Loading...
11/08/2000 - Packet RECD 0C T 2 3 2000 Summer Lake Task Force MEMO TO: Summer Lake Task Force RE: Neighbors Meeting- DATE: October 20,2000 Materials Review FROM: Vaughn Brov The Neighborhood Meeting is scheduled for: Wednesday, November 8 6:30 to 8:30 PM Mary Woodward Elementary School 12325 SW Katherine Street • Enclosed is a meeting outline containing the purpose, format and recruitment ideas we developed at the last meeting. Basically we will divide the session into 3 parts. They are: — an open house segment with options displayed and informal discussion between neighbors, task force members, city staff and consultants(30 min) — a presentation that covers project background,task force role, action option descriptions, and project process overview(30 min) — time for listening with staff, consultants and task force members available to discuss the options and collect public comments(60 min) Your attendance and participation in the meeting is very important as the feedback we get will be critical to the task force's decision-making on a recommendation to City Council. Also enclosed for your review are: — Action options conceptual plans — Project process overview board — Comment card These items will be used as boards and handouts at the meeting. Please review them and provide any suggestions you have to me— 503.235.5881 or vbrown@ilainvolve.com.jlainvolve.com. We need to finalize the documents before November 1 so your timely feedback is appreciated. Thanks and see you at the Neighborhood Meeting on the 8's. • Summer Lake Task Force Neighborhood Meeting Outline Date Wednesday, Nov. 8 Time 6:30 to 8:30 Location Mary Woodward Elementary-Cafeteria 12325 SW Katherine Street Feedback Needs Use comment cards, flip charts at Listening Posts, and note taking during presentation Q&A to capture input on: ■ Criteria Statements—Which criteria are most important? ■ Alternative Approaches—What participants like and dislike about each • Meeting Format Modified Open House— ■ Welcome table with sign-in and handout materials—project background, alternative screening process,task force role, action options concepts, and comment form. ■ Segment 1 —Informal discussion. Participants and Task Force discuss process and options displays set up around the room. ■ Segment 2—Presentation. Topics include — Welcome and meeting purpose-Brian — Project background, purpose,process and outcome (includes Fishman Report& Council actions) - Vaughn — Action options description, design phases 1 & 2 overview—Greg ■ Segment 3 —Listening Posts. Staffed by a consultant, city staff, and citizen task force member. Participants discuss options and complete comment cards. Recruitment Send notice letter to area bounded by SW 135x`—Schools Ferry Road— 121$—and Walnut—City • Put meeting information in Cityscape—City Post information on City web page- City Place posters on Summer Lake Restroom doors—Cit Summer Lake Task Force Rating Scale (RS) A: Acceptable U: Unacceptable * = 1 vote of non- support Options Evaluation Matrix - Draft P: Preferred N: Neutral ** = I vote for 9/20/00 preferred condition Open-Channel Piped Low Stream with Status Quo - Evaluation Criteria Low Flow Bypass Flow Bypass Backwatered Areas Current Conditions Water quality RS RS RS RS Project must improve lake and downstream water Maintains stream Piped flows potentially Maintains stream quality, to assist in meeting standards for temperature, temperature- Lake cooled by ground- Lake temperature- Backwater bacteria, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, pH and continues to receive A* continues to receive P* areas may collect nutrients A* U** chlorophyll. surface drainage during surface drainage during and slowly release in low flows low flows summer months Project must improve visual aesthetics (minimal weeds, Allows for chemical Allows for chemical Reduces stagnation algae blooms) and reduce odors associated with lake treatment of aquatic A treatment of aquatic A impacts- Eliminates lake N U** water. weeds weeds feature Neighborhood Impacts Minimizes negative impacts(including property values) Minimal change in Minimal change in Reduced open water area on the surrounding neighborhoods. current open water A current open water A with new backwater N* A conditions conditions features Park Use Project maintains a lake water feature as focal point of YesA Yes A Small water features U A Summer Lake Park. Project maximizes present and future uses for the Yes A Yes A Small water features A A Summer Lake Park in conjunction with the Summer Project allows for educational opportunities at the park Yes Yes Increased educational to improve understanding of water quality and A A potential with more natural A A fish/wildlife issues. habitat conditions Page 1 Open-Channel Piped Low Stream with Status Quo - Evaluation Criteria Low Flow Bypass Flow Bypass Backwatered Areas Current Conditions Fish &Wildlife Habitat and Travel Corridors RS RS RS RS Project creates a habitat where humans, fish and Some habitat P,,, Habitat creatiion A Increased habitat value A** U wildlife coexist. enhancement potential Project encourages the growth of native species while Use of natives to No habitat created Most potential for native discouraging the presence of exotic invasive species. vegetate streambank plantings Project enhances fish and wildlife habitat including Improves passage for Fish passage through Major improvements for all improving migratory passage for both. aquatic species pipe may be less optimal aquatic species than with other options Regulations Project meets, or works toward meeting, all applicable No violations Marginally acceptable Fully meets requirements federal, state and regional local regulations, including CWA, ESA, Goal 5 and Title 3 USA D&C standards). Project satisfies DEQ, USF&WS, ODFW, NMFS, Yes Yes Yes USACOE, DSL requirements through their early involvement. Cost Project is cost effective and affordable, for both Medium cost. Medium Least costly. Least likely Most costly. Most likely to construction and operations& maintenance, with potential for funding. to receive funding. receive funding. available funding. Project minimizes maintenance costs. Intake, fish ladder& Intake, fish ladder& Least costly to maintain chemical treatment cost chemical treatment cost Recommended Alternative Demonstrates That: Interested citizens, City and Agencies shall have had Yes Yes Yes the opportunity to work collectively on solutions. Project proponents can pursue partnership funding Moderate potential Least likely High potential through stream and habitat enhancement grants from government agencies. The project can be monitored for effectiveness. Yes Yes Yes The project has a high probability of successfully Yes Yes No lake water feature meeting the objectives. Page 2