Loading...
City Council Packet - 02/28/2006 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I:\Ofs\Donn a's\Ccpkt3 13125 SW Hall Blvd„ Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 r 11 Agenda Item No. For Agenda of V111,06 Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Date: February 28, 2006 Time: 6:30 p.m. Place: Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon Attending: Mayor Craig Dirksen Presiding Councilor Sally Harding Councilor Sydney Sherwood Councilor Nick Wilson Councilor Tom Woodruff Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u Study Session Intergovern- Staff Presenter: Associate Planner Igarta mental Agree- ment (IGA) - City Council will be asked to approve an IGA on the See Consent Agenda Goal 5 Fish & Consent Agenda relating to the organization and No. 3.3, which was Wildlife Habitat - function of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources adopted by the City Tualatin Basin Coordinating Committee (TBNRCC) Council. Partners Associate Planner Igarta reviewed the background leading up to the IGA as proposed. Approval of the IGA will extend the partnership with Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Spaces to implement the fish and wildlife habitat protection program. Councilor Harding is the elected official liaison to the TBNRCC. Metro Council formally approved the Basin Program complying with Title 13 of the Regional Growth Management Functional Plan. Partners are now preparing to implement program elements to reach their goal of improving the Basin's environmental health and to comply with state and regional Goal 5 planning requirements. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u Hall Boulevard Staff Presenter: City Engineer Duenas Consensus of City Jurisdictional Council was that staff Transfer Information on this item is outlined in a February 22, should continue Discussion 2006 memorandum from City Engineer Duenas, discussions with ODOT which is on file in the City Recorder's office. about transferring a portion of Hall The Oregon Department of Transportation has asked Boulevard to the City of local jurisdictions to consider the conditions under Tigard. which they would accept responsibility for the street. City Engineer Duenas noted Hall Boulevard is designated as a "road of interest" to the County. Local jurisdictions will be meeting with the Oregon Department of Transportation again in March. Council members discussed the potential transfer and suggested ideas for improvements before accepting jurisdiction: • address bridge issues over Fanno Creek (near City Hall and also at Oak Street) • clarify responsibility for the street between the City and the County • request full three-lane improvements to preserve an opportunity to for funding Hall Blvd./99W Staff Presenter: Senior Planner Nachbar Consensus of City Design Modi- Council was to support fications Staff recommended that the Hall/99W intersection be the proposed considered as part of the contract work to be amendment to the performed by OTAK for streetscape design work. agreement with OTAK The goal would be to make this intersection more to add Hall Blvd./ 99W pedestrian friendly and to establish the area as a to the list of projects in gateway to the downtown (green theme). The City the streetscape design Center Advisory Commission endorsed staff's work. recommendation at its February 23, 2006, meeting. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u Urban Services Staff Presenter: Senior Planner Nachbar Intergovern- mental Agree- This revision to the IGA is also on the Consent ment (IGA) with Agenda (Item No. 3.2). The revised IGA extends the cities of Tigard, term of the agreement from December 24, 2002 to Tualatin, December 31, 2008 and adds a section regarding the Beaverton, and relocation of utilities. TriMet, while not signing the Wilsonville, and IGA, is referred to as project manager. Senior Washington Planner Nachbar reported that Attorney Firestone County reviewed the IGA and found it acceptable. (Washington County - Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project) Executive Session The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:51 p.m. to discuss pending litigation under ORS 192.660(2) (h). Executive Session concluded at 7:08 p.m. Study Session ■ No Chamber of Commerce Representative will continued - attend tonight's meeting; Executive Director Administrative Monlux asked to be scheduled for an April City Items Council agenda. • Letter from Mr. Bob Storer was distributed (Agenda Item No. 6 - Ash Creek Estates Public Hearing) ■ Distributed to the City Council samples of new forms: • Redesign of Testimony Sign in Sheets for Citizen Communication and Public Hearing Testimony • New form: "Are you interested in serving on a City of Tigard Board, Committee or Commission? The forms were prepared as a result of the City Council's February 21, 2006, discussion on improved communications. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u ■ The March 14, 2006, City Council meeting is cancelled. Study Session concluded at 7:10 p.m. Business Meeting 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council and the Local Contract Review Board to Order at 7:31 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Harding, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports • Councilor Harding announced a tree-planting event on March 4, Englewood Park, 9 a.m. Councilor Harding announced Tigard-area CPO's are sponsoring a forum regarding 99W on Saturday, March 4, 9 a.m.- noon, Deb Fennell Auditorium Mayor Dirksen announced there would be no City Council meeting on March 14, 2006. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. Citizen ■ John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR Communications 97223 referred to a City Council discussion last week about a performance audit of the Police Department. He suggested the City Council consider revisiting the idea of consolidating the Tigard Police Department with Washington County law enforcement. Mr. Frewing said there was potential for significant cost savings. Mayor Dirksen noted the City Council discussion last week was with the Financial Strategy Task Force. The Task Force reported that, after review, the City was providing the Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u services that it should be. The Task Force recommended performance audits of targeted programs in the General Fund to determine if services are being provided efficiently. ■ Linda Moholt, 19181 SW 55`h Court, Tualatin, OR 97062, distributed information from the Tualatin Schoolhouse Pantry. She said the root cause of hunger stems from the need for affordable medical care as people must choose between paying for food or healthcare. She announced that in fall 2006, a free medical clinic will be available in the Washington County King City facility. The facility will be open one night a week staffed by volunteer doctors and -nurses. Legacy and Providence are partners. A forum will be held April 25, 7 p.m. at Meridian Park Hospital. Essential Health Clinic information was also distributed. ■ Pat Whiting, 8122 SW Spruce Street, Tigard, OR 97223, announced a forum will be held on March 4, 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. at the Deb Fennell Auditorium. She noted state, county, and local officials would be present to discuss issues regarding 99W. Questions from the public, written on cards, will be submitted to the panel of speakers for response. If people are not able to attend, Councilor Harding suggested they write to the Oregon Department of Transportation with their concerns. Follow-Up - 5`h City Manager Prosser reviewed issues that were Tuesday Meeting discussed at the last City Council Fifth Tuesday of January 31, Meeting: 2006 Height restrictions issues - radio tower. This was addressed in a February 23, 2006, memorandum from the City Attorney. The neighbors are considering addressing their issue through their development's code, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's). • Investigate possibilities of a signal at Tigard and Main Street. This will be affected by the commuter rail crossin ; it will be considered. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u • Park and Recreation Board meeting agendas and minutes have been posted on the City's web page. Staff will mail this information to anyone who requests it. • Council could consider adding sidewalks to its next review of the street maintenance fee. The review is scheduled to take place in June 2007. • Committee for Citizen Involvement will have recommendations regarding meetings held in neighborhoods to inform residents about new developments. Issues noted included that it seems as if there is a disconnect between the neighborhood meeting and what actually gets developed. • The property owner responsible for clearing trees at Beef Bend/147`h-150`' (approximately) complied with Code provisions. • Burnham Street design is to be done in May and construction completed in fall 2008. • Use of franchise fees where collected is a City Council policy issue. • Creating a task force to improve Durham Road right of way would be a Council decision. • Notification to neighbors if there are substantial changes to a development should be incorporated in the Committee for Citizen Involvement recommendations. 3. Consent 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for January 17 and 24, Motion by Councilor Agenda 2006 Sherwood, seconded by 3.2 Approve First Amendment to Urban Services Councilor Woodruff, to Intergovernmental Agreement with Cities of approve the Consent Tigard, Tualatin, Beaverton, and Wilsonville, and Agenda. Washington County (Washington County - Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project) The motion was 3.3 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement GA - approved b a Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u Organization and Function of the Tualatin Basin unanimous vote of Natural Resource Coordinating Committee Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Harding Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes 4. Public Hearing The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a Motion by Councilor (Quasi-Judicial): request by Larusso Concrete Company, Inc. and Harding, seconded by Vacation of An Richard Akerman & James Wathey concerning the Councilor Woodruff, to Un-Named proposed vacation involving an approximately 7,845 adopt Ordinance No. Public Right-of- square foot portion of an un-named public right-of- 06-01 with the Way East of SW way. amendment noted by 74`h Avenue and staff in Section 2. East of the S P The petition was filed with the City on November 15, & S Railroad 2005 and initiated by the City Council at the request of The motion was Right-of-Way, the applicant on December 20, 2005. Any interested approved by a North of person may appear and be heard for or against the unanimous vote of Durham Road proposed vacation of said Un-Named Portion of Council present. (VAC2005- Public Right-of-way East of SW 74`h Avenue Vacation. 00003) Any written objections or remonstrances were to have Mayor Dirksen Yes been filed with the City Recorder by 7:30 p.m. on Councilor Harding Yes February 28, 2006. Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. Councilor Woodruff Yes City Attorney Ramis reviewed the rules of procedure for this quasi-judicial hearing. Planning Manager Bewersdorff presented the staff report and noted the scope of the vacation request. The City did not pay for the right of way; the property was dedicated to the City when the property was platted. At that time, the subject property was considered to be needed for access; however, access is from SW 72°" Avenue. City Attorney Ramis noted the question before the City Council is whether it is in the public's interest to vacate the property. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u There were no declarations or challenges regarding ex parte contact, the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter, or participation of any Council member. Public testimony: Ed Murphy, 9875 SW Murdock Street, Tigard, OR 97224, advised he represented the applicants for this vacation. The applicants have applied for a zone change. Mr. Murphy described the development plans. Rich Ackerman and Jim Lang signed on the testimony sheets; however, they declined to testify. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing. Planning Manager Bewersdorff advised staff recommended that the City Council approve the proposed ordinance with a change to Section 2 to add that the City Recorder would record a certified copy of the ordinance and using the usual effective date language for ordinances. City Council considered Ordinance No. 06-01. ORDINANCE NO. 06-01 -AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN APPROXIMATELY 7,845 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF AN UN-NAMED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH LIES TO THE EAST OF SW 74"' AVENUE AND EAST OF THE S P & S RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, NORTH OF SW DURHAM ROAD, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (VAC2005- 00003) Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u 5. Public Hearing The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a Motion by Councilor (Quasi-Judicial): request by Specht Development, Inc. concerning the Wilson, seconded by Vacation of Five proposed vacation involving five (5) small portions of Councilor Sherwood, to Small Portions of public right-of-way totaling 3,392 square feet. adopt Ordinance No. Public Right-of- 06-02 with amendment Way Totaling The petition was filed with the City on September 9, to Section 2 as noted by 3,392 Square Feet 2005 and initiated by the City Council at the request of the staff. Along SW 68`h the applicant on January 10, 2006. Any interested Parkway and 69`h person may appear and be heard for or against the The motion was Avenue proposed vacation of said 68`h Parkway Public Right- approved by a (VAC2005-00004 of-Way Vacation and 69 Avenue Public Right-of-Way unanimous vote of & VAC2005- Vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances Council present. 00005) were to have been filed with the City Recorder by 7:30 p.m., February 28, 2006. Mayor Dirksen Yes Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. Councilor Harding Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes City Attorney Ramis noted the rules of procedure for Councilor Wilson Yes this quasi-judicial hearing were the same as the rules for Councilor Woodruff Yes Agenda Item No. 4. Planning Manager Bewersdorff presented the staff report and noted the scope of the vacation request. Section 2 should be amended to reflect that the ordinance would take effect once the conditions are met and 30 days after its passage by the Council, using the usual effective date language for ordinances. There were no declarations or challenges regarding ex parte contact, the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter, or participation of any Council member. There was no public testimony. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing. City Council considered Ordinance No. 06-02: ORDINANCE NO. 06-02 - AN ORDINANCE VACATING FIVE SMALL PORTIONS OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, TOTALING 3.392 SQUARE FEET ALONG 68... PARKWAY AND 69 AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (VAC2005- 00004 & VAC2005-00005). Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 9 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u 6. Public Hearing The State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has Motion by Councilor (Quasi-Judicial) remanded for a second time the City Council's Sherwood, seconded by Land Use Board approval of a 29-lot Planned Development Councilor Wilson to Subdivision on 9.3 acres and associated Zone of Appeals Change, Sensitive Lands, and Adjustment reviews to approve Resolution No. (LUBA) Remand address a single issue relating to tree preservation. 06-09, which is a of Ash Creek As limited by LUBA, the issue remanded is whether tentative decision until the tree plan preserves trees to the greatest extent Estates possible, given that the second tree plan does not staff returns to City Subdivision (Sub) protect 23 trees designated for protection in the Council with additional 20003- on al tree plan, but not designated for protection findings. 00010/Planned in the revised tree plan previously approved. On Development this second remand, the applicant has submitted a The motion was second revised tree plan that amends the first Review (PDR) revised tree plan by designating for protection the 23 approved by a majority 2003-00004/Zone trees specificall y mentioned by LUBA. A full copy vote of Council present. Change (ZON) of LUBA's Final Opinion and Order can be 2003- obtained from City Hall at cost, or is also available Mayor Dirksen Yes 0003/Sensitive online at Councilor Harding No http://luba.state.or.us/pdf/2005/septO5/05042.ht Councilor Sherwood Yes Lands Review in. LOCATION: 9750 SW Avenue; enue; WCTM (SLR) 2003- 1S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Councilor Wilson Yes 00005/Adjust- Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 Councilor Woodruff Yes ment (VAR) 2003- zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without This matter will be before 00036/Adjustment accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of the Council again on March (VAR) 2003-00037 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single- 28, 2006, for final action. family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The only applicable criterion on the issue on which LUBA remanded is CDC 18.350.100.B.3.a.1, which requires that planned developments protect existing trees to the greatest degree possible. City Attorney Ramis reviewed a statement of the quasi-judicial land use hearing procedures. A copy of the text of the procedures is on file in the City Recorder's office. His remarks included the following: "Any person may offer testimony. This matter is on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals on a single narrow issue and testimony will be limited to that issue. LUBA limited the scope of this hearingg to the question of whether CDC 18.350 .100)%.3.a.1 relating to tree protection is met with respect to 23 trees specified in the LUBA decision." Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. Planning Manager Bewersdorff reviewed the history of this matter as outlined in the Agenda Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 10 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u Item Summary. He noted the proposed resolution contains an additional finding and an additional condition, No. 59. Planning Manager Bewersdorff referred to the memorandum before the City Council from the City Attorney's office that also outlines the case before the City Council. City Attorney Ramis clarified that this case has been to LUBA more than once. Current status is that the City's decision had been upheld in all respects except for one point for further explanation and treatment by the Council. LUBA identified in Footnote 16 of this case 23 trees and asked that the Council consider how those trees are being treated in the protection plan. LUBA said that the treatment of these trees needed to be explained under the City standard, which says, "Preserve to the greatest extent possible the trees on the site." Before the City Council is a letter from the applicant noting that each of the 23 trees identified by LUBA can and will be preserved in the final development plan. City Attorney Ramis advised that a letter had been submitted to the City Council from Bob Storer. This letter will be included in the Record; however, City Attorney Ramis advised the City Council should consider the testimony carefully and not go beyond the scope of the LUBA remand. He advised that he did not believe any of the points stated in Mr. Storer's letter address the issue that LUBA has remanded. The letter asks the City Council to broaden the scope of the hearing beyond LUBA's specified scope, but this would violate LUBA's decision. City Attorney Ramis said his advice would be to not broaden the scope of the hearing. Mr. Storer's letter also argues about preserving trees, other than the 23 trees that are at issue and, again, this would be beyond the scope of the hearing. Mr. Storer's letter urges the City Council to deny the application even if the application meets the Code criteria; however, the City Council would not have such authority to do so in this proceeding. If the City Council wants to change the rules, it must be done within a process other than ai-judicial hearing. Mr. Storer's letter argues Zr fothe use of conservation easements, which are not at issue. The letter argues for compliance with laws of other jurisdictions which, again, is not before the City Council. Mr. Storer argues for the City to purchase the property and that issue is also not before the City Council. Declarations and Challenges: Councilor Harding advised she attempted to visit the site; however, the property is posted as "private proper Mayor Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 11 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u Dirksen advised that he was well aware of the location of this site. John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, challenged and requested clarification with regard to the adequacy of disclosure of ex le contact between the decision makers and the applicant. A description of Mr. Frewing's obb~ections is in writing and on file in the City Recorder's office. As outlined by Mr. Frewing, the alleged ex parte contact was evidenced in a newspaper column written by Rick Bella in the February 16, 2006, The O gonian. This article quoted Mayor Dirksen commenting on donation of property to the City by the developers for Ash Creek Estates Subdivision. City Attorney Ramis advised that, under the proceedings used by the City of Tigard, now is the time to conduct the proceeding to determine whether there is bias or ex parte communications. City Attorney Ramis recommended against the continuance requested by Mr. Frewing unless it turns out during the process of examining that question, there is a need to do that. Before proceedingg with City Council comments, City Attorney Ramis recommended the other parties to the case have an opportunity to comment on this request. Chris Koback, representing the applicant, and Dale Richards of Winwood Construction advised that they had no communications with the Tigard City Council members outside the hearing process. City Attorney Ramis asked the City Council members if there had been any discussion with the appli cant or with thea pplicant's representative about the subjects Mr. retying has raised and also whether there might be some open space, as part of this application, which would bias City Council and prevent them from making a fair decision based upon the criteria and facts presented. Councilor Wilson advised that he has not talked to the owner or the developer other than within the public meetings. In addition, he noted that acquisition of the property by the City would not bias his decision. He might, since the accusation has been raised, want to decline to accept donated property to make sure there is no hint c f impropriety or quid pro quo. Councilor Sherwood advised she has not spoken to the applicant or applicant representatives other than in the meetings; not has she spoken to the Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 12 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u press. She agreed with Councilor Wilson's statement if it was thought she would be biased if the property was accepted, then she would support turning it down. Council Woodruff said this process began before his term on City Council started. He said he has had no contact with any of the people involved. He advised he had no conflict. Councilor Harding advised that the process began before her term on Council began. She has had no contact with the developer, the attorney, or Mr. Frewing. City Attorney Ramis asked to clari7n - Councilor Woodruff had indicated he had hao ex parte communications and asked if there was anything about the case that would bias him in one way or another. Councilor Woodruff said, "No." Mayor Dirksen noted that he was interviewed by Oregonian Columnist Bella and he did make a statement with regard to potential for a portion of this parcel, which he understood the acreage that might be donated to the Cittyy was not developable. The Mayor's comment in Mr. Bella's article was based on a discussion with Interim Community Development Director Coffee. In addition, he noted that the article might be incorrect insofar as he is not certain that a donation has taken place. Mayor Dirksen advised that the only discussion he has had regarding this matter has been with City of Tigard staff. He has not met or talked with anyone outside of the public hearing. He noted that he had, in fact, on previous occasions approved this Planned Development before there was any thought that land might be donated. City Attorney Ramis advised he had not heard anything that would indicate either there has been ex parte communication or that any Council member has found a reason that they could not, because of bias, hear the case. He recommended the City Council proceed with the hearing; any decision reached tonight be a tentative decision so that the City Attorney can come back with findings for the City Council to consider that would address the ex parte communication and bias issues as well as the substantive decision that the City Council renders. City Manager Prosser noted the City has not taken title to any land. He noted the possible land donation would be something to explore; this matter has been referred to the Parks and Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 13 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u Recreation Advisory Board, which has been working on criteria for when and how the City might accept donated land. No action has been taken on this piece of property in any way whatsoever. Mayor Dirksen also noted, with reference to the 23 trees under review at this hearing, he has no idea whether the trees are located in property that might be donated to the City; therefore, he did not see how this would have any impact on tonight's decision. City Attorney Ramis affirmed, upon a question from Councilor Woodruff, that the only issue before the City Council at this time is regarding the 23 trees per the LUBA remand; there is no choice before the City Council regarding whether or not the City should allow the project to move forward. Applicant's Statement: Chris Koback, representing the applicant, noted that subsequent to the LUBA remand the applicant was to either justify removing the 23 trees or show a plan saving the 2 trees. They chose to save the 23 trees. Councilor Wilson asked whether an arborist was involved in the decision whether the trees could be saved or not? Mr. Koback said there was an arborist that prepared the report. An arborist was not involved in the decision to save the trees. It was not a question of whether the trees were dead or diseased; these trees were under 12-inches in diameter and were going to be removed because, the Code as they interpreted, allowed them to remove trees less than 12 inches. LUBA directed them to look at this again, they did and the trees will be saved. Public Testimony: Mayor Dirksen called upon Mr. Frewing to speak as an opponent and reminded Mr. Frewing that the only issue before the City Council was with regard to the 23 trees. John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, Oregon, commented that he believed the laws required him to register his objection on the adequacy of the ex parte disclosure. He said he does register an objection to keep his opportunity alive for an appeal. Mr. Frewin said his second objection was Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 14 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u regarding the scope of the hearing. He noted the City Attorney has advised the City Council cannot consider anything other than the 23 trees without violating the LUBA order. Mr. Frewins said his understanding was that the City Council could, of its own will, change the scope of the hearing. Mr. Frewing reviewed his testimony regarding the 23 trees. He also submitted a document for the record, which outlined his testimony. He referred to the revised tree preservation location drawing dated September 22, 2005, and said the application materials fall short of compliance to preserve the 23 trees. He referred to a drawing an how the trees were marked and then returned to his prepared comments whereby he outlined how the application materials fall short of compliance. After reviewing comments relating to the 23 trees, Mr. Frewing then referred to his written comments and outlined his issues with regard to the decision process. City Attorney Ramis requested that Mr. Frewing keep his testimony tied to the issue of the 23 trees. Mr. Frew"i explained his comments were in two parts: 1) 23 trees and the 2) the hearing process and his rights within the hearing process. City Attorney Ramts said Mr. Frewin8 could continued but noted much of the testimony presented by Mr. Frewing appeared to be repetitive of issues already ruled upon by LUBA; therefore, these issues would not be before the City Council. Mr. Frewing said he did not think the issues had been addressed by LUBA. Mr. Frewing's written testimony was incorporated into the meeting record. Mr. Frewing requested that staff be asked to prepare findings to deny the application. In response to a question from Mayor Dirksen, Mr. Frewing advised he was in favor of the 23 trees being preserved but noted there were inconsistencies with the drawing regarding which trees are to be saved. Meeting recessed at 9:03 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Rebuttal: Mr. Koback responded to Mr. Frewing's testimony and advised that the large tree plan was not revised. The applicant submitted a new draw' that the Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 15 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u thought was consistent with LUBA's dictate that showed that the 23 trees would be preserved. The Condition, as drafted by staff and agreed to by.the applicant, specifically references that plan. Therefore, e does not think there is any confusion about how and what will happen. The applicant will guarantee the 23 trees will be preserved. The trees axe not identified by species as noted by Mx. Frewing; this issue was raised at the Court of Appeals and the Court rejected the argument presented by Mr. Frewing on this issue. Mr. Koback said the argument referenced by Mx. Frewing dealing with tree protection; however, LUBA's dictate was very specific - it was on preserving trees to the extent possible. It did not talk about protection. Mr. Koback said evidence is in the record with regard to how the trees will be protected during construction. This was an issue that Mr. Frewing raised at LUBA and LUBA agreed with the applicant that what the applicant has submitted is adequate. Mr. Koback advised that new plans and standards raised by Mr. Frewing asre not applicable as the applicant is entitled to comply with the laws in place at the time the application for this development was filed. Mr. Koback said the plan now before the City Council was not prepared by an arborist; "x's" were taken off the 23 trees to show that they would be protected from removal. The fencepost argument raised by Mr. Frewing relates to tree protection, which is a separate issue and is not part of the LUBA remand. There was discussion on the 23 trees and the requirements by LUBA; these trees are marked and are a net increase in the amount of trees that will be saved. There is no requirement for a formal tree plan. Mr. Koback said his client has clearly identified the trees to be saved. Mr. Richards said he personally marked the trees to be saved. There was discussion about the penalty that could be applied during the construction phase if a tree is not saved, including a $500 fine plus the value of the tree and payment for mitigation requirements. Mr. Koback, in response to a question from Councilor Woodruff, said that nothing in the plan has been changed from the application. An arborist report was required; Terry Flanagan was the arborist. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 16 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u In response to a question by Mayor Dirksen, Planning Manager Bewersdorff advised that to his knowledge the application has not been changed from the onFguin~al application other than to protect an additional23 trees. City Attorney Ramis noted the March 14 City Council meeting has been cancelled. He asked the applicant if they had any objection to the final order being considered by the City Council at its March 28, 2006, meeting. The applicant did not object. In response to a question from Councilor Wilson and Councilor Harding regardinwhether the staff was concerned about whether it-was clear as to which 23 trees were to be saved, Planning Manager Bewersdorff advised the trees were marked on the plan and the trees were numbered; it was clear. Mr. Koback said that the previous report has not been changed. There is the new plan. showing the 23 trees that are to be saved, but the large document originally submitted was not changed. Councilor Woodruff asked the City Attorney about the LUBA decision. City Attorney Ramis read the language from the LUBA decision: "We also caution that our remand does not obli gate the City to provide petitioner with another opportunity to identify additional trees that might be preserved. The City's obligation on remand is limited to the trees identified in note 16 of this opinion." Mayor Dirksen and Councilor Sherwood advised they had no desire to open the hearing to consider additional issues. Councilor Harding noted she would like to reopen for further review if there was any evidence that the K value had been increased (steepness of slope) and referred to the interpretation that can be made by the City Engineer. She said that she did not want to see the citizens and the City have to pay for repairs in the future due to things that may not hold over time. When she did the site visit she could not physically go on the property. She referred to the actual severity of the steepness of the slope. Mr. Frewing advised that new information was being discussed and he asked for an opportunity for rebuttal. City Attorney Ramis advised City Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 17 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u Council to allow opportunity for additional comment and then allow the applicant to rebut. Mr. Frewing said that Mr. Richards advised the trees to be saved have been marked with numbers, but Mr. Frewing cannot go on the site. From what he has been able to observe, the tree markers and the tree numbering does not correspond to the drawing. There was no rebuttal. City Attorney Ramis noted the trees were identified in footnote 16 of the LUBA decision. The only comments germane to this hearing were that these trees are to be saved. Enforcement and saving of the trees comes later. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing. The City Attorney recommended that the City Council make a decision as framed by LUBA, which is to either explain why the trees can removed or rule that the trees must be preserved. It seems to be that the applicant is proposing to preserve the trees. City Council considered and adopted Resolution No. 06-09, which will be a tentative decision until staff returns with findings for Council consideration.: RESOLUTION NO. 06-09 - A RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION (SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2003-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003- 00004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003-00003/ SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2003- 00005/ ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00036/ ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00037/ - ON REMAND FROM LUBA; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS. (City Recorder's note: Agenda Items were considered out of the order listed on the Agenda. The next item heard was Agenda Item No. 10.) Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 18 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u 10. Consider Staff Presenter: City Engineer Duenas Motion by Councilor Establishing a Woodruff, seconded by Proposed Local The PowerPoint presentation overview is on file in Councilor Sherwood, to Improvement the City Recorder's office. adopt Resolution No. District (LID) as a 06-10. Project in the FY There was discussion on the process for this LID. 2005-06 Capital Property owners within the area will be notified of The motion was Improvement this potential Local Improvement District. A approved by a Program (CIP), favorable decision tonight to proceed will begin the unanimous vote of and Directing the study process. At a later meeting, the City Council Council present. Preparation of a will consider a recommendation whether to proceed Preliminary or terminate the proceedings. There will be an Mayor Dirksen Yes Engineer's Report opportunity for public comment on whether to form Councilor Harding Yes for the Proposed this LID. Specht Development is funding the cost for Councilor Sherwood Yes LID in the Tigard the study regarding formation of the LID. If the LID Councilor Wilson Yes Triangle and moves forward, then the study expenses will be Councilor Woodruff Yes Authorizing the included in the final costs for the LID. Establishment of a Funding Greg Specht, President of Specht Development, Mechanism for identified the properties owned by Specht and the Preparation of reviewed the requirements associated with "floor area the Report ratios" (FAR). He described the type of development Specht decided it would like to place on the property, which requires a larger parcel of property to meet Code requirements. In addition, Ed Murphy (also representing Specht Development) referred to the LID procedures and that the City's preference is that an LID is not a single-owner LID. Approximately 60 percent of the property is owned by Specht Development. Mr. Specht noted that about 21 percent of the properties are owner occupied; these owners would be the most impacted with the formation of the LID. He pointed out that this property is within the MUE (Mixed Used Employment) and planned for future employment opportunities and transportation connectivity. Council and staff discussed that this was a preliminary step; more evaluation would take place .Later, including input from other property owners. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 19 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u Councilor Wilson noted ex parte contact in that he did speak with Mr. Specht previously about the FAR requirements. He advised that they did not talk about the formation of an LID. Councilor Wilson advised this conversation would not influence his decision in this matter. City Council considered Resolution No. 06-10 RESOLUTION NO. 06-10 - A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ENGINEERING STAFF TO ESTABLISH A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) AS A PROJECT IN THE FY 2006-06 CIP (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM), DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LID IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE AND AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT 11. Consider The proposed budget amendment is related to Agenda Motion by Councilor Budget Amend- Item No. 10. Specht development is depositing Sherwood, seconded by ment #10 to the $125,000 to fund the Preliminary Engineer's Report. Councilor Wilson, to FY 2005-06 While the total Preliminary Engineer's Report cost is adopt Resolution No. Budget to $125,000, it is anticipated that only $70,000 of this 06-11. Increase Appro- total cost will be incurred in FY 2005-06. priations in the The motion was Gas Tax Fund for City Manager Prosser noted that Specht approved by a Funding of the Development's deposit will be placed in the Gas Tax unanimous vote of Preliminary fund and will actually fund the cost of the report. For Council present. Engineer's Report budgetary purposes, it is necessary to do a for the Proposed contingency transfer of $70,000 from the Gas Tax Mayor Dirksen Yes Local Fund to the Gas Tax Capital Improvement Project Councilor Harding Yes Improvement budget to appropriate the necessary funds. The City Councilor Sherwood Yes District (LID) for will include the cost of preparing the report in the Councilor Wilson Yes Infrastructure total cost of the LID if the City establishes the district. Councilor Woodruff Yes Improvements in If the LID is not formed, Specht Development's the Tigard deposit will be used to fund the report's cost. Triangle City Council considered Resolution No. 06-11. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 20 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u RESOLUTION NO. 06-11 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #10 TO THE FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GAS TAX FUND FOR FUNDING OF THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE 7. Local Contract Staff Presenter: City Engineer Duenas Review Board - Post-Project The PowerPoint presentation overview is on file in Evaluation Report the City Recorder's office. of the CM/GC (Construction The post-project evaluation report should have been Manager/General submitted to the Local Contract Review Board within Contractor) 30 days of acceptance and final payment of the Contract for the project and that it be made available to the public. Tigard New The evaluation is intended to comply with the above Library Project requirement although the required submittal period has expired. The use of the CM/GC method ensured control of costs through the design and construction phases. Because of the collaborative nature of the process, the new library was constructed on time and within the budget set for the project. City Manager Prosser advised that this method of construction was used for the first time by the City of Tigard for the new library building. It would clearly be of benefit to use this process again. LCRB Chair Dirksen acknowledged the success of the project. 8. Consider an Staff presenter: Public Works Director Koellermeier Motion by Councilor Intergovernmental Sherwood, seconded by Agreement (IGA) Approval of the IGA would fund a water supply Councilor Harding, to for joint Funding system plan with the City of Lake Oswego. The City approve the of a Water Supply of Tigard has been a Lake Oswego water customer Intergovernmental System Plan with since the early 1960's. The IGA would set the Agreement. the City of Lake groundwork for a future joint ownership of a water Oswego system with Lake Oswego. On February 8, the The motion was Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 21 February 28, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items (follow u Intergovernmental Water Board recommended approved by a approval of the IGA. unanimous vote of Council present. City Manager Prosser noted the City of Lake Oswego's water source is the Clackamas River. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Harding Yes Councilor Woodruff advised that the City is looking Councilor Sherwood Yes at a number of options for long-term water sources Councilor Wilson Yes and he was very much in favor of moving ahead with Councilor Woodruff Yes the IGA. There was discussion on the cost for the work to be done as outlined in the IGA, with Councilor Harding expressing her hope that it could be less expensive. Public Works Director Koellermeier reviewed that the high cost was driven by the level of engineering detail required. Councilor Woodruff acknowledged the high expense noting that this is a long-term investment for multiple millions of dollars; the City is coming to the time where it will have to make long-term decisions. 9. Consider Staff Presenter: Interim Community Development Council consensus was Pursuing Design Director Coffee to direct staff to pursue Modification of the design modifications the Intersection at The design modification for this project would be to as outlined in the Hall Boulevard include pedestrian improvements, landscaping Agenda Item Summary. and 99W to enhancements, and a potential gateway. The Include Pedestrian amendment to the streetscape contract with OTAK Improvements, for $7-10,000 would provide design and engineering Landscaping services for intersection modifications. Washington Enhancements County is presently managing the design of and a Potential improvements to the intersection. There is an Gateway opportunity now as part of the design process for the City to potentially include these additional design modifications. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 22 February 28, 2006 Adjournment Council meeting adjourned: 10:21 p.m. Motion by Councilor Harding, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Harding Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Attest: r Mayor, Ci ~o ff Tigard/ Date: ~-,'Od- L Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Page 23 February 28, 2006 G)Revised February 23, 2006 (study Session topic removed as noted.) F CITY COUNCIL ESS MEETING ruary 28, 2006 6:30 p.m. D CITY HALL W HALL BLVD RD, 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. Citizen Communication 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 Dea fl. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dea fl. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA P COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 2006 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > IGA - Goal 5 Fish & Wildlife Habitat - Tualatin Basin Partners o Staff Report: Community Development Department > Hall Blvd. Jurisdictional Transfer Discussion o Staff Report: Engineering Department > Hall Blvd. /Highway 99W Design Modifications o Staff Report: Community Development Department > Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement with Cities of Tigard, Tualatin, Beaverton, and Wilsonville, and Washington County (Washington County - Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Pro)ect) o Staff Report: Community Development Department • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation under ORS 192.660(2)(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(4), 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 & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 page 2 7:35 I'M 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) Executive Director Jeremy Monlyx called and asked to be scheduled for an April update to the City Council. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication 7:45 P11 3. 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: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for January 17 and 24, 2006 3.2 Approve First Amendment to Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement with Cities of Tigard, Tualatin, Beaverton, and Wilsonville, and Washington County (Washington County - Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project) 3.3 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement JGA) - Organization and Function of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee • Consent Agenda - Items Removed, or Separate Discussion. Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion hill be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:55 4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): VACATION OF AN UN-NAMED PUBLIC RIGH6r-OF-WAY EAST OF SW 741'14 AVENUE AND EAST OF THE S P & S RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH OF DURHAM ROAD (VAC2005-00003) The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a request by Larusso Concrete Company, Inc. and Richard Akerman & James Wathey concerning the proposed vacation involving an approximately 7,845 square foot portion of an un-named public right-of-way. The petition was filed with the City on November 15, 2005 and initiated by the City Council at the request of the applicant on December 20, 2005. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said Un-Named Portion of Public Right-of-way East of SW 74th Avenue Vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by 7:30 PM on February 28, 2006. a. Open Public Hearing - Mayor b. Staff Report: City Attorney and Community Development Staff C. 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 jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? d. Public Testimony Proponents COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 page 3 - Opponents Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 06-01 City Council Consideration Ordinance Council Member: I move for adoption of Ordinance No. 06-01 Council Member: I second the motion Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the ordinance? City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) ORDINANCE NO. 06-01 AN ORDINANCE VACATING FIVE SMALL PORTIONS OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TOTALING 3,392 SQUARE FEET ALONG 68'1'1-' PARKWAY AND 69'1'1-' AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (VAC2005-00004 AND VAC2005-00005) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council? City Recorder: Conducts a roll-call to recorder votes of City Council members. Mayor: Ordinance No. 06-01 (is adopted or has failed) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote of the Council members present. Note: Tie votes = failurv to ass. 8:05 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): VACATION OF FIVE SMALL PORTIONS OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TOTALING 3,392 SQUARE FEET ALONG SW 68'1'1-1 PARKWAY AND 69'1'1-1 AVENUE (VAC2005-00004 & VAC2005-00005 ) The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a request by Specht Development, Inc. concerning the proposed vacation involving five (5) small portions of public right-of-way totaling 3,392 square feet. The petition was filed with the City on September 9, 2005 and initiated by the City Council at the request of the applicant on January 10, 2006. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 page 4 against the proposed vacation of said 68th Parkway Public Right-of-Way Vacation and 69th Avenue Public Right-of-Way Vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by 7:30 PM on February 28, 2006. a. Open Public Hearing - Mayor b. Staff Report: City Attorney and Community Development Staff C. 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 jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? d. Public Testimony - Proponents Opponents Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 06-02 City Council Consideration Ordinance Council Member: I move for adoption of Ordinance No. 06-02 Council Member: I second the motion Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the ordinance? City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) ORDINANCE NO. 06-02 AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN APPROXIMATELY 7,845 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF AN UN-NAMED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH LIES TO THE EAST OF SW 741'1.1 AVENUE AND EAST OF THE S P & S RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, NORTH OF SW DURHAM ROAD, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (VAC2005-00003) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council? City Recorder: Conducts a roll-call to recorder votes of City Council members. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 page 5 Mayor: Ordinance No. 06-02 (is adopted or has failed) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote of the Council members resent. Note: Tie votes =failure to ass. 8:15 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND OF ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION (SUB) 20003-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003-00004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003- 0003/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2003-00005/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003- 00036/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00037 The State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has remanded for a second time the City Council's approval of a 29-lot Planned Development Subdivision on 9.3 acres and associated Zone Change, Sensitive Lands, and Adjustment reviews to address a single issue relating to tree preservation. As limited by LUBA, the issue remanded is whether the tree plan preserves trees to the greatest extent possible, given that the second tree plan does not protect 23 trees designated for protection in the original tree plan, but not designated for protection in the revised tree plan previously approved. On this second remand, the applicant has submitted a second revised tree plan that amends the first revised tree plan by designating for protection the 23 trees specifically mentioned by LUBA. A full copy of LUBA's Final Opinion and Order can be obtained from City Hall at cost, or is also available online at htip://luba.state.or.us/pdf/2005/sWtO5/05042.httn. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74th Avenue; WCTM 1S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The only applicable criterion on the issue on which LUBA remanded is CDC 18.350.100.B.3.a.1, which requires that planned developments protect existing trees to the greatest degree possible. a. Open Public Hearing - Mayor b. Staff Report: City Attorney and Community Development Staff C. Declarations of 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 jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? d. Public Testimony Proponents Opponents - Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 06-09 COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 page 6 City Council Consideration Resolution Council Member: I move for adoption of Resolution No. 06-09 Council Member: I second the motion Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the resolution? City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) RESOLUTION NO. 06-09 A RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION (SUBDIVISION (SUB) 3003-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003-00004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003-00003/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2003-00005/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003- 00036/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00037) - ON REMAND FROM LUBA; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion) All those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 06-09, please say "aye." Mayor/ Councilors Mayor: All those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 06-09, please say "nay." Mayor/Councilors Mayor: Resolution No. 06-09(is adopted or has failed) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote of the Council members present. Note. Tie votes =failure to pass. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 page 7 9:05 7. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD: POST-PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT OF THE CM/GC (CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR) CONTRACT FOR THE TIGARD NEW LIBRARY PROJECT • Staff Report: Engineering Department 9:15 8. CONSIDER AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) FOR JOINT FUNDING OF A WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM PLAN WITH THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • Staff Report: Public Works Department • Council Discussion • Council Consideration of IGA 9:25 9. CONSIDER PURSUING DESIGN MODIFICATION OF THE INTERSECTION AT HALL BLVD AND 99W TO INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS, LANDSCAPING ENHANCEMENTS AND A POTENTIAL GATEWAY • Staff Report: Community Development Department • Council Discussion • Council Direction to Staff 9:45 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) AS A PROJECT IN THE FY 2005-06 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP), AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LID IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE AND AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT • Staff Report: Engineering Department • Council Discussion • Council Consideration: Resolution No. 06-10 City Council Consideration Resolution Council Member: I move for adoption of Resolution No. 06-10 Council Member: I second the motion Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the resolution? COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 page 8 City Recorder: (Leads as requested.) RESOLUTION NO. 06-10 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ENGINEERING STAFF TO ESTABLISH A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) AS A PROJECT IN THE FY 2005-05 CIP (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM), DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LID IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE AND AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion) All those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 06-10, please say cc » aye. Mayor/Councilors Mayor: All those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 06-10, please say "nay." Mayor/ Councilors Mayor: Resolution No. 06-10(is adopted or has failed) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote of the Council members present. Note: Tie votes =failure to pass. 9:55. 11. CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT #10 TO THE FY 2005-06 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GAS TAX FUND FOR FUNDING OF THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE • Staff Report: Finance/Engineering Department • Council Discussion • Council Consideration: Resolution No. 06-11 COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 page 9 City Council Consideration Resolution Council Member: I move for adoption of Resolution No. 06-11 Council Member: I second the motion Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the resolution? City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) RESOLUTION NO. 06-11 A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #10 TO THE FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GAS TAX FUND FOR FUNDING OF THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion) All those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 06-11, please say aye. Mayor/Councilors Mayor: All those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 06-11, please say "nay." Mayor/ Councilors Mayor: Resolution No. 06-11 (is adopted or has failed) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote of the Council members present. Note. Tie votes =failure to pass. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 page 10 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS 13. 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(4), 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. 10:05 14. ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 page 11 r CITY OF TIGARD PILBLIC HEARING ITEM The following will be consid( by the Tigard City Council on A Tuesday FebruaKy 28 2006 a.-, .30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center coglV ►1V `UNITY -Both Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing SPAPERS on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Box 22109 • Portland, OR 97269 Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of Email: the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to legaladvertising@commnewspapers.com afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted I, Charlotte Allso being the first duly sworn, by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are p g y available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be depose and say that I am the Accounting made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of reasonable cost. general circulation, published at Beaverton, in Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division the aforesaid county and state, as defined by (_stafi contact: Dick Bewersdorffl at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that Oregon 97223, by calling 503-639-4171 or by email to &Lkk(a.tigard- orgov. SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2003-00010/PLANNED City of Tigard DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003-00004/ Public Hearing-Ash Creek ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003-00003/SENSITIVE LANDS TT 10736 REVIEW (SLR) 2003-00005/ ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00036/ADJUSTMENT a copy of which is hereto annexed, was (VAR) 2003-00037 published in the entire issue of said > ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION LUBA REMAND < newspaper for ITEM ON REMAND: The State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has remanded for a second time the City Councils approval of a 29-lot Planned Development Subdivision on 9.3 acres and associated Zone Change, Sensitive Lands, and Adjustment reviews to successive and consecutive weeks in the address a single issue relating to tree preservation. As limited by following issues - LUBA, the issue remanded is whether the tree plan preserves trees to February 9, 2006 l the greatest extent possible, given that the second tree plan does not protect 23 trees designated for protection in the original tree plan, but not designated for protection in the revised tree plan previously approved. On this second remand, the applicant has submitted a aiL~2 ! second revised tree plan that amends the first revised tree plan by MU' Loq-„ designating for protection the 23 trees specifically mentioned by Charlotte Allsop (Accounting M pager) LUBA. A full copy of LUBA's Final Opinion and Order can lie obtained from City Hall at cost, or is also available online at http://luba.state.or.us/pdf/2005/septO5/05042.htm. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74'n Avenue; WCTM 1S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes F ruary 006 with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are 14-0-TARI PUBLIC FOR OREGON permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also My commission expire l V 'nn,0( W ^w 1 c~ C)W permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The only applicable criterion on the issue on which LUBA remanded is CDC 18.350.100.B.3.a.1, which requires that planned developments protect existing trees to the greatest degree possible. Acct #10093001 Patricia Lunsford Publish 21912006 TT10736 KNOTA City of Tigard . -(MCMW,rw I- L....113125 SW Hall Boulevard ~weTOOioooio oa~ow Tigard, OR 97223 1( / voaTa nVi - . VAR2003-0Q036 Size 2 x 10 vaKtwT~on T Amount Due $167.00 ASH CREEK ESTATES ':remit to address above SusomSIo® EUBA U ..j_ ~MANU I / I ~ I - r a ~IT I I CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM VACATION (VAC) 2005-00003 > UN-NAMED PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF-WAy COMMUNITY The Tigard Ci EAST OF SW 74TH AVENUE < III a - lt Council tdthe public Fei~ruarv 28 2006 a Bard Leanng on SPAPERS es City Hall, Town Hall are 32 LSW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223 to consider 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO request by arusso Concrete Company, Inc, and Richard Akennan Box 22109 • Portland, OR 97269 a lames Wathey concerning the proposed vacation involving an Phone: 503-684- 360 Fax: 503-620-3433 of approximately 7,845 square foot portion of an un-named public right- Email: legaladvertising@commnewspapers.com nThe a ti b n was filed with the City on November 15, 2005 and by the City Council at the request of the a rd December 20, 2005. Any interested person may a ationPpear and be h and be heard AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION for or against the proposed vacatio of said Una - Portion of Pubjections blic Ri htor-of-waY East d SW 74th g Avenue Vac Named o remonstrances shall be filed with the City of Oregon, County of Washington, SS . Any written I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, .3 P on Februarv 2R X006 Recorder by depose and say that I am the Accounting Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, taff contact• Richard Bewersdor Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of Tigar , Oregon 97223 b 15 at 13 -41 SW Hall Boulevard71, o , general circulation, published at Beaverton, in d< hard-or, ov. Publ sh 2/9n2/ 6/2006 TT 0737r by email to the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that City of Tigard Public Hearing-VAC2005-00003 TT10737 a copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 2 successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues February 9, 2006 February 16, 2006 Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Ma ager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this February 1~6* 200 NOTAR PUBLIC FOR OREGON My commission expires \-ii0v r ;~W 1d007 Acct #10093001 Patricia Lunsford OFFICIAL SEAL City of Tigard SUZETTE I CURRAN NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard COMMISSION NO. 373063 Tigard, OR 97223 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 28, 2007 Size 2 x 3.5 Amount Due $116.90 ' remit to address above CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM CO~iIMUNITY NOTICE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION & SPAPEI~S PUBLIC HEARING 1.7 VACATION (VAC) 2005-00004 & VACATION (VAC) 2005-00005 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO > 68THPARKWAY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY STREET Box 22109 • Portland, OR 97269 VACATION & 69- AVENUE PUBLIC RIGHT OF-WAY Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 STREET VACATION < Email: The Tigard City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday legaladvertising@commnewspapers.com February 28. 2006 at 7:30 PM at tfie Tigard City Hall, Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223 to consider a request by Specht Development, Inc. concerning the proposed AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION vacation involving five (5) small portions of public right-of-way totaling 3,392 square feet. State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS The petition was filed with the City on September 9, 2005 and 1, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, initiated by the City Council at the request of the applicant on January depose and say that I am the Accounting 10, 2006. Any interested person may pear and be heard for or Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, against the proposed vacation of said 68t~Parkway Tublic Right-of- Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of Way Vacation and 69 Avenue Public Right-of-Way Vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City general circulation, published at Beaverton, in Recorder by 7:30 PM on February 28. 2006. the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Richard Bewersdorff) at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503-639-4171, or by email to Public Hearing-VAC2005-00005 dick@tig-ard-or.gov. Publish 2/9, 2/16/2006 TT10738 TT10738 - - a copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 2 successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues February 9, 2006 February 16, 2006 Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this F ruary 6 200 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON My commission expires "MV.aK 1 a~07 Acct #10093001 Patricia Lunsford City of Tigard N 13125 SW Hall Boulevard ON Tigard, OR 97223 tm 8,2007 Size 2 x 4.25 Amount Due $141.95 ' remit to a ddress above City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) TIGARD STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington) ss. City of Tigard ) I, ~ D61414& L being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) / 06-61 4- 6 6-6 , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of ~ -o2 > d - 6 6 with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 6 _ day of 144 &6/-6 ~l )200 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Signature of Person who Performed Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of Mardi , 2006. OFFICIAL SEAL Signature of Notary ublic for Oregon JILL M BYARS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON MY COMMI SION XPIRES UNE 14, 2008 \\TIG333\USR\DEPTSWDM\GREER\FORMSWFFIDAVITSWFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - ORDINANCE.DOC CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.06- Q J AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN APPROXIMATELY 7,845 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF AN UN-NAMED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH LIES TO THE EAST OF SW 74TH AVENUE AND EAST OF THE S P & S RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH OF SW DURHAM ROAD, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (VAC2005-00003). WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code on December 20, 2005, and has been recommended by the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the approximate 7,845 square feet of unnamed right-of-way to be vacated has never been used for public or private road purposes and is not required for ingress or egress to or from adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, the applicants have requested that the City of Tigard vacate an un-named public right-of-way approximately 7,845 square feet in area and described in exhibits "A-1 and A-2" and "B-I and B-2"; and WHEREAS, the City will no longer have maintenance responsibility for this area; and WHEREAS, all affected service providers, including utility companies and emergency service providers, have reviewed the vacation proposal and have provided no objections; and WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation area and all owners in the affected area, as described by ORS 271.080; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 15.08.120, notice of the public hearing was posted in the area to be vacated and published in the newspaper; and WHEREAS, the property owners of the majority of the area affected have not objected in writing; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the request on February 28, 2006, finds that it is in the public interest to approve the request to vacate said public right-of-way as the public interest will not be prejudiced by this vacation, as provided by ORS 271.120. and TMC Section 15.08.130; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of said 7,845 square foot portion of public right-of-way as shown and described in the attached Exhibits "A-1, A-2, B-1 and B-2" (legal descriptions and map of the area to be vacated), and by this reference, made part thereof. ORDINANCE NO. 06-01 Page I of 2 is\curpln\j ames\V AC\VAC2005-00003.ord t SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder and upon recording of a certified copy of the ordinance by the City Recorder. PASSED: By ~n a n mU~s vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this ~ V~Iday of , 2006. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this ~;(~~day of Z21,006. Craig D' sen, Mayor Approved as to form: Ci ttorney Date ORDINANCE No. 06--& Page 2 of 2 Page 2 x A-i ROAD VACATION SKETCH LOCATED IN THE SW 114 OF THE SE 1 /4 OF SEC 77ON 12, z TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M. CITY OF 77GARD, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF OREGON OCTOBER 25TH, 2005 l ! ! T 3 4 ! l - N O Q I ~ /p O TL 1300 Z \ co U - ROAD FANN 7RAC VACA770N .A C R E 'AREA 3849 SF TL 1200 / - TL 1100 AKERMAN / WATHEY DOC. NO. 92031816 O 'T 3 6 DEVELOPMENT 2407 NE 292nd Avenue Camas, WA 98607 360.834.2519 Fax.834.5498 2407 NE 292"d Avenue Camas, WA 98607 360.834.2519 fax.834.5498 DEVELOPMENT c.halcumb@verizon.net PROVIDING SURVEYING AND PLANNING SERVICES WITH A PERSONAL COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE. Legal Description 30-foot Wide Public Right of Way Vacation October 25, 2005 A portion of that 30-foot wide roadway dedicated to the public by Fanno Creek Acre Tracts, a Plat of Record in Book 5, Page 14, Washington County Survey Records, Situated in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, being more particularly described as follows; All of said 30-foot wide roadway lying West of Lot 35, Fanno Creek Acre Tracts, lying East of the S P & S Railroad 50-foot wide Right of Way, lying North of the Westerly Extension of the South line of said Lot 35, and lying South of the Westerly extension of the North line of that Tract of Land described In deed to Richard D. Akerman and James E. Wathey, recorded in Document Number 92031816, Washington County Deed Records. Containing 3,849 Square Feet. ROAD VACA TION SKETCH LOCATED IN THE SW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M. CITY OF TIGARD, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF OREGON i =60• OCTOBER 25TH, 2005 I I 7 3 4 ! I ! o ! V l % : VACATION TL 1300 AREA LARUSSO CONCRETE 3996 SF COMPANY, INC. ju DOC. NO. 2000032753 EANN T R A C a .ACRE cl) Q TL 1200 TL 1100 ! V / v J 3o. a / p T 3 6 DEVELOPMENT 2407 NE 292nd Avenue Camas, WA 98607 360.834.2519 Fax.834.5498 2407 NE 292nd Avenue Camas, WA 98607 360.834.2519 fax.834.5498 DEVELOPMENT c.halcumb@verizon.net PROVIDING SURVEYING AND PLANNING SERVICES WITH A PERSONAL COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE. Legal Description 30-foot Wide Public Right of Way Vacation October 25, 2005 A portion of that 30-foot wide roadway dedicated to the public by Fanno Creek Acre Tracts, a Plat of Record in Book 5, Page 14, Washington County Survey Records, Situated in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, being more particularly described as follows: All of said 30-foot wide roadway lying West of Lot 35, Fanno Creek Acre Tracts, lying East of the S P & S Railroad 50-foot wide Right of Way, lying South of the Westerly Extension of the North line of said Lot 35, and lying North of the Westerly extension of the South line of that Tract -of Land described in deed to Larusso Concrete Company, Inc., recorded In Document Number 2000032753, Washington County Deed Records. Containing 3,996 Square Feet. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 06- Q AN ORDINANCE VACATING FIVE SMALL PORTIONS OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TOTALING 3,392 SQUARE FEET ALONG 68' PARKWAY AND 69' AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (VAC2005-00004 & VAC2005-00005). WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to Section 15. 08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code on January 10, 2006, and has been recommended by the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, Specht Development has requested that the City of Tigard vacate the above right-of-way of 3,392 square feet in area as described in exhibits A-1 though A-5 and B-1 through B-5, as well as to accept dedication of three portions of right-of-way as described in exhibits C-1 through C-3 and D-1 through D-3 to allow for the assemblage of eleven parcels of land north of SW Dartmouth Street between 68th Parkway and 69th Avenue for development purposes; and WHEREAS, all affected service providers, including utility companies and emergency service providers, have reviewed the vacation proposal and have provided no objections; and WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation area and all owners in the affected area as described by ORS 271.080; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 15.08.120, notice of the public hearing was posted in the area to be vacated and published in the newspaper; and WHEREAS, the property owners of the majority of the area affected have not objected in writing; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the request on February 28, 2006, finds that it is in the public interest to approve the request to vacate said public right-of-way as the public interest will not be prejudiced by this vacation, as provided by ORS 271.120 and TMC 15.08.130. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of said 3,392 square feet of public right-of-way as shown and described in the attached Exhibits A-1 through A-5 and B-1 through B-5 (legal descriptions and maps of the area to be vacated) and by this reference, made part thereof. SECTION 2: Said vacation is hereby conditioned and shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder; further, the ordinance will not be effective until the acceptance of right-of-way dedication as described in Exhibits C-1 through C-3 and D-1 through D-3 by the City Engineer, and upon recording of a certified copy of the ordinance by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No. 06- 0)-- Page 1 PASSED: By U nanlrnOvkh vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this a 1kH' day of(3--~ 2006. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2006. Craig Di en, Mayor Approved as to form: V. iL~ Date ORDINANCE No. 06- C7a Page 2 EXHIBIT A -1 Page 1 of 1 Prepared By: NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC PO Box 7177 Beaverton; OR 97007 503-848-2127 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR S.W. 468 m PARKWAY RIGHT OF WAY VACATION TAX LOT # 3001, MAP 1S136DD Real Property situated in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, being a portion of that parcel as descn~ed in deed to Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root, recorded under Document Number 2004-123997, records of said county, lying in the southeast quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southerly end of a 25.00 foot radius curve between the right of way lines for S.W. 68a' Parkway and S.W. Clinton Street at the southeasterly comer of said Jack B. Root and Wilma L..Root parcel, said point being on the northerly right of way line S.W. Clinton Street and being marked by a 5/8" iron rod with a yellow plastic cap stamped "Northwest Surveying, LLC"; Thence along said 25.00 foot radius curve; being tangent with said northerly right of way line, to the left, and having 'a delta angle of 87'45' 18", a long chord bearing North 46°06'27" East 34.66 feet, and a length of 38.29 feet to a 5/8" iron rod with a yellow plastic cap stamped "Northwest Surveying, LLC"; Thence along the westerly right of way line of said S.W. 68 h Parkway, North 02°.1348" East 83.65 feet to a point measuring 35.00 feet at right angles to the centerline of said S.W. 6e Parkway; . Thence southerly parallel with the centerline of said S.W. 68" Parkway, South 00°03'44" East 82.58 to a tangent curve; Thence along said curve to the right having a radius of 25.00 feet, a delta angle of 90°02'49", a long chord bearing South 44°57'41" West 35.37 feet and a length of 39.29 feet; Thence South 89°59'06" West 3.33 feet to the point of beginning. The above described tract contains 220 square feet, more or less. The basis of bearings for this description is between found monuments. along the northerly right of way line of said S.W. Clinton Street, per survey number 30,016, on record with the Washington County Surveyor's Office. _ EXHIBIT B- EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION VARIED WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY VACATION. FOR TAX LOT 3001 MAP 1S136DD ■ FOUND 5/8' IRON ROD WITH CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC , AUGUST 8, 2005 PER SURVEY NUMBER 30,016 PAGE 1 OF 1 CURVE TABLE. l co CURVE LENGTH RADIUS - DELTA CHORD CHORD BEARING I o Cl 39.29' 25.00' 9002'49* 35.37' S44'5741'W I _o C2 38.29' 25.00' 873518' 34.66' N4606'2YE 35.00' C3 10.59' 25.00' 241556' 10.51' N1421'46'E ~I o I C4 27.70' 25.00' 6379'21' . 26.31'.. N5814'25"E W a r-1 ~ I NI W voi; N 1 1 o d I W I ~ Y I TAX LOT 3001. 1 -co Q -DOC# 2004-123997 co co Z 1 W1 W W N I co _ AO RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION 00 AREA = +220 SQUARE FEET w• M Mz I o o 1 1 Z vi SCALE 1" = 20 FEET °D 1 I _1 1 1 1 C2 to cq go 1 POINT OF C3 ' REGISTERED BEGINNING L=10.59' i 35.00' PROFESSIONAL o~ I LAND SURVEYOR ti 1 I BASIS OF BEARINGS R OREGON PER SURVEY # 30,016. CLINTON H. STUBBS JR. N89'S9'06'E 166.36' 35469 LS $89'59166"W C4 ' RENEWAL DATE: 06/30/06 S.W. CLINTON STREET 3.33' L=27.70' PREPARED FOR: JOB NAME: DARTMOUTH ST. PO BOX 717 SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC JOB NUMBER: 56 BEAVERTON, OR797007 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY PHONE: 503-848-2127 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 DRAWING NUMBER: 56DEDICATIONS FAX: 503-848-2179 SURVEYING EtvlC nwsurveyingc~,eri2on.net DRAWN BY: CHS CHECKED BY: CHS EXHIBIT A - 2 Page 1 of 1 Prepared By'. NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC PO Box 7177 Beaverton, OR 97007 503-848-2127 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR S.W. 68TH PARKWAY AND S.W. CLINTON STREET RIGHT OF WAY VACATION TAX LOT # 6100, MAP 1S136DD Real Property situated in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, being a portion of that parcel as described in deed to Robert S. Hogg and Harriett L. Hogg, recorded under Book 303, Page 341, records of said county, lying in the southeast quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Robert S. Hogg and Harnett L. Hogg parcel, said point being on the westerly right of way line S.W. 68h Parkway, from said point a 5/8" iron rod with. a no cap bears South 89°48'48" West 0.05 feet; Thence along said westerly right of way line, North 00°03'44" West 75.32 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve; Thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 25.00 feet, a delta angle of 89°57' 11 a long chord bearing North 45°02' 19" West 35.34 feet, and a length of 39.25 feet to the southerly right of way line of S.W. Clinton Street; Thence parallel with the centerline of said S.W. Clinton Street, North 89°59'06" East 5.00 feet to a tangent curve; Thence along said curve to the right having a radius of 25.00 feet, a delta angle of 89°57' 11", a long chord bearing South 45°02' 19" East 35.34 feet, and a length of 39.25 feet to a point 35.00 feet measured at right angles to the centerline of said S.W 68th Parkway; Thence parallel with said centerline, South 00°03'44" East 75.31 feet to the easterly extension of the south line of said Robert S. Hogg and Harriett L. Hogg parcel; Thence along said easterly extension South 89°48'48" West 5.00 feet to the point of beginning. The above described tract contains 501 square feet, more or less. The basis of bearings for this description is between found monuments along the southerly line of said Robert S. Hogg and Harriett L. Hogg parcel, per survey number 30,016, on record with the Washington County Surveyor's Office. EXHIBIT B 2 EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION VARIED WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY VACATION FOR TAX LOT 6100 MAP 1 S136DD CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON AUGUST 15, 2005 PAGE 1 OF 1 I N89'S9b6'E I 3o.0o' S.W. CUNTON STREET N89'59'06'E I N89-59-06-E 5.00' clr L=39.25' 2s R=25.00' • o s. I C2 TAX LOT 6100 BOOK 303, PAGE 341 NI 35.00' RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION AREA = ±501 SQUARE FEET', , . °i mlui I FOUND 5/8' IRON ROD WITH RED PLASTIC CAP STAMPED N.LMc. LS 808', L~ oo 0 Co o PER SURVEY NUMBER 25,380 POINT OF a'. ° z~ c> C> BEGINNING W;° ° N I SCALE 1 - 30 FEET BASIS OF BEARINGS 5.00, PER SURVEY 30,016 i S89'448`W I a m co N89'4848"E 89.95' , 5,00' ' 35.00' FOUND 5/8' IRON ROD WITH NO CAP-'I REGISTERED 'PER OREGON STATE HIGHWAY i I PROFESSIONAL DEPARTMENT MAP 98-11-17 ; i . LAND SURVEYOR BEARS N89'48'48'E.0.05'.TO EXISTING CORNER OF TAX LOT 6100 ' I i OREGON CURVE TABLE H. S 2002 CLINTON H. STUBBSJR. CURVE 'LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD. CHORD BEARING 55469LS Cl 39.25' 25.00' 89'57'11' 35.34' S45'02'19'E RENEWAL DATE: 06/30/06 C2 39.25' 25.00' 8957'11' 35.34' N45'02'1 9'W PREPARED FOR: JOB NAME: DARTMOUTH ST. INC JOB NUMBER: 56 ]NORTHWEST PO BOX 7177 SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, BEAVERTON, OR 97007 1 N, OR' 97006WAY DRAWING NUMBER: 56DEDICATIONS PHONE: 503-848-2127 '400 SW BEAVERT ON OR 9 EA FAX: 503-848-2179 EMAIL: nwsurveyingoverizon.net DRAWN BY: CHS SURVEYING, LLC rurrvrn nv. PM EXHIBIT A - 3 Page 1 of 1 Prepared By: NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC PO Box 7177 Beaverton, OR 97007 503-848-2127 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR S.W. 68TH PARKWAY RIGHT OF WAY VACATION TAX LOT # 6700 AND 6800, MAP 1S136DD Real Property situated in the City of Tigard, Washington County,-Oregon, being a portion of that parcel as described in deed to Gordon C. Root, Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root, recorded under Document Number 99-002709, records of said county, lying in the southeast quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Gordon C. Root, Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root parcel,.said point being on the westerly right of way line S.W. 68th Parkway, from said point a 518" iron rod with a no cap bears South 89°48'48" West 0.05 feet; Thence along the easterly extension of the northerly line of said parcel, North 89°48'48" East 5.00 feet to a point 35.00 feet measured at right angles from the centerline of said S.W. 68" Parkway, Thence parallel with said centerline, South 00°03'44" East 101.71 feet to the easterly extension of the south line of said Gordon C. Root, Jack B: Root and Wilma L.-Root parcel; Thence along said easterly extension North 89°59'58" West 5.00 feet to the westerly right of way line of said S.W. 68a' Parkway; Thence along said westerly right of way line North 00°03'44" West 101.69 feet to the point of beginning. The above described tract contains 508 square feet, more or less. The basis of bearings for this description is between found monuments along the northerly line of said Gordon C. Root, Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root parcel, per survey number 30,016, on record with the Washington County Surveyor's Office. EXHIBIT B--3 EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION A 5.00 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY VACATION FOR TAX LOT 6700 AND 6800 MAP 1Sl36DD CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON AUGUST 15, 2005 PAGE 1 OF .1 , FOUND 5/8" IRON ROD WITH RED PLASTIC CAP STAMPED I "W.LMc. LS 808", PER SURVEY NUMBER 25,380 POINT OF • BEGINNING ' I BASIS OF BEARINGS ' PER SURVEY 1 30,016 N89'48'48"E N89'48480E 89.95' i 5.00' - l FOUND 5/8" IRON ROD WITH NO CAP- -35-00 PER OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT MAP 98-11-17 i 00! i BEARS N8948'480E 0.05' TO EXISTING CORNER OF TAX LOT 6100 I TAX LOT 6700 & 6800 °l~ W Y = Q ~I DOC 199002709 o RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION o co, 7-3 AREA = ±508 SQUARE FEET C-10 • Cl C 0 co SCALE 1" = 30 FEET ca Z ai 3 F- i vi I i ~l M W N89'59'58"W REGISTERED S89'59'58"E wI 5.00' PROFESSIONAL 35.00' LAND SURVEYOR i I E TABLE OREGON DJRR. CURV '""u'~r's' m CUNTON H.STUBBU8 CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD CHORD BEARING 55469LS Cl 39.25' 25.00' 8957'11" 35.34' S4502'191 RENEWAL WE 06/30/06: C2 39.25' 25.00' 89'57'11" 35.34' N45'02'19"W PREPARED FOR: JOB NAME: DARTMOUTH ST. 9 JOB NUMBER: 56 N ORTHWEST PO BOX 7177 ECHT DEVELOPMENT INC BEAVERTON, R SP 97007 15400 SW MILLIKAN BEA OR 9WAY DRAWING NUMBER: 56DEDICATIONS PHONE; BEAVERT RTON, OR 97006 EMAIL: nwsurvey'ingOverizon.net DRAWN BY: CHS S URVEYING, LLC r,urrvrn RY• f`NC 1 EXHIBIT A - Page X of 1 Prepared By: NORTHWEST SURVEYING,,LLC PO Box 7177 Beaverton, OR 97007 503-848-2127 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR S.W. 68TH PARKWAY RIGHT OF WAY VACATION TAX LOT. # 6600, MAP 1S136DD Real Property situated in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, being a portion of that parcel as described indeed to Gordon C. Root, Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root, recorded under Document Number 98-056127, records of said county, lying in the southeast quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Gordon C. Root, Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root parcel, said point being on the westerly right of way line S.W. 68th Parkway, and being marked by a 5/8" iron rod with a no cap; Thence along the easterly extension of the northerly line of said parcel, South 89°59'58" East 5.00 feet to a point 35.00 feet measured at right angles from the centerline of said S.W. 68ei Parkway; Thence parallel with said centerline, South 00°03'44" East 71.45 feet to a tangent curve; Thence along said curve to the right having a radius of 25.00 feet, a delta angle of 36°52'12"; a long chord bearing South 18°2222" West 15.81 feet, and a length of 16.09 feet to the westerly right of way line of said S.W. 68 h Parkway; Thence along said westerly right of way line North 00°03'44" West 86.46 feet to the point of beginning. The above described tract contains 408 square feet, more or less. The basis of bearings for this description is between found monuments along the northerly. line of said Gordon C. Root, Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root parcel, per survey number 30,016, on record with the Washington County Surveyor's Office. EXHIBIT B-4 EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION VARIED WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY VACATION FOR TAX LOT 6600 MAP 1S136DD CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON AUGUST 15, 2005 PAGE 1 OF 1 I POINT OF I BEGINNING • BASIS OF BEARINGS PER SURVEY 130,016 i S89'59'58'E S8959'58'E 89.99' 5.00! FOUND 5/8' IRON ROD , 35.00' WITH NO CAP, PER i 40.00' SURVEY NUMBER 19,416 > TAX LOT 6600. co; lo- 3 ' DOC4 98-056127 0, 3I RIGHT-OF--WAY VACATION = Col _ - of AREA = ±408 SQUARE FEET Z°) pl. o co cn cc 5.00' I ~4 FUTURE w j RIGHT OF WAY ui 35.00 DEDICATION W i o o I SCALE 1" = 30 FEET I C2 L=9.32' i C> C> co CQ R=25.00' 47.00' 40.00 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON CURVE TABLE JANUARY 15. 2W2 CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD CHORD BEARING CLINTON H. STUBBS JR. . 55469LS C1 16.09' 25.00' 36'52'12' 15.81' S18*2f220W RENEWAL DATE: 06/30/06 C2 9.32' 25.00' 2171'15 9.26' N4729'06"E PREPARED FOR: JOB NAME: DARTMOUTH ST.. SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC JOB NUMBER: . 56 N ORTHWEST BE PO BOX 71777 AVERTON, OR 9 007 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY PHONE: 503-848-2127 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 DRAWING. NUMBER: 56DEDICATIONS FAx: 513-18-2171 S DRAWN BY: CHS URVEYING EMICnwsurveyingc~,erizon.net CHECKED BY: CHS _ EXHIBIT A -5- Page 1 of 1 Prepared By: NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC PO Box 7177 Beaverton, OR 97007 503-848-2127 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR S.W. DARTMOUTH STREET AND S.W. 69' AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY VACATION TAX LOT # 6300, MAP 1S136DD Real Property situated in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, being a portion of that parcel as described in deed to Gordon C. Root, Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root, recorded under Document Number 98-056127, records of said county, lying in the southeast quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Gordon C. Root, Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root parcel, said point being on the easterly right of way line S.W. 69" Avenue, and being marked by a 5/8" iron rod with a no cap; - Thence along the southerly line of said parcel, North 89°50'20" East 90.92 feet to apoint 47.00 feet measured at right angles from the centerline of said S.W. Dartmouth Street; Thence along a curve to the right, being a 47.00 foot offset from the centerline of said S.W. Dartmouth Street and having a radius of 393.47 feet, a delta angle of 9° 13'26"; a long chord bearing South 63° 11'42" West 63.28 feet, and a length of 63.34 feet to a tangent curve; Thence along said curve to the right having a radius of 25.00 feet, a delta angle of 112°09'42"; a long chord bearing North 56°06'44" West 41.49 feet, and a lease of 48.94 feet to a point 30.00 feet measured at right angles to the centerline of S.W. 69 Avenue; Thence parallel with said centerline of S.W. 690'Avenue, North 00°01'53" West 5.14 feet to the point of beginning. The above described tract contains 1,755 square feet, more or less. The basis of bearings for this description is between found monuments along the easterly right of way line of said S.W. 69'h Avenue, per survey number 30,016, on record with the Washington County Surveyor's Office. EXHIBIT B 5 EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION VARIED " WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY VACATION FOR TAX LOT 6600 MAP 1S136DD O FOUND 5/8" IRON ROD WITH CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED AUGUST 15, 2005 "NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC-, PAGE 1 OF PER SURVEY NUMBER 30,016 i I W ~3 Z POINT OF BEGINNING rici; o FOUND 5/8.IRON ROD WITH NO CAP z ° , PER SURVEY NUMBER 19,416 RIGHT E OF WAY TAX LOT 6300 DEDICATION I o = . DOCI 98056127 3 rn m o . RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION 9N~ c w z AREA= 1,755 SQUARE FEET o09 1 ~ U 30.00' N8 9'50'20'E 90.92' r--- I N00'01'537W 5.14' G1 40.00' X63' 47.W.. S 004 I S SCALE 1" = 30 FEET I G3 0 c CQ co gcv ° v~~ 0. REGISTERED I _ PROFESSIONAL , LAND SURVEYOR I y f CURVE TABLE !CU RVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD CHORD BEARING OREGON Cl 63.34' 393.47' 9'13'26' 63.28' S63'11'42"W wun 1s, 2002 , CLINTON H.. STUBBS JR. 2 48.94 25.00 112'09'42* 41.49 N56'06 44 W 55469LS C3 160.00' 440.47' 20'48'48" 159.13' N68'9070E RENEWAL DATE: 06/30/06 C4 2.89' 393.47' "0'25'15' 2.89' N58'22'21"E PREPARED FOR: JOB NAME: DARTMOUTH ST. 7177 SPECHT DEVELOPMENT INC JOB NUMBER: 56 NORTHWEST PO BEAVERTON. Box OR 97007 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY PHONE: 503-848-2127 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 DRAWING NUMBER: 56DEDICATIflNS FAX: 503=848=2179 S URVEYING EMAIL nwsurveyingoverizon.net DRAWN BY-.* CHS CHECKED BY. CHS P~ Are you interested in serving on a City of Tigard Board, Committee or Commission? If you would like to be on a mailing list to receive notices of openings on the various City of Tigard boards, commissions, or committees, please complete the information below. Please indicate u to five of your areas of interests: ❑ Economic Development ❑ Public Safety ❑ Environmental ❑ Transportation ❑ Financial Matters ❑ Urban Renewal ❑ General Government ❑ Youth Issues ❑ Land Use ❑ Library ❑ Neighborhood ❑ Parks and Open Space ❑ Recreation Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Date: Do you reside within the Tigard city limits? ❑ Yes ❑ No Daytime Phone Evening Phone Fax E-Mail Are you currently a member of a City of Tigard advisory committee? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, which one? i:tadmtcathytccs sign upWounteer interest.doc AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE : FEBRUARY 28, 2006 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) 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. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will v help the presiding officer pronounce: ,Q V Address City / State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Item No. For Council Newsletter dated MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder 0_'P-~M RE: Agenda Item Nos. 3.3 & 10 for the February 28, 2006, City Council Meeting DATE: February 23, 2006 Council packet information is attached for the following February 28, 2006, Council Agenda items: 3.3 Consideration of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) - Organization and Function of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee 10 Proposed Formation of a Local Improvement District in the Tigard Triangle (Revisions to this item as noted in City Engineer Duenas' February 23, 2006, memorandum.) Attachments I:tadmYcMhy% mrespondenceUMMransmittat memo - packet Clem for 2-28-06 meetingAm AGENDA ITEM # ~5. J FOR AGENDA OF February 28, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) - Organization and Function of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee PREPARED BY:_ Denver IgWa DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consider an IGA to continue cooperation with the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Spaces on the implementation phase of the Goal 5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize signature of an IGA reconfirming establishment of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee and extending the partnership with Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Spaces through the program implementation phase. INFORMATION SUMMARY In April 2002, City Council approved entering into a intergovernmental agreement with other Washington County jurisdictions, a group known as the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Spaces, to analyze the impact of development on inventoried riparian and wildlife habitat resources and develop a resource protection program. The City of Tigard contributed $13,921 to the project, based on its population. In July 2003, Council approved an additional $5,568 for planning assistance to complete the impact analysis and protection program for Goal 5 natural resource sites located within the Basin. Since 2002, the City of Tigard has participated on the Tualatin Basin Partners' Steering Committee (comprised of staff representatives) and Natural Resource Coordinating Committee (comprised of elected local officials). The initial step of conducting an Economic, Social, Environmental. and Energy (ESEE) analysis of inventoried resources and determining whether to allow, limit, or prohibit conflicting uses was completed in Spring 2004. The Basin Partners then began work (in Winter 2004) on developing a program to improve protection of significant resources. In March 2005, the an overview of the proposed Tualatin Basin Program was presented by staff to the Tigard City Council. The Basin's Natural Resource Coordinating Committee voted in April 2005 to send an approved Tualatin Basin Program to Metro Council as their approach to improve the environmental health of the Basin. In September 2005, Metro Council formally approved the Basin Program as a compliance option for Title 13 of the Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Basin Partners are now preparing to implement program elements to reach their goal of improving the Basin's environmental health and to comply with state and regional Goal 5 planning requirements. In July 2005, a new intergovernmental agreement (IGA) was prepared to extend the Tualatin Basin partnership to jointly coordinate implementation of the approved Program This IGA was made effective after being signed by fA Washington County and seven (of the 12) other partner governments. All original Basin Partners were reenlisted in the alliance, although some members had not yet formally signed the agreement, including the City of Tigard. Signing the intergovernmental agreement formalizes the City's commitment to continued involvement in the coordination effort and participation on the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee and Steering Committee through the program's implementation phase. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Formally withdraw from the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 partnership. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT 2006 Council Goals: • Revise the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan • Consider Opportunities for Major Greenspaces Purchases Vision Goal: Community Character & Quality of Life, Community Aesthetics - Identify and implement projects and activities that enhance aesthetic qualities valued by those who live and work in Tigard. Vision Goal: Growth & Growth Management - Growth will be managed to protect the character and livability of established areas, protect the natural environment and provide open space throughout the community. Vision Goal: Growth & Growth Management - The City Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed and revised to: Provide for preservation of natural environment and open space throughout the community. Vision Goal: Urban & Public Services, Parks & Greenways - The City will educate and support citizen efforts to understand the importance of floodplains and wetlands and how the areas are managed and protected. Vision Goal: Urban & Public Services, Parks & Greenways - Open space and greenway areas shall be preserved and protected. Vision Goal: Urban & Public Services, Water & Stormwater - Stormwater runoff is effectively managed. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Memo: Tualatin Basin (Goal 5) Partnership for Natural Spaces Attachment 2: Intergovernmental Agreement - Organization and Function of the TBNRCC Attachment 3: Program Implementation General Work Scope and Project Cost Estimates FISCAL NOTES No additional contributions to the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee are required at this time. Adequate funds remain from prior contributions by Basin governments for the ESEE analysis and program development phases to cover the cost of activities identified in the program implementation phase of this effort. Should it be determined that additional funds are needed, the request must first be approved by a majority of the voting members of the TBNRCC. Attachment 1 n MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Barbara Shields, Planning Manager FROM: Denver Igarta, Associate Planner RE: Tualatin Basin (Goal 5) Partnership for Natural Spaces DATE: January 10, 2006 The Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Spaces recently extended their alliance of local governments in Washington County, including the City of Tigard, working to improve the environmental health of the Tualatin Basin. A new intergovernmental agreement (IGA), which focuses on the implementation phase of the Tualatin Basin (Goal 5) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program, was made effective after being signed by Washington County and seven (of the 12) other Partners. All original Basin governments were reenlisted in the partnership, although some members had not yet formally signed the agreement, including the City of Tigard. Attached is the IGA titled "Organization and Function of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee." This memo is intended to provide a brief overview of the Tualatin Basin Program and the ongoing implementation effort as it relates to the extension of the IGA. In April, staff is scheduled to provide a more in-depth presentation to the City Council on the status and timeline of the Tualatin Basin Program. Key Elements of Program Implementation Since entering into the original partnership agreement in 2002, the City of Tigard has served on both the Tualatin Basin Partners' Natural Resource Coordinating Committee (comprised of elected local officials) and Steering Committee (comprised of staff representatives). Through participating on these committees, the City has remained involved in the Basin's efforis to complete an analysis of the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) impacts of conflicting uses on habitat resources (n 2004) and develop a resource protection program for the Tualatin Basin. Since the Tualatin Basin Program was completed and first presented to the City Council in Spring 2005, the Program has been formally approved by Metro as a compliance option for Title 13 of the Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Basin Partners are now preparing to implement program elements to reach their goal of improving the Basin's environmental health and to comply with state and regional Goal 5 planning requirements. The 1 Basin Approach applies different measures to the three different resource designations based on their relative value as described in the following table: DESIGNATION RESOURCES APPROACH 1. Strictly Limit (SL) Clean Water Services . Existing Regulations (no new7Eg Jatxm nqui4 (CWS) vegetated . Guidelines and incentives for Low Impact corridor, highest value Development (LID) and habitat-sensitive riparian resources development • Technical assistance 2. Moderately Limit Remaining high & • Target areas for restoration & enhancement (MI) moderate value (Class I . Allow flexibility in development approaches & II) riparian resources . Guidelines and incentives for LID and habitat-sensitive development • Technical assistance 3. Lightly Limit Low value (Class III) . Educational materials/program (LL) riparian and upland . Guidelines and incentives for LID and habitat (Class A, B &-Q habitat-sensitive development resources . Technical assistance In September 2005, Metro Council formally approved the Basin Program, subject to the following conditions: • The Tualatin Basin partnership must be extended and the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee (comprised of elected local officials) must continue to coordinate Partner activities. • Basin Partners must implement applicable program elements udyin ors yur of program approval, or by the end of September 2006. Implementation Timeline By September 2006, each local government is scheduled to adopt, adopt with amendments, or reject proposed ordinances amending their comprehensive plans, land use regulations or any other program or regulation necessary to implement the Tualatin Basin Habitat Protection Program If a Basin Partner chooses to reject or vary from the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program, findings must be adopted explaining their decision. The Basin Partners have extended the contract with consultant Angelo-Eaton & Associates to develop the strategy for implementing applicable program elements, specifically encouraging and facilitating Habitat Friendly Development Practice. The cost estimate for consultant services (to be performed by Angelo-Eaton) to assist Tualatin Basin Partners in 2 program implementation activities is $26,030, which will be taken from the existing fund balance (of approximately $49,000). See the attached Program Implementation Work Scope and Schedule. The three primary tasks and their related products are outlined in the attached Work Scope. and summarized in the following table: PROGRAM TASK RESULT 1. Development of a template/model New (non-mandatory) standards in local codes ordinance to address a menu of several which will allow and encourage property owners low impact development (LID) and developers to implement habitat friendly approaches and LID guidelines for local development practices development codes 2. Removal of current impediments to the Amendment of existing local standards to implementation of LID development remove barriers to implementation of habitat techniques friendly practices 3. Prepare a compliance report to Metro for Implementation report based on findings in the Basin's Implementation of Habitat Issue Papers # 1 & # 2 with attached adopted Friendly Design Practices ordinances Policy Decisions for Council signing the intergovernmental agreement formalizes the City's commitment to continue the on-going coordination effort and its involvement on the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Goordinating Committee and Steering Committee (comprised of staff representatives) through the program's implementation phase. The final IGA will be represented by the compilation of all signed original signature pages with a copy of the agreement. Attached Documents: 1. Intergovernmental Agreement - Organization and Function of the TBNRCC 2. Program Implementation General Work Scope and Project Cost Estimates 3 Attachment 2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TUALATIN BASIN NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATING COMMITTEE This Agreement is entered into by the cities, county and special districts (collectively "Basin governments") that are signatories to this Agreement. WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 - .110 authorizes units of local government to enter into agreements for the performance of any functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agencies have authority to perform; WHEREAS, an agreement under ORS 190.010 shall specify the functions or activities to be performed and by what means they shall be performed; WHEREAS, the Basin governments have responsibilities and authority under State law and/or their local charters to conduct comprehensive planning and to administer implementing land use regulations within their respective jurisdictions, or have regulatory authority and provide services that are connected with these land use planning responsibilities; WHEREAS, the city Basin governments have entered into intergovernmental agreements with Clean Water Services ("CWS"), a county service district that is also a Basin government, concerning performance of local storm and sanitary sewer operations, and concerning the authority and responsibility of CWS, as more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS, the cities, County, and special districts (collectively "Basin governments") that are shown above the signature lines of this Agreement previously entered into an intergovernmental agreement ("Formation Agreement") pursuant to ORS 190.010 - 190.110 forming the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Coordinating Committee ("TBNRCC"); WHEREAS, the Portland Metropolitan Service District ("Metro") has undertaken the responsibility to prepare and direct implementation of regional Goal 5 programs which affect the Basin governments and which undertaking gave rise to the formation of the TBNRCC; WHEREAS, the Basin governments have determined that it is in their best interests to jointly prepare and coordinate implementation of a program concerning Statewide Planning Goal.5, Title 3, Section 5 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, the Federal Clean Water Act and related state regulations, the Endangered Species Act, and other regional natural resource related matters; WHEREAS, Metro and TBNRCC entered into an intergovernmental agreement, ("Metro-TBNRCC IGA") approved by the TBNRCC on June 10, 2002, and by the Metro INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 1 of 8 Council by Resolution No. 02-3195 on May 16, 2002 and amended by a First Addendum approved by TBNRCC on May 5, 2003 and by the Metro Council by Resolution 03-3332 on May 15, 2003, and by a Second Addendum approved by TBNRCC on April 4, 2005 and by Metro Council by Resolution 05- on , 2005• WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005, the TBNRCC adopted Resolution and Order No. 2005- 01 adopting Goal 5 program recommendations and supporting ESEE analysis for submittal to Metro, (hereinafter the "Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program" attached hereto as Exhibit "B") and said resolution was adopted pursuant to the Metro-TBNRCC IGA; WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005 the TBNRCC directed submittal of the "Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program to the Metro Council for inclusion in the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan as the regional resource program addressing fish & wildlife habitat resources in the Tualatin Basin; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2005 the Metro Council adopted Resolution No. 05-3577A approving the TBNRCC's Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program, with conditions; and those conditions included two important elements: 1) that "The TBNRCC members agree to renew and extend their partnership to implement the projects on the Healthy Streams Project List and target projects that protect and restore Class I and II Riparian Habitat, including habitat that extends beyond the Clean Water Services "vegetated corridors", and the TBNRCC shall continue to coordinate its activities with Metro and cooperate with Metro on the development of regional public information about the Nature in Neighborhoods Initiative"; and 2) "Provisions are adopted that facilitate and encourage the use of habitat-friendly development practices, where technically feasible and appropriate, in all areas identified as Class I and II riparian habitat areas on the Metro Regionally Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Inventory Map." NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties to this Agreement hereby agree to undertake the following actions: 1. Formation; Scope of Authority The parties hereby reconfirm establishment of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Coordinating Committee ("TBNRCC"), and delegate to the TBNRCC the authority that each party has within its jurisdictional territory to perform the following functions and exercise the following powers for and on behalf of the parties and their jurisdictional territories within the Tualatin Basin area to achieve the purpose and objectives of this Agreement: 1.1 Expend funds contributed by the parties to this joint Tualatin Basin response to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program or other INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 2 of 8 intergovernmental natural resource related programs or projects deemed of mutual interest and which would benefit from cooperative action by the respective parties to this agreement. 1.2 Select and enter into contracts with consultants and other parties necessary to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program or other intergovernmental natural resource related programs or projects deemed of mutual interest and which would benefit from cooperative action by the respective parties to this agreement, subject to compliance with the Washington County public contracting rules and regulations. 1.3 Further develop, refine and carry out the tasks and responsibilities of the Basin governments described in the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program. 1.4 Appear on behalf of the parties in Metro Goal 5 legislative, administrative and other proceedings and speak for the parties and their jurisdictional territories on matters that concern potential effects of proposed Metro actions on implementation of the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program or other intergovernmental natural resource related programs or projects deemed of mutual interest and which would benefit from cooperative action by the respective parties to this agreement. 1.5 Consider unique circumstances identified by Basin governments as they individually determine how to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program. 1.6 Advise the Board of Directors of Clean Water Services on implementation of the Healthy Streams Plan or other intergovernmental natural resource related programs or projects deemed of mutual interest and which would benefit from cooperative action by the respective parties to this agreement. 1.7 Appoint TBNRCC subcommittees, task forces or other advisory groups as may be needed or deemed appropriate by the TBNRCC. 1.8 Conduct public outreach relating to implementation of the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program. 1.9 Undertake other actions needed to perform TBNRCC responsibilities to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program or other intergovernmental natural resource related programs or projects deemed of mutual interest and which would benefit from cooperative action by the respective parties to this agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Agreement, CWS has certain unique responsibilities and duties under the federal Clean Water Act that are detailed in Exhibit INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 3 of 8 A that affect its relationship with the TBNRCC. Additionally, the TBNRCC shall not have authority, delegated or otherwise, to adopt final land use decisions on behalf of, or binding upon, any Basin government. 2. Governance The TBNRCC shall consist of the chief elected officer of the governing body of each Basin government or his/her alternate from that governing body. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the member and alternate from Clean Water Services shall be a person other than the chair and alternate representing the Washington County Board of Commissioners on the TBNRCC. In addition, the Metro Council may appoint from among its members two ex-officio non-voting members to the TBNRCC. 2.1 Each TBNRCC member except ex-officio members shall have one vote. A TBNRCC meeting quorum shall consist of a majority of all voting members. The TBNRCC shall establish bylaws setting forth meeting times and rules of procedure as it deems necessary to carry on its business. 2.2 Meetings of the TBNRCC and its subcommittees shall be open to the public, subject to the provisions of the Oregon Public Meetings Law. 2.3 Washington County shall provide staff services to schedule meetings, keep minutes and meeting records, administer consultant contracts, pay approved expenses and such other administrative matters necessary to conduct TBNRCC business. 3. Funding 3.1 The voting members of the TBNRCC agree to review the costs of activities resulting from decisions of the Committee and to provide funds adequate to meet expenses incurred. Funding sources shall be determined in a fair and equitable manner on a case- by-case basis. 3.2 Washington County shall separately account for the funds and provide appropriate documentation as reasonably requested by the TBNRCC or any individual TBNRCC member. 4. Other members The TBNRCC may permit additional local governments from Washington County that have a role in natural resources planning or protection to join as full-members. The TBNRCC may permit local governments from the Tualatin Basin but outside Washington County that have a role in natural resources planning to join as non-voting associate members. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 4 of 8 5. Responsibilities of Participating TBNRCC Members 5.1 Each Basin government member shall contribute, at its own reasonable expense, such staff work, documents and other resources as may reasonably be requested by the TBNRCC in order to carry out the TBNRCC's responsibilities, and its own responsibilities under this Agreement. Each Basin government shall cooperate fully with the TBNRCC during the performance of these responsibilities. 5.2 The TBNRCC shall work, in cooperation with its member local governments, to implement the "Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program". TBNRCC activities shall include but are not limited to: • Coordination with Clean Water Services in reviewing, recommending and funding projects designed to implement the Healthy Streams Plan; • Coordination with Metro in development of a Regional Bond Measure to fund acquisition or protection of key habitat areas throughout the region; • Review of and recommendations on habitat-friendly development standards and removal of barriers to implementation of those standards, focusing on facilitation and encouragement of their use in Metro-identified Class I and II riparian habitat areas; • Review of and recommendations on alternative funding mechanisms (including grants, local bond measures, opportunities for park SDC's, or other alternatives) to be utilized for acquisition, restoration or enhancement, or other programs designed to improve or enhance fish and/or wildlife habitat in the Tualatin Basin. • Re-evaluation of and application of the program to address regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat in areas included within the UGB after the effective date of this agreement; • Review of, recommendations on, and coordination of volunteer programs designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat in the Tualatin Basin (e.g. education and outreach, stewardship recognition, tax incentives ...etc.); • Coordination of habitat improvement activities with other organizations (federal, state and local governments, private, and non-profit organizations); • Adaptive management activities including review of the effectiveness of the Basin Program and development of Program adjustments if needed. 5.3 Within one year after the Metro Council's final decision to make the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program part of its regional Goal 5 program by reference in the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, or as soon as possible thereafter if its charter or other notice and hearing requirements prevent final action within one year, each city and county Basin government shall adopt, adopt with amendments, or reject proposed ordinances amending their comprehensive plans, land use regulations or any other program or regulation necessary to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program. Nothing in this Agreement or the Metro-TBNRCC IGA shall obligate any Basin government to adopt the proposed INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 5 of 8 ordinances or other programs or regulations necessary to implement the adopted Metro functional plan provisions. However, each Basin government shall adopt findings explaining its decision to reject or vary from the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program. Failure to adopt ordinances or other programs or actions necessary to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program may result in a determination by Metro that plans or land use regulations do not substantially comply with the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Statewide Planning Goal 5. 6. Term This Agreement shall not terminate except by action of the governing bodies of a 2/3 majority of Basin governments that are voting members at the time of proposed termination. Any Basin government may withdraw from the TBNRCC upon 60 days written notice to the TBNRCC. 7. Amendment Amendments to this Agreement may be proposed by any member of the TBNRCC and shall be incorporated into the Agreement if approved by an affirmative vote of the governing bodies of 2/3 of all the voting TBNRCC members. 8. Miscellaneous 8.1 The parties to this Agreement are the only entities or persons entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this IGA gives or is intended to provide any benefit or right, whether directly, indirectly, or otherwise, to third persons unless such third persons are individually identified by name herein and expressly described as intended beneficiaries of the terms of this Agreement.. 8.2 No person shall be denied or subjected to discrimination by any Basin government in receipt of the benefits of any services or activities made possible by or resulting from this IGA on the grounds of race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, age, or marital status. 8.3 The TBNRCC has no employees. Each basin government shall be solely responsible for its own employees, including but not limited to compensation for and supervision of work performed by its employees in connection with any matter described in this Agreement. 8.4 Subject to the limitations in the Oregon Tort Claims Act and the Oregon Constitution, each party agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defend each other, including each other's officers, employees and agents against all claims, demands, actions, suits and appeals (including attorney fees and costs) arising from the indemnitor's acts or omissions under this Agreement. In addition, each party shall be solely responsible for INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 6 of 8 any contract claims, delay damages or similar monetary claims arising from or caused by the action or inaction of the party in the administration of this Agreement. Each party shall give the other immediate written notice of any action or suit filed or any claim made against that party that may result in litigation in any way related to this Agreement. However, each party shall be solely responsible for the defense of any action, claim, suit, or appeal (including land use appeal) arising out of that party's actions pursuant to Section 5.3 to implement adopted Metro functional plan provisions. Each party agrees to maintain insurance levels or self-insurance in accordance with ORS 30.282, for the duration of this Agreement at levels necessary to protect against public body liability as specified in ORS 30.270. 8.5 If any claim, demand, action, suit or appeal is filed against the TBNRCC, the parties agree to cooperate in good faith in defending or otherwise addressing it. 8.6 This Agreement is intended as the complete, exclusive and final expression of the Agreement among the parties to this Agreement. 8.7 If any terms or provisions of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and the application of those terms and provisions shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 9. Effective Date This Agreement shall be effective on the date it is executed by Washington County and seven others of the following Basin governments: • Washington County • Clean Water Services • Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District • City of Beaverton • City of Hillsboro • City of Tigard • City of Tualatin • City of Sherwood • City of Cornelius • City of Forest Grove • City of Durham • City of King City • City of North Plains INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 7 of 8 This Agreement consists of eight pages (including this signature page) plus Exhibits A and B. A separate signature page is included for each participating government; the compilation of all final (signed) signature pages with a single copy of the preceding 7 pages and Exhibits A and B shall represent the final agreement. Each participating government shall provide a signed original of this page to Washington County for compilation and recording of the fmal agreement. CITY OF TIGARD By: Title: Date: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT A AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBLITY OF CLEAN WATER SERVICES Notwithstanding any contrary provision of the Agreement, the following clarifications of the roles and responsibilities of Clean Water Services ("CWS") in the Tualatin Basin are incorporated into this Agreement: 1. As a county service district organized under ORS 451, CWS has the legal authority for the sanitary sewage and storm water (surface water) management programs within the cities and the urban unincorporated area of Washington County. CWS develops standards and work programs, is the permit holder, operates the sanitary sewage treatment plants and implements the Storm Water Management Plan. CWS previously entered into operating intergovernmental agreements (operating agreements) with each of the cities and Washington County listed herein as Basin governments. Under the operating agreements, Cities perform a portion of the local sanitary sewer and storm water management programs. 2. CWS holds the NPDES permit and meets the permit requirements through implementation of its Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) in cooperation and coordination with the Cities and the County under the operating agreements. 3. The Cities and Washington County are responsible for adopting local land use regulations that implement statewide planning goals. CWS, on the other hand, primarily addresses the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act and does not adopt land use regulations. 4. The Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program (Basin Protection Program) and CWS's NPDES permit compliance activities share the goal of environmental improvement. These efforts may well overlap and often enhance and quicken the effort to obtain healthier streams and fish and wildlife habitat. Where the CWS Board of Directors (CWS Board) determines there is conflict between NPDES permit requirements (including SWMP implementation) and the Basin Protection Program and there is no way to resolve the conflict, the permit requirements shall control. In the unlikely event such a situation arises, the TBNRCC shall work with its member local governments including CWS and Metro to modify the Basin Protection Program as necessary so as to maintain compliance with the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. 5. In the event of conflict between the operating agreements between CWS and the Cities, the County and this Agreement, the operating agreements shall control. 6. As holder of the NPDES permit, CWS is required to exercise operational and budgetary authority to meet the permit and comply with the Federal Clean Water Act. CWS's Board therefore shall retain all authority to approve or disapprove projects or plans to implement the Basin Protection Program that may affect CWS permits, budgets and its adopted Capital Improvements Program. To the extent feasible and practicable, however, the CWS Board shall exercise this authority in a manner consistent with applicable provisions in this agreement. The CWS Board further retains authority regarding the setting of CWS rates and charges. Exhibit A - TBNRCC IGA (Page 1 of 1) Attachment 3 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation: Habitat-Friendly Development Practices General Work Scope and Project Cost Estimates for Program Implementation and Draft Compliance Report This scope of work anticipates the Basin Partners will continue to exercise an existing contract with Angelo Eaton & Associates to assist in program. implementation activities in the Tualatin Basin. Overview On September 29, 2005 the Metro Council voted to approve a regional Nature in Neighborhoods program. This council action incorporates the Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program, as developed and recommended by the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places (Partners). Under an intergovernmental agreement between the Partners and Metro, applicable elements of the adopted Basin program are required to be implemented within one year following the Metro Council's final decision (or within 60 days of LCDC's acknowledgement of Metro's Functional Plan provisions, whichever is later). This work scope outlines a plan for implementation of the applicable elements of the Basin Program by the end of September 2006. An important feature of the Basin program is the encouragement of land developers and property owners to incorporate habitat friendly practices in their site design. Habitat friendly practices include a broad range of development techniques and activities that reduce the detrimental impact on fish and wildlife habitat relative to traditional development practices. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, which represent an important component of habitat friendly practices, are focused on minimizing hydrologic impacts and improving water quality. The primary objective of the work described below is to develop an approach that will encourage these practices in the Basin and can be adopted and implemented by local Partner jurisdictions. Two program tasks that require local ordinance adoption for implementation are listed on pages 3-7 and 7-2 of the Partners Program Report of April 4, 2005. These tasks include: 1) "...the development of a model ordinance to address a menu of several low impact development (LID) approaches and the inclusion of LID guidelines in local development codes;" and 2) "...removal of current impediments to the implementation of LID development techniques." This second task also includes streamlining permit procedures in order to allow beneficial activities such as tree planting, resource enhancement, and removal of noxious plant species either "by-right" or through a relatively simple and low-cost administrative review process. The net result of these. tasks will be: 1) new (non-mandatory) standards in local codes which will allow and encourage property owners and developers to implement habitat friendly development practices; and 2) amendment of existing local standards to remove barriers to implementation of habitat friendly practices, including low impact development techniques. The consultant will provide the appropriate level of guidance necessary to support local adoption of comprehensive plan and development code amendments that allow and encourage 1212212005 Page 1 of 6 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation Habitat Friendly Design Practices ` Scope of Work habitat friendly development. As this work progresses, the consultant will document the process, methods and results of this program implementation work in the form of a Nature in Neighborhoods Program compliance report to be submitted to Metro. The consultant will work with Tualatin Basin Steering Committee (TBSC) members to accomplish the project tasks as described below. As necessary throughout the process, the TBSC will present progress reports and recommendations to the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Coordinating Committee (TBNRCC). The general tasks for the Basin program implementation work may be described as: 1) inclusion of provisions in local development codes to outline methods for reducing impacts on recognized habitat areas; 2) development and incorporation of design prototypes and specifications (in cooperation with Clean Water Services stormwater management update of the Design & Construction Standards) for low-impact development tools; and 3) removal of existing barriers in local comprehensive plans and development codes that would prevent or restrict the implementation of habitat friendly design practices. The Basin effort will be coordinated throughout with Metro as they develop a model ordinance for the region. Task 1: Development of a Comprehensive Approach and Scope for Implementing Habitat-Friendly Development Practices Description The task of implementing habitat-friendly design practices will provide planning and development approaches related to reduction or avoidance of impacts to fish & wildlife habitat (such as clustering, on-site density transfers, re-directed outdoor lighting, etc.), engineering and design approaches that minimize development impacts (such as specifications for rain gardens, green roofs, etc.), as well as the removal of barriers to implementation of these practices. The consultant will develop an issue paper describing the Basin approach, including recommendations for safe harbor types of minimum commitments which may be utilized by the local jurisdictions in the Tualatin Basin in meeting ordinance related program commitments. This issue paper will serve as a template/guide to be utilized by the Basin Partners in effectuating appropriate amendments to local plans and related development and construction standards. Some threshold questions to be addressed in the issue paper include: • Which types of habitat friendly design practices and low impact development techniques are appropriate? • What does it mean to encourage these practices? • What technical issues are raised? • What common barriers to implementation exist and how can/should they be addressed? Examples of practices that might be encouraged: • use of native plants for required landscaping • directing light-spill away from habitat areas • relaxing local street connectivity standards where stream crossings are implicated • allowing shared driveways and parking areas 1212212005 Page 2 of 6 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation Habitat Friendly Design Practices Scope of Work 0 • allowing sidewalks to drain into yards or adjoining landscape areas rather than to the street system • use of standards that provide for infiltration of rainwater into the groundwater vs. surface water systems Approach/Method The consultant will coordinate with the TBSC in preparing the template to be followed by each Partner jurisdiction. This effort will largely consist of the preparation of an Issue Paper that discusses the topics listed above in identifying appropriate techniques and approaches to encourage their implementation, and presents alternatives and recommendations for planning and development approaches. This work will be closely coordinated with the Clean Water Services District's concurrent stormwater management update of their Design & Construction Standards. Technical issues will be coordinated with the City Tech group. Products Consultant Products. o Prepare draft Table of Contents for project report outlined in Task 3. o Attend TBSC meeting to discuss draft Table of Contents and Issue Paper #1. o Prepare preliminary draft of Issue Paper #1 as described above, for group discussion. o Create final draft of Issue Paper #1, which incorporates comments from TBSC. TBSCProducts: The TBSC will provide the consultant with a single consolidated set of comments on the preliminary draft of Issue Paper #1. Each Partner jurisdiction is responsible for participating in TBSC discussion and coordination efforts. The Basin approach will be executed through the drafting of local ordinances which address the objectives as discussed and agreed upon by the TBSC and as further described under Task 2 below. Estimated Timeframe It is expected there will be some overlap of tasks for this project, given that the issue papers prepared for Tasks 1 and 2 will contribute to the final compliance report of Task 3. For this reason, it is anticipated that preliminary meetings with the consultant and draft versions of each issue paper will be sufficient to provide the TBSC with direction for drafting local ordinances. TBSC comments on the Issue Papers will be for the purposes of providing feedback to the consultant regarding the preparation of the final compliance report (Task 3). Furthermore, the consultant can begin work on Task 2 while the TBSC begins work to prepare local ordinances. Early to mid-January: consultant meeting with TBSC Late-January: draft of Issue Paper #1 to TBSC Mid-February: TBSC comments on Issue Paper #1 to consultant Mid-February: TBSC members begin work to prepare local implementing ordinances Consultant Cost $10,510 1212212005 Page 3 of 6 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation # Habitat Friendly Design Practices is Scope of Work Task 2: Coordinating and Identifying Necessary Local Amendments Description This task covers the technical work associated with identifying changes necessary for local comprehensive plans and development codes in order to implement and encourage habitat friendly practices, including the identification and removal of barriers to implementation. This removal of barriers exercise will entail a review of the existing Audubon SPIR Report. The SPIR Report was completed in 2004 in order to address water quality concerns, and is therefore not expected to be entirely accurate or comprehensive for the purposes of the Basin program implementation. Each Partner jurisdiction will be responsible for drafting and adopting local comprehensive plan and/or development code amendments necessary for implementation of habitat friendly practices. As in Task 1, the consultant will coordinate local efforts for Task 2. Approach/Method The project consultant will prepare a second Issue Paper addressing typical barriers to implementation of planning approaches identified in Task 1 as well as those that may preclude the implementation of low impact development techniques being considered by CWS as acceptable methods of on-site stormwater management. Issue Paper #2 also will present suggestions to enhance the habitat benefits of these techniques, where practicable (i.e., through the use of native plant materials, etc.) and will present an analysis of how local provisions can be structured such that habitat friendly techniques will be encouraged. The Issue Paper will be presented to and discussed with the TBSC to assist in the development of local program implementation ordinances. This work will be closely coordinated with Clean Water Services stormwater management update of their Design & Construction Standards. Technical issues will be coordinated with the City Tech group. Products Consultant Products: o Attend TBSC meeting to discuss Issue Paper #2. o Prepare a draft of Issue Paper #2 that addresses: 1) typical barriers to implementation of habitat friendly development here in the Tualatin Basin; and 2) appropriate techniques and approaches to encourage implementation of habitat friendly development practices (overlays Issue Paper #1). o Coordinate Basin results and comments from TBSC to include this in the draft compliance report for Task 3. TBSC Products: Group consensus on Basin implementation approach will be executed through the development and adoption of local ordinances which address the objectives as discussed and agreed upon by the TBSC. Each Partner jurisdiction is responsible for review of the SPIR Report, analyses of local comprehensive plan and development codes, and participation in TBSC discussions of consultant Issue Papers to result in a draft ordinance for local adoption that sufficiently addresses Basin program implementation objectives. The TBSC will provide the 1212212005 Page 4 of 6 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation Habitat Friendly Design Practices # Scope of Work consultant with a single consolidated set of comments on the preliminary draft of Issue Paper #2. Estimated Timeframe EarlyMam'.Late-February: consultant meeting with TBSC Mid-March: draft of Issue Paper #2 to TBSC 'tee ";Early-April: TBSC comments on Issue Paper #2 to consultant Early-April through Late-June: TBSC members continue to develop and finalize local ordinances Consultant Cost $8,670 Task 3: Development of a Compliance Report to Metro for the Basin's Implementation of Habitat Friendly Design Practices (including Local Ordinances) Description The consultant will document implementation methodologies and activities for the purposes of producing a program compliance report for Metro. This Basin Program Implementation Report will incorporate the findings of Issue Papers #1 and #2 and will provide an overview of the Basin's objectives and methodology for achieving those objectives (as discussed above), including documentation of: 1) the Basin's approaches and methods to develop and encourage habitat friendly development practices; 2) the coordination with CWS, Metro and the City Tech Group in developing appropriate low impact development standards and design guidelines relating to stormwater management for the update of the Design & Construction Standards; and 3) the methodology for identification and removal of barriers to the implementation of habitat friendly design practices. Approach/Method The consultant will document the Basin implementation methodology and other activities relevant to Metro compliance and the Program Implementation Report throughout the process. A draft report will be provided to the TBSC for review and comments after Partner jurisdictions have begun preparing draft adoption ordinances. Products Consultant Products: o Attend TBSC meeting to discuss Basin Program Implementation Report. o Prepare a preliminary draft of the Basin Program Implementation Report for TBSC review in late April. o Create final draft which will respond to TBSC comments and which will be provided to the TBSC by late June. The final report will be set-up to allow for finalization by the TBSC. The final report product will be provided in electronic format using Microsoft Word. 7BSC Products: The TBSC will review the consultant draft and provide compiled comments in a single electronic version to the consultant in a "track changes" format by mid-May. After local adoption, the TBSC will prepare a final version of the report which includes a summary table of local implementation measures and attachments of adopted ordinances. Each Partner 1212212005 Page 5 of 6 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation Habitat Friendly Design Practices Scope of Work ~ jurisdiction will be responsible for including findings with their ordinance that elaborate on their implementation efforts regarding compliance with the Basin Program. For example, this may be in the form of a cover report that summarizes the ordinance, explains it within the context of existing local procedures, and describes where, how and why it deviates from the Basin's template approach (if at all). Estimated Timeframe Late-April: consultant draft to TBSC for review and comments Mid-May: draft with TBSC comments returned to consultant Late-June: consultant final draft;- including response to TBSC comments Late-September: final draft updated with local jurisdiction adoption confirmation October: submit report to Metro Consultant Cost $6,910 Scope and Cost Estimate Summary Table Note: All necessary project coordination costs are included in the budget estimates for each task item. n 1.1 Draft Table of Contents memo $1,840.00 1.2 TBSC Meeting #1 $680.00 1.3 Preliminary Draft Issue Paper #1 $4,880.00 1.4 Final Draft Issue Paper #1 $2,240.00 1.5 Project Management & Administration $820.00 Labor Subtotal $10,460.00 Task I Expenses $50.00 RUNIMENOWN i Task 1 Subtob/ 10 510.00 2.1 TBSC Meeting #2 $680.00 2.2 Preliminary Draft Issue Paper #2 $4,880.00 2.3 Final Draft Issue Paper #2 $2,240.00 2.4 Project Management & Administration $820.00 Labor Subtotal $8,620.00 Task 2 Expenses $50.00 Task 2 Subtotal 8670.00 e 3.1 TBSC Meeting #3 $680.00 3.2 Preliminary Draft Report $3,360.00 3.3 Final Draft Report $2,000.00 3.4 Project Management & Administration $820.00 Labor Subtotal $6,860.00 Task 3 Expenses $50.00 Task 3 Subtotal $6,910.00 S PROSE.T~DT~,C 26 OOs00~ -77 1212212005 Page 6 of 6 Item No. For Council Newsletter dated MEMORANDUM a a~°U TO: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer RE: Hall Boulevard Transfer Discussions DATE: February 22, 2006 ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) is greatly interested in transferring responsibility for Hall Boulevard and Boones Ferry Road to local jurisdictions. Hall Boulevard is currently under ODOT control from its intersection with SW Cascade Avenue at the Progress exit on Highway 217 all the way to its intersection with Durham Road. The ODOT segment of Boones Ferry Road begins at Durham Road and proceeds through the City of Tualatin to the Stafford interchange in north Wilsonville. Among the jurisdictions involved are Washington County and the Cities of Tigard, Tualatin, Wilsonville and Beaverton. Hall Boulevard within the Tigard City Limits is of great interest to us. An initial meeting to discuss the potential transfer was held in Tigard on January 23, 2006. Among the jurisdictions represented were Tigard, Beaverton, Washington County and ODOT. Tualatin and Wilsonville did not send representatives to the meeting. The reasons for the effort to transfer Hall Boulevard and Boones Ferry Road are as follows: • ODOT believes that Hall (and Boones Ferry) primarily serves a county or city transportation function more than a state function. • The street is extremely low on their priority list and the level of maintenance that could be expected is pothole patching and spot repairs. • Problems with the street include poor pavement condition and inadequate drainage on many segments. • Funds from ODOT may be made available to improve the roadway's condition, if transfer is imminent. • Local jurisdictions would be in a much better position than ODOT to advocate for funding to improve the street. From Tigard's perspective, some of the issues involved in any potential transfer are: • Hall Boulevard needs significant widening to meet three-lane arterial standards. The ultimate section calls for five lanes throughout with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides. As development applications are submitted, we obtain sufficient right-of-way to accommodate the future five-lane section, but typically require that developers widen to provide the three-lane section. • Two bridges (within the Tigard area) need to be replaced and raised to eliminate overtopping in floods. The bridge over Fanno Creek near City Hall is a major structure requiring replacement. A less significant structure is the drainage culvert at vicinity of the Oak Street/Hall Boulevard intersection. • Hall Boulevard is a road of countywide significance, according to the County Transportation Plan. This means the County anticipates taking jurisdiction of Hall Boulevard at some point in the future. However, the City is more affected by what happens on Hall Boulevard and may want to consider accepting jurisdiction (if improved to our satisfaction). The next meeting will be held in mid-March. ODOT has asked the local jurisdictions to consider the conditions under which they would accept the street. ODOT is now preparing a comprehensive analysis of pavement conditions, costs of improvements, drainage problem areas, etc. They want to conclude discussions within the next 6 months with a much better understanding of the types of improvements that are needed on Hall Boulevard to effect a future transfer of the street. Your input on the potential transfer is essential as we continue discussions with ODOT and Washington County on this matter. A discussion of this is scheduled for the study session at the meeting on February 28, 2006. I need your input and direction before the next meeting in mid-March. ilengrgmV4 orandU memorandum tonnaMall boulevard transfer c5scussionsAoc STUDY SESSION AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING February 28, 2006 - 6:30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon • STUDY SESSION > IGA - Goal 5 Fish & Wildlife Habitat - Tualatin Basin Partners o Staff Report: Community Development Department > Hall Blvd. Jurisdictional Transfer Discussion o Staff Report: Engineering Department > Hall Blvd./Highway 99W Design Modifications o Staff Report: Community Development Department > Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement with Cities of Tigard, Tualatin, Beaverton, and Wilsonville, and Washington County (Washington County - Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project) o Staff Report: Community Development Department • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss pending, litigation under ORS 192.660(2)(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(4), 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 Items for tonight's business meeting: ■ No Chamber of Commerce Representative will attend tonight's meeting; Executive Director Monlux asked to be scheduled for an April City Council agenda. ■ Distribute letter from Mr. Bob Storer - Agenda Item No. 6 - Ash Creek Estates Public Hearing o Forms at Entrance to the Council Chambers - SAMPLES ATTACHED: • Redesign of Testimony Sign in Sheets for Citizen Communication and Public Hearing Testimony • New form: "Are you interested in serving on a City of Tigard Board, Committee or Commission? > COUNCIL CALENDAR March 11-15 Sat-Weds. Congressional Cities Conference 14* TuesdayMeeting to be rescheduled 21* TuesdayCouncil Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 28* TuesdayCouncil Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 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 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660 (2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660 (2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660(2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660 (2) (f) - 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 (2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660 (2) (i) - 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 (2) 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 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. is\adm\cathy\ccass\2006\060214ps.doc MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder RE: Agenda Item Nos. 3.3 & 10 for the February 28, 2006, City Council Meeting DATE: February 23, 2006 Council packet information is attached for the following February 28, 2006, Council Agenda items: 3.3 Consideration of an Intergovernmental .Agreement (IGA) - Organization and Function of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee 10 Proposed Formation of a Local Improvement District in the Tigard Triangle (Revisions to this item as noted in City Engineer Duenas' February 23, 2006, memorandum.) Attachments I:ladmlcaRrykonespandence\2006Vmnsmittal memo - packet item for 2-28-06 meelinp.doc 5th Tuesday Follow-up from January 31, 2006 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen; Councilors Woodruff, Wilson, Harding Sign-in sheet: Name Address Topic Kevin Saier 13911 SW Hillshire Dr. Bldg Code hole - Unlimited height restrictions Mark Bay 13899 SW Hillshire Dr. Same as above Charles Schneider 11195 SW Tigard St. Building - Streets John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Ln. Sidewalks Lisa Hamilton Treick 13565 SW Beef Bend Rd. Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Pamela Miller 13914 SW Hillshire Dr. Height Restrictions Shelly Dahl 13835 SW Hillshire Dr. Height Restrictions Height Restrictions - Code: *Can permits be rescinded if code was misinterpreted (by City)? *Health & Safety concerns of tall towers? *Nuisance Code allow for exception to permit/code? Items addressed in 2/23/06 memo from City Attorney. Building & Streets: *Light at Main & Tigard Street - investigate possibilities. Affected by commuter rail crossing - being considered. *Parks & Recreation feedback in Cityscape. Meeting agendas & minutes are on web - will mail to anyone requesting this information. Sidewalks: *Include Sidewalks in Street Maintenance Fee? Council could consider in next review. *Review minutes to see when issue (fee) was to be revisited/reviewed. Review is in June 2007. Notification of A in development plans *Disconnect between Neighborhood Meeting & what actually gets developed approved by City). * What is purpose of Neighborhood Meeting? Input or info? *Requests for neighborhood meeting minutes were not answered. Who is responsible for these minutes? *Guidelines of development application process need review? *Codes/ Ordinances & (lot size) Citizen Communication Above issues: incorporated in the response to CC19s Land Use Neighborhood recommendations. *Beef Bend & approximately 147th -150th trees cleared before approval of plan? *Feedback from staff re: issue requested by Mayor - trees cleared before approval of plan. Property owner complied with code provisions. Councilor 1-Wloodrufs notes: -josh Snyder - Streets - Burnham Street design in May, complete construction in fall of 2008. Lisa Use franchise fees where they are collected. Council policy issue Create task force to improve right of way on Durham Rd. Council call We need a better way to notify neighbors if there are material changes from the meeting to submitted plan. Incorporate into CCE recommendations. i:\adm\cathy\ccm\?006\060131 5th tuesday follow up060228.doc2R8/06 City Council Fifth Tuesday 1 /31 /06 Page 1 CITY MANAGER CITIZEN COMMUNICATION FOLLOW UP FOR THE FEBRUARY 28, 2006 MEETING At the last City Council business meeting held on Febmary 14, 2006, the following individual(s) testified during Citizen Communications to the City Council: • Tigard High School Student Envoy Jasmina Dizardik presented a report to the City Council on Tigard High School Activities. A copy of her report is on file in the City Recorder's office. • Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136th Pl., Tigard, Oregon, raised an issue regarding property being developed between 147th and 150th Avenues off of Beef Bend Road. The trees were left on the steepest slopes but the rest of the area was clear cut, creating an eyesore and potential for landslides. She said tree removal requirements for slopes need to be reviewed. Mayor Dirksen noted that this land is not in the City limits, but in the urban services area; therefore, any change adopted by Tigard would need to be adopted by the County also. Councilor Harding said she wants to discuss at next week's Planning Commission meeting, the negative effects development can have on neighboring properties. • Cleon Cox III, 13580 SW Ash Ave., Tigard, OR, discussed his perception of a lack of communication and customer service from the City. He recalled being the only person to testify in person on a particular matter at a prior Council meeting, yet he knew a neighbor had submitted written comments in a letter. He did not see the letter opened and read at the meeting. His concern is that a decision was made without consideration of all available public input. He realizes that the Council is charged with making decisions but must rely on information given to them by staff. He urged the Councilors to make sure the staff is doing all they can to get them necessary information. He! was in the City's volunteer leadership group and their final project was to put together a packet of communication ideas. This was given to the Assistant to the City Manager. He said citizens who want to be heard do not feel heard. People who had issues felt they were not being listened to by City staff and the Council. He asked how this can be resolved. Mr. Cox used an example of a citizen asking about a Highway 99W traffic issue, who was told that ODOT was in charge of the highway. Why, Mr. Cox asked, didn't the staff person talk to ODOT rather than suggest that the citizen do it? He said City staff members know the transportation lingo and could be more effective. Mr. Cox reiterated that communication must be improved. Councilor Harding asked him for suggestions and requested information from him for next week's meeting where better communication is an agenda item. Fifth Tuesday Meeting Follow-up: City Council and City Manager Prosser discussed the issue regarding Development Code regulations for towers. This matter was brought to the City Council at its January 31 Fifth Tuesday meeting because of a radio tower constructed in a neighborhood. Interim Community Development Director Coffee said the Development Code does not define the term "attached" as it applies to an accessory structure. Whether or not a structure is attached to the main structure affects setback requirements. Councilor Wilson requested that tower height and attachment requirements be added to the list of items for the Development Code discussion with the Planning Commission next week. It was noted that the neighborhood group that attended the January 31 Fifth Tuesday meeting should be provided a status report on what is being done to look into their concerns. In addition there was a suggestion that the process to appeal staff interpretations be discussed with the Planning Commission next week. Other matters at the Council's Fifth Tuesday meeting included: o A signal at Main Street and Tigard Street - This will be reviewed as part of the downtown development. o Suggestion for feedback in the Cityscape for Parks and Recreation. (Parks and Recreation Advisory Board feedback). o Concern with changes with a development after the developer's meeting with a neighborhood. It was noted that the public should be informed that a development could change as it moves through the process, which includes public hearings. City Manager Prosser indicated he would review the notes from the Fifth Tuesday Meeting and provide the City Council with additional follow up information. i:\adm\cathy\c \rjtizen communication follow up\060228.doc AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE : FEBRUARY 28, 2006 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) 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. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address O 3~ ATE ~SQ'. 5~: 5 City 1~7 N State O(Z- Zip Phone No. Name: I NrJP" Mvt 1 Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: ° o q ~ ~LIIJI~ Address City AA Y\,-r-% State Nz- Zip b(A~i Phone No. ~V -1 r-A:1 -Qj T- Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the residing office pronounce: Address P12 Z City j- State Phone No. 7 /7 y CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Citizen Communication Linda Moholt - 2-28-06 t11ySCHOO ®o m® H ~C, TUALATIN SCSI OL HOUSE PANTRY 41FOOD An Equal Opportunity Provider 1BANKJJ ® SM PANTRY Did you know? 1) Over 250 families are served per month at our Pantry. 2) 48% are Children. 3) 24% are Sr. Citizens or are Disabled. 4) 100% of our staff is volunteer and over 430 hours are donated per month. 5) We rely completely on donations from our community of time, food and money. Our budget runs from $900.00-$1500.00 per month. Other Services Provided: 1) We host NW Medical Teams Mobile Dental Van every month and serve 11- 14 patients each visit. Over 140 have been served. The cost to host each visit is $300.00. 2) We host cooking classes from OSU Extension Service. 3) We accept and distribute donations of Adult clothing, especially coats, pants, jeans, sweaters and sweatshirts. 4) We gave away over 300 Turkeys and Hams during the Holidays. Future Needs in our Community: 1) Free Medical Clinic for the Uninsured. Over 80,000 people are without medical insurance in Washington County. The closest free clinic is in Hillsboro. A small group is working to open a free clinic in our area by the Fall, 2006. Volunteer Dr's., Nurses and Health Care Practioners are needed. 2) Summer Lunch Program. Tualatin Elementary School has over 50% of its students on Free or Reduced Lunches. How do they eat in summer? Federal funds are available, but we need a sponsor. 3) Family Shelter. The Tigard Good Neighbor Center houses approximately 9 families per night and is most often full. Tualatin offers no hope to families in crisis. Can your group step up to lead? 4) Homeless Shelter. The Tualatin Police Dept. has identified 30-40 homeless persons in our community. Currently, there is no facility for a free meal, hot shower, change of clothes or bed for the night. Would your organization be willing to open its doors even one day per week to serve? For Information: Contact Linda Moholt @ 503-869-0901 Get Involved... Make a difference! AGENDA ITEM # -3, a FOR AGENDA OF Feb 28, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for Commuter Rail (Revision) PREPARED BY: Phil Nachbax DEPT HEAD Old CITY MGR OK C ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review and approve the First Amendment to the current Intergovernmental Agreement among the Commuter Rail participants, Washington County, Wilsonville, Tigard, Tualatin and Beaverton. The Amendment replaces the previous IGA entered into among the parties on or about December 24, 2002. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve and sign the Intergovernmental Agreement First Amendment between the cities of Tigard, Wilsonville, "Tualatin, Beaverton, and Washington County. INFORMATION SUMMARY The existing IGA among parties to the Commuter Rail Project has been revised by TriMet to extend the term of the agreement from December 24, 2002 to December 31, 2008, and to add a section regarding the relocation of utilities to the agreement. TriMet has indicated that this is required as a condition of their funding agreement with the federal government for the Commuter Rail project. Section IV "Relocation of Utilities" essentially requires the Cities to relocate their own utilities or cause the relocation of private utilities where it is required by the project. The City, by this agreement, will not incur any cost associated with utility relocations, and all expenses related to the relocation of utilities are the sole responsibility of TriMet. TriMet has requested action on this amendment prior to March 1, 2006 to meet Federal deadlines. Attached for Council review is a draft of the Intergovernmental Agreement-First Amendment. Staff is finalizing the language and obtaining legal review of the document, but does not anticipate any substantive changes to the content of the agreement. A final version will be transmitted to Council no later than Friday February 24h. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Council Goal: Implement Downtown Plan Vision Goal: Traffic and Transportation; Alternative modes of Transportation will be available and use shall be maximized. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement, First Amendment FISCAL NOTES There is no cost impact associated with approval and signing of this Intergovernmental Agreement. URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD, THE CITY OF TUALATIN, THE CITY OF BEAVERTON, THE CITY OF WILSONVILLE AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON FIRST AMENDMENT THIS First Amendment to the URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of the last date shown on the signature pages, and is between the City of Tigard, the City of Tualatin, the City of Beaverton, the City of Wilsonville (the "Cities") and Washington County, Oregon ("County"), (collectively, the "Parties"), all political subdivisions of the State of Oregon. As of the effective date, this First Amendment shall supersede and replace the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement entered into by an d between the Parties on or about December 24, 2002. RECITALS 1. ORS 190.007 provides for the furthering of economy and efficiency in local government by intergovernmental cooperation. 2. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of allowing better coordination and design consistency between the Cities and the County in response to the design of station areas for the Washington County - Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project ("Project"). 3. The Project is defined in the Washington County Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering documents prepared by URS Consultants and dated February 2002. 4. The Project includes physical improvements to be located in each of the Cities that will require local land use review and permitting, and relocation of public and private utilities. The Project will be more specifically defined during the final engineering and design phase. 5. Cities and County coordinated during the preliminary engineering and design phase of the Project to reach a consensus on the fundamental design features of the physical improvements of the Project. This consensus represents a common understanding between the Cities and County of the Project improvements to be constructed in the Cities and any potential impacts associated with the Project. 6. The Parties have unanimously endorsed the Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project based on the anticipated benefits to the transportation system and support the final design and engineering efforts that will lead to construction of the Project. The Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project is recognized and included in the Transportation System Plan of each City. 7. It would be to the benefit of the Cities and the County to coordinate planning and permit review for the development of the Project to insure that the Project provides similar station area improvements in each of the Cities based on a consistent set of Project design expectations. Page I of 5 Intergovernmental Agreement Between Washington County, the City of Tualatin, the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton and the City of Wilsonville 0 8. It would be to the benefit of the Project to coordinate planning and permit review for the development of the Project to insure that extraordinary expenses do not result from the local review process that could impact the financial feasibility of the Project. 9. It would be to the benefit of the Project to coordinate the relocation of public and private utilities necessary for the construction of the Project to insure that extraordinary expenses do not result from such required utility relocations. The Cities Of Tualatin, Tigard, Beaverton, Wilsonville, and Washington County agree as follows: AGREEMENT AREA AFFECTED BY THIS AGREEMENT 1. The area affected by this Agreement is the Project property subject to local land use review and permitting by the Cities that is generally described as the Commuter Rail station areas, including station platforms, park-and-ride lots, operating base and related facilities, as well as right-of-way subject to the jurisdiction of the Cities within which utility relocations will be required for the Project. This property will be further defined as a result of the final engineering and design effort for the Project. II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES a. Insofar as practical, Cities shall be treated equally in terms of type and design of station area Project improvements within each of the Cities' jurisdictional boundaries. Station area Project improvements shall be consistent with a common set of design guidelines (as shown in Exhibit A) for station areas established by the Project. Project improvements may recognize design variations included in local design guidelines or standards. However, any incremental cost attributable to physical improvements or modifications that is greater than the cost in the design guidelines (Exhibit A), or as agreed to through the process set forth in III c. will be the financial responsibility of the permitting City. b. A Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the Commuter Rail Project Manager and the City designee will be prepared outlining the details for costs, construction, roles and responsibilities for station area and any off-site improvements. This MOU will be prepared and agreed to prior to filing a formal land use application with the applicable City. c. Efforts shall be made through coordination between the Cities and County to protect the Project from extraordinary expenses resulting from local land use reviews and approvals that may impact the financial feasibility of the Project. III. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Page 2 of 5 Intergovernmental Agreement Between Washington County, the City of Tualatin, the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton and the City of Wilsonville a. County or its designee will be the applicant for all necessary land use applications for submittal to each City. The applicant shall pay all required application fees or as otherwise agreed. b. Land use applications submitted to each of the Cities will reflect the Project improvements based on the common understanding of the station area Project design and impacts shown in Exhibit A and including any variations or enhancements agreed, to by the City and the Project. A Pre-Application Conference will be held with the particular permitting City prior to application submittal to review the Project design and formalize this common understanding of Commuter Rail facility design within each City. The Pre-Application Conference will also identify permit requirements and an estimated schedule for review of land use applications. During the local project review process, the City in which the application is being processed will assign a staff liaison to the Commuter Rail Project who will act as the primary point of contact between that City and the permit applicant. c. During City's review of land use applications, design issues and/or impacts that extend beyond the Station Area Project Design Guidelines shall be immediately brought to the attention of the County or its designee. County or its designee and City shall meet to evaluate the effects of the City-initiated design changes on the design and financial feasibility of the Project. If design changes can be made that are consistent with the design guidelines of Exhibit A and the Project Development Principles (Section II) of this Agreement, such changes shall be incorporated into the Project design and land use application. d. If a determination of consistency with the Exhibit A cannot be reached, the provisions of the Dispute Resolution section (Section V) of this Agreement shall be followed. IV. RELOCATION OF UTILITIES a. The Cities, at the Project's expense unless otherwise apportioned in this Agreement, shall relocate in-kind, cause to be relocated in-kind, or assist in the relocation in-kind of all of their respective City-owned conduits, lines, poles, mains, pipes, and other utilities and facilities, whether located within the public right-of-way or not, as required by the Project. The Parties understand that relocation in-kind does not include betterment(s) of the existing facilities. The relocation plans and specifications shall include all relocations necessary to conform facilities to the Project. The Cities shall endeavor to conduct this relocation work in accordance with the Projects' construction schedule. b. The Cities shall use their best efforts to cause relocation of privately owned utilities without cost to the Cities, the County or the Project. The Cities shall cause the owners of privately owned utility conduits, lines, poles, mains, pipes and other facilities in or on City rights-of-way and/or property to relocate their facilities at the expense of said privately owned utility as necessary to conform to the Project, to the extent the Cities have the power to do so. The Cities shall endeavor to cause this relocation work to be accomplished in accordance with Project's construction schedule. However, if any City Page 3 of 5 Intergovernmental Agreement Between Washington County, the City of Tualatin, the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton and the City of Wilsonville does not have the legal authority or power to cause such relocation, the Project Manager, without cost to such City, shall effect relocation of existing privately owned utility facilities as necessary to conform utilities or facilities to the plans for the Project c. The Cities and Project Manager shall participate in review of utility relocation plans submitted by private utilities for the alignment area. The Cities shall also allow the Project Manager's engineers or inspectors or consulting engineers or inspectors to inspect any relocation of utility conduits, lines, poles, mains, pipes, and other facilities in order to determine whether they have been relocated in accordance with the plans of the Proj ect. V. DISPUTE RESOLUTION In case of a dispute over the provisions of this Agreement, the one or more Cities and County staff for each entity will immediately refer the dispute to the respective City Manager or Mayor and the County Administrator for resolution. If the City Manager or Mayor and the County Administrator cannot resolve the dispute within 30 days, it shall be forwarded to the Commuter Rail Steering Committee for resolution (the Commuter Rail Steering Committee is composed of elected representatives from the four cities, Washington County and the TriMet General Manager). If the Commuter Rail Steering Committee is unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days, the dispute shall be subject to binding arbitration under ORS 190.710-190.800 except that the Parties can each select an arbitrator and those arbitrators shall select a third arbitrator. The third arbitrator shall hear the matter. Any decision resulting from this dispute resolution process shall not be a land use decision but may be incorporated into a final land-use decision by the City. The cost of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the Parties to the dispute. Each party shall be solely responsible for its cost of legal representation, if any. VI. NOTICE OF APPLICATIONS Cities shall give notice to County or its designee of all claims, land use applications, hearings, decisions and any appeals of those decisions made under the authority of this Agreement. County or its designee shall forward to other signatories to this Agreement copies of all claims, land use applications, hearings, decisions and any appeals of those decisions made under authority of this Agreement. VII. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from December 24, 2002 through December 31, 2008. This Agreement may be extended for a subsequent two (2) year term upon mutual written agreement of the Parties. This Agreement may be terminated by any party upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other parties. VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS Each party shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local ordinances, statutes, and regulations that are applicable to the services provided under this Agreement Page 4 of 5 Intergovernmental Agreement Between Washington County, the City of Tualatin, the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton and the City of Wilsonville IX. DEBT LIMITATION This Agreement is expressly subject to the debt limitation of Oregon Counties as set forth in Article XI, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution and is contingent upon funds being appropriated therefor. X. HOLD HARMLESS Subject to the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30300, an the Oregon Constitution, each party agrees to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify each other, including its officers, agents and employees, against all claims, demands, actions and suits (including all attorney fees and costs) arising from the indemnitor's performance of this Agreement where the loss or claim is attributable to the negligent acts of omissions of that party. XI. ASSIGNMENT Each of the Parties understand that the County shall have the right to assign this Agreement without the Cities' consent to an entity that designs, constructs, and/or operates passenger rail service in this corridor. XII. MODIFICATION Modifications to this Agreement are valid only if made in writing and signed by all Parties. This writing is intended as the final expression of the agreement between the Parties with respect to the terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement. In WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have executed this Intergovernmental Agreement on the dates set below their signatures. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON CITY OF TUALATIN, OREGON By: By: Tom Brian, Chair Lou Ogden, Mayor Washington County City of Tualatin Board of Commissioners Date: Date: Approved as to form: Approved as to form: County Counsel City Attorney Page 5 of 5 Intergovernmental Agreement Between Washington County, the City of Tualatin, the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton and the City of Wilsonville CITY OF BEAVERTON, OREGON CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON By: By: Rob Drake, Mayor Craig Dirksen, Mayor City of Beaverton City of Tigard Date: Date: Approved as to form: Approved as to form: City Attorney City Attorney CITY OF WILSONVILLE, OREGON By: Charlotte Lehan, Mayor City of Wilsonville Date: Approved as to form: City Attorney Page 6 of 5 Intergovernmental Agreement Between Washington County, the City of Tualatin, the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton and the City of Wilsonville 74 ' N DRAFT a Exhibit A y` to Commuter Rail y - - % Intergovernmental Agreement -a .,4 L Washington County Commuter Rail Station Design Scope September 2002 ~ 4Cl ON Cpl s URtGOVA y I ~ L y'TY~.I.' I TR1 @ MET Table of Contents Project Summary Project Scope 2 Introduction 3 ra@ Objectives 4 Station Elements Platforms, Tactile Pavers & Track Crossings 5-6 f Shelters 7 Lights, Signs & Ticket Machines 8 Station Amenities Paving & Railings 9 Benches, Phones, Trash Receptacles, Tree Grates & Bike Racks 10 Public Art 11 Station Enhancements 12 Conceptual Station Plans Beaverton TC 13 Scholls Ferry Rd./Washington Sq....... 13 Tigard TC 14 Tualatin 15 Wilsonville Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Project Description The Commuter Rail project will serve critical public mobility Project Summary needs in the eastern Washington County transit corridor through joint use of freight rail lines to move commuters through this fast growing area. The Commuter Rail project: links with the MAX Blue Line to connect riders with Hillsboro, Portland, Gresham and the Portland Airport 'P runs 14.7 miles from Wilsonville to Beaverton along an s existing railroad corridor links five eastern Washington County regional and town : centers includes park & ride facilities at four of the five stations at Trinity Railway Express Washington Square, Tigard, Tualatin and Wilsonville Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas • will operate weekdays during rush hours • has an estimated daily ridership of 4,650 in 2020 - Project Cost Total capital cost for the Commuter Rail project is estimated at -9eavermnTC $120 million (year-of-expenditure dollars). Federal, state and local funding will cover construction costs. Local cities and Washington County have committed $25 million in local funds. The 2001 Legislature committed $35 million in state lottery bond proceeds for the project. A request for federal sohone Ferryl Wnw authorization and funding for the balance is underway. Washington Sq. V"" Background and Project Status Tigard Tc In 1996, Washington County; the cities of Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, Wilsonville and Sherwood; TriMet; Metro; and ODOT began studying the feasibility of commuter rail along a branch freight rail line that parallels Interstate 5 and Highway 217 _ between Wilsonville and Beaverton. In 1999, the county and W the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) began alternatives analysis and an environmental assessment. Both processes Tualatin have been successfully concluded, and the project is now seeking federal approval to begin final design. 'A LEGENO 13 Benefits Of the 4,650 average daily weekday riders (in 2020), _.01M.RYm„ . 2,350 would be new to transit. • Commuter rail travel time of 26 minutes between Beaverton and Wilsonville is 35-50 percent less than equivalent auto travel. Capital cost of $8.2 million per mile is significantly less wis°"vme than an alternative limited-access highway. Project is consistent with local, regional and state Washington County commuter rail corridor plans. Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations -Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 1 Project Scope Commuter Rail Service In most settings, commuter rail is a transit service that pre- C.; _,1-- dominantly serves work commute trips over longer distances than light rail (e.g., MAX). Trains typically run during both the wad" a morning and afternoon rush hours; some commuter rail agencies also offer mid-day trains. Commuter rail stations are typically further apart than light rail stations; station spacing on the Washington County line ranges from 3-5 miles. Washington County and TriMet are planning for weekday commuter rail service for 3.5 hours in both the mornings and Rail Diesel Car (RDC) afternoons. Commuter Rail Vehicles Most new commuter rail systems in North America use diesel- electric-powered locomotives hauling 3-6 passenger coaches ~u t : in order to carry many passengers over long distances. For commuter corridors with shorter distances between stations and smaller passenger loads, self-propelled train cars like the Rail Diesel Car (RDC), used by the Trinity Railway Express in Dallas/Ft. Worth, are more economical. RDC Interior-Trinity Railway Express Dallas/FL Worth, Texas Since the Washington County commuter trains will be operating on an active freight railroad, the passenger vehicles must comply with safety. standards set by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). No FRA-compliant vehicles have been manufactured since the 1950s. Recently a new car developed by Colorado Rail Car has met the FRA standards and remains in development. Another possible self-propelled rail car is being developed by Bombardier Transportation. AeroDMU-Colorado Rail Car Commuter Rail Facilities Commuter rail station facilities across North America vary widely in size and amenity levels. Some stations have oper- ated continuously as central railroad stations for decades. Other stations, in part because of the limited peak-hours service, are fairly utilitarian. M-7 commuter rail vehicle-Long Island Railroad Bombardier Transportation Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 2 Introduction Purpose This document will provide project partners a means of 71 _ establishing the objectives and expectations of station design for the Washington County Commuter Rail Project. This document will help: outline the objectives of station design for the project - - r present background information and design examples from other projects in the region and other commuter rail systems MAX Rd Lne-Portland Airport • clarify station design options and station elements within the project's baseline budget • outline opportunities for TriMet's public art program to help station communities strengthen their identity using standard and unique project materials introduce possible enhancements that, while beyond the scope of the project, may be funded locally by station l..} communities This document also serves as Exhibit A to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that the project ryland RC commuter rail partners have implemented to describe the physical Station - Dorseyy, , Ma Maryland Dors improvements within each jurisdiction and to provide the basis for a common set of design guidelines to be followed during Project construction. These design guidelines, when used in conjunction with the preliminary engineering documents, ensure that the Project will provide similar improvements in each of the Cities based on a consistent set of Project design expectations. The IGA also notes that physical improvements or modifications beyond those set forth in these design guidelines or agreed to design variations will be the financially responsibility of the sponsoring city or agency. Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 3 t Design Objectives TriMet builds both bus and rail facilities based on objectives that have evolved over the years. In building capital facilities, TriMet seeks to: • optimize passenger safety and security • provide protection from the elements for waiting i passengers • optimize system reliability and customer comfort Station platform-Trinity Railway Express • enhance the physical place and community in which Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas the facility resides • minimize disruption to local facilities and - - communities • minimize energy consumption • ease and facilitate maintenance and reduce costs over time _ • provide attractive physical improvements within the project's overall capital budget Station platform and adjacent buses-Metrolink Southern California Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 4 Station Element: Platforms y.-- 1 C d s'-ti.; w _ 11 Conceptual center platform design ZRamp High-block Source: Washington County/URS/BRW Z. y Station platforms provide waiting and loading areas for commuter rail passengers. Platforms must be designed to accommodate pedestrian circulation, ADA requirements, standard transit amenities and the commuter rail vehicle dimen- sions and clearances. Platform dimensions are = typically 20 feet wide by 200 feet long. ! Commuter rail platforms will include: Illustration of conceptual platform design • a "mini-high-block" platform for loading Source: Washington County/URS/BRW passengers in wheelchairs benches • trash cans ticket machines shelters ~t Station platform-Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) r x ; hi $ t. Stockton-San Jose, California e cc Station platform-Sounder Station platform-Trinity Railway Express (TRE) Tukwila, Washington Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 5 Station Element: Platforms 711 Conceptual platform design Source: Washington County/URS/BRW Ramp High-block Tactile Pavers Station platforms must be designed with.passenger safety foremost in mind. Safety features include: • tactile pavers to delineate the < << , L l L l C a trackway edge ` e".A l L ( t L l t T • well-marked and regulated pedestrian track crossings C t C t l L l! t C` C C Y l C l t ~y L C. C CC C E CPL . } y F C` ( c,Y L C c!L C 4L L I, Platform tactile pavers being installed MAX Yellow Line-Pordand Blvd. Station Track Crossings 1 u' 544 Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 6 Station Element: Shelters ? ~f Passenger shelters should provide weather _ protection, a feeling of security and an identity _ for the station and surrounding area. Commuter rail shelters will include; • a metal roof • steel support columns -4 • a stainless steel leaning rail Shelters are planned to be approximately w 10 feet wide by 60 feet in length; the roof ' ' . will be approximately 10 feet above the platform. Partially completed shelter N Portland Blvd Station _ MAX Yellow Line (Interstate MAX), New shelter under construction N Portland Blvd Station MAX Yellow Line (Interstate MAX) Conceptuafplafform design ,showing shelter/Wndscreen. Source:. Washington County/URS/BRW { Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 7 Station Elements Lights Commuter rail stations and park & ride lots will include both pedestrian level and higher level lighting. Pedestrian level lighting is provided via 10-foot high precast concrete poles and translucent fixtures. Depending on the situation, higher level lighting will be provided by lights that 66 q are typical for either TriMet or the local ' jurisdiction. Minimum illumination standards must be met for s~ Pedestrian walkways, platforms and parking lots. Pedestrian-scale lighting Precast concrete pole Overhead cobra-style lighting Metal pole Signs Station signs provide clear and concise information to passengers. Signs will: be easily visible • be consistent with existing TriMet graphics • conform to ADA and other applicable codes • minimize maintenance requirements Customer information pylon Customer information sign Ticket Machines Ticket vending machines (TVMs) allow self-service purchase and validation of single and multiple ride tickets. Ticket machines on commuter rail platforms will be standard TriMet equipment. TriMet ticket vending machines E? Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 8 Station Amenities gyp,, 41, Paving f' Various paving treatments can r enhance the station environment. Paving materials must meet basic r. safety requirements. ' These examples illustrate the paving = w' 4~' f materials and designs that are x considered appropriate for the commuter rail stations. Scored concrete, Rose QuarterTC Sand-based pavers 1 r' Sand-based pavers - Railings Railings provide separation from non-pedestrian areas and fall - protection. Railings may be utilitarian in design or may be Ramp railing enhanced as part of the art program or other efforts. L railing Ram railing Platform Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 9 Station Amenities Benches Phones - it, t ~ Trash Receptacles r` ~p AIM, .AM f' p low h 4 'AMIN These station amenities are considered appropriate for all y~r~a 11%4M commuter rail stations, i i Bike Racks/Lockers i i TriMet's new prototype bike locker Tree Grates Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 10 Public Art Art Program Objectives A great opportunity for making each station unique is through public art. TriMet's public art program promotes transit use ee and community pride by integrating permanent art works into the public transit system. The resulting art work celebrates the contributions of public transportation and reflects the cultural richness in the region. V r The TriMet public art program: utilizes local, regional and national artists to develop ~;7 high quality public art work that enhances the transit environment • commissions artwork that is structurally sound and ~tr art;, resistant to theft, vandalism, weathering and excessive h"~ maintenance costs • rli 1i 4 n commissions artwork that presents no public safety hazards nor creates any impediment to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance Sand-blasted glass panels Community Involvement MAX Blue Line-Quatama/NW 205th Ave Station TriMet will form a new group including representatives from each station area and TriMet's Public Art Advisory Committee to select artists and review proposed art work. Representatives of community-based organizations, neighbor- r hood associations and other groups will be invited to share Y their knowledge about the community with the artists. The ` artists' proposals for art work will reflect their understanding ' t 1~ V of the history and unique character of the areas around the . j commuter rail stations. Through frequent exchanges and the direct involvement of community members, the Commuter Rail art program will be better able to achieve its goals of enhancing the transitsystem " - - - ` 9 integrated into concrete platform and the communities it serves. MAX Red Line-Portland Airport Station *+4+►`i t1'~`!~ avt~ _ Art installation Coho Commute' Mohawk Park & Ride/Tualatin Installation of railing with art elements Prototype railing for N Killingsworth St Station MAX Yellow Line-Interstate/Rose Quarter Station MAX Yellow Line (Interstate MAX) Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 11 Station Enhancements Communities may consider adding amenities, Clocks/Towers with local funding, that are beyond the basic design of the commuter rail stations in order to achieve local design objectives. The Project will strive to incorporate station enhancements wherever financially feasible. r' r. Information Kiosks - r f~ C... ti. Station dock Dallas Area Rapid Transit station Pape Bell Tower Oregon State University Special Paving .~t 4 t a A Sand-based pavers Brick and precast concrete pavers Brick and precast concrete pavers .-r_. Special Railings -7 Pavers Art elements cast into concrete Flower Baskets/Planters oil . : ,~It 1 L MAX Blue Line-Old Town/Chinatown Station MAX Blue Line-Old Town/Chinatown Station Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 12 Commuter Rail Station Plans The station plans, when considered together with the preliminary engineering documents, form the common set of design elements that will be provided at each of the five commuter rail stations. These commuter rail station plans will likely be refined as more detailed engineering occurs on the project. However, design details will be consistent with the provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement. Beaverton Transit Center ~ I. ~ tlAY tJynt RNl radon 0 r ~ ~ rYFMer a+s grope # New dlko 'L New BrMpe mror NeO ' 4-4 ~y M URS, Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 13 Commuter Rail Station Plans Tigard Transit Center z~\ :eu.rarrme' rt". i . ever Washington County Commuter Rail Prdlmlmry Dos)gn, May 2001 a URS Scholls Ferry Rd./Washington Square N~bgr BuNnui Gnhr • , ~ . ~ Esht7rp hack .E r 1 : I'4i } Washington County Commuter Rail Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 14 Commuter Rail Station Plans Tualatin r ✓•'O^ ~ Jf Tact f/ .g PAMM K ra.nNpn ■ , r Washington County Commuter Rail Wilsonville F WUV T/aet .Nw tn.*, ,sue • r 66 MaJntlmnea hot9ry.- Lamhcapw Water 1 . RafaaaMOTArsa 7r - APPraa4-f.* SIT P.M .9 apnea. Washington County Commuter Rail URS Y-M -IWMM-q:Irr,= PrOOMIMfy oesvn. AMY 2001 Exhibit A: Design Scope & Objectives for Stations - Commuter Rail DRAFT Page 15 C AGENDA ITEM # . FOR AGENDA OF February 28, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Intergovernmental Agreement RGA) - Organization and Function of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee PREPARED BY: Denver Igarta DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consider an IGA to continue cooperation with the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Spaces on the implementation phase of the Goal 5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize signature of an IGA reconfirming establishment of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee and extending the partnership with Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Spaces through the program implementation phase. INFORMATION SUMMARY In April 2002, City Council approved entering into a intergovernmental agreement with other Washington County jurisdictions, a group known as the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Spaces, to analyze the impact of development on inventoried riparian and wildlife habitat resources and develop a resource protection program. The City of Tigard contributed $13,921 to the project, based on its population. In July 2003, Council approved an additional $5,568 for planning assistance to complete the impact analysis and protection program for Goal 5 natural resource sites located within the Basin. Since 2002, the City of Tigard has participated on the Tualatin Basin Partners' Steering Committee (comprised of staff representatives) and Natural Resource Coordinating Committee (comprised of elected local officials). The initial step of conducting an Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis of inventoried resources and determining whether to allow, limit, or prohibit conflicting uses was completed in Spring 2004. The Basin Partners then began work (in Winter 2004) on developing a program to improve protection of significant resources. In March 2005, the an overview of the proposed Tualatin Basin Program was presented by staff to the Tigard City Council. The Basin's Natural Resource Coordinating Committee voted in April 2005 to send an approved Tualatin Basin Program to Metro Council as their approach to improve the environmental health of the Basin. In September 2005, Metro Council formally approved the Basin Program as a compliance option for Title 13 of the Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Basin Partners are now preparing to implement program elements to reach their goal of improving the Basin's environmental health and to comply with state and regional Goal 5 planning requirements. In July 2005, a new intergovernmental agreement (IGA) was prepared to extend the Tualatin Basin partnership to jointly coordinate implementation of the approved Program. This IGA was made effective after being signed by a Washington County and seven (of the 12) other partner governments. All original Basin Partners were reenlisted in the alliance, although some members had not yet formally signed the agreement, including the City of Tigard. Signing the intergovernmental agreement formalizes the City's commitment to continued involvement in the coordination effort and participation on the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee and Steering Committee through the program's implementation phase. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Formally withdraw from the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 partnership. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT 2006 Council Goals: • Revise the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan • Consider Opportunities for Major Greenspaces Purchases Vision Goal: Community Character & Quality of Life, Community Aesthetics - Identify and implement projects and activities that enhance aesthetic qualities valued by those who live and work in Tigard. Vision Goal: Growth & Growth Management - Growth will be managed to protect the character and livability of established areas, protect the natural environment and provide open space throughout the community. Vision Goal: Growth & Growth Management - The City Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed and revised to: Provide for preservation of natural environment and open space: throughout the community. Vision Goal: Urban & Public Services, Parks & Greenways - The City will educate and support citizen efforts to understand the importance of floodplains and wetlands and how the areas are managed and protected. Vision Goal: Urban & Public Services, Parks & Greenways - Open space and greenway areas shall be preserved and protected. Vision Goal: Urban & Public Services, Water & Stormwater - Stormwater runoff is effectively managed. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Memo: Tualatin Basin (Goal 5) Partnership for Natural Spaces Attachment 2: Intergovernmental Agreement - Organization and Function of the TBNRCC Attachment 3: Program Implementation General Work Scope and Project Cost Estimates FISCAL NOTES No additional contributions to the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee are required at this time. Adequate funds remain from prior contributions by Basin governments for the ESEE analysis and program development phases to cover the cost of activities identified in the program implementation phase of this effort. Should it be determined that additional funds are needed, the request must first be approved by a majority of the voting members of the TBNRCC. Attachment 1 ~1 v MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Barbara Shields, Planning Manager FROM: Denver Igarta, Associate Planner RE: Tualatin Basin (Goal 5) Partnership for Natural Spaces DATE: January 10, 2006 The Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Spaces recently extended their alliance of local governments in Washington County, including the City of Tigard, working to improve the environmental health of the Tualatin Basin. A new intergovernmental agreement (IGA), which focuses on the implementation phase of the Tualatin Basin (Goal 5) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program, was made effective after being signed by Washington County and seven (of the 12) other Partners. All original Basin governments were reenlisted in the partnership, although some members had not yet formally signed the agreement, including the City of Tigard. Attached is the IGA tided "Organization and Function of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee." This memo is intended to provide a brief overview of the Tualatin Basin Program and the ongoing implementation effort as it relates to the extension of the IGA. In April, staff is scheduled to provide a more in-depth presentation to the City Council on the status and timeline of the Tualatin Basin Program. Key Elements of Program Implementation Since entering into the original partnership agreement in 2002, the City of Tigard has served on both the Tualatin Basin Partners' Natural Resource Coordinating Committee (comprised of elected local officials) and Steering Committee (comprised of staff representatives). Through participating on these committees, the City has remained involved in the Basin's efforts to complete an analysis of the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) impacts of conflicting uses on habitat resources (in 2004) and develop a resource protection program for the Tualatin Basin. Since the Tualatin Basin Program was completed and first presented to the City Council in Spring 2005, the Program has been formally approved by Metro as a compliance option for Title 13 of the Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Basin Partners are now preparing to implement program elements to reach their goal of improving the Basin's environmental health and to comply with state and regional Goal 5 planning requirements. The 1 Basin Approach applies different measures to the three different resource designations based on their relative value as described in the following table: DESIGNATION RESOURCES APPROACH 1. Strictly Limit (SL) Clean Water Services • Existing Regulations (no m nydatiorrE required) (CWS) vegetated • Guidelines and incentives for Low Impact corridor, highest value Development (LID) and habitat-sensitive riparian resources development • Technical assistance 2. Moderately Limit Remaining high & . Target areas for restoration &enhancement (ML) moderate value (Class I . Allow flexibility in development approaches & II) riparian resources • Guidelines and incentives for LID and habitat-sensitive development • Technical assistance 3. Lightly Limit Low value (Class III) • Educational materials/program (LL) riparian and upland . Guidelines and incentives for LID and habitat (Class A, B &Gq habitat-sensitive development resources . Technical assistance In September 2005, Metro Council formally approved the Basin Program, subject to the following conditions: • The Tualatin Basin partnership must be extended and the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee (comprised of elected local officials) must continue to coordinate Partner activities. • Basin Partners must implement applicable program elements uithin one yar of program approval, or by the end of September 2006. Implementation Timeline By September 2006, each local government is scheduled to adopt, adopt with amendments, or reject proposed ordinances amending their comprehensive plans, land use regulations or any other program or regulation necessary to implement the Tualatin Basin Habitat Protection Program. If a Basin Partner chooses to reject or vary from the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program, findings must be adopted explaining their decision. The Basin Partners have extended the contract with consultant Angelo-Eaton & Associates to develop the strategy for implementing applicable program elements, specifically encouraging and facilitating Habitat Friendly Development Practice. The cost estimate for consultant services (to be performed by Angelo-Eaton) to assist Tualatin Basin Partners in 2 program implementation activities is $26,030, which will be taken from the existing fund balance (of approximately $49,000). See the attached Program Implementation Work Scope and Schedule. The three primary tasks and their related products are outlined in the attached Work Scope and summarized in the following table: PROGRAM TASK RESULT 1. Development of a template/model New (non-mandator standards in local codes ordinance to address a menu of several which will allow and encourage property owners low impact development (LID) and developers to implement habitat friendly approaches and LID guidelines for local development practices development codes 2. Removal of current impediments to the Amendment of existing local standards to implementation of LID development remove barriers to implementation of habitat techniques friendly practices 3. Prepare a compliance report to Metro for Implementation report based on findings in the Basin's Implementation of Habitat Issue Papers # 1 & # 2 with attached adopted Friendly Design Practices ordinances Policy Decisions for Council Signing the intergovernmental agreement formalizes the City's commitment to continue the on-going coordination effort and its involvement on the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee and Steering Committee (comprised of staff representatives) through the program's implementation phase. The final IGA will be represented by the compilation of all signed original signature pages with a copy of the agreement. Attached Documents: 1. Intergovernmental Agreement - Organization and Function of the TBNRCC 2. Program Implementation General Work Scope and Project Cost Estimates 3 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TUALATIN BASIN NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATING COMMITTEE This Agreement is entered into by the cities, county and special districts (collectively "Basin governments") that are signatories to this Agreement. WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 - .110 authorizes units of local government to enter into agreements for the performance of any functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agencies have authority to perform; WHEREAS, an agreement under ORS 190.010 shall specify the functions or activities to be performed and by what means they shall be performed; WHEREAS, the Basin governments have responsibilities and authority under State law and/or their local charters to conduct comprehensive planning and to administer implementing land use regulations within their respective jurisdictions, or have regulatory authority and provide services that are connected with these land use planning responsibilities; WHEREAS, the city Basin governments have entered into intergovernmental agreements with Clean Water Services ("CWS"), a county service district that is also a Basin government, concerning performance of local storm and sanitary sewer operations, and concerning the authority and responsibility of CWS, as more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS, the cities, County, and special districts (collectively "Basin governments") that are shown above the signature lines of this Agreement previously entered into an intergovernmental agreement ("Formation Agreement") pursuant to ORS 190.010 - 190.110 forming the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Coordinating Committee ("TBNRCC"); WHEREAS, the Portland Metropolitan Service District ("Metro") has undertaken the responsibility to prepare and direct implementation of regional Goal 5 programs which affect the Basin governments and which undertaking gave rise to the formation of the TBNRCC; WHEREAS, the Basin governments have determined that it is in their best interests to jointly prepare and coordinate implementation of a program concerning Statewide Planning Goal.5, Title 3, Section 5 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, the Federal Clean Water Act and related state regulations, the Endangered Species Act, and other regional natural resource related matters; WHEREAS, Metro and TBNRCC entered into an intergovernmental agreement, ("Metro-TBNRCC IGA") approved by the TBNRCC on June 10, 2002, and by the Metro INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 1 of 8 Council by Resolution No. 02-3195 on May 16, 2002 and amended by a First Addendum approved by TBNRCC on May 5, 2003 and by the Metro Council by Resolution 03-3332 on May 15, 2003, and by a Second Addendum approved by TBNRCC on April 4, 2005 and by Metro Council by Resolution 05- on , 2005; WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005, the TBNRCC adopted Resolution and Order No. 2005- 01 adopting Goal 5 program recommendations and supporting ESEE analysis for submittal to Metro, (hereinafter the "Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program" attached hereto as Exhibit "B") and said resolution was adopted pursuant to the Metro-TBNRCC IGA; WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005 the TBNRCC directed submittal of the "Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program to the Metro Council for inclusion in the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan as the regional resource program addressing fish & wildlife habitat resources in the Tualatin Basin; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2005 the Metro Council adopted Resolution No. 05-3577A approving the TBNRCC's Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program, with conditions; and those conditions included two important elements: 1) that "The TBNRCC members agree to renew and extend their partnership to implement the projects on the Healthy Streams Project List and target projects that protect and restore Class I and II Riparian Habitat, including habitat that extends beyond the Clean Water Services "vegetated corridors", and the TBNRCC shall continue to coordinate its activities with Metro and cooperate with Metro on the development of regional public information about the Nature in Neighborhoods Initiative"; and 2) "Provisions are adopted that facilitate and encourage the use of habitat-friendly development practices, where technically feasible and appropriate, in all areas identified as Class I and 11 riparian habitat areas on the Metro Regionally Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Inventory Map." NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties to this Agreement hereby agree to undertake the following actions: 1. Formation; Scope of Authority The parties hereby reconfirm establishment of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Coordinating Committee ("TBNRCC"), and delegate to the TBNRCC the authority that each party has within its jurisdictional territory to perform the following functions and exercise the following powers for and on behalf of the parties and their jurisdictional territories within the Tualatin Basin area to achieve the purpose and objectives of this Agreement: 1.1 Expend funds contributed by the parties to this joint Tualatin Basin response to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program or other INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 2 of 8 intergovernmental natural resource related programs or projects deemed of mutual interest and which would benefit from cooperative action by the respective parties to this agreement. 1.2 Select and enter into contracts with consultants and other parties necessary to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program or other intergovernmental natural resource related programs or projects deemed of mutual interest and which would benefit from cooperative action by the respective parties to this agreement, subject to compliance with the Washington County public contracting rules and regulations. 1.3 Further develop, refine and carry out the tasks and responsibilities of the Basin governments described in the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program. 1.4 Appear on behalf of the parties in Metro Goal 5 legislative, administrative and other proceedings and speak for the parties and their jurisdictional territories on matters that concern potential effects of proposed Metro actions on implementation of the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program or other intergovernmental natural resource related programs or projects deemed of mutual interest and which would benefit from cooperative action by the respective parties to this agreement. 1.5 Consider unique circumstances identified by Basin governments as they individually determine how to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program. 1.6 Advise the Board of Directors of Clean Water Services on implementation of the Healthy Streams Plan or other intergovernmental natural resource related programs or projects deemed of mutual interest and which would benefit from cooperative action by the respective parties to this agreement. 1.7 Appoint TBNRCC subcommittees, task forces or other advisory groups as may be needed or deemed appropriate by the TBNRCC. 1.8 Conduct public outreach relating to implementation of the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program. 1.9 Undertake other actions needed to perform TBNRCC responsibilities to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program or other intergovernmental natural resource related programs or projects deemed of mutual interest and which would benefit from cooperative action by the respective parties to this agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Agreement, CWS has certain unique responsibilities and duties under the federal Clean Water Act that are detailed in Exhibit INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 3 of 8 A that affect its relationship with the TBNRCC. Additionally, the TBNRCC shall not have authority, delegated or otherwise, to adopt final land use decisions on behalf of, or binding upon, any Basin government. 2. Governance The TBNRCC shall consist of the chief elected officer of the governing body of each Basin government or his/her alternate from that governing body. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the member and alternate from Clean Water Services shall be a person other than the chair and alternate representing the Washington County Board of Commissioners on the TBNRCC. In addition, the Metro Council may appoint from among its members two ex-officio non-voting members to the TBNRCC. 2.1 Each TBNRCC member except ex-officio members shall have one vote. A TBNRCC meeting quorum shall consist of a majority of all voting members. The TBNRCC shall establish bylaws setting forth meeting times and rules of procedure as it deems necessary to carry on its business. 2.2 Meetings of the TBNRCC and its subcommittees shall be open to the public, subject to the provisions of the Oregon Public Meetings Law. 2.3 Washington County shall provide staff services to schedule meetings, keep minutes and meeting records, administer consultant contracts, pay approved expenses and such other administrative matters necessary to conduct TBNRCC business. 3. Funding 3.1 The voting members of the TBNRCC agree to review the costs of activities resulting from decisions of the Committee and to provide funds adequate to meet expenses incurred. Funding sources shall be determined in a fair and equitable manner on a case- by-case basis. 3.2 Washington County shall separately account for the funds and provide appropriate documentation as reasonably requested by the TBNRCC or any individual TBNRCC member. 4. Other members The TBNRCC may permit additional local governments from Washington County that have a role in natural resources planning or protection to join as full-members. The TBNRCC may permit local governments from the Tualatin Basin but outside Washington County that have a role in natural resources planning to join as non-voting associate members. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 4of8 5. Responsibilities of Participating TBNRCC Members 5.1 Each Basin government member shall contribute, at its own reasonable expense, such staff work, documents and other resources as may reasonably be requested by the TBNRCC in order to carry out the TBNRCC's responsibilities, and its own responsibilities under this Agreement. Each Basin government shall cooperate fully with the TBNRCC during the performance of these responsibilities. 5.2 The TBNRCC shall work, in cooperation with its member local governments, to implement the "Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program". TBNRCC activities shall include but are not limited to: • Coordination with Clean Water Services in reviewing, recommending and funding projects designed to implement the Healthy Streams Plan; • Coordination with Metro in development of a Regional Bond Measure to fund acquisition or protection of key habitat areas throughout the region; • Review of and recommendations on habitat-friendly development standards and removal of barriers to implementation of those standards, focusing on facilitation and encouragement of their use in Metro-identified Class I and II riparian habitat areas; • Review of and recommendations on alternative funding mechanisms (including grants, local bond measures, opportunities for park SDC's, or other alternatives) to be utilized for acquisition, restoration or enhancement, or other programs designed to improve or enhance fish and/or wildlife habitat in the Tualatin Basin. • Re-evaluation of and application of the program to address regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat in areas included within the UGB after the effective date of this agreement; • Review of, recommendations on, and coordination of volunteer programs designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat in the Tualatin Basin (e.g. education and outreach, stewardship recognition, tax incentives ...etc.); • Coordination of habitat improvement. activities with other organizations (federal, state and local governments, private, and non-profit organizations); • Adaptive management activities including review of the effectiveness of the Basin Program and development of Program adjustments if needed. 5.3 Within one year after the Metro Council's final decision to make the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program part of its regional Goal 5 program by reference in the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, or as soon as possible thereafter if its charter or other notice and hearing requirements prevent final action within one year, each city and county Basin government shall adopt, adopt with amendments, or reject proposed ordinances amending their comprehensive plans, land use regulations or any other program or regulation necessary to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program. Nothing in this Agreement or the Metro-TBNRCC IGA shall obligate any Basin government to adopt the proposed INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 5 of 8 ordinances or other programs or regulations necessary to implement the adopted Metro functional plan provisions. However, each Basin government shall adopt findings explaining its decision to reject or vary from the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program. Failure to adopt ordinances or other programs or actions necessary to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program may result in a determination by Metro that plans or land use regulations do not substantially comply with the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Statewide Planning Goal 5. 6. Term This Agreement shall not terminate except by action of the governing bodies of a 2/3 majority of Basin governments that are voting members at the time of proposed termination. Any Basin government may withdraw from the TBNRCC upon 60 days written notice to the TBNRCC. 7. Amendment Amendments to this Agreement may be proposed by any member of the TBNRCC and shall be incorporated into the Agreement if approved by an affirmative vote of the governing bodies of 2/3 of all the voting TBNRCC members. 8. Miscellaneous 8.1 The parties to this Agreement are the only entities or persons entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this IGA gives or is intended to provide any benefit or right, whether directly, indirectly, or otherwise, to third persons unless such third persons are individually identified by name herein and expressly described as intended beneficiaries of the terms of this Agreement. 8.2 No person shall be denied or subjected to discrimination by any Basin government in receipt of the benefits of any services or activities made possible by or resulting from this IGA on the grounds of race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, age, or marital status. 8.3 The TBNRCC has no employees. Each basin government shall be solely responsible for its own employees, including but not limited to compensation for and supervision of work performed by its employees in connection with any matter described in this Agreement. 8.4 Subject to the limitations in the Oregon Tort Claims Act and the Oregon Constitution, each party agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defend each other, including each other's officers, employees and agents against all claims, demands, actions, suits and appeals (including attorney fees and costs) arising from the indemnitor's acts or omissions under this Agreement. In addition, each party shall be solely responsible for INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 6 of 8 any contract claims, delay damages or similar monetary claims arising from or caused by the action or inaction of the party in the administration of this Agreement. Each party shall give the other immediate written notice of any action or suit filed or any claim made against that party that may result in litigation in any way related to this Agreement. However, each party shall be solely responsible for the defense of any action, claim, suit, or appeal (including land use appeal) arising out of that party's actions pursuant to Section 5.3 to implement adopted Metro functional. plan provisions. Each party agrees to maintain insurance levels or self-insurance in accordance with ORS 30.282, for the duration of this Agreement at levels necessary to protect against public body liability as specified in ORS 30.270. 8.5 If any claim, demand, action, suit or appeal is filed against the TBNRCC, the parties agree to cooperate in good faith in defending or otherwise addressing it. 8.6 This Agreement is intended as the complete, exclusive and final expression of the Agreement among the parties to this Agreement. 8.7 If any terms or provisions of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and the application of those terms and provisions shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 9. Effective Date This Agreement shall be effective on the date it is executed by Washington County and seven others of the following Basin governments: • Washington County • Clean Water Services • Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District • City of Beaverton • City of Hillsboro • City of Tigard • City of Tualatin • City of Sherwood • City of Cornelius • City of Forest Grove • City of Durham • City of King City • City of North Plains INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 7 of 8 This Agreement consists of eight pages (including this signature page) plus Exhibits A and B. A separate signature page is included for each participating government; the compilation of all final (signed) signature pages with a single copy of the preceding 7 pages and Exhibits A and B shall represent the final agreement. Each participating government shall provide a signed original of this page to Washington County for compilation and recording of the final agreement. CITY OF TIGARD By: Title: Date: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE TBNRCC (as approved by TBNRCC action - July 11, 2005) Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT A AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBLITY O.F CLEAN WATER SERVICES Notwithstanding any contrary provision of the Agreement, the following clarifications of the roles and responsibilities of Clean Water Services ("CWS") in the Tualatin Basin are incorporated into this Agreement: 1. As a county service district organized under ORS 451, CWS has the legal authority for the sanitary sewage and storm water (surface water) management programs within the cities and the urban unincorporated area of Washington. County. CWS develops standards and work programs, is the permit holder, operates the sanitary sewage treatment plants and implements the Storm Water Management Plan. CWS previously entered into operating intergovernmental agreements (operating agreements) with each of the cities and Washington County listed herein as Basin governments. Under the operating agreements, Cities perform a portion of the local sanitary sewer and storm water management programs. 2. CWS holds the NPDES permit and meets the permit requirements through implementation of its Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) in cooperation and coordination with the Cities and the County under the operating agreements. 3. The Cities and Washington County are responsible for adopting local land use regulations that implement statewide planning goals. CWS, on the other hand, primarily addresses the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act and does not adopt land use regulations. 4. The Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program (Basin Protection Program) and CWS's NPDES permit compliance activities share the goal of environmental improvement. These efforts may well overlap and often enhance and quicken the effort to obtain healthier streams and fish and wildlife habitat. Where the CWS Board of Directors (CWS Board) determines there is conflict between NPDES permit requirements (including SWMP implementation) and the Basin Protection Program and there is no way to resolve the conflict, the permit requirements shall control. In the unlikely event such a situation arises, the TBNRCC shall work with its member local governments including CWS and Metro to modify the Basin Protection Program as necessary so as to maintain compliance with the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. 5. In the event of conflict between the operating agreements between CWS and the Cities, the County and this Agreement, the operating agreements shall control. 6. As holder of the NPDES permit, CWS is required to exercise operational and budgetary authority to meet the permit and comply with the Federal Clean Water Act. CWS's Board therefore shall retain all authority to approve or disapprove projects or plans to implement the Basin Protection Program that may affect CWS permits, budgets and its adopted Capital Improvements Program. To the extent feasible and practicable, however, the CWS Board shall exercise this authority in a manner consistent with applicable provisions in this agreement. The CWS Board further retains authority regarding the setting of CWS rates and charges. Exhibit A - TBNRCC IGA (Page 1 of 1) 4 Attachment 3 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation: ng= Habitat-Friendly Development Practices General Work Scope and Project Cost Estimates for Program Implementation and Draft Compliance Report This scope of work anticipates the Basin Partners will continue to exercise an existing contract with Angelo Eaton & Associates to assist in program implementation activities in the Tualatin Basin. Overview On September 29, 2005 the Metro Council voted to approve a regional Nature in Neighborhoods program. This council action incorporates the Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program, as developed and recommended by the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places (Partners). Under an intergovernmental agreement between the Partners and Metro, applicable elements of the adopted Basin program are required to be implemented within one year following the Metro Council's final decision (or within 60 days of LCDC's acknowledgement of Metro's Functional Plan provisions, whichever is later). This work scope outlines a plan for implementation of the applicable elements of the Basin Program by the end of September 2006. An important feature of the Basin program is the encouragement of land developers and property owners to incorporate habitat friendly practices in their site design. Habitat friendly practices include a broad range of development techniques and activities that reduce the detrimental impact on fish and wildlife habitat relative to traditional development practices. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, which represent an important component of habitat friendly practices, are focused on minimizing hydrologic impacts and improving water quality. The primary objective of the work described below is to develop an approach that will encourage these practices in the Basin and can be adopted and implemented by local Partner jurisdictions. Two program tasks that require local ordinance adoption for implementation are listed on pages 3-7 and 7-2 of the Partners Program Report of April 4, 2005. These tasks include: 1) "...the development of a model ordinance to address a menu of several low impact development (LID) approaches and the inclusion of LID guidelines in local development codes;" and 2) "...removal of current impediments to the implementation of LID development techniques." This second task also includes streamlining permit procedures in order to allow beneficial activities such as tree planting, resource enhancement, and removal of noxious plant species either "by-right" or through a relatively simple and low-cost administrative review process. The net result of these tasks will be: 1) new (non-mandatory) standards in local codes which will allow and encourage property owners and developers to implement habitat friendly development practices; and 2) amendment of existing local standards to remove barriers to implementation of habitat friendly practices, including low impact development techniques. The consultant will provide the appropriate level of guidance necessary to support local adoption of comprehensive plan and development code amendments that allow and encourage 1212212005 Page 1 of 6 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation t Habitat Friendly Design Practices 'gat Scope of Work . habitat friendly development. As this work progresses, the consultant will document the process, methods and results of this program implementation work in the form of a Nature in Neighborhoods Program compliance report to be submitted to Metro. The consultant will work with Tualatin Basin Steering Committee (TBSC) members to accomplish the project tasks as described below. As necessary throughout the process, the TBSC will present progress reports and recommendations to the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Coordinating Committee (TBNRCC). The general tasks for the Basin program implementation work may be described as: 1) inclusion of provisions in local development codes to outline methods for reducing impacts on recognized habitat areas; 2) development and incorporation of design prototypes and specifications (in cooperation with Clean Water Services stormwater management update of the Design & Construction Standards) for low-impact development tools; and 3) removal of existing barriers in local comprehensive plans and development codes that would prevent or restrict the implementation of habitat friendly design practices. The Basin effort will be coordinated throughout with Metro as they develop a model ordinance for the region. Task 1: Development of a Comprehensive Approach and Scope for Implementing Habitat-Friendly Development Practices Description The task of implementing habitat-friendly design practices will provide planning and development approaches related to reduction or avoidance of impacts to fish & wildlife habitat (such as clustering, on-site density transfers, re-directed outdoor lighting, etc.), engineering and design approaches that minimize development impacts (such as specifications for rain gardens, green roofs, etc.), as well as the removal of barriers to implementation of these practices. The consultant will develop an issue paper describing the Basin approach, including recommendations for safe harbor types of minimum commitments which may be utilized by the local jurisdictions in the Tualatin Basin in meeting ordinance related program commitments. This issue paper will serve as a template/guide to be utilized by the Basin Partners in effectuating appropriate amendments to local plans and related development and construction standards. Some threshold questions to be addressed in the issue paper include: • Which types of habitat friendly design practices and low impact development techniques are appropriate? • What does it mean to encourage these practices? • What technical issues are raised? • What common barriers to implementation exist and how can/should they be addressed? Examples of practices that might be encouraged: • use of native plants for required landscaping • directing light-spill away from habitat areas • relaxing local street connectivity standards where stream crossings are implicated • allowing shared driveways and parking areas 1212212005 Page 2 of 6 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation . Habitat Friendly Design Practices Scope of Work • allowing sidewalks to drain into yards or adjoining landscape areas rather than to the street system • use of standards that provide for infiltration of rainwater into the groundwater vs. surface water systems Approach/Method The consultant will coordinate with the TBSC in preparing the template to be followed by each Partner jurisdiction. This effort will largely consist of the preparation of an Issue Paper that discusses the topics listed above in identifying appropriate techniques and approaches to encourage their implementation, and presents alternatives and recommendations for planning and development approaches. This work will be closely coordinated with the Clean Water Services District's concurrent stormwater management update of their Design & Construction Standards. Technical issues will be coordinated with the City Tech group. Products Consultant Products. o Prepare draft Table of Contents for project report outlined in Task 3. o Attend TBSC meeting to discuss draft Table of Contents and Issue Paper #1. o Prepare preliminary draft of Issue Paper #1 as described above, for group discussion. o Create final draft of Issue Paper #1, which incorporates comments from TBSC. TBSC Products. The TBSC will provide the consultant with a single consolidated set of comments on the preliminary draft of Issue Paper #1. Each Partner jurisdiction is responsible for participating in TBSC discussion and coordination efforts. The Basin approach will be executed through the drafting of local ordinances which address the objectives as discussed and agreed upon by the TBSC and as further described under Task 2 below. Estimated Timeframe It is expected there will be some overlap of tasks for this project, given that the issue papers prepared for Tasks 1 and 2 will contribute to the final compliance report of Task 3. For this reason, it is anticipated that preliminary meetings with the consultant and draft versions of each issue paper will be sufficient to provide the TBSC with direction for drafting local ordinances. TBSC comments on the Issue Papers will be for the purposes of providing feedback to the consultant regarding the preparation of the final compliance report (Task 3). Furthermore, the consultant can begin work on Task 2 while the TBSC begins work to prepare local ordinances. Early to mid-January: consultant meeting with TBSC Late-January: draft of Issue Paper #1 to TBSC Mid-February: TBSC comments on Issue Paper #1 to consultant Mid-February: TBSC members begin work to prepare local implementing ordinances Consultant Cost $10,510 1212212005 Page 3 of 6 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation Habitat Friendly Design Practices Scope of Work s` Task 2: Coordinating and Identifying Necessary Local Amendments Description This task covers the technical work associated with identifying changes necessary for local comprehensive plans and development codes in order to implement and encourage habitat friendly practices, including the identification and removal of barriers to implementation. This removal of barriers exercise will entail a review of the existing Audubon SPIR Report. The SPIR Report was completed in 2004 in order to address water quality concerns, and is therefore not expected to be entirely accurate or comprehensive for the purposes of the Basin program implementation. Each Partner jurisdiction will be responsible for drafting and adopting local comprehensive plan and/or development code amendments necessary for implementation of habitat friendly practices. As in Task 1, the consultant will coordinate local efforts for Task 2. Approach/Method The project consultant will prepare a second Issue Paper addressing typical barriers to implementation of planning approaches identified in Task 1 as well as those that may preclude the implementation of low impact development techniques being considered by CWS as acceptable methods of on-site stormwater management. Issue Paper #2 also will present suggestions to enhance the habitat benefits of these techniques, where practicable (i.e., through the use of native plant materials, etc.) and will present an analysis of how local provisions can be structured such that habitat friendly techniques will be encouraged. The Issue Paper will be presented to and discussed with the TBSC to assist in the development of local program implementation ordinances. This work will be closely coordinated with Clean Water Services stormwater management update of their Design & Construction Standards. Technical issues will be coordinated with the City Tech group. Products Consultant Products. o Attend TBSC meeting to discuss Issue Paper #2. o Prepare a draft of Issue Paper #2 that addresses: 1) typical barriers to implementation of habitat friendly development here in the Tualatin Basin; and 2) appropriate techniques and approaches to encourage implementation of habitat friendly development practices (overlays Issue Paper #1). o Coordinate Basin results and comments from TBSC to include this in the draft compliance report for Task 3. TBSCProducts. Group consensus on Basin implementation approach will be executed through the development and adoption of local ordinances which address the objectives as discussed and agreed upon by the TBSC. Each Partner jurisdiction is responsible for review of the SPIR Report, analyses of local comprehensive plan and development codes, and participation in TBSC discussions of consultant Issue Papers to result in a draft ordinance for local adoption that sufficiently addresses Basin program implementation objectives. The TBSC will provide the 1212212005 Page 4 of 6 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation Habitat Friendly Design Practices Scope of Work e' consultant with a single consolidated set of comments on the preliminary draft of Issue Paper #2. Estimated Timeframe €aFly-F4a~hLate- February: consultant meeting with TBSC Mid-March: draft of Issue Paper #2 to TBSC Late EhEarly-April: TBSC comments on Issue Paper #2 to consultant Early-April through Late-June: TBSC members continue to develop and finalize local ordinances Consultant Cost $8,670 Task 3: Development of a Compliance Report to Metro for the Basin's Implementation of Habitat Friendly Design Practices (including Local Ordinances) Description The consultant will document implementation methodologies and activities for the purposes of producing a program compliance report for Metro. This Basin Program Implementation Report will incorporate the findings of Issue Papers #1 and #2 and will provide an overview of the Basin's objectives and methodology for achieving those objectives (as discussed above), including documentation of: 1) the Basin's approaches and methods to develop and encourage habitat friendly development practices; 2) the coordination with CWS, Metro and the City Tech Group in developing appropriate low impact development standards and design guidelines relating to stormwater management for the update of the Design & Construction Standards; and 3) the methodology for identification and removal of barriers to the implementation of habitat friendly design practices. Approach/Method The consultant will document the Basin implementation methodology and other activities relevant to Metro compliance and the Program Implementation Report throughout the process. A draft report will be provided to the TBSC for review and comments after Partner jurisdictions have begun preparing draft adoption ordinances. Products Consultant Products: o Attend TBSC meeting to discuss Basin Program Implementation Report. o Prepare a preliminary draft of the Basin Program Implementation Report for TBSC review in late April. o Create final draft which will respond to TBSC comments and which will be provided to the TBSC by late June. The final report will be set-up to allow for finalization by the TBSC. The final report product Will be provided in electronic format using Microsoft Word. TBSC Products: The TBSC will review the consultant draft and provide compiled comments in a single electronic version to the consultant in a "track changes" format by mid-May. After local adoption, the TBSC will prepare a final version of the report which includes a summary table of local implementation measures and attachments of adopted ordinances. Each Partner 1212212005 Page 5 of 6 Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program Implementation Habitat Friendly Design Practices < fi , Scope of Work jurisdiction will be responsible for including findings with their ordinance that elaborate on their implementation efforts regarding compliance with the Basin Program. For example, this may be in the form of a cover report that summarizes the ordinance, explains it within the context of existing local procedures, and describes where, how and why it deviates from the Basin's template approach (if at all). Estimated Timeframe Late-April: consultant draft to TBSC for review and comments Mid-May: draft with TBSC comments returned to consultant Late-June: consultant final draft, including response to TBSC comments Late-September: final draft updated with local jurisdiction adoption confirmation October: submit report to Metro Consultant Cost $6,910 Scope and Cost Estimate Summary Table Note: All necessary project coordination costs are included in the budget estimates for each task item. Task 1 - Development of a` Comprehensive Approach and Scope 1.1 Draft Table of Contents memo $1,840.00 1.2 TBSC Meeting #1 $680.00 1.3 Preliminary Draft Issue Paper #1 $4,880.00 1.4 Final Draft Issue Paper #1 $2,240.00 1.5 Project Management & Administration $820.00 Labor Subtotal $10,460.00 Task 1 Expenses $50.00 Task 1 Subtotal $10,510.00 Task 2 Coordinating and Identifying Necessary Local Amendments_- 2.1 TBSC Meeting #2 $680.00 2.2 Preliminary Draft Issue Paper #2 $4,880.00 2.3 Final Draft Issue Paper #2 $2,240.00 2.4 Project Management & Administration $820.00 Labor Subtotal $8,620.00 Task 2 Expenses $50.00 Task 2 Subtotal $8,670.00 Task 3 Ievelopment of a CompliancelImplementation Report to Metro 3.1 TBSC Meeting #3 $680.00 3.2 Preliminary Draft Report $3,360.00 3.3 Final Draft Report $2,000.00 3.4 Project Management & Administration $820.00 Labor Subtotal $6,860.00 Task 3 Expenses $50.00 Task 3 Subtotal $6,910.00 PROJECT TOTAL $26,09000J 1212212005 Page 6 of 6 AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: February 28, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI JUDICIAL): VACATION OF AN UN-NAMED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EAST OF SW 74TH AVENUE AND EAST OF THE S P & S RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH OF DURHAM ROAD (VAC2005-00003) The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a request by Larusso Concrete Company, Inc. and Richard Akerman & James Wathey concerning the proposed vacation involving an approximately 7,845 square foot portion of an un-named public right-of-way. The petition was filed with the City on November 15, 2005 and initiated by the City Council at the request of the applicant on December 20, 2005. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said Un-Named Portion of Public Right-of-way East of SW 74th Avenue Vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by 7:30 PM on February 28, 2006. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony I:\ADM\Packet06\060228\Agenda Item 4 Sign-in Sheet AGENDA ITEM NO.4 This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included In the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent (Speaking in Favor) Opponent (Speaking Against) Neutral NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE Please Print Please Print Please Print Name: wv Name: Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if will help the presiding officer pronounce: will help the presiding officer pronounce: it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address 781 S (nl ~~\U~ Q C~ S Address Address City s)J City City State (L ICZ Zip 22 LI State Zip State Zip Phone No. d 3 ' 2-4 - y ~ z Phone No. Phone No. Name: ZL_k ~~-r^ Name: Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if will help the presiding officer pronounce: will help the presiding officer pronounce: it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address We,142,0 ,:z-, iZA Address Address City V_ ~s City City State e'~9 i/ Zip GI 7 031-State Zip State Zip Phone No. 3 Phone No. Phone No. I:\ADM\Packet06\060228\Agenda Item 4 Sign-in Sheet AGENDA ITEM NO.4 This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included .m the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent (Speaking in Favor) Opponent (Speaking Against) Neutral NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE Please Print Please Print Please Print Name: Name: Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if will help the presiding officer pronounce: will help the presiding officer pronounce: it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address Address Address City City City State U 2 Zip z State Zip State Zip Phone No. <_G 7 - Gk -3' o / Phone No. Phone No. Name: Name: Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if will help the presiding officer pronounce: will help the presiding officer pronounce: it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address Address Address City City City State Zip State Zip State Zip Phone No. Phone No. Phone No. I: \ADM\ Packet06\060228\Agenda Item 4 Sign-in Sheet AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 28, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Vacation of five small portions of public right-of-way totaling 3,392 square feet along 68th Parkway and 69th Avenue (VAC2005-00004 & VAC2005-00005). PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK_ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council vacate five portions of public right-of-way adjacent to 68th Parkway and 69th Avenue as requested by the applicant to facilitate development of eleven parcels between the two streets? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the vacation of public right-of-way by adopting the attached ordinance. At the public hearing, and after due consideration, the Council may by ordinance approve, approve with conditions, or deny the vacation request. INFORMATION SUMMARY Specht Development, Inc. has requested the right-of-way vacations shown on the vicinity ma~ (Attachment 2). The company intends to assemble eleven parcels of land north of Dartmouth Street between 68t Parkway and 69th Avenue for development purposes. In addition to the vacation of five small parcels totaling approximately 3,392 square feet, the company also proposed dedication of approximately 304 square feet of property in three places (Attachment 4). The attached ordinance is conditioned to require the acceptance of the City Engineer of the dedications prior to the proposed vacations becoming effective (Attachment 1). Based on the applicant's request, the City Council voted to initiate the vacation process at its meeting January 10, 2006 (Attachment 3). The next step in the process is for the City Council to hold a public hearing. Based on the outcome of the hearing, the Council may approve the ordinance, approve it with conditions or deny the request. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED No action. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance vacating the requested right-of-way including legal descriptions and maps (applicant's exhibits A-l, B-1/A-2, B-2/A-3, B-3/A-4, B-4/A-5, B-5). Attachment 2 - Applicant's request and Vicinity Map. Attachment 3 - Resolution No. 06-02 initiating the vacation hearing process. Attachment 4 - Proposed right-of-way dedications (applicant's exhibits C-1, D-1/C-2, D-2/C-3, D-3). FISCAL NOTES The applicant has paid the required deposit fee. ATTACHMENT 2 ' SPEMT SPECHT PROPERTIES SPECHT DEVELOPMENT September 9, 2005 15400 S.W. MMan Way • Beaverton OR 97006 503/646-2202 Fax 503/626-8903 www.spechtprop.com City Council City of Tigard Via: Delivery 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Request for Council to Initiate Vacation Proceedings Dear City Council Members: Specht Development, Inc. (or an affiliated entity) intends to assemble eleven parcels of land North of Dartmouth and between 68th and 69 h street for the development of an office building. Specht intends to submit a Site Plan Application within six months. Based on the July 22, 2005 pre-application meeting with City Staff, we understand that certain portions of the parcels must be dedicated and certain portions of Right of Way must be vacated to meet the City's Comprehensive Plan. In order to make the future Site Plan Application as accurate as possible, Specht would like to have all the dedication/vacations completed prior to application. Specht respectively requests that the City accept the following dedications of Right of Way:_ 1. Tax Lot # 3001 Map 1 S 136DD +-36 SF West side of 68th Parkway North of Clinton Street, 2. Tax Lot # 3100 Map 1 S 136DD +-134 SF on the NE corner of 68th & Clinton Streets, 3. Tax Lot # 6100 Map 1 S 136DD +-134 SF on the SE comer of 68th & Clinton Streets. Specht respectively requests that the City initiate the following vacations of Right of Way:_ 1. Tax Lot # 3001 Map 1 S 136DD +-220 SF West side of 68 Parkway North of Clinton Street, 2. Tax Lot # 6100 Map 1 S 136DD +-501 SF West side of 68th Parkway South of Clinton Street, 3. Tax Lot # 6700 & 6800 Map 1S136DD +-508 SF West side of 68,h Parkway South of Clinton Street, 4. Tax Lot # 6600 Map 1 S 136DD +408 SF West side of 68th Parkway North of Dartmouth Street, 5. Tax Lot # 6300 Map 1 S 136DD +4755 SF on the NE comer of 68th and Dartmouth Streets. Legal descriptions and maps for each of the above dedications/vacations are enclosed. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, tie ,Joe C- b~ urran V Senior Project Manager S:,Projecu -CorpomerTigard - s. of Clinton. N. of Danmowh-Correspondence•ROW Dedicaiion.vacaden lever to City Cound.DOC ° RIGHT OF WAY MAP Z I I I 8IL ~ ~ - - - - - j S.W. 68TH S.W. PARKWAY ~ 68TH PARKWAY _ - - - i- - - - - - - - -r- - - - - - - - - CHANGE j F-- - w 3190 RO.W. VACA80N I WITH OUT - - lulc g AREA • 1220 SF I RO.R YACARON u nab M SO RQR H AVE DEDICATION . TA. 3D01 AREA • tt{1B SF A 600D =1 RO.W. DEDICATION 13An s i j i DOC6/¢ fmwin AREA .1791 SF; Dot I low-tlm? \ WITH CHANGE TO 681H AVE ~ I J AREA = 164 BL 9 R.O.W. DEDICATION ~Q BLOCK 12 AREA - 1765 SF Fil-1.11 A iA. •x0o , I tL on MIT 7u006 Y I I '.I 311 OOC 666 U = g met 60m j 90osMn 1 \ S < R.O.W. DEDICATION 'x-:25' RADIUS _ _ _ I; S.W. 69TH AVENUE I AREA • t1~ V. 89m AVENUE 25' RADIUS -7 ~9•TT•ADDN AREA -_:L1755 OxS TOTAL AREA CE' NORTHERN BLOCK WIN ALL i I 1 TOT*AREA OF NORTHERN BLOCK WTH ALL AOJU$TMENT$ - t53.O84 SF I j I ADJUSTMENTS - !66.676 SF I TOTAL AREA OF NORTHERN BLOCK WTHOUT THE TOTAL AREA OF NORTHERN BLOCK WITHOUT THE ROX VACATION • 152.864 SF R.O.W. VACATION - 163.477 SF • na.iisc°w 8CAI8 1" . YOFM . AI . a T~ a ' o am 4WI 1 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 06- 01,2- A RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE OF A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE VACATION OF FIVE (5~SMALL PORTIONS OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TOTALING 3,392 SQUARE FEET ALONG 68 PARKWAY AND 69TH AVENUE WHICH ADJOIN TAX. LOTS 1 S 136DD-03001, 1 S 136DD-06100, 1 S 136DD-06300, 1 S 136DD-06600, AND 1 S 136DD-06700. THESE PARCELS ARE OWNED BY THE PETITIONERS AND ARE LEGALLY AND GRAPHICALLY DESCRIBED WITHIN EXHIBITS "A-1, B-1/A-2, B-2/A-3, B-3/A-4, B-4/A-5, B-5". WHEREAS, the applicant, Specht Development, has requested the City of Tigard initiate Vacation proceedings to vacate five (5) small portions of public right-of-way totaling 3,392 square feet along 68t' Parkway and 69th Avenue as described in the Resolution title above; WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds it appropriate to initiate Vacation proceedings for the requested public right-of-way vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby initiates a request for the vacation of five (5) small portions of public right-of-way totaling 3,392 square feet along 68th Parkway and 69th Avenue which adjoin tax lots 1 S 136DD-03001, 1 S 136DD-06100, 1 S 136DD-06300, 1 S 136DD-06600, and 1 S 136DD-06700. These parcels are owned by the petitioners and are legally and graphically described within exhibits "A-1, B-1/A-2, B-2/A-3, B-3/ A-4, B-4/A-5, B-5" and by reference made a part hereof. P SECTION 2: A public hearing is hereby called to be held by the City Council on February 28, 2006 at 7:30 PM in the Town Hall at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, within the City of Tigard, at which time and place the Council will hear any objections thereto and any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right-of-way. SECTION :3 This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This ! V - day of 006. Mayor City of Tigard EST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 06 - Page 1 i ATTACHMENT 4 l EXHIBIT Page 1 of 1 Prepared By: NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC PO Box 7177 Beaverton, OR 97007 503-848-2127 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR S.W. 69"" AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TAX LOT # 6100, MAP 1S136DD Real P4operty situated in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, being a portion of that parcel as described in deed to Robert S. Hogg and Harriett L. Hogg, recorded under Book 303, Page 341, records of said county, lying in the southeast quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwest comer of said Robert S. Hogg and Harriett L. Hogg parcel, said point being at the intersection of the easterly right of way line S.W. 69°i Avenue and the southerly right of way line of S.W. Clinton Street, and being marked by a 5/8" iron rod with a yellow plastic cap stamped "Northwest Surveying, LLC"; Thence along said southerly right of way line, North 89°59'06" East 25.01 feet; Thence leaving said northerly right of way line along a curve with a tangent bearing of South 89°59'06" West to the left and having a radius of 25.00 feet, a delta angle of 90°00'59", a long chord bearing South 44°58'36" West 35.36 feet, and a length of 39.28 feet to said easterly right of way line of S.W. 69 h Avenue; Thence along said easterly right of way line, North 00°01'53" West 25.01 feet to the point of beginning. The above described tract contains 134 square feet, more or less. The basis of bearings for this description is between found monuments along the easterly right of way line of S.W. 69th Avenue, per survey number 30,016, on record with the Washington County Surveyor's Office. EXhibIT D- I EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION VARIED WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR TAX LOT 6100 MAP 1S136DD CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON AUGUST 15, 2005 PAGE 1 OF 1 ■ FOUND 5/8' IRON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC', CURVE TABLE PER SURVEY NUMBER 30,016 CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD CHORD BEARING Cl 39.28' 25.00' 90'00'59 35.36' S44'58'36'W - - - N89'59'06'E FPOINT OF i BEGINNING 30.00' ' S.W. CLINTON STREET I N89'59'06'E 25.01' i 3 o tioo TAX LOT 6100 Z Z BOOK 303, PAGE 341 I RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION SCALE 1 - 20 FEET 30.00' AREA = ±134 SQUARE FEET o w si m wI W ° W z~ M REGISTERED IOYPROFESSNAL OLAND SURVEYOR I E Q Q w I m 0 cz, ' Z FOUND 5/8' IRON ROD WITH NO CAP OREGON I ¢ w PER SURVEY NUMBER 19,416 JANUARY 15, 2002 CLINTON H. STUBBS JR. m a 55469LS (n 1 RENEWAL DATE: 06/30/06 I PREPARED FOR. JOB NAME: DARTMOUTH ST. PO BOX SPE CHT DEVELOPMENT, INC JOB NUMBER: 56 NoR- THWEST BEAVERTON, OR797007 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY PHONE: 503-848-2127 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 DRAWING NUMBER: 56DEDICATIONS FAX: 503-848-2179 S EMAIL: nwsurvey ngOverizon.net DRAWN BY: cHS URVEYING, LLC CHECKED BY. CHS EXHIBIT v2 Page 1 of 1 Prepared By: NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC PO Bog 7177 Beaverton, OR 97007 503-848-2127 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR S.W. 68m PARKWAY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TAX LOT # 3100, MAP 1S136DD Real Property situated in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, being a portion of that parcel as described in deed to Gordon C. Root, Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root, recorded under Document Number 98-060196, records of said county, lying in the southeast quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Gordon C. Root, Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root parcel, said point being at the intersection of the easterly right of way line S.W. 69 h Avenue and the northerly right of way line of S.W. Clinton Street, and being marked by a 5/8" iron rod with a yellow plastic cap stamped "Northwest Surveying, LLC' ; Thence along said northerly right of way line, North 89°59'06" East 25.01 feet; Thence leaving said northerly right of way line along a curve with a tangent bearing of South 89°59'06" West to the right and having a radius of 25.00 feet, a delta angle of 90°01'34", a long chord bearing North 45°00'OT' West 35.36 feet, and a length of 39.28 feet to said easterly right of way line of S.W. 691b Avenue; Thence along said easterly right of way line, South 00°00'40" West 25.01 feet to the point of beginning. The above described tract contains 134 square feet, more or less. The basis of bearings for this description is between found monuments along the northerly right of way line of S.W. Clinton Street, per survey number 30,016, on record with the Washington County Surveyor's Office. EXh~BIT ~-a2 ' EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION VARIED WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR TAX LOT 3100 MAP 1 S136DD CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 1 OF 1 ■ FOUND 5/8' IRON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED CURVE TABLE 'NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC', CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD CHORD BEARING PER SURVEY NUMBER 30,016 Cl 39.28' 25.00' 90'01'34' 35.36' N45'00'07'W I . I LLJ I = N N ~ Q ~ N I ' O I co 01 TAX LOT 3100 DOC# 98-060196 c/i I RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION sc~E i" = 20 FEET AREA = ±134 SQUARE FEET 30.00 o 'q C-> go ~6c?~ ui 'r ' 25.01' 141.35' REGISTERED I POINT OF N89'59'06"E 166.36' PROFESSIONAL BEGINNING BASIS OF BEARINGS LAND SURVEYOR 30.00' PER SURVEY # 30,016 . S.W. CUNTON STREET OREGON JANUARY 15, 2W2 N89'59'06'E CLINTON H. STUBBS JR. - - - - - - - - - - - 55469LS RENEWAL DATE: 06/30/06 PREPARED FOR: JOB NAME: DARTMOUTH ST. PO BOX SPECHT DEVELOPMENT,INC JOB NUMBER: 56 NORTHWEST BEAVERTON, OR797007 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY PHONE: 503-848-2127 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 DRAWING NUMBER: 56DEDICATIONS FAX: 503-848-2179 EMAIL: nwsurveyiing@verizon.net DRAWN BY: CHs S URVEYING, LLC CHECKED BY: CHS j EXHIBIT L 3 Page 1 of 1 Prepared By: NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC PO Box 7177 Beaverton, OR 97007 503-848-2127 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR S.W. 68TH PARKWAY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TAX LOT # 3001, MAP 1S136DD Real Property situated in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, being a portion of that parcel as described in deed to Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root, recorded under Document Number 2004-123997, records of said county, lying in the southeast quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northeast comer of said Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root parcel, said point being on the westerly right of way line S.W. 68a' Parkway and being marked by a 5/8" iron rod with a yellow plastic cap stamped "Northwest Surveying, LLC"; Thence along said westerly right of way line, South 02° 13'48" West 42.37 feet to a point measuring 35.00 feet at right angles to the centerline of said S.W. 68th Parkway; Thence northerly parallel with the centerline of said S.W. 68"' Parkway, North 00°03'44" West 42.34 feet to the north line of said Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root parcel; Thence along said north line, North 89°59'06" East 1.70 feet to the point of beginning. The above described tract contains 36 square feet, more or less. The basis of bearings for this description is between found monuments along the north line of said Jack B. Root and Wilma L. Root parcel, per survey number 30,016, on record with the Washington County Surveyor's Office. t t I, i EXh I T D-3 J EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION VARIED WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR TAX LOT 3001 MAP 1 S136DD SCALE 1" = 10 FEET CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON m AUGUST 8, 2005 Cl PAGE 1 OF 1 BASIS OF BEARINGS i 35.00' PER SURVEY 30,016 I N8959'06"E 96.45' i 1 7.30' f i I N89'59'06"E 1 1.70' 3. 1 Y I TAX LOT 3001 I Q DOC# 2004-123997 I CL I RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AREA = ±36 SQUARE FEET i M 00 I co Q I 3 3 co 1 o Z I I ~ n N I N I co °z h I 1 U-) Lo I O c^o I 1 1 00 I I ~ 310 1 i7 I t~i I ri I 00 H NI W I . I W I 1 en REGISTERED i w 1 1 PROFESSIONAL I 35.00' LAND SURVEYOR I 1 I OREGON ■ FOUND 5/8" IRON ROD WITH .unuue 1% 2002 YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED CLINTON H. STUBBS JR. "NORTHWEST SURVEYING, LLC", 55469LS RENEWAL DATE: 06/30/06 PER SURVEY NUMBER 30,016 PREPARED FOR: JOB NAME: DARTMOUTH ST. BOX 71 SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC JOB NUMBER: 56 NORTMEST BEAVER O N, OR797007 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY PHONE: 503-848-2127 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 DRAWING NUMBER: 56DEDICATIONS FAX: 503-848-2179 DRAWN BY. CHS SURVEY ING,EMu~cnwsurveyingc~,erizon.net CHECKED BY: CHS Agenda Item Nos. 4 and 5 Vacation Hearings - February 28, 2006 Statement by City Attorney - Quasi-Judicial Land Use Hearing Procedures A copy of the rules of procedure for today's hearing is available at the entrance. The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing at Tigard City Hall for the last seven days. In addition, a paper copy has been available in the Tigard Public Library and an electronic copy posted for viewing or downloading on the City of Tigard's website. The Council's role in this hearing is to make a land use decision under existing laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Any person may offer testimony. Please wait until you. are asked to speak by the Mayor and try to limit your remarks to the applicable approval standards for the application. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any conflicts of interest. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member cannot participate. Council members must declare any contacts about this case with a member of the public. Council members must also declare if they have independent knowledge of relevant facts, such as from a visit to the site in question. A Council member who describes ex parte contacts or independent information may still participate in the decision. After the discussion of conflicts and ex parte contacts, any person may challenge the participation of a Council member or rebut any statements made. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. Tonight, City staff will summarize the written staff report. Then the applicant and those in favor of the application testify. Then witnesses who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. If there is opposition or if there are questions, the applicant can respond. The Council members also may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, including any rebuttal, the applicant can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re-open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. Failure to raise Constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow a response precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that and add any additional points of your own. Please refrain from disruptive demonstrations. Comments from the audience will not be part of the record. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, spelling your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder who will mark these exhibits as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask them to return your exhibits. iAadmipacket'08t080228ku1es of procedure - city attomy qj statement - agenda items 4 and 5.doc n L-_, I r .I -1tj r 77 € 4-2 Tll-f 4i f i~ i- t4'I~{f f _ =r I I i 1 r r I l p•: I tij i j"j O OPUS.- OpWus (V?chi eC15 r r r r r r SUtt..f7tlJG ~ i A I r OQ 1 Op ;Ga > r` v s~ °r-nom. 1 ® lob ol 0 40' 80, 160' \ '..;..wb. .mow.".... SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" OPUS. OpuUS. s, LLC. \ ' / / 44y OP LLC. N y 1~ vm ar PRELIMINARY N SITE-PLAN A1.1 S AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: February 28, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI JUDICIAL): PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): VACATION OF FIVE SMALL PORTIONS OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TOTALING 3,392 SQUARE FEET ALONG SW 68TH PARKWAY AND 69TH AVENUE (VAC2005-00004 & VAC2005-00005 ) The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a request by Specht Development, Inc. concerning the proposed vacation involving five (5) small portions of public right-of-way totaling 3,392 square feet. The petition was filed with the City on September 9, 2005 and initiated by the City Council at the request of the applicant on January 10, 2006. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said 68th Parkway Public Right-of-Way Vacation and 69th Avenue Public Right-of-Way Vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by 7:30 PM on February 28, 2006. This is a City of Tigard public meet, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony L•\ADM\Packet06\060228\Agenda Item 5 Sign-in Sheet AGENDA ITEM NO.5 This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent (Speaking in Favor) Opponent (Speaking Against) Neutral NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE Please Print Please Print Please Print Name: Name: Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if will help the presiding officer pronounce: will help the presiding officer pronounce: it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address Address Address City City City State Zip State Zip State Zip Phone No. Phone No. Phone No. Name: Name: Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if will help the presiding officer pronounce: will help the presiding officer pronounce: it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address Address Address City City City State Zip State Zip State Zip Phone No. Phone No. Phone No. I:\ADM\Packet06\060228\Agenda Item 5 Sign-in Sheet AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 28, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Vacation of an un-named public right-of-way east of SW 74`h Avenue and east of the S P & S Railroad right-of-way, north of Durham Road (VAC2005-00003) PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK elp ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council vacate an approximately 7,845 square foot portion of un-named public right-of-way lying east of SW 74` Avenue and east of the S P & S Railroad right-of-way which adjoins tax lots 2S112DC-01200 and 2S112DC-01300. These parcels are owned by the petitioners and are legally and graphically described within attachments "A-1 and A-2" and "B-1 and B-2". STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance vacating approximately 7,845 square feet of un-named public right-of-way lying east of SW 74"' Avenue and east of the S P & S Railroad right-of-way. At the public hearing, or after due consideration, the Council may by ordinance approve, approve with conditions, or deny the vacation request. INFORMATION SUMMARY The applicants, Larusso Concrete Company, Inc. and Richard Akerman & James Wathey, requested that the City Council initiate vacation proceedings on November 15, 2005 (Attachment 2). On December 20, 2005, the City Council voted to initiate the vacation hearing process (Attachment 3). The next step in the process is for the City Council to hold a public hearing. The applicants are requesting the vacation of an approximate 7,845 square foot portion of an un-used portion of public road right-of-way located east of SW 74`h Avenue and east of the S P & S Railroad right-of-way, north of SW Durham Road. The right-of-way has never been used for road purposes and is not needed for ingress or egress to adjoining properties. Utility companies and emergency service providers have given no objections. Adjacent property owners were notified and they have not objected. In 1998, the City Council approved a related and adjacent right-of-way vacation (Attachment 4). OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED No action. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance vacating the requested right-of-way including legal descriptions and maps. Attachment 2 - Applicant's request and Vicinity Map. Attachment 3 - Resolution No. 05-73 initiating the vacation hearing process. Attachment 4 - Ordinance 98-01 and associated maps from the adjacent vacation to the south. FISCAL NOTES The applicant has paid the required deposit fee. ATTACHMENT 2 i LDC November 15, 2005 Design Group . a Parati company Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. . Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Right-of-way vacation Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: On behalf of Mr..Akerman, Mr. Wathey and Mr. LaRusso, I am requesting that the City initiate the vacation a 30-foot wide strip of right-of-way along the east side of SW 74th Street, east of the Spokane Portand & Seattle (SP&S) railroad tracks, also known as the Oregon Electric Railway. This area was dedicated to the public in 1911 'with the platting of "Fanno. Creek Acre Tracks". The right-of-way is not currently used for any public purpose, and it is unlikely that there would be any public interest in the property in the future. It is apparently part of the SW 74th Street right-of-way, but it is unusable for street purposes because of the railroad tracks. Moreover, the area is landlocked. The only public access to it eliminated when the City vacated the SW Fanno Creek Place right-of-way in 1998. The City Council initiated a related right-of-way vacation eight. years ago, on November 25, 1997, adjacent to tax lots 300, 500 and 700, 2S 1 13AB. The Council initiated that vacation via Resolution No. 97-48, adopted on November 25, 1997, and vacated the right-of-way via Ordinance No. 98-01, adopted on January 27th, 1998. That vacation included the SW Fanno Creek Place right-of-way, as. well as the 30-foot wide right-of-way adjacent to tax lot 300 and the railroad tracks. I am enclosing documents related to that previous vacation request. This vacation request is for the next portion of the right-of-way to the north, adjacent to tax lots 1200 and 1300; 2S 1 12DC. We are making two separate requests, one for the right-of-way adjacent to tax lot 1200, owned by Akerman/Wathey, and another for the right-of-way adjacent to tax lot 1300, owned by LaRusso Concrete Company. This request is being made in conjunction with the zone change application from I-L to I-P submitted on November 1, 2005. The zoning map change, if approved, would therefore need to take this right-of-way vacation into consideration to make sure that there will not be a left-over strip of land zoned I-L. The vacation of the right-of-way will increase the area of tax. lots 1200 and 1300 by Hillsboro, 05 NTa asbo me Drive 3849 square feet and 3996 square feet, respectively. Including these small areas in the p OR 97124 developable area of tax lots 1200 and 1.300 will make a significant difference in the site F 503.6455500 planning for these parcels. It will also bring this square footage back on the property E hillsboro@ldcdesign.com tax rolls, and clarify who is responsible for maintenance. www.ldcdesign.com Hillsboro, OR Tillamook, OR Vancouver, wA Bellevue, wA Coeur d'Alene, i0 Rocklin, CA CBased on utility maps received from the City staff, there are no existing or planned public or private water, sewer or storm water utilities within the areas to be vacated. If Design Group upon further investigation it turns out that there are existing utilities within this area, aPO,aff company the City Council may require the property owners to establish a public and private utility easement within the area to be vacated, as it did with the 1998 vacation. (In that case, however, there was an existing 8" public water main in SW Fanno Creek Place.) With this application, I am submitting: ♦ A check in the amount of $2080, which is a deposit-for the application fee; One copy of a title report showing ownership; ' ♦ Documents related to the 1998 vacation; r ♦ Legal descriptions of each area to be vacated; ♦ Maps showing each area to be vacated; ♦ An aerial photograph of the site; ♦ Tax Assessor's maps showing the site. I trust that you and the engineering staff will agree that there is no public interest now and none anticipated in the future for this right-of-way, and that it would be appropriate to initiate proceedings for the requested vacation. Would you please schedule this request before the City Council at the earliest opportunity? If you need anything else in order to place this request before the Council (such as a draft Resolution), please let me know. Simcerel , Ed Murphy, AI P cc. Richard Akerman LaRusso Concrete Company, Inc. Kevin VandenBrink - Macadam Forbes, Inc. Cindy Halcumb, PLS, KC Development 0891.001/does/plan/vacation/vacregletter/l I115105 2 CITY of TIGARD O OEOORAPNIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP Attachment 2 • U Current Vacation request (VAC2005-00003) 0 . oo ~O BULL Q ~ PA RA D 1 Be FBEND FD' • p Tigard Arse Map N" Prior Vacation (Ordinance #98-01) 0 tog 400 600 Feel 1"- 400 fast City of Tigard Information on this map is for general Wation only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Mall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 , httpJAvww.ci.6gard.w.us Community Development Plot date: Nov 30, 2005; C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 05-25 A RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE OF A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE VACATION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 7,845 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF AN UNNAMED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WINCH LIES TO THE EAST OF SW 74T" AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 680 FEET NORTH OF DURHAM ROAD WHEREAS, the applicant has requested the City of Tigard initiate Vacation proceedings to vacate an aproximately 7,845 square foot portion of right-of-way which had previously been dedicated to the public; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds it appropriate to initiate Vacation proceedings for the requested public right-of-way vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby initiates a request for the vacation of an approximately 7,845 square foot portion of public right-of-way and more particularly described and shown in Exhibits "A-1 and A-2" and "B-1 and B-2 " and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2: A public hearing is hereby called to be held by the City Council on February 28, 2006 at 7:30 PM in the Town Hall at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, within the City of Tigard, at which time and place the Council will hear any objections thereto and any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right-of-way. SECTION :3 This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This C - ~ day of 1~C 110 12e'l. _ 2005. c Mayor - ity of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 05 - `23 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 4 1 Lo RPTURN RECORDED DOCUMMT TCr. MY RECORDS SUMION. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CITY OF 11QARD CV 13125 SW HAD Blvd. 'Ctgar4 OR. 9= ORDINANCE N0.98• CJ 1 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OR 1) APPROXIMATELY 16,174 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY COMMONLY KNOWN AS SW FANNO CREEK PLACE; AND 2) APPROXIMATELY 4,914 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-0F WAY ADJACENT TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 36 OF "FANNO CREEK ACRE TRACTS". WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation (Resolution No. 97.48) request pursuant to Section 1 SAL= of the Tigard Municipal Code at a public hearing held on November 25,1997; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way wag previously dedicated to the public and WHEREAS, the approximately 4,914 square foot road had been dedicated with the platting of "Fatmo Creek Acre Tracts" in 1911; and " WHEREAS, SW Faumo Creek Place Is an unimproved roadway that provides secondary acc ep to Elmo Studd's and Northwest Landscape Industries; and WHEREAS, the approximately 4,914 square feet. of public right-of-way adjacent to the westerly line of lot 36 of"Fanno Creek Acre Tracts" is also undeveloped and riot used in any way; and WHEREAS, the petitioner is requesting that the City of Tigard vacate an approximately 16,174 square foot portion of SW Fenno Creels Place; and WHEREAS, the petitioner is requesting that the City of Tigard vacate an approximately 4,914 square foot portion of an unnamed roadway e4acent to lot 36 of "Fanno Creek Acre Tracts', and, WHEREAS, the public right-of-way may no longer be necessary; and WHEREAS, the vacation was initiated by the City Council and approval has been recommended by the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, all affected service providers, including utility companies and emergency service providers, have had the opportunity to review the vacation proposal and have no objections; and WHEREAS, PGE states that they will need easements for any facilities presently in this right-of-way to be' vacated; and WHEREAS, GTE Telephone Operations has existing facilities that provide service to 13930 SW 74th Avemie that will require the granting of a utility easement; and WHEREAS, Unified Sewerage Agency states that there is an existing 9 inch sanitary sewer line within the proposed vacation area which will require the granting of a public utility easement; and ORDINANCE NO.98• L4olrywldobNlvaothc+td old YaQo ! ot3 r`'c WHEREAS, the 30-foot right-of--way is part of a AS mile (3,460 lineal, foot) length right-of-way that Is contiguous to 10 parcels, ; and . ae WHEREAS, the 30-foot right-of-way extends for an additlonal .62 miles (3,290 lineal feet) beyond the area to be vacated end Is contiguous to 9 parcels; and WHEREAS, in 1979 a street vacation had been approved (Ordinance No. 79-63) for an approximately .14 mile (770 lineal foot) segment of this ~J foot rlght-of-way; nd WHEREAS, that street vacation (Ordinance No.79-63) was lour overturned (Ordinance No.79-115) because of notification and access issues ; and WHEREAS, the access issues associated with that 1979 vacation are no longer applicable;, and WHEREAS, all of those parcels have had approved Site Development Reviews; and WHEREAS, access standards were satisfied for all of the approved Site Development Review approvals (SDR 8848) (SDR 88.09), (SDR 90.00091 (SDR 90-0010) without use of the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Pacific Realty Associates received site development review approval (SDR 88-08) that stated that the need for the right-of-way to be used for access appears to be highly unlikely, It is not maintained, It. is a potential eyesore and it would be in the City's interest to have this arcs maintained in cogtuaction with the proposed development; and WHEREAS, Pacific Realty Associates received site development review approval (SDR 88-09) that stated that a variance was granted to allow less than the mirtimum landscape percentage if an arrangement can be made to use the vacant right-of-way such that the total land area would provide for the minimum landscape reciuirernenr and . WHEREAS, the City entered into an agreement with Pacific Realty Associates to lease the A*-of-way to allow landscaping and other uses within a 1 mile (1.100 lineal foot) length of the right-of-way that is contiguous to 2 parcels; and WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation area and all owners in the affected area, as required by ORS 271.080; and WE[EREAS, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 15.08.120, the City Recorder posted notice in the area to be vacated and published notice of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the property owners of the me`yoriry of the area affected have not objected in writing; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the request on January 27, 1998, finds that it Is in the public interest to approve the request to vacate said public right-of-way as the public interest will not be prejudiced by this vacation, as provided be ORS 271.120 and'TNC Section 15.08.130; and ORDINANCE NM 91-~ f Wq wtddaMv~eBKCid ad hp2*0 1 I ~ vw4 WHEREAS, the Council funds that the following condition is Feessery to vacate said land- 1. A public and private.utility easement shall be provided within the area to be vacated. NOW,THEREFORE,THF, CITY 09TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The. Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of: 1) approximately. 16.174 square feet. of public right-of-way. commonly known as SW Fanno Creek Place;' and 2) approximately 4,914 square feet of public right-of-way adjacent to the westerly line of lot 36 of "Fanno Creek Acre Tracts", as more particularly described in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C". SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the vacation be subject to the following conditions: 1. A public and private utility easement shall be provided within the area to be vacated. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By l /t h W0005 vote of all Couttcll aismbers present after being read by number and title only. this - :-'7 day of / 1998. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder HI APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this -day of ~!!4~ 7.t• 1998. 1coll, mayor st ' ;1 = Y t' no. Ap roved As to fe 7 Certified to be a 1YU~ ;y►} .'t . Attorney Orlglnel onAle • \ Date gy; ! tct?~ .~,a ~ Clay R m ---t---~~~ er-~J city rd Date. 4rrii■~~.r~~ ORDINANCE Y0. 92• 6l wwwa%nftvw*eUAd Peke J orb 1 Ov op,20014 as ' s~aTE n couutlt at Wuttitn °t toss uY a ° VA t, ,I om and„ I 'reeNsd • mant ~ ss,1d . qe rtt+tf r.i ~4IV~~ EtN 'N f J d~gyp41 ~~rk DOC 1. 99049066 131.00 ,tactti 230,98 25.56?a go 0xt• 1 1 C~ w 1100 t 1200.sa.t~ t • as j4Ac o t too ~t 56 / .Q • Vacated e44 ` 'Tca 38 l J ~ r C asp ~y~,' AGENDA ITEM No. 6 Date: February 28, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI JUDICIAL) : PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND OF ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION (SUB) 20003-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003-00004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003-0003/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2003-00005/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00036/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00037 The State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has remanded for a second time the City Council's approval of a 29-lot Planned Development Subdivision on 9.3 acres and associated Zone Change, Sensitive Lands, and Adjustment reviews to address a single issue relating to tree preservation. As limited by LUBA, the issue remanded is whether the tree plan preserves trees to the greatest extent possible, given that the second tree plan does not protect 23 trees designated for protection in the original tree plan, but not designated for protection in the revised tree plan previously approved. On this second remand, the applicant has submitted a second revised tree plan that amends the first revised tree plan by designating for protection the 23 trees specifically mentioned by LUBA. A full copy of LUBA's Final Opinion and Order can be obtained from City Hall at cost, or is also available online at htM://Iuba.state.or,us/12df/2005/septO5/05042.httn. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74d, Avenue; WCTM 1S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The only applicable criterion on the issue on which LUBA remanded is CDC 18.350.100.B.3.a.1, which requires that planned developments protect existing trees to the greatest degree possible. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose, A Time Limit on Testimony I:\ADM\Packet06\060228\Agenda Item 6 Sign-in Sheet AGENDA ITEM NO.6 This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meetingminutes, which is a public record. Proponent (Speaking in Favor) Opponent (Speaking Against) Neutral NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE Please Print Please Print Please Print Name: ~L~ 2 S Name:_ Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if will help the presiding officer pronounce: will help the presiding officer pronounce: it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address P So.~ row i 4 A- Address Address city 2 City- 'z_z' City State 2 Zip 712 3 State P~ - Zip State Zip Phone No. Sal 3 (2 S Phone No. Phone No. Name: r- is u d ,clC Name: Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if will help the presiding officer pronounce: will help the presiding officer. pronounce: it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address / Address Address city flcl 41-r City City State Zip State Zip State Zip Phone No. Phone No. Phone No. I:\ADM\Packet06\060228\Agenda Item 6 Sign-in Sheet t AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 PUBLIC HEARING - ASH CREEK ESTATES LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS REMAND Statement by City Attorney - Quasi-Judicial Land Use Hearing Procedures A copy of the rules of procedure for today's hearing is available at the entrance. The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing at Tigard City Hall for the last seven days. In addition a paper copy has been available at the Tigard Public Library and an electronic copy posted for viewing or downloading on the City of Tigard's website. The Council's role in this hearing is to make a land use decision under existing laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Any person may offer testimony. This matter is on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals on a single issue, and testimony will be limited to that issue. The issues is whether CDC 18.350.100B.3.a.1 relating to tree protection, is met as to 23 trees specified in the LUBA decision. Please wait until you are asked to speak by the Mayor and try to limit your remarks to the applicable approval standards for the application. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any conflicts of interest. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member cannot participate. Council members must declare any contacts about this case with a member of the public. Council members must also declare if they have independent knowledge of relevant facts, such as from a visit to the site in question. A Council member who describes ex parte contacts or independent information may still participate in the decision. After the discussion of conflicts and ex parte contacts, any person may challenge the participation of a Council member or rebut any statements made. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. Tonight, City staff will summarize the written staff report. Then the applicant and those in favor of the application testify. Then witnesses who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. If there is opposition or if there are questions, the applicant can respond. The Council members also may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, including any rebuttal, the applicant can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re-open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. Failure to raise Constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow a response precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that and add any additional points of your own. Please refrain from disruptive demonstrations. Comments from the audience will not be part of the record. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, spelling your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder who will mark these exhibits as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask them to return your exhibits. is \adm\packet '06\060228\attystatementashcmekmmand2.doc Gary Prjgens- Ether - LongstaffCondos.2-9-06.DC1 Entered into the Record on •ay- o~ Page 1 By Jahn. >r rL Agenda Item # Exhibit # MEMORANDUM Rv. TO: Gary Pagenstecher FROM: Matt Stine, City Forester RE: Longstaff Condominiums DATE: February 9, 2006 As you requested I have provided some comments on the "Longstaff Condominiums" project. If you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments please contact me anytime. 1. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030.C, Installation Requirements The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. 2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. • The accepted planting procedures are.the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. • In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. J.-Gary Pagenstecher - Long staffCondos. 2-9-06. DOC Page 2 18.745.030.E, Protection of Existing Landscaping. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees). See comments under "Tree Removal". 18.745.030.G, Conditions of Approval of Existing Vegetation. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. See recommended conditions of approval at the end of this memorandum. 18.745.040, Street Trees A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. • The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. • In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. Garj Pagensfecher - LongstaffCondos.2-9-06. DOC Page 3 2. TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030, Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.06013; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. • As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by a certified arborist, Walt Knapp. The report contains the four required Gary P~genstepher - LongstaffCondos.2-9-06. DOC Page 4 components, and is therefore acceptable. • The arborist report does show several trees taken from the mitigation calculations since they are in the future right-of-way. Two of those trees are larger than 12 inches so the applicant has to recalculate the mitigation numbers. • 1 suggest planting native species of trees as street trees such as bigleaf maple, cascara or Oregon white oak. Properly sized oaks can be found at River Oak Farm & Nursery. Call Diane at 503-357-2745. The species of street trees used in this development are not listed. The species must be approved before the trees can be planted. • The applicant has not submitted a final tree mitigation plan. In the event that the applicant chooses to plant trees in open areas within the project boundaries or in the back yards of the homes, I have attached a copy of my guidelines for planting mitigation trees on the development property as the applicant indicates he will be doing. Below are my suggestions for the applicant to follow for tree protection guidelines: • Prior to construction, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with the proposed construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection devices, along with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree Protection Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees being preserved. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. • A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. • All tree protection devices shall be: ■ Visible. ■ Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet. ■ Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no Gary P,agenstecher - LongstaffCondos.2-9-06. DOC Page 5 construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the fencing. ■ Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. ■ Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. To determine the size of the tree protection zone (TPZ) the project arborist should follow the guidelines listed below: ■ For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diameter at breast height (DBH), or 4'/2 feet above the ground, allow 12 inches of space from the trunk of the tree. For example, a tree that is 15" at DBH must have at least 15' of tree protection zone around the entire canopy of the tree. ■ For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the drip line of the trees on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter method or the drip line method, whichever is greater. ■ Calculate and follow the Optimal Tree Protection Zone calculation as shown in "Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development" by Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark. ■ The project arborist may propose an alternate method for the establishment of the TPZ, provided the effort is coordinated with the City Forester. • If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. • Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance Gary Pdgen' stecher - LongstaffCondos.2-9-06. DOC Page 6 with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in lieu of planting. 2. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction to the effect that any existing tree' greater than 12" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 5. Prior to any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, Gary Pagenstecher - LongstaffCondos.2-9-06. DOC page 7 location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the house. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction, and shall remain in place through the duration of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures may be removed. If you have any questions please call me anytime. Thank you for requesting my comments on this project. l 108" 14 DETE 'LT. STORM FILTER VAULT PIPE VIE.) o N 9.18LF 12"PVC n"r3 STA 19+55.53, 30.3'RT. o 0.50% (74TH AVE.) WELD 1: SDMH#2-2-1 (SEE SHEET #4) PIPE TC rn (60'FLOW CONTROL MH) SDMH#2-2-3' { ° STA 19+30.27, 31.1'RT. 60'SPECIAL BY-PASS 1'MIN. (74TH AVE.) MANHOLE SDMH 3- 12' SI• x - - - - - - METAL J $ - STtJ ~00 STM---- $ ( S M 1Bk~ OO- STM I ® 20, Z/ASU 50% 15 HOPE FERNCC COUPUI w w w W -Z,(~iE SHEET y4) 12" PVC PIP vv . . DMH2 (W.O. MANHOLE) CWI~~.C I R ° -fir - To h f e2 ti 1+89.25 I 8.5LF 12' o SDMH#3-2(60"CONTROL MH) , OR (3) STORM DETENTION PIPE N !T PVC 3034 STA 17+50.98, 37'RT.+00 „rOQ ~^I. Q (SEE PROFILE AND SECTION co u, ~pil 00.5% (74TH AVE.) THIS SHEET) Cl 11 11.91E 12.7LF 15"PVC OUTFALL W/ / / _ - 0.50% pp (4)LARGE DIA. ROCK 12 PVC / ? to AND RIP-RAP CL. 50 SDMH;P2-. 2 x'59° ®Q O x. 8.6 CU.YDS. STA 18+8 56, MIN. DEPTH 1.5' / 65.8 RT. ? + ( ) {74TH VE ACCESS RISERS o° / OUTFALL ) RIM=ADJUST TO V IE=200.0 I GRADE I / RIP-RAP CL.50 I (SEE ETAIL SHEET 4) / ~>r~ _ _ 1 1 QD 15'x 15'x / 8.3 CU.YD1'DEEP S I V~11111 W, ~n , r u dLMI~ / 1 V~11111 W, \ Y r , VARIES SCALE: HORIZ: 1"=30' } o v ov Ov 1'MIN. D =~y- ((DD VARIES CL 5_ ,.37 2.5' CD 1'MIN. 3 0, u 15• PVC ~ CD L\l` (D 2.5' I - CLASS 50 RIP-RAP o ~ 1z• sroaw PIPE m oR f~ I ~ y LEGEND I n(1[w0 j WI[. t 'low t I ~ II I III - nR uac 1owe.., l O we-xovs ua pl Utc mt r.carvn,rox ycc( 11 m Icl II I~ III A' (H9p[I. ,x[[ I- tut uc< rusu•nn. r.w slrtu u a (11 III 11 I I u ~Ia ii I r.lrosn a MNK...a I F Iii III ..q. r.lrofn U.-, R,6..1.( I II I.. Ij( INI"~ BOULEVARD HFIGHT I ~ THE M''ERRY PATCH 1 j II I II I . allnlr rat..1A ~-7 •w7[r,IMr 0).)1.1.0 I . ° 11 . I n WWI: 201 it I u I 16 37 ;.6 171LDa 1.I t rro•asrl r• xAV .13 11 ' I, 1MLL 101 lOrAixfx (n,1.r1 4:eoro ro I STREET IA1 +1I 917.67' IY rw1 .twrr r1.1 l " ? 1 r------1'r-----^.r ____•1tr------,,r-ficne-~.r 7: I 36 '1 SD 5 4 )'ILp11;1 1 I I r 1 1 frllAa .1 1 I z - / 7 r[f1.Qll1 Z Ili 3 III , III 3 Ill~(IOKAU IIII I I III • y• / S.F. ' III a 11!.19] S.r. 3 $ )D 4.r s,7e9 $.r. I I 11 6 I i i'I i'i A%7 mill i W r' I - I 1116.071 S.F. 6.290 S.I. I 5,7.4 S.F.1 . b _ , Ip YMrve7[ IL N: D I I W m 1' I t..+ .owr MEW. xIM11 I 6,109 S,f, 1,1 6,)29 S.f. I;1 6,970 S.F. _--,,rI-____. ~,(1 1 [~S[Kx, I I.dxr uBIM1 I I 22.!'a Act„ I'I ~~J,~ 7,90.1 Zp S.f. ! N ~Q ~ r3-r r.aof(1 f1R00. 11 1'~ II. 1 - JIL_____.Il arxC_Shr•JII-_-___ II' •r•uno. I CD f.orx uu.a '1 II 23 8 I I, Q l.S[Mal I R . Z7 II 1,1 L, 2+ IJ , - ~n=[-__)I L-----d~ j I 6637.66 S.F. ,14702 S.F. I I Rp PI I•I 03 Q 1 r 'I 1114.05.09 S.r.Il1 5,4175.(. III 1k 23 I~Y"(; Auo 400 -y\~t- :---^1 11 - - r --I- 1 • 56D6 s.r.. ~ ~ •f 1 qa f: , - 1' Lkr. nM .Cxl \ 16 1Ir-_-- - ' 7..s V. ~i.r----- (D ~'I _ - - / am rrc.ex mrd rnw. un.c• Av'I I 1 22 1'1 O 1'. ~'r_•-__„r• _ # i 1 21 I III I --1~ _h--~ !.4 ? r•r r ,nrcW ' l 1,4,651 S.f. 6i 4605 4.r. i.i i1 rSdAff r- i (D I jn '•1 ( t,l 1,, 1,15,205 S.F. 1110.172 S.F. L1 1p III III WE" I III 1`\~~ 12 1 I I I I 7o'1ArAr( 1'I flat- I' ^ ' I.I ' t ,11 I'L III 1 Mot. P' Um1AL7 I'I I \ L--` ` I,I I f[UAd 11'6.664 S.F. i j ^ r'~i 6054 S.LI (2: 1~ CD It1.W Gr,`iu ' I / • 6,601 S.F. I 16.643 S.F. 1,1 n L 1 l w , 1Y I I .11 III 6.88. S.F. 111 111 I / Jr s` f TRACT A 1A%LO7 100 J L I 1 11 r 13 Vj aA I I tcxca/// I.s JL__11 11 14 \1 1' X O (DRAINAGE EASEMENT) -1 J iia: [\-~i ss"s -.--'•1'~\~\ i•i 9.110 S.E. 11,1 11.616 S.r. i 5 3 (.sac i3 / `6 Y,ETLANO$ - )1LD0. YnACA •`L 1;1 1'I I y.l 57 01 1 "c. l„rK.LI ,\11 III 1`1 / .Cf+, (~1 , i ~ 6 1 11 1a , 20 29 , z~A'1 s.r. ~ I 6714 • 167.01' `-F•`-_ - •,.L ~ ^ ; bQ I •I k!u u1fA. I I 6 7 g•-_. -••--9._. .I_. ~ ..•..a.°?:d~i TRACT 71,A,:7 r"<a FATMAFT ® (ITY OF TIGARD I SUB2003-00010/PDR2003-00004/ZON2003.00003/ CIT1'Of T10AR0 STIE MAN SLR2003.00005NAR2003.00036NAR2003.00037 , N ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION Ma Is not to.scale . Entered into the Record on Agenda Item # -LP- Exhibit # By ~hr► ~cecJ° - ASH CREEK ESTATES TESTIMONY OF JOHN FREWING, FEBRUARY 28, 2006 Thank you for receiving my testimony this evening. You know that I have spent considerable time and effort trying to obtain a compliant and beneficial development under the TCDC for Ash Creek Estates and appreciate your consideration of my neighbor points of view. I accept that you are indeed trying to do the best thing for Tigard and. I hope that you see that I am trying to do the same thing making Tigard a great city. My comments build on material in, and I incorporate by reference, the records of prior local and LUBA proceedings for Ash Creek Estates. 23 TREES You have asked for comments on a certain 23 trees, which until now have been shown in application materials to be removed. A revised tree preservation location drawing of 9/22/05 has been submitted. I believe the application materials fall short of compliance regarding these 23 trees in the following four ways: while the application drawing has been revised to show saving of these trees, the text and referenced table of the actual tree plan itself (LUBA 2005-042, Record at 397-442) still shows at least some of these trees slated for removal (see for example tree 5289, a 29" bigleaf maple and tree 5283, a 31" western red cedar), 2) at least 10 of the 23 trees are not identified by species, as required by the Tigard code at 18.790.030B.I (this noncompliance is much more pervasive than my comment here reports, but I am commenting here only on the 23 trees of the LUBA remand), 3Z the tree protection standards applied by the City Forester have evolved and improved from the time that this planned development was first reviewed by city staff; the latest tree protection standards (for the 23 trees to be saved and for all trees to be saved) should be incorporated in any approval of Ash Creek Estates,' and 4) there is no evidence that the revised tree preservation location plan and its content was prepared by a certified arborist (until this is done, the application should be denied). I ask that you direct applicant to comply with the Tigard code in a clean submittal of the tree plan for Ash Creek Estates. The applicant has provided new information in the 9/22/05 tree preservation location drawing, which deserves comment. Because most of the 23 trees are smaller than 12" diameter, the drawing is the only place in the application where they can be shown as trees to be saved or removed. The feature which shows these trees to be saved is a winding line on the drawing, with occasional marks indicating fence posts, identified on the drawing legend as a fence. I presume this fence is the permanent tree protection fencing which saves the 23 trees and defines the undisturbed area of stream buffer, but the legend does not say expressly that it is the tree protection fencing, beyond which (ie in a direction away from the proposed housing development) the tract will not be disturbed for grading, construction, utilities, etc. I would ask that you direct applicant to confirm and document the purpose of the fencing added to this 9/22/05 drawing. ' The tree protection conditions for the Longstaff Condominium proposal is provided as Attachment A. The file for Ash Creek Estates showed no notice or review by the City Forester as of Friday, February 24. The tree protection fencing added to the 9/22/05 drawing does appear to indicate the 23 trees mentioned in the LUBA remand will be saved. However, the drawing shows that a number of immediately adjacent trees, also beyond the tree protection fencing, will be removed; removal of these trees is a threat to the 23 trees promised to be saved. For example, I mention tree 5294 on lot 15 (a 33" Douglas fir), tree 5300 on lot 10 (a 15" western red cedar) and tree 5262 on lot 8 (a 12" Oregon red alder); there are others closer to the 23 trees promised to be saved. I count 24 such trees shown for removal on the new tree preservation location drawing. If the tree protection fencing is to mean anything, it means that the trees beyond the fencing are to be saved. I would ask that you direct applicant to confirm and document that all the trees beyond the tree protection fencing will be saved. The addition of tree protection fencing on the 9/22/05 drawing does not appear to protect tree 5804B, a 9" maple on lot 21, which is designated by a triangle indicating a tree less than 12" to be saved. An appropriately sized tree protection zone should be confirmed and documented on the new drawing. If applicant responds other than to confirm and document the above issues, I ask for the opportunity to comment on such response in a continued hearing. DECISION PROCESS A review of LUBA decisions on remand hearings indicates to me that the scope of remand hearing must include at least the LUBA referenced issues but with city council approval can go beyond those issues. I have requested in writing that the scope of this hearing be broadened, and incorporate that request in this testimony, but have had no response.2 Materials prepared by your staff that were mailed out with this hearing notice indicate that the scope is limited to the 23 trees of LUBA remand, but additional information has been presented to the city regarding this development without opportunity for comment. Such information includes substantial modifications to the application. If your decision has been made to limit the scope to the 23 trees of LUBA remand, I have not seen/heard/read/been notified of your consideration or decision in a public process. The substantial modifications include: Changes submitted to city staff, but not identified to you include a) a completely different concept regarding stormwater retention and treatment,3 b) lot size reductions '4 c) significant new grading,5 (changing site topography) and d) the "K" value defining the steep dip in proposed SW 74th Ave has been reduced even further (the dip is steeper and sharper that previous design) 2 See memo of December 23, 2005 from John Frewing to Tom Coffee, found in Ash Creek Estates file. 3 Attachment B to this testimony shows the changed stormwater detention and filtering concept. The application heretofore included a storm retention pond onsite, whereas the new concept relies on large diameter detention pipes buried both onsite and in the public street. The new concept also shows storm drainage from the end of the cul-de- sac being piped to discharge overland to the stream on Lot 14; this is contrary to the CWS requirement that storm drainage from the site be collected, retained and treated. a Attachment C to this testimony shows the lot sizes heretofore approved by city council. New engineering drawings submitted to City of Tigard show reduced lot sizes as follows: Lot 27 - 2961 sq ft, Lot 26 - 4585 sq ft, Lot 25 - 4829 sq ft and Lot 24 5325 sq ft. The changed lot sizes stem from a longstanding requirement that the storm drainage retention and filtration facility be placed on a separate tract from any residential lot. 5 New engineering drawings submitted to City of Tigard show substantially all of Lot 1 graded to a level approximating the fronting street, whereas the grading plan heretofore left much of Lot I topography intact. below the noncompliant value of 5.2 approved heretofore by an 'adjustment' .6 Comment on these changes could not have been raised in earlier hearings on Ash Creek Estates. Substantial modifications or significant changes appear to require a new application (18.350.030E). Substantial modifications (see def in 18.350.020C) are identified in 18.350.03013 and include any change that "increases the residential densities or increases lot coverage by buildings," and any change which involves a "major shift in site improvements". See TCDC 18.390.080D.4 for additional guidance regarding significant changes submitted after an application has been accepted by the city. The deadline for final city action, stated on this hearing notice as March 13 seems to be premature by my calculation; there is enough time for you and staff to consider the several issues of new information and changes presented by the developer, but not brought forward by your staff. The rule is that city consideration must be made within 90 days of remand, starting with applicant request to proceed (in this case, letter dated 2/9/06). See ORS 215.435. The resultant deadline for final city action would thus be April 21, 2006. It appears that the March 13 date was based on 12/7 Court of Appeals decision, but if so, the 90 day end date should be March 9 (not counting day of decision, counting 3/9). I respectfully ask that you ask staff to prepare findings for adoption at your next meeting in March, denying this application on the basis of factual noncompliance with approval criteria of the Tigard code, recognizing that your decision is to be made on an application "as received" and recognizing that a different application may be later received. I am happy to try and answer any questions you may have. You may want to ask questions on the underlying need for canopy cover on hillside lots, you may want to ask questions on changes from previous applicant information, or you may want to ask either myself or staff why construction of SW 74a' across this stream is necessary, when no one has asked for it and it is possible that this transportation element might be served just as well by a less expensive foot/bicycle bridge adjacent to a Tigard open space. John rewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR Attachment A - City of Tigard City Forester conditions for tree preservation, Longstaff Condos Attachment B - Ash Creek Estates stormwater plans submitted to City of Tigard, August, 2005 Attachment C - Ash Creek Estates lot sizes, from LUBA 2003-194 record 6 New engineering drawings submitted to City of Tigard show a "K" value of 5.11. Entered into the Record on ;2. --;,s•ckv r By Sphn ~QCV~ n_~ Agenda Item # (P Exhibit # ASH CREEK EX PARTE I wish to request clarification and object to the adequacy of disclosure regarding ex parte contact between the decisionmakers and applicant. I believe my evidence provides substantial reason to believe that ex parte contact or bias exists and such ex parte contact or bias would lead to reversal of approval of this land use proposal. As a foundation for my request and objection, let me simply state that a major goal of the City Council for 2005 was acquisition of open space and park land for the city. To date, no specific acquisition of new land has been announced by the city. However, in the February 16, 2006 Oregonian, columnist Rick Bella, in commenting on the regional need and prospect for greenspaces stated: In Tigard, city officials have worked with developers to allow smaller lot sizes in exchange for open space - but not without a big political fight. Developers of the 29-lot Ash Creek Estates Subdivision donated nearly five acres to the city. This came after intense negotiations between the city and the developer and a ruling by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. "And no matter what you think of the decisions, free is a very good price for land," said Mayor Craig Dirksen. This newspaper item is my sole knowledge of any transfer of land from Windwood Construction to City of Tigard. The ex parte contact between decisionmakers and developer may be or have been direct or indirect. I am concerned and assert that the referenced negotiations concern the ownership of the proposed tract and the area or amount of land having particular trees to be transferred, which issues are material to this land use proceeding. I do not know any of the negotiated terms of transfer. The TCDC at 390.050D.8.a states: Members of the Review Authority shall not 1) communicate, directly or indirectly, with any party or representative of a party in connection with any issue involved in a hearing, except upon giving notice, and an opportunity for all parties to participate; 2) take notice of any communication, report, or other materials outside the record prepared by the proponents or opponents in connection with the particular case unless the parties are afforded an opportunity to contest the materials so noticed. My position is that the decision on this planned development should be made based on information developed and documented during the public review process and not on negotiations or information or other arrangements made or received outside the public review process. See ORS 192.610 to 192.690. The newspaper item noted above indicates that there have indeed been other city discussions with the developer, including persons on the city council. The bias stems from city council effort to gain at least one open space area this year, pursuant to the city goal; achievement of the city goal is an important part of coming election or reelection campaigns for the remunerated positions on the city council. I request that all material related to transfer of property from the developer or his representatives (Ash Creek Properties?) to the City of Tigard be produced for the record as part of the disclosure required by code ex parte rules. If such disclosure is not forthcoming, I request an evidentiary hearing to, through questioning and affidavits, deposition, or discovery, clarify the meaning of the newspaper statement by the mayor and establish the facts regarding negotiations and transfer of any Ash Creek Estates tracts. I believe a continuance of this hearing is necessary to develop such information and request such continuance. Participation of one or more biased decision makers and inadequate disclosure of ex parte contacts prevents this from being a full and fair hearing, prejudicing opponent's substantial rights. h -gv4oC ~3 ® VOICES - 0 Metro bond could blaze a path to greenspaces t used to be a lot easier. Park - recently renamed Snyder change for open space - but not without a why I am very interested in what Metro will When city leaders want- Park- on a 21-acre site the city big political fight. put to a vote in November. ed to develop a park, they y originally bought for a reservoir. Developers of the 29-lot Ash Creek Estates The regional government last year com- a debated which area totar- + More common is what Sher- Subdivision donated nearly five acres to the pleted a 10 year program that placed in pub get, then searched out property wood did while working with Ar- city. This came after intense negotiations be- lic ownership 8,130 acres used for parks, owners and real estate brokers.' bor Custom Homes, which devel- tween the city and the developer and a nil- greenspaces and open space. The program After they decided on a site, they oped the Arbor Terrace subdivi- ing by the Oregon Land Use Board of Ap- was fueled by a $136 million bond issue that either dipped into city coffers or RICK BELLA sion. The city negotiated the de- peals. voters approved in 1995. Z P m P And no matter what you think of the de Although details are not set. Metro plans asked voters to chip in. veto ment plan to include a " Things rarely are that straightforward any- "pocket park" within the subdivision, cisions, free is a very good price for land," to ask voters in November to approve a $220 more, though we may have a chance to That neat little trick also has been put to said Mayor Craig Dirksen million bond measure that probably could change that. work in Tualatin. I believe that parks are necessary for our protect another 5,300 acres. Although I want In recent years, population pressures have When Emery Zidell Commons was built, well-being, that they are a part of our quality to read the project list and learn as much as I driven up the cost of land, forcing most cities city officials offered a credit against develop- of life. That belief leaves me more enter- can about cost benefits, the general idea has to break out all the tools in their kits to make me very interested. ment fees to obtain 4.68 acres that are now tained than pleased by all the wrangling that Maybe it could mean an end to some of sure there are enough greenspaces. called the Sweek Pond Natural Area. When has produced many of our recent parks and the wrangling for what should be a given in "People can always make a good case for construction was completed, city officials much of our open space. the quality of our lives. more parkland," said Ross Schultz, Sher- helped the developer, Zian LP, see the wis- I prefer front-door planning, with public wood city manager. "In Sherwood, we've dom in donating 28 acres that became wet- comment to guide how we set community Rick Bella: 503-294-5114; N done a fairly good job. But it isn't easy." land. goals, rather than being forced to use a bag rickbella@news.oregonian.com; m Sherwood's also been lucky. in Tigard, city officials have worked with of legal tricks to bank land that is generally 15495 S.W. Sequoia Parkway, City officials were able to develop Sunset developers to allow smaller lot sizes in ex- too expensive to develop anyway. That's Suite 190, Portland, OR 97224 Entered into the Record o/n.o~ 0.0(0 By: y-pcd ,Yi6"ct.~Lj February 27, 2006 Agenda Item# Exhibit U ll~C' E ~ V E D Mayor Craig Dirksen and City Councilors City of Tigard @,iU-)f OF VeAR® 13125 SW Hall Boulevard PI v~ v hdN ii Gl=RiNG Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mayor Dirksen and City Councilors: RE: LUBA remand of Ash Creek Estates I will not be able to attend and testify at your February 28, 2006 public hearing on the above referenced subdivision, so I offer these comments and respectfully request your consideration. I urge you to take proactive bold steps and exercise political will to broaden the scope of the public hearing. Many issues have changed since this process began 2.5 years ago. It is hard to believe after all the time, resources, and energy on both sides of this issue that it has come down to protection of 23 trees. But, is it really just this issue that defines our differences? I don't believe so. I am not convinced that neither the developer nor their contractors will comply with all of the conditions of approval, especially conditions No. 54-58. Has the developer retained the Project Arborist through project completion and will reports really be submitted once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone fencing installation, through site work? The 10-lot subdivision in back of our property and adjacent to Ash Creek Estates began more than 1.5 years ago, and no foundation has been constructed as yet? Will Ash Creek Estates take even longer for the "temporary" impacts to subside? Will the City Forester review these reports and inspect this site frequently or only on an as-needed basis? The Council should not adopt the new additional finding: CDC 18.350.100B.3.a (1) because the 23 trees will be protected. This standard is simply not being met. The site elements have not been designed and located to preserve existing trees to the greatest extent possible. More than 400 hundred trees will be removed on this site. Trees are one of the most important parameters and determinants of functioning stream corridors, habitat quality and watershed health. Just because the development meets all of the requirements in the code and your staff can make a finding in its favor, doesn't necessarily mean the development is sound, good for the community or that it should be approved. I implore you to set forth a path to examine the underlying issues and controversies of this development and all the others that are and will come before you. Please review and enact more up-to-date codes and ordinances to require sustainable developments and ease the cumulative impacts on our natural resources. I do not understand why the City Council won't take a visionary leadership role in balancing growth and development issues with their associated impacts on sensitive areas and our precious and threatened natural resources. I believe it is truly a sad period for all Tigard residents, customers, and stakeholders that the City Council appears to provide a more openness to developments and variances than in advocating for quality of life elements including community stewardship and in balancing the environmental issues. 1 s LUBA Remand of Ash Creek Estates February 27, 2006 Page Two Please understand that we have not given up on this issue, and if approved, we will continue to watch over construction phases and enforce all appropriate conditions of approval through community complaints (by default as adjacent property owners and stakeholders). We truly want to work with all parties to preserve this property or at the very least, minimize its impact and preserve the sensitive areas' functions and values and its beneficial uses. The developer's offer of the approximately 4 acres of sensitive and riparian areas as open space to the City is misleading and not good public policy. This area is not developable, and the city should require developments to place these stream corridors and other sensitive areas on their property in a conservation easement as a development review element and condition of approval. By doing so, this would preserve options for the city and other stakeholder and volunteer groups to provide restoration, stewardship, and educational opportunities for all Tigard residents in the future. This development should not be approved until all local, state, and federal permits and other associated approvals have been obtained. To this end, an exceptions petition was filed on January 26, 2006 to the Director of the Department of State Lands concerning their removal/fill permit as it relates to the contested case proceeding. You had the amazing opportunity to protect and preserve the entire property and just not save the remaining 23 trees in dispute. Several private and local and regional governments were willing to provide funding and work with the City of Tigard to purchase this unique and very valuable property and protect it as open space for future generations. You still have that opportunity! In the March 2006, Mayors Corner Message he discussed the growth transition Tigard has experienced and the corresponding impacts that developments have had on our fragile natural environments and rapid loss of open spaces. And, the Mayor states it is his belief that some regional planning goals have led to unforeseen and undesirable results and need to be reviewed to respond to what's actually transpired. I believe the Mayor, City Council and staff in partnership with its citizen's need to look internally at their own planning goals and not utilize Metro as a scapegoat for our growth and development challenges and ongoing inability to build sustainable communities. The City Council will hopefully one day get it right and utilize this experience to adopt more stringent standards to balance growth and protect our natural resources. If you do not, you should expect more polarization of these issues between developments and neighborhoods, and more frequent, costly, and time consuming challenges. As a result, changes in leadership capacity will eventually follow. Every local community who has asked their customers and surveyed these issues finds generally the same conclusions. We expect you take action to enact programs, protect the environment, and balance these issues. Please do it now before the quality is taken out of the life in Tigard. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Please call me at 503-244-5941 with any questions. Sincerely, 6 ~ a&ALv Bob Storer cc: John Frewing AGENDA ITEM # V FOR AGENDA OF February 28, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public Hearing Considering LUBA remand of Ash Creek Estates Subdivision (SUB2003-00010/ZON2003-00003/PDR2003-00004/SLR2003-00005/VAR2003-00036NAR2003-00037 _ PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK 02 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This is a consideration of applicant's submittal to protect an additional 23 trees as a part of their subdivision application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution approving the subdivision/planned development with the revised tree plan and the findings and conditions adopted as part of the City Council's February 5, 2005 decision. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Planning Commission reviewed this subdivision at its July 7, 2003 meeting. As a result of a tie vote, the Commission's action resulted in a defacto denial. The City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the denial on August 12, 2003 and September 9, 2003. The Council adopted findings and conditions of approval on October 28, 2003. An erroneous date reference required adopting an amended resolution of November 4, 2003. This decision was appealed to LUBA and LUBA remanded the decision to the City based on 4 of 25 assigmnents of error on August 20, 2004. The City Council approved a revised application on February 22, 2005. This decision was appealed to LUBA. LUBA then remanded the decision to the City for consideration of only the issue whether CDC 18.350.100.B.3a(1) had been complied with as to trees that were protected in the original tree plan but not protected in the tree plan submitted on the first remand. The applicant has submitted revised plans to protect the additional 23 trees. This is the only issue before Council consideration. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Prepare findings to deny the request. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Growth and Growth Management - Goal #1, Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of the new and established areas. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution Adopting Findings & Conditions Exhibit A - Staff report and conditions of approval of January 25, 2005 as adopted by the Council Exhibit B - Resolution 03-61 Exhibit C - Resolution 03-58 Attachment 2: City Attorney's Memorandum Attachment 3: Letter from Applicant's Attorney dated 2/9/06 including the Revised Tree Plan FISCAL NOTES Staff time, advertising costs and report analysis preparation are not reimbursable as a part of the LUBA remand process. ATTACHMENT 2 RAMIS MEMORANDUM CREW CORMAN up To: Tigard City Council From: Gary Firestone, City Attorney's Office ATTORNEYS AT LAW Date: January 10, 2006 for February 28, 2006 Meeting 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 Re: Ash Creek Estates - Hearing on Remand (503) 222-4402 Fax: (503) 243-2944 BACKGROUND This matter is before the Council on remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals for the second time. The Council originally approved the subdivision and related land use applications. On the first appeal to LUBA, LUBA held in favor of the opponents of the project on a few of the many issues that had been raised. On the first remand, the Council addressed the issues remanded by LUBA and again approved the application. A second appeal was filed. In that appeal, LUBA held in favor of the petitioner on a very narrow issue. The original tree plan had designated protection by area, and the tree plan presented in the first remand specified protection on a tree-by-tree basis. Some of the trees in the area designated for protection in the first tree plan were designated for removal in the second tree plan. LUBA held that because some trees were shown for removal that apparently could be preserved, the City's standards for planned development approval, which require maximum protection of trees, had not been shown to be met. LUBA explicitly limited the remand to the question of whether the 23 trees shown as protected in the first tree plan but not protected in the second tree plan could be protected. The LUBA decision has been affirmed without opinion by the Court of Appeals. In response to the LUBA decision, the applicant submitted a second revised tree plan, dated September 22, 2005, that designates all 23 trees on which the remand was based for protection. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the City Attorney's Office recommend that the application, with the revised tree plan, be approved. We recommend that the findings and conditions adopted as part of the City Council's February 5, 2005 decision be readopted and re-imposed. We further recommend adopting the following additional finding and imposing the following additional condition. Additional Finding CDC 18.350.100B.3.a(1) requires that in planned developments: (1) The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; LUBA has remanded this matter on the narrow issue whether this standard has been met, given that the original tree plan showed that trees would be protected within certain areas and the revised tree plan showed that 23 trees would be removed within the area designated for protection in the original tree plan. The applicant has submitted a second revised tree plan, dated September 22, 2005 that protects all 23 trees that were the basis for the LUBA remand. The second revised tree plan is otherwise identical to the revised tree plan submitted after the first remand. LUBA explicitly stated that the remand issue was limited to consideration of those 23 trees. The Council finds that because the 23 trees at issue will be protected, the standard of CDC 18.350.100B.3.a(1) is met. The site elements have been designed and located to preserve existing trees to the greatest extent possible. Additional Condition (Condition 59) Applicant shall comply with and implement the second revised tree plan (dated September 22, 2005). Applicant shall protect trees designated for preservation in the second revised tree plan as provided in Conditions 55 through 58. ATTACHMENT 3 'LAWYERS Davis Wright Tremaine LLP ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.C. CHRISTOPHER P. KOBACK Direct (503) 778-5382 SUITE 2300 TEL (503) 241-2300 chriskoback@dwt.com 1300 SW FIFTH AVENUE FAX (503) 778-5299 PORTLAND, OR 97201-5630 www.dwt.com February 9, 2006 Dick Bewersdorff Planning Manager City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: 2129 Ash Creek Estates PUD LUBA No. 2005-042, Remand Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: I have enclosed a copy of a letter dated September 28, 2005 that I submitted to you in response to LUBA's remand in LUBA No. 2005-042 involving Windwood Construction's application to develop property in Tigard. Now that the Court of Appeals has affirmed LUBA's decision, I am resubmitting that letter to you at this time so that you can place it in the record for the upcoming February 28, 2006 hearing before City Council on LUBA's remand. As set forth in my September 28, 2005 letter, , I believe the enclosed material establishes that Windwood Construction is complying with LUBA's remand directive. As such, Windwood Construction respectfully requests that, City Council grant final approval for its application for the Ash Creek Estates PUD. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP AO. p Christopher P. Koback CPK/lkt Enclosure cc: Dale Richards, Windwood Construction Gary F. Firestone, Attorney for Respondent PDX 1384817v1 44727-22 61402-3 LAWYERS Davis Wright Tremaine LLP ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.C. CHRISTOPHER P. KOBACK SUITE 2300 TEL (503) 241-2300 Direct (503) 778-5382 1300 SW FIFTH AVENUE FAX (503) 778-5299 chriskoback@dwt.com. OR 97201-5682 www.dwt.com September 28, 2005 RECEIVED PLANNING SEP 2 9 2005 Dick Bewersdorff OF TIGAR~ Planning Manager City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: 2129 Ash Creek Estates PUD LUBA No. 2005-042, Remand Dear Mr. Bewersdorff- As you no doubt have been advised, the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") remanded the above-referenced case for the City to consider one specific issue. Beginning on page 20 of LUBA's Final Opinion and Order, dated September 20, 2005, LUBA discusses the Applicant's obligation to preserve trees. On page 22, the Board identifies 23 specific trees that the current submission shows as being removed. LU13A believes on remand the Applicant must explain why those specific trees cannot be preserved. LUBA expressly stated that neither the Applicant nor the City was required to explain the necessity for removing any trees other than those expressly identified by LUBA in footnote 16 of its opinion. The Applicant has decided that each of the 23 trees identified by LUBA can and will be preserved in the final development plan. Accordingly, I have attached for the City's records and as a supplement to the application, a copy of a Revised Tree Plan, which illustrates the preservation of each of those 23 trees. Pursuant to LUBA's opinion, there are no additional issues the Applicant must address on remand. Accordingly, pursuant to ORS 227.181(2), the Applicant is requesting that the City proceed with this application on remand and set it for hearing before City Council at the earliest possible date. PDX 1329829v1 44727-22 61402-3 Dick Bewersdorff P1.' City of Tigard September 28, 2005 Page 2 Thank you in advance for your continued cooperation with this matter. Very truly yours, D .s Wright Tremaine LLP o?~ R f <~t~ Christopher P. Koback CPK/lkt Enclosure cc: Dale Richards, Windwood Construction Gary F. Firestone, Attorney for Respondent PDX 1329829v1 44727-22 i ) 11 ttw:E ViL, k,'m,r A ~J mnmmyy ' ~ ~ n`+ pt, -tl ,I u ~sni s., ~ I ~ r 4 i " M I mov,X X J„ x~~ ~L 0'1 arlo ~~41 Lim v.tgbmrUy y,X 'S „W we, .ae , O,.e. ~I II P+,°'u nrM40~ J &a r V/, Y C v. N o a ~ s... ~ , C vm ~t J y ! t Os,+,U (dry 'Oa~`~m II....m+M• ~ ~ Q k }m • th ~ be,~, ~ mrs 4G~`•,~1 b,~. Ce,n ' I LEaEN~ ~ I ~ ~ 'hthtrraarn♦ . a ,,~>ro: ~,o, ~ umP ~ r< I ~ Q ~ ~ i 1 ~ _ Ih1 . t ,z" s a;,~ i , s an, ~ ' •,ne qWO O+m° -.2n,a ~ Wr I 1 - . 1 .11 I ~ e/` t~` , o<m m~°' :sum" vr. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ J ~ ASK. p've(a,n r'~ ' ~ b,ree ezm Q,ab I I 1 b Q `~i yy / ` mJ, L JM b b`JEw•,t e G b: ~~~i~tts sw 11r I~ ~ I~ \ It ti Ors • xs, ~ ..e,~ , ~b~rarsY °4jy°w ' I ~ A r ~tl n a u. xiv oJaJ> ikor ' u +4m } 1'y 1' eta I '1 ~ sm~e 11 1~ ♦ t y°u ~J,.., -:1)~' ''*,,.y~ 1 i I t' ~ 1 ♦ i~ a 'es, ; r' 1 ~ i ~ `5 ,y~ ► enf r~~.^ s ^ sn n •~ar sceap p~ tl~'4+on °"u - A ~ 1 I t r _ I ;°:n r ~Src h 1 e ~1 F° ~G;°„'w"MS ~ n fr er9'i' hth ,<>ia~ w,. 11`` ~ , t I n e o 1 ,l 1~ Capp b,n~ ` , ` i `i, „ k"ob J?s:. ,~I W rnw I t~5 V, I"C° ML:m„ a t beOA ~•1 4,Ae 7 r[ ~aW r ~ ~ ~ ~ y( «;,'uuJ^. ~r,a .ry~h • , ' s e [t, 1• (~~k~H s ;Nc ~tNl" `I 1~_ 11 I "J+. 1 :~y~ pPeEA f r~C, / Mni i C I ` ,IT9~CIA;yp + KR 1 7 I ~J' d ♦ ""e ± r ~ . 11 t:~s,~i>b~a~ • ~ e., ~ a v"` m 5 r•, Pao ,.X°%+ 1 0 ♦ Jr... .r r r., YS od+ n~ 4 1 pJW J.He 5 C ♦ 'S~ T 1 ' ~ jll t F~ .1 _I~~ rug xr ff .•.t u „a of beu eF~. .~t~`5 ta1,r , ~EVI$~R t m I a.. ,V M, II Cvn : n :y o s , °°m Z ' ti` a „ R nON N+. 1 PRESERVA 22'5 r "ymbm ~1 t .:w,. M1 {~~~.._•-r, ..5 ii fl PLA 12 n'- t °6'„<a Gvb•~ ~'St~~xv r IIgE?tN 12A01 . a ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ J>.u bum ~ - ob„ •="b~ a aw, "'14:.. t 1 'i~ sie "m+' 'uw„ or, ! Ow, awe t v t"+ s'i a tya I Il~ I I~o5 •:,t, % m 'Fa At, ' ,,c J>• vF 'yk I ii, Dnl-prr~ M~Ir a f ~rtAaROAO_I¢ xw LEGEND or,.>, oat. r sn alarm 1 e'n.ek/Bnly om. 0 RIES i~ G1- b, dLVN9N5 RE SE Ge,1. _ _ _ T ( I n:>•' Dry._ -C_bm Nary _._a QrFE LESS IIW! 1t 10 0 X Tan rr aez 'z 1 I , 1 ,x ~tAEEi -1 OOHFlRAEO BY ~ r I I I I I I a ''r°q N Arr I 4PBOREi W I I I I I ~r I Y { 0 1 ey, G-UI.x tHUI IY Iuruo IREF (ALL H.. D IACCS j r 'r: I y X 0 LDS 1-1 BE CUT) 'I XEy, I V % `X yA,>y 'rer o a ae LWd°. i-EES su0.LfR X X''X3,r !`N 1 1 R'b U0. ru2,ao vA I 1 " 1 ery l r~.TfSEt Dx L015 IXI- BE ~p f0 Off jay ~ 1n, , vr° 'a10 Y :UI) I I s _X l drN R RFF9 DPNifR iKVI 11' 10.05.1 X R ,M I yn I }fir 'AX'r:y er,rEa~ ~f /0• 01 BE IT. e ' V \ I X I I 1 'X •M1I'`ker, vr<,Vy~ /Aeb..lLlt K~ _ Z Ny C r V°1 I I / dr, rEEFS L62 THAN J4' i0 /Y„;e.' Il,rr 'AM1A aX, I I X y I 1 1 'a". J 'rW 1 ° Bf :N ~f r J X e,>X, Yq WI W,.,b I km: I X<zo' U~1 q~,'Nv y I I 4 y i------- ka E x 1. O.waD o x r.u NDT c ss erw/mcs - a II- - 1~ 'Vxr yl'f~ F- r \ Uy J L i fE2. by V Vr YV /rya~Ay~ ° o X., ' L f L/ : V I'lIx 'L ~gy', .try 1 L T1F'1 BE 5 ^JECI .RSI 'rYX" 'X rro W 4~]L(l eh,D 'X O,foe f,or, 'w i ' b VL' a0'd 0 ,IB1 0. 0 ES BDMSRO IDN yy OxpX '~~`}h!' V/ 'X 0j A DES. THE I OPIGINO G G.-FT. GESS ~~ICA ION, L DCOSC 1V ~ . X X X W n .1100 M' y yY' A //yy4P\ L„ X M Y' y! 1., .Xvrx.... Xy X X eY,>X ° 0' ej 'GIPFF. r urX X X^ '-R ..~rX r°A ay `1V-~:() X 4 A I D' ' A K_ X L flEEs YVA I °w r 51 ERYBE T 0 - YnDQ S EDGE OF a wL E C 1 TREES 1155 IHW IZ X a 'sV. X.. r.2 x„ ee 'vM1r6~'d5 %X X X'M1 y ax /fax Y a bt VU ,MIXMIZE TIE NUMBE OF TEDEES Q W _ ar 'y - X,,, p yO'r 1 iEf c or MaOR*sES rEf CONSTRUCTED o y .ivX s X.` y a/l F XLr, X 'Pl'r , T REPPORTT FOR SFES. o Xn XriyN .......•_._,..,~vr.,..., Fao, :Nxr X, fix/ a wX~,( r" PAL yy~ f'C Inr n R-AL LIST r - ;q°' , s ^ JafV yr,X f~ D eeR 1 X E. ~UiASD IRILS -1. THE IOIS !5' er X r-, °ar- "y' °ey ,Nr r y,. b e°aYV _ e NNLL BE IT. XX J0. 3^(b(ip(~. :V 1~,d`r X W,eD IRE(S bIIW WEN SVACE tee/ XI A ryeX ' Y PRIG N 1111 ry Nrr „ °r ' a , -X_ .eg yy 'mr ' ~ Yb 'b, E NW1 C +ND n BBEEIT 11 N y O EI- v a jra!' X I X Yry a rxA x ra, ` X e' IHfl RFPAESEM A SIG4rIGV1 J W X aXy ,X 1 'a 1 ! hr_ : „"„Z~ ,rNaaE 1 WfTY NVnrtO a O O^ U X -V X 1d e .»r r. 0,A. ' V Vw p~Am15T i X ~1 X b XE, e X X nW/, ;b Xery L I -S 0 BE -ED SHILL ,uVt if 7- PL-CED ,(I I A _ ' " x , r~ I~e~ R I X^ rtVy of r, ° > _ ~~~~'Lss ♦ I EONIO 111. IS DIRECTED BS 'motif Z d I~'jl / p~ yk fVS IH S ~Sy~ y,r ~b 1 BORai QO TREE x X„r zy~ i ~X ~I y Af~Y 3( X q i Y~ - EI.:E eac~ 'fin 3 01 I X X"'b X,r:r b/l nr, 1 x0 FX ' X ON STEEL POSTS en Pa j sa, E /Vy" 1 +v„X ~,,,X 1 t /l X", v n 'a y'RL Pbrae Lai W 'ilb. ( 1d Xill y -X- Q/ NOIi: SEi 1A80AISTS AtPoRT I F< f„° ~ Y 'Y' ' II rgM1 X FM TREE PROTECTION NOTES. p Q (fj L r S bXb ° FENCE TD BE LOCATED ERIDA r0 CUTTLNC W TREES CICE^i 0 fry X 4X ' y II 1 a-4Y ,YC re~'il ` I"V "V 0 OLM ARBaRIE" II:AIED NiM (U~ O7' k3 r'O?ee..'L'M„ 'eA° M I~0'szx IffI ,rN ,x X•'; rs X-F,r'.\ 1 I I~~( \'e4s id+.w Oy x eta dav, 'ry "e. - e N 1 X °0 lej _.r 1 1 /el'ba ''WQX ' Q}0 Y X 1 y ~ V pp Q r emy y a ~y X V A,M1, X X c" ILL. eY ey Lblysy'~pa,N'wr' (kn Xn. +hr''w II ab VU 0 a r k, m y w a„ a y 3x„ a'a N 01% ~ e 4 I >yA91 n,on errs by Q,y 1 , Mry .~4,., ^a,y - 4 L 1 Mnr QW. Q E'ha~ gao ~1'I' bxy 7,« '"'s-!5 I I x :Say •>y, 6xQN^a ~ ~wr °0 ~'a, - May TL L C'b ~,9n a. " '`=y 0.urx Mrr, t'y Wrry"b4n, Vb „ tae qw bb wr ca•b t Try"' g b eQ ~r Qw ,M R ° 0" .1 -I ,ya ('kh ,r'Nrr ek.,r 4br 1((,II,,}r rrrx 011, M , Q,y, ~y M1 Syp4 r °'r', . _ _ _ _ Lxp Cb1r, rb L -^W QUy n kn i C1•.y dex,p ~"b ^b s,Y °,srs 'irPt rwb b0 ~x dNy ~•ex e '1 0011„' ~iwr k' r i>,,.° la:r, e Yrr ~u, d'b '"eU N>O:., ONN Na 41ro l4 S y °,,r ux„'y~0 M F qy ~N _ ~x.~ Qb g,.,Oa,Y e 1,nbdu, ~w 4+e ~~T -hA^ i M a r' ~ I a I - " _ ~'1Y'~„ erg V' •YV br Yy Yo "Ye'~ , 1,';. {Baa:o'' wow' d ° N Mr„ er,r 1- KURAHASHI ~I T 1 1°` ~1` Q.. - Y ~ T ;a i k ASSOCIATES. E INC. I I ~ b,a ~ . "w ^Gw » r~ i ~0,.,, ere dyrl"r,i a / ae'b ~°`b - i VI(l ca , '?tN, ~,r ~+a aw D~,°x o1a, i °sl,. a _m~°`, NI o „ L y e y r.ya, Q ^ r "W , ! \ e A a, °yr I BNrr xy 1N E.si h.. w'AU REMSM TFEE ° < o W7e T d ~t 0s a Y21, 9r,E..ur.oylAn / PRESERVATION M Wr~ \ a y eM SCALE: 1"=20' I IL ' 'r b fCN i w xr M 'e.e'E y10 ~ PLM9-22-05 W I I - a y ; °Y' nI Rfu.WS a Two d Wre,ESIr rExrt unr Yee d e a1 k v :r , p• can a B.we a wAE urn Elf L' - - ° p""^°c'~ ~LL^e . l r x ~Y, W11 SIHE N] 0. a r.' 'w<.r t h Nb , ~ o, '•a ^ - - 1780112 Nixp BELONGS gERE AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 28, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Post-Project Evaluation Report of the CM/GC (Construction Manager/General Contractor)- Contract for the Tigard New Library Project PREPARED BY: G. Berry DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Report to the Local Contract Review Board as required by City Purchasing Rules. No action requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION None. INFORMATION SUMMARY Public agencies have traditionally employed the design-bid-build method of project delivery for the construction of public projects. However, the traditional method is not always the best way to successfully complete major projects such as the Tigard Library. Alternative contracting methods that provide opportunities for success, which are not available through the traditional method, are often chosen for such projects. The CM/GC (construction Manager/General Contractor) method is a competitive selection process that appeared to be the procurement method best suited for successfully constructing the New Tigard library with time constraints, cost, and quality as major considerations. The Tigard LCRB (Local Contract Review Board) conducted a public hearing to hear findings justifying procurement of the new Tigard Library construction using the CM/GC competitive selection process. Following the hearing, the LCRB passed LCRB Resolution No. 02-01 (attached) authorizing the CM/GC process for use on the New Library Project. City Code (AR 10.120) requires that an evaluation of the project be submitted to the LCRB within thirty days of acceptance and final payment of the project and that it be made publicly available. The attached evaluation is intended to comply with this requirement although the required submittal period has expired. The use of the CM/GC method ensured control of costs through the design and construction phases. Hoffman Construction Company of Oregon (the CM/GC selected for the project) was hired early in the design process and was actively involved in the design development and preparation of bid documents for the project. Because of the collaborative nature of the process, the new library was constructed on time and within the budget set for the project. The project was accepted by the City as substantially completed on July 7, 2004. Final payment was made to the contractor on February 23, 2005. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT The construction of the new Tigard Library supports the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Urban & Public grams and services for all ages. Services, Goal #3 - Adequate facilities are available for fcient delivery of life-long learning pro ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Evaluation of Library Construction Manager/General Contractor Contract Attachment 2: Contract Status Report- February 14, 2005 Attachment 3: LCRB Resolution No. 02-01 with Attachment A (2 pages) FISCAL NOTES The CM/GC contractor agreed to complete the construction for a fined amount of $7,855,621.00, the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). In addition, the contractor was entitled to a Contractor's Fee intended to cover profit and overhead expenses of $236,167.00 that is 2.95 percent of the GMP. The sum of these two fees, $8,091,788.00, is referred to as the Guaranteed Contract Cost as shown on the attached Contract Status Report. The final cost of the contract, including the contractor's fee of $236,016.00, is $8,075,455.90. This amount is $16,332.10 less than the Guaranteed Contract Cost and is a savings to the project. Funding was through a $13 million bond issue approved by the voters on May 21, 2002, $200,000 from the general fund and two bequests. l:\eng\gus\council agenda summades\2-28-06 library crngc evaluation ais.doc Attachment 1 Evaluation ofLibrary CM/GC (Construction Manager/General Contractor) Contract On November 22, 2002, the City entered into a CM/GC (Construction Manager/General Contractor) contract for the new Tigard Library. The contractor was selected through an alternative contracting method using a competitive selection process rather than through competitive bidding. ORS 279C.335 and City AR 10.120 require an evaluation of-the public improvement contract including the following items. (a) The actual project cost as compared with original project estimates. The original project estimate was $8,073,865 based on 90% complete plans. This amount included a GMP (Guaranteed Maximum Price) of $7,842,511 plus a contractor's fee of $231,354. Many of the changes to the project were absorbed in the GMP. The changes that were not absorbed increased the GMP to $7,855,621.00. The contractor's fee increased to $236,167.00. The total Guaranteed Contracted Contract Cost was $8,091,788.00. The actual project cost is $8,075,455.90. This amount is the total of all payments to the contractor as detailed on the attached Contract Status Report. This results in a net savings to the City of $16,332.10. The costs are summarized below: Original GMP: $7,842,511.00 Original Fee: $ 231,354.00 (2.95% of the GMP) Original Guaranteed Contract Cost: $8,073,865.00 Final GMP: $7,855,621.00 Final Fee: $ 236,167.00 Final Guaranteed Contract Cost: $8,091,788.00 Actual Construction Cost: $7,839,439.90 Actual Fee: $ 236,016.00 Total Project Cost: $8,075,455.90 Savings to the City: $8,091,788.00 - $8,075,455.90 = $16,332.10 (b) The amount of any guaranteed maximum price. The original guaranteed maximum price based on 90% complete plans was $7,842,511. The final guaranteed maximum price was $7,855,621.00 as shown on the attached Contract Status Report. Library CM/GC Contract Evaluation Page 1 of 3 Attachment 1 (c) The number of pr ject change orders issued by the contracting agency. Ten change orders, as listed in the attached Contract Status Report, were issued. These change orders included changes to 60 items. (d) A narrative description of successes and failures during the design, engineering and construction of the project. The contract was successful in defining a project that met performance, budget and schedule expectations. To ensure coordination of the project, the City selected a project manager from a local firm to coordinate and manage the project for the City. City staff from the Engineering Department and the Library actively participated in the design and construction meetings to provide input and to ensure that project-related decisions were made in a timely manner. The City included as an initial step in the project a partnering process to encourage the team approach to the project and to produce partnering agreements that all parties involved would be able to agree to and sign. The partnering process was a huge success and was extremely helpful in establishing close working relationships among the participants. The close collaboration among the CM/GC contractor, the architectural firm, and the City resulted in a project that was completed on time, within the budget allotted for the project, and with a level of quality expected. The CM/GC contractor was invaluable during the design process by providing cost information to assist the decision-making process, and by making suggestions that enhanced constructability of the project. During the construction phase, the CM/GC contractor and managed the bidding process extremely well, received numerous bids that were at or lower than the estimates, and provided the City with the opportunity to add items back into the project to enhance the building and its operation. No change orders were required to correct design deficiencies but were rather directed towards specifying items of higher quality. Bids from subcontractors were lower than originally anticipated. Changes during the construction of the project were made to enhance the quality of the end product. No failures were encountered. The process, from beginning to end, went exceptionally well. (e) An objective assessment of the use of the alternative contracting process as compared to findings required by OILS 279C.335. The required findings and discussions are included in the attached LCRB Resolution No. 02- 01. The findings and post-project assessments are as follows: Finding. It is unlikely that such exemption will encourage favoritism of substantially diminish competition for the contract. Assessment: Ten contractors responded to the request for proposals and were evaluated. These contractors are the same as might be expected to submit a bid using the traditional low bid process. The proposals were individually evaluated by a review committee of ten people using uniform evaluation criteria. The five highest rated firms were interviewed by a selection committee consisting of City staff, the architectural firm, and the City's Project Library CM/GC Contract Evaluation Page 2 of 3 Attachment 1 Manager. Subcontractors were selected through open bidding managed by the CM/GC and monitored by the City's Project Manager. As a result, selection of the CM/GC and subcontractors was without favoritism. Finding: The awarding of a CM/ GC contract pursuant to the exemption will result in substantial cost savings to the City. The CM/GC contractor reviewed the plans during design for cons tructability, provided cost information necessary for sound decision-making, and offered cost saving suggestions. For instance, the contractor reviewed the roof system with subcontractors to ensure compatibility of materials and proper coordination. Equipment, finishes and furnishings were reviewed in detail to ensure that the amount budgeted for these items was used to best advantage based on current prices. The major concern that led to the selection of the CM/GC competitive selection process was that the traditional low-bid method would result in bids that would be well above the available funding resulting in delays in construction of the project. As a result of the close collaboration among the team members, costs were tightly controlled and cost estimates were reviewed and validated. The CM/GC prepared the bid packages to encourage multiple responses from qualified and experienced subcontractors. As a result, the bids from subcontractors were favorable and often lower than originally anticipated. Changes that were made during the construction of the project were incorporated to enhance the quality of the end product. As a result of the CM/GC contractor's efforts, the project costs were tightly controlled throughout the bidding and construction process resulting in a project that was delivered on time and within the project budget established for the project. The amount of $16,332.10 representing the difference between the actual project cost and the Guaranteed Contract Cost is a savings to the project and is retained by the City. i:\-g\gmg\hb -.J-i.n\2-28-06 Gbnry -g, evilmuon m t.d- Library CM/GC Contract Evaluation Page 3 of 3 CONTRACT STATUS REPORT Attachment 2 Contractor: Hoffman Construction Company Updated: 14 February 2005 CONTRACT FACTS: Original GMP: $ 7,842,511.00 GMP Adjustments (Change Orders to Date): (150,000.00) Change Order No. 01 (08/13/03) Change Order No. 02 (10/02/03) - Time/No Cost Change Order No. 03 (11120/03) - No Cost Change Order No. 04 (01/05/04) - No Cost Change Order No. 05 (01/29/04) -Time/No Cost Change Order No. 06 (02/26/04) - No Cost Change Order No. 07 (03/18/04) - No Cost 83,578.00 Change Order No. 08 (04/26/04) 79,532.00 Change Order No. 09 (05/20/04) - Change Order No. 10 (06/22/04) - No Cost GMP to Date: $ 7,655,621.00 Original Fee $ 231,354.00 2.95 % of $7,842,511 Fee Adjustments to Date: 2,466.00 Change Order No. 08 (04/26/04) 2,347.00 Change Order No. 09 (05/20/04) Fee to Date: $ 236,167.00 Guaranteed Contract Cost: $ 8,091,788.00 TOTALEARNED LESS % INVOICE INVOICE COST OF WORK FEE EARNED LESS (5%) LESS PREVIOUS NET COMPLETED BALANCE DATE NUMBER TO DATE TO DATE RETAINAGE RETAINAGE INVOICES INVOICE TO DATE TO PAY 03/10/03 2139902-1 $ - $ 26,761.00 $ - $ 26,761.00 $ - $ 26,761.00 0.0% $ 8,065,027.00 08/01/03 App #01 192,921.93 74,032.00 - 265,953.93 26,761.00 240,192.93 3% 7,824,834.07 09/02/03 App #02 630,030.18 83,286.00 713,316.18 266,953.93 446,362.25 9% 7,378,471.82 10102/03 App #03 1,335,751.81 92,540.00 1,428,291.81 713,316.18 714,975.63 18% 6,663,496.19 11/05/03 App #04 1,920,797.81 101,794.00 - 2,022,591.81 1,428,291.81 594,300.00 25% 6,069,196.19 12/04/03 App#05 2,846,277.64 111,048.00 - 2,957,325.64 2,022,591.81 934,733.83 37% 5,134,462.36 01/12/04 App#06 3,682,057.39 120,302.00 - 3,802,359.39 2,957,325.64 845,033.75 47% 4,289,428.61 02105104 App #07 4,273,658.69 129,556.00 - 4,403,214.69 3,802,359.39 600,855.30 54% 3,688,573.31 03/03/04 App #08 5,044,074.02 138,810.00 - 5,182,884.02 4,403,214.69 779,669.33 64% 2,906,903.98 04/02/04 App #09 5,921,616.08 148,064.00 6,069,680.08 5,182,884.02 886,796.06 75% 2,022,107.92 05/04/04 App#10 6,611,909.33 157,318.00 6,769,227.33 6,069,680.08 699,547.25 84% 1,322,560.67 06/02/04 App #11 7,142,850.60 166,572.00 - 7,309,422.60 6,769,227.33 540,195.27 90% 782,365.40 07101104 App #12 7,442,621.67 175,826.00 - 7,618,447.67 7,309,422.60 309,025.07 94% 473,340.33 08104104 App #13 7,683,729.14 185,080.00 7,868,809.14 7,618,447.67 250,361.47 97% 222,978.86 09/03/04 App #14 7,726,793.51 194,334.00 - 7,921,127.51 7,668,809.14 52,318.37 98% 170,660.49 09/03/04 App #14F 7,726,793.51 236,016.00 7,962,809.51 7,921,127.51 41,682.00 98% 128,978.49 10/04/04 App#15 7,771,434.50 236,016.00 - 8,007,450.50 7,962,809.51 44,640.99 99% 84,337.50 11/02/04 App #16 7,817,508.73 236,016.00 - 8,053,524.73 8,007,450.50 46,074.23 99.5% 38,263.27 12/10104 App #17 7,827,446.45 236,016.00 - 8,063,462.45 8,053,524.73 9,937.72 99.6% 28,325.55 01/31/05 App #18/19 7,839,439.90 238,016.00 - 8,075,455.90 8,063,462.45 11,993.45 99.8% 16,332.10 TOTAL INVOICES TO DATE $ 8,075,455.90 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 3 LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 02--QL A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF TIGARD LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE RULE 35.010 TO QUALIFY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW TIGARD LIBRARY AS A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/ GENERAL CONTRACTOR CONTRACT. WHEREAS, on May 21, 2002, the voters approved a general obligation bond issue for the construction of a new city library; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2002, City Council approved Ordinance No. 02-21 to allow Construction Manager/General Contractor contracts upon approval of certain findings at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2002, City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, conducted a public hearing to take comments on draft findings as required by Administrative Rule 35.010; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that the construction of the new city library may be best accomplished through a Construction Manager/General Contractor contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Cuuncil, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, that: SECTION 1: The findings shown in Attachment A are hereby approved. SECTION 2: The New Tigard Library construction is hereby exempted from the competitive bidding process and qualifies for procurement as a Construction Manager/General Contractor contract through the competitive proposal process. SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This 23 rd _ day of A, 0" 2002. TChair - City of Tigard ATTEST: OA-u~- City Recorder - City of Tigar C MINDOWSJEMPIRESOLUTION APPROVING THE CM-GC PROCESS.DOC LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 02 - D~ Page 1 CITY OF TIGARD NEW LIBRARY PROJECT FINDINGS FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENT The New Tigard Library Project is proposed for construction through the Construction Manager/General Contractor competitive selection process. The following are findings for an exemption from the competitive bidding requirement in accordance with Local Contract Review Board Administrative Rule 35.010. Finding: It is unlikely that such exemption will encourage favoritism or substantially diminish competition for the contract. Discussion: The CM/GC is selected through a competitive selection process to provide both construction management and general contracting services. No reduction of competition is expected since the proposed process is open to the same contractors that would have participated in the traditional low bid method. Uniform evaluation criteria will be used in the selection of the CM/GC firm, and the construction work elements will be subcontracted and procured through open bids managed by the CM/GC. Finding: The awarding of a CM/GC contract pursuant to the exemption will result in substantial cost savings to the City. Discussion: Substantial cost savings are expected through adoption of the CM/GC process. The following are the reasons supporting the expectation that substantial cost savings would be realized: This method has the potential for achieving significant cost savings through early involvement of the contractor in the design phase of the project. By having the contractor available in the early stages of the design, the contractor would be able to review the design, propose cost saving revisions, and ensure the constructability of the project so that costly change orders are less likely. Construction of the library involves a wide range of construction elements ranging from the various building trades to public street improvements. Cost saving are expected from the CM/GC being able to separately contract for each of the elements. The CM/GC method avoids the cost in time and money involved in rebidding of the project, should bids come in higher than expected. A traditional bid process runs the risk of obtaining bids that exceed the project budget. In the CM/GC project delivery method, construction costs are determined at an earlier time and changes to the design and scope of the project necessary to meet the project budget are more easily achieved. I1Enp1Gm\Liorary ProjeC%AhaUmeM A - Findirgs.Coc ATTACHMENT A ~~i -0Cn Post-Project Evaluation Report CM/GC Contract for the Construction of the New Tigard Library February 28, 2006 CM/GC Contracting Method ❖ CM/GC (Construction Manager/General Contractor) method combines the traditional scope of work of the general contractor and the construction manager ❖ CM/GC Contractor is selected in the early stages of design through a competitive selection process ❖ Contractor provides a Guaranteed Contract Cost ❖ Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) + Contractor's Fee = Guaranteed Contract Cost 1 Advantages ❖ Time savings ❖ Cost Savings ❖ Contractor Selection ❖ Constructability ❖ Value Engineering ❖ A Team Approach Post-Project Evaluation ❖ CM/GC method ❖ ensured cost control throughout design and construction ❖ minimized the possibility of bids coming in way over budget ❖ Contractor provided assistance in: ❖ Cost estimating ❖ Evaluation of options to add or delete ❖ Incorporation of higher quality options 2 Evaluation ❖ Amount of GMP ❖ Original GMP $7,842,511 ❖ Final GMP $7,855,621 ❖ Number of Change Orders ❖ Ten (included 60 items) ❖ Unlikely to encourage favoritism or diminish competition ❖ Competitive selection process ❖ Hoffman Construction Company of Oregon selected ❖ Review and selection committees ensured fair competition ❖ Competitive subcontractor bidding Evaluation ❖ Successes and Failures ❖ Met performance, budget and schedule expectations ❖ Partnering process enhanced team approach ❖ Constructability review was invaluable ❖ Cost estimate validation was crucial ❖ No failures encountered 3 Evaluation ❖ Result in substantial savings ❖ Reviewed design for constructability ❖ Validated cost estimates ❖ Provided cost savings suggestions ❖ Ensured highest quality equipment, finishes and furnishings based on budgeted amounts ❖ Resulted in a net savings to the City .Project Costs Original GMP $7,842,511 Original Fee $231,354 Original Guaranteed Cost $8,073,865 Revised Guaranteed Cost $8,091,788 Actual Construction Cost $7,839,440 Actual Fee $236,016 Total Project Cost $8,075,456 Savings ($8,091,788 - $8,075,456) _ $16,322 4 New Library Completed f; ~f Irk ~ ~,x t New Library Grand Opening ..k F 4 5 Summary ❖ CM/GC method was used successfully ❖ Costs were tightly controlled throughout design and construction ❖ Higher quality options were added based on subcontractor bids ❖ The team approach ensured a cooperative and collaborative environment Summary ❖ Competitive subcontractor bidding resulted in excellent bids ❖ Overall project cost was kept within budget ❖ Most changes executed were to improve quality ❖ Project was completed on time for opening in July 2004 6 AGENDA ITEM # J FOR AGENDA OF February 28, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Hall Blvd. /99W Design Modifications PREPARED BY: Phil Nachbar DEPT HEAD OK ~G CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL To provide direction to staff in pursuing design modifications of the intersection at Hall Blvd. /99W intersection to include pedestrian improvements, landscape enhancements, and a potential Gateway. Approve Amendment #1 to the streetscape contract with OTAK, Inc. in the amount $7,000 - $10,000 to provide design and engineering services for intersection modifications. Washington County is presently managing the design of improvements to the intersection. There is an opportunity now as part of the design process for the City to potentially include these additional design modifications. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to pursue design modifications to the Hall Blvd./99W intersection to incorporate pedestrian improvements and landscape enhancements. Approve Amendment #1 to the streetscape contract with OTAK, Inc., (#0557) in the amount $7,000 for design and engineering services. INFORMATION SUMMARY The intersection at Hall Blvd./99W is scheduled for capacity improvements for construction in 2007-08. Washington County is managing the project with the use of a consultant. The design process has begun and will be carried out over the next 9 months. City staff has identified an opportunity to provide specific design recommendations as a part of this process to be more consistent with the principles and objectives of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) which include the following elements: 1) Hall Boulevard/99W intersection as a gateway to downtown; 2) Pedestrian and bike emphasis; and 3) Potential to incorporate "green street" elements. All three design elements are referenced in the TDIP. In response to an update to the City Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) regarding future improvements to the intersection at its December 22, 2005 meeting, members of the CCAC requested staff to inquire about whether a Special Transportation Area (STA) could be obtained for 99W as it borders the Downtown. Although the Special Transportation Area designation was rejected by ODOT as an option during the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan development process, the CCAC maintains an interest in the design of the Hall Blvd. /99W intersection. Staff identified the opportunity for design collaboration by contacting Washington County. Washington County project staff agreed that the City of Tigard could provide specific design improvements that could potentially be included in the final design given review and approval by both Washington County and ODOT. The CCAC was advised of discussions with Washington County regarding the potential to modify the intersection design to achieve the objectives of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. The CCAC was in full support of this idea. Staff currently does not have the expertise to provide both landscape architectural and engineering design services to carry out this work. Subject to Council approval, staff prepared an amendment to the streetscape design contract with OTAK, Inc. in the amount $7,000 - $10,000 to include their technical assistance in devising and conveying design improvements to the intersection. The amount of the amendment is for $10,000 as required by OTAK review. The City has specified $7,000 in the scope, with the option to go to $10,000 if additional consultant time is needed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Foregoing design input at this time would result in a permanent lost opportunity to influence specific design for the intersection improvements at Hall Blvd./99W. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Council Goal: Implement Downtown Plan Council Goal: Improve 99W Corridor Vision Goal: Community Aesthetics, #1 - Identify and implement projects and activities that enhance aesthetic qualities valued by those who live and work in Tigard. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment #1: Revised Streetscape Contract Amendment #1 Attachment #2: Revised Exhibit 1 Hall Blvd./99W Gateway Design FISCAL NOTFS Cost of this amendment to the streetscape contract is $7,000. The amendment would allow an additional $3,000 for extra consultant time if necessary and subject to staff approval. "Total amount would not exceed $10,000 for this amendment. Staff has available funds from the City's Gas Tax Fund for this additional work. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT CONTRACT #0557 TIGARD DOWNTOWN COMPREHENSIVE STREETSCAPE DESIGN PLAN - PHASE ONE AMENDMENT #1 The Design Services Agreement between the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called City, and OTAK, Inc., hereinafter called the Firm, entered into on the 1st day of December, 2005, is hereby amended as follows: Exhibit 1- Scope of Services - 2b Gateways / Intersection Treatments Provide concept designs for the intersection of Hall Boulevard and Highway 99 in accordance with Exhibit 1 (Hall Boulevard and 99W Gateway Design Scope of Services and Fees Estimate). Additional Fees per this Amendment: $10,000 Revised Total Fee (not to exceed, per Section 3.A.1): $185,000 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized undersigned officer and Firm has executed this Amendment upon signature and date listed below. CITY OF TIGARD OTAK, Inc. Signature Signature Printed Name Printed Name Date Date Exhibit 1 Hall Blvd./99W Gateway Design Scope of Services and Fee Estimate The intent of Amendment #1 is to suggest potential design improvements to the intersection that are more consistent with principles and objectives of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan which include: • Hall Boulevard/99W intersection as a gateway for downtown • Pedestrian and bike emphasis • Potential to incorporate green street elements The concepts will be modifications to the schematic intersection design at Hall Blvd. and 99W already developed by Washington County. Initial Meetings Meet with City staff and Washington County staff to discuss basic parameters for design, stormwater treatments and right-of-way impacts. Deliverables Attend same day meetings. Draft Concept Plans Initial sketches (hand-drawn or AutoCAD) overlaid on the existing schematic design. Sketches will indicate potential changes to curb lines, lane configurations, sidewalk locations and widths, and additional right-of-way or property impacts. Any gateway features behind the sidewalks will be generally sized and located and the general design character noted. It is assumed that some amount of AutoTURN verification and traffic engineering review will be required to evaluate the feasibility of initial concepts. Deliverables: Up to two concept design alternatives with clearly distinguishing features. Review Meeting Meet with City staff to review the initial concept sketches and agree on the direction for further design development. Deliverables: Attend meeting. Final Concept Plan Up to two final concept sketches in AutoCAD format provided the City can provide electronic based mapping and the existing schematic design in AutoCAD format. Otherwise, the sketches will be hand-drawn and scanned into a digital format. Additional AutoTURN verification and traffic engineering review may be required to finalize the concepts. Deliverables: Final concept plans. Final Meeting Meet with City staff and other parties if necessary (Washington County and/or ODOT) to deliver and discuss the final concept sketches. Deliverables: Attend meeting. Estimated Fee for Labor and Materials: $7,000 Note: The fee estimate does not include planning level construction cost estimates. The draft scope of services and fee estimate can be amended to include construction cost estimates (exclusive of right-of-way acquisition costs) if requested by the City. Additional Time: Prior to performing any additional work, OTAK, Inc. shall provide a written proposal to the City for review and approval. In the event that additional work is needed the following billing rates apply: DKS (Peter Coffey) $155 OTAK Senior Civil Engineer (Pam Wiedemann)$131 OTAK Senior Urban Designer (Tom Litster) $100 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 28, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA for point Funding of a Water Supply System Plan with the City of Lake Oswego PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consider an IGA for joint funding of a water supply system plan with the City of Lake Oswego. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council approve the IGA for joint funding of a water supply system plan with the City of Lake Oswego. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard continues to work toward identifying a long-term water source and establishing an equity position in such a source. Lake Oswego is one of four possible long-term water supply options being explored. Tigard currently obtains a small portion of its water from the City of Lake Oswego through a 1983 water sales agreement. In September 2005, the City of Tigard completed a Water Supply Feasibility Project study. This study concluded that it would be possible for Lake Oswego and Tigard to jointly develop Lake Oswego's capital infrastructure and remaining water rights. Both parties would benefit from such a partnership. Tigard would establish ownership in a long-term water source; Lake Oswego would protect its water rights and reduce costs since, as a partner, Tigard would fund a portion of the improvements. The next step is to investigate the technical, financial and legal issues influencing this potential partnership. To address these matters, a water supply system plan is proposed. This plan will be a comprehensive document. Once completed, Tigard and Lake Oswego should have enough information to determine if the proposed partnership will meet each city's requirements. Should the plan's outcome be favorable, Tigard and Lake Oswego will be able to proceed directly to an intergovernmental agreement to construct the necessary improvements. At their February 8 meeting, the Intergovernmental Water Board expressed its support for the agreement. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could choose not to approve the IGA. This action would likely remove Lake Oswego from consideration as a water source option for Tigard. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Other Important City Council Goals: Secure Long-Range Water Source(s) Urban & Public Services Goal 1, Water and Stormwater, Strategy 1: Investigate developing partnership or contacts with other jurisdictions to develop a long-term source of water. ATTACHMENT LIST Intergovernmental Agreement FISCAL NOTES The cost of the agreement will be divided equally between the City of Lake Oswego and the City of Tigard. The study is expected to cost between $250,000 and $300,000, with Tigard's share ranging from $125,000 to $150,000. Tigard has allocated $50,000 in its FY `05/06 budget for the plan, but only projects to spend $20,000. The remaining $30,000 will be carried forward and will be included in the $130,000 requested for this project in the FY `06/07 budget. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT FUNDING . OF A WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AND THE CITY OF TIGARD This ORS 190 Intergovernmental Agreement is entered into by the following parties: the City of Lake Oswego, an Oregon Municipal Corporation, (hereinafter "Lake Oswego"), and the City of Tigard, an Oregon Municipal corporation, (hereinafter "Tigard"), hereinafter referred to collectively as the "parties". The parties have agreed to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement pursuant to ORS 190.003 - 190.110, which authorizes units of local government to enter into such agreements. RECITALS WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of a water sales agreement executed in 1983, the City of Lake . Oswego has supplied surplus water to the City of Tigard, and WHEREAS, since 1983 the parties have mutually benefited from this water supply relationship, and WHEREAS, in the past the parties have jointly and individually funded and completed engineering studies and water master plans that have identified the mutual benefits of continuing the existing water supply relationship and jointly developing a long term water supply partnership, and WHERAS, Tigard desires to partner in the development of a long term source of new water supply for its customers and desires to secure an equity position in such a new water supply, and Lake Oswego is willing to consider a partnership in the development of any new water rights or facilities; which partnership may include shared ownership, and WHEREAS, Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690, Division 315 "Water Rights Permit Extensions" adopted on November 22, 2005, require municipal water supply agencies with undeveloped water rights to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State water resources department, their ability to beneficially use undeveloped water or risk losing such rights, and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard commissioned a study entitled "Water Supply Feasibility Project". which was completed and dated September 2005, and WHEREAS, that study concluded that it was feasible for Lake Oswego to supply water to Tigard on a long term basis and that partnering with the City of Tigard to develop Lake Oswego's undeveloped water rights could achieve many benefits including more efficient use of the water resource, improved economy of water supply, protection of existing permitted water rights, improved water supply reliability, and more effective joint response to regulatory challenges, and 1 WHEREAS, the parties have identified the need to conduct a more comprehensive study of the costs and timing of jointly developing Lake Oswego's currently undeveloped water rights and that time is of the essence in completing this study: NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1 - Obligations of the Parties 1. The parties agree to jointly fund an engineering study that will be comprehensive in scope and that will complete the various tasks as outlined in the Scope of Work attached herein as Exhibit "A". 2. Lake Oswego will prepare the necessary documents to solicit and procure the services of an engineering consulting firm for the study 3. The parties will jointly participate in the review/evaluation and selection process for the engineering consultant 4. Once an engineering consultant has been selected, Lake Oswego will contract with and undertake the day to day management of the work of the selected consultant 5. The parties will jointly participate in the provision of all documentation requested by consultant and necessary for the completion of the Scope of Work 6. The parties will, as required by the Scope of Work, jointly review and comment on all memoranda, draft reports and other documentation developed by the consultant in the conduct of the work 7. The staff of each city will be responsible to communicate all relevant information to their councils as to the progress, status and recommendations of the study. Each party agrees to facilitate the work of the other in this regard as may be requested by each of the other during the conduct of the work Section 2 - Allocation of Study Costs and Payment 1. The City of Lake Oswego will be the paying agent for the parties. 2. Amendments to the approved Scope of Work may be made by mutual agreement of the parties. 3. The costs of any such amendments approved by the parties will be allocated to each party equally unless mutually agreed otherwise 4. The City of Lake Oswego will make all payments due the consultant pursuant to the terms of the contract executed between Lake Oswego and consultant. Tigard will reimburse Lake Oswego for one half of the expenditures. Lake Oswego will invoice Tigard monthly coinciding with the work-in-progress invoicing submitted by the consultant. Payments shall be made to the City of Lake Oswego Finance Department, P.O. 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034. Any amount unpaid after thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per annum until paid. 2 SECTION 3 - Ownership of Work Products 1. Work products generated by consultant pursuant to the Scope of Work will be jointly owned by the parties 2. At the completion of the study, Lake Oswego will provide Tigard with five copies of the final report in hard copy and electronic format SECTION 4 - Dispute Resolution If a dispute arises between the parties regarding this Agreement, the parties shall take the following steps: Step One (Negotiation) Upon written notice provided by one party to the other of a dispute regarding this Agreement, the parties shall first attempt.to resolve the dispute through negotiation. The City Manager or another person designated by each of the disputing parties will negotiate on behalf of each entity. If the dispute is resolved at this step, the resolution shall be reduced to writing and signed by each party. Step Two (Mediation) If the dispute cannot be resolved at Step One within thirty (30) days of the date of mailing of the written notice of the dispute, the parties shall attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation. If the parties cannot agree on a mediator, they shall request a list of five (5) mediators from the Presiding Judge of Clackamas County Circuit Court. The parties will attempt to mutually agree on a mediator from the list provided, but if they cannot agree, the mediator will be selected by the Presiding Judge of Clackamas County Circuit Court. The cost of mediator shall be borne equally between the parties, but each party shall otherwise be responsible for its own costs and fees therefore. If the issue is resolved at this step, the resolution shall be reduced to writing and signed by each party. Step Three (Arbitration) If the parties are unsuccessful at Steps One and Two, the dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration proceedings pursuant to ORS 36.600 et seq. The parties shall follow the same process as in Step Two for the selection of the arbitrator. The prevailing party in Step Three shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs which have been incurred during the Step Three process, as determined and awarded by the arbitrator. In addition, in the event of a petition to the court to for judicial relief related to the arbitration, such as a petition to seek confirmation, vacation, modification or correction of an arbitration award, or in the event of judicial action to enforce an arbitration award, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party, in addition to costs and disbursements provided by statute, any sun which a court, including any appellate court, may adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees. In the event the prevailing party in the 3 arbitration or related judicial action is represented by "in-house" counsel, the prevailing party shall nevertheless be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees based upon the reasonable time incurred and the attorney fee rates and charges reasonably and generally accepted in the metropolitan Portland, Oregon area for the type of legal services performed. SECTION 5 - Amendments 1. The terms of this agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Any amendments shall be in writing, shall refer specifically to this agreement, and shall be executed by both parties. SECTION 6 - Notice 1. Written Notice Addresses. All written notices required under this agreement shall be sent by first.class mail to: City of Lake Oswego: City Manager City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 City of Tigard: City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the date and year hereinabove written. Lake Oswego has acted in this matter pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by the City Council on the day of , 2006. Tigard has acted in this matter pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by its City Council on the day of , 2006. City of Lake Oswego, by and through its city officials By: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM David Powell, City Attorney 4 ATTEST: By: Robyn Christie, City Recorder City of Tigard, by and through its city officials By: Craig Dirksen, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM Tim Ramis, City Attorney ATTEST: By: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder 5 Exhibit A OE LAKE OS hECO OREGON REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR AN ANALYSIS OF A JOINT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM FOR THE CITIES OF LAKE OSWEGO AND TIGARD The City of Lake Oswego, Oregon has selected your firm to submit a proposal for provision of professional engineering services related to an analysis of a joint water supply system for the Cities of Lake Oswego and Tigard. In general, this analysis will require a comprehensive and in- depth review, analysis and update of previous planning and engineering studies as regards: o Current and forecasted water demands of both City's through "build-out"; o Options available to meet the combined build-out water demands of each City assuming the preferred source of supply is the Clackamas River; o Condition assessment and valuations of existing water utility infrastructure used and useful in supply water for the two cities; o Water rights and water availability; o Requirements for augmenting, improving and replacing existing utility infrastructure to provide desired levels of service for build-out water system demands as well as current and future drinking water regulations o Environmental and land use permitting requirements necessary for the construction of new water infrastructure to supply, treat and convey build-out water demands o Financing strategies and water rate analyses EXISTING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION Surface water from the Clackamas River is withdrawn near the town of Gladstone, Oregon and pumped via the City's raw water intake and pumping facility through a 27-inch diameter pipeline crossing underneath the Willamette River to the City's treatment plant located just north of Mary S. Young State Park in the City of West Linn. The City has permits to appropriate up to 38 MGD from this source in addition to a permit to appropriate up to 3.87 MGD from the Willamette River. 32.3 MGD of the City's Clackamas source is authorized pursuant to a permit Request for Proposal - I with a priority date of March 14, 1967. This date is important as it precedes the priority date of the States in-stream water right. 16.1 MGD of this "senior" permit has been certificated. The remaining 22 MGD of Clackamas water permitted for municipal use will need to be developed in order to meet the majority of future water demands for both cities. The City's water treatment plant (WTP) was constructed in 1967 with an original treatment capacity of 10 MGD. An expansion to the plant in 1980 provided an additional 6 MGD of capacity for a current total of 16 MGD. Water treatment operations and processes include prechlorination, coagulant addition and in-line mixing, sedimentation, dual-media filtration, post- chlorination and pH adjustment. Disinfection is accomplished using liquid sodium hypochlorite, lime and carbon dioxide are used for alkalinity and pH adjustment, PAC is added for seasonal taste and odor control and polymers are used as coagulant and filter aids. Filter backwash that is not recycled is wasted to a series of four (4) concrete lagoons where supernatant is decanted to promote solar drying of alum sludge. The dried sludge is trucked off-site to a landfill. The existing treatment plant is sited within an existing residential neighborhood and currently occupies property totaling 6.05 acres. In the early 1990's, the City acquired property contiguous to the south property line of the plant adding an additional 3.30 acres of land area. Of the 9.35 acres currently under City ownership, plat restrictions effectively preclude use of the recently acquired 3.30 acres until such time as 75% of the property owners in the plat agree to amend the plat covenants to allow other than single family residential dwellings. Treated water is pumped from the plant through about 37,000 feet of 24-inch diameter steel and ductile iron transmission mains to the City's 4 MG Waluga reservoir. This reservoir serves as the starting point for parallel 16 and 24-inch transmission mains that provide water to the City of Tigard via its Bonita Road pump and metering station. SCOPE OF SERVICES REQUESTED The City desires that the bulk of the effort described in the tasks below be completed by August 31, 2006. The order of the tasks shown below is not meant to imply a serial approach to the conduct of the work nor do they reflect all possible tasks or analyses that may need to be conducted to achieve a thorough understanding of the permitting, design, financing, governance and construction related issues and costs a project of this scope might produce. The Cities desire that the level of analysis be sufficiently rigorous to provide the technical staffs and City Councils information and cost projections that could allow each agency to initiate discussion of a cooperative agreement to implement the recommendations of this study effort, should they so choose. To that end, Consultants are encouraged to include within their proposals any scope items or tasks they deem to have been omitted in this RFP, and that they believe are necessary to successfully complete this work. At a minimum, engineering and planning tasks will include: A. Evaluate existing water supply system - This evaluation will include the following sub- tasks: 1. Site visits to existing facilities e.g., intake facility, water treatment plant, Waluga Reservoir and Bonita Road pump station Request for Proposal - 2 2. Interviews with Lake Oswego plant personnel 3. Review of existing reports, studies and master plans. These include: o "Water System Study for the City of Lake Oswego", November 1974, CH2M HILL o "Tigard Water System Study", January 1992, James M. Montgomery o "Final Report for Evaluation of Water Service With and Without Tigard", July 1994, CH2M HILL o "Water Supply Plan Update" for City of Tigard, August 1994, Murray, Smith & Assoc., Inc. o "Water Treatment Plant Facilities Plan for the City of Lake Oswego", March 1997, Carollo Engineers, PC o "Pilot Study for Treatment of Water from the Clackamas River", Final Report March 1997, Black & Veatch/CH2M Hill. o "Clackamas Basin Water Treatment and Supply Options Study", January 1998, Black & Veatch; CH2M HILL; McKeever/Morris, Inc. o "Concept Overview and Decision Guidance Document for Water Supply Options", February 2000, Murray, Smith & Assoc., Inc. o "Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy", July 2000, Montgomery Watson, Inc. o "Water Supply Master Plan Update for City of Lake Oswego", January 2001, Montgomery Watson Harza, Inc. o "Biological Assessment for the City of Lake Oswego Clackamas River Water Intake Modifications", February 2002, MWH, Inc. o "Cathodic Protection of Raw and Finished Water Transmission Mains", February 2003, Cascade Corrosion Consulting Services, Inc. o "Clackamas River Intake, Structural Evaluation and Finite Element Analysis", September 2005, MWH, Inc. o "Water Supply Feasibility Project for the City of Tigard", September 2005, CH2M HILL, Inc. o "City of Lake Oswego Finished Water Pumping Surge Control System Review", February 2005, Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. 4. Compilation and review of existing raw water quality data, treatment plant performance data from plant database files and other sources. 5. Review of City of West Linn Development Codes, City of Lake Oswego Development Code, City of Gladstone Development Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code and other pertinent regulatory documents. 6. Review of existing record drawings for construction of the City's intake, treatment plant, transmission mains, etc. 7. Conduct an engineering appraisal of the existing system including all facilities currently in use to supply surplus water to the City of Tigard. Deliverable: Prepare and deliver six (6) copies of a technical memorandum summarizing the salient information gleaned during the conduct of the above tasks and that relate to and facilitate the conduct of the remaining tasks requested in this scope of work including those additional tasks as may be proposed by the consultant and included in the requested scope of services. Request for Proposal - 3 B. Review, evaluate and update existing water demand :forecasts - Collect and compile population and water demand data from available local and regional sources to understand current water demand behaviors and forecast future demands for each City. Where appropriate and as may be authorized by each City use new demand data for subsequent planning and engineering tasks. C. Evaluate water treatment alternatives - Based upon the conduct of the above tasks, identify and evaluate the range of water treatment technologies and processes that could be implemented to expand present treatment capacity and meet current and pending regulatory water quality requirements under two capacity scenarios, i.e., 32 MGD and 38 MGD. Identify and evaluate the full range of planning, permitting, design, constructability and operations and maintenance issues associated with each feasible treatment alternative. The effort expended for this task should be sufficiently rigorous to allow the development of budget level estimates of capital and O&M costs and an understanding of operations staffing and skill level needs. D. Evaluate river intake alternatives - Use the information gained in the above tasks to evaluate, alternatives for the City's river intake facility. Conduct the following sub-tasks. ✓ Hydraulically model and analyze the existing intake facility to determine maximum sustained pumping capacity with current wet-well geometry. Use historical stream flow records or other sources of information to establish minimum river levels for worst case analysis purposes ✓ Identify deficiencies in the existing intake facility relative to plans to expand pumping capacity up to 32 MGD. Determine budget level costs associated with upgrades to achieve 32 MGD pumping capacity ✓ Evaluate the full range of planning, permitting, design and construction issues associated with constructing a new intake facility capable of diverting and pumping between 32 and 38 MGD at or very near the current intake site. Develop budget level costs for a new intake facility E. Evaluate transmission system alternatives - Evaluate the costs to augment existing transmission capacity with parallel pipe lines against the costs for complete replacement of the existing transmission mains. Identify a preferred alternative for meeting potential capacity needs of up to 38 MGD for raw water piping and up to 46 MGD for finished water transmission piping. Conduct routing analyses and constructability reviews to determine preferred routes and to facilitate evaluation of land use and regulatory permitting in subsequent tasks. F. Land use and regulatory permittin - Evaluate the full range of land use and regulatory permitting requirements for tasks B., C., D and E. Sub-tasks will include: ✓ Meeting or interviewing staff from regulatory agencies at an appropriate stage in this study effort to facilitate their understanding of the genesis of the project, its intent and possible schedule. Agencies include but are not limited to ACOE, DEQ, DSL, NOAA Fisheries, ODFW, USFW, Oregon Health Department, Cities of Gladstone, West Linn and Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon State Marine Board, Oregon State Parks, ODOT region 2A and others as may be appropriate Request for Proposal - 4 ✓ Identifying costs associated with securing the necessary land use and regulatory approvals as well as costs for conducting specific studies or assessments that can reasonably be assumed to be required as part of the permit acquisition process. Such additional studies or assessments might include Biological Assessments, Hydrologic or hydraulic analysis, geotechnical reconnaissance and reporting, attendance at public meetings, preparing land use applications, water rights transfers, etc. Deliverable: Prepare and submit six (6) copies of a technical memorandum documenting the findings, conclusions and recommendations developed at the completion of tasks B, C, D, E and F. Provide a table of contents and tabs for the various sections of the memorandum. Format the memorandum for ease of use and understanding by non-technical stakeholders. G. Conduct financial analysis - Using the information developed through completing the above tasks, conduct a thorough financial analysis of the capital and operating costs for the preferred alternatives for source of supply, water treatment and transmission systems. Subtasks will include: ✓ Valuations of the depreciated replacement or "book value" of existing capital that would remain in use for a joint water supply system ✓ Compilation of budget level capital costs associated with preferred alternatives identified in the above tasks ✓ Development of operating and maintenance costs for preferred alternatives over a 20-year period using a range of discount rates ✓ Identifying alternate scenarios for allocating existing and new capital and O&M costs to Lake Oswego and Tigard based upon each agencies funding capacities, constraints and forecasted rate of water demand growth through build out ✓ Identifying the rate implications of each allocation scenario on each agency ✓ Identifying financing options available for funding capital costs H. Evaluate Organizational Structures - This task will require the consultant to research and identify Oregon statutory and administrative rules governing the creation of new governmental bodies and to identify and discuss the pros and cons of each possible forming mechanism. The general structure, authority and operating characteristics of each possible governmental body should be described and discussed. Potential administrative or operational challenges should be vetted for each option identified. 1. Strategic outreach and communications plan - Prepare a proposed outline and schedule of activities critical to a successful outreach and communications plan in support of a possible joint water supply agency between Lake Oswego and Tigard. This plan should at a minimum include discussion of the following: ✓ Identifying stakeholders and developing templates for stakeholder specific messages ✓ Strategies for controlling the flow and content of information ✓ Means and methods to engender trust ✓ Developing the "message" Request for Proposal - 5 Deliverable: Prepare and submit six (6) copies of a final report combining all technical memoranda and task findings developed through the completion of all preceding tasks. The report shall be submitted in a three-ring binder, with tabbed sections and an executive summary. Printing shall be double-sided. Figures and tables shall use colored text or graphics where appropriate to improve readibilty and understanding. J. Tasks or Support Provided by City of Lake Oswego/Tigard Staff 1. Provide the consultant copies of all available, relevant utility "as-built" plans, topographical maps, reports, studies etc., related to the existing and relevant components of water utility infrastructure. 2. Provide the consultant with a copy of the City's hydraulic model (MWSoft H2O Net) including input data files. 3. Provide the consultant with access to each agencies rate models for rate forecasting as needed. 4. Timely review and feedback on all technical memoranda, preliminary reports and . findings developed by the consultant in the conduct of this study. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Consultants are encouraged to provide clear, concise proposals that contain only the information required to respond to this proposal and the Requested Scope of Services. Each proposal shall include the following information: 1. A detailed description of the consultant's approach to each major task element of the project. This description should include a discussion on how essential personnel assigned to any particular task element will benefit the overall objectives of the project. The description should also include specific examples of recent relevant work which best demonstrates the consultant's qualifications to accomplish the objectives of each task element for the benefit of the project 2. Based upon the preceding Scope of Services, provide a detailed project schedule, which identifies critical paths and milestones for major task elements and the overall project. Show interrelationships between tasks and key points where progress is dependant upon client actions 3. Discuss in detail strategies your firm (team) would employ in an effort to secure permits from Federal/State/local regulatory agencies as required. Identify any unique talents, experience or insights that you feel increase the likelihood of success in this regard 4. Discuss in detail your approach to developing a collaborative process that would include stakeholders in the communities of Lake Oswego and Tigard 5. Explain why the cities of Lake Oswego and Tigard would benefit from your services on this project Request for Proposal - 6 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Submit six (6) copies of the written technical proposal in a sealed envelope to the City of Lake Oswego Engineering Division at City Hall until 4:00 PM Pacific Standard Time on April 12, 2006. Proposals shall be addressed to: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., City Engineer "Proposal for an Analysis of a Joint Water Supply System - Lake Oswego and Tigard" City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 (503) 635-0270 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS The proposal selection committee will review and evaluate all technical proposals received based upon the criteria discussed below.. Proposals received after the close of the proposal period will be considered non-responsive and will be returned unopened. Each evaluation criterion has been assigned points based on its perceived value to the services requested. Technical Proposal (100 point maximum) A. Firm Qualifications: Past performance of the firm providing services based upon scopes of work similar to that requested herein. Current workload and capacity to commit qualified staff for the duration of this study effort. (35 points). B. Project Manager and Key Staff Qualifications: Specific experience of the proposed Project Manager and key staff in successfully completing similar studies and investigations. Discuss unique expertise and skills of staff that will benefit the project. Discuss recent examples of how the proposed Project Manager and key staff used such unique expertise and skills to deliver a work product of exemplary quality under tight schedules. (30 points). C. Project Management Plan: Describe the management plan proposed for the conduct of the work requested herein. Key points may include the availability of key personnel immediately and throughout the project, ability to control project schedule and cost and internal quality control/quality assurance procedures. (30 points). D. Experience working with the City of Lake Oswego and Tigard. The City desires to complete the bulk of this study effort by August 31, 2006. The success of this study effort will depend in part on the consultant's experience and knowledge of current water rights issues on the Clackamas River, the utility systems of Lake Oswego and Tigard, Federal, State and local land use codes and the local political climate. In recognition of this, points will be Request for Proposal - 7 awarded to proposing firms who have conducted engineering and planning studies for Lake Oswego and Tigard. (5 points). The selection committee will review all conforming technical proposals received in response to this RFP, and based upon the above scoring develop a short list of three (3) firms. These three firms may be invited to oral interviews, anticipated to be held April 20, 2006, if it is the consensus of the committee that interviews are needed to better ascertain qualifications or the consultant's understanding of the project requirements. However, the committee reserves the right to forego oral interviews and enter into contract negotiations with the top-ranked consultant firm, if in the committee's opinion there is a clear distinction in qualifications and project understanding between the top-ranked proposal and the remaining two. Contract Negotiations The City will enter into contract negotiations with the top-ranked firm to confirm project understandings, scope, project deliverables and fee. Should the City and the top ranked firm be unable to successfully negotiate a contract, negotiations with the second ranked firm will be initiated and so on until a contract is successfully negotiated between the City and one of the top three ranked firms. CONSULTANT SELECTION SCHEDULE Item Date Requests for Proposals March 17, 2006 Proposals due from Consultants April 12 2006 Consultant interviews (tentative) April 20, 2006 Select consultant April 24, 2006 Complete final scope and fee negotiations April 26, 2006 Award Consultant contract May 2, 2006 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION Joel Komarek is the City's Project Manager for this project. Please contact Joel at 503.697.6588 with any inquiries regarding this RFP. The selected firm will be expected to execute a professional services agreement with the City containing the City's standard contract language and requirements concerning General Liability and Professional Errors and Omissions insurance. Attachments: City of Lake Oswego Professional Services Agreement H:V0EL_K\TIGARD\RFP_L0-Tigard supply plan study v-1 15 2005.doc Request for Proposal - 8 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 28, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Proposed Formation of an LID (Local Improvement District) in the Tigard Triangle PREPARED BY: A.P. Duena DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve a resolution establishing the proposed LID (Local Improvement District) as a project in the FY 2005-06 CIP (Capital Improvement Program), directing the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report for the proposed LID for infrastructure improvements in the Tigard Triangle, and authorizing the establishment of the funding mechanism for the preparation of the report? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve, by motion, the attached resolution establishing the proposed LID as a project in the FY 2005-06 CIP, directing the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the proposed LID for infrastructure improvements in the Tigard Triangle, and authorizing the establishment of the funding mechanism for the preparation of the report. INFORMATION SUMMARY Properties in the Tigard Triangle are zoned MUE (Mixed-Use Employment) and C-G (General Commercial). Some of those properties are currently residential in nature, but are in the process of converting to commercial. The Tigard Triangle Plan established guiding principles (adopted into the Development Code as Chapter 18.620) that when implemented would develop the Triangle into a high-quality mixed-use employment area. The Tigard TSP (Transportation System Plan) adopted in 2002 identified the Tigard Triangle as an area where the street . infrastructure needs to be significantly upgraded to meet those established standards. The formation of an LID (Local Improvement District) for construction of street improvements would address some of the deficiencies identified in the TSP by upgrading the streets within the LID boundary to meet the current standards. Specht Development, Inc. has submitted a petition requesting the formation of an LID to improve certain streets within the Tigard Triangle. The proposed improvements include street and utility improvements to SW 68th Avenue, SW 69th Avenue, and SW 70th Avenue between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street and SW Dartmouth Street and SW Clinton Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue, all within the Tigard Triangle. The basic concept of any LID is that the benefited properties pay for the improvements. The following is the LID formation process, in accordance with the City Municipal Code: • Preliminary Evaluation Report • Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 1 of 3 • Declaration of intention to form the district • District formation • Construction of Improvements • Spreading of assessments by ordinance A draft Preliminary Evaluation Report to determine feasibility of the proposed LID was submitted to the City Council at its February 21, 2006 meeting. The attached Preliminary Evaluation Report is a final version of that draft. Based on that initial evaluation, the proposed LID appears feasible. The attached report examines the various details in the proposed LID, determines that the formation of an LID for the proposed improvements is feasible, provides a tentative timeline for LID formation and construction of the improvements, and recommends that Council authorize staff to proceed with preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report. The Preliminary Engineer's Report would examine the proposed LID in much greater detail and would include preparation of engineering plans (up to 60% complete) in sufficient detail to provide reliable cost estimates and to meet requirements for various permit applications. Specht Development, Inc. has agreed to deposit, in advance of any work, the amount needed for preparation of that report (Attachment 1.3). All costs incurred in the preparation of the report would be included in the total LID cost if the LID is formed. Specht Development, Inc. would be reimbursed the amount deposited once the LID is formed. The attached resolution establishes the proposed LID as a project in the FY 2005-06 CIP, directs the Engineering staff to proceed with the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report, and authorizes the establishment of the funding mechanism (for this fiscal year) in the amount of $70,000.00 to cover the anticipated expenses during the remainder of FY 2005-06. This resolution further authorizes a contingency transfer from the Gas Tax Fund as the funding source for the preparation of the report. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. If Council does not wish to proceed, all activities regarding the proposed LID will be terminated. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT By constructing improvements to upgrade the street infrastructure in the Tigard Triangle, the LID would address the findings of the 2002 Tigard Transportation System Plan that identified the Tigard Triangle as an area where future transportation problems appear significant. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution directing the Engineering staff to proceed with the Preliminary Engineer's Report. Attachment 1.1: Preliminary Evaluation Report Attachment 1.2: Petition for Proposed LID in the Tigard Triangle area. Tentative Schedule for Specht Triangle LID Tigard Triangle Portal on SW 72"a Avenue Tax Map 1S 1 36DD Attachment 1.3: Letter from Specht Development, Inc. Page 2of3 FISCAL NOTES The proposed LID is not included as a project in the FY 2005-06 CIP. Hence, there are no funds currently allocated for the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report. Funding will have to be provided for the LID formation process to begin. If Council directs staff to begin the LID formation process, Specht Development, Inc. will have to deposit, in advance, the amount needed for preparing the Preliminary Engineer's Report with the understanding that the City would include the cost of preparing the report in the total LID cost, if and when the City establishes the District. The total estimated cost of the LID is approximately $1,589,500.00. It should be noted that this total LID cost is a preliminary estimate that may increase as the Preliminary Engineer's Report examines the project in greater detail. The estimated cost for the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report is $125,000.00. A $70,000.00 contingency transfer from the FY 2005-06 Gas Tax Fund would be necessary to fund the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report. The amount of $70,000.00 would provide sufficient funding during the remainder of FY 2005-06. Funding for the continuation of the work in FY 2006-07 would be budgeted in the FY 2006-07 CIP. The cost for preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report will be included in the LID costs, if the LID is formed. The amount deposited by Specht Development, Inc. would be refunded to them after formation of the district. If the district is not formed, all actual costs in the preparation of the report will be retained from the Specht Development, Inc. deposit and any remaining balance will be refunded to the firm. i\cng\20052006 fy cip\spechs lid\2.2"6 proposed foona6oo of a local imp-m-districs in h, 6gasd mangle eis.doc Page 3 of 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ENGINEERING STAFF TO ESTABLISH A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) AS A. PROJECT IN THE FY 2005-06 CIP (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM), DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LID IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE AND AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT. WHEREAS, properties in the Tigard Triangle are zoned MUE (Mixed-Use Employment) and C-G (General Commercial); and WHEREAS, some of those properties are currently residential in nature, but are in the process of converting to commercial; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Triangle Plan established guiding principles (adopted into the Development Code as Chapter 18.620) that when implemented would develop the Triangle into a high-quality mixed-use employment area; and WHEREAS, the Tigard TSP (Transportation System Plan), adopted in 2002, identified the Tigard Triangle as an area where the street infrastructure needs to be significantly upgraded to meet those established standards. ; and WHEREAS, recent efforts to enhance this sparsely developed area have included the following LID'S: Year Local Improvement District 1984 68th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Local Improvement District (LID 42) 1993 Combined Dartmouth Street LID and C.I.P. Phase 2 Project 1998 69th Avenue Local Improvement District (Specht Development, Inc); and WHEREAS, the formation of an LID (Local Improvement District) for construction of street improvements would address some of the deficiencies identified in the TSP by upgrading the streets within the LID boundary to meet the current standards; and WHEREAS, Specht Development inc. has submitted a petition requesting the formation of an LID to improve certain streets within the Tigard Triangle; and WHEREAS, the proposed LID boundary within the Tigard Triangle is defined as SW 68th Avenue, SW 69th Avenue, and SW 70th Avenue between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street and SW Dartmouth Street and SW Clinton Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue; and RESOLUTION NO. 06 - Page 1 WHEREAS, the Engineering staff prepared a Preliminary Evaluation Report (attached as Attachment 1.2), which was submitted in draft form to the City Council for discussion and direction during its February 21, 2006 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Evaluation Report determines that the proposed LID appears feasible and recommends that the City Council take the next step in the LID formation process by authorizing the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report; and WHEREAS, the proposed LID is not listed as a project in the FY 2005-06 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and there is currently no existing budget resource for the cost of preparing the Preliminary Engineer's Report; and WHEREAS, Specht Development, Inc. has agreed to deposit, in advance of any work, the amount of $200,000.00 for the cost of preparing the Preliminary Engineer's Report with the understanding that the City include the cost of preparing the report in the total cost of the LID, if and when the City establishes the District; and WHEREAS, City Council discussed the proposed LID and indicated that the LID boundary and improvements to be constructed by the LID are satisfactory as submitted; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to prepare a resolution authorizing preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report and submit that resolution for adoption at a City Council business meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The proposed LID in the Tigard Triangle is hereby added to the list of projects for the FY 2005-06 Capital Improvement Program. SECTION 2: The Engineering staff is directed to proceed with preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report, which includes "60% complete" engineering plans in sufficient detail to provide reliable cost estimates and to meet requirements for various permit applications. SECTION 3: The Preliminary Engineer's Report should include the scope of work, location of the proposed improvements, financial information, the proposed district boundaries, estimated costs, proposed assessment methods, and other information that may be relevant to the feasibility of the proposed improvements and district. The report should recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial. RESOLUTION NO. 06 - Page 2 SECTION 4: Following the deposit of $200,000.00 from Specht Development, Inc., the City shall establish the funding mechanism needed to prepare the Preliminary Engineer's Report. If the City establishes the District, the cost of preparing the report shall be included in the total cost of the LID. In this case, Specht Development, Inc. will be credited the cost of preparing the report, up to their deposit amount of $200,000.00. If the City does not establish the LID, Specht Development, Inc. will be given the remaining balance of their $200,000.00 deposit, less the cost of preparing the report. SECTION 5: The City staff is directed to proceed with the establishment of the funding mechanism in the amount of $100,000 to cover the anticipated expenses during the remainder of FY 2005-06 for preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report. A contingency transfer from the Gas Tax Fund is authorized as the funding source for the purpose of preparing the report. Any budget adjustments requiring Council action and necessary for the establishment of the project funding shall be brought to Council for appropriate action. SECTION 6: All costs incurred after the date of this resolution to prepare the Preliminary Engineer's Report and form the district shall be included as part of the LID costs and shall be reimbursed to the City if the LID is formed and the improvements are constructed. SECTION 7: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of _ 2006. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 06 - Page 3 MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer RE: Revisions to Agenda Item #10 Proposed Formation of an LID (Local Improvement District) in the Tigard Triangle DATE: February 23, 2006 Please replace the following pages within our submitted Agenda Item Summary for the February 28, 2006 Tigard City Council Meeting. The items changed in the Agenda Item Summary are highlighted. These revisions were necessary to correct four (4) minor typographical errors within the Preliminary Evaluation Report '(Attachment 1.1) and the Petition for Proposed LID in the Tigard Triangle area (Attachment 1.2)., Attachment 1.1 - Preliminary. Evaluation Report Page 1 of 4 Attachment 1.2 - Petition for Proposed LID in the Tigard Triangle area Page 2of18 Page 6of18 Attachments c: File is\eng\2005-2006 6 cip\specht lid\2-28-06 proposed formation of a local improvement district in the tigard triangle memo.doc Attachment 1.1 Page 1 of 4 Preliminary Evaluation Report Formation of a Local Improvement District in the Tigard Triangle Background It is proposed to develop a Local Improvement District (LID) including street and utility improvements to SW 68 b Avenue, SW 696' Avenue, SW 706' Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street and SW Clinton Street, all within the Tigard Triangle, between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street, and between SW 686i Avenue and SW 706' Avenue (Attachment 1.2; p. 8). The area consists of a transforming balance of residential to commercial zoning (Attachment 1.2; p. 9). Recent efforts to enhance this sparsely developed area have included the following LID'S: (Note: In 1998, Specht Development, Inc. initiated a successful LID responsible for improvements to SW 69 h Avenue south of Dartmouth Street) Year Local Improvement District 1984 68 h Avenue Sanitary Sewer Local Improvement District (LID 42) 1993 Combined Dartmouth Street LID and C.I.P. Phase 2 Project 1998 696i Avenue Local Improvement District (Specht Development, Inc): 2,750 lineal feet of partial/full-width street improvements Specht Development, Inc. is the owner or contract purchaser of fifteen (15) of the twenty five (25) parcels within the proposed LID boundary (Attachment 1.2; p. 11). These parcels comprise 59% of the land area (Attachment 1.2; p. 12) and 64% of the street frontage within the assessment district (Attachment 1.2; p. 13). The Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 13.04.020 specifies that an LID may be initiated by written petition of "property owners owning at least fifty percent of the property benefited by the local improvement" (Attachment 1.2; pp. 2-4 & 14). Current Proposal The proposed Local Improvement District in the Tigard Triangle will be for the express purpose of improving the following streets to partial of full standards as required by the City of Tigard (Attachment 1.2; p. 6) • SW 68 h Avenue (between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street) • SW 69 h Avenue (between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street) • SW 706i Avenue (between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street) • SW Dartmouth Street (between SW 686i Avenue and SW 696` Avenue) • SW Clinton Street (between SW 686i Avenue and SWAvenue) The improvements to the aforementioned streets would include: • Asphalt Pavement • Water Improvements • Curb and Gutter • Storm Drainage • Sidewalks • Utility Undergrounding • Street Trees • Right-of-Way Acquisition, • Street Lighting if necessary • Street Signs • Tigard Triangle Portal • Sanitary Sewer Enhancement(s). Pmp-d TVM T i gk LID - Pmfimi-y E-1-6.n R<p- Attachment 1.1 Page 2 of 4 The LID would provide highly visible enhancements to the Tigard Triangle area, particularly SW Dartmouth Street and SW 68`h Avenue. Each of these streets, within the proposed district boundary, is at the Dartmouth St terminus of the previous LID's. Consequently, an obvious visual difference is noticed on the north side of SW Dartmouth Street between the I-5 On/Off Ramps and SW 69`h Avenue. It should also be noted that the I-5 Ramp intersection is a designated Tigard Triangle Portal. Therefore, consideration would be given to enhancements associated with that distinction such as the monument on SW 72nd Avenue at the northbound 217 on/off-ramp intersection (Attachment 1.2; p. 17). Cost Estimate Without the benefit of greater detail for the scope of work, we submit the following estimate for the total cost of the currently proposed LID. According to the Preliminary Engineer's Report on record, the total LID cost for the 1998 SW 691h Avenue LID project was $1,288,005.00. After evaluating that cost per lineal foot of street improvements, our estimate will use a cost of $500 for full width and $300 for partial width street improvements. These unit costs assume a similar scope of work. For the purpose of a preliminary evaluation, we will estimate the total LID cost based, on the following values (Note: These costs do not reflect cost of living increases and general inflation). Work Item Description Quantity Unit Cost Item Cost Partial Street Improvements: 2,015 lineal feet $300/LF $604,500.00 Full Street Improvements: 1,220 lineal feet $500/LF $610,000.00 Sub Total: $1,214,500.00 Ancillary Costs Portion of Sub Total Item Cost City of Tigard Administrative/Construction Services: 8.2% $100,000.00 Preliminary Engineer's Report and 60% Complete Construction Drawings 16.5% $200.000.00 Total LID Cost: $1,514,500.00 The 25 parcels within the proposed LID boundary combine for a total of 297,525 square feet (Attachment.1.2 p. 14). When consideration is given to the general feasibility of a proposed LID, a ratio of 3:1 of land value ($15/squa.re foot) to the total cost of the LID is favorable. In this case, the ratio is approximately 2.95:1. 297,525 SF x $15/SF = $4,462,875.00 Estimated LID Cost = $1,514,500.00 The Local Improvement District (LID) formation process. The LID process has several steps in it. The basic concept of any LID is that the benefited properties pay for the improvements. The following is the LID process, in accordance with our City Municipal Code: • Preliminary Evaluation Report • Preliminary Engineer's Report • Declaration of intention to form the district Purposed Tied Td-& LID-P.h., n.ry E,d..uon Report Attachment 1.1 Page 3 of 4 • District formation • Construction of Improvements • Spreading of assessments by ordinance We are currently preparing the Preliminary Evaluation Report, which should provide sufficient information for Council to make a decision on whether or not to proceed with directing staff to prepare a Preliminary Engineer's Report for the purpose of evaluating the feasibility of forming the LID. The Preliminary Engineer's Report will also have the proposed methodology for distributing the costs, the proposed LID Boundary, and the benefited properties that would be included in the LID. An LID could be formed through Council initiative, or at the request of the property owners that want the improvements. For this particular LID, Specht Development, Inc. has submitted a formal "Petition for and Consent to Create a Local Improvement District." Specht Development, Inc. has agreed to pay; in advance, the cost of preparing the Preliminary Engineer's Report with the understanding that the City include the cost of preparing the report in the total cost of the LID, if and when the City establishes the District. The total cost of the LID would also include the• City's contribution for the design and construction management, plus the costs -to establish the LID and construct the improvements. The LID formation is contingent upon 50% of the properties by area approving the LID formation. In this case, Specht Development, Inc. is the owner or contract purchaser of fifteen (15) of the twenty five (25) parcels within the proposed LID boundary. These parcels comprise 59% of the land area. The Tigard Municipal Code (TMC), 13.04.020 specifies that an LID may be initiated by written petition of "property owners owning at least fifty percent of the property benefited by the local improvement" Council; or, the property owners, could withdraw at anytime if the costs prove to be exorbitant, or if construction of the improvements does not appear feasible. The property owners could stop the LID formation if two-thirds of their (liy area) remonstrate against the LID formation. Since there is one major property owner for this LID, if Specht Development, Inc. decides it does not want to proceed; we would terminate the LID process. The City would provide the interim financing to design and construct the project, and then issue bonds after the project is completed and the total costs are known. The benefited property owners would be assessed their share of the LID costs with repayment over a 10- year period, or longer, or all at once, if they choose. If Council moves to proceed with establishing the Local Improvement District in the Tigard Triangle, the following estimated time line can be expected. It should be noted that the attached schedule does not include the necessary time to select a consultant to prepare the Preliminary Engineer's Report. (Attachment 1.2; p. 15-16). Issues To Be Resolved Some of the major issues that need to be resolved for the successful implementation of the improvements in the proposed LID are: • Acquisition of Right of Way along SW 70`h Avenue, if necessary. • Connection to existing improvements and infrastructure. (Particularly, Storm and Sanitary Sewer). Pmp.nd Tig.,d T,i-gk LID - P.IJ inery E, W-fi.n Rcpo. Attachment 1.1 Page 4 of 4 Recommendations The LID appears feasible. To comprehensively address the roadway improvement deficiencies in the Tigard Triangle, staff recommends the following: • That Council direct staff to proceed with the next step in the LID process. This would require a resolution directing staff to proceed with the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report. This report would examine the overall scope of work and associated cost assessment per tax lot owner within the LID boundary. Specht Development, Inc. has agreed to pay, in advance, the cost of preparing the Preliminary Engineer's Report with the understanding that the City include the cost of preparing the report in the LID, if and when the City establishes the District. Pmposed'I.gard Triangle LID- Prt6mmary E-1-6on Repon Attachment 1.2 Page 1 of 18 DDC January 25, 2006 Design Group aPaG'~.-r..~ Gus Duenas, City Engineer Engineering Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Proposed Local Improvement District in Tigard Triangle area Dear Mr. Duenas: On behalf of Specht Development, Inc., I am submitting ten (10) copies of a petition requesting the City Council to form a Local Improvement District (LID) and make public street and utility improvements to certain streets within the Tigard Triangle area. Specht Development, Inc. Is the owner or contract purchaser of 15 out of the 25 parcels within the proposed LID boundary; these parcels represent 59% of the land area and 64% of the street frontage within the proposed assessment district. This is significantly more than the minimum required by Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 13.04.020, which requires "property owners owning at least fifty percent of the property benefited by the local improvement" to initiate a Local Improvement District by written petition. The proposed LID would include street and utility improvements to SW 6814 Avenue, SW 690 Avenue, SW 70`4 Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street and SW Clinton Street, all within the "Tigard Triangle", between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street, and between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue. These streets are currently substandard; or, in the case of SW 70th Street, non-esostent. This LID would make improvements similar to the improvements made to SW 69'h Avenue south of Dartmouth Street. As you know, Specht Development, Inc. initiated a successful LID for those improvements in 1998. We respectfully request that your office prepare a Preliminary Evaluation Report for the City Council's consideration, and schedule this matter before the City Council at the earliest possible date. If the City Council adopts a Resolution directing that a Preliminary Engineer's Report be prepared, Specht Development, Inc. will pay in advance the cost of preparing that report, in accordan_e with ThIC 13.04.030, with the understanding that the City will Include the cost of preparing the report In the LID, if and when the City establishes the District. Thank you, Gus. Sinc el , JOG:aS O N Fd~U}liOCUrc Q•n' Ed Murphy H':_ibrxAt1R971?A Comprehensive Planning Manager F"3185842A2 F S9. 6455506 ski><rxx fnkvsnCC- wxradr. xxgncem Project File # 1017.001 C~ n d0.T2 ;ear C.a'G1.:'LS a ttr- ;1, Attachment 1.2 Page 2 of 18 PETITION FOR AND CONSENT TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL City of Tigard County of Washington State of Oregon in the matter of the improvement of lands described as; Street and utility Improvements to SW WO Avenue, SW 690' Avenue, SW 701ft Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street and SIN Clinton Surer, all within the "Tigard Triangle--between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor $0tv , and between SW 6e Avenue and SW 700 Avenue. We, the understgned petitioners, hereby request that the Qty of Tigard investigate the feasibility of forming a Local Improvement District (LID) and draft a Preliminary Evaluation Report for the City Council's consideration. The evaluation would review the feasibility and estimated costs of making public improvements to these streets through the creation of an assessment district. It the Preliminary Evaluation Report determines that the UD is feasible, we request that the City Council direct the engineering staff to proceed to the next step and prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report. The LID would be for the express purpose of: Improving the following streets to partial or full city. street standards, Including streets, curbs, gutters, stdewalla~ street trees, street lights and signage; sanitary sewer; water, Including fire hydrants; storm drainage facilities; undergrounding of overhead utilities; acquisition of additional rtght-of-way or easements wmulsition, if necessary; street and utility engineering design and related professional service: SW 68'" Avenue, between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street; SW 69"' Avenue between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street; • SW 7& Avenue between SW Dartmouth St and SW Baylor Street; ° SW Dartmouth Street between SW 61P and SW 69"' Avenues; • SW Clinton Street between SW 690 and SW V#ft Avenues. The area hereby to be Improved by the creation of ari assessment district comprises approximately 10 acres, counting existing right-of-ways. The area and the proposed LID are more spedfically explained In the Exhibits attached to this petition, which ace all by reference herein made a part of this petition, and which Include the following: • Exhibit `A' Is a list of the properties to be Included in the LID; • Exhibit `8' is a narrative description of the proposed improvements; ° Exhibit `C' includes maps (Figures 1-6) which Illustrate the general location, the proposed boundary, the property ownerships, and the parcel size and parcel frontage of each parcel wit-hin the 1.10; I Attachment 1.2 Page 3 of 18 Exhibit 'D' provides detail on the area and frontage calculations, including the percentage of the area and frontage which is owned by Specht Development, Inc., which is summarized on Figures 5 and 6 of Exhibit'C'. we hereby declare that we, the undersigned petitioners., (1) Are in fad the owner or the contract purchaser of the Indicated properties; (2) Represent at least fifty percent (50%) of the property benefited by the proposed local improvement district; (3) Understand that the cost of these improvements would be borne by the benefited property owners if a local improvement district were formed; (4) State that by signing this petition we are only acknowledging an interest in having a preliminary engineering report completed, and are not committed to supporting any local improvement district that may be proposed as a result of the City's evaluation and report. WHEREFORE, petitioners request that said preliminary investigation be accomplished, and a Preliminary Evaluation Report be delivered to the City Council regarding the feasibility of creating an assessment district, and further that, if the LID appears to be feasible, the City Council of the City of Tigard, Oregon, direct staff to prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report and expedite the study as much as possible. SIGNATURE COMPANY ADDRESS TAX LOT 0 (WCTM 1s136DD) 15-400 SUI1% ~-#N S Pee ti Vic o:°1~e,PC,~[ {~~°'rs~t~co,► p L 410" 2100 2200 d! i. 41 r~ if 2300 2500 1.! alt~rl-f~ .~J 1 2900 3000 3001 ' 3100 zl wa,e d1, ..4 4 6100 6200 ~/fI e- d " 6300 e,G/,/ ~1./~./~c 6500 ~Z,l./.~ 6600 2 Attachment 1.2 Page 4 of 18 SW t lkkIAPN 7/ _ ~t S?~vNC O~~eQ1.rr~ri.~iC, bt~v<ar~ C~g7aab 6700 6800 3 Attachment 1.2 Page 5 of 18 EXHIBIT'A' PROPERTIES INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The following tax lots, all on Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 1S136DD: Tax LQt # Owner gr contract Rurehaser 2100 Pollock, Donald E & Julia Gail / Specht Development, Inc. 2200 Pollock, Donald E / Specht Development, Inc. 2300 Carpenter, Richard L / Specht Development, Inc. 2500 Dickey, Velda A / Specht Development, Inc. 2900 Specht Development, Inc. 3000 Specht Development, Inc. 3001 Specht Development, Inc. 3100 Specht Development, Inc. 6100 Specht Development, Inc. 6200 Specht Development, Inc. 6300 Specht Development, Inc. 6500 Specht Development, Inc. 6600 Specht Development, Inc. 6700 Specht Development, Inc. 6800 Specht Development, Inc. 1900 John Carl Coon & Mary G. Olsen, Trustee 2000 Paul B. Wagar Jr. & Kaneko T TRS 2400 Sternberg Family Limited Partner 2700 Lavida E. Miller 2800 Glenn L. and Sharon L. Moore 3290 Judy Lorraine Strojny & Diane Louise Baldwin 6900 J. T. Jr. and Theresa A. Roth 7001 Jacob T. Jr. and Theresa A. Roth 7300 Kenneth and Marilyn Rosenfeld 7601 Marzie Salarle 4 Attachment 1.2 Page 6 of 18 EXHIBIT'S` NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PR03ECT The proposed project wxrid improve the public streets and utilities to partial or full city standards. Specifically, the project would improve: • Partial street improvements to SW 68"' Avenue, between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street, along the west side of the street only (Pacific NW Properties Is Improving the east side of the street as a condition of development), and not Including tax lot 2600 (1S136DD), which is already developed; • Full street and utility improvements to SW 690 Avenue between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street, along both sides (except that portion between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Clinton Street along the west side of SW 69"' Avenue, which Is being developed by Pacific NW Properties as a condition of development); Partial street Improvements to SW Ir ei Avenue between SW Dartmouth St and SW Baylor Street, along the east side of the street only, and not Including tax lot 7500 (1S136DD), which Is already being developed by Pacifik NW Properties as a condition of development; • Partial Street Improvements to SW Dartrrwuth Street between SW W and SW ' Avenues, on the north side of SW Dartmouth Street only; . • Full street and utility Improvements to SW Clinton Street between SW 6e and SW VO Avenues. The street standards assumed in this proposed local Improvement district are as follows: • SW 6e Avenue would be 444eet wide In a 704oot wide right-of-way; • SW 69ei Avenue would be 36-feet wide In a 60-foot wide right-of-way; • SW 70ei Avenue would be a'1/2' street Improvement, Le., 18-feet wide in a 304bot wide right-of-way, with curbs, sidewalks, landscape strip and street trees on the east side only; • SW Darbmouth Avenue would be S6-feet wide in a 94-foot v4de right-of-way. There, appears to be enough right-of-way available for the proposed improvements, therefore It should not be necessary. for the City to acquire additional right-of-way or easements. However, If there 1s a need to acquire for additional right-of-way or public easements, the costs of such acquisitions would be added to the UD. In addition -to any right-of-way acquisition and construction costs, other costs will be folded Into the local Improvement district, Including but not limited to city staff and consultant time and materials for survey, engineering design, project administration, legal services and financing costs. S Attachment 1.2 Page 7 of 18 EXHIBIT'C' SUPPORTING ILLUSTRATIONS The following figures illustrate the percentage of the property area and property frontage owned by Specht Development, Inc. Figure 1 - This figure illustrates the location of the proposed Local Improvement District, which is within the "Tigard Triangle", generally north of Dartmouth Street, between I-S and SW 72n° Avenue; Figure 2 - This figure Is an aerial photograph which shows the proposed LID boundary and the parcels that would be included in the assessment district; Figure 3 - This figure shows the ownerships of the properties in and adjacent to the proposed LID boundary; Figure 4 - This figure Illustrates the proposed local improvement district boundary, and the areas where street and utility Improvements would be made. All public improvements made as part of the LID project would be within this boundary; Figure S - This figure shows the total land area, in square footage, of the parcels within the proposed LID, and the percentage of the square footage owned by Specht Development, Inc. Figure 6 - This figure shows the total street frontage of the parcels within the proposed LID, and the percentage of the street frontage of parcels owned by Specht Development, Inc. 6 Attachment L loge 8 of IS Legend t. f E , e ~.r... gyp. x p rte" fz:,"~ r r f I. { f ~A r s; ,a " rz Y..,cft y~ nc_ s 1F " e ~ S F ~ fi { I ~ r t n € w~ f t k Attachnicia 1.2 f'aac 411 18 FIGURE 2 w e9end , S VIA , f 'ems 3"F`p, S y 5 V:l x. r r., f ' y mTr x .a.. 1 { +N~ tin auw.v Y«rva, .-nrvnn..H, ,rv .et,-p'"''' »"~;K br~ Y : .ro mwk :b.. ~ j 1y: . ktG Figure . Aerial Photograph Specht LID City of Tigard. Washington runty, Oregon Attachment 1.2 Pugs H') of 18 FIGURE Legend a } f t j[ E a d^4 " a.. E t rvk Yea r M1A *vv a { :M Y?aYMr TM t~ N5S ~ G .K,qy Uv, f t 4 ~rN ~3+i~ ~ p3 d ~ £ ~H{ 4 `s~M1 ~fPf 11{ n@ mN4 RtS~~ iM~sn ~ E q 1 St W.NAxn°. Nia.a: prt~,. R ~ 4axe. 6u hw.. IM S-'ia 'n ~t t 2 A rv v. „`Nk ua'w M4.p i-vx {#E KK~4Wf+F5 s 4 f ivy 4lKb kc. ~ t E f ^S Figure 3: Ownerships pe ht LID e rs l; City o Tigard, Washington County, Oregon E E1 s,< f`zur;3ex , . ,.n ,c at ~rrv : a . ,'v,~ .a E ti w rXdYan L`^Y CFO- . . Attachment 1.2 Pa ,-,e 11 s,1' I n FIGURE 4 k d a [ j LEGEND i AMM 7 t f s d ~ f 55 ate:, t ~ P( 111 { a ~ ~ } t a u•rr Mzc 4C t( FgfdY {fk~L j ~ § r'R6 ~ i bn rv ' t!?, f a?'t~'za= f wat7 a4^~.~a< } a i . E n aar 2 ~ i ~ 5 4 C`n Y+CC ~ @5.~ Z W-1 T 4 ~ # sg ra 'x vx bm{ t ~ tF { i sacra s.e+ ( - a xc. ( u" 4rrr NORTH F Fiqure 4: Improvement District DOC Sp cht t_lD i a City w`9 of Tigard, Washington I *l ou ty, Oregon t,,, 5`tr'YCaUUF+Y i vt In +f x i Yfd Y+5Mak 5£&SS*M ~i 914't.,d$L~'k '{F a%x➢C 2+d5 N. K? .~1 pp- Attachment t, Page 1' cat 3.X LEGEND at 4 N,~s"r:esCbans-~87A'!ess .ZR 35°saR ;~d" 1 _ are rd e...-.c Y 8.xsa# v.~ +@7sr tr ;r ± € , 010 ttt _ t PPP • • • ~ _ fi r-: ax R. b i a.e..ti "ti ~ ~ ata 4 e is°Yd td> t 3'kS Kb. @X? C UZ 'V S s. ~ iS r!uw 4ktk b'~i L Ca't' li"•'&e:fi ~ .459:: ssk. 9r,gNY.J 3axn e _ 12GS ~ !4P? Sites .~':f ~ ~ tit'f vgfi .t. { SP 's x„R r 4 t?Ct f ~ 3 ,a agX t~ s 1 SW DARTMOUTH H DOC _ Figure 5-, Parcel Square rtg `Cate Spec ht LID City o Tigard, Washington County, Oregon ri mrws: z 4ex SSw^ we ~ #"4 F ~,k # ~5,~ t srax Ct9#k'do-x»~wx,21&.,^a R+`.+inrm ^A..ro~ka+?aW* t Attachment L2 Pd2c I",+i'!R } -a t~c~k ac S;r»atF:c"':t'~€i $y S_~g::^,'13d=get »G+.> S i t 1rye'<"r`4^4 =Sfl"`C h BF}' +;i:%`b { ~ wY31 ~,s yxti/i 1 x i Vf,3jf5 S! F v f i0. - } _ l 3{{ .A C] s t p I . 111 ~ s n sY j 5th VARPMOU-i ST Figure ; Linear traat Frontage c= a i DDC Specht LID u« ,."w City of Tigard, Washington o rty, Oregon H, CF5 2006 Tigard Triangle LID Initiation Support Chart 68th, 69th, 70th and C _ LID Support "r Clinton- Purchased Total Owner Name _ by Spocht? Tax Lot A Sq Footage Frontage {(t) In LID Frontage (ft) Sq. Footage! TAX Nap 1S136DD m._ Pollock / Spedri~j Y --T 2100 ~ 30,073 ~ 250 x -2-5-0- _ - . 30.073 ~ ~ - Pallo- CO specht Y 2200 13,142 100 x _ 100 w' 13,1142C arpenter J Spoch_ t I Y 2304 22,951 429 x T 429 22.951 i Olckey%Spocht -Y T, -2500 .5,000 50 x 50i-5.600 Specht Y 2900~ 10,400 _ 100( x 100 t0.0A0 , Specht YJ 3000 7.500 ~75 x 75 7,5W Specfii I w. Y 1 31001 -~3,91a 232 x 232 13.914~ 7,500 175 x 175 7,500 _ Specht _ Y 6100 18,865 ; 380_ x ' - 360 18,865 Specht 4_ -~~Y - 6200 - 2,50b 125 x 125 12.500 Specht Y 6300 12,500 225 x 225 12,500 Speciu Y 6500 2,234 99 x 99 2.234 Specht Y 6600--Y-8. , 988 , 103 x 103 8,988 Speoht yY 6700 4.504 50 x 50 4,500 T - _ Specht Y 6800 4.55000 50 x 50 4,500 Subtotal,Specttt 174,167 2443 _ _ 2,443 174,167 t Vla,gaftnWcoN 2000 6,121 162_ x 100 6,121 E,cf des f~tago o Baytor - - Coon►Oisen 1900 17.500 275 x T '117,500 17,t00-udes frontage on Baylor Siemberg Tid 2400 10,E 100 x - 100- 10,000 Miller N 2700 10,000 200 x 200 10,000 Excludes frontage on Baylor _ Q - Moore N 2800 ' 10.000 100 X 100 10.(7130 Str9inyBaldwin N 3290 14,856 150 x 150 14,856 Roth N 7001 18,906- 277 x 277 18,908 Roth _ N 6900 10.000 200 ~x 200 1 U,000 z Rosenfeld N 7300 ` ~18,475 150 x - _a 750 - 18,475 - , - - _ - Salarie N 7801 7,500 75 x 75 7,5W Subtototal, Others _ __+____j,452 123,358, m _ Total 3,895 297,525 r - to ~ 96 controlled b S t i T-639G 59;'e - ~'1 9- - - O A eirNtOt7.001teenuiCtdoe%rplnirtg'prapoNnorWporcontagoslrw5 1123106 A C o ~ oo tJ Attachment 1.2 Page 15 of 18 Specht Triangle LID 't'entative Schedule 12/01/05 PHASE I: INITIATE LID 1. Develop tentative LID boundary 11/25/05 2. Review with City staff 1 1129/05 3. Meet with individual property owners 12/01 12109105 4. Revise boundary 12/12/05 5. .,feet with City Engineer 12/15/05 6. Neighborhood meeting (optional) 1/12106 7. Submit petition to City staff 1/20/06 8. Petition presented to City Council 2/14/06 PHASE 11: FORMATION OF LID 9. Council requests Engineering Report 2/14106 10. Specht deposits funds 2/17106 11. Preliminary Eng. Report completed 4/14106 12. Council adopts Report, calls for hearing 5/9106 13. Public I•fearing 6116106 14. Adoption of LID Ord. and assessment roll 6/16/06 PHASE. III: CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 15. Complete Final constriction drawings 7/21106 16. Construction loan 7/28106 17. Advertise for bids 7/28106 18. Award bid 9112/06 PHASE IV: CONSTRUCTION 19. Construction starts 9/25106 20. Construction completed 12122106 21. Acceptance of improvements 1131107 rjW1017.001apte:N;'tuaWuldlM1103 1 Attachment 1.2 Page 16 of 18 22. Final costs tabulated 2/28/07 PHASE V: FINAL. ASSESS.ME`T ROLL 23. Final engineering rpt/assesstnent roll 3/30/07 24. Council adopts final assessment roll 4/24/07 PHASE VI: SALE OF BONUS 25. Stile of assessment bonds 6/15107 26. First assessment notice 1/15/08 cWI017.001Apccbdidfi&Cdutc1IW1,05 2 Alta P men of $ p ortal -Tigard TOriaQff Ramp interseotio~ nd Ave at HW,j 217 72 p t V Y N 00 1.4 w 4.0 0 a~~gg91 t St Oa9E t St 00 y 8dV¢e1 vti°z~~ i ~ ~ < k~ j:~'..: 'tf ~ a. j > Pt' •1L t a d ti • . 03 ~'~"~'?.~..•,1.tK;~I- I m r 'r r q c r• 'r ',,I C r r_ u.. •2`• V 0. +3'Nr1.~..w:e.:r~r ti Y OJ` r~ rv'I*x' b ♦ , 1 .•71R ' ' H1P10W1NV0 bi;M~.~'+'!'' 3N'SS~O Aar a r t' ~--1 W t wo ~rw7 S3 N 3 i s r.J~r~' ~ 4r..... Y .-_...i i t.'., .1.r I.r-E F- 1 'L33N CMS ' a 1 11 1 i I•i~ (•1.-Ij".t ` -'.I r-- r00Z'20 r1'P400104 j 1331115 H 1 - ~ w'n{1Y•.1 f l I O't.lla;nLJ-•lf~ p--.~:w-^. -~-__1._. u©1tort ©h ~ y; s5 tix ^ r• 1 1 5' i I jT o•r . i 1 Ir, 1 pnaualuaa +v°..~ ;arolaPw,i , " ' a- i 1 i + ? ay ~i: • _ _ a ~6 uotu0 0 0a0V f 1 , _._2:., J. 1 •w _ _f ° a _ ~>1.,~Y'Z.•' I .f f .r_~ 1 ^ ,i4aowi u 1. _a r ~r. w u. . a~ F ar n. i 1 t i- P w.. I + R 1 i . Is - 1 • hr ra%•K•', I I 1 1 Si!wv ; _ • •»rw... - ! 0,:..:X_ ~.P_rt .._t.; S! 1 fl 1 t ( 5 1 7--",,,Zts a • L_..w - a'r._' ^ .•a, . ,~.~cw~ ~-K ~ ~ •l~,r~` i 1 1 11. 1 r•._..~ a..-. Z a n - ~ ~5~."S ..1L1 ,~v ^.i ~.''~`iy 'r• 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ r -r- •-T' ~ .r..am 1 ° ` g 't`'aae .n- • - • ~ ~Fr t ' . ooltut +aw•wtwr«+a 'o, F° i 1 t ~ ~ I eur ' i _T7 4 . ~ tii 2 ~ f 1 J-+r?." I ' O 11.P•l•1 Irlel~ ~II r) I.+..t n ~~i 1 a ~1~ 1'.. . 00 .oo 'm oo r> i_. i V v P I I t 1 f iI I~ •ai't''~~ r pri• •,t r ii•i<I. ..Qr. i < l l7 < 1315 .+w . QQ MS j633diS NOlrv113 US w 9E IV 035 `nom ry r f .f a g i {•Y•i'~•i•~~ \ ( t .t.i•x ~r y~y 'oo. 2 Ip~lrta n:ulat 1 i ' 1°i•i• 1 ~/f ✓ I I 1 1 t 11 I i t1.u1 r n~ •,y- ' ♦ ~ f1 l,x + rf' ~ ~ ~ 7 f 1 I f<,f t 1 I t ~ 1 1 as I R 'v~f rr > ~ 1 sta..... t. { i I 1 ':~C ~ • r' .r t ! r e u f t- _i - t i'f_ 1 &A41-1-11L Law t' r i n ft if_ . 1: 1 +...s ~„r atr.{. f • "s ° ~ fl o , '-o' a ..1 ea<n .i « ••x t ~ n jt r, rr••~••r••r.r <`~1~ 4,x~r - f r~ i ~ ( r w ~ s u- ..i-._« ~ - ~ wr - i yf1. urtstr~wrr•la•r~n'otwo►Ilm R ~ +~•C 1 A ~ ~ ~ s wv ~ . ri r • t Y•r r't!' 1° t a I * n -,L p I, S. u ' ~f t ~w_ 1 t{ ~ft w rt K:,.tr It K f4.P~J~ 1 1 r Of 11'_(-°i w•`r~ ; A J4: F • L- _ i'ai w w u f it « t s R xq rr fir' r I ``~~'R~ °e` ms. _ J . •r ` j p_ S°t ~ -1 n,. , r~ tao 1 .ae o r { u K,a 'o,'a w ~"-"1'•~" tl,n~ i 1 ~ ~-1-'..i • (r1 'R 'i i _S ~ ~ ~ • w--l - • ~ ) ~..o•~-.~' t ,awi'r~ ._i_4.i_ i°-~ ~.tS•t~..ti' ~I r i i L,. ~n tr n~i-a u ..a. n ,'t'~`- ^.y' 1 yI.1•;•t. r.d, frl.+.! r.~~ l 1 is ti - J f It t 1.1•oa! tl rl ~i t'•~'jw~iti'I I•~•f LI i. i t t o rt¢a • J l u 1 f.l I.1. ,r ~.1. 1•I• ~ i P P Jt a•. - r } . i . r-~•e l r • i .cam r. ~ .i.....r. .•r~,...~.~•; ~ I I fer P I ~.1,,.~ .q T •'G H~_~ 1 ' tr tra K n u t ,r Kr T 1 i• . r•••. NOlAV9 MS 1S (ZL1it f till N01A - ,ost ^.trw~o x . ~ s ' ~1 ~iw'«~a n ualr 1 t tflw'al I•I ~ ? {.+'~•i•i•i~t (•'•i.•.i.a. "-r•t • w'rrtrtureaou~aswt>tMUa a n, I 1 I w„ 1.,.) a a• r f i r•.•s.. r 0003WAil~XtOLOWN"P! _ a f 1 °b { y ~1 j ;o , 1 1 ~w~w~4•ja al Irf t'(„f a~~ai ~'1~ < , _ w wir.' «."rw'w'L'• ' a 7 F': Is- h •:.f',., ! y I S~I • m TI ' _,Z m L~n`1E~e` . s 1.s~«. `t •0_"1 C L-.,.p_, - w~i<twr-'7 1 (o 71~. 71' i -ri w'_r w -f__ It j iii- 1'_ •jj - ooa.=a.._ ' i . rr' ) r F., • _I m, 5 - a i ~,"-i. 133{IlSZ"' rl,w+,r ',`~ir'~.~~ .+~4 - wrw~. •^-..ter. `~:iC-...>_.'1~...('`y N is. Oa9E 1 St 'aa9e t st U ~ t r WILV III ARX 1 € 4- it it I I( ` ~ ~ Mtr r • I I~e { IP r~tl 1 t l,~P 1 l j' ff( l' I ` (((777 ~.yr~ 1 3_. t -I. I ITT ~`'t li t~1 i ,ill { i I • ~ >~_•~-.=~~-~°.j-~ Nil II k I P11 I j l t 1 l r i S ~ l i l ~Il IC] + ~ j _ l ~ 1.111 ' i r 6 . Y ~K l ~ E V. VV i Z~ ~o 7 3 m Iatg a o w ~~~Y3 / 'or° ev t 0 0 m « z Y b 1 c Q C~ US 0 i y 4 ry ` ^ray t, h`• ~ cy , q w n r ; r J , , J , q 11 t.. rw r ~ . ,9anuarY 23, 2006 City of Tigard P\ posed Local 4 nl; rovement District i✓the Tigard Triangle February 28, 2006 Tigard Triangle 1 J 'j k NORTH = 't 2 1 Thy Tigard Triangle ❖ Properties are zoned MUE (Mixed-Use Employment) ❖ Some properties are residential in nature, but are in the process of converting to commercial ❖ Tigard Triangle Plan established guiding principles with a high-quality mixed use employment area envisioned ❖ The Tigard TSP (Transportation System Plan) identified the Triangle as highly deficient in street infrastructure 3 TAc l'igard Triangle ❖ Local Improvement District - Tool available to upgrade streets to meet current standards - Allows more comprehensive street development versus partial street improvements - Costs of improvements are paid for by the benefited properties - Has been successfully used in the Triangle and in other areas of the City a 2 TheTi ard Triangle ❖ Previous LID's in the Tigard Triangle area Year Local Improvement District 1984 68th Ave Sanitary Sewer LID 1993 Combined Dartmouth Street LID and C.I.P. Project 1998 69th Avenue LID (Specht requested) s B~Ickground ❖ Specht Development, Inc. - Submitted a petition to form an LID (Local Improvement District) for street infrastructure improvements in the Tigard Triangle - Agreed to pay for Preliminary Engineer's Report ❖ Workshop meeting on February 21, 2006 - Council heard a presentation on the proposed LID - Council discussed the proposed LID and asked questions ❖ Council provided direction to the City Engineer to prepare a resolution for Council consideration authorizing preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report 6 3 Tke LID Process ❖ Preliminary Evaluation Report Q ❖ Preliminary Engineer's Report ❖ Declaration of intention to form the district ❖ District formation ❖ Construction of improvements ❖ Spreading of assessments by ordinance 7 h Avenue LID M 69th Avenue r J During Construction 8 4 9th Avenue LID M ` 69th Avenue After Construction 9 I' osed LID Proposed LID Boundary T : ; °r i.WOnd L 5 _.i e 4rR, urn ~ .sr~ , f'+ f + ~ f ~ t 3 / ' ~ ~fnyF f r + 17 o i if 6 ` f J9 ,yam ~ 1 , 10 5 IFIGM4 J Propo sed LID '1I > W~ftOqST I Specht - Controlled _T i Pro erties M P srv our-R+aml sr NORTH, j j ~ CD C_~ Figure 4 Improvement D sinct ~ unoa d Specht LID City of Tiganl Washington County, Oregon I ,,,i,aw m wrnLlr~ support ❖ Specht Development controls 59% of the land area within the proposed LID boundary ❖ Specht Development controls 15 of the 25 parcels within the proposed boundary ❖ Formation of an LID requires 50% of the properties by land area ❖ Two-thirds of the properties by land area must remonstrate against the LID to prevent formation 12 6 Proposed Street Improvements ❖ Proposed Streets ♦ 68`h Avenue, 69`h Avenue and 70`h Avenue - Between Dartmouth St and Baylor St ♦ Dartmouth Street - Between 68'h Avenue and 69,h Avenue ♦ Clinton Street - Between 68,h Avenue and 70,h Avenue Proposed Improvements • Asphalt Pavement • Water Improvements • Curb and Gutter • Storm Drainage • Sidewalks • Utility Undergrounding • Street Trees • Right-of-Way Acquisition, • Street Lighting if necessary • Street Signs • Tigard Triangle Portal • Sanitary Sewer Enhancement(s) 13 F~sting Streets aff. 69th Avenue @ Dartmouth looking north Y l w rj Clinton Street @ 69 y+ K looking east to I-5 14 7 FJ ti r ting Streets 69th Avenue and Clinton St looking south to Dartmouth Stk 691h Avenue looking north from Dartmouth St F ~ting Streets t L k ,st~~ ! SST l x I.M x n - .L {v ; 16 8 -J.stlnated LID Costs f ❖ Approximately $1.6 million total cost - Specht pays $935,000, other properties pay $655,000 (rough estimates) ❖ Preliminary Engineer's Report - Will examine proposed LID in much greater detail (up to 60% engineering plan preparation) - Approximately $125,000, $70,000 in FY 2005-06 - Will be re-estimated based on actual consultant contract plus City staff time - Can be funded in FY 2005-06 through contingency transfer in the Gas Tax Fund - Report preparation cost will be included in the LID costs 17 to Resolve ❖ Acquisition of ROW - Vh Avenue (only 30-foot ROW available) - Will seek to construct 24 feet of pavement plus 12 feet of sidewalk and planter strip - Acquisition will be needed for the partial improvements - Other minor acquisition (ROW, slope easements, construction easements) ❖ Connection to existing improvements and infrastructure (Storm and Sanitary Sewer) 18 9 ~I F iNko of the LID ❖ Ratio of Land Value to LID cost - Ratio of at least 2 to 1 undeveloped land value to the total cost of the LID - Actual ratio: 2:81 to 1 ♦297,525 SF x $15/SF = $4,462,875.00 ♦Estimated LID Cost = $1,589,500.00 ♦ Ratio: 2.81:1 ❖ LID formation appears feasible 19 -r. er Values ❖ Public infrastructure improvements would be required for each property ❖ Developers factor that cost into the land price ❖ Completed infrastructure tends to attract even more development ❖ The value of the properties within the proposed LID would be enhanced by: - The value of the improvements - Any appreciation in land value resulting from completed public infrastructure improvements 20 10 Pj r osed LID Lot Analysis w r ,z - t L ,7 ,S ,s NORTH u to C4 ,T EGEND ST 1OUPIED 22 - RENTILL 'j'~ ° SPEC T 20 ~..J ANT H 21, C:3 LID BOUNDARY Z! r -YESTOR! BUSINESS DARTMOUTH ST 21 L <t~ofion ❖ Resolution to continue with the LID formation process - Adds proposed LID to FY 2005-06 CIP - Authorizes Preliminary Engineer's Report - Identifies Funding Mechanism for the Report - Authorizes $70,000 Contingency Transfer from Gas Tax Fund - Requires deposit by Specht Development for report preparation before actual work begins z2 11 1 'E~jl zmive Schedule ❖ Important Dates • 02-28-06 Adopt Resolution to prepare Preliminary Engineer's Report • March 2006 Prepare RFP • April 2006 Select consultant • July 2006 Submit report to Council • August 2006 Formation of LID (if feasible and Council decides to form) • Fall/Winter 2006 Construction begins 23 K mmendation ❖ That City Council approve the proposed resolution: - establishing the proposed LID as a project in the FY 2005-06 - Authorizing the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report - Authorizing a contingency transfer from the Gas Tax Fund for this fiscal year 24 12 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 28, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution Approving Budget Amendment #10 to the FY 2005-06 Budget to Increase Appropriations in the Gas Tax Fund for funding of the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the Proposed Local Improvement District (LID) for infrastructure improvements in the Tigard Triangle. PREPARED BY: Michelle Wareing DEPT HEAD OK A-1 CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve Budget Amendment # 10 to increase appropriations in the Gas Tax Fund for funding of the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the proposed Local Improvement District (LID) for infrastructure improvements in the Tigard Triangle? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Budget Amendment # SL. I O C..) INFORMATION SUMMARY Specht Development, Inc. has submitted a petition requesting the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to improve certain streets within the Tigard Triangle. The proposed improvements include street and utility improvements to SW 68`h Avenue, SW 69th Avenue, and SW 70" Avenue between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street and SW Dartmouth Street and SW Clinton Street between SW 68`'' Avenue and SW 70`'' Avenue, all within the Tigard Triangle. A draft Preliminary Evaluation Report to determine the feasibility of the proposed LID was submitted to the City Council at its February 21, 2006 meeting. The Preliminary Evaluation Report determined that the proposed LID appears feasible and recommended that Council take the next step in the LID formation process by authorizing the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report. The City Council will be voting on a resolution to authorize the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report at the February 28, 2006 meeting. A' budget amendment is needed to fund this project as the FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget does not include appropriations for this project. The total Preliminary Engineer's Report cost is $125,000; however, it is anticipated that only $70,000 of this total cost will be incurred in FY 2005-06. Specht Development, Inc. has agreed to deposit, in advance of any work, the amount needed for the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report with the understanding that the City will include the cost of preparing the report in the total cost of the LID, if and when the City establishes the district. Even if the LID is not formed, Specht Development's deposit will be used to fund the report's cost. Although Specht Development's deposit will actually fund the cost of the report, for budgetary purposes it is necessary to do a contingency transfer of $70,000 from the Gas Tax Fund to the Gas Tax Capital Improvement Project budget to appropriate the necessary funds. If Council does not approve the resolution to authorize the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report then this budget amendment is not necessary. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve Budget Amendment #10. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT By constructing improvements to upgrade the street infrastructure in the Tigard Triangle, the Local Improvement District (LID) would address the findings of the 2002 Tigard Transportation System Plan that identified the Tigard Triangle as an area where future transportation problems appear significant. ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution including Attachment A. FISCAL NOTES The Resolution will transfer $70,000 from the Gas Tax Fund contingency to the Gas Tax Capital Improvement Project budget. Specht Development's deposit will be placed into the Gas Tax Fund to actually pay for the report preparation.