RCLU alRCttJ r-t l r1 ! T ~CVll.136LQ Z I i.,~' 2" G ' T// - 'T. f - ' IT - _.---T-T Silo smnfs CassC on ra1.INe C.~omun~a - , - 1 I 1 r ` ,1 Y , I t0 I of Ne Iolbwln0 RiP+llan funclans: f C 1 _ _ y f'- 0' I ? OARCRESTL- L I I' - i l._( / l I I ; I -..I i ALNU f I I ~l~S1BEl.' iw . e ,na snw. . -l 1 y ? 2. Sir.. Wdenlion.nd Water Stony. 3.SaNC u,.twn, sodin-f.nd ft- control M-` T~i ....T~T ry t. um. woos nd cn.nn.l oynams l== -'t l ~L Oi U) ~~L ~ I .l I\~ I i Ii~ S. OIG.nk AAal.d.I SOwcas -J I`r_ ~I -y j J _ H rs Cdr 1 '-r, ~_~7 ZI:OHEgfiLUT'_i~i i i2j ti? = r r /l\` J - t~ T-- _ ~ b (j ~ sourtcES: t- - o-T - II T~ a ~4 1-v~ 1~ LA 4 'ALFRED T T rmtur - 1 `L. ' i n f I--' M==--, T +'.mv=« rz°°.ola n~..w TT" - f ' ~ - ~ ~ T - I.ELM1lY~LL1 f ~~T.,~~,~•~i-~ _ 3 _ _ ~ _ , I~)~ 1 4 F7_._ { sx c~~ -1- r , _ , ) u«.tuw.m ~..o«rwn e~«nw.a'o.Ywi ~ - - ` I -S.~l--~z~-'~- l.. 2 ,7.x i`~: J.! ~~..«.rm.n«nha~vmaw L we..ro,.u.oa 1 C - ' ~r a I~~~• ~r ~•r ` f`q~,-~t`~'+'"r3" ~ ? ~ 1,.; ~m~,.a..nois mi.. ' i 3'S C L CK,. - f >«u:,~~ 4y ~/-"7'~,~ty~ ,i ~Il•`'a„g3`'' Feet EM Q ~ ~i ♦~t~ d :r -LA RCM L I LAl3 aoo Boo Cl # } r_ Z 10 -y I M1. Ty s! I 1 ~i. ~sNh At!/~~ y -~oa9 t7SONl, er.e . M•'-Ii{r nonven ronr 04 , s1w ii i r_ 1si w.1 • I i ( al'I _L 1 1 -LOCUST- LEGIBILITY STRIP Potential [Wildlife Habita v~ue 2 -By Wildlife Score 2 l Section ones - Stream Centerlines Taxlots T l = Metro Boundary = t L Metro UGB © Site Boundaries Site Sub Boundaries County Boundaries Fist, 8 wildlife Stdy Area Bndry t,:aUGB Study P.rea Boundaries Mg River 8 Lake Areas a 0 HOC Wetlands Habitats of Concern Boundaries lE F®{ Patch Score 1-3 6_1 2 S04-6 ®7-9 0 y„ soar or[n m r[r,.v.. PaIO~O[ dt+M1oW`G wyW[ W We _ ; PCnmGW+~y sou~ r un~[brc[[m d`d^~ti~~ a D [M[~a.O[W~ .Tlya ' .ill. _ _ ~ ~~~y+ws+~us°"~rypassd w tlr0~[Wr[015 mL[[ FeK 400 B00 0 M[i[o - ~ ~IIld16E~nH~ ~io[~Y]'S]1~i16 W NO[~u~~y~6~[p l f~P[i I or. IBILITY STRIP wmmmL*"-vw~"-- C1Y`d 'K1 rJ rtatiorl rls T Sys e~ plan RD ~ c C18tes RY ~ so scr~F t5 Do C2 w gig ' 99`h' figure ~i'r'j -Tr L STREF_T G014t.Metzger COCA _1- ~~r _ Stub E.nd Stcee~ _Pedes~aw Co~rectio~ Ash Creek Subdivision OR03.010301 April 24, 2003 Taylors Ferry Rd/ 74th Ave PM Peak - TF 2005 Left Turn Lane Criterion tooo M 8~ E~ o~ = c. 600 c °1 > ) ~ 3 = 400 C ~ 0 S B SW Taylors Ferry Road ® WB SW Taylors Ferry Road " 200- 06 . far 0 to 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110 - > 55 mph Left-Turn Volumes 45 mph (Design Hour Volumes) < 35 mph L Left Turn Criterion r Opposing Plus Left Turns Advancing Volumes Minimum Criteria Approach (vph) (vph/Lane) (Left Tunas-vph) Criterion Met D EB SW Ta lore Ferry Road 4 290 50 NO WB SW Taylors Ferry Road 38 307 47 Yes for Speed > 35 mph Ct aS Engineers, Inc. t4 r9 P-A 91rh I .7 f e NOTE: UTILITY POLE LEGEND -EH 5-0 ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON WASHINGTON COUNTY w WATER VALVE ~w S-OS-O BM 820 (CITY OF PORTLAND ELEVATION 481.975) 0 WATER MANHOLE - CK _ 5-_05 0 1 FOOT CONTOURS VENT PIPE I f... w... WETLAND 0-01-;" _ ALL SURVEYED POINTS ARE ACCURATE WITHIN ® SANITARY MANHOLE BOUNDARY , 0 AO 80 0.3 FEET HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY. DATA POINT r r • r r r r - r, BUFFER MITIGATION ;t FIRE HYDRANT (OPTION4) SCALE: P=40' " - - - - - - TOP OF BANK ' ENCROACHMENT _ - - - - - CENTERLINE OF CREEK -s""-s"m 5""- SANITARY LINE MITIGATION t- STUDY BOUNDARY - - DRAINAGE DITCH ENCROACHMENT/MITIGATION --a-~--~_ BARBED/WIRE MESH FENCE a III III ~ TAXLOT:20r , (1 r FILL APPROVAL IN PROCESS I ~I III 38 37 36 35 11 34 WITH CORPS OF ENGINEERS/DSL I I) I 33 4 - 967.67' 9'1448X.., BUFFER (OP 4) ITICA 6,670 S.F.I 2 $ 1 4 1 5 I i I 9 5, i52 SE~ W 5,799 S.F. 1 7 1 8 1 L 1 1417.08 S.F. 1 1 6,29S0 S.F. fEiiCR rr 7: 98. SO. , (TOTAL MITIGATI ) I ! 10 r o ,509 S.F. I .f. I I OApWI47) 1614A), "~1 I s78f 1 6,071 (itwoRwr t 7298. SO. CROACHMENT) 1 6.:25 S 5.744 S.F. 1 c 6.93a S.F. 24 TOTAL TER k :1,716.97 i i I t 7003 s.F. ,637. tx 9.. ! E ;CROAC~I NT LEN ! t r S. 5.437S.F. El CROACH LENGTH IN 7. OF OVERALL BU 19.88 I _ kq~ 7,445 S.F. 5.506 S.F. 1 22 , 21 n 20 4.953 S.F. ! 4,995 S .F. eu 19 ; _ Z4 W W ro+ 5,122 , l Id. I ! I .122 S.F. + 18 17 cr- w 16,607 S.F. + 16 LL % " I \ a 943 S,F. f 5,054 S.F. I6.884 S.6 j 15 J % 1+n. , ! a S.F. 1 /(l ®6397.09 52FI. \ / 14 _ 1~_' CTOMIORARY ~ j, ACILF!(1) `~NII i,t ` 1 p~~ \ i~~/ ~ li u:• S.r. i2~4b S.F. 3 m Z o' aft 28 a~,~i \ LL/ N \ z~~ 0 Aft / ♦ ® ~ SRy r i I ae6 S.F. (I / f n BANK I \1- \.I an I I ~M~r.r. ,i`IL ~lD Ly\ ;saw-,IJAT~~~'q.` " KURAHASHT 96Za' - - - - - _ - s N69.1 '42-W ASSOCIATES, INC. rM, an.<rr • uw iw~.., 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 sa ! TRACT 'E' . . ~ ' 11NClVL1G9_ _ - _ - tACNrypFC~-- (snbe-ae.z rc (smAn->nr " OPT10N CwS Z~c1 4 IAEET KA1#2129 1 Of 1 e+ ouwa o.aeMa Tql, e. oAroe/w - " ' - - - - - er. wmrm GMLY/Al,il~ poly TOTAL AREA WITH SLOPES > 25% SLOPE =107,556.24 SQ. FT. LEGEND a[nsmns CENTERLINE Of CREEK FLOODPLAIN AREA = 70,862 S.F. - - TOP Of `REEK BANK WEILANO 71}I WETLAND AREA = 61,029 S.F. BUFFER WETLAND BOUNDARY FLOCOPLAIN BOUNDARY - 25% SLOPE BOUNDARY DECIDUOUS TREE 0 (SEE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN SHEET 12 Of 12) l~ I EVERGREEN TREE GRAPHIC SCALE (SEE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN SHEET 11 OF 12) -100- 5' CONTOUR E%157. R/W - - - - I' CONTOUR ^ Ix RR 1 I cN 0 II. W I E%ISPNG DRIVEWAY _ K)UNLEW-D HEIGHTS, i w 57 1 38 .3 (D w`201 PARCEL AREA 9.36 ACRES 7 .5 € . 4 ° [/,I 97.6 ' S '1 '4 - v o \ r d \ 7\ 7 \ EXSISTING HOUSE TO } \ \ ` . 1~ ss DEMOLISHED ` 1015 H 25% SLOPE U 0 2e ` ' \\I AREA - 5,556 SQ. FT v- \ \ \ \ \ \ 55 D p a L'WP.11[ \ `E ~i~\ \ I~` vl 54 p p~pppp V n ILJLJI ,Do o 25% SLOPE AREA=31,660.50 SO FT.~ ~l~~L~ zi "I J- Q AN x V \1 X25% SLOPE AREA=53,681.47 52 1`. l 8 e"~ ARE 0,8fi-z.0's -S Fr ~\\t. o 51 89'1 "42 r KURAHASHI 717 do ASSOCIATES, INC ~-RA ` T E F'AI_ T ' I , _ } rt•~k /I}~_ [..,r E"~mlaln6er~arev Ar,our<, 25% SLOPE I'kOuff-JE TAT • \ \ ISO]6u-6AP~O In. Iba5u-9lll AREA=16,658.27 SQ. FT. ~"~(!13 1L EXIST. CONDMO14S / PLAN f I s/ffE w t of 12 k4 RA' 1' ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TIOARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: City Council Members FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner DATE: August 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Previous Correspondence Regarding Ash Creek Estates Appeal For your convenience, the previous letters and emails that were not part of your August 12, 2003 Council Packet, but were sent to you under separate cover have also been incorporated here for your reference: ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter dated July 16, 2003 from Eileen Murche 2. Letter dated July 28, 2003 from Joe and Sheila Kasten 3. Letter dated July 31, 2003 from Patti and Roger Garland 4. E-mail dated August 4, 2003 from Patricia Leonard 5. E-mail dated August 7, 2003 from Ken and Lisa Dahme. 6. E-mail dated August 7, 2003 from Diane Kostur. >L 7. Letter dated August 8, 2003 from Susanna Knight, State Dept. of Geologist Examiners 2 8. Letter dated August 8, 2003 from Dan and Margaret Burd, et al. 9. Letter dated August 10, 2003 from Richard and Joan Morley 10. Letter dated August 11, 2003 from "Residents of Washington Square Estates" 11. E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from Merilyn Ferrara 12. E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from Richard Williams j 13. E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from David Smith 14.E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from Bob Fuquay 15. E-mail dated August 12, 2003 from The Gates Family 16. Letter dated August 12, 2003 from Warren W. Aney, Certified Wildlife Biologist 17. E-mail dated August 12, 2003 from P. Sydney Herbert 18. Letter dated August 12, 2003 from Brian Wegener, Tualatin Riverkeepers r"U 7118103 Eileen Murche ATTACHMENT 2 9620 SW Shady Place Tigard, OR 97223 (503)452-4i93 July 16, 2003 Mr. Morgan Tracy Staff Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Tracy, Thank you for the time that you spent yesterday discussing the Ash Creek Estates subdivision. I live at the corner of SW Shady Place and Barbara Lane. I have spoken with the City of Tigard before about the need to place a stop sign on Barbara Lane at the corner of Shady Place. Barbara Lane has a very steep downward slope approaching the corner of Shady Place. Vehicles are not required to stop at this intersection and routinely tam this corner at speeds in excess of 40 miles per hour. Barbara Lane is the primary route that the surrounding neighborhood takes to the local grocery store Fred Meyer as well as access to highway 99 and I-5. As a mother with two young children I am increasingly concerned about the safety of this intersection because of the high speeds at which vehicles travel. There needs to be a stop sign at this corner. It is unsafe, to pull out of my driveway. While I am not opposed to the Ash Creek subdivision, I am concerned with the additional traffic that will result on Barbara Lane at an already dangerous intersection. I ask that my written comments and stop sign request be formerly entered as testimony. C D Respectfully submitted, f Eileen Murche Copies to: Mayor/Council ✓ Other: City Manager ✓ Jim N Joe & Sheilah Kasten Council File - 9885 SW Ventura Court RECEIVED C.Q.T. Tigard, Oregon 97223 AUG 0 15 2003 July 28, 2003 Administration Honorable Mayor and Councilors City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Honorable Mayor and Councilors, Subject: SUB 2003-00010 Appeal of Ash Creek Estates Subdivision For several years we have observed the efforts to create a subdivision on the Senn property (9750 SW 74 h Avenue; WCTM IS 125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400). We are well aware that this is one example of the conflict between the rights of an individual to use their property in the manner that they see fit and the expectations of the citizens of a city for everyone to live within prescribed rules and laws. Over the years, the City of Tigard has created (and the citizens have approved) a collection of requirements that concern the process for.the development of property into a subdivision. The relative calm of the political process in Tigard suggests that our citizens, overall, approve of these requirements. They are designed to protect the public safety, the water within our community, the local vegetation, traffic flow, and many other subjects of concern. Citizens living in a community are aware of the local requirements and continue to live in that community with the expectation that the requirements will remain in effect. We demand that these requirements be enforced, unchanged and unmodified, for this and other developments. To change or modify them disenfranchises all other citizens. A developer may object that some of the requirements make it unreasonably difficult or expensive to develop a particular parcel of property..... We reply that either the time, the site or the envisioned use for the property is incorrect. If a development doesn't follow the city codes and zoning, it shouldn't be allowed. We hope to have your support to require that future development in the City of Tigard be 1 required to meet all provisions of the applicable codes. i I Thank ou for considering our point of view. R. Jo Kasten Sheilah S. Kasten Copies to: Mayor/Council t/ Other: City Manager V1, Council Pile ✓ July 31, 2003 RECEIVED C.O.T. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL 13125 S W Hall Blvd AUG 4 2003 Tigard Or 97223 Administration Re: "Appeal" of Ash Creek Estates Subdivision Planned Development Review (PDR) 2003-00004 We are writing in regards to the above proposed subdivision which is before you on August 12, 2003 in a Public Hearing. The property in question is located behind our home: we live at 7022 SW Barbara Lane. We have been involved for the last couple of years in attempting to purchase this property with the help of the Nature Conservancy and Metro, and various other funding sources. The desire of most people in our neighborhood is to procure the "Senn" property and preserve it as a park for everyone to use and enjoy. We are not ostriches with our heads in the ground-oblivious to the fact that development is a way of life in our area. Our argument is not with development, per se; after all, we are in a development ourselves! But what we are objecting to is the development of land that is irreplaceable within the metropolitan area. This is an area of cedar trees which cannot be found any where else: filled with wildlife such as owls, raccoons, coyotes, squirrels, and many species of birds. And what makes this land so rich with nature also makes it inappropriate for home construction. This is an isolated stretch of property-only accessible from the 74th a end of the property. It has a steep slope, which leads down p: to the waters of Ash Creek-the steepness of which makes it impossible to build on a good deal of the property. The lots the builder proposes to build on will obviously have to be small and extremely close together-the only option he ® has in order to justify his investment. To only be able to W access the property from one street obviously means all J traffic to and from these proposed homes will be on 74th and Barbara Lane. Such limited access does not even make sense from the perspective of daily, routine vehicle trips-but what about Emergency vehicles? And the construction company's `maybe-promises' that maybe, someday, Lola Lane 2 will be punched through to the proposed development area, is hardly reliable comfort: especially in light of limited local funds to alleviate a traffic nightmare for one small section of Tigard. Therefore, we are asking that in the council's re- examination of this proposed subdivision, you please review all of the facts. Developing our city is important-it creates jobs and potential new homeowners mean tax revenue. But how the city is developed speaks to the viability and sustainability of the city: building on every square inch of land is not the answer. Please look at the facts-does it make sense to build on this land. Is it in the best interests of the city, of its people, and of the land? And if the members of the city council have not already done so, we urge you to visit this property (obviously with the property owner's permission). You will then be able to appreciate the necessity to deny the application to subdivide this 9.36 acres and the building of 29 single- family homes on the property. Thank you. Sincerely, Patti and Roger Garland 7022 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, or 97223 EL h m C7 W J Page I of 1 Jerree Gaynor - Senn Property From: "Patricia Leonard" <pvlnrd@comcast.net> To: "Morgan Tracy" <Morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/4/2003 6:40 PM Subject: Senn Property CC: "Michael Trigoboff" <mtrigoboff@comcast.net>, "Sue Beilke" <sbeilke@europa.com> Hi Morgan, I spoke with Heidi Berg and CWS today about stream and tree issues. They are sending another person out this week to look at the property and the developers plans. She said that a separate Service Provider Letter would be necessary from CWS to log, even for the land that is under timber deferral. She also said that the developer cannot cut 74 trees or any trees for that matter in the buffer zone without an approval process from CWS. Just wanted to make certain you knew this as 1 saw no mention of it in any of my materials from the City. Pat L r 3 D 3 l file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jetree\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 8/7/2003 Page t of t ]erree Gaynor - Proposed Ash Creek Development From: "Lisa Dahme" <dahmel@ohsu.edu> To: <nickw@d.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/7/2003 10:29 AM Subject: Proposed Ash Creek Development We are writing to ask that you uphold the decision of the Tigard Planning Commission to deny the proposed Ash Creek Estates development. This development, if approved, would greatly damage, if not destroy, one of the last remaining wet lands in the area. Not only will the water quality of the existing creek be damaged due to increased runoff and pollution, but the entire area will be destroyed if the developer Is allowed to dear cut the property, eradicating one of the last groves of western red cedars in Oregon. We are also concerned about the impact of property values in the area If the developer is given a variance of the existing zoning regulations and permitted to substantially decrease the lot size of the parcels and allowed to place more houses on a cul de sac then currently allowed. This type of development Is not suited to the surrounding area and should not be allowed. These regulations are in existence to protect the environment and surrounding neighborhoods from developments, and should not be waived so that a developer can increase their profit by cramming more houses onto smaller lots. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Ken and Lisa Dahme 9635 S.W. 74th Tigard, Oregon 97223 503-245-4168 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jerree\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00003.HTM 8/7/2003 Y Page t of 1 Jerree Gaynor - Where are all the trees going? From: <Cdkoslur@aol.com> To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/7/2003 8:44 AM Subject: Where are all the trees going? Please consider not approving the Ash Creek Estates high density development. Today this area contains the largest, densest grove of Western red cedar in all of Oregon. This 91/2 acre parcel should not be developed as presented by the developer. The land is sloped and has Ash Creek flowing through it's boundaries. The current plans calls for clear cutting the property for development, waivers for very steep grades for the streets, waivers for less than full-size street and sidewalk, and a 29 lot subdivision on six canyon sloped acres. There does not appear to be an adequate large retention swale for improving downstream storm flows. I know that progress requires development of land, however, we should also require developers to follow current guidelines which are in the best interests of the city of Tigard, per the Tigard Development Code. The proposed development plan is not "designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topograph and natural drainage to the greatest extent possible". Thank you for taking time to consider the importance of maintaining Tigard as a livable "Tree City". pent Koslur 9865 sw v`„f••n Cf. &A oR 97213 L 2 J file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jerree\Local%20Settings\TempiGW)00002.HTM 8/7/2003 o -rel. n State Board of Geologist Examiners x 1 lVJ 1193 Royvonne Avenue SE #24 e Tbeodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Salem OR 97302 Phone: 503.566.2837 Fax: 503.485.2947 Email: osbge@osbge.org August 8, 2003 RECEIVED PLANNING James D. Imbrie, RG, CEG, PE AUG 11 2003 GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. 7312 SW Durham Road CITY OF TIGARD Portland, OR 97224 RE: Report for Windwood Homes, Inc., Dated May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Engineering, Project No. 03-8191 Geotechnical Investigation, 70 Avenue Subdivision, Washington County Dear Mr. Imbrie: A Registered Geologist (RG) forwarded a copy of the above report to this office. That RG recognized that the geology work completed in this project was outside the scope of an RG. ORS 672.505 (3) defines an engineering geologist as "a person who applies data, principles, and interpretation to naturally occurring materials so that geologic factors affecting planning, design, construction and maintenance of civil engineering works are properly recognized and utilized." Since this project is a civil engineering work, a Certified Engineering Geolooist (CEG) is required to supervise and stamp the a work. 7. Another geology statute clarifies the requirement for the CEG stamp. ORS 672.525 (7) states that "no person, including a person registered as a geologist under this section, shall practice or offer to perform any activities of an engineering geologist as defined in ORS 672.505 unless the person is certified as an engineering geologist under ORS 672.565." Further review of this concern revealed that you are registered as a CEG. This means that your CEG stamp should have been placed on this report, as the CEG in responsible charge. Had that happened, this report would not have been submitted to this office. It would have been clear that a CEG was supervising the engineering geology work completed by James E. Pyne, RG for this project. Both James Pyne, RG, and James Imbrie, PE, should also stamp the report if they indeed did work on this project from their positions as a Registered Geologist and a Professional Engineer. Correctly stamping the work product allows anyone that is aware of statutory requirements reviewing a report to know the individuals are properly registered to practice within the scope of the work contracted. If you have any questions regarding the above outlined information, please contact the Board office. Sincerely, ZAU'~'uL4 Susanna Knight J Administrator AC 03 08 315 Cc: Dick Bewersdorff, Tigard Planning Manager David Michael, RG, CEG, Board Chair James Pyne, RG / Morgan Tracy, Tigard City Planner i/ Eileen L. Webb, RG, Board Member z IC i i Copies to: Mayor/Council Vo" Other: City Manager X01 Council File '16CEI VED C. 0. August 8, 2003 AUG I 1 I Tigard City Council Ado, - Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Ash Creek Estates Planned Development Subdivision Dear Mayor Griffith and Councilors Dirsen, Moore, Sherwood and Wilson: Recently the Tigard Planning Commission declined approval of the development application for the Senn Property into a 29 single home neighborhood. Their decision was based on non-compliance of the Tigard Development Code, issues that were not addressed in the application and the fact that the proposed development would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods. As the Planning Commission is the City of Tigard's professional expert on land development, we urge you to uphold their decision. The proposed development is zoned for R4.5 or 7500 sq. foot lots. Our lot size is 12,500 sq. feet and typical of the 108 homes in the surrounding Washington Square Estates neighborhood. A "planned development" of 4500' sq. feet (the developer has asked for a variance) to 7500 sq. feet is not consistent with the surrounding lot sizes. Also, as the Planning Commission pointed ,out, lots 9, 11, 12, and 29 do not have 25' of frontage as required by Code 18.810.060(B). There are seven 50 "or taller fir trees in our backyard. There are over 25 fir and cedar trees of similar height in our four neighbors' backyards (to the south of our lot) along Ventura Court that back up to the Seam property. This is very typical of the whole Washington Square Estates development and other surrounding properties. The developer plans on removing 400 trees in the proposed development, which will leave only a fringe of small deciduous trees on the perimeter of the property. Again, this is not in character with the surrounding neighborhoods. What will happen when we have our next strong winter storm? (as the area is on a hillside, the winds are gustier here than in L Tigard as a whole) Large evergreen trees that are not protected by large stands of other evergreens are very vulnerable to winds and can easily uproot. We have had two trees removed from our property within the last seven years due to wind damage. Trees also provide protection from noise and air pollution, something that will be critical with the J density that the developer has proposed. To my knowledge the developer has not pp proposed "a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees" (Chapter 18.790 Tree Removal) by a certified arborist. J The Planning Commission also questioned the excessive length and narrow road span with limited access of the proposed cul-de-sac. According to Code 18.810.030K "a cul- de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long...". As the site is over 967 feet deep, the proposed cul-de-sac exceeds this rule. z Having lived in our home for over 13 years, been a member of the Tigard Traffic Committee, participated in traffic flow studies within Washington Square Estates that resulted in traffic signs, traffic flow bumps and speed bumps, I (Margaret Burd) am keenly aware of how increased population can affect traffic flow and safety. Our neighborhood streets provide an unfortunate (for those living here) thorough way for those traveling back and forth from the Tigard Triangle (Highway 99) and West Portland (Taylors Ferry Road). The past 13 years have brought a tremendous increase in traffic, especially during rush hour, to our neighborhood. The proposed development would add approximately 278 vehicle trips per day to our streets, or 22 -29 trips each, per morning and evening rush hours. Our narrow neighborhood roads were not built to safely handle the current traffic, let alone the increased number of cars that will be using them if 29 homes are built on the Senn property. 74th Street was originally intended by the City of Tigard to be developed into a major artery for traffic in the area. It has never changed from its early days as a dead end neighborhood road. We have been told that it most likely will never be developed to its intended purpose, which would greatly shift traffic away from our neighborhood streets. Please take this into consideration when you decide whether to add an additional burden to our roads and neighborhoods without any alternate plan. As we will not be in town to attend this important meeting, we thank you in advance for your serious consideration of these points and any others that Planning Commissioners Mores, Haack Sutton and Bienerth brought forth during their meeting. We ask you, our representatives and co-residents of Tigard, to consider our voice and vote for the future and livability of our City. Sincerely, Dan and Margaret Burd °1-15 SLJ gU~~r~Ck , C9 / AUG ~r 1 1 I ns Sl,,~ t l k UJ C1 CAJ- O~ C( --I XZ_3 r I also support the ideas and concerns expressed in this letter and request that you take them into consideration as I will be unable to attend Tuesday's meeting. K, q 3 C 2~l der Lazs J.W/ avc: , C)D-, qaz 23 a a J m W J Copies to: Mayor/Council Other: City Manager 'M It Council File - t7 V August 10, 2003 Tigard City Council RECEIVED Tigard City Hall C"~'r 13125 SW Hall Blvd. AUG 13 2003 Tigard, OR 97223 ~~Iministr3;,v RE: Agenda Item 8/12/03 Dear Council; We are strongly opposed to the plans for the Ash Creek Estates development as planned for the area just west of our neighborhood on Ventura Drive in northeast Tigard. We have lived here since before annexation to the City of Tigard, and we have worked hard to maintain a true OREGON environment amid the growth and modernization of our area. We love the creek in our back yard, and the tall cedar, oak, maple and other trees that shade and protect us. We enjoy actually having native animals and birds to entertain us. We like that the houses of our Washington Square Estates complement each other, yet each retains a unique character. We moved here many years ago to escape the ugly suburbs with "cookie cutter" houses built on tiny lots with buildings so close together you could almost hear your neighbors' conversations. There is no fit for such "Cal ifornication" in this area. The planned development would result in the loss of too many beautiful trees, and the possibility of bad effects on the creek and the magnification of traffic congestion on the area's small streets. It may not be possible to prevent development, but the plans should be to fit in well with the surrounding residential community. We urge you to reject the Ask Creek Estates development as now planned. Thank you. L Respectful) D ~..J 9 Ric rd and Joan Morley 6630 SW Ventura Dr. Tigard, OR 97223-1133 Copies to: Mayor/Council Other: City Manager RECEIVED C.C.T. Council File AUG 1 1 2003 AdmWeb-a lw August 11, 2003 Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Ash Creek Estates Planned Development Subdivision Dear Mayor Griffith and Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Sherwood, and Wilson: Washington Square Estates (WSE) homeowner's would like to take this opportunity to respectfully request and urge you to consider the following concerns associated with the proposed Ash Creek Estates Planned Development Subdivision. WSE is a 104-member homeowner's association located directly east and south and adjacent to the proposed Ash Creek Estates development proposal. During the past several years, a very large majority of our members gathered petition signatures and have worked tirelessly with many local agencies including Metro and the Three Rivers Land Conservancy to assist us and in raising funds to purchase this property for park preservation. In fact, the WSE and local neighbors raised more than $13;000, and pledged $30,000, but fell short of the required 25 percent local match required for purchase. We have three direct concerns that we would like to highlight concerning Ash Creek Estates. These were also raised by the Tigard Planning Commission in their denial of the application on July 7: • Too many homes on very small lots. This area is zoned for R4.5, 7500 sq. ft. The lot sizes proposed range in size from 4,700 to 11,600 sq. ft. and overall average 6,425 sq.ft. We believe a variance required for these lot sizes and the addition of 29 homes on this property is a no-benefit for the city and out of character with our community. • Removal of too many trees. The proposal to remove 400 trees, 74 of which would be within sensitive areas is detrimental to watershed health, would adversely impact the aesthetics of i our neighborhood, and requires appropriate and effective mitigation. • Traffic patterns and flow. We believe that traffic continues to increase and this has not been adequately addressed in the proposal. Other concerns that have been expressed by our members and others include: downstream flooding and water quality concerns; fish and wildlife impacts and degradation of habitats; wind throw potential; property values; and public access. Tigard City Council Ash Crock Estates August 11, 2003 Page 2 We want to emphasize that we are not opposed to appropriate development, nor are we in total opposition to development on this site. But, WSE members generally believe that: 1) the site constraints, including, among others: steep slopes, geotechnical stability, and fill concerns, have not been adequately addressed; 2) the packing of houses so close together, possibly defensible on flat land, is highly questionable given the terrain pattern here; 3) the clearcutting of 5 of the 6 buildable acres for this project (as filed with the Oregon Department of Forestry on April 23, 2003) is a radical departure from the developer's earlier presentations which proposed to save "as many trees as possible,"; and 4) the character of the proposed development is both qualitatively and quantitatively at variance with this long-established area. In summary, we urge that further reconsideration of this development, in terms of the extensive and irreplaceable natural resources, and the impact on the disruption of the livability of this area's community, outweigh the proposed development. Especially considering the Developer's requests for multiple variances, concessions, and modifications to the established codes for which he offers little or no modifications on issues raised on previous occasions in his presentations. Unless the City has no inclination to reconsider this area as a possible open space, park, or recreation area, a development with fewer homes (such as 20-23), on larger lots 7,500 sq. ft), and preservation of more trees would be much wiser and more prudent. We urge you to consider the issues raised by your Planning Commission and the upcoming public testimony. Together, we can accommodate development, protect our environment, and preserve our community and quality of life. Thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns. We appreciate your time and willingness to consider our thoughts. Respectfully submitted, Residents of Washington Square Estates attiy Wheatley -Appeal re. Senn Property developnient Page 1' From: "Merilyn Ferrara" <mf@bizlawl.com> To: Tigard Council<nickw@ci.tigard.or.us>, "'Craig Dirksen<craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, '"Brian Moore<brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, "'Sydney Sherwood<sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, "'Mayor Griffith <mayor@ci.tigard. or. us> Date: 8/11/03 2:06PM Subject: Appeal re: Senn Property development Mayor and Councilors: Like many others in the neighborhoods bordering the branch of Ash Creek, I am very concerned about the proposed development. John Frewing's July 31 letter to the Tigard Times, provides the reasons, both practical and compelling, why so many of us in the area do not want to see this small stretch of natural treasure destroyed. His letter provides the Tigard Council sound reasons upon which to base a policy decision denying the appeal on the agenda at the 8/12/03 meeting. This parcel of riparian habitat with its rare grove of mature cedar should take precedence over more development. Thank you for your consideration. Merilyn Ferrara Tigard, OR 97223 Copies to: Mayor/Council Other: City Manager Council File (J I Cathy Wheatley._ Senn Property Appeal Comments Page 1 From: Cathy Wheatley To: mf@biziawl.com Date: 8/12/03 8:23AM Subject: Senn Property Appeal Comments Your comments regarding the Senn Property Appeal have been forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tigard.or.us Cathy Wheatley - Senn Prope on Ash Creek Page 1 From: "Dick Williams" <dwilliams@paragoncreative.com> To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8111/03 3:13PM Subject: Senn Property on Ash Creek am writing to urge you to sustain the planning commission's decision rejecting the proposed development of the now-wooded Senn property on Ash Creek. According to the Tigard Visioning Survey, voters - by an overwhelming margin of 81 % to 19% - specifically prefer policies that will protect the remaining open spaces over policies that would allow new development on presently undeveloped land. In addition, METRO has offered to pay 75% of the fair market value to purchase the Senn property, and I understand local residents in the immediate vicinity of the property have committed $35,000 to that effort. urge you to join their efforts and preserve the Senn property for the benefit of all people. Thank you. Richard Williams Copies to: Mayor/Council Other- City City Manager Council File Cath Wheatle Senn Pro e A ea) t' _ Y P dy .PP. From: Cathy Wheatley To: dwilliams@paragoncreative.com Date: 8112/03 8:34AM Subject: Senn Property Appeal Your comments regarding the Senn Property Appeal will be forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tigard.or.us i i i i Cathy Wheatley Commentson the appeal of the Senn property Decision Page 11 From: "Smith, David" <david.smith@intel.com> To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <Brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/11/03 4:29PM Subject: Comments on the appeal of the Senn property Decision Copies to: My name is David Smith. I own one of the homes on the north border of Mayor/Council t/ Other:/ fi ✓ the proposed development. I have not been happy with the way Tigard City Manager g/_ treats this area of the city and frankly feel like I don't get the value Council File ✓ v of the taxes I pay. I see little in the way of street improvements or community development. What city parks or community facilities exist in this area? None. We have one county park that is paid for by a separate tax levy. When I want to go to a park, I go to a Portland park or a THPRD park and don't drive all the way down to Cook park, where the city seems to spend all it's parks money. I've been disappointed in the way the city has responded to the two efforts to purchase the Senn property for a park and in the way this proposed development has been allowed to go forward. Tigard seems to be a city that exists for the benefit of developers first and then residents. These things have fed my wife and to sell our house and move out of the city. Of course we had other reasons to move but our dissatisfaction with the city is a big factor and we've chosen not to buy our next house in Tigard. Having said that, I'd like to focus on the relevant facts behind this development proposal. When I saw this development request, I wondered if the developer had run out of code variances to ask for but I'll limit myself to just four issues. Windfall, the intent of the planned development code (section 18.350), variances and zoning (18.430 & 18.510) and the issue of the long narrow dead-end street.(18.705 and 18.810). 1. There is a serious windfall issue. This property is one of the last remaining stands of western red cedar in Oregon. A healthy red cedar stand requires sufficient moisture and ground water to survive. While this development protects half the trees on the south part of the development, it completely eliminates the natural rainfall on the north part of the development. The land slopes gradually down to a steep slope near the creek. Currently water falls on the northern part of the property, soaks into the ground, and feeds the trees on the slope and near the creek. All this water that is keeping those trees alive and healthy will now be sent to a stormwater retention pond at the edge of the development. Not only will all the trees in the developable area be Y removed, I fear for the health of the remaining trees since the ecosystem will drastically be changed. 1 There are two risks. Trees on neighboring lots will now lose the 'p natural protection of the existing forest and increase the risk of strong winds forcing them to fall onto existing houses. The new houses on the south side of the new street will also be at risk because the health of the remaining trees will be affected. I predict that in a few years, every strong windstorm from the south will cause trees to fall into the new houses. 2. According to the city code (18.350) as well as planned development codes Cathy Wheatley - Comments on the appeal of the Senn property Decision Page 2 from other cities - a planned development should meet these goals: - Create a superior living arrangement for the residents by working with open space, existing landscape, buildings and access. - Allow smaller lots and increased density in exchange for increasing open space on a parcel. Open space is used to maintain visual and sound spaciousness as well as offer recreational opportunities. The goal should be to allow the residents to enjoy the increased open space as a way of mitigating the increased density. The developer trades off open space in exchange for higher localized density. - Meet other community goals such as promoting mass transit - for example planned developments are encouraged near light rail. How does this development meet these goals? Not very well. The plan calls for all the trees to be removed in the development zone. This in an area where almost every lot has one or more natural trees. The new residences on the south side gain some benefit however. Some of these lots have only a 3 foot backyard. Yes, I'm sure the developer will put up a fence but if I'm a homeowner, the first thing I would do is take down that fence and encroach on what is supposed to be protected open space. Who, other than apartment dwellers, are going to put up with a 3 foot backyard? The open space created will become the lower part of these homes' backyards and not be open space to be enjoyed by the community. What do the residences on the north side get? Tiny, narrow lots on a narrow dead end street. Houses crammed together, looking more like NW Portland town homes. Open space for the people on the north?- yes, if you count the neighbor's lot behind as open space. Do they get any benefits of this wonderful open space that the developer is so graciously creating? No. Do they get the benefit of the existing landscaping? No, in the end no trees will be left on any of the lots on the northern section. Do they get better access? No, a steep dead-end street without enough parking. Is the developer meeting the open space goals of the planned development code? No. What I see is the developer and landowner sitting on a parcel with a significant amount of unbuildable land. So they decide - >L "Hey, let's call ourselves sensitive caretakers of the land and say that we are making open space out of all this unbuildable land. Let's make more money by doing creating a narrow, private street and using every density transfer loophole there exists to cram more houses into the space left over." None of this so-called open space will be used for recreation or the benefit of all the new residents. It becomes the D extended backyards of the adjacent houses. 9 0 So half the residents will receive open space benefits from this planned development and the other half receive no benefits at all. They will pay the price of increased density with no corresponding benefits. [Citing 18.350.010 A. Purpose - all items. Proposed development doesn't meet intent or letter of planned development code] [Citing 18.350.100.B3.Approval Criteria - Proposed Cathy Wheatley Comments on the appeal of the Senn property Decision~ _ Page 3J development doesn't maintain a relationship to the natural and physical environment for the northern section. Nor is there adequate distance between on-site rand off-situ buildings. Trees are not sufficiently preserved or replaced in the northern section. Circulation patterns are not sufficient for emergency vehicle access. The northern section of the development does not moot the 20% landscaping requirement. 3. With respect to variances and zoning (18.370, '18.430 and 18.510), 1'd like to comment on the impacts to neighboring property owners. All of the adjacent property is zoned and developed at R4.5 low density with the average lot size in the 10,000 sq foot range. When I look at this proposed development, I see, especially along the northern edge, a density more typical of R7 medium density or higher. I bought my house in the middle of a low density area and not next to a higher density area. In the low density area that exists now, I can throw a baseball and reasonably expect to hit houses on either side and one, maybe two houses in back. 1 look at these plans and figure I'll be able to hit at least four new houses from my back yard plus my two existing neighbors. And the people in the upper stories of these houses will be able to see my baseball coming because I expect these houses to tower over my backyard. I'll be looking at a solid row of houses with small backyards. I will not see a single tree from the back of my house - instead I will see a solid row of tall houses with miniscule backyards. These houses will completely block the sun In the winter and interrupt the natural flow of air. The development is out of character with surrounding development. One of the purposes of zoning is to preserve the property values and livability of neighboring properties. With the way this development is laid out, I feel like a high density area is being created next to my property. Because of this, I've had to sell my house for less money than I would have otherwise been able to. My property value would have been higher if either the Senn property was a park or developed to be compatible with the surrounding area. Because my property will be perceived as being in a high density area, my property is being devalued. [Citing 18.370.020 C.1.c - Effectively creating a higher density zone in the northern section of the development is injurious to the rights of other owners of property] a [Citing 18.430.010 A.S. Purpose: To provide adequate light and air, prevent overcrowding of land, and facilitate adequate N provision for transportation, water supply, sewage and drainage; - This is overcrowding (by effectively creating a R7 area in a R4.5 area) and J potentially blocking the winter sun from my yard and house] ® [Citing 18.430.040 A.3. Approval Criteria - The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and J maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; - Street does not conform to area streets in width and dead-end nature. It's in the interest of the developer to modify the street pattern, not the public interest] *u F' k .a~ Cathy Wheatley -Comments on the appeal of the Senn propertyDecision Page 5, delivery vehicles will be a daily occurance. What happens when two people ignore the signs and park their cars on opposite sides of the street and a fire truck can't get by? What happens if there's an emergency at one end of the street and you've got 20 families who can't get out. It's in an urban forest. What happens if there's a forest fire at one end and there's no escape other than to climb over fences or cross a stream? [Citing 18.810.E - Minimum street widths are not being met] [Citing 18.8101 - Proposed development doesn't meet culdesac length requirements nor is there a pathway to an adjacent street] With these comments and objections in mind, this is what I'm asking for: 1. The planned development be rejected and the development re-planned to be compliant with the existing R4.5 zone and compatible with neighboring developments. This means lot sizes similar to those already existing and that the unbuildable area not be considered in the density computations. Street design regulations should also be followed. City code requires streets in a new development to be similar to surrounding streets. 2. If the planned development is approved, then buffering be provided so that adjacent properties retain the density impact of the R4.5 low density zone. This might include trees and vegetation planted and greater setbacks on lots along the perimeter of the development. The narrow dead end street issue should also be dealt with even if the planned development still applies. 3. Impervious areas be kept to a minimum through the use of larger lots and a more creative drainage situation. This will help to keep the remaining trees healthier and lessen the risk of dying trees falling onto houses. Yes, the city has to allow people to develop their properties and can't prevent this property from being developed. The city has a responsibility to existing residents to preserve their livability and L property values. The city has a responsibility to the future residents 2 of this property to preserver their livability and safety. That's why 0 we have laws and zoning regulations. Not to benefit developers and property owners but to benefit existing and new residents. d David Smith 7130 SW Barbara Lane, Tigard OR 97223 7 J Catnhy Wheatley .Ash C+eek (Senn) Appeal J Pacde 1 From: Cathy Wheatley To: david.smith@intel.com Date: 8/12/03 8:40AM Subject: Ash Creek (Senn) Appeal Your comments regarding this appeal will be forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tigard.or.us a , H }W t J m L7 • W" J; Cathy Wheatley Ash Creek development Page 11 From: "Glenna Fuquay" <gfuquay@gte.net> To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/11/03 9:13PM Subject: Ash Creek development In Tigard's Visioning Survey, 81% of residents responding said they prefer policies that protect open space over accommodating new development. Let's turn this vision into policy. Please deny the Ash creek development request. This parcel has much more value to the city and the neighberhood as a wildlife habitat than it ever could as developed property. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely Bob Fuquay Copies to: Other: Board Member Tualatin Riverkeepers City ~ O'~ / City Manager --17' • Council File L r D i s Cathy! 1Ntieatley Ash Creek Appeal Page 1' From: Cathy Wheatley To: gfuquay@gte.net Date: 8/12/03 8:46AM Subject: Ash Creek Appeal Your comments regarding this appeal will be forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tigard.or.us D. D: i- 0 u J Cathy Wheatley -Senn Property request as of 08112/03 Page 1 From: cp gates <pcgx2@mac.com> To: <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickw@ci.tigard.or. us> Date: 8/12/03 8:45ANI Subject: Senn Property request as of 08/12/03 Copies to: Other: The Senn Property's Future: Mayor/Council 5p City Manager As this property is unique in nature and in regard to remaining Council File -tL original environment of the Metzger/Tigard area; Please accept this invitation to observe this area today, from any property in the area surrounding these wonderful 9 acres in, order to be the best informed member of your group at tonight's meeting. You may be new enough to this community position to be unaware that it has not been long since the area councils wisely gave serious consideration to preserving this land by creating a park/reserve with only two parking spaces for maintenance people. Creating smaller homes for the over 55ers will leave more open space, less environmental dangers brought by youthful doings and a desire to support the natural environment instead of destroying it. 20 homes in the 1800'-3000' range will be a target attainable. The whole motive and focus can be to encourage builder and home owners working together to save and enhance the preservation of the indigenous flora and fauna must be the goal in order to serve the good of keeping the Metzger/Tigard area desirable to the region. The creek, the trees, the adjoining and dependent trees in the area, the birds, and the air they support are all the reasons why no development on this or the adjoining piece or property must be preserved. PLEASE GO LOOK AT BOTH OF THESE AREAS TODAY, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE FOR ALL WITH VISION TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE OUR LIVING SPACES. Thank you for your wise consideration of this letter and of those who may speak well at our meeting tonight. You are welcome to set foot (many feet) on our land today. 9775 SW Ventura Ct. a co The Gates family, who has lived in the Metzger area for 41 years. Nature Conservancy and Metro might still be there for you... m t7 W J Cathy 11Vheat(ey Ash Creek Senn) Appeal Page 1 From: Cathy Wheatley To: pcgx2@mac.com Date: 8/12/03 8:52AM Subject: Ash Creek (Senn) Appeal Your comments regarding this appeal will be forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tigard.or.us a of t- rn _J 129 W J WARREN W. ANF.Y CeRTTFim Wit-DLIFF 131011X:IST THE WILDLIFE SOCIERY <.:ER'ITFIISD SPNIOR FC.OLOGIST I HE ECOLOG(CAL SOCIP-T v of AAntRICA 12 August 2003 RECEIVED Jim Griffith, Mayor Copies to: / QU~ _1 City of Tigard Mayor/Council ✓ Other: , y / 2003 r tJ 13125 SW Hall Boulevard City Manager V Council File ~ ~ OF i)CAW Tigard, OR 97223 11~NVEERING Re: Ash Creek Development As a professional wildlife ecologist, I ask you and the members of the Tigard City Council to topsider a number of effects the proposed high-density Ash Creek Development will have on both on-site and off-site natural values. In its present condition, the site provides a number of important environmental services of benefit to neighbors, downstream properties, and' the community in general. The degree to which these various benefits will be affected is directly or indirectly related to the density of development on the site. Ecological description. This site is a steep sided draw formed by the South Fork of Ash Creek. The creek appears to have several meanders and side channels and there appear to be several seeps and other wet areas within the draw. The developer has completed a wetlands delineation and reports that a majority of the wetlands on this site are of good quality. These wetlands provide a natural system of water retention, filtration, and percolation essential to streamflow stability and watershed health. These wetlands also provide habitat for a diversity of plant and wildlife species. The overstory consists of an almost pure stand of closed canopy sub-mature and mature western redcedar. Interior to the stand there is a sparse shrub understory apparently composed mostly of elderberry, Oregon ash, and vine maple. Ground cover appears to be mostly bracken and sword fern, trailing blackberry, wild geranium, and moss. The edges have a denser understory of shrubby species such as beaked hazelnut, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and English holly. This stand is relatively simple in terms of vegetative structural and species diversity but will become more diverse over time if left undisturbed. I have observed at least 26 species of native birds in this neighborhood. Native mammal species observed include bats, coyote, raccoon, and Douglas' squirrel. Several of these wildlife species are wholly or partially dependent on mature forest conditions such-as those provided by this site (e.g., Cooper's hawk, chestnut-backed chickadee, red-breasted nuthatch, golden-crowned kinglet, varied thrush, Townsend's warbler, and Douglas' squirrel). Aquatic species present in this tributary of Ash Creek include cutthroat trout and crawfish. Both are dependent on cool, clean water such as this site provides in its present condition. Although not a habitat of concern, this site is classified by Metro as being in the second highest riparian function score category. Its Metro wildlife value score is an excellent 6 out of a possible 9. In its present condition it is part of an extended patch of wildlife and riparian habitat and provides important connectivity to water and to other wildlife habitat patches This site provides valuable environmental services of value to the neighborhood and the greater community. These include: • Water quality improvement and streamflow moderation through retention and filtering of precipitation and runoff 9.403 SW 74TH AVENUE • TIGARD, OREGON • 97223 PHONE.: 503-246-8613 • FAX: 503-246-2605 • E-MAIL: aney®usa.net -2- 12 August 2003 • Pe insect control by insectivorous birds and bats fostered in the on-site habitats • Moderation of wind and temperature extremes by the stand of large trees • Quality of life benefits provided by an attractive green space with large trees and a natural stream Direct effects. In terms of biodiversity, ecological stability, and ecosystems resilience the proposed development will have a number of direct adverse effects. These adverse effects are proportional to the relative density of the proposed development and the number of large trees removed: • Reduction in the stand's structural diversity and stability • Reduction in the site's plant species diversity and productivity • Depletion of mature forest wildlife species numbers and diversity due to loss of cover, forage, and reproductive sites and habitat • Possible lowering of the site's riparian function score due to reduction in stand size and the removal of mature tree cover • Fragmentation of wildlife habitat and losses of connectivity to other patches of wildlife habitat Indirect and cumulative effects. The proposed development will result in .a number of indirect and cumulative adverse effects on ecosystem and watershed functions. These adverse effects will be proportional to the relative density of the proposed development: • Stream water quality degradation due to runoff of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and other development-related pollutants • Depletion of native wildlife species diversity in general due to increased intrusion by competitive and predatory non-native species such as fox squirrels and feral cats • Boundary creep by adjacent property owners into die protected riparian zone, resulting in riparian vegetation removal that contributes to streambank, stream habitat, and water quality degradation (this has already occurred upstream and downstream of this site) ! Possible reduction of wetland area and health resulting from property owner mosquito control pressure or action • Increased proliferation of competitive invasives such as English laurel, English holly, and English ivy • Changes in stream flow patterns due to reductions in watershed vegetative cover (this will be partially but not completely mitigated by the proposed installation of bioswales) • Increased disturbance of native wildlife due to intrusion by adjacent residents and their pets • Increased loss of on site and adjacent trees due to windthrow and root zone disturbance in summary, this proposed development will have a number of adverse effects on the area's natural values and on the environmental services provided by this ecosystem The degree and extent of these adverse effects are directly proportional to the relative density of the development. These adverse effects cannot be totally eliminated under a lesser degree of development than currently proposed, but they can be more effectively minimized and mitigated if development density is kept reasonably low. Of course the best ecological and environmental alternative would be to j permanently protect the. site as green space, in which case it would continue to provide ever j increasing natural values and environmental services. rds, Warren W. A .y Senior Wildlife Ecologist cc. City Council members Page I of 1 Cathy Wheatley o Senn Property From: <Psydneyh@aol.com> To: <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us>, <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, < ydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickVJ@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/12/03 1:40 PM Subject: Senn Property Dear Mayor, Councilors and Recorder: am urging you to support your planning commission's advice and deny building permission to a development on Ash Creek. Rather,l urge you to add to the available Metro funds to purchase the property to retain vital habitat and green space. 1 do not live in Tigard, so you may question whether it is appropriate for me to make such suggestions. I do serve on a committee which advises Metro staff on Goal 5's "ESEE analysis". Our charge has to do with describing the social and spiritual value of habitat for the balancing that Goal 5 requires. Therefore, I have been studying the available habitat in the metropoilitan area; and, it is clear that the habitat diminishes rapidly as the planning plods along. You have a wonderful opportunity to protect valuable habitat and enhance the livability of your city while making a minimum financial sacrifice. We all know that development is heavily underwritten by the taxpayers while it reduced the quality of life for the existing residents. For the fish, it reduces life itself. You will also, by protecting this valuable resource, maintain the livability of the entire region. Thank you for reading this testimony P.Sydney Herbert 5125 SW Dosch Rd Poirtland,OR 97239 Copies to: / Mayor/Council Other: City Manager Council Fite tr Vl N d 9 U J file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00015.HTM 8/12/03 ~~athy Wheatley - Re: Senn Property Pa e i From: Cathy Wheatley To: Psydneyh@aol.com Date: 8!12/03 2:46PM Subject: Re: Senn Property Your comments regarding the Ash Greek Appeal (Senn) will be forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tigard.or.us <Psydneyh@aol_com> 08112/03 01:40PM Dear Mayor, Councilors and Recorder: I am urging you to support your planning commission's advice and deny building permission to a development on Ash Creek. Rather,l urge you to add to the available Metro funds to purchase the property to retain vital habitat and green space. I do not live in Tigard, so you may question whether it is appropriate for me to make such suggestions. 1 do serve on a committee which advises Metro staff on Goal 5's "ESEE analysis*. Our charge has to do with describing the social and spiritual value of habitat for the balancing that Goal 5 requires. Therefore, I have been studying the available habitat in the metropoilitan area; and, it is clear that the habitat diminishes rapidly as the planning plods along. You have a wonderful opportunity to protect valuable habitat and enhance the livability of your city while making a minimum financial sacrifice. We all know that development is heavily underwritten by the taxpayers while it reduced the quality of life for the existing residents. For the fish, it reduces life itself. You will also, by protecting this valuable resource, maintain the livability of the entire region. Thank you for reading this testimony P.Sydney Herbert 5125 SW Dosch Rd Poirtland,OR 97239 C 1 't I 1 I I 503 590 6702 P.3 flug.12 03 03:34p Tualatin River Rive *~TRU AT IN verkee 16570 SW Roy Rogers Road " _ Slrenvood, OR 97140 (503) 590-5813 . fay (503) 590-6702 info(c~tualatinriverkeepers.arg FAX C lcl-:~) ~ 1 v V E To: IC -7 Z9 7 p fume: - CC. ae: Correr~'~ents: Ash. W 12 03 03:35p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 p.4 TUALATIN Riverkeepers 16507 SW [toy Rogers Rd. Sherwood, OR 97140 (503) 590-5813 fax: (503) S90-6702 • www.tualatinriverkeepers.org email: info@tualatinrivcrkeepers.org August, 12, 2003 Copies to: Mayor/Council 1/ Other: Tigard City Council City Council Fateanager ~ U 16125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Senn Property Development on Ash Creek The Tualatin Riverkeepers are a community-based organization working to protect and restore the Tualatin River System. We build watershed stewardship through public education, access to nature, citizen involvement and advocacy. Our membership has grown to over 600 dues paying members who support our mission of watershed stewardship. As a key part of our mission, we are concerned about impacts to tributaries habitats and wetlands in the Tualatin Basin. A Unique Natural Resource The Senn property on Ash Creek represents a rare remnant of once common habitat in the Tualatin Basin. In our research for our book, Exploring the Tualatin River Basin, we searched for high and low for unique natural areas, but were unable to find such a large cedar grove as is on this site. Because of the uniqueness of this site, we ask that it receive the highest protection afforded to it by City code. Tree Plan is Not Adequate While Tigard Development Code 18.790.050 exempts tax deferred forest lands from the requirement of a tree cutting permit, it does not exempt this development from submitting a tree plan. Tigard Development Code 18.790.030 B.1. states that a tree plan should include "Identification of the location, size, and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city". The tree plan submitted by the applicant identifies the location of trees, and whether they are deciduous or evergreen, but it does not identify the species or size of each tree. N Unnecessary Removal of Trees is Not Avoided y. Tigard Development Code 18.790.030 A. states that "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." By any stretch of the imagination, it is possible to protect some of the more than 400 trees proposed to be clear-cut by the applicant. For this 3 reason alone, this application should be denied. Tigard planning staff agrees and says so J on page 2 their report. The report says "Staff feels the applicant does not provide for the maximum preservation of trees on site as prescribed by Planned Development Standards (18.350100(b)(3x5)[pg 350-8j. We don't question the applicant's right to develop their property. We ask that development be done in a way that preserves public trust resources, The Tualatin Riverkeepers is a community-based organization working to protect and restore Oregon's Tualatin River system. ahe Tualatin Riverkeepers builds watershed stewardship through public education, access to nature, citizen involvement and advocacv Rug 12 03 03:35P Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 P•5 i.e. fish, wildlife, and clean water. They clearly can develop this site in a way that has far less impact on public trust natural resources. Disturbance is Not Minimized on Steep Slopes Tigard Development Code 18.775.070 C.1. states as a condition for approval that the extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than required for use". The extent of the clear-cutting on the south end of the lots on the north side of the creek is greater than is required for the use of housing. Clear-cutting the entire platted area cannot help but create disturbance. Lots 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23 are of concern for slumping and sliding because of very steep slopes and the presence of groundwater. Development should not be allowed on these lots to protect public safety and water quality. Streamside Buffers Do Not Meet Sensitive Lands Code Close examination of the contour map provided by the applicant reveals that the streamside buffers do not meet Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards and Tigard Sensitive Lands Code 18.775. Buffers are supposed to extend 35 feet beyond the top of the 25% slope. On several lots the delineated buffer only meets the top of slope, and does not include the 35 feet beyond the top of slope that is required. Lots 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 28 and 29 contain large areas with slopes greater than 25%. Storm Water Quality Facility Does Not Control Pollution to the Maximum Extent Practicable We question the adequacy of the storm water quality facility. The Clean Water Act requires municipalities to prevent pollution from stormwater to the "maximum extent practicable". The attached article by Lewis G. Scholl P.E. from the professional journal, Stormwater Treatment Northwest, "in the Tualatin Basin - water quality facilities are designed significantly smaller and with less flow capacity for flow and treatment than in all other areas of the Northwest..... The discrepancy does not generally reflect any local meteorological phenomena." If it is practicable to treat 5 times the flow in storm water quality facilities in Clackamas County, it is practicable in Tigard. Tigard needs to step up to this higher standard to comply with the Clean Water Act. Ash Creek is habitat for cutthroat trout, and according to Oregon Department of Fish and a Wildlife, federally listed steelhead trout. The enclosed article from the Seattle Post- GC Intelligencer describes the fatal impacts of insufficiently treated stormwater on salmonids H as documented by NOAA Fisheries. Since a federal US ACE CWA404 permit is needed for the road crossing at 74a and the creek harbors a federally listed species, a nexus J exists, requiring a formal consultation by NOAA fisheries to avoid a take under the m Endangered Species Act (ESA). No development permit should be issued before this W consultation in order to protect the City from penalties under the ESA. J Downstream Impacts We share Planning Commissioner Buehner's concerns about flooding downstream. Neighbors report increased flooding due to previous development in the area. Adding additional impervious surfaces, with the addition of drainage systems can only serve to -Rug 12 03 03:35P Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 P-0 make Ash Creek flashier. The cumulative effects downstream on Fanno Creek and the Tualatin River of such projects is an ongoing concern. This Incomplete Application Does Not Allow Adequate Review The application is incomplete. The applicant has not submitted an adequate tree plan. There is no arborist report. There is no evidence of approvals from Division of State Lands and the Army Corp of Engineers. Homes are not platted on the maps, only lot lines. There is no erosion control plan. In fact, there are 50 conditions that Tigard's planning and engineering staff have placed on this application. In order to provide adequate public review of how these conditions are to be met in the land use process, these plans should be submitted before approval of this development in accordance with Oregon State Land Use Planning Goal 1. This Application Should be Denied Clearly the applicant has not done their homework. The application submitted is incomplete. Impacts to public resources are not minimized. We agree with Planning Commission President Mark Padgett that the City is not getting enough in return for the concessions given with this development, and ask that you deny this application in its current form. Sincerely, t Brian Wegener Watershed Watch Coordinator Tualatin Riverkeepers c: Dr. Nancy Munn, MAN Fisheries Jim Grimes, Oregon Department ofFish & Wildlife Heidi Berg, Clean Water Services p. Collin MacLaren, Clean Water Services t~C t- _J m L9 W J Aug Y.- '12 03 03:36P Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 P•7 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Page 1 of 4 S i SEATTLE POSTANTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.conAocal/107460 cohoO6.shtml Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Thursday, February 6, 2003 By LISA STIFFLER AND ROBERT MCCLURE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTERS City officials have forked out millions of dollars and volunteers have donated countless hours to lovingly restore Seattle-area creeks. But a groundbreaking study suggests that water in many urban streams runs dirty enough to quickly kill coho salmon - most before they can spawn. The culprit appears to be the stormwater gurgling off streets, P-I Extras parking lots and roofs, carrying with it oil, grease, pesticides and - Coho salmon at a glance other pollutants, say federal scientists who conducted the study. - See video of ailing salmon - Special report: Our Troubled When hit by a flush of it, coho are immediately disoriented. They Sun roll to their sides. Some do what scientists dubbed "the Jesus walls," skittering across the top of the water in a final, desperate burst of energy. All this happens within hours when the salmon enter local creeks killing 88 percent of the fish in the study last fall. "We've done everything we can think of and it's not right," said Judy Pickens, who has worked on restoration of Fauntleroy Creek in West Seattle for more than a decade. "What more do we need to do to bring this creek into a healthy habitat for the fish?" Scientists had previously shown that stormwater makes life tough on fish and can kill bugs and other small creatures. But this study is one of the first to suggest that stormwater can kill fish outright. No one knows when the coho began to perish prematurely, or the extent of the phenomenon. But scientists believe numerous urban waterways could be afflicted. Until spawning surveys were launched in the last few years to see whether creek restoration efforts were working, few were looking very hard at the fate of salmon in local creeks. o. The new study promises to raise thorny questions about the degree to which wide swaths of land around Puget Sound can be developed, and in what way. H rn It also suggests that restoring creeks in cities is going to be harder than originally envisioned, requiring much more than cosmetic changes to the streams themselves. Pollution flowing off large areas of the ® city and its suburbs will have to be controlled. 0 J "Putting logs and stumps in an otherwise sterile stream is not by itself going to bring the fish back," said Toni Murdoch, director of the Everett-based Adopt-A-Stream Foundation. Restoration work threatened fieports of healthy looking salmon dying in creeks from Everett to south of Seattle - apparently http://seattlepi.nwsource.conVpriater2/index.asp?ploc=b&refer-http://se.../107460 coho06.shtm 5/22/03 ,Rug '12 03 03:36p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 p.8 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Page 2 of 4 before spawning can be traced back to at least 1999. Three years ago, biologist Bill McMillan went walking down Kelsey Creek in Bellevue, near the Glendale Country Club. Wearing chest-high waders and carrying a 7-foot-long bamboo pole to flush salmon from hiding places, the fish counter remembered something in the field notes from the previous year's survey about coho dying prematurely. "Everything seemed to be pretty normal, and then all of a sudden on a gravel bar I saw a very sea- fresh4ooking coho. It was very bright, a female with its sides bulging with eggs, but it was dead," McMillan said. "I just kept that in mind." It was another two weeks before he saw any more coho in Kelsey Creek. When he did, he started cutting them open. He found that an unusually large number of females were still full of eggs, males were full of sperm. "When you find a carcass like that, obviously they haven't spawned, and that's a real concern," he said. McMillan and his colleagues at Washington Trout turned to Seattle Public Utilities, which had hired the group to do the salmon surveys. SPU and Washington Trout agreed to track so-called prespawn mortalities. They found significant numbers - about half the coho in Fauntleroy Creek in 2001, nearly three-quarters in Kelsey Creek in 2000 and 2001. By last fall, scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service's Seattle laboratories were concerned enough to launch a study of the phenomenon, comparing an urban creek with a rural one. They chose Longfellow Creek in West Seattle, a model for stream rehabilitation efforts, featuring man-made gravel beds, pools and eddies, replanted banks and meditative walking paths. The water is cool and oxygen-rich, the way fish like it. "Longfellow Creek looks beautiful," said fisheries service scientist Nat Scholz. "You'd think everything was healthy." They compared it to Fortson Creek near Darrington. While Longfellow is fueled in part by water that runs from streets and rooftops, rural Fortson is fed by a stream and clean water flowing underground L in the forest. r D Over a six-week period, scientists slogged down the creeks - even on Thanksgiving and weekends, often in the rain - collecting fins, guts, blood, organs and muscle from the dead salmon. 5 At the rural stream, just one of the 115 female coho died before spawning. 9 But at Longfellow, 56 female coho perished in a matter of hours, some even before turning from their saltwater silver hues to their spawning shade of red. Only eight fish survived to spawn. The Longfellow fish were tested for disease, but nothing was found that would trigger the speedy deaths. The situation, Scholz said, is reminiscent of what would happen if there were a toxic chemical spill. http://seattlepi.nwsource.corn/printer2rindex.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://se.../107460_coho06,shtm 5122/03 'Rug '12 03 03:36p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 p.9 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Page 3 of 4 In a way, there was. Coho first to head upstream Every day, in the region's residents contribute unwittingly to stormwater pollution: dousing yards with chemicals to kill bugs; driving vehicles that leak antifreeze and oil; coating roofs with herbicide to beat back creeping tendrils of moss. When it rains, these pollutants wash off streets and yards into storm drains, many of which flow directly into creeks. Coho appear to be particularly vulnerable. They are usually the first salmon species to head upstream after the first fall rains. Congregating at the mouths of creeks, coho wait for the first surge of water. That signals to them that rains have started and they will have access to the small, shallow streams in which they spawn. Last fall was unusually dry, allowing pollutants to build up on the ground. When it finally rained, scientists suspect that the arriving coho were hit by a lethal dose. "We don't know water quality is the cause, but it's our leading hypothesis," Scholz said. Said Pickens, the stream-restoration volunteer: "How many times do you have to hear it before it hits home? These fish have made a very loud statement. They can't write on the walls, but they've come as close as a fish can to say it's not OK." When Scholz fires up a video of a salmon on his computer, it doesn't take an expert to see that something is seriously wrong with this fish. It is lethargic, swimming in erratic circles, bumping into the creek bank like a drunk on a bender. Another fish is even worse. It is lying on its side, barely swimming, fins splayed out like a child trying to keep his balance on a beam. Its mouth gapes. "This fish is on its last fins," Scholz said. L r Increasingly, salmon are venturing into restored creeks to try to spawn. At these creeks, volunteers and workers have yanked out invasive blackberries and replanted native brush. Carefully notched logs " have been strategically placed to create calm pools. 3 Since 1999, more than $26 million has been spent on restoring major Seattle creeks. About $5 million i more will be spent in the next few years. Bellevue is spending more than $2.5 million. At Longfellow Creek, researchers got to see only a few coho before they died. But their strange behavior is indicative of neurological problems, Scholz said. A wide range of chemicals could cause such symptoms. The mystery is muddled by the possibility that multiple contaminants in stormwater all present in doses smaller than previously believed lethal - could be causing the deaths. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/pxinter2fmdex.asp?plot=b&refer=http://se.../107460_coho06.shtm 5/22/03 .Rug 12 03 03:37p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 p.10 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Page 4 of 4 1 "There is a good chance it's a combination effect," said Tracy Collier, manager of the National Marine Fisheries Service's ecotoxicology program in Seattle. Bile from the fish will be analyzed for evidence of exposure to compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These are created when organic material is burned and eventually settle onto the ground and water. One of the most prolific sources is automobile exhaust. Scientists are also analyzing the activity of an enzyme in the brain that is inhibited by certain classes of insecticides and other chemicals. They are planning a workshop in the next few weeks to share their findings- with other scientists and government officials. More research is planned. "We really don't know what's going on with these fish," said Kit Paulsen, environmental scientist with Bellevue Utilities. "What's the exposure? Where's the exposure happening? We really haven't nailed that down." The environmental repercussions of the coho die-offs are not in themselves cataclysmic. The fish are either hatchery-bred salmon venturing up newly found waterways instead of their birth stream, or they were planted in the creeks. In either case, the fish can easily be replaced. But the point of stream restorations, those who do the work say, is to make creeks habitable aquatic environments. "If we get them back and they don't spawn then the natural cycle doesn't continue," Pickens said. "Then all we have is one long controlled aquarium." And the continual creep of development into rural areas spreads this threat to creeks and rivers populated by wild coho runs. The same fate could befall those fish if development doesn't proceed carefully. The coho die-offs don't mean creek restoration is a wholly losing proposition. Other fish survive in greater numbers to spawn. "Other salmon do have the opportunity to benefit from restoration efforts," said Katherine Lynch, senior environmental analyst with Seattle Public Utilities. L Rich Horner, a University of Washington environmental engineer who studies stormwater, says the new information about echo deaths, while important, is not a sign that people should stop trying to improve the health of local creeks. "We haven't worked very hard on these things," Horner said. "There's a lot of territory to cover before ,V giving up." W J P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastier Seattlepi.com 01998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligences http://scattlepLnwsource.con,/printer2rmdex.asp?ploc=b&refer-http://se.../107460 coho06.shtm 5/22/03 Flug 12 03 03:37p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 p.11 A Comparison of Water Quality Design Storms in Oregon and Washington By Lewis C. Scholl, PE, Stormwater Management, Inc This information compares tie dormwater treatment requirements in several cities and counties around Oregon and Washington. In general, Washington jurisdictions are obligated to comply with the minimum standards set by the State Department of Ecology (DOE), and published in tits 'Tuget Sand Manual'. Oregon junsdidions, however, have all developed their own water quality design storm using various philosophies and methods for analysis. III Oregon, the State Department of Ewaroame mal Quality (DM has not set any statewide design storm standards that would oOmpare to what has teem done by its counterpart (DOE) in Washington. Therefore, Oregon cities and counties have developed water quality design storms that vary widely from one neighboring jurisdiction to another. This is illustrated on the Table 1 below. Table 1: Comparison of Water Quality Design Storms Jurisdiction 2-yr %of2-year Typical Rainfall Typical WQ. Rainfall Ralatail used (dacha) as input for Plow for (inches) as Design Storm hydrology program 1 paved acre Puget Sound waterahed 2 64% 128 0.29 cfs Clack Co. - WA 2.3 70a/s 1.61 0.38 cis City of Portland - OR 2.5 33% 0.83 0.17 cfa Clackamas Co. -OR 2.7 67% 1.80 0.43 cis Urban Area CCSD9t Clackamas Co. -OR 2.3 N/A Manual cele. 0.09 c Tualatin Basin USA - OR 2.3 N/A Manoat csic. 0.09 cfs Tualatin Basin 1. The public donuin program "HYW by King County- Vaaim 4.218 was used to nuke throe calculations. The hydrograph is 'pasked" meaning that it is based on and uadastsnding oftypial n infdt disenibofions in the Nodhwcat. 2. Calculated by the Unified Sewemge Agency (USA) mdhod .0.36 inches of minWl in 4 hours - averaged and conversed to a discharge rate. 3. Unified Scwcmge Agency (USA) has jurisdiction over stermwater gaality in the Tualatin Ruin in Washington County. Note that the last column shows the water quality design discharge rate that would be typically used for a one-acre paved site. This flow rate is what determines how much of the water actually gets treated. In the Tualatin Basin - the flow note treated is about '/:t of that typical to the City of Portland and about V4 of that typical to cities and counties in Washington State. The result is that - in the Tualatin Basin - water quality facilities are designed significantly smaller and with less capacity for Clow and treatment than in all other areas in the Northwest. This difference is primarily due to the design storm and the associated method of calculation that the Unified Sewemgc Agency (IJSA) has chosen to use. The discrepancy floes not generally reflect any local meteorological phenomena. SHORT COURSES The following are offered by University of Washington, Professional Development program. The web site ? www cote was ' on aiu/eoo/PgpjjpWloLhtml provides further information, or contact Debra Bryant at 206-543-5539. Stormwater Treatment -Biological, Chemical and Emgu=nng Principles - Seattle, WA, February 8-9, I 2000 d 1 Contact Minton at 282-1681 or email: minto Gary (206) mpa[eh~cs.com if you would like to know more about the content of these courses. Vol. (h Na. 5 Co-editors Gary R Minton, RPA, 2(K-282-1681 6 December 2000 Roger Sutherland, Padfac Wafer Resources, 503471-9709 ua,ua,us 08:33 aSO3 945 7490 ODF FOREST PRACT `IM002 re~go --j--~~ ~ Department of Forestry { State Forester's Office Theodore R Kulongoski, Governor C~ 03 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 503-945-7200 General File 6-6-0 FAX 503-945-7212 TTY 503-945-7213 / 800-437-4490 http://www.odf.state.or.us September 5, 2003 l ' Patty Lunsford S~EWaROS„ram Nf~Rt,~RY• City of Tigard 13125 Hall Boulevard Tigard OR 97223 Dear Ms. Lunsford: This letter documents and expands on our telephone conversation today. First, I want to present a little background. ORS 527.722 declares that the Oregon Forest Practices Act applies inside urban growth boundaries unless a local government has adopted a local forest practice ordinance. For ordinances that did not exist before January 1, 2000, there are some standards to be met. When a local government adopts a qualifying ordinance, the ordinance applies in place of the Oregon Forest Practices Act within the government jurisdiction inside the urban growth boundary. A county and city may agree that a city ordinance applies outside the city limits inside the urban growth boundary. The Oregon Department of Forestry encourages local governments to adopt local forest practice ordinances within urban growth boundaries; the Forest Practices Act, which is designed for working forests in more rural areas, usually is not a good fit inside an urban growth boundary. Local governments are not allowed to regulate forest practices outside urban growth boundaries. I have enclosed the two letters we talked about. In the letter dated January 7, 1993, the Oregon Department of Forestry officially notified the City of Tigard that the city's ordinance would supersede the Forest Practices Act inside the city limits. The letter dated January 25, 2003 reinforces that idea and corrects some mistaken references to the City of Beaverton in the first letter. Because the city still has a tree ordinance, the ordinance, not the Forest Practices Act, applies inside the city limits within the urban growth boundary. I understand from our r conversation that Washington County has agreed to apply the city ordinance in areas outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary; again, the ordinance would supersede the Forest Practices Act in those areas. p There is an exception to what I stated in the preceding paragraph. Parcels that are taxed as forestland appear to be exempt from the requirements of the city ordinance (based on the June 2002 version of the ordinance I reviewed earlier this year). This would mean that forest practices on those parcels are regulated by the Forest Practices Act instead of the city ordinance. If this is the case, close coordination is needed between our agencies to clearly identify those parcels. I would like to talk with the city and with Brent Onion at our Forest Grove office to clarify this issue. You can reach me at 503-945-7484 or via email at bknotts@odfstate.or.us. 09/05/03 08:33 21503 945 7490 ODF FOREST PRACf Q003...._..... Letter to Patty Lunsford Page 2 In closing, I note again that the Department of Forestry encourages local governments to regulate forest practices in ways that protect natural resources and make sense in an urban context. I understand that the city has already been working with the department's Paul Ries on urban forest issues. Sincerely, W CKnotts cc: Brent O'nion Lanny Quackenbush Paul Ries a oc J m W J 09/05/03 08:34 $503 945 7400 ODF FOREST PRACr Q004 January 7, 1993 Victor Adonri, Planner DEPARTMENT OF City of Tigard FORESTRY 13125 SW Hall Blvd: Tigard, OR 97223 STATE FORESTERS OFFICE Dear Mr. Adonri: We have been notified that City Ordinance 18.150.010 through .050 "STEWARDSHIP IN regulates tree removal within the city limits. -Since removing trees is an FORESTRY" integral part of a forest harvest operation, the City of Beaverton is regulating forest operations. ORS 527.722 establishes that the Oregon Forest Practices Act, as administered by the Department of Forestry, applies to forest land within city limits unless local government has adopted regulations for forest practices. Existence or adoption of acknowledged. local government regulations relieves the State Forester of the responsibility to administer the Forest Practices Act within' the affected area. As of this date the Department of Forestry will no longer administer the Forest Practices Act within the city limits of Beaverton. If requested, the Department of Forestry can provide you. with information about active or planned operations within' the potentially affected areas, 'which should smooth the transition to local government regulation. If you have any questions about this information or the Department's proposed actions, please call me at'378-5033. Sincerely, evin R. Birch r~ Land Use Planning Coordinator t J cc: Jim Young,-Forest Grove ® W Dave Johnson, Forest. Grove Mike Schnee _j 2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310 (503) 378-2560 09/05/03 08:34 $503 945 7490 ODF FOREST PRACP ZOO 5. w i p ®1 1 January 25, 1993 DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY Roy Pomeroy City of Tigard STATE FORESTERS OFFICE 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 "STEWARDSHIP IN Dear Mr. Pomeroy: FORESTRY" I am sorry for calling the City of Tigard, "Beaverton", in -my last letter. It seems that I forgot to do a "search and replace" on the word "Beaverton". That is one of the hazards of using a semi-form letter approach to gain efficiencies of scale. I have "cut and pasted" most of the following text from another letter, so, if I refer to your fair city as Astoria, I'll apologize in advance. . Let me try to clear up some of the confusion and explain our actions. Senate Bill 1125, passed by the 1991 Legislature, established that the Forest Practices Act (FPA), as administered by the Department of Forestry, applies to forest land within UGB's unless local government has adopted regulations for forest practices within the UGB's. The overall intent of the bill is to ensure that all forest operations within the state are regulated to protect soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources. Another intention of the legislature was. to limit the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over forestry activities in a given area, to one, either state or local government, but not both. If regulation provided by the.FPA does not provide the level of protection desired within UGB's, then local government may zone forest land to prohibit or allow and regulate commercial forest practices within an a acknowledged UGB, or in your case city limit. oI: Your ordinance It 150.010-.050 regulates the harvesting of trees. To make it. compatible with the FPA, you might exempt all commercial activities m (very little forest land is owned by Small Woodland Associations or certified as part of a Tree Farm) from compliance with your ordinance, but, W I do not think that will have the effect you desire. Any person wishing to remove trees and get around your ordinance would merely have to sell 1 tree. This leaves a whole in the ordinance that you could drive a truck through. 2600 State Street Salem, OR 973:0 (503) 378-2560 ODF FOREST PRACTjOD6...__. ' 09/05/03 08:35 $503 945. 7490 - " Because your regulations are far more restrictive than the FPA, it doesn't make sense to apply the FPA inside of the City of Tigard. ORS 527.722 establishes that the existence or adoption of acknowledged local government regulations relieves the State Forester of the responsibility to -administer the Forest Practices Act within the affected area. Therefore, we will no longer administer the Forest Practices Act within the City of Tigard. Sorry for the confusion. Sincerely, evin R. Birch Land Use Planning Coordinator cc:. Jim Young, Forest Grove Dave Johnson, Forest Grove Mike Schnee CL oc . r_j t7 W J .....r.r■ ■ ■ v ■ nor ~Yr~ C,r~uv~vr~ 'Pub hr- 9. ter. 1q- 03 5 " ALFRED STREET RINGS VEIN _ I 95 9735 976 968 6 964 9565 92 692 •90 9725 •88 %9 886 967 84 82 •80 78 BERRY fAI GM •91 • s87 •85 ■ 5 3 81 7 3 77 S.w.DARGARAtANE 9720 S•W• VENTURA COURT 9 0 075 _ ` n- _ _ 9696 9670 LEGEND: INP ► kp;, ~ sc~5 CO 9e76°0 3 .94 NOb 0102 .qb 9580 1 •5e ® COMMON PROPERTY f 9765 . 9770 96 6 9690 I 101 q-T • •q •74 • l 059 •95 9674 6565 9660 STREET ADDRESS 9 •49 •69 663 5605 -73 qp LOT NUMBER • 9780 I 0% 968 9674 X6055 *71 s7 9785 9d 670 •54 t~ •97 661 pR1VE ( W(1 1~ ~(1t1+14~5 95 9610 gK •67 >7 t ~i $61 987 •53 98x0 464 86~ JQ~~ 600 80ULEVAR0 MEIt3NT5 9805 •62 •63 65 41 66 39 052 -7 COURT J~ 42 40 1 9835 •a1 6 ■S •SO •49 9.844 986 9685 55 46 8 •44 666 6645 ~ 47 45 755 •30 ' *3 0.0. =28 29 662 S.W . V ENT UR A 94 i90 ~ ' 20 s.w VENTURA VIAC •33 016 ■ of l 014 2 688 684 eo 67 7 6650 38 O DRIVE • 37 • 35 #34 ti 3 H WASHINGTON SQUARE ESTATES CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department Shapmg A &w C armn* MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SUN Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639.4171 Fax: 503-684-7297 TO: Mayor and City Councilors FROM: Brian Rager, Engineering Manager DATE: 9/09/03 SUBJECT: SUB2003-00010 Ash Creek Estates In addition to the questions already addressed in the packet materials, I was asked to provide additional information for the following two items: 1. Is it feasible that the applicant can construct a culvert across 74th Avenue that will meet appropriate design standards? The applicant has not yet specified a size or type of culvert, but will be making that final decision prior to submittal of construction drawings. At that time the applicant's engineer will provide calculations showing that the culvert will meet City of Tigard, Clean Water Services and other applicable jurisdictional standards. These standards include hydraulics, road support and environmental impacts, such as fish passage. It is certainly feasible that the applicant can L design and construct an approvable culvert. 2. It was recommended that staff create a new condition to address the question of sight distance on 74th Avenue as it may be impacted by the existing retaining wall 1 on the property immediately north of the site. q 9 Staff recommends adding Condition 11.N with the following verbiage, "Sight Distance certification at the new intersection with 74th Avenue. The applicant shall show proof that they have obtained the necessary easement for their proposed retaining wall." kV AI?RI?N \V. A N V Y CI :Jo11;uu)Wl1.lx.11,11Blo[.oC151',,11115W11-I)IJ[csocilill' ! •U~ 1;1;1rnru:r ;t r.init ficot.ocls'r, 7'tir. t?~:u[.ocuw. ti<uar"n' ~r :\nt1,a:JCn 9 September 2003 Jim Griffith, Mayor City of Tigard 13125 SW Hail Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Ash Creek Development On 12 August I submitted a letter describing the Ash Creek site and the effects of the proposed planned development from my professional perspective as a wildlife ecologist. At this time I would like to make 3 points in relation to this proposed planned development and its effect on environmental and ecological variables: 1. Better here than out in the country. The basic constraints on land use development are good. I recognize and support the strategy of building homes in already urbanized areas rather than in habitats outside the urban growth boundary. 2. Natural amenities still need to be considered. For lands within the urban growth boundary, development constraints have been put in place to preserve important social, economic and environmental amenities. Tigard City Code Chapter 18.350 states that the purpose of planned developments include preserving "...to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities...." and that the development should meet the criteria of preserving "...existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible." 3. We should do better than this. This proposed development on Ash Creek can and should do a better job of minimizing or mitigating its adverse effects on several environmental values. These adverse effects include reductions in the existing tree stand's structural diversity and stability; depletion of wildlife species numbers and diversity due to loss of cover, forage, reproductive sites, and connectivity to other patches of wildlife habitat; depletion of native species numbers and diversity due to increased intrusion by humans, pets, and non-native plant species; and degradation of stream water quality and stream discharge patterns. All of these adverse effects are density related and could be minimized by holding this development to Tigard City Code Chapter 18.510 R 4.5 Low Density Residential District standards including minimum lot sizes as well as front, side, and back yard setbacks. This development should also minimize adverse environmental effects by preserving and replacing a greater number trees than currently proposed, and this L tree protection plan should be prepared by a qualified arborist and submitted for approval as per Tigard 2 City Code Chapter 18.790. JERe4ards, D 9 J WarrSenior Wildlife Ecologist cc. City Council members 9403 SW 74TU AVI:NUF. • TIGA1ZD, OREGON 97223 PHON F: 503-246-8613 • FAX: 503-246-2605 • F-MAIL: ,ttlcy@usa.net tg r From: Robert C. Ward O's 7162 S.W. Barbara Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.892.9658 To: City of Tigard Re: Testimony concerning the "ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION" Files No: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2003-00010 Developer: A. Developer is willing to build on environmentally sensitive lands, less than the 50' minimum allowable distance on slopes greater than 25 percent grade. B. Developer is willing to decrease lot sizes below the minimum of 7,500 sq. ft. C. Developer is willing to increase number of homes allowed on a cul-de-sac. D. Developer is willing to increase traffic load in community around the development, while asking to decrease street sizes within the development. E. Developer has a conflict of interest when asked to consider what is best for this small area of our community. Council: Lot Size: A. Lots average surrounding the proposed development, three of four sides, average 9,130 sq. feet, B. Lot for the proposed development average 6,750 sq. ft. C. Lot sizes for this parcel are designated R 4.5 - or 7500 sq. ft. Look at the map on the Council Chamber wall. D. The surrounding lots range from 7155 sq. ft. to 13,260 sq. ft. E. The proposed-develop lots range from 4702 to 11,616 sq. ft. F. The surrounding lots have 20 of 23 lots beyond the MINIMUM size of 7,500 sq. ft. G. The proposed develop lots have on 5 lot which MEET minium size. 5 of 27 lots. 1 Submitted plans: r A. All submitted plans rely on developer provided drawings. 1. City has not provided a details topographic survey to support the development. If fact, the ~ supplied drawings do not depict the correct location of 25 degree slopes and the impact this would have on the resulting placement and allowance of lots. 2. The Clean Waters Services report, File No 2819, dates May 13, 2003, indicates that no "On u ~ Site" visit was made. How can a sensitive piece of land with ayear-round creek and one of the largest cedar forests in America NOT BE INSPECTED and reported on. 3. Clean Waters Services only inspected the proposed development at the request of concerned citizens, not at the request of the City of Tigard. 4. The City of Tigard does not have supporting geotechnical reports supporting a reduction is the setback for a 25 degree slope. It depends on the developer supplied information. Cul de Sac: A. The design for the cul de sac is ERRONEOUS AND FLAWED. 1. The developer has indicated that are 23 lots on the cul de sac. 'T'here are 27! TDC 18.370 limits the maximum number of homes on a cul de sac to 20. The reason for adjustment is stated as "the length of the cul de sac". This is not a reasonable reason. 2. The developer has indicated the future construction of a street adjacent to Lot 1. a. Developer does not own property b. Developer and city cannot predict if or when this street will be built. c. No community input has been requested for this street extension. d. Consequently, the cul de sac length proposed is entirely flawed. 3. TDC 18.370 limits the cul de sac length to 200 feet. The proposed length states it as 620 ft. When the above mentioned street is ignored, the street length approaches 900 feet in length. Other Concerns: The list goes on and on and on A. Drainage - TDC 18.810.100 - retention of water flow B. Traffic Impact studies lacking C. Setbacks - TDC 18.350 D. Planter strip TDC 18.370 E. Impact studies lacking TDC 18.390 F. Streets don't meet city standards - TDC 18.430 G. Solid waste flawed - TDC 18.755 H. Lot Depth 2.5 time width - TDC 18.810 I. Lot frontage undersized, are not accurately represented as must be built - TDC 18.810 J. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue states that "where a roadway is not more that 28 feet in wide, there shall be NO Parking on either side of the street." The developer is proposing parking on only one side of street. Street needs to be wide enough to provide parking on two sides. And the list goes on, and on. My Thoughts: Tigard City Planning must understand the importance of creating, and maintaining a sense of com- munity. This is accomplished by maintaining continuity within the smaller diversified areas in Tigard. When established areas are in-filled, significant consideration must be given to adjacent properties OC N and the previous CITY APPROVED development criteria. This consideration results in predictable growth and development. J 00 But as proposed, the Ash Creek Estates Development is asking for many significant variances which serve no benefit to the community or the development. The variances only result in the ability of the J developer to increase profits. But once the developer is done, the community is left with the after- math. r_EG►BrL.r~ S-TRIP 1 8655 o, ft 531 gq ft 7259 sq ft 2q , • ft 1 q s7921 q• ft sq• it 9626 sq•ft sq 9606 sq• ft 10,150 I SU~gdgvisio sq• ft k Estes 10,120 Ash cree 0 s4 it. lots, sq. ft 4.5 - 7950 1o,225 . Zoned sq• ft 13,260 Wft A9 sQ2 sift 8659 sq: ft ft 8080 q' 8416 ft 8221 y 855ft sq• ft sq. N i 'ft 7962 sq 0 sq it s ft 8351 sq• ft, sq. sq. tftt Comparison of Lot Specifications for Ash Creek Estates Subdivision, and adjacent lots. Item Existing Proposed Average Size 9,130 sq. ft. 6,750 sq. ft. Smallest Lots Size 7,150 sq. ft. 4702 sq. ft. Largest Lots Size 13,260 sq. ft 11,616 sq. ft Lots Meeting Minimum Size 20 of 23 5 of 27 12,000 12 11 10,0W 10 9 'OW 9 8,000 aR4.5-7,500 sq.rt.8 7,OUF 7 6 000 6 5,000 - - - - - - 5 -TIOU 4 TIMU 3 1,000 Average Lot Smallest Lot Number of Lots Size Size Meeting R4.5 Zoning a oc t» J 0 W J 5u bmf+~e d TUALATIN Riverkeepers of ; d r1 16507 SW Roy Rogers Rd. Sherwood, OR 97140 (503) 590-5813 fax: (503) S90-6702 - www.tualatinriverkeepers.org email: info@tualatinriverkeepers.org August 12, 2003 Tigard City Council 16125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Senn Property Development on Ash Creek The Tualatin Riverkeepers are a community-based organization working to protect and restore the Tualatin River System. We build watershed stewardship through public education, access to nature, citizen involvement and advocacy. Our membership has grown to over 600 dues paying members who support our mission of watershed stewardship. As a key part of our mission, we are concerned about impacts to tributaries habitats and wetlands in the Tualatin Basin. A Unique Natural Resource The Senn property on Ash Creek represents a rare remnant of once common habitat in the Tualatin Basin. In our research for our book, Exploring the Tualatin River Basin, we searched for high and low for unique natural areas, but were unable to find such a large cedar grove as is on this site. Because of the uniqueness of this site, we ask that it receive the highest protection afforded to it by City code. Tree Plan is Not Adequate While Tigard Development Code 18.790.050 exempts tax deferred forest lands from the requirement of a tree cutting permit, it does not exempt this development from submitting a tree plan. Tigard Development Code 18.790.030 B.1. states that a tree plan should include "Identification of the location, size, and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city". The tree plan submitted by the applicant identifies the location of trees, and whether they are deciduous or evergreen, but it does not identify the species or size of each tree. is Unnecessary Removal of Trees is Not Avoided Tigard Development Code 18.790.030 A. states that "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." By any stretch of the imagination, it is possible to protect some of the more than 400 trees proposed to be clear-cut by the applicant. For this l reason alone, this application should be denied. Tigard planning staff agrees and says so on page 2 their report. The report says "Staff feels the applicant does not provide for the maximum preservation of trees on site as prescribed by Planned Development Standards (18.350100(b)(3)(5)[pg 350-8]. We don't question the applicant's right to develop their property. We ask that development be done in a way that preserves public trust resources, The Tualatin Riverkeepers is a community-based organization working to protect and restore Oregon's Tualatin River system. The Tualatin Riverkeepers builds watershed stewardship through public education, access to nature, citizen involvement and advocacy. 0 i.e. fish, wildlife, and clean water. They clearly can develop this site in a way that has far less impact on public trust natural resources. Disturbance is Not Minimized on Steep Slopes Tigard Development Code 18.775.070 C.1. states as a condition for approval that the extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than required for use". The extent of the clear-cutting on the south end of the lots on the north side of the creek is greater than is required for the use of housing. Clear-cutting the entire platted area cannot help but create disturbance. Lots 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23 are of concern for slumping and sliding because of very steep slopes and the presence of groundwater. Development should not be allowed on these lots to protect public safety and water quality. Streamside Buffers Do Not Meet Sensitive Lands Code Close examination of the contour map provided by the applicant reveals that the streamside buffers do not meet Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards and Tigard Sensitive Lands Code 18.775. Buffers are supposed to extend 35 feet beyond the top of the 25% slope. On several lots the delineated buffer only meets the top of slope, and does not include the 35 feet beyond the top of slope that is required. Lots 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 28 and 29 contain large areas with slopes greater than 25%. Storm Water Quality Facility Does Not Control Pollution to the Maximum Extent Practicable We question the adequacy of the storm water quality facility. The Clean Water Act requires municipalities to prevent pollution from stormwater to the "maximum extent practicable". The attached article by Lewis G. Scholl P.E. from the professional journal, Stormwater Treatment Northwest, "in the Tualatin Basin - water quality facilities are designed significantly smaller and with less flow capacity for flow and treatment than in all other areas of the Northwest..... The discrepancy does not generally reflect any local meteorological phenomena." If it is practicable to treat 5 times the flow in storm water quality facilities in Clackamas County, it is practicable in Tigard. Tigard needs to step up to this higher standard to comply with the Clean Water Act. Ash Creek is habitat for cutthroat trout, and according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, federally listed steelhead trout. The enclosed article from the Seattle Post- L Intelligencer describes the fatal impacts of insufficiently treated stormwater on salmonids r as documented by NOAA Fisheries. Since a federal USACE CWA404 permit is needed for the road crossing at 70, and the creek harbors a federally listed species, a nexus 3 exists, requiring a formal consultation by NOAA fisheries to avoid a take under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). No development permit should be issued before this consultation in order to protect the City from penalties under the ESA. a Downstream Impacts We share Planning Commissioner Buehner's concerns about flooding downstream. Neighbors report increased flooding due to previous development in the area. Adding additional impervious surfaces, with the addition of drainage systems can only serve to make Ash Creek flashier. The cumulative effects downstream on Fanno reek and the Tualatin River of such projects is an ongoing concern. This Incomplete Application Does Not Allow Adequate Review The application is incomplete. The applicant has not submitted an adequate tree plan. There is no arbonst report. There is no evidence of approvals from Division of State Lands and the Army Corp of Engineers. Homes are not platted on the maps, only lot lines. There is no erosion control plan. In fact, there are 50 conditions that Tigard's planning and engineering staff have placed on this application. In order to provide adequate public review of how these conditions are to be met in the land use process, these plans should be submitted before approval of this development in accordance with Oregon State Land Use Planning Goal 1. This Application Should be Denied Clearly the applicant has not done their homework. The application submitted is incomplete. Impacts to public resources are not minimized. We agree with Planning Commission President Mark Padgett that the City is not getting enough in return for the concessions given with this development, and ask that you deny this application in its current form. Sincerely, Brian Wegener Watershed Watch Coordinator Tualatin Riverkeepers c: Dr. Nancy Munn, NOAA Fisheries Jim Grimes, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Heidi Berg, Clean Water Services Collin MacLaren, Clean Water Services a as J_ W J A Comparison of Water Quality Design Storms in Oregon and Washington By Lewis G. Scholl, PE, StormwKIer Management, Inc This information compares the stormwater treatment requirements in several cities and counties around Oregon and Washington. In general, Washington jurisdictions are obligated to comply with the minimum standards set by the State Department of Ecology (DOE), and published in the "Puget Sound Manual". Oregon jurisdictions, however, have all developed their own water quality design storm using various philosophies and methods for analysis. In Oregon, the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has not set any statewide design storm standards that would compare to what has been done by its counterpart (DOE) in Washington Therefore, Oregon cities and counties have developed water quality design storms that vary widely from one neighboring junsdiction to another. This is illustrated on the Table 1 below. Table 1: Comparison of Water Quality Deli Storms Jurisdiction 2-yr %of2-year Typical Rainfall Typical WQ Rainfall Rainfall used (inches) as input for How for inches as Design Storm hdrology ram 1 payed acre Puget Sound watershed 2 64% 1.28 0.29 cfs Claris Co. - WA 2.3 70% 1.61 0.38 cfs Ci of Portland - OR 2.5 33% 0.83 0.17 cfs Clackamas Co. - OR 2.7 67% 1.80 0.43 cfs Urban Area CCSD #1 Clackamas Co. - OR 2.3 N/A Manual talc. 0.09 c Tualatin Basin USA - OR 2.3 N/A Manual c411c. 0.09 cfs TualatinBasin 1.1Le public domain program "HYD" by King County - Version 4.21E was used to make these calculations. The hydrograph is "peaked" meaning that it is based on and understanding of typical rainfall distributions in the Northwest. 2. Calculated by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) method - 0.36 inches ofrainfall in 4 hours - avenged and oonv rW to a discharge rate. 3. Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has jurisdiction over stormwater quality in the Tualatin Basin in Washington County. Note that the last column shows the water quality design discharge rate that would be typically used for a one-acre paved site. This flow we is what determines how much of the water actually gets treated. In the Tualatin Basin - the flow rate treated is about 1/2 of that typical to the City of Portland and about'/, of that typical to cities and counties in Washington State. The result is that - in the Tualatin Basin - water quality facilities are designed significantly smaller and with less rapacity for flow and treatment than in all other arras in the Northwest. This difference is primarily due to the design storm and the associated method of calculation that the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has chosen to use. The discrepancy does not generally reflect any local meteorological phenomena. SHORT COURSES L L The following are offered by University of Washington, Professional Development Program. The web site www.eng_r„was .edu/epp/PVI/RMIcaLhtml provides further information, or contact Debra Bryant at 206-543-5539. 1 s Stormwater Treatment Biological, Chemical and Engineering Principles - Seattle, WA, February 8-9, 2000 7 Contact Gary Minton at (206) 282-1681 or email: mintonrpa@cs.com if you would like to know more about the content of these courses. VOL 6, Na 5 Co-oditon Gary R. Minton, RPA, 206-2821681 6 December 2000 Roger Sutherland, PadSc Water Resources, 503-671-97o9 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Page 1 of 4 U SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.;;om/local/107460_cohoO6,shtn l Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Thursday, February 6, 2003 By LISA STIFFLER AND ROBERT MCCLURE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTERS City officials have forked out millions of dollars and volunteers have donated countless hours to lovingly restore Seattle-area creeks. But a groundbreaking study suggests that water in many urban streams runs dirty enough to quickly kill coho salmon - most before they can spawn. The culprit appears to be the stormwater gurgling off streets, P-I Extras parking lots and roofs, carrying with it oil, grease, pesticides and - Coho salmon at a glance other pollutants, say federal scientists who conducted the study. - See video of ailing salmon - Special report: Our Troubled When hit by a flush of it, coho are immediately disoriented. They Sound roll to their sides. Some do what scientists dubbed "the Jesus walk," skittering across the top of the water in a final, desperate burst of energy. All this happens within hours when the salmon enter local creeks - killing 88 percent of the fish in the study last fall. "We've done everything we can think oty and it's not right," said Judy Pickens, who has worked on restoration of Fauntleroy Creek in West Seattle for more than a decade. "What more do we need to do to bring this creek into a healthy habitat for the fish?" Scientists had previously shown that stormwater makes life tough on fish and can kill bugs and other small creatures. But this study is one of the first to suggest that stormwater can kill fish outright. No one knows when the coho began to perish prematurely, or the extent of the phenomenon. But scientists believe numerous urban waterways could be afflicted. Until spawning surveys were launched in the last few years to see whether creek restoration efforts were working, few were looking very hard at the fate of salmon in local creeks. The new study promises to raise thorny questions about the degree to which wide swaths of land a around Puget Sound can be developed, and in what way. it It also suggests that restoring tree'=:s in cities is going to be harder than originally envisioned, requiring much more than cosmetic changes to the streams themselves. Pollution flowing off large areas of the city and its suburbs will have to be controlled. t9 uj "Putting logs and stumps in an otherwise sterile stream is not by itself going to bring the fish back," .a said Tom Murdoch, director of the Everett-based Adopt-A-Stream Foundation. Restoration work threatened Reports of healthy looking salmon dying in creeks from Everett to south of Seattle apparently http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2fndex.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://se.../107460_coho06.shtm 5/22/03 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Page 2 of 4 before spawning can be traced back to at least 1999. Three years ago, biologist Bill McMillan went walking down Kelsey Creek in Bellevue, near the Glenda'e Country Club. Wearing chest-high waders and carrying a 7-foot-long bamboo pole to flush salmon from hiding places, the fish counter remembered something in the field notes from the previous year's survey about coho dying prematurely. "Everything seemed to be pretty normal, and then all of a sudden on a gravel bar I saw a very sea- fresh-looking coho. It was very bright, a female with its sides bulging with eggs, but it was dead," McMillan said. "I just kept that in mind." It was another two weeks before he saw any more coho in Kelsey Creek. When he did, he started cutting them open. He found that an unusually large number of females were still full of eggs; males were full of sperm. "When you find a carcass like that, obviously they haven't spawned, and that's a real concern," he said. McMillan and his colleagues at Washington Trout turned to Seattle Public Utilities, which had hired the group to do the salmon surveys. SPU and Washington Trout agreed to track so-called prespawn mortalities. They found significant numbers - about half the coho in Fauntleroy Creek in 2001, nearly three-quarters in Kelsey Creek in 2000 and 2001. By last fall, scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service's Seattle laboratories were concerned enough to launch a study of the phenomenon, comparing an urban creek with a rural one. They chose Longfellow Creek in West Seattle, a model for stream rehabilitation efforts, featuring man-made gravel beds, pools and eddies, replanted banks and meditative walking paths. The water is cool and oxygen-rich, the way fish like it. "Longfellow Creek looks beautiful," said fisheries service scientist Nat Scholz. "You'd think everything was healthy." They compared it to Fortson Creek near Darrington. While Longfellow is fueled in part by water that runs from streets and rooftops, rural Fortson is fed by a stream and clean water flowing underground in the forest. Over a six-week period, scientists slogged down the creeks even on Thanksgiving and weekends, often in the rain collecting fins, guts, blood, organs and muscle from the dead salmon. i At the rural stream, just one of the 115 female coho died before spawning. But at Longfellow, 56 female coho perished in a matter of hours, some even before turning from their saltwater silver hues to their spawning shade of red. Only eight fish survived to spawn. The Longfellow fish were tested for disease, but nothing was found that would trigger the speedy deaths. The situation, Scholz said, is reminiscent of what would happen if there were a toxic chemical spill. http://seattlepi.nwsource.cona/printer2/mdex.asp?plot=b&refer--http://se.../107460_coho06.shtm 5/22/03 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Page 3 of 4 In a way, there was. Coho first to head upstream Every day, in the region's residents contribute unwittingly to stormwater pollution: dousing yards with chemicals to kill bugs; driving vehicles that leak antifreeze and oil; coating roofs with herbicide to beat back creeping tendrils of moss. When it rains, these pollutants wash off streets and yards into storm drains, many of which flow directly into creeks. Coho appear to be particularly vulnerable. They are usually the first salmon species to head upstream after the first fall rains. Congregating at the mouths of creeks, coho wait for the first surge of water. That signals to them that rains have started and they will have access to the small, shallow streams in which they spawn. Last fall was unusually dry, allowing pollutants to build up on the ground. When it finally rained, scientists suspect that the arriving coho were hit by a lethal dose. "We don't know water quality is the cause, but it's our leading hypothesis," Scholz said. Said Pickens, the stream-restoration volunteer: "How many times do you have to hear it before it hits home? These fish have made a very loud statement. They can't write on the walls, but they've come as close as a fish can to say it's not OK." When Scholz fires up a video of a salmon on his computer, it doesn't take an expert to see that something is seriously wrong with this fish. It is lethargic, swimming in erratic circles, bumping into the creek bank like a drunk on a bender. Another fish is even worse. It is lying on its side, barely swimming, fins splayed out like a child trying to keep his balance on a beam. Its mouth gapes. "This fish is on its last fins," Scholz said. Increasingly, salmon are venturing into restored creeks to try to spawn. At these creeks, volunteers and workers have yanked out invasive blackberries and replanted native brush. Carefully notched logs have been strategically placed to create calm pools. Since 1999, more than $26 million has been spent on restoring major Seattle creeks. About $5 million more will be spent in the next few years. Bellevue is spending more than $2.5 million. At Longfellow Creek, researchers got to see only a few coho before they died. But their strange behavior is indicative of neurological problems, Scholz said. A wide range of chemicals could cause such symptoms. The mystery is muddled by the possibility that multiple contaminants in stormwater all present in doses smaller than previously believed lethal could be causing the deaths. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2rmdex.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://se.../107460 coho06.shtm 5/22/03 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Page 4 of 4 Ji "There is a goad chance its a combination effect," said Tracy Collier, manager of the National Marine Fisheries Service's ecotoxicology program in Seattle. Bile from the fish will be analyzed for evidence of exposure to compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These are created when organic material is burned and eventually settle onto the ground and water. One of the most prolific sources is automobile exhaust. Scientists are also analyzing the activity of an enzyme in the brain that is inhibited by certain classes of insecticides and other chemicals. They are planning a workshop in the next few weeks to share their findings with other scientists and government officials. More research is planned. "We really don't know what's going on with these fish," said Kit Paulsen, environmental scientist with Bellevue Utilities. "What's the exposure? Where's the exposure happening? We really haven't nailed that down." The environmental repercussions of the coho die-offs are not in themselves cataclysmic. The fish are either hatchery-bred salmon venturing up newly found waterways instead of their birth stream, or they were planted in the creeks. In either case, the fish can easily be replaced. But the point of stream restorations, those who do the work say, is to make creeks habitable aquatic environments. "If we get them back and they don't spawn then the natural cycle doesn't continue," Pickens said. "Then all we have is one long controlled aquarium." And the continual creep of development into rural areas spreads this threat to creeks and rivers populated by wild coho runs. The same fate could befall those fish if development doesn't proceed carefully. The coho die-offs don't mean creek restoration is a wholly losing proposition. Other fish survive in greater numbers to spawn. "Other salmon do have the opportunity to benefit from restoration efforts," said Katherine Lynch, senior environmental analyst with Seattle Public Utilities. 2 Rich Horner, a University of Washington environanental engineer who studies stormwater, says the 0) new information about coho deaths, while important, is not a sign that people should stop trying to improve the health of local creeks. J 'p "We haven't worked very hard on these things," Homer said. "There's a lot of territory to cover before giving up. if P -I reporter Lisa Stiff ler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi. com ©1998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer http://seatfepi.nwsource.com/printer2rindex.asp?ploc=b&refer-http://se.../107460_coho06.shtm 5/22/03 51A bbUd c~f~a3 Comments of Michael Trigobof to Tigard City Council, 919103 1 At a previous City Council meeting, John Frewing made some points about the location of the 25% slope line on the Senn Property, and the implications of this location for the number of buildable lots on this site: 25% Slope, Setbacks John Frewing's comment: Without access to this private land, I looked at compliance using the developers drawing, KAI #2129, Sheet 2 of 12, Preliminary Plat Map, dated 3/3/03, which is the topographic map of the proposed development. I constructed my own model of what a 25% slope looks like, which I show to you now it consists of a one foot rise in four feet horizontal, or a 10 foot rise in forty feet. The topographic map has a scale of one map inch equaling 40 feet on the ground I checked it from the knowledge of the lot size overall. The map shows elevation increments of one foot. I then used a ruler to find the top of the slope on the map where there was an indicated 10 foot rise or more in one map inch. Proceeding from east to west, I located twelve such points on the north side of Ash Creek and connected these twelve points with a smooth curve. The result is shown as the red line on this drawing. I emphasize that these are not my made up facts, but the developers facts shown in his application. I then marked with a green line the CWS vegetative setback line 35 feet or 7/8 map inch further north from the red line. Finally, I applied a further setback of some 53 feet which is the combined dimension of the street, sidewalk and code-required front setback for construction on any lot. The result is shown with a blue line. Similar map markings were made for the south side of Ash Creek. The conclusions from this measurement are important instead of a proposed 29 lot development, I found 18 of the proposed lots eliminated in full, 4 additional lots reduced significantly, leaving only seven developable lots. Compliance with the CWS setback standards is also addressed at TDC 18.810.100 C. SO you should make a finding that the proposed lots impinge on the required wetland and sensitive land setback requirements imposed by CWS (TDC 18.775) and deny this application John Frewing additional comment: h) Regarding my second major point on page one of my 8/12/03 testimony, I have L recently discovered two additional errors in the applicants assessment of setback from 2 sensitive (18.775) and steep lands per CWS requirements. First, the applicant drew n circles with DIAMETERS of 50 feet and 25 feet in determining slope rather than drawing circles with RADII of 50 feet and 25 feet. This makes a difference in assessing whether a o slope of 25% is encountered in the fast 50 feet of setback from the wetland area. The g applicants map, from his application, is attached to show you this work. Because of this error, the application should be denied Second, the applicant has proposed and staff approves a reduction in riparian setback offset by equal granting of extra setback along the north side of South Fork Ash Creek. TDC 18.797.030 states that a riparian setback reduction (and offset) is allowable ONLY if ALL of five conditions are met: a) native plants are <80% of onsite riparian corridor area, b) that the riparian corridor was substantially disturbed before development, c) vegetation was not removed contrary to Comments of Michael Trigoboff to Tigard City Council, 919103 2 18.797.050, d) no infringement of the 100-year floodplain and e) the average slope of the riparian area is not > 200/9. 't'his site does not meet several of these conditions, namely, items a), b), c) and e). Thus the staff approval does not meet its own rules and the a plication should be denied. See the attached topographic map of the site. Morgan Tracy's response: Steep slopes (18.775) The applicant has provided a geotech study which sets forth requirements for construction of the subdivision. Individual home building construction is reviewed by the building department which will require separate geotechnical evaluation. The subdivision geotech report establishes specific recommendations for slope setbacks, site preparation, engineered fill, fill embankment slopes, subsurface drains, wet weather earthwork, excavating, pavement design, foundations, retaining walls, seismic design, drainage, removal of existing fill, erosion control, and pavement construction. The report additionally sets forth limits of construction without additional geotech study being required. These recommendations and requirements are incorporated into the decision through conditions 19, 20 and 21. * Comments: John Frewing's comments about the 25% slope require a substantive response from the City of Tigard. Morgan Tracy's response does not meet this standard. It seems to me that two responses would have been possible by Mr. Tracy: • Mr. Frewing has a good point about measuring the slope, and this requires further attention, or • Mr. Frewing does not have a good point, and this is why Mr. Tracy's response fits neither of the above patterns. He does not seem to have refuted any of Mr. Frewing's points, and yet he does not seem to have taken them seriously either. I believe that the City Council has an obligation to address Mr. Frewing's points about the slope seriously, and in ways that make sense. Mr. Frewing's other points also deserve a substantive response. i I hope you will do this. Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 503452-0652 1~►e1I~ gIgf c3 COMMENTS ON THE ASHCREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL September 9, 2003 To The Tigard City Council: The Biodiversity Project of Tigard is an all volunteer neighborhood group working toward protecting and conserving the remaining natural resources in the city. Of specig interest to us and our community is the unique Senn property, which includes the last and largest remaining known cedar forest of its kind known in all of the Willamette Valley in Oregon! Because of this fact alone, it deserves to be protected for all time. We are especially concerned about the proposed cutting of over 400 trees on the Senn site, which would destroy the area, result in the death of thousands of birds, frogs, salamanders and other species that currently utilize this area, result in the loss of a very important cultural resource for local Native American tribes, and in addition would have great negative impacts to the remaining wetlands below due to the removal of the vegetation on the slope above the creek. I hope that after reading my comments and those of others you will be convinced we need to all work together to purchase this site and protect it for future generations! Section III. Background Information: This section lacks the following information: Only Lot #400 of the site is developed, and this is the only piece that taxes have been paid on. Lot #300 is a western red cedar forest that is undeveloped. The neighbors worked with Metro Parks and Greenspaces Department and the Three Rivers Land Conservancy to purchase this property as an open space for the city. The latter groups could not raise all of the purchase price asked for by the Senn family, so they asked the City of Tigard to come up with remaining money. The city said they could not do this. Chanter 18.745. Landscaping and Screening: It is stated that the applicant "proposes to leave the open space tract in its natural state". Since all of Lot #300 is open space, this means the applicant is leaving all of the 8.92 acres in its natural state, not just the 4 acres as stated previously. We therefore conclude that there will be no development since all of the open space will be left in its current state, namely as cedar forest. i Chapter 18.780. Signs/Relationship to natural and physical environment: This section of the Tigard code is written to preserve the existing features on the site which includes steep slopes, wetlands and a creek. Since all of Tract 300 is "Sensitive Land", according to city code and Title 3, removal of "ALL" of the trees violates this code as well as state and federal laws. The comments by the city even address this, stating that "it is unclear to staff how the above standard is being met when opportunities exist to preserve several trees outside the building envelopes and grading areas". Staff goes on to say also that the "drainageway will be slightly impacted bathe proposed crossing of SW 74 ffi", and that there will be "fill encroachment into the corridor". This project as proposed will greatly impact the stream and buffer on the stream by causing severe erosion and impacts to water quality by removal of the trees on the slope above. There are many examples of similar projects that have occurred where trr:es were removed on such a steep slope, and as a result adjacent landowners sued the developer, new property owners and the city involved because of damage to their properties due to windthrow, soil erosion, etc. The cedar trees on the site indicate the most sensitive of wetland forests we have in this state, and this kind of impacts to the slope above will cause such severe impacts no amount of mitigation could ever make up for the damage that would occur. This section of the code is not being met, we ask that therefore the application should be denied. Areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; The geotech report states that several lots would be on very steep slopes,and groundwater was encountered. This clearly indicates again, that development cannot occur in these areas without causing great damage to the wetlands and adjacent properties. With no trees and other vegetation to hold up the slope, it will move. And it will move down to the stream below, with catastrophic results for the wetlands. Since this part of the code cannot be met we request the application be denied. Chapter 18.790.030, Tree Removal: There should be NO tree removal in the open space tract, period. Any tree removal in this area would cause such severe impacts to the surrounding soils and vegetation that it would greatly harm remaining trees as well as sensitive wildlife including state listed red-legged frogs, and other amphibians, birds, etc. In addition, the applicant stated at a meeting with the homeowners last year lie would leave a large buffer of trees between existing homes on Barbara Lane and the new homes. He has failed to do this in the current plant for this site, and so violates the understanding he had with the surrounding neighborhood. The city's staff report also states that "the applicant does not provide for the maximum preservation of trees on site as prescribed by Planned Development Standards (18.350100(b)(3)(5)[pg350-8]". In addition the owner and applicant do not possess a valid tree cutting permit for this site. In addition, NO city arborist report has been done as is 9 required, thus we cannot adequately comment on the impact from tree removal plan submitted i by the developer if information from a non-biased source is not available. The application should be denied. Landscaping and open space: This section requires that 20% of the site shall be landscaped. There is no plan for this to occur, since the applicant has stated that the homeowners will do it separately, but the applicant has not stated how they would accomplish this. We do not see how the project "exceeds the minimum 20% landscape criteria", as stated by city staff, since there is no plan submitted as to how this would be accomplished, and having open space and drainage tracts that are nati-milly vegetated does not contribute to the 20% requirement for landscaping. chapter 18.775, Sensi; ive Lands: The overriding STATED purpose of this section is to "MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE CREEKS IN TIGARD BY MINIMIZING EROSION, PROMOTING BANK STABILITY, MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING WATER QUALITY, AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS"; as the application stands in its present form, it does not meet this part of the code for the following reasons: This site qualifies as "significant wetlands" and if it does not appear on the City of Tigards man it was a serious mistake and breach ofgublic confidence and should be corrected!!!. To state otherwise is absolutes ludicrous when we are discussing a rare, forested wetland open space that is so significant it is now the last remaining cedar forest left in the WILLAMETTE VALLEW It is the city's responsibility to protect such rare sites for its citizens and as part of the _protection of natural resources, as is required by the law. Steen slopes: The applicant has proposed to clearcut the entire slope above the wetlands, a slope so steep that removal of all or even some of the trees will cause severe impacts to the wetlands below as well as adjacent properties. The erosion control plan, no matter how good, will not prevent the harm done to the site by the removal of trees and other significant vegetation, wildlife, etc. We request that all plans to develop on any steep slopes be denied. The proposed development will result in severe erosion, stream sedimentation and ground instability as we stated above, due to tree removal and ground disturbance. This violates this section of the code. Cultural Resources: This site is extremely important from a cultural resource standpoint due to the extensive number and size of western red cedar trees it contains. This tree was one of the most important trees utilized by Native American tribes historically and was used for making baskets, clothing and numerous other purposes. Several local tribal officials have expressed L interest in this site and would like to see the entire area preserved. The city has an obligation to see that the site is protected and should help protect this unique cultural resource. r D 7 J THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED There are large gaps of information missing from this application, as well as serious flaws from an environmental standpoint in the attempt to show that this site can be safely developed without causing serious harm to the remaining openspace, creek, and associated fish and wildlife that use this area. There are many codes that have not been adequately addressed, as pointed out by the city's own staff report for this proposal which lists 50 conditions that still need to be meet to be adequate from their perspective. We attended the first hearing for this project, and want to reiterate what Mark Padgett, President of the Planning Commission stated, that the city is not getting enough in return for the concessions given with this development. That is an understatement. The city will' lose a great deal, namely one of the most unique natural resources in the state, and we can't allow this to happen. In conclusion, we ask that you deny this application in its current form. Sincerely, Susan G. Beilke, Director The Biodiversity Project of Tigard 11755 SW 110 Place, Tigard, OR 97223 C i i i P.O. box 3" Rhodoa,en&on, Oregon 97049 `503) 6=•4790 Comments to the City of Tigard and Tigard City Council Pertaining to the Proposed Ash Creep Estates Development (August -12th, 2003) I am providing these comments in an attempt to raise some "red flags" concerning the proposed "Ash Creek Estates" development. There are potential Impacts to critical heritage, sites as well an opportunities to protect them.. The 94.oCres that. encompasses the proposed 11.4sh Creels Estates" development is the largest knovu grove of Western Red Cedar, trees in not only the Willamette Valley, but west. of of,. Cascade Mountains. There are no other areas like' this. A hundred years ago, what was once common, is tno' more;' they already have been lost to development and the mismangement of our forests. r This site: in the. City of Tigard that is proposed for the 09Asii Creek Estates" development has two critical aspects ' that. you should look at: i. The sites historically significant eultural uses by locative Americans; and g. the sites nat.ural.resource importance as the largest known grove of Western Red Cedar trees west of the Cascade -Mountains. Alslmugh the proposed development site for the "Ash Creels Estates" is on private lend and is closed to public enter, from adjacent properties the importance of this grove. of W estexn. Red Cedar trees can be easily tlZM recognized. And, although 1 have not walled through this area l have studied' it from a distance and believe that lay observations Illustrates its significance. It needs to be preserved. A preffimbwrV glimpse at the "Ash Creek Cedar Forest" indicates that this area could have been utilized by at least the Cascade, Cascade-Kilckitat, Claclkamas, Kalapooia, Kftkftat,.and Tualatin tribes, In addition to the Takarisa Indians. This site would have been a "usual and Aec4stomed place" as covered under the treaties, similar to Native Americans demomstratbsg their right to once agal - fish- at-Willamette Falb during the early 1996% after aboist a hundred gears had passed. The geographic .location of the "Ash Creek Cedar Forest" in the Tigard area, °'sparks" some sincere Interest of this site being. a Native. American heritage site that could possess some Important significance worth exploring further. And, with the rapid changes Oat are UWng place In -the Willamette Valley, isolated areas like this one, that Is still relatively intact, Is extremely rare in this day and age.. The. "Ash Creek Cedar Forest" has both cultural and historical vrslues, In addition to their natural resource value. Native, low-elevation Cedar forests like'this one are almost Impossible to find, especially In the. Willamette Valley. Native American tribes would have utilized the area that has.now.beeo.me, )mown as the "Ash Creek Cedar Forest". This ton-scre site, which would probably have been much larger In she, would have been a major resource area that they relied upon. one of the uses of the trees that the tribes wound have made use islF, was In the 'aonstractlon of lodges. Some of the trees wound have been cut downs and fashioned lute a framework rvitb is pitch- or shed-like roof. - W at boards and roof-boards were split from both down and still etaste4ing .trees. «3« The plank lodges came In variety of sizes, depending if it aw►ere a temporary or permanent home. Some of these dwellings were said to be so large that sometimes, as in tho Clackamas Indian village at the "mouth" of the Clackamas. River, the entire tribal population reportedly. .could live under, one roof. The bark from such. tress as in the "Ash Creek Cedar Forest", would have been utilized in the making of baskets*, `This would have included those replied upon in harvesting huckleberries, which served as a main Ioodsource along with salmon, elk, venison, camas, wapato, aced ,acorns, Other uses of bark from the Cedars in the "Ash Crook Cedar Forest" would have been fashioned into woven hats and capes to .shhed rain and keep the sun off. In addition, It was used to .make rope and twine. The canopy of the-"Ash' Creek Cedar Forest" would have also provided s wealth of opportunity for certain plants, mushrooms, and dchens to grow within its shaded en*W6nm4At: These would have been either for food or even for medicinal purposes. Some areas like. the "Ash Crack Cedar Forest" could also have other significant values associated with it. These possibly. could:be religious or perhaps even contain other .extremely sen$1UMV. ! site& The "Ashy Creek Cedar Forest" needs to be set aside in the best interest of the public. It should be purchased and placed into open. space and uniquely managed For its cultural and natural heritage. ccs chief Johnny Jackson, Cascade•KSckitat Tribe Chief Wilbur Slockish, Cascade Tribe Carol Logan, KaUapooya Sacred Circle Affiance W llfered Yalh ip, Yakama Indian Notion I'm Sandi Savage, I live on Barbam Lane, %z block from Senn's property. My husband and I bought_4"ot with 11 mature fir and cedar trees. We measured the distances between the trees and then designed and built a house ourselves to fit within those trees. 22 years later, all those trees still stand plus many more that we've planted. Besides just their shear beauty, they provide privacy, shade, habitat for animals, erosion control and cleaner air. Sure we sweep the decks often and walk through a lot of spider webs, but we don't mind the tradeoff. A neighbor of ours took out a huge tree because it was "messy" - the next summer he had to put in air conditioning. I attended a talk some time ago and learned something I wish to share: This information comes out of the Handbook of Water Sensitive Planning and Desi published 2002, provided by Tom Lipton, an Environmental Specialist with the Bureau of Environmental Services. It says "In a natural forested environment, almost half of our rainfall returns to the atmosphere" (mostly through evaporation). In this proposed development (losing 300400 mature trees and underlying plants) the replacements are streets, driveways, patios, and rooftops. "With developments we have more water that becomes runoff. We have less natural storage for it because we are putting less water into the ground. It is this groundwater that supports our streams with water during summer dry periods." We are losing this groundwater with these developments. Of course, the builder is putting in two holding ponds. This same booklet addresses required stormwater detention facilities, i.e. ponds, tanks and vaults in a study over the last 20 years in the Puget Sound area where rainfall is 40" per year. The hydrologist and engineer, Douglas Beyerlein and Joseph Brascher, who wrote about this also did the designing and building, setting the standards of detention ponds. In this article they said "We have failed. With development comes increased winter flows, decreased summer flows, and a general degradation of our stream systems. We have failed because we are trying to replace the complex interaction of the hydrologic cycle with a pond. It can't be done." In allowing this development to go through, the city gets 74`h Street extended at the expense of the builder. Wow! 1 The lost of upwards of 400 majestic, climate-tempering trees for 1 % blocks of heat-retaining, ugly blacktop. What a trade off11 TRADITIONAL ALTERNATIVES: WILL MORE DETENTION WORK? / By: Douglas Beyerlein, P.E., and Joseph Brascher 1 1 1 QUESTION: Will More Detention Work? 1 1 ANSWER: No. 1 t For the past 20 years local jurisdictions in the Puget Sound region have required stormwater detention facilities (ponds, tanks, and vaults) to be constructed to mitigate the impacts of development on our streams, rivers, and lakes. Standards were established to attempt to prevent runoff from development from increasing streamflows. As hydrologists and engineers we participated in setting the standards, selecting the methodologies, and designing and building detention facilities. This was all for the purpose of protecting our aquatic systems while allowing development in our watersheds. We have failed. With development has come increased winter flood flows, decreased summer low flows, and a general degradation of our stream systems. We have failed because we are trying to replace the complex interactions of the hydrologic cycle with a pond. It can't be done. Table I shows why. Table 1 shows where our average annual rainfall of 40.70 inches goes. Table L Surface Intertlow Ground-water Evapotrans- Runoff (in) (in) • (in) piration (in) Land Use Forest 0.09 8.46 13.40 18.79 Pasture 0.29 13.26 10.15 17.02 Lawn 0.61 16.72 8.89 14.48 Rural Residential (forest) 1.56 10.81 11.05 17.31 Rural Residential (pasture) 1.64 12.73 9.75 16.60 Suburban Residential 9.30 12.37 6.58 12.44 Multi-family Residential 16.66 8.69 4.62 10.72 Commercial 29.37 2.34 1.24 7.74 Impervious 34.05 0.00 0.00 6.64 b~ In the natural forested environment almost half of our rainfall returns to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration (ET) is the combined effect of evaporation of water from surfaces and transpiration of water from the soil by plants. In the paved environment less than 20 percent of the rainfall becomes ET. J With development we have more water that becomes runoff. We have less natural storage for it because we are putting less water into the ground. It is this groundwater that supplies our streams with water during U J -stmtmer dry periods. Instead we are increasing surface runoff, which is the water that gets to the streams the quickest. Interflow, the water that travels just below the surface, is not far behind. Together, surface runoff and interflow produce floods. 45 r Stormwater detention is suppose to stow down the runoff from development and make it behave like natural runoff. It isn't working. And it can't work whc.ja you look at the numbers in Table 2. Table 2. Surface SR+I Change Ground-water GW Runoff+ from Finest (in) Change Interflow (in) (in) from Forest (in) Land Use Forest 8.55 0.00 13.40 0.00 Pasture 13.55 5.00 10.15 -3.24 Lawn 17.32 8.77 8.89 4.51 Rural Residential (forest) 12.37 182 11.05 -2.35 Rural Residential (pasture) 14.37 5.82 9.75 -3.65 Suburban Residential 21.67 13.12 6.58 -6.82 Multi-family Residential 25.35 16.80 4.62 -8.78 Commercial 31.71 23.15 1.24 -12.15 Impervious 34.05 25.49 0.00 _114- Just the act of cutting down trees and replacing them with pasture increases the bad runoff (surface runoff plus interflow) by 5 inches per yearand decreases the good runoff (groundwater) by more than 3 inches. No detention is required by government agencies. Replacing forest with lawn (residential sod) is worse. The bad runoff increases by almost 9 inches and the good runoff decreases by 4.5 inches. Again, no detention is required by public agencies because no impervious area has been added. Detention is required once more than 5000 square feet of impervious area has been added to the development. But is it enough? No. In the Puget Sound region the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) has set the minimum standard for stormwater detention. The DOE Stormwater Management Manual requires that the runoff from new development (with more than 5000 square feet of impervious area) not exceed the 2-year and 10-year predevelopment floods. For a 100-acre development this produces the pond sizes shown in Table 3. Table 3. DOE Actual Increase Percent Required Required Size Needed Increase Pond Size (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Land Use L Forest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 R Pasture 0.00 5.16 5.16 A Lawn 0.00 8.24 8.24 Rural Residential (forest)' 0.63 4.23 3.60 572% Rural Residential (pasture)" 1.41 5.98 4.57 324% J Suburban Residential 2.85 13.45 10.60 372% Multi-family Residential 6.88 18.99 12.11 1760/9 ujl Commercial 10.88 29.59 18.71 172% J Impervious 11.86 33.92 22.06 186% , ' assuming more than 5000 sq. feet of impervious area; otherwise, no pond is required. r The DOE ponds are too small. t 1 46 Even if the ponds were sized to the actual required site (based on HSPF-generated runoff), mitigation based on the 2-year and the 10-year floods does not protect our streams. A Development with ponds increases the smaller flood flows and increases the length of time of flooding. This can be just as destructive to the streams and the salmon as the bigger floods. Controlling flow durations is the key to protecting them. Flow duration is the percent of time that a particular size of flow is exceeded. For example, if a flow in a stream is greater than 1 cfs (cubic foot per second) for a total of 876 hours in a year then the flow duration for I cfs is 10 percent of the time (365 days times 24 hours equals 8760 hours in a year, 876/8760 equals 101%). The annual flood (1.01-year flood) for 100 acres of forest is i cfs. 'fable 4 shows how often this flow is ' exceeded for each of the 100-acre developments. Converting 100 acres of forest to suburban residential development (with a 13 acre-foot pond) still results in I cfs (the 1.01-year forest flood) occurring for an additional 549 hours (23 days) a year. The excess runoff has to go somewhere. 1 1 1 t CL ~c d C9 W J 47 ~w Watergardens as Stormwater Infrastructure in Portland, Oregon This paper was originally presented at the Harvard Design School, Water Sensitive Ecological Planning and Design Symposium, Feb. 25-26 2000. It has subsequently been published as a chapter in a "Handbook of Water Sensitive Planning and Design", Ed. Robert France, Lewis Publishers, 2002. Thomas Liptan Robert K. Murase Bureau of Environmental Services Murase Associates City of Portland Portland, OR Abstract Watergardens are aspects of the built environment that emulate nature's processes. Water is not a feature unto itself, but an integral element of the site and architecture; Watergardens are a synergetic result of landscape, biology, architecture and engineering. The principle of integrating water in urban design introduces water as a friendly companion, but always with attention to its potential power and negative aspects. This symbiotic design principle includes soil and vegetation within the urban hardscape. Trees, plants and soil are employed to function with water in urban spaces previously not used for stormwater management. We might call this a new paradigm, urban-nature, not at the expense of our human habitat but as enhancement of this habitat earth, water, plants all have an artful place with people in the urban context. Documentation of tests, monitoring data, costs and observations show the viability of the techniques discussed. Application of this new paradigm will result in lower development costs, more cost effective retrofits, improved livability and a more natural urban environment. Introduction Urban development provides the essentials of human community life. Usually within this human community exists some degree of nature. These human essentials are, to a large extent, forms of impervious surfaces and pipes. Stormwater runoff, the physical phase of precipitation after it falls in the urban community, is almost foreign to the natural environment. The cause of this runoff comes from the impervious surfaces needed within the urban community. To reverse, mitigate or eliminate the negative effects of stormwater runoff new ways of designing or retro- L designing the urban community are being explored and tested. Many of these new ideas are actually modern applications of age-old approaches, which for some reason had faded away. a Maybe the resurgent interest in bringing aspects of nature back into the community is caused by some of the federal laws governing water, air and threatened species. Certainly within the Pacific J Northwest water and nature are synonymous with salmon and forests. And, what is becoming D apparent is the building blocks of nature are also the building blocks of a healthy urban u ~ community. These new ideas begin to take shape in the form of urban design techniques: methods of integrating water with land and vegetation. Watergardens, or perhaps better stated as eco-gardens, are an aesthetic and cost effective approach to design with water. In Portland ideas that re-green or mitigate the effects of impervious surfaces are being developed. These approaches include development of a healthy urban forest, re-vegetation and preservation of riparian corridors and habitat, identification and removal of un-necessary 2 impervious surfaces, improved street designs to reduce environmental impacts, improved zoning codes to reduce hard surfaces, and identification and implementation of green/sustainable building and site design practices. The physical characteristics of impervious surfaces are essentially - rooftops and pavement. These surfaces are at best environmental dead zones, but are certainly not benign as they have other than direct water impacts such as contributing to urban heat island conditions, smog, loss of wildlife and habitat, increased carbon dioxide, and reduced oxygen and photosynthesis. So what is the paradigm that best describes these new ideas or approaches? Simply stated it is the careful integration of water with site and architectural design. The applications of design elements allow the urban hydrology to better mimic nature. The design elements are those usually within the landscape architects purview, including soil, plants/trees, rock and wood with water added. This paper introduces scientific information obtained either from direct testing or by recently published technical literature. Next, design techniques are presented with reference to their functions and benefits. Projects that have employed one or more of these techniques are presented. Each demonstration project offers built examples. And it is expected that these techniques will improve with each new application. Projects are discussed with a description of the site, techniques employed and commentary on what works and what doesn't. Studies: Pacific Northwest Precipitation and Hydrology Portland Rainfall Analysis Most precipitation in the Pacific Northwest occurs in the form of small storms. Using U.S. Weather Service data, an analysis of 24-hour precipitation events was conducted. Storms were divided into sizes from 0-0.2", 0.2-0.4", 0.4-0.6" and so on, up to and including the largest storms during the past 16 years. To simplify the analysis at the risk of accuracy, a 24-hour event was based on calendar day rain totals. Fig. 1.6.1 indicates that on average 145 days per year had storm events, or calendar days of rain, of 1.0" or less. These storm events accounted for 81 % of the average annual rainfall. This characteristic of precipitation is an important part of understanding how to better manage urban runoff and pollutants associated with these numerous events. Limitations of this study include the lack of distinction between calendar days, i.e. 0.2" could fall at midnight and another 0.8" could fall in the hours immediately following on the next L day. Albeit simple, it is not encumbered by the debate of what antecedent dry period should be C used to define the beginning and end of a "storm" event. Even so, the information is relatively consistent with other studies, such as those presented at the Salmon in the City Conference, (see citations). i i . 3 120 105 113 go-- - - - - 75-- - @ 45 60 a 30- 20 15 10 5 1 2 2 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.15 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 Rainfall - inches Figure 1.6.1 Comparison of pre-development forest versus post-development peak flows and volumes An analysis of rainfall distribution was conducted to determine the pre and post runoff from storm events using 0.1" increments, starting with 0.1" 724 hour events and continuing at every additional 0.1" up to 2.4" (the Portland 2 year event). The Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) method was employed for these calculations. Here again this may not be the most accurate method to use, but it is currently approved by the city for sizing storm f ' Wes. A hypothetical site of 5 acres was used, with predevelopment assumed to a forest conditio with a curve number CN70. Postdevelopment was 3 acres of impervious surface w1 rve number CN98 and the other two acres assumed to be left undisturbed, but hydrologically connected to the new storm system. Results for the predevelopment condition indicate that no runoff occurs for storms of 0.0 - 0.8" 24 hour events. Fig. 1.6.2 shows that predevelopment peak flows do not begin until at least a 0.9" event occurs and then have peak flow rates of up to 0.14 efs (cubic feet per second) for the 2 year 24 hour event. For postdevelopment conditions, runoff occurs with the first 0.1" event. For 0.3" events, the post peak flow is 0.16 efs, and then increases to more than 10 times the predevelopment peak for the 2-year event. Fig. 1.6.3 shows a comparison of runoff volumes, with predevelopment at zero cf. (cubic feet) for all storms up to 0.8" and 7,396 cf. for the 2-year event. Post development discharge volumes were 383 cf. for the 0.1" event and 27,810 cf for the 2-year event. In the predevelopment conditions little, if any, runoff occurs for storms of less than 1.0". In the postdevelopment condition runoff occurs with each event of 0.1" or more. 4 2.5- - 2 1.5 Post•Dev 3 ac. Impervious 2 ac. forest 0 1 G Y tD 0.5 IM Pre•Dev 5 ac. forest 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Rainfall - inches, 24 hr event Figure 1.6.2 30000 25000 1 20000 postoev O 3 ac. Impervious C ' 2 15000 2 ac. forest E 10000 Pre-0ev 5 ac. forest 5000 0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 I Rainfall - inches, 24 hr event Figure 1.6.3 v Bolton and Watts (1998) state, "Very little precipitation ends up as overland flow in a mature, i undisturbed forest." At the same conference, Beyrlein and Brascher state that in the Puget Sound area with annual rainfall at 40.7', 18.8" evapotranspirates and only 0.1" precipitation becomes surface runoff. Based on the above SBUH analysis, prior to development, no surface runoff occurs in a conifer forest for over 100 storm events per year, on average. This would also indicate that the energy of water within streams is only affected by surface runoff occasionally. 5 In addition, the pollutants carried into streams from surface flows would also occur occasionally. Surface runoff for post-development conditions occurs more than 100 times a year and carries not only natural occurring pollutants, but also human generated pollutants. Energy from the storms is also conveyed to the stream with peak flows equal to the 2 year event occurring with >0.3" events. Basically, there's a "whole-lotta" runoff and pollutants that did not previously occur. And it is happening almost every time it rains. Note; conventional detention methods (vaults and ponds) would only reduce the energy of the higher peaks, but not the 100 times per year they occur. Another factor of detention would be the extended duration of time needed to get the higher volumes out of the facility. In a post-development condition, significant flow, volume and energy are entering urban streams. Since pre-development pollutant loadings are zero for these predominant events, then any post-development discharge, regardless of the constituent concentration, would be greater than the pre-development reference point. In the post-development condition, urbanized sites discharge pollutant loads of many.orders of magnitude above pre-development conditions and occurs more often. If there is no runoff, then where does the rainfall go?- According to Bolton and Watts, and others, much of it is intercepted in the tree foliage, bark and branches, which then evaporates. Some rain falls to the forest floor, where it is absorbed and then makes its way into the ground and gradually seeps into streams. Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) Test Swales These swales were constructed to test various design characteristics, which, at the time, had not been documented by anyone else (at least not to the knowledge of BES). Issues of concern include pollutant removal or capture efficiencies of different plant species, soils, and flow attenuation and velocities. Additional issues may be tested in the future. Both swales are identical in geometric shape and soil type. Tests to date have been based on a difference of vegetation in each swale. One swale is planted with native grasses and forbes and the other swale is planted with turf grasses. The turf grass was mowed regularly and the native vegetation was left to grow naturally. A portion of stormwater runoff from a 50-acre urban area is pumped into each swale with almost identical volumes. Flow meters measure the flow at the end of each swale. Three pollutant samples are taken at each swale every 30 minutes during a storm event and then combined for analysis. A total of 6 events over the last two years have been sampled. To date results indicate the following: Runoff attenuation occurs in both swales. The swale with native vegetation retains up to 41 % of • the flow and the turf Swale retains about 27%. No identifiable conditions exist to explain the difference and it is assumed, at this time, that the native vegetation and lack of mowing allows the swale to facilitate infiltration. This may be due to the robustness of the root systems and presence of more organic material in the native vegetation swale vs. the turf grass swale. Fig. 1.6.4 shows the flow comparison for each storm event. r i 6 900 800 - - - - 700 800 - x E Soo - - ® Inflow 400 QOUIflOW oc K 300 - 200 100 0 Ent SnO Wet-4 Eat Sw* Wnt 3w Ent SlW Wnt S,W Ent SwN W1t SW W Ent Sw14 W1t S.nl. Ent Sw4 WnI SmW OL10/100. 02/10/1.99 0111.1100 -1911... 1012511990 10/20/1099 02!!2!!000 02/2212000 03MM O0 0012212000 00/10/2000 00/10!2000 01 01 02 02 N /S i1 0t .9 IS 2. b Storm Event Figure 1.6.4 Pollutant removal efficiency is good during all seasons, but is better for warm season load reductions. Generally, the Swale planted with native grasses captures more pollutants than the turf swale, except for phosphorous. This may be due to accumulation of organic matter in the swale, whereas grass clippings were removed from the turf swale. Recent storms monitored don't show a measurable difference in swale performance even though the turf has not been mowed for over a year and the inflow has been increased from 0.04 cfs to 0.08 cfs. Fig. 1.6.5 shows that both swales continue to perform relatively well. Summary i Pollutant removal relative to concentrations is good; for example, average total suspended solids (TSS) removal is 59% for turf and 68% for native vegetation. When loads are calculated based on runoff volume captured in each swale and concentration removal, the TSS removal percentages are 69% for turf and 81% native vegetation. Vegetation maintenance is not necessarily required. A messy or somewhat natural looking planting does not indicate the stormwater management functions have been impaired. 7 Grab Parameters East Swale West Swale PH (FIELD) 3% 4% DISSOLVED OXYGEN (FIELD) 20% 25% TEMPERATURE 4% 3% CONDUCTIVITY (FIELD) -13% -3% TOTAL OIL & GREASE 32% 31% NON-POLAR OIL & GREASE 50% 34% Composite Parameters TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 81% 69% TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 28% 18% TOTAL SOLIDS 60% 51% COD 65% 52% TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN (TKN) 54% 40% TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 50% 38% O-PHOSPHATE-PHOSPHORUS, DISS -75% -45% NITRATE-NITROGEN 16% 8% HARDNESS 46% 33% CADMIUM, TOTAL 73% 61% COPPER, TOTAL 65% 53% LEAD, TOTAL 72% 62% ZINC, TOTAL 76% 63% CADMIUM, DISSOLVED 47% 50% COPPER, DISSOLVED 52% 38% LEAD, DISSOLVED 53% 360/( ZINC, DISSOLVED 64% 48% Figure 1.6.5 Design Techniques or "Green Solutions " Nationwide, techniques are being developed by many who are helping to shape this new paradigm (Chapters 1.1 and 1.5). Water, soil and vegetation are purposely introduced into site and building elements previously isolated from each other. There are four basic functions that result: water soaking into soil/vegetation, water flowing over soil/vegetation and inanimate objects, water transpired by vegetation, and precipitation intercepted by vegetation and evaporated (water even evaporates during dry periods of storm events see BES tree study 2001). The combination of these functions is often advantageous to achieve better water distribution. Pollutant capture is achieved by water having to filter through the soil and/or vegetation. i Atmospheric pollutants are captured in plant foliage and then trapped in the soil, where many of i them have an opportunity to break down. All of these approaches allow runoff to be diffused, which also allows pollutants to be distributed in the landscape instead of concentrated. Increases i i in urban air and water temperature are minimized or eliminated by shade on impervious surfaces and in the case of ecoroofs, nearly all precipitation is retained during warm season months (May-October). The physical forms of these techniques are almost infinite, but are described here as: 8 Infiltration garden - Figure 1.6.6 Landscape swales - Figure 1.6.11 Stormwater Planters - Figure 1.6.13 and Figure 1.6.14 Ecoroofs - Figure 1.6.18 Vegetative Filters - Figure 1.6.28 Portland demonstration projects Buckman Heights Apartments A redevelopment project in the combined sewer area designed in 1996 and opened in 1998. The site's previous use was for a new car dealership parking lot. The site is 2 acres, with a 150 unit, 4-story apartment building and some surface parking and underbuilding parking. The project has many environmental attributes including car-sharing for the tenants. The Owner, Prendergast Associates, wanted to do their part to remove the site's runoff from the combined sewer system.' T"ne buildings are organized around a main courtyard; the traditional layout is articulated with low seating walls off the sidewalk and two large planting beds designed as landscape infiltration areas to filter and absorb the storm water from the building's downspouts. The parking areas are designed with care and detail to reduce the presence of the automobile and absorb the water runoff from the paved surface. Landscape infiltration Courtyard. Figure 1.6.7 shows two 18 ft x 45 ft infiltration gardens integrated with the site. The gardens were designed to accept runoff from the rooftops and the surrounding courtyard paved areas to flow into the vegetation. The planter area tapers from 6" along the perimeter of the surrounding walkways to 18" at the center. Moisture tolerant plants of spirea, iris, Oregon grape and astibe were planted within a Japanese Holly border. Figure 1.6.8 displays an overflow pipe set 9" above the bottom of the basin. Runoff enters the landscape infiltration area and soaks into the soil, except for large storms that flow out the overflow. This keeps the area at a maximum depth of water during storms of 9" with percolation rates estimated at 2" per hour; the area is expected to drain within 5 hours. i i i i i ~W 9 Figure 1.6.6 s ® • Optional overflow • Max. 2:1 side e slopes Flow • 12" max. reservoir depth Option piped 18" topsoil inflow 4 ft. minimum Section Not to Scale Description Landscape infiltration areas can be integrated into the site landscaping. The design can be formal or informal in character. They may be used in courtyards, parking lots or where other planting areas are available. Although" the area is saturated during storm events, infiltration occurs quickly. Stormwater Management Function and Sizing The system works by holding runoff and allowing pollutants to settle as the runoff infiltrates. Flow and volume are also managed with these facilities. Allows evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge and retains warm weather runoff. Depending on soil type & infiltration rate this facility may L provide 10-25 year event disposal. Using above proportions size at 0.045 x impervious area for WQ storm. C General specifications Acceptable soil types A & B. Minimum soil infiltration rate of 2 inches per hour. Facility storage depth may vary from 2-12 Filters can be planted with a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground covers, including grasses appropriate for periodic inundation. Freeboard not required. 1 I '10 Figure 1.6.7 r~ r l Figure 1.6.8 1t What have we learned? Aesthetically it is a very pleasing design. Based on visual observations, infiltration rates appear to be increasing. Infiltration tests will be conducted this spring to confirm these observations. If true, then the overflow inlet can be raised several inches to allow more runoff to be infiltrated. Vegetation appears healthy and is growing well. Pruning is done once a year in the fall to maintain the overall desired aesthetic. From a functional perspective the pruning could be reduced. No fertilizers or pesticides are anticipated to be needed, although the entire site has an irrigation system. Piping from the downspouts to the planter has a tendency to clog with sediments from the roofing materials and tree leaves. This requires at least once a year cleaning to maintain good drainage. However, during a very intense 1.4"/3 hour storm on October 1, 2000 the pipes were full and runoff simply overflowed across the lawn and walkways into the planter. Two alternatives, and probably better designs, would have been shallow surface channels integrated with the walkway design or larger pipes. Parking lot. Figure 1.6.9 shows the uniquely designed landscape infiltration perimeter. Perimeter landscaping is required by city code, for a project like this it requires a 5 ft wide strip the entire length of the parking lot, 200 ft. The lot was one of the first to use substandard dimensions with a 20 ft wide aisle and 17 ft long x 8.5 ft wide stalls. Parking is at 90 degrees. What is unique about this integrated landscape is the lack of a freeboard (precautionary measure to contain flows). When considering the configuration and grading of the site, a freeboard was not needed to protect property or people. This allowed a smooth transition from the pavement edge into the planting area. Runoff flows into the landscape via curb cuts and then infiltrates into the relatively porous soil. There is a 2" storage capacity for runoff as it soaks in or for large storm flows to move by displacement toward two inlets at each end of the strip that drain into underground dry wells. Plantings include only Red Sunset Maple trees (Ater rubru►n `red sunset') and Oregon Grape as a hedge. Approximately 8,000 sf (square feet) of concrete surface drains into the landscape, which is about 1,000 sf in area. It is estimated that this area will infiltrate the 10 year storm event (3.2"724hrs). X. Si ~ I 5 z • {I Figure 1.6.9 Figure I.6.10 12 What have we learned? The plantings look good and the runoff is captured in the landscape area. To date, visual observations have indicated the area will hold at least a 2 year storm event (2.4 "124hrs) as occurred in Nov 1998. In one area the pavement was not sloped at the specified 2% gradient and causes some ponding in the corner of one car stall. Grinding the existing curb cut about " will allow the water to drain-off'.' The lack of a freeboard has nol posed any concerns. Figure 1.6.11 shows one of the curb cuts that must be kept clear to allow flow passage. These curb cuts have not been cleaned since installation and are still relatively unobstructed. Buckman Terrace Apartments and Commercial Buckman Terrace is another redevelopment project by Prendergast Associates and is across the street from Buckman Heights. The project was designed in 1997 and opened in 1999. This is a 0.8-acre site with 150 apartment units, with all under building parking and a 1,500 sf commercial section in a 4-story structure. The building also has car sharing and numerous other environmental attributes. An Ecoroof has been installed on the commercial portion and another at the main entrance of the building. Landscape planters are being used on the east side and a landscape swale has been installed on the west side of the building. The landscape techniques integrate lush, moisture tolerant planting with the function of stormwater quality and environmental enhancement. Landscape swales Westside swale. Figure 1.6.12 shows the westside Swale adjacent to the building where all roof downspouts discharge. Approximately 13,000 sf of rooftop drains into a 300 ft swale. The swale is 6 ft wide and 3" deep, it has rock check dams every 15 ft. The swale is sized to convey the 25 year storm event flows, but also to provide detention of all storms up to the 10 years event. These storms are detained behind the check dams. All flows, which exceed the infiltration capacity of the soil, discharge to a catch basin at the downstream end of the Swale. A pea gravel mulch was used to slow the flow and provide opportunities for sediment deposition and some infiltration. The swale gradient is approximately 2% until it reaches the last 100 ft where it increases to 4%. Purposefully excluded from the design was the standard 12" freeboard. This was done for two reasons: first the added safety of a freeboard was not needed since there is no possibility of damage to the building or adjacent property; second was aesthetics, because of the narrow area a 12" deeper swale would have been unsightly and dangerous. Plantings include; ! sedges, miscanthus, spirea, Oregon grape and Japanese iris. i i ,r t~ vi 13 Figure 1.6.11 ® s Check dams @ 12' intervals, ~p • with 6" maximum water dep 'q ® 6"min. For parking * • ` lots, Tire ® OOL stop or curb flow For parking lots 12 18" topsoil x 12" clear flow area at cut-outs 4 ft. minimum Section Not to Scale Description Landscape swales are planting areas with a slight depression of up to 6" that allow runoff to enter and infiltrate and flow through. They are usually long and narrow in width, which makes them well suited for parking lots and other narrow landscape spaces. Swales are constructed with a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses, and ground cover, depending on soil. Stormwater Management Function and Sizing Swales capture pollutants as runoff is detained and absorbed in the soil, vegetation and organic matter. Using above proportions size at 0.05 x impervious area. Detention is provided for storms up to the 10-year event. Swales help mitigate runoff temperatures by retaining most of the runoff in warm seasons. Groundwater recharge occurs as check dams facilitate infiltration. General Specifications Acceptable for all soil types.. Minimum swale length is 20 ft. Maximum slope is 6%. Clay soils shall be amended with 50% sandy loam in the top 18" of the swale. Check dams shall be of durable, non-toxic materials- i.e., rock, brick, and old concrete. Check dams shall be width ofswalex 3-5" height. Swales using these design criteria will not need to include a bypass of larger storms. Liners are not needed unless required for groundwater protection or to protect building foundations. Freeboard not required. 14 Figure 1.6.12 What have we learned? The plantings are attractive and add considerable interest to this side of the building. Visual observations immediately after a large storm event (1.4 inches/ 3 hours) were conducted in October 1, 2000. Most of the flow soaked into the soil, except at the steeper downstream 4% sloped section where it entered the catch basin. Design and construction quality is important for good water management. The check dams were in-correctly constructed parallel to the flow (they were supposed to be perpendicular), which caused peak flows to bypass and erode part of the pea gravel on the downstream section. The 4% section only had clumps of miscanthus grasses planted in a single row and should have had 3 rows with triangular spacing. The pea gravel has worked successfully as mulch to protect the swale and help filter flows. Stormwater planters Eastside planters. Two designs were used here; Figure 1.6.15 shows the north section planter is at grade and somewhat inconspicuous next to the building. Figure 1.6.16 shows the raised planters in the south section at 18-36" above grade. Figure 1.6.17 shows that runoff is directed into the planters via scuppers from the roof. Gravel soakage trenches accept water as it filters through the upper soil/ vegetation portion of the planter. Plantings include Japanese spurge, iris, vine maple and Oregon grape. The planters have more surface area than required for Portland conditions and thus the reservoir space is only 2" deep. 1 What have we learned? Aesthetically the design is equal to the original concepts considered without the use of water. Water is very visible to the tenants as they walk by. Because the soakage trench was within 8 feet of the building foundation, quite an effort was required by the owner and his consultants to get building bureau approval. If the facility had been only 2 feet further away, no special approval would have been required. In tight urban settings like this the "Portland CD" planter version is desired by the building bureau. The CD unit is not designed to . s3 ~(a allow infiltration, other than some incidental amounts. Although very beautiful, the non-native plants might not perform as well as some native moisture loving species. Figure 1.6.13 Plantings Downspout or Other conveyance flow Overflow option - Reservoir: 4-12" Gravel as 4 splash block and mulch to ;18"Sandy loam topsoil Note: Gravel trench may not be needed tit Gravel, Topsoil or subsoil if existing soil :ti:LE or ~L:L•, has sufficient s: recycle ~ftV infiltration r:,r ~f :•r• :',r•r d glass r, rate ' Existing soil Existing soil Section Not to Scale Description Planter AB is designed with a pervious bottom. The planter is used where infiltration is desirables. Planters are excellent for dense urban development. Stormwater Management Functions and Sizing Planter AB is designed to allow runoff to filter through the planter soils and vegetation (thus capturing pollutants) and then infiltrate into the native soils (flow control). The ` planter is sized to accept runoff and temporarily store the water in a reservoir on top of the soil. Water quality (WQ) G sizing, associated with the 18" topsoil, is for a 0.9" 241hr storm event. To calculate; use impervious area sgvare feet (sj) x .045 = reservoir cubic feet (co of storage required. The infiltration gravel area can be designed to accommodate any storm event. J General specifications Acceptable soil types A & B. There are numerous design variations. The planters shall 1 be designed to allow captured runoff to drain out in 2-6 hours after a storm event. Plantings shall be appropriate for moist and seasonally dry conditions, and can include rushes, reeds, sedges, iris, dogwood, currants, and j numerous other shrubs, trees, and herbs/grasses. Topsoil shall have a minimum infiltration rate of 2 %hr. Sand/gravel area may not be required if existing soil has at least 5 %hr. infiltration rate. The sand/gravel trench width, depth and length are to be determined by a qualified professional. Minimum planter width is 30 there is no minimum length or required shape. The structural elements of the planters shall be stone, concrete, brick, wood, or other durable material. If treated wood is used it shall not leach out any toxic chemicals. Planters within 10 ft of structure may require special approval from the local building agency. 16 Figure 1.6.14 Reverse bend, optional Plantings Downspout Reservoir 4-12" max. Stone or other inert mulch to protect soil 18"Sandy loam topsoil Perforated pipe 12" Gravel, sand @ 10' O.C. or other material such as recycled .r•r•:.:•f•r•r•r•r f•f•r.r•r•r•r•r•f•r•• r~r L•L•°• L L•L L L L L•L•L L•L L L L L L L L L L L•L°••• . ~.f•f•rar •f.f•r•r•r•r.r•r•r•r•r f•r•r•r•r•r•r•f r f•r L.L•L•L•• 1+1• L~L•L;L.L.L•L~L•S•L•5•'L•L•5••.•L•5.•L•L•'.•L• ~.:•r•r•f ~r•r•fw:•:•r•:•r ,•;;:°L°L° t<<< t t t< t c< c t L•L•L•'L•L•L•L•L• r•r•: a> a a a a a a>> a a > r'r•f+r•f•r•r•f•r . . . . . . . . . . . Waterproof Sub-grade or building as needed existing soil Pipe to main Foundation drains storm system as required Section Not to Scale Description Planter CD is designed with an impervious bottom or is placed on an impervious surface. This planter is used where infiltration is not possible or desirable, such as unstable slopes or brownfields. Planters are exeellentfordense urban development. Stormwater Management Function and Sizing Pollutant reduction is achieved as the waterfilters through the soil; flow control is obtained by storing the water in a reservoir above the soil. Nominal infiltration can be allowed if soils and other geotechnical issues are addressed. The planter is sized to accept runoff and temporarily store the L water in a reservoir on top of the soil. Water quality (WQ) sizing, associated with the 18" topsoil, is for a 0.9" r 241hr storm event. To calculate; use impervious area square feet (sf) x .05 = reservoir cubic feet (cfi of storage 0 required General specifications Acceptable for all soil types. There are numerous planter design variations. The j planters shall be designed to hold water for no more than 4-6 hours after a storm event. Plantings shall be appropriate for moist and seasonally dry conditions, and can include rushes, reeds, sedges, iris, dogwood, currants, j and numerous other shrubs, tregs, and herbs/grasses. Minimum planter width is 18 there is no minimum length or required shape. Topsoil shall have a minimum infiltration rate of 2•1hr. Sand/gravel shall have a minimum infiltration rate of 5 %hr. The structural elements of the planters shall be stone, concrete, brick, wood, or other durable material. If treated wood is used it shall not leach out any toxic chemicals. Irrigation is optional, although plant viability shall be maintained. '17 ` i. } Figure 1.6.15 Figure 1.6.16 Figure 1.6.17 Ecoroofs. The entire building has a roof area of approximately 25,000 sf and the building is constructed with sufficient weight capacity to hold an ecoroof. As a test, ecoroofs were placed on two sections, Figure 1.6.19 shows a 200 sf ecoroof above the front entrance. A small 25 sf rooftop above drains into the ecoroof. Figure 1.6.20 shows the main ecoroof over 1500 SF of N commercial space, which has full solar exposure. An additional 750 sf of impervious roof drains into the main ecoroof. Figure 1.6.21 shows a close-up of Oregon sedum on the entrance ecoroof, J which is also planted with sword fern, licorice fern and white stonecrop. It is on the eastside and 9'p is in the shade of a north-facing wall. Both were planted in March 2000. The commercial ecoroof was planted with two species of Oregon sedum, various wildflowers, native grasses and a few W licorice ferns. Grasses and wildflowers were planted from seed, and mulch was hand broadcast to protect against wind erosion. Figure 1.6.22 shows a Globe flower (Gilia capitata) blooming on the main ecoroof. An irrigation system has not been installed for either ecoroof. The soil profile is 20 lb. per sf when saturated and is 4"deep. American Hydrotech waterproof membrane and reservoir drain system was used. BES staff specified the soil mix and vegetation. 18 Figure 1.6.18 Plants: Herbs, grasses, succulents (such as sedum) Mulch or material to prevent surface wind and rain erosion - = Soil: 2„_ 6„ Drainage layer Waterproof membrane and root protection I Roof structure Section Not to Scale Description An ecoroof is a lightweight roof system of waterproofing material with a thin soil layer and protective cover of vegetation. The ecoroof can be used in place of a traditional roof. Stormwater Management Function and Sizing The ecoroof captures and then evapotranspirates 10-100% of precipitation, depending on the season. Roof runoff rates are significantly retarded because the rain must first soak through the soil before running off the roof. An Ecoroof provides peak flow detention for storms up to the 10 year event. Ecoroofs mitigate runoff temperatures by retaining most of the runoff in warm seasons. Groundwater recharge can occur where roof drains flow to landscape areas. Sizing is equal to the square footage of ecoroof. General Specifications Quality waterproof material appropriate for Ecoroof application. Soil of adequate fertility and drainage capacity at depths of 2-6 inches. Building structure adequate to hold an additional 10-25 psf L weight. Vegetation shall be self-sustaining plants, without the need for fertilizers or pesticides. Soil coverage to 2 prevent erosion must be established immediately upon installation, either by using mulch or protective blanket or vegetation mats (sod). Ninety percent plant coverage shall be achieved within 2 years. Temporary irrigation to establish plants is recommended. Permanent irrigation systems using potable water may be used, but the water application shall not exceed 0.25 inches every 10 days for June-September season. Irrigation is not needed from Oct.-May. Projects are encouraged to have alternative means of irrigation, such as cooling tower condensate or 0 other non potable sources. For roof slopes greater than 10% measures (such as geotextile webbing, and sleepers) shall be used to prevent soil slippage. J - - M-, 28 of pollutants will need removal, if ever. The parking lot has significant use and lots of trash. Wind blows the trash into the swale vegetation where it is trapped. This has been considered a desirable aspect of the swales, as the trash is somewhat camouflaged until it is removed by OMSI staff. The success of OMSI demonstrates that water quality and stormwater runoff measures can fit into constrained spaces, save construction costs, and have an attractive appearance. The owner documented that they saved about $78,000 in construction costs. These saving were achieved through the reduction of pipe, manholes and catch basins. Custer Park A small neighborhood park with playground, open lawn, and softball and soccer field. This was a 4-acre park renovation project, with high demand for a full size soccer field. Before the park was developed in the 1950's a small seasonal creek ran through the site. Several seasonal springs also contributed to the small creek flows. The original 1950's park design called for the piping of the creek to drain the springs and stormwater runoff from an adjacent residential neighborhood upland of the park.. The park's bureau desire was to have the water out of site and out of the way, but Parks has been struggling with wet turf ever since. In 1996-97 BES, Parks and Murase Associates worked with very little budget and redesigned the site to daylight a 400-foot section of piping. Appearing as a daylighted swale, it runs adjacent to a new pathway, and is planted with native hydrophytes and riparian shrubs and trees. A series of stone weirs slows the velocity of the flow, allowing sediment to drop out, while the plantings provide filtration. The swale terminates in a detention pond that removes much of the remaining pollutants from the flow. While the swale provides improved water quality, and makes visible those parts of the hydrologic cycle that are usually hidden, it also introduces habitat that is beneficial for wildlife and adds an additional layer of interest to park users. The completed project responds to the neighborhood desire to return nature to the park and provides a larger playing field as well. i eR'y ` II I.il ~TS-i's• 4 I I j L r J D 1 J Figure I.6.32 27 Figure 1.6.30 Figure 1.6.31 What have we learned? In 1996 the BES prepared a water quality audit and estimated that the bioswale system captures 50% of the average annual total suspended solids (TSS) loadings from the site. It was also estimated that with minor design improvements, such as additional check dams and more curb cuts, TSS capture would increase to 90% of the average annual site loading. Curb cuts were installed at 30 ft on center. Performance could be improved by installing curb cuts at 10 ft on center. These improvements have not been implemented because a major portion of the site was r modified when a public street was constructed. Many of the improvements may still be made in the future. Visual observations continue to show that the swales allow much of the runoff to infiltrate. j Swale maintenance is incorporated into the normal operations of the site. The landscape medians were always intended to be a landscape feature of the site, which would require i maintenance. The bioswales only require a little more attention. Curb cuts must be checked and cleared at least once a year. City staff have observed that some curb cuts were poorly constructed/located and need modification to reduce build up of sediments which block runoff from entering the swales. In hindsight now all swales were unnecessarily designed with 12" freeboards. Although, because the bioswales are oversized, it will take several decades before any accumulation 26 This project first came to the attention of the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) in 1990 when plans were submitted for review. At that time, neither the city of Portland nor the state of Oregon had specified site design requirements for stormwater quality discharges to the Willamette River. However, BES was gearing up to address forthcoming NPDES stormwater regulations and a Combined Sewer Overflow problem of significant proportions, so clean rivers were and still are, of concern. Following a review of the preliminary OMSI site plans, BES staff approached OMSI with the unprecedented request that it voluntarily redesign the parking lots and landscape to capture pollutants in stormwater runoff. The layout of the buildings and parking were not affected by this proposal. The BES suggestion was to adjust site grading and change the already proposed landscape medians to accept runoff rather than shed runoff. OMSI was very interested in the environmental approach, but the non-profit organization was under a tight budget and timeline. They agreed to change the design on the condition that the existing schedule be met with no overall increase in costs. The OMSI consultant team determined that even with the redesign fees, the related construction cost savings would result in a net reduction of project costs. Taking the environmental approach would actually be less expensive to construct. The parking lots were initially redesigned to include grass/turf swales to filter out pollutants as the runoff traveled through them. OMSI took this a step further and required the landscape architects to improve the design to detain water longer and to incorporate native and wetland vegetation. OMSI considered this "mini linear wetland" concept a more attractive and educational approach for their new facility. Interpretative signs were installed to educate the public about the benefits of the swales and wetlands in improving water quality. The city, for its part, had established a special team from various bureaus to assist in moving the project smoothly through the city approval process. This took an enormous effort as there were no existing policy or codes, which allowed developers to use water quality site design techniques. Figure 1.6.30 shows some of the restoration and pedestrian improvements along the Willamette River bank. The site's western boundary is along the riverfront which was stabilized with rock riprap and included intensive plantings of native riparian vegetation. Landscape swales Figure 1.6.31 shows one of the ten swales. The swales are 6 ft wide and vary in length from 100 to 250 ft. for a total length of 2,330 ft. They were originally designed as bio-filters but have continued to exhibit good infiltration characteristics. Check dams were installed every 50 feet to slow the flows and encourage infiltration. The parking dimensions were modified to allow more Z space for plantings and minimize impervious surfaces. (Special approval was required, minimum r stalls were 9 ft by 18.5 ft.) Stalls are 8-'/z ft wide by 16 ft long with bumpers designed to overhang the curbs. Parking is at 90 degrees and the aisle is 24 ft wide. Recently the Portland ` city council approved a new parking lot code that allows 20 ft aisles and 9 ft by 16 ft stalls. Landscape space in front of the stalls is required at 6-8 ft width to allow for stormwater ® management. No parking spaces are lost as the code just provides more room for landscape and u less for cars. a 25 s ..4y. r~~n Rh Figure 1.6.29 What have we learned? It works great and looks good too. Unfortunately, the planting areas are unnecessarily deep to allow for a non-essential freeboard. If a failure occurred at the catch basin inlet the excess runoff would flow into the parking lot drains. An important reason to discontinue use of the freeboard, where they are not needed is to allow more surface area for runoff to spread within the planting areas. The addition of a few check dams and raising the inlet L grate a few inches will help achieve this goal. C The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) i This is an 18-acre redevelopment site, with a 100,000 sf museum and exhibit space and parking lots for 700 cars. The project was Portland's first major demonstration of on-site parking lot i stormwater management using 10 landscape swales to convey, infiltrate and filter runoff. These swales were used in place of the originally proposed, conventionally raised landscape medians. Based on visual observations, as the soil and vegetation "mature" significant infiltration now occurs and runoff is only associated with large storm events. (See Test swales above) 24 Figure 1.6.28 Flow spreader t check dam at 5 ft v intervals Impervious area now • Optional Inlet, adjust height to allow sheet flow or pipe to ~ spreader infiltration, depending on Fol 18" topsoil 40 09 10 ft. minimum Optional pipe to Section Not to Scale discharge Description Vegetative filters are gently sloped areas. Stormwater enters the filter as sheet flow from an impervious surface or is piped and then converted to sheet flow using a flow, spreader. Stormwater Management Function and Sizing Flow control is achieved using the relatively large surface area and a generous proportion of check dams. Pollutants are removed through filtration and sedimentation. Using above proportions size at 0.6 x impervious area. L General specifications Acceptable for all soil types. Filters shall be a minimum of 20 ft. x 10 ft. Maximum slope C is 10%. Plantings shall be in Check dams shall be of durable, non-toxic materials- i.e., rock, brick, and old concrete. D Check dams shall be the width of the filter x 3-5" height. Filters designed using these criteria will not need to include a bypass of larger storms. Runoff shall enter the buffer as predominately sheet flow. Check dams and flow j spreaders are required. Filters can be planted with a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground covers, including grasses. Freeboard not required. 1 1 J 23 immediately removed. It's very important to assure good design and construction quality control. Check the engineering and construction details. Concerns about warm season water temperatures impacting the river are still being investigated. However, the pond doesn't discharge very much in the warm season. Sediments are accumulating in the rock flume and vegetation is starting to grow. It has been decided to let this continue and try to determine if an un-maintained pond loses its efficiency. Aesthetic pruning will continue, however. Many undesirable and potentially hazardous materials have been removed from the pond. These have included hypodermic needles, rat poison, trash and debris. Use of a forebay to trap these things would have been desirable. Another issue, the pond vegetation and presence of water has been attractive to wildlife. Ducks are always around and at least two families have nested there. The ducks sometimes feed in the bottom sediments where the pollutants are being trapped. It is yet to be understood whether this is a problem to the wildlife. Domestic dogs also like to play in the pond. Raccoons and other wildlife have been observed. Another note concerning fish and flooding. During the 1996 flood the pond became a backwater for the river flows. Carp and potentially other fish found the pond and as the flood receded found themselves isolated from the river. When the hot summer of 1998 occurred all the fish died. It is unknown whether any currently threatened species might have used the pond for refuge during the flood, but they surely could not survive the summer conditions. Designers should keep this is mind when proposing facilities near natural waterbodies. Vegetative filters. Figure 1.6.28 demonstrates the use of scuppers as roof runoff cascades to the Vegetative filter located on the southside and adjacent to the building. Most of the building has a metal roof of about 12,000 sf that directs flow into a gutter with several steel scuppers. These scuppers allow the runoff to freefall into the garden area below. Large stone and rock are at the impact point of each freefall to diffuse energy and spread the water into the plantings. Planters have a mixture of lush ornamental, native and wetland plants and are lined with crushed stone to provide a visually unique image year-round. Runoff is detained in the planters where some infiltration occurs. Large storm events have runoff that overflows to a catch basin. r i i 22 II z Y Figure 1.6.26 ~ tY i Figure 1.6.27 What have we learned? Pollutants and flow have been monitored for over two years for a total of l I storm events. Generally, pollutant removal is good all year for most concentrations except cadmium, copper and zinc. Some of these pollutants are seeping in from sub-surface flows and surface flows during high intensity stone events. Phosphorous and nitrogen are also high on occasion. The pond remains wet all year, but summer discharges are small to non- existent Evaporation and soakage into surrounding soils is significant. Moderate amounts of excess irrigation water and unknown non-stormwater flows from the pipe system flow into the pond. However, since the pond doesn't have a constant summer flow the pond water 3 occasionally becomes anaerobic and objectionable odors have been recorded. This problem remains to be addressed; one solution may be to drain the pond every summer. BES tried to accurately measure inflow, outflow and bypass, but the sub-surface and surface flows cannot be measured by the flow meter in the intake pipe. These uncontrolled sources also compromise the pollutant removal information. Education is needed in the neighborhood to reduce pollutants at their sources. After construction an inspection of the diversion structure showed that the concrete dam had been installed in the wrong place and low flows were not entering the pond. The dam was BES Water Pollution Control Laboratory The project site was previously a 6-acre industrial site along the eastbank of the Willamette River and adjacent to a city park on its north side. It was used for industrial activities for almost 100 years. The upland neighborhoods are a mixture of old residential and industrial land uses, with new residential conversion and in-fill occurring rapidly. The area was served by a combined sewer system that overflowed into the Willamette River about 75 times annually. BES installed a $5.4 million separated stormwater pipe system for 50-acres that drains to the water garden. At the time, treatment of separated stormwater was not required, but it was decided that a water quality pond would be constructed to reduce pollutants entering the river. Neighborhood citizens were very concerned that BES was going to create a problem pond. However, after considerable effort by the citizens and BES, a mutually agreeable plan was prepared; and a Water Garden as it was eventually named was constructed. Simultaneously, BES was preparing to build a new Water Pollution Control Laboratory, on another portion of the site. The new building would have laboratory, office and field operations space, and a public meeting room for the neighborhood and others. The building footprint is approximately 12,000 sf, with parking for 60 cars and 1.5 acres was allocated for the water garden. About one acre still remains vacant for potential expansion. The parking lots were designed with landscape swales (see Test Swales above). The project was designed in 1995 and opened for use in 1997. Combining the best of the artistic and the utilitarian, the design transformed this once industrial site into a meaningfully sculpted landscape, integrated with ecological processes. Each component of the site speaks to the inherent poetry of water and its role in our environment. The Water Garden (pond) From the very beginning this facility had to be special. Attention to aesthetics and integration with the neighborhood was essential. The upland catchment contains approximately 40 acres of impervious surfaces and 10-acres of mixed pervious surfaces. Some of these include gravel yards for storage of heavy equipment. The pond was designed to accommodate the peak flow from a 0.83"/24hour storm event, with a diversion structure to bypass large storm flows directly to the river (bypass flows assumed to carry lower pollutant concentrations). Figures 1.6.26 and Figure 1.6.27 show the focal point of the design, a 1-acre pond formed from two converging circles. Elements include a circular stone wall to house the pond outlet structure, a 100 foot long rock filled concrete shute that conveys flow, but yet 2 provide an artful sculpture during dry weather, and a lushly planted podscape that is integrated with the building landscape design and the adjacent park. The curvilinear flume in the upper cell is reminiscent of a glacial moraine. It slows the stormwater while directing it into the detention cells. The cells are planted with a variety of aquatic and emergent plant material that naturally facilitate sedimentation and biofrltration of pollutants. Circular weep holes on both sides of the flume uniquely display the flow of water. The plantings include a mix of native and non-native r species, and include Oregon Ash, Red Alder, Red Maple, several grasses, Redtwig dogwood, Douglas spirea, Oregon Grape and numerous wetland species. An observation platform was designed, as an extension of the main spine of the building, and extends over the water. Three monitoring stations were set up to measure flows and pollutants to determine pond efficiency. 20 Figure 1.6.25 What have we learned? Grasses and wildflowers achieve a graceful, flowing appearance. It's reminiscent of Eastern Oregon or Midwestern American prairie. During the wane season, storm event runoff was visually observed to be very low or non-existent. The ecoroof had capacity to hold much of the additional flow from the other roofs. During winter storms runoff occurs often, but is detained. Many of the plants survived or re-seeded with only one hand watering. Although no maintenance was conducted this year, it appears the grasses will need to be mowed at least once a year. Should the owner prefer a different plant association sedum might be added at some future time? It is very important to assure good vegetation coverage; especially over the lightweight soils to prevent wind erosion. On another ecoroof project, the Hamilton Apartments in downtown Portland, almost an inch of soil was lost to wind erosion. Depending on the initial planting scheme, cover crops, such as common clover, may provide excellent soil coverage. Which is what happened on a section of the ecoroof. Water from air conditioning condensate is a possible source of free, non-potable C water for irrigation. Condensate flows were significant during the hottest part of the summer, with flows measured at 12 oz per minute in the afternoon and 6 oz. per min. in the late evening. This might prove to be a free source of irrigation water, if considered during the design phase. On this project BES is testing to determine characteristics of planting methods, measurement of runoff flows and precipitation, and viability of soil and vegetation. Other issues may be addressed in the future. Figure 1.6.23 shows the southeast quadrant of the ecoroof. Figure 1.6.24 shows one of several stonecrop species in bloom last August. Figure 1.6.25 shows some of the moss that colonized certain areas of exposed soil and helped reduce wind and soil erosion. Light weight soils must be fully covered to prevent erosion. Garland Co. waterproof membrane and planting design was used on this project. 19 ti S;. J ~ y !Rti ~ t Figure L 6.19 Figure L 6.20 l:M1 1 1: . Figure 1.6.21 Figure 1.6.22 n a J , Figure 1.6.23 Figure 1.6.24 29 Landscape Swale The site terrain has a grade change of 30 ft over a distance of 600 lineal ft. It was determined that only the city "water quality" stone event would be used to determine the bioswale design. These relatively small storm events would not pose as much risk to the park and the larger storms are allowed to continue to flow within the original pipe system. A diversion structure was installed to direct small storm flows into a swale cut into the slope along one side of the park. At the same time the soccer field was extended up to the edge of a pedestrian path that runs adjacent to the bioswale on the other side. Figure 1.6.32 shows the swale from the down stream end looking up toward the park. What have we learned? It works great and looks good too. Plantings were not sufficient to allow adequate coverage and establishment in the first two years but now are doing fine. The swale included an unnecessary 12" freeboard, which diminishes the aesthetics. Since the project is within an open area and there was a high flow diversion upstream the freeboard was over- designed. A positive aspect of the excessive depth of the swale is its capacity to accumulate sediment for many decades without the need for maintenance. WRAP-UP Water is the main theme of this chapter, but as many philosophies espouse, all things are connected. The essence of this chapter is to present techniques that help the urban environment function in a more natural way. The reason for doing such is to reduce negative impacts caused by human development. Although the case studies are within the city of Portland, the principles are universal and can be applied to any region. The success of these projects is proof that ecological design not only benefits the environment of humans and wildlife but it often costs less to implement and sustain. Perhaps, we can "have our cake and eat it too." It is no easy task however; many institutional barriers and professional mindsets must be overcome. Design, research, demonstration projects and education are all key elements in helping to bring these and other new approaches to the professional community. G 7 Literature Cited i j Beyerlein, D., P.E. and Brascher, J., Traditional alternatives: will more detention work? in Salmon in the City, Tom Holz; American Public Works Association, Washington Chapter, i 1998; pp. 45-48. Bolton, S. and Watts, A., Results from forest hydrology studies: is there a lesson for urban planners? in Salmon and the City, Tom Holz; American Public Works Association, Washington Chapter 1998; pp. 49-53. 30 Portland, Fifth Stormwater Monitoring Report (July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Discharge Permit Number 101314, Annual Compliance Report No. 5, prepared for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Submitted by; City of Portland, Multnomah County, Port of Portland, November 30, 2000. Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services (March 12, 2001), Tree Monitoring Report. Acknowledgements For assisting in preparation of this chapter: Ryan Retzlaff, Emily Hauth, Nicci Lambert, Emily Brown, Elizabeth Liptan, Scott Murase and Sue Brantley. Disclaimer The discussion in this chapter is not intended to substitute for professional advice applicable to specific project circumstances. Design approaches are offered to facilitate understanding of the concepts and must be considered in terms of the project, local building codes, and regional climate. Readers are urged to seek professional assistance before applying any of the techniques of this chapter. The techniques and other information presented may not represent the latest, approved approaches of the City of Portland, OR. CITY OF PORTLAND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1120 S.W: 5th Avenue, Room 1000, Portland, OR 97204-1912 Torn Liptan Environmental Specialist Phone: (503) 823-7267 Fax: (503) 823-5344 E-mail: toml@bes.ci.portland.or.us • Web: www.cleanrivers-pdx.org 1 Printed- wryded Paper 'd September 9, 2003 Re: Ash Creek Estates Subdivision proposal Carol Paddock, 5001 NE Mineral Springs Rd., McMinnville, OR 07128 Sister & brother-in-law: Sandi & Woody Savage, 7301 SW Barbara Lane, Tigard OR 97128 Interested person: I lived with my sister and brother-in-law for 2 years and occasionally hiked along the western edge of the Senn property on my way to Fred Meyer. I have a degree in architecture (U of 0, 1991); had small business for 10 years drafting, designing for local architects, engineers; am now a steel worker. Dear Tigard City Council: Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sunshine is a basic requirement of living - it's absolutely necessary. It's as necessary as food, water, sewer, roads, and parking. In fact, it's more necessary than parking. Many of these proposed units will not see the low winter sun, when solar access is most needed, because of the Western Red Cedar trees immediately south. I think this is the controlling feature of the site and dictates consideration of an entirely different site plan. On page 14 of the original staff report, it says "Structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible... " Staff responds "The majority of the lots are oriented in a north-south direction providing for opportunities to maximize southern glazing exposure." Actually, it's an east-west orientation that allows the greatest southern exposure. In this case, however, homes running east to west on the north-south lots will be bumping up against their 3' minimum side setbacks to maximize exposure. But actually, the point is almost moot given this site layout. I've drawn three north-south cross sections through the site to show you the relationship of sun and shadow through the year for the proposed development. Three angles are shown on each section showing how sunlight will strike southern glazing throughout the year. The angles represent the summer and winter solstices and the spring and fall equinoxes at noon - the time if day with maximum sunlight. As you can see on section A, the western portion of the site gets little sun. Homes will see light in their homes only from some point in May to some point in August. This is a disaster. Section C of the eastern side of the site, shows, depending on development, some potential for better solar access. And Section B is a mixed bag under the proposed scheme. For nearly half the year, nine or more of these residences will not have sunlight in their homes (lots 21-27). They will be shrouded from sunlight -that's ZERO sunlight- for nearly half of the year - the coldest half, the time when sunlight is most important. A few of the westernmost will lack sunlight for closer to nine months of the year. At least fifteen will have no sun in their homes on the winter solstice (lots 13-27). This j is a major problem. Adequate solar access is critically important to the success of any development. We 1 wouldn't mind being protected from the sun in the summer, but that's not the way it works. These residences will be dark and cold and even depressing, using up inordinate amounts of energy for heating, and that's a shame given today's knowledge of passive solar. And that's the reason for this requirement. It isn't a little bit of fluff. It has everything to do with the livability of a home. I'm here to tell you, every home built today should be a passive solar home. It's not a matter of gadgets - that's active solar - it's a matter of design, of following a few rules, of orienting functions and materials in relation to sunlight. But there's no opportunity for that for many of the homes planned for this site. These homes will be dismal. I think people who buy these homes in the summer will be sorry they did so in the winter. Just as home buyers rely on the city's use of building codes to ensure sound building practices, so do they expect access to a reasonable amount of sunshine. And again, that's what this requirement is all about. So, the solar requirement has not been met, unless all other options to improve this situation are "impractical." That's not the case. If you look at the eastern and central cross sections you'll see that sunlight does get to the NE and north-central portion of the site under this development plan, It is my opinion that the only way to save this project is to confine development to this portion of the site along the north edge. Grouped, clustered, attached, and multi-family planned development options are, and have been, available to the applicant, and are meant exactly for sites and situations such as this, so the potential is a practical one. The city should ask the applicant to reconfigure the site plan to take advantage of the only realistic sun exposure on the site, or show why it is impractical to do so. I've done a quick, less-than- bare-bones sketch to show you that it is practical. If I were given this project, that's where I would focus my attention. The shade-casting trees in the cross sections are drawn at approx. 77-feet tall which is a conservative height over the life of these long-living trees. These trees can reach great height under favorable conditions as noted in three sources included in this packet (US Dept. of Agriculture, bcadventure.com, and the Sierra Club). One might argue that the final height of these trees precludes practical solar access on any part of the site. But in that case, I would argue that full height of these trees will likely be reached long after the life of the homes being planned here today, and so is not a relevant issue. Furthermore, a more thorough site analysis should show offsite solar access available from the east and southeast, and from the south at the southeast area of the site where the tree protection area is much thinner. In any event, an expert should make this determination and the applicants should be required to show how it is not practical, if they feel that is the case. In spending time with the topography map, I've made a few additional observations I think you should know about: Only about 15' of the southern portion of the non-setback (or buildable) area of lot 28 is flatter than the 25% slope. That's a 15' by less-than-40' building area according to the preliminary plat map. Lots 14 and 22 are similarly constrained with significant areas in slopes of over 25%. And further in terms of slope, lots 13, 23, 25, and 29 will be a real challenge to any skilled designer. The entire area of lot 14 appears to be a natural drainage swale, as does more than half of lots 22 and 23. Does the city have any plans to control the physical characteristics of these areas or will private owners be allowed to strip protective cover from drainage ways willy nilly sending sediments and runoff into the waterway and properties downstream'? Drainage ways should be protected and not left to private hands. The 25% slope boundary he is not shown on the preliminary plat map, although it is listed in the legend. That's an important missing item. I did not proof John Freiving's work, but where our work did overlap, which is on the three section cuts, our results are consistent. I think he's done accurate work. And here are some other points: I feel any decision to site the future extension of 73td Street at this tune is premature. Since it would serve only this site and the site to the north (and not serve as a through street) it could be quite flexible in physical characteristics. The site to the north, Mrs, Gates' property, is a lovely, rurally developed site with fruit trees, berries, and other wonderful community amenities. Indeed, Mrs, Gates shares them already. Any bisection of the site with a street prohibits its future development as a unit. Locating the street with no consideration of the existing trees and amenities on the site is also limiting and presumptuous. The future designer should be the decision-maker as to whether this site should be fragmented or whole and how that will happen. I don't see a need for the spur to be so rigidly designated at this time, limiting the potential of the northern site. Similarly, I don't see a need at all for 74`h street to be connected, Although I've heard the bare explanation that it's been on the books and now it's time to do it, I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation specific to the need for this extension. Winding streets which simply serve the neighborhood are one of the defining characteristics of this neighborhood. Connecting this street will increase traffic, increase speed since it is quite sloped, and damage the creek and wetland, The area already serves as pedestrian access and could, and should, be modestly developed in that direction. And that would be a benefit without any of the negatives I've mentioned. Furthermore, extending 74' Street, extending 73rd, and adding access into the Senn property would create for the first time in this neighborhood of winding streets, a traditional city block out of Mrs. Gates' property to the north. This, where one site is rurally developed and another left so stunningly natural that the city itself wanted to make it a park. How ironic! How is this in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood? There must be some city code which addresses this, Also, not leaving any buffer of trees along Mrs. gates' property puts her trees at substantial risk of windfall. I think the "Site History" section on page 8 of the initial staff report is incomplete and t think you should think so, too. Neighbors, Metro, conservation groups, and this city worked to buy this property as Open Space for the community. I think the city should insist on an investigation into the causes and influences that made the efforts of time and money by many people, in vain. My opinion as to what should happen with this property is that it should be protected so that it continues to function as it does now - cleaning water and air, protecting sites downstream from runoff and erosion, serving the public as open space for recreational, spiritual, and educational needs. I think this effort should be tried again. If the family follows through with their threat to clearcut in lieu of residential development, it would significantly reduce the value of the site in terms of environmental functions, public interest, and actual resale dollars. And nobody wins, There may still be an opportunity for everyone to win. Finally, I want to show you what can happen when trees above slopes are clear cut. These pictures were j taken in 1996 on my mother's property just west of the city of Lafayette. Less than a year from when a relatively flat strip of land was clear cut just above her property, we suffered two landslides. The pictures show different angles; the dog gives some sense of scale - she stands about 24" high at the back. I want to thank Morgan Tracy for spending part of his busy afternoon several weeks ago answering questions for me and my sister. Respectfully submitted, Carol Paddock ce~ a AM -2 Zn M`/-^ i P• . i6' V r ~•1 1 11 71 ~A ~~llltj~tlttrl I l ~.•r o ~'~y'"i f r;~' 1 f4j • / III ~1 ,~rl,''I~1i1 ' I , x W r re s I / 1 m - - s a ~ ~ ~ ~ =:o~•n ,,;r?%~' L/_Ll -1 ~ ~I~~ III ~I r •,~i- i t = ~1 ; ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ l ' ~ ;.4IV~1~ t ~ b ~il,/.!//1 tl !f/I' ~t't~~ ~ • ~ ~ ~1t`~ ~p ` ~i~ / moo' .'J• ~ ~ 1 N 1'~J/~ li. JI~~t1~ ~ ~i , MJ Q590µ 1 JS" ~ e3;~ ,jl 11 u. . 1 0 ~ N: ~ l ''ir~1 •:i'~ ilft:• t in 'G_-+~'Mf"t 5 z:~ I t I, r gb'tb ~,1; t (i Iltl cif\5'~i!'i~ 4? i t , 4 wSW N .•I v+ /i~~ ~llr ~`t~'~•"y/ V~Ws~%`J~~`~~r 1~ l y . e ~ - 2 , teh;~/ r/ J(~tjrh g 1.1;r i, `rz,\~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ .ay{L ~ - ~ O~II1~• ~'~"~~\~~y ~I` t1~' 1~'~.i~~`'`-+'~~ 2 ~ ~ ''~~u,~ ~ j A Y. da . _ ~ -r G` / I {/1 + I ~ f/f~i 1 ~ yf • a~ fi d ~1 A .N ~.1 ~ % f t~ r.~;1 1~tj ~ ~i.7 l~ ,i~ ~Ctoff. r r, •i . 444 ° ri,. ~ ~ y ~ ~h'fl~ +~n~~lfi~i~'l~ • f'~./! ~ X11 "q ec Wry iisd ~,n ~1 ~ i 'fe3 ~Y ~1~. ~ t y.. 1 i r mN° awed vss~sr MEMEL_ cri (LU X05 i i ' i ~ . 1 I r ►Y~ i^- ~ , r,-~~ ~r...~- ..~T _ .~7:'•,'s •~t i ~ 1~ 1 _J'i'.it / J r r' ffix a'' \\\.\\a g,Rik 1 fib.....:. v:. 5 t y 0 0 c r i o yr J h l 1 \ Q l d `a c2 m \ e O r 0 o :tY: •:1: D ?CVtiw,.. y .4 'G Lr c 3 ,a. c 0 0 2 r`~z 0 0 3 2 5' 20' o 2 setback 230' 225 28- 3 . .,u; 25 /o 2~ 22 V' 38% +6 22 28' 5, walk street walk 2.15' lot length 71 215' g%~~ `"k`°"`•""'a"' '""`""'••'~"i10%'~•~ ,28 220' to tree 210' 0% 215' 205' 210' 200' 200' 205' Section A: /Vest section cut through Ash Creek Estates P.D. 1n=opt Cr("s section elevations are takeu frotn tite preliminary plat map by Kurahashi & Associates. Trees from which the The northernmost tree casting the critical shadow is an actual tree location from the tree protection plan near the A:adoN lines are drawn are taken 1Pu«l the tree preservation plats also by Kurahashi & Associates, cross section line, Slupcs 61Vcn arc in straight-line increments of 5 vettical feet. Within those increments are variation. There is some distortion (p(obably in the reproduction ofthe plat map) of maybe 5 feet or so, over the width of the site which is about 421 feet. So there will be a horizontal error of a few feet in the cross section which is still quite Caution. Slopes map be greater than shown here. These N-S cross sections have been made to show south sun & satisfactory for the purposes of showing sutt/shadow/tree/homes relationships. shadow relationships, nut to show maximum slope. Slopes are determined by measuring perpendicular to topography lines. Since topography lines generally mu parallel to waterways, and because this waterway does not @'s actually easy for anyone to look at this typography map and determine what the slopes are. It's at a scale of I"= run straight east to west, the slope would, generally, be a little steeper that what I've shown here. 40', and the typography lines are in 1-foot increments. Ifthere are more then ten typography lines in an inch, then that area has a slope greater than 25 Subuu«ed by Carol Paddock 9-09-03 This is only a partial solar analysis. East and west sunlight needs to be looked at, as well as any off-site constraints. ~-rv1121LJ I T a 1 Rlr :iw % cr) xj~ U 11 all N ' O O Q CIDf %L co Chi rn a Q - ' ; ° i r / , -SS i 'C• - no till r-~ Ir ~9~rS tf~ . t l i U_ I y 0 e I 'c h 1 5 O 5 Ql e 'Q l o F l "e •c 1 E 2 '>5 J c J a e 'c O e y ~a 0 N0 a ~ i k N c c J Q I 5 C 0 O 255' 18% 250' 20'setback 245' 26% 240' 330 ° 29%~ ~j*~~`..~~\`..x..c. a•'\.• ~ 30, 51 pprox. 93' lot length 235' 1 2' 230' 5 '~'~a~ \ ~a°• walk street walk to tree 225 220' 28°/ 215 210' 205' Section B: Central section through Ash Creek Estates P.D. 11.=40' Cross sccuou elevations are taken from the preliminary plat snap by Kurabashi & Associates. Trees from which the The northernmost tree casting the critical shadow is an actual tree location from the tree protection plan near to cross section line. shadow lines are dra\vu arc taken from the tree preservation plan also by Kurahashi & Associates. Slopes given ale in stl night-line increments of 5 vertical feet. Within those increments are variation. There is some distortion (probably in the reproduction of the plat map) of maybe 5 feet or so, over the width of the site which is about 421 feet. So there will be a horizontal error of a few feet in the cross section which is still quite Caution. Slopes rtla)' be greater than shown here. These N-S cross sections have been made to show south sun & satisfactory for the purposes of showing sun/shadowltree/homes relationships. shadow relationships, not to show maximum slope. Slopes are detenmined by measuring perpendicular to nq)Ugraptly' lilies. Spree topography litres generally run parallel to w-atelways, and because this waterway does not It's actually easy for anyone to look at this typography map and detemtine what the slopes are. Ifs at a scale o V _ 40', and the typography lines are in 1-foot increments. If there are more then ten typography lines in an inch, then run straight cast to west, the slope would, generally, be a lime steeper that what I've shown hen:. that area has a slope greater than 25 Subomted by Carol Paddock 9-09-03 This is only a partial solar analysis. East and west sunlight needs to be looked at, as well as any off=site constraints. L7 d If ce. / U: let ° 01 ec 21 04 1 < of p y % go. 9% \\4 c N 275' 270' c 265' 23% 20' 260' 38°° =o° setback 255' 33% 250' 22% 245' 18%; 240' 31% i 235' 17%... 230' 36°m 5' to tree 225' 25%' walk ul-desac walk pprox. 150' lot length 220' 215' 210' Section C: East section cut through Ash Creek Estates P.D. 1" = 40' CLANS section elevatimhs are taken from the preliminary plat snap by Kutahashi & Associates. Trees from which the The northenunost tree casting the critical shadow is an actual tree location from the tree protection plan near the shadnu lines arc dra•-n are talon front the tree preservation plan also by Kurahashi & Associates. cross section line. Slupcs gihven ate ill straight-line increments o(5 vertical feet. Within those increments are variation. There is some distortion (probably in the reproduction of the plat map) of maybe 5 feel or so, over the width ofthe site which is about 421 feet. So there will be a horizontal error of a few feet in the cross section which is still quite C tawwu. Slupus may be greater thao shown here. These N-S cross sections have been made to show south sun & satisfactory for the purposes of showing sun/shadow/tree/homes relationships. shadow relationships, out to show maximum slope. Slopes are determined by measuring perpendicular to topography lines. Since topography lines generally tun parallel to waterways, and because this waterway does not ht's actually easy for anyone to look at this typography map and determine what the slopes are. It's at a scale of I"= 1-Un Sll'alght east to west, the Slope would, generally, be a little steeper that what I've shown here. 40', and the typography lines are in 1-foot increments. If there are more then ten typography lines in an inch, then that area has a slope greater than 25 Submiucd by Carol paddock 9-09-03 This is only a partial solar analysis. East and west sunlight needs to be looked at, as well as any off-site constraints. Astronomical Applications Dept. U.S. Naval Observatory Washington, DC 20392-5420 TIGARD, OREGON W122 46, N45 26 Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun Pacific Standard Time, Altitude, Azimuth (E of N) Dec 21, 2003 Mar 21/Sep 21, 2003 Jun 21, 2003 Winter solstice Spring & Fall Equinoxes Summer Solstice hr:min deg deg hr:min deg deg hr:min deg deg 03:00 -11.3 38.6 04:00 -4.0 50.3 05:00 -10.7 77.9 05:00 4.9 61.0 06:00 0.3 88.7 06:00 14.4 71.0 07:00 -8.1 115.3 07:00 10.3 99.5 07:00 24.6 80.8 08:00 1.3 125.7 08:00 20.4 111.0 08:00 35.0 91.1 09:00 8.9 137.0 09:00 29.7 124.0 09:00 45.5 102.9 10:00 15.2 149.5 10:00 37.6 139.4 10:00 55.3 118.1 11:00 19.4 163.2 11:00 43.0 157.8 11:00 63.5 140.0 12:00 21.1 177.8 12:00 45.2 178.5 12:00 67.9 172.2 13:00 20.2 192.4 13:00 43.5 199.4 13:00 66.0 207.5 14:00 16.7 206.4 14:00 38.4 218.2 14:00 59.1 233.7 15:00 11.0 219.3 15:00 30.8 233.9 15:00 49.8 251.2 16:00 3.7 231.0 16:00 21.7 247.2 16:00 39.5 264.1 17:00 -5.3 241.6 17:00 11.6 258.8 17:00 29.0 274.9 18:00 1.4 269.6 18:00 18.7 284.8 19:00 -9.4 280.4 19:00 8.8 294.7 20:00 0.2 305.0 21:00 -8.4 316.2 1 i i i i ...-.r• • • v • ewer GRAPHIC SCALE III 1 III III III III I III w',~ c 111 , I! I III n' III 30x50 feet = 1500 s.f units ~ i II III Stacked two or three high BOULEVARD HIIGIM III 1 III Angled for solar and outdoor opportunities THE RAZBIIRX PATCH (II II i Windy access to accomodate trees y s' III III II u.xm ro. a•. ~ a III 1 III Changes from the city or CWS due to 25 % 1 slope issue could affect solar access. 36 35 I1 34 33 III Ul iR r A o 56 9 sra•r wusc x 55 nu ens ,rtHt y~ .i ~ . AL +co w 2& 21 )K Sa ..j~ l8E 144 13. I 52 f 3 ` MIMII ~a OF -f ' - i 1 2QX I Si`ve M 9 ..0 2 4 N-If -.i _ TRACT 5 BOUMME WESTERN RED CEDAR C,Gt rv Page 2 of 2 U Brochure Rack ' pct - Te p Planner Tourist info Special Events Events' Calendar Road Reports Weather Reports - k6age calculator NEEDLES/I,EAVES Coastal Ferry Info Vancouver Airport Transportation BC Quick Facts • are scale-like customs • lie in pairs Currency Taxes • overlapping like s. Medical shingles Metric system o very strong aroma { motor Vehictes Zones. Time, Area`Codes BARK: Physiography... ; - Recreatintt grey Attractions a stringy - tearing off in long strips ATV Boating Camping' WOOD CHARACTERISTICS: Canoe &Kaya.k Dog Sledding Fishing • resistant to decay and insect damage Golf Guest stanches • wood can remain sound for over 100 years Health/Spas Cat & Heh Skiing Hiking USES: House Boating Mtn. Biking Mtn. Climbing • modem - house siding, interior paneling, outdoor furniture, decking, Hot Springs fencing, roof shakes River Rafting Scuba Diving • traditional - wood: canoes, totem poles, longhouses, household boxes, Skiing tools, paddles; pounded fibres: mats, clothing, baskets, nets, fishing lines; Snowmobiling medicines, religious masks Whale Watching Fish BC Saltwater Fishing Lake Fishing River Fishing Fishing Vacations Fishing, Suppliers BC Game Fish,; Trophy Destinations BC Fly Patterns L Entomology Tips & Techniques Fishing Reports 'Wines of BC. BC Wines _J Wineries Wine Tours J 09/07/2003 http; Hwww. bcadventure. com/adventure/wilderness/fo rest/westred. htm Page 1 of 2, WESTERN RED CEDAR X✓ ' Y - - - ~ . : ..x , Alpine Fr Alpine Larch . WESTERN RED Amabilis Fir :Balsam Poplar/Black CEDAR onwood C 1. liJJ Cott Big Leaf Maple thuja plicata Black Spruce Choke Cherry Pacific Dogwood other common names: Giant Arbor- as Fir Dougl Douglas s Maple . Vitae, Canoe-cedar, Pacific Red-cedar, Engelmann Spruce Shinglewood d dry oak . the western red cedar is British Columbia's official tree eta Hawthorn Lodgepole Pine_ • can be referred to as'arbor-vitae' or Mountain Alder "tree of life" Mountain Hemlock Pacific Willow Paper Birch Ponderosa Pine' ` Red Alder UNIQUE FEATURES: Rocky Mountain Juniper Sitka Spruce Tamarack Larch • drooping branches that turn up at tip trembling Aspen Vine Maple * trunk spreading out at the base Western Hemlock . has large number of cones bent backward along the branches Western Larch Western Red : Cedar Western White Pine LOCATION: Western Yew Whitebark Pine White Spruce • low to mid elevations Yellow cedar . coast and wet belt of the Interior Outdoors • in cool, mild, moist locations Animals Birds a can grow in shaded areas with lots of nutrients Fish Wildflowers SIZE: Trees Survival Parks Trails a up to 60 metres tall D. Visit BC CONES: Cariboo Chilcotin coast: 0) Northern BC Rockies Kootenays a seed cones: egg shaped Thompson Okanagan ,J Vancouver & Coast • 1 cm long with several pairs of scales Victoria & Islands- o pollen cones: small, reddish City Guides. - J BC Communities - Travel Routes. - Circle Tours Maps Points of Interest 0 Travel Logs - Lodging: - ' Search Listings Add a Listing ,pm 09/07/2003 http://www. bcadventure. com/adventure/wilderness/forest/westred. htm ,Western Red Cedar - Species at Risk - Lewis and Clark - Sierra Club Page 1 of l tl 'i Read their In th CL( of Lewis.& Clark n a f f x N WON I'M - ct. . wo- -ki - th. re da :aheaa5t:excessfyety bath±tkl ::'Stgwedis'::; assedtizday:much;worst .:....art:X.es.:..~ . ...:.Th~:Maunra7ns;wh.......... p W,I 1ne:5 ruse.fur..:Nackmaralc&Tamerck:::::: ' Wdh:Fallrn mb ert: &P..._....p Stru in throir...... thick forests:near:Loto;Pass;.:Lzwis[an ::.°.ar.:: reciate theta estic ;:didn;t'aliMays a :~:.:;>reesatiat dri ed: ;.......pp ' . iblacked'their:;patfi~:but Lewisstrll;;note..dthe:atbdr;vitae; or western, r~.. ; bciats Priuate cedar, Arid tmaglned taming them into long and elegant: er'and wrcite o ' Lo6sa Riv. the. Jo$eph,;W(titehouse also $awahem algj~g . cn r cs°: es crr white; ceed,ar ; As titeexp a e. , , [GYP sdown the;Golumtiia toward:the ocean, the cedars grew #arget'.and:.inore:'.' e ::ttie:time:the reached fortC€a: gp,att1. ...c...... a capte~ns ceme ` ~a`see.the.Fragraiit tree as.the centerpiece of a complex culture , e Chinook:Indans;:incorporated at €ntoaimosk every:aspect of their €ives, ftritrt wooden bowls to lieddmg and clothing made of hark `Other tripes':i canredaotem-poles:and canoes from; the;massiye trunks:':: 1 15 :'faking. a closer Asthe: explorers;notic cedais fl4iirisfi,:aloag;the Paafe Northw. eoast'where there J, .the. arid.rich oiT.: They grow: h mixed'stands:w€th Douglas frond western hemi6ck, pcowdmg hahitat rar many forest species :Near the ;coast; Roosevelt elk:eat y©ung;;shoots and saplings, farther in land Rocky Mountain:e k'eat t 'leaves. in the minter. Black bears.den in large hollow trunks. aq: 4. One of the tallest evergreens, western red cedars can typically reach 1°75 feetin height and`8 feet in diameter: They are shadowed only by. giant sequo€as;.redwoods, and the occasionalDouglas fir. Undisturbed; western:red.: N cedars.can grow to be nearly. 3,000 years old. Ancient stands.of:red cedar: are particularly. :Important: foranirnals:. dependent on old growth, like the northern; spotted owl:and:Vaux's swifts. In the: modern Pacific Northw ' It however, most of the ancient red cedar groves are gone. m J 09/07/2003 http:/M1N-%v. sierraclub.or.g/le%cisandclark/species/cedar.asp ATP - Western Red Cedar, An American Wood ~~G( rU! /'Gt ~(v vL Page I of 3 Western Red Cedar AN AMERICAN WOOD Product United States Department of Agriculture FS-261 Articles Primarily a west coast species, western red cedar extends into northern Idaho and western Montana. An associate in many forest types, this long-lived tree attains its best growth on relatively moist sites. Although comparatively light in weight - average specific gravity 0.31 - the wood is among the most durable of the native tree species; its reddish-brown color, straight grain, good stability, and excellent paint-holding ability make this a preferred siding wood. Practically all shakes and shingles are made of this `wood Other important uses are poles, grape stakes, and paneling. DISTRIBUTION Western red cecfk.grows from the coastal4egions of southern Alaska south through the coastal ranges of British Columbia through western Washington and Oregon to Humboldt County, Calif. In British Columbia, the species grows east to the western slope of the Continental Divide and thence south into the Selkirk and Bitterroot Mountains of Idaho and Montana. Western red cedar grows best on moist flats, terraces, gentle lower slopes, stream bottoms, moist gulches, and ravines. A northerly aspect is generally more suitable than a southerly aspect. Occasionally, red cedar grows on moderately dry and warm sites, but its growth there is poor. On the Pacific coast, western red cedar grows from sea level to an elevation of about 4,000 feet. In the northern Rocky Mountain region of northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, and Montana, it is found at an altitude between 2,000 and 7,000 feet. Within the United States, red cedar is not commercially important above 3.000 feet in the inland area. It rarely occurs in pure stands, except in small areas. Common associates along the coast are: western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylia), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecypads lawsoniana), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and the true firs (Abies spp.). In the inland area, its associates include western white pine (Pinus monticola), Englemann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and western larch (Larix occidentalis). The hardwoods red alder (Alnus rubra), big-leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) are often found with red cedar. A variety of lesser vegetation - mosses, ferns, herbs, and shrubs - is found on the forest floor under red cedar stands. DESCRIPTION AND GROWTH Western rod cedar :is tde larger of the two American arborvitae (the dater is northern white-cedar (Tthuja occidentalis)) and it grows to tremendous size and:a9e Under.1he most favorable growing conditions, cedar attains heights in excess of 200 feet and diameters up to 16 feet. In the northern Rockies, the larger trees are 175 feet tall and 8 feet in diameter. The trunk in older trees is 07 buttressed, often fluted, and rapidly tapering. The crown is generally irregular, but full, with drooping branches that bend upward at the end to form a hook. The leaves are lustrous, dark yellow green in color, scalelike, and paired, or opposite, in four ranks. 0 The cones, small and egg-shaped, mature in one season, but remain attached to the twigs. When mature, the cones open into 8 to 12 paired woody scales. Western red cedar is a prodigious seed produces, with a 3-year interval between good cone crops. Seed fall begins in at August and extends throughout the winter. The bark of western red cedar is generally about 3/4-inch thick, cinnamon red on young stems, and gray on older trunks. The bark is divided into thin, fibrous, interlacing ridges. The fully developed root system and. large buttresses, make western red cedar relatively windfirm, but its shallow roots make it susceptible to fire kill. Western red cedar is`very tolerant of shade*, 'growing better than most of its associates. This characteristic enables it to Become. established wherever conditions are favorable. It is usually a member of the climax plantcomf munity, hnp://Ww%v.lumber.cori/articies/art 0I.asp 09/07/2003 AIFP - Western Red Cedar, An American Wood Page 2 of COMMON NAMES Western red cedar is known by several common names, including giant arborvitae, arborvitae, canoe-cedar, shinglewood, Pacific red cedar, giant cedar, and cedar. It is often confused with Port- Orford-cedar and incense-cedar (Libocedrus decurrens) where their ranges overlap. SUPPLY There is about 44 billion board feet of western red cedar sawtimber on commercial timberland in the United States, with Oregon and Washington having more than half this volume. The volume is distributed as follows: Washington, 19.1 billion board feet; Alaska, 7.4 billion board feet; Oregon, 6.4 billion board feet; Montana, 1.6 billion board feet; and California, 0.1 billion board feet. An estimated 8.7 billion cubic feet of growing stock occurs in these same States. Western red cedar is almost always sold under its own name. However, it is often used interchangeably with Port-Orford-cedar, incense-cedar, and redwood. PRODUCTION Western red;eedar lumber was produced at an average of about 250 million board feet per year from 1915 until 1;352:`!=corn 1952 its production steadily tflcreasecf;:raachift"bout 626 million board feet in 1978 There.is no accurate estimate of the volume of westenf red cedar split products, but the species rsfl a pnncipai....source of shingles and shakes. Fenceposts, rails, grape stakes, archery arrow shafts, acrd novel ies are other:split :cedar items Western red cedar is widely used for telephone and transmission poles. Pole production fluctuates from year to year- about 175,000 poles annually. There is no accurate estimate available of the volume of western red cedar manufactured into decorative plywood, but it is a significant amount. Western red cedar has few insect enemies and suffers little from their damage. Three beetles that attack and occasionally kill trees are the western cedar borer (Trachykele blondeli), amethyst cedar borer (Semanotus amethystinus), and. the western cedar bark beetle (Phloeosinus punctatus). Diseases, likewise, play a relatively minor role in coastal red cedar stands, but are of greater importance inland. Yellow ring rot caused by Phellinus weirii is probably the most serious pathogen. Brown cubical buttrot (Poda sericeomollis) and white pocketrot (Phellinus pini) are other serious diseases. Younger trees are susceptible to winter damage, especially when severe cold waves occur during, mildautumn weather: CHARACTERISTICS AND PROPERTIES The heartwood . reddish browns or pinkish brown to dull brown, and the sapwood is nearly white. The ';wood is almost always'straight grained, easily split, and has a uniform but rather coarse texture. It is light in weight, moderately soft, low in strength when used as a beam or post, and low in shock resistance. Its average specific gravity is 0.31, based on green volume and ovendry weight; its density is about 22 pounds per cubic foot at 12 percent moisture content. Western red cedar is usually easy to dry, and dimensional changes are small. The wood is easy to glue and to work with tools. the heartwood is rated among the best softwoods in both paint-holding ability and natural durability against decay. C PRINCIPAL USES Western red cedar makes fine lumber for decorative uses, especially interior wall paneling. Both knotty and clear grades are used for this purpose. In clear grades, it is one of the two most important lumber species for siding. Also, small quantities are used for window parts, pencils, and other y manufactured products, including novelties. A quantity is used as a face laminate for roof decking. Other applications include caskets, wooden pipe and tanks, outdoor patio and greenhouse construction, and small outdoor structures where exposure to the weather is severe. It is considered one of the better boat - and canoe-building woods, being used mainly for planking. In thin veneers, it is the principal wood selected for covering racing shells. Western red cedar is a favored species wherever lumber is exposed to conditions favoring decay. Nearly all of:the. sawn shingles: manufactured are otwestern red cedar, as has been the case for nearly 70 years 'In addition; sp!)t roof arxf slding,sho es are'frequeEtfly made from this species. The wood is alsD used`;for split products;: such as fencepos%jjence rails;=and grape stakes. Because of its natural durability, it. is one of the preferred species for telephone and transmission poles. Buffs of such poles are usually treated with a preservative against rot: http://www.lumber.conVarticies/art 0I.asp 09/07/2003 A1FP - Western Red Cedar, An American Wood Page 3 of 3 Western red cedar is enjoyed by outdoor recreationists, especially in groves where the trees attain maximum size and grandeur. The species is also used extensively as an ornamental tree in landscaping. REFERENCES American Wood Preservervation Association. Proceeding of annual meetings. McLean, VA: American Wood Preservervation Association; 1963-80. Fowells, H. A., comp. Silvics of forest trees of the United States. Agric Handb. 271. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1965. 762 p. Furniss, R. L.; Carolin, V. M. Western forest insects. Misc. Publ. 1339. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1977. 654 p. Harlovw: W, f': - Harrar, E. S. T. book of dendrology. 6th ed. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill; 1979. 510 p. Hepton .G. H Ff. Diseases of forest an&shede tress of the United States. Agric. Handb. 386. Washington, DC: S. [Jepart mentafAgnculture 1g71 658 p U. <iPansh[ , A. 3 ; de Zeeuw, C. Texfbddk of+rfood'technology. 4th ed. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill: 1980. 722 p. >U.S. l?Qpartrrient pf.;Agnculture Forest Sevice. Analysis of the timber situation in the United States 1952- "2030.For. Resour.°Rep.'23. Washington DC: US. Department of Agriculture; 1982. 528 p. U.S. Department of, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Wood handbook: wood as an engineering material. Agric. Handb. 72. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 1974. 428 p. - [Home] [Corn an ][Customer Support] Products] Articles][Contact AIFP] ®1999 American International Forest Products. All Rights Reserved. _Z i a>1 N J I 0 9 http://www,lumber.com/articlestart 01.asp 09/07/2003 '~~{p,.l .Y$f I/ t. I 9a 1 > Y e?s i 1 ~o r r X I'% xv, , 1 ~ a " ~ f }1 l ~ Tr' r t: j'.' :.-f~ ~R'yt . , r ~ A'"ll~ ~ ~ ' SiLY ~{1 ~:r. 3 ~~14'u, t ~ 1 ,4~t. ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ y i d ,r~ °,4~~tsF4 JA vt All i ir~ , r ~ ,►i it Z` {Mr .1 ~'l ,f- y ~ t Y. i ~ ~ i F ~ ~A~ti~~k``S yP".~A~tk~p `~R~ ~r•~.~~t~ l,d~"~-s-5w:F _ .a ' 51 rte ~ \ l~~`~e ,fly J "Dill i y a 1 ,t~ ,s r L^^ VA ,^,~ll Cam, ~ U LEGISII. Y STRIP •j •f : tl` F L S: _ I It r i ~V ^`J y r i ~ A \ h i c+ 16~ 4 Y1 ' ~t ~ is Ash Creek Estates Public Hearing Testimony regarding Ash Creek Subdivision (SUB) 2003-00010 Appeal Provided by Bob Storer City Council Hearing September 9, 2003 Good Evening Mayor Griffith and Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Sherwood, and Wilson and City Staff: My name is Bob Storer. I reside at 7225 SW Ventura Drive, Tigard, 97223 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Some say a picture is worth a thousand words. I will refer to the photo binder I handed to you during my testimony. The proposed development site is a unique site in terms of natural resources and the functions and values that it provides. Ash Creek, a headwater tributary of Fanno Creek is home to Cutthroat Trout, and at least in the past, Steelhead, which is, listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act as well as other numerous wildlife species. The proposed development site also has extremely valuable wetland and riparian habitats and a unique grove of western red cedars. Headwater riparian areas are extremely valuable habitats and provide 1) cool, clear, and well-oxygenated water to downstream systems such as Fanno Creek which is not currently meeting state or federal water quality standards; 2) sources of a large proportion of the energy used to fuel downstream food webs via organic matter; 3) harbor unique and sensitive species, especially invertebrates, some of which occur no where else; and 4) the cumulative alterations to headwater areas may have irreversible impacts to downstream environments. I want to reiterate the reasons why the Planning Commission denied the proposed Ash Creek Estates Development. These included: • Objection to special adjustment for lot sizes; • Concern with special adjustment variance to the cul-de-sac length and narrow width which will provide limited access; • Traffic patterns and increased vehicle flow concerns and inadequately addressed; • Public access, wildlife and corridor disruptions, and potential impacts to downstream properties not adequately addressed; and • No community or public benefit for special adjustment variances. In addition to the issues raised in my July 7 letter to the Planning Commission, which was curiously left out of your packet, I would like to highlight the following four concerns: Testimony by Bob Storer 9/8/03 1 . y Ash Creek Estates Public Hearing 1. Lot Size The proposed development seeks to modify the minimum lot size and width with a special adjustment variance and build 29 upscale homes on minimal lots. The proposed lots range in size from an unbelievable 4,700 sq.ft, to 11,600 sq.ft. and average 6,400 sq.ft. By comparison, the existing 23 lots within WSE and along Barbara Lane that surround the proposed development range between 7,155 and 13,261 sq.ft. and average 9,135 sq.ft. The proposed development is planning to build these 29 large homes on lots that are on average 2,700 sq.ft. smaller than the surrounding community. This does meet your code and should not be given a special consideration variance for and is simply not compatible with and out of character for our neighborhood. I take exception to the Developer's response that, "The proposed development will not create significant variance from a typical detached single family development. In addition, under Section 18.510.020 your staff concludes in their staff report, "Since the proposed development is a planned development, the minimum lot size of 7,500 sq.ft. can be altered to fit a specific design". I would hope you would agree that this proposal is in fact totally not consistent or compatible, and out of character with our surrounding community and I would conclude should be altered and the lot sizes increased to fit the specific needs of and unique characteristics of the sensitive and natural resources on the site. Finally, Lots 28 and 29 just don't measure up. Lot 28 at 4,800 sq.ft. is a flag lot and Lot 29 does not have adequate frontage according to the lot dimensional standards 18.715 and there are inadequate setbacks proposed. This area is far removed from the other 27 lots and consists of many trees on slopes greater than 25%. Your staff report states, "To minimize traffic conflicts in the area where the driveways may be difficult to see due to the vertical curves near the stream crossing, staff recommends Lots 28 and 29 share access through one driveway approach. Additionally, there is reported slumping going on in this area directly south and on the property line of lot 29. This should necessitate and require further study. This hardly sounds like an upscale development to me? It seems to me that at a minimum these lots should be combined into one or not developed at all and the wildlife corridor and trees protected in this area. 2. 'T'ree Removal 1 would question whether the Forestry or Timber Deferral Status should apply within the UGB and especially in this case on this site. Furthermore, your code states, and the standard requires that streets, buildings, and other site elements shall be designed Testimony by Bob Storer 9/8/03 2 Ash Creek Estates Public Hearing and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. Removing 400 trees on less than six acres with 74 trees within the sensitive buffer area is simply not acceptable nor is it wise or sustainable. Your staff concluded in their report, that it was "unclear how the standard is being met when opportunities exist to preserve trees outside the building envelope and grading areas", and the "Planning Commission will need to determine whether the preservation of trees within the open space tract satisfies the standard." In Chapter 18.790, it states, "A tree plan for the planting, removal, and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application." The applicant has not submitted an arborist report regarding the protection of the trees that will remain on the site. The City Council should provide our community an opportunity to review and comment on this report prior to your decision. The photos I provided you in your handout tonight show first the trees on lots 28-29; secondly the Ventura Court Development on pages 2-3; and third in the back of your packet on pages 4-13 the existing lots within WSE and along Barbara Lane that surround the proposed development site. I firmly believe that thirty years ago the developer that designed and built our community was ahead of his time. You will notice the large trees that surround many of these homes, built on large lots. These trees are much older than 30-years old. I believe the Developer of our neighborhood went out of his way to protect trees, providing strategic design for home construction. This is very different and unlike the photos on pages 2-3 in your packet taken at Ventura Court, a new subdivision being built next to us on Locust. These photos clearly show the large homes built extremely close to one another on small lots with most of the trees removed. It is interesting to note that a large percentage of these homes have built fences around their homes in an attempt to protect their privacy and/or presumably to control their pets. Saving trees on large lots is a natural and sustainable alternative to provide screening and buffering of noise and neighbor activities. 3. Soils, Slopes, and Stormwater The geotech report lists concerns and highlights a number of recommendations. This site in my opinion is a huge risk. I urge you to consider the 10 points bulleted in my written testimony below before you make a decision. The Geotech recommendations that concern me include: l • A small landslide is present on the site near where the proposed stormwater j j detention and treatment facility is proposed. • The potential for shallow slope creep is considered moderate on slopes >30% • Site areas of concern include erosion features on the south side of the proposed street, which will require considerable drainage installation and engineered fill placement. Testimony by Bob Storer 9/8/03 3 Ash Creek Estates Public Hearing • Earthwork performed during the wet weather season will probably require expensive measures such as cement treatment or imported granular material to compact fill to the recommended engineering specifications. • Given the depth to groundwater, footing drains are recommended on the uphill side of structures. • Slopes constructed at 2H: I V of flatter, properly drained and comprised of fill soils placed and compacted as recommended we anticipate that adequate factors of safety against global failure will be maintained. • Measures should be taken to prevent surficial instability and/or erosion of embankment material. • Planting the slope face as soon as possible after construction. • On-site soils are moisture sensitive and may be difficult to handle. • Soil types should be considered moderately to highly susceptible to erosion. I have outlined my stormwater and water quality concerns in the July 7 letter to the Planning Commission, so I will not reiterate them here, except to say that no development successfully mitigates all the impacts associated with the stormwater generated from new impervious surfaces. Cumulative effects are never assessed and although the peak flows may be controlled, the timing and duration of these increased streamflows to downstream properties is changed and can be pronounced. In fact, I've witnessed significant flooding downstream on properties and at roadway crossings between 80th and Hall during several recent events this year including January 29-31; and on Feb. 17, and March 7; and during April 12-13. Twenty-four hour precipitation amounts I recorded during these events ranged between 0.96 to 1.87". Stormwater quality treatment designs proposed by the Applicant do not satisfy Clean Water Services requirements and will not meet state or federal water quality standards. Eliminating Lot 28 and expanding the size of and water quality attributes associated with the stormwater pond adjacent to Lot 27 including the CWS requirement for water quality swales which are not proposed by the Applicant, should be the appropriate mitigation. I would urge you to have your staff contact CWS to ensure that our concerns are incorporated into any approvals and permits. 4) Transportation ' The Transportation Impact Report is inadequate and flawed in my opinion. The i Area of Influence only considered 74`h to Taylors Ferry. The larger impact will be through our WSE neighborhood and up 72"d SW when you consider the habits of homeowners and the influence of commercial areas such as Fred Meyers, restaurants, movie theatre, gas stations, etc. and access to Hwy 99 and I-5. It is difficult for me to comprehend how 29 homes can only generate an average of 278 vehicle trips during an average week with an average 29 trips during PM peak and 22 trips during an average AM peak. Testimony by Bob Storer 9/8/03 4 Ash Creek Estates Public Hearing Once again, cumulative impacts are not assessed. This is critical to require given the number of new and proposed developments that have been built or are currently being designed around our neighborhood. A total of 68 homes with four developments. In Summary, the applicant has stated that there are no other practical alternatives. I simply and emphatically do not agree. The applicant believes the special adjustments are necessary to build the upscale development as proposed and they have gone out of their way to design the development to minimize impacts to sensitive areas. In some cases, this is true. In others, this is false and in considerable doubt. Our community firmly believes the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefit. There are far too many sensitive areas and irreplaceable resources on this site with far too many development constraints. Clear cutting the trees and building very large upscale homes on minimal inferior lots on steep slopes and unstable soils is not smart, and not consistent, appropriate, or compatible with our neighborhood. You have the enormous responsibility to decide whether granting of the special adjustments will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. Has the Developer and their consultant team provided you, the City of Tigard, and its customers and stakeholders, with the best development proposal and innovative design for this site? I don't believe so. Are there really no other alternatives? Yes, there are. Reduce the total number of homes, and build them on larger lots to preserve more trees! You have the discretion to require alternative designs and additional mitigations. I urge you to take the time necessary to review the complete set of testimony offered tonight and in writing before making a decision. At a minimum, you should keep the record open for a minimum time period to provide us with an opportunity to respond to any new material submitted by the applicant or during their rebuttal. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. r D i i i Testimony by Bob Storer 9/8/03 5 ,Y i i y A L rte ,.tom t 0 d18 1 SA 11-11919:4-1 J r i 'r Alk oil law rv ' ..,R^' fir' gym.: , ~ ~ ,'r ~ per,--_...-.---•-• r LE 0 s TVI ~S bill. N , P Tf woop- G* mw Ilk e4l I~A ~t ~ r y p~ ® •t y, -f I, J R ~ ~ ~j`~ ♦ ~ L ~ '4~~i,'~ t. ~ rte, ~_1 ~ r t~ ' . f i 4r ii • • • • • • J' ® y _ 1 . fA J ® s~ 6 W LEGIBILITY STRIP } -Jim fc. r M LL i S 0 Awl ® -L x ® 1` C ~ ryes ' t 1 rt ' .''T W, 0 't . r ~ , 1 'C Y .1 r l t y ~ , • "L x ~a k x ,.C~ i . _ ~ "+~:``J^-_r gam'"; } mom . IF Y 7i' • 4 •'ti'r . , a' 4 f i i , • i ® 'Es Lt J ® t • 10 WS ~ • • • • • • ® 5- ® .r l W • ~ N m Wim ® ' ' F t, . 9 0 0 00 0 TRIP 000000 S i y n4 ~ 1 ' ~'Sv Y 1 L ,.r l lr+ 7 'i e 4r 'Yf ' it •i t.`1``~_ ~ • 10- / 1 j~1 t ~ w i L pS • • • e • • • e • • • • • • e e • e • • • a vri m J • • h! RECEIVED PLANNING Steve Kay Kurahashi and Associates SEP 0 9 2003 15580 SW Jay Street, Ste 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 CITY OF TIGARD September 3, 2003 Morgan Tracy Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Correspondence Regarding Ash Creek Estates Dear Mr. Tracy: On behalf of the applicant, Windwood Homes, attached is the response to the letters from John Frewing regarding the Ash Creek Estates development proposal. Sincerely, Steve Kay Kurahashi and Associates a s- r n n J Steve Kay Kurahashi and Associates 15580 SW Jay Street, Ste 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 September 3, 2003 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Ash Creek Estates Development Proposal Dear Mr. Frewing: On behalf of the applicant, Windwood Homes, we are writing you in response to the comments you provided the City of Tigard on August 20, 2003. We have organized our responses to your concerns under the headings you provided in your letter. Concern 1: The significance of the Western Red Cedar Forest is somewhat subjective. Our arboris4 Walt Knapp, has determined that the forest is actually a mix of trees as you have also noted in your letter. The forest has been selectively cut and thinned over the years to create the existing conditions we see today. We know that the original old growth timber was removed before 1952 and that in that year a logger by the name of Bachelor removed a thicket which he used to make telephone poles. In 1958, Jake Rufer also logged marketable timber from the site and left some existing trees in place. Western Red Cedar was probably left because at its age it had less value at the time. After the property was selectively logged, the opened up area allowed the cedars and other species to continue to grow for the next 45 years. It is important to note that the site has been in Forest Deferral status for some time to allow the removal of these trees as they grow to a marketable size. The applicant feels that as with other developments around the property, the removal of the trees should be allowed for the area outside Department of State Lands' jurisdiction (sensitive areas and wetlands). Furthermore the applicant will maintain a buffer of 40-100 feet from the wetland area to protect L additional trees as required by Clean Water Services standards. h r Concern 2: The area of the road crossing has few trees and the clearing currently is dominated by invasive species. The banks of the road which will fill this area will be replanted by native herbaceous vegetation with the proposed development as required the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services (CWS). Based on a natural resource assessment, the wetlands themselves are less impacted by invasive species and are considered to be in good condition. After discussions with CWS, it was determined that maintenance of the existing large water main in this area would be easier and less invasive to the stream if fill was placed for a road instead of crossing the area with a bridge. Mitigation sites have been looked at on the property. The area between the braided channels have significant trees and other upland locations for mitigation were deemed unsuitable due to the marginal water availability. The impacted wetlands on the subject site requires 247.5 square feet of enhancement for the proposed development. The applicant proposed a fee in lieu for this requirement because it was felt that the money would be better spent on a larger project off-site. Concern 3: The applicant does not have control over how the City maintains roadside brush within the public right- of-way. Sincerely, Steve Kay Kurahashi and Associates cc. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard d R t- t _J W J Steve Kay Kurahashi and Associates 15580 SW Jay Street, Ste 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 September 8, 2003 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Ash Creek Estates Development Proposal Dear Mr. Frewing: On behalf of the applicant, Windwood Homes, we are writing you in response to the comments you provided before the City of Tigard on August 12, 2003. We have organized our responses to your concerns under the headings you provided in your outline. Some of these issues have been covered by our responses to your letter to the Mayor and Council dated August 20, 2003. This is the Largest Grove of Mature Western Red Cedars in the State of Oregon: The significance of the Western Red Cedar Forest is somewhat subjective. Please see our response to Concern I in our attached letter. Sensitive Land and Vegetative Setbacks are Not Observed: As required, the applicant has met with Clean Water Services (CWS) so determine the proper setback between the proposed development and the sensitive lands and wetlands. The required setbacks have been provided with this application. This application has Conditions of Approval ensuring that the applicant will meet the standards set forth by CWS. Surface Water Storm Drainage Plans are Inadequate: As required, the applicant will not increase storm peak flows that leave the site. Before building plans are issued, detailed plans and calculations must be submitted to the City Engineer for review and L approval. This is a Condition of Approval for the proposed development. r A Concern a: Again, before building plans are issued, detailed plans and calculations must be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. This is a Condition of Approval for the proposed development. 9 u Concern b: The applicant has provided a traffic report that was reviewed and accepted the City. Concern c: As required, the applicant will comply with the required setbacks as a Condition of Approval. Concern d: The applicant is not proposing planter strips as allowed on private streets. The applicant has requested that the planter strip on 74' Avenue at the stream crossing be eliminated so that the amount of fill in sensitive area is reduced. Concern ea The applicant has tried to reduce impact to the sensitive area by having lots access a single road into the northern portion of the site. A loop road would not be a feasible alternative due the physical characteristics of the property. Concern f: Please see the comments above. Concern g: Please see the comments above. Concern h: The applicant is not required to address impacts to schools with this application. Concern is The applicant has addressed all applicable development standards in the submitted application. Concern j: As required, the applicant is proposing to improve 74' Avenue to meet current City standards and in accordance with the submitted traffic report. Concern k: The applicant has submitted this proposal as a Planned Development, therefore lot standards for this zone do not apply. Concern 1: The traffic report submitted with this application indicates that sight distance will be met with this proposal. Concern m: As allowed, the number of lots are consistent with City standards, taking into account the buffer areas required by CWS. L ~ Concern n: There are no street tree diversity standards in the City of Tigard. d Concern o: The applicant has contacted the applicable waste management company and will provide a letter to the City stating that service can be provided to the site. Concern p: As required, the applicant has provided a geotechnical report to the City to set forth the requirements for the safe construction of this proposed development. Concern q: As required by the Conditions of Approval, building plans will not be issued until CWS, the Corps of Engineers, and the Division of State Lands review and approve details engineering plans. Concern r: If required, the applicant will obtain a harvest plan for tree cutting from the Department of Forestry as a Condition of Approval. Concern s: City staff has indicated that the 74'" Avenue vertical curve standard has been met. Concern t: This issue has been addressed by the City under 18.370 in the staff report. Concera u: City staff supports the street design as submitted because to change the proposed location will result a longer cul-de-sac length and a violation of the block length standard. Concern v: As stated previously, lot dimensional standards do not appl y with this request for a Planned Development. Concern w: As a Condition of Approval, the minimum frontage requirements will be met with this proposal. Concern a: As allowed, sidewalks are required on one side of a private street. Concern y: Preliminary engineering calculations have determined that the proposed 12" sewer line is adequate for the proposed development. Concern z: The applicant will comply with the City standards for street naming. Concern aa: Please see City of Tigard's comments regarding this issue, dated August 29, 2003 from Morgan Tracy. L 2 Concern bb: n Again, please see City of Tigard's comments regarding this issue, dated August 29, 2003 from Morgan Tracy. D Concern cc: The review by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue notes that parking will be allowed on one side of the street. Concern dd: The applicant will place utilities underground if directed by the City's Engineering Department. Otherwise, a fee-in-lieu will be paid to the City for not under grounding the utilities. t Concern ee: As required, the City has reviewed the traffic findings that were prepared by a licenced traffic engineer. Concern ff: Detailed engineering plans must be reviewed and approved by the Fire District and the City before building permits are issued. The applicant will be required to meet all applicable standards for road grades. Sincerely, Steve Kay Kurahashi and Associates cc. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard i i- i` a Greg Kurahashi Kurahashi and Associates 15580 SW Jay Street, Ste 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 September 9, 2003 City Council Members City Of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Proposed Conditions of Approval for Ash Creek Estates Dear Council Members: In order to address the community members' concerns regarding tree preservation and property owners' privacy, the applicant proposes to do the following: 1. The applicant will install a evergreen hedge of Leyland Cypress along the northern property line of Lots 1-10 and the eastern property line of Lots 10-12. 2. The applicant will not cut any healthy trees within the designated open space tract. Furthermore, the applicant shall not cut any healthy trees in the tree preservation areas of Lots 1-18, which shall be defined as the area at least 15 feet from the rear of the building footprints. However, if an arborist determines that trees in these areas are dead, diseased, or pose a safety hazard, then the applicant shall remove affected trees from those areas. IC 3 i ASH CREEK ESTATES Walter H. Knapp Tree Species Corn osition - Overall Stand 9/9/2003 ecies o lasso lass Cedar 60% C Dou las-fir 17% C Pine 0% 77% C Ider 110/0 D sh 0% D ®i leaf Maple 11% D Che 1% D Oregon White Oak 1% 23% D otal 100% Tree Species Com osition b To o ra hic Position Slopes/ Upland Riparian Species Percent Cedar 50% 69% Other Species 50% 31% cres: 5.1 4.3 % of Cedar: 43% 57% MAIN POINTS: 1. This is a mixed species stand, not a pure cedar grove. Society of American Foresters definition: "A pure stand [is] composed principally of one species, conventionally at least 80 percent based on numbers, basal areas, or volumes." 2. Western redcedar is not a rare species in this area. 3. The upland portion of the site has been logged. Alder, cherry, and younger maples in the upland show that there have been recent disturbances. The upland area is not "pristine." 4. Cedars are not particularly vulnerable to windthrow except in bogs and swampy areas. „vr .vr -.rw •v.+ .v.... .w rrv v~~ vr. •w•w•w~ua w nr rr.. rum.. AV t it, IM I Z IUAM NO r 3260 p. 1/2 waste ' Scptembex 9, 2003 Steve Kay Kunhashi and Associates Deis Steve, Ranvd uMi the pxoposed pains you submitted to na for the 29-lot subdivision labeled `Ash Clerk Est t e, Waste Management does not feteseC any usms is being able to provide residential cuthsidc srtvice to the customuets livaag these. Please let rw know if we can be of any £urtha assistance in this antter. Sincerely, Save Wolfe District Maw4ger Waste Manage:-u+ of Ovegm-Washingwa County a iE J m 0 W J 0910912005 TU6 10:32 (TZ/RZ NO 50901- IM001 M 4 ~ WZ a6u~ as w~ w °nv°u r off"°5~atrH~lb z3~d4 • 4LLLSOOOM tQ\1~.! J~1 Jo \A33\80 HSd Noo d S31 d1S- ~ ~ u IN z ~ ¢ *16 lit- 1 / , r m ^ ~ I ~ ~ 9 t ~Ig)y4 ~ B~ ~ 11 ~VRr b i r a - b b G o l a b i S 11 ► p/ N ~ 1I b Ba 1 I ~ ISIA r ,flu c ' . ILL Q N $ N~ 1 ~r1~ 9 1 ~ I ti` a 1 ~4.1k w o. oP~ i1% It i ~r{q ` 2Ilk t I V 41 _Ini 9JI Ikj -1A fA _ rM a i Y, TR j„, J J N Vl1 I N {Y I o CF~^"- T t,nn ~ TES p .D . ~ i OR S~SI`S' ~ EK EST A G0N ASH ~R BARD, WASI~IN°SON C°UN1Y 1,~At*~' C17Y OF s , w~ nom a,oMEs t m 1 j ! DAIE~,sCv ^°pi TwA.ii r~ § O . N I ~ 11 ~ d a J W J ~ , i I Sh ,~WFV ~ {W~~ 1 ~~x~ t'!'I ' y + r' + r ~ its } I 11 Iv+ , I v f + ~ i pi J ~ { J ~ 4 p } r. a..... w:;. ~ . ✓ V.xR9W9~SIXEtVBf1&6 ~/T7/WWSM1~FY N.dA tudadlAAmhanh t 1, _ ~ f r k + • ~ f f # E,t E r t { t~~ Wry 1 i~(~} ~ 1 1 I, a , r I~ i III ktJ, s~~M7 ~ ~ ~ ~ mww as • ~an uw .l •~n ^t1 ~i~~~ a ~ f ~ r '}ttiy t a z ~ ~ ` -"'='"-'F~- - - - I-,- - ^ - ~ ~ I ."-r-c~4~1 rAe-.~- &1 1 B9 ~ ~ >n ~ ,~~~lk 7(~ N o,r' _ - ~Y -~1 a, rt~r} + ~_V ~ S il'~ v. _ w + ~~~1 - ~ ~ ~ ~Q~J' v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v; ! ` .f / / 8~ M ~ -{f~_~ + r a~, ri f ~ ~ ! / 11 r w Waif it °.1"w~~ t~ ~ E ~ ~~j ~ ~ !~{'':,,a, ~ ~ ~ i~ 4§ 1 + t J- ,1r I rf x~Ct a r. A t ~1 I ~ E + i t_ I. ~ ~ I r 4• I ti rr } r ~;r ~~rr',~ s~ ~ y - - ~ ~ ~ir i r x) ~ x[ f F-j a~ ~ + ~ F ~ ~ ~ r i ~ r x • - ..,~+C Er 11 ' t i, ~ r 6.' I!`+ ~ 1 ^ ~ ~ r %1 r t 0 i~" z~ I.~ ~ i / 1 i i _ ) 1 ~ ~ _ ~ t ` ,OQ,..~ 1 1< a ~Y" -,a~1t ~ ,r, ° , ~ ~ 1'~+ F C + tir' ~ ' Y f ~ 1 r r p Fa s i v ,a ~:.r, . a u 4 I p o „ i - f \ E 1 I I x 7~ t',''i ~~t r+l Il ~ ~~i`1 x ~A tl~'' ,r i+ _ i' 1' k'Y J 3IS ~ _ f„1~+~ ~ .~.~R r~ +'~-I r,S '~~i+ y ti~~, ~ k1 t W E.t+ r r x.33 ~`_a 1 ~ I rt~,~,IT ~'i - ~ ' 4 Y _ ~ } i ~i d l ~I✓ v 7 I ~ ~ { ~ r i~; ~ It r a ~ ~ t 'E { ' ~ c~ - '~,r ~l ! x',4v~ ~ ~v~.E 1 f } + fih Ir,~ r IhrwC°+u~;',,~' r~ SI~, s f: , ~ l J u ~ i. ~ ~ r ~ 9rlr~~'I~ 4 - - '.I L ~ t ~ rf ) r ~ t ~ z { ' t' : d h y~ r ~i ~ ~ ,I f xis'' - ~ ~ 'S r i~ !~-++S ~U~nJ ~I. rC~ ~ - ~ ~y ~ +y7 E»_} - ~ ~ r f ' I ~ ~ + ~ r C ~i' - t' }r V,)t § ~ z icy 'v }t I. _ - ~ ~ "JJ9 'x r y ~ ~ 1 _ I ~ , I x I - °+1`I11}~~{k r~ ' ~ C A'~::1' i ~~r ~ I 1 - `"~,,~,~jy~{j' ~ _ ~ t.~i~!~ ~ } i .+i~ il~' ~'"vi 'y „t X x ~ ~I d ~I.~i. A :4.<,a"- :I ~ ~ f!, ,,I ~~i("i7 `fry?; ',J `~r .n 1. r -r..~ -,-I,, *1 t 1 r:'>4'~r ~~n i r N~ i~ ~ r' t' r ~ r Y+ r S, '.a}i r 't }rt v~8[+.A '1.^ 1 ~Y ~ ~ ri~9r. ~Ki _ Ixyi .:1.'r ,1 'r. .i, "t 7 ~ - ',S' i s„ ar '.t r~'Ir'a@ `t 1 + } ffi ~ f f-.""'~!. - ~"_y „6' i r'~. > N x"€"' 1 t, ~l~ Its, -ry,, tr x. - ~ ~ l I ~ 1 '1 - [d~:; „f,,,~i.~',-gyp i', I~4", III ~ Y3v, tj1f,~ ~z, S I : ~w r'1 i 9 4 I i i W pig + ~ 1 4~ ~D~ i''i ~I :I'1 Y G Ir + ~ Ir ~i 1 - ~-a' A: Q1 f ,1 ' - - Y,- ry ,y. ,.ti lir t i + J g. t, a S ~ , yr :,4, + ?Opp _9 i ~ I r .i.. S~„~r~~[" 5i $iI'rr li z',rsl+ h +ii a,'' S ~;1 l ~'~l,,~ w ~5 4' _ - ~ ~ y a I t1'~ xt$~~ r+t'+a fry, y~I~pe - J x - ➢ .4 ~ G ir'~ 4I li ~ ~ - 9 e 3,1'1.1 ~~xa e lk :?n d ? ff t f.. ~,:1 - r4 E r I ~ i ~t,iti 4,~ tid, I _ } !;1 h ~ ~ ffi I FI11 ~1 C~,~,~"--I wru a ~ ag i' t ~ol~i,~ vet tr4't-~ _ ~ i r,. r ~y r ,i ffi + { I } Igl i~ J t' ~.{,~§r ay ll t .t, J ~ t ) .f" I ~Sr1 i ~ ~ z + ~ i ! i i ~k ~,e + ~ I ; f i' ~ f.,. ~ e.. ~;.r ar 9 x i } ,;E i ~ I r r:9~~, ~`tl~{}r.r,i'~ ~ rl y j ~.,rl F ~ i... 1 -r i.~ + .r,,' t f .y ~ J c.. G9 ~ - ~ ~ ~~t aryl ri i I+'" xl ttr' yx~ + x V lI 1 ~ .1 I J,~ + ~j ~t ~ I ~ ~ y ~ Ir~t~ +e`td- { wr _ { /'~M11 a ! ~ 1 Q` ~gj 'I f d {y ~~JdjJjl -I' ttF i Itt.° f- 'i 1 r~s ~ ~ ~ 1 9 '~1 :~7 E -rr. .J~~ r• W ~ ~ _t~ '41- Ha _~i~ ~ "~rt'~sv+ yy~ r6 a a ` e r ~ ~ ~ t I - - - - W. - N t I ' f gJ'I-- ~Ir r 5 a ~j iF t ~ F'. i i ~,.rl' "fir l.•). ~ I i j ~r~~FSf++ 'iwf{'~x I§N+~r iz w 1}'ri 1''' 1 F i -d r) l i! / ! r ~ t ~r~ 1 ~+~Ig': lr+Y i y r~t ~ P°~~y"ito; I II } t n 1'II ~ i y + I~fi r~tt,+v ivlrit~'!~tEa, .;}a ~ ~ t ) ~ ~ ~j. t.J e ~ 1 ~ 6 ~ a a _ ~iix V 1 ~ v,~ ~ f r 1 I x~'~~ at ',f~ hk r, e~ "I Ix, r t I ~ { rf ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~1+,1'x 1'rrl dl3fl 1a aa,' ( ~ l ~ '"S ~ + ~`~.r ~ ~ 1,~., 1 ~ ,'1 -~@ , h ra+a~a is p r 7,7 ~'a ~ I ~ ~b§a41f~~y+R~)~~.~. ++st'r~,: ;~l + ~ W V~ 1 r Q 1 ~ x r' rp+- Itit i y5 qy i~ i r + ~ ' ~ n't~ _ n r ~ _ - ~ j F ?I~ ~ f. r'~ ~ t J ~ + r. + m ~ ~ o Ir' r ~r a 9f ti .t ''x '~HI+P I ~?r}7 a c , 'kfJ - _ - ~ I ~r -tl ~ ✓~.-s I F - S3 ~ A rrr "a` 3i ++x ~ ,I 1 ' ~ ~5~ r--+;a~ ,1+ ~ ++~si r y., - h: y ' F { - - ~ O yy ~ ?E-..y ~r +b'.4r x e i''' vI+'u d,i:.,+~ ~t<S ~ ~:1 ,{r - ~ .~i. :1 ~ _ 1. r~ 66 ~ ~ C ~ a -Ldarht, ~,xl li ~>~',i~,rca~_~E' ~ . t { .~i~~~ 1 ~ f~, ~ ~ ~ ~ W c r I I a° T .i;{.',~,'.l,r~ ~~~z'"r''I.~c€ ~ ~ ~ k ~ . i ~ ~'A' f.'1 ~ F' a ~ ~ ~ tiL +C ".I, ~ a ~ I,r~,I, f n, w,a zI~§ , ~ ~ 6 ~ ' y~~ ~ i 1 ~ , ~ ~ , ~ , a II ~ 1,, q s~ ',a~~a~„ r+tit )1,,1: a _ ~ I EyI ~i - ~ e~~ ~ 1 ,Y`~-,~ A N z ~ - w i + 17~,,ryF rl y.,>f'4~~', "sitar, J , + ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ 'I ~ \ S. i ~jl r AAS, A ~ I -f+ 1 I k tp I',~ I n'i ~S_ T ~ 6 ~ I~ 14 E~' N W y a J ,i - ~ ~ ~ a ~ E ~~l I 1'~1 ~~~i'..t, ~~.I~w-- ~ V ~ ',S ~,'I,, ~ t ~,H+ y}~~~ t I ~ ~ , ,1 , { 1 ~ - ~ ~ ~ Q ~r ' S 8 ~7 4 t~~ (,.,,,1 ~ - 4r ~ ~,rr ~ +:Y~~ r~r ir~ i t 1ti5~ i f '.1 ~ + r ~ - _ 1 ~ P ~ V + 9 {2~1r~, . y~( d k~ ~ { ~rl j ~ r'I j a ° t p ~ ~ ~ ~i 4` ay.'F~'~ ~ ~.i.~waa 1}.-✓ r 1 s it 'I ~ it rI i, _~~~~~at r - >'~w,.+.ny rM. .°w':`~ J • ?s .t ~ 4 - . , ~ ' r f I tf x f,~ €,~g h up ~ i M~; tp` ~ ~ .U 1 `~S ~ ~ 4t-, _ ~ ~ .'!r ri ~ _ r I y t + 73f 'I<,g xry r ~`F. ; ~ ~ I ~ i ~ ) 'g ~ I N W J ~ I ~ ~~~i+fk # ai ~ ~ _ xC' 4 {II } d ) 1 ,I i,-+ i.: 7r,, tt 'i ~•'4 i { a ItE~t {~~rx"r -o-- - ~ ~ y° ~ ~ [ ~ ~ :.%1 ~:i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s' 1~ Vie' 1` r S § i~t~ ~~~rx ~~r" `fir 3, ~ ~ ~'k1Y ~ `-~:h ~ tl ~ II JI, ~ + +r ;;~',ral el~~t, ~~+d~~*1 t 1 ~ ~ I_ t ~ ~ 1 ~ - .t J ~ f~ ~-~Px ~ir y r f^}&1~9 - eF ~ r a~ M 4 ~ 1 ~~eas£aF ~ - ~ _ _ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1~-~ 1~'t \ ~ ~ a ~s ' 4 xl II +t j rl,' ~`~+~WJr'r~ 1 } k i ~ x 3r _"x. yx,ta~4~ ~ N ~ - D i 1') i „`i, ~ , ~ 6t ~ al rr, t,~ ~ +;'y ~~~j~i: b~ n 1 V '.d r . 3 tc~" ~ t ~ -j W S to i . ~ ti' ' ~ t. ~ r tJ~ ~ I, d ~ r. m y d `I r d _ '"P 1 ~ ~v e n I ~ ' 1, s. \ ~ t r ~ }I r ~ TRACT ~ ~ i ~ 1 , + ' e. ' .gyp{' _ - . ~ - ~ ~ `r ~ I I t q a ~ 'F, + y t ~ W + Y / ~ I f,, ~ _I 1 i 1 ~ d r i ~ + t o , f ~ i rs I \UU~l~lf..111fh~1'((~°ll"?11'ti\Y tCF?t~trTAnSi71'7 mrt~rn+n~rnrrm rrr~ +s ~ ~ r + a: ' I ; I , k I + '+r !j il 4~,~ ~ G~1 l~ (~I~ C G~`~ P®~® r ~ ~r I~ rr o I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ .,CITY OF TIGARl~,1AlA~IINCTON COUNTY OREGON ~ ; ~ ~ ,i ~ ~ page wocH~avs - ww~woo~ Ho~wss + ~ o ~ Hasa 8W tannl ONCOTA eT. TIQNiD, oR 07P2e k , d . r ~ (e0e) 7Q0-4970 ~ i ' I- y + ,1 t_ E S- + -4, t. Ah. -Y. - ~ ~ - I j - ~ + 1i ~ 1 - i 1P Lt ille`,~ .~uit y, + 1 ~ u r . ~ t r d - } xi r~i II r y ' ' ~ a i ~ ~ 7:, i I I Y , _ _ ~ V l i t J' ' ! ~ 4 I I 1' _ _ + S - '-f' .'j- . v '.{r {'rv .~-'4 w, ,.v ~ ,i•t+iv5.:..-. :.-4W~.,.1 v. rt.., - 1 ~'I t 'x",F t' iI „ ~ a ~ ~ ; l v 1 6$ : ' I dy { tl ii ff 1 _ - ,tr i l• ~ } i I k+5 5 !1 Y I ~ ~ - - t I ~1.a' 11 t t i { _ I -"~Y~ ~ ! ~sks,' ~ ~.5$HSE.y~4kny7a4RF+`mh7/67mmmPM Mnk9rad 4er~aYc . , - - ~ ~~Y:r v°~r a ~ TP r! 1 . v a ~ ~ ~ ' ~ d dd ~ i ` r ~ ~ f ~ A ` r l' 7 ' 'fin ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - " ~ ask y ~ .I ~~r!y ~ I v~ r, y y + ~~tla-' ~~°~x ~ 11 ~ 1q ~ ~~7 7 Y i 1 - j t p I f.. - ~ t • i .a.t. ~1 ^I-~-- - --I--- ~ 0 ' fit.,, ~ - s ~ , 1 L~~l41 s ~~d k'w P t ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ P / / d - - ---F-- n p€~ivt2~ v~~,~ - r~5z, ~ ~ ~ I - CH +'7, .y 'r ~ I/ / ~ ~ i s ~ c r~yrra I v~fi ~ r ` / / ~ 1t i I ,1 ~~''~"}'~'~t mr~ ~ -2~Y, ~ ~ ~ 1 jar I I ~,Sj I° yf a J L L ~ k~~~'~ S f i"m v{fil 1fip~(~~y' ~ G ~ ~ l ~ g' I ~ ~ ~ @ ~ ~~j~ Gd'~ r~ iIl F -i` ` f ' ~ / ~ / y 1 C 1 N • 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ rt j rt ~}t`'y'~~~ e n,`°~`4 ~ ~ p d n~ ~ ° V i,~~ I i } t 6 ~ ~ s S I{~~~ Q ~ n { - _ ~ - III t. , ~ Y ~r;ldxt'"11a ~r ~ ~ (`~/p to r/ y m _ f Sq ~ r. ~ i {t y S . ~ I,S'~ ~ }~F~ f4};Y~~t,}ar~' ~ - ~ I f~ r~~~~ ' ~O ~a I v ~ ; 11', t x ` f: a ~l~c(~}4 F E ,4 k~' •ts1 r 4- ' + ',~L' ~ } ' U.. I 0.~ I I d _ ^ 1 r l ~ 'L, 'k I -1r _ 7 y- ' { ~-,r;' IV ~ F I ; i ; I, d iF, r 'tis F' d, I"A - - L. r,; r y ' vv, I ~ ~~t ( J r _ ~ ~ ~ tI ~I ~ I r ''ivo ( 7{ ~ s k--~ i ,~4 „~"A 4 I s } ~ IEC,I1 r~ I o i j s toe, ~ g _ ; +r'; !I~ YI _ C s - t ~ l;" - ~ z~ r + 04~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ t It !-'I it II~ ~ tr<; Ss r ~y ~~a F, s - ~ _ W ~s •r Y ~p r I ~ - ~ ~ ~ rii r +y; fir? s y, rt, Si('x¢~I } _ ~ i'r I ~ ~ - d+ t II yil~, }t ~I t{~ Ij - r{~ ~ r. I ~ ~ j~ I It~~ !rl I, Il ji lrh r~ ii+(- ~jt yi I ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ( jl r.i i ~Il I~ rya i~!irrif~sS4'~d ti x ~ 4 ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ yE - i j'It "j, ~ i j;j~t`I 1r ~j 7` k~l'f,', { r ~ j++y, ;bl. ~j~~~C - ~ ~ . ' ax { C_ t s ;4~, +~f#~ 4,+~"""il 'S-1~N`~-'t~a j -~tltt { 1~} I + r. ~ r ~ r~, > ` i~Y;i 1~ I ~,}Y~' ,Iya ~II{{- v 1 !S , t ; s lvs j', t q { - t M ~ h _ ~ S '1` - .r _ ~...-.r ~ ~ - a „r- v { ,I J, l- I I I I`p~ 14 ; G3 "s~'(t t~;, ti.,~ - F - .0 j _ i _ Ir q,if al ,Y s '!ra ~ +j ~d ~`'!{~,s n~~t'4~,~ - ck ~ f j' ~ ~ i+ i',,I e l t~!~f'l!', PP puM;!{+'~e~~`~E il' ~,'j _ I - 'r- - - ~ //yy { -k {trN h 1PIt{ ia,~'rt--tf;,rl ~ ~ t C ~ / - 11 ~ ~ ?~,r,~,iv k rr't~{+1~~ tt 4'f + 1':1 e r• ~ s ! - - t { s x1' i_: ij+iFyt,.;+, ~,il r.6', 1 - Q, / ~ + ~ - , t f. i ~lt ,Ia;.q •,3 _ alud to F„t,, i? ;~,•n - ~ •t. ` 8 - .J ,f ~r, pa. 1 I j r, ;T. D~- a ~ j . ~ ~ i sjl 1 if:,`v r. ' j,- ~rl-h'f!3,~, I : 1 fl~ '^1 ~ ~ I} N - lit ~'i n1B{;~ i ~.ju r ~ M " ~ k1 ' 1 dt,'h ` j~ r s ' d4 ~ ,ry r 'T,_r I ~9 ~'u` ~ ~,N s i~1 d'<tis ~~.1 E y ~ t~~ I~:Ssi d'', j,x,'I~p. ,^.~r!v{!a ( ~'+1 r - y ~:i~r yY +,y' v~ p ya } ri ~~i'~ j (dY°4uu'rSsi+~~~p~~k; , ~ j ? 1 C 1, .1 • ~ ~ t~ 1 j ;it j+ --f'.kx: ~ 1 } & a I , ' ~ : ,jaJ ~ C~' 9 tf,~,.. ~ I - ~I r ,Ir E - l,,u k~I[11~~,y ~ n s - y.,xtG ! ty.:T, '.ldl t i rttl~~ `iG e. 'Nr-tx I' ~ FA ~j` ,jI t i Irg ~ ^ - - ~ d,~ rr, l t~ ' Mir 11zk+ ~?=s ' { - ~ i a, dx ry ru ~ ~t t ~ jY~~, r } ~ ~ ~(4~jt}~' ; y'Str¢x lC.y. I ~ B - '.7' ~ _ 1•' _ _ - - I ~ ~ 'd a ~`I r 'p,r t t,t I,-j 'k ~~+~'t~' 1y~x~ - ~ hIl ~ ' i } ~ ~ t „ ~ TD - - ~ ~ ~ a I SFr ~ F I i t I It Ip5 i } ~ 1 rzY 7'3?-' 'd f N ,ti r ~ - ' - - ! ~ 1r s ~ 1 x j' r I Sy ~ k.r~s rs y,i y' „y, d-1 1 {I - - r I I p -I.' V t I I11y}x11 ~ °47 rN11x= E f t ,.I ,F~.,, _ ~ - ~ ~I - ~Vt ~ rri i' vtd j e a 1. 'i+ ~ - v^I _ - F r''~ ~ _ I ~ ~j s r ~ ~~}fit ' - ri I '`r !z 1 { R ~i S ~ ~~0 ~ '..;Y _ _ r=.w ~ ~ ~ y srI _ 't.~ ~ a:r'' ait#~Irl~`da„11 Si ~IF'~i~~IVS,ks'A-:F;s ~~y I r ,I - ~ ~ mk r ~ ~ e,, ,p,ay ~ 8 "a y; ~4i ''caS~F° "•~;1{. sr ~ I / z' ~"A - ~f r`te' I _sa, r _ r,-'i ~ i~yr}I ',,,+t I I -,I~, _ ~~j ~ z: , xC. j~`, `~k I #S'_, N 7 a' Ir d,d ~'~a ~ P ~ i+ 1, t-': j ~ ~ e W iS, ( - 1 ti ~r}~hl.vk~ a~1'a~ ~ ~,~r,t€; _ '2~, rl i J t t _ I 11 I,r; yi it r~l I ~ k s.' Z Id<va ~-'r ~ ~ ~ _ I ~ rwt i~' II{'4.i{ -fit i I, .r~~{ ,~Tr~VJ, `i n:: ~"k t . ~ - / ~ lit I 1~ri, I i,,~ l tgf~ § j r rs 1 ~ r'v i - ~ - ~ - - I ;y { a I.. ~ t 7' big ~ ' }r-V:?+:, ~ < a .fr • ► ~ 1 ~ _ ~ - ~ gp y, ~ ~'ati - i~ ~ tf~ i w „ t'- i~, x~t,, ~4-!, ,k tc ~+i-q k "(5" ,~vs'r +Yt,y r I r 9 th'~ ~ ~ tl - ~ ~ '"'C { I.~1' ~ j i!9 ~r~i r PGgirj,~, ~S ~C r~A nj' :i ~ fr t - f ~ - ~ ` ~ O' S' t' S4d~ d 'S: 4' ,+!}qf}y', -IR ~ ~r r~IPSy# prs„ n ~~s - s'~t~ ~t It ! JI+ _ ~ ~ - - I ~ (I r .,Fi, !s i'!4f ~~tf~~r i, i1tXy!f} !1`6 i ~°i~~,~le,~~ - I t ~ f ~ ~ ~ it ~ '~~/('s ~ / ' ~ r t , ~~;`#?`'tt'arf ~i rEl n~ d "1 yt~`'Q~ ~I ' ,it qr~i- .,p 1: ~R ! X - 'I d~ yr~ j'-i,rl ~,v9~~~{;~I~'ty~ir, ~,l ri'Rt~'~~,~ra, ~~,4.- ,'j a ' t, 1' 1 - I I -@C i k j,+ r`tir7~ ~xk a, ~!yd. I~K:,j k~hf~'b g, 7(~~" t :)a'~ ` j' ! ' r ~ i ' s I ~ ' { ~ s'+~ ; ' ~'r rlfly i ~1 ~1#~,y y ,y s ~„~"-~~^Dta4^ff, ~ ` ~ _ ~.,m ~ f-~ kk~lyj 4'~f e:l'"i4+Y,I ~.~~~I a9.~{~?r'sF, dE~rit{I y,~a }~i!:, i. l - - ~ ~ ~ Y t~~,titif *i,;,{, I. 1 zrR~,)of E~ ly2{j~t}f ~,b~`~lgi „@~6{I~ ~fy~~g tE~~~~t =I:'.~ ~ r EEE~~, ",1' 4 i..+ Yly, a{ ~ '4 t.M'~.~5,~`~'"1?":. ~~:t i . _ _ o yy u t. ~ 1( -p n .fa'r.>~~R hi r,t,t-,~S 1j r a,~ + APR r• ~ ~ r _ ( 41Y y, :d t_~f r.: ~<<d~,;.. ~:=i .{1.6~: :}3 d d'~, `x 1~' i , - _ ~ - ~,r' I ~ W {~~t i e I,r;-, 1N.~~ ~'-,-r~ p4,a't~~~i,. ~~al;~,' Ts t:m ,t ~ - A' Z,~ 4.r' ~ v ~ Vl [~!?~y1 r1 Y~' y,~~, ,r ~i 47 elf"Xt~vkl"j~,; ~r~l~r~ 1 i ~ h~ ~ f I F.. i JI ~ I I ~ ~ Vl' ~ v 1'-' t ~S-~; r~Pii. u,l-fti ~~S~Y4 Pt,~{Y ~ t~~,~~'} r t I x~s C ~ ~ I _ ~ i r - s ~ f ti ~r'F„4at'~ n,~'7f.~~~+,~,v § ~ ~~yrrd, 7 , i ' - 1 g t. ~r " ~ P k~ r ` - - N 4 ; t i,t k is i~,i-t ' u, ,J~1,=`+L pr?d `4~+'~ ~ ~n~r"~+,flr~-, s, 1 w,' I l ~ ~'8 I ! ~,i ;J4;ab`' rt1F' ni~$I ~;~~#~t r ~ 7 ~ + W ~ t 13'" `}zi+-, ;y<r Ini.'j dt r~li~ y ~ al I a ' ~:i. s t l - ~ ~ j w C ~ { I ~I Y~ ~ ` tt9~,~i1, ~ryH~!II Vr9~j~143~ ~~l~i~r J , I ~ W ~ p~, 1 tk j7 I I y} ~s 1~'~ - - - - ~ - , ~ - ,I J I QI ~ rPtr ~ t `I j'-~I„ i', r!Ik j°j 3 r 5'~s nl~yjfi "t i - - _ - ~ ~ r , fs- ~''i 1, +I : , ~1s „ „ m ! ~ ; I~' t..~~- i, C d I~,a yB~Iedi'~ai~,~£p~i t~'rr ll,t~~.~}d i sS ~ ~ / { ~ ~ ~ - _ _ - ~ ~ T ~ !p i ~ ; t 4'I d~ i Y,~ 1~p~~;t`j~ e+J1 ,~j k , ~ 4Y/ i ~ .'0 ' I I tl + {l, - j ilbt d}r~ (y V 1 ~i~,t t sr} `i i r ~ f ~ ~ !t,, a I kr !j, i.:.^~4a~•yy~+`s z~ ,r.> 9{ , F! j: f'~ f , r t 14 , ^`.~F, ' / _ _ 0 W 6 I 1 tt jt H ~ #1 ; >z , r c' r. •i _ I 4 + ( ~ v, ~ N ~ ~ ti II I~-,, { i,arFS~l~t~{~3 t ~t t _ _ ~,~,,r ~ Kai ~ I Y l f~ ' r I f ~ r~M 1, ,~k~~~ ~ ~~f t},a t l~: ( "4*t " t I; t](1 ~p t q ~ - , ' , - rly I ~~s ~ f~ ~ ~r ~~,4 ~s - rl a p 7`Q• _+Y1i~. yr{r { ~ Idf sl{ 1 1tj str+ Il i ~ to ~ _ ~y I r 3j" I i~r,~~~VIt~{' , i' ~~~5! I ~ l I I { ~..s ~',s ~ I" + I- ~ i _ 'tf' I {I.. ~3~r+i I' t.j v 1`j w$Ndk< uexwr~.rtes~r""^µ.t, u! +jj.'; d rC„ 1 ' ' ',.ru-~ I - ,r ~w~. ~ a .x, _ -k~i .,.,„.r fl.,, .,..,,im '§t ~ 1 - N',.. k I- + ,,,rt '~r t ~:'y x•. ~ .m, '-Y` +vr~' - ..W~ - - -YID' I p' 11 I`,.ilr fp§~w^ r1<4F it i .,i ~ ` I~ ~ ~ _ ' ~ I as -•j ~ hia hr xi x. f V~"'#I 9'~ ~~atlil ~ - i, I ~ _ ~ ~ h, I G ~t ~ rti 1 ~ r` I fit' t ~v p ' 1 { , ~ ~ , p a . J ~ , ~ r I a i r {er ~~f 1~, 1 i ' lig ~ ~ m 4~ ~ I [ `,ti., 4Kr'`f~ I , ~,°'~~i!~.~i~ySsM`Yr ~r~§,~p' ` ~ I ~ 14 I ..S ~ I' ~~~1f ~ j,- - ~ „ / I ~ \ ~ L 1 Y ~I FI ~ 4~p,ira qL a~~y~+„~i~~i x ~r.ya N ~ + +r. ~ ~ i A I rj {SI~~YI~i;~~~r~'3~r~ a~ ~Yr { / v ~ f ! si r,r,ti~ I r ~fi -,1 I ~ n^~, ~ ( P ~ ~ aLg;I ~ ~ ~ ~ - - I 6 7 ! a r'~i~ ri++ ~ 7 h~~~fl I}~ '''~-;M - I =r ~t B. W S (n 'r t Itt~ ~~-I r r ,1t dli~r '~s7 k 9 1 a.j`~'Sr ~r '~''4 r ~ frl ..s w~ I - ' \ r ~V 8 y 1 I ` I~, ~ r(.l C~ r ~ irx TRACT C ~ N F ~ I ~?tft(, W ~"~rt - ~ ~ ~ ~ - } F 1 r f x ~i M'-~ i~ -"I t 1'li~~~J r py~ k~ '~;1 { 1tAt ~n t ~ ~ ~ / D ~ N W 'i' W ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ! , rI` ~ C I{ n i r l i t r °a a''r F'r! 1' ~ S ~ ''~'r~ ; t t I 1 F s fix' f t ~ h ' I P 11 ~ f Ij ~ t' ~i - I ,I ' 3 ~rF \GVT~1L]flll\T?~'TfY(~AT ~?Sy1fTAlINm mR~~n~rn+mrtv rTrn. ra ~ I'; j',~ , ~I,, ~dk, ELI t t I t - i ~ rAl ir4 - V ~ - ~ a I f r' tt I t 4p ~~r II y ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ A ® 9, + 4 r' ~ ~r'Vt, i•'! ' g E,, ~ / I f ~ v ~s~ ~a g T ~p~/ 1 t } ~N ' ~ a i ~0~~~® V~~c7~1~~ i I I E ~1 t' t `~.~di~j t (~°~fi ~1 ~ !`.1 r ' Ij,ISif ~~ilp~r' QQ~~~yyppj( 1}~ r j ~lFV 3 1 C L{l"~•-' ~ ~I ! ~ "'f j { t t S`r~~~ C e ~ s ~ DALE RICHARDS - WiPIDWOOD HOMES p s I ' r~ I # 9 : r ~ I ~ ~ ~tl , ~ ,f~1 FM 14486 6W NOATF~ UAl(OTA 87', TK#ARD. OR 67ffi3. ~ ~ Q ~ I J, ~ ~ I I (4° + - Ala li 3k~~q~ y~ ~sj'3r Yfw II b°I (809)780.4576 i r - l ~ t I Sr ~F't ~,i a des, 4, ~ - - - 1 i~ I-!• v 1~1 .hl l~lj 1 ~ ~~i ~ _ ,v I,;1 iPSi x~ ~}{l c~~r~+ f'L V li4 i ~-3~ S'~c(u~rl'. n ~ ~4 ~>w r . r 4 a e I tr>ij~~n ~ 7~ j r+ "r i , 3 i 1 ?j r~ i ~ ~ 1 I Z I„ s Id,y; - 11 ;5'1 Yra~ ~6~ ! I I I'z f ~}~,y I "M1 ~ Y 1i~V + { ~ s t ~ ' gr C ~r v~1,1 rt'~ a 1 a Y - 'A - - r ~ .q ~ ~~4~( ,i " y, k. w, s~..~~ 41~ x ~ ~ 1 ,Sr d 1 rl ' ~ k,;~ ~ ~ t • , ~ ~ ~'~itl- r . ,,.t , ~ _ ~T 7,- ~-,T:-,.-. y. -r:-I ~.ra - t I.. I - , - I F ~ 1.;1L { c r,, , 1 w i.` { 1 ~ ,r~#~ J I y :'K4 " y i ' 11 4 - - S- ~ I ~~I ' ~ I e i pdpyYr 5vha i ! hf~ ~r w 544, - ~ lir a~ 1,. t ~ { ,t, t , k ~ (i s+1 fi'x' 1'ak 1~s ~t111~%` cif ~ 1 S J ~ i emu,; ..,.u ~ _ 1 ~~fihti5d ~ }6~ 4,'r .II.ltd.IVW[[Ih2179~f21ry07/61/07~N054t Na,d6lvtmHBAm11a4e - . ,c. ( E - I ~~~74 f s a ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ t ly~Y~'C S~" t' ..rryr. i fiat i~K ~,i ~~'t rl a{~~ ~ 1 ~ vy 11~F r~ ~ r 'Y~'~ , L k a 3' ~s n1Y~~~h _ ~ ~ ~1 .I B .I I~ 1. { h 9~~' t 1..^a h4! ~ ~ ~ ~ T 1 I 1 ~I , s 1~~~?~>! dK``~ 74y I .1 1 t I i °I I/"i•i'"/ 1 Y t I I fP"P~~'4~s"r - tl "~~~r, ~ ,n ~.vww 'a,°a ~ I tl ~1+.~„_B --8 Mmn, mr I a ~if~, 'f , I ~ ~ ~ i ~ -1' - -r- - ~ t 2+00 b _ _ s ~ s, l I r 1 4s& sv i. r ~,a 5 , -i'/`~'p, ' 'b~i~ ,C LO` . u ~15~~~tE1t d r a l>,r= ~ S' 'rP'' ~ ~ `r`r ~ _ ! yt tt,, _ ~ : , w. t r c ~ ~ r II ~ ~ ° s} - N ~ , . ' u I' aon mA ~1~ . R.~r I ~ ~ ~ I !r _ r. _ p - a .1'. ,r Mrt^.~~;+3 e>g _-.4y -Y+yn >n;r~ „r - . c » t,1" _ 1 . D - 4. _ I I , 9 p ' ^i ^r'?`' f ~a. d Y, Y d' I, ~ ~ tP. r u~ r. ` O' 4r c^ _.i tlc, 3`: yg 1 Y I ~~~f °:I 1 ~~yy~~~ it's '-t t - y f' 1- 0 .,h~ I y A M~~r ~ _ I a j ~ 7: I~' - :fir„~~~if0 ;Y' ' n, - - ~ i $ P r1f I h IFy~, ®`t ~v'~".~+ _ I 1 1 s yi II rlr'r, 1 J`u~>~g, t ~'S ®P ;jt a' g ~ + 1 'I, d'I P i~'i~n- t r ,I a5~~ ~ d e - ~ "k ~ 7a":t ~ II - I - ~ ? t 1 " t I I sk W 1 „i r ~ i " 1 ~ _ p v ~ ' ~j'7 ~1 .~~@~ "~r `:r j " ~t~t ~ r '111 i6 lyp, n r~ ' .,,r J ~ - \ ' ~ / ~I yr - ~ ' + ,'`t r t ' 'F'1-' a'">2 r :1:,, {-s~-4r § r 1 ' to ~ / ~ ~ ~ t t„ , 11 r; ~~Y~~-'~+r X,r',I(5 uur -t, r t,`.` of ~ J' ~Rte, ; I tltlx9 x15 ;1 x ' t-r. i i,K2~Nf 'Igy fi 5t4~i i~v"~- 1 M,: ~ !pj 'AD ~a.. - ~ I ) rt " , Vip' ! '+Ha >i, k . S w, 3' Yn i. u' , i r ~ t 1 3 e b. .a _ at~+11'{,- -itsss', ~ p'%(' ~ c. ia, -xx,at,, ~ '~r ~'-bv~rl ~ ~"~,~}',t'~,1~1. '>+>~F., - r~'k. p~' d01~ .ak~ ~~F''. ~ ~ - t' -ti,'.•I ~,{rv- 1 r7B~{iii'' i1 I r' .r'- d.".., ,L~ it x ~d w Y', ti e:~'rk, Is; Ii~j h'~6 1f,., ,t ,t. 1._', i~ 1 1 -P~ ~ _ - 9 t I kl ~:.E t i „Lt„ 'whv~ aa- ~ ~ - I,~" ~.i - ~ E~ .sY~ - e^ Cj:,t . ~ 'l.;~! . ~ ~ - - - Fr 1 ' ; I e u-,- 'x,,.~9 i1 .n ~ r'rr,~,a,'u'@- _ ' k,4 f{ s' fr1 y V ~ ~ t r ~ 1 a I'11' 1nu;F i t s- ~,I ~g I ,i s ~ F 1 Ip' `r - r,N_ t~ a >~,:r n.t7„,^~_3,iy~yc 'r''~ 'i 5} k~~ 11f 'i~, "-G ($5~~ t P•~ ~ - Y'; .A{I I,':.1~: ~ - F I j ~ k" ,q orb .t,.®,,, 1. i .~C, :I ♦ ~ t'~y '~1,p1 •'tw r"' 7-'€ 1 ~~yy k 't 'y, .d ~fr.1 ,~'f...u,$i ..4. 1 • ,y~4~~ t c kri I, P,'.'?. c s'. 1 h b .Ys~.l" rJ• . ~ :,'i ' ~ ~ fir, i ~ n a~J t ,9 , s};,~ , 1 s, 1~ rt, lat _ ~ ~ :Xl~~.1~ kr,: {1,I, 1+ .B '.y dx 3.r a+~ a 'i" Ja~,. -.,,ri-~ ~t - - ~ si - t'lr, - "•ri„ k g'.~_r.{ T'?~ ,~e,~ t.' v- s. o®?- ~Y, ~ .1. a` I.,,,E' t `.'1~1~4'a r, A., e. r a.: I r .I:.,~ lr i 1 t, w. t • :i ~ , . ;a 4, , p 'w IMF'. !,I. ,h,rd,J a~", r rr:'.. _ d .,p?. 3Y' ! r '1" 7, :l~ p .'t„ i ~ r' ,.v ~ y, t irr y :i', ,~A;,, z4" .I. - Y 1 1,- J~ k ms'' 2` ~ r y a;, I .,N, d ~I fly ~ f a>alre r s~'. a q ' +I ' ~y t w, r,z m µ I' r x y .r~~;k ~ ~ m , • r~= r F k _ , a> .l - ~ 1 „f 1 ' by O, Ix~ { r. - as ..y; , 3. I I" ~ ~.ra ,1s'',;" , .r _ /f ,:p ri x~r~i xk,`,'..v'"'SSa,", ,y,K N w4 1 `.~"{-,r U' .I , . 1 '1~~ ? 't ~~:.~y~'r4~1p~,4'~z°~.4: r~' S 24 d d, ~ a7y~ P7 ' # S~V- yy r, f ' t s i r. , yy. e'. ! .v ~ .'l s,. 1a~ "ny :r1 Y ~,r 3 =,:p . - - - ' r i' '1 0 ' ~if~~s" ~a1 'C ,y :.at ~A 77 9 1: 'i~ ,x hj, `r,r'~ ~~r ,r:~~ Ca :a ~'q 4 pp~ t'' 1, t{ .Y ~ ' i .r I' ff 'e•' ~ ;d -E .~IMr .I S. J 7 tt3r, ~i ~I - t t tr ~r t I I .,x I 5„~ h ,.1 I 7 F ~ .t ,I .Ig 'I t.l .'3 ~ ~i ' t / I' f 7~ -r r:Y. kk k~' - r ~~I r rw 4 I, - r,r,.r aj I ^ia.,. =,P. ~L _ r, . 1 r. b t.. I r "t t~?V' t A, i 3 'af' m A _ J. 9. , "wk.F K ~1 `I _ I'; I' 'y U~ 1 - y r >k~ i kr,. 1, ~ ~i p M 1" ~ Z - .MS'" ''yr :s E~ .t k,~,I"~., k f ~n i ,4`., .~..,i,- r ;nd~ 1. ax ' ~ n„ .tit ~ r, i : i ~ Y~ «r~ r' i w lea 7e 1 'n r t. e~'; d.~r1,~Io, .I r. i s 1, Y -'1' ~ 'd' 1' - A' 6 1 9 4,... ~~'.,,."a~ r y.' t - a. ~ t''r ~ °x _ ~ - 1 ~E l ~~~~'i ' s ' ~/11 ~ - I ~ ~ "PF~ ".I r t ii~",:i c ~ I~ ASR' ,k,i e' l: 'J/ ~i i .i. - q~,,`,y/ 1 _ %nr ! / n ~ I,. r I' ry~ y x s a 1 ~ ;;tom, - - -A'- :~I y:t•I'zr. a.. ~ ,.A:; { I ~ r E 1<j I d ~ ~ .et.w, ,.Y h ,wi'v , ' , 't bJ. a~,`, ;fir.' .r ` - ~Y 4 r r ~ I, r' i1a l r ~s~ a k„ ~I k$ -,4~, - 4• : 'i 1, 9Qry, ~`i ,lx t)$i„ t a3 y ~ . ~ Iv ' ~ r 7 ,s;,- ,,i4, n i i ,a r," t, 1!f "~rl k, `ui „'L _ 1 'I F 7 'I t,1+p. .1. i''_- ,x d I r, rir ?~d „~~'lj ,~,p ~ ~ - II, y.~.i,i t y 't - I'~;,t 'g'ill t>wP rr f ~ f.;j .lip ~ i t r ~ ~ ° • - ( WB, . v.. r., g F ,IS.,, Dh I L ~ ,4.n. ,11`s. -''~I Iz `hr g~ \ b'. d`, - t - - I t,~}' S~~I„..~~.fY Lr 6'1.,:p~'~•~~x"'x'1~-~` tl4rEt~ 8 { _ r 5 ~ ® i a ~ ~ o ~ - f id' ~k;f~,.{ I .k'Y'G i'~'1•S'~ 'l - 34 C e r :1 E fit, a ¢ ' 1 d ~m. 1+1 t fit ' t'Y u t vtl's' z r~ `~1r,,,, , rar:, 'S1'a°. r ?i , .,r ~ ~'rt 9 'N .A' I~- I r~'}' ~C "B `~y4 ,.V °i` ,layfl2~ ~ c;3,}. - .'I - e ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ I.I.'-~',r r i? si,hf~?~"✓4f, .,1A 'r ~ ~y)'i ' 18 pp;tl,, v /I. I C }s15 ' i 1 ' 1~d [,q ~I~:Fn >,t.,F, • , v ~ i , d M : I'~ 6 , ~ ~ 8 " ~ O ~ r ' M - I l;r- 1 ' " BI ~ t Sl x r r,9 y i '~~`'{t~['~S' , ~,-,1F 5''~ - p W. C' i I~, 4' .C4 i,, I.o r,i v p'-'i kfA./8 A ~'S^ ~ I t-tYV ~',I ,14a . .iro,¢,ka ~b a "`i 4 0._;~`I' S:" ! ,xka:l I d ~ 3 "I ~I, r i ~1 Al"kr~ q,)~r, n~ ~ I~ ;I y! a ~./l ~ li \I_ I' { in' , ;s t h;i< „ak,i d+r,te, ;k4C,~v, ' ~ i :..r R ''i) _ - A,. F"'sl ~ ' I;•^+>' I 's a-o~, 1l lrskl x,t l` a ai"1 Ir . I e - - ~0'.ti ~ ~ - - - . 1 t r i!; ~ .'g1' °'iR l~rt r+? ~,2 2 F ~ yye''s ~,!',yt 1 - ~ ~ 1 4 5:1 y, - ~ I 5, f h t .,,:x{4~'~ ~'j_ - tD, / B" ~ p- 9 \ ~ ~1 r:,l -ae:a~,~~,as ~i't,',rv r'~y'I_., r `sr '1 ~ ~ ' , ~J ° 'yf "'7Y'I rr~ al t~~ 3k d '9 - t ! ~ ~ ~k ~ ~ ~ iplV ~ ♦ . A f i` i LI i! to 1j tij~i ~1~+, jr~t 3Sy,~ I I ~':r',ap ~ l A► ~ 1', t " ~ r i i F ~ t .II I 2. `0";~' ~ °Y ~[dF ]J, fI'-p- ~ I I it ~ ti 1, ' ''1k ~ ; ~ frl' ~a1 r i~' Vi ~x va,i r~~~~, j, q iii / -,r ?4@@;, .per. - -I' ,I tl~..af 4k lilrbl r{-1 7 to . ,:i.. -~IyJ , - '~O' ~r A y :r ~ ~ ~ ~ i '+~„S lr 1 ra J z f '?4)M 1~ !~1 Ir J r`.,}/'; I~ 1~ ~ i 1 hk ~t'{ It,r yy i. L~ 1 ~d l _ ~ ~r, ' /r'I~_ ~1, F . C ~ - I 1 ~r § L - I~~~ ~~'<~r~(l F"~ 1I~~ 1 r a gtt ~ . d - - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~4 . 1 _ _I! - ° ~ I ~ a ~ ~I a Iv'+ F 81 +I s y I dor mo~a I, II 1 x; ~~v ~ c r ~ d'p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } _ ~ I ~ ~ „ , 51x,,,, ~ l - , I I ' i 1, is - ~ ~ 'm,.. _ }e;= / try 1 k.. _ ~ .a '.~~:a , ..a... ~ ,;.ln\ _ \ ' g' 4 f{s b afir ~,l rl 1 t~, o~o a r I, 9 I / ~ r'~D. ~ ~ C 1 1 x t f s~ .N,/ ~ D~ ( ~ ~ ild ~ ~ ' ry~ 1 II 11 1 _ s d y~_i t j'~' h~ I-E r+ ~i~,a . K. E,y d~.. 7 '1 A ~ I / d ~ I~" I 1 it is Ia r ~ i „!„ira ~S .1 i W 1 ~ n I'' 1 r lily 55 r, ly i 5-~i~j9E ~"'ilfya~i' ~ / _ t, •r `h :7; J y-~ i, W ~S ~ r I, _ I ~3t7 L1, I4 '~li~. ir~~,s ER ~r ,a. 't'',~ Sf ~ pV a.n S 1, 1 4~,r 1' ~ I TRACT C' }y', ~ 'r ~ [ t ? ~ ~i f ,✓t'11'" - - - ~ "vr" j' ~fn _ %ifliy + IhLtt }t~ Jpf- r .it v 0 I~ r' I{ "E r' ? - - - , . r~ - ~ (n I t l , - - ~ ~ D Cn , N 11 i J> VI ~ U1 - pa / ~ J w, t i ~r. t Y - Q ~ 4 C , 1 , 1 1 r _ ~ fl 1~ ; 4 I t ✓ \~VA~C~IL]iiil~Ll ~'7P'//1~~T ~+ir`ntr 7A lrnin ir!rtvr'm n rnnnrcv rrm, m - ~ ' ; I ~ ~ x 1 i ` F,'- " ~ >r ' [ g i3 a I ~ . ~ ° ° V ~ ~ CITY OF TIGAR~, I,M~SHpNGTON C®UNTY ORG®N 1,3 ~i s,+ --I~ ~ ~ ~ tra q rn ~ I r~"S E~ pp~ ~ Vp~d DALE RICI-IARDS - WINDWOOD HOMES I r 12865 SW NonTfi DAKOTA 8T, TN3AIBD, OR 87723 9 f r ~ r ~ v' ~ (003) 700-437E ~ I, ,~i~' a " i I ~I ~ / ~r. _ , irw t n,~ i - ~ f I I I 1 ~ yf J. ~sE ~ ~ - t: 3r Il~. ~ I ; f~ >b1 k ~ ~1 - I r" 5~.1 d ~ +;~6 d { ~ ~ - 41 r IrnP r,7~ F i. 1 I-,,,IYrA,i'- 1 1 P ~ 2f Crm -,f~ , I f , n ~ ~ 1 ~I a i 5v - ~ 1 I rF?irnit I • ~ Y ~ 1\ ~ 1[ rail>1; Y ''Y' g r i ~ rs ' . r r - ~ - i , I - I r fir= I ;I , :;1., ,„p , i= 4' I ` p i' : } - ry , ~ it !li rr ,I; t : 1 ' r' v 11 ;!1 n 5. i „ , - _ - ~ i~ j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,H., r f k ~ .7J;l, e t watt' ,t, ~ - _Idfi{ fy~' a~~'~ II ra _ p ~~4 Fi~~ a ~ ~ of fl, p. ~ - - 1Y~ , I` rv, ~•x. r G ~ 4~~ ~r" °ra,~ rt ~'e, ! ; t r; r 4 1F E _ „ 7 _ ~ - I~sLS - ~ ' } • r t', l ~ ~ P ~ I ~ t¢ 7 '}fit y~C I lk r,{i ~ i f' r ' ~ ---J"j' ~I ~ 4t `~'#a t~,~, fit{{ i~ ~ ~ ~ I / ~ 5 ~ r E` f/f k F t r . ~ ~ .an wr,a ~+M1A.W! _ W, ~>~1.-.' ~ _ ~ ~ - ' - i ' f ~ ~ tG to t I ~ ♦ti .~`4 '~1°___-^' -f-- - - V4 W ~ - s r~~'~~~ y',* t 4 sr ACE 41rc f ~ ~ F,~ t, to A ~ eA~ - . ~ , , `d I t ~ G f~F ~ rp~~ ~efi ,~A l ~ i~ ' ii I m . f I ~ y K ~ ~ ~'4 ~~6' mg t f ~Iltl., t ~'b~"a~ : , _ ti~ z ~l f..~~ sal ~ - ti ~ s ~ ~ ~ ! , ~ , S I :e e _tu s 1 ~ 1 ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , a' f , I ~ , I G', I 5• ~ f , , j R 1 l ' n4 7 x ? I _ i ~ ~ i ~ i r ~ / ~ I I d ~ . ' . , . ~ t; I s~ { 1°Y , ~ ~ i ~r a i, ~ 4 ft - w ~ - z , ~a~ E5 J t l ry sg ; 1 y. t: I~t I 1~,1 r ~ y - ~rl of {t - ~ I -44 t° r rP, i.. ~ ~ .t~. 'r E`'- €f~ ~ 1. i t.°- ~'rY' ~ tt ! is ~ ' t. ilk- ~ \ ° { ~I,' a I ~I{' k,l ~`rwyf,:- y ) ~ t : ' i _ 1 14400 15+00 - I" a R,~~ ; r i +~,t~' e t i~-„ ~ Y ~ I, IS 3 Yr I, ~ i r -W i ~ ~ _ I I I r i,,p 1, P{~ keGp~ ~'I s ',t' Uf _ , .1 ~ ~ § 5 (i'f',tot ~kc'~ ,~t 11 i 1 ti f, r. I, ~~t C 1 k s'I i~, 4 t , i k' 4 f X I ~ ~ , 1~' j - ' ~ f ~ ~ - I 1 I, a~ i l 9~ r t t 1 Tit 1" { : r . g ~ .I N ' ~ ! ~ ! I bs I fjj( 4 I ' f r I ,w ~ ~ ~ I'~~is of it I - - I ~ S . d 'I t r t, Y s r 'J v, I I~~ - 1 I'' „ 1 ' W x"~.'S - I'''' r} 1t a i .3 tix r t I I ~ _ ~ r i~J 6 ~ ~ -I ~ ~5 in~r ~I • ~1 _ ~ ",1` ~ f'~ ~ ~°1 ~ - - I-'f I ~ k I ~ ~ i,~ ' ~ l - .G ! ! W 't~ ~ µ A, ~I i ~ 1 t lye i ~ r r _ 'Y5 f i[! t ~ > ~ ~ I ~zd~r ~~G , ~~1 ~ ~ ~ .p, < ~ ~ ~ r ~:i r f ~ t - ~ 1^A J: ~ ,S~ , ~ ~ _ ! I ~It £I~' S r'G ~ f~' ~ ~ a s I, i\'~ f~ 4 y~L/ _ r, ~ - I tp f r'; ~ J) i. Y r ~ , i WI ~ ~ ' ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ai f t Gi, ,d la I 'fir t 1r ~,r ~ ~ I~ ~f~' ~ ~ - _ I I - '~5(\,~ .'n,` ~ - nr,l, i ~k al3~l, aj, f{„~ y„ J i{r t 4 ~ ; rYr td~~ ~r~,1t _ ' i i I I ~ ~ s. t I` ~tii ~ 7 >7 I I 7 u r„ r f, ' -F.I, l' 1, I , s ' ~ ~ II, r. ~i 'p~ . a. ~ ~ ~ ` 't k t ~I' r t I I ~ N~ f p .i - - I .I ~ ~ ~ r ~ I I'I II ^ra~ptlr I rr ~1 j~` ~ ~ s 5 r 4 1111 ',t f S I ~ 7 ~ I I~ I 7C`„ i, ~1~ _ I i I I r~ ~ -i ~ ~ ~ r 4 r + p t ..r 't4, I' - - 1 'F 4' [ , t I Ur ~ 1~, ~ I I t ~ ~ q !~i iJ 1, tt t Y, I ~ t~fi r~;.. Ova ~ e +'~tY - 11,. ~ k,~, 4 ~ _ n' ; of r 1 ,y~~~~ `P r~' ~~E ~p, 4 ✓ ',.y d'~,. .r+: .il~~ }t'S;;. ~ ~ r p v N( W ~ ~ - ' ` I ft .~fi r ~c .p ' y, iY i }gt'*t~,~. ~ ..a ,v. ~ ,r~.r r~.~_.~, _.fil- ~ 4 i~ - s ~7 ~~.1 1 r ~f~.' ~ I 1 ~ aC ;;A~~'..w..`w~.s. S;,ry~ k ~ ~l, ~ . , t,.___ .a - I I i t~ 4 tt L. ~ CIO' fMXI ,Ir - .1. 'r, {F r~-~ iw~Y' ~ - - t ~.4 -r m. L ~ E I,~ t,I 6 i'--,•~t bt~~;,, _.r. ~ G I, s F , 't d '19 .+i41'~ ~ 4 S- y i~ ilk 9 - ~ ,.y{ ~ b I~~ _ ~ }tl ~ l 1 h i &I t, ~ Fi I IX)~LY 0 R~ I I~~~ St I~ l ' ~ AMl TK _ ~ I a 1 --i W ~ Ifitr II,, 9p'. f I r~ I 'r r f i.. i I t k \ 1 k' ~'I 1 I H } i 1. k I I 'i" , t ~ D ~ 3 ~ N W ~ ~ ~ u, r' r 4Y if - ~ ~ ~ - r ~I ~ ~ ` l11 , , y ~3,VA~CQiCII1fi~T(("!fi'/(O~T lC~4S\RTAIIATR mrr+rn+n ~rnrartv rrin .a ~I ~ a ( x Y f f i r{ it ' ',i -t ~ f~i P ~ ~g N'~d f - !/-U~U U ~U 11~L~U0 ~L~'y U L/'19 U ~n~o ~ ~ P, ~ ~ °y J ~ - ' i„ , ~ ~ ~~o ~ rrITY OF TICARD, WA~t~~ING a DN COUNTY OF;~CON ~ ~m ~ ~r;'r. 3~E~ {S' a4 ~ C ~~y~~~ ~ Q a- 6- ~I' ~ s r~ ~ DALE RICHARUS ~ ~ WiNI~WOOD HOMES ~ I~ I ~ ~ I r a ct ~ ~ n F®i 12866 SW NCii17141N:STA ST. 710ARDr OR BMxi S 9 0° ~ n° ~ ' ~ Ir 1 r '''~7- - r, r I, ~-rl - - ~ ~ ~ ~ err , I~a~ t I + j ' Y ~ ~ ~ d , , 4'' .k- i . 1 :4 7:y t~ t 3 R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ 'r r ; k,i ~ ~~,r s1r~z~~ I r, f~ 1} xy i gglll,la ~ ~t ~i ~ I~ { I i r ~ to . . t r ~ a ~ ~ lll ~r ~ aka xro~ nG If W b $ • 6,~y t - t i lid l ~ A_;- .tom,,. ,l•':- Jlr I - M , w y ~ _ _ _ _ .r~._. ~ T,._.. T +I'~ , j { t- I :i `1, 11', l 1 I I r i ! , 1 ~4; 1 I" _ _ ~ •y...~ .y ter. -:E~, i 1.,. ~ k ' tS ~ + cr'~~ r, v i Li ,F if py r I= ~S r (7W ~ ~ a ~ i ~ F~ i 1 `N I'~ ~1:\h j i 1~ i' . SW '74TH AVENUE b~ ~ { 2 CA X !1{j pp tt~~ N'0 y t~~ ~ b ~~mVry N 1it~ r OAL Si0 iO Ulu Am~~S ~O A 1, i J~. ~ o m t~nvr~x~r~~~Z~ ! - ~ L ~1 1'i ~ 'r a~ AA q 6 Eft ~ I I iI ~ rn I I. ~e N a O O S 5 3 ( ~ w ~ ~i (n - ~ ♦ b, / ~ F ay ~ m ~ J5 ~ a o A~yy~11~ F~a i ~ ~ ~ `!Oi ~ ~ ~ .fir' f rr ; ~ b ~ ~ ~ D I~ c7 F y W ' ~ WO~ CA O ~ J ~ " rI r ' ' I > ~ zoo = / / L.~~~' ~ ® ~ ~ r ~ ~ gU~~ \ \ ~ .Y~07~ 'I vii qN ~ ~ _ W .y ~ > ~ ~ I k>F II / dbl - f I ~ l` ~ / ~ 1 m~^q°~s i JJ~":'p~ ~ O,~ / ~ `T / bd~D• ~L _ FUTURE £MENSION ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ / ,i--• -SW 73RD. AVE. - ~ - 4r~, ~ ~ ~1/~ ~ - - - ti ~ ~ .r r,°~'~`~„ ~ i r"`~,~..~i ~ ~~'l Irll~ll 1 ~ I r. r ~ j'j I,r r ~ Wn Im_a ~ /IN I oo ~'m°Z / , rs" i ~ 1a / I r I J / fit,, I ~ A~ Ul O r'~ `m m 7 ~ '/t' ~ C_ ' I'~ f I t /~''I~~7 i "'/~Q.~~ ?7/ ~I m1y - w°'-uy,2 it ~ ;j J v / t'V ! / r l ' / ~ ~ ~~i ~ > I~ ~ rn . A;~ uA=.. .t/ I - , f 1 /~n / / r , r0 r/-^ _ -:.I I y i b I i ~l N ~ sl ~ 7p5 ` tiJ 'r'•1 ,rG, lti~~, ~0.~ ` N I~i~ I ,:I ~ O 1 j F / / I ',yti t I _ _ _ X J 4 I, ~]1 _ x,1:14 ~,y , '~,j~•,~r'~gs.Pro;l" J / ~ m ~ ' , ~ 'rym~- ~ I ~ / /~~I I I ~ ~ ~/I I 4 , v /I/ / '~t1'%1.1 • ~6 i~ v ~ Z ' ' ! r-'~ sI~I ~ - I / 1~ -..>*'1 LJ /I y ar •O7 / ~ I I - f i 't~:~`\,,.;.. IIII I ~J II~~ ~ - ,ll~~~'~~~',~yNm~r~~ m I I I ~ ~ 1 ' -~,~k~f}~ /r~l,,~~~1 I~ ~ ~'~.~r~~l / ' ~ ".~~-r. a' JI /i ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ I v ~'"'tl'9y .A I I I I/ ~ l I l f,~~~ ~ 1 0~ / D + N f.l Al O N W m W -i n ' ` / / ~ ~ / O O ~ O C O E ,~t~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~IIII~i// ~ ~ 1 _.7' ~ , I " c'i'~/ ! / ~ cT n Z o ? ~ ~ ~ npfO- ~ ~ ~ ~ d I LP-~ IV/P~/~j ICI II m~ / ~ / ti~1V / 7 /I CO ~V// ,O ~ _ m ~ tom- A ~ m4 10^g ~ KC K~oO O ~ z l I/%!//// I I 1 Cd / Ql Vi I ~ / ,I"O. Drj ~9 A ~ ~ A .T91 W Z m r ~ m ~ J I~ r 1~ / Jl ~~1~ i/~ .r ~ ~ / ~ W ~ m ,,{N. N f~0 ® VI I I, . I ll , l ~ ~,`Ill)'a,I~ _i~r~ ~~`r , a / ~'yy ! .p ~ z r it r. ~ ~ / i f ~ 'I ~ ~I I ~r l~~ j~~N~Ji~~JA~'I~ ~i~/'~(I ~ j gOt,~~\~\~~j(/n ~ o D., fJ~) y~~~'`1 / 1r✓/~ x/1.2<9/ / ~ ~~\'S /J ~~~~AZy ti s. ~n p 1 / J ~j,~, l / 1 f~ ~ rin O~ ,CJ ~ ~ i z ~ o Z O o ~ , -:1 " . ~c'7-y~/ ~ ~ ~ / / ~ ~ ti/ ~~tiN p; J / ///~A ~ ~ ,U, ~ e~ / / i ~ 6" o ~ v v m ` 1 11 / ~ , ~ ~1~~/~ ; / 1;~ / 9 .47 . 1, I ~10, ,59' / / ! / % 0~ ~ ~ ~ _ = g . ~ ,~„y., irrr~,~/ ,jr~~' ~ i ~~1111 1111 ~ ~°4'¢~ ~rq~ ~w~ ~ 1 . ; ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ y'~ O1 ~ N W n cNn cn ° ~ x I n ~ v S ~ n -i ~ i ~ o ~ g~ ~ > ~I~IH[I[~(~7C®~T ~(~UAI[~lE IF~7C~~7C`~~,,`~ l~(~. ~ ' I ~v ~ o ~ - $ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ rl~'V 0~ ~'iGARb, W~',S~-fiNG`~°ON COUNTY OREGON ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s DALC RICEtAt~nS - WENDWOOD HOMES ~ i~ ~ 'i ~ ~ 8 n ~ rocs sw t+~nni rod,orn sr~-npq~p, on nrzza o I9 a 19 s 8 ~ _ (:Nl, J 700 'i875 I iX;' 3j!s~ 1 ! ~r l pp~ ' I £y} - fi I & I ` ~ - i~ _ 'mot, '.r: " ~ s _ t i S. fr I } y s u' u r J s I i f , a II ~ Si pl, ,i. v {rl ! t 1.. I t l r 'I. I a'4.C ~ d. v ' ' ,ti - ~ k - ..,-r. , -f~~. . ~ r r. + ~1 ~ r<~L.1-:~~ ~ <Cla~~._ .~3-nJ .,rtih v.v. i y.l I I ~ I 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~x rf~ ~ ~ d 4 kf ~ _ I - 3 ':r y~~ t `i ~ ~ r~~¢E~ t ~ ; r , ~ j hi ,1 ~ _ ~ t~ = ~ ~ , €4 . I ~ . ~ i ~ ~ ~ 1 . . „I. ~ , - 4 ~ ~ r I ~ I I ~ y) ~ y , ~ i - 1 a' d d, ~ ~ _ _ - - , ~.r~ ~ { + - - ~ i / a z+oo 1 _ , _ I - ~ er'g' tl' ~ i. ~ tVF (r„ ~ / ' ~ ( , i ~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ n ~ ~ ~ I ~ Its i F ~ f ~ . ' ~ ,,,Pad W~ _ I o~ ' ~ ~,q, n 11) ~ ~I fi _ I ~ ~ 1. ~r r ~ ~ ~ - I t t, „ I I ° 1 t ~ r' I tl~}' ~ I ~ m}~"8' ~ k ~ -'tea n ..E I 'TIS +Mr i ~ / ' ~1i :d' ~ `8' „y - I 1 :1 M1~S~, f M ~ CC~t~~J l I; f~ ~ ~.s I y " I I W - H~ I/O - ~ W L~~ 1~ M• f1 _ r q ~ I I I' r ~4' m ~ ~r~~a~ f ~ ~ I [ VI ~ ~ 1 • G~ ~ lf.^ w' ~ 1119 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` DSO( - ~ , tr ~ n~ _ y ~ - - j ~ - D '.~1 n,l wow', j ~ ~$~I ' ~ - I~~~"' 1"n-- = ~ i ~a ~ y I ~ ~ v ~ I:'~ 1 ~ ~ .,y i,(~ ~ , I G w TRACT 'C ~_,1 f ~ ~ I I ~ ~ c~i 1 ~ ~ ~.~r;. ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ N ~ can Cn z ~ ,r.. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~I IUU'nIcI~Unl~r~, .1~ l',, ,I~~r , ' I ~ n ~ ~ mac+~innnrm~n .~T.n. I ~ r ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CITY ®F T AG~F~~ a. ~n~~~l-IINGTON C®UNTY ®REGON g ® a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b~ Z r,ns_F n1~E~n I, j ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ x - WINDWOOD HOMES ~p@j I; m ^yp t4nl l I I Ui11(UTA 9T, Ti0Af1D, OR 0721' ~ ~ Y .:.J (GUJ)700-A376 161 IUf (776 ~~a~~- ¢o~b~b i ~ , ,j ~ ` '1 i , :I I j ;ti rG I t 13- - - ~ yi.I.. 'fir✓~,~. ~ aka ,1~, ~f, ' ~ ~4: r II ..iT' ~ `i '.3 S I t x r 4: