Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/22/1997j CITY OF TIGARD OREGON o~ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL J j k i 1 MEETING a S APRIL 22, 1997 a ; i COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED i 1 3125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 i s i t~ F TIGARYD CITY COUNCIL BUSII+IESS MEETING April 22, 1997 6:34 PM TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 $W `HALL BLVD TIGA RD, OREGON 97223 nl PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business r agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. { i Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and w should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). f 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. i Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA i COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 22, 1997 - PAGE 1 i W M. AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING APRIL 22, 1997 6:30 p.m. • STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), as (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, bui muse riot disciose any information > Discussion: Wetlands Local Regulations, Goal 5 Draft 7:30 PM I 1. BUSINESS MEETING i 1.1 Call to Order - City Council ez Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports u i~, C +r < { i ; i 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items s 7:35 p.m. J 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) i{C{+ p 7:45 PM 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 City Council Minutes: March 18 and 25, 1997 3.2 Approve Clute Property Acquisition i = 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Bid for Speed Hump Program • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 0 j COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 22, 1997 - PAGE 2 R 7:50 PM 4. CONSIDERATION OF URBAN SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY • Staff Report: Community Development Department ® Council Consideration: Intergovernmental Agreemeni (Mutivii ) t I I j j 3 s } f , 8:15 PM 5. CONSIDER BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR URBAN SERVICES PROGRAM a. Staff Report: Finance Director b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 97-~_ ((o 8:25 PM 6. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING F 1996-97 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL GROUP EMPLOYEES TO ADD THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF INSPECTION SUPERVISOR AT SALARY RANGE 60, AND TO AMEND THE SALARY RANGE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM RANGE 64 TO RANGE 66 a. Staff Report: City Manager b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 97-'r'(a`'__7 8:35 P.M. 7. CONSIDER RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CURREUT LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD THE AND OREGON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 199, BY ADDING THE CLASSIFICATION OF CODE COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST AT RANGE 41 a. Staff Report: City Manager b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 97--q 8:45 PM 8. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT HIGHWAY 99W INTERIM CORRIDOR STRATEGY • Staff Introduction: Community Development Director • Presentation: Representatives from the Oregon Department of Transportation COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 22, 1997 - PAGE 3 9:15 P.M. 9. INFORMATION PUBLIC HEARING - SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT NO. 9 - SW FAIRHAVEN WAY AND SW FAIRHAVEN STREET • Open Hearing • Staff Report: Engineering Department • 'rubiic Testimony • Council Questions f i i Staff Recommendation • Close Hearing I j ff • Council Deliberation: Resolution No. 97=1 k 9:30 PM 10. VISIONING PROJECT UPDATE: TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW C*-Ff De rt- Assistant to the %1iij iianagef ` - 9:40 PM 11. MEASURE 50 UPDATE • Staff Report: Finance Director 9:50 PM 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10:00 PM 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), 8z (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are i confidential, therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:10 PM 14. ADJOURNMENT ® STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Administrative Analyst Loreen Mills; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; and Human Resources Director Sandy Zodrow. Matt Farmer was present for the Executive Session. I: i > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. i > Executive Session adjourned at 7:34 p.m. i > Agenda Review Bill Monahan, City Manager, explained that staff has postponed Consent Agenda item 3.2 to the May 13 agenda, and deleted item 3.3 because the sole bid for the speed humps was too high. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7: 40 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items ANNOUNCE THREE PROCLAMATIONS: } a. Women Entrepreneurs Week (5/11-17) b. National Community Action Week (5/4-10) c. Be Kind to Animals Week (5/4-10) Mayor Nicoli noted the proclamations. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Darlene Wozniak spoke to the Tigard Triangle design standards. She said that the Task Force had known when the document was approved that it was not perfect. Now the City needed to move forward to finish the job. Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 1 Mr. Monahan and Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, presented an update on the status of the design standards. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that staff has asked Metro whether or not the streets in the 660/330 standard could be private streets as opposed to public streets. Councilor Rohlf pointed out that right now the City had Metro's blessing on the design standards. However changing the standards without understanding where Metro stood on that issue meant that the City could lose Metro's agreement on the rest of the Triangle plan. He said that the City needed to get direction from Metro as to whether or not changing the plan through the Task Force or the Council would run afoul of their approval. Ms. Wozniak asked about the intent of the Task Force and the variance process. Mr. Monahan reiterated that staff has asked Metro for clarification on whether the issue under discussion was a mandated requirement or allowed the City to make a choice. He said that while the variance process was a potential tool to work the problem, first staff needed foundation information on what the City could and could not do. Then they would craft a document for Council approval. > NON AGENDA !TEM: Wetlands Regulations, Goal 5 Draft Mr. Hendryx reported that the wetlands consultants, Winterowd and Associates, have brought the work on the wetlands "safe harbor" standards to the point where staff was ready to begin the public involvement process, including discussion at the Planning Commission. Greg Winterowd, Winterowd & Associates, reviewed the state mandate to comply with statewide planning Goal 5 which required a natural resources inventory and resolution of significant wetlands/stream corridors and conflicting development. He mentioned their .,J recommendation to the City to pursue the "safe harbor" option under Goal 5 rather than doing an expensive and time-consuming ESEE analysis. Mr. Winterowd reviewed the "safe harbor" standards. He mentioned the base standards of a 75 foot setback from the Tualatin River, a 50 foot setback from a fish-bearing stream, and a 25 foot setback from a wetland or non-fish bearing stream. Mr. Winterowd presented flexibility options which they believed were consistent with the state administrative rule. These included exempting from the 75 foot standard all subdivisions plotted within the 75 foot setback, a setback reduction in exchange for mitigation, allowance for adjustments to the underlying zone setbacks if the reduction was necessary to stay out of the buffer area, a variance standard based on hardship, and a plan amendment with a separate ESEE I analysis for properties that did not fall under any of the other options. The last option allowed the City to weigh the environmental value of the land against its economic value. Councilor Scheckla asked how they defined "hardship." Mr. Winterowd said that "hardship" was a situation in which the property could not meet any of the flexibility options, and the owner could argue that the City of Tigard and the State of Oregon have taken away the value of his property through regulations. The owner should be able to locate a house on his property as long as he located it in a way that had minimum impact on the wetlands in the area. He said that this was a tough standard to meet and would apply in very few situations. Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 2 i~ f. I E F' I ' Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, said that the draft document would go to the CITs, the Planning Commission, and then to Council. He stated that he believed this information was shared with the code rewrite consultants through Dick Bewersdorff. t 3. CONSENT AGENDA 1 Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt the consent agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: March 18 and 25, 1997 DELETE 3.2 Approve Clute Property Acquisition i p DELETE 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Bid for Speed Hump Program 4. CONSIDERATION OF URBAN SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY • Staff Report Mr. Hendryx explained that the County wanted to contract with the City to provide specific services in the City's area of interest (Bull Mountain and Walnut Island). Those services included building and current planning services, development related engineering services - (beginning June 1), and road maintenance activities (beginning after November 1). He noted a payment of start up funds to initiate the program. j Mr. Monahan noted that the road maintenance issue still needed to be negotiated. City staff f i needed more information from the County on expectations because the two entities did not f provide the same level of service. He mentioned the draft IGA prepared by the City Attorney, and the additional language dealing with indemnity and lawsuits submitted by the County today. He requested Council approval of the IGA subject to approval of the final form by the City Manager and the City Attorney. • Council Consideration: Intergovernmental Agreement Councilor Hunt expressed his concerns with the proposal regarding implementation. He noted the need for additional space to house these new employees yet the police chief recommended delaying the building addition needed for the police department because of Measure 47. He questioned whether they could afford the additional space, even if the money came from the I County - it was all taxpayer money. Councilor Hunt mentioned that the City could not fill its own staff vacancies because of Measure 47 yet with this agreement they hired nine new employees (since the County was transferring no employees to Tigard). He noted the vacancies in the police department and library in particular. He held that since one of the arguments for Measure 50 was the reduction in the number of City employees, adding nine new employees was poor strategy in convincing the public of their need. Councilor Hunt asked how many employees at the County currently did the job for which the Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 3 j i i City was hiring nine people. Mr. Hendryx said that he would have to get that information and report back. He explained that the City had to hire full time positions because it was impractical to hire .68 electrical inspector or .78 mechanical inspector. Councilor Hunt stated he did not think that the County had nine people serving the Tigard area. Mr. Monahan explained that he doubted the County had one person providing each of the services to this arca for which the City had to hire a fi!1! time position or that there was any one individual dedicated solely to this part of the county. He mentioned that the demand for these services was so high in the County that the County had to hire more people to meet it. Mr. Monahan explained that these nine positions would be funded through the fees that were generated and the revenue that the City received from the County (which came from building permit fees); they would not be funded through the general fund. He said that the City froze the general fund positions in response to Measure 47 until the situation was resolved, which they now knew would occur in May. He commented that since some of the positions were only partly general fund positions, staff would revisit those positions regardless of the May election outcome. He said that he thought that the County had almost as many full time employees devoted to the delivery of these services but they could not carry the volume. Councilor Hunt expressed concern that the intensive staff work required to implement the IGA would result in the setting back of other Council priorities. He pointed out that this was not staff's fault but the result of Council direction. Councilor Rohlf commented that he thought that this IGA was "political" and not staff driven. He concurred that a reshuffling of priorities occurred as a result of Council direction. He stated that this IGA was the epitome partnership agreement with another jurisdiction, citing the County's willingness to address the City's concerns in comparison with Metro's doing their own thing regardless of City concerns. Councilor Rohlf said that he was not concerned with the number of new employees because the end result of this agreement would be better service to the people and a more economical and efficient government. He stated that he understood from staff that if the workload fell below the new FTEs, then staff would lay off people rather than have the voters pay for a service they were not receiving. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Hendryx stated that the majority of the new hires would occur over the next month. Staff wanted to have the positions in place two weeks before the June I initiation date. i Councilor Rohlf commented that the new employees would not be divided between working the j . IGA and working for the City. All worked for the City but some did work in the county areas. He expressed his confidence that these new employees might mitigate the cutbacks of Measure 47 because any job description included "other duties as assigned." Councilor Moore stated that one of his campaign goals had been providing better service to the county areas that would eventually annex into the city. He noted that this IGA did not have a negative effect on the City budget as the County would make the City whole through subsidy as necessary. Councilor Scheckla asked if the County and City fees were the same. Mr. Hendryx said that Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 4 k i i they would charge whichever fees allowed the program to be self-supporting. This meant the County land use planning program fees, the City building activity fees, and the County engineering fees. Councilor Scheckla asked about the funding for the initial capital costs. Mr. Hendryx explained 1 that the County was providing up front funds of approximately $215,000 for start up money to pay salaries for several months and to purchase or lease the needed capital equipment. The intent was to offset the fees until the fees balanced out and supported the entire program. Mr. Hendryx noted the staff investigation of leasing vehicles. Mr. Monahan mentioned the staff intent to borrow money from the City facilities fund to put in place the modular building rather than using up almost half of the up front County money to get that ready. They would pay back the facilities fund over the first few years of the IGA. Mr. Monahan stated that staff felt confident, based on projections, that they had sufficient funds to cover a1.1 expenses. He pointed out the IGA provision requiring the City and County to revisit the agreement every three months to see if the projected fees were meeting expectations. If not, then the City would ask the County for additional funds. If the activity was less than expected, the City would look at personnel action to bring the costs in line with the revenue. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan said that he did not think that Measure 50 would have an impact on the IGA because the positions were not funded out of the general fund but by development generated fees. The revenue from this would be dictated by the economy and the level of construction activity in the area. Councilor Scheckla asked how code enforcement regulation would be handled. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the options under consideration. These included a planner with code enforcement responsibility in Washington County, and leaving code enforcement in the City to the Community Service Officers. He pointed out that the City would not take on the full range of County code enforcement in the unincorporated areas - only the land use and transportation code enforcement. The County has adopted the City standards for the area of interest. He mentioned the need to be very clear on code enforcement because it was a gray area on who did what. He noted the matrix developed by the County as a guide to code enforcement in that area. ' Mayor Nicoli stated that he thought that the general public expected a government agency to look at operating in a more efficient manner. He cited the agreement between Multnomah County and the City of Portland 10 years ago to contract services except for the land use portion. Mayor Nicoli said that this agreement was in the best interests of both the County and the City. He commended all parties, commenting on the difficulty of the work. He mentioned the County's intent to contract also with Hillsboro and Beaverton for the same services. He spoke to the City insuring that the proper safeguards were in place, citing several provisions that protected the City. He supported passing the resolution. - I Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 5 3 Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to approve the urban services intergovernmental agreement with Washington County, subject to approval of the final form of the agreement by the City Attorney and the City Manager. The agreement in addition to the language of the April 11, 1997, draft will include the following key provisions: 1) Section 4A2 will cover defense of LUBA appeals as set forth in the City Att^ cy's .a.HI 17 and 211 the Co:: ;ty aI iay t::e fr°t ye :'s .........cc pr; :i;;.. for coverage to $3 million in the active planning area, and 3) the County will share the cost of defense of judgments and inverse condemnations and other litigations and claims not covered by insurance to a maximum of $500,000 and secure that obligation with new sewer fund. Motion was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes."; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "no.") Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:34 p.m, for a break. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. 5. CONSIDER BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR URBAN SERVICES PROGRAM a. Staff Report: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, explained that this was the budget adjustment for June needed to buy or lease the capital equipment for the new employees. It recognized the money received from the County and any fees generated in June. b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 97-16 Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 97-16. The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 97-16. RESOLUTION NO. 97-16, A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE 1996-97 ADOPTED BUDGET FOR SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE URBAN SERVICES AREA. Motion was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes"; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "no.") 6. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING FY 1996-97 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL GROUP EMPLOYEES TO ADD THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF INSPECTION SUPERVISOR AT SALARY RANGE 60, AND TO AMEND THE SALARY RANGE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM RANGE 64 TO RANGE 66 a. Staff Report: Mr. Monahan reviewed the additions to staff needed for the urban services agreement. He mentioned a new position of "Inspector Supervisor" and a salary increase for the Building Official because of the increase in the number of individuals in that department. He said that the classifications were based on an analysis from the Human Resources Department. The cost of the Inspector Supervisor came from County funds and fee revenue while the salary increase for Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 6 the Building Official came from the dedicated building program fund. Councilor Hunt asked if the City should come to an agreement with the union first or create the positions first. Mr. Monahan said that they should create the positions first. He explained that two of the positions were non-union but that they expected no problems with the union accepting seven additional members or the Code Compliance Specialist. s In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Hendryx reviewed the span of control of 1 the Building Official (11 employees). Mr. Monahan said that they would like to free the 3 Building Official up for more management responsibilities. Also the inspectors could more directly access a Supervisor since the Building Official had other responsibilities. Councilor Scheckla asked why there was a difference in the effective dates. Mr. Monahan said that staff would like a May 1 effective date for the creation of the Inspector position in order to fill it from within and then advertise outside to fill the resulting vacancy. Mr. Hendryx F recommended an effective date of June 1 for the increase in the Building Official's salary for reasons of consistency. b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 97-17 i Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 97-17. The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 97-17. RESOLUTION NO. 97-17, A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE EXISTING FY 1996-97 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES TO ADD THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF INSPECTION SUPERVISOR AT SALARY RANGE 60 AND TO AMEND THE SALARY RANGE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM RANGE 64 TO RANGE 66 I Motion was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes."; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "no.") 7. CONSIDER RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CURRENT LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND OREGON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 199, BY ADDING THE CLASSIFICATION OF CODE COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST AT RANGE 41 a. Staff Report Mr. Monahan explained that this resolution gave staff the authorization to amend the current labor agreement with the union to add a Code Compliance Specialist to take responsibility for code enforcement in the Planning Department. He cited a previous discussion with Mr. Hendryx and Police Chief Goodpaster regarding transfer of code enforcement responsibilities completely to Community Development, for which this position was a prototype. Councilor Moore asked how the pay rate compared to the Community Service Officers. Mr. Hendryx said that it was very comparable but not a precise match because the CSOs were in the U TPOA union and the Specialist was in the OPEU union. Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 7 i 1 n Councilor Rohlf asked if amending the contract created any problems with the Union. Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Director, said that no concerns have been brought to them. b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 97-18 Motion by Councilor Rohif, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 97-18. The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 97-17. } RESOLUTION NO. 97-18, A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CURRENT LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND THE OREGON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 199 TO ADD THE CLASSIFICATION OF CODE p COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST AT RANGE 41 IN THE FY 1996-97 SALARY SCHEDULE. Motion was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes."; Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") 8. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT HIGHWAY 99W INTERIM CORRIDOR STRATEGY • Staff Introduction Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner, introduced John deTars, ODOT. She explained that the draft corridor strategy was the first step in developing the corridor plan. 1 } • Presentation: Representatives from the Oregon Department of Transportation John deTars, ODOT, thanked Jim Hendryx for his faithful participation at the strategy meetings over the past year. He reviewed the route of 99W, noting its importance as part of the state and national highway systems from Portland to the coast. He noted that the principal issue in Tigard was traffic congestion and how to resolve it. Another issue ODOT had to considered was satisfying the small communities along the route. " Mr. deTars mentioned a possible connection between I-5 and 99W that would alleviate the traffic volume on 99W through Tigard and allow it to function as a main street. He reviewed the three phases suggested to handle the traffic demand and highway capacity, referencing Action 1 K-2 in the document. The phases were using transportation demand and system management measures, an alternative route, and improvements for additional capacity on the existing route. He commented that K2 was not inconsistent with the Tigard Triangle plan. Mr. deTars mentioned the effort to focus on alternative modes, including an expansion of the passenger rail study undertaken by Washington County and its cities. The expanded study would include the rail line from McMinnville to the Tigard-Tualatin area and across the river to j connect to a South-North transit station as well as an alternative connection to the Beaverton light rail station. Mr. deTars said that it would take another 9 to 12 months to develop the plan. Councilor Hunt expressed concern about power poles in the middle of sidewalks that did not leave enough room for wheelchairs to get around. It was a violation of ADA standards. He I Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 8 t ` ! cited the poles at Main and 99W as examples. Mr. de"Tars stated that he was not familiar with that project. He mentioned the bicycle and pedestrian plan that laid out the standards for ODOT in providing pedestrian facilities. He suggested that Councilor Hunt c ;:l1. the Region I office for more information on that particular project. Councilor Hunt and Councilor Moore discussed the situation. Councilor Moore explained that it was the responsibility of the agency that owned the right of way to provide a place for PGE to put its poles. In the case of 99 W, there was no right of way available and therefore many of the poles could not be moved. Mayor Nicoli commented that the Tualatin-Sherwood bypass would assist the City by alleviating the traffic volume on Tigard's section of 99W. He asked for consideration in the study of a connection from Dartmouth Street to Hall Blvd as another alternative that would probably prolong the need for additional lanes on 99W, as Dartmouth already connected to I-5. Mr. deTars expressed ODOT's interest in improvements to alternate routes. He mentioned that the Oregon Transportation Commission has authorized ODOT to spend state transportation funds on routes that were not state highways if it could be shown to be a direct benefit to traffic. Mayor Nicoli commented that the Washington County rail line study showed that they could get a rail system up and running from Merlo Road to Wilsonville for $70 million (with access to a track that went into downtown Salem). He mentioned the $100 million per mile cost of the North-South light rail. He asked that this alternative receive good consideration, contending that it was important to use the existing corridors and rail lines. They were better alternatives than i some of the options under consideration. l Mr. deTars concurred on the usefulness of the existing rail lines as mass transit opportunities. 1 He mentioned that the existing lease on the Southern Pacific line to McMinnville did not allow 99 the lessee to provide passenger rail service. Mayor Nicoli commented on the improved service i i and relationship the City of Tigard had with the rail lessee over their previous relationship with the line owners. He reported that the lessee was currently renegotiating its lease to allow operation of passenger traffic. He said that with a cooperative rail service, a good cost estimate, and the support of government agencies, politically this was a good time to move this rail project forward. Councilor Rohlf concurred with the Mayor's comments on light rail and the importance of looking for mass transit solutions, given the projected growth for this area. He mentioned another alternative of putting an overpass or underpass at Hall Blvd and 99W or at Greenburg and 99W. He contended that the traffic congestion came from traffic stopping at a series of lights, and if one of the roads was a through way, the traffic would flow more steadily. 9. INFORMATION PUBLIC HEARING - SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT NO. 9 - SW FAIRHAVEN WAY AND SW FAIRHAVEN STREET • Open Hearing Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the hearing. He congratulated Gus Duenas as the new City Engineer. Staff Report Gus Duenas, City Engineer, reported that they had interest from at least half the residents in Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 9 E ~ f j I t i ~ r 1 I t i 1 the area in forming this district to make sewer services available to 29 households currently on septic systems. J.W. Underground submitted the low bid of $115, 128; the total project cost (including fees) was $130,000 or $4,500 per lot. This was the second project in the neighborhood sewer extension program that was initiated with the pilot project on Tigard Street. In response to questions from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Duenas explained that there was a $2,235 connection fee on top of the $4,500. Also each property owner was responsible for closing their septic system and backfilling in compliance with regulations. He said that they would return to Council with the actual construction costs once the project was completed for the final reimbursement district authorization. However they did not anticipate the per lot dollar amount changing significantly. He said that 7% interest Councilor Moore asked how these projects were initiated. Mr. Duenas said that staff initiated these projects based on input of the residents and the surrounding interests of that area. He commented that the initial pilot program on Tigard street, while only $22,000 total cost, cost the four homeowners $6000 each. This project with the potential of 29 households reduced the cost to the homeowner to $4500 each. Councilor Scheckla asked how long the project would take. Mr. Duenas said that the contractor had a completion date of June 20. However, the pre-construction conference was scheduled for tomorrow morning, and the contractor hoped to get the project done by the end of May. Councilor Scheckla asked how homeowner access would be preserved during construction. Mr. Duenas said that staff would work that out with the contractor during the pre-construction meeting. They would work closely with the residents and notify them appropriately. Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, pointed out that the costs to the homeowner could also increase through a higher connect=l- Vw~cl.lVll lee in LIIC lutUlC; $2,233 was file fee today with no guarantee that it would not increase in the future. Mayor N1eoli asked :f homeowners could sta. the iu paying initial asscssiiiciii ever, 1f 1tutcy did not want to hook on immediately. Mr. Duenas said yes. He pointed out that when a homeowner hooked on to the sewer, he needed to pay the money up front; the financing of it was the homeowner's responsibility, not the City's. Another consideration was that after 15 years, they would just have to pay the connection fee. • Public Testimony Tom Womiston, Fairhaven Street, asked for clarification on when the interest on the $4500 began. Mr. Duenas said that it began on the one year anniversary date of the final formation of the district (this would not occur until after completion of construction). Stephanie Fiddler asked how residents would find out which street would be done first. Mr. Duenas said that staff would notify each resident once they worked out the sequence and 3 schedule with the contractor. David Hammis asked if there would be a vote of the neighborhood on this project or was the City assuming that the neighborhood was in favor of it. Mr. Duenas explained that staff received interest from at least 50% of the people in the neighborhood when they went out their query regarding this project. Mayor Nicoli said that this was the public's chance to comment on the project. Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 10 i I J 1 A I Mr. Hammis asked how the per lot cost and connection fee compared to the costs of other sewer districts. Mr. Duenas said that this was a lower per household cost than the project the City did last year for four residences. The more households involved, the less the cost per household. Mr. Hammis asked what the average monthly sewer bill was. Staff reported that the average bi- monthly sewer bill was $50, not including storm drainage or water use. The rate was based on water usage during the winter months. i Mayor Nicoli noted the confusion regarding the staff inquiry of interest in the project. He asked for a show of hands for many people were in favor or not in favor of the project. He noted that 6 there was still overwhelming support for the project. Mike Stangel, Fairhaven Street, stated that while he did not oppose putting in a sewer line, he thought his septic system would last for 15 years. However he did like having the option of I y hooking on to sewer should it be necessary. He asked how many people would actually hook up to the sewer as opposed to allowing it to move forward but not hooking up to the sewer. I Mr. Duenas said that the City did not know for a fact how many people would hook up immediately but they did want to provide citizens with the opportunity to hook on if they were interested or foresaw a septic tank problem. Mayor Nicoli asked for a show of hands on how many would hook up within the next year. He noted that quite a few indicated they would hook up soon. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that hooking up to the sewer meant that a property owner could build over the septic field, something that was prohibited with a septic system. 4 Mr. Stangel asked if those who did not hook up were not charged for sewer. Mayor Nicoli said f: yes. ! A woman asked that the City put a sign on 107°i stating that it was not a through street. Mr. Duenas reported a request at last month's CIT meeting to open up 107`h Street. Staff would investigate the matter and report back. Mike Schmeer expressed concern with the lack of storm drainage facilities on Fairhaven to Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 11 Mr. Stangel rebutted Mr. Duenas' statement that this project was cheaper. While it was cheaper because of the larger number of households involved, it was still limited in scope and therefore expensive. He cited a project in southeast Portland where the cost was $2500 per household. Councilor Scheckla asked if the rate increased for property owners if not everybody signed up. Mr. Duenas said that the rate did not change no matter how many signed up. That was a risk the City took in making sewer available and getting rid of septic systems. Councilor Hunt commented that the City could go ahead with this project without knowing exactly how many would hook up. The City was trying to build good will with people. Mr. Ramis concurred, mentioning that the public hearing was to inform the people. Councilor Scheckla asked if a sewer system enhanced the value of a property. Mr. Duenas said that it did. handle the ground water. He asked if something could be done to address this at the same time as this sewer project. Mayor Nicoli said that at this late date probably not, although if the majority of the neighbors approached the City, the City would be happy to put together an LID The woman asked why an LID was needed to get a storm drain when they already paid a storm drainage fee but received no benefit in their area. Mayor Nicoli explained that the storm drainage fee paid for the maintenance of the existing infrastructure and pipes in tire city, including raising the bridges to prevent Fanno Creek from backing up during flooding. He commented that an indication of the good job the City was doing in this area was the lack of rain-related flooding in their area. A man explained that he was selling his house tomorrow and asked what liabilities he had regarding disclosure and not hooking up to the sewer. Mr. Ramis explained that the title report would disclose all liens or encumbrances in the county deed records. However the purchaser would have to have a separate search done on city records. • Staff Recommendation Mr. Duenas recommended Council approval of the resolution forming the district, and Local Contract Review Board approval of the award of contract to J.W. Underground for $115,128 • Close Hearing Mayor Nicoli closed the hearing. He thanked the neighborhood for attending. • Council Deliberation: Resolution No. 97-15 Councilor Scheckla excused himself from the vote as he lived in the area. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 97-15. The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 97-15. RESOLUTION NO. 97-15, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 9. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes"; Councilor Scheckla abstained.) J 10. VISIONING PROJECT UPDATE: TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, reported on the Task Force meetings . They have already discussed traffic and transportation, and schools and education. In May they would cover growth and growth management and community livability and character. They have scheduled a community open house on May 31 to get feedback on the Task Force's work. In addition, they would provide information on the Visioning project at the Balloon Festival. Ms. Newton reported that their intern, John Williams, has accepted a position with ODOT as of next Monday. He has agreed to help them on evenings and weekends to finish up the work. They had not intended to use an intern for the action committees (lacking funding in the budget). Instead they would involve more city, school and special district staff. She mentioned Mr. t, ~f Monahan s suggestion that they look for a volunteer intern. She and Ms. Mills would discuss Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 12 r~ S i that ossibilit i r t a i p y 11. MEASURE 50 UPDATE Mr. Lowry explained that Measure 50 was a Measure 47 rewrite meant to accomplish the intent of Measure 47 regarding tar relief but in a more logical fashion to avoid lawsuits and other complications. He reviewed the campaign for Measure 50 headed by Greg Walden, a former senator, of ilic Cunnnitice to Guaiantcc "cal Property Tax Relief. He noted the opposition but did not know if they intended to mount a campaign. Mr. Lowry explained that Measure 50 was not supposed to make a difference to the average taxpayer in terms of the tax relief he would have received under Measure 47. However, Tigard was not average. He reviewed the effect of the various measures on a $100,000 home basing his comparison on what a homeowner would have paid next year in taxes without tax relief. Under Measure 47, the owner would save 40% or $100 in property taxes. Under Measure 47 including the bonds, the owner would save 20% or $50. Under Measure 50 the owner would save 15% or $37, Mr. Lowry said that Tigard taxpayers would pay more tax under Measure 50 then under Measure 47. He explained that Tigard was unusual because of the tax base approved in 1994 and taking effect in 1996/97. Measure 47 eliminated it while Measure 50 included it. He commented that the dramatic change in City services was the selling point to Tigard citizens. Mr. Lowry reviewed the impacts on the City. Under the Measure 47 the City could lose $2.2 million in revenue (33% cut). With bonds included in Measure 47, the City could lose $900,000 (14% cut). Under Measure 50 the City would lose $750,000 (11% cut). He mentioned that because the five year plan had anticipated losing revenue sharing ($600,000 a year) which in fact they were not losing, the loss under Measure 50 was almost offset by the revenue sharing funds. He reiterated that people were interested in savings but the City needed to talk about service. In response to questions from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Lowry explained that Measure 50 did not have to meet the 50% voter requirement because it was considered a revenue neutral amendment to the Constitution. He said that the tax base as they knew it went away because the legislature created a millage rate to apply to a city's assessed value each year. In addition, the annexation problem of Measure 47 went away because Measure 50 repealed Measure 47 and did not mention annexation. The Council discussed what the City could do to encourage passage of Measure 50. Mr. Monahan said that as individuals the Council could campaign for it. However staff had to remain neutral, giving only information. 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS > Mr M nahan ann need a meetin tomorrow ni ht between staff a citizen who lived across 1 0 ou g g from the switching station on Tigard Street, and the railroad people to discuss the possibility of relocating the switching station to between Hall and Main Street because of the problem with switching trains in the middle of the night. He mentioned the passenger rail line alternative as a consideration. Tigard City Council Meeting - April 22, 1997 - Page 13 > Mr. Monahan reported that this citizen also wanted to give input on the downtown. She had } connections with people other than those the Council has been hearing from. > Mr. Monahan asked for Council direction on how to handle their mail. He noted the incident last week of unpleasant mail which staff passed on to the Council because it was their policy to give all mail addressed to Council to the Council without censorship. He reported that the City . Recorder discovered that Beaverton also received that mail. > The Council discussed the issue, agreeing that they wanted to continue to receive all their mail regardless of content. > Mr. Monahan reminded the Council of the Volunteer Dinner this Thursday at the Tigard High School Commons. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:25 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:38 p.m. Attest Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder i a or, City of Tigard Date: r2 7 ~q7 i Aadm\cathy\ccm\97(M22.doc t® COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. APR 21 1997 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 CITY OF. 71GARD Legal Notice Advertising a { City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. "1Tigard,Oregon 97223 1Ccounto Payable • ❑ Tearsheet Notice • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION N STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. IM f, uathv Snyder - being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of th~i gard-T ,a l at i n mimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the i aforesaid county, and state; that the f l C`i ty ('ntInri1 Brim na c Ileeti ng a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for nUr successive and consecutive in the following issues: April 17 1997 ~ K r~ a 9 j i Subscribed and sworn re me thissUth day of April, 1997 SEAL 1f f RG c 'RGESS N ry Public for Oregon IOTA - OREGON My Commission Expires: 0.024552 f I JC. ~cS MAY 18,1997 AFFIDAVIT " The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 6394171. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON APRIL 22,1997 - Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) • Local Regulations - Wetlands -Goal 5 Review • Executive Session Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) Information Public Hearing on the Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 9 - SW Fairhaven Way and SW Fairhaven Street • Consideration of Urban Services Agreement with Wasfiington ~l County Oregon Department of Transportation Presentation of the Draft Highway 99W Interim Corridor Strategy • Update on Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Visioning Project • Update on Measure 50 {I TT8791 - Publish April 17, 1997. , i ' j i 9 j i i i i PLEASE PRINT Onnnnrnt _ (Cnrnkino Aaninctl ramc, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. dame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. AGENDA ITEM # Cry FOR AGENDA OF 4/22/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON l COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Col 5 Wetlands j PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT. HEAD OK A-Z6~U CITY ADMAN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This is a discussion item. No formal action is required. The city Goal 5 consultant has produced a draft stream corridor/wetland safeharbor ordinance. Should the city proceed with the pubic review and adoption process i leading to formal council action on this draft ordinance? Are any changes needed to the draft ordinance before public review? 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION { I Proceed with the comprehensive plan adoption process, preserving the opton of making changes to the ordinance when it is re-submitted after pubic and Planning Commission review. INFORMATION SUMMARY i ~ 'in Q November 1996, Council reviewed the amended Statewide Goal 5 and directed the city consultant Winteroud and Associates to proceed with drafting a "safeharbor" stream corridor protection ordinance. As discussed previously, safe harbor is a "cook book" approach to meeting state Goal 5 requirements that simply protects fish bearing streams and associated wetlands and prescribes standard setbacks. It is a special provision of the new ' Goal 5 that insures local jurisdiction compliance. a Safeharbor distinguishes between fish bearing and non-fish bearing streams, with Oregon Department of Forestry (ODFS) stream classification maps used to make this distinction. In Tigard, the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, and i the downstream reaches of Ball Creek and the east fork of Ash Creek are classified as fish bearing. Safe harbor imposes a 75-foot standard setback distance from the Tualatin and a 50-foot standard setback from Fanno Creek 1 and portions of the two identified tributaries. Where wetlands are located within the riparian buffer zone, the buffer incorporates or "balloons" around the wetland. These standard setbacks may be reduced by 50% by restoring or enhancing the buffer. i The ordinance prohibits disturbance of the area within the designated buffer area. It precludes the city's current practice of allowing development within wetlands with Corps of Engineers approval. The only exceptions apply to roads, paths, drainage facilities, and water-related uses. Safeharbor does not prescribe a buffer for non-fish bearing streams, which according to ODFS maps includes the north fork of Ash and Summer Creeks, and isolated wetlands or wetlands not located within the floodpUn. The -pity's existing 25-foot setback would continue to be the standard of protection applied to these resources. 18.85.00 SECOND DRAFT WATER RESOURCES MR) OVERLAY DISTRICT 18.85.010 Purpose 1 18.85.020 Definitions 2 18.85.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping 3 Table 18.85(1) Riparian Setbacks and Water Quality Buffers 4 18.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential Subdivision Lots 4 i I 18.85.050 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses 5 Table 18.85.050(D): Water Resources Overlay District Use List 6 18.85.060 Application Requirements 7 18.85.070 Decision Options and Conditions 9 a 18.85.080 Development Standards 9 i 18.85.090 Riparian Setback Reductions 13 a 18.85.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards 14 18.85.110 Density Transfer 14 18.85.120 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards 15 3 ~ 18.85.130 Plan Amendment Option 15 i 18.85.090 Purpose A. General. The Water Resources (WR) overlay district implements the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts between development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian corridors identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this j chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and objective standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development in designated riparian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize streambank erosion; i f maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational f and educational values of water resource areas. B. Safe Harbor. The WR overlay district also meets the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that "significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. i e) 98.85.020 Definitions The definitions of OAR 660-23-090(1) are incorporated herein by reference. A. The "riparian corridor" includes a river or a major stream, associated wetlands, and the "riparian setback" area. B. The "riparian setback area" is measured horizontally from and parallel to major stream or Tualatin River top-of-banks, or the edge of an associated wetland, I whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor boundary" in OAR 660-23-090(1)(d). tt) 1. The standard Tualatin River riparian setback is 75 feet, unless modified in f accordance with this chapter. ~ 2. The major streams riparian setback is 50 feet, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. 3. Isolated wetlands and minor streams (including adjacent wetlands) have no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA). D. "Disturbed areas" are identified portions of the riparian setback area that are devoid of vegetation or which are overgrown with non-native or invasive plant species, such as English ivy or Himalayan blackberry. In contrast, identified portions of the riparian setback area that are dominated by native plant species are not disturbed. E. "Mitigation plan" means a detailed plan to compensate for identified adverse impacts on water resources, riparian setback areas or water quality buffers that result from alteration, development, excavation or vegetation removal within the WR overlay district. A mitigation plan must be prepared by experts in fish and wildlife biology, , native plants, and hydrological engineering, and usually re-planting with native plant species. F. "Major streams" are mapped as "fish-bearing streams" by the Oregon Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1000 cubic feet per second (cfs). 1. Major streams in Tigard include Fanno Creek, Ash Creek (except the north fork and other tributary creeks) and Ball Creek. 2. In contrast, the Tualatin River, which is also a "fish-bearing stream," has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs. E G. "Minor streams" are = "fish-bearing streams" according to Oregon Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek, Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short tributaries of the Tualatin River. H. "Native plant species" are those listed on the Portland Plant List, which is J incorporated by reference into this chapter. 8_ I I t i 1. "Top-of-bank" has the same meaning as "bankfull stage" as defined in OAR 141-85-010(2). It is the stage or elevation at which water overflows the natural banks of streams and begins to inundate the upland. In the absence of physical evidence, the two-year recurrence interval flood elevation may be used to approximate the bankfull stage. J. The "Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map" identifies all "significant" water resources within the Tigard Planning Area, including the Tualatin River corridor, all major stream corridors, minor streams and isolated wetlands. This generalized, composite map is based on the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) prepared by Fishman Environmental Services, 1994, hereby adopted by , reference. All water resources identified on the Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map meet the Division or State Lands (DSL) definition of a Locally Significant Wetland." u I j K. A "Wetland" is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under s normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 1. A "Significant Wetland" is a wetland, or a significant but non-fish- I bearing stream, which appears on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map. ~ 2. An "Associated Wetland" is a significant wetland, all or part of which is - E (a) within 75 feet of the Tualatin River top-of-bank, or (b) within 50 feet f d of any major stream top-of-bank. 3. An "Isolated Wetland" is a significant wetland, all of which is located outside of the riparian setback. 4. A "Non-Significant Wetland" is a wetland that does not meet the Division of State Lands definition of a Locally Significant Wetland and which, therefore, does not appear on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map. Non-significant wetlands are not regulated by this chapter, but do require DSL notification under ORS 227.350. 18.85.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping A. WR Overlay District Application. The WR overlay district applies to all significant water resources, and applicable riparian setback and water quality buffer areas, that appear on the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map. The standards and procedures of this chapter: i 1. apply to all development proposed on property located within, or partially within, the WR overlay district; 2. are in addition to the standards of the underlying zone; and 3. in cases of conflict, supersede the standards of the underlying zone. i u f I!i Second Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District l !l PS- 02/23/97 4:38 PM - Page 3 ttt( i F B. The Tigard Wetlands & Stream Corridors Map identifies, generally, the tops- of-bank, wetland edges, riparian setbacks and water quality setbacks for the following significant water resources: 1. The Tualatin River riparian corridor; 2. Major stream riparian corridors; 3. Minor streams; and 4. Isolated wetlands. , C. Standard Riparian Setbacks and USA Water Quality Buffers. The applicant shall be responsible for surveying and mapping t".a p.acise location of the top-of- bank, wetland edge, riparian setback and/or USA water quality buffer at the time of application submittal. Table 18.8501 summaries standard riparian setbacks and water quality buffers that apply to significant water resources within the WR overlay zone. Table 18.85(1) Riparian Setbacks and Water Oualitv Buffers C SIGNIFICANT WA'rER RESOURCE TYPE WR STANDARD RIPARIAN SETBACK' USA STANDARD WATER QUALITY BUFFER' Tualatin River & associated wetlands 75 feet 25 feet Major streams & associated wetlands 50 feet 25 feet Developed subdivision lot exception (major streams & associated wetlands) 25 feet 25 feet Minor streams & adjacent/isolated wetlands Not applicable 25 feet cuyc, wuw ne ve' is greater. 2 Measured in feet from the minor stream top-of-bank or the wetland edge, whichever is greater. I D. Division of State Lands Notification Required. In addition to the restrictions and requirements of this Section, all proposed development activities within any wetland are subject to Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) standards and approval. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying DSL whenever any portion of any significant wetland is proposed for development, in accordance with ORS 227.350. No application for development will be accepted as complete until documentation of such notification is provided. i E. United Sewerage Agency Standards Applicable. All development activities proposed within 25 feet of any wetland or stream are subject to USA standards and approval. i 18.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential Subdivision Lots Tigard has many approved residential subdivisions, where the side or rear yards have been cleared of riparian vegetation, and developed or planted in lawns. Send Draft - City of Tigard Watcr Resources Overlay District 1 JITS- 02/24/97 4:38 PM - Page 4 -1 a Y A. Method of Identifying Developed Subdivision Lots. Developed subdivision 4 lots were identified based on a comprehensive analysis of aerial photographs. l i B. 25-Foot Riparian Setback Applicable. The Tigard Wetlands & Stream Corridors Map shows a 25-foot riparian setback for developed subdivision lots, because: 1. Water resource values have already been substantially degraded, and maintenance of the 50-foot riparian setback would not serve the purposes of this chapter; and 2. Equal or better protection of the identified major stream resource is ensured by retaining a 25-foot riparian setback and reliance on USA's maximum water quality buffer. C. Type I Review Procedure. The location of structures on identified developed subdivision lots shall be approved under Type I procedure, provided that such structures are located at least 25 feet from the top-of-bank or the associated wetland edge. 18.85.050 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses A. DSL Approval Required. Development proposed within water resource shall also be approved by DSL. B. USA Buffer Standards Applicable. Development proposed within 25 feet of any water resource shall also be approved by the City of Tigard Engineering a Division, which administers USA standards. 1 i C. City of Tigard Exemption. When performed under the direction of the City of Tigard Engineering Division, and in compliance with the provisions of the City of Tigard Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area Management, on file in the Engineering Division, the following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. Public emergencies, including emergency repairs to public facilities; f 2. stream restoration and enhancement programs; 3. non-native vegetation removal; 4. planting of native plant species; and 5. routine maintenance or replacement of existing public facilities projects. D. Permitted and Conditional Uses. Table 18.85.050(D) below summarizes permitted, conditional and prohibited uses within the WR district. A "Yes" indicates that the use is permitted in the case of Type I uses, is allowed under prescribed conditions in the case of Type II uses, or may be approved subject to discretionary criteria under Type III standards. A "No" indicates that the use is not permitted. A use that is not permitted may not be approved through the variance provisions of this chapter. 1 Second Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District JVPS - 02/24/97 4:38 PM - Page 5 I 1 1 71, Table 18.85.050(D): Water Resources Overlay District Use List 1 i Regulated Activity & Procedure Type Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required? 1. Type 1 Permitted Uses with Mitigation a) Determination of Water Resource and Yes Yes Nn Riparian Setback boundaries b) Low impact, passive recreation facilities and trails including, but not limited to, Yes No No viewing shelters, picnic tables, nature trails and interpretive signs c) Irrigation pumps Yes Yes No d) Replacement of existing structures with new structures that do not disturb any Yes Yes No additional riparian surface area e) Removal of non-native vegetation and replacement with native plant specie, Yes Yes Yes no closer than 10' from the top-of-bank or edge of wetland f) Removal of vegetation necessary for hazard prevention (dangerous trees) Yes Yes No g) Perimeter mowing of existing cultivated Yes Yes No lawns h) Canoe and non-motorized boat launches Yes Yes No less than 10' in width i) Repair and maintenance of existing Yes Yes No facilities 2. Type II Permitted Uses with Mitigation Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan where no reasonable alternative exists Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required? a) Dimensional standard adjustments to Yes Yes Yes reduce impacts on water resources b) Reduction in Riparian Setback boundary Yes Yes c) Public facilities that appear on the City's Yes Yes Yes Public Facilities Plan d) Local streets and driveways serving residences and public facilities Yes Yes Yes e) Drainage facilities Yes No Yes f) Utility crossings Yes Yes Yes g) Underground utilities Yes Yes h) In-stream and streambank enhancement, including vegetation removal and Yes Yes Yes replacement within 10 feet of the top-of- bank or edge of wetland i) Bridges and boardwalks Yes Yes Yes 3. Type III Conditional Uses Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required? a) Hardship Variances, subject to variance Yes Yes Yes provisions of Chapter 18.120 b) Water-related and water-dependent uses Yes No Yes not listed above, subject to conditional use provisions of Chapter 18.130 i Second Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District IfPS - 02/24/97 4:38 PM - Page G k 1 a i 1 4. Prohibited Uses - unless specifically Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan authorized above Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required? a) Removal of native plant species No No Not applicable b) Placement of structures or impervious No No Not applicable surfaces c) Grading and placement of fill No No Not applicable d) Application of herbicides No N'G ivot applicable e) Dumping of garbage or lawn debris or No No Not applicable other unauthorized materials f) Creation of a parcel that would be Not applicable wholly within the WR district or resulting No No in an unbuildable parcel, as determined by the director. } 16.665.060 Application Requirements 4 C; I All development applications on lots within, or partially with, the WR overlay district shall submit the following information, in addition to other information requirements required by this code. A. Type I Uses. The applicant shall prepare a plan that demonstrates that the use will be constructed and located so as to minimize grading, and native vegetation removal, and the area necessary for the use. The director may require additional I information where necessary to determine WR district boundaries or to mitigate ! identified impacts from a proposed development, including but not limited to: 1. a site survey as prescribed in Section 18.85.050.B; 2. one or more of the reports described in Section 18.85.050.C. it a B. Type II and III Uses: Site Specific Survey Required. If any Type II or III use or activity is proposed within a water resource, riparian setback or water quality buffer area, the applicant shall be responsible for preparing a survey of the entire site that precisely maps and delineates the following: 1. The name, location and dimensions of significant minor streams (including adjacent wetlands), major streams or rivers (including associated wetlands), and the tops of their respective streambanks or wetland edges. 2. Isolated wetlands. 3. The area enclosed by the riparian setback. 4. The area enclosed by the USA water quality buffer. 5. Steeply sloped areas where the slope of the land is 20% or greater. 6. Existing public rights-of-way, structures, roads and utilities. E 7. Vegetation, including trees or tree clusters and understory. 8. Existing and proposed contours at 2-foot intervals. C. Site Specific Water Resource and Riparian Setback Determinations. The required survey of identified water resources and their respective riparian setbacks and water quality buffers, required by Section 18.85.060.8, shall serve as the basis for refining the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map. 1. The determination of the location of water resources, riparian setbacks n and water quality buffers shall be made under Type I procedure. 2. If excavation, vegetation removal or development is proposed completely outside of a water resource, riparian setback or water quality buffer, no further WR overlay zone requirements apply. 3. Permitted and conditional uses within surveyed riparian setback areas are limited to those described in Section 18.85.050 and subject to the development standards of this chapter. f. ra~ D. Type II and III Uses: Required Studies and Mitigation Reports. Each of the following studies shall be required whenever any Type II or III use is proposed within the WR overlay district. Each required report must consider the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory (Fishman Environmental Services, 1994), shall be in addition to the submission of information required for specific types of development, and shall be prepared by professionals in their respective fields. The Planning Director may exempt permit applications from one or more of these studies, based on specific findings as to why the study is unnecessary to determine cumpiiance with this chapter. This determination must be made, in writing, at or immediately following the required pre-application conference and prior to application submittal. 1. Hydrology and Soils Report. This report shall include information on the hydrological activities of the site, the effect of hydrologic conditions on the proposed development, and any hydrological or erosion hazards. This report shall also include soils characteristics of the site, their suitability for development, and erosion or slumping characteristics that might present a hazard to life and property, or adversely affect the use or stability of a public facility or utility. Finally, this report shall include information on the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, the adequacy of the site for development purposes, and an assessment of grading procedures required to impose the minimum disturbance to the natural state. The report shall include recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this code, and shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in Oregon. 2. Grading Plan. The grading plan shall be specific to a proposed physical structure or use and shall include information on terrain (two-foot intervals of property), drainage, direction of drainage flow, location of proposed structures and existing structures which may be affected by the proposed grading operations, water quality facilities, finished contours or elevations, including all cut and fill slopes and proposed drainage channels. Project designs including but not limited to locations of surface and subsurface devices, walls, dams, sediment basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices shall form part of the submission. The grading plan shall also include a construction phased erosion control plan consistent with the provisions of this code and a schedule of operations and shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in Oregon. 3. Vegetation Report. This report shall consist of a survey of existing vegetative cover, whether it is native or introduced, and how it will be altered by the proposed development. The report shall specifically identify disturbed areas (i.e., areas devoid of vegetation or areas that are dominated by non-native or invasive species) and the percentage of crown cover. Where a reduction in the riparian setback is proposed, measures for re-vegetation and enhancement with Second Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District IfPS- 02/24/97 4:38 PM - Page 8 1 i I native plant species will be clearly stated. The vegetation report shall include recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this code, and shall be prepared by a landscape architect, landscape designer, botanist or arborist with specific knowledge of native plant species, planting and maintenance methods, survival rates, and their ability to enhance fish and wildlife habitat and to control erosion and sedimentation. 4. Streambank_Conditions-Report. This report is only necessary if a roduction in the riparian setback area is proposed. The streambank conditions report shall consist of a survey of existing streambank conditions, including types of vegetative cover, the extent to which the streambank has been eroded, and the extent to which mitigation measures would be successful in restoring the stream to its pre-disturbance condition. Measures for improving fish and wildlife habitat and improving water quality will be clearly stated, as well as methods for immediate and long-term streambank stabilization. The streambank conditions report shall include recommendations to assure { compliance with each applicable provision of this rode, and shall be. prepared } by a wildlife biologist in concert with a hydrological engineer registered in J Oregon. The report shall specify long-term maintenance measures necessary to carry out the proposed mitigation plan. 18.85.070 Decision Options and Conditions 0 A. Decision Options. The Approval Authority may approve, approve with conditions or den an a lication b d h i i Z , y pp ase on t e prov s ons of this chapter. The Approval Authority may require conditions necessary to comply with the intent and provisions of this chapter. S B. Conditions. The required reports shall include design standards and recommendations necessary for the engineer and landscape expert to certify that the standards of this section can be met with appropriate mitigation measures. These measures, along with staff recommendations, shall be incorporated as conditions into the final decision approving the proposed development. , C. Assurances and Penalties. Assurances and penalties for failure to comply with mitigation, engineering, erosion and water quality plans required under this section shall be as stated in Chapter 18.24. 18.85.080 Development Standards f The following shall apply to all development, including native vegetation removal and excavation, within the WR overlay district. No application for a use identified in Section 18.85.050 shall be deemed complete until the applicant has addressed each of these standards in writing. j Second Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District ~ R'PS - 02/24/97 4:38 PM - Page 9 7 t ■ 0 A. Alternatives Considered. Except for stream corridor enhancement, most Type II and III uses are expected to develop outside of water resource and riparian setback areas. Therefore, Type II and III development applications must carefully examine upland alternatives for the proposed use, and explain the reasons why the proposed development cannot reasonably occur outside of the water resource or riparian setback area. B. Minimize Siting Impacts. The proposed use shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and adverse hydrological impacts on water resources. i 1. For Type II and III uses, the water quality engineer must certify that water quality in the affected water resource will not be diminished as a result of the development proposal. 2. For all uses, the development shall be located as far from the water resource, and use as little of the water resource or riparian setback area, as practicable. C. Construction Materials and Methods. No construction materials or methods may be used within the riparian setback area that would unnecessarily damage water quality or native vegetation. D. Minimize Flood Damage. Above-ground residential structures shall not be permitted within the WR overlay district, where such land is also within the 100-year floodplain. On-site flood storage capacity shall not decrease as a result of development. The cumulative effects of any proposed development shall not reduce flood storage capacity or raise base flood elevations on- or off-site. Any new commercial or industrial land development proposed within the 100-year floodplain shall be designed to minimize flood damage, consistent with Chapter 18.84. E. Avoid Steep Slopes. Within 50 feet of any water resource, excavation and vegetation removal shall be avoided on slopes of 25 percent or greater and in areas with high erosion potential (as shown on SCS maps), except where necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure slope stability. F. Minimize Impacts on Existing Vegetation. The following standards shall apply when construction activity is proposed in areas where vegetation is to be preserved. 1. Temporary measures used for initial erosion control shall not be left in place permanently. 2. Work areas on the immediate site shall be carefully identified and marked to reduce potential damage to trees and vegetation. 3. Trees shall not be used as anchors for stabilizing working equipment. 4. During clearing operations, trees and vegetation shall not be permitted to fall or be placed outside the work area. 5. In areas designated for selective cutting or clearing, care in falling and removing trees and brush shall be taken to avoid injuring trees and shrubs to be left in place. 6. Stockpiling of soil, or soil mixed with vegetation, shall not be permitted on a permanent basis. 0 1 G. Vegetation Mitigation Plan. If a Type II or III use is proposed within a water 1 resource site or riparian setback area, or mitigation is proposed as a method to reduce the riparian setback in accordance with Section 18.85.090, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented. 1. The applicant shall be responsible for re-vegetating areas temporarily disturbed by excavation on a 1:1 basis. 2. Where approv,. a! ..granted to mriuce the riparian setback area, the applicant . shall be responsible for mitigating for the reduced setback by replacing non- native vegetation with the remaining, protected riparian setback area on a 1.5:1 basis. That is, for each 100 square feet of riparian setback that is lost to development, at least 150 square feet of existing disturbed area within the riparian setback or wetland shall be re-planted with native plant species. 3. The re-vegetation plan shall provide for the replanting and maintenance of native plant species designed to achieve pre-disturbance conditions. The applicant shall be responsible for replacing any native plant species that do not survive the first two years after planting, and for ensuring the survival of any replacement plants for an additional two years after their r replacement. H. Water and Sewer Infiltration and Discharge. Water and sanitary sewer i facilities shall be designed, located and constructed to avoid infiltration of floodwaters into the system, and to avoid discharges from such facilities to streams and wetlands. 1. On-Site Systems. On-site septic systems and private wells shall be prohibited within the WR overlay district. 3 3 J. Erosion Control Plan. If a Type II or III use is proposed within a water resource a site or riparian setback area, the following erosion control standards shall apply within the WR overlay district: 1. Specific methods of soil erosion and sediment control shall be used during construction to minimize visible and measurable erosion. 2. The land area to be grubbed, stripped, used for temporary placement of soil, or to otherwise expose soil shall be confined to the immediate construction site only. 3. Construction activity will take place during the dry season (June- October), whenever feasible, and the duration of exposure of soils shall be kept to a minimum during construction. 4. Exposed soils shall be covered by mulch, sheeting, temporary seeding or other suitable material following grading or construction, until soils are stabilized. During the rainy season (November through May), soils shall not be exposed for more than 7 calendar days. All disturbed land areas which will remain unworked for 21 days or more during construction, shall be mulched and seeded. 5. During construction, runoff from the site shall be controlled, and increased runoff and sediment resulting from soil disturbance shall be retained on-site. Temporary diversions, sediment basins, barriers, check dams, or other methods shall be provided as necessary to hold sediment and runoff. Second Draft - City of Tigard Water Rcsourccs Ovcrlay District IfT.S - 02/24/97 4:38 PM - Page I I ■ i i j i 1 r I i i r~ w, 6. A stabilized pad of gravel shall be constructed at all entrances and exits to the construction site. The stabilized gravel pad shall be the only allowable entrance or exit to the site. 7. Topsoil removal for development shall be stockpiled and reused on-site to the degree necessary to restore disturbed areas to their original or enhanced condition, or to assure sufficient stable topsoil for re-vegetation. Additional soil shall be provided if necessary to support re-vegetation. 8. The removal of all sediments which are carried into the streets, water resources or on to adjacent property, are the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant shall be responsible for cleaning up and repairing streets, catch basins, water resource areas and adjacent properties, where such properties are affected by sediments or mud. In no case shall sediments be washed into storm drains, ditches or drainageways. 9. Any other relevant provision of the Washington County Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook, required by the Planning Director. K. Plan Implementation. A schedule of planned erosion control and re-vegetation measures shall be provided, which sets forth the progress of construction activities, and mitigating erosion control measures. An approved Erosion Control or Re- vegetation Plan shall be implemented and maintained as follows: 1. Erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any stripping or excavation work. 2. The applicant shall implement the measures and construct facilities contained in the approved Erosion Control Plan in a timely manner. During active construction, the applicant shall inspect erosion control measures daily, and maintain, adjust, repair or replace erosion control measures to ensure that they are functioning properly. 3. Eroded sediment shall be removed immediately from pavement surfaces, off-site areas, and from the surface water management system, including storm drainage inlets, ditches and culverts. 4. Water containing sediment shall not be flushed into the surface water management system, wetlands or streams without first passing through an approved sediment filtering facility or device. 5. In addition, the applicant shall call for City inspection, prior to the foundation inspection for any building, to certify that erosion control measures are installed in accordance with ti ie erosion control plan. L. Type III Conditional Uses. The procedural and substantive provisions of Chapter 18.130, Conditional Uses, in addition to Section 18.85.080(L)(1-2) below and 18.85.080(A-K) above, shall apply to determine whether a Type III use listed below may be approved. The applicant for conditional use approval shall: 1. Demonstrate that there will not be any net loss in the values of the resource area; and 2. Submit a detailed mitigation plan to show that any loss of riparian values will be fully compensated through the enhancement program. Second Drujt - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District IPPS - 02/24/97 4:38 PM - Pagc 12 i I {k, { 0 f i . f t i 98.85.090 Riparian Setback Reductions The Director may approve a site-specific reduction of the Tualatin River or any major stream riparian setback by as much as 50 percent to allow the placement of structures or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that equal or better protection for identified major strpgm resources is ensured through streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved portions of the riparian setback area. A. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. To be eligible for a riparian setback reduction, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination must be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.85.050.C that demonstrates all of the following: 1. Native plant species currently cover less than 80 percent of the on-site riparian corridor area; 2. The tree canopy currently covers less than 50 percent of the on-site riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from the on- site riparian setback area for the last five years; 3. That vegetation was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section 18.85.050 regulating removal of native plant species; 4. The riparian area is not entirely within the 100-year floodplain; and 5. The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20 percent. C. Determination of Extent of Riparian Setback Reduction. Provided that the standards of 18.85.080.6 are met, as much as 50 percent of riparian area may be developed, based on a vegetation enhancement and streambank mitigation plan, and subject to the following standards: 1. The minimum remaining riparian setback for the Tualatin River shall not be less than 37.5 feet, and the minimum remaining major stream riparian setback shall not be less than 25 feet. 2. Based on the recommendations of the required vegetation report, up to a 33 percent reduction in the riparian setback area may be approved, provided that the applicant enhances disturbed portions of the remaining riparian setback area on a 1:5 basis. The vegetation report identifies disturbed areas (non-vegetated areas and areas that are overgrown with non-native or invasive plant species such as English ivy or Himalayan blackberry) and areas dominated by native plant species. Thus, for every 100 square feet of riparian setback area that is developed, at least 150 square feet of the disturbed portion of the remaining riparian setback area must be re-planted with native plant species. In this manner, up to a one- third riparian setback reduction may be approved. 3. As much as a 17 percent reduction of the riparian setback area may be approved, based on an approved streambank mitigation plan prepared by a biologist and a hydrological engineer. The plan must certify that the streambank mitigation measures will substantially improve fish and wildlife habitat and water quality. Secnnd Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District I1TS- 02/21/97 4:38 PM -Page 13 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards In contrast to variances to the standards of the WR overlay district, adjustments to dimensional standards of the underlying zoning district may be approved by the Planning Director when necessary to further the intent of this overlay district. A. Adjustment Option. The Planning Director may approve up to a 50 percent adjustment to any dimensional standard (e.g., setback, height or lot area) of the underlying zoning district to allow development consistent with the purposes of the t WR overlay district. The purpose of the adjustment process is to reduce adverse t impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the i potential for slope or flood hazards. { B. Adjustment Criteria. A special WR overlay district adjustment may be M requested under Type II procedure when development is proposed within or adjacent to the WR overlay district. In order for the director to approve a dimensional adjustment to standards in the underlying zoning district, the applicant shall ( demonstrate that the following criteria are fully satisfied: j 1. The adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow a permitted use, while at a the same time minimizing disturbance to a water resource, riparian setback area or water quality buffer. y 2. Explicit consideration has been given to maximizing vegetative cover, minimizing excavation and minimizing impervious surface area on unbuildable F land. r 3. Design options have been considered to reduce the impacts of development, j including but not limited to multi-story construction, siting of the residence g close to the street to reduce driveway distance, maximizing the use of native ( landscaping materials, minimizing parking area and garage space. 4. In no case shall the impervious surface area of a single-family residence (including the building footprint, driveway and parking areas, accessory structures, swimming pools and patios) exceed 3,000 square feet of water resource, riparian setback or water quality buffer area. 5. Assurances are in place to guarantee that future development will not encroach further on land under the same ownership within the WR overlay district. I The Planning Director may impose any reasonable condition necessary to mitigate identified impacts resulting from development on otherwise unbuildable land. nsfer ( 1 I i I 98.85.120 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards 1 1 J j r Variances to the use provisions of Section 18.85.050 are not permitted. Variances from measurable (dimensional) provisions of this chapter shall be discouraged and may be considered only as a last resort. A. Type III Variance Option. The Hearings Officer shall hear and decide variances from dimensional provisions of this chapter under Type III procedure, in accordance with the criteria in Chapter 18.134 of the zoning ordinance. E B. Additional Criteria. In addition to the general variance criteria described in Chapter 18.134, all of the following additional criteria must be met to grant a variance to any dimensional provision of this chapter: I 1. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable economic use of the subject parcel of land, which is owned by the applicant, and which was not created after the effective date of this chapter. 2. Strict application of the provisions of this chapter would otherwise result in the loss of a buildable site for a use that is permitted outright in the underlying zoning district, and for which the applicant has submitted a formal application. 3. The applicant has exhausted all options available under this chapter to relieve the hardship. 4. Based on review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, the I variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, considering the potential for increased flood and erosion hazard, and potential adverse impacts on native vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality. 5. Based on review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, no significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion or slope stability will result from approval of this hardship variance, Qt these impacts have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible. 6. Loss of vegetative cover shall be minimized. Any lost vegetative cover shall be 'l replaced on-site, on a 1-to-1 basis, by native vegetation. 18.85.130 Plan Amendment Option Any owner of property affected by the WR district may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove WR overlay district from the property. The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following: i A. ESEE Analysis. The applicant may prepare an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040. 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use fully, consider both impacts on the specific resource site in comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area. 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource. 3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use. 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis. 5. If the application Is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. B. Determination of "Insignificance." In this case, the applicant must demonstrate that the water resource site(s) no longer meet(s) the applicable significance threshold defined by the Goal 5 administrative rule, relative to other comparable resources within the Tigard Planning Area. 1. Significance thresholds are described and applied in the addendum to the ( City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory adopted by reference as part of this chapter. 2. In considering this claim, the Council shall determine that the decline in identified resource values did not result from a violation of this chapter or any other provision of the Tigard Community Development Code. Se-nJDraft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District IMPS - 02/24/97 4:38 PM - Page 16 1 4-21-97 i { Maunr anti [ niine.il memherg II ~ c L0CSrs I()0 b `l-Z14 7 I am at a loss as to how we arrived at this impass. Up untill and including the Feburary 11 t° meeting, we had created a useful tool that would benifit all involved within the triangle. We have the approval from ODOT and Metro 20/40. We thought we had cleared the last obstacle that prevented future progress for the triangle. Yet somehow deep within the city's think tank the spirit and decisions of the task force members were rii_¢pnrchrtl into the twGaht zone; and what was renficated to take it's place is totally ( . unworkable and unacceptable and certainly not the wishes of the task force. j It was my understanding that we were working participants on this committee, not mere _ figureheads used as camouflage for someone elses agenda I feel bike we are involved in a petty power struggle. I want us to get back on iine and do what is necessary for the common good of the triangle. It is shamefull the amount of time and effort that has been wasted on this issue for years. I urge each and every one of you to work with us towards a quick resolution so that the citizens in the triangle can take their lives oft hold and move on. F t, IP Co . ~ ~ 7 ° ! 7!r' r q .,kt t ° T 5 yt.. 'U r +'ti3: .b:'. ! r/ 4S ei 7^ j ~IUh ~"Y'rtUt ~..~lllq pllt 14J LU17 k ~ Ull -'e tln . "i/.. 7r+ ~ Y.i T ~ a'` ....~G.:~'b1~~"`' wt(~ ~;r ~ S~k•.. ;}4~. ity~ }grty JtJq t,,.r~ • 1 s PROCLAMATION City of Tigard Y3~ WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS WEEK 7 ,~It17ll'r; } 1II{Ilkd'._ WHEREAS. Wane- ^ J ~J7n!ljlkh --:~1-In, uusinesses are the fastest growing segment of small businesses and, as such, have become a vital contributor to the economic health of their communities; and +592. ~ WHEREAS' Women business owners face considerable risks, obstacles and 7n challenges in order to succeed in the marketplace; and +s9Rtip yt11!lit~~A' f WHEREAS,. Community a:aarencss ' e~ . ten' „ support is a crucial component in .f the continued success of the current and future women-owned businesses; i and WHEREAS, Women Entrepreneurs of Oregon originated this week of gfllis ;all?IIIt1:: _s~°•~observance to focus attention on, and increase awareness of, the sacrifices s a_ made, successes won and contributions of all women business owners. o; ~ NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Mayor Jim Nicoli, of the City t t !tttt~ of Tigard, Oregon, do hereby proclaim the week of May 11 - 17, 1997 as u PlIpC~` ; ~ . s WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS WEEK ? in Tigard, Oregon and encourage all citizens of our city to join in this observance. i1tlliN Dated this _ day of , 1997. "~!(t,•iiiy~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal` ~7111Gc,, _ of the City of Tigard to be affixed. Jim Nicoli, Mayor City of Tigard Attest: ■ drv l } I n MEMORANDUM TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY Cvurlc;.C i'YLu~C. i CITY OF TIGARD TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Kathy Davis, Director of Library Service DATE: April 22, 1997 SUBJECT: Governor's Proclamation, "Be Kind to Animals Week" The attached proclamation is the fruit of the labor of long-time Tigard area resident, Judith Kent. Judith and her family have been library users for more than 20 years and during that time the humane treatment of animals is a topic she has poured heart and soul into bringing to the community. Judith, whose background includes certificates in teaching and counseling, was the 0 driving force behind the establishment of the first animal shelter in the Salem area. She garnered public support for the project through the organization of children's activities such as letter writing campaigns, essays, and poster contests. The facility was constructed with the resulting corporate and individual donations, and is currently operated by the Humane Society of the Willamette Valley. Governor Victor Atiyeh and his wife visited the site and crafted the language on the attached proclamation. This sentiment has been validated and reissued as a proclamation by each of the subsequent governors; Goldschmidt, Roberts, and now Kitzhaber. Judith has been tireless in her efforts to promote the concept of the importance of Humane Education as an important component of our children's lives. As she puts it, "if we can model for our children the concepts of compassion and caring for animals, perhaps that will carry over into our treatment of people as well." Attachment 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 i 'i OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR PROCLAMATION STATE OF OREGON 1 WHEREAS: we should be continually aware of the quality and depth the animal world brings into our lives; and WHEREAS: the beauty of an eagle soaring over a canyon, the thrill of a whale rolling up in the sea, the majesty of an elk on a distant ridge make our lives fuller and richer; and WHEREAS: the animals Oregonians keep as pets also greatly enrich our lives they provide companionship to their owners, give protection to some and a reason for being to a few, and justifiable joy to all who appreciate and cherish them; and WHEREAS: our pets' freely given love and loyalty deserves our recognition, appreciation and acknowledgment. NOW, THEREFORE, I, John A. Kitzhaber, Governor of the State of Oregon, hereby proclaim May 4-10, 1997 to be j BE KIND TO AINENLkLS WEEK in Oregon and encourage all citizens to join in this observance. IN WIT NESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the State of Oregon to be affixed. Done at the Capitol in the City of Salem in the State of Oregon on this day, April 10, 1997. John A. Kitzhaber, Governor Phil Keisling, Secretary of State a AGENDA ITEM 4 FOR AGENDA OF-April 22. 1997 t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i _ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Speed Hump Program C~ PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK -427`9 CITY MANAGER OK-t4101- ISSUE BEFORE THE O JN II Approval by the Local Contract Review Board of the contract award to the low bidder on the Speed Hump Project. i F I STAFF RECOMMFNDATIQN Approval of the contract award to the responsible low bidder on the Speed Hump Project. i j INFORMATION SUMMARY .-qte Speed Hump Program is approved for implementation in the FY 1996-97 Capital Improvement Program `-Budget. Out of a list of 46 streets, Council approved four streets for installation of Speed Humps. The Engineering Department solicited approval of the project from residents adjacent to these four streets. At least f 50% of the residents along each street have to be in favor of the Speed Hump installations for the project to be included in the package. Three of the streets had favorable responses, but one street did not meet the requirement. The three streets included in this year's hid package are: 128th Avenue from Walnut Street to Winter Lake Drive, North Dakota from 115th to 121st, and Locust Street from Lincoln to Jefferson. North Dakota from Spring-wood to Scholls did not meet the 50% resident approval criteria. The project was advertised for bids on March 27, 1997 with bid opening scheduled for April 16, 1997. Engineering staff anticipates that the bid amount will exceed $25,000. The actual low bid will be determined by late afternoon on April 16, and the contract award amount will be made available at that time. To avoid delay in implementation of the project by scheduling the contract award approval for the May 13th Council meeting, this submittal for approval is I included for the April 22, 1997 meeting with bid inforination to be provided immediately after the bids have I been opened on April 16, 1997. If the total project cost turns out less than $25,000, the approval by the LCRB would not be required and the agenda item would be withdrawn prior to the meeting. THFR ALTERNATIVES N ID ~ FRFD 1 Open bids on April 16 and if the total bid amount exceeds $25,000, submit the results for LCRB approval in the 1 May 13, 1997 Business Meeting. This would delay commencement of the project by approximately a month. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Intergovernmental Agreement between Washington County and the City of Tigard for f the provision of specific urban services for portions of unincorporated Washington County, PREPARED BY: JNPH DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK { ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL t 1 Should the City enter into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Washington County to provide specific f urban services to portions of unincorporated Washington County? f STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve entering into the intergovernmental agreement to provide specific urban services for portions of unincorporated Washington County. INFORMATIONSUMMARY The County 2000 Strategic Plan states that ultimately, cities are the logical provider of urban services. Discussions were initiated by the County in an effort to fulfill the intent of County 2000. The City Council established a complementary goal for 1996/97 for the development of an IGA for areas within Tigard's Urban f Growth Boundary. The City Administrator and the Community Development Director met with Washington County approximately i two years ago to begin discussions on the City's interest for providing urban type services to those portions of unincorporated Washington County that are immediately adjacent to the City of Tigard. This area is referred to as being in the City's area of interest, is identified in our Comprehensive Plan, and is subject to specific policies that encourage annexation. The County has demonstrated their commitment in having the City provide planning, building, engineering, maintenance, and code enforcement services to the area. Specific code and plan amendments have been adopted j by the County to allow a smooth transition. Law enforcement would not be affected by this effort. The County will provide the City with sufficient financial resources to serve the area. This includes retention of all fees collected for development related activities, e.g., building permits, planning fees, etc. Funds would also be ` transferred to provide for all startup costs associated with this service. " ,he matter had previously been scheduled for Council consideration on March 25, 1997. Several issues were \"dutstanding and since that time, the agreement has been revised to address both City and County concerns. kh 503-243-2944 Rpr 22,97 15:24 No.011 P.02 O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Suet Poland, Oregon 97209 TELEPHONE; (507) 2224401 PAX: (507) 2474944 Agenda Item No. `t Meeting of as / ,~-l DATA: April 22, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Tigard j FROM: Pamela J. Beery, City Attorney's office 1 ! RE: Status of urban services a r em nt - d d ti g e e recommen e on mo j Bill Monahan and I have been working since last Friday to obtain language for Section IV of the Active Planning IGA for your review at tonight's meeting. As of 4:00 p.m. today, I have not seen a revised document. Because of the number of drafts we have been through, and tho small amount of time remaining 1 1 today to review any language, I am recommending that if the Council adopts the agreement in _ concept tonight, that the motion provide authority and direction to the City Manager and myself to approve the form of the final a reement This ill ll t k i h i g . w a ow us o ma e m nor c anges to assure the agreement as presented is fully consistent with Council's direction on the important policy 1 issues at hand. a Suggested language for the motion is as follows: 1 move approval of the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington i County, subject to approval of the final form of the agreement by the City Attorney and City Manager. The agreement, in addition to the language In the April 11, 1997 draft, will include the following key provisions: i 1. Section IV(A)(2) will cover defense of LUBA appeals as set forth in the City Attorney's April 17 letter. i j 2. The County will pay the cost of the first year's additional insurance premium for i i coverage to $3,000,000 in the active planning area, i 3. The County will share the cost of defense, settlements and judgments in inverse I condemnation and other litigation or claims not covered by Insurance, to a maximum of $500,000 and secure that obligation with a new separate fund." ODONNELL RRMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Apr 22,97 15:24 No.011 P.03 ,j O'DONNBLL RAMIS CREW CORMOAN & BACHRACH Memo re: Status of urban services agreement - recommended motion April 22, 1997 fare 2 With the exception of the policy Issue for Council concerning how much risk is appropriate for " the City to take in the claims not covered by insurance, and with the ability to make final language adjustments as provided In this motion, I ant ready to recommend approval of the agreement. j ( i . ' f i ii 1 U f i DATE,: April 22, 1997 CLIENT NO.: 90024-07 TO: Cath Wheatie 3 City Recorder FAX 684-7297 1 Phone 639-4171 I FROM: Pam Beery ' FAX # (503) 243-2944 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUME?iT TRANSMITTED: memo containing motion for Urban Svcs agreement f COMMBNTS: Per my conversation with Bill Monahan, here is some language for a motion for tonight it the Council wishes to approve the IGA with Washington County. I'm still waiting for language for same from the County. j 2 PAGE(S) TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE. CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222.44021MMEINATFI.Y. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Pam Beery ,j ' AN ORIGINAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 4/22/97 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Budget Adjustment for Urban ervic Program PREPARED BY: Wavne DEPT HEAD OK . CITY ADMIN OK - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve a budget adjustment to provide budget authority for the Urban Services program for the month of June 1997? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached budget adjustment. f The City and the County have been negotiating an intergovernmental agreement under which the City will provide planning, engineering and Building inspection services in the adjacent unincorporated areas. The County is willing to transfer funds on June I to fund the start up of this program and to provide funding for the projects in process at that time. The City will also be entitled to revenues from fees and permits from this area ,U, --For the balance of the fiscal year and into the future. The provision of these services in this area beginning June 1 1997 will require the hiring of nine positions. These positions were not included in the current 1996/97 budget and therefore must be provided for in the attached budget adjustment. In addition, some capital equipment and materials and services will also be necessary for use by the new employees. The projected costs of this program for the remainder of the 1996/97 fiscal year will be accounted for in a newly i established Urban Services Fund. Revenue in this fund will be the amount transfered to the City from the County estimated at $215,000 for the specific purpose of providing these services and any permits sold in June for developments in the Urban Services which are estimated at $60,000. j The attached resolution establishes the Urban Services Fund, recognizes the anticipated revenues and establishes appropriations in the various programs for this effort. OTHER A T RNATIV S CONSIDERED Delay implementation into next fiscal year. I FISCAL NOTES { Establishes new Urban Services Fund, recognizes revenue in the amount of $275,000, sets up program appropriations in the Urban Services Fund in the amount of $99,650 for the remainder of the 1996/97 fiscal year. l Agenda Item No. (.D Meeting of a K't CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A resolution amending h existing FY1996 97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group Employees to add the new classification of Inspection Sypenaor atySal= Range 60. and to amend the Salary Range for he classification ofBuilding Official from Range 64 to Rage 66. PREPARED BY:- Sandy Zodrow DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUF BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council act to amend the existing FYI 996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group Employees by adding the new classification of Inspection Supervisor at Range 60 and changing the Salary Range for the classification of Building Official from Range 64 to Range 66. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Mend the existing FYI 996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group Employees as shown 'ter xhibit A attached to the Resolution. i INFORMATION S RyfMARY f l The two items contained in this resolution (creation of the classification of Inspection Supervisor at Range 60 and setting the salary range of the Building Official at Range 66), are being presented to Council simultaneously as they are both directly relate to the significantly increased responsibilities being assumed by the City of Tigard effective May 1, 1997 to provide services for the unincorporated area within the urban growth boundary in E Washington County adjacent to the City of Tigard. As explained below, the staff of the Building Division will increase to ensure that services can be performed, necessitating the creation of one new classification and the change in salary for the division manager, the Building Official. j Human Resources has reviewed the proposed new classification of Inspections Supervisor. As part of the I{~ assumption of inspection functions in the May 1, 1997 urban services agreement with Washington County, the Building Division of Community Development will be hiring an additional four (4) inspectors, bringing a total 5 of eleven (11) inspectors to the division. The Building Official currently serves as the supervisor for these t positions. The Department has indicated that this represents too large of a manageable number of direct reports, j and does not allow the Official adequate time to perform his managerial functions. They have requested the creation of a supervisor to assist in this area. The new classification of Inspection Supervisor at Range 60 would assume supervisory responsibilities over the Inspectors, performing the full range of supervisory duties. e adopted Classification and Compensation Plan identifies guidelines for salary differentials between various ,Is of job classifications within the organization, including a differential of 20% between a supervisor and their highest paid subordinate. Creation of the new Inspections Supervisor within the Building Division, and its placement at salary range 60 results in a 10% differential between the Building Official (current range is 64, 2.5% difference between range numbers) and its highest paid subordinate, the Inspection Supervisor. The posidzin of C;.:°.:n--mitj Deve!op ; Cut Diuceior, currently placed at Range 72, would be located 15% above the Building Official position. Although this requested action does not totally achieve the 20% supervisory differential, it is reasonable given the current organizational structure. FISCAL NOTES I The total cost of the salary and benefits for the Inspections Supervisor will be borne by the Urban Services Fund ac part of the intn~n e..., en ~ t n Lw..-.~w.__- L _ -•b.. ..~,cc:;cnt ccu ulc Clty of Tigard and Washington County for provision of Urban Services. The Building Division is a fee supported operation, and it is anticipated that revenues will cover the salary costs of approximately $3,000 annually associated with changing the salary range of the Building Official from Range 64 to Range 66. CD AGENDA ITEM # , FOR AGENDA OF __q1 ac% CI ` l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A resolution amending the current labor agreement between the City of Tigard and i the Oregon Public Employees Union Local 199 to add the classification of Code Compliance Specialist at Salary Range 41 in the FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule. 1 PREPARED BY: Sandy Zodrow DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK J~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council act to amend the current labor agreement between the City and the Oregon Public Employees Union, Local 199, by adding the classification of Code Compliance Specialist at Range 41 in the FY f` 1996-97 Salary Schedule. Amend the current labor agreement between the City of Tigard and the Oregon Public Employees Union by adding the classification of Code Compliance Specialist at Salary Range 41 in the FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule. INFORMATION SUMMARY 3 0 As part of the assumption of planning functions outlined in the agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington County for services to be provided in the urban services area, the Department of Community 1 Development defined the duties and responsibilities to be assigned to one FTE to be responsible for all aspects f of the municipal code enforcement function. Human Resources reviewed the defined duties and responsibilities and determined that there is no current classification which appropriately fits these proposed duties and responsibilities. Therefore, Human Resources is recommending the creation of a new classification of Code Compliance Specialist at Range 41. It is appropriate that this new classification be represented by the Oregon Public Employees Union, Local 199; and it is, therefore, necessary that the current labor agreement with OPEU be amended to reflect the addition of the Code Compliance Specialist classification. There will be no fiscal impact during Fiscal Year 1996-97 as this position is to be filled after July 1, 1997. Sufficient finds have been requested in the FY 1997-98 budget to support this position. 1 AGENDA ITEM # n FOR AGENDA OF April 22. 1997 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL, AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Highway 99W Interim Corridor Strategy DEPT HEAD OK ,%l/y CITY ADMIN OK Vt~ Ni h l L PREPARED BY i c o son . aur e : j ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL j Staff from the Oregon Department of Transportation will present the draft interim strategy for the Highway ! # 99W/OR 18 corridor. Attached to this summary sheet is the executive summary of the draft interim corridor j slralegy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION r No recommendation. This item is not an action item. INFORMATION SUMMARY corridor plan is a long-range program for managing and improving transportation facilities and services to meet ',~?.ie needs for moving people and goods. A key element of corridor planning is consideration of the linkage j between land use and transportation needs. The Oregon Transportation Plan establishes the general policies and planning direction for the development of corridor plans. It also responds to related modal plans for freight movement, rail service, aviation, pedestrian/bicycle, public transportation, and safety that have been adopted. Corridor plans assist in the j development of transportation projects for implementation through the Statewide Transportation Improvement I Program (STIP). The Highway 99W/OR 18 interim corridor strategy plan addresses the operation, preservation, and improvement of transportation facilities for this corridor. It covers a 20-year planning period, building upon federal, state, and local transportation and land use policies and plans. The involvement of residents, users, and other participants has resulted in extensive input to the strategy plan. This strategy will guide subsequent development of the Corridor Plan and serve as the basis for selection of individual improvement projects and implementation of new or expanded transportation services. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This item does not involve action from the City Council. U FISCAL NOTES E l: 1 Date: March 5, 1997 To: 99W/18 Corridor Planning Managemen From: John G. de 1'ar, ODOT, (503) 986-2653 Jamie Damon, Jeanne Lawson Associate Randy Hammond, C112MHILL, (503): RE: Executive Summaries and Presentation " ® I } You should all receive your copy of the full Interim Corr 1 you do not. he sure to call one of its at the numbers I I additional copies of the document and we will be distril copies of the Executive Summary for distribution to yo make more copies if needed. As a result of our telephot presentations as follows: Tuesday, Mari 7:00 - 9: McMinnville Communi 600 N Evai McMinnvi Monday, Mari 7:00 - 9: Lincoln City Cou 801 SW Hig In addition, some of you requested presentations at upct Board meetings. We will be following up with you with have sent a letter to the Corridor Advisory Croup and enclosed, thanking them for their input and inviting them We look forward to seeing you over the next few weeks! i I --1 1 RECro MAR 0 6 19 T m i U) 235-5881 000 itrategy document from GDDT by witttcit i 7. if f above. We know that many of you requested them to you soon. Enclosed you will find the nmcils, Commissions, and Boards. Feel free to Is to all of you recently we have scheduled two i 1997 inter, Room 102 set )R C 1 1 J eanne Lawson Associates ,w Public Involvement Specialists March 5, 1997 I Laurie Nicholson City of Tigard I City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd "Tigard, OR 97223 1 ® a Dear Laurie, ( i - ® I am writing to confirm that John de Tar of ODOT will be at the following meeting to give a brief presentation and answer questions regarding the 99W18 f Interim Strategy. City of Tigard Council City Hall Council Chambers 13125 SW Hall Blvd April 22, 7:30 PM Confirmed Thank you for your help in scheduling this presentation. { Sincerely, yi Sandie Hillman s j Jeanne Lawson Associates j 503-235-5881 I 7110 SE Alder Street. Suite 301 Pnone (503) 235-588, Portland. OR 97214 Fa. {503) 230-4877 99WI18 Interim Corridor Strategy Executive Summary .r' Whnt Ic (`nrrirrllnr Dinnninn wnrl Whit Ie It Rginn nnne The Oregon Department of Transportation is developing plans for 31 transportation corridors identified in the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) as being of statewide or interstate importance. A corridor plan is a long-range program for managing and improving transportation facilities and services to meet the needs for moving people and goods. A key element of corridor planning is consideration of the linkage between land use and transportation needs. Highway 99W and Highway 18 extend 75 miles between Portland and Lincoln City, serving accessibility among growing cities and rural communities, freight movement, tourism, and commute and recreational travel. The benefits of long-range planning in this corridor include (a) resolution of planning issues, (b) preservation of transportation rights-of-way, (c) protection of transportation investments, and (d) cooperation among diverse organizations to implement projects and services. The Oregon Transportation Plan establishes the general policies and planning direction for the development of corridor plans. It also responds to related modal plans for freight movement, rail service, aviation, pedestrian/bicycle, public transportation, and safety that have been adopted. Corridor plans assist in the development of transportation projects for implementation through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). Corridor planning is organized into three The purpose of the Oregon Transportation Plat: phases, proceeding from the general to the is to guide development of a safe, convenient, specific. In the first phase, transportation and efficient transportation system that goals and management objectives are identified in the development of the promotes economic prosperity and livability for Corridor Strategy. The second phase all Oregonians. includes preparation of General/System Plans, defining the transportation improvement needs and accompanying land use framework. In sections of the corridor with particular environmental, land use, or operational concerns, Refinement Plans can be developed as a third phase. This interim corridor strategy plan addresses the operation, preservation, and improvement of transportation facilities in the Highway 99W/18 corridor. It covers a 20-year planning period, building upon federal, state, and local transportation and land use policies and plans. The involvement of residents, users, and other participants has resulted in extensive input to the strategy plan. This strategy will guide subsequent development of the Corridor Plan and Refinement Plans, and serve as the basis for selection of individual improvement projects and implementation of new or expanded transportation services. Pox173E5.Doc ES-1 i r `r t g~ G r G I i f i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Corridor Overview Congested traffic operations develop on a recurring basis during weekday commute hours in the Portland metropolitan area and outlying cities, and throughout the corridor on summer weekends and holidays. Two gambling casinos have recently opened in the corridor, adding to the tourist and recreational draw. Accident experience along the corridor is generally cnnsistent with statewide averages for 1 the various urban and rural segments, but fatality rates exceed statewide averages on Highway 18 west of McMinnville and in the urban areas along Highway 99W. The lack of continuous shoulders or sidewalks discourages pedestrian and bicycle activity. t 2. Major Issues The Highway 99WJ18 corridor traverses a wide spectrum of landscapes, including the coastal estuary, the Coast Range, the rich farmlands of the Yamhill, Willamette, and The corridor extends along Highway 99W from I-5 (Exit 294) in Portland to McDougal's Corner near Dayton, and along Highway 18 west to Highway 101 on the Oregon Coast. It is designated as a Corridor of Statewide Importance in the OTP and as part of the National Highway System. Railroads in the corridor extend from Portland to Fort Hill, but do not reach the coast. The corridor serves the metropolitan areas southwest of Portland, connecting to communities in the Yamhill Valley and west along the Salmon River, as shown on Figure ES-1. The corridor provides commuter access to cities along the route and is a primary link to the Oregon Coast from both Portland and Salem. Daily traffic volumes on the highway currently range from about 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd) near Highway 101 to 53,000 vpd in Tigard near I-5. Future volumes in these areas are predicted to range from about 10,000 vpd to the west to more than 80,000 vpd in Tigard. Trucks currently comprise 6 to 8 percent of traffic volume in the corridor (940 to 1,740 vpd). Pub: c transit consists of bus service in the Portland metropolitan area and dial-a-ride service elsewhere. No passenger rail service currently operates in the corridor, but studies have been conducted to investigate commuter rail feasibility and potential connections to the Portland area light rail system. A short-line railroad operates in the corridor as far west as Fort Hill, with connections to Portland and to Albany. Public airports are located in McMinnville, Newberg, and Sheridan, but there is no scheduled commercial air service in these communities. Portland International Airport is located about 15 miles north of the corridor terminus. Tualatin Valleys, small rural communities, and cities ranging to the state s largest metropolitan area. Given this diversity of interests, an extensive menu of potential actions was mentioned by participants in the public involvement program. Most frequently cited j were problems of congestion, safety, lack of commute alternatives, need for bypass routes, difficulties of access, and uncertainty of funding for improvements. The range of issues is highlighted briefly below, for topics specified in the OTP. 1 O J ~ Z Z i ~ ~ o r _J -7 gm ¢ } o w W Ca ¢ Z Y = / C7 `o U O LL o ¢ U J Z O - Z ¢ Z) ¢ O ~ U AN m~ N 1 li= ~O C7¢ J ~ O z m o, U ~ J U .p e °u I ~r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Transportation Balance Transportation in the corridor is served by a variety of passenger and freight modes, but commuter travel continues to be dominated by the private automobile. Transportation plans in the urban areas emphasize the need to address congestion through measures that reduce the relative demand for single-occupant travel, simultaneously expanding commute options such as carpooling, iransii, bicyuiA1g, and walking. Implementation of commuter rail service or connections to the light rail system could prove to be a viable commute option in this corridor at a future time. Improved freight mobility in the corridor could be achieved with projects to control access, reduce delays, add passing and truck climbing lanes, and reconstruct curves along the highway. Improved railroad transportation could be provided by upgrading tracks to allow higher operating speeds. Regional Connectivity Connections among the communities served by Highway 99W/18 are vital to the local and state economy. The highway serves as a major arterial route for commuters, tourists, local users, and freight movement. In many communities, it also is the focus of commercial activity, with the result that conflicts develop between the functions of through movement and local access. Growth in population, tourism, and employment is increasing travel demand in the corridor, adversely affecting travel times for both commute and recreational purpbses. Measures that protect or enhance the capacity of the corridor will be required to maintain efficient connections. These measures could include widening, added lanes for turning, passing, or truck climbing, conversion to full access control with interchanges, development of bypasses, and access management programs. Highway Congestion In the Portland metropolitan area, a combination of actions will be required to address traffic congestion. First, aggressive programs to manage transportation demand are available to shift travel to other modes through carpool matching, transit service expansion, park-and-ride facilities, employer trip reduction programs, and elimination of free parking for commuters. Transportation system management measures also will be pursued, consisting of signal coordination, addition of turning lanes, raised medians, shared driveways, and access management. As these measures succeed, the subsequent needs to widen the highway may be reduced. A I travel demand of up to six lanes is projected on Highway 99W north of Sherwood, but there are significant constraints within Tigard, including the cost of right-of-way, impacts on I buildings and historic structures, air quality and noise concerns, and land use objectives. i In the rural areas, four lanes may be necessary to accommodate future travel demands. Grade-separated interchanges could be developed at junctions with other highways and arterial streets. Opportunities for widening are limited by natural constraints in the Van I 1 Duzer Corridor and along the Salmon River, including habitat for sensitive species, i f landslide areas, parkland, wetlands, and topographic limitations. j 1 j f PO%173E5.DOC f 1 E%ECUME Safety Safety performance of the corridor could deteriorate as volumes of through and turning traffic grow, unless accident countermeasures are instituted. Safety improvements can be accomplished with programs to modify intersections, add shoulders, grade-separate junctions, rebuild tight curves, control access, and create a multi-lane divided highway. A detailed analysis of accident patterns will reve-al appropriate counts-measure to be targeted for implementation in the short term. Transportation Impacts The natural environments through which the corridor passes are considered assets to the region. Transportation impacts that impinge on the environmental quality of the corridor should be restricted. Measures to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts will be required. Improvement projects also provide opportunities to correct past environmental damage. Implementing programs that emphasize alternative modes could contribute to reduced j growth of vehicle-miles of travel and promote energy efficiency. These efforts will complement emerging land use principles that emphasize pedestrian-friendly and transit- oriented development. i 3. Corridor Strategy The corridor strategy for Highway 99W/18 consists of a series of actions that respond to its vital role in serving commute and recreational travel and freight movement, and to the numerous constraints associated with corridor improvements. The following measures are envisioned. 1 I Transportation Balance • Pursue transportation demand and system management strategies as a first course in addressing future needs. • Develop support facilities for transit, carpooling, and the use of nonmotorized modes. • Retain the railroad as an effective means of freight transport, and investigate opportunities for commuter rail service in the corridor. I Regional Connectivity j • Develop and implement access management plans to control future access to the highway. • Continue study of limited-access bypass routes to enhance connectivity. • Pursue improvements that enhance truck mobility and safety. • Support improvement of the rail freight network serving the corridor. Highway Congestion l • Provide grade-separated interchanges at selected locations. ES-5 ■ EXECUTIVE SUMMMY j Implement a program of transportation system management measures to improve the efficiency of traffic flow. • Provide capacity improvements in balance with transportation system and demand management and mode shift goals and other community objectives. Safety • Target accident countermeasures for short-term implementation. • Pursue grade-separation, access control, and geometric modifications to reduce accident risk. Transportation Impacts • Develop detailed inventories of constraints that influence transportation improvements. • Consider methods of avoidance and mitigation for projects in the corridor. A detailed listing of objectives for corridor development is provided in Chapter 6 of this document. What's Next Following endorsement of the Interim Corridor Strategy by jurisdictions along the corridor, the Corridor Plan will be developed. It will strive to preserve and enhance the corridor through close coordination with local land use and transportation plans. The Corridor Strategy identifies a wide range of actions to be implemented by many agencies and service providers. In some areas, Refinement Plans will provide more detailed analysis. Additional public involvement is anticipated in future work phases. These inputs will be reflected in the selection of future projects and services. Decisions concerning priorities, trade-offs, and funding also will influence implementation of projects in the corridor. voxME5.DOc ES-6 t AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF April 22. 1997 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of Sanitary Sever Reimbursement District No 9 PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas~ -DEPT HEAD OK CITY MANAGER OK ISSUE BFFORF THE COUNCIL E Formation of a reimbursement district to construct sanitary sewer system extensions as part of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. Requires Council action to conduct the information public hearing on ! the proposed district, approve by resolution the formation of the reimbursement district, and approve the contract award for construction of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct the information public hearing on the formation of the reimbursement district 2. Approval of the attached resolution forming Reimbursement District No. 9. Approval by the Local Contract Review Board of the contract award to J.W. Underground. INFORMATION SUMMARY Property owners along SW Fairhaven Street and SW Fairhaven Way have expressed a strong interest in having sanitary sewer services extended to their streets through the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. I; Formation of a reimbursement district will allow the City to pay the cost of sewer installation up front, then recover those costs over time as property owners connect to the system. The proposed reimbursement district includes a total of 29 properties as shown on the attached Exhibit Map B and as described in the attached 1 Exhibit C. The project extends sewer lines into SW Fairhaven Way and SW Fairhaven Street as described in the City Engineer's Report attached as Exhibit A. Staff prepared contract documents and advertised for bids on the project. Bids were opened on March 18, 1997 with J.W. Underground submitting the low bid of $115,128.25. Both this initial resolution for the formation of the reimbursement district and approval of the contract award are required before notice of award can be issued to the contractor. Since this project was bid based on unit bid items, the actual construction cost may vary from the bid amount depending upon the actual quantities during construction. The total expected cost of the project includes the bid amount plus 13.5% for j , engineering and inspection fees resulting in a total project cost of $130,670.56. Another resolution to finalize the formation of the reimbursement district, with adjustments if needed, will be presented for Council action after construction is completed and actual construction costs are determined. The City Engineer's Report (Exhibit A), the map showing the district boundary and properties involved (Exhibit and the written description of the district boundary (Exhibit C) attached to the proposed resolution all provide ',.dditional details. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CON IDFRED 1. Reject the proposed reimbursement district. 2. Reduce the scope of the project and perform the project in two or more phases, FISCAL NOTES i The amount of $515,609 has been set aside in the approved FY 1996/97 Budget for the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. Reimbursement District No. 8 required approximately $23,000. T here is adequate fundm available to allow formation of this district and still leave well over $300,000 available for other potential b sanitary sewer extensions. 1~ t SE 1 /4 SECTION 3 T2S, R1 W W.M. CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON ' a OUTI ET t r O a~ ~ 3 g ~ (n E PARK SL I L tOG85 '.':.10815 :'.'•10905.'.': • .10875.7.' '.::•70785.': • 10885 :7. ::..t0A05::.: •:1J52S FNRNAYEN ST. :•FNRHM411 SL~ ~~FNRHAYEN Si.: FNRHAVFN SL••: FABUUYEN 5T.• 1 FNRHAWN Si. FNRHAVEN ST:~ •~FNRNAYEN ST.• •WATgNS ST.:~ CAN ONLY • • (LL 408) . (T.L 407) (T.L 408) (T.L 405) 8 HDpQD UP (T.L 403) (T.L 4D2) . (T.L 401) Q _ _ HOgC UP g iii 2 HEST ff 110TH N ~ 3 SW FAIRHAVEN ST. PRDPOSm s PRDPOSED Z 1Deeo 3 FNRHAwI sr. °j CAN ONLY :.:10850:: ::.;'.'~.'r.'::: 3 L HOOK UP ...'1091D... ..'.10880... '...10820..'. ..'~tOnO '...10730..'. fOBBD... •FNpHAYF71 ST. FNRNAYET7 ST. WATKINS ST. (n WEST OF 110TH F ST. AVFN ST AVEN OFN RHAVEN FNRHA4EN Sf. ® AIRHAY4! FNRH FNRN ST. FNRHA ST. FN 5T (TL 435) (T.L 438).... (T,L.437) (LL 412) (T.L 413) (TL 414) (TL 415) (LL 416) (LL 417) • • • • • • • • • ~ FG 13820 d SW 110TH AYE Qe ~ CAN ONLY a G Q WEST aF 1101H 1~........ a FNRNAYFN WAY... VICINITY MAP J~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ 1D725 • ~ • (T.L 434). , 10885 10855~~~••~ 10825 ~~~10785~•~~ : FA8WAW3! WAY O 10845 ~~~10A15 • FNRHAIEN WAY FNRHAYEN WAY FNRHAYEN WAY FNRHAVEN.WA ; (T.L 41 B) • FNRHAYE'N WA (LL 422) (LL 421 (LL 420) (LL 41D) n FNRHAYEN WAY : ) ' . (TL 427) HOOKED UP ~ ':::10710 :.:'FNRHAVEN WAY:::: (T.L 435) PROPOSED SEWER SW FAIRHAVEN WAY ' EpSTING :::70710.. LEGEND i .~':.F RHAYEN WAY.;:. 10880 • ~ ~ 7U9fi0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 70530 10800 10n0 TL 432) W ~ 10850 10720 FAWHAN]1 WAY FNRHAYEN WAY F VEN WAY FNRHA4F.N WAY FNRHAYEN WAY I = FAIRHA~EtI WAY FAIRHAYEN WAY HOOKED UP (T.L 428) LL 420) (TL 430) (LL 131) _ PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN ND01(EDUP HOOICmUP ~ # g REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT 9 I ~ ~ EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINES °0~"c sEwER OB-- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINES EXHIBIT 11Bn SW FAIRHAVEN STREET/WAY SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT #9 NOTE: ALL PROPERTIES IN THE REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT ARE ZONED R-3.5 uv2v9r Res. # 97-15 loft t... ' IC this notice appaars clem'er than the AUG 2 ¢ 1998 document, the document is aC ma1•ginal ,uaGh~. ; MICROFILMED r r-i`l1F rt~i:rlri,irTi~hrllr:__r ~.~1'L fi.rrl 11 Tilla111~1>. f `~I~~~ ~_•_.[_i~t}i„ 9~1nT►i1~ I I ~u I- ,l L I ~1 I I >~T}~ u.~ i E.T'( ~ lM _ ~ t _ I d,*~ ~ ~ INCH i MN)E 0E CNMLI _ • ~ _ -1 . 1 ~ s 4 e e o TD tt-; i u is x • is 1s a , to to :20 _ _ z6 2F 29 >a. I Ililllll I (Illl IIllliil IIf(Illl~rillhlllllllllllllllllll(IIIllllill(11IIIIIIillll((Illllllllllill111IIIIIIIIItIIIIrIiIII~IiIUII!)UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111flillliililil~iiniriini imfllllpl~llllllrllillr(Ilprlllli~Illflt( III IIIIIIIIllIIi ' ~duml ilhlliril I I I(jl u ~ 6 _ _ M