Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 08/23/2011
TIGARD City of Tigard TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING August 23, 2011 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I:\Design & Communications \Donna1City Councillccpkt3 Cathy Wheatley 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard- or.gov p City of Tigard IN Tigard Business Meeting - Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRCT REVIEW BOARD - Agenda was revised August 18, 2011 to reflect that an Executive Session may be called to discuss employment of a public officer /employee. There was an update to the City Council packet with supplemental information updating Exhibits A and B to the proposed ordinance for River Terrace Annexation, Agenda Item No. 5, (Attachment labeled Revised Exhibits A & B Legal Description and Mapsj) MEETING DATE AND TIME: August 23, 2011 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign -up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign -in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503- 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503- 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http: / /www.tvc tv.org /gove rn m ent- programming /govern m ent- meetings /tiga rd CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. q City of Tigard il Tigard Business Meeting - Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD - Agenda was revised August 18, 2011 to reflect that an Executive Session may be called to discuss employment of a public officer /employee. There was an update to the City Council packet with supplemental information updating Exhibits A and B to the proposed ordinance for River Terrace Annexation, Agenda Item No. 5, (Attachment labeled Revised Exhibits A & B [Legal Description and Maps]) MEETING DATE AND TIME: August 23, 2011 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW 1-Tall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION A. Update on Code - Compliance Related Municipal Code Amendments B. Review and Discuss Topic Areas for 2011 Community Attitudes Survey C. Administrative Items: • Information for tonight's business meeting: • Revised Exhibits A and B (Legal Description and Maps) for the draft ordinance relating to Agenda Item No. 5, River Terrace Annexation. This is the same information delivered with the August 19, 2011, City Council newsletter. • August 16, 2011, letter from Washington County Commissioner Roy Rogers supporting the City of Tigard's River Terrace Annexation, Agenda Item No. 5. A copy was also delivered with the August 19, 2011, City Council newsletter. • Preliminary layouts for the Barbur ramps, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects are attached. • Noise variance request and information relating to Oregon Department of Transportation work on I -5 to extend a fourth lane under Carman Drive/Upper Boones Ferry overpass. • Council Calendar: • September 11, 2011 - 9/11 Memorial Service, Young's Funeral Home, 1 p.m. • September 11, 2011 - City's 50th Birthday Party, Library, 2 -4 p.m. • September 13, 2011 - City Council Business Meeting, Town Hall, 6:30 p.m. • September 20, 2011 - City Council Workshop Meeting, Town Hall, 6:30 p.m. • September 27, 2011 - City Council Business Meeting, Town Hall, 6:30 p.m. • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(a), to discuss employment of a public officer /employee. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING - AUGUST 23, 2011 A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Council Communications & Liaison Reports E. Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:35 p.m. Time is estimated. A. Follow -up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Citizen Communication — Sign Up Sheet 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and Local Contract Review Board) These items are considered 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: 7:40 p.m. Time is estimated. A. Approve Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes: 1. June 21, 2011 2. June 28, 2011 B. Appoint David Brown as a Voting Member of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board - Resolution No. 11 -34 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -34 -- A RESOLUTION APPOINTING DAVID BROWN TO HIS FIRST TERM AS A VOTING MEMBER ON THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD (PRAB) C. Authorize the Reimbursement of Expenditures with Reimbursement Obligation Proceeds - Resolution No. 11 -35 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -35 -- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURES WITH REIMBURSEMENT OBLIGATION PROCEEDS D. Local Contract Review Board: 1. Approve the Purchase of Four Dodge Chargers from Withnell Motor Company and Two Chevrolet Tahoes from Hubbard Chevrolet/GMAC for the Police Department Fleet • 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 /City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. -z 4. PROCLAIM SEPTEMBER NATIONAL RECOVERY MONTH 7 :45 p.m. Time is estimated. 5. QUASI - JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - RIVER TERRACE ANNEXATION - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) ZCA2011 -00001 7 :50 p.m. Time is estimated. APPLICANT: Multiple applicants. PROPOSAL: A request to annex to the City of Tigard approximately 230 acres of property, referred to herein as River Terrace, that includes Metro Urban Growth Boundary expansion area 64, portions of SW Barrows Road and SW Scholls Ferry Road rights of way, and five Clean Water Services parcels (including adjacent right of way) south of SW Barrows Road. LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located south of Scholls Ferry Road on the east and west sides of SW Roy Rogers Road plus five Clean Water Services parcels south of SW Barrows Road between SW 152nd Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road. COUNTY ZONE: FD20 Future Development, 20 -acre minimum lot size. The FD20 District applies to the unincorporated urban lands added to the urban growth boundary by Metro through a Major or Legislative Amendment process after 1998. The FD20 District recognizes the desirability of encouraging and retaining limited interim uses until the urban comprehensive planning for future urban development of these areas is complete. The provisions of this district are also intended to implement the requirements of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. R15: Residential, 12 units /acre minimum density, 15 units /acre maximum density. The intent and purpose of the R15 District is to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for areas designated for residential development at no more than fifteen (15) units per acre and no less than twelve (12) units per acre, except as otherwise specified by Section 3002 or Section 3005 of the Washington County Community Development Code. EQUIVALENT CITY ZONE: Annexation areas will retain current Washington County zoning until Tigard zoning is applied with the future adoption of a community plan for the area. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for annexations are described in Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Goal 1, Goal 11, Goal 12, and Goal 14; ORS Chapter 222; Metro Code Chapter 3.09. a. Open Public Hearing — Mayor b. Statement by City Attorney Regarding Procedure c. Declarations or Challenges - Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? - Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? - Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? d. Staff Report: Community Development Staff e. Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal/Final argument by applicant f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Discussion and Consideration: Ordinance No. 11 -07 ORDINANCE NO. 11 -07 -- AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 230.06 ACRES OF LAND, INCLUDING FORTY -THREE (43) PARCELS, ADJACENT RIGHTS OF WAY, AND A UTILITY SERVICES CORRIDOR WITHIN SW BARROWS ROAD RIGHT OF WAY; APPROVING THE RIVER TERRACE ANNEXATION (ZCA2011- 00001); AND WITHDRAWING SIX (6) PARCELS FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT AND WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT. IN ADDITION, WITHDRAWAL OF THREE (3) PARCELS FROM WASHINGTON COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT FOR LIGHTING. 6. CONSIDER AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH TUALATIN HILLS PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF BARROWS PARK 8:50 p.m. Time is estimated. 7. CONTINUATION OF LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING FROM AUGUST 9, 2011 - CONSIDER TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULE MAKING 9 p.m. Time is estimated. • Continue Public Hearing from August 9, 2010 • Hearing Procedures — Legislative Public Hearing • Staff Report: Community Development Department • Public Testimony • Staff Recommendation • Council Discussion • Close Public Hearing • City Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 11 -06 (This ordinance number was assigned to THEdraft ordinance on August 9, 2011) ORDINANCE NO. 11 -06 -- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING THE USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND DEFINING THE PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RULEMAKING AND AMENDING EXISTING SECTIONS IN TITLE 9 AND TITLE 11 TO BE CONSISTENT. 8. DISCUSS STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNICATING TIGARD'S FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES 9:10 p.m. Time is estimated. 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any fmal action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 12. ADJOURNMENT 9 :30 p.m. Time is estimated. 5-- Study Session AIS -531 Item #: A. Business Meeting Date: 08/23/2011 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Update on Code- Compliance Related Municipal Code Amendments Submitted By: Susan Hartnett Community Development Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Mtg - Study Sess. ISSUE A discussion of amendments to the Tigard Municipal Code related to code compliance and abatement is scheduled for September 13, 2011. At the August 23, 2011 Study Session staff will update the Council on this major elements of the proposed package. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Receive information regarding proposed amendments to the Tigard Municipal Code. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY During the July 27, 2010 meeting, City Council received an update on changes that were underway in the Code Compliance Program as the result of earlier budget reductions. Council directed staff to investigate administrative enforcement and abatement options that can be used to enhance delivery of code compliance activities, particularly regarding nuisance complaints. During the February 15, 2011 meeting, City Council received an update on the use of administrative enforcement and abatement options in other Oregon cities. At the conclusion of the discussion council directed staff to proceed and present a package of Tigard Municipal Code amendments. The purpose of this August 23, 2011 discussion is to update the council on the schedule anticipated for the council's review and adoption of the proposal and to provide a high level overview of the major elements included in the proposal. The schedule for next step activities includes: 1. At the September 13, 2011 Business meeting, a detailed review and discussion of proposed code revisions. 2. At the October 25, 2011 Business meeting, a legislative public hearing on proposed code revisions. 3. At the November 15, 2011 Workshop meeting, an overview of code enforcement program structure. OTHER ALTERNATIVES NA COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Goal #1. Implement Comprehensive Plan. The Code Compliance Program contributes to many of the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies related to the community's livability and vitality. Goal #4. Advance Methods of Communication. Consolidating nuisance citations in a single title will improve and simplify communication with the public as to what actions or inactions constitute code violations. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION July 27, 2010, February 15, 2011 -Jew Study Session AIS -554 Item #: B. Business Meeting Date: 08/23/2011 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: Review and Discuss Topic Areas for 2011 Community Attitudes Survey Prepared For: Kent Wyatt Submitted By: Kent Wyatt City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Mtg - Study Sess. ISSUE Which of the proposed topics does Council wish to have considered for use in the 2011 Community Attitudes Survey? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Provide consultation on survey question topics. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY City Council requested that staff commission a survey every two years to help City officials and staff better understand residents perception of the quality of life in the City as well as attitudes toward key issues facing the City. Staff is requesting City Council input on pertinent topics for this year's survey. These suggestions will be added to the attached list which is composed of staff input that has been submitted since the 2009 survey. Also, for your review, is a projected timeline for completing the 2011 Community Attitudes Survey. OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Survey results will be used to develop future Council goals. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION November 24, 2010 - Staff presented results of the 2009 Community Attitudes Survey. 5- /"A -1 / 0 /: 1 ! h 60 11111 es City of Tigard 7 M Item # ��1 �J�( Newsletter dated: TIGARD Memorandum To: Mayor Dirksen and Councilors From: Kent Wyatt, Senior Management Analyst Re: 2011 Community Attitudes Survey — Council Feedback Date: August 19, 2011 The City Council will discuss the 2011 Community Attitudes Survey at the study session on August 23. Specifically, staff will ask for your input on the three to five questions that will be added to this year's survey. As a reminder, the city conducts the survey every two years to collect objective data on citizen satisfaction and attitudes toward the level and quality of City services, the general quality of life in Tigard, and emerging community issues. Most of the 2009 Community Attitudes Survey questions will be maintained to provide a baseline for measuring citizen satisfaction with Tigard. Results from the 2009 survey indicated residents of Tigard were widely satisfied with the city as a place to live. Safety, streets /utilities and neighborhood were identified as areas where the city could improve. There will be space for three to five new topical questions. Topical questions on the 2007 and 2009 survey addressed the gas tax, recreational programs, safe drinking water, population growth and traffic congestion. Exec Staff met this week and provided the following input for new survey topics: ✓ Funding for facilities plan ✓ Services needed west of Pacific Highway ✓ Efficient use of city resources ✓ Economic development — health of businesses, services needed in Tigard ✓ Recreation programs — cultural & leisure and active sports ✓ Housing opportunities for low income and senior populations ✓ Use of sustainable environmental practices ✓ Photo red light and photo radar ✓ Emergency preparedness After the topics are decided, the consultant will assist staff in turning these ideas into questions. City Council will receive a copy of the survey before it is administered in October. Survey results will be available in early November. .14 y 2011 COMMUNITY ATTITUDES SURVEY EXEC STAFF DISCUSSION TIGARD Purpose of Discussion The purpose of this discussion is to brainstorm ideas for three to five topic questions. All ideas are on the table at this point. The list will he narrowed from City Council input and additional input from Exec Staff. The consultant will the topic into survey questions with the appropriate answer choices. Project Purpose Results from the survey will provide objective data on citizen satisfaction and attitudes toward the level and quality of City services, the general quality of life in Tigard, and emerging community issues. Project Status Staff is soliciting quotes until September 9. City Council will provide input at their August 23 meeting. Themes from 2009 Survey Respondents were asked `what dojoru believe is the most important iolee the Co Cosrmzl needs to address over the next year?" The most common responses were: i • Traffic (Hwy 99, Hwy 217, I -5 corridor, Greenberg Rd, traffic flow, alterna- , r t., • _ tive methods of transportation) t 1 „ �, z 1, . ; .t • Public safety (crime, drugs, gangs, police policy) • _ r . • -, • Growth (land use planning, housing density, UGB, annexation, population ' ' control, downtown development) ,. - , - ice _ , 41111 _ • Parks (open spaces, sports fields, new parks, trees) --- - Nr • Taxes (gas tax, more efficient use of ta\ money, lower taxes) Topic Questions from 2007 and 2009 Gas tax, recreational programs, safe drinking water, population growth and mitigating traffic congestion were the topic questions addressed in the 2007 and 2009 survey. Ideas for 2011 Topic Questions Staff has compiled a list of potential topic questions that have been mentioned by staff and the City Council since the 2009 survey. These include, • Photo red light and photo radar F • Opportunities and challenges of Pacific Hwy and the surrounding area ..A • Emergency preparedness — is your family prepared? • Use of sustainable environmental practices • Protecting trees and the natural environment • Use of social media Next Steps Staff will hire a consultant to assist in survey development and to administer the survey. Survey results will he available in early November. WWII (_c »`I\tt' NIT1 A1TI'I t. ims SURF s, Cathy Wheatley From: Liz Newton Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 10:39 AM To: Cathy Wheatley Subject: FW: I5 SB @ Carman Drive Project, City Noise Variance Request Attachments: RE: I5 SB @ Carman Drive Project; TigardNoiseVariance _Carman_081811.pdf; Mike McCarthy P E .vcf; I5- Carman_southbound - ramp.pdf SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET Cathy, FOR C - a3. (301 1 Please "pink sheet" this for tomorrow night. (DAB OF MEETING Thanks! ) Liz Ltd 5 611 From: Mike McCarthy Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 10:54 AM To: Liz Newton Cc: Dennis Koellermeier; FREITAG Matthew D * Matt Subject: FW: I5 SB @ Carman Drive Project, City Noise Variance Request Hi Liz, As you are aware, per our code, noise variance requests require the approval of the City Manager. Attached is a preliminary request from ODOT for a noise variance for work on 1 -5 to extend a fourth lane under the Carman Drive / Upper Boones Ferry overpass. I believe that, due to the high volume of traffic, night work is absolutely necessary to accomplish this project. I believe that the measures outlines in ODOT's letter would appropriately mitigate noise issues. Therefore, I would recommend approval of the noise variance. While the actual contractor is the entity required to get the noise variance, ODOT wants to know now if we would have any problems granting it. Please let me know if you foresee any problems or objections to granting this noise variance by next Wednesday 8/24, as requested by ODOT. Thanks, Mike Mice McCarthy P.E. City of regard Senior Project Engineer/ • Right- of -VVay Administrator 13125 SW Hal Blvd 1 l (. R l) Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 718 -2462 Direct (503) 624-0752 Fax mikem@tigard-or.gov From: FREITAG Matthew D * Matt mailto:Matthew.D.FREITAG • odot.state.or.us Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:30 PM To: Mike McCarthy; Ted Kyle Cc: BOICOURT Lili D; MCCONNELL Thomas E Subject: I5 SB @ Carman Drive Project, City Noise Variance Request 1 Ted /Mike, We now have a bid opening date for this project- 10/13/11. As a result, all project information needs to be finalized and submitted to Salem by 8/29/11. Attached is the noise variance request for this project (it hasn't changed much from what was sent to you on 7/13. We are requesting up to 40 nights of construction activity over the course of the project. The anticipated construction start date is 1/1/12, and we expect the on -site work to be completed by the end of the year. As I understood from Mike's e-mail to me back in March, the City will require the contractor to get the actual noise variance for this project. Therefore, can you give me a confirmation that this request is acceptable to the City? The Contract specifications will include the mitigation measures that the contractor will be held to, and the official variance request will be sought once a contractor has been selected. If possible, I'd like confirmation from the City by next Wednesday (8/24). Please let me know if you will need more time or would like to discuss this further. «RE: 15 SB @ Carman Drive Project» « TigardNoiseVariance _Carman_081811.pdf» Thanks, Matt Freitag, P.E. Project Manager -Metro East ODOT Region 1 123 NW Flanders St Portland OR 97209 -4012 (503) 731 -4851 Office (503) 807 -3619 Mobile (503) 731 -8531 Fax matthe w. d. freita_q(a�odot. state. or. us DISCLAIMER: E -mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E -mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 Cathy Wheatley From: Mike McCarthy Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:35 PM To: FREITAG Matthew D * Matt Cc: MCCONNELL Thomas E Subject: RE: I5 SB @ Carman Drive Project Attachments: Mike McCarthy P E 2.vcf When you get to the construction phase, the contractor will need to get a noise variance from us for night work. Other than that, we couldn't think of any other permits from us needed for this project. Thanks, Mike Mice McCarthy P.E. City Project y o Tigard � Senior PrEngineer/ 1 Right -of -Way Administrator 13125 SW Hal Blvd I It,ARI) Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 718 -2462 Direct (503) 624-0752 Fa) mikemitigard-or,gov From: FREITAG Matthew D * Matt [mailto:Matthew.D.FREITAG©odot.state.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:03 PM To: Mike McCarthy Cc: MCCONNELL Thomas E Subject: RE: I5 SB © Carman Drive Project Hi Mike, Which City permits (if any) do you anticipate this project needing? Since we are staying within our right of way, I'm assuming that land use won't be needed. We already have a service provider letter from CWS, and anticipate needing a site development permit from them for the new stormwater work. Anything else off the top of your head? Thanks, Matt Freitag, P.E. Region 1 Project Manager -Metro East (503) 731 -4851 Office (503) 807 -3619 Mobile From: Mike McCarthy [mailto:MikeM @tigard - or.gov] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 5:21 PM To: Ted Kyle; Dennis Koellermeier; Kim McMillan; Ron Bunch; Susan Hartnett; Judith Gray; Gus Duenas; Craig Prosser; Liz Newton; Brian Rager; Greer Gaston; Michelle Wright Cc: FREITAG Matthew D * Matt; BOICOURT Lili D Subject: FW: I5 SB @ Carman Drive Project 1 Staff from ODOT (Matt Freitag and Lili Boicourt) asked to meet with us today to let us know about a project they are starting to design to have ready to pursue potential federal funding. The project would involve a minor widening of 1 -5 southbound under the Carman Dr / Upper Boones Ferry Rd overpass and a minor relocation of the southbound on- ramp. All changes would be in existing State right -of -way. Attached is a preliminary layout of the project. Currently, most of the southbound traffic on Hwy 217 flows down a two -lane ramp onto I -5 southbound, then needs to merge left relatively quickly into mainline I -5 traffic before the merge lane ends at the Carman /Upper Boones overpass. This relatively short merge area leads to significant congestion, especially at rush hour, for southbound traffic. The project would help alleviate this congestion by extending one merge lane as an auxiliary fourth lane for southbound 1 -5 through the Carman /UBF interchange, with the fourth lane becoming an exit only lane at the Lower Boones Ferry (Bridgeport Village) interchange. The southbound on -ramp from Carman /UBF onto 1 -5 would need to be modified slightly. It currently becomes a fourth lane between interchanges, giving drivers a good long time to merge into freeway traffic. After the project, drivers would have a shorter (but still meeting standards) length in which to merge before they reach the railroad bridge (which would be very expensive to widen). The on -ramp would be reconfigured slightly to fit in as much merging distance as possible between the Carman /UBF interchange and the railroad bridge. There would be no changes on Upper Boones Ferry Road or Carman Drive or anywhere else on our City street network as part of this project. I think this project has a lot of potential to significantly help southbound 217/1 -5 traffic for an amount of money that is relatively small in freeway construction terms. They are designing the project now with the intent to have biddable plans ready and on- the -shelf by August. The project would then compete for possible leftover federal funds. IF the project gets funded (and that sounds like a big if), construction could start as early as 2012, and would be complete within one construction season. They figure they could keep the interchange ramps open during the day through construction, but some night ramp closures would be necessary for the ramp relocation. Mice McCarthy P.E. Senior of Pro io • sei Project Engineer/ Right -of -Way Adr inistrator 13125 SW Hall Blvd t 4, A R{ t Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 718 -2462 Direct (503) 624-0752 Fax mikem @tigard-or.gov From: FREITAG Matthew D * Matt [mailto: Matthew .D.FREITAG @odot.state.or.us] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 4:12 PM To: Mike McCarthy; Ted Kyle Cc: BOICOURT Lili D Subject: I5 SB @ Carman Drive Project Mike/Ted, Good meeting with you today. As requested, the designer removed the centerline stripe from Carman Drive so there isn't any confusion regarding its purpose. Let me assure you that ODOT does not intend to do any access management with this particular project. We are focused on the operational improvements of 1 -5 southbound in this area. Please let me know if you have any questions about this project. 2 «I5- Carman_southbound- ramp.pdf» Thanks, Matt Freitag, P.E. Project Manager -Metro East ODOT Region 1 123 NW Flanders St Portland OR 97209 -4012 (503) 731 -4851 Office (503) 807 -3619 Mobile (503) 731 -8531 Fax matthew.d.freitag@odot.state.or.us DISCLAIMER: E -mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e -mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E -mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 3 Department of Transportation Region 1 r I r: } j 123 NW Flanders Street Portland OR 97209 Jo1mA Kitzhaber, MD., Covet= Phone: (503) 731 -8200 Fax: (503) 731 -3266 August 18, 2011 Theodore Kyle, P.E. City Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Oregon Department of Transportation 1 -5 SB: Carman Drive to Lower Boones Ferry Project Noise Variance Request Dear Ted, The Oregon Department of Transportation is requesting a variance from the City of Tigard Code 7.40.130. The variance request is to allow nighttime construction on the freeway entrance ramp from Carman /Upper Boones Ferry to 1 -5 southbound, along with work on the mainline of 1 -5 in the southbound lanes. The project is scheduled to go to bid October 13, 2011. This variance request to complete nighttime work on the project is from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. The high traffic volumes on 1 -5 require that all lanes be open without restrictions during daytime hours. Closing the lanes during the day would create backups and serious safety concerns. Granting the variance will allow work activities that cannot be conducted during the day to be conducted at night. ODOT is requesting a noise variance from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., 7 days a week for the duration of the project, although it is expected that only approximately 40 nights of work will be needed throughout the whole construction period. The following work will take place on this project: D Pavement Overlay 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet > Material Removal (backhoe and dump truck) 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet > Concrete Demolition (jackhammer) 87 dBA at a distance of 50 feet D Adjust Manholes /Inlets (jackhammer) 87 dBA at a distance of 50 feet D Placing concrete 87 dBA at a distance of 50 feet ➢ Pavement saw cutting 76 dBA at a distance of 50 feet > Pavement removal (grinding, jackhammer) 87 dBA at a distance of 50 feet The property surrounding the project area is primarily commercial and industrial. It appears there are two noise receptors near the project area, both hotels. They are the Courtyard by Marriott at 15686 SW Sequoia Parkway and the Holiday Inn Express Hotel at 15700 Upper Boones Ferry Rd. All receptors will be given notice at least five days before night construction takes place. The notice will include a 24 hour phone number that can be called to reach an inspector on the project. Mitigation Measures The measures that will be used by ODOT and/or the contractor to mitigate the noise during the proposed nighttime construction activities are anticipated to be, but are not limited to the following: • If complaints are received, the contractor will be required to use a "guide person" or "spotter" during overnight work hours in lieu of back -up alarms. • The contractor will be required to provide noise level data for each piece of equipment to be used on the project. Noise assessment must be appropriate for each class of vehicle in accordance with standard DEQ measurement procedures. If equipment does not meet standards, the contractor will be required to retrofit and maintain the equipment to DEQ standards. • The contractor and ODOT will have a portable noise meter on the job at all times for noise level spot checks on specific operations. • ODOT and the contractor are required to give notification to the local jurisdiction and affected neighbors of any anticipated night work that will be noise intensive. The notice will also include a phone number that will reach an on -site representative 24 hours a day for questions and complaint investigation. Complaints will be investigated and addressed within 24 hours or before the next scheduled night work. A project web site will remain current with project and schedule information. • The Project Manager will insure compliance with the noise abatement requirements and mediate any infractions of those requirements should they occur. In addition, the contractor will employ an individual trained to use the noise meter and with working knowledge of sound measurements and their meaning and use as applied to any variance given by the local jurisdiction. Complaints will be investigated to determine if there is a violation, and if so determined, the contractor will commence mitigation. If such sound levels cannot be mitigated within one week, the local jurisdiction will be contacted and a plan of action outlined. It is understood that if the jurisdiction deems the plan to be inadequate, the variance may be revoked. Your consideration of this variance request is greatly appreciated. Please call me if you have any additional questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Matthew Freitag, ODOT P' oject Manager 503- 731 -4851 Cc: Lill Boicourt, ODOT Community Affairs Ken Earlywine, ODOT Project Manager '14" 44 , „ ,. Vi 41,4 4 , ,e.4:4_,..... ' '' tr ' 44 f'' ''I•• • •r•J:1:4111:1111P1'.:11 r , Y 74 j 9 i .�, �•� . -- ,, 44 44 sji / f A k ''' ;I 0:40 , , PliWr�� rc « } I ,� `r � I �' �i #U4 7 w1 ;' �.rq r+., i ils ,, i }. 'f a'jy'�i''` a • ^f i . . h ��: �' . 1 1' 111- 11 .4.„ `. � y •► i �" + ` 1 .� a 1� - • • t ` � v r . .' / ; x } .. I ,' r ` ' 4 . l r i i � . .u,'.,-.4.i.44.:::145, " V. 1 � / � _ ___y * . s,�, . M1 P •• - •I'A , TrI :: ' e a t , 1.4 :1 , ) . Ow: , 4: 0 . , • .. :�_ vYrr rwW — .7. _1 • • - .gym„.: i -_ r . • I -5 SB Aux Lane Carmen Drive Conceptual Layout ai , ""• ` g • 12 -14 -2010 s , ,� r + =, • • , 4% ... • . . , . _ . A. ii, wilt AI 6 '1 llib . ' "1-1:: '..,, - - . • Cathy Wheatley From: Liz Newton Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 10:45 AM To: Cathy Wheatley Subject: FW: Barbur Ramps STIP projects 16142 and 161443 - Meeting 8/5 Attachments: K16142 -1-5 NB on ramp.pdf; K16142 -1-5 NB off ramp.pdf; Mike McCarthy P E 2.vcf SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET Also for the pink sheet. FOR AL:aca I Thanks! (DATE OF MEETING) Liz StuAAJ From: Mike McCarthy � 1 L ' S Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 10:34 AM To: Dennis Koellermeier; Ron Bunch; Susan Hartnett; Liz Newton; Kim McMillan; Alan Orr Cc: Judith Gray; Gerald Bartolomucci Subject: FW: Barbur Ramps STIP projects 16142 and 161443- Meeting 8/5 ODOT is beginning design work on a safety and capacity project at the Pacific Hwy 99W interchange with Interstate 5. Attached are schematics of the modifications they will be designing. It would add a second northbound lane from Pacific across the bridge to Barbur, and a second lane on the 1 -5 northbound exit ramp to Barbur. Please let me know if you'd like me to pass on any questions or concerns. Thanks, Mike Mice McCarthy P.E. Sty of Tigard • Senor Project Ergiuer/ N • Righbof -Way Administrator 13125 SW Hal Blvd k I' Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 718 -2462 Direct (503) 624-0752Fax rrioenetigardor.gov From: SCOTT Nate S fmailto:Nate.S.ScottCo odot.state.or.usl Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 10:27 AM To: DAGNESE Susanne L; Mike McCarthy; MITCHELL Dennis J Cc: Judith Gray Subject: RE: Barbur Ramps STIP projects 16142 and 161443 - Meeting 8/5 Good morning, Attached are the preliminary layouts for the ramps. As Sue mentioned, design is just getting started. At this point, we expect to construct the project in 2014. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Nate 1 Nate Scott Project Manager, Region 1 Oregon Department of Transportation t: 503.731.3437 http://www.oreqon.gov/ODOT/ From: DAGNESE Susanne L Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:32 AM To: 'Mike McCarthy'; MITCHELL Dennis 3 Cc: Judith Gray; SCOTT Nate S Subject: RE: Barbur Ramps STIP projects 16142 and 161443 - Meeting 8/5 Hi Mike, For the project at the 99W and 1 -5 NB ramps we have not yet drawn anything up, but we are about to start. Dennis can provide you with our project intended scope if you would like. Nate Scott is our Project Leader for this project and can provide you with the project schedule. Good to hear from you. -- Sue DISCLAIMER: E -mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E -mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 - " • ••..., ••' , ,".,r. ..• • : i. -: , : , F"•,.7 7 ,"'" • 1r, •f ' . '•'''.. • ," , • . 1 1 : ',1 ' • •, : _ . l ■ j : i ** . .4 . - • Y ', - „ •••4 ' , ' , ,,,,-,",';',.'.- '' ..' 4 .,••••••••, ■•••''. . ......,.. ,. ,„ • , •- ;.■ . ■ , I .... . .., .,.'',! ' . .■,.. ,: , . , , . . . . ' Ai . . -it ..i. . 1 44%.• . ,... r ■ , Pi , T..... , - . ... 001.: L. elE .. ----- '...-- ..;-‘,..._ I _ . :, .. •„, .z. .•. _, .._..,,,..::::,„.....,.-. ......-,:... ,_ . .. , . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . f i..4..„ ,... .„.. „,„„,,, , .. .„,..:„..„.„,..,-..,,..., „„...,.,.. ,,,,..,....,.. .. . _. ... . , .„.., .._ 9-1 @ m661 0 11 ,...,1 en %,, ' - ‘.- ' • '.-* , . _ , ,,,,- .--".7' - • - "---.-,.•. 7, yie , 7 ,„„ ...,.. , ,,,,:., • .:.,„...„,„,....,..•,.....,..„.„..••,..• •L, ifr .. . _ ....._,..4. . .,4,., . ,, , , 2,:,..,.,,...„,...- ..,,,,..-.4,v 4-4-44 ./,,..:•4.,,,, • _ . . .., .. . ,. .. ,....,.,. . , . • ''.' , •-• - • . : - ‘1`• 7 ''.- N.. ' - 1 . — ' ': A ' 1 - ,... ... . 4, f . ' - - - ... . .. , . ...,..„..., • , . 0 - . . . _ . . , . . - . ..... 4 . ‘. .4 . 4 •,'„' -,- :,,, ••,:; ;.., ...- ,_.----,:.: ,41 . .,. ..„..__, .., .,:, .,,__ , : .. ..: , e : 51 , , ,...4- . , _ --- .. - , --, ,-1, . I , -• . • . . . . ./ lir • — . ,.. > A ' lefitr ' * P I 0 ::: . 110111, * ''. , , ,,t • . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 0 ° . ° .1 .... ,.. , , , y e ■ - • 1 ... , : . .-,. 1 I : 6 , ' - ' , 1 . '- . . . . ' - . ' .- , 1 4' 4' ,, f . 11 ':. . ' r 4: - ' :AP . ' 1 ' ,.. . . ., , .. .. . , .. ..-.... ..... ., , . ; ',. '-,:::' er • ' -,,,;,:---,,-: ,” - . - ..., .... ........-; 4 1 ' . .? . . ... A ... . uII „.... r -, :,- . e l i i e - .,..,...4. .,--- - • / - -: _, ... - i • .:'-',"" ..-. - -:"-- • ' ..__A--_, ' . - t:,,, - - - - \ yr • •"''' -- . ' - - - .. ..- ' , 1 , ,r r • r'' ''' : '': . !AMU - ... •- • r • , _ . a .. ' : V - -- 4* • ' . . • , ,.11111r 1 I, agi _ .44 .. . ,.. ... 1114 I . .. .. . ... „ . ...... . . , . . ,.. .., -4' . .' v v , ,v, , . -..., -c:,c,...., ;‘, „ir.r::.,, -i.--.%ktalAtt-r7.,,,..:: ,-...,,,-.-.-4.e.:...._ • I v • ' • '" . - ' ' ' . ...,..' • - ' t.' ..„„... ,,:r4r . '-i,,,:„ -.,,. . ye , ty ,..- . - ' '. , .',,••.;...,;.:;,;44fr,0 : - .. ,; ' . - _ -- . POI, ..•:,- "...': ' ' .- .,. 7 : ..„:,..., ..-" t,„1.V.$7'.` ,,.....,7C-: ' ..-- ;; . k - • - - TM V — ......"'. ,,,,I .'•- ,-", - -,..- ,,..:.- !..-.,..,:.,- ,V ' -., , , V4.- ,, - --, '''''.'11 ,-,. , .. "..,,,„;..,:,;=.; -,-;, _...„.. ..... . . .. . ______-_,..._ , _____ ". 7 . _•,,.. .:.- ''':' • 4. V ' - t.I.,..,, , , , ,..;::g4- -, 'ff- - : , ..'" ,' :,... ,--''': .,.; :,...:.: l' ,--'''''''' ' 4 Y r.,y ' ,'lrw , 1 - . ,. 4 . ". a fit hl htt hli qTi . t *.4 ".‘ . . ".. r , - - ■," ' ' .4 ." ' ' " :'' *'- ' i llr ... / - ' ' ' ' ' Eer =fi ' '` '/'�, tp• - 09 ..1 , V „..s.,. • < r ,•. /OHO 2 0xQ ! *t►r . ' ± Y ,,_ . , • i ' • f lik fl• #46110, . . ,...... ... ,e4 . s„.„ , , , . .. a • ' as - s ♦ ♦ ♦ is aa 4 , , 4. ” 1 j f. ! 41. 4 ♦ Ire • 01,/,:.°;,!: Z:?.,..—. I Ilet4 li 0, , , . ' t , , 'et 6 411 • t ' 4 t r, r v e, r s ,. f 1.----- f 7 ' b ,, "' ,V w - 00 L' r _ i ? ,.. n� _ tom ti till x�� a f ,, . s • it a _ • t U ...- ' -- lan daiN - r i� 1 • f31 _ p . , N. ' •: ' - :'''-- •.- : :‘, - 1 AIS -636 Item #: 3. A. Business Meeting Date: 08/23/2011 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Cathy Wheatley Administrative Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda ISSUE Approve City Council meeting minutes as attached to this document. Draft minutes are being finalized and will be submitted and attached no later than Monday, August 22, 2011. Minutes not attached by August 22 will be submitted on September 13, 2011, for council consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve minutes as presented. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Draft minutes are being finalized and will be submitted and attached no later than Monday, August 22, 2011. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Propose amendments for consideration. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments June 21. 2011 Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes. June 28. 2011. Tigard City Council Business Meeting Minutes AIS -614 Item #: 3. B. Business Meeting Date: 08/23/2011 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Appoint David Brown as a Voting Member of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board Prepared For: Steve Martin Submitted By: Steve Martin Public Works Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Agenda ISSUE Shall council adopt a resolution appointing David Brown as a voting member of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends council adopt the resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • There is currently one vacancy on the PRAB. • In April 2011, the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee interviewed prospective PRAB members and selected one member and two alternate members. Alternates David Brown and Gary Romans were selected with the knowledge that PRAB member Brian Davies would be leaving the board at the end of his term on June 30, 2011. • The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee indicated David Brown should be appointed to Brian Davies' voting member position when it became available on July 1, 2011. • David Brown has been an active participant on the PRAB and has attended every meeting since his appointment as an alternate in April. He is up to speed on current PRAB activities, including the property evaluation/acquisition process related to the park and open space bond measure. • If appointed, David Brown's first term as a voting member will end June 30, 2015. • A brief biography is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The council could choose not to adopt the resolution and provide staff with direction on some other course of action. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS 2011 Tigard City Council Goal No. 3, "Complete Plans for Parkland Acquisition." The PRAB serves as an advisory board to the council and provides recommendations on park acquisitions and improvements related to the city's 2010 park and open space bond measure. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The council adopted a resolution appointing David Brown as an alternate member on the PRAB at its April 26, 2011 meeting. Attachments Resolution Appointee Biographical Information r : PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD (PRAB) RECOMMENDED APPOINTEE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Tigard City Council Meeting August 23, 2011 David Brown is recommended to serve on the PRAB as a voting member. David has lived in Tigard for 15 years and just recently started a new job in March after working as a financial manager at Adidas for 10 years. He has a degree in business administration and is a certified public accountant. David was a manager and board member of the Tigard Little League from 2002 to 2008. He and his family are regulars at Tigard parks and he has an interest in the acquisition and development of parks in Tigard. AIS -624 Item #: 3. C. Business Meeting Date: 08/23/2011 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Authorize the Reimbursement of Expenditures with Reimbursement Obligation Proceeds Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Toby LaFrance Financial and Information Services Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Agenda ISSUE Shall the Tigard City Council pass a resolution authorizing reimbursement of expenditures with reimbursement obligation proceeds, thus making any costs in fiscal year 2012 related to the Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Partnership eligible for reimbursement from bond funds when the water revenue bonds are issued later in FY 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends approval of the resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Ordinance No. 10 -19 authorized the issuance of water revenue bonds to fund projects related to the Water Financing Plan for the Water Master Plan and the Lake Oswego /Tigard Water Partnership. The first bond issuance is anticipated later this fiscal year; however, Tigard is already using existing resources to further the projects. Work on the project that is done this fiscal year, but before the bonds are issued, can be reimbursed with bond proceeds when the bond is issued. The means for reimbursing the project costs is for council to adopt this resolution. By adopting the resolution, any project expenses made between 60 days before resolution adoption and bond issuance can be reimbursed when the water revenue bonds are issued. If the resolution is not adopted and Tigard wants the issued bonds to be tax exempt to the bond buyers (thus making the interest paid by Tigard ratepayers less), Tigard can only reimburse project expenses made 60 days prior to the actual issuance of the bond. By adopting the resolution prior to the end of August, all project expenses made in fiscal year 2012 are eligible for reimbursement when the bonds are issued. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Do not approve resolution. Without the resolution: 1) Only project costs made 60 days prior to bond issuance can be reimbursed while maintaining tax exempt status on the bonds. 2) Project costs made more than 60 days prior to bond issuance could be reimbursed when the bonds are issued, but only if the bonds were taxable. Taxable bonds pay a higher interest rate and would be more expensive to Tigard water rate payers. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS 5. Continue Coordination with Lake Oswego on water partnership. 6. Financial stability. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Fiscal Impact Cost: NA Budgeted (yes or no): NA Where Budgeted (department /program): NA Additional Fiscal Notes: Passage of the resolution will allow project costs related to the Lake Oswego /Tigard Water Partnership during FY 2012, but before the issuance of the water revenue bonds to be reimbursed with bond proceeds. This will allow other water fund resources to be used for operations and other needs. Attachments Resolution • AIS -621 Item #:3. D. Business Meeting Date: 08/23/2011 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve Purchase of Four Dodge Chargers and Two Chevrolet Tahoes for Police Fleet Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett Financial and Information Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda - LCRB ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of four Dodge Chargers and two Chevrolet Tahoes for the police fleet? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board approve the purchase of four police Dodge Chargers from the Withnell Motor Company and two police Chevy Tahoes from Hubbard Chevrolet/GMAC to replace aging fleet vehicles. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city has a need to replace four police patrol vehicles, an unmarked captain's vehicle and one police SUV. The vehicles being replaced have met or exceeded the standard replacement schedule for their vehicle category. The city's replacement schedule for vehicles typically follows the following age and mileage estimates: Police (patrol vehicles) - 3 years or 75,000 miles Police (other) - 5 years or 75,000 miles Community Development/Planning -10 years or 75,000 miles Public Works - 10 years or 100,000 miles Building Inspection - 12 years or 100,000 miles Engineering - 12 years or 100,000 miles The city does an assessment of each vehicle at the aforementioned years and mileage and determination is made by the vehicle's home department and fleet whether or not to request replacement of the vehicle. In this case the determination was made that the vehicles need to be replaced and the appropriations were placed in the FY 2011 -12 budget and subsequently approved by the Budget Committee and City Council. The city will be rotating the patrol cars from patrol duty to light police duties (such as court transportation) and placing into surplus even older, higher - mileage vehicles. Staff intends to procure the vehicles using State of Oregon contract through the city's membership in the Oregon Cooperative Purchasing Program (ORCPP) and the permissive cooperative procurement clause allowed by ORS 279A.215. Using this method allows the city to realize savings through bulk pricing. The cost of one Dodge Charger under the State of Oregon contract is $22,081 whereas the msp quote to the city on a standalone purchase is $30,720. The state contract is $8,639 less. The cost of one Tahoe under the State's contract is $26,801 whereas the msp quote to the city on a standalone purchase is $34,955. The state contract is $8,154 less. The city's total combine savings of the six cars when comparing state contract pricing versus msp quotes is $50,864. Staff intends to purchase the Dodge Chargers under State of Oregon contract #0442 from Withnell Motor Company. The cost of each Charger is $22,081 for a total of $88,324. The Chevy Tahoes will be purchased under State of Oregon contract #9774 from Hubbard Chevrolet/GMAC at $26,801 each for a total of $53,602. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The council could decline the purchase and direct staff to conduct a formal solicitation for the vehicles. This would likely lead to higher purchase price and increased administrative costs for the ourcahse process. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N /A. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time this purchase is being presented to the council. Fiscal Impact Cost: $141,926 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted (department/program): General Fund Additional Fiscal Notes: The General Fund has a total of $180,000 appropriated in FY 2011 -12 for these six vehicles. The total estimated purchase for the six vehicles is $141,926, leaving just under $40,000 left to equip the vehicles for police use which is more than adequate to cover the costs. AIS -629 Item #: 4. Business Meeting Date: 08/23/2011 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Proclaim September National Recovery Month Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson City Management Item Type: Receive and File Meeting Type: Proclamation ISSUE Should Mayor Dirksen proclaim support for September as National Recovery Month in Tigard? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST n/a KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has asked Mayor Dirksen to issue a proclamation in support of National Recovery Month during the month of September. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Do not issue the proclamation. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS n/a DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION In August 2010 a proclamation was issued in support of National Recovery Month. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: No financial impact. Attachments National Recovery Month Proclamation . ' i ` ` t . • + . • i \), , , AA 111 .��., }• ->° National Recovery Month r a' WHEREAS, substance use and mental disorders are serious public health problems faced by millions of people each year in the United States; and • WHEREAS, treatment programs are effective, people do recover and statistics Y show that treatment and recovery support reduce reported job problems including incomplete work and absenteeism, by an average of 75 percent; and WHEREAS, we must recognize the financial savings associated with treatment services, and ensure that such services are readily available to those who need ". > • assistance; and ,:y V WHEREAS, it is critical that we educate our community that substance use disorders are treatable, and by providing support to the families and children of those with these disorders, we can save both lives and dollars; and H WHEREAS, to help achieve this goal, the U.S. Department of Health and Human N Services, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the r White House Office of National Drug Control Policy; invite all residents of Tigard to participate in National Recovery Month. ' - NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Mayor Craig E. Dirksen of the - r City of Tigard, Oregon, do hereby proclaim the month of September 2011 as NATIONAL RECOVERY MONTH in Tigard, and call upon the community to observe this month with appropriate '4 y programs, activities and ceremonies. Dated this day of , 2011. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Tigard to be affixed. M ` �. Craig E. Dirksen, Mayor .� M ' City of Tigard r Attest: 4. • City Recorder `< ., t A t * 4 * d " AIS -527 Item #: 5. Business Meeting Date: 08/23/2011 Length (in minutes): 60 Minutes Agenda Title: Quasi - Judicial Public Hearing - River Terrace Annexation Submitted By: Ron Bunch Community Development Item Type: Ordinance Meeting Type: Council Business Public Hearing - Quasi - Judicial Meeting - Main ISSUE Consider adoption of an ordinance to annex approximately 230 acres of land (River Terrace) into Tigard including adjacent right of way and a utility services corridor consisting of the southerly portion of the old Barrows Road right -of -way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that City Council fmd that the proposed annexation (ZCA2011- 00001) meets all the approval criteria as identified in ORS Chapter 222, Metro Code Chapter 3.09, Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390, and the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Goal 1.1; Goals 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3; Goal 12.1, and Goals 14.1 and 14.2. Staff also recommends APPROVAL of ZCA2011 -00001 by adoption of the attached ordinance. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY History The majority of the River Terrace area was brought into the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by Metro in 2002 and was known as UGB Expansion Area 64. At the same, a nearly adjacent area, Area 63, was included in UGB. However this area is not part of this annexation request. In November 2010, the County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved Resolution & Order 10 -105, approving a concept plan (West Bull Mountain Concept Plan) as the basis to develop a more detailed community plan. The community plan will provide land use designations, development code regulations, and fmancing and public facility plans, which are all necessary for River Terrace, Area 63 and the Rural Element to the south to be urbanized. If City Council approves the annexation, then the city will take the necessary steps, subsequent to an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the county to develop the required community plan for River Terrace, Area 63 and the Rural Element. Proposal Information The area to be annexed is made up of 43 parcels totaling approximately 230 acres. The area, now known as River Terrace, includes Metro Urban Growth Boundary expansion area 64, portions of SW Barrows Road and SW Scholls Ferry Road rights of way, and five Clean Water Services parcels (including adjacent right of way) south of SW Barrows Road. The subject area is contiguous to the Tigard boundary by way of a utility corridor within the southerly right of way of old Barrows Road and a portion of Scholls Ferry Road. The road right of way is also included in this annexation proposal. A portion of the proposed utility corridor is within the City of Beaverton boundaries. The Beaverton City Council held a hearing on June 21, 2011 and voted unanimously to de -annex the right of way so it could be annexed to Tigard. Beaverton then held hearings on July 12 and August 9, 2011 and adopted an ordinance to withdraw the right of way from its boundary The final reading of the ordinance was August 16. The effective date of both the city's annexation ordinance and Beaverton's withdrawal of territory is September 30, 2011. A majority of the property owners (81 percent), which represent 92 percent of the land area and 81 percent of the total assessed value, of an area south of Scholls Ferry Road and west of Bull Mountain submitted petitions to annex to the City of Tigard. A slightly higher percentage of property owners was previously calculated, but after reviewing the ownership of each parcel, it was determined that the above percentages are correct. These percentages meet what is known as the "triple majority" method of annexation, which does not require a public election. However, a public hearing before the Tigard City Council is required. The purpose of the request is to obtain urban services from the city needed to urbanize the area and provide housing and employment opportunities as envisioned by Metro when the subject area was added to the UGB in 2002. The annexation request has been reviewed against applicable local, regional and state regulations and/or policies from the Tigard Community Development Code, Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Metro Code and Oregon Revised Statutes. The attached staff report (Attachment 4) outlines how the proposal satisfies the applicable requirements. Many of these requirements are related to servicing the River Terrace area with utilities, streets, public safety and parks /open spaces. Conceptual plans for utilities, parks and transportation facilities were part of the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan Coordination between the city and affected agencies and jurisdictions has been important throughout this process and will continue if annexation is approved. This coordination is necessary for preparation of intergovernmental agreements and the community plan. Also annexation to the Metro and Clean Water Services boundaries will occur following annexation to the city. Ordinance If Council adopts the attached ordinance (Attachment 1), annexation of River Terrace will be enacted on September 30 , 2011. Associated with ordinance adoption will be removal of three services districts from the area. No more than 10 parcels are involved. The districts include the Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Urban Road Maintenance District and a service district for street lighting. After annexation, police protection will be provided by Tigard. Also, the city will work with PGE to ensure maintenance of the limited number street lights in the area. Road maintenance will be provided by combined efforts of Tigard, Beaverton and Washington County pursuant to intergovernmental agreements. The ordinance also authorizes the phasing of increased property taxes within the River Terrace annexation area consistent with the City's current annexation policy. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council does have the option to deny the annexation request. Additional findings would need to be made to support a decision to deny. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS 2011 Tigard City Council Goal #1 - e: • Implement the Comprehensive Plan - work with partners on urbanization policy issues. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION NA ,�. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: Based on current Washington County property tax assessments, Tigard will receive approximately $26,500 in property tax revenues from the annexed properties. The property tax will be phased in over a three year period. Based on the current assessments, the phased in property tax collection will be approximately $8,745 in FY 2013, $17,490 in FY 2014, and $26,500 in FY 2015. Upon annexation, Tigard will provide police services to the area. Due to the low density of development that currently exists in the annexed area, Tigard Police will provide police services without additional staff. As this area develops, additional police, and staff for other services, will be needed. Attachments Draft Ordinance Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Legal Maps Exhibit C - Staff Report Applicant's Narrative Vicinity Map Revised Exhibits A and B (Legal Description and Maps) Applicant's Narrative BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON In the Matter of an Application on Behalf ) of Arbor Road LLC to Annex ) APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE Approximately 224 Acres of Real ) DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE Property South of Scholls Ferry Road, ) WITH APPLICABLE APPROVAL East and West of Roy Rogers Road, and ) CRITERIA Generally North of Bull Mountain Road, ) Together with Contiguous Public Road ) Rights -of -Way, to the City of Tigard ) ( "River Terrace "). ) I. Request. Arbor Road LLC ( "Applicant ") submits this application ( "Application ") requesting annexation of certain real property commonly known as "River Terrace" and contiguous public road rights -of -way (together, "Property ") to the City of Tigard ( "City "). This narrative explains how the Application satisfies the applicable procedural and substantive approval criteria of the Oregon Revised Statutes ( "ORS "), the Oregon Administrative Rules ( "OAR "), the Tigard Comprehensive Plan ( "Comprehensive Plan"), all applicable provisions of the Metro Code, and the Tigard Community Development Code ( "TCDC "). Accordingly, the City should approve the Application and adopt an ordinance that annexes the Property. II. Description of Property. This Application proposes to annex the Property to the City. The Property consists of: (1) approximately 224 acres of privately -owned real property generally located south of Scholls Ferry Road, east and west of Roy Rogers Road, and generally north of Bull Mountain Road; and (2) contiguous public road rights -of -way. The Property lies within the Urban Growth Boundary ( "UGB ") and is contiguous to existing, developed urban areas in the northwest corner of the City's limits. The Property is subject to the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan ( "Concept Plan"). A map of the Property is included in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. A legal description of the Property is included in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Washington County ( "County ") has applied an interim zoning designation —FD -20 District (Future Development 20 -Acre minimum lot sizes) —to Area 64 until a community plan and a funding strategy for key infrastructure are adopted. The Property is currently used for agricultural and single - family residential uses. -1 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 The Property consists of 38 separate tax parcels. The duly authorized representatives of the owners of all of the parcels have executed petitions to annex the Property to the City. The City already has four of these petitions on file; copies of the petitions are included in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. III. Land Use and Planning History. In 2002, Metro adopted Ordinance No. 02 -969B to bring Area 64 within the UGB. Metro required the County to protect Area 64 from premature urbanization, and thus the County designated the Property as FD -20 in anticipation of a more - detailed community plan. In November 2010, the County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved Resolution & Order 10 -105, approving the Concept Plan to develop and provide infrastructure for certain areas in the West Bull Mountain area, including the Property. The planning bodies next seek to develop a community plan, implementing ordinances, and a finance plan to implement the Concept Plan. As part of this process, planners have recognized the need to extend certain infrastructure and other amenities to lands that include the Property. IV. Applicable Approval Criteria. A. Statewide Planning Goals. Pursuant to OAR 660 - 014 -0060, a city is not required to directly apply the Statewide Planning Goals ( "Goals ") to an annexation decision when the city's acknowledged comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances "control the annexation." Whether the plan and ordinances control the annexation depends upon whether the plan and ordinances include substantive standards guiding the city's determination of whether or not to annex land. Patterson v. City of Independence, 49 Or LUBA 589 (2005). Such standards need not be mandatory approval criteria, provided that they provide relevant guidance to the annexation decision. Costco Wholesale Corporation v. City of Beaverton, 50 Or LUBA 476 (2005). When the plan and ordinances "control the annexation," the local government is required to apply such provisions to the decision. In this case, the City's Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged and includes relevant standards providing guidance for annexation decisions. The City has also adopted substantive approval criteria relating to annexations in TCDC 18.320.010 et seq. These provisions collectively include substantive standards guiding the City's determination of whether to annex the Property. Accordingly, the City must apply these provisions to its decision. The City is not obligated, however, to apply the Goals to its decisions. Responses to the relevant Comprehensive Plan standards are set forth in Section IV.D. below, and responses to the relevant TCDC provisions are set forth in Section IV.E. below. Therefore, notice under ORS 197.610 is not required. The City can find that it is not required to directly apply the Goals to the Application. -2- 3 7165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 B. "Reasonableness" Standard. Oregon courts have held that state annexation laws include an implied "reasonableness" requirement. PGE v. City of Estacada, 194 Or 145, 241 P2d 1129 (1952). This standard essentially prohibits arbitrary annexations. Id Although any decision depends on the facts and circumstances peculiar to the particular situation, the Oregon Supreme Court identified certain factors demonstrating reasonableness: (1) The contiguous territory represents the actual growth of the city beyond its city limits; RESPONSE: The Property represents the actual growth of the City beyond its limits, because the Property is currently contiguous to the City and will help accommodate the City's identified 20- year need for residential lands. (2) The property is valuable by reason of its adaptability for prospective town uses; RESPONSE: The Property is valuable by reason of its adaptability for the City's prospective uses, including the City's identified need for an appropriate mix of residential uses, open spaces, parks and recreation, and some commercial uses. The Concept Plan contemplates a centrally - located commercial center to help bind the community and provide integrated, prospective planning for the kind of development that will attract additional residents and economic opportunity to the City. The Property can be comprehensively planned and developed to ensure that future development furthers this goal. The City will have the opportunity to review and approve any proposal for urban development before it occurs to ensure consistency with the goals outlined in its Comprehensive Plan. (3) The land is needed for extension of streets and to supply utilities; RESPONSE: The Property is needed for extension of the City's streets and utilities necessary to serve the City's identified 20 -year need for residential lands, as well as to facilitate the potential annexation of additional properties in the area that the City may need to meet the goals in its Comprehensive Plan. (4) The property and the city will mutually benefit from the annexation. Id RESPONSE: The City will benefit from the annexation for four reasons. First, it will help provide sufficient land to accommodate the City's identified 20 -year need for residential lands. Second, the annexation will benefit the City by providing lands to meet its needs for open space, parks, and public facilities needs. Third, it will permit the City to exercise a higher level of integration and control over areas targeted for urbanization that are immediately adjacent to the City. Fourth, it will allow the City to receive additional tax revenues. The Property will benefit from the annexation for two reasons. First, annexation will extend City services to the Property, including water services needed for the development of a residential community. Second, annexation converts the Property to its highest and best use — urban development. -3- 37165- 0038/LEGAL2 1 069594.3 Factors disfavoring a finding of "reasonableness" include annexing an irregularly shaped area, annexing property for the sole purpose of enhancing city revenues, and annexing land used only for agricultural purposes. Id. RESPONSE: The location of existing rights -of -way and the boundaries of Area 64 explain why the Property is shaped as it is. Further, as explained above in response to Factor (4), the City is not annexing the Property for the sole purpose of enhancing City revenues. Finally, the Property is not used only for agricultural purposes, and in any event, it is located inside Metro's UGB and has a temporary designation by the County in anticipation of an adopted community plan. The Court of Appeals of Oregon subsequently held that the modern adoption of significant statewide land use and annexation laws did not supersede the reasonableness standard; however, "[t]he reasonableness question is no longer one that depends solely or mainly on unguided judicial determinations, but is now largely controlled by specific legislative and regulatory criteria." Department of Land Conservation and Development v. City of St. Helens, 138 Or App 222, 227, 907 P2d 259 (1995). RESPONSE: As explained below in response to the individual substantive approval criteria and procedural requirements, the proposed annexation satisfies the specific state and local legislative and regulatory approval criteria. The City can find that approval of the Application is consistent with this factor. For the foregoing reasons, the City can find that the proposed annexation satisfies the "reasonableness" standard. C. Oregon Revised Statutes. This section explains how the Application is consistent with the applicable provisions of the ORS. ORS 222.111. Authority and procedure for annexation. (1) When a proposal containing the terms of annexation is approved in the manner provided by the charter of the annexing city or by ORS 222.111 to 222.180 or 222.840 to 222.915, the boundaries of any city may be extended by the annexation of territory that is not within a city and that is contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water. Such territory may lie either wholly or partially within or without the same county in which the city lies. RESPONSE: As depicted in Exhibit A, the Property will be contiguous to the northern and western boundaries of the existing City limits, following deannexation of certain right -of -way by the City of Beaverton. Thus, the Applicant proposes that the City approve the requested annexation in the manner provided by the applicable provisions of ORS 222.111 to 222.180. Upon compliance with these procedural requirements, the City can find that the Application satisfies this criterion. -4- 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 (2) A proposal for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated by the legislative body of the city, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the city by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. RESPONSE: This annexation is being initiated by the owners of the Property. Copies of the petitions are included in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City can find that the Application satisfies this procedural requirement. (3) The proposal for annexation may provide that, during each of not more than 10 full fiscal years beginning with the first fiscal year after the annexation takes effect, the rate of taxation for city purposes on property in the annexed territory shall be at a specified ratio of the highest rate of taxation applicable that year for city purposes to other property in the city. The proposal may provide for the ratio to increase from fiscal year to fiscal year according to a schedule of increase specified in the proposal; but in no case shall the proposal provide for a rate of taxation for city purposes in the annexed territory which will exceed the highest rate of taxation applicable that year for city purposes to other property in the city. If the annexation takes place on the basis of a proposal providing for taxation at a ratio, the city may not tax property in the annexed territory at a rate other than the ratio which the proposal authorizes for that fiscal year. RESPONSE: This section does not include any applicable substantive approval criteria. The Application does not include a proposal regarding the rate of taxation for the Property. Applicant recognizes that the City cannot assess taxes on the Property in an amount that exceeds the highest City tax rate for the year. The City can find that the Application is consistent with this section. (4) When the territory to be annexed includes a part less than the entire area of a district named in ORS 222.510, the proposal for annexation may provide that if annexation of the territory occurs the part of the district annexed into the city is withdrawn from the district as of the effective date of the annexation. However, if the affected district is a district named in ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of territory shall be determined as provided in ORS 222.465. RESPONSE: The Property does not include land currently located in a district named in ORS 222.465 or ORS 222.510. The Property is not within the boundaries of such districts. The City can find that this section is not applicable to the Application. (5) The legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS 222.120, 222.170 and 222.840 to 222.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to the electors of the territory proposed for annexation and, except when permitted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with submitting the proposal for annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall submit such proposal to the electors of the city. The proposal for annexation may be voted upon at a general election or at a special election to be held for that purpose. RESPONSE: The City can find that this section is not applicable because the Application -5- 371 65- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 satisfies the requirements of ORS 222.170, as described below. (6) The proposal for annexation may be voted upon by the electors of the city and of the territory simultaneously or at different times not more than 12 months apart. RESPONSE: Because the annexation will not be submitted to a vote of the electors, the City can find that this section is not applicable to the Application. (7) Two or more proposals for annexation of territory may be voted upon simultaneously; however, in the city each proposal shall be stated separately on the ballot and voted on separately, and in the territory proposed for annexation no proposal for annexing other territory shall appear on the ballot. RESPONSE: Because the annexation will not be submitted to a vote of the electors, the City can find that this section is not applicable to the Application. 222.120 Procedure without election by city electors; hearing; ordinance subject to referendum. (1) Except when expressly required to do so by the city charter, the legislative body of a city is not required to submit a proposal for annexation of territory to the electors of the city for their approval or rejection. (2) When the legislative body of the city elects to dispense with submitting the question of the proposed annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall fix a day for a public hearing before the legislative body at which time the electors of the city may appear and be heard on the question of annexation. (3) The city legislative body shall cause notice of the hearing to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be posted in four public places in the city for a like period. (4) After the hearing, the city legislative body may, by an ordinance containing a legal description of the territory in question: (a) Declare that the territory is annexed to the city upon the condition that the majority of the votes cast in the territory is in favor of annexation; (b) Declare that the territory is annexed to the city where electors or landowners in the contiguous territory consented in writing to such annexation, as provided in ORS 222.125 or 222.170, prior to the public hearing held under subsection (2) of this section; or (c) Declare that the territory is annexed to the city where the Oregon Health Authority, prior to the public hearing held under subsection (1) of this section, has issued a finding that a danger to public health exists because of conditions within the territory as provided by ORS 222.840 to 222.915. (5) If the territory described in the ordinance issued under subsection (4) of this section is a part less than the entire area of a district named in ORS 222.510, the ordinance may also declare that the territory is withdrawn from the district on the effective date of the annexation or on any subsequent date specified in the ordinance. However, if the affected district is a district named in ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of territory shall be determined as provided in ORS 222.465. (6) The ordinance referred to in subsection (4) of this section is subject to referendum. -6- 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 (7) For the purpose of this section, ORS 222.125 and 222.170, "owner" or "landowner" means the legal owner of record or, where there is a recorded land contract which is in force, the purchaser thereunder. If there is a multiple ownership in a parcel of land each consenting owner shall be counted as a fraction to the same extent as the interest of the owner in the land bears in relation to the interest of the other owners and the same fraction shall be applied to the parcel's land mass and assessed value for purposes of the consent petition. If a corporation owns land in territory proposed to be annexed, the corporation shall be considered the individual owner of that land. RESPONSE: The City Charter does not require that the City submit the question of the proposed annexation to the electors of the City for their approval or rejection. Accordingly, the Applicant requests that the City dispense with this City -wide vote in accordance with 222.120(1). Alternatively, the City may hold a noticed public hearing in accordance with this section and adopt an ordinance declaring the Property annexed based upon timely submittal of owner consents provided in accordance with ORS 222.170(1). Upon compliance with these and other procedural requirements identified in this narrative, the City can find that it has processed the Application in accordance with applicable law. 222.125 Annexation by consent of all owners of land and majority of electors; proclamation of annexation. The legislative body of a city need not call or hold an election in the city or in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed or hold the hearing otherwise required under ORS 222.120 when all of the owners of land in that territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if any, residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation of the land in the territory and file a statement of their consent with the legislative body. Upon receiving written consent to annexation by owners and electors under this section, the legislative body of the city, by resolution or ordinance, may set the final boundaries of the area to be annexed by a legal description and proclaim the annexation. RESPONSE: This statute is satisfied because a majority of owners, who own more than half of the land with more than half the assessed value, have petitioned for annexation. 222.170 Effect of consent to annexation by territory; proclamation with and without city election. (1) The legislative body of the city need not call or hold an election in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed if more than half of the owners of land in the territory, who also own more than half of the land in the contiguous territory and of real property therein representing more than half of the assessed value of all real property in the contiguous territory consent in writing to the annexation of their land in the territory and file a statement of their consent with the legislative body on or before the day: (a) The public hearing is held under ORS 222.120, if the city legislative body dispenses with submitting the question to the electors of the city; or (b) The city legislative body orders the annexation election in the city under ORS 222.111, if the city legislative body submits the question to the electors of the city. (2) The legislative body of the city need not call or hold an election in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed if a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed consent in writing to annexation and the owners of more than half -7- 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 of the land in that territory consent in writing to the annexation of their land and those owners and electors file a statement of their consent with the legislative body on or before the day: (a) The public hearing is held under ORS 222.120, if the city legislative body dispenses with submitting the question to the electors of the city; or (b) The city legislative body orders the annexation election in the city under ORS 222.111, if the city legislative body submits the question to the electors of the city. (3) If the city legislative body has not dispensed with submitting the question to the electors of the city and a majority of the votes cast on the proposition within the city favor annexation, or if the city legislative body has previously dispensed with submitting the question to the electors of the city as provided in ORS 222.120, the legislative body, by resolution or ordinance, shall set the final boundaries of the area to be annexed by a legal description and proclaim the annexation. (4) Real property that is publicly owned, is the right of way for a public utility, telecommunications carrier as defined in ORS 133.721 or railroad or is exempt from ad valorem taxation shall not be considered when determining the number of owners, the area of land or the assessed valuation required to grant consent to annexation under this section unless the owner of such property files a statement consenting to or opposing annexation with the legislative body of the city on or before a day described in subsection (1) of this section. RESPONSE: Applicant requests that the City process the annexation in accordance with ORS 222.170(1). The Property consists of 38 separate tax parcels. The duly authorized representatives of all owners of those parcels including approximately 201.84 acres have executed petitions to annex the Property to the City. The City already has four of these petitions on file, and copies of the other 24 petitions are included in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. These petitions represent a percentage of owners that exceeds the applicable thresholds. Therefore, the City can process the annexation request in accordance ORS 222.170(1), and the City need not call or hold an election in the area proposed to be annexed before adopting the annexation. The Property also includes public road rights -of -way that are included as part of the Application. Pursuant to ORS 222.170(4), these rights -of -way are properly excluded from the calculation required by this statute because these rights -of -way are publicly owned real property and /or are exempt from ad valorem taxation. However, the City may nevertheless include these rights -of- way as part of this annexation because the requirements of this section have been satisfied. 222.173 Time limit for filing statements of consent; public records. (1) For the purpose of authorizing an annexation under ORS 222.170 or under a proceeding initiated as provided by ORS 199.490 (2), only statements of consent to annexation which are filed within any one -year period shall be effective, unless a separate written agreement waiving the one - year period or prescribing some other period of time has been entered into between an owner of land or an elector and the city. -8- 371 65- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 (2) Statements of consent to annexation filed with the legislative body of the city by electors and owners of land under ORS 222.170 are public records under ORS 192.410 to 192.505. RESPONSE: The Application includes 28 petitions, all of which were filed within a year of each other. These petitions meet the thresholds required by ORS 222.170(1). The applicable thresholds are met without considering the public road rights -of -way that the City shall annex — ORS 222.170(4) requires their exclusion from consideration because they are public property and /or exempt from ad valorem taxation. Therefore, the City can find that the Application satisfies this criterion. 222.175 City to provide information when soliciting statements of consent. If a city solicits statements of consent under ORS 222.170 from electors and owners of land in order to facilitate annexation of unincorporated territory to the city, the city shall, upon request, provide to those electors and owners information on that city's ad valorem tax levied for its current fiscal year expressed as the rate per thousand dollars of assessed valuation, a description of services the city generally provides its residents and owners of property within the city and such other information as the city considers relevant to the impact of annexation on land within the unincorporated territory within which statements of consent are being solicited. RESPONSE: The statements of consent are being offered voluntarily and at the initiation of the owners of the Property. The City has not solicited these statements. Therefore, this section is not applicable. 222.177 Filing of annexation records with Secretary of State. When a city legislative body proclaims an annexation under ORS 222.125, 222.150, 222.160 or 222.170, the recorder of the city or any other city officer or agency designated by the city legislative body to perform the duties of the recorder under this section shall transmit to the Secretary of State: (1) A copy of the resolution or ordinance proclaiming the annexation. (2) An abstract of the vote within the city, if votes were cast in the city, and an abstract of the vote within the annexed territory, if votes were cast in the territory. The abstract of the vote for each election shall show the whole number of electors voting on the annexation, the number of votes cast for annexation and the number of votes cast against annexation. (3) If electors or landowners in the territory annexed consented to the annexation under ORS 222.125 or 222.170, a copy of the statement of consent. (4) A copy of the ordinance issued under ORS 222.120 (4). (5) An abstract of the vote upon the referendum if a referendum petition was filed with respect to the ordinance adopted under ORS 222.120 (4). RESPONSE: This section does not include any applicable substantive approval criteria, but it does include procedural provisions that govern the City's actions. Upon compliance with these and other procedural requirements identified in this narrative, the City can find that it has processed the Application in accordance with applicable law. -9- 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 222.180 Effective date of annexation. (1) The annexation shall be complete from the date of filing with the Secretary of State of the annexation records as provided in ORS 222.177 and 222.900. Thereafter the annexed territory shall be and remain a part of the city to which it is annexed. The date of such filing shall be the effective date of annexation. (2) For annexation proceedings initiated by a city, the city may specify an effective date that is later than the date specified in subsection (1) of this section. If a later date is specified under this subsection, that effective date shall not be later than 10 years after the date of a proclamation of annexation described in ORS 222.177. RESPONSE: The Applicant requests that the City specify that the annexation be effective no later than the date of filing of the applicable records with the Secretary of State. D. Metro Regulations 3.09.030 Notice Requirements A. The notice requirements in this section apply to all boundary change decisions by a reviewing entity except expedited decisions made pursuant to section 3.09.045. These requirements apply in addition to, and do not supersede, applicable requirements of ORS Chapters 197, 198, 221 and 222 and any city or county charter provision on boundary changes. RESPONSE: The Applicant acknowledges that these notice requirements are applicable. B. Within 45 days after a reviewing entity determines that a petition is complete, the entity shall set a time for deliberations on a boundary change. The reviewing entity shall give notice of its proposed deliberations by mailing notice to all necessary parties, by weatherproof posting of the notice in the general vicinity of the affected territory, and by publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected territory. Notice shall be mailed and posted at least 20 days prior to the date of deliberations. Notice shall be published as required by state law. RESPONSE: The City should set a date for the required public hearing before the City Council that falls within 45 days of when the petition is deemed complete. The City can find this criterion met as long as it gives the necessary notices: a weatherproof posting, a published notice in a newspaper of general circulation, and mailed notice to all necessary parties —all at least 20 days before the public hearing. The City can find the other notice requirements met as described in this narrative. -10- 3 7165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 C. The notice required by subsection (b) shall: 1. Describe the affected territory in a manner that allows certainty; RESPONSE: The Applicant requests that the City include the description of the Property provided in Section II of this Application, as well as the legal description of the Property as prepared by the City. 2. State the date, time and place where the reviewing entity will consider the boundary change; and RESPONSE: The Applicant requests that the City include the date, time, and place of the public hearing in the required notices. 3. State the means by which any person may obtain a copy of the reviewing entity's report on the proposal. RESPONSE: The Applicant requests that the City include a description of how one might obtain a staff report on the Application. D. A reviewing entity may adjourn or continue its final deliberations on a proposed boundary change to another time. For a continuance later than 28 days after the time stated in the original notice, notice shall be reissued in the form required by subsection (b) of this section at least five days prior to the continued date of decision. RESPONSE: The City may continue deliberations to later hearings, if necessary. E. A reviewing entity's final decision shall be written and authenticated as its official act within 30 days following the decision and mailed or delivered to Metro and to all necessary parties. The mailing or delivery to Metro shall include payment to Metro of the filing fee required pursuant to section 3.09.060. RESPONSE: The City can satisfy this section as long as it authenticates its decision on the Application accordingly. The filing and mapping fee required by Metro for an area greater than 40 acres is $400. 3.09.040 Requirements for Petitions A. A petition for a boundary change must contain the following information: 1. The jurisdiction of the reviewing entity to act on the petition; RESPONSE: The City. 2. A map and a legal description of the affected territory in the form prescribed by the reviewing entity; -11 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 RESPONSE: A map and legal description (prepared by the City) are included with the Application. 3. For minor boundary changes, the names and mailing addresses of all persons owning property and all electors within the affected territory as shown in the records of the tax assessor and county clerk; and RESPONSE: The Application and attached petitions include the relevant names and mailing addresses. 4. For boundary changes under ORS 198.855(3), 198.857, 222.125 or 222.170, statements of consent to the annexation signed by the requisite number of owners or electors. RESPONSE: Pursuant to ORS 222.170 and as described in this narrative, the requisite number of owners has signed statements of consent. B. A city, county and Metro may charge a fee to recover its reasonable costs to carry out its duties and responsibilities under this chapter. RESPONSE: The Application includes payment of the relevant fees. 3.09.050 Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited Decisions A. The following requirements for hearings on petitions operate in addition to requirements for boundary changes in ORS Chapters 198, 221 and 222 and the reviewing entity's charter, ordinances or resolutions. B. Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a hearing the reviewing entity shall make available to the public a report that addresses the criteria in subsection (d) and includes the following information: 1. The extent to which urban services are available to serve the affected territory, including any extra territorial extensions of service; 2. Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and 3. The proposed effective date of the boundary change. RESPONSE: The City can find these criteria met after making the necessary findings and providing those findings in a staff report that the public can access and review at least 15 days before the public hearing before the City Council. Further, the Applicant requests that the City specify that the annexation be effective no later than the date of filing of the applicable records with the Secretary of State. C. The person or entity proposing the boundary change has the burden to demonstrate that the proposed boundary change meets the applicable criteria. -12- 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 RESPONSE: The City can find this criterion met as provided by the Application. D. To approve a boundary change, the reviewing entity shall apply the criteria and consider the factors set forth in subsections (d) and (e) of section 3.09.045. [3.09.045 . D. To approve a boundary change through an expedited process, the city shall: 1. Find that the change is consistent with expressly applicable provisions in: a. Any applicable urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065; RESPONSE: The City can find this criterion met as described in Section IV(E) of this Application. b. Any applicable annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205; RESPONSE: The City can find this criterion inapplicable because electors have not adopted an annexation plan under ORS 195.205. c. Any applicable cooperative planning agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.020(2) between the affected entity and a necessary party; RESPONSE: The City can find this criterion inapplicable to the Application because Metro and Washington County have no cooperative agreement with a special district that provides services within the boundaries of the Property. d. Any applicable public facility plan adopted pursuant to a statewide planning goal on public facilities and services; RESPONSE: The City can find this criterion inapplicable because no such public facility plan exists. e. Any applicable comprehensive plan; and RESPONSE: The City can find this criterion met as described later in this Application. f. Any applicable concept plan; and RESPONSE: The City can find this criterion met as described in this Application and in the Concept Plan. 2. Consider whether the boundary change would: a. Promote the timely, orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; -13- 371 65- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 RESPONSE: The City can find this criterion met as stated in this Application. b. Affect the quality and quantity of urban services; and RESPONSE: The City can find this criterion met as stated in this Application. c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services. RESPONSE: The City can find this criterion met as stated in this Application. E. A city may not annex territory that lies outside the UGB, except it may annex a lot or parcel that lies partially within and partially outside the UGB. RESPONSE: The Property lies within Metro's UGB and thus the City can find this criterion inapplicable to this Application. See Metro Ordinance No. 02 -969B 3.09.090 Extension of Services Outside UGB Neither a city nor a district may extend water or sewer service from inside a UGB to territory that lies outside the UGB. RESPONSE: This section does not apply because Metro brought the Property within the UGB in 2002. See Metro Ordinance No. 02 -969B. E. Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This section of the narrative explains how the Application conforms to applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 1.1: Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. RESPONSE: The City maintains an ongoing citizen - involvement program. To date, the planning process has involved extensive collaborative and inter - agency efforts to ensure the most - inclusive, deliberate, and measured process possible. The Concept Plan, the Application, and the required public hearing before the City Council provide examples of this effort. To assure citizens receive an opportunity to participate, TCDC 18.320.020 requires annexations to follow a Type IV procedure. The City must post, mail, and publish notice as described in this Application. In addition, the City should maintain a list of interested parties and mail notice to them as well. TCDC 18.390.060(D)(1) requires a public hearing before the City Council, and TCDC 18.390.060(D)(2) includes detailed notice requirements. Thus, the City can find this criterion satisfied. Goal 11.1: Develop and maintain a stormwater system that protects development, -14- 371 65- 0038/LEGAL21 069594.3 water resources, and wildlife habitat. RESPONSE: To protect the public health and prevent adverse environmental impacts, the Applicant shall coordinate with the City and service providers to ensure that adequate public services, such as stormwater systems, are provided to the Property. TCDC Chapter 12.02 requires new developments to provide proper "storm and surface water management systems." Future development of the Property will be planned and permitted in accordance with all applicable City policies and standards regarding drainage and run -off. Drainage controls shall be designed to regulate surface water run -off into receiving streams, drainage facilities, or onto adjoining properties. The Property is in West Bull Mountain, an area that includes three tributaries and wetlands. Washington County and Metro have created inventories of the natural resources subject to state, regional, and local regulatory protection as part of an adopted and acknowledged Goal 5 Program (for the County) and as part of the 2005 "Nature in Neighborhoods" program for the region (for Metro). Concept Plan at 16. Applicant will work with the City and other agencies to ensure the planning process considers these important resources by preserving and protecting existing natural resource corridors and minimizing impact on habitat connectivity. In addition, the County contracted with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) to identify potential landslide hazards. DOGAMI identified and mapped existing and potential hazard areas, allowing local authorities to plan development accordingly. Concept Plan at 11 -12, 54 -55, and Appendices A -6 -7. Policy 2: "The City shall continue to collaborate with Clean Water Services in the planning, operation, and maintenance of a comprehensive stormwater management system." RESPONSE: Collaboration is accomplished through coordination with Clean Water Services ( "CWS ") as it relates to stormwater planning for River Terrace. The City can find that this policy is satisfied. Policy 3: "The City shall require the stormwater management system to comply with all applicable federal, state, and regional regulations and programs." RESPONSE: The City will assure that this policy is satisfied at the time the stormwater system is established. The City can find that this policy is satisfied. Policy 4: "The City shall require a property to be located within the City limits prior to receiving City stormwater services." RESPONSE: Annexation of the River Terrace area will satisfy this policy. The City can find that this policy is satisfied. -15- 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 Goal 11.2: "Secure a reliable, high quality, water supply to meet the existing and future needs of the community." Policy 1: "The City shall prioritize securing an interest in a high quality, long -term water supply, which is financially feasible and reliable, to serve the Tigard Water Service Area." Policy 2: "The City shall develop and maintain a water system master plan to coordinate the improvement and expansion of Tigard Water Service Area infrastructure to serve current project demand." RESPONSE: Neither of these policies are directly applicable to this application as they direct the City to take steps to take actions unrelated to annexation of the River Terrace area. However, to the extent they are applicable, the City can find that they are satisfied because the City has obtained a high quality, long -term water supply which will serve the River Terrace area. Additionally, the City has developed a water system master plan that will be implemented at the time of development of the River Terrace area. The City can find that these two (2) policies are satisfied. Goal 11.3: "Develop and maintain a waste water collection system that meets the existing and future needs of the community." Policy 2: "The City shall continue to collaborate with Clean Water Services in the planning, operation, and maintenance of a comprehensive waste water management system for current and projected Tigard residents." Policy 6: "The City shall require property be located within the City limits prior to receiving City waste water services." RESPONSE: This goal and these three (3) policies are satisfied because the City will develop a waste water collection system to serve the River Terrace area following annexation and at the time of development of the property. Goal 11.4: "Maintain adequate public facilities and services to meet the health, safety, education and leisure needs of all Tigard residents." RESPONSE: Development of adequate public facilities and services will be assured through the development process at the time property in River Terrace is developed. The City can find that this goal is satisfied. Goal 12.1: "Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of the community." -16- 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 Policy 1: "The City shall plan for a transportation system that meets current communities' and anticipated growth and development." RESPONSE: The River Terrace annexation will assure mutually supportive land use and transportation plans through the future adoption of appropriate map designations. The transportation system will meet the River Terrace transportation needs through development of the property and application of the City's acknowledged Transportation System Plan. The City can find that this goal and policy are satisfied. Goal 14.1: "Provide and /or coordinate the full range of urban level services to lands and citizens within the Tigard City limits." Policies: 1. The City shall only approve the extension of City services: A. where applications for annexation for those properties have been approved; or B. in circumstances where applicable state and county health agencies have declared a potential or imminent health hazard pursuant to ORS 431.705 to 431.760 (Health Hazard Annexation or Service District Formation); or C. as outlined in the intergovernmental agreement regarding water provision within the Tigard Water Service Area. 2. The City shall maintain, and amend when necessary, agreements with Washington County that recognizes the City as the ultimate provider of governance and identified services to the Tigard Urban Services Area. 3. The City shall, as needed, coordinate and /or participate in planning activities or development decisions within the Tigard Urban Services Area. 4. The City shall protect the existing and future delivery of City Services and only support the formation of a new service district, or expansion of existing districts, that will not create a conflict within the Tigard Urban Service Area. 5. The City shall enter into and maintain intergovernmental agreements with service districts operating within the Tigard Urban Service Area to: A. define short and long term service provision roles; B. specify the terms and conditions of withdrawal of territory from service districts and the transition of capital facility ownership and administration to the City; C. provide for the coordination of plans and programs to eliminate duplicity and minimize conflict; and -1 7- 371 6 5 - 003 8/L E G A L210695 94.3 D. ensure that services are provided consistent with the City's adopted Public Facility Plan. Goal 14.2: "Implement the Tigard Urban Services Agreement through all reasonable and necessary steps, including the appropriate annexation of unincorporated properties." Policies: 1. The City shall assign a Tigard zoning district designation to annexed property that most closely conforms to the existing Washington County zoning designation for that property. 2. The City shall ensure that capacity exists, or can be developed, to provide needed urban level services to an area when approving annexation. 3. The City shall approve proposed annexations based on findings that the request: A. can be accommodated by the City's public facilities and services; and B. is consistent with applicable state statute. 4. The City shall evaluate and may require that parcels adjacent to proposed annexations be included to: A. avoid creating unincorporated islands within the City; B. enable public services to be efficiently and effectively extended to the entire area; or C. implement a concept plan or sub -area master plan that has been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. 6. The City shall periodically update and /or amend its Public Facility Plan to ensure the predictable and logical provision of urban services for areas anticipated to be within the Tigard city limits. Goal 14.3: "Promote Tigard citizens' interests in urban growth boundary expansion and other regional and state growth management decision." Policy 1: The City shall support regional and state growth management decisions, while promoting policy that supports cities as the best building blocks of an efficient, stable, and compact urban region. RESPONSE: Annexation of the River Terrace area will allow the City to provide a full range of public facilities and services. The City will adopt an amendment to its Urban Services Agreement with Washington County and with service providers as necessary. Through these -18- 371 65- 003 8/LEGAL21069594.3 actions, the City will ensure that full range of urban level services to lands within the River Terrace area are provided at the time of development. Policy 3: The City shall approve proposed annexations based on findings that the request: A. can be accommodated by the City's public facilities and services; and RESPONSE: The Comprehensive Plan's Public Facilities and Services Chapter states that "Public Facilities and Services refers to Stormwater Management, Water Supply and Distribution, Wastewater Management, Community Facilities, and Private Utilities." In addition, the glossary to the Comprehensive Plan includes public safety, parks, and transportation as "public facilities and services." The City shall provide stormwater management as required by Goal 11.1 in the Comprehensive Plan and as described above. For water supply and distribution, the Concept Plan acknowledges, for example, that "water provision is most cost efficient from the east. Potential providers include the City of Tigard and the Tigard Water District." Concept Plan at 16. For wastewater management, the City shall consult with appropriate service providers, such as Clean Water Services, to ensure adequate consideration and planning for these needs as well. Further, the City represents the best possible provider for this area, given the likely similarity and natural continuity of uses between the Property and the City's soon -to -be contiguous residential neighborhoods near Barrows Road and Scholls Ferry Road. The Application is consistent with the City's transportation goals because annexation of the Property will provide for a wider range of choices for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian travel within the City. The West Bull Mountain area, of which the Property is part, includes three county arterials (Roy Rogers Road, Scholls Ferry Road, and Beef Bend Road) and two collectors (Bull Mountain Road and 150th Avenue). The Concept Plan notes that agencies plan to widen each of these roads to provide for additional capacity. In addition, several streets will receive extensions to provide greater connectivity, and the Concept Plan emphasizes the creation of bike lanes, sidewalks, and other bike /walk corridors to create an easily navigable community of neighborhoods. The City's annexation of the Property will ensure integration between existing transportation facilities and those planned for the Property. A system of new, walkable, bikeable neighborhood routes and local streets will provide the necessary connectivity and cohesion with the City's existing local street network. Approving the Application and annexing the Property also allows the City to retain the ability to address the concerns of local residents and plan for the preservation and protection of inventoried natural resources. Implementing a comprehensive local street network throughout the Property will enable residents to access important community destinations in a safe and direct manner, without having to overly rely on the larger arterials. Additionally, the City shall coordinate with the City of Tigard Police Department and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue to ensure necessary extensions of public - safety services to the Property. Indeed, the Concept Plan contemplates a new fire station for Tualatin Valley Fire and -19- 37165-0038/LEGAL21069594.3 Rescue in the "Rural Area" immediately south of the Property. This new station would provide greater and faster services for those residents and businesses that reside within the Property. Finally, the Concept Plan also includes several small "neighborhood" parks and one larger "community" park for the Property. The City itself typically provides park and recreation services and facilities to the City's residents. The City will assign zoning district designations, at the request of the petitioners for annexation in the River Terrace Area, following annexation. The City can find that urban level service capacity exists in this area through coordination with service providers demonstrating adequacy of service. The City can find that the proposed annexations for the River Terrace area can be accommodated by the City's Public Facilities and Services and is consistent with applicable state statutes as demonstrated in this application. Finally, the City is not required to update the Public Facility Plan to approve the River Terrace annexation. B. is consistent with applicable state statute. RESPONSE: The Application is consistent with applicable provisions of the ORS as described in this narrative. Goal 14.3: "Promote Tigard citizens' interest in urban growth boundary expansion and other regional and state growth management decisions." Policy 1. The City shall support regional and state growth management decisions, while promoting policy that support cities as the best building blocks of an efficient, stable and compact urban region." RESPONSE: This goal and policy are satisfied through annexation of the River Terrace area because it provides for urban development inside the City of Tigard. The City can find that this criterion is satisfied. F. Tigard Community Development Code. Chapter 18.320 ANNEXATIONS 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards A. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390 using standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below. RESPONSE: The City shall process the Application according to the procedures described in this Application and thus can find this criterion met. -20- 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 B. Approval Criteria. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria: 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and RESPONSE: The criterion conforms to that in Policy 3 of Goal 14.2 in the City's Comprehensive Plan (as described above in this narrative). 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. RESPONSE: These criteria have been met as described in this narrative. C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and /or zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. RESPONSE: The Property will retain the existing County FD -20 zoning designation until the City adopts a community plan for the Property and then adopts appropriate implementing zoning. D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations which are most similar. RESPONSE: The Property will retain the existing County FD -20 zoning designation until the City adopts a community plan for the Property and then adopts appropriate implementing zoning. Chapter 18.390 DECISION - MAKING PROCEDURES 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure A. Pre Application conference. A pre - application conference is required for all Type IV actions. The requirements and procedures for a pre - application conference are described in Section 18.390.080.C. -21 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 RESPONSE: The pre- application conference occurred on May 26, 2011, satisfying this requirement. B. Timing of requests. The Director shall receive proposed Type IV actions twice yearly. A completed application shall be submitted not more than 75 days and not less than 45 days before the first commission meeting in April and October. The Director may waive any of the above periods. RESPONSE: This provision grants the Director authority to waive the specified periods for submitting and thus to conduct Type IV actions at times other than those specified therein. C. Application requirements. 1. Application forms. Type IV applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director as provided by Section 18.390.080.E.1. 2. Submittal information. The application shall: a. Contain the information requested on the form; b. Address the appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; and d. Be accompanied by 18 copies of the narrative. RESPONSE: The Application includes the requested information, the required fee, and 18 copies of the narrative. This narrative addresses the appropriate criteria. Therefore, the City can find these criteria met. D. Notice of hearing. 1. Required hearings. Two hearings, one before the Commission and one before the Council, are required for all Type IV actions, except annexations where only a hearing by the City Council is required. RESPONSE: Under this section, the City need only hold one public hearing, and that one hearing will be held before the City Council. 2. Notification requirements. Notice of the public hearings for the request shall be given by the Director in the following manner: a. At least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date, notice shall be sent to: (1) The applicant; (2) Any affected governmental agency; (3) Any City - recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; and (4) Any person who requests notice in writing and pays a fee established by Council resolution. b. At least 10 business days prior to the scheduled public hearing date, notice shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. c. The Director shall: (1) For each mailing of notice, cause an affidavit of mailing to be filed and made a part of the record as provided by Subsection D.2.a; and -22- 37165- 0038/LEGAL21069594.3 (2) For each published notice, cause an affidavit of publication to be filed and made part of the record as provided by Subsection D.2.b. RESPONSE: Upon following these procedural requirements, the City can find this provision satisfied. 3. Content of notice. The notice given to persons entitled to mailed or published notice pursuant to this section shall include the following information: a. The number and title of the file containing the application and the address and telephone number of the Director's office where additional information can be obtained; b. A description of the location of the proposal reasonably calculated to give notice as to the location of the affected geographic area; c. A description of the substance of the proposal in sufficient detail for people to determine that a change is contemplated and the place where all relevant materials and information may be obtained or reviewed; d. The time(s), place(s), and date(s) of the public hearing(s); a statement that public oral or written testimony is invited; and a statement that the hearing will be held under this title and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E; e. Each mailed notice required by this section of the ordinance shall contain the following statement: "Notice to mortgagee, lienholder, vendor, or seller: The Tigard Development Code requires that if you receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser." 4. Failure to receive notice. The failure of any person to receive notice as required under Subsections B and C of this section shall not invalidate the action, providing: a. Personal notice is deemed given where the notice is deposited with the United States Postal Service; b. Published notice is deemed given on the date it is published. RESPONSE: Upon following these procedural requirements, the City can find this provision satisfied. H. Approval process and authority. 1. The Commission shall: a. After notice and a public hearing, formulate a recommendation to the Council to approve, approve with modifications, approve with conditions, deny the proposed change, or adopt an alternative; and b. Within 10 business days of determining a recommendation, cause the written recommendation to be signed by the presiding officer of the Commission and to be filed with the Director. 2. Any member of the Commission who voted in opposition to the recommendation by the Commission on a proposed change may file a written statement of opposition with the Director prior to any Council public hearing on the proposed change. The Director shall transmit a copy to each member of the Council and place a copy in the record; -23- 37165- 0038 /LEGAL21069594.3 3. If the Commission fails to formulate a recommendation to approve, approve with modifications, approve with conditions, deny the proposed change, or adopt an alternative a proposed legislative change within 60 days of its first public hearing on the proposed change, the Director shall: a. Report the failure together with the proposed change to the Council; and b. Cause notice to be given, the matter to be placed on the Council's agenda, a public hearing to be held, and a decision to be made by the Council. No further action shall be taken by the Commission. 4. The Council shall: a. Have the responsibility to approve, approve with modifications, approve with conditions, deny or adopt an alternative to an application for the legislative change or to remand to the Commission for rehearing and reconsideration on all or part of an application transmitted to it under this title; b. Consider the recommendation of the Commission, however, it is not bound by the Commission's recommendation; and c. Act by ordinance which shall be signed by the Mayor after the Council's adoption of the ordinance. I. Vote required for a legislative change. 1. A vote by a majority of the qualified voting members of the Commission present shall be required for a recommendation for approval, approval with modifications, approval with conditions, denial or adoption of an alternative. 2. A vote by a majority of the qualified members of the Council present shall be required to decide any motion made with respect to the proposed change. RESPONSE: Upon following these procedural requirements, the City can find this provision satisfied. J. Notice of decision. Notice of a Type IV Decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to all parties of record within five business days after the decision is filed by the Review Authority with the Director. The City shall also provide notice to all persons according to other applicable laws. RESPONSE: Upon following these procedural requirements, the City can find this provision satisfied. K. Final decision and effective date. Type IV decision shall take effect and shall become final as specified in the enacting ordinance, or if not approved, upon mailing of the notice of decision to the applicant. RESPONSE: The Applicant requests that the City specify that the annexation be effective no later than the date of filing of the applicable records with the Secretary of State. V. Conclusion. -24- 37165- 0038 /LEGAL2 1 069594.3 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Application satisfies the applicable approval criteria. Accordingly, the City can take the following actions: (1) Approve the Application; and (2) Adopt an ordinance annexing the Property to the City limits. -25- 371 65- 003 8/LEGAL21069594.3 EXHIBITS A. Map of Area to be Annexed. B. Legal Description of the Property C. Petitions for Annexation D. West Bull Mountain Concept Plan Map and Report. -26- 37165-0038/LEGAL21069594.3 ..1.11 L'l -a`■ IP ,,,,s, „,........... ����� i :♦� �'�i i Vicinity Map ' l / = ; • 4442 . r . IN � • 1111 _ • ' r B ® e a "-11 - nun l ' NI t i . 0 n / � � � .. 1 ,mina„ a rei p111111111 111 a I ® am,,, i P P! A verlia %' 11111 I ■ ■ ■ / a� ; Illf • �� 11111r� ®° ® ` 1I G�a� ` ' ‚ii f �� //■ ° ■/�1 \Irk , •: r .■■■ a T 1 3 i �/1 ■■ ■� ►��. 1 11111 1 111111 : , 1 Is, _ .�� _ • �_ _ /■ ��' 1111111/ 111111 �� 1111 � 11111 � � ' � � �' = r��< p l /% ■ fi r t _ _r - ■ y � i 1111111/ 11111111111 1111111/ :p 1111 1111 _ x ,_ , ± ° � wok - , ► � =I� . 11111111 11 � , 11 , - - : _ !II 1 e y 1 1 11 1 ■ '4r n - ? = - ! a ► : 11 1111 ` _ _ a 1 1 i1 C � I IIIIUIIIIIIU _ ; � ' 1 ♦ 111 "111 .111 111 , . lC �• • �•1 C ►� _ 17iJi � 1� ' ai ri .0.0=1; = 11 � � 1 111/ 1 G 4 �1 /C ;:t to �y� Uri ■ W a s h 1 i = g n MI =� I NE _mm CV ill �■i■ ■i■1►�ii111 I IIIIIIIIIIw11�� � .� .,� /ua 111111 1111111111111 111111111111 ' �p = =- 11111111 111111 ��� T 1 g a a d E X ��, �, : _��Ill x. �� 11/1111/ 111111' � �� UMW ♦ �` 44 P111 m m 11 111 /0 no mo /� bi i 1 \1 6 4* tv/ / < Elm Alt pm:ft OW NAM 11111ii�i C o � uri : '1 1 ■ , ' �� I1' 1ii "liii ■ fi /�= 1111 Ilk �• vim �i/ II� ■A ■� ■I AI • 1 mows 1 ► � • . ' `�■ ■.� ��� S�■ 1111■ ��',1as.11� '' ��rie , ���/r i Proposed Annexation - River Terrace II ., .,,_„ , 1� IM � � " ®�� :::: � i i i ii iiiiiiiiii I WL ' i ,„;,.. 1 _ _ 1 • Ir 111 1111111111111 _ � i1� � _ �A;� ow ad :1111111111111 ■ p t,� 0 0.25 111. �'� r / 1111n 111/1111111 " 0.12 os ; � _ 1' � III limn � � D II .;1jC�11J� silk, 11I i Mlles I I ko/ ■ _ � ■ C i./1■. ini-u• sm.. J. ~ � - I�raumm ■ ■�. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -ar ir- r�� P ..II ■ SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET II FOR g - I C of Tigard (DATE OF MEETING) MEMORANDUM a da ` 5 TIGARD TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Cheryl Gaines, Associate Planner RE: River Terrace Annexation Revised Exhibits A & B (Legal Description and Maps) DATE: August 18, 2011 Attached please find a letter from the Department of Revenue approving the legal description and maps for the proposed River Terrace annexation. The final preliminary approval was granted • assuming a few minor corrections would be made to the legal and maps. These corrections were completed and the attached legal and map reflects these changes. These documents will be entered into the record at the August 23`' hearing and will replace Exhibits A and B of the proposed ordinance. DOR 34 -P523 -2011 Preliminary Review OREGON DEPARTMENT �� OF REVENUE Cadastral Information Systems Unit PO Box 14380 Salem, OR 97309 -5075 (503) 945 -8297, fax 945 -8737 City of Tigard Associate Planner Attn: Cheryl Caines 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Date: 8/17/2011 This letter is to inform you that the map and description for your PLANNED Annex to City of Tigard (River Terrace) (ZCA 2011- 00001) in Washington County have been reviewed per your request. They MEET the requirements for use with an Order, Ordinance, or Resolution which must be submitted to the Washington County Assessor and Department of Revenue in final form before March 31, 2012 per ORS 308.225. This boundary change is approved with the following notes: The annexation boundary must be highlighted or clearly marked with a bold linestyle on the Final Maps submitted with the Ordinance. Figures 4 & 5: "SW Roy Rogers Rd" should be labeled on the Final Maps submitted with the Ordinance. All references to "SW Barrows Road" in the legal description need to have "(CR 812) ". This includes Page 2 , Line 19 & Line 38. FYI - -The maps, legal descriptions. signed and dated ordinance must be filed with the County Assessor and the Dept. of Revenue in final approved form prior to March 31, 2012 per ORS 308.225. If you have any questions please contact: Elise Bruch 503 - 945 -8344 EXHIBIT A ri /Ig /Jul) ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION A tract of land situated in the Section 5 and Section 6 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the corner to Sections 32 and 33 Township 1 South, Range 1 West and Sections 4 and 5 township 2 South, Range 1 West Willamette Meridian; Thence S 00° 26'16" W, along east line of Section 5, a distance of 929.91 feet to the centerline of SW Barrows Road (CR 812) and the True Point of Beginning of the Annexation description; Thence N 32° 32' 55" E, along said centerline, a distance of 188.13 feet to the east line of BPA 100 foot wide power line; Thence S 00° 26' 16" W, along said power line, a distance of 62.08 feet to the southerly right -of -way of SW Barrows Road (CR 812); Thence along said southerly right- of way the following 8 courses; Thence S 32° 32' 55" W a distance of 726.55 feet; Thence S 32° 34' 49" W a distance of 36.84 feet to a point of curve of a curve to the right; Thence along said curve to the right with a radius of 605.96 feet; a central angle of 14° 22' 36" (a chord which bears S 39 °46' 07" W,151.65 feet) and a length of 152.05 feet to a point of non - tangency; Thence S 47° 46' 49" W a distance of 167.15 feet to a point of curve of a curve to the right; Thence along said curve to the right with a radius of 605.96 feet, a central angle of 19° 48' 49" (a chord which bears S 57° 41' 13" W, 208.51 feet) and a length of 209.55 feet; Thence S 67° 35' 38" W a distance of 1464.05 feet to a point of curve of a curve to the right; Thence along said curve to the right with a radius of 1183.00 feet, a central angle of 07° 41' 27" ( a chord which bears S 71° 26' 21" W, 158.68 feet) and a length of 158.79 feet; Thence S 75° 17' 05" W a distance of 25.94 feet to the northeast corner of Tract "A" Morningside; Thence S 15° 56' 07" E, along the east line of said Tract "A ", a distance of 63.50 feet to the Southeast corner of tract "A "; Thence N 89° 45' 11" W, along the south line of said tract "A ", a distance of 90.00 feet to the Southwest corner of Tract "A" and the west line of Morningside; Thence N 00° 14' 49" W, along said west line, a distance of 41.71 to the southerly right of way of SW Barrows Road (CR 812) being a point on a non - tangent curve to the right; Thence along said curve to the right with a radius of 1183.00 feet, a central angle of 14° 36' 05" (a chord which bears S 84° 49' 04" W, 300.66 feet) and a length of 301.48 feet to a point of curve to the left; Thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 100.00 feet, a central angle of 8° 06' 29" (a chord which bears S 86° 12' 21" W, 14.14 feet) and a length of 14.15 feet to a point of curve to right; Thence along said curve to the right with a radius of 100.00 feet, a central angle of 17° 07' 38" (a chord which bears S 89° 17' 01" E, 29.80 feet) and a length of 29.91 feet to the northeasterly line of Tract "B" Bull Mountain Meadows; Thence along the southerly line of Tract `B" the following 6 courses; Thence leaving said right of way S 00° 14' 49" W, along the east line of said Tract `B" , a distance of 73.06 feet; Thence N 83° 40' 02" W a distance of 164.93 feet; Thence N 89° 45' 11" W a distance of 48.00 feet; Thence S 84° 18' 00" W a distance of 96.52 feet; Thence N 89° 45' 11" W a distance of 142.00 feet; Thence S 00° 14' 49" W a distance of 146.00 feet to the southerly right -of -way of SW Bulrush Lane; Thence N 89° 45' 11" W, along said southerly right -of -way, a distance of 50.00 feet; Thence N 00° 14' 49" E a distance of 146.00 feet to the northeast corner of lot 1 Bull Mountain Meadows; Thence N 89° 45' 11" W a distance of 55.00 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 1; Thence N 84° 59' 50" W a distance of 60.19 feet to the southeast corner of Tract "A" Bull Mountain Meadows; Thence N 89° 45' 11" W , along the south line of said Tract "A ", a distance of 105.02 feet; Thence N 83° 59' 18" W , along the south line of said Tract "A" and the extension thereof, a distance of 163.42 feet to an angle point on the south line of Tract "H" Bull Mountain Meadows NO. 3; Thence S 67° 35' 55" W a distance of 47.74 feet; Thence S 00° 14' 49" W a distance of 73.63 feet to a non - tangent curve to the right; Thence along said curve to the right with a Radius of 523.00 feet, a central angle of 0° 06' 41" (a chord which bears S 80° 31' 51" E, 1.02 feet) and a length of 1.02 feet; Thence S 09 °31' 30" W a distance of 46.00 feet to the southerly right -of -way of SW Bulrush Lane and a point on a non- tangent curve to the left; Thence along said curve to the left with a Radius of 477.00 feet, a central angle of 09° 31' 30" (a chord which bears N 85° 13' 57" W 79.12 feet) and a length of 79.22 feet; Thence N 89° 59' 24" W a distance of 242.86 feet; Thence N 00° 00' 36" E a distance of 46.00 feet to a point of curve of a non - tangent curve to the left; Thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 18.00 feet a central angle of 90° 00'00" (a chord which bears N 45° 00' 36" E, 25.46) and a length of 28.27 feet; Thence N 00° 00' 36" E a distance of 82.00 feet to the southeast corner of Tract I Bull Mountain Meadows NO. 3; Thence N 89° 59' 24" W a distance of 55.00 feet; Thence N 85° 37' 24" W a distance of 150.55 feet; Thence N 89° 59' 24" W a distance of 351.00 feet; Thence N 00° 00' 36" E a distance of 123.00 feet to the southerly right of way of SW Barrows Road (CR 812); Thence S 89° 31' 18" W a distance of 847.29 feet to the west line of Section 5 Township 2 South, Range 1 West Willamette Meridian; Thence S 00° 17' 13" W, along said Section line, a distance of 356.76 feet to the west one - quarter corner of Section 5; Thence S 00° 00' 23" W, along said Section line, a distance of 2644.58 feet to the Section Corner between Sections 5,6,7 &8 Township 2 South, Range 1 West; Thence S 00° 06' 09" W, along the Section line between Sections 7 and 8, a distance of 2218.91 feet; Thence S 89° 19' 26" W, leaving said Section line, a distance of 1337.59 feet to the westerly right -of -way of SW Roy Rodgers Road; Thence N 00° 01' 15" E, along said westerly right -of -way, a distance of 2219.23 feet to the southerly line of Section 6 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian; Thence S 89° 22' 25" W, along said Section Line, a distance of 1313.31 feet to the one quarter corner between Sections 6 and 7 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian; Thence N 00° 20' 56" E, along the line between the east and west one halves of said Section 6, a distance of 2719.11 feet to the center line of SW Scholls Ferry Road being a point on a non - tangent curve to the left; Thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 1432.39 feet, a central angel of 14° 12' 09 ", (a chord which bears N 81° 56' 36" E, 354.15) and a length of 355.06 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N 74° 50' 36" E a distance of 876.66 feet to a point of curve of a curve to the right; Thence along said curve to the right with a radius of 1432.39 feet, a central angel of 14° 45' 02 ", (a chord which bears N 82° 13' 07" E, 367.74) and a length of 368.76 feet to the extension of the center line of SW Barrows Road (CR 812); Thence N 89° 35' 38" E, a distance of 458.31 feet along the extended center line of SW Barrows Road (CR 812); Thence along the center line of SW Barrows Road (CR 812) and the extension there of the following 12 courses; Thence N 89° 31' 18" E a distance of 2217.52 feet; Thence S 85° 05' 41" E a distance of 866.23 feet; Thence S 79° 57' 44" E a distance of 183.27 feet to a non - tangent curve to the left; Thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 1150.00 feet a central angle of 17° 13' 58" (a chord which bears N 83° 54' 04" E, 344.58 feet) and a length of 345.88 feet; Thence N 75° 17' 05" E a distance of 90.62 feet to a point of curve of a curve to the left; Thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 1150.00 feet, a central angel of 7° 41' 27" (a chord which bears N 71° 26' 54" E, 154.25) and a length of 154.36 feet; Thence N 67 °35' 38" E a distance of 1464.05 feet to a point of curve of a curve to the left; Thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 572.96 feet, a central angle of 19° 48' 49" (a chord which bears N 57° 41' 13" E, 197.15 feet) and a length of 198.14 feet; Thence N 47° 46' 49" E a distance of 166.68 feet to a point of curve of a non - tangent curve to the left; Thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 572.96 feet, a central angle of 14° 22' 36" (a chord which bears N 39° 46' 07" E, 143.39 feet) and a length of 143.77 feet; Thence N 32° 34' 49" E a distance of 36.84 feet; Thence N 32° 32' 55" E a distance of 591.02 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 11162513 square feet or 256.25 Acres EXHIBIT B 4 /1ga0" I' vr"- t N--"N: :W l .:::-., . — / ..., '``., I f____, 4 ...' c 3 IPP f ' s �� _ o , 44114110 / /.. Alit 410 git (3 L 1111111 0 MIHA 0 S 4 1 V //,,,s4 ( / / 1 ( 4 t va....-...„, A„,.,„,. it , -„,„ g ; . vio 4 / /-----4 - / , , ,,,,,, r _ . , 4 1,_,,, , ,,, z 4 ill I I i ' ‘ 4,1&44 2 1"',.. c , i ''''• / i 2 I -... 110 / i i ,,,,,,/,-- ,44. / ..__,. ,,,,,,, .„1,,. , /r-t---„„(„, / ,..,, ..,.... 1 , ., ..,. .,,, RIVER TERRACE "w ' TOWAISNIP 2 SOUTH R4NCF 1 WEST W.M AN NEXATION SFCIYDN 5 5tACF l' = Tt70' nur / ozz7 **<e> tizzo Qe):(zzlz? Isp- '.H .M ce, ■Ir S gir w (4 v%.‘ Alibb .4 al IAA ** 46 1 % 1 4 141 •,(\$ t #r r � rr , TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH RANGE I WEST W.M .w.�.� RIVER TERRACE — SECTION 5 SCALE I . Imo ANNEXATION �^ --, ER ER p mu o '/III Now 7 z\\\\\N„,c,,,, B EEBEEE El IIII j ql---1--M ♦ I com i s am% sw:.".,, 'I - 81 11111 II , &t,' girl ! 4 ,„ o'er 7 Net .. on : „„ ilk i 111! -. .. : =Wp imm_ .. : . '.. ./le - I i . � Iuw.=1111 111:: dal 1111 �l1 D � !1111 1111! �,■, ■ ii 1 1 111 .. � 111 �� !1111111 gm i TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTN R NCE I WEST W.M -.....i9 RIVER TERRACE I SECTION 5 ANNEXATION ' SCALE 1 = WO' .., r E RR D R �� Svl 5 � 0�� 5 f --,''.;; ' ; i II s( 6 y O ° rri 1 oPi (,) , i ,•A __________. _ 4 *awl aa I *1' � ri as ' I i _ ■ 1 f M T RIVER TERRA TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH RANCE I WEST W.AI SCALE 1' ■ 100' RIVER RA ti SECTION 5 ,m, —Z —H .,_t s_ .N I I 1 l l I I 1 - min i , _ _ _f q 1/4 SECTION CORNER 6 S( 1 ON cavncx !( r2SAra 7 ------ V TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH RANGE 1 wssr wm . '3'.T. i RIVER TERRACE S CALE 1' A, 100'' ANNEXATION SECTION 6 AND 7 .u.. ■ ll 11 m J 1 rr• / Y Z on a xrarr N SW ROY RODGERS RD �w Dr 111101.1 8/0. ra TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH RANGE 1 WEST W.M RIVER TERRACE s SECTION 6 AND 7 SCALE t" 100' £ ANNEXATION RS„ Item 1t Newsletter dated :8 if Ir WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET August 16, 2011 FOR SLR 3 . (DATE OF MEETING) Mayor Craig Dirksen City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mayor Dirksen: I am sending this letter to you in support of the City of Tigard's River Terrace annexation. The annexation was initiated by property owners in the area on a voluntary basis. County staff has been working with City staff to coordinate the transition of planning responsibilities to Tigard. I applaud the City's efforts as we move forward with a spirit of cooperation. Best regards, e - 7? Roy 9 Commissioner cc: Andrew Singelakis, Director or Land Use and Transportation Liz Newton, Acting City Manager Board of County Commissioners 155 North First Avenue, Suite 300, MS 22, Hillsboro. OR 97124 -3072 phone: (503) 846 -8681 • fax: (503) 846 -4545 River Terrace Annexation August 23, 2011 Statement by City Attorney — Quasi Judicial Land Use Hearing Procedures A copy of the rules of procedure for today's hearing is available at the entrance. The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website and a paper copy of the staff report has been available in the Tigard Public Library for the last seven days. The Council's role in this hearing is to make a land use decision under existing laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Any person may offer testimony. Please wait until you are asked to speak by the Mayor and try to limit your remarks to the application standards for the application. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any conflicts of interest. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member will not participate. Council members must declare any contacts about this case with a member of the public. Council members must also declare if they have independent knowledge of relevant facts, such as from a visit to the site in question. A Council member who describes ex parte contacts or independent information may still participate in the decision. After the discussion of conflicts and ex parte contacts, any person may challenge the participation of a Council member or rebut any statements made. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. Tonight, City staff will summarize the written staff report. Then the parties requesting the application and those in favor of the proposal testify. Next witnesses who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. If there is opposition or if there are questions, the proponents can respond to them. The Council members also may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, including any rebuttal, the proponents can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re -open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. You should raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue. Failure to do so precludes an appeal on that issue. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that fact and add any additional points of your own. Please refrain from disruptive demonstrations. Comments from the audience will not be part of the record. The point is, come to the microphone to get your comments on the tape, otherwise, they won't be preserved for appeal. (Continued on reverse.) When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, spelling your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder who will mark these exhibits as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask for their return. I: \ADM \CATHY \CCA \quasi judicial rules of procedure \Rules of Procedure - Japanese Intl Baptist Church Annexation.doc AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: August 23, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET (QUASI- JUDICIAL)FOR (DATE OF MEETING) TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING — RIVER TERRACE ANNEXATION — ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (Z CA2011- 00001) APPLICANT: Multiple applicants. PROPOSAL: A request to annex to the City of Tigard approximately 230 acres of property, referred to herein as River Terrace, that includes Metro Urban Growth Boundary expansion area 64, portions of SW Barrows Road and SW Scholls Ferry Road rights of way, and five Clean Water Services parcels (including adjacent right of way) south of SW Barrows Road. LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located south of Scholls Ferry Road on the east and west sides of SW Roy Rogers Road plus five Clean Water Services parcels south of SW Barrows Road between SW 152nd Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road. COUNTY ZONE: FD20 Future Development, 20 -acre minimum lot size. The FD20 District applies to the unincorporated urban lands added to the urban growth boundary by Metro through a Major or Legislative Amendment process after 1998. The FD20 District recognizes the desirability of encouraging and retaining limited interim uses until the urban comprehensive planning for future urban development of these areas is complete. The provisions of this district are also intended to implement the requirements of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. R15: Residential, 12 units /acre minimum density, 15 units /acre maximum density. The intent and purpose of the R15 District is to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for areas designated for residential development at no more than fifteen (15) units per acre and no less than twelve (12) units per acre, except as otherwise specified by Section 3002 or Section 3005 of the Washington County Community Development Code. EQUIVALENT CITY ZONE: Annexation areas will retain current Washington County zoning until Tigard zoning is applied with the future adoption of a community plan for the area. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for annexations are described in Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Goal 1, Goal 11, Goal 12, and Goal 14; ORS Chapter 222; Metro Code Chapter 3.09. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Five - minute Time Limit on Testimony I /ADM /Cathy / C CSignup / QJ PH 110823 e ve AGENDA ITEM No. 5 � �� Date: August 23, 2011 PLEASE PRINT Proponent — (Speaking In Favor) Opponent — (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. M/cllA pvbrwl5o6 i WO MN acct - S ek 2 Fuz)A g 7 z z 3 Poa- - a , oe guoef-`N26 (5o 7z7- zz6`+ Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. joCuMliM6 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. I4lacsL La nc & ster -�-I 4+ , 0 S.W. Sch.okAs Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. /1444 pag,p__— AGENDA ITEM No, 0 , �l- CG August 23, 2011 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent — (Speaking In Favor) Opponent — (Speaking Against) Neutral ame, Address & Phone o. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. , F r 1 3 . :y dk\re-Av Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. I tl r . • { iL 1 tit): 1 r • Presented during testimony I J !,� r �C_ ■ I y . ,, tt r B Michael Robinson I I . ! �, � , •^ ft* it ,� Tigard City Council Meeting �= Thisrtion to centerline / � �����n�, , f ; . ' _ _ „.<.:- y) ., f i August 23, 2011 of Scholts Fe Rd �1 ' 17T ° 1 ` I . - i Cor1N' r \ Agenda Item No. S I f tit uitr I , (9 ; 1p� ` ` R d R° r i /" ( urrentty in B' vtn) t_` athe c rh . l i ttWi rrr' � �, n h` sp o hs ' g til ���' r` River Terrace Annexation I tertine t Barr w R , g uut = • . � al : e, 0a _ ` Ar` .; > > ; 1 I - t o cen - / ' °r (c u f ent "Hilt I liraifi cm o k -te � ��y • - 1 ; . 's This P ortio n Ferr /,., ( ' ho11s n _ — ° 2, - a t r i �/ °- f1 - I IJ , r , It, e f t m_ c% z 0: --" - 1 I tcu r r en 1- i! - o ----- - --r - i I a- i <n �• � ,r/..; _ . G � S , pt j o-' - ! I . • I -� �r I I "``y r 4tthg - I -- �._ 111 i .I , t �� 1 1 r 611 74i, � h t : ... - ,', -- --- - - "YIP r , :- n e c3� . ill �y 1 Itlltlr -�� � _� . i t M , r ! '• r ' 'iiiiitli % -pit �� t L ,�i I i • 11111111 1 IS" '1 11 ' r e ii ! � � A 1 ;i . ►�f � ;l o � _ � �� j ►�� - Ifriil nn _-- SUPP NTAL PACKET 0 1 16 r ��+�rLt► *_ , t 11111fr uu Z FOR 31 �C Sewert?m 1 . . af /� i tfitl o statics P 1• . T , IIC ' It 1 11 f1 1 ,.. . a _ _ . — (DATE OF MEETIN o fi�cssi fatIRO.N__. -- _. s+ Iflf, 111111 1 1 1(1%, _ ) within s portion ....vim. room In • .1111114 - 1 a .. 11'1 r= 1 111 }} a[ �i (�''' = Pt i 1 L :�ui ■1 .CA 1 111 ) ll1ll I //� 1- t • ;'� . I = = 1 ■ , 3 sei ill - w f 3 + ' a. �� t r 'sal 1 IIIf� fl I � r - - -- - I j..- -I • .. r 11 - I . 7 i _ _. TJ � �` t-. I 1t • i .. ,A--- -.,. - - I ----, --i.- .. - -d-__:• • 0, s fonnectt �.� / _ _.; _ I j i. Silk - 1 ' 1 �� - i IIIr1 c' o f RQ ' f I r111t1111 -. 41 - ill ~ r- } � _ - - ( r -, Z ' = ' Q River Terrace It ■/! II/ r 11 t _ r Cit Boundaries U 1 1 11 1111 .- p-- .� . _ _ • 7 f'7 i1.1 _ s El— i ParksJOpen Space t line t ; 1L� E LI /� 1 1 . 1 i; d +++iii t - I � ( 1 I , �_ i City of Tigard 'River I errace Annex August 22, 2011 • , COMMUNITY M NEWSPAPERS 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 PO Box 22109 Portland OR 97269 -2109 Phone: 503 -684 -0360 Fax: 503 - 620 -3433 E -mail: legals @commnewspapers.com PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS Tuesday August 23, 2011 at 7:30 PM at the I Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall Room, 13125 depose and say that I am the Accounting SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of general 1 Public oral or written testimony is invited. • circulation, published at Beaverton, in the The public hearing on this matter will be held aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS T I G A R D under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted Y Y by the Council and available at City Hall or 193.010 and 193.020, that the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060E. City of Tigard Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division Notice of Public Hearing /ZCA2011 - 00001 (Staff contact: Cheryl Caines) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., TT11594 Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling at 503.718.2437, or by email'to cherylc @tigard- or.gov. A copy of which is hereto annexed, was ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2011 -00001 published in the entire issue of said newspaper - RIVER TERRACE ANNEXATION - for REQUEST: A request to annex to the City of Tigard 2 approximately 224 acres of property (Metro Urban Growth successive and consecutive weeks in the Boundary expansion area 64), portions of SW Barrows Road following issues: and SW Scholl's Ferry Road right -of -ways, and four Clean ' August 4, 2011 Water Services parcels (including adjacent right -of -way) south August 11, 2011 of SW Barrows Road. LOCATION: Multiple parcels south of the intersection of SW Scholl's Ferry Road and Roy Rogers NCV CU1 Road and alo ng SW Barrows Road. Washington County Tax Assessors Map (WCTM) 2S10600, Tax Lots 100, 202, 203, 204, 1000, 1100, 1101, 1200, 1400, 1401, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) 1801, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, and 3800. WCTM 2S10700, Tax Lots 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1300, 1302, 1303, 1305, 1900, and 2000. WCTM 2S105AC, Tax August 11, 2011. Lot 7400. WCTM 2S105BC, Tax Lot 4000. WCTM 2S105BD, Tax Lots 2100, 2200, and 4000. COUNTY ZONES: FD20 Future Development, 20 -acre minimum lot size. The FD -20 District applies to the unincorporated urban lands added to the -� 11. District growth boundary by Metro through a Major or Legislative ' Amendment process after 1998. The FD -20 District recognizes NOTAR PUBLIC FOR OREGON the desirability of encouraging and retaining limited interim My commission expires uses until the urban comprehensive planning for future urban ( / ��" development of these areas is complete. The provisions of this Acct #10093001 1 �f District are also intended to implement the requirements of Attn: Patty Lunsford 5 • Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. R15: City of Tigard / Residential, 12 units /acre minimum density, 15 units /acre 13125 SW Hall Blvd 4 MY CO maximum density. The intent and purpose of the R15 District Tigard, OR 97223 - is to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for Size: 2 x 12.5" areas designated for residential development at no more than fifteen (15) units per acre and no less than twelve (12) units per Amount Due: $417.50* acre, except as otherwise specified by Section 3002 or Section Please remit to address above. 3005 of the Washington County Community Development Code. EQUIVALENT CITY ZONE: Annexation areas will retain current Washington County zoning until Tigard zoning is applied with the future adoption of a community plan for the area. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for annexations are described in Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Goal 1, Goal 11, Goal 12, and Goal 14; ORS Chapter 222; Metro Code Chapter 3.09. All documents and applicable criteria in the above -noted file are available for inspection at no cost or copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (25`) per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. At least ..: • • • -,, : ! ,y of the staff report • "t, or a copy can be age, or the current quest. Information • • ntact listed above. 3 f L �, r r hl St t y, V V H r A CM w cs I i t r n �� ._f' - v 4 • re ± �� y PProposedAAnnexationRRiver r River Terrace 41:1 ti J Publish 08/04, 08/11/2011. TT11594 AIS -595 Item #: 6. Business Meeting Date: 08/23/2011 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title• Consider an Intergovernmental Agreement withTualatin Hills Park and Recreation District • Regarding the Maintenance and Operation of Barrows Park Prepared For: Brian Rager Submitted By: Greer Gaston Public Works Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main ISSUE Shall the council: • Approve the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District regarding maintenance and operation of Barrows Park? • Authorize the interim city manager to execute the agreement? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the council approve the IGA. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • Property owners within Area 64, also known as River Terrace, have asked the city to annex the area. The territory annexed will include private property and rights -of -way. • Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD) operates Barrows Park. A small portion of Barrows Park, which is in the old Barrows Road right -of -way, is slated to be annexed into the city as a part of the River Terrace annexation. • This presents a conflict, as the Tigard Urban Services Agreement (TUSA) currently contains a provision that prohibits the THPRD from operating a park within Tigard city limits. The TUSA will need to be revised in the future to eliminate this prohibition. • The IGA demonstrates Tigard's and THPRD's intent to allow THPRD to continue to manage and operate Barrows Park. • The IGA was reviewed by the city's legal counsel. • The city will not incur any costs as a result of the IGA. • THPRD executed this IGA on August 9, 2011. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The council could choose to not approve the IGA. Such action could result in operational conflicts and may have a negative impact on coordinating annexation efforts with other entities. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS 2011 Tigard City Council Goal No. 1 - "Implement Comprehensive Plan," section e. - "Work with partners on urbanization policy issues." DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time this IGA has come before the council. -- — --' — ----- ----------- Attachments IGA AGREEMENT Management and Operation of Barrows Park BETWEEN: City of Tigard, an Oregon Municipal Corporation ( "City ") AND: Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, ( "THPRD ") A Special District DATED: , 2011 RECITALS A. Both City and THPRD are units of local government organized under the laws of the State of Oregon. B. Tigard wishes to annex territory that includes a small portion of a developed THPRD facility, known as Barrows Park, which will cause this facility and a portion of THPRD's political boundary to exist within the jurisdictional boundaries of City. The territory proposed to be annexed by the City, that is the subject of this Agreement ( "Annexation Area "), is illustrated on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. C. The Annexation Area is former right -of -way for Barrows Road. Barrows Park exclusive of the Annexation Area will remain within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Beaverton. The City of Beaverton allows THPRD to manage Barrows Park for recreational use pursuant to a 2007 agreement, which agreement will remain in effect and be complemented by this agreement. D. Both City and THPRD wish to enter into an agreement for the management and operation of the Annexation Area, which is a portion of Barrows Park that will now exist within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. E. Under Exhibit D to the Tigard Urban Service Agreement ( "TUSA "), which is an agreement that both City and THPRD have accepted as binding, City is the designated provider of park services within its jurisdictional limits, but City and THPRD may enter into intergovernmental agreements for the provisions of park, recreation, and open space services to residents within each others' boundaries. F. Under ORS 190.010 units of local government may enter into written agreements for the performance of any or all functions that a local government is authorized to perform. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree as follows: 1. Rights of THPRD. City acknowledges THPRD's management of the Annexation Area, and THPRD's continuing right to operate and maintain the facility, all of Ciiv ni' Tigard! rl1PRD AGREEMENT BarrowsPatl: — page 1 5(i0/4- 36794.(1O 290103 A.DOCXITRN /8i320II which may occur to the fullest extent possible under THPRD's charter and ordinances. City agrees it will not deannex the Annexation Area from THPRD. 2. Rights of City. THPRD acknowledges City's annexation has the effect of including the Annexation Area within the jurisdictional limits of City. THPRD consents to the annexation and agrees that City may enforce its charter, ordinances, and all provisions of state and federal law within the Annexation Area except as specifically provided in this agreement. 3. Conflicts in Regulations. If a situation presents a conflict between City and THPRD regulations such that enforcing both regulations would produce different results, the THPRD regulation shall control questions involving park use and enjoyment, conduct of park patrons, vehicle parking on park premises, care and maintenance of the park facility, hours of operation, and any other situation where the interests of the public in park operation are more specific and relevant than are the interests in general city governance with respect to the facility. 4. Municipal court. The proper venue for violations and crimes that occur on THPRD premises covered by this agreement shall be the Municipal Court for the City of Tigard, to the extent that Court has jurisdiction over the violation in question. 5. Applicability. This Agreement is intended to address the Annexation Area, following annexation only. The remainder of the Barrows Park facility not within the • Annexation Area, remains within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Beaverton and its operations are governed by a separate agreement between TIIPRD and Beaverton. 6. Term, Termination. The term of this Agreement is perpetual unless it is terminated as provided herein. This Agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason upon six months' written notice to the other party's designated representative listed below: City of Tigard: Dennis Koellermcier Public Works Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard Oregon 97223, (503) 718 - 2596 dennis@tigard-or.gov THPRD: Hal Bergsma Director of Planning Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District 15707 SW Walker Rd Beaverton, OR 97006 (503) 645-6433 hbergsma@thprd.org City of TigardlrlJPRD AGRF.FMTNT Barrows Peek— page 2 500 14-36794.00$ 290103 4.DOCXITRN/8/3/201 I 7. Dispute resolution. if a dispute arises between the parties, including if the parties cannot agree on an interpretation of any of its provisions, the parties shall attempt to resolve the problem by negotiation followed by non - binding mediation, then binding arbitration. The progressive dispute resolution process set forth under Article IX of the TUSA shall be employed to resolve disputes under this section. S. Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is invalidated by a court of court of competent jurisdiction, such provision is deemed a separate provision,. and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon Municipal TUALATIN HILLS PARK AND Corporation RECREATION DISTRICT, a Special District By: By: TH P (gyp Name: Name: Douo ON v.tca_ Its: Its: (Ze.vV2.„&I W1Avraes/ -- S ignature Signature 7 City oJTignrd?HPRD AGREEMENT Burrows Park- page 3 5001 4- 315794J 290103 4.DOCX1TRN/ 1/3R0I l Plotted by:RAY WOOLF on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 3:50:19 PM from the 8.5X17 ADORE BORDER layout tab File Nome /Poth:L' \ENO\ ..PROJECTS\ 2012 -2013 FY C1P \CJ0 PR),ECTS \BMRROW5 RD PARK \BARROWS RD PARK DISPLAY.DWG \ e - x 8 b y . . . . . 0 .. <% ra g g - a. ow .-.. is ....:s . . . . . . r - 111141. . 1 : -..... . -.. .. . • .. . _ _ � is r NI C 1/ M A a Z S ~.. III O % /" 4 . . ,ti, 1 _- �+ Ili . : .. . . _ 1~ I I III .' \ 1i ' li ' II , 1 \do � I "►� �r��1 a II III1 �r s IIU'3 ' -� "S ■ r� n."',1 vi - a /�,� Ili✓ Ills ' II ,,,o 0 pi Novir� t. 1 co 1111111,,t �i ill iii ", 11 . .... › . _... 111111 ii . It- , D 1 o • P '!L! 11/1 rI > 4011111M1111=1 4--. • . . .. ; ,. , !mix'. . Ill b,,, • ,az--....... ..-. . . ..:. ... A i n 1, Io .. —___, ITP , ,, z a I g 3z,..... z 2m..._ z � m AIS -635 Item #: 7. Business Meeting Date: 08/23/2011 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Continuation of Legislative Public Hearing from August 9, 2011 - Consider Tigard Municipal Code Amendments on Administrative Rule Making Prepared For: Ron Bunch Submitted By: Susan Hartnett Community Development Item Type: Ordinance Meeting Type: Council Business Public Hearing - Legislative Meeting - Main ISSUE Shall council approve amendments to the Tigard Municipal Code to authorize, define and limit the use of administrative rules and to define a process for administrative rule- making? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve the attached ordinance amending the Tigard Municipal Code. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On August 9, 2011, the Tigard City Council opened a public hearing on this item. During the council discussion, desired modifications to the proposed language were identified by the council. The goals of the modifications are to assure that council has an opportunity to review a proposed administrative rule prior to initiation of public notice, and to clarify that council notice occurs before public notice is initiated and not concurrent with it. The modifications, in response to council direction, are outlined in the attached August 14, 2011, memorandum from Assistant Community Development Director Hartnett. Council continued the hearing to August 23, 2011 and directed staff to amend the language consistent with these goals. Currently, the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) contains several references to administrative rules but lacks a definition and other key elements including administrative rule- making authority, procedures for their creation and amendment, and a clear process for appeals by the public. In addition, many sections of the TMC codify aspects of a department's activities that need to change over time as program objectives, technology and operations shift. Because this requires a public hearing to amend the TMC, these regulations can become stale and administration of the program can become more cumbersome. Administrative rules provide an alternative to the Tigard Municipal Code for creation of regulations and procedures that are capable of being enforced. In the past, the City Council has seen the value of this tool and included it in several specific areas of the TMC, for example, Title 9 - Parks and Title 11 - Solid Waste Management. However, the current administrative rules are not broadly useful because of variations in language, lack of procedures and no designated central authority. Council is requested to amend the TMC to include a definition of administrative rules and other key elements as described above. This would make it possible to utilize administrative rules to incorporate several code amendments currently underway into the TMC. At the July 19 workshop meeting, the City Council reviewed a draft package of TMC amendments that authorize, define and limit the use of administrative rules and define a process for administrative rule- making. At the conclusion of the discussion, council directed staff to proceed to a public hearing on the draft amendments. Attachment 1 provides an ordinance adopting the TMC amendments. Exhibit A (Attachment 2) includes the specific text amendments to Title 2 - City Manager, which define and limit the use of administrative rules as well as define the procedural steps for their creation and amendment as well as the process for appeal. The exhibit also includes amendments to Title 9 - Parks and Title 11 - Solid Waste Management to conform the two existing sections that reference administrative rules to the language being adopted in Title 2. Based on the council's direction, staff also preformed an electronic search of the TMC to identify any other sections that reference administrative rules and that would need to be amended. No other sections were identified. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council may choose to: • Not approve the ordinance amending the Tigard Municipal Code • Direct that the proposed administrative rules be revised (Exhibit A) and subsequently approve the ordinance COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS NA DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION July 19, 2011 August 9, 2011 Attachments Attachment 1 Ordinance Attachment 2 Exhibit A August 14. 2011. Memorandum to Mayor and Council City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Mayor Dirksen and Members of the Tigard City Council From: Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director Re: Refinements to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 2.04 Date: August 14, 2011 Based on council direction at the August 9, 2011meeting, I worked with the City Attorney to refine the language for the administrative rulemaking provisions, which are proposed to be added to Chapter 2.04. The goals of this modification are to assure that council has an opportunity to review a proposed administrative rule prior to initiation of public notice, and to clarify that council notice occurs before public notice is initiated and not concurrent with it. Because the proposed amendment is all new language in the Tigard Municipal Code, it is shown in Exhibit A to the ordinance as underlined text. Since it is difficult to show amendments to this underlined text, I have copied the text as it was shown in the August 9 proposal in normal text and show below the modifications developed in response to council direction in strike through and underlined text. These changes have also been made in the revised Exhibit A for council consideration on August 23. 2.04.070 Administrative Rulemaking -- Procedure. (1) Prior to the adoption or amendment of an administrative rule the city manager or designee will follow the provisions as described in this section. (a) Fourteen days prior to initiating the public notice described in (b). Ike notification shall be made to council of the proposed administrative rule or amendment prior to publk-ftetifiefttieft. ! . . - - _ .. - - - :. - .. : - . _ t any time following council notification, any council member may put the subject on the discussion agenda for the next available council meeting for council consideration or action. Public notice as described in (b) may be initiated fourteen (14) days after council notification if no council member requests council consideration or action. If the council considers or takes action on the item. provision of public notice as described in (b) shall be at the direction of council. (b) Publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The notice must be published not less than fourteen (14) days before the deadline for receipt of comments. (c) through (g) No changes , AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: August 23, 2011 TESTIMONY SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR t 4c it SIGN -UP SHEETS (DATE OF MEETING) Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 9, 2011) TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULEMAKING This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Due to Time Constraints There is a Five - minute Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 7 August 23, 2011 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record Proponent — (Speaking In Favor) Opponent — (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. o s V,1'0°.( N ame, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. INGEBRAND HEIGHTS • r • c; P 3 t 8/23/2011 PETITION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD Submitted to the City of Tigard by Mary S. Feller on behalf of the Historic Ingebrand Heights Neighborhood HISTORIC INGEBRAND HEIGHTS PETITION TABLE OF CONTENTS PETITION PETITION -1 PETITION SUPPORT& DATA OVERVIEW 2 TIGARD'S STATUS QUO 3 CRIME 4-5 LESS POLICE PRESENCE 6 STREET CALMING,TRAFFIC VOLUME,TRAFFIC SAFETY,AND PRIVACY 6-7 COST OF STREET MAINTENANCE 8 STRONG SOCIAL FABRIC 9 NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY FOR CHILDREN 9 INGEBRAND HEIGHTS WHAT IS HISTORIC INGEBRAND HEIGHTS? 10-17 FRAGMENTS OF VIEW TERRACE PHOTOGRAPHS OF VIEW TERRACE OFF OF 931th AVENUE 18 PHOTOGRAPHS OF VIEW TERRACE OFF OF 103RD AVENUE 19 PHOTOGRAPHS OF VIEW TERRACE OFF OF 100TH AVENUE 20 SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS EVERETT CUSTOM HOMES ----20 GERTZ FINE HOMES 20-20A SUMMARY MATERIAL CONCLUSION 21 INGEBRAND HEIGHTS RESIDENCES' ENDORSEMENT OF PETITION 22-23 BIBLIOGRAPHY 24 1 HISTORIC INGEBRAND .ry HEIGHTS NEIGBORHOOD ,k, r A741 Att iwJek MARY FELLER CHAIR, 503- *, ,'}°- e t x - .. :: :r@frontier • .corn ;77� August 23, 2011 Dear: Mayor Dirksen Council member, Gretchen Buehner Council member, Marland Henderson Council member, Marc Woodard Council member, Nick Wilson Ron Brunch, Community Development Director Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director Judith Gray, Senior Transportation Planner PETITION The citizen-residents of Ingebrand Heights neighborhood officially petition the City of Tigard to make permanent the dead-end status of View 2 Terrace (off of 100th Avenue). On an official 1940 Washington County map posted on www.tigard-or.gov this segment of View Terrace is depicted as a dead-end street. Surely 70 years of history should be honored. We are aware that the City of Tigard's 2027 Comprehensive Plan, Transportation, Goal 12 -1 and Goal 12-2, Section 2: Trafficways states that "many of the streets in Tigard are dead ended which adds to the congestion on existing completed streets. Therefore a number of street connections need to be constructed." Traffic congestion is only one standard for accessing the design of streets. We will provide carefully documented data that supports the continuation of the status quo of View Terrace as a dead-end street. The City of Tigard's 2027 Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Section seems to implement the ideas of New Urbanism, the prevailing philosophy of city planning since the 1990s. New Urbanism presents the grid street plan as the most desirable pattern for urban areas. In the last 15 years there have been many studies conducted in Europe, Australia, Canada and the USA which prove that this approach needs to be amended to include cul-de-sacs and dead ended streets. The latter two are more desirable if one considers the broader criteria: crime prevention, calming street traffic, greater housing values, pedestrian safety, neighborly sociability, neighborhood cohesiveness and road maintenance costs. Therefore, our petition asks that dead ended View Terrace (off of 100th Ave) be officially designated as a dead-end street because existing research has proven that cul-de-sacs and dead ended streets have: • The lowest crime rates occur • Less police service is needed • Less street maintenance is needed because of less usage. • Street traffic is calmer or slower • Street traffic is less since most traffic is basically limited to local residents' traffic • Pedestrians, and bikers are safer because of slower and less traffic • The homes are the most preferred of all housing locations therefore their value is greater. 3 • The social fabric of the neighborhood is stronger. • There is greater privacy. • Neighborhood children can safely play basketball, football, baseball, skating boarding, big wheels, and other activities because of light, slower traffic in the street and cul-de-sac. In addition to the above points which will be supported by extrapolated data from numerous studies, there are other compelling facts about Ingebrand Heights which is a designated mid-twentieth century historic Tigard neighborhood by the Tigard Historical Association. • All the homes were built between 1946 and 1963. • All homes are owner-occupied. • Two of the homes are owned and occupied by the second generation of the same family. • The great majority of the owners are long-term residents (beginning in 1965). Of the three homes that have acquired new owners in the last five years, two of the homes became available due to the poor health and death of their owners. • All of the homes are updated and beautifully maintained A further argument for maintaining the status quo of View Terrace (off of 100th Ave) is supported by City's precedent set in its managing of the following streets just to name a few: • The City did not apply its policy of street connection when it allowed View Terrace off of 96th Ave to end in a cul-de-sac instead of making it a through street to 97th Ave. • The portion of View Terrace off of 103rd ends in a cul-de-sac. • Inez Street, the street just to the south of View Terrace once was a through street. (Don Feller drove it from 97th to 100th Ave. in 1963) Today the public right of way dead ends. In some year after 1963, Inez became a dead-end street. 4 Another observable factor is that the City of Tigard is currently allowing new developments today which have cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets. • Gertz Fine Homes at Edgewood and McDonald Streets • Everett Custom Homes at SW 98th Avenue and Greenburg Crime Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) or designing out is increasingly being used as a planning tool to reduce opportunities for crime; to reduce the fear of crime....One important factor in reducing crime are 'real and symbolic barriers', strongly defined areas of influence, and improved opportunities for surveillance that combine to bring an environment under the control of its residents. (Newman, 1993, page 3). CPTED is important in the fields of criminology and urban planning. It builds upon four key strategies of territoriality, natural surveillance, activity support and access control. Access control is a very important factor in curtailing crime. The burglary in a neighborhood depends on opportunity. A dead-end street and cul-de-sac make it harder to "case" a home. Quick escape is very difficult since there is only one escape route to the nearest feeder street. Criminals prefer multiple escape routes near a major arterial or freeway. (Since 1965 Ingebrand Heights has not had a home burglary, the year that Ev and Phyllis Greer moved to View Court, forty-six years of no reported crime.) "Today interior spaces are utilized much more than in the last fifty years, and homes are commonly filled with technologies and electronic means of entertainment. (These products are highly desirable to criminals). The interior is now defined as 'leisure action space' for both adults and children. This has led to the exterior/public spaces being less used and this withdrawal has led to them being re-labeled and re-defined...often as dangerous" (Ibid). Underused connected streets can be isolated and vulnerable to crime. Rubenstein et al 5 (1980) reported that intensive pedestrian flow and heavy vehicular traffic was associated with higher victimization rates. They also asserted that shape of traffic intersections also influenced crime rates, with isolated cul-de-sacs (such as our View Terrance and View Court) being the least accessible to crime. Finally homes located on streets with heavy traffic flows also exhibited increased vulnerability to crime as do homes that had easy access (multiple outlets). Offenders can learn the street design including escape routes and it is more difficult to familiarize themselves with areas of dead-end street while searching for targets. Offenders may also believe that they have less justification for actually being there, since only residents would normally use such space. Research also indicates that the majority of property crimes take place within the routine activity and awareness space of offenders (Beavon et al 1994). Offenders typically travel short distances to offend in high crime areas (typically one mile) and six of the first seven most important reasons for selecting a property to burgle were related to access. (Town et al, 2003).A study by Rengert and Hakin (1998) revealed higher levels of burglary in houses located on busy residential streets as opposed to dead-end and cul-de-sacs. In a study by Newman, 1995; Lasley, 1998; found that road closures have been used as a successful crime prevention strategy by limiting access. "In a study of a suburb of Dayton, Ohio, Newman (1995) redesigned a grid layout into cul-de-sacs that were suffering from high crime rates of drug-related violence and property crime. Within two years violent crime fell by 50% and overall crime by 25% even as recorded crime in Dayton increased by 1%. Historic Ingebrand Heights has a Neighborhood Watch Association. If a neighbor notices either suspicious people or a car at a neighbors' home, he/she calls to see if everything is okay. A neighbor has called another neighbor if she noticed a garage door was still open after 9PM. In one instance, a neighbor wielding a baseball bat approached an unknown car parked in the cul-de-sac. The parked car contained two very surprised "lovers". They left rather hurriedly. This attitude of caring for one's neighbors was in effect prior to establishing a Neighborhood Watch Association. The establishment of the Watch simply made it official. 6 Less Police Presence The information cited under "Crime" supports the claim that dead-end streets such as View Terrace and a cul-de-sac such as View Court need little if any police services. During the 33 years that the Fellers have lived in the neighborhood, there have been only two situations requiring police assistance: The first event occurred in the 1980s when a teenager from an adjacent neighborhood vandalized their screen door (the boy was a student of Mrs. Feller). In 2005, the Garcias (who have since died) called 911, 39 times in five months. As their health deteriorated and the situation became more dire, the Tigard police were always present when the EMTs gave assistance. A report, The Cost of Policing New Urbanism (Knowles, 2003), calculates that policing costs for a 4500 housing development would be three times higher for permeable New Urban designs (grid street pattern) as compared to non- permeable cul-de-sacs layout (such as View Terrace/View Court) advocated by the UK's Association of Chief of Police Officers (ACPO) in the secured design scheme. Another report asserts that reported crime: burglary, motor vehicle theft, theft from a motor vehicle and criminal damage is five times higher in the New Urbanist layout investigated (Towne and O'Toole, 2005). Street Calming, Traffic Volume, Traffic Safety and Privacy (Since the four topics are interrelated they will be discussed together) "The purpose of cul-de-sacs is to discourage through traffic and increase safety. Over the past 50 years limited street patterns had become popular as residential streets because they offered a quiet and safe street environment with little fear of fast-moving vehicles" (Shakil and Tay, 2009). Southworth and Ben- Joseph, 1995 examined nine California neighborhoods and found that cul-de-sac streets performed better than grid patterns in terms of perceived traffic safety, privacy, and safety for play by the residents. Although developed to improve the social living environment, this combination of cul-de-sac and loop streets also had 7 the support of many traffic engineers because of its calming effects (Shakil and Tay, 2009) The city of Calgary was used as a case study. The study used the GIS (Graphic Information Systems) road network data base to obtain different road infrastructure features such as length of different types of roads (ie: arterial, collector, local, ramp service road, etc.), number of intersections, and so on. The comparison included demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the 173 communities or neighborhoods. Street configurations included grid-iron, warped parallel, loops and lollipops (cul-de-sac with a single feeder street) and mixed pattern. The trip volume for each community was estimated using models provided by the trip generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. The estimated traffic volume was used for the actual traffic volume. The effect of street patterns on vehicle crashes is significant. Compared with the gridiron pattern, all the other irregular patterns exhibited an improvement in safety Together these results indicated that roads that had less connectivity, frequent curves, and the presence of loops were safer than traditional straight roads in a grid pattern. The authors of the study speculated that non-grid streets may induce drivers to drive more cautiously at a lower speed with increased attention. "Moreover, these limited —access designs are likely to reduce traffic volume due to a reduction in through traffic, resulting in a reduction in the number of crashes. Consistent with previous studies (Adel-Aty & Radwan, 2000; Lord, Guikema, & Geede Pally, 2008; Milton & Manning, 1998; Shin, Washington, & Van Schalkwyk, 2009; the study found that an increase in traffic volume was associated with an increase in the number of traffic collisions." Also consistent with other studies (Amos, et al, 2003; Graham & Glasister, 2003; Hadayeghi, Shalaby, Persaud & Chaeung, 2006; Hager, 1986; Karlaftis & Tarko, 1998; Noland & Qudddis, 2001; the current study found that increasing the length of the road had an adverse effect on the number of crashes. (If View Terrace is connected to 97th it would be a straight downhill drive from 100th to 97th The neighbors can attest to the heavy, swift traffic on 100th from View 8 Terrace to Kable Street despite the presence of speed bumps. Such excessive speed challenges pedestrianization and social integration.) Thus the findings of the aforementioned study by Rifaat, Tay, Perez, and de Barros, 2009 supports our contention that Historic Ingebrand Heights neighborhood would be adversely affected in terms of more traffic, swifter traffic, loss of privacy, and reduction of traffic safety. Cost of Street Maintenance "Disconnected cul-de-sac and dead-end streets adapt better to topography and can work around areas of premium ecological or historical value, therefore contributing to sustainability (Ben- Joseph, 1997; Southworth & Ben-Joseph 2003, 2004). The Ingebrand Heights neighborhood is a mid-twentieth century neighborhood recognized as an historic neighborhood by the Tigard Historical Association. The study by Cozens and Hiller, 2008 cited the cost of road maintenance in Grandview. It seems the national construction cost index showed an 81% increase from 1990 to 2009; an annual increase of 4.3% per year. Cost of road maintenance increased 19.02 % more than the CPI (consumer price index) in the same period. The cost of road maintenance has increased more than the cost of living. In 2009, the price of a ton of asphalt increased by 8.4%; a square yard of slurry seal increased 6.0%. The Construction Cost Index rose by 4.5% compared to 3.2% for the Consumers Price Index. The upkeep of streets in Tigard includes such items as paving, stop signs, street signs, and street lights. According to page 43 of Tigard's budget summary, the increased street maintenance fee of January 2012 is "not enough to improve the pavement condition." This means even with the fee increase the City does not have sufficient funds to care for existing streets. Where would it get the extra funds needed if View Terrace becomes a through street? One might also point out that Tigard's Traffic Development Tax (TDT) funds are already allocated for specific projects through 2015-2016; View Terrace is not mentioned. There is another document that should be mentioned in conjunction with costs. According to the 2035 Transportation System Plan, 140 projects have 9 been identified as increasing connectivity. Connecting 100th Avenue to 97th Avenue via View Terrace is not one of them. Strong Social Fabric Because it is safe to stand in the street and talk, our neighborhood is a closely knit one. We stop and chat when someone is working in their garden. We have been hosting yearly neighborhood parties since 1978. We host a potluck party in January. We help each other in the event of medical problems and other family emergencies. The most recent situation developed when Ev Greer had open heart surgery. His closest neighbor helped maintain the home landscaping during Ev's convalesce. Years ago, when Wally Powell (since deceased) needed a new roof, the men of the neighborhood re-shingled his roof. We have had baby showers for the neighborhood newborns. We have celebrated both weddings and wedding anniversaries. We like each other as neighbors! This strong social fabric helped support responsible parenting which is apparent when one realizes that the great majority of the neighborhood children earned one or more university degrees. Neighborhood Safety for Children Because Historic Ingebrand Heights Neighborhood has only one access, traffic is low volume, local and slow. This means that the cul-de-sac, View Court and the dead-end street, View Terrace has operated as "our neighborhood park". Over the decades the neighborhood children and their friends could play in the street at baseball, football, basketball, skate boarding, Big Wheels, snow sledding, and bicycling. There have been minor scrapes and bruises, but none due to traffic accidents. 10 What is Historic Ingebrand Heights? We are an historic mid-twentieth century neighborhood located on View Terrace (off 100th Avenue) and View Court, a cul-de-sac. All of the homes were built between 1946 and the early 1960s. All homes are owner-occupied. Two homes have been owned and occupied by the second generation of a family. The great majority of the residents are long-term. The majority of current residents have been here for decades. Of the three new residents in the last five years, two are due to the death of the previous owners. The neighbors describe our neighborhood as "quiet, and stable". The cultural climate of mutual support and sociability was a contributing factor to the responsible parenting that is a hallmark of Historic Ingebrand Heights. All the children attended Templeton, Twality and Tigard High School. The majority of the children reared here graduated from American Universities. As the following photos show, all of the homes are beautifully maintained and updated. The home of Dean and Cathy Winans, the second generation of Winans to own the home. Carl and Jan Winans, Dean's parents, bought their home in 1967; Dean and Cathy purchased it in 1985. They love their neighborhood because: "They t 1. reared their • -.,�- three children, b p Rya n �,y. Lindsay • and Allie >` ,,� _- "� cry • � :f.4 > here. All • three aR ch children graduated from college. Allie has a master's degree. 11 Dean Winans wrote, " I love this neighborhood for many reasons; these are just a few of them. The neighborhood's children have learned to ride their bikes in our cul-de-sac, kids of all ages sled down the icy street in winter, and neighborhood picnics and progressive dinners are well attended, all without having to worry about random cars racing up and down the street." "If anyone leaves for an extended period of time, neighbors will watch each other's houses, pick up the newspaper and mail, put the garbage out, feed the pets and water the lawns. When someone needs a helping hand, neighbors willingly jump right in." " It is a peaceful, calm, quiet place to live, where neighbors are respectful of each other. Lawnmowers or other power equipment is rarely heard before 9 am or after 7 pm." "The people are a wonderful mix of young and old, some with grandchildren, some with new borns of their own. All are family oriented, and everyone is friendly, courteous and kind to each other." "This is a great neighborhood to raise a family in." 12 - -,,,,,,,,N4. --',.f.... "` Nick and Jill � _ � Smith 4-_ purchased their me in ier ho 2006. 1 - .. y "' _ 4'^1.-""''="011.r.' w„� 74 Their love of p,,,, neighborhood is apparent by ="` ' . , their hard work 7 on the house .� xv and grounds, making it their dream home. Their two children are ages four and two. Nick has said they will need to move if View Terrace is connected to 97th because their two small children would be at risk from more and faster traffic. After Mike and , = Anne Hasson moved into their r '� home in 1983, their son, Michael was born the next � 4 - r } month. Many of _ .,. . --: their new R �, , ,, neighbors gave � � 1them baby gifts. At one summer neighborhood party, the Tualatin Fire Department sent a fire truck so the neighborhood children could meet firemen and see a fire truck up close. Many photos were taken with the truck in the background. Today Michael is paramedic fire fighter with Polk County; he has a college degree from Chemeketa College; his career decision was ignited by the fire truck visit when he was a small child. 13 Bryce and Lieta Muir are the • ' T second generation of Muirs to own their home. b _ e }eDon Muir, t1f *�'" Bryce's father bought the house in 1975; when Don moved to Arizona, Bryce and Lieta bought the home from him in 1992. Bryce and Lieta have worked very hard to make the house and landscaping attractive. Wilma Lynn, the widow of Charles Lynn was "Wilma, .tk _ the Welder "during , � ••. _ employment Kaisers' shipyards duringher World War at PO II. After the war she reared her two ; ;. children and became an elementary school teacher. 14 --'^41% Derek and Blia Louw were new _- ' ' arrivals as in 2004 - when they T \,,,,,,,,.... , i _ -=� ��=�'" purchased the k �, home built by - long-time 5 . residents, Wally tilitiii.4. ° A; f f and Pearl Powell. The Powells were 1962 arrivals. Today, both Wally and Pearl are deceased. Derek and Blia's son, John is a freshman at Tigard High School. Derek loves the neighborhood because he doesn't have to worry about their grandkids getting run over! He also mentioned that their visitors always seem delighted to find our "secret neighborhood". Finally he likes the closeness of the neighbor-hood community Don and Mary , Feller +11 _ a x . . moved to _ . _ View 727,,,,.... & - ,{ _ _ .11,. E ► h ' .:.,t =,; .. i Courtin YFaF.Ii k�-.` Y - ---.= - .'.� -« December -. • �; f`., 1977. '-'7( =� .; 1., ' 3 - i They are r ♦ • X '! J ,• + "Y; ;' �✓ ii-_,'1 - a4 , ,, 4 . 'il • -f .� - to I. . "' t ,.is longtime i .R } ti h M r• F, °`.4 ' ` ;b;'fi '' '-- .t ,* \"• ' s, �; ,;°.F , w i , , residents i L- „'�:`< w.: , h �. . ; ,'�, . , 3'Sr- ,, , us.. ,, .. `t:._ d M of Little Bull Mountain (1965). Their only child, Amanda has four college degrees, (BA, 2 MAs and a PhD). The Fellers have made their home on a large lot their "Little Paradise" as evidenced by Don's vegetable garden and Mary's ornamental garden. 15 y a . iiii LL 4, t 71 _ i .1. 1 G' J$._ _ iE r 6 .4.410 s Did` ' 'kw. ri' \t _ i �4 :;..` - »`. a .s . .. • < ` 3 .y pfir` �. � �L s .:,f ,.A 'I , , , A , , .. :, . , 1'4 .......... b. 1 ,�: �' Steve a n d , Linda Day are Historic - r nd sx ,} . Ingebrand In — . o Heights' . `i' it " 1,:". newest ami-t -a.,,,,....,..4.-.,- a :, . neighbors .�°' � � � rit=e � ,,,,, „��_ ^'' y _ arriving in 0'4�V � •.' "` �'` '''�` ` `� '' 2006 when + k''' ' '-'s " '', A?3''4 ' 3=s' ,',',:--'''t;., �, :a��v k. - .," Jack and ...*A ti'` ,..1- + Mary Clinton (1970-2006) moved to Bull Mountain. One Day daughter graduated from University of Oregon and also from its Law School. The other graduated from Linfield College. The Days chose their home for the location and the view. They gutted the entire home except for the kitchen, eliminating some walls, and moving others. Today the floor plan is absolutely spectacular. 16 John and Donna Boone bought their home from Mrs. Ingebrand in 1972. Their two boys, Greg and Doug spent many happy days playing on their 1/2 acre lot. The boys close relationship was forged during this time. As adults they are best friends. The - tet: 7 ' :, brothers are �, _ X--_ helpful in maintaining '` the Boone property. �.� One winter when the Senior Boone's were sunning in California, the brothers updated Donna's laundry room. Tiffany, Greg's daughter graduated from Oregon State University. The Greers, Ev and Phyllis, are Historic Ingebrand Heights longest „ r , , � � tea. s�, � - -- residing couple. 111* - Arriving August a vans Q; 1, 1965, they ; ,. . reared their.4i. . ate , two daughters, -- ` - . , ' ""--, - . Jan and Lynn, on View Court. Both young women have BA and MS degrees. Although the Greers have a home in Black Butte, View Court is their primary residence. 17 Joe and Marcia Kurtz joined the neighborhood in 1987 with their one-year-old son, Peter. When their daughter, Emily, was born the neighbors gave her a party- shower. Today, that h baby is a senior at Oregon State Tigi University and Peter . - ; �•'; i � , � AN is a graduate of the Mil University of 1114 Oregon. y,} Vern and Colleen Jones moved to View Terrace in 1974. Vern passed y� r away in 2010. Colleen is still in residence but her r ,- health is compromised. 4 � '; Both were teachers in - 'x104,1 M -a +s# the Portland School District. As a further proof of the desirability of homes of this era, (1950-1960), the August 18, 2011 issue of Home Style, The New York Times, featured an article called "Restoring the Retro House"(D1, and D5). It seems there is a website: retrorenovation.com founded by Pam Kueber. "it has become the epicenter of a small but devoted group of midcentury design enthusiasts". 18 Photographs of various parts of View Terrace The configuration of View Terrace off of 93rd ends in an L-shape with a red and white barricade. As you drive from rd 93 onto View Terraceand k 0 0 straight ahead you see Jubilee Court, a private road. If the city had wanted to er 'to '' connect View Terrace with 97th to r 93rd, they would not have allowed Jubilee Court, a private road. s z r S W juBt • K t _ 19 There are two parts of View Terrace off of 103rd Avenue. The portion of View Terrace going east ends in a cul-de-sac:�`.14:44k: ''': ;;'� F, 4s . 4,4: The portion of View Terrace going west - � "°',' . ,:_7" _ ; ._ off of 103rd also ends in a cul-de-sac. wit 1 t" 9 p., ,• `SKF .g(y,3. r g • y 3 e a` • 4, �� - its f . . 20 The photos below show View Terrace off of 100th which feeds into a cul-de-sac to the north and a dead-end at a t property owner's fence to the east. iv The photo with the yellow deadend • -- -- sign and the neighborhood watch " ' ''~~- `""� _ sign is a view of View Terrace looking east. ,n . ��x 4.-: �. -...4" ..-; ,� '. r OW r , .s '. ti^ `' 4.414116 Akitor - - 'G Tw`i, 1'1, a Willi I'llii111 III ; f; Ill 00191 I !. , t .., S 4 Current Developments that have Dead-end Streets and/or Cul-de-sacs At the present time there are Tigard area developments under construction that have either both dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs, or both in some cases. A case in point is the Everett Custom Homes neighborhood currently under construction on SW 96th Avenue and Greenburg. The developer is Leon Simms, 503-201-8868. This is a group of eight affordable homes priced from $199,500 to $259,900 with single-car garages. The homes are on 96th Avenue, a dead-end street. Another neighborhood under construction is Gertz Fine Homes at Edgewood and McDonald Woods. www.GertzFineHomes.com. This is a very upscale neighborhood. The developer was allowed to have both dead-end streets (SW 92nd Terrace, SW Braydon Court, and SW Andrew Terrace). SW Halcyon Street is a cul-de-sac off of Edgewood Street. The neighbors of Historic Ingebrand Heights are not opposed to the City working with developers so that their construction is economically feasible. We .... m 1 4 W J+ i O OOs JO m NJ � 6� A O+NN N N n N CO N N:III t 14 v..warE.araa.rurcva.*•+rrrW'�.�iKry"a +r�-� y .iil'�r14:+R=Mr 10014.l lella*'4r1#l.i"; a�l�lb ea • ' wc.a�y.wr�..w.i'.r.*�e.�.lrrr-:n-.x10.1 e. f. m �".. rn a. _ ! .W m J 'i wJ 4: a N m �`A .. i' p 4 It • n :1>. rs �� .sl — .rr ..r► �,.... -�_._. rte i .. #.� al II Cr y AII f p m Cs'N +W � N a` w U 3t./ .t 1 A 6 W .. Ch ta T 11111 I jdr-g---7:-_—..-,..... -, SW Halcyoi14 e ,'...,,mi' II a x, 0 cn .die..l („„ :ri: i O1 r ` O ;5 V! 0 Ci` la * 0 4pi .. iiii r-- C7 rn �� SW 92nd Terrace � . O p N $6Cr): o io ►k N Z O g- ZSt. Andrew Terrace CD p o rn I 0 - '` 0 * O p O �.� 1� CP nW W 0) illiMillifilli O L . 3 21 as good, longtime residents feel our preferences should also be recognized. We have paid property taxes for decades; we have voted "yes" in elections relating to the local schools, fire, police and water. We feel that the City is essentially well-run by well-meaning officials who truly want what is best for its citizens. Conclusion Our Historic lngebrand Heights neighborhood is dear to all of us. We have a shared history that we treasure. That marvelous history has been shaped by our tranquil historic neighborhood. We petition the City of Tigard to honor our request to make View Terrace a permanent dead-end street as it has been for at least 70 years. The function of good government is to promote and sustain livability. We hope that the City of Tigard recognizes that our neighborhood livability is anchored its quiet cocoon-like setting. The Neighbors of Historic Ingebrand Height support and agree with e contents of this petition: Don and Mary Feller— -� and '- - 9875 SW View Court i / 'mo o vim C --- 4w Steve and Linda Da i- -1/r ----, n 9865 SW View Court jj-Hiyi_ Derek and Blia Louw f -9 -an ti- -t _ 9855 SW View Court Everett and Phyllis Greergi"-- I n. _ _ ___ ___Y _ j 9845 SW View Court Mike and Ann Hasson =end- - =�-- .„--- 9835 SW View Terrace -)Joe and Marcia Kurtz -LVA, nd 611' � ' v GLZ 9830 SW View Terrace Bryce and Lieta Muir and 9860 SW View Terrace Dean and CathyWinans `-= CL"(j-4, -- and (1-1-a -- -IL�/Jtt? - > .� 9890 SW View Terrace Nick and Jill Smith --- �-�� and- �' 9920 SW View Terrace John and Donna Boone and --I- r. 9925 SW View Terrace The last two homes face 100th but we consider them part of the neighborhood: C 1, r Colleen Jones - -,14,14 ,v,-.__, `-P L / 14320 SW 100th Wilma Lynn f `�`1 `c" _V"(4,7,14_,) Y 14350 SW 100th Avenue Bibliography Alvarez, Lizette, "On Wide Florida, Running for Dear Life", The New York Times, August 16, 2011. p. A 1 AND A3 City of Tigard Budget, p. 43 and Tigard's Traffic Development Tax through 2015- 2016. City of Tigard's 2027 Comprehensive Plan, Transportation, Goal 12: Transportation, Section 1: Transportation system and Section 2: Traffic Ways.. City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan, p. 140 Cozens, Paul and Hiller, David, "The Shape of Things to Come: New Urbanism, the Grid and the Cul-de-sac", International Planning Studies, February 2008, Vol. 13, Issue 1, p. 51-73, 23 pages, 5 diagrams, and 2 charts. Rifaat, Shakil, Tay, Richard, Perez, Alex and de Barros, Alex of the Department of Engineering, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. "Effects of Neighborhood Street Patterns on Traffic Collision Frequency", Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, December 2009, Volume I, Issue 4, p. 241-253, 13 pages. Black and white photograph, 2 charts, 2 maps. "Suite Dreams at Home", The Oregonian, August 16, 2011, p. B3 and B8. AIS -567 Item #: 8. Business Meeting Date: 08/23/2011 Length (in minutes): 25 Minutes Agenda Title: Discuss Strategies for Communicating Tigard's Federal Legislative Priorities Prepared For: Liz Newton Submitted By: Kent Wyatt City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main ISSUE Should the City of Tigard hire a Washington, DC based lobbying firm that would provide technical advice and direct advocacy and support for the City's federal intergovernmental interests? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Decide whether the city should allocate financial and staff resources for strengthening its federal legislative priorities. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Currently, Tigard devotes limited resources toward federal advocacy efforts. Most of the efforts have occurred during the annual National League of Cities Conference attended by the Mayor and City Council or when federal officials visit the area during a Congressional recess. Consequently, the city has been absent a strong federal voice supporting city projects, policies and programs that are influenced or supported by federal policies and funding. City staff has identified several city projects that might benefit from federal advocacy including the Lake Oswego /Tigard Water Partnership, the Tigard Trail, the COPS Program, and after - school programs operated by the Police Department. Contracting with a federal affairs firm would allow for a more aggressive pursuit of funds for these projects. Further, a federal affairs firm would enhance Tigard's federal presence by promoting City positions on policy matters to elected officials and their staffs; assisting in the preparation of federal appropriations requests and submit on behalf of the City; and providing a written weekly report of recent and upcoming activities and actions in Congress and federal agencies. In preparing this agenda item, staff talked with several area cities which employ a federal affairs firm. Each city interviewed stressed the success of federal lobbying efforts is dependent upon a long -term commitment (four to five years) and the ability to turn federal funds into projects that are finished on -time and under budget. The city of Battle Ground, WA is an example of a municipality benefiting from a long -term relationship with a federal affairs firm. A transportation project, a school resource officer, and a new community center were funded in part from advocacy on the federal level. Battle Ground worked with a federal advocacy firm to secure $400,000 in funding in 2009 for construction of a new community center and recreation center project. The project was funded by the CDBG program, the USDA Rural Development program and the Economic Development Administration public infrastructure program. This week a Washington Post article noted a recent resurgence of federal advocacy firms representing cities and counties is taking place as local governments compete for the ear of the committee that will decide how to cut $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending. It is unclear how the cuts will be dispersed among municipalities but the uncertainty ensures the committee will be heavily courted by lobbyists fighting to preserve local programs. Contracting with a federal affairs firm would not be a separate effort to gain funding for local projects in opposition to Metro's regional requests and the region's Transportation System Plan. Tigard would continue to be part of the Metro /JPACT priorities and processes, which includes the Southwest Corridor High Capacity Transit. OTHER ALTERNATIVES • Direct staff to further research "sharing" a lobbyist with an area city • Decide against pursuing a contract with a federal government affairs and lobbying firm COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS • Financial Stability - Work with partners on long -range solutions to statewide structural problems. • Continue Coordination with Lake Oswego on Water Partnership. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A ! - b • '1 T I GARD City Council City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting In the Matter of the Notification of a Potential Executive Session on August 23, 2011 STATE OF OREGON) County of Washington) ss. City of and ) I, U N t7' 1 - 141; 1 .? ci, being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in ➢ Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon ➢ Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon ➢ Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon A copy of said Notification of the Potential Executive Session on August 23, 2011. A copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the / / day of , 2011. ..—"-- Sign Me of Person who Performed Notification Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this °-Z day of All__,_ , 2011. I Signature of Notary Public for Ofgon OFFICIAL SEAL 0 i1 CAROL A KRAGER NOTA "r 'UBUC OREGON COMMISSION NO. 445625 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY 23, 2014 bp TIGARD CITY COUNCIL POTENTIAL EXECUTIVE SESSION AUGUST 23, 2011 6:30 pm TIGARD CITY HALL T I G A R D RED ROCK CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD OR 97223 NOTICE OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL POTENTIAL EXECUTIVE SESSION An Executive Session may be called under ORS 192.660 (2) (a) - employment of public officer /employee, on August 23, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. Tigard City Hall in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Please forward to: ❑ Eric Florip, The Oregonian (ericflorip @oregonian.com) ❑ Listings, The Oregonian (listings @oregonian.com) ❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (Editor a,theregalcourier.com) • Geoff Pursinger, Tigard Times( gpursinger (a,,commnewspapers.com) ❑ Newsroom, The Times (Fax No. 503 - 546 -0724) For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 503 - 718 -2419. a(111 City Recorder Date: August 19, 2011 Post: Tigard City Hall Tigard Permit Center Tigard Public Library a . _ II . .I T I GARD City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Notification In the Matter of the Notification of the August 23, 2011 Potential Executive Session STATE OF OREGON) County of Washington) ss. City-of Tigard ) I, CF..4 J 0 la , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I notified the following organization by fax : Newsroom, Tigard Times and the following people /organizations by e-mail: ELI Eric Florip, The Oregonian (ericflorip( news.oregonian.com) i -Editor, The Regal Courier (Editor�a�,theregalcourier.com) Geoff Pursinger, Tigard Times(gpursinger(commnewspapers.com) N/ Li s-I ; ngs, The Or f2 gorti a41._ A c y of said Notice being hereto attached arid by reference made a part hereof, on the I - Jay of 2011. Lt 4Vit. VU_ . ()i_P I ' Signature of Person who Performed Notifica : Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this 22 day of , 2011. / , ' OFFICIAL SEAL •'L• A.Ll‘..% ' t ` CAROL A KRA(OER Signature of Notary Public fo ' • regon `'.. - N©TARYPUBUG- OREGON COMMISSION NO. 446625 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY 23, 2014 ** Transmit Confirmation Report ** P.1 Aug 19 2011 10:45am D.S.S Name /Fax No. Mode Start Time Page Result Note 5035460724 Normal 19,10:44am 0'28" 1 * 0 K • TIGARD CITY COUNCIL !hi PO TLNTTAL EXECUITVE SESSION AUGUST 23, 2011 6:30 pm TIGARD. Cmr 11ALL TIGARD RED ROCK CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM 13125 SW HAIL BLVD. TIGARD OR 97223 NOTICE OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL • POTENTIAL EXECUTIVE SESSION An Executive Session may be called under ORS 192.660 (2) (a) - employment of public officer /employee, on August 23, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. Tigard City Hall in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media ate allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by. ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Please forward to: ❑ Eric Florip, The Oregonian (e icfiorip nian.com e Poe, ❑ listings, The Oregonian. r (� e Y 0 1, ❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (nth uxier.c ) Cl ❑ Geoff Pursinger, Tigard Tiraes(gpui er@commnewspapers.coru) ❑ Newsroom, The Times (Fax No. 503- 546 -0724) For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by railing 503 - 718 -2419. 1 41a*/ '' / City Recorder Date: August 19.2011 Post Tigard City Hall Tigard Permit Center Tigard Public library Cathy Wheatley From: Cathy Wheatley Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 10:27 AM To: 'ericflorip @news.oregonian.com'; Regal Courier Editor; 'gpursinger @commnewspapers.com'; Listings, The Oregonian Subject: Notice of Potential Executive Session - Tigard City Council - August 23, 2011 Attachments: Cathy Wheatley.vcf; Potential Exe Sess 110823.doc Attached is a notice of a potential Executive Session for the August 23, 2011, Tigard City Council meeting. Cathy g: Cathy Wheatley City of Tigard City Recorder /Records Supervisor Administration cathy ©tigard - or.gov Tigard, OR 97223 USA (503) 718 -2410 1 City of Tigard, Oregon ' Ir r I. Affidavit of Posting T I GARD In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) I r -06 is,/ 0- _ 0 —7 STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) . I, D611144— r Li, , , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) (I 0 `o 2.4 I I 0 7 , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of 74145L F ��, i712 1(, with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a art hereof, on the _ day of ,20// . 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon -- C . -- j,...-, —t-lt- Signature of Person who Performed Posting X4/4., Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of , 20J/__. t •• ;�.., OFFICIAL SEAL i n Signature of Notary Public for Oregon %�' r CATHERINE D WHEATLEY Y y, � r r ` Y NOTARY OMMI XSSIOUBLIC N - OREGON `�;;;® C NO MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 04, 2015 I:tadmtcathySorms\post ordinance 2006.doc