The URL can be used to link to this page

TCDA Packet - 01/4/2022 • City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL&TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DATE AND TIME: January 4,2022- 6:30 p.m.Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: Remote participation only. See PUBLIC NOTICE below. PUBLIC NOTICE: In accordance with the City of Tigard's Emergency Declaration related to COVID-19 and Oregon House Bill 4212, this will be a virtual meeting where Council and staff will participate remotely. There will be no in-person public testimony during this meeting. How to comment: •Written public comment may be submitted electronically at www. 'gard-or.gov/Comments.All comments must be submitted before noon the day of the meeting. •If you prefer to call in,please call 503-966-4101 when instructed. to be placed in the queue.We ask that you plan on limiting your testimony to three minutes SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVESTREAM ONLINE:httt)s://www.fip-ard-or.p-ov/boxcast CABLE VIEWERS:The first City Council meeting of the month may be shown live on Channel 28 at 6:30 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. City of Tigard a Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL&TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DATE AND TIME: January 4, 2022- 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: Remote participation only. 6:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Follow-up to Previous Public Comment B. Public Comment—Written C. Public Comment—Phone-In 3. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITION 4. CONSIDER 2022 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 6:45 p.m. estimated time 5. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/SENSITIVE LANDS UNIVERSAL PLAZA/PATH (CPA2021-00004/ SLR2021-00010) 7:15 p.m. estimated time 6. DISCUSS COUNCIL BOARD AND COMMITTEE LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS 7:45 p.m. estimated time 7. NON-AGENDA=IENIS 8. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Town Center Development Agency will go into Executive Session to discuss real estate negotiations,under ORS 192.660(2) (e).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. 8:15 p.m. estimated time 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to review and evaluate the job performance of an officer or employee,under ORS 192.660(2) (i).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.The Tigard City Council will adjourn after the Executive Session. 8:45 p.m. estimated time 11. ADJOURNMENT 9:30 p.m. estimated time S PPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR i (DA'C'E OF MEETING) Public Comment received by noon for the January 4, 2022 Meeting of the Tigard City Council Name: Date Received: Topic: Linda S. Monahan 12/31/2021 Against Charter Change to Define Consecutive Term language Carol Krager From: Ismonahan Sent: Friday, December 31, 2021 11:04 AM To: #Councilmail Cc: Carol Krager; Ismonahan@comcast.net Subject: Public comment for Jan.4 meeting:Term limits ;IN Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block F---,4-- Mayor and Council: I find it curious that your December 21st meeting focused on term limits. Certainly,there are more pressing City issues for Council to work on now than Charter language. As one of the few who viewed this meeting, I am surprised that the discussion centered on the interpretation of "consecutive." It is clear and unambiguous that the architects of the Charter intended that there be a cap on time served on Council.Tigard voters already voted to not remove term limits. A Councilor can serve 8 consecutive year in that capacity.A Council member can serve no more than 12 consecutive years total.FULL STOP. I find it disingenuous to fast and furiously have a measure ready for the May ballot to seemingly clarify Section 7 of the Charter.The only reason is that this directly affects Jason Snider and John Goodhouse. It seems to me that Tigard is jumping on the bandwagon to extend term limits,just like Tualatin. Instead of being upfront and accepting that Tigard voters have already spoken on term limits,you are manufacturing a loophole to lengthen the time that could specifically serve the agendas of 2 current Council members. I fail to understand the"equity" argument that was advanced. Is it fair that the same people continue to serve year after year because they refuse to give up their seat and the benefits therein?Should a Council member's time served be manipulated by a break in service just so that they can continue? I find it hard to believe that John Goodhouse and Jason Snider would refrain from input and spin on whatever "clarifying" language Council comes up with,despite recusals.To expend taxpayer dollars on putting a single Charter Amendment, hastily proffered,that serves only to benefit 2 current Council members, is wasteful.To say nothing of the staff resources and costs that go into"informational" campaigning to sell this deceit.To sneak this debate under the radar of citizens during the holidays and in a pandemic, not only lacks transparency, it is just wrong. I suggest you scrap the entire campaign to extend time served on Council via Charter Amendment and focus on serving the Tigard community. Linda Monahan 10248 sw kent ct. Tigard OR 97224 5038059102 Sent from my Galaxy 1 AIS-4800 4. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 01/04/2022 Length (in minutes):30 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider 2022 State and Federal Legislative Agenda Prepared For: Nicole Hendrix, City Management Submitted By: Jesse Raymundo, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting -Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Each year City Council considers council goals, community and partners'priorities,issues and opportunities for Tigard to represent its interests at the state and federal level in legislative and agency meetings. Council is asked to review the recommended priorities,provide input, and adopt the state and federal legislative agenda for Tigard advocacy in 2022. STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST •Review the attached legislative priorities lists; •Recommend changes to add or remove items; and •Consider adoption of state and federal agendas for Tigard's 2022 advocacy. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard team has developed recommendations for inclusion in Tigard's 2022 state and federal legislative agendas. The recommended lists for state and federal priorities are attached for council consideration.The attached lists provide overarching initiatives such as,Transportation and Infrastructure, and within those initiatives are items that the Tigard team will focus on. The Oregon state legislature has a short session in 2022 from Feburary 1 to March 7. Tigard's priorities for this legislative session are Transportation and Infrastructure,Housing and Support Services,City Funding, and additional opportunities. Similar to Tigard state priories,Tigard's federal priorities are Transportation and Infrastructure,Housing and Support Services, and City Funding.Tigard is engaging the assistance of CFM Communications to help the city advocate for federal funding opportunities and priorities.This work will include developing potential earmark requests for 2022. Upon Council adoption,the Tigard team will produce the final state and federal agenda for Council and City to share. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council may chose to remove or add items to the legislative priority list. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED SYSTEM PLANS The state and federal legislative agendas help guide policy and advocacy actions in 2022.The recommended priority lists reflect Tigard's Strategic Plan values of equitable,walkable,healthy,and accessible in addition to supporting Council Goals. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time that 2022 issues and agendas are before the Council for review. Attachments PowerPoint-Legislative Priorities 2022 State Legislative Priority List 2022 Tilgard Federal Legislative Priority•List ■ .a IA ■_ L D 10 L CL a� 4w m muiN � N V m V � V � O � N .0 No a--+ N Q ) O - 4 ca i O_ �L O CL O N 0 > cn in E E w O "—' ' a= cn > � • � a +� c cn O V) N o O o°, V1 ._ 43 3 Q- (1) � 4-J0 — =3 CoC V tA Q� tA v Q 4-0O .� O O v a > �= 0 oC oC ' ON W i 0 V a) ' f cn C N - m C M C v, _ w -Se � �. r' � • N c� � 'F'' CL l N O DC w O .ti Q W � J N N y- O 4w 4 z� Q An r V 0 -a � v u u L Q V N � L OAC V -IL m � Q • • C3) c V LL, qcz r Ln N C o 4-: • a� • - CL J u L w a° 4-a, t _ E .� X V N V O � O i :3 i O 0 +� i N N 'cn O > N 'u 4-J a a L a -0 c� 4S, cn V z O 'IA O w CU o .o N w o a N -0 a w N u : ° • - _O c V 3 w 4w X LA ■� N E L > •u •� •� N - o CL Q) 'o ° '0) °u' • •40 a••+ (0 Q N o v a> O O O o Q ' �n Q , a f w .� v 1 W v Ll Ln Q L S Q -Iv • •V � N O v N •i O 4; p •t�w� �+l1 tVw O V o • • V a t a City of Tigard Tigard State Legislative Priority List 2022 Transportation and Infrastructure—The City of Tigard supports equitable and accessible transportation and infrastructure policy and investments. Pacific Highway(OR99W)Corridor Study.The City of Tigard,in partnership with Tualatin, King City,Sherwood,TriMet, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)and Washington County are seeking one million in state funding for a Highway 99W Corridor Study to identify future investments and policy updates needed to improve multimodal safety,transportation system management,economic activity, development and land use along a 10-mile stretch of this state road.This project was identified and defined in the Metro T2020 regional transportation investment package and ODOT has already invested significant resource in advanced project scoping work. ODOT-owned Urban Arterials. Provide funding to invest in urban arterials and create opportunities for local agencies to take ownership of these roadways through jurisdictional transfer.There are two ODOT-owned urban arterials in Tigard, Hall Boulevard and Pacific Highway. Jurisdictional Transfer of Hall Blvd.ODOT and City of Tigard are working together to transfer approximately 3 miles of Hall Blvd to the city.To bring Hall Blvd up to a good, maintainable condition the estimated cost is approximately$28 million.The City is asking for the legislature's support in funding this transfer. ODOT Project Delivery. Increase funding for ODOT project delivery capacity especially for active transportation infrastructure to avoid costly delays to local agencies. Tolling and Road Pricing. Federal funding provides an opportunity for ODOT to ensure a coordinated approach to tolling across the regional system. Road pricing is an important tool to manage congestion,and revenue generated through a program should be used to provide equitable transportation alternatives. ODOT and Regional Mobility Policy. Push for more rapid implementation of a new regional mobility policy that accounts for the full range of transportation priorities.To meet the State's climate objectives, a new approach to measuring the performance of our region's transportation system is necessary. Broadband and Digital Access.Support and funding for increased broadband infrastructure deployment and technical assistance is critical to economic development, education, health and safety and the ability of residents to be linked to their governments.COVID-19 has only amplified the need for digital access. Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)Standards. In 2019,the City of Tigard completed an update to their mandated ADA self-evaluation and transition plan which the City Council then adopted.The transition plan identifies city facility elements in need of mitigation to achieve compliance with the ADA. Recognizing that bringing facilities into compliance is a long-term project,the city seeks ongoing funding. 1 Housing and Support Services—Tigard supports increased funding and legislation for stable housing and support services. Houselessness Services.Tigard supports increased funding for resources to unhoused individuals and families, especially in crisis situations.The city advocates for strategies that empower and supports unhoused individuals. Affordable Housing.Support legislation to remove barriers for local governments to address the housing affordability crisis and support state investments that increase access to,and supply of, affordable housing units.Tigard supports legislation that would provide state funds to cover local system development charges for the development of affordable housing.Along with League of Oregon Cities,Tigard supports efforts from the state to provide additional resources to local governments to increase the development of affordable housing. Affordable Housing Contract Expirations.The City of Tigard supports reform to ORS 456.260 and OAR 813-115-0030 to protect existing affordable units and requests the state fund an acquisition program for similar properties. Tenant Protections. As temporary tenant protection measures expire and resources for rent assistance are exhausted,the potential for a housing displacement crisis looms.Allowable rent increases in 2022 will approach 10 percent,while those in 2023 are likely to be even higher. Current law places the onus for enforcement actions on tenants,who must find legal counsel and file suit to recover damages from a landlord in violation.The City of Tigard supports more modest rent increases tied to actual growth in earnings and requests the state fund enforcement to ensure compliance. Land Use Reform.The City of Tigard supports the state's work to increase housing opportunity and address the impacts of climate change through meaningful land use reform.The City of Tigard supports prescriptive measures as a baseline approach and that land use reforms should offer alternative compliance pathways that are outcome-oriented and performance-based. These alternative compliance pathways offer the opportunity for the state's communities to continue to innovate in land use reform at the local level, applying local context and knowledge to inequities. Citb Funding—Tigard supports efforts to allow cities to use stable tax tools to address local funding issues. Property Tax Reform.Tigard supports past efforts to allow cities to use more property tax tools to address local funding issues, including support for referral to voters that would allow local control of temporary property tax outside of statewide caps;amending the state constitution to reset a property's assessed value to its real market value at the time of sale or construction; and a statutory change regarding the way new property is added to the tax rolls to provide the option of applying a citywide changed property rate to new property. Preserve Local Revenue Streams. Maintain revenues from state shared revenues that support core services to the community including system development charges, property taxes,and lodging taxes. 2 I City of Tigard Preserve Local Decision-Making Authority. Maintain each individual city's ability to best respond to challenges allows cities to make and the most financially sound decision. Additional Opportunities Enterprise Zones. Leave Enterprise Zone program to the purview of localities. Do not add state required prevailing wage requirements to Enterprise Zone program. Kicker Reform. Reform the state's kicker refund program to ensure that state priorities and programs related to equitable housing opportunity, multimodal transportation, environmental protection, and economic development are met and fully funded before rebates occur. Mental Health Services.The City of Tigard and the League of Oregon Cities supports the delivery of mental health services to ensure those who need help can access those services easily. Police Reform. Tigard is committed to racial equity and justice as we cultivate an equitable community that is walkable,healthy,and accessible for everyone.With this vision,Tigard will monitor this session for legislation around police reform. 3 I City of"Tigard Tigard Federal Legislative Priority List 2022 Transportation and Infrastructure—The City of Tigard supports equitable and accessible transportation and infrastructure policy and investments. Southwest Corridor Light Rail.The City is part of a coalition working to extend light rail service from Portland to Tigard.Tigard is in one of the region's most congested corridors with an expected 17 percent increase in hours of congestion by 2035. Light rail is one of the few solutions for counteracting this trend,with forecast to carry around 40,000 passengers daily and a guaranteed 30-minute ride from Bridgeport Village to downtown Portland. Six of the 13 stations will be within Tigard, improving physical and transit connections in the community while strengthening connection regionally. Electric Mobility Transition. Further increase access to electric mobility infrastructure and incentives for electric mobility adoption in low-income households and communities to ensure that the electric mobility transition is equitable. Ensure new funding programs are inclusive of micro-mobility modes,shared mobility,and Mobility as a Service models. High-Speed Rail. Provide funding for the development of a high-speed rail line in the Pacific Northwest as a driver of economic development and innovation in the transportation sector. Infrastructure Resiliency.Cites need support to build and invest in sustainable and resilient infrastructure. Direct investment from Federal government will help meet the growing demands on our infrastructure to support a growing economy and resilient communities. Broadband and Digital Access.Support and funding for increased broadband infrastructure deployment and technical assistance is critical to economic development, education, health and safety and the ability of residents to be linked to their governments.The pandemic has only amplified the need for digital access. Housing and Support Services—Tigard supports increased funding and legislation for stable housing and support services. Restore State and Local Tax(SALT)Deduction.The City is concerned about the impact of the $10,000 cap on tax deductions for property,state and local taxes on lower and middle-income families.The City supports full restoration of the State and Local Tax deduction. Affordable Housing.Support legislation to remove barriers for local governments to address the housing affordability crisis and support state investments that increase access to,and supply of, affordable housing units.Tigard supports legislation that would provide state funds to cover local system development charges for the development of affordable housing.Along with League of Oregon Cities,Tigard supports efforts from the state to provide additional resources to local governments to increase the development of affordable housing. 1 r City of'Tigard City supports efforts to allow cities to use stable tax tools to address local funding issues. Restore Advanced Refunding.The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminated the ability of municipalities to refinance bond debt. Refinancing lowers debt service and reduces tax burden on local residents.The bank-qualified provision is a proven incentive for local banks to purchase the tax-exempt debt of small local governments and borrowers for bonds$10 million or less. Tigard supports the restoration of advance refunding tax-exempt municipal and bank qualified- bonds. Fiscal Year 2023 Program Levels. Increase and restore funding levels for Community Development Block Grants(CDBG), Economic Development Administration (EDA), Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup,the Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)and Byrne Justice Assistance Programs.Allow municipalities direct access to federal resources, competitive, and formula grants. 2 AIS-4784 5. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 01/04/2022 Length (in minutes): 30 Minutes Agenda Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment/ Sensitive Lands Universal Plaza/Path (CPA2021-00004/ SLR2021-00010) Prepared For: Tom McGuire, Community Development Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting Ordinance -Main Public Hearing- Quasi-judicial Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE The City of Tigard proposes to construct Universal Plaza and a connecting multi-use path from the plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail.The plaza,to be constructed in two phases,is designed to function as a community public space that will include an interactive water feature, outdoor recreation areas, swings, restrooms,two outdoor event areas, an overhead canopy to provide shelter,landscaping,lighting, and stormwater facilities. The plaza's proposed stormwater detention facility and a portion of its path system is located partially within the 50-foot buffer of Tigard Significant Wetlands. The proposed multi-use trail connection to the existing Fanno Creek Trail (FCT) passes through a small area of Tigard Significant Wetlands,Fanno Creek Park,and portions of a vegetated corridor restoration site related to the recent Clean Water Services Fanno Creek Re-Meander Project.All these improvements are also located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. The proposed project is therefore subject to Sensitive Lands Review. In addition, a Type III-Modified Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required to approve the removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory and to remove 0.13 acres (5,755 square feet) of associated buffer to accommodate the proposed plaza elements and path within sensitive lands. STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that City Council find the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Sensitive Lands Review will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards as outlined in Section V of this report. Therefore, Staff recommends that City Council APPROVE the proposed amendment along with the sensitive lands review. The Planning Commission recommended,by a unanimous vote at a public hearing on November 29,2021, that the City Council adopt by ordinance the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, thereby removing *0.194 acres from the significant wetlands inventory described in the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map"through the public hearing process. Note:The 0.194-acre number included in the staff report to the Planning Commission was based on the Clean Water Services Service Provider Letter's figures for permanent impacts to vegetated corridors which included 0.060 acres of vegetated corridor mitigation area located adjacent to, but not within, the 50 foot Goal 5 regulated buffer, which overcounted the impact. The 0.134 figure is the accurate number for the combined permanent impacts to Goal S wetland and wetland buffers and is reflected in the attached CC Staff Report,ESEE Analysis, and Ordinance. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The location of the proposed plaza on Tax Lot 202 west of Burnham Street and north of Ash Street currently consists of a paved lot and grassy area in the footprint of a recently demolished commercial building,with a fringe of vegetation along the southern edge of the lot.The total plaza site area is 1.20 acres and was previously fully developed with 90 percent impervious groundcover (asphalt parking and building roof). The western half of the site currently sheet flows over asphalt parking directly to the wetland.Adjacent land uses include Burnham Street to the east,B&B Printing to the south, and Stevens Marine to the north, and Fanno Creek Park to the west (Tax Lots 203 and 204). Within the Fanno Creek Park portion of the project area, a total of 1.38 acres of emergent wetland and 0.36 acres of Fanno Creek are present. Stream and wetland restoration occurred within this open space during 2018, as part of CWS's stream realignment project.All previously identified vegetated corridors associated with the stream realignment project were recently planted with native species. Shrub and tree species are becoming established and are on a trajectory to meeting CWS's goal of establishing a riparian corridor of native vegetation. The proposed path will connect the plaza with the FCT,which is the main north-south walking and cycling route in south Washington County,and is the parallel walking and cycling route to Interstate 5 and OR 217. The FCT is identified as a Regional Trail in Metro's Regional Transportation Plan Regional Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks. The FCT was recently improved with the CWS Re-meander Project,which included a new bridge just west of where the path to the plaza is proposed to connect. A comprehensive plan amendment is requested to remove Goal 5 protection from a combined total of 0.134 acres of locally significant wetlands and City regulated vegetated corridors.The amendment is supported by an Economic, Social, Environment, and Energy(ESEE) Analysis (Attachment 2).This comprehensive plan change will allow for the construction of the plaza and path that would otherwise be prohibited from construction by the location of existing locally significant wetland.The breakdown of impacts to significant resources is outlined in the following table. Regulated City Total (sq ft/acres) Proposed Mitigation Resource Areas Locally_Significant Wetland Purchase through wetland Permanent Impacts 159/0.004 Mitigation bank credits Temporary Impacts 1,352/0.03 Restoration planting in^ place required. Vegetated Corridors Onsite removal of existing Permanent Impacts 5,755/0.13 asphalt and restoring to vegetated corridor and use of CWS mitigation credit. Temporary Impacts 6,424/0.15 Restoration and planting in Place required. The path is critical infrastructure and will serve a dual purpose of fulfilling both public transportation and recreational facility needs.Additionally,the new path section will provide for controlled access to areas it passes through,thereby reducing the introduction and use of rogue paths,which are common along several sections of the proposed path route. Project related planting efforts are also intended to reinforce planned and ongoing restoration efforts and help protect the wetland resources. OTHER ALTERNATIVES 1. Not approve the request,which would maintain current Goal 5 prohibition on development. 2. Modify the proposal to reduce the amount of land removed from the inventory. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED SYSTEM PLANS Advances Tigard's vision of becoming more walkable,healthy, and accessible for everyone DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments Ordinance PC Minutes Staff Report ESEE AnalF sis Powerpoint CPA2021-00004 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes,November 29,2021 Location:Members Remote via Microsoft Teams Link to virtual hearing online: www.tigard-or.goy/virtualPC Call-in number for public testimony: 503-966-4101 Public testimony call-in time was between 7:15 and 7:45 p.m. CALL TO ORDER President Hu called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: President Hu Vice President Jackson Commissioner Brook Alt. Commissioner Dick Alt. Commissioner Miranda Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Schuck Commissioner(K7) Tiruvallur Commissioner Watson Absent: Commissioner Quinones; Commissioner Whitehurst Staff Present: Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin,Executive Assistant;Monica Bilodeau,Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher,Project Planner; Sean Farrelly,Redevelopment Project Manager;Kenny Asher,Community Development Director COMMUNICATIONS—None. CONSIDER MINUTES President Hu asked if there were any additions,deletions, or corrections to the November 15, 2021 minutes;with the acknowledgement of one additional question and answer,President Hu declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING UNIVERSAL PLAZA&PATH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW CPA2021-00004& SLR2021-00010 Staff:Associate Planner Monica Bilodeau November 29,2021 Page 1 of 10 PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes to construct Universal Plaza and a connecting multi- use path from the Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail. A Type III-Modified Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required to approve the removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory and to remove 0.24 acres (10,360 square feet) of associated buffer to accommodate the proposed plaza elements and path within sensitive lands. LOCATION: 9100 SW Burnham St. HEARING STATEMENTS President Hu gave the call-in number for people who may want to testify. He then read the required statements and procedural items from the hearing guide. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: President Hu,Vice President Nathan Jackson,Alternate Commissioner Dick,Alternate Commissioner Miranda,and Commissioner Roberts. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Monica Bilodeau pulled up a PowerPoint (Exhibit A) and gave a summary of the project. The City of Tigard is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove 0.194 acres of Tigard significant wetlands from the Wetlands and Stream Corridor map. For clarification of what impacts are being proposed, she noted that on page 5 of the staff report they'd broken them down further into permanent impacts to the wetland.The impacts to wetland is .004,which is about 159 Sq Feet.And that's proposed to be mitigated at a Butler mitigation bank,which is in our local area in Washington County. The rest of the impacts —the 0.194 is to the vegetive corridor. She noted that the impacts are taking place mostly at the corner of the site where they've reduced the width of the trail to 10 feet wide. She went over a summary of the project need. She noted that the new path section will provide for controlled access to areas it passes through,thereby reducing the introduction and use of rogue paths,which are common along several sections of the proposed path route.As part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, an Environmental, Social,Economic and Energy(ESEE) Consequences Analysis was required. The analysis involved evaluating the trade-offs associated with different levels of natural resource protection. That analysis was provided to the commissioners and it involves identifying the consequences of allowing,limiting, or prohibiting conflicting uses in areas containing significant natural resources. It concluded that limiting the conflicting use will result in the most beneficial consequences of the three protection scenarios for the City. Monica noted that in limiting it we didn't just outright let the trail go through the wetland. It was designed in a way that limited the impacts to that wetland and gave a tradeoff there. That analysis was also included in the commissioner's packets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommendation to City Council at the January 4th hearing for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Sensitive Lands Review, subject to findings and recommended Conditions of Approval in the staff report. QUESTIONS President Hu: Is the company that prepared the ESSE report available to answer questions? "It doesn't look like they're present." The ESEE pointed out there may be November 29,2021 Page 2 of 10 accessibility issues? The report says there are accessibility issues —I walked there today and if I were in a wheelchair, I would have had no problem with that pathway. So, I wonder what the accessibility issues are that they spoke of in the analysis. On page 6, the first full paragraph at the end says "The only other pedestrian or bicycle option to connect the Universal Plaza to the Fanno Creek Trail on the public sidewalks are street routes along Burnham Street and Ash Street,which are indirect and may not be easily accessible to people with limited mobility." I'm wondering how they concluded that it may not be easily accessible to people with limited mobility. Gary Pagenstecher said he wasn't sure how they came to that conclusion. President Hu: "The entire foundation for removing the wetland from the protected area is based on this ESEE analysis, so I have lots of questions. I know we're not supposed to express our opinion right now, but I just found this analysis to be very superficial and I don't find a lot of supporting evidence for the ESSE analysis.Most of my questions are pointing to the ESEE analysis, because this is the only reason we can remove the protection. So,if it's not convincing to me, I will not be able to support the removal of wetlands." Gary P: "Limited mobility may be the amount of effort it takes to go a distance —not whether or not it's flat the whole way." So,what's the distance difference between the path and the current roundabout way of going around the printing company? "If you're in the plaza then as soon as you set out on the trail,you are in the resource and can appreciate the creek in a matter of 10, 20 or 30 feet. If you had to take Burnham and Ash,you'd be going the length of two sides of a large city block to get to the proximation of where you would otherwise have been —with not so much effort. I think it has to do with ease of access —both in terms of length, and keeping in mind those who are the most vulnerable among us. President Hu: The second question. Have there been discussions with the printing company next door regarding a public easement through their parking lot for the proposed trail? Gary answered, "Sean may want to weigh in on this point since Sean is the applicant and has a lot of the history and information that wasn't a part of the application that he can report on. They were approached and they declined as far as I remember." Sean Farrelly said, "That's correct, they are not interested at this time in having a public easement across their parking lot." How about the public wetland next to their parking lot—immediately adjacent to their parking lot?Would that be less of an impact on the wetland than what's currently proposed? Since their parking lot is already paved, if you just attached to their parking lot another pathway,would that be less of an impact on the wetlands? If they would have permitted it,it would have been. The alignment cuts the corner right at their property line—the curve is around the property corner. So, the path goes over the wetland just enough to get further along,not going on the B &B Printing site. Hmm, I guess I need to take a look at a map if you can pull that out later. That's all the questions I have for now. Can you confirm that the 159 sq feet is each individual piling— and that those combined equals 159 - so there's not extra water or wetland underneath there that's included? The five or six pilings that are in the area is 159 sq. ft. Am I understanding that math correctly? That area is about the size of 5 sheets of plywood. Together the number of concrete beams shown in the drawing are within the wetland. The total is for all the beams - 18 proposed for the length of the boardwalk. What they're showing in the drawings as concrete beams,the width of the boardwalk spaced at 10 feet or so—at the time that we were doing the design development,we hadn't gotten the Geotech report so we didn't know what kind of sub-support November 29,2021 Page 3 of 10 there would need to be.We've learned that helical piers can be used which have a very light footprint,so the amount of impact in the service provider letter is more than we will actually be creating with this alternative foundation. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Sean Farrelly introduced himself as the Redevelopment Project Manager for the City of Tigard and the City Project Manager/Applicant.He went over a brief presentation (Exhibit B) to explain why they're doing the project in this location. He noted that the more specific environmental questions should be directed to Gary Pagenstecher. He said the Universal Plaza will be a great place to gather and to hold events, to have a Farmer's Market,movies in the park, etc. This TIF Agency owned property was chosen as the plaza site based on proximity to Main Street and Fanno Creek Park/Trail. The goal is to attract new visitors,customers,residents, and investments to Downtown. It's been in the planning stage since 2018. During that time,they figured out what the theme would be,what kind of amenities they wanted,they did a lot of public engagement and began design and engineering. They had wanted to have much more activity on the temporary plaza that's presently there. For now,there are just a few pieces of furniture out there and some art. Unfortunately,the kickoff coincided right about the time COVID hit, so they had to switch gears.They added some public engagement and activation but not as much as they had hoped. They worked with a nationally known designer called RIOS (they do public spaces all over the country) and they are also working with a very well-known national water feature designer called Fluidity. They are planning to go into construction in April 2022. Sean went over the design and showed a rendition of what it might look like (Exhibit B). "There will be lots of fun things. Lots of lawn space for children to play. The water feature will be very cool and popular in the summer. It will be lit at night—the water will go in patterns. This will be a very big attractor to downtown—we anticipate it will bring many parents and kids —and I wouldn't be surprised if not only kids,but adults use the water feature on a hot day. We want it to be used year-round so we are leaving a lot of space for events that could happen there.There will be a restroom,tables,and seating as well as a "community table"—a larger table where many can eat at once. But we're wanting the area to be used all year so there's lots of room for events; lots of seating; and a community table where many people can eat at once. There will be lighting for safety. It's important to us that safety is addressed in this plan." Sean went over the details, which included lots of native plantings in the storm water area.They're trying to accomplish a lot on this property.The aim is to have a good storm water area,well planted with interpretive signage about how Fanno Creek watershed works. He said it's important to connect the Fanno Creek Trail, and that if we did not build a connection,we believe people would make that's connection anyway. They'd walk through there and maybe not respect the natural area that's there. There's a section of it that's boardwalk and with the ability to use these helical piers, there will to be a much lower impact on the areas in question. In a few years there will be a Phase II of this project that would feature a shade structure to protect people from the hot sun and rain. There will also be a community room that will be a great asset to the residents of Tigard. QUESTIONS Thanks for the presentation. So, I'm understanding that 156 sq ft of wetland will be impacted essentially by piers sitting in the wetland. We're basically voting tonight to recommend that this sq footage be removed from the inventory... is that correct? Yes, November 29, 2021 Page 4 of 10 that's correct. You are making a recommendation to City Council and they will hear this item as well as public testimony on January 4,2022. What is the total number of significant wetlands that Tigard has?Assistant Community Development Director Tom McGuire answered, "I don't know the exact number of significant wetlands we have. Part of that is that they change a little, and the way our code works,if someone's proposing to impact them,we have them hire someone to do a wetland delineation, so we get the accurate location and size on the property. I would say that easily it would be over 200 acres at least,if not more. So, the crux of the argument is that there's a tradeoff for enhancement of the trail to remove this amount from the wetland inventory.As I hear it,in exchange for removing this amount from the wetland inventory there's what looks to be a very good public benefit and some wetland in another place is being improved. Is that the crux of it in a simplified way?Tom: "That's essentially right, there are probably a couple of details that haven't been touched on yet. One of those is that there's a big chunk of paved surface leftover from the business that used to be there. That is inside that buffer.That's being torn out and restored to a vegetative buffer, and a natural water quality facility will be placed in that area as well.That's in addition to the actual wetland mitigation bank for the specific 129 Sq. Ft. or so. I was probably the most skeptical of this idea at the City from the start, and I really pushed the development team (the Downtown Redevelopment Agency) hard to justify this.The key for me is this will be quite an attraction—a major thing for downtown Tigard and people are going to want to go there.We have this really wonderful reconstruction of the Fanno Creek Trail a few hundred yards to the west.There will be lots of people on that trail and they're going to see things going on over there and—people being people, a good portion of them will go straight to that location. They're going to walk right through the buffer and wetland—we see it all the time—we get what we call "demand trails." This is very similar to the same argument we made in Dirksen Nature Park. The Planning Commission at that time approved the improvements at Dirksen Nature Park. There's a very special wetland in Dirksen Nature Park where we built a boardwalk and a viewing platform. Part of it goes into the wetland;but we did that specifically to allow people to get access to the resource while controlling that access. So people are on the fenced boardwalk—it keeps them where we want them instead of wandering all over through the resource. That was the main argument.The only process we have to be able to go into any portion of our significant wetlands is this ESEE process. I think they did a really good job of reducing the impact as much as possible,and I think if this trail's not here,it could end up with a much greater impact than what we're proposing." Will there be nighttime lighting on the path? Not at this point. In the Plaza,yes,there will definitely be lighting. We heard from the planning stage that people want to feel safe there.We would like to get lighting on the Fanno Creek Trail itself—pedestrian level lighting- sometime in the future. President Hu asked if there were any more questions. Tom McGuire asked if he could address some of President Hu's previously stated concerns. President Hu recognized him. "You'd said that you felt the ESEE was lacking in a number of places. Do you have specific things that you'd like to cover? I understand the one that you pointed out and I think Gary had a good evaluation of where that probably came from. It's probably not the strongest argument. I think it's a factor,it's not the major factor. Your statement was pretty strong and the ESEE Analysis is pretty key to this whole thing so I'm November 29, 2021 Page 5 of 10 wondering if you want to have any specific things addressed. Is there something you want to cover or that you want answers to? Is there something I can address?" Yes, I think several commissioners brought up questions... like Commissioner Jackson asked if the proposed pathway would really prevent rogue or "demand" trails? The answer given was kind of disappointing. It was a lot of speculation like "yeah, there are trees there so people will probably not make rogue trails... ok... and social consequences like it would drive up business and business like it. The printing shop next door said no to trails,so they're obviously not keen on having more trails—at least on their property, I guess. I feel the answers didn't dive deep enough for me. That's my personal feeling and the fact that I don't know if there are any plans to expand Universal Plaza if neighboring lots become available. If the City would love to take over the printing shop at one point to make it part of it—I mean why can't we just wait and have the trail there?Or can we just wait to build the trail later when it's been demonstrated that there are actually rogue trails there? I know the impact section is kind of small, but still-since the ESEE Analysis is the foundation of taking away the protective status... something about this is not sitting right with me. I would like more concrete evidence to support the conclusion they've reached. It seems they're just putting things in there to justify their conclusions. So that's my concern. I'm not saying it's poorly done; I'm just saying this is something that's missing. Tom answered, "Regarding future plans... I don't know that there are any plans to expand the Universal Plaza. If there are,it would likely go in the other direction I would think. When/if the printing property redevelops someday, the Downtown Plan has a requirement for an alley along the backside of that property line. That's why we tried very hard to get them to agree to an easement, because we could have basically put the trail right through the location of where we want the future alley to go. But they were absolutely not interested in that at this time—they did not want to have that issue. They didn't want to disturb their parking lot. I don't know what future plans they have —they could redevelop in five years—it could be 20 years—we don't know.We have no control over that, so this was our only other option. Regarding"demand trails,"most of the people going to the Plaza will be coming from the existing Fanno Creek Trail direction. To my knowledge,we haven't been monitoring the other areas where we've done this before,but the Parks Division continues to want to do this because anecdotally they are not seeing problems with it. They're not seeing situations where we're getting demand trails along with the trail. It seems to be working for them,but we don't have a specific study that I can point to for you. Also, I just learned that the platform will not have railings, so that's not actually preventing people from stepping onto the wetland from the trail. That might actually have a negative effect, and that's another thing I'm thinking now. Today I was actually looking from where the proposed trail would be to Universal Plaza. I thought "that's pretty far—I'm not going to make a rogue trail. If you actually have a platform there—it would make it easy to step on. It would make it easier to step UP onto the platform too and actually ruin the wetland even more. I just don't know which direction I'm comfortable with. There are lots of unanswered questions in my mind, so I'm skeptical. PUBLIC TESTIMONY November 29, 2021 Page 6 of 10 NEUTRAL TESTIMONY—Steve DeAngelo, Past President of Tigard Downtown Alliance, Property Owner at 937 SW Burnham St.,Tigard. I have general questions and comments. Did any of the staff, elected officials, or commissioners visit during the recent high-water event?You don't have to answer, but I want to say that I did go to the high-water event and saw the wetlands impacted by the "atmospheric river." It was interesting. I do recommend and suggest pathway lighting due to the recent"activity" I'll call it, some of which has been negative - on the Fanno Creek Trail in the recent weeks and months with the deaths and just vandalism and so forth. I'd suggest that the commission ask about pathway lighting. I'm interested in the educational piece and discussing the flora and the fauna of the area—not only are the wetlands important,but what grows and lives in there should be considered. How does the raised boardwalk do over the years? I suggest the footings are probably made of concrete.That boardwalk is eventually going to be absorbed with water. Is that pressure treated wood easing into the eco-system? Parking is a continual issue on Burnham Street.You asked if I'm opposed to the Plaza. I'm neutral at this point. I believe the Plaza will be an enhancement for our downtown area,but I think these considerations are of utmost importance.The at-grade maintenance —whether those pathways become absorbed with water— are they a permeable material such as the trail along the railbed?Those are my comments and questions. Thank you for the presentation—it was very enlightening, and I appreciate everyone's input. QUESTIONS—I may have missed it but overall are you for, against or neutral toward the proposed trail? I love the accessibility aspect. I certainly want to make sure we don't impact our wetlands to the point that we would trade off any benefit.At this point however,I would say I'm neutral to positive. What did you see when you noticed the flooding? I have pictures and am happy to share them via email. Sean Farrelly knows how to get ahold of me. The B &B comer that's adjacent to the wetlands was underwater, and normally it's not underwater. That water was certainly encroaching that corner where the pathway is proposed. I've been a resident of Tigard since 1989, so I know the area floods. I've seen the water over Burnham in the old days... not ever encroaching on my property,but when the water comes up it's a concern. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION President Hu asked the commissioners to share their thoughts,comments, or concerns. Alternate Commissioner Dick's concern is the wetland area.Without a rail on the pilings portion, she thinks people will step off. She's also concerned about the wildlife in the area as it will be noisier with the Plaza there. She knows there's not a lot of parking,but she likes that they're encouraging a healthy way to get there instead of driving. She thinks a railing would be a good thing. REOPENED THE HEARING November 29,2021 Page 7 of 10 President Hu reopened the hearing because he had inadvertently failed to ask staff to respond to the caller's questions. STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE CALLER Regarding the footing that will be used, Gary Pagenstecher answered: The decision for the type of sub-structure hasn't been decided yet.The helical pier is a metal footing alternative, or concrete which is what's showing. And on top of that would be either pressure treated wood or possibly plastic lumber, or it could be steel. I think Steve DeAngelo brings a good point about maintenance and longevity of what the substructure would be made from and that maintenance and building it for the long term rather than replacement was the direction the committee was headed. I think at this point,the committee is favoring the helical pier with a metal substructure that would support the decking. Regarding the question of railings,Tom McGuire commented. "Depending on the style and type of railing, and how on both sides how big they are... what elevations they're at... there could be some floodplain impacts because as IS&. DeAngelo described a lot of water. That's not surprising as that is actually a floodplain. It's designed to have periodic inundation of the trail. That's why it's a wetland and that's how it's supposed to work, That happens with many of our trails. If anything, the concern causes more maintenance for our Parks staff and they have to factor that into their schedules. Putting railings into that area,we would have to put it in in a way where we don't cause a rise. It's a zero rise. So we can't raise the floodplain elevation at all by putting things in the floodplain. If we do the rails and it does cause a rise,we would have to look into some sort of excavation somewhere else—which would add a lot of cost.Along the entire Fanno Creek trail from 99W down to Hall—there are no rails. It's all very open and you get a very open prairie like look to it all. I'd be concerned about just this small section of trail having fences or rails along it. I don't think people are going to be jumping off the boardwalk into the wetland. I think people generally just stick to the trail. Regarding lighting along the Fanno Creek trail- Sean Farrelly answered: "Lighting along the Fanno Creek trail—at least the downtown part is a future project.We'll be looking at possibly even solar lighting as that's come a long way.That would be the least intrusive to wildlife. That's a separate question from this project—the only place lighting is being proposed here is in the Plaza itself. The lighting on Fanno Creek in the Downtown section—well be taking a look at that separately after this project-likely in the next fiscal year." PRESIDENT HU RECLOSED THE HEARING DELIBERATION Commissioner Roberts is generally in favor of it. He gets the safety issues. Overall, he's in favor. Commissioner Brook, "I think railings should be up to designers and staff and not us but,I feel kind of conflicted over the lighting situation. If I were walking in the winter when it gets dark early I would want it to be lighted,but I realize it does affect the creatures. I'm overall very excited to have the trail extended. I'm neutral -but neutral positive (like the caller)." November 29, 2021 Page 8 of 10 Commissioner Watson is moderately positive. In terms of safety and long-term maintenance she likes boardwalks. She's seen them with plastic lumber and noticed that they wear well.With pressure treated wood you can get warp and knotholes and it dissolves over time.There's plastic lumber out there that has some benefit. She said she would like to plug for something more durable and consistent in quality than pressure treated wood. Vice President Jackson is also moderately positive. The main argument that persuaded him was the controlled access concept in reducing demand paths. He thinks that's a good way to do it. He realizes that the ESEE report could come off as more rhetorical but that aside,he liked the report-particularly the part about controlled access. Commissioner K7 is also reasonably positive. He's completely positive about the Universal Plaza. That's wonderful and he is all for it. He'd like to have seen some data on where we have claimed some of the wetland areas in the past... what kind of changes did we see over a period of time?That data would have really helped us to make a good, strong decision. He said he also shares some of the concerns about maintenance given that it's in the floodplain. Otherwise,he's reasonably positive. Commissioner Schuck said, "I'm positive! Not moderately positive. We all have our boardwalk stories, and some have come out today. I was recently at Rockaway Beach.They have a 1.2 mile boardwalk trail out to a big tree and it goes over a wetland and a bog. It's like you're in a wonderland. The cool thing about this one is it's a short one. You don't have to be a big,long distance hiker. This is in the City,right next to a beautiful creek. It's the perfect place for falling in love with the environment. That boardwalk trail out in Rockaway Beach—you hear the water running underneath it. It's truly like a wonderland. And to think that you can enjoy that because the jurisdiction down there had the foresight to say, "We need to let people see and enjoy this!"I agree with the concerns about the data,but I don't like the rails —I think animals cross over the rails and things. I think people usually stay on the trail—I don't think they step off. I like that our staff are so cognizant of the trees and the canopy and they're protecting our environment,while at the same time wanting us to enjoy it. I don't know how you could do that without a little bit of sacrifice, so I am a solid positive! I'd love to walk on the boardwalk along Fanno Creek. Thanks. Alternate Commissioner Miranda—is a"positive, positive". She's excited about the interpretive opportunities for education. She likes that the trail gives the opportunity to make a loop back on Ash—back to your car if you parked over there - or to the Dog Park. She likes that you don't have to go on the whole Fanno Creek trail if you don't want to,but that if you do,you can. She is very excited about this project. Commissioner Watson—regarding the topic of data, she suggests the city or applicant look at precedence. President Hu is positive for the Universal Plaza but has serious reservations about the ESEE Report Consequences Analysis,and because that's the foundation for the trail part,he's leaning towards "Neutral to Negative". MOTION November 29,2021 Page 9 of 10 Commissioner Roberts "I move the Planning Commission move for a recommendation of APPROVAL to the City Council for CPA2021-00004 and SLR2021-00010 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the Staff Report and based on the testimony received. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson. Those in favor—Commissioner Roberts,Watson, Schuck,Jackson, Brook, &Tiruvaller (6) Those against—0 Those abstaining- President Hu (1). MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL PASSES 6-0-1 The City Council will have a hearing on this on January 4,2022. OTHER BUSINESS Tom McGuire took some time to talk about the pandemic and Hybrid Planning Commission meetings.He asked the Commissioners to voice their opinions on whether they would like to meet in person with masks and social distancing or continue to meet on-line for the foreseeable future.There were concerns voiced about in-person hybrid meetings. COVID variants and the unknown vaccination status of the public was a big concern. Also,having room to meet with everyone who needs to be in the room was of concern. It was noted that at times the applicant has a whole entourage with them,and some meetings draw many from the public. This would make physical distancing and accessibility for the public very difficult. Hearing could be a problem as some people sound muffled as they speak while masked. One of the commissioners likes the free-flowing way of meeting in person, seeing everyone, and being able to interact visually with them;however,he understands the need to meet online at this point. The commissioners unanimously agreed that they would prefer that the meetings remain virtual until the mask and social distancing mandates are lifted or greatly eased. ADJOURNMENT President Hu adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. L Doreen Laughlin,Plann c mt sion Secretary A ST: Presid Yi-Kang Hu November 29, 2021 Page 10 of 10 Q � M� N W Q1 N L X W E o z C) C) N CMA �--� C) o a Ef Row Ln ' E fN oog � V TJr 'U e 10 Q MO U in W — CL �< - C", c r V ` E LJ -fT v0 82 ra U CL � , E � M bu0m LO € � , 4-J O cr Q Qj > . O LM M-P E bD 4-J 4-J p— +J 3w: V] >' V � 0— �a \ . •— dJ •� i E t4 o F- a u L M ,,& ti� r a f r ,r r� �r r " r f t ar113 a H f i IXl t �J _ 4 Val lk ip 1p yq 4 •� k 4Yy� �� r �e �y rr' 4 J F H v r w - t fL,73 • �' d rq ry � y +T q ��►. 'tib S,� J' A f � 1 1 sy 401, fEy y . i i 7 d lf � Y O — 4O CL V p .O v � CLL � O V 4-5 t CL ca Q) — 4A ,� O to L - L o s Q L O L L a--+ w w •— CU bD + 0 cn p � O � L N 4— O ca C — L V •- CL) L O N > V aj OV .O a--+ vi 4A •� - V c6 V) •� bD � Q V ca � •_ • L CL .� a) U — N O tkX) ( - O LM L- '— V cn • ate+ UO -� .V Q OJ OJ •� 0 V Q •E cr O O •- +•+ cn +j .� > N W r- V E > 0 > cn a_+ a••+ O *� > •�+ O V _ ._ O — Ln �- •— ca V) • ,� � � cu C: � V � � U O a � 0 Ai w O •�, w W cn s O � W � U •— � +-+ ,� U � to a-+ V ._ cn •— w RJ'! 1.17 •— � fQ � 4A +J V cn >% a-J o E o O +� V 75 O V `O U > cy U Q = W LLJ %%.r Qj 4-J LhOWNWIN 6�0 C > C Q 4-0 W O c E o Oo u .— +, O eel E a� Q U ° s 4 to O cn DC qqT Q.. V) U r �f • It•.� Z 9 01 cr l V OQ � o l C N CD 3• x ° o0 °° N fi C C CD V) ID ' ,-,• n' n ma r-r r•-r O CL - rD a <O [D rD rD rt N CLCL 0q Q n rl+ v O -0 Q cn rt + -O Z, � N D aq O a) 0.rD n O -� n Q T =r �• O< C O � N � rD N• 3 N CD- NJ arq �n O : [D C n N S fD O N n rD a) �G �' 7r ID DQ v f7 ' v rD N :3 rD'�* n D On rD ED rr rD O n r�•r Q =' o O fD O Q r+ n' ,-+ e-h 0 ,^� ,,. . � �'Y. t �` h ti • �{� � � M ` ` � �. .a - - d �' � � i r � .`7. � .� i. -- ). c { -'`^d� _ 1 v� tJ _ �� : }- e. 1+ �� ,'. ,i ��_ �� - ;� ., �� _., '� 'i .. �,� r �_ � � ' � 'r �i `� �Y -. fy r r ,�� . � � .�• y, _ _ `` �, { I l r r Y • L�'• "N.Y I A,y�� C..�,�_w . '4 a' } r , � � � � l / � �� i p •f o �.p yr. ----- -------------- ----1------ -----------��`----------------------- 7 47 442, ¢ 1 4 G} Z P �M =z Sze. �.1Lliul I r� e t + +.r t + -F -t F .L. .♦ I + + + + + + + + + + + +, u + + + + + + + + + + + + + III I + + + + + + + + + + + n: +.+ + + + + + + + + Li l D ill � LJI 4 -. +.+ + +{+ +.+ I"1I f I r i I it f (6 1 1 LJ N 1+ Li J I Q k i Ci i a ri i 0 O C �11 �1 LJ Q Z r I ++ 111 L��III Li 1 /'� L� FF I� + ili i Li i V FYI {,11��' r� I t'I! -_ Jr-L=='1 LJI Q Q f to D 14 0 LJ + �i I r N VII LJ iti a /+r 11 LJ + + I U 1 LJ lJ +++ ul +++ + +I.. + + + + j.+ r,I + +'+++ + + + d ro m F 1 l LJ +fir+. I + +k+ + + + + + _ N +� ++, �+ . .. 1 I + a 1 / _rt + � I r + + + + �+ € „ + + , I + + + + + + ++ � + + + + + + + Ik + + � + + + +-+,\+ + + + + H. +++ ++++++++++++++++�++ ,+- E +-+T+ + iI + + # + + + + + +:+ + + + o + + + + ++ + + ++ + + + + + +� + + + ++++ + + + ++ + +� + +++I.++*3 I — Will! OM HIM � - A DD y I_ ZSTt 1889 S q Hill 1.4211 NO 7 13 N J f � I� � t ._... J1 • ` IwY+ F� yy i r � c I�• t _ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 22- AN ORDINANCE APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA2021-00004, TO REMOVE 0.134 ACRES OF LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS FROM THE"TIGARD WETLAND AND STREAM CORRIDOR MAP"INVENTORY. WHEREAS, Section 18.510.080 of die Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) includes Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek;and WHEREAS, TCDC 18.510.080.A. states in order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0040) pertaining to wetlands,all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard"Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map"are protected.No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland,except as allowed/approved pursuant to TCDC 18.510.100;and WHEREAS,TCDC 18.510.100 Plan Amendment Option,provides that any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safe harbor (1) protection of significant wetlands and/or(2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek,Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure.This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property,but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit,which must be addressed separately through an alternatives analysis, as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." The applicant must demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following; WHEREAS,TCDC 18.5 10.1 OO.B further provides that the applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by an environmental, social, economic and energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040;and WHEREAS,the applicant prepared an ESEE analysis (Exhibit C) prepared in accordance with OAR 60-23- 040,to justify removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.134 acres of significant wetlands and associated buffers on the subject property;and WHEREAS,on November 29,2021,the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing,which was noticed in accordance with city, standards and recommended approval of the proposed CPA2021-00004/SLR2021- 00010 by a vote of six in favor and one abstention;and WHEREAS,on January 4,2022,the Tigard City Council held a public hearing,which was noticed in accordance with city standards, to consider the Commission's recommendation on CPA2021-00004/SLR2021-00010, to hear public testimony,and apply applicable decision-malting criteria;and WHEREAS, Council's decision to approve CPA2021-00004/SLR2021-00010 and adopt this ordinance was based on the findings and conclusions found in Exhibit `B"and the associated land use record which is incorporated herein by reference and is contained in land use file CPA2021-00004/SLR2021-00010. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Sensitive Lands Review (CPA2021-00004 and SLR2021-00010) is hereby approved. ORDINANCE No.22- Page 1 SECTION 2: The attached findings (Exhibit B) are hereby adopted in explanation of the Council's decision. SECTION 3: The ESEE analysis (Exhibit C) shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan,and the"Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map"shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory,as approved. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,this day of 2022. Carol A.Krager,City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 2022. Jason B. Snider,Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 22- Page 2 EXHIBIT B PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO a CITY COUNCIL J FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = NA SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: UNIVERSAL PLAZA CASE NO.: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) CPA2021-00004 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) SLR2021-00010 REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes to construct Universal Plaza and a connecting multi-use path from the Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail. The Plaza is designed to function as a community public space that will include an interactive water feature, outdoor recreation areas, swings, restrooms, two outdoor event areas, an overhead canopy to provide shelter (Phase II),landscaping,lighting and stormwater facilities. The Plaza's proposed stormwater detention facility and a portion of its path system is located partially within the 50-foot buffer of Tigard Significant Wetlands. The proposed multi-use trail connection to the existing Fanno Creek Trail (FCT) passes through Fanno Creek Park and portions of restored vegetated corridor and Tigard Significant Wetlands related to the recent Clean Water Services re-meander of Fanno Creek. All of these improvements are also located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. With these impacts, the proposed project is subject to Sensitive Lands Review. In addition, a Type III-Modified Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required to approve the removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory and to remove 0.19 acres (8,139 square feet) of associated buffer to accommodate the proposed APPLICANT/ plaza elements and path within sensitive lands. OWNER: Sean Farrelly,Downtown Redevelopment Manager Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: 9100 SW Burnham St;WCTM 2S102AC00202, 203 &204 ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: PR and MU-CBD APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter: 18.120, 18.140, 18.420, 18.510, 18.710, 18.790, 18.910, and 18.920 CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 1 OF 17 SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the Comprehensive Plan, and Sensitive Lands Review as determined through the public hearing process subject to certain conditions of approval. The finding and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section VI of this decision. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORK: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the PLANNING DIVISION,ATTN: Monica Bilodeau (503)718-2427 ori -or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to commencing any site work, the project arborist must perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 2. The project arborist must perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non- compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION,ATTN:Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer, (971) 713-0281 or TeremyTkti�d or.gov.The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 3. Improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities including street and right-of- way dedication,utilities,grading,water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections and must be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards: • City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards • Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards • Tigard Community Development Codes,Municipal Codes • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (I VF&R) Fire Codes • Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines 4. Improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities including street and right-of- way dedication,utilities,grading,water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connection for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer's review, modification, and approval. 5. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater (water quality and quantity facilities) and any other CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 2 OF 17 work in the public right-of-way. Four(4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineedag cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street,street grading,utilities, stormwater yugtt and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction,an Engin eeri cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.tigard-or.gov). 6. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking must be provided onsite. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and must include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 7. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected,conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. 8. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. 9. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit an erosion control plan as part of the PFI Permit. The plan must conform to the"CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual" (current edition). 10. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a final grading plan showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage and show that the site will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Division. The design engineer must indicate, on the grading plan, areas with natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION,ATTN:Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer, (971) 713-0281 or Jeremylktigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 3 OF 17 11. Prior to final inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities must be constructed,completed and/or satisfied. 12. Prior to final inspection,the applicant must record all public utility easements with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. 13. Prior to final inspection, the applicant must provide Autocad files and pdf files of the as-built drawings. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The location of the proposed plaza on Tax Lot 202 west of Burnham Street and north of Ash Street currently consists of a paved lot and grassy area in the footprint of the recently demolished commercial building,with a fringe of vegetation along the southern edge of the lot. The total plaza site area is 1.20 acres and was previously fully developed with 90 percent impervious groundcover (asphalt parking and building roof). The western half of the site currently sheet flows over asphalt parking directly to the wetland. Adjacent land uses include Burnham Street to the east, B&B Printing to the south, and Stevens Marine to the north, and Fanno Creek Park to the west (Tax Lots 203 and 204) Within the Fanno Creek Park portion of the project area, a total of 1.38 acres of emergent wetland and 0.36 acres of Fanno Creek are present. Stream and wetland restoration occurred within this open space during 2018, as part of CWS's stream realignment project. All previously identified vegetated corridors associated with the stream realignment project were recently planted with native species. Shrub and tree species are becoming established and are on a trajectory to meeting CWS's goal of establishing a riparian corridor of native vegetation. The proposed path will connect the plaza with the FCT,which is the main north-south walking and cycling route in south Washington County, and is the parallel walking and cycling route to Interstate 5 and OR 217. The FCT is identified as a Regional Trail in Metro's Regional Transportation Plan Regional Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks. The FCT was recently improved with the CWS re-meander project including a new bridge near where the path is proposed to connect within the unimproved right-of-way for Ash Street within Fanno Creek Park. Proposed Recluest The City of Tigard proposes to construct Universal Plaza and a connecting multi-use path from the Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail. The Plaza is designed to function as a community public space that will include an interactive water feature, outdoor recreation areas, swings, restrooms, two outdoor event areas, an overhead canopy to provide shelter (Phase II),landscaping,lighting and stormwater facilities. The Plaza's proposed stormwater detention facility and a portion of its path system is located partially within the 50-foot buffer of Tigard Significant Wetlands. The proposed multi-use trail connection to the existing Fanno Creek Trail (FCT) passes through Fanno Creek Park and portions of restored vegetated corridor and Tigard Significant Wetlands related to the recent CWS re-meander of Fanno Creek. All of these improvements are also located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. A comprehensive plan amendment is requested to remove Goal 5 protection from a combined total of 0.194 acres of locally significant wetlands and City regulated vegetated corridors. The amendment is supported by an environmental, social, economic, and energy (ESEE) analysis (Attachment 2). This comprehensive plan change will allow for the construction of the plaza and path that would otherwise be prohibited from construction by the location of existing locally significant wetland. The breakdown of impacts to significant resources is outlined in the following table. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 4 OF 17 Regulated City Resource Total Proposed Areas (sq ft/acres) Mitigation Locally Significant Wetland Permanent Impacts 159/0.004 Purchase through wetland Nfitigation bank credits Temporary Impacts 1,352/0.03 Restoration planting in place required. Vegetated Corridors Onsite removal of existing Permanent Impacts 8,139/0.19 asphalt and restoring to vegetated corridor and use of CWS mi ' tion credit. Temporary Impacts 6,424/0.15 Restoration and planting in lace required. The path is critical infrastructure and will serve a dual purpose of fulfilling both public transportation and recreational facility needs. Additionally, the new path section will provide for controlled access to areas it passes through, thereby reducing the introduction and use of rogue paths,which are common along several sections of the proposed path route. Project related planting efforts are also intended to reinforce planned and ongoing restoration efforts and help protect the wetland resources. A separate Type II Downtown Development Review application will address the Universal Plaza improvements located outside of sensitive lands. SECTION IV. NOTICE AND COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES The city sent notice of a Public Hearing to interested parties and posted the request on the city's website on November 2, 2021. No comments were received before publishing this staff report. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The following summarizes the review criteria applicable to this decision,in the order in which they are addressed: Applicable Review Criteria 18.120 Commercial Zones 18.140 Park and Recreation Zones 18.510 Sensitive Lands 18.420 Landscaping and Screening 18.790 Text and Map Amendments 18.910 Improvement Standards SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The following subsections address only the approval criteria applicable to this decision. 18.120 COMMERCIAL ZONES 18.130.020 List of Base Zones MU-CBD: Commercial Business District CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 5 OF 17 The proposed plaza,located on property zoned MU-CBD,is classified as a Community Services use, an allowed use per Table 18.120.1, Commercial Zone Use Standards. Other provisions of this chapter are not applicable because the proposed project does not include the development types regulated or are otherwise addressed in the Downtown Plan District,Chapter 18.650, subject to review under a separate DDR application. 18.140 PARKS AND RECREATION ZONE 18.140.030 Other Zoning Regulations The regulations within this chapter state the allowed uses and development standards for the base zone. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations as provided elsewhere in this title. The proposed trail, listed as "Transportation/Utility Corridor"under Other Use Categories,is allowed conditionally in the Parks and Recreation Zone per Table 18.140.1. However, footnote number five states multi-use trails are allowed. No base zone development standards apply. 18.510 SENSITIVE LANDS 18.510.040 General Provisions for Special Flood Hazard Areas A portion of the plaza site containing the stormwater facility and the path are located in the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area,however,proposed path improvements are not structures as defined by this code section and, as such,this section is not applicable. 18.510.070 Sensitive Lands Applications. B.Within a special flood hazard area. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; 2. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the special flood hazard area storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments,including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; As shown on Exhibit C of the No Net Rise Memorandum,KPFF,July 12,2021, the proposed plaza and path are not located within the floodway of Fanno Creek but are located within the floodplain fringe. This standard does not apply. 3. Land form alterations or developments within the special flood hazard area shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map,except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses,utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the community development code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; Improvements within the special flood hazard area for the plaza and path are proposed in areas zoned commercial Mixed Use Central Business District (MU-CBD) and Parks and Recreation (PR).The proposed landform alterations are allowed in the commercially zoned areas.Multi-use trails are categorically allowed in the PR zone (per Table 18.140.1 Parks and Recreation Zone Use Standards). This standard is met. 4. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the special flood hazard area it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 6 OF 17 As demonstrated in the No Net Rise Memorandum,KPFF,July 12, 2021, "The site improvements located within the floodplain were designed to provide a no-net-rise in earthwork/volume within the designated Special Flood Hazard Area. A cut and fill exercise was completed to determine the final impacts, see attached Exhibit D "Floodplain Grading". The overall earthwork balance for the Plaza and Path projects results in a net cut of 80 cubic yards (CY). Cut and fill elevations and volume were determined from existing surface to top of finished grade surface. Earthwork volume affected by pavement sections, topsoil stripping,utility trenching, etc. are not included in this approximation. 220 CY, CUT (Plaza) —75 CY,FILL (Boardwalk Path) —65 CY,FILL(Asphalt Path) = 80 CY, CUT As seen in the attached exhibits and stated above, construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area consists of net excavation,creating a surplus of cut which will not negatively impact the volume or storage capacity of the Special Flood Hazard Area." As explained in the analysis above,the proposed development will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the Special Flood Hazard Area.This standard is met. 5. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the hearings officer as untimely; The path is not identified in the City's 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) because at the time it was last amended in 2017 the plaza site had not yet been secured.This standard does not apply. 6. Pedestrian/bicycle pathway projects within the special flood hazard area shall include a wildlife habitat assessment that shows the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community's recreation and environmental educational goals; According to the Natural Resources Assessment,PHS,Updated August 23,2021,PHS completed a wildlife habitat assessment for the proposed new path section located within the special flood hazard area of Fanno Creek that concludes, on page 6, that"no measurable decrease in available habitat is anticipated." The proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community's recreation and environmental educational goals. These standards are met. 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board,Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained;and The proposed project will encroach within the special flood hazard area and within Tigard Significant Wetlands. Therefore,a Joint Permit Application for proposed impacts to wetlands will be submitted by PHS to both Oregon Department of State Lands and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Conditions will be imposed to ensure compliance with CWS's stormwater connection permit and Service Provider Letter.This standard is met. 8. Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the special flood hazard area, the city shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the special flood hazard area in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the special flood hazard area in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 7 OF 17 Portions of the proposed Universal Plaza will be allowed within and adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area, the area is also adjacent to Fanno Creek Park, which already consists of sufficient dedicated open land area within and adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area is where the construction of the pedestrian/bicycle pathway from the FCT to the plaza is proposed. The path was not identified in the adopted Transportation System Plan or Greenways Trail System Master Plans as both plans predated acquisition of the plaza site and the resulting need for the path connection.As designed, and shown in Exhibit D of the No Net Rise Memorandum, the path alignment is of a suitable elevation (144 feet to 148 feet elevation) for the construction of the pathway within the Special Flood Hazard Area.This standard is met. E.Within wetlands. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; 2. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the comprehensive plan special flood hazard area and wetland map nor is within the vegetative corridor as provided in "Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths" and "Appendix C:Natural Resources Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards," for such a wetland; Portions of the proposed land-form alterations and development are located partially within Tigard Significant Wetlands (path) and its associated 50-foot vegetated corridor buffer (paths and stormwater facility). These impacts will be addressed as required by Section 18.510.100 Plan Amendment Option. This standard is met. 3. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; Land form alterations have been limited to the minimum area required for construction of the plaza elements within sensitive lands as shown in the Natural Resource Assessment's (NRA) Stormwater Basin Map Options (Option 2A proposed), which reduced the stormwater facility footprint to 1,600 square feet within the buffer. The proposed connecting path has been designed to be both functional and safe for use as a multi-use path accommodating both pedestrians and bicycles. This includes minimizing the width of the at-grade segment to 10 feet (from 12 feet) and limiting the boardwalk segment to 12 feet,which also functions as an overlook for the Creek. With these permanent encroachments and the temporary construction access encroachments shown on Figure 4 of the NRA, the extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration and development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use.This standard is met. 4. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage that would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; As show in Figure 4A of the NRA,permanent wetland impacts from a portion of the elevated boardwalk (456 square feet,0.01 ac),will be mitigated through the purchase of wetland credits from one of the two wetland mitigation banks with service areas that encompass the Tigard area.This standard is met. 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development,erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in compliance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards"; Compliance with the erosion control provisions of the Washington County's Surface Water Management program and replanting of disturbed areas will be ensured through conditions of approval implementing the conditions of CWS's stormwater connection permit and Service Provider Letter. As conditioned,this criterion is met. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 8 OF 17 6. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; All other sensitive lands requirements have been met, as detailed through findings to the applicable standards in Section 18.510.This standard is met. 7. The necessary U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board,Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals must be obtained; The proposed project will encroach within the Special Flood Hazard Area and within Tigard Significant Wetlands. Therefore, a Joint Permit Application for proposed impacts to wetlands will be submitted by PHS to both Oregon Department of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . Conditions will be imposed to ensure compliance with CWS's stormwater connection permit and Service Provider Letter.This standard is met. 8. Physical limitations and natural hazards, special flood hazard area and wetlands,natural areas, and parks, recreation and open space policies of the comprehensive plan have been met All of the elements,resource areas, and policies referenced above have been addressed through findings for the Tigard Development Code's implementing standards within this application. This standard is met. 18.510.080 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek A. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0030) pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map" are protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland, except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.510.100. The subject property includes locally significant wetlands that are identified as locally significant wetlands on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Stream Corridors" map and are, therefore, protected. A wetland delineation for the CWS Fanno Creek re-meander project and an additional delineation by Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. established the wetland boundary as shown on the project site plans. Proposed impacts to significant wetlands are addressed below in compliance with Section 18.510.100.B. The applicant has applied for the Plan Amendment Option in Section 18.775.130 to remove Goal 5 protections from 0.194 acres of significant wetlands to allow the proposed trail. 18.510.100 Plan Amendment Option A. Comprehensive plan Amendment. Any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor (1) protection of significant wetlands and/or (2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed separately through an alternatives analysis, as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following: B. ESEE analysis. The applicant may prepare an environmental, social, economic and energy(ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040. The applicant has chosen to demonstrate the amendment is justified through an ESEE analysis, rather than a demonstration that the wetlands are not significant. An ESEE Analysis by PHS, Inc., dated September 29, 2021 prepared in accordance with OAR 60-23-040, provides CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 9 OF 17 justification for removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory and to remove 0.19 acres (8,139 square feet) of associated buffer, on the subject property. The analysis concludes that "limiting the conflicting use will result in the most beneficial consequence of the three protection scenarios for the City. A decision to limit the conflicting use will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting the conflicting use, but more importantly will allow benefits to be realized. There is a wealth of data available documenting the economic, social, and energy benefits that can be realized from an efficient trail system and a community space. It is true too, that although limiting the conflicting uses will impact the wetland, the relatively low functions and values of the wetland will be offset by the use of wetland mitigation credits from a local wetland mitigation bank." 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, considering both the impacts on the specific resource site and the comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area; The Site Specific ESEE Analysis in Section 4.0 considers the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing, limiting, and prohibiting the proposed conflicting use. In summary, limiting the conflicting use would adversely impact a small portion, 0.004 acres of Wetland E-6, from the City's Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map and 0.19 acres of the wetland buffer but would otherwise provide education and recreation benefits and help limit demand paths that could result in greater degradation of sensitive lands. As the location of the Universal Plaza site is unique in the city for its intended purpose, comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area is unwarranted.This standard is met. 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource; As described in the ESEE Analysis, Economic Consequences, Section 4.1,prohibiting the proposed conflicting use would avoid a relatively modest capital construction expenditure by the City for the costs of the trail section and for ongoing maintenance, but the economic benefit of optimizing the plaza extent and completing the connection with the Fanno Creek Trail (enhanced access, improved connectivity, maximum user benefit, economic benefits that can be attributed to the creation of the plaza as a community showpiece)will outweigh these relatively small costs. This standard is met. 3. In particular,ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning Area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use; The proposed plaza and path use cannot be located on buildable land on other sites within the Tigard Planning Area because other sites could not meet the specific needs of the Universal Plaza. The Universal Plaza site was acquired by the City for the purpose of providing a central downtown location for a civic urban park. The Plaza site was the culmination of a deliberate planning process with City Council review and approval. A public design development process resulted in the design of the proposed programmable portion of the Plaza. The design of the subject property's western edge to accommodate a stormwater facility adjacent to the Fanno Creek remeander site includes a portion of the vegetated corridor (VC) and is the subject of the alternatives analysis described in the NRA with the preferred alternative that minimizes encroachment into the VC to the maximum extent feasible. With the location of the Universal Plaza park established, providing access to the site with a connecting path to nearby FCT was an important addition to the City's growing pedestrian network within the urbanizing core of the city. The intent of the Fanno Creek Trail is to promote bicycle and pedestrian "off-street" alternatives for walking or commuting to commercial,residential and public areas in the Tigard area,including Universal Plaza.There are no development options for the new connecting path that will not disturb sensitive areas or VC within the available publicly owned land. The only alternative that avoids the wetland and VC is to require pedestrians to utilize existing sidewalks and streets on Ash Avenue and Burnahm Street, but this would not serve desire lines expected in the direction of the FCT or interest in exploring Fanno Creek Park and Fanno Creek itself. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 10 OF 17 Because of the adjacent proximity of the Plaza to Fanno Creek Park and its associated wetland resources, the importance of providing access for connectivity and access management control, and the function provided by the boardwalk for access to and appreciation of the resource, the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter. This standard is met. 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney, all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis; The ESEE Analysis was prepared by a qualified team consisting of a land use planner and environmental scientist qualified in their respective fields with experience compiling such analyses. The Project Team for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and ESEE Analysis includes Shawn Eisner, Project Manager and Natural Resource Specialist Planner with Pacific Habitat Services and John van Staveren, Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) and President of Pacific Habitat Services.This standard is met. 5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. On approval of this request, the ESEE analysis will be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map"will be amended to remove the sites from the inventory. 18.420 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.420.030 General Provisions A. All required trees must meet the city's Urban Forestry Manual (UFM) standards as follows: 1. Street trees must meet the street tree planting and maintenance standards in UFM Section 2 and street tree soil volume standards in UFM Section 12; 2. Parking lot trees must meet the parking lot tree canopy standards in UFM Section 13; and 3. All other trees must meet the tree canopy site plan requirements in UFM Section 10, Part 2. An Urban Forestry Plan was prepared/approved by Todd Prager, RCA#597, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board Certified Master Arborist with Teragan&Associates,Inc. The Plan is included in Attachment S. Section one and two above do not apply as this is a trail project. This standard is met. 18.420.040 Landscaping Standards A. Landscaping standards are provided in Table 18.420.1. Landscaping standards must be met as required by the applicable development standards chapter in 18.200 Residential Development Standards or 18.300 Nonresidential Development Standards. B. Landscaping or other areas used to meet the minimum landscape area standard must be provided on site and may be met by any combination of the following: 1. Landscaping,including parking lot landscaping, that meets the L-1 or L-2 landscaping standard; 2. Landscaping that meets the S-2, S-3, or S-4 screening standard as provided in Table 18.420.2 where required by the applicable development standards chapter; or 3. Other areas as specified by the applicable development standards chapter. There is no minimum landscape area standard for a trail use. These standards do not apply. 18.420.060 Tree Canopy Standards A. Site tree canopy standards,which are stated as a percentage of effective tree canopy cover for an entire site, are provided in UFM Section 10, Part 3, Subparts N and O. Parking lot tree canopy standards are CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 11 OF 17 provided below. The Project is considered non-residential development and a minimum 25 percent effective tree canopy cover is required for the overall development site.A Supplemental Arborist Report,dated September 23,2021 has been prepared for the path and plaza site by Todd Prager,RCA #597, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board Certified Master Arborist with Teragan&Associates,Inc. The Tree Preservation&Removal Site Plan (Sheet LU3.0) and Tree Canopy Plan (Sheet LU3.1) are included in the Report.As shown in the Report, 81 percent effective tree canopy is provided for the whole site,which meets the minimum 25 percent requirement.This standard is met. B. An urban forestry plan is required to demonstrate compliance with site and parking lot tree canopy standards and must meet the requirements of UFM Sections 10 through 13. An urban forestry plan must: 1. Be coordinated and approved by a project landscape architect or project arborist, i.e. a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor, except that land partitions may demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only; 2. Demonstrate compliance with UFM tree preservation and removal site plan standards; 3. Demonstrate compliance with UFM tree canopy and supplemental report standards and provide the minimum effective tree canopy cover; 4. Demonstrate compliance with parking lot tree canopy standards, where applicable, by providing the minimum effective tree canopy cover of 30 percent for all parking areas, including parking spaces and drive aisles. Only the percentage of tree canopy directly above parking areas may count toward meeting this standard; and 5. Include street trees where right-of-way improvements are required by Chapter 18.910, Improvement Standards. a. The minimum number of required street trees is determined by dividing the length in feet of the site's street frontage by 40 feet. When the result is a fraction, the minimum number of street trees is the nearest whole number. More than the minimum number of street trees may be required along the site's frontage depending upon the stature of trees chosen and the specific spacing standards for the chosen trees. b. Street trees must be planted within the right-of-way wherever practicable. Street trees may be planted a maximum of 6 feet from the right-of-way when planting within the right-of-way is not practicable as determined by the City Engineer. c. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that: i. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the subject site; and ii. The tree would be permitted as a street tree in compliance with UFM street tree planting and soil volume standards if it were newly planted. Tree protection fencing and other root protection measures are to be utilized. The disturbed areas adjoining the sides of the trail will be seeded to provide a safety corridor for good views and surveillance. The land managers of each parcel(CWS and Tigard) have long term restoration planting goals the site that will be restored using appropriate plant materials and spacing to support the various habitats as well as provide good visual access for safety. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 12 OF 17 Only one tree is proposed for removal, this tree is an 11-inch DBH columnar English oak (Quercus rabur`Fastigiata) that conflicts with proposed utilities and grading. The effective tree canopy cover is 81 percent of the overall development area.As conditioned these standards are met. 18.910 IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.910.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. A Preliminary Stormwater Report (dated September 27, 2021) for the Universal Plaza site has been prepared by KPFF and is submitted with the application.Due to the topography of the site and specific storm water management requirements,the stormwater runoff from the site is proposed to be collected and detained in the low area of the site (southwest). As a portion of the detention facility is within the 50-foot buffer of Tigard Significant Wetlands and within the floodplain,it is subject to sensitive lands review in this application. The site plan shows stormwater is separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system. Surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street. Surface water drainage patterns are shown on the development plan.This standard is met. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. The proposed Universal Plaza and boardwalk are on public land. The applicant proposes to connect a new 12-inch storm line through the neighboring property to the south in a new easement. Prior to final inspection,the applicant must record all public utility easements with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and the City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on Clean Water Services requirements. Culverts are not proposed or deemed necessary to accommodate an upstream drainage area. This standard is met. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 13 OF 17 A Preliminary Stormwater Report (dated September 27, 2021) for the Universal Plaza site has been prepared by KPFF and is submitted with the application. The site falls within the CWS jurisdiction and must meet Water Quality, Conveyance and Hydromodification requirements. The total site area is 1.20 acres and was previously fully developed with 90 percent impervious groundcover (asphalt parking and building roof).The western half of the site currently sheet flows over asphalt parking directly to the wetland. The proposed plaza development will significantly reduce impervious area on the site to about 43 percent impervious groundcover (concrete plaza and future canopy building roof). Because the project results in the permanent removal of more than 1,000 square feet of impervious surface,the treatment area is zero based on section 4.08 of CWS Design and Construction Standards. The project is required to meet hydromodification requirements for all new or modified impervious surface proposed;thus, a vegetated detention pond with flow control structure is proposed. In addition, the site plans and storm drainage report for the path indicate that the project proposes to utilize filter strips, include the existing Vegetated Corridor where necessary, as well as construct infiltration trenches along the side of the path to treat the run-off generated from the path. Run-off from the path surface will sheet flow to either the Vegetated Corridor or the infiltration trenches where it is paved asphalt on-grade.The boardwalk portion of the path, elevated over landscaped vegetated corridor and wetlands, is considered pervious and does not require stormwater drainage facilities. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Prior to final inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities must be constructed,completed and/or satisfied. Through the Conditions of Approval,this standard is met. 18.910.150 Installation Prerequisite A. Approval required. No public improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans have been approved by the city,permit fee paid, and permit issued. B. Permit fee. The permit fee is required to defray the cost and expenses incurred by the city for construction and other services in connection with the improvement. The permit fee shall be set by council resolution. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater (water quality and quantity facilities) and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater quality, and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streedi€;hts. and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 14 OF 17 Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.tigard-or.gov). Improvements associated with public infrastructures including street and right-of-way dedication,utilities,grading, water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections must be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards: • City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards • Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards • Tigard Community Development Codes,Municipal Codes • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) Fire Codes • Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking must be provided onsite. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and must include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. 18.910.170 Plan Check A. Submittal requirements.Work shall not begin until construction plans and construction estimates have been submitted and checked for adequacy and approved by the City Engineer in writing. The developer can obtain detailed information about submittal requirements from the City Engineer. B. Compliance.All such plans shall be prepared in compliance with requirements of the city. Improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities including street and right-of-way dedication,utilities,grading,water quality and quantity facility, streetlights,easements,easement locations, and utility connection for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer's review,modification, and approval. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. 18.910.190 City Inspection of Improvements Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the city. The city may require changes in typical sections and details if unusual conditions arising during construction warrant such changes in the public interest. Requirements for City Inspection will be coordinated during PFI Permitting. Prior to final inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities must be constructed,completed and/or satisfied. Prior to final inspection,the applicant must provide Autocad files and pdf files of the as-built drawings. Through the Conditions of Approval,this standard is met. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 15 OF 17 SECTION VI. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City Police Department reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The City Public Works Department was notified of the proposal and did not provide comment. SECTION VII. AGENCY COMMENTS Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife was notified of the proposal but provided no comment. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Division of State Lands, Washington County, and Metro were notified of the proposal but provided no comment. Clean Water Services issued a Service Provider Letter (CWS file 21-000530) for this proposal on September 15, 2021, and determined that this project will significantly impact the existing or potentially sensitive area(s) found near the site. The agency also submitted written comments, dated November 16, 2021, requesting a condition of approval that requires the applicant to obtain Storm Water Connection Permit Authorization.This request has been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The City of Tigard and CWS have an intergovernmental agreement stating that the City will ensure implementation of CWS Design and Construction Standards; therefore, this approval is conditioned to satisfy CWS requirements. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue was sent a copy of the applicant's proposal, and had no objections SECTION VIII_ STAFF ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION ANALYSIS: As shown in the analysis above, the applicant's ESEE analysis addresses the requirements of the Tigard Development Code, Chapter 18.510 Sensitive Lands. The subject property contains locally significant wetlands protected under Goal 5 safe harbor. The applicant has applied for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under a Type IV procedure. The application is based on a specific development of trail connection to Fanno Creek Trail. The applicant has demonstrated that such an amendment is justified by an ESEE analysis consistent with OAR 660-23-040. The ESEE analysis concludes that limiting the conflicting use to the proposed trails would result in the most positive consequences of the three decision options. A decision to limit the conflicting use will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting the conflicting uses. Through the application of site design and development standards to conflicting uses, the impacts on the significant wetland further can be minimized, and the remaining resource can be enhanced. There will be a relatively high level of economic, social, environmental and energy benefits achieved. Limiting the conflicting use offers the most benefit to the wetland (through controlled access and enhancement) and to the community (transportation corridor for all and education opportunities), and it strikes a balance between conflicting uses and regional transportation goals. CONCLUSION Based on the findings and analysis, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code, Chapter 18.510 Sensitive Lands. Staff agrees with the conclusion of the applicant's ESEE Analysis and recommends removing 0.194 acres from the significant wetlands inventory for public trail connection purposes. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 16 OF 17 RECOMMENDATION As demonstrated by the findings above, the Planning Commission by a vote of six in favor and one abstention found that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Sensitive Lands Review complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, applicable regional, state and federal regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances and can be approved subject to certain conditions of approval detailed in Section lI. Therefore,the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt by ordinance the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, thereby removing 0.194 acres from the significant wetlands inventory described in the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map"through the public hearing process. Attachments: Attachment 1: Site Maps Attachment 2:Applicant's ESEE Analysis Attachment 3: City of Tigard Engineering Department,Memorandum dated GA' ,� December 22, 2021 PREPARED BY: Monica Bilodeau Associate Planner �- 9 ` December 22,2021 APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire Assistant Community Development Director CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 17 OF 17 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Consequences Analysis (ESEE) Universal Plaza and Trail Connecting the Universal Plaza with the Fanno Creek Trail in Tigard, Oregon Prepared for City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Prepared by John van Staveren, SPWS Shawn Eisner Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 570-0800 (503)570-0855 FAX PHS Project Number: 7145 December 3,2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 1.1 ESEE Analysis Requirements................................................................................2 1.2 Existing Local Protections......................................................................................3 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS..................................................................................................4 3.0 SIGNIFICANT WETLAND AND BUFFER IMPACTS............................................4 3.1 Significant Wetlands..............................................................................................4 3.2 Buffers....................................................................................................................5 3.3 Descriptions of the Conflicting Use.......................................................................6 4.0 SITE SPECIFIC ESEE ANALYSIS.............................................................................7 4.1 Economic Consequences........................................................................................8 4.2 Social Consequences............................................................................................10 4.3 Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................11 4.4 Energy Consequences...........................................................................................13 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................14 5.1 Decision................................................................................................................15 APPENDIX A: Figures 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard(City)proposes to construct the Universal Plaza and a connecting multi-use path from the Universal Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail. The Universal Plaza, which is proposed for development at 9100 SW Burnham Street is designed to function as a community public space that will feature interactive and engaging experiences both onsite and virtually, and will include events, gatherings, art installations, and other community focused activities. The project will include an interactive water feature, outdoor recreation areas, swings, restrooms,two outdoor event areas, an overhead canopy to provide shelter, landscaping, lighting, and stormwater facilities. The connecting trail includes both at-grade and boardwalk components and will be 10-feet wide. It will connect with the Fanno Creek Trail, which is a regional multi-use path that will eventually connect the West Hills of Portland, at the headwaters of Fanno Creek, to the Tualatin River at Durham. It is a regional trail in Metro's Regional Transportation Plan Regional Pedestrian and Bicycle Network'. The proposed trail connection and a portion of the Universal Plaza will require construction within one Locally Significant Wetland(LSW) as well as buffers associated with the significant wetland adjacent to Fanno Creek(Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources).As construction within these features is not allowed without an approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the City is pursuing an amendment to remove 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory2 and to remove 0.13 acres (5,755 square feet) of associated buffer.These actions will remove the land from sensitive lands protections as provided by Tigard Development Code(TDC) 18.510.100. The following table itemizes the permanent impacts to sensitive lands that will be required for implementation of the project. Trail Universal Total Resource/Impacts (sq ftlac) Plaza (sq f ac) (sq ft/ac) Locally Significant Wetland Permanent Impacts 159/0.004 0.0/0.0 159/0.004 Goal 5 Buffers Permanent Impacts 1,836/0.04 3,919/0.09 5,755/0.13 Impacts to the significant wetland and its buffer will be required from trail construction and from grading for the Universal Plaza and its stormwater facility. Of the total 0.13 acres (5,755 square feet) of buffer, 0.06 acres (2,754 square feet) are already impacted by the previous development of 9100 SW Burnham Street. As such,approximately half of the total impact to buffers is to developed surfaces. The encroachments to both wetlands and buffers have been minimized to the extent practicable. Mature native trees have been avoided and the trail has been aligned to keep out of a larger portion of the significant wetland adjacent to Fanno Creek. By necessity,the path must cross sensitive areas in order to connect the Universal Plaza with the Fanno Creek Trail. In fact, the 12014 Regional Active Transportation Plan(Metro,2014) 2 City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Assessment(Fishman Environmental Services, 1994) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 1 trail section cannot be constructed if avoidance of sensitive areas were required; the only other pedestrian or bicycle options to connect the Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail currently exists in the form of public sidewalks or street routes along Burnham Street and Ash Street that are indirect and could pose issues for people with limited disabilities. The proposed route is the most straightforward route that could be identified for the path alignment on publicly owned property. The path is designed to control access through the resource area of expected desire lines for those Universal Plaza visitors interested in seeing Fanno Creek, experiencing Fanno Creek Park, and using the trail to access the Fanno Creek Trail. Likewise, the full extent of the Universal Plaza cannot be utilized without developing the portion that will impact a small amount of wetland and buffers. As described in the Plan Amendment Option section(TDC 18.5 10.100), the Code allows applicants to impact significant wetlands and City-regulated buffers if the amendment is justified under one of two options. The first option is to conduct an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy(ESEE) analysis that considers the consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use. The second option,which is specific to wetlands only, is to demonstrate the wetland's "insignificance."Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. (PHS)reviewed the significance thresholds included in the City of Tigard's Local Wetlands Inventory3 and determined that the quality of the wetland adjacent to Fanno Creek warrants its significance designation. As such, the Applicant is submitting an ESEE analysis in accordance with the necessary comprehensive plan map amendment via a Type-III procedure. This report is the ESEE analysis that examines the consequences of potential alternatives regarding a conflicting use impacting previously documented and protected significant lands in Tigard. This ESEE analysis has been prepared in accordance with applicable provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Goal 5) and the Goal 5 Rule(OAR Chapter 660, Division 023). 1.1 ESEE Analysis Requirements The analysis is based on the targeted removal of a small portion of one locally significant wetland(Significant Wetland E-6) and its adjacent buffer, which extends 50-feet from the edge of the delineated wetland. A portion of the buffer was recently revegeted. The Goal 5 ESEE analysis involves evaluating the trade-offs associated with different levels of natural resource protection. As required by the Goal 5 rule,the evaluation process involves identifying the consequences of allowing, limiting, or prohibiting conflicting uses in areas containing significant natural resources. Specifically, the rule requires the following steps: • Identify conflicting uses—A conflicting use is "any current or potentially allowed land use or other activity reasonably and customarily subject to land use regulations that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource." [OAR 660-023-0010(1)] • Determine impact area—The impact area represents the extent to which land uses or activities in areas adjacent to natural resources could negatively impact those resources. The impact area identifies the geographic limits within which to conduct the ESEE analysis. • Analyze the ESEE consequences—The ESEE analysis considers the consequences ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 2 of a decision to either fully protect natural resources; fully allow conflicting uses; or limit the conflicting uses. The analysis looks at the consequences of these options for both development and natural resources. • Develop a program—The results of the ESEE analysis are used to generate recommendations or an"ESEE decision." The ESEE decision sets the direction for how and under what circumstances the local program will protect significant natural resources. 1.2 Existing Local Protections The Universal Plaza will be constructed on property that is zoned Mixed Use Central Business District(MU-CBD),which is classified as a Community Services use, an allowed use per Table 18.120.1, Commercial Zone Use Standards. The proposed trail is located partially within a designated Parks and Recreation Zone (PR) and partially within the MU-CBD zone. Table 18.140.1 Parks and Recreation Zone Use Standards identifies "Transportation/Utility Corridors" as a Conditional Use, but further clarifies under Note S that multi-use paths are allowed uses. Section 18.140.040.B Allowed development affirms that when associated with a Community Service use, certain types of developments, such as multi-use trails, are allowed without site development review provided they comply with the development standards and other regulations of the TDC. Each zone classification defines permitted and prohibited uses, as well as development standards including setbacks and building height restrictions. Sites with overlay zones,plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Conditional uses are subject to a Type-III review, and development in or near sensitive lands trigger review under the City's Sensitive Lands chapter(18.500). Sensitive lands are defined as lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: • The 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater. • Natural drainageways. • Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of State Lands or are designated as significant wetland on the City of Tigard"Wetland and Stream Corridors Map". • Steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground; and • Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of Tigard "Significant Habitat Areas Map." The Sensitive Lands chapter outlines the permitted and regulated activities and uses within sensitive lands, as well as defines the review and approval processes for development considerations based on the type and intensity of the impact. The chapter further outlines processes for requests for variances or plan amendments. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 3 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The Universal Plaza(Tax Lot 202)currently consists of a paved lot,with a fringe of vegetation along the southern edge of the lot. The connecting trail is proposed on adjacent open space (Tax Lots 203 and 204)to the south of the Universal Plaza. Within the open space, a total of 1.38 acres of emergent wetland and 0.36 acres of Fanno Creek are present. Dominant species within the wetland include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), hardhack(Spiraea douglasii), soft rush(Juncus effusus), and grasses, such as tall fescue(Schedonorus arundinaceus) and bluegrass (Poa sp.). Stream and wetland restoration occurred within this open space during 2018, as part of Clean Water Services stream realignment project (CWS file number: 18-000570). To the north of the wetland is a buffer, which was revegetated with native species. There are two vegetated corridor plant communities within the project area that are regulated by Clean Water Services (Figure 3). Plant Community A(23,014 square feet/0.53 acres) consists of the area within 50 feet of Wetland A. This community was impacted in 2018, and subsequently restored,by CWS as part of their stream realignment project. Plant Community B (17,987 square feet/0.41 acres) consists of an area previously set aside as"Advanced Mitigation Credit"for the City of Tigard's use on City projects. Both of these plant communities consist of recently restored or previous vegetation corridor mitigation areas, which have been approved by CWS. 3.0 SIGNIFICANT WETLAND AND BUFFER IMPACTS 3.1 Significant Wetland In 1994, the City of Tigard contracted with Fishman Environmental Services (FES)to prepare its Local Wetland Inventory(LWI). Expanding upon a wetlands inventory previously completed by another firma,FES developed an approach for completing the Goal 5 inventory and conducting the ESEE analyses that identified stream corridor segments as resource units. The study was completed in 1994 and approved by DSL in 1997. It is the basis for the adopted"Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map". The significant wetland proposed for impact by the proposed path includes a small portion of E- 6. Wetland E-6 is mapped surrounding Fanno Creek. When the inventory was conducted,the reach of Fanno Creek within the project was straight. Two years ago, CWS meandered the creek to a more natural alignment. Although a wetland delineation was conducted at that time,the hydrology of the project area has changed, and a new wetland delineation was required. Figure 2 shows the results of the updated wetland delineation,which will be submitted to the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) for review and approval. Within the project area is 1.38 acres of Wetland E-6. Although recently planted with trees and shrubs by CWS, the wetland is dominated by herbaceous vegetation and the Cowardin classification is palustrine emergent, seasonally saturated(PEMY). Some Oregon ash(Fraxinus a Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard,Oregon(Scientific Resources,Inc., 1989) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 4 latifolia) is present within the wetland, along with spirea,reed canarygrass, tall fescue, and soft rush. The hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification is Slope. The proposed limits of removal of the 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland is immediately south of the Universal Plaza. The proposed trail leaves the Plaza at its southeast corner, where it has no option but to enter wetland. It is then aligned to minimize the impact to the wetland by bending the trail to the southeast, so that its alignment is primarily through the buffer. Footings to support the boardwalk portion of the trail will unavoidably impact 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of Wetland E-6. In comparing the LWI mapping with the recent wetland delineation, the portion of the wetland that is proposed to be removed is close to but did not appear to be present(or at least inventoried)when the LWI report was completed. The change in wetland boundaries could be due to several factors considering the length of time between the studies and the disturbance that has occurred to the property in the last several years. Table 1 below provides summary data from the Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory of the quality (functions) for E-6. Table 1 Functions of focally significant wetland proposed for impact d as • -- 3 x x a •� 3 a �,� d � Q E-5 1.38 H H H L H H H f H H H=High FM=Moderate L=Low NA=Not assessed The conflicting area is 0.004 acres of significant wetland(E-6). Although in the LWI the wetland as a whole was attributed a number of high designations for several functions,the small section of wetland that will be impacted within and immediately adjacent to the Universal Plaza is of lower quality. Wildlife habitat is impaired due to the close proximity of an adjacent parking lot. Water quality and hydrologic control functions generally implies a wetland with topographic relief that is able to store water and prolong contact time with vegetation. The area of conflicting use is flat, and although vegetated with grasses,will not temporarily detain or slow the flow of water to any appreciable extent. As such, although the wetland is technically locally significant, in reality, its functions are generally low and will be offset through the purchase of credits from a local wetland mitigation bank. 3.2 Buffers Due to the proximity to Fanno Creek and the adjacent locally significant wetland,the project area includes an area of City regulated buffers. The regulated limits of this resource area are identified on the attached graphics but are the same as the location of buffers regulated by CWS. Although there are differences between the two jurisdictions (e.g.,non-significant wetlands do not include buffers at the City level and CWS only requires corridors 25 feet wide adjoining wetlands less than one-half acre in size),there is no difference within the ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 5 project area, and a 50-foot corridor is required by both the City and CWS. That said, of the total 0.13 acres (5,755 square feet) of buffer proposed for impact, 0.06 acres (2,754 square feet) are already impacted(i.e.,paved)by the previous development of 9100 SW Burnham Street,with only 3,001 square feet(0.07 acres) of undeveloped area. Mitigation for the encroachment to vegetated corridor will include deduction from the City of Tigard's Advanced Mitigation Vegetated Corridor Credit area which is located onsite. As stated previously, the trail encroachments have been minimized to the extent practicable and it could not be constructed if avoidance of wetland and its buffer is required. The only other pedestrian or bicycle options to connect the Universal Plaza to the Fanno Creek Trail are on public sidewalks or street routes along Burnham Street and Ash Street, which are indirect and may not be easily accessible to people with limited mobility. The proposed route is the most straightforward route that could be identified on publicly owned property. The 0.09 acres (3,919 square feet)of impact to the buffer within the Universal Plaza property is from the proposed stormwater facility and grading to support the Universal Plaza, including enhancement of the buffer on either side of the trail in the southern portion of the Plaza by removing existing pavement followed by plantings. As with the trail,the encroachment has been minimized to the extent practicable. Due to the topography of the site and specific stormwater management requirements, the stormwater runoff from the site is proposed to be collected and detained in the low area of the site (southwest). This area also happens to be within the updated buffer boundary. 3.3 Description of the Conflicting Use An important step in the ESEE analysis is identifying conflicting uses that"exist or could occur" within regionally significant resource areas and identified in the impact area. The Goal 5 Rule (OAR 660-023-0010) defines conflicting uses as follows: (1) "Conflicting use"is a land use, or other activity reasonably and customarily subject to land use regulations, that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource(except as provided in OAR 660-023-0180(l)(b)). Local governments are not required to regard agricultural practices as conflicting uses. The Goal 5 Administrative Rule(OAR 660-023-0040) describes how conflicting uses are identified: (2) Identify conflicting uses. Local governments shall identify conflicting uses that exist, or could occur, with regard to significant Goal 5 resource sites. To identify these uses, local governments shall examine land uses allowed outright or conditionally within the zones applied to the resource site and in its impact area.Local governments are not required to consider allowed uses that would be unlikely to occur in the impact area because existing permanent uses occupy the site. The following shall also apply in the identification of conflicting uses: A) If no uses conflict with a significant resource site, acknowledged policies and land use regulations may be considered sufficient to protect the resource site. The determination that there are no conflicting uses must be based on the applicable zoning rather than ownership of the site. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 6 (Therefore,public ownership of a site does not by itself support a conclusion that there are no conflicting uses) B) A local government may determine that one or more significant Goal 5 resource sites are conflicting uses with another significant resource site. The local government shall determine the level of protection for each significant site using the ESEE process and/or the requirements in OAR 660-023-0090 through 660-023-0230(see OAR 660-023-0020(1)). The conflicting uses identified in this report are the construction of the trail and the Universal Plaza. The impacts are unavoidable if a section of trail is to connect Universal Plaza with Fanno Creek Trail. With the location of the park established,providing access to the site with a connecting path to nearby Fanno Creek Trail was an important addition to the City's growing pedestrian network within the urbanizing core of the city. The intent of the Fanno Creek Trail is to promote bicycle and pedestrian"off-street" alternatives for walking or commuting to commercial, residential and public areas in the Tigard area, including Universal Plaza. There are no development options for the new connecting path that will not disturb sensitive areas or VC. The only alternative that avoids VCs is to require pedestrians to utilize existing sidewalks and streets, but this would not serve desire lines expected in the direction of the Fanno Creek Trail or interest in exploring Fanno Creek Park. The trail connects to the Fanno Creek Trail, which is part of a regional multi-use path envisioned for connecting the West Hills of Portland, at the headwaters of Fanno Creek,to the Tualatin River at Durham. In addition to being a project of local concern, Metro's 2018 Regional Transportation Plan identifies existing and planned sections of the Fanno Creek Trail as a Bicycle Parkway on the Regional Bike Network Map and as a Pedestrian Parkway on the Regional Pedestrian Network map. The section leading to the Universal Plaza will add an important connection The Universal Plaza will provide a unique community gathering space within the City. For it to comply with CWS' stormwater treatment and detention standards,plus though of the National Marine Fisheries Service, a facility must be constructed within the southern part of the property. This facility,plus grading to support the facility,plus the trail connection, can only occur within the significant resources. The 0.004 acres of significant wetland that will be removed from the City's Local Wetland Inventory,represents only a very small fraction of the total significant wetlands within the City. 4.0 SITE SPECIFIC ESEE ANALYSIS This section discusses the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy(ESEE) impacts to the relevant portions of the two subject wetlands for the following three alternative protection scenarios: • Prohibit conflicting uses providing full protection of the resource site. o The action to prohibit the conflicting use would prevent development actions that conflict with, or degrade, Significant Goal 5 Natural Resources. This scenario emphasizes resource protection. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 7 • Limit conflicting uses while offering limited protection of the resource site (balance development and conservation objectives). o The action to'limit conflicting uses'within the context of this ESEE Analysis is defined as allowing the limited impacts to the wetland and buffers sufficient to be able to construct a portion of the Universal Plaza and connect it with the Fanno Creek Trail. • Allow conflicting uses fully with no local protection for the resource site. o The action to allow conflicting uses is to allow the development of the full range of permissible uses noted in the underlying PR zone and MCT-CBD zone. The PR zone includes such amenities as playgrounds,picnic areas, shelters, structures, sport courts and fields and other related items. The NIU- CBD zone is designed to provide a pedestrian-friendly urban village in downtown Tigard. A wide variety of commercial, civic, employment, mixed- use, apartments, and rowhouses are allowed. 4.1 Economic Consequences The following describes the economic consequences for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflictin Uses fullprotection) It is highly likely that once the Universal Plaza is complete,users will enter the Plaza both from Burnham Street on its northern boundary and from the Fanno Creek Trail on its southern boundary. The economic consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses will likely result from several factors including increased maintenance costs due to demand trails being created by users walking through the buffer and wetland between the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza. The creation of demand trails will adversely impact the vegetation within the wetland and buffer, which will degrade its functions. The lack of connectivity between the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza would mean that it would not be open to bicyclists of every capability and would not be useable for those with mobility difficulties. The Universal Plaza was designed with community input and is intended to be a showpiece for revitalizing downtown Tigard. The Universal Plaza can be reduced in size if full protection is selected,but its size ensures the maximum user benefit,which is very important for the economy of downtown Tigard. The Gallup/Knight Foundation's three-year study called the Soul of the Community'found that community spaces that offered were a primary driver for community attachment,which shows a strong positive correlation between resident attachment local economic growth. The trail connection between the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza will add to the economic benefits that can be attributed to the creation of this community showpiece. a https://knightfoundation.org/sotc/pdf-documents/ ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 8 Numerous studies point to the economic benefits of trails. A study from New Yorks found that the public investment in building and maintaining trails do not outweigh the revenue they bring to a community. They noted that trails increase the value of nearby properties and boost spending at local businesses. Trails make communities more attractive places to live and, when considering where to move, home buyers rank walking and biking paths as one of the most important features of a new community. Trails can influence business location and relocation decisions because companies often choose to locate in communities that offer a high level of amenities to employees as a means of attracting and retaining top-level workers. Trails can make communities attractive to businesses looking to expand or relocate both because of the amenities they offer to employees and the opportunities they offer to cater to trail visitors. The creation of the Universal Plaza is expected to attract a large number of people,which can be directly linked to an increase in the City being an attractive location for businesses to move to. These benefits represent an economic return on the money invested in this section of trail. As such,prohibiting the conflicting use would avoid a relatively modest capital construction expenditure by the City for the costs of the trail section and for ongoing maintenance,but the economic benefit of completing the connection with the Fanno Creek Trail will outweigh these relatively small costs. Limit Contlictint! Uses limitedprotection) From an economic standpoint, limiting the conflicting use should have a net positive economic impact. This economic gain will result from users of the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza being able to freely travel back and forth. The economics of trail use have been well documented. Consumers have been documented to spend more on equipment(e.g. bicycles)necessary to use the trail. Metro cites a study from South Carolina, where a bike shop saw a 20% annual increase in sales resulting from the construction of a nearby trail. The connection between the trail and the Universal Plaza could generate more money spent by tourists. Numerous studies across the country have shown an increase in tourism in relation to trail use, including a$12 million annual increase in recreation dollars associated with trail use in Virginia. In the Portland area,bicycling tourism and activities generate$89 million in annual economic activity.6 The benefit of both experiences (trail use, and the interactive and community-gathering focus of the Universal Plaza) should provide a boon to local spending by a variety of users. Negative economic consequences associated with limiting the conflicting use include the annual costs of maintaining the trails and the initial costs of its construction,though short- term benefits are seen from increased construction-related employment. As stated above, community gathering spaces provide residents attachment to where they live, which leads to higher local gross domestic product(Soul of the Community study). s Greenways and Trails—Bringing economic benefits to New York(New York Parks and Conservation Association, July,2018) 6 2014 Regional Active Transportation Plan(Metro,2014) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 9 Limiting the conflicting use for the Universal Plaza will result in full build out of the Plaza and with it all of the economic gains that will result. Allow Conflicting Uses for local protection The economic consequences of allowing conflicting use for the trail construction are mostly negative. Allowing most of the permissible uses from the underlying PR zone would result in degraded wetland functions and values,require a capital expenditure for the City, on-going management, and related and required mitigation. The benefit of allowing the conflicting use is a short-term boost for construction and its related benefits,which would not be in balance with the required mitigation and ongoing costs of infrastructure maintenance. The economic consequences of allowing the uses for the MU-CBD zone are not likely to be negative for the City. It is assumed, that the City will choose to develop the same use as that proposed for the Universal Plaza, although many other development scenarios are possible in the MU-CBD zone.As such,the economic gains realized by allowing the limited conflicting use will all apply for allowing the conflicting use. 4.2 Social Consequences The following describes the social consequences (recreation, community involvement, health benefits, education, etc.) for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflicting Uses I full wotection Prohibiting the conflicting use would have local, if not regional social consequences. Prohibiting the conflicting use would potentially restrict access between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail. People with limited mobility would not be able to travel between both spaces. The Universal Plaza is a public gathering space that will be used throughout the year. Its benefit is based on the importance of areas where public discourse and social interaction can occur,which is essential for a healthy, functioning society. Public spaces, such as the Universal Plaza, and trails serve as meeting places and foster community involvement and pride and provide an opportunity for people of different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds to interact.' Maximizing the Universal Plaza and connecting it with the Fanno Creek Trail will ensure that passive recreation opportunities like bird watching or environmental learning would be unhindered and accessible for all. The value of trails from a social perspective is demonstrated by research that shows quality of life is an important factor in businesses and workers' location-choice decisions. This could also extend to the public gathering space that will be Universal Plaza. In Washington, knowledge-focused industries, such as technology companies,were found to prioritize quality of life when choosing where to locate and expand. Companies that want their location to reflect their corporate culture place a higher value on quality of life for their selected location. Companies see the social benefits of locating in close proximity to trails, such as The Social,Health,and Heritage Benefits of Trails(GoforGreen,2000) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 10 allowing their workers to exercise during breaks, and providing opportunities to experience the mental health benefits of being in nature, to socialize with co-workers, and even to commute via a trail. These would not be realized if the conflicting use were prohibited. Limit Conflictinc Uses (limited protection) The social consequences of limiting the conflicting uses in Wetland E-6 and adjacent buffers are positive. Limiting the conflicting uses will provide significant social benefits to all trail users, including those with limited mobility, and will ensure the Universal Plaza is as large and as effective as it can be. Both the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail provide multiple social benefits, as will the connecting trail. Those who will gain access to the Fanno Creek Trail from Universal Plaza will be accessing a travel corridor that will provide exercise, education, and social benefits from interacting in a public setting. It has been documented that people who live near trails walk on average 15 to 30 minutes more per day than those who live in neighborhoods with fewer trails or other ways to get around without a car. The Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza can provide opportunities for educational experiences as they can become outdoor classrooms. Having people outside and experiencing or learning about nature can create a society that is more likely to take the steps needed to protect our environment and ensure greater community interaction and an increased quality of life. Allow Conflicting Uses no local protection The social consequences of allowing the conflicting uses are mixed. The PR zoning would allow for the development of additional park amenities,but the amenities will likely not be in keeping with the social benefits that a trail provides. Allowing the conflicting use for the Universal Plaza is essentially the same as limiting the conflicting use, as we assume the City will choose to develop the property with the same use. 4.3 Environmental Consequences The following describes the consequences to water quality, hydrologic control,wildlife habitat (as well as other relevant factors)for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full protection) The environmental consequences of prohibiting the conflicting uses are mixed. The City's Development Code aims to protect significant wetlands by not allowing direct impacts to them,but indirect impacts will happen from trail users traversing the gap between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail. Trail users could create several trails, called demand trails, in locations where no defined trail exists. Limiting the users to a defined and controlled location will limit the area of impact. The wetland functions provided by E-6 were documented as mostly high,though the specific functions of the wetland where impacts are proposed are moderate to low. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 11 Prohibiting the conflicting use and reducing the area that can be impacted by the Universal Plaza will reduce the effectiveness of the uses the Plaza will provide. The connection that Universal Plaza users will have with Fanno Creek and its buffer has been shown to encourage people to think and act on their environment. The process of engaging a community in thinking about their environment is called Placemaking8. Placemaking is dedicated to encouraging and empowering the public to take ownership and positively contribute to their world beyond their homes. It has been called an essential element of environmentalism, though that word is used in the framework of people caring about their environment and does not mean anything radical. Prohibiting the conflicting use will reduce the effectiveness of both the plaza and the connecting trail in ways people can interact with and care for their environment. Limit Conflicting Uses(limited rotection Limiting the conflicting use to bridging the gap between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail and constructing a portion of the Universal Plaza will require approvals from Oregon's Removal-Fill Law,which is administered by the Oregon Department of State Lands(DSL) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which is administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Both the Corps and DSL require an alternatives analysis to demonstrate that impacting wetlands is unavoidable,but both require mitigation when avoidance is impracticable. Mitigating, which will likely be through the purchase of credits at a wetland mitigation bank, ensures there will be compensation for lost wetland functions and values. DSL requires that before a mitigation bank can be used to compensate for proposed impacts, a series of Principal Objectives for wetland mitigation must be met(OAR 141-085-0680(2)). These Principal Objectives include requirements such as ensuring the replacement of lost functions and values and providing local replacement of locally important functions and values. Wetland E-6 provides mainly moderate to lower quality functions and values. As such, it can be argued that limiting the conflicting use would allow for a higher quality mitigated wetland as compensation. Limiting the conflicting use will also allow impacts to the buffer, though greater than two-thirds of that impact are to areas that were already developed prior to the property being purchased by the City. It should be noted that although the trail will impact Wetland E-6,the impact results from the construction of a boardwalk through and above the wetland. This boardwalk will impact the wetland but will ensure that hydrologic connectivity within the wetland will remain. As such, limiting the conflicting use, at least in this area,will not result in complete loss of wetland function. Limiting the conflicting use will ensure the maximum benefit is derived from the Universal Plaza and its connecting trail, such that the benefits of Placemaking and its resulting environmental awareness will be fully realized. Allow Conflicting Uses for local protection The environmental consequences of allowing many of the permissible conflicting uses of the underlying PR zone is generally negative. Mitigation for impacting the wetlands will likely g haps://www.pps.org/article/happy-earth-day-reframing-the-environmental-movement ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 12 result in improved functions and values elsewhere, but the actual impacts to the wetland resulting from allowing the conflicting use would likely have indirect impacts to the wetland and the surrounding environment. Measures, such as boardwalk construction, would likely not be used to diminish the severity of the impacts. Allowing the conflicting use will likely result in the same impacts as limiting the conflicting use, as the City will choose to develop the open space as the Universal Plaza,which can be seen as the highest and best use of the property. 4.4 Energy Consequences The following describes the energy consequences (transportation connectivity, efficient urban development, etc.) for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflictin Uses full protection The energy consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses would likely be negative. The smaller footprint of the Universal Plaza and the lack of connecting trail may mean that fewer people use the Plaza. A connecting trail may ensure that some commuters can use the trail to travel from their home to their work or for social interactions. As stated previously, in 2005 it was estimated that trails in the Greater Portland area save $1.1 billion per year on gas and other auto-related expenses. Although the gap is small,the energy savings would not be realized without a connection between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail. Limit Conflicting Uses (limited protection) The energy consequences of limiting the conflicting use fully develop the Universal Plaza and to construct the trail would be positive. Creating a connection between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail will ensure people with disabilities will have access to the entire Fanno Creek Trail for commuting or travelling between communities,which can save energy costs. It has been estimated that over 18% of all trips are made by walking and by bicycle within the Portland area. The City's 2035 TSP describes how traffic congestion has consistently ranked as the number one issue facing Tigard in community attitude surveys and the city is committed to finding solutions to this issue. Multi-modal trails are being constructed all across the country to provide an alternative to gas-powered vehicular traffic. Allow Conflicting Uses no local rotection The energy consequences of allowing the conflicting uses in the PR zone is mixed. Allowing the conflicting uses in the PR zone will result in a complete trail, which has positive energy consequences,though could also result in the installation of recreational amenities, such as playgrounds, shelters, and structures. Maintaining these amenities over many years is not energy efficient. Allowing the conflicting use will likely result in the same consequences as limiting, as the City will likely choose to full develop the Universal Plaza. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 13 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS The following summarizes the anticipated impacts of the three alternatives related to the conflicting use: Prohibiting the conflicting use would avoid a relatively modest capital construction expenditure by the City for the costs of the boardwalk and from on-going maintenance of the trail. There would be a greater cost for maximizing the footprint of the Universal Plaza. It is likely,however,that prohibiting the conflicting use will result in degradation of the already lower quality wetland from trail users choosing to traverse the gap themselves and creating what are called demand trails. Although the gap will not be accessible to some commuters and for people with limited mobility, the wetland will be used by those still wanting to make the connections.Not maximizing the Universal Plaza will result in a loss of benefits that a trail and the Universal Plaza provide, including economic benefits (e.g.,revenue increase from trail connection, lower health care costs) and social(the community benefits from both the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail, the health and education benefits realized from trail use, etc.). Limiting the conflicting use will ensure that the benefits from both a regional trail and the Universal Plaza are accessible. There is a relatively large pool of data to document the economic, social, and energy benefits of trail use and community spaces, such as the Universal Plaza. From an economic perspective,both trails and community spaces can increase properly values, increase tourism, and entice companies, which create jobs,to relocate to areas that have these amenities. Trails can benefit physical and mental health, which can in turn reduce medical costs. The Universal Plaza and its connecting trail can serve as conduits for community involvement and engagement. Passive educational opportunities are best served by a trail system. This benefit can also be attributed to the Universal Plaza, which has been designed to be an interactive community space that can be used year-round. Limiting the conflicting use would result in the loss of 0.004 acres of wetland and the permanent impact to 0.13 acres of buffer. The encroachments will result in lost functions and values of the wetland and buffer, though both will be mitigated, ensuring no net loss of both resources. As stated above, it should be noted that approximately half of the buffer impact is to a buffer that has already been developed. Although the wetlands are categorized as locally significant, in reality, its functions are generally low to moderate and can be offset through the purchase of credits from a wetland mitigation bank that ensures replacement of locally important functions and values. Allowing most of the permissible uses from the underlying PR zone would not only further deteriorate the wetland resource and the surrounding environment, but the relative costs would be high for capital construction,mitigation, and on-going management. The development of non-resource-oriented amenities will likely not fit within the context of the land surrounding the trail. Allowing uses within the MU-CBD zone underlying much of the Universal Plaza, will likely be no different than limiting the uses, as the City will likely choose to develop the same project. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 14 5.1 Decision This analysis concludes that limiting the conflicting use will result in the most beneficial consequence of the three protection scenarios for the City. A decision to limit the conflicting use will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting the conflicting use,but more importantly will allow benefits to be realized. There is a wealth of data available documenting the economic, social, and energy benefits that can be realized from an efficient trail system and a community space. It is true too,that although limiting the conflicting uses will impact the wetland, the relatively low functions and values of the wetland will be offset by the use of wetland mitigation credits from a local wetland mitigation bank. Based on this analysis,the recommendation is to limit the conflicting use (i.e., remove a small portion(0.004 acres) of Wetland E-6) from the City's Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map and 0.13 acres of buffer in order to accommodate the future development of the Universal Plaza and a trail connecting the Universal Plaza with the Fanno Creek Trail. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#7145 Page 15 Appendix A Figures PHS -7' 'AMH LV7 Lu LL. 0 co CL cm 0 0 0 r r' CL- — tm 2 ri CY CC .2 _3 ca cq C) -2 cc 0 CG go co CD I,— ON CD K JINR A U) co co U) CD V 'o (14 tr J.2 CL at m LLI z (D C N LL CL a (a 0 (1) CD ti 2) C) cli Uvj .—J E x cm 0 CN 0 Co Q YZ4 S 8 2 v F, x ^ , 0 5 02�1 ol , R 1 Ad Zug 7-Z TZ Le 0 co co ly 41 -9 cc co ON CM0 7;F XEO C\l V, C2 em' J 0 L!�-kl 1 W OC -a 2.2 gag 0 0 W N Q W 5 wUD V yf co LL DfW W N _!! z N OD9N 0 C M LL N O L7I C7 N/ riV (� •2 COIf miff CC CD cC 3 w f ca m � U- L � cc w _ /,�-.�'"'''"7n _ � G � ~ � �.tidy r yy y�, lrr flz+Y,•�y 'rv.�.... .t1 F'�f f- �`�- d{1 �,♦ ''F�.`�r'fS-f r•f/� ,df d r' J` ' � •� � ,�{y ' ' %`' F rr tti t. fir'':'�'`fiy f�„�•:r-. r. .mrd. 01 Lti '�`t•' 1�•. 3`. rala , : t�, r y E oe Igo Cl AD 30 L • ` N � 1 '1.•1 1�' fC �� Y •�`.��: _rte r`. r • w r •�i it I•- i f� •`4 r �C L �•L�i, ,N 1 r_• - Existing Development Areas Sri j N. Existing Pavement �6e4o '• ' i' ��` �� TL 202 !� Buffer Width of 50 Feet 4 As Shown y 1 _ 2018 Wetland Delineated Boundary Significant Welland E-6 (59,917 of/1.38 ac) � srr r rr rr rr rr f 'n rir TL 100 TL 203 r rrr'/ (Plant Community B) M vcedCredit AreaCorridor 9a (17,987 sf/0.41 ac) - `` TL 204 �/,r rir'ir Existing Paved Path (Not Surveyed Approximate Location) _ �'�`ir �r� i\gyp__-• � rrrfr^ r.• Existing r r _ Pedestrian Bridge. r r G pt6 � lfr/r�if 6 / 'ri 010�a�cJe o ao m neo SCAM R7 P88T LEGEND Study Area Boundary (169,240 sf/3.88 ac) Plant Community A(23,078 sf/0.53 ac) (On Track to Good Per Significant Wetland E-6 CWS File#18-000570) (59,917 sf/1.38 ac) Plant Community B(17,987 sf 10.41 ac) r Waters of the State/US Advanced Vegetated Corridor (15,649 sf/0.36 ac) Mitigation Credit Area. (On Track to Good Per ........... Ordinary High Water(OHW) CWS File#18-000570) b-••– Direction of Flow — — —50 Foot Goal 5 Wetland Buffer Vegetated Corridor Boundary(VC) ® Existing Development Areas Survey provided by KPFF. (41,065 sf/0.94 ac) Survey accuracy Is sub-centimeter. Wetland and Stream boundaries collected with Trimble Hand Held GPS Unit accuracy is sub-meter. PHS Existing Conditions FIGURE Universal Plaza Trail Connection-Tigard,Oregon 3 Peraric Habitat Services,lnc. xmwo...oaa u mnor,aq.wmo „�;�e�ooaeoo awon sroaew 6-78-2021 Limits of Disturbance Buffer Encroachment Within \� /•.l Existing Developed Areas _as ! UNIVERSAL PLAZA . (2,754 sf 10.06 ac) Buffer Encroachment — — (1,165sf/0.03ac) r� 1 Wetland Impact ( rs Boardwalk Footings 1 (159 sf 10.0134 ac) Buffer Width of 50 Feet As Shown Buffer Encroachment G r�rri�ri�r r / //r �z' .w +', 1 (1.211 sf/0.03 ac) Proposed Raised Boardwalk 4 and Footings(18) Significant Welland E-6 (59,917 sf/1.38 ac) � rr Existing Paved Path (Not Surveyed Approximate Location) ,// /i �`�\\ ✓Illi/ e� Proposed 10'Wide Asphalt Path Buffer Encroachment (625 sf/0.01 ac) LEGEND I ��j r/j/rr is • Study Area Boundary Existing (169,240 sf/3.88 ac) Pedestrian Bridge Significant Wetland E-6 (59,917 sf/1.38 ac) r / 1 Waters fa otheSttc/US � cY ......— Ordinary High Water(OHW) Direction of Flow Wetland Impact \ (159 sf/0.004 ac) Buffer Encroachment (3,001 sf 10.07 ac) Buffer Encroachment Within Existing Development Areas so 120 (2,754 sf 10.06 ac) o m `\ 50 Foot Goal 5 Wetland Buffer SCALE W PRET Site plan provided by Alta PHS Development Site Plan FIGURE Universal Plaza Trail Connection-Tigard,Oregon 4 Pacific Habitat Services,ina -M)— xosra-.-awrwM �..�®nsroaaoo s.pmlvoam 72-2-2027 CJS r* (D . IRA. CD .: A T V A CL N ' D N N oma' D � ora' =. fD -1 =$ r+ 0- a n rot �• � O Cl. o M o M fD M f-+ o C - w 3 cin r-r O aq p ohcr • o • O � r.f. o - m _. I O n -h C:) fD -0 O fD O to ON 3 w o -'h M fD O C rr _. O� aq v —A CU fD prq O +' N - I H •� a a F P H r (^) Aul Ile r f r r i 1 FLa � L to t _ � v r � i ti X ` L 5 ,�`.\,\•.\ r�43� b \•\ ^` R fit I t p • o IR iL Ir .91 v cm sQ • 9 F 4�b 'wo ,r fly, ♦ 1 IL IL R 1�f j\ .4 �• rele role o �' n n f Fie� < fD f-F r+ O — fD �, rt � m -n m fD O (A QL — m <. �, -0 ( CL O r'' f -19 O role w. (Ap fD n O� fD p fD rD m -0O �, 7c • 3 s' 'ICYq cD r* O a O -• cD fD O �, O fD 3 n w v �. = —• r* cn Cl. _. N ri• CD r„F CD C fD fD O to < fD n fD cr S fD :3 w o o �- �- rn in' 03 rD p rD r+ C — rD + — rD n G� r n �. n el+ -. < rn 3 OQ (yQ CL Ln 0 -• rn n Orq = O —• Lon V, O p �• rn (D � rn � -1 r•-I•cr r7 � �• O M CL :3 � n(D Ma) m LIQ O rD 0 � � cn � cn• � n —• r} - r+ • a) c O < M — r-r O < < < rD _ O cr rD r+ —• p O n rD n n CA O +, Oq p �,, Saq � � Ori CL rD -3• rD O 0 aq rD CrQ_. (D � cD O rD O ('p O o Dma n -� r-r 3 0 O < �• 3 CrQ � U O °� 3 < n 3 cu ca. m 0 cu � Ln = 3 (A rD 3 rD N a O -. O O O o 3 < -0 m 3 r. V) M 3 o n 3 m or+ rp �p 3 3 CL Q- SO o �+ 0 Quasi-Judicial Land Use Hearing Procedures January 4, 2022—Tigard City Council Meeting Universal Plaza (CPA2021-00004/SLR2021-00010 Statement by City Attorney This is a quasi-judicial land use proceeding. Council's decision must be based on the following substantive criteria: Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 8.120, 18.140, 18.420, 18.510, 18.710, 18,790, 18.910 and 18.920. Testimony, arguments and evidence must be directed toward the relevant approval criteria described in the staff report or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation that apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal to LUBA on that issue. Failure of the applicant to object to a condition of approval may preclude an action for damages in circuit court. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any conflicts of interest. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member cannot participate. Council members must declare any contacts about this case with a member of the public. Council members must also declare if they have independent knowledge of relevant facts, such as from a visit to the site in question. A Council member who describes ex parte contacts or independent information shall state whether the contact has impaired their impartiality or ability of the member to vote on the matter. 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. AIS-4788 6. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 01/04/2022 Length (in minutes):30 Minutes Agenda Title: DISCUSS COUNCIL BOARD AND COMMITTEE LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS Prepared For: Steve Rymer, City Management Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting -Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE The Council discusses and assigns the Mayor, Council President, and Councilors to serve as liaison to various committees. This typically occurs during Council goal setting.The 2021 goal setting was held in March and the agenda did not allow for liaison assignments to be discussed so Council continued existing assignments,with newly-elected City Councilor Shaw filling the liaison roles vacated by retiring Councilor Anderson.These were adopted in June 2021. Council agreed to come back in 2022 and review liaison assignments and discuss which,if any, assignments would change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends a review of assignments and request Council direction on changes to make to the matrix (attached). KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In April 2021,Mayor Snider noted there are two major areas of involvement facing the city:water and transportation. There is some benefit for those who are involved to work in multiple ways with these groups. He noted he was always on the Lake Oswego Tigard Water Partnership as a councilor,but others attended the Willamette Water Consortium, for example. It may not be possible for one councilor to cover all the boards and commissions for these two areas.As assignments are made,it makes sense to think about these two topics. He added that if the current liaison really wants to stay on the committee,we usually give preference to them. • Councilor Newton concurred with the two-year period noting that changing every year would be difficult. • Councilor Shaw's perspective as a new councilor was that annual periods would be better so council members could experience several different boards and committees. She suggested since it is already April, assignments continue through 2021 and then discuss new positions for 2022. • Councilor Goodhouse agreed about the timing since it is April. He suggested a hybrid whereby members continue their current assignments and then have an in-person discussion in January 2022 about whether to go with one-or two-year periods. • Councilor Newton said the proposal is fine. She would like to change the TYAC liaison to the Tigard Youth Councilor. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council could retain current assignments for the coming year or make changes based on time commitments and interest. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED SYSTEM PLANS It would be helpful to understand if the Council wants to make annual appointments or set liaison roles for a two year period. Teammates would then update the assignment matrix and adjust the schedule for future discussions. These assignments fit within the city's Community Promise: EQUITY:WE will ensure just and fair inclusion where all can participate,prosper,and reach their full potential. ENVIRONMENT:WE will embrace sustainability to improve our natural resources and the livability of our community. ECONOMY: WE will be responsible stewards of the community's financial resources entrusted to us. ENGAGEMENT:WE will involve all voices in our community while building trusting relationships. EXCELLENCE: WE will set high standards and strive to exceed community expectations. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION City Council met on April 6, 2021 to discuss and approve Council liaison assignments and determine the frequency of making Council liaison role assignments for 1-year or 2-years and decided to come back in 2022 to discuss the matter further. Attachments Current Assignment Matrix AgendaQuick©2005-2022 Destiny Software Inc.,All Rights Reserved TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Appointment Matrix 2021 - 2023 ar°` Tigd 2021 City Council Appointment Matrix Regional Assignments Metropolitan Mayors Consortium (MMC) MMC 4th Thursday @ Noon I Tualatin Metropolitan , .. Time Expectation:3 hours/month Con Mayoors' rtium Alternate Representative: Mayors Only I City Team Liaison:None Consortium is comprised of all Mayors in the metro area and represents the city on regional policy issues and interests. Mayor Jason Snider Washington County Coordinating Committee MCIC, Term Expires:12/31/22 2nd Monday @ Noon I Beaverton Library WASHINGTON COUNTY Time Expectation:2 hours/month Coordinating Committee Alternate Representative:CC Shaw I City Team Liaison:Dave Roth WCCC reviews and comments on major land use and transportation issues and provides a forum for discussion which results in recommendations for a coordinated approach between jurisdictions.The Committee has specific authority on the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program(MSTIP) and the Countywide Traffic Impact Fee(TIF)program.Representatives to JPAC and MPAC from County and cities in the Co.will be on the policy body. Westside Economic Alliance (WEA) 4th Wednesday @ 7:30 am I St.Vincent's Hospital E(C1\OM CALL ANCE Time Expectation: 5-7 hours/month Alternate Representative:CC Goodhouse I City Team Liaison: None Create an environment conducive to business growth,working to influence decisions on policies and regulations impacting the economic vitality of the area.Tigard's Mayor position holds a seat on the Board of Directors. Tigard Board &Committee Liaison Assignments Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) 1st Wednesday @ 6:30 pm I St.Vincent's Hospital Time Expectation:2 hour meetings Alternate Representative:CC Goodhouse I City Team Liaison: Dave Roth Advises City Council and staff in implementing Tigard's Complete Streets Policy. Provides community feedback,advice and awareness of transportation issues affecting Tigard. Transportation Strategy Team 4th Tuesday @ 5:00 pm I Red Rock Creek Time Expectation:1.5 hour/month Alternate Representative:CC Goodhouse I City Team Liaison: Dave Roth TY or- City Team-level planning group to inform and propose approaches to all aspects of Tigard's Tig ��r� transportation system,including advancing the city's strategic plan,funding and grants,CIP itw prioritization,and recommendations regarding regional funding and transportation project priorities. 2021 City Council AppointmentMatrix Regional Assignments Water Advisory Board (WAB) t < Bi-monthly(or less often as decided by members)I Public Works Time Expectation:TBD Alternate Representative:Mayor I City Team Liaison: Brian Rager 4 Advise City Council and City Team members to operate a fully integrated water system for current and future users within the Tigard Water Service Area. Heidi Lueb City council President Tigard Board &Committee Liaison Assignments Term Expires:12/31/24 Audit Committee 3-6 times per year Time Expectation:10-12 hrs/mo Alternate Representative:CC Goodhouse I City Team Liaison:Jared Isaksen Audit Committee is responsible for selecting the city's auditing firm and meets twice(minimum) with CPA firm reps appointed to perform the city's annual financial audit.Members participate in the appointment,compensation,retention and oversight of any independent accountants engaged for the purpose of preparing and issuing an independent audit report or performing other independent audit, review or attest services.Additionally,members will assist the city and make recommendations on Performance Audits in calendar years 2019 and 2020. Library Board 2nd Wednesday @ 6:30 pm Time Expectation:2 hour meetings Alternate Representative: None I City Team Liaison:Halsted Bernard This board advises Council on library policies,budget,facilities&other community needs to provide quality library service, per TMC 2.36.030. Parks& Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) 2nd Monday @ 7:00 pm Time Expectation:2-3 hours/month Alternate Representative:None I City Team Liaison: Rick Gruen To advise the Council on park and recreation policies,facilities,programs and budgets. Urban Renewal Funding Selection Subcommittee AS NEEDED Time Expectation:As Needed Alternate Representative:None I City Team Liaison:Sean Farrelly To encourage businesses to make improvements to storefronts or commercial facades in downtown CITY OF by providing design assistance and/or matching funds and to make recommendations for various Ti� rd public art options that may be purchased with the urban renewal funds for the Main St./Green St. project.*Two council reps required. 2021 City Council Appointment Regional Assignments �5wEGO.r. Tigard-Lake Oswego Joint Water sig Partnership Oversight Committee (OVC) fee Quarterly '?PAR-( Time Expectation:2-4 hours/month Alternate Representative:CC Newton I City Team Liaison:Brian Rager Membership is comprised of City Team members and elected officials to govern water partnership between the cities. John Goodhouse City Councilor Willamette Intake Facility(WIF) Term Expires:12/31/22 Quarterly,last Monday of January,April,July,October I TVWD Time Expectation:6-8 hours/year Alternate Representative:CC Shaw I City Team Liaison: Brian Rager 2/13/18:Council adopted an ordinance/IGA for joint ownership,operation and management of the Willamette Intake Facilities.Tigard,Sherwood,Wilsonville, Hillsboro,Beaverton and Tualatin Valley Water district are member agencies,with TVWD as the managing agency. Willamette River Water Coalition (WRWC) �WRWC Quarterly,7st Wednesday in February,May,August,November WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER COALITION @ 5:00 pm I Public Works Time Expectation:6-8 hours/year Alternate Representative:CC Shaw i City Team Liaison:Brian Rager The Willamette River Water Coalition(WRWC)was created in 1997 under ORS Chapter 190 and is comprised of four local governments that have united in order to preserve water rights/access to the Willamette River as a potential municipal and industrial water source for their communities.Member cities:Tigard,Tualatin,Sherwood,and the Tualatin Valley Water District. Tigard Board &Committee Liaison Assignments Town Center Advisory Commission (TCAC) 2nd Wednesday @ 6:30 pm Time Expectation:3-5 hours/month Alternate Representative:CC Newton I City Team Liaison:Sean Farrelly The TCAC makes recommendations to the TCDA on urban renewal policy,budget and implementation to improve Tigard's urban renewal districts. Tig ard 2021 City Council Appointment Regional Assignments Community Development Block Grant Policy Advisory Board 2nd Thursday of the month @ 7:00 pm I Location rotates Time Expectation:2 hours/month Alternate Representative:Schuyler Warren I City Team Liaison:Schuyler Warren 4 By IGA,Washington Co.established the Community Development Polity Advisory Board(PAB)to `► represent the County Consortium,make recommendations to the County Commissioners on all matters pertaining to the CDBG program.Includes a representative,generally an elected official, Liz Newton from the County and each of the 11 participating cities in the county. City Councilor Metropolitan Area Communications Term Expires:12/31/22Commission (MACC) MACC METROPOLITAN AREA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Quarterly,set by Board,usually Wednesday lunch at MACC office in Beaverton Time Expectation:1-2 hours/month Alternate Representative: Mike Nolop I City Team Liaison:Mike Nolop MACC is the governing body that oversees the contracts for cable services and TVCTV.The Executive Committee meets separately to make recommendations to the Commission on administrative issues including budget and the review of the Executive Director. Tigard-Lake Oswego Joint Water 0- EGO. Partnership Oversight Committee (OVC) Quarterly,Time Expectation:2-4 hours/month Alternate Representative:CC Goodhouse I City Team Liaison:Brian RagerRPAE"`' Membership is comprised of staff and elected officials to govern water partnership between the cities. Tigard Board &Committee Liaison Assignments Committee for Community Engagement (CCE) Meets a minimum of 6x/year every other month on 3rd Wednesday @ 7:00 pm. As needed,a"special'meeting may be held Time Expectation:10 hours/year Alternate Representative:CC Pres.Lueb I City Team Liaison:Nadine Robinson This committee provides oversight,accountability and policy direction on citywide community engagement activities.The goal is to foster broad participation and relationships to improve the community and advance the City's strategic vision. Public Safety Advisory Board (PSAB) ; PUBLIC SAFETY 2nd&4th Thursday of the month @ 5:00 pm I Zoom call ADVISORY BOARD Time Expectation:2-3 hours/month Alternate Representative:CC Pres.Lueb I City Team Liaison:Kathy Nyland,Eduardo Ramos ° T g rd Review public safety practices,with community input and draft frameworks anticipated for all other areas of city operations.This Board will be one component of the City's Anti-Racism Action Plan. 2021 City Council Appointment Matrix Regional Assignments Regional Water Providers Consortium (RWPC) 41k;GkO Nell`�9,, y Quarterly meetings I Portland Water Bureau _ Time Expectation:8 hours/year Alternate Representative:Brian Rager I City Team Liaison:Brian Rager scv } / Consortium is comprised of all water suppliers in the metro area.The Councilor appointee to this group represents the city on regional policy issues. Jeanette Shaw Tigard Board &Committee Liaison Assignments City Councilor Budget Subcommittee-Social Services Term Expires:12/31/24 2 meetings in March Time Expectation:10 hours/year Alternate Representative:None I City Team Liaison:Jared Isaksen Reviews applications submitted by social service agencies for contributions from the city.Consists of 1 Councilor and 2 community members of the Budget Committee. Development Advisory Committee Quarterly as needed I Time Expectation:As Needed Alternate Representative: None I City Team Liaison:Kenny Asher This committee developed from settlement with HBA.Scope and details will be determined. Homelessness Task Force (ad-hoc) AS NEEDED Time Expectation:As Needed Alternate Representative: None I City Team Liaison:Kent Wyatt Task force to identify short-term and long-term recommendations to the City Council focused on issues related to homeless population in Tigard.Task Force of 10-15 community leaders representing organizations that serve and support those experiencing homelessness. Planning Commission 1st and 3rd Monday @ 7:00 pm Time Expectation:5-6 hours/month Alternate Representative: None I City Team Liaison:Tom McGuire Assists the City Council to develop, maintain,update and implement the Comprehensive Plan,to formulate the Capital Improvements Program,and to review and act on development projects and development code provisions delegated to the Commission. Urban Renewal Funding Selection Subcommittee AS NEEDED Time Expectation:As Needed Alternate Representative: None I City Team Liaison:Sean Farrelly CITY OF To encourage businesses to make improvements to storefronts or commercial facades in downtown ■ by providing design assistance and/or matching funds and to make recommendations for various Tigard public art options that may be purchased with the urban renewal funds for the Main St./Green St. project.*Two council reps required. 2021 City Council AppointmentMatrix Tigard Assignments .,� Tigard Youth Advisory Council (TYA''I 1st Monday of the month @ 4:00 pm I Zoom call Time Expectation:2-3 hours/month Alternate Representative:CC Newton I City Team Liaison:Kent Wyatt Tigard students grades 6-12 advise City Council on the best ways to build developmental assets for each youth in Tigard.The TYAC facilitates the development and implementation of programs and Aishiki Nag activities that are important to youth. Youth City Councilor Term Expires:06/30/22 eOF m TigIardd i All 2021 City Council ILI iL Mayor Heidi Lueb John Goodhouse Liz Newton Jeanette Shaw Alshiki Nag Jason Snider city Council President City Councilor City councilor City Councilor Youth City councilor Tigard Assignment: Budget Committee Meeting Frequency:3-4 Consecutive Monday evenings in April&May Time Expectation:12-15 hours/year I City Team Liaison:Jared Isaksen The Budget Committee provides a public forum to obtain public views in the preparation of fiscal policy. Tigard Assignment: Budget Subcommittee— Events Meeting Frequency:Study Session in March Time Expectation:5 hours/year-reading proposal and deliberation I City Team Liaison:Jared Isaksen Reviews requests for contributions to community events. Tigard Assignment:Town Center Development Agency Meeting Frequency:Part of Council meeting agenda when needed Time Expectation:2 hours/month I City Team Liaison:Sean Farrelly Charged with the revitalization of downtown and implementation of the Urban Renewal Plan approved by voters ICDA in May of 2006. Regional Assignment:Metro Joint Policy Advisory Commission on Transportation (JPACT) Primary Representative:Beaverton Mayor Beaty I Alternate Representative:Cornelius Mayor Dalin Meeting Frequency:3rd Thursday/month @ 7:30-9:00 am I Metro Time Expectation:2-3 hours/month I City Team Liaison:Dave Roth Tigard monitors meetings of this 17-member committee which provides a forum for elected officials and representatives of agencies involved in transportation to evaluate transportation needs in the region and to make recommendations to Metro council. Tigard Assignment: Aayor's Appointment Advisory Committee The Councilor serving as liaison to the committee that is recruiting will interview applicants with the committee's staff liaison and make recommendations to the Mayor. The councilor serving as the recruiting committee's council liaison will interview applicants with the staff liaison to fill available seats on city boards,committees and commissions. Recommendations for appointment are given to the Mayor for selection. e Tigard Directory: Regional & Tigard A Audit Committee Budget Committee Budget Subcommittee — Events Budget Subcommittee —Social Services Committee for Community Engagement(CCE) Community Development Block Grant Policy Advisory Board Development Advisory Committee Homelessness Task Force (ad-hoc) Library Board Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee Metro Joint Policy Advisory Commission on Transportation (JPACT) Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (MACC) Metropolitan Mayors Consortium (MMC) Parks&Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) Planning Commission Public Safety Advisory Board (PSAB) Regional Water Providers Consortium (RWPC) Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) Tigard-Lake Oswego Joint Water Partnership Oversight Committee (OVC) Tigard Youth Advisory Council (TYAC) Town Center Advisory Commission (TCAC) Town Center Development Agency Transportation Strategy Team Washington County Coordinating Committee Water Advisory Board (WAB) Westside Economic Alliance (WEA) Willamette Intake Facility(WIF) Willamette River Water Coalition (WRWC) Urban Renewal Funding Selection Subcommittee KEY: � = Regional Assignments iTigard Assignments