The URL can be used to link to this page

TCDA Packet - 05/17/2022 City of Tigard Tigard Workshop Meeting—Agenda 0 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL&TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DATE MAY 17,2022- 6:00 p.m. Executive Session and 6:30 p.m.Workshop/Business Meeting- AND TIME: Revised 5/12/22 to add Item No. 6 and reorder. MEETING Remote participation only. See PUBLIC NOTICE below. LOCATION: PUBLIC NOTICE:In accordance with the City of Tigard's Safety Plan 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. Written public comments may be submitted electronically at www.tigard-or.cov/Comments.All comments must be submitted before noon on 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. VIEW LIVESTREAM ONLINE: https://www.ti�zard-or.o_ov/boxcast Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows: Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings - Channel 28 •Every Sunday at 12 a.m. •Every Monday at 1 p.m. •Every Wednesday at 2 p.m. •Every Thursday at 12 p.m. •Every Friday at 10:30 a.m. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA " City of Tigard Tigard Workshop Meeting —Agenda e TIGARD CITY COUNCIL&TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DATE MAY 17,2022- 6:00 p.m. Executive Session and 6:30 p.m.Workshop/Business Meeting- AND TIME: Revised 5/12/22 to add Item No. 6 and reorder. MEETING Remote participation only. LOCATION: 6:00 PM 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (d).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. 6:30 PM 2. WORKSHOP/BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 3. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITION 4. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Public Comment-Written B. Public Comment-Phone-in C. Follow-up to Previous Public Comment 5. TIGARD POLICE CERTIFICATE OF STATE ACCREDITATION - OREGON ACCREDITATION ALLIANCE PRESENTATION 6:55 p.m. estimated time 6. CONTINUATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: CEDARBROOK ANNEXATION 7:05 p.m. estimated time 7. INTRODUCTION TO TIGARD HOME:HOUSING,OPPORTUNITY,MOBILITY,AND EASE 7:35 p.m. estimated time 8. TOWN CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION (ICAC) EQUITABLE BUSINESS SUBCOMMITTEE 7:55 p.m. estimated time 9. DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT 8:15 p.m. estimated time 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 11. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 12. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m. estimated time AIS-4952 5. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 05/17/2022 Length(in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Tigard Police Certificate of State Accreditation- Oregon Accreditation Alliance Presentation Authored By: Lisa Shaw Presented By: Police Chief McAlpine Item Type: Receive and File Public Hearing No Legal Ad Required?: Publication Date: Information EXPLANATION OF ISSUE The police department completed and was awarded its initial accreditation in April 2019 by the Oregon Accreditation Alliance,which is a state-wide accrediting body for law enforcement, fire and telecommunications agencies. Over the past three years,the Tigard Police Department has been working towards its three-year state re-accreditation cycle for the evaluation period of May 2019 through April 2022. The purpose of undergoing an accreditation process is to ensure that the department's policies,procedures and practices align with industry best practices.Tigard has complied with all 105 standards (best practices). Standards cover all aspects of law enforcement operations,including topics such as arrest procedures,recruitment,officer training,traffic enforcement,equipment deployment, search and seizure,use of force,as well as evidence collection and storage.A more comprehensive review the standards is available in the attached OAA Final Report for Tigard,and from the OAA website https://www.oracall.org/ ACTION REQUESTED Accept law enforcement accreditation from the Oregon Accreditation Alliance. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Dates of Previous and Potential Future Considerations The department was initially accredited by the Oregon Accreditation Alliance (OAA) in April 2019.The certification was received by City Council on May 7,2019 via AIS-3815.The department intends to return to City Council upon successful completion of the next three-year accreditation cycle,ending in 2025. Impacts of Accreditation *Increased operational efficiencies and effectiveness in service delivery *Independent confirmation of professional standard compliance *Enhanced transparency and increased public confidence *Decreased risk and liability *Supports the Police Department's strategic priority to "Enhance the professionalism of the department" and to "Build a responsive organization structure that assures efficient and effective department resources." ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION N/A ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Attachments Accreditation Report-Tigard 2022 r 10135 NW Coyner Avenue, Redmond Oregon, 97756 503-881-5566 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report Report Type: Initial Final Report ❑ Re-accreditation Final Report Onsite Report ❑ Short Report ❑ Agency Information: Agency Assessed: Tigard Police Department CEO: Chief of Police Kathy McAlpine Accreditation Manager: Shelly Wert Agency Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard Oregon 97223 Agency Phone: (503) 629-0111 Number Sworn FTE 76 Number Non-Sworn FTE 18 Assessment: Date of Last Assessment: March 2019 Current Assessment Date: March 17, 2019 Review Period: 2019, 2020, 2021 On-site Date: March 29, 2022 Extension Requested: No Assessor(s): Assessor Jeff Staples INTRODUCTION The Oregon Accreditation Alliance program was established to assist law enforcement and communication agencies in establishing and maintaining standards that represent current professional practices. Oregon Accreditation Alliance standards support continued improvement of law enforcement services, establishes best practice, agency accountability and transparency, and enhancement of management operations. 1 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report The Tigard Police Department joined the Oregon Accreditation Alliance in 2018 and was awarded their initial accreditation in March 2019. Reaccreditation occurs every three-years. This is the agency's second award of accreditation under the leadership of Chief Kathy McAlpine. CITY/COUNTY PROFILE The City of Tigard is located within Washington County, Oregon. Tigard, bordered by Portland and Beaverton to the north, is considered part of the 'Portland Metropolitan Area.' As of 2020 Census Bureau reporting, Tigard's estimated population is 54,539, a 12% increase over the past 10 years. With its recent annexation of the River Terrace neighborhood, a 500-acre development situated at the City's southwestern-most corner, Tigard's residential population will only continue to increase. To date, more than 2,000 homes have been built or are in the construction process. Additional development is expected to continue over the next several years. Although Tigard is largely residential, it also encompasses a mixture of industrial, commercial, and retail space. Nearly 40,000 workers commute into Tigard each day, with even more commuters passing through. Within its retail sector, Tigard hosts one of the region's largest destination shopping centers, several department stores, and a vibrant downtown area. The City of Tigard strives to be an equitable community that is walkable, healthy, and accessible to everyone. Culturally, Tigard boasts many regional parks. Tigard's park system includes Cook and Summerlake Parks, as well as a dozen smaller neighborhood parks. Annually, the City of Tigard hosts the Tigard Festival of Balloons at Cook Park, while Tigard's greenspaces support a variety of community and athletic events. CEO PROFILE Chief Kathy McAlpine began her law enforcement career in 1986 as a Tacoma Police Department patrol officer. Chief McAlpine served 30+ years in Tacoma, where she held the ranks of detective, sergeant, lieutenant, captain and assistant chief. During her tenure, Chief McAlpine oversaw the department's initial and successive CALEA reaccreditation processes. In April 2017, Chief McAlpine was sworn in as the City of Tigard's ninth police chief since its 1963 incorporation. In her first two years with the Tigard Police Department, Chief McAlpine and her command staff developed the department's initial five-year strategic plan. The plan's strategic priorities include a focus on technological improvements, utilizing data to drive decision making, and strengthening the department's leadership system. Chief McAlpine holds a Bachelor of Science in Workforce Education and Development from Southern Illinois University - Carbondale, and a Master of Science in Criminal Justice from Columbia College. Chief McAlpine is a 2011 graduate and class president of Northwestern Police Command College, as well as FBI LEEDS Class Number 79. Chief McAlpine holds an Executive Certificate from the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training_ AGENCY PROFILE The Tigard Police Department is a professional, progressive organization that is committed to protecting and serving all who live, play and work in the City of Tigard, Oregon. The department is comprised of 76 full-time sworn officers and 18 non-sworn professional staff members who are 2 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report available to respond to calls and assist community members 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In 2020, Tigard approved a public safety levy for the first time, funding nine officers and two support staff over the five-year levy period. The Tigard Police Department is divided into the Services and Operations Divisions, each overseen by a commander: • The Services Division encompasses the Commercial Crimes Unit, Criminal Investigations Unit, Records and Property and Evidence specialists, and School Resource Officers. • The Operations Division is made up of Patrol, Traffic and Canine Units and a Community Service Officer. The Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) provides dispatch services for the agency. The Tigard Police Department participates in the following local and regional partnerships: • Washington County Tactical Negotiations Team • Washington County Crisis Negotiations Team • Washington County Crash Analysis and Reconstruction Team • Washington County Major Crimes Team • FBI Child Exploitation Task Force • Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force ASSESSMENT PHASE The Oregon Accreditation Alliance utilizes two methods of review, an electronic policy review using the PowerDMS Accreditation Module and an onsite review of the agencies practices. During the first assessment phase the Assessor reviews the agency's policies, procedures, and proofs of compliance to confirm the agency is in compliance with accreditation standards. If the agency has policies that require modifications or there are proofs of compliance that are insufficient, the Assessor will request the agency makes policy adjustments and/or provides additional proofs of compliance to ensure the agency conforms with standard requirements. The second phase consists of an onsite assessment to confirm the agency policies and procedures are in practice. Generally, the Assessor will meet command personnel, conduct interviews, inspect facilities and equipment to the extent necessary to determine compliance with standards, and conduct an exit interview with command personnel. The onsite assessment includes an onsite review of the communications center the agency utilizes for emergency 9-1-1 services. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY On March 10, 2022, 1 was contacted by Accreditation Manager Shelly Wert with the Tigard Police Department who advised me they completed their assessment in PowerDMS. Once I finished the OAA online assessment I scheduled an on-site review for March 29, 2022. The agency files were complete with no file additions required. When I arrived for the onsite inspection, I met with Sheely Wert who escorted me to their detective section where I met with Commander Ja me McDonald, and Chief McAlpine. I provided an overview of 3 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report the policy inspection and then I was given a tour of the facility by Ms. Wert and Commander McDonald. I met with Officer Pumpelly who activated his vehicle emergency lights and showed me the items carried in all vehicles which met OAA standards. I met with Records and Evidence Supervisor Ambra and Records technician Cindy who were able to answer questions regarding receiving petty cash and the records function. I was then introduced to Sue Garino and Kristen Warrick in the property and evidence section who provided me a detailed tour of the evidence room and the off-site evidence storage facility. The Tigard Police Department is very professionally operated but are running out of room and growing out of their facility. After the tour I met again with Chief McAlpine and Commander McDonald to go over my observations. I then met with Ms. Wert and discussed future assessments and using proofs and simple notes in PowerDMS. Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) provides 9-1-1 emergency services to Tigard PD. WCCCA Joined the Oregon accreditation Alliance in 2009 and was last accredited in February 2020. OBSERVABLE STANDARDS 2.2.8 Body Armor V/ 2.2.9 Occupant Safety Restraints V/ 2.5.1 Patrol Vehicles Emergency Equipment V/ 2.5.2 Vehicle Equipment 3.1.1 24-Hour Two-way Radio Communications 3.1.2 Communications Recording and Playback 3.1.3 Communications Emergency Power ❑ 3.1.5 Communications Security ❑ 3.3.5 Appropriate Bio-Hazard Labeling 3.3.6 Secure Storage of Evidence and Property v/ 3.3.7 Temporary Secure After-Hours Storage for Evidence v/ 4.1.1 Temporary Holding Facility v/ 4 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report STANDARDS SUMMARY REPORT Status Mandatory Total Standards Mandatory 101 101 Not Applicable 4 4 Waiver 1 1 Non-Compliance 0 0 Total 106 106 DATA MAINTENANCE AND POLICY MODIFICATIONS Data Maintenance: The Assessor reviews PowerDMS data to determine if the agency standards and data has been entered correctly, and that all standards and proofs of compliance have been addressed. This section does not indicate compliance with standards or report on agency practices. Generally, it indicates preparedness and understanding of the accreditation process. The following standards required additional information to confirm compliance: None Policy Modifications, Applied Discretion: If an agency's policies or procedures require modification to meet standard requirements, the agency can modify the current policy or add new policy to adhere to standard requirements. New or modified policy changes are considered "wet ink" and is considered applied discretion. Modifications or additions to policy must be made prior to Board review. The following standards required changes or additions to policy to confirm compliance: None Policy Manual: Lexipol Policy Manual N/A by Function: 2.1.6 Special Response Unit 2.3.3 Aircraft Accidents 4.2.1 Administration and Organizational Structure 4.2.2 Operational Procedures 5 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report Out of Compliance Standard(s): None ASSESSMENT REVIEW 1.2.5 — Bias-Based Policing: The Tigard Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural, or other differences of those served. It is the policy of the department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy is conducted as directed by the Training Coordinator. The agency has reported to the Law Enforcement Contacts Policy and Data Review Committee during the assessment period. The agency has provided Bias-Based Policing training every year during the assessment period. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. 1.3.3 — Use of Firearms: All weapons discharges must be reported with the reporting process established in policy other than for training purposes or recreational use. Warning shots and shots from or at a moving vehicle are generally discouraged but leave open an option for officers to employ such actions if the officer reasonably believes it appears necessary. The use of warning shots by department members is not permitted. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. 1.3.4— Firearms Proficiency: The agency meets all training and proficiency requirements of the standard. All sworn personnel are required to qualify twice annually with their primary and secondary duty weapons. In addition to regular qualification schedules, the Firearms Coordinator is responsible for providing all sworn personnel with annual practical training designed to simulate field situations, all firearms training is conducted by a certified Firearms Instructor. Officers are required to state their understanding of the department's Use of Force. If a member fails to shoot a "cold" qualifying score on the first attempt, they will receive remedial training within the same training session. Policy outlines procedures for remedial training to include reassignment to administrative duties should a member fail to qualify. File documentation substantiated compliance. 1.3.7 — Use of Force Reporting and Review: The agency uses a separate Use of Force Data Collection Report to document all instances where physical force is used. Supervisors are responsible for gathering facts and ensuring appropriate investigative steps are completed in all use of force incidents. Each use of force incident is investigated by a sergeant and reviewed by a Watch Commander. The Watch Commander reviews each use of force by any personnel within his/her command to ensure compliance with this policy and to address any training issues. During the first calendar quarter of each year, the Operations Division Commander conducts an annual review of all use of force incidents for the previous calendar year. The analysis focuses on the effectiveness and trends in the use of force 6 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report incidents that might suggest training or equipment needs, or policy modification. File documentation substantiated compliance. The agency provided use of force annual analysis for, Year: 2019 Year: 2020 Year: 2021 1.3.8 — Officer Involved Shootings: Agency policy related to officer involved shootings is clear and comprehensive and includes a review component. The Tigard Police Department is responsible for the criminal investigation of the suspect's actions, the civil investigation, and the administrative investigation. The criminal investigation of the officer involved shooting may be conducted by the agency or an inter-agency team as designated in the Investigation Responsibility Matrix which involves the Washington County Major Crimes Team and in conjunction with the District Attorney's Office. The Matrix is very extensive and explains in detail how OIS investigations involving officers from the agency, outside of the agency, and Tigard Officers in another jurisdiction will be investigated. The matrix outlines the Civil, Criminal, and Administrative investigative procedures. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. 1.5.3 — Evaluations of Employee: The purpose of the evaluation system and performance summary is to: (a) communicate performance goals, standards and expectations; (b) evaluate employee performance against job standards and expectations including the relationship of the employee's position to the City's Core Values; (c) provide written documentation of employee performance; (d) assist with the development and training of employees; (e) and creates a dialogue between supervisors and employees regarding job performance matters. The evaluation process addresses non-sworn, reserves, full-time probationary and full-time permanent employees. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. 1.6.1 — Cash Funds/Accounts: The Records Division accepts money for the purchase of records, related documents, and various fees. The chiefs office accepts money for the Alarm Permit Program, Special Event Permits, and Social Gaming Licenses. The Business Manager accepts all incoming private donations. A completed receipt is issued to the customer for each transaction and a copy maintained for the Finance Department. The money and receipts are turned into the Finance Department on a regular basis. Those employees who handle cash as part of their Property and Evidence Division or Investigations Division duties discharge those duties in accordance with the Property and Evidence and Informants policies. File proofs substantiated standard compliance. 1.4.0 — Medical Considerations: This is a new standard for Law Enforcement Standards Manual Edition 6 that is not currently published. 7 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report 1.7.1 — Personnel Complaint Procedure: It is the responsibility of all supervisors to receive any and all allegations. An intake form is completed and forwarded to the Division Commander. In the event the allegation involves a command level member the intake form will be forwarded directly to the Chief. A supervisor may attempt to resolve an allegation by explaining department policies and procedures and will so note on the intake form. Upon receipt of the allegation the Division Commander decides whether it alleges a violation of policy, procedure or law. If the allegation does not rise to the level of a complaint, the Division Commander will send a letter to the complainant advising of this decision. Copies are sent to the affected member and the Inspections Officer for entry into the database. If the allegation does rise to the level of a complaint, the Inspections Officer will evaluate to determine which process is applicable: (a) Mediation; (b) Non-disciplinary investigation; (c) Disciplinary investigation; and (d) Criminal investigation. Procedures for investigating complaints meets all standard requirements, with completed investigations classified as Unfounded, Exonerated, Not Sustained, Sustained, or a Policy Issue. During February of each year, the Service Division Commander or his/her designee provide to the Chief of Police an annual report of personnel complaints from the preceding year. The report focuses on complaint trends as well as training needs and needed policy changes. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. The agency provided personnel complaint annual analysis for, Year: 2019 Year: 2020 Year: 2021 1.8.1 —Training Policy: The agency seeks to provide ongoing training and encourages all personnel to participate in advanced training and formal education on a continual basis. Training is provided within the confines of funding, requirements of a given assignment, staffing levels and legal mandates. The objectives of the Training Program are to: (A) enhance the level of law enforcement service to the public; (B) increase the technical expertise and overall effectiveness of personnel; (C) provide for continued professional development of department personnel; and (D) enhance the safety of officers and the community. The training plan addresses the following areas: (A) legislative changes and changes in case law; (B) state-mandated training; (C) Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA); (D) high-liability issues training; (E) De-escalation tactics; and (F) training on department policies and procedures. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. 2.1.2 —Vehicle Pursuit Driving: A comprehensive policy establishes procedures for initiating, conducting and terminating pursuits, and includes annual training requirement. Officers are authorized to pursue when it is reasonable to believe the suspect is attempting to evade arrest by fleeing in a vehicle. Policy includes factors to consider prior to initiating and/or continuing a vehicle pursuit. Necessary reports are required to be completed, to include a duty supervisor's debriefing and complete a Tigard Police Department Pursuit Review Report. The Watch Commander is responsible to monitor and continually assess the situation and ensure the pursuit is conducted within the guidelines and requirements of the policy. The Watch Commander has the final responsibility for the coordination, control and termination of a vehicle pursuit and overall command. The Watch Commander reviews all pertinent reports for content and forward to the Division Commander. The Operations Division 8 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report Commander ensures the completion of an annual review of all vehicle pursuit incidents for the previous calendar year. The analysis focuses on trends in the use of vehicle pursuits that may suggest training or equipment needs, or policy modification. File contained annual reports and comparison for 2019, 2020, and 202. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. The agency provided vehicle pursuit annual analysis for, Year: 2019 Year: 2020 Year: 2021 2.1.6 — Special Response Unit: Not Applicable by Function 2.1.7 — Prisoner Transport: Suspects, prisoners, and arrestees should be in a seated position and secured in the rear seat of any department vehicle with a prisoner restraint system or, when a prisoner restraint system is not available, by safety belts provided by the vehicle manufacturer. The prisoner restraint system is not intended to be a substitute for handcuffs or other appendage restraints. In unusual circumstances where it is unsafe or impractical to do so, prisoners may be transported without the use of safety belts (ORS 811.215(6)). Prisoners in leg restraints shall be transported in accordance with the Handcuffing and Restraints Policy. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. 2.3.1 — Disaster Plan: The city has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan Manual for use by all employees in the event of a major disaster or other emergency event. The manual provides for a strategic response by all employees and assigns specific responsibilities in the event the plan is activated. All employees receive annual refresher training on the details of the Tigard Emergency Operations Plan. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. 2.5.3 —Vehicle Inspections: Unless delayed by an emergency call, employees inspect department vehicles at the beginning of each shift for any damage, and to ensure that all systems, lights, and emergency equipment are in good working order. The interiors are examined to confirm no property or contraband is present. The interior inspection is repeated at the conclusion of any prisoner transport. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. 3.1.3 — Emergency Power (Communications): Communications services for the Tigard Police Department are provided by the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) which has a 325 KW emergency diesel generator in a secure compound with a 22,000-gallon fuel tank capable of powering the entire facility. The fuel capacity provides for operations at full load for an estimated two and a half weeks. A full-load test is conducted for one hour every Monday. An exclusive fuel contract is in place with a local provider. The agency also has a UPS system that provides for operations until the generator activates. WCCCA is an accredited agency through the Oregon Accreditation Alliance and was last accredited and 9 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report inspected in February 2020. 3.3.4—Administration and Operations (Property and Evidence): All property and evidence are recorded on a Property and Evidence Report for submittal to the Property and Evidence room. The property and evidence room has extra security in the form of video security, electronic keypads for alarm activation with limited access, and secure storage lockers. All report information is then entered into a computer database. A bar-code system track location and movement of all property. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. 3.3.10 — Property and Evidence Audits: The agency provides for the following inspections inventories and audits: (A) on a quarterly basis, the services lieutenant shall make an inspection of the evidence storage facilities and practices to ensure adherence to appropriate policies and procedures. On a monthly basis, the supervisor of the evidence custodian shall make a cursory inspection of the evidence facility; (B) unannounced inspections of evidence storage areas shall be conducted as directed by the Chief of Police; (C) an annual audit of evidence held by the department shall be conducted by a Division Commander, appointed by the Chief of Police, who is not routinely or directly connected with evidence control; (D) whenever a change is made in personnel who have access to the evidence storage areas, an inventory of all evidence/property shall be made by an individual(s) not associated to the property room or function to ensure that records are correct and all evidence is properly accounted for. All guns, drugs and monies are kept separated from other evidence. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. Year: 2019 Bullet (A) Yes Bullet (B) Yes Bullet (C) No Bullet (D) Yes, an inventory was conducted after there was a discovery that drug evidence had been disposed of incorrectly, the inventory discovered no irregularities. Year: 2020 Bullet (A) Yes Bullet (B) Yes Bullet (C) No Bullet (D) Yes Year: 2021 Bullet (A) Yes 10 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report Bullet (B) Yes Bullet (C) No Bullet (D) Yes 4.1.1 —Temporary Holding Facility Inspections On May 26, 2021, a fire alarm and life safety system inspection were conducted by Performance Systems Integration; this Inspection was performed in accordance with applicable NFPA Standards. The report provides performance measurements, listed ranges of acceptable results, and complete documentation of the inspection. Whenever discrepancies exist between acceptable performance standards and actual test results, notes and/or recommended solutions have been proposed or provided for immediate review and approval. Because of COVID 19, TVFR who normally would conduct the inspections regarding fire suppression sprinklers and alarms did not conduct inspections so the city hired an outside firm to be in compliance. DOC Inspector Jason Gates completed his temporary holding facility inspection report of the holding cells on June 10, 2021. 4.1.2 —Temporary Juvenile Detention Officers should take custody of a juvenile and temporarily hold the juvenile at the Tigard Police Department when there is no other lawful and practicable alternative to temporary custody. Refer to the Child Abuse Policy for additional information regarding detaining a juvenile that is suspected of being a victim. No juvenile should be held in temporary custody at the Tigard Police Department without authorization of the on-duty supervisor. Juvenile offenders should be held in non-secure custody while at the Tigard Police Department unless another form of custody is authorized by this policy or is necessary due to exigent circumstances. Any juvenile taken into custody shall be released to the care of the juvenile's parent or other responsible adult or transferred to a juvenile custody facility or to other authority as soon as practicable and in no event shall a juvenile be held beyond five hours from the time of his/her entry into the Tigard Police Department (ORS 419B.160; ORS 419C.130). Non-offenders taken into protective custody in compliance with the Child Abuse Policy should generally not be held at the Tigard Police Department. Custodial arrangements should be made for non-offenders as soon as reasonably possible (ORS 419B.165; ORS 419B.168; ORS 4198.152). Juvenile non-offenders may not be held in secure custody (34 USC § 11133; ORS 419B.160). Prior to releasing a non-offender to the noncustodial parent, officers shall run criminal records check on the noncustodial parent and any adults in the same home as the noncustodial parent (ORS 419B.165). DOC Inspector Jason Gates completed his temporary holding facility inspection report of the holding cells on June 10, 2021. On May 26, 2021, a fire alarm and life safety system inspection were conducted by Performance Systems Integration. 11 Oregon Accreditation Alliance Final Report 4.2.1 —Administration and Organizational Structure (Lockup Facility) Not Applicable by Function 4.3.2 — Emergency Response Equipment Inspection and Evacuation Plan Training The Temporary Holding Facility are safe and secure in accordance with the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Code. The Night Watch Commander, at the beginning and end of their shift, inspects the temporary holding facility to ensure: (a) no flammable materials are stored in the detention area; (b) fire extinguishers are serviceable; (c) cell keys are available in the Patrol Lieutenant's office and Records for emergency use; (d)first aid kits are readily available and completely stocked; and (e) smoke detectors are operational. File documentation substantiated standard compliance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed information entered into PowerDMS, an onsite review, and personnel interviews, the following recommendation is forwarded to the Oregon Accreditation Alliance Board for review. Assessor Approval: ✓ Non-Approval: ❑ Board Referral: ❑ Executive Director Approval: ✓ Non-Approval: ❑ Board Referral: ❑ 12 AIS-4960 6. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 05/17/2022 Length(in minutes): 30 Minutes Agenda Title: Continuation of Quasi-judicial Public Hearing: Cedarbrook Annexation Authored By: Agnes Lindor Presented By: Associate Planner Agnes Lindor Item Type: Motion Requested Public Hearing No Legal Ad Required?: Publication Date: Information EXPLANATION OF ISSUE At the May 10,2022 Quasi-judicial Public Hearing the Council requested additional time to review written public testimony received after the meeting packet was published and allow staff additional time to respond to questions raised. The public hearing was closed on May 10th,so the purpose of the continuation is for Council to deliberate on the proposal and make a tentative decision,then direct staff to prepare responsive findings which would be adopted on May 24th when Council takes a formal vote on the ordinance. ACTION REQUESTED The action requested of Council this evening is to deliberate and make a tentative decision. The staff recommendation is to approve the proposed ordinance. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Tigard City Council held a quasi-judicial hearing on May 10,2022 to consider the Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Review(ZCA2021-00001 / SDR2021-00001). At the hearing,the Tigard City Council received public testimony. Once all testimony was complete,Tigard City Council closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. However,many public comments were received late the day of the hearing and the City Council did not have sufficient time to review and consider these. In response,City Council continued the hearing to May 17,2022,in order to have sufficient time to review and consider these comments. All comments received after the Planning Commission Recommendation (after April 20,2022) through the close of the public testimony portion on May 10,2022 are attached. ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Attachments Public Comments From: Rob Ruedy Sent: Thursday,April 21, 2022 5:38 PM To: Agnes Lindor Cc: Robert Ruedy Subject: Reply to: ZCA2021-00001/SDR2021-00001 Cedarbrook Notice of Public Hearing Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender Ms. Lindor, Where can I find and access the current submission documents and all related drawings provided to the City of Tigard for the subject project? Please provide a reply with a "link" and any passwords necessary to access them. Respectfully yours, Robert Ruedy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Tuesday,April 19,2022, 10:17:12 AM PDT,Agnes Lindor<agnesl@tigard-or.gov>wrote: Good morning- Please find attached the notice of public hearing for City Council on May 10th,2022 at 6:30pm. The Planning Commission recommendation will be available on the City's website 15 days prior to the hearing.Thank you, Agnes Lindor Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesL@tigard-or.gov DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 12:09 PM To: Agnes Lindor Cc: Steve Rymer; Carol Krager Subject: FW: Cerderbrook project From councilmail From:Thomas Howell <ldustymccoy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 3:23 PM To:#Councilmail <councilmail@tigard-or.gov> Subject: Cerderbrook project Some people who received this message don't often get email ftom.Ldustymccoy@gmai1.co Learn why this is important Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Thomas M. Howell 8895 SW Borders St. Portland, Or. 97223 To Whom it May Concern My mom lived in this community from 1974 to 2006 when she passed away and I have lived here from 1991 to present. It has been a community that is safe to walk your dogs in and for cats to be outside. It has also been a safe place for kids to play and walk& ride their bikes to school. The Cedarbrook project will jeopardize the safety of this community with a large increase in traffic (especially on Borders and 90th). I would like you to reconsider the approval for this project and the cost to this community if it goes through. Thank You Thomas M. Howell DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." From: Jan Erickson <jan.m.erickson@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 11:59 AM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Cedarbrook documents Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender Hi Agnes, I'm looking for documents again, Is the 2/11/2022 link still the most current document group available for the proposed Cedarbrook facility? Could you please send over the most current link? Thanks Jan Jan Erickson From: Clint Wilkins<wilkins3636@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 2:21 PM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Cedarbrook City Council meeting Agnes, One of the big issues including the Staff process was the traffic impact on residential streets namely S.W.92nd. The applicant started with approx.100 vehicles per day but when this became a big issue quickly changed that to approx. 25 vehicles per day! Opposition wanted all traffic off of S.W. Hall Blvd.except for TVF&R. in an emergency. Staff recommended approval of what? I asked that a condition of approval be made on the approx.25 vehicles and could that be enforced? So what did the Staff recommend for approval? I also asked that applicant as a condition of approval provide some estimated construction schedule so the impacted neighbors will know how long we will put up with the noise,dust and everything associated with start to completion?Will it be 6 months, 1 or 2 years or more? This would help a resident especially the ones whose back yards are on the property line if they wanted to sell and relocate or put up the construction. At the end of the April 4,2022 meeting one of the staff could have been President Huh said he was impressed by the number of neighbors and how organized they seemed to be so with a pat on the back we will await our participation trophies!!!!! Not impressed at all and the first thing I would do if I was City Council is refer the back to Staff for some answers and clarification. Clint Wilkins From: mel phillippi<mvpmdp@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 11:50 AM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Cedarbrook Attachments: SW 92nd.JPG Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender Hello Agnes, I have retired and walk in the neighborhood that will be affected by the proposed Cedarbrook development. In a comment that I submitted on February 28th, I pointed out that most of the employee and truck traffic will most likely pass through our neighborhood in lieu of accessing the property via Hall Blvd.The developer responded by changing their estimate of 20%of the traffic using 92nd to even less! I CHALLENGE EVERYONE WHO IS INVOLVED WITH MAKING THIS DECISION to get in a car and test it out by taking the exits off of 217 north and south to see which of the two access points to Cedarbrook is easier and faster. It might be argued that the Hall Blvd exit from 217 south would be closer but that means going through more large intersections (5 traffic lights) and driving all the way around the facility to access parking and loading docks.The Greenburg exit has fewer and smaller intersections (3 traffic lights) and allows you to duck in via Coral or Lehmann and access the parking and loading docks directly at the back of the property using 92nd and Montage. Even coming in from 99w via Hall Blvd. it would be tempting to take a left at Locust and access 92nd via Coral, Borders or Lehman. This begs the question, What other facts has the developer twisted? A simple solution is to allow only emergency and dropoff traffic via our neighborhood by requiring a breakaway barrier at the Montage access point.Approximately$1,000. Attached is a photo of SW 92nd as it is now. Please don't let the developer take this away from us. Mel Phillippi 8784 SW Coral St. IWA + ` "cif �4: 61 r From: garbar13 Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022 5:47 PM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Cedarbrook proposal Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender To You,the Tigard City Council, The neighbors in our community adjacent to the proposed Cedarbrook development have been mobilized for over a year now in our fight to prevent a huge disruption to our streets. I am seeing a sense of defeat and a feeling of"what's the point" among my neighbors. For a city that touts itself as being responsive to its residents,that is not the feeling we have. We are counting on you, City Council Members,to help restore our faith in a government that listens to its people. On February 28th this year,the Planning Commission had a meeting for the public to voice their concerns.There were over ninety of us wanting to speak, including our attorney, but the meeting was a fiasco. I am not sure what caused there to be two meetings that night, but your constituents were at the wrong one.After that, participation and interest in the process has waned dramatically. A meeting was set up to occur in two weeks after that, even though our attorney wasn't available then. In short, there is a feeling that the people who live around this proposed development are not heard or respected. Don't we count? Don't our wishes matter to the city? People are leaving and considering selling. We don't want Cedarbrook to have access to our residential streets! Additionally, I understand that when the public makes comment, we need to refer to the applicable approval criteria codes. Many of our residents have stated the difficulty in doing this; we have no background or experience with the language of the codes. We worry that if we don't include those codes, our statements will be ignored. We are simply trying to protect our homes and standard of living. I can't speak for the residents of the Brownstone condominiums, but I can say with confidence, if Montage Lane is not opened to 92nd Avenue, the other neighbors would be OK with the development. We just don't want ANY more traffic on our residential streets. Thank you. I hope you hear me. Juanita Garnow Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone KENNETH P. DOBSON ATTORNEY AT LAW telephone: (971)717-6582 324 S.W.Abernethy Street email: landlaw.oregon@gmail.com Portland,Oregon 97239 www.pdxlandlaw.com May 9,2022 Via Electronic Mail Agnes Lindor Associate Planner City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 AgnesL@tigard-or.gov Re: Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Review ZCA202 1-00001 / SDR202 1-00001 Ms. Lindor: I represent Teresa Gipson. Please accept this letter Ms. Gipson's additional comments concerning the above referenced land use development application and please make sure they are placed before the Tigard City Council for consideration at the public hearing on the application scheduled for May 10, 2022. The Proposed Development is a "Dwelling" Staff has taken the position that many of the provisions of the Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC"), including certain design standards set forth at TCDC 18.230.040, are not applicable because the proposed assisted living facility does not contain "dwelling units" as that term is defined by the code. See Staff Report pp 26-28. Specifically, staff reasons that because the individual residence rooms in the proposed development lack kitchen facilities, they are not dwelling units. TCDC 18.30.020(14) defines "dwelling unit" as: a. "Dwelling unit" -A structure or portion thereof that is used for human habitation including permanent provisions for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation. In this case, there is no dispute the proposed building will be used for"human habitation" and includes "permanent provisions for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation." The plans clearly show kitchen, sanitation, and dining facilities for the residents. There is nothing in the definition of"Dwelling Unit" that requires the "cooking" facilities be located in the same room as those used for sleeping and sanitation. On the contrary, most residential structures, from single family homes to large institutional residences like what is proposed here, separate cooking areas from Agnes Lindor May 9,2022 Page 2 those used for sanitation and sleeping. Because the proposed facility as whole is clearly a "dwelling unit" as that term is defined by the code, the applicant must comply with all provisions of TCDC 18.230.040 relating to "dwelling units." The Proposed Cul-De-Sac is Not Allowed The original staff report recommended denial of the application because, among other things, the application could not meet street design requirements set forth at TCDC 18.910.030.H.2, which states in relevant part: "All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code." In this case, the original staff report found that this standard had not been met (and could not be met with a condition of approval) because the design did not provide for through circulation for SW Montage Lane. Original Staff Report pp. 38-39. In response, the applicant submitted a revised application that included a cul-de-sac at SW Montage Lane, rather than extending the street to connect with SW Hall Boulevard. However, CDC 18.910.030L states that cul-de-sacs are only permitted when: "environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation" In this case, there are no topographical barriers to extending SW Montage Lane to other existing streets. Although there is existing development to the east of the proposed residential center that would make a connection to SW 90th Avenue difficult, it would not preclude extending SW Montage east and then north to make a connection to SW Hall Boulevard. Therefore, for the cul-de-sac to be allowed, the applicant bears the burden of proving that "strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation." Applicant has not met this burden. It does not attempt to explain how or why "strict adherence to other standards" precludes extending SW Montage to SW Hall. Instead, it simply argues that the impacts of this development are not proportional to the costs of a full, public through-street connection in this location. This misstates the standard for determining when "strict adherence to other standards preclude street extension through circulation." TCDC 18.910.030.H.2 states in relevant part: "A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions." (emphasis added). Agnes Lindor May 9,2022 Page 3 As noted above, the project can be redesigned and reconfigured to allow the through connection to Hall Boulevard. While applicant might not like having to reduce the footprint of the proposed facility to comply with this standard, it can nevertheless be accomplished. Because it is entirely feasible to reconfigure the project to allow the required connectivity, strict adherence to other standards does not preclude the street extension, which in turn bars the creation of the proposed cul-de-sac. The staff and applicant might argue that the extension of SW Montage to SW Hall would amount to an exaction or public dedication subject to the "roughly proportional" standard. However, applicant would still be free to make the connection via a private street or driveway and not a public street dedication. That would eliminate any Dolan concerns and avoid the need to comply with the roughly proportional requirements of TCDC 18.910.020. Finally, even assuming the "roughly proportional" standard still applied, the applicant has failed to offer any real evidence such as alternative design options, cost estimates, or other information demonstrating the costs of coming into compliance with the street connectivity requirements. The "Roughly Proportional" Standard Is Not "Clear and Objective" as Required by the Needed Housing Statute Even assuming the "roughly proportional" standard of TCDC 18.910.020 somehow applied, the City would be barred from using that standard to allow the proposed cul-de-sac under the Needed Housing Statute set forth at ORS 197.307(4), which states: "(4) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of housing, including needed housing." In this case, the applicant readily acknowledges that the "proposed development is residential in nature and is classified as apartment development" and "provides a much-needed housing option for Metro area seniors." Project Narrative pp 22, 46. Because there is no question that the proposed development is for "housing," the clear and objective requirements of ORS 197.307(4) apply. TCDC 18.910.020 states: "Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. On its face, this provision is a "standard, condition, and procedures regulating the development of housing." However, the term "roughly proportional to the impact of the development" is undefined, open to subjective application, and is anything but "clear and objective." Accordingly, the provision is unenforceable under ORS 197.307(4) and cannot be used to excuse compliance with the street connectivity standards set forth at TCDC 18.910.030.H.2 In its response to Ms. Gipson's comments on this issue, applicant attempts to argue that the US Supreme Court's decision in Dolan v. City of Tigard somehow insulates TCDC Agnes Lindor May 9,2022 Page 4 18.910.020 from the Needed Housing Statute's mandate that land use regulations affecting housing be clear and objective. Applicant misunderstands the holding and effect of Dolan. In Dolan, the Planning Commission conditioned approval of a land use application to expand a store and pave a parking lot upon a dedication of land for a public greenway along Fanno Creek. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). The Supreme Court held that when a local government conditions a land use development application on a dedication of land for public use, the conditions would constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment unless the required dedication is "roughly proportional" in nature and extent to the proposed development's impact. 512 US at 391. Thus, if the requirement for public dedication is not roughly proportional to the impact of the development, the local government would be required to pay the landowner just compensation for the required public dedication. Under Dolan, a finding that that requiring the applicant to extend SW Montage Lane to connect with SW Hall Boulevard is not roughly proportional to the impacts of the development would not, as applicant suggests, prohibit the requirement outright. At most, it would instead simply open the discussion as to whether the City would have to provide the owner compensation for the dedication of land to complete the connection. This takings analysis has nothing to do with the independent requirements under the Needed Housing Statute that standards, conditions, and procedures regulating the development of housing be "clear and objective." ORS 197.307(4). As discussed above, the "roughly proportional" language in TCDC 18.910.020 does not meet the Needed Housing Statute's "clear and objective" requirements and is therefore unenforceable and cannot be used to excuse the applicant's non-compliance with the general street connectivity standards of TCDC 18.910.030.H.2 or justify the use of cul-de-sac under CDC 18.910.030L. Moreover, the applicant has not addressed the option of using a private driveway to comply with the street connectivity requirements, which would avoid altogether a public street dedication and a takings analysis. Because nothing in Dolan v. City of Tigard prohibits application of the Needed Housing Statute, and because there is nothing else that would prohibit the applicant from meeting the street connectivity requirements of TCDC 18.910.030.H.2 so as to justify the use of cul-de-sac, the application must be denied. Vision Clearance Standards Have Not Been Met The development application must also be denied because it does not comply with the vision clearance standards set forth at TCDC 18.930.030. In reviewing compliance with these standards, staff noted: "The vision clearance areas are shown on the plans but do not comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.930 and cannot be made to comply through conditions of approval, as discussed later in this report. This standard is not met." Staff Report p. 34 (emphasis added). Agnes Lindor May 9,2022 Page 5 Despite expressly stating that the vision clearance standards cannot be met through a condition of approval, staff later in its report goes to recommend approving the application anyway and deferring compliance with these requirements through a condition of approval. Staff Report p. 65. However, conditions of approval are not findings and cannot substitute for, or be used to avoid, demonstrating compliance with approval criteria or standards. Neither staff nor the applicant has given any good reason why compliance with the vision clearance standards cannot be determined during the hearings on the application or why that determination should be deferred to some later time. Moreover, conditions of approval cannot be imposed unless there is a finding that the compliance with the conditions is "feasible" "Feasibility means that substantial evidence supports findings that solutions to certain problems (for example, landslide potential) posed by a project are possible, likely and reasonably certain to succeed." Meyer v. City of Portland, 678 P.2d 741, 67 Or App 274, 280 n.5 (1984). However, in this case, the applicant has not offered substantial evidence that compliance with the vision clearance standards is "likely and reasonably certain to succeed." If there were such evidence, then there would no reason to defer a determination of compliance with these requirements by way of a condition of approval. Because staff has already determined that the vision clearance standards have not been met (and cannot be met through a condition of approval), the application must be denied. The Planning Commission's Rescheduling of the February 28 Hearing Violated the City Code This matter was set for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on February 28, 2022. Over 75 community members appeared at the hearing ready to provide testimony on the application. However, an hour into the hearing and without taking any public comment, the Planning Commission unliterally decided to reschedule the matter until March 14, 2022. At the rescheduled March 14 hearing, the Planning Commission will vote on whether to recommend the proposed annexation. Annexations are a Type III proceeding subject to Section 18.710.070 of the Tigard Community Development Code, which states in relevant part: 18.710.070 Type III Procedure A. Notice of hearing. 1. A notice of hearing must be provided as follows: a. At least 20 days prior to the hearing date, a notice of hearing must be mailed to: i. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the proposed development site; ii. All property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development site; Agnes Lindor May 9,2022 Page 6 iii. City's interested parties who have requested to receive notice of all land use notices; iv. Any city-recognized neighborhood group and community organizations whose boundaries include the proposed development site; v. Any affected governmental agency that is entitled to such notice; and vi. In actions involving appeals, the appellant and all parties to the appeal In this case, the City only gave 14-days' notice of the rescheduled hearing. In addition, the notice that was given was limited in scope and was not sent to all the parties specified in this section. This violation has prejudiced Ms. Gipson and other members of the public. I was retained to represent Ms. Gipson with the understanding that I would be able to attend the February 28 hearing, listen to the applicant's and the City's presentations, and provide informed and meaningful comment in response. I was able to log into the hearing and was ready and able to provide such testimony, but the hearing was cut short without any public comments and rescheduled to March 14, 2022. Unfortunately, was out of the country on March 14 with no practicable internet or telephone access and was unable participate in the hearing, thereby prejudicing the rights of Ms. Gipson to meaningfully participate in the land use process. The Planning Commission's Rescheduling of the February 28 Hearing Violated the City's Comprehensive Plan Goal 1 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan states: "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." In this case, the City unilateral decided to reschedule the hearing on the application with only a 14-day public notice that was not given to all the parties entitled to notice under the City Code. This lack of notice and refusal to reschedule the hearing to a time that worked for the public has deprived the citizens of the opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process as required by the City's Comprehensive Plan. For this reason, the application must be denied or, at the very minimum, remanded to the Planning Commission with additional notice to allow for meaningful opportunity for citizen involvement. The Proposed Development and Annexation is Not in the City's Interest, Fails to Provide Adequate Protection for Nearby Residential Properties, and will Adversely Affect Transportation Systems and Quality of Urban Services Many members of the public have expressed concerns regarding the adverse effects this large development will have on the surrounding residential neighborhood. These concerns include increased traffic, reduced pedestrian safety and emergency vehicle access, inadequate onsite parking, blocked sunlight, noise, and general interference with quality of life. The Agnes Lindor May 9,2022 Page 7 public's concern regarding traffic and more generalized quality of life issues implicates several additional applicable approval criteria. For example, Under Metro Code 3.09D, the city must consider the effect of an annexation on quality of urban services. In this case, the increased traffic will adversely affect the quality of transportation and emergency services in the vicinity of the development. Under Tigard Comprehensive plan policy 12, the City must ensure that the transportation system meets current community needs and anticipated growth and development. However, this proposal would overload the system, especially considering the other anticipated growth and development in the surrounding area. Under TCDC 18.720.030A(2), the annexation must be in the City's best interest. In this case, the annexation to allow this development would not be in the City's best interest for the various reasons raised in numerous public comments. Similarly, under TCDC 18.910.030Q, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties where the development will abut an arterial street such as Hall Boulevard. However, the proposed development would not provide adequate protection of the surrounding residential neighborhood as discussed in the public comments. Sincerely, Kenneth P. Dobson From: Robert Evenson <bob@even sonarchitects.com> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 12:34 PM To: Agnes Lindor Cc: Jan Erickson Subject: (Warning: Possible Spam/Phish): Emailing: CEDARBROOK SUBMITTAL- ZCA2021-00001/SDR2021-00001 Attachments: CEDARBROOK SUBMITTAL 001.jpg CEDARBROOK SUBMITTAL 002.jpg CEDARBROOK SUBMITTAL 003.jpg CEDARBROOK SUBMITTAL 004.jpg [You don't often get email from bob@evensonarchitects.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification.] Hello Agnes, Attached are 4 documents that I would like to submit to the public record regarding the proposed Cedarbrook Assisted Living Development. It is my belief that the current development plan is overbuilt relative to the size of the site and existing site amenities including trees and wetland. Existing tree canopies can provide shade to users and tend to keep ground temperatures lower. The current plan includes 92 parking spaces for 159 living units or 1.72 units per parking space. Nearby Raleigh Hills Assisted Living has approximately 99 living units and 25 parking spaces or approximately 4.0 units per parking space. My father lived at Raleigh Hills Assisted Living for 2-3 years so I am familiar with the facilities. The current Cedarbrook plan provides narrow landscaped strips and few landscaped open space areas for tenants to use at the grade level. Contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bob Evenson,Architect Robert Evenson Associates,AIA 5319 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 133 Portland Oregon,97221 503-221-0890 https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com? d=evensonarchitects.com&u=d3d3LmV2ZW5zb25hcmNoaXRIY3RzLmNvbQ==&i=NThkOT-OMjhiMDMYODkxNG UwY2Y1M2lw&t=cTRjWm51K3ZLdDIJd09Len pCcnp3eUUzbmFSV2pEZGxtbHZLY0pLa2Rrdz0=&h=e96f51d187c645 Od992f9ccf3afe2972 Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: CEDARBROOK SUBMITTAL 001 CEDARBROOK SUBMITTAL 002 CEDARBROOK SUBMITTAL 003 CEDARBROOK SUBMITTAL 004 Note:To protect against computer viruses,e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 'oma wl p as i�a IIs w �' i o_�r tl�7KE£Ciwo � zs EXlSTlN6 5/7E SNCI�Y�-��sREHwEO/Pf�/dlE7P_K i ALL OF THESE TRESS f✓'o OM4es W6 S6a&Ti6E1 Ta S5 Av.O✓EO ANa4P VT aAv, ALL77,12�;7 �� .:... .. ., ��. �. 11�� `` '�I �. ■ �, ��. ;_ �\ RECOMMENDED CHANGES � acouca anaairy ux �� ;s w.amoa.oNaMOEOPEN.oA�E�oa..rv.rv., SON4E f�COMM�N�-A S{75 PLAN ayo,E May 9, 2022 Agnes Lindor City of Tigard Planning Division 13135 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Cedarbrook,ZCA2021-00001/SDR2021-00001 I am not opposed to the proposed development, but consistent with the neighborhood, I have concerns as it relates to negative impacts caused by the project and the conditions of approval recommended by staff. There are 3 main code items that I take issue with: 1. Section 18.920; Access, Egress, Circulation The staff report says that the full street improvement which would connect SW Montage Ln.to Hall Blvd is not`roughly proportional to the developers impact.' That recommendation may be appropriate if the proposed development was to access the proposed building and site from the main collector street(Hall Blvd.) only. However,the applicant has oriented the building so that part of the building function will rely on the neighborhood street system which is not meeting local street minimums in their current condition. Why is any extra burden of increased traffic placed on the existing local streets,which are not meeting the current street standards? It seems that the roadway system in which the development will rely on should be meeting minimum standards. My concern is that pedestrians still will not have safe refuge from vehicle traffic. See excerpt at the end of this letter for statement on existing neighborhood conditions. This expect provides more background on the current neighborhood circulation system. 2. Section 18.720 Annexations The City is recommending annexation of this property from Unincorporated Washington County to City of Tigard. This annexation seems appropriate, but back to the previous point that this proposed development will partially rely on a local street system that does not meet minimum standards. The increased traffic burden on the neighborhood will be placed most heavily on SW 92nd Ave. and SW Borders Street, both of which have no sidewalks or sidewalks that are not continuous and offer little usefulness. This burden should be the responsibility of the city or the development that is causing the burden. Even a compromise of the street standards would be a step in the right direction,one that provides at least one connected sidewalk to provide safe refuge from vehicles. 3. Section 18.910.030.BB Traffic Calming The last issue and frankly the minimum that should have been included in the staff report are conditions of approval for future traffic calming as outlined in section 18.910.030.1313. Even a modest increase in traffic to our neighborhood as described in the applicants traffic analysis is enough to throw off the circulation balance in our neighborhood. The code provides a means to minimally provide future traffic calming if negative impacts are created within the first 5 years after completion of the proposed development. Not including funds in the conditions of approval as described in the section seems to be a poor judgment call by the city engineer especially given the outpouring of concerns from the neighborhood. Pedestrians have very limited safe refuge from vehicles in our neighborhood and traffic calming,while not a solution, could provide a back-up plan to help capture drivers' attention should adverse traffic impacts be experienced after the development is completed. Existing neighborhood conditions that effect these comments: As you are probably aware, our neighborhood is defined on the North and East by Hall Blvd. And then on the West by Greenberg Road and on the South by Hwy 217. Only 4 safe(pedestrian) crossings exist to exit out of our neighborhood via intersections and traffic signals. These barriers create an internal neighborhood route for pedestrian use which rely mainly on SW 90th Ave. to SW Borders Street and finally to SW 92nd Ave. This loop is used by walkers, bikers, dog-walkers,joggers, and kids finding places to play and circulate the neighborhood. You also are aware that our streets are narrow and consist mainly of 22'-24'paved sections for these roadway segments. The county recently added sidewalks along the N-S section of 90th Ave. but other than that, sidewalks are almost non-existent and those that are found are in short un-connected segments that are not usable. The 22'-24'wide pavement is relied upon to provide 2-way vehicle traffic,pedestrian traffic, and often on-street vehicle parking. This is not conducive to safe pedestrian circulation and has resulted in incidents between vehicles and pedestrians. The minimum City of Tigard local street section requires a 24'wide paved section for vehicles and a separated 5'wide sidewalk on both sides. 1 understand many of these streets are owned by Washington County and not the City of Tigard. Even then the county minimum street sections provide at least a sidewalk on one side. In conclusion, I am concerned about our current neighborhood pedestrian circulation routes. I would like to see resources devoted to improving our streets and provide safe refuge for pedestrians. Our neighborhood should not be negatively impacted based on the un-willingness of the city or the applicant to maintain or improve the neighborhoods circulation system. C 74 Jason Gillies 9707 SW 901h Ave Tigard, OR 97223 From: robruedy<robruedy@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:52 AM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Reply to: ZCA2021-00001/SDR2021-00001 Cedarbrook Notice of Public Hearing Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender Ms. Lindor, I'm genuinely looking forward to tomorrows City Council meeting. What is the Tigard Development Code reference identification(s)for the all applying Developer's Design Documents "completion" prior to, or within, the submission(s)for their application for City Planning Department Review for document completeness? I'm having difficulty in locating that specific requirements section in the Development Code. Thanks, in advance,for your assistance with clarity relating to this inquiry. Respectfully yours, Rob Ruedy Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone --------Original message-------- From:Agnes Lindor<agnesl@tigard-or.gov> Date: 4/25/22 11:38 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Rob Ruedy<robruedy@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Reply to: ZCA2021-00001/SDR2021-00001 Cedarbrook Notice of Public Hearing Good afternoon- The webpage contains a link to the applicant materials. Here is a link to the webpage: https://www.tigard-or.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/1276/424?toggle=allupcoming The webpage also contains the PC Recommendation and attachments.Thanks, Agnes Lindor Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesL tigard-or.gov From: Rob Ruedy<robruedy@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday,April 21, 2022 5:38 PM To:Agnes Lindor<agnesl@tigard-or.gov> Cc: Robert Ruedy<robruedy@yahoo.com> Subject: Reply to: ZCA2021-00001/SDR2021-00001 Cedarbrook Notice of Public Hearing Ms. Lindor, Where can I find and access the current submission documents and all related drawings provided to the City of Tigard for the subject project? Please provide a reply with a "link" and any passwords necessary to access them. Respectfully yours, Robert Ruedy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Tuesday,April 19,2022, 10:17:12 AM PDT,Agnes Lindor<agnesl@tigard-or.gov>wrote: Good morning- Please find attached the notice of public hearing for City Council on May 10th,2022 at 6:30pm. The Planning Commission recommendation will be available on the City's website 15 days prior to the hearing.Thank you, Agnes Lindor Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesL@tigard-or.gov DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." From: Gretchen Beuhner<gbuehnerlaw@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 10:22 AM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Re: Cedarbrook City Council Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender Block sender Thank you for info. Unfortunately,I had a relapse and am in the hospital.I will not be able to testify. Gretchen Buchner by Jack Inman On Monday,May 9,2022,06:14:48 AM PDT,Agnes Lindor<agnesl@tigard-or.gov>wrote: Good morning Gretchen- Here is a link to the public hearings page for Tuesday City Council meeting. https://www.tigard-or.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/1276/424 Providing Testimony If you would like to provide testimony at the hearing, please call 503- 966-4101 . The call will be answered by a City IT staff person. The staff person will ask for your name and contact information. You will then be placed in the queue to provide testimony. The hearing will start with staff and applicant presentations. Then the City Council will open the public testimony portion of the hearing and at this time you will be able to provide testimony to City Council. The IT staff person will take you out of the queue to provide testimony. Testimony will be taken in the order that phone calls are received. If you would like to testify, you must call between 6:45 PM and 7:30 PM to get into the phone queue for public testimony. Watch or Listen to the Hearing If you do not wish to provide testimony but would like to watch or listen to the hearing, click on this link to watch or call 503-718- 3816 to listen. Please keep in mind that the video is approximately one minute behind the live meeting. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thanks! Agnes Lindor Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." CPO 4M Metzger, Durham, East Tigard �Lz Washington County, Oregon 10655 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223 TESTIMONY FOR CPO-4M in opposition to annexation and development May 8, 2022 Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary, doreen(c)ti arg d_oror.g_ov Agnes K. Lindor,Associate Planner,Agnes L@tigard-or-gov City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Opposition to both Cedarbrook Annexation (ZCA2021-00001) and Site Development Review (SDR2021-00001) TO: The Honorable Tigard City Council, ORAL TESTIMONY will be different than written testimony submitted. These proposals for annexation and development should be denied. Last week at our virtual monthly meeting, Community Participation Organization-4M (CPO-4M), which has residents of both Tigard and county included its membership, over a dozen residents unanimously approved two motions pertaining to the Cedarbrook Annexation and Development Application. First, CPO-41VI opposes annexation of this piece of property from unincorporated Washington County to the City of Tigard code 18.720.030 (2). As stated in Kathleen Noonan's testimony and comments, some Tigard residents anxious about the proposed Cedarbrook development and its consequences, have already moved from this neighborhood. and we have heard other families and residents plan have already put their dwellings up for sale if it is approved. This is decreases livability of a longstanding neighborhood and is not in the best interest of the city of Tigard or Washington County. It has clearly effected 'quality of life' for residents. Some have put their property up for sale because of these livability issues. Annexation is not beneficial for the City of Tigard. 1 CPO-4M opposes the annexation because it appears to be not just a stretch, but a shady and sneaky way to avoid the county development codes that have existed for decades. City codes and interpretations of the codes are unclear and subjective CPO-4M also opposes the annexation because previous annexations into the City of Tigard decades ago have not built the infrastructure (sidewalks, etc.) that were promised. CPO-4M also opposes the annexation due to the inconsistences within documents regarding the number of acres to be annexed. Is it 2.56 acres? or 2.53 acres? or 2.9 acres? Also, CPO-4M opposes the development application for Cedarbrook Memory Care and Assisted Living for many reasons, including potential violations of the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Goals and codes related 92nd Avenue, the cul de sac, traffic concerns in a residential neighborhood, and noise levels from emergency vehicles. How many of you have seen or reviewed the full application? We (the CPO public) have had difficulty studying materials relating to the Cedarbrook application electronically and in print. Contrary to city policy, why was the revised staff report not available for a full two weeks? The annexation and location/street address for the development application seems to be mis- labeled. For safety concerns, vehicular access to the property should be on SW Hall Boulevard (as that is the address on all public notices). There was also confusion caused by dates for public hearings. Gross procedural arguments have effected and prejudiced the ability of the public and attorney to comment. The February 281h public hearing was "complete chaos", and citizens lost confidence in the City of Tigard ability to conduct hearings. The City Planning Commission decided (without the public's input) to proceed without full notification of the participants online and the public. We don't know whether the totally muted hearing was deliberate or a mistake. It prejudiced the hired attorney's ability to speak to Planning Commission prior to their wrong decision. Thank you. Yours truly, Jim Long, Chair 503-647-0021 2 May 9, 2022 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) Image#1 Over the weekend I reread most of the public comments and was amazed at the sincere and heartfelt comments submitted by so many of many Metzger residents.As a group we made an effort to be heard, for many people this is the first time they have participated in the planning process of a proposed development. We don't do this every day,we are not all engineers or architects or urban planners, so we had to learn how to the planning process works. In honor of the sincere efforts and many hours put into this endeavor to save our neighborhood, I would like to commend our neighbors and the Metzger community. Image#2 To be clear the neighborhood is against the proposed Cedarbrook facility, hands down against it. In reading the almost 600 pages of public comment I saw only one person who was in favor of the proposed facility.The existing neighborhood residents do not feel like the proposed facility will improve the neighborhood but will instead degrade and reduce the quality of their life. The reasons why? • It doesn't' fit into the neighborhood as far at type of building (it is clearly a commercial building that people live in, not residential) The surrounding neighborhood is mostly single-family, one- story dwellings and zoned R-5. • The building is too big for the site, and the scale,will overwhelm the existing houses that are adjacent to it.The proposed site has hardly any outdoor open space for its residents. Image#3 • The neighborhood is against the increase in traffic.The streets are currently an active and lively part of neighborhood life. Many people regularly use the neighborhood streets for family activities, kids ride their bicycles, dogs walk their humans, people meet and socialize. Image#4 • These streets provide the walkability and livability that is so valued in the community. Image#5 • The increase in traffic poses a safety issue, plus additional noise from delivery trucks, ambulances and vehicles cutting through the neighborhood. Image#6 City council members, please read the recorded 600 pages of public comments before you make your decision. Please carefully consider how this development would affect an extremely walkable and currently pleasant neighborhood and how the proposed facility if allowed to go through could negatively affect the existing resident's quality of life. After that then please vote to deny the proposed Sited development plan and proposed annexation as it is not good for the existing residents. Thank you,Jan Erickson, 1 May • 2022 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner • - -•. • •• ' 121-0001 SDR20211111 METZGER DOGS r AGAINST' CEDARBROOK KEEo MFT[��R wAi KABIC k May • 2022 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner • - -•, • •• 1 111 D' 1 1111 r U(9 1i + • M 4 C� a la es�ela ,� . We8ne5ComirliT o it!n ruectids a n 2p22 +S Y May 4.202 •miercales 4 dQ°" y `p�•. � da sJ May 9, 2022 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) Z 3 y r s ,7r'x 4 May • 2022 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner • - -•, • •• 1 111 D' 1 1111 a ., �" _✓ X01 � '�'"3'� May • 2022 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner • - -•. • •• ' 121-0001 SDR20211111 1 � ` • 1 • - -•, • •• � 1 111 � ' 1 1111 r az' CED-ARBROOK `U R STREETSSAVEO ;n u Av 0 .4y Az f" Af May 8, 2022 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) RE: annexation from Washington county to the City of Tigard 18.720.030 Approval Criteria Under Tigard code 18.720.030 B, Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. ...In the case of land that carries county designations, the city will convert the county's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the city designations that are the most similar. The existing site density under Washington county is R18-24, indicating a standard of 18 to 24 dwelling units would be allowed per acre. The proposed Cedarbrook facility site plan does not follow this City of Tigard code of converting to a similar density and zoning designations, but instead the applicant proposes to change the zoning to MUR1 and raise the density of the site up almost 3 times as much. Their drawing states that they have 181 "units" and 2.53 acres, that works out to a whopping 71.5 dwelling units per acre! The neighborhood has written multiple comments about the scale of the facility not being in line with the rest of the neighborhood. It is 3-4 story and is adjacent to 1 story, single family residential dwellings. This site is not the right location for this height and size of building. The neighborhood has written multiple comments about how the facility should not be able to divert traffic from a commercial business (that is what this assisted living facility is) through local residential streets. This additional traffic affects the safety, livability, and walkability of our existing neighborhood. Many people walk with their families daily, we also have many dogwalkers in the neighborhood that use the streets multiple times a day. I personally usually walk my dog 3 times a day and often put in over 3 miles, on these very streets. If the traffic increases as much as is projected, I may have to start driving to someplace else to walk my dog. How silly is that to be in an area that proclaims to be walkable and values livability and walkability but have to drive somewhere else to walk? The applicant has requested to be re-zoned to MUR1 and annexed into the City of Tigard. By allowing this to happen the city appears to be willing to not follow their own codes and allow this gross increase of density which burdens the existing neighborhood and the entire community. Please see the correspondence from Michelle Miller, Washington County Planner. This letter reinforces the intent of Tigard code 18.720.030 B to maintain similar zoning density numbers when annexing from Washington county to the city of Tigard. 1 May 8, 2022 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) From: Michelle Miller<Michel le—Miller@co.washington.ar.us> Sent: Tuesday,July 13,20213:54 PM To: ceklingman@gmail.com Cc: Agnes Lindor;Theresa Cherniak; Melissa De Lyser; LUT Planning Subject: Washington County Resp anse on Cedarbroak ALF in Tigard Attachments: TigardUPAA DctO3.pdf Cautionl This message was sent from outside your organization_ Allow sender I Block sender Christine and Richard Klingman, Thank you for your comments concerning the proposed annexation to Tigard and development within the city of property at 4355 and 9415 SW Hall Blvd. You requested the County consider opposing this project for several reasons stated in your letter. The County's position concerning this project is based on the maps and terms about annexations found in the County—Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement(UPAA)(attached).This agreement, adapted as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, describes and maps Tigard's urban planning area and includes policies for coordinating comprehensive planning and development within the planning area in compliance with state planning goals and laws. It includes policies about future urbanization and annexation of unincorporated areas surrounding the city. This annexation and development proposal falls within Tigard's urban planning area boundary and their Area of Interest.The County-Tigard UPAA states the County will not oppose annexation within these boundaries if the annexation meets state law. One of the special provisions in the UPAA is that Tigard agrees to convert the County's land use designation to the City's land use plan designation that most closely approximates the density, use provisions and standards of the County's designation for the site. The County has designated the site as the Transit Oriented Residential District, 18-24 units per acre (TO:R18-24) (see County Community Development Code § 375.)The purpose of a transit oriented land use designation is to"direct and encourage development that is transit supportive and pedestrian oriented in areas within ......planned primary bus routes and in town centers and regional centers."Group care facilities like the Cedarbrook Assisted Living and Memory Care facility would generally be considered a permitted use under this County designation and the type of permitted use contemplated for thissite.Thus,the County would be supportive of Tigard adopting a similar land use district that would allow this type of project. The other issues you raised would likely be considered during Tigard's review of the project under its development code standards should the annexation be approved.The transportation impacts of the development on County roads and transportation improvements will be reviewed by County transportation planning staff during the land use permit phase and a County response on the project will be submitted to Tigard planning staff through the land use review process. If you would like more information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. 2 May 8, 2022 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) Sincerely, Michelle Miller Michelle Miller,Senior Planner,Community Planning Washington County Department of Land Use&Trans portati a n Planning and Development Servlces Division I Long Range Planning Section MAILING ADDRESS: ISS N. First Avenue,Suite 350,MS14 � Hillsboro,0R 97124 503-845-8101 direct 1503-846-4412 fax michelle_miller@co.washington.or.us I www.to.washinRton.or.us/lut Washington County.Roads on Twitter on Facebook Plan Responsibly. Build Safely, Lime Weil The thing is both the Planning Commission and the City Council have options other than approving or denying the proposed facility. Some people may not be so against the facility if the traffic was not routed through the neighborhood, or if the facility used its own entry and exit off Hall. If the size of the building wasn't so grossly overbuilt for the neighborhood and surrounding homes, it might be more acceptable to the existing residents. If the density upgrade wasn't so out of line with what is existing, many the existing resident may not find the proposed facility so objectionable. There are a lot of options and alternatives, many have been brought up to the city and to the applicant in the public comments. The applicant has not made any effort to accommodate the neighbors or to try to find a solution to the many issues that have been brought to their and the city's attention in the public comments and testimony. This excerpt is from Tigard City code 18.710.110 Legislative Procedure. D. Adoption process and authority. 1. The Planning Commission may: a. After the public hearing, formulate a recommendation to the City Council to adopt, adopt with modifications, adopt an alternative, or deny the Legislative application; and b. Within 14 days of determining a recommendation, the written recommendation must be signed by the presiding officer of the Planning Commission and filed with the Director. 2. The City Council may: a. Adopt, adopt with modifications, adopt an alternative, deny, or remand to the Planning Commission for rehearing and reconsideration on all or part of the Legislative application. 3 May 8, 2022 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) b. Consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission, however, it is not bound by the Planning Commission's recommendation; and c. Act by ordinance, which must be signed by the Mayor after the City Council's adoption of the ordinance. Notice "a" lists multiple options • Adopt • adopt with modifications • adopt an alternative • deny • remand to the Planning Commission for rehearing and reconsideration on all or part of the Legislative application. City council members, please read the presented 600 pages of sincere and heartfelt public comments before you make your decision. The proposed assisted living facility site development plan an annexation should be denied as designed. It simply doesn't work. Please look at what has been presented and carefully consider how this development would negatively affect an extremely walkable and currently pleasant neighborhood to live in and how it could potentially affect the existing resident's quality of life. Thank you for your consideration in this very important matter. Jan Erickson 4 May 8, 2022 1 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) These comments refer to Tigard comprehensive Plan goals, goal 1, goal 11, goal 12, goal 14 "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Goal l requires the local citizen involvement program "clearly define procedures by which the general public will be involved in the ongoing land-use process." These actions include methods makers to involve citizens in land use issues;promoting have an successful two-way communication and feedback between the City and its citizens;means by whicheffective way citizens may affect outcomes;clarity and availability of technical information;and financial support and to bear other resources for citizen involvement efforts.All voices of the of these actions align with the community's vision where citizens are informed about how to access public services and understand their responsibility to participate as members of the community. While this sounds great and looks good on paper, currently many of the resident of the Metzger community that are against the proposed Cedarbrook Assisted Living facility have been greatly frustrated and disappointed with the City of Tigard and their experience of being"involved" during this application for annexation and site development. People truly wanted to be engaged in the process and have their voices heard. Neighbors took the time to write sincere and heartfelt comments that they submitted to the city as part of the public record.There are over 600 pages of public comments submitted to the record. Many people participated in the public meetings; a record number of participants close to 100 attended the February 28th planning commission meeting that failed due to "technical difficulties". However, most of these active citizens now feel like their opinions were not heard by the city and are very disillusioned with the City of Tigard and their planning process. Because of this proposed facility several people have sold their homes and are moving out of this neighborhood. Others feel their quality of life will be so compromised by this proposed unsuitable project that that they are planning to move if it gets approved. City council members,this is your time to shine, please listen to the public verbal testimony and read all the recorded public comments. Yes, all 600 pages, do not make your decision before you have all the information. It is OK for you to postpone voting on this important decision that affects so many people's lives until you have had time to read and analyze the submitted record. Please STOP CEDARBROOK, this poorly planned, poorly conceived, and intrusive proposed assisted living facility before its too late. Send the site development plan and the annexation back to the drawing board, or the Planning Commission and force the applicant come up with a new plan for a reasonably sized facility that doesn't overshadow the existing homes or use the existing R-5 local streets for their access to their business. Thank you,Jan Erickson May 8, 2022 1 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) It has been a struggle to locate documents during this application period and be assured that they are the most current information. The Cedarbrook document seem to be moving around from a "one drive" to being located on the COT website. Multiple times I have had to ask for a link in order to view documents and be assured that I have the latest versions. Recently while viewing electronic documents at City Hall,we were told that there are new drawings for L-1 and for C101, C103 that were updated in response to the public testimony. If a person was to view these "new" document it would be hard to tell they had been altered. Both are stamped by licensed professionals however it appears that traditional drawing standards and document control have been disregarded. • C103-the date has been changed from 1/31/2022 to 3/16/2022, but it is very difficult to see exactly what has been changed on the document.There are no revision clouds to show the location of the change.There is not an entry in the revision block describing the update. • L1 and C101 are both still dated 2/11/2022, was the update done after the March 14th Planning Commission meeting?There is no revision block to describe what has been changed or a revision cloud show where the update was done. n ,�,- yam_ -- Y, 10 � T 9.59'/ �,� �'/ a °{ 0 211 215 LOT 3 �s TAX LOT 100 LOT 3 8 MATAX LOT P IS-1-260C1100 IAP 15-1-2600 TAX LOT 203 TAX LOT 203 MAP 1S-1-26D MAP 15-1-26OC i Before meeting C101 after meeting C101 While I am delighted that the developer has decided to not cut down their neighbors'trees as originally indicated in the recorded drawings these documents were added into the Cedarbrook application without clear notice of a substitution provided to the public. How would the public know about this change in documentation? With this decision to approve or deny the proposed Cedarbrook site development and annexation being a quasi-judicial decision it seems like more care should be taken with the recorded/submitted drawing documents and document control by the applicant, their consultants, and the City of Tigard. May 8, 2022 2 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) Please see Goal 1 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan goals, regarding availability of technical information as well as Tigard code 18.720. Below are several additional examples of people searching for the most current information. The below comments apply to goal 1, but also apply to Tigard codes 18.910, 18920, and 18930 From: Rachel Furman<refurman,slpCcDgmail.com> Sent., Friday,January 28, 2022 1:01 PM To: Agnes Undor Cc: Daniel Stoller Subject: Cedarbrook Development Hi Agnes, My neighbors and I wanted to check in to see if Mosaic Management c anyone submitted a new proposal}application c papers for the Cedarbrook Development.We want to make sure we have time to review and prepare for the Feb meeting,We have a lot of active neighbors(currently more than 25 Metzger neighborhood households)that want their voices to be heard. Thank you for always quickly responding and helping us stay up-to-date, Rachel May 8, 2022 3 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) From: Daniel Stoller rstoilerd@outlook.corn> Sent: Wednesday,February 2, 2022 5;09 PM To: Agnes Lindor; Rachel Furman Subject: Ra; Cedarbrook Development Cautionl This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender can talk tomorrow and can be reached at 248.935.8872 Also noticing in Exhibit F they've included the cul de sac but they've connected it to their private drives. This means that Montage Ln and Hall Blvd are collected via their private street. It's my understanding that the City of Tigard does not allow for a private drive to connect 2 public streets. Do you know if this is accurate? - 5 t Jed OWN Y Q'1 ro■ R `til U'E Web d IrrEa'Y4 arm -71 FV � =INUM .N Itr NOW IKM 1 y �, 1 1 ■moi+ p 9 ,0S ns�rr•• —kR�kEM i '.t JellAl�.:�� = t ' r� lrl�7R. May 8, 2022 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 SDR2021-00001) w 4 rig IRA 55 � TE� IiUIN �� RRE � s,�l� ti i �, ONO I I PqRltl I wl:1 Ikk Dan From:Agnes Lindorz:agneslCOtigard-or.gov> Sent:Wednesday, February 2,2022 8:00:23 PM To:Daniel Stoller<stollerd @outlock.com>-, Rachel Furman<refurrnan.slp@grnaIl.com> Subject:RE: Cedarbrac)k Development Hi Dan- Yes, they included previous correspondence. Do you have a phone number I can reach you at and I can walk you through it?Thanks, Agnes From:Daniel Stol le r<stollerd Poutlock.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 2,2022 4:57 PM May 8, 2022 5 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) To:Agnes Lindor{agnesl@tigard-or.gov>;Rachel Furman{refurman.slp[1a gmail.com> Subject:Re:Cedarbrook Development Hi Agnes, Can you clarify which docu ments are current/updated? I read the"Response to incompleteness" document and it says they are not submitting for a cul-de-sac. Dan From:Agnes Lindor{agnesl tigard-or.gav> Sent:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 7:45:29 PM To:Rachel Furman rrefurrnan,slpPgmail.com> Cc:Daniel Stoller<stol lend outlook.com> Subject:RE: Cedarbrook Development Hi Rachel- When I open the link below,I see their plans that show a cul de sac(see under exhibits,exhibit F). They are proposing to make Montage Lane a cui de sac that will be public.They will also provide an 8- foot public path within a public access easement that will run through their site from Montage Lane onto Hall Boulevard.Please let me know if you have additional questions. I can also put you in touch with Jeremy Tamargo(Engineering)if you have specific questions about access. Thanks again! Agnes From: Rachel Furman<refurman.slp@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 4:29 PM To:Agnes Lindor cagneslp gard-aLga> Cc:Daniel Stoller<stol lerd outlook.com> Subject:Re:Cedarbrook Development Thank you!Are we reading it correctly that they made no changes to the proposed road(Montage Lane)?They continue to state they won't follow the city's requirement as well as the neighborhoods desire to have Montage be a public road or make it a culdesac.Seems like they made little adjustments. Thank you, Rachel Get Outlook for iO5 From!Agnes Lindor<agnesl tigard-or.gov> Sent:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 3:22:34 PM To:Rachel Furman<refurrnan.slp,@gmail.com> Cc:Daniel Stoller<stollerd outlook.com> Subject:RE: Cedarbrook Development May 8, 2022 6 To: City of Tigard, Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Subject: Cedarbrook (ZCA2021-0001 / SDR2021-00001) Rachael and Dan noticed some inconsistencies in document versions. I've always thought that a professionally prepared drawing was a legal document. Is this acceptable to just switch out revisions of drawings without documentation that this has been done?While I don't know the exact law about this, there seems to be something wrong about this switch of recorded technical information being allowed to happen, especially in a quasi-judicial setting. This is not procedurally acceptable, and the City Council should hold off on their decision while they check into this irregularity or deny the annexation and site plan development application based on the unacceptable handling of recorded documents. Thank you for your consideration of this troublesome information. Jan Erickson yr I I vk I IV, 1 4 1 - P , Now 4 it ad IF It IWA IV � 5 der Addra., K�A NO NO I fig . ; d * y r y� Ad NO sq. 01 OF LYS n 4 ` r .t' kk It 1A' e ,p t r < % I , �� fL I ad .ayam� OF F, 404 IF arm 0 0 01A It fir"Ar n A �1 IN moo. • : - ,SOld� - r "X' ' 3 '1 , --It+. _ - v 'a . ,OWN 4 fin ++� ' D ZNO - y rt /.I • -..rte. d, NON, IV IN 11�6- V't-� ! t I . h 1 r am FIL %ps Or OFF Or IF, add a dal Flat afell, N. or Nap OF WI I da INOCIF0, FIN, ° idoor Or Y . i, < 1� s.data s 2� r• Ad 11 1 raw I r .,...... +moi .2'...." .Fat - _ ' ', +s,. • r f~ -yFar ,46"P'y' s.,,�,� _tn .;g, C:* .' " �n ^i°,. y, ^�r OF Ar air ArF Fit Far �3F : Ard , Or N OF or AFF IFNI OF Ad, e IFF *Iti �. . a c y. i '- #'w'C1ar, %S' �$prart; ai� ad ' l,�f� °'f''� svr.` '�°.°s`FIFFOO or dar 71 old It ., . Fast R xx : NAM NO aldr.Or ArNsv OF FINIFt Am advem 1. OF I _ I y .a, - r .. I - do% ad . OF "ice . _--r rs \ � IN Noo or do" FAA a � 14 r r t qr'.:a @ ;rya �, ., K IF IFF �y E; r V 'OFF d4b, Far .4 6 OREGON - - { Fool A Far 1 METZGCER _ , DOG N q Ir 0tit OF j)( I AGAINST '.6r - f�4 CEDARBROOK 4 r . it KEEP METZGER WALKABLE - ` OFF 0 Y Y {w2i6 / *4�y For . t1t r , ,SK! � � a 1. I, r , � ) 0 �` « � "a � Y . 17f y Ji r L� Far y .i2trP t•r"P, N� ;rlN'T LF r I ) .- I �It 4 � IF 1 " I . 1 11 'Fiat { t r (I I W I or K � / 4 � � \14 Yt4 .,fi ad a � - � / d� if t IF II t � d :0 / � I OF I . , i �✓� Fk OFor , , For i i 14 r .. Q 1 °1nr � w i It Or it p e w or 'x i r- or ..�IN G Fit 4 + rr •,. OF OF w , . ri , ' ,� - - or Y ad Or road or Nor jaw IN � � � � t . ON Ar tid , do IN NO or . : d ' :; ' >� '' I rd ja r 'OF orm 'A y u mar t' C \ IF A pp Farm I to p OF IL Or FIL i t ` ' ✓ � Jz � 'OFF IF � 4 hQ� tiy/t I t t ; ✓r 1 . r \ r i, F L Far r a III4Far OF - [ I .A;,�I 1 r r cz F j 31:`Jr' { I IF 0 Far No I Far ar L . � t air , 1110 IL l� I I IIF oradi 14 f ` / Ir 44 ti • . use M I y qmps 41 '�! • �" ' �� `,� � .sir � i Lk I I � - a r • . t - 'tw f # J� It it IPA ►► " ' i A# ab 1KNO w to SCgOOL 4r WALK + kO1. _- 1 It, . .. r ,edas a la encu a2 � minar a it en 2 Wednesday , M �J22SIAM ban • mtercoles 4 HiQ AW � . . it ••' '` ,, ev . F� f > < �y�«» © a d\��{< � l \ ƒ / »\2��\ � - � � « ^ ° \ \ < � . . » . \ \} . . ��. ��®� . : v . � � »» »<��2^ , <y ,� : . � : . « \ , . � \\ �� ® \ ° y - » < � \\ � . � �/ \. :�« », . . . � /z . � . . . � ,�\ \ �� Z :� y \ƒ.�� :\ 2 . : : � ©`3 � � ^ � � y ^ . � . § � �. . � \ ` ` � . � � � ^ « \ . . . - \ � . y. y ._ . z. � . y. . \ //d \ '�» . :§ \< §��: � \ ' \ / ^ \ � ~ � . : . . . \ . . ° « . ;v : . � � � / . r � � � y . : �� a��. � . � _ � - �� y y . , . : � z ��,�» y : � � — . y : �y. �,y . w\y© \ v� � . . . : :y /\��/�^ ` : ^ � . , w . . : < > . . :. . ��, . - , \� - � / , � © .§ � «�» »�2>� , v. �, � ; � . , . . . » : < >�d � � \� � 2 �\ \ \ ~ � »+e � � ® ,w.� . : � a . y �. . � . . . * ». � � : . < . � « . y . 3 . : e�� .w. � ��^^ � . � � � < . . � � . \ 2 \2 }' 22 , � : � \ �� > \ » . � . - a . ¥ � « . « � - � . w . /< � \ « . > � � : . �< . \ � � ^ � \ . . . > \� . . AIM rip It rf As � riAto y/ le hi +FF \ - 'M► K - ,*tei fe IR rv + 't i' 1VAi j�' �'nqt � R.s• !. 1 ji p IF IN a IF 9 91,10 It IF 4 1 11/ IL 1ko, vFm '�• fi �/ ir �$.. . ��. �R 5 9l�s h7' 1 .1 F. M R k �, %ti � , p , t ! \ 1y r` IIF � -. ire tt III itW41 plAt a . 6 161110Z L LOW I) t : r� CCC„777 44 �I aS y r1.a +yit � 6team I A 'mp Vail it IV, W I DVale > • 'zd,7w `�-- if 1 Fall, V, i/Fit aim � �1 � � :*yi ?F W . .i��/� �. �. u�.is t ^N• Jy +. at a all let to ter I all real Ve IFF t Pao! ^w •�'�a8 Fit a� ♦ ` ! '4� ' \ P' n % s�j n^ rR ' •T y _ a. ZIFF Oct Feet v al t ,� a �i� NOW A 1 4 1 A ( 4 Ask 4 a at r 4A All to A Fill Nalit el 07 l q We !4 fe . we;r A� M . t ' .�(' ^ ''till.'." M1 . 1 'Fit - It :.aI Vat- 11rai it Via M - —_�' X4,. ,,..7 .al ' Oro —fix - r" • tr; lial itael W _ i� r 1 , a �t ! a, r �Vat lVaia"Al -A W9y5:. �'`� FIR A 01 Fit1 tie. _ — It IVal ew Vi ltiti e to IF mallet ip It it I a mi at r at al t " Jilt - tIL - Vit . k% al t . l e. l 1. . v. N. � wsr ` ^ %AA Joe f , a `( w All A l or c , O �► u\ OV ev 4 Ar Fill A �.' ` is kk 6 010 I'll At tl it JA Far Fe r It- _ - - i let r : h ?93 � ' +t PRS 7 All . I �� p■]9 a .a . OFF, ( ? L t, , f 3 'Sl M AIL r a fig �1 � ♦ F T 46 s 1 Far p ,I g. gi FF 1Ir t or Ar mr FF it 1 410 I FI, fit mg am I It R •of k or a off ' a '4FA IF ♦ 6111. A ' - :. " e > lK Aft % • . t�� >mpoor of i , . �a� .. • , Air r �r el or Tr 'to For tot It Favor ib+ Yr Ft10 .Dry\Mot v r -'>.' w� - a 1106. Ft Forrop go. ` vo fl S� , , • fordFim / :� . ror d �- for ' 440" FF 1 it Or F ' if r ow Frio it �rOFF . ,. i� Ii J , r r tv FIR of FF FF r . 01 FF off . 0 dot IFF FF, FF I off 6 FIFF 1% go ape off OF It �4 t SAVE R STREETS 4 mr hk I 'r � . It FF or IF Vc"tir - , I , , , • k " _- f't //al From ,f For � .. FF It For % _ \ FF I i� or R ofF" FF FF Alow 40 FF i -4 \ II FF I , For � c _ ,fir-- . -• +e}�. . y�„ ;r? •K —� `� • - i 1 oor III tow #� t _ - IFFIF .: a , For� P 't"+' �' :3` -"rForgot-. a'; - - w _ ; A ' - ��v .meati; rom j►'+`��Yti• ► - - - _ - / � '�"� is of e"mo III oll;g. � From IFF f . t IMF For _l/ FIFFIFF. v I wt Allmlowrtfig , ' �""" /. i'� mrr` . �� / :, I" fes } /. �4 ` T+c! grr r � r rFI �' <` � to MMI" - 1 t/ - - Tt.r "may ' rrowgiort .� w c _.� . ..ut. _ �/Y�' - }i ► ' _ �h ' f / +Moore . r / ' - ,' "�' �, '`� ' - 'w.� f . • `', }.,. . .FF FF .�_ - . ro Fit of I ;. WWAFrom -�• 1;'./ 1 W ^` c .,y4„ -� �1!( 7� F' )'` ' R •. <J •, 1� 'd .�'� �� l•r \ �►► r - I .R ; r" • �14�,y^ " i7 - -For .,r , " . . ;, ; -� < y ' ' F �Ate , � . - . > : ' ` . �=+ �f31F�p FF a' - !"4^ :J arr J� _ i �� ,f /f( !1 -a5i 9 /•A �. ', - - yof FF, . •' i. z .. - - - .. � . .� 0 ; ` ,•� _ F"Fa � - ( A - /5 "�good ly .o . ' / r . . al` ' .. " . ri .� - - gi r iFF J� yrI > .. � � .,;iceFF FF I M ' mr,raror Ir. or ror IF - x ' '- .. �..! ,✓ d "'�-_ r �,.' �.'y'� • %� t. '1 ' i.rtn + _ �-` ,i _ � ' :'- - ,,;'s«�' . ' 4 � '� 1 r„t�E�;�.r.! � '��. 1� trot ` .+` - � . I _ b - � f ` ys"l . . For - � � . •/ ` ,i _ �Ir,� . + I I '� � y ,.�1. !- r , �/ . `Jk' '.. • t � , �iyl {� 'i _ - -� :�, a x - -� . . '-" �. a�,l ;� _ ,/ ) , t. d - y` • /IR>� t� ! r R.. ' /3 ,:. . „!!.. to 41 f IF Ir Ig 1 00 �-r/ - ' , '�- - � F. 5. ? ;{ - - \.• ,, ._ _f ito t 1 'y',t , ''tel . � , > �! `"4 "' � t ab ` ` C. 1� � - t . `1+10 /F ' " , ' ,Yr.� For got A. �" � ,• — '� 1 .' •rForFry ,� .i, - A ` �, ' yv; . . > � ,For ft ' / /�a�; , 6 ' `, . \ �C 4^ ' > _✓ '1 ,L; . -Irm r , tr- rw „ O�= � _ � A� �. i . i�` y�y} gt � y A f � ' , � j, E ' )�w'i'.4 .v .,'+t0� . _ -` \ Y` �S � ,. all got Affq Ar w Waft I�, : / cfrom, lFF Forora—:i` qs= �� - `rIFF,$FIFF > y A b.� ' Mwv 4 1. +. /, If -r: \ If r if m- �`^-\•. 1 � _ ; P '. t .. / . ! i /. ►fie it �� 1 �✓� . , ' . (t �~,� , " ' ~ -1 V ':� , AV •` �i�l 17 1 FF %r y! _ 7 / -' 4 .. IF "1 .. t. a� T' . � � „ Z , • � F A � t _ .l� f'• y . .%`rr` '-:% - • . ' I ,.ir” Ir."- f '` •_ . - : / ` - V..e '. • /'.. F. �" . - �es�J' Y /e. -rte .T _ i '>. `ti:�YLi:u1;-,i� a .. .�. +�..t,«- Y . From: garbar13<garbarl3@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 3:50 PM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Cedarbrook proposal Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender City Council, Just today another for sale sign has gone up in our neighborhood. I have no idea if the reason is the proposed development, but it does make me wonder. I know there have been three other families have moved out. Juanita Garnow Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone From: garbar13<garbarl3@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 7:19 PM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Question Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender Agnes, Why such a disparity in time allowed for public comment versus the developers' generous time? Juanita Garnow Sent from my Galaxy From: garbar13<garbarl3@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 7:39 PM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: My testimony Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender Agnes, I would like an answer to my question to each of the city councilors. Is that possible? Juanita Garnow Sent from my Galaxy From: Kathryn Holt Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 5:15 PM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Cedarbrook Assisted Living Facility Hearing You don't often get email from holt.kathy27@gmail.com.Learn why this is important Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender Hello, I'm writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Cedarbrook Assisted Living Facility project. I would share my thoughts over the phone but I am working in the hospital tonight so am unable to participate in that way. My main concerns are on the unintended consequences of building an assisted living facility on the proposed plot of land. Currently, parking is extremely tight and a source of friction between neighbors in that area. I am concerned that the proposed plan for the ALF will not provide enough parking for residents, employees, and visitors and that this will exacerbate the parking problem on 92nd & Montage Ln.The current Cedarbrook proposal only provides parking for 50%of its staff, so they will be forced to find parking on our street. The lane that would be an entrance is also currently where our trash and recycling pickup is located, and it's not clear where they intend to move this with the parking concerns above. By putting a large facility that will require multiple staff turnovers per day, deliveries, and the coming and going of residents,the proposed project will also increase traffic to the area dramatically. Unfortunately, older individuals that reside in an ALF often require transfers to the hospital,frequently by ambulance. Under the proposed plan these ambulances would have to cut through residential neighborhoods in order to access the facility, which is disruptive to those living there. What had been a slow-traffic street where kids could play will become much busier and potentially dangerous. My husband and I intentionally moved to this area because it is a quieter street where we're able to go for evening walks without concern about tons of cars, and where I'm able to sleep after a long night shift. However, Cedarbrook would completely change all of that without regard for the effects on the neighborhood. Increasing the number of assisted living facilities in the greater Portland area is an admirable goal, but I'm concerned that this particular plot of land is not a good fit for the proposed project and will just increase traffic, noise, and conflict between neighbors. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns! Sincerely, Kathryn Holt From: Tara <taranicole.meister@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 2:56 PM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Re: ZCA2021-00001/SDR2021-00001 Cedarbrook Notice of Public Hearing Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender Hi Agnes, I'm writing to provide comments regarding the proposed Cedarbrook Annexation. The proposal,which makes use of Lehman and Borders as entrances to the memory care facility, does not take into account the needs of the community and creates numerous challenges for residents as well as the facility. Both Lehman and Borders are narrow,neighborhood streets without consistent sidewalks. Having delivery and emergency vehicles pass through these streets will create congestion, as these vehicles will have a difficult time passing other traffic along the streets. The neighborhood has a thriving walking community, including dogs and children. Increasing the traffic along Lehman and Borders will pose safety concerns for residents in the community, as there are not sidewalks or places to walk. The streets are not designed for industrial vehicles passing regularly, and emergency vehicles in particular passing without sidewalks for pedestrian traffic creates opportunity for unsafe conditions and accidents. The atmosphere in our neighborhood is quiet, friendly, and cohesive,and the proposed annexation will be to the detriment of the community with all the benefit going to the memory care facility in decreased cost of making road improvements by adding an entry and light on Hall, a road designed for more traffic. Parking is already hard to find in the neighborhood,particularly in the condos/apartments abutting the proposed facility. The proposal will reduce the availability and access to parking, necessitating people walking in early mornings and nights to their cars. The proposed annexation and facility poses safety,traffic, and parking concerns and alters a peaceful and walking community. I urge you all to consider the negative impacts of the proposal on the community and alter or halt the plans. Sincerely, Tara Meister taranicole.meister@gmail.com Lehman St.resident On Thu,Apr 21, 2022 at 3:59 PM Agnes Lindor<agnesl tigard-or.gov>wrote: Good afternoon- The Planning Commission Recommendation has been posted on the website: https://www.tigard- pr.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/1276/424?toggle=al lupcomi ng Thanks, Agnes Lindor Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesL tigard-or.gov From:Agnes Lindor<agnesl tigard-or.gov> Sent:Tuesday,April 19, 2022 10:16 AM To: Kat333<knoonan9ll@gmail.com>; Diane Bowman <dianebow57@gmail.com>; Diane Bowman <dianebow@comcast.net>;Jan Erickson <jan.m.erickson@gmail.com>; Neunzert <neunzert@gmail.com>; Chris Klingman <ceklingman@gmail.com>; Rachel Furman <refurman.slp@gmail.com>; Daniel Stoller<stollerd outlook.com>; Alana Alkattan <alana.alkattan@gmail.com>;jiltobolski@gmail.com; reemalkattanll@gmail.com; muwaffaggattan@gmail.com; soosgattan25 _gmail.com; metzger.livability@gmail.com;Teresa Gipson <teresagipson09@gmail.com>;garbar13<garbarl3@aol.com>; belcansau(@yahoo.com; Tracy Brophy<tracy4realestate@gmail.com>; Cindy Marjama <csmarjama _gmail.com>;Vanda Makris<vmakris24@gmail.com>; Nate Blaszak<natblazer@gmail.com>;Adrienne Ceccacci <adrienne.ceccacci@gmail.com>; Rob Ruedy<robruedy_@yahoo.com>; sharon lynn ream <reamsharon@hotmail.com>; Michael Dalton <mdalton1649@gmail.com>; Laura Christensen <Ischristensen1010@gmail.com>; gordon garmire<g2p3g4L@_gmail.com>; Bo Brennan <bo.brennan@me.com>; Eileen Argentina <eileenargentina _gmail.com>; Clint Wilkins <wilkins3636@hotmail.com>;Jim Long<bluepgs yahoo.com>;TIM ROSS <rossrem@comcast.net>; Lindsey Eick<lindsey.eick _gmail.com>; Sam Hardy <hardysam.11.1988@gmail.com>;John Gard <Jolin Gard@hotmail.com>;John Malosh <jmalosh icloud.com>; Falconer<dbkkfalconer@q.com>; Sue Wirick<s.wirick@centurylink.net>; Robin Briggs<robinmbrigggmail.com>; Michaelktm <mbednarek28@gmail.com>;Tom Briggs <pdxwrite@gmail.com>; Alasdair Crawford <alasdaircrawford@gmail.com>; Vicki Garcia <vicki.garcia50 _gmail.com>;Jennifer Rios<jbchick 4@hotmail.com>; terry022@centurylink.net; Bev Krause<bevjkC.gmail.com>; Mary Litson <Mary.Litson constructconnect.com>; Erin Fitzgerald <erinfitz 99@yahoo.com>; Anthony Ames<anthony.a.ames@gmail.com>; Courtney Sjoberg<courtneyesjoberg@gmail.com>; STEPHEN PERRY<a737capt4aa msn.com>; Shaila Kotadia <shaila.kotadia@gmail.com>;Jenni Nelson <jenrnelson@hotmail.com>; land law.oregonLgmaiLcom; Christian Albano<christian.albano@redfin.com>;Justin Crest <jcrest stanford.edu>;Justin Crest<jcrest _gmail.com>; Shannon Curran <svoge001@gmail.com>; bizoneric@gmail.com;Jessica Flint<jflintlaw013@gmail.com>;Jessica A. Flint <JFlint _gevurtzmenashe.com>; Barrett Johnson <barrettjohnson616@gmail.com>; flyfishfurman(@gmail.com;jillmwarren@comcast.net; ellen techeditz.com; ;)DollyPS <dollysp. cht@aol.com>;farrandkate@gmail.com; markuf<es@comcast.net; badgoat1969@gmail.com; marissacereghino@yahoo.com; stagger7wing@gmail.com; conorpeick _gmail.com; Dana's<danajlarson _gmail.com>;jessbrocanelli@gmail.com; nballotta@gmail.com; mrandmrsharmes@gmail.com; Nicolelaheney gmail.com;Triley_ 21@hotmail.com; Krissy Rowan <krissy.rowan @gmail.com>;juliann hart <juliannhart711@gmail.com>; Brian Hernandez<brian.l.hernandez@gmail.com>;Tara Meister <taranicole.meister@gmail.com>;Agnes Lindor<agnesl tigard-or.gov> Subject: ZCA2021-00001/SDR2021-00001 Cedarbrook Notice of Public Hearing Good morning- Please find attached the notice of public hearing for City Council on May 10th, 2022 at 6:30pm. The Planning Commission recommendation will be available on the City's website 15 days prior to the hearing.Thank you, Agnes Lindor Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: AgnesL tigard-or.gov DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." To: City of Tigard From: Michael and Caroline Neunzert 9221 SW Lehman St Portland, OR 97223 Re: Opposed - Proposed development of Cedarbrook Assisted Living and Memory Care facility May 10, 2022 The proposal, as submitted,forces all of the commercial truck traffic generated by this commercial facility onto inadequate residential streets. Please deny the application at least until this safety issue is addressed. Commercial truck traffic must be directed to Hall Blvd,which is an arterial roadway that is rated for this traffic. • The Cedarbrook facility is a commercial enterprise, not a residence like a housing development or apartments. • As such it will generate commercial traffic, including significant truck traffic like this: �.. ""IP.;ssml - ow • The applicants have refused to create a public street connecting Montage Street to Hall Blvd. The existing proposal only has a driveway,that is not designed for truck traffic, between Hall Blvd and the loading dock and trash area. • As a result,the Montage Street access is the de facto truck entrance to the property. All of the commercial truck traffic will be forced to use the Montage street access. • Montage Street connects to 92nd Street (AKA Sellers Street) and from there to Borders Street and Lehman Street. All of these are either unclassified or classified as "local streets",which are not intended for commercial trucks. ➢ These streets lack sufficient road base and asphalt for loaded trucks. (Twenty years ago the county laid a thin layer of asphalt over the existing dirt road to keep the dust down. See picture below.) ➢ They also lack sidewalks to protect pedestrians, including children walking to Metzger Elementary School. ;v µr V �. f 4' If this project is allowed to proceed, despite the safety concerns we have noted, then steps need to be taken to protect the neighborhood. At a minimum the City must require a "fire access only" gate (see picture below) between the development and Montage Street. This would force the commercial truck traffic to be directed to Hall Blvd, which is an arterial roadway that is rated for this traffic. . .._ Relevant Tigard Municipal Codes • 10.16.051 Through Truck Traffic Restricted Every road listed in this section of the Tigard Municipal Code as "through truck prohibited" is a better road from a safety and construction standpoint than any of the roads in the Metzger neighborhood south of the proposed Cedarbrook development. • 18.510.010 Preserve Neighborhood Livability 0 "Protect the livability of existing and future residential neighborhoods..." • 18.330-3 B Conditions of approval 0 "ensure the use is compatible with the other uses in the vicinity..." • 18.810-4 D 2 0 "Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas..." • 18.810.030 A 3 0 "No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards ..." Relevant City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan sections (aligned with the Washington Square Regional Center Final Recommendations) • Goal 12.4 Policy 1 0 "consider the intended use of a street turning design to promote safety...." • Goal 12.4 Policy 2 "provide safe secure... and desirable pedestrian, bicycle ...facilities" From: Kathleen Noonan Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 3:12 PM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Comments for Cedarbrook proposal Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender My name is Kathleen Noonan and I live at the Brownstone townhomes, directly west of the proposed Cedarbrook development. I would like to address the safety and livability issues for our community and why we would like this development plan rejected. Tigard Code 18.210 (C) -This code outlines "minimizing the potential adverse impacts of commercial uses on residential uses by carefully locating and selecting the types of uses allowed in each commercial zone". This Development will greatly impact our community creating "adverse impacts". Over the last six months, 7 Brownstone owners have sold their homes because of the possibility of this development. This site is not "carefully located" as this is a quiet, neighborhood without adequate streets, sidewalks, and land to accommodate a building of this size. Code 18.410 (C) "Maintain the traffic-carrying capacity of nearby streets to minimize hazardous conditions." This plan eliminates our street parking forcing residents and guests to park outside of our community on narrow streets that don't have sidewalks, creating hazardous conditions. Code 18.230 states: "The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards that promote quality development and enhance the livability, walkability, and safety of the community". This development does none of those. The plan involves opening a back entrance which is a direct route to their parking garage. Kittelson & Associates reported in their May 2020 letter this would add an additional 484 cars daily and that 20% of traffic would utilize the back entrance, with 80% using the front entrance off Hall. If that number is accurate, that's a 51% increase in traffic through our neighborhoods on a daily basis. We believe 20% is a low estimate, as this is the easiest route to get into the parking garage and the closest route from highway 217. Also, Code 18.670 (A) states "...land uses and qualities will ALL contribute to create a desirable, livable community"... This proposal does not live up to that standard. The safety issues for outdoor activities are a huge concern, as are the noise, and traffic congestion. Many have sold their home, and more are considering that option if this is approved, proving this is not desirable. This is a community with families, dog walkers, and walkers and is only 3 blocks from Metzger Elementary where children are going to and from school. The city of Tigard's "New vision" for their 2020-2025 Plan is "An equitable community that is walkable, healthy, and accessible for everyone". This development does not line up with the Vision Statement for the City. Please reject this proposed development. Thank you. Kathleen Regards, Kathleen Noonan m 949-466-5487 From: STEPHEN PERRY<a737capt4aa@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 8:54 AM To: Agnes Lindor Subject: Fw: Cedarbrook resident comment Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender Block sender Agnes, Please submit this to the city council meeting tonight, many thanks! Steve Perry From: STEPHEN PERRY Sent:Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:25 PM To: agnesl@tigard-or.gov<agnesl@tigard-or.gov> Subject: Cedarbrook resident comment Agnes, To introduce myself, my name is Stephen Perry and I have been a resident of Metzger/ Tigard my entire life, some 68 years! I own two homes one at 9860 SW 92nd Ave and the other at 9250 SW Lehman which borders 92 Ave (corner lot). My parents bought the Lehman property in 1963 and have been in the family since. My daughter is living there now with her family. Our family has very deep roots in the Metzger/Tigard community, I went to Metzger Grade, Fowler Jr High, and Graduated Tigard High School. My three daughters did the same, and now my daughter who lives on Lehman has two daughters that went to Metzger, Fowler, and now attend Tigard. Presently my youngest granddaughter attends Metzger Grade School. So, I have a strong desire to keep our community safe, livable with a strong reliance on our neighborhood. It is now a shock to see that our neighborhood is in danger to lose all the above to Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development! Our neighbor's our horrified that the City of Tigard has forgotten to include us in their: Strategic Plan Vision Tigard: an equitable community that is walkable, healthy, and accessible for everyone. Our Strategic Priorities • Set the standard for excellence in public service and customer experience. • Create a well-connected, attractive, and accessible pedestrian network. • Ensure development and growth supports the vision. First, Lehman is a narrow street with no sidewalks other than the west side further up Lehman which is no help as you travel east towards 92nd Ave. I live on 92nd Ave between Lehman and Coral, I fully aware of the street condition and was the first to blacktop it in 1983 halfway down from Lehman. 92Ave is a very narrow street with no sidewalks and or streetlights! It is heavily used now by pedestrians walking to and from, and especially our young children walking to and from Metzger School. The safety conditions now are hazardous at best,with the present approval of Cedarbrook they will become dangerous and completely out of line with"Tigard's Strategic Plan Vision." We must ask ourselves why have we reached this point, the mystery here is we see that Annexation is involved, why go to the trouble to Annex into Tigard? Well, what we have here is to follow the money, Washington County is where the proposed project is located now, the strong leadership said NO! Well, Tigard says YES bring it to us, we will annex the property to the City of Tigard and off you go! It is quite clear now having the annexation approved will cut our neighborhood out of Tigard's Strategic Plan and any Priorities, unfortunately, are just the disappointing facts in the case! The plot thickens with the developer's proposal to the City of Tigard. They indicate twenty times in their proposal that they are exempt from being a dwelling, I looked at this and thought that they just could not be serious, then it is right there twenty times. I would like to give the benefit of the doubt, but after referencing this twenty times, nope that is just not correct. The reason is spelled out and is quite clear in Oregon's Law ORS 456.594 which states "Dwelling" means real or personal property within the States inhabited as the principal residence of a dwelling owner or a tenant." As we continue this confusing claimed exemption, we further find that the applicant continues to claim exemption by "the units will not have stoves, therefore, we are not a dwelling, Really, I have never in all my life have heard such misinformation, and I have been a part-time contractor for 45 years. So, let's look at what the law says, Assisted living An assisted living residence or assisted living facility is a housing facility for people with disabilities or for adults who cannot or who choose not to live independently. The Oregon Department of Human Resources specifies the structural requirements for a licensed assisted living facility. Assisted living facilities must conform to the state and federal building codes, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Fair Housing Act. An assisted living facility in Oregon must have: • Individual apartments that can be shared based on the resident's choice • A kitchenette equipped with a sink, refrigerator, cooking appliance, a place for food preparation, and a storage space • A private bathroom with a toilet, sink, and a curbless shower area • Escape windows that open directly onto the public street, yard, or exit court No stove so what, are they going to have perhaps a microwave oven (cooking appliance) or something similar, so not having a stove is not a factor; however, it is great misinformation! An inquiry to The Oregon Department of Human Resources is in order here, so they may get involved in this development proposal. This is necessary to protect the future residences of Cedarbrook and to draw a fair and reasonable determination, it would be my guess that this proposal will indeed be determined to be dwellings in which our fellow citizens will live! The City of Tigard owes this a much deep examination which is based on the safety of its citizen's health and well-being, not a development that adds more hazards, not doing so will destroy our neighborhood. Steve Perry-a737capt4aa@msn.com May 10, 2022 City of Tigard Planning Division Attention: Ms. Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Subject: Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Review (ZCA2021-00001 & SDR2021-00001) Quasi-Judicial Annexation Site Development Review rescheduled for Tuesday, May 10, 2022 To all concerned: As a long-time resident and property Owner of the City of Tigard I wish to additionally submit (see closing paragraph) into the record my subject Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Review hearing testimony herein for consideration and determination of this proposed Land Use Development Review action being formally denied and resected based on the following: Chapter 18.120: "Base Zones - Commercial Zones" — Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic. And more specifically "Chapter 18.120.010.c" relating to "Minimizing the potential adverse impacts of commercial uses on residential uses by carefully locating and selecting the types and uses allowed in each commercial zone. (Ordinance 18-28 §1; Ord. 18-23 §2; and Ord. 17.22 §2)" And also the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.710.030.D.3 which states the requirements of Developer submission for Application Completion to proceed into the approval process and the required elements of comprehensive "completeness" of those submission Record Documents into the Legal Record, even though the comprehensively complete submitted development design for construction/improvements may change following any City approvals. Chapter 18.210: "Residential Development Standards — Residential General Provisions"; Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic. Chapter 18.230: "Residential Development Standards —Apartments"; Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic. Chapter 18.410: "Supplemental Development Standards — Off-street Parking & Loading"; Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic. Chapter 18.420: "Supplemental Development Standards — Landscaping & Screening"; Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic, and more specifically the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.710.030.D.3 which states the requirements of Developer submission for Application Completion to proceed into the approval process and the required elements of comprehensive "completeness" of those submission Record Documents into the Legal Record, even though the comprehensively complete submitted development design for construction/improvements may change following any City approvals. Chapter 18.670: "Plan Districts —Washington Square Regional Center Plan District"; Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic, and more specifically to the City of Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.670.040.D.1 b which states that "the Written Hearing Testimony Cover Letter for the Cedarbrook Development Review resolution Page 1 of 5 proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area," ...which should concurrently and genuinely include the existing area and its current character. My attached "Exhibit O" reflects a development character that would be better suited for this specific development property. It would be similar to the adjacent property "Brownstone Townhomes" in nature of design and "accommodating fit" into this low-to-mid-density, low-rise single and two story neighborhood, and would not promote or incur the three times daily surge of 100+ Senior Care Facility service workers entering, exiting, and parking every day of every week and month forever. Chapter 18.710: "Land Use Applications & Review Types — Land Use Review Procedures Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic, and more specifically the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.710.030.D.3 which states the requirements of Developer submission for Application Completion to proceed into the approval process and the required elements of comprehensive "completeness" of those submission Record Documents into the Legal Record, even though the comprehensively complete submitted development design for construction/improvements may change following any City approvals. Chapter 18.780: "Land Use Applications & Review Types — Site Development Reviews"; Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic. Chapter 18.910: "Streets & Utilities — Improvement Standards"; Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic. And more specifically to Chapter 18.910.100 relating to the non-conformance of the proposed "Site Storm Drainage & Landscaping Plans" per Exhibits J & K" with its conflicts reflecting adjacent property "Tree Protection" and Root-System protection failures the proposed Storm Water Detention and Treatment would inflict on those adjacent property trees and their root systems within this proposed yet conflicting, incorrect, incomplete, and poorly thought out Development Design Documents. Identified within the Staff Report "Conditions of Approval" as Item 5, bullet point#2, plus Items 6 & 7. And additionally such Developer Plans of Record Documents that are in conflict with the City of Tigard adopted Urban Forestry Plan and Tree Protection Programs. Chapter 18.920: "Streets & Utilities —Access, Egress, & Circulation"; Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic. Chapter 18.930: "Streets & Utilities —Vision Clearance Areas"; Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic. Metro Code Chapter 3.09: "Local Government Metro Boundaries Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic. Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 222: "City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawls relating to Annexation of Unincorporated County Territory - Please refer to the below, prior, and attached Hearing Testimony content that addresses this topic, and more specifically note that this specific property is not "surrounded by a City." It is only a part of a "conceptual plan district" of a City. This alone should be grounds for denial of the proposed development incursion due to non-conformance to the ORS Chapter 222. Written Hearing Testimony Cover Letter for the Cedarbrook Development Review resolution Page 2 of 5 Additionally and Specific to the above identified Development Application standards applicable to this specific subject proposed Development: 1. There appears to be some "math" that needs to be spelled-out for this specific proposed Development and its subsequent "fit" with the current and future surrounding neighborhood. If memory serves me right, within my review of the City of Tigard Planning Departments' Staff Report and other related documents, the current Washington County Land Use Density Zoning reflects an 18-40 units per acre density with 40-Units per acre being its "maximum" density. The keyword here being "MAXIMUM." The subject proposed Development Site Plan "Development Standards" and "Project Data" reflects a property size of"2.53 acres." If one multiplies the current "maximum" allowed zoning Land Use Occupancy of 40-Units/acre and multiplies it times the 2.53 acres, the mathematical outcome is 101.2-Units TOTAL. However, that total would be rounded down to a maximum of 102-Units since you're not apparently allowed to built a 20% fractional domicile "Unit". The subject Developer proposed plan includes creating a "Grand Total" of 181 Suite "Units", which would be mathematically be the equivalent of a 78% increase above the maximum zoning allowance of the current Washington County Land Use zoning for this neighborhood, which is an excessive increase and unnecessary abuse of the current zoning identified by the current and prior Land Use "professionals" at the Washington County Planning Department. My attached "Exhibit O" Site Plan reflects a density that is in concert with the current Washington County zoning and its equivalent City of Tigard zoning to align with this specific property throughout any annexation process. 2. While a 3-story (35 ft. height) maximum structure may make some semblance of common sense in this specific basically flat-terrain site location, a significant increase of 75% greater occupancy makes no sense what-so-ever. There does not appear to be any reason why the developer could not propose a facility of similar size within the maximum 102 "Unit" load they are currently allowed by the relatively high-density zonincl of 40-Units per acre. So hopefully the Tigard Planning Commission and subsequent City Council can see the rationale in this specific testimony and its simple math. 3. Unfortunately it seems the subject developer has chosen to cannibalize this Tigard out- skirting low-density, low-rise residential neighborhood for their excessively large and overly populated profit-machine commercial development, yet has never previously paid a dime into the City of Tigard "financial tax" or "user fee" coffers when they could have purchased the same and neighboring properties (which have basically laid dormant and un-developed over the past many years) much more affordably 8 or 10-years ago to now develop a more sensibly designed currently lower density per acre development for their same purpose, and have been contributing to the City of Tigard and its expensive "Washington Square Plan District" infrastructure expansion since then to help offset the City residents paying for the subject developer's delayed development tactics till now. 4. The aforementioned and other elements herein, dictate that I strongly encourage and sincerely request that the City of Tigard City Council deny this development application and disapprove any elements as specifically stated therein. In conclusion; Overall, this proposed Senior Care Development overall would be a "poorly placed monstrosity" and a "bad fit" for the City of Tigard at this specific location. As mentioned in this and my prior testimonies, there are better suited locations within the city for a 75-foot maximum height structure Written Hearing Testimony Cover Letter for the Cedarbrook Development Review resolution Page 3 of 5 incorporating a high-density Residential Care & Memory Care Facility, like possibly over by the similarly taller in height Lincoln Towers over by Hwy. 217, SW Greenburg Road, and the Washington Square redevelopment plans across SW Greenburg Road from those towering Business Center. At that location there are restaurants, coffee shops, commerce, activities, medical offices, and much more than an isolated Senior Care Facility with Public Transit deprived residents. So the focused expansion and rejuvenation of the Hwy. 217 corridor at SW Greenburg Road seems a much more accommodating location for Mixed-use, High-density Residential, and Commercial Zoned real estate market area. The recent MUE-1 Zoned 144-Unit development named "The Grove at Washington Square" at 9640 SW Greenburg Road comes to mind as presented by CK2 Architecture. Now that would be a great and well located property for this subject Senior Care Development. So why didn't this particular Development Group procure that "much better fit" property when it was available, or another located within or 500 feet of that site along Greenburg Road? On another point of concern, and as so noted in "Section IV— Public Comments" of the most recent COT Staff Report, apparently my prior testimony into the record during a prior Neighborhood Development Review Meeting may have never been submitted to the City by the subject developer or its representative(s), which to my recollection would be considered a violation of their required duties, responsibilities and accountabilities towards taking notes and immediately reflecting verbal and written testimony taken from all participants of said meeting directly to the City. And that the COT Development Review requirements also tie an "affidavit of compliance" to those said developer responsibilities, which could certainly be in direct violation of, and currently towards the City of Tigard's requirement of a comprehensive restart of their subject development review process. In the event my email was not provided in its full form, then the Developer is not in compliance with their mandated COT responsibilities and accountabilities. Baseline or vague summaries, by meeting facilitators or otherwise, of their memories of that and other related meetings discussions and follow-up emails are insufficient evidence of those prior testimonies being comprehensively incorporated into the record. This respondent requests a thorough investigation into the matter just described for this specific proposed development, and the requirement of full compliance with City of Tigard Development Review responsibilities and accountabilities to avoid the required comprehensive restart of said Development Review Application processes as so outlined within the COT Development Code for such specified Code compliances and consequences for failure of COT stated Development Code compliance and/or non- compliance. Your swift and direct reply to me regarding the aforementioned thorough audit/investigation outcome is requested. While referencing this subject proposed development City's Staff Report I also noticed a problematic "Condition of their Recommended Approval." On page 2, Item #2 states apparently incoherently a vague, misunderstood, and misdirected calamity of due process for typical development Site Work. It conflicts with the City's "Tree Preservation and Protection", plus "Urban Forestry Plan" objectives and leaves the door wide open for flagrant abuse and eminent destruction of what are supposedly "Protected Trees", even allowing and promoting the Illegal Trespassing and vandalism of Trees that are Off-site from this development and retained within adjacent properties if approved by the City's Planning Commission & City Council. This element of concern presented should be pause for review, contemplation, and caution by the City's elected officials the City Attorney since it could have legal action implications against the City of Tigard from those adjacent property Owners. I've experienced this directly with an adjacent development originally similarly approved with the same incoherent and ineffective verbiage within that "Staff Report" and its "Conditions of Approval" for the COT's Erika Court Subdivision project. The Written Hearing Testimony Cover Letter for the Cedarbrook Development Review resolution Page 4 of 5 statement needs to be improved to read, and be enforced, as such for this subject development Staff Recommendation "Item 2" and other COT Development decision "Conditions of Approval's" going forward to read: "Prior to commencing any site clearing, grubbing, or any form of 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 or required Project Arborist & Site work Contractor meeting, whichever occurs first. "No work of any kind or form shall commence on the site prior to Protected Tree and Erosion Control measures and mitigations being comprehensively installed and inspected and recorded by both the assigned and COT approved Project Arborist and the COT City Inspector for the project." This prior bold verbiage would be this City Residents recommended verbiage to benefit the City of Tigard's efforts of their current Tree Protection and Erosion Control aspirations. Again it's merely a well thought-out suggestion from a negatively impacted citizen and property owner based on the current verbiage being ineffective and detrimental to the adjacent property Owner's trees, private property rights, and the City's current intent. My request of the COT Planning Commission and City Council is to please review all the testimony and factual information presented by myself and other City Residents and property owners relating to the negative impacts of this proposed development prior to deciding its outcome. In the effort to obtain as thorough a hearing and testimonies as possible, I wish to request that the Tigard City Council hold the record open for an additional two weeks for all potentially affected parties to present their testimonies, and conversely for the developer to respond to those concerns presented to the City Council. I too would like that opportunity to apply the related COT Development Code Sections to my testimony, and clean-up any unintended or incorrectly stated verbiage as a "housekeeping" element to my testimony. In any event, this would assist the Tigard City Council in not making a rushed, ill-advised, "bad" decision by approving this poorly thought-out and likely illegally based proposed Senior Care Facility as it will likely become a long-term problematic outcome for Tigard if allowed to move forward as currently presented. At this point in time; one recommended option to the Tigard City Council would be to Deny the Application Approval based on its entirety of concerns presented within the Record and remand the Application by rejection back to the Developer Team to correct the many deficiencies in the Record Documents and resubmit those corrected and comprehensive documents for reassessment by the City Planning Commission, the public, and subsequent City Council for a revisited & final Approval to move the development forward. Respectfully submitted, Robert Ruedy 32-year Tigard Resident and 30-year City of Tigard Property Owner 14185 SW 100`h Avenue Tigard, OR 97224-4951 Cell: (503) 819-7898 Attachments: Testimony "Exhibits A through O" identifying and assessing the Record Document submission irregularities, inconsistencies, potential deceptions, and other likely illegal aspects of the identified elements (i.e. Errors & Omissions) as narratives within the documents using a "red- line and blue-line mark-up" process Written Hearing Testimony Cover Letter for the Cedarbrook Development Review resolution Page 5 of 5 i rXHIBIT A KELLINGTON LAW GROUP, Pc Wendie L.Kellington Phone(503)636-0069 P.O.Box 159 Mobile(503)804-0535 Lake Oswego Or Facsimile(503)636-0102 97034 Email;m!@klev�v�.com October 6, 2021 Via Electronic Mail Agnes Lindor City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 1e'rl 10,o3OA,c.,� agncsl@tigard-or.gov Re: ELan:d:Use �Num�ber. CA2021-NW1, Below are the Applicant's responses to theCity's Determination of Cgwpleteness dated August-16-,-2-0-2 1. Please note that we believe that we have fully responded to your requests. ere ore,pursuant to ORS 227.178(2),no more information will be provided for completeness. We have arranged this letter to note the City completeness letter issue and then we follow that with the Applicant's response. For the City's convenience,we also include a summary of changes to the Applicant's plans in Section II of this letter. I. Incompleteness Items and Responses: 1. Adjustment.The narrative for the adjustment addresses the incorrect standard. It should address the Cul!-de-sac section (18.910.030.L). Apulicant Response: Applicant respectfully disagrees. In the first place, the hammerhead was not proposed as a "dead end" street with a "circular turnaround." Therefore,it was not a"cul-de- sac" as that term is defined in the City's code. Regardless, in the attached plans,the Applicant hereby withdraws its proposal fora public hammerhead in favor of a private driveway entrance for its own convenience for internal circulation, from Montage Lane. The hammerhead was only proposed because the City stated that it wanted it and so the Applicant proposed it in an effort to work cooperatively with the City. However, it is evident that effort is a futile one. The Applicant cannot be required to install a public street hammer head or cul-de-sac from Montage Lane. Respectfully,the City can show no proportionality for any demands for exactions for a public hammerhead or any other public street improvement from Montage Ln., onto or through the subject property. The public hammerhead results in real property dedications and improvements for which the Applicant's project has no need and certainly for which the Applicant's project receives no benefit. It serves no purpose other than to add unreasonable cost and delay to the Applicant's application for housing and make it unlikely at best that it can be approved in any reasonable way or timeframe. In fact, the public hammerhead proved exceedingly difficult to fit onto the property and according to the City at least,triggers numerous additional and highly burdensome requirements that did not result in a mutually cooperative processing of the Application for needed senior assisted living and memory care housing. By way of example only, in addition to the pages of requirements listed in the city's August 16,2021,letter,the hammerhead as a public facility caused the following engineering challenges for the site: 1. All private storm facilities in the hammerhead area would have to be relocated out of the public hammerhead area. a. The results of this requirement on the development are substantial. All private utilities in the western,access drive portion of the hammerhead would have to be redirected under the building. This is unconventional and an awkward construction method that is unlikely to be approved or functional and makes the private storm system much more difficult to maintain in the future. Portions of the private storm line would need to be routed under the building fire room,presenting clearance and pipe separation issues. b. The private detention/infiltration system location would have to be reconfigured. The detention pipe would have to be shifted as far east, and a reduction in total system length by 60' would be required. After reducing the detention pipe length by 60' in all 5 sticks of the current detention pipe design,this would result in a total reduction in infiltration pipe length of 300'. This would create the need to add another stick of pipe to the north of the current detention pipe system which pushes the detention pipe too close to the building footing to meet building code pipe setback requirements. The additional northern section of detention pipe section could not be constructed north of the existing pipe, and so must be broken out into 3 even shorter sticks of detention pipe and rotated 90 degrees to the current system and placed at the cast end of the parking lot. The constructability of the entire system becomes dubious with the hammerhead. Basically,the entire private parking lot becomes inundated with infiltration/detention pipe leaving almost no room for other utilities to be constructed. C. The water private quality vault in the hammerhead would have to be relocated into the area east of the hammerhead. This would require that the WQ vault is surcharged by the detention pipe. CWS is unlikely to approve this. d. Retaining wails are currently located in the private hammerhead on the west and south sides. Retaining walls are not allowed in the public ROW if the hammerhead becomes public. These retaining walls cannot be eliminated. e. CWS and City of Tigard have stated their view that if the hammerhead is public,public stormwater cannot be treated and detained in the private system. We do not have a public system available to us where stormwater treatment and detention can occur. The City is now requiring that the storm pipe running east and west along the south end of the site become public and put in a 15' easement. We cannot treat and detain stormwater and get it back out into this public pipe due to grades. The public hammerhead requirement eliminated certain LIDA water quality methods for water quality and detention that would be open to us otherwise,particularly pervious pavement that can be used on private parking areas,but not public streets. f. The City requires that the public hammerhead meet public street standards,meaning the current curb tight sidewalks and 5' bldg. setbacks would no longer be allowed. We must have planter strip and sidewalk along both sides of the public hammerhead, and a 5' setback from that new ROW. The creates substantial impacts to the building footprint and parking garage configuration that take away enough space that that it threatens the viability of the project. 2 g. The public hammerhead also appears to present issues with meeting ADA sidewalk grades and would require that handrails be constructed along the public and private sidewalk portions down to the building garage entry to the parking garage. h. There is no room for required street trees if the hammerhead were public. Because all of the evidence in the record makes clear that the Applicant has no need or wish for any cul-de-sac,public hammerhead or other public street improvement on or through its property at the terminus of Montage Ln.,the hammerhead is being removed. All vehicular connections and all circulation will be privately developed and owned. No easements for public access within the site are proposed. The Applicant will provide no further response to this completeness request. 2. Property Lines.Property lines after dedication are still not clear along 92nd Ave and the public turnaround is shown on private property. a.It is unclear if the building meets the 5-foot street side setback at the public turnaround. Applicant Response: The proposed property lines after dedication have been revised to read more clearly along 92nd Ave. See Sheet Al. As noted above, the public street extension from Montage Lane ilk hammerhead)has been removed from the design as explained above. Therefore,the proposed building will meet or exceed the minimum building setback at this location. No further response to this incompleteness item will be provided. r 3. NarrntFre/Phm&The narrative and plans need to be updated to be consistent with each other: .-)p a.Se tion 18.210.R s onse letter states that walls are proposed around perimeter of the ro .e and Sheet Al foL1aXaUL Al shows the wall near southeast corner and aroun the townhouse ve opment.Walls are not allowed in the right-of-way. Sheet L2 shows 4 fence around the perimeter of the property, fences are not allowed in the right-of- way.Unclear what is actually proposed. b. Site area is inconsistent. Narrative states 111,556 SF,Sheet Al states 110,556 SF (gross). After dedication Sheet Al states 100,563 SF,does this include the area that would be dedicated for the turn around? The site area also needs to be updated on urban forestry pians. � — C. Impervious/pervious areas. These need to be calculated based on the site area after dedication.If impervious and pervious areas are added up on Sheet Al,they reflect the gross site area.Narrative needs to be updated for"lot coverage" to include not just the building but all impervious area. Ayplicant Response: ApRlicant no on er proposes a public hammerhead/public street extension from Monta a Lane and so has no nee to request and does not request an adjustment for the project design which is now merely a humble driveway entrance. All vehicular circulation will 3 be privately developed and owned and connections to public streets will be via private driveways to include one private driveway at Montage Lane, which will be an entirely private drive. No easements for public access within the site are proposed. No fiuther response to this incompleteness item will be provided_ d. S-4 Screen. On 92nd Ave,there is an island to meet the S-4 screen,it appears that it may be located in the right-of-way. Code requires S-4 screen to be located on private property. Applicant Response: The attached plans have been revised to remove the landscape island within the ROW along 92nd Ave memory care pickupldropoff area. See Sheet A1. TDC 18.230.040(B)(2)(b)requires only that a"loading area" meet the S-4 screening requirement. The code defines a"loading area" as "An off-street space on the same lot for the temporary parking of a vehicle that is loading or unloading persons, merchandise, or materials, and which space or berth abuts upon a street, alley or other appropriate means of access and egress." The proposed pull-out along the 92nd Avenue memory care main entrance is not a parking space or berth. It will function solely as a passenger drop-off and pick up area with no dedicated parking space or berth for such activity and so is not a loading area, as specified in TDC 18.230.040(B)(2)(b). That means that an S-4 screen is not required per the express terms of the code. Therefore,the S-4 landscape standard does not apply. No further response to this incompleteness item will be provided. C. Landscape plans.Landscaping and fencing are shown in the future right-of-way near the public turnaround. This cannot be in public right-of-way. Applicant Response: As detailed above,no future public right-of-way is proposed extending from Montage Lane to the development site;rather there will be nothing more than a private driveway entrance. No further response to this incompleteness item will be provided. f. Bicycle Parking.Proposed bicycle parking near entrance on Hall Blvd does not meet the dimensional standards of 2.5 feet x 6 feet. Applicant Response: The site plan has been updated to show the dimension for each proposed bicycle space near the main entrance to show compliance with the above dimensional standard.. See Sheet Al. No further response to this incompleteness item will be provided. g. Design Standards. 18.230.050.A and B not addressed in narrative.and response letter only partially addressed entrance standards.Facade that faces 92nd Ave and public turnaround also needs to meet 15 percent window area.Update narrative to include the fagade elements for each fagade that faces a street(Hall, 92nd Ave,and public turnaround). Applicant Response: The project narrative has been updated to address TMC Section 18.230.050 (A)and(B). See Revised Project Narrative p 12 and 13. The elevation sheets have been revised 4 to calculate the window area. See Sheet A7 &A8. No further response to this incompleteness item will be provided. h. Accessory Structures. 18.230.060 was not addressed. Applicant Response: TDC 18.230.060 was not addressed originally because it is inapp 16ble. LOCA-T�� Regardless, the project narrative has been updated to address TDC Section 18.230.060 to the extent of saying that no accessory structures are proposed with this development and so this 'PN-1705 standard does not apply. See Revised Project Narrative p 16 & 17. No further response to this MWVIr�411 incompleteness item will be provided. �[�t�t1� 4q i. Parking Spaces. Site plan and narrative have the incorrect number of parking u�� L R-t spaces (95 spaces provided). KD;" PE-A -�5d Applicant Response: The project narrative has been updated to show the same number of parking )"7�c", spaces at the site plan. See Revised Project Narrative,p 5 &21 and compare to Sheet A1. j. Civil Plan Set. Provide updated civil plan set showing public hammerhead at terminus of SW Montage Lane. The public hammerhead is currently shown on private property. Public hammerhead design in civil plan set should demonstrate compliance with Table 18.910.1 for minimum widths for street characteristics (right-of- way width,paved width,sidewalk width and landscape strip width). Applicant Response: As detailed above, no future right-of-way is proposed at the site extending from Montage Lane. The above comment no longer applies to the proposed development. No further response to this incompleteness item will be provided. k. Narrative responses to 18.920 Improvement Standards & 18.920 Access,Egress and Circulation.Provide revised narrative responses consistent with the updated civil plan set showing public hammerhead at terminus of SW Montage Lane. The following code sections in the applicant's submitted project narrative are inconsistent with the current proposal for a public hammerhead at the terminus of SW Montage Lane. i. 18.910.030.0 Creation of access easements 1. Submitted narrative does not address access easement for required multi-modal bicycle& pedestrian connection between the terminus of SW Montage Lane and SW Hall Boulevard in accordance with 18.910.040. ii. 18.910.030.E Minimum rights-of-way and street widths 1. Submitted narrative does not address public hammerhead design in accordance with this code section. Revised narrative for public hammerhead design should demonstrate compliance with Table 18.910.1 for minimum widths for street characteristics (right-of-way 5 width,paved width, sidewalk width and landscape strip width).iii. 18.910.030.L Cul-de- sacs L Submitted narrative states that"there are no cul-de-sacs proposed with the proposed development". Provide revised narrative response consistent with the updated civil plan set showing public hammerhead at terminus of SW Montage Lane and the proposed adjustment submitted by applicant for 18.910.030.L. iv. 18.910.040 Blocks 1. Submitted narrative does not address required multi-modal bicycle &pedestrian connection between the terminus of SW Montage Lane and SW Hall Boulevard when the full street connections has been exempted in accordance with 18.910.040.Provide revised narrative addressing the multi-modal bicycle and pedestrian connection between the terminus of SW Montage Lane and SW Hall Boulevard. v. 18.910.070 Sidewalks 1. Submitted narrative does not address requirements for sidewalk per 18.910.070.A and planter strip requirements per 18.910.070.0 for the design of the public hammerhead at terminus of SW Montage Lane. Provide revised narrative addressing requirements for sidewalk and planter strip for the public hammerhead at terminus of SW Montage Lane. vi. 18.920.0303 Minimum access requirements for residential uses 1. Submitted narrative is not consistent with driveways proposed at public hammerhead at terminus of SW Montage Lane. Provide revised narrative demonstrating compliance of proposed driveways at the public hammerhead with this code section. Applicant Response: As detailed above,no future right-of-way is proposed on site extending from Montage Lane. The above sections do not apply to the proposed development. No further response to this incompleteness item will be provided. '1*4. Urban Forestry Plan. a. Update site area, see comment above. --°*^b. Supplemental report was not resubmitted. Signature block also needs to be included,not included in previous version. Off-site trees must be shown as retain- . C. Sheet L3 signature block is cut off. fid. Sheet L1. Table and plan are still inconsistent with attachment 1 of Supplemental report. Confirm that all existing trees are shown on the preservation and removal (Sheet Ll) that are listed in existing tree sched t-s on She-t L1 and also tete_ awn the suWlementallrreport. fie. Sheet L4.Tent is covered bv Tree anopv table. f The preserved off-site trees do not count tower site canopy. g. Tree protection is not shown near Tree Stand#2 for off-site trees and is shown near Tree Stand#5,where there are no preserved trees. �.h. Confirm that the existine tree schedule on Sheet Ll and the one provided in report are the same and that trees are in the same order. 6 Applicant Response: Site areas have been updated. ,See Sheet A 1 &L2. The.,revised arborist report is attached with this submission_ The signature block is included. See Arborists Report, p 3. All off-site trees are now shown as retained. Sheet L3 signature block is now fully on the page. ,Sheet L 1 and Arborist Report have been updated to be consistent with each other. Compare Sheets L1 with p 10 of Arborist Report. Sheet L4 tex een u dated. Site canopy has been ICT 15 3Q- recalculated to not include off-site trees. See Sheet L3. Tree protection is shown for Tree Stand /IIJ 7r #2 and has been removed from Tree Stand 95. See Sheet Ll.The tree schedule in Sheet L1 and Arborist report have been revised to be consistent with the same tree tag numbering. Montage Lane will not be extended, so the driveway area will be counted. �354of `rbc �y -rter II. Changes to the Approved Plans. 1) The previous proposed public hammerhead extending east from SW Montage Lane has been removed and the entrance reverted to a private driveway as originally proposed. 2) The landscape island along SW 92nd Ave has been removed from the right-of-way and is proposed for striping. The passenger pick-up/drop-off area is not a loading zone. 3) A 10-foot-wide stormwater easement is proposed on the southern boundary of the proposed development. Typically,an easement is centered along the utility run. An additional 5 feet of easement width could be requested by the City from the neighbors adjoining the southern property line at the time they develop. But 10-feet is adequate for the proposal. 4) Due to planting constraints from a public storm line along the southern boundary, a fee- in-lieu is requested for the tree canopy coverage requirement in accordance with TDC I8.240.060(c)(1) Tree Canopy Standards. —Pkis (29--bE F-Cf-E �E Is !N(201z -C T JXCLtmarq -I S INCL%PC'm 5) The previously proposed public 8' sidewalk easement has been reverted to private 5.5' wideN�N sidewalk. III. Conclusion P O .178 2 the Applicant has fully responded to the city's requests and will provide no mo a on as on pursuance to the City's August 16, 2021, completeness letter. Accordingly, the application should be deemed complete this date and processed accordingly. �-,r W111)S Rub�5 a ,Q ewyt4 AS FEE, 2L)z2. If you have any questions or require additional information,please let me know. We look 17 S ST(-LL forward to moving this application along. Thank you for your courtesies. I Q Very truly yours, -Fn J S 7)"v �0 Q `-'�4� Wendie L. Kellington 7 WLK:wlk CC: Client Enclosures: Approvability Items Letter—Dated August 16,2021 Revised Project Narrative Revised Arborist Report Revised Architectural Plans Revised Civil Plans 1St Full Submittal i 8 u AIb G-sC9V6R0�J ASSESSMEM-F o� $`f -mt PE�--Sp t )et' -P'G ' � E R A G A N ASSOCIATES , INC . ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 14,2022 TO: Casey Colton (Meridian Real Estate) FROM: Todd Prager,AICP,RCA#597,ISA Board Certified Master Arborist +T k' A �sNT lr RE: Updated Tree and Soil Assessment at Cedarbrook t� Summary This report includes an assessment of the existing trees, stands of trees, and soils at the Cedarbrook development site at SW Hall Boulevard and SW 92"d Avenue in Tigard. This report has been updated from my Au t 10 2021 Le22i to include the updated landscape pian sheet L1 in Attachment 2. Background Hall Boulevard Land LLC is proposing to construct the Cedarbrook Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility at SW Hall Boulevard and SW 92nd Avenue in Tigard. The assignment requested of our firm for this project was to address the following urban forestry related incomplete comments from the City of Tigard in their letter dated February 10,2021: • Provide a general accounting of soils at the site; and —<Z `ZiE�4'i=RT By • Provide an assessment of the existing trees and stands of trees at the site. CSS t�- Alhbl-iEZa A map of the existing site and trees is provided in Attachment 1. This report has been updated from my August 10, 2021 report to include the updated landscape plan sheet L 1 in Attachment 2. Soil Assessment The site soil consists of Aloha silt loam,which is considered prime farmland if provided adequate drainage.Note that since this site is in a developed area, past importing and exporting of soils has likely occurred as is typical in urban areas. The existing trees and vegetation at the site appear to be performing well which indicates the existing soils are capable o supporting new trees and landscaping. However, soil drainage did appear to be poor towards the southern end of the site so trees that are planted in that area should either be adapted to poorly drained conditions or a drainage system should be installed to drain excess water from that area. Teragan&Associates,Inc. 3145 Westview Circle•Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Phone:971.295.4835*Fax. 503.697.1976 Email:todd@teragan.com.Website:teragan.com Updated Tree and Soil Assessment at Cedarbrook February 14,2022 Casey Colton,Meridian Real Estate Page 2 of 14 Areas that will be planted with new trees should be protected from compaction with soil protection fencing, steel plates, a 6-inch layer of gravel over geotextile fabric, or other measures. In some cases, it will not be possible to protect new planting areas from compaction. To prepare areas that become compacted during construction for new planting, backhoe turning should be used to loosen soil. Remove any layers of good topsoil and temporarily stockpile. Spread 3-to 4-inches of organic(high-lignin) compost or ESCS (Expanded shale/Calcine Clay)amendment over the area prior to turning the soil. Maintaining a safe distance(angle of repose) from paving, sidewalks, structures, and utilities, use a backhoe to turn soil to 36-inch depth. Break soil into large peds and loosely incorporate the soil amendment. Maintain a slope of compacted soil at the edge of the paving(angle of repose) so as not to undermine the paving sub-base. Hand turning may be necessary along the edges of paving and at walls. Do not till to a depth greater than the bottom of footing.After turning,re-spread topsoil and add 3- 5-inches of yard waste organic amendment over the surface and lightly till to break the soil into texture suitable to fine grade. All new trees to be planted will need to be provided adequate soil volumes consistent with the standards in the Tigard Urban ForeE=Manual. Tree Assessment On March 10,2021 I completed the invent of existing trees and stands of trees at the project site. The complete inventory data for each tree is provided in Attachment 3 and includes the tree number,common name, scientific name,trunk diameter(DBH),crown radius crown area(canopy),whether the tree is open or stand grown,whether the tree is a herita a tree, condition rating,suitability for eservation ratin,pertinent comments, and whether the tree will be removed or retained. In addition,five stands of trees have been identified at the site as shown on the existing conditions map in Attachment 1. The stand data is provided in Attachment 4 and includes the stand number, dominant and secondary species in the stands, dominant and secondary species DBH,dominant and secondary species condition overall stand preservation ratings, and square footage of the stand within the site to Te retained. Teragan&Associates,Inc. 3145 Westview Circle•Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Phone:971.295.4835•Far:503.697.1976 Email:todd@teragan.com •Website:teragan.com Updated'free and Sail Assessment at Cedarbrook February 14,2022 Casey Colton,Meridian Real Estate Page 3 of 14 Conclusion The tree, stand, and soil assessment information in this report adequately addresses the information requested by the City of Tigard. Please contact me if you have questions, concerns, or need any additional information. Sincerely, Todd Prager ASCA Registered Consulting Arbarist#597 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, WE-6723B ISA Qualified Tree Risk-Assessor AICP,American Planning Association Attachments: Attachment I - Existing Conditions Map Attachment 2- Updated Landscape Plan Sheet Attachment 3 - Inventory of Existing Trees Attachment 4- Inventory of Existing Stand of Trees Attachment 5- Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Teragan&Associates,Inc. 3145 Westview Circle a Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone:97].295.4$35 e Fax:503.697.1976 Email:todd@teragan.com .Website:teragan.com -C90({ )8[0[6Y0'Ymv S19TK6bwwumLw KU6 W WnINDd Ul#JNW�WalW µy y tw�,.,•H,..Wdss�+ Dvam amoTr H ffi 0 6 C �s �JNILd33NI�JN311A1� _ 'JNlll f1SN0�� sNlnn 031s1sstl�looaeava3 nl`s�a�i+u aaar��x NVIdSN01110N009NI1SIX3 �9 LjL2'�l a m e'G W �LlAl+c.■.+..fie..F.i li I �}}lif ii�it� �� _ bbb / ' # INN p p gig �y est tdb :rtsg a ./ A. \ g %g �\ ssayds�l+Lt9 �iT // i N � ! �� A�Wp d r S r F4 r " a zi it 11611 1 11 h,J,11 IN11 III LU P 6� z gA i g � W jig fit I � C7 r- IFo ITE IF '1 !° !1 OF .... ., Er q MIR r A OE �d C w E E 'o 'a 'o o 'o o' a' o m c o' E E E E E E E E E a m 431 N p 4 Y� rto ~ LY m zIV m Y :.. aW V ? ?- in 0Q �' 0] " �Cr L- 7 a +, 7 3 E 1+ C Q7 a0 �p W O 5 W a R C C C E w au � m cu m m Y 3 r .r `� 0 3 c E E E E 3 (Qj m hq vi- O O O O O w f � m �O u is v0- O O D O m C �P C cu C O C C O O N a -6 L � =' 1 V, C u ` E Y ^ E .0- - a Wo as v Q \lVi `F`�tl y o e y o c v � N N n n +p o N a .� a l o f a Ou E L 0 0 0 o E uu J i N E„ C N ri N N N N N N M { M N E zy F o Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z M phi p� w p V O O O O O +n vi +n O O O - or .n m O O O d m N N Ail 0 o o �0 0 o m u ry I,bl"WU 3 ~ N T 4`'� �. Ol '""E O5 ill �O 1� .N.{ t� LO m u�.i VK•++ E -42 o o a a c c o g a b a o V '7 a c c c c c c c c c m m H E WG� U 17• 75. N a I IWI Q C U, C G1 s[,> 16 LL R L}- VI N N 'Lvf "Cvf cc--ZF� 2 ea v m to v mru rts fn C C C C C C C C C C /{ Q ,C 6`1 N N d W W D o O O O O O O O O O O a W u r J Z n� h Ln 000 DnOpp O O O O y O O O CV) o � � � y y 7 � _y '` d O O O O O d p V E E E E E E E O N N U m m a � c _N CD L W L Y cu C L C a d aj _3 C d N > S Q U m S �}( c d m E ,c w l'J E -o -0 O a C C 4 Y d N C 2 E o o E 3 0 0 j tYJ m a9 ,0 a d a0 N c ro m N Q� ry is m d d _ 3 m +• -o �. V C a m a c m 1O a o d ao a O a O O .� N fl. -p O O u N u n -Q :3m u 0 E o N i N �--� N ri N N N �Q b .wL N N •--I N 1� N N O O o �? 4, — Z Z z 2 Z Z Z Z Z c>9 � a � o r �a E_ , oil O O 00 ' 00 ti U [� l e"n Q V 3Ca O p � a - / x in o 0o N v n r m ��\ m cr i m .-i M E w o b b o b b QF o Ch > o a u a o Y m `• p tj O O O O Y] ? m m Z3 �7 ::3 4 i n a Q a d X N N cu E U U1:1 cc ac a C Y 1 (n W Q C to ?r V U U V m C m m m O O O O m S O = L Y Y Y Y v H ria m rc a a U J S• `,1 0O t t sa O �� J V r w W k1 N� �v �, ! a00 14 1 14 CD 0 0 0 0 0C3 n Z 6 Cf � "ep .7 O P O S° p VVV 2 7 J y 04 CD N O40 ` ~ Q a Q CD c w cu O u O u m v a� Y $ :3 LL m N C ..X C C �a v N t Y C m Y' u U L Q> m L m gym,. � U � Ncu ai m a O U � M al :+ ? m ai y O a o d L d d N C 'p -G 'N m — L - 'L 4�+ D ++ +a+ Z7 N = D � } u Y U aa-� C 3 N d U c N 7 O m 3 C m a.+ Gl V 9 C r C C :3 tmi V�1 a! N C U u U 7 N '8 a -O OL N 4) E w O C N s C L C 0 C m oat °N' 3 v °w' 3 61 to m �O N i ` N t iy M ` �+ ` c 2 v m E a ° ° vp m m 3 y `° m aa, � 3 v -0 pm Liv uE ` Ja am mW m m m mN cu mN O "O y O. qj aa7W N n ap C 'm-y) L'mOaJ. n 'Od '—° w m a OL .Q °; a V o n v v m E a c °1 v m -o a ,n £ N £ 'N £ o £ $ c°a o di E m o E m N 1 N CL �J ,( ,fes U U �`N1 O i i (r,)4 N (r4 ([N► �N N N m O Z F ff <J Z V 44 = Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z a 0,, p, ^z � (� J2 C a O �+ ��1 G O O Un O O to in O to in En "cn 0 u m m m m m m m m m m m LL O o Y V C C C C C m C C C C C C C O N �T7 V1 y N E 1�1 M o O V Q N OM °0 1 m 11 e-j N N r m N N v ^! m m 4I"/1 N 'i O N lP ,--1toW W U? C) Mrt Lp N N ,O' N a--1 N N M w a a a o o a o O 4 .�a 6 O v a O a O V U 0 Z �' w O O O O O O b Q O y O z O Z3 C 5 C :3 5 m a a a a a a n a � w (� ❑ •C Q �C C C C C C C QC O C C q O O aC cx -T y m V�1 l J N— V1 d Q � — C E m O �' .-. +• �.. a.+ N w+ C ++ C Z C V L V V V V U U V ° L O U O O O O O O O of C � U m 0 C m Y N ~ O E ° W N m fU6 N m m N m U O tw a N n n m W u p v au CL tc 7 U rq Z rl N N N m ro ct d ry N NN N N N N N N N a� b G O O 0 N � 0 p p O ce) 41t { lu \k k ( k \� _ / � bk f 2a_ J2 ( LL \ cu / § Ln Ln m / / . § ro U / 0. - - - \\ \ k / � \ \§ § ) k E / C) (N r4 t o _ r4 N _ r o � � � o § / _ a § ( t z z z z z z z z z ( d 3 LO tn �q �qV) Lo (A [ E ] � e e Gf \ / \ $ § 0 � § ) ) CLQ ° _ 2 % m ~ } 5 ( j § - (rA \ \ \ \ £ 07 00 m cm 00 00 ° - � ) � / Z3 { \ 8 d 2 cu a E E § ) 7 } / \ \ k { 49 \ k \ 4 / co $ 3 u §/ \\ /] E } fI J 2 \ \ \ \ E § — — — j §/ § = 5 2 ( _ - - \ 2 / / / / &G )§ § G m § ] § ] CD 1-1CD § M o m > a a' a y4 s m 7 a s > E E 1 E E N CD tL N a t1 {�+ L L- .°J o Qc 4 c c�a u v c ai n G p tw E V 3 o Ot a 3� �yy' 1L,, 1 rto a0 k2 on N aJ cu W � m �n d! .. d61 m '� 13 -0 v ami c N w al (,tea! — a7 al w -6 CL w o 0 E m E 1_� ��J 1 '� � o o roe b N � N N OM N CL a y 4 z Z = Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O m UO �n vi O O O O O O O O O 0u v UQ m m m m m m m m m m m m .V a! O JW o c c� c c c c c c c c o c c c . E C u . ¢ y coo Ch T L/9 �,•n ^1 ry O O U N q M to rn m �D W N Ln Ln H ri m M M w Q, D co r a a a o a E o `a a `a �° w° ti o a o z o a o o � 13 O v a u v u C C C N a h m "'� �'L .'� a a a o a4 c c tn 'A a 00 � V a 4 Q ti k �L d .C- m as N N W o 0 o r s u a `D w m 3 t 3 3 m m m Z c o 0 oc c m O~ C L O O O O O O y (U m F 0 H u u u p o Y Y Y p[ a[ 7 7 Da - m m m m a}i OBJ L a c ev w N m M d P o h y N N M Q m m m m u1 Ln w co O O N N � N N N N O V � a (r7 N T Q) t � � � r m m v N O N M al c °' v 43 Z`rn CQ !�[` m .> o c E c a 3 c M .r .� 2 IL orm E n as W 5 0 CL n W h E a o m m E LO as ry al °� a L d a) a ° a+ VI N N m m d L cu W d O O m a °j } n< E yc _a da o 3 N 6 C E E Mr- v Y +a`• v m m E CL f ai a c c o a E > z ,rv- m Yi c n Xis `Z F+ U c o p �� 3- ui v c u m n �o c 111 2 Z tCo — �3 u�i °1 m s tl� O a 3 v m E in c o — 4 A , CL 0 cr O LL W O V C C O U c m Z y a O amim 2 Ou w a g E M10W 3 E o w (> ca OL a1 a a y Lj m ZI LL E 3. O ~ O Q c C On -6 .E cu a] V G A_ .0 N C C "D CD } � � C Y� ha F^ 'O tl0 a m y O F N r — o.5r co u a ami a m , 1m1 L -Oca V v C d V d p O y Y d W N y Z C13 wh0 w `o m a m Z m m 0 c O o. c j E m ca a O y `° m `- t5 H i c C7 Z M 2 2! m cb Vl N 'r '�^ M, lc--,, n7 O H N Ln v v. ap F a a c v E81 a Sc. v •O ai N N Q a, 2 -�im CL c z md A •� a m a] C hC (U O -O O a7 W O m 3 a) C c 'D u c m is F p E x E m a O ' m ,3n t 01 d S G u : �p c O a6 tE U CDz 1w, tmloDo m +L.+ a a ` ai m Y wy m a •L :: - Y 9i CL W E al m y t E 9 o0 o W a L a v a Y a co y LP a1 V rs F- ` ac' zo om 'a N N o v w w o x m r- tn 6 r Z o rv` n1 Vol S � � a CD (D $ _� E2Lh mm 2 7 E k� x k E _ _ $ cr o 0 0 0 � 2 � 0 CL CL $ e Q n % 0) [ m § 3 cr E � % ` / c o k § ' 0 \/ C c § / \ \ b ' f — U o 0 0 /®j & E 16- ° k § q.2 \ ® § to d Q J O \ �\ ./ _ m / F- 0 k k k o m ƒk /{^ \0 o w / E � Q cl § / q o C14 ® co _ # % % k § § c c A m J cu §$ E E k \ > k c § \ CL E E q % E o % E o @ , @ \f u g 2 . 2 0 § \ o § / : \ § ■ k § « k k \ = k / % j ƒ 2 k k E 7 = 4 2 2 q 3 /0 _ LoW / f / f $ $ 2f 22 0 kx W)§ � v t \ tf 22 7K 7 § -0 fnoR � � � Z � u � � � � � � � 0CL M � z 2 a M # 4 �� O = [Y O m N i to _ = fu I to = y m CM a.+ _ } � U Y l9 bD d •fa O c •CO N N O •7 ] O Ih 'E7 l ` L rr c a. u E c CL v ° > o to Nca on .fl "6 C W.. Y cu p 1+ .� O C m N = V m Y m N C I.J V: rL V C d .O U a.. ° m = o u 'ta m ra �•fO- 4- L O O C O + O O s1 C N O a+ V 47 TO A0 O L b N a= •v D d V :btu' �- L j, Jz d d a a c c a- O O y Q m G N R, dr i-; G s M CL u o m a t6 N fa v Oaj G m y0 C7 v fL ''^ m cr c i� Z �i c O ani +° -1E 0 O O w m m c a co LLJ tVcu u Ln E 6�Li N �' N 'O- 0 SNA ca U O v Q Qj CO taj• � cn al yy1,J��U OL. 0 -2c = i" o °f °1 , m �_ tri c CL cd u tea n w sL o F v n (v m T3 > E •o � @i pp Gi 'O c Q) E O Ln C iu- 03 w 8 E M E o W co ' > E tr0 O4 Etp tl) U Qj ai 4. m e m _ = as m c m m cu E 12 Q fn O 5 o a i E v ru m it a• 0 cuc m fV PI) F Q7 O N mm v-'. lfl i = U Ny E H' d d: g d (11 N LL! 6) C :C � a-� c4 i d :d � ca .� .°� o v 17 rr W m c� E E: zs C .0 a -a v. Am CC ro v o cLrj a, w N u � .� O15 0.. G Ul N 'OO G Y n3 to mU d AJ.,. _ [` 41 m .n .n •i7i m m d i L: U 4L3 3 N CL Ca LLI 0a°i P +; c (D 'a L[7 :n ':(J d .•i N rn (7 O ci N m C3 Q G a. Updated Tres and Soil Assessment at Cedarbrook February 14,2022 Casey Colton,Meridian Real Estate Page 14 of 14 Attachment 5 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. The site plans and other information provided by Meridian Real Estate and other members of the project team was the basis of the information provided in this report. 2. It is assumed that this property is not in violation of any codes, statutes, ordinances, or other governmental regulations. 3. The consultant is not responsible for information gathered from others involved in various activities pertaining to this project. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. 4. Loss or alteration of any part of this delivered report invalidates the entire report. 5. Drawings and information contained in this report may not be to scale and are intended to be used as display points of reference only. 6. The consultant's role is only to make recommendations. Inaction on the part of those receiving the report is not the responsibility of the consultant. 7. The purpose of this report is to: • Provide a general accounting of soils at the site; and • Provide an assessment of the existing trees and stands of trees at the site. Teragan&Associates,Inc. 3145 Westview Circle&Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone:971.295.4835 aFax:503.697.1976 Email:todd@teragan.com •Website:teragan.com Updated Tree and Soil Assessment at Cedarbrook February 14,2022 Casey Colton,Meridian Real Estate Page 3 of 14 Conclusion The tree, stand, and soil assessment information in this report adequately addresses the information requested by the City of Tigard. Please contact me if you havequestions, concerns, or need any additional information. Sincerely, Todd Prager RSCA Registered Consulting Arborist#597 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, WE-6723B ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor AICP,American Planning Association Attachments: Attachment I - Existing Conditions Map Attachment 2- Updated Landscape Plan Sheet. , Attachment 3 - Inventory of Existing Trees Attachment 4- Inventory of Existing Stand of Trees Attachment 5 - Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Teragan&Associates,Inc. 3145 Westview Circle•Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Phone:971.295.4835 vFax:303.697.1976 Email:todd@teragan.com.Website:teragan.com F.b ,y 1e,2022 urEa1, Tit,arta Sed Aaaesa al Ced,tm,K p, 1 ra Casey Ufle m.,Real E.W. pe e �11�t 1 1 o NATION -St-M Im lls .usM, AtteChment 1 a \ TREE TNF R (, \ 14074 SPLIT 8',9'hPPLE . 10114 fi'ASHbR�a6QJ 10185 10'LOCUST ,.Or10236 SPLIT(2)3•,5• JIMT1, SPLIT(2)16',20'LOCUST 10314 SPLIT 5,d,B,9COTTONWOOD4076 13'APPLE X10120 7ASH W�'• C�r4�10186 6`LOCUST , 10242 SPOT e',9OCI0262 SPI1T{3)6',14"IXiERRY 10319 6'DECIIDUOUSSPLIT 6',9'APPLE 10122 fi ASH �� "� 10192 SPLIT 6,7ASH10244+1�PllT 10•,Ifi'L00O261 SPLIT{2)56HAWMORH 1Q720 4"DECfWWSq14087 fiASM 10146 SPLIT 5",5"ASH _w1D216 SPLIT(2)16,18'OAK" 0245 22'LOCUST0262 SPUT 5",6'{2)7'HAWTHORN-?10415 4'OE606V`5�'Y/f� J I� Z \ CATCH BASH 50102 6'ASH 10151 7'HAWTHORN 10223 9'4ECIDUWS l' 0247 19"LOCUST 10263 9'HAWTHORN 20506 13'BIRCH RIN=235.32' 10103 6'COTTONWOOD 10174 SPOT 7'.B'HAWTIIXtN 10225 6'LOCUST 10250 SS'APPLE ^tr 10284 SPLIT 19',20•Q C 20509 14"BIRCH xo w �' L w a o 12'IE IN(E)=233.1' 10104 6'ASH 10181 CLUMP X}LLOWS 10227 CLUMP DECIDUOUS 10251 10'LOCUST 10291 SPOT{2)5'HA ORN 2(`563 33'SNAG-:i HIGH r j o 10105 6'ASH 1DI82 8'LOCUST 10233 28'LOCUST 10252 SPOT 8',10'LOCUST 10312 SPOT 6',8'C4ITOHWDOD 0676 52'SNhG- 'HIGH J ¢ `\ 12'I.E OUT(W)=233.1' 10106 }p'ASH t*-EC-�! 10183 SPLIT 7',10'LOCUST 10234 22"LOCUST 10253 13'LOCUST 10313 B'C07ONW000 708 8'-Ewww. ( L 1°c1i - ' rL. �_S ao SAN MANHOLE W k a \ AIM-233.62' co Z O I.E.B'IN(N W)=224.2' Lu r �•� �` \ �� LE B'IN(N)-224.6' EXISTING LEGEND Z I.E.8'OUT{SE)=224.1' W " \•` .\ \\ �� \ I DECIDUOUS TREE REMOVED O a ` \ S11N MANHOLE Rim=23271' DECIOUWSTREE 0 UV LE 15'IN 1=226.8' FIRE HYDRANT m �. I.E.IS'OUT(SE)=225.6' WATER BLOWOFF m WATER METER • .T' '\ 's. \ \i I CATCH BASIN WATER VALVE ea ```` `+�\ `'\ - + ♦a. RIM=232.15' ., a ,' w •\ / 1 12'LE IN(NW(=230.2' STORM Y SER C TC H BAST � STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN ■ a 12'I.E.OUT(SE)=229.8' STORM SEWER MANHOLE • SAN MANHOLE GASBMETER ■ ate, I `\ .•_5..� \ '`• RIM=232.13' I.E.8'64 N 223.2' GAS VALVE -� Sm+LX IMnicra i '4\ ` I E 8"OUT(SE)=221.2' IX1Y WIRE ANCHOR \ \ \• \ \�j, CONCRETE STORM PIPE UTILITY PDLE �.,�31, ,y`\ 12'I.E.hN(NW)=229.0' ELECTRICAL METER 13 0 ' \ `\. \ \\�'4 .\ 127 I.E.OUT(SE)-228.7 I I T�PHOHE/TEI.EIISION RISER m m CONCRETE 5TOAM OUTLET 55�' \Z� \ \� r FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT • 12'].E.(SE)=229.7' y �' ( *�`�\'.'\\ \ CONCRETE S10AM PIPE I I _--_ o 1 ; .'°+Ra\,, � y, �� • 12';.E.IN(NW)=227.5 r RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE < BOUNDARY LINE �zqu�f \ \ .� \ 12•LE.WT(SE)=221.4' PROPERTY LINE ------- _3 I ' 1 I } jIE,M N�AMo ivA.s ��H.'; ',�\\@ \ ''L'� �\ \ T` CONCRETE STORM Di I I 1 DITC4�uNE ----'- �- J I.E (sE)a 225.00' I CURB CJ7 O ''+' A` \ `\\ �` I EDGE OF PAVEMENT ------ Lu PROPOSED 27'ROW DEDICATORI2�.4Q' �y. � iy 4WD. ` \229 / I 1 FENCE LINE PARI OF CEDARBROOK OEVELCPMENT Ir I I� I I '` 1e �`� - qy \ 3Y5'yHtlPOWER ONE � GRAVEL EDGE ________-_- OVERHEAD WORE c/)TELEPHONE LINE C/) J it Irr • - -�+4c 2,Fary ±.�� r5 GAS ONE ----"�- Q rr II' II I fY E232 y. � ro \RrW� 'yr\\ Ni \ m`~ I SAN MANHOLE STORM SEWER ONE 1 i II 1 I I 1 u ,� _ 1 !^,�I 'SS �F� i �•- +Y \ $ I i RIM=224.94' SANITARY SEWER ONE Ir II �jj ^" p' I sir � �\ ` \ LE 8,IN(NW)=21m, WATER UNE ---- Ur✓ 10' + )=zle ' LE 5'OUT(SE) 2187LE -��-- O�m }J5 xW 1■akrAE \' CONCRETE STORM PIPE J_ an �f I r , •� ¢ 119 / / ry TT �`` " 12"LE IN(NW)-226.7' 12'I.E.OUT(SE)x 220.1' I Iz I sxYATE PAWMTr l 1 �' \ Lu ¢ �' i I Bs'No!1■ NTAC� I / PROPOSED 45 ROW DEDICAIT4N AS ham' �` LLQ Jo PART OF CEDARBROOK DErLOPMENTt;I0.Him If I rip I WBOIMAE 1Ax Loi 900 / r r / f vM r�1_yLm � TREE TO BE REMOVEDAyr � N ISI JA ' // (TYPICAL) / r / `\ r •Ik rAaixc ,.r LOT ae \ w ys f f y/ �' / r . -'�`-�� SAN MANHOLE sRIM=215.35' z06nnra: Rr:vI91nN Loi n / ! / / I / }( / I ' `, ."}� ` _ `\ LE8'IN( . NW)= .3' � / �`" f `��ti��' � �, I.E.e'IN(s) 201 ,�` \ LE.S'OUT(SE)=204,2' i 'MONikY Lar sl / / -__ _ � . \ mr n 1/ // // // / Mir 1�i 2'5m \SANITARY MANHOLE ,h / / / I�, y , n ^'' PLAN PREPARED FOR RM=228.23' 1 / / I / TREE TO BE REMOVEO� { �+,"� 1 \ 8'LE IN(N) _s=_ / / f // mICAL N ar °a tom, 1-„�Lor eo f�l �rr�l� £ Lk • ADAMSON e vA7rRr �' 1 CATCH BASIN / ( ) _ �s�$a 1rAP 1s-l-xeoe '�,4 tr P' �1[ 2�Iv 6'LEWr(w) __.' °� i A pfd' �( y}t�I HOLDINGS,LLC RIM=z2s.4r / tix _, >Crti 1 } 3 SW MONTAGE ANE { Qy 12'I.E.WT(5)=223.2 / // EXISTING WETLAND 0'� I r fy4'v�` " 6312 SWCAPITDLHWY STORM MANHOLE�,"�-- - Til J SUMP=221.0 / A BOUNDARY' 1 / \ I +A7k NOTES W135113-330-26150OR RIM=22B26' SMM - f EXISTING WETLAND � /� _r// \� 1V9I 39 s• - /� /BOUNDARY/t r / 1)THE FlETA SURVEY FOR THIS MAP WAS COMPLETED ON NOVEMBER 27,2019. / teaI CURB INLET -- -�'��;, ( ry -r 1 _�- i _Y 2)ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS ARE SCED ON WASHINGTON COUNTY BENCHMARK ND,105. THE BENCHMARK IS A BRASS D(SK IN RIM=226.B2' L ;:J _ n,, � (p) 217 THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL BASE AT THE SW;HEAST CORNEA OF SW GREENBURG ROAD AND SW HALL BOULEVARD 1T HAS AN 12'I.B.8H(W)=223.6' - _ �..-:=-- -.15.23___ �r• C � 2 D£VATION OF 240.75 FEET ON THE NG%D 1929 DATUM. 12'I.E.IN{N)=227 7' -- IG lAz 12"LE.OUT(S)-227.5' - I r� 3)3HE BASS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS S'1RVEY IS SH 33518. L07SUMP=221.8' CONCRETE SR${la"OIli 1 Tai 2 -"Lai s rA9 Int Im rAx u,r sor 2m TAX Lar 2m a vu's-1-xnc 4 INF RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS WERE E`TABUSH USING INFORMATION FROM RECORD SURVEYS AND THE TAX ASSESSOR'S MAP. I 12"LE (NW)=223.6' MAP 1s-1-2EH>< I LMP IrH-29oc Iur 1s-1-990(` TAE Lar 2m ) w+P Is-I-t■c i �+�� ' IWO 5)THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT PROVIDED 117H A TITLE REPORT FOR THE PROPERTY. IT IS UNKNOWN IF ANY EASEMENTS ENCUMBER OR BENEFIT THE PROPERTY. Zar bik• fiJ THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE BATED 011 THE MARKINGS PER LOCATE TICKET NUMBERS 19263092 AND 19899903. DATE 12111/2024 p�� 0'.0d A. Di BY CPK L)TILITY STATEMENT DESIGNED BY CPK THE UHDERGROUNO UTILITIES SHOWN H*T BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWNGS. THE CHECKED BY CPK (Viy' SURVEYOR MAKES NG GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH Ululi IN II HE AREA,EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE Si FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UDU11E5 SHOWN ARE IN SHEET THE EXACT EHFCRMATON LOCATION INDICATED AL Y'GH HE DOENOTSCERTIFY PHYSICALLYTAT THU ARE LOCATED AS LOCAIED THE UNDERGROUND U ACCURATELYTAS POSSIBLE FROM c d 01 -. A C 1'f t . .0 �[,fit �9. .5�+J li �� lJ I V z� February sa 2021 Uptlaud Tree antl So9 Msassmem a,Cedarbcvk Pape 5 er 14 Casey Cohen Mpritlon Raal Esrxe Attachment Z LANDS DAPE CALCULATI0NS CANCPY TREE LEGEND X141 L i= L SiTEAREAfeymS email BQTAN 11 COMMON NAMES QVANT- SIZE,MOR. LANDSCAPE AREA '>•�!'`"L D g LAxCII AREA ,9.301�` r- IN a.xel 19 1lri'cal BSS Mee Eh�Tn6umICs PERVIOUS TOPER PAREAREA 47135E VMe MepI WS Appe•a.•-A eevl duMertl TOTAL LANDANG6CA PE AREAA19.778 Sp 4RAgRA a^'. %TOTAL LPN 0.5CAPE AREA AND AREA 21x 6%R5%MAX1 Girrap.v8vva'Pmvelon SamN 6 tlT3'cM sax R A a_•t %IMPERVIO Us L33Columnar MRIhee 3landard i\ h. L-2LANDSCAPtNGSTANGARGS ��•••••••••/// CANOPYTREES 10,\' PERVIOUS LANDSCAPEAR6A 1530,sF • Cvrc181pNYlhxn Pponkum T sSvntlrtl qd BBB w.Tree ep GENERAL TREE CANOPY STMOAR04 Leycia aTMdemb 5 1-N3'ca1 686 1 TREE 1890 SF LAHOSCAPEAFEA IE301'SI 355 TREES OEar.em AadbW sucd.M TREES PROPOSEDIEXCLUCE9 ST TREEIN 27 TREES Ka.lreuuru p-IJIKA 4 111T cal MTs SNR 43SREDUIR EOf30%OF❑VIGECAPEAREAI 7650 SF a GON••r•m Tr•. Randerd Mi -D Owrys g•rry.,u 1 1-IV2'ul E8H d 11061 LARGE SHRUBI SPACING I]BSF7• Sie7SF Ompen WRe OA%fNatrveV SG•d•rd • _ '-.b LARcE SNRsiB MAILMIVIU SPAGrNG TOC 2•Rava senev VSe9e Green' ] 11+2'w188B 1452,MEGIUM,SMALL SHRUBS a 3 QC dPACINGISSFIT 4a_F SexM•e12•Rvv. duMntl ' MEGWMIAMALL SHRUR MAXIMUM SPACING T O.0 TOTAL AREA COVERED ON SHRUBS• MM SF 1528%I CONIFEROUS TREE . a Thu,pbcau'Vrosc•ns 5 6.1h 686 VISION REMANtNG AREAS PLANTED WITH PERENNIALS. E Wsvm Rea.1.1 IN—] Lew buncMnq TRIANGLE \ GRASSES AND GROUND COVER5WITH MULCH �••, LAAGE5NRUBS ° \ NOTE-ADDITIONAL SHRUBS WILL BE YROVICED WSTNN THE //}1�� OsmenMuc 1.1-y 6 21171 PROGRAMMATIC � MEMQxY CARE...ATYARV7 D.I-yOSRun.hus S' CG MINEDC VU--ARCRC nJ`, O L 0 ANC Raves arpwnown to }9si IAN pEL'1<FING STREET TREE POSITIONS MAY V E",-m Xv.a sorry ,7 39x1 ° ADJUST DERENDING UPON Vlvumum rims Xobulkxn' 67 29X1 L • FORTE eemAT,STORIMATER INFRRSTA VCTORE u •al L•urustir,uL Y COCHERE OCATgxS R..dl SRT IN HIGH MEDIUM+SMALt SHRUBS EVERGREEN _ // NEOGE l' - L7 NP�dnpa euTNr 4 Ipal v c, E.N.run Pbnl VISION I t+ Co oEscallerm nPr+R is Igel F1`.4 SC EENT TRNNGLE pMOINlk6 NTAY 1 'J C eve iR.d H Na'Suth7nandi� 19 1 gel 10-=F Ea-"" ,,, SutMrbnd Nnbe � O •a rnnMe'Gr..n Ind 6. IgA ee3 � Geon NMnd MaPaneu Nvfy Ch \ 0 Rea cf•�.•'skyP 1] Ipai a \ pp Sky W c3 Holy e ' W C�•epin rM aeMma 95 1 gel O \ 9 O Nurtlinatlomealiv GvN Bhnm 31 Ipa. J qq�� GUA Suum NunMy Bamvoa Nendina domsatica'H—Wed 57 1 gal Nerbar D-A N•aren1,13— R •�' ¢] _ O Gevhyd Hely-N.NM1 Oskmans,uaai 29 1pe1 PT W!TH 5 MIN D d]SCREEN o ]) 12.1 R11%Mn •r 4, \ r, Rvaa s AppIF xE Tfl IANGLE � V �g•f - - � 5k• Ja a � �' avb-P,»vm FbvnrCnvvt Roso - R S�'�.r - ,i- 3 -� Skmmia.souse arts IB 19.1 A q•t__r. _ �_.ys ..e` d R4 � ,� -D r. ,.. � I �, r'i�2�'"' ••y q A ,• '*�.p'^�,, � Reere,sk'mrm. q A A i'^ey ` GRASSE5I PERENNIALS Ipy G p I CA R R � ,9• � yapanlhus'Ouvan One i5 I gal • ��: �' Gu.•n Anna l81"e}-tM-nH 1*' - A •' BnrpaMv aaasdvl'u 16 1 gel ••dr•• IN EVERO •a NinuT.bloomn9 Bprpanu !1 HEDGE - Cana ..,IU D.nca111 1'1 Yadepeud Jepaneea Sedge - - - "'1 .4 R n.al.F-V G t Ifi O p �.. IL6FT S4 SCREEN PF •n e AAr � � NenRMeceKNre�Weey R.I. 11 Ipal ' �fi PA LOT EDGE A i A C�1 a-._ • Nwna RK NG R BUILDING "R a 1/1,11$ �3 U L D f N G • F�FR`•�a/M�iA/�T �L��Z+TRI1S/f Ume flwkaY Heuchen Fi/ A Irm* k.-� Ophvgvgcn plaMvwpuv'MNmacens Ignl PPRTE - �[•J yfF� GROVNGGOVER ❑ ❑ [1 ❑. o� COCNEIE Fugada vh9oensN 23E'poxg.6'oc ' SFT 9-7 SCREEN AT pn.m.n ut SLIIfi OELNERV AREA e s =\ 6 FT MIN N40TN BIo-FIL1RATIGx PIAkTER STRIP -3R MIN NIGH 1A &]SCREEN a 115\ y EVERGRFEN HEDGE .D �" J R asr s ap. 501 Plugs G o c Muncvs peons 5C% Spreatllrq RucM1 NEWSFT FEY,•_ ' q ❑ _ ___r1 NO?E3 \ T' / _ - S -� - ❑ I '� - - 1I 1 AN AU111EIGN:ButLG I RRIGATION SYSTEM VT.LQTNG'SMART- '��r11 LIE�I1 II TECHNOLOGY SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PROVIDE IR04 COVERAGE TO Tv_vI rF_ ALL lAYDSCAPE AREAd 7 PROv1DE A 2-MIN FRRSM BARK MULCH LAYER IN ALL PLANTING AR EMs 3 AERER 105> ET LS FOR PLANTrxG DETA!LS AnD NOTES 4 AEFE.TO AICNITECTIIAAL PLANS FOR OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS FOa15 `I--YISIPX TRANCLE� A, I M1�1�C rs�sl(V` \ - \ NEWLS FT PENCE / T%:DptAwj4&L2 ATOP RR ❑ LS RETA N NG WALL q S3 SCREEN SFT MIN WIDTH R I(��1��/s �(�^D /�'[�/'•,�� r - 3.3 SCREEN S L A ✓ i%TAlsJr/'A A IS- SIFT _�: �./- ® , M15S1 nSCd rF•r'e T��V.� 1,319 >1 /�—• In114' SFT MIN WATHS-25CREEN % NEW 5 FT FENCE LS - I ECiSTIMG WATER j EA CHA N-LINK FENCE - LANDSCAPE PLAN ST 'q� _ % _ I'=2, 02YF 112647 4 521 O y O �' '-'"TTI r PRELIMINARY E, hb ;a I 1 "— 7 HTIA-'L u I]Gd U �/ MULCH LAYER ON Lr i c0 10.. 3G 40 �... .�6 Z DPeCGN F ea. NEWS'FENDEATOP rf� 9ENEATN PRESERv 10216 d 11/OB OZ RETalxtxc WMLL • (1_ GAK TREE tT� K7 P ` len RY CA IC g pRC ASS ED LIVING & F x � architecture, inc. �tST- KC- `7 �3 _j P�r,DIA• A�C,EMENT L�2 3150 KeftCowtSE.Salem,OregoR9i301 H81I Blvd., Tigard, OR �M� e rO .7��I,lo VLxAN A rFEReHce �Ne4,G; L1 1vu lr ' y P 503 3991090 F 503 399 0555 wlen€ry�thltect�re.com Ip [�� rO�/ �.L�n Qj f, " kvsL/Uior ocai)A W( -40iIII J TW Dot L`1,Cr007,9 OF -rr i14�N �CrsreNG�- 'R�s y¢��,rn� f ru. Search this site Oregon Wood Innovation Center Oregon ash(1~raxinus latifolia) r6 • General Characteristics(#genl • Harvest&Utilization fabarvest} • Wood ProoertL • Related Literature(may _ • Oregon Producers and Users_aLO4eg.9n as,✓ 4 ,(stn Jhwww.orforestdfrectory.comlcaterho ig1a*ecieslash-arg�oa:koverlay-context-care pries/) This information was originally published in Hardwoods of the Pacific Northwest1. + S.S. Niemiec,G.R.Ahrens,S.Willits,and D.E. Hibbs. 1995. Research Contribution S. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory General Characteristics Oregon ash,a member of the olive family(Oleaceae),is one of 16 species of ash in the United States.It is the only ash native to the Pacific Northwest. Size,Longevity,and Form 4 I:�Etl are:onldh Mature Oregon ash attain heights of 60 to 80 ft and DBH of 16 to 30 in.Ash may live b. Pentre at least 250 years. In forest stands,Oregon ash develop short, narrow crowns with small branches on long,straight boles. Open-grown trees have broad,rounded crowns with large limbs on short boles.The root system of ash is moderately shallow,wide-spreading,and densely fibrous. Geographic Range Oregon ash is native from northern Washington(lat 481 N)to southern California flat r f 35° N)on the west side of the Cascade Range and the Sierra Nevada.It is most common in valleys and along rivers. Timber Inventory The total inventory of Oregon ash (about 164 MMCF)is scattered across all subregions of Oregon and Washington (RR nix ,Table 1 lgRnendix-l-comorehensive- i taffies#tabiei)_). It is most abundant in the Columbia Basin and tributary streams and valleys in northwestern Oregon and southwestern Washington.The availability of Oregon ash for timber harvest is significantly restricted by regulations governing forestry-practices_in_riparian areas and wetlands. Biology and Management Tolerance,Crown Position Oregon ash is intermediate in tolerance,and commonly occurs in intermediate or codominant crown positions.Young seedlings will grow in fairly dense shade.Overtopped trees of any age can respond to release with openings in the overstory. Ecological Role Oregon ash is a long-term dominant in riparian areas along slow streams and in other poorly drained areas subject to seasonal flooding.It may replace cottonwood on heavy soils and on swampy ground with poor drainage during the growing season. Oregon ash seedlings will also colonize wet areas in grasslands and abandoned fields. Associated vegetation Tree species commonly associated with Oregon ash are_black cottonwood, red alder,white alder, bigleaf maple,Oho` white oak,California-laurel,California sycamore,and various willows. Douglas-fir,grand fir,and ponderosa pine are associated with Oregon ash on the drier margin of typical ash sites. Understory vegetation is sparse under dense stands; sedges often dominate under ash.Common shrub associates include snowberry, hawthorn,serviceberry, mockorange,crabapple,and himalaya berry. Suitability and Productivity of Sites Oregon ash is particularly suited to heavy soils and poorly drained areas,which are often too wet for any other tree, including cottonwood.Ash may grow very well outside of such areas,although management may be required to maintain it.Growth and stem form are often quite poor on poorer sites;the suitability of sites should be evaluated before effort is invested in management of Oregon ash. The capability of a site for growing Oregon ash should be evaluated by examining growth and form of older trees.Good growth potential is indicated by the following: --i`• Top height on mature trees of at least 60 ft —,!w• Sustained height growth of 1 to 2 ft per year at ages 5 to 20 years -3'- Continuing diameter growth on mature trees. Climate Oregon ash thrives in a mild, humid climate characterized by relatively cool,humid summers and wet, mild winters. In this climate,annual precipitation ranges from 20 to 118 in.,with very little rain in July and August; mean annual temperatures range from 46 to 54°F. The bottomlands where Oregon ash is most common provide a relatively cool,moist environment,even in hot interior valleys.Oregon ash has a fairly high tolerance to summer drought; however, it generally ceases growth and drops its leaves when conditions become hot and dry. Oregon ash that establish on drier sites often persist in a stunted,crooked form. Elevation Oregon ash usually grows at elevations from sea level to 3000 ft,although it may be found as high as 5000 ft. Soils Oregon ash typically grows on deep,poorly drained clays or silty clay loams that are rich In humus. It will also grow on sandy,rocky,and gravelly soils in riparian areas or areas with'seasonal Flooding. Oregon ash also grows on upland forest soils adjacent to more typical ash habitat. Flowering&Fruiting Oregon ash begins producing seed at about 30 years of age. Male and female flowers grow on separate plants.The greenish-white flowers(male and female)are borne in dense panicles,which appear at the base of new foliage in April or May.The fruits are oblong to elliptical samaras 1 to 2 in.long.They ripen in August or September,turning from green to light brown. Seed The winged seeds(10,000 to 14,000/Ib)are dispersed by wind during September and October.Ash seeds can remain viable for more than one year;they usually require moist,told stratification in order to germinate.Germination rates are medium to high. Regeneration from Seed Open-grown trees produce good seed crops almost every year. In forest stands, heavy crops of seed are produced every 3 to 5 years.Wet or moist soils high in organic matter provide the best conditions for germination and establishment of Oregon ash.Although many seeds are transported by flood waters,few seedlings establish from seeds deposited on sandy or gravelly stream beds. Seedlings commonly establish in the understory of existing riparian forests after Floods that deposit silt.Ash seedlings also establish in wet grasslands or fields,particularly after disturbance such as plowing(in the absence of fire or grazing). Regeneration from Vegetative Sprouts Oregon ash sprouts vigorously from the root collar after cutting.Stumps should be cut low to the ground in order to produce well-formed sprouts of good quality. Regeneration from Planting The performance of Oregon ash has been poor to fair in limited outplanting trials.There are no known examples of operational forest plantations. Oregon ash is widely planted and does very well in ornamental applications,which indicates its potential for good performance in managed plantations. Site Preparation and Vegetative Management Little site preparation is necessary for establishing stands of sprout origin. Both mechanical and chemical treatment options may be limited on typical,wet Oregon ash sites. Although Oregon ash would probably benefit from control of competing vegetation on a site,established seedlings seem to grow well amidst substantial competition in old fields. Stand Management Oregon ash is not generally managed for timber production.Young ash trees grow fairly rapidly,but are commonly crooked or forked.Young stands are typically dense; early thinning to allocate stand growth to well-formed trees can improve stand quality.Older ash trees also respond to thinning; the diameter growth of crop trees doubled after crown- thinning in a dense,45-year-old stand. Mixed-species Stands The shade tolerance of young Oregon ash trees and the ability of overtopped trees to respond to openings provide flexibility for management of ash in mixed species or age classes. Oregon ash are often mixed with cottonwood and bigleaf maple in bottomland forests,where Flood waters maintain a variable disturbance regime. Management of these areas must integrate the range of growth rates,shade tolerance,and regeneration needs among associated species. Growth and Yield Growth of Oregon ash is moderately rapid for the first 60 years(1 to 2 ft per year).Thereafter,height growth is negligible and top height is relatively short(60 to 80 ft),although good diameter growth may continue. Early growth of stump sprouts is quite rapid(3 to 4 ft per year).There are few estimates of volume growth or yield for Oregon ash. Measurements in a pure stand of 45-year-old Oregon ash showed an average height of 70 ft and basal area of 140 to 160 ft2 per acre,which yield approximate volumes of 3200 to 3800 ft3 per acre.Annual growth was about 70 ft3 per acre in both lightly thinned and unthinned stands. Interactions with Wildlife Ribbonlike forests of Oregon ash along streams and sloughs provide an Important forest habitat in valleys that are otherwise cultivated farm or pasture.Oregon ash provide food and habitat for beaver and nutria,which also significantly damage the trees. deer and elk also browse Oregon ash seedlings and stump sprouts. Insects and Diseases Weevils(Thysanocnemis spp.)destroy significant amounts of seed(up to 60 percent). Various other insects feed on twigs and foliage and may be pests in ornamental plantings.A variety of fungi cause leaf spot and powdery mildew. True mistletoe grows on Oregon ash.A heart rot causes extensive defect in older trees,and hollow"stovepipe"ash are prevalent in some stands. Genetics Some of the stand-to-stand variation in the form of Oregon ash may have a genetic basis.There are no recognized varieties of Oregon ash,although it may hybridize with velvet ash(F.velutina)in the southern Sierra Nevada. Harvesting and Utilization Cruising and Harvesting There are no equations or tables for calculating tree volume. Log grades have not been developed. Premium prices may be paid for logs 12 in. and larger. Harvesting of Oregon ash may often be subject to restrictions for protection of riparian zones or wetlands. `- - Product Recovery Sawlogs usually have a minimum small-end diameter of 6 in.The relatively small volume of sawlogs that are harvested are fully utilized,demand for lumber is relatively high. Lumber grade recovery has not been studied. Wood Properties Cha racterlstics The wood of Oregon ash is moderately hard and heavy,with distinct growth rings.The sapwood is nearly white and is wide.The heartwood is a yellowish-brown,with a slight greyish cast.The woad is somewhat lustrous. It has no characteristic odor or taste. Oregon ash wood is ring porous; the earlywood vessels are large,forming a band that is 2 to 4 pores in width and distinctly visible to the naked eye.The transition to latewood is abrupt. Latewood pores are small,barely visible to the naked eye.The variability between earlywood and latewood is especially apparent on flat- sawn surfaces,where the denser latewood markedly contrasts with the porous, grainy earlywood. Rays are not easy to distinguish with the naked eye. Weight Oregon ash weighs about 48 Ib/f:3 when green and 38 lb/f:3 at 12 percent moisture content(MC).The average specific gravity is 4.50(green)or 0.55(ovendry). Mechanical Properties Because Oregon ash is moderately hard.and heavy,it is rated intermediate in bending strength and stiffness. Its impact resistance,however,is rated as high. Its hardness and compressive strength is good;thus it is well suited for most furniture, paneling,or flooring applications. Nail and screw splitting are less problematic than with other,more dense woods such as oak.The nail-holding ability of Oregon ash is good. Appendix 1,Table 3(ippendix-t-comorchenaiwe- tabie5utabic3)_provides information on clear strength values for Oregon ash,as well as comparative values of other species. Drying and Shrinkage Under moderately controlled conditions, Oregon ash dries rapidly and with minimal degrade. Drying defects are most often associated with wetwood, or are caused by uncontrolled air-drying,which results in surface-and end-checking. Sapstains and sticker stains can also degrade the wood. Green MC of Oregon ash wood averages 49 percent. Shrinkage values for Oregon ash dried from green to ovendry are 4.1 percent radially and 8.1 percent tangentially.These values are similar to other ash species.The table below provides an appropriate dry-kiln schedule. For thicker stock,contact the Forest Product Department at O5U for additional schedules. Kiln schedule-Oregon ash 4/4, 5/4, 1514. TemnerajurP OF Temperature°C Equilibrium Moisture Dry- Wet- moisture Relative Dry- Wet- content bulb bulb content humidity bulb bulb Step (%) (%) (%) 1 Above 35 130 123 14.3 81 54.5 50.5 2 35 to 30 130 120 12.2 74 54.5 49.0 3 30 to 25 140 125 9.6 64 60.0 51.5 4 25 to 20 150 125 6.8 49 65.5 51.5 5 20 to 15 160 120 4.5 31 71.0 49.0 6 15 to final 180 130 3.5 26 82.0 54.5 Equalize and condition as necessary Machining Oregon ash machines without much difficulty. It planes and shapes favorably; ash is comparable to bigleaf maple in shaping qualities,and slightly below the oaks in planing qualities.It turns well and,when holes are bored in ash,the holes are smooth with minimal size variation. Fuzzing from sanding is rare,although surface scratching can be apparent, especially on the latewood parts of flat-sawn boards.The best results in planing are obtained with tooling that has a 250 hook angle.Tool wear is moderate. Adhesives Oregon ash bonds satisfactorily and there are no unusual problems when conditions are well controlled. Because of its light color,the glue line can be visible on sapwood if darker resins are used. Finishing The natural luster of Oregon ash is enhanced with clear finishes or transparent dyes. �� The earlywood vessels may require filling to minimize surface texture. Heavily pigmented stains tend to darken the more porous earlywood without penetrating the denser latewood.Color variation between sapwood and heartwood can present problems if a uniform color is desired. Surface scratching in the dense latewood can sometimes be a problem. Durability Oregon ash is a nondurable species that is susceptible to wood decay. Untreated posts of this wood average only 6 years of service before failing. Heartwood of ash species is considered easily penetrated with preservative solutions.The wood is subject to attack by powder post beetle(Ptillnus basalis)and is moderately susceptible to sapstain,mold,and iron stain. Uses Oregon ash is used for furniture,cabinets, paneling,veneer,tool handles,flooring, millwork, pallets,crates,boxes,and firewood. Related Literature FRENKEL, R.E., and E.F. HEINITZ. 1987.Composition and structure of Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia)forest in William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge,Oregon. Northwest Science 61:203-212. HIBBS, D.E.,and G.R.AHRENS. Unpublished data. Forest Science Department,Oregon State University,Corvallis. OWSTON, P.W. 1990.Oregon ash. R 339-343 in Silvics of North America.Volume 2, Hardwoods. R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala,coords. USDA Forest Service,Washington D.C. Agriculture Handbook 654. CEDARBROOKn� 8'T ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE TIGARD, OR DES tCT0 Is 0 _ = 00 IN - Ndr ,o r } i jbpd4n Ai CA,oc� .3 1 - S IS I i.05 LI K';- L I� p C3T�tERS, Cb(4CEP i LLAL Cx-of 4611— DATE: 12127/2020 RESUBMITTAL DATE: 04121/2021 DESIGN TEAM CONTACT INFORMATION 'F e xs'r E � ENcr RESUBMITTAL DATE: 10/01/2021 �rp� O� ? DEVELOPER' CIVIL ENGINEER: �zN� �'T7oNS �rw� [/�T��✓�M L j • RESUBMITTAL DATE: 02/01/2022 TIM TAYLOR CHRIS KITTRIDGE P E L1 KGEU-j Iry J ��' - --- - - - ---------- ADAMSON HOLDINGS,LLC KITTREDGE ENGINEERS,LLC /1 DRAWING_ INDEX 6312 SW CAPITAL HWY,#133 6565 SW 207TH AVENUE � �C. ��•�� +'� gm 'J� �• �u` 8 ` PORTLAND,OR 97239 ALOHA,-3 97076 ��J /�l ISS['Q"� 1 'C1�CJ ��r{]1 N -__5HEE31D _ SHEET TITLE_.—_ l J n �T w caveH SResr -- _ (503)330.2615 (503)70&3942 ` µ ,"�^ w f'• • ' 1 ` f Al — SITE PLAry.IVNDERGROUNO P0.RIGNG --_- '�/ •mow } G IOW �j `/1{ ' + 1 cV V �{]J/ryV A,,x a?e Exnl�rs OPERATOR: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: /� J q ' + �� Cu +„ ){ /�1 tSDrioci3i �uw DOUG SPROUL.PRESIDENT SCOTT L,HARDMAN,P.E.,G.E. t S� P[�L.J�W+Nip 2�1 �} O /m U (Y['C �T` 7�FS4 N ndAD FOR PIAN MOSAIC MANAGEMENT,INC. HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. i� 1 f�� 7G1• �TOItTcI�� (a`;� A7 R�F�s 1900 SALEM, 897302#150 10110 TIGAR ,OR072 3 �R C:Lt �----------�� ----._._— N NIM13US AVE A7 Eievansis-------- SALEM,OR 97302 TIGARD,tlR 97223 �'� IS 1 r ` A �cr + ' iii � qa [�EMMSE (503)3913999 (503)530-8075 A� E•-f''S vim] I p1 �s suLDINc sEc-noNa +� A19 PERSPECT7VE RENDEWIGS �� J� I�>�'[L .---( /t�f ..�r._� .moi AN 1 ARCHITECT: TRAFF=ICCONSULTANT: �.-iN �~� yJ`•� C�+c—`V C�1-� r r-1 Z 1N qu ----neHaPecmEaENDERINGa ..� �A qs PERSPECT,vERENOFftlNGs AARON CLARK BRIAN DUN,,P.E. EwsnNcmNuna+9PUN LENITY ARCHITECTURE,INC. KITTLESONAND E,SU17 600 �c'o ---- 'vF&R REM" TUFHN ---------, 3150 KETTLE COURT SE 851 SW fiTH AVE,SUITE 600 ;c,os r+r:°++F7 oGRAai'niw"�M°"sMEwr- SALEM,OR 97301 PORTLAND,OR 97204 C,M _— — PROpOSELVD-5TREETA — (/J1(�/N-��V� G1os sw rv�ec xw�sTT+EETgNo unun PUN_ (503)399-109fl (503)2285230 its: �_ 6109 PRGP09ED SFDRM pWN"GE PLP, L (r�fF-t /� rflr.�41 cpm _ Pw�wscewnTiwrspweHrwow"TEapuN ' LANpSGAPEARGHiTEGT: WETLAND CONSULTANT: �S rt+ llfi C �E +'1 / A 4 fT moi - -'-" -.OPQGt W-Suliy�v BRIAN Llk❑ DAVID MONN IN,PWS wT44 7-14 JGhl /V ri----- Tr1EEPR¢sE.Av"pKeNyrrEwgv"tvuN- LENITYARCHITECTURE,INC. TERRA SCIENCE,ING. � � fj��Y�-+ 'a'+ �. ��____� 3150 KETTLE COURT SE 4710 SW KELLY AVE,SUITE 100 1'` � u TREEcw+aFrsITEPIwN SALEM,OR 97301 PORTLAND,OR 97239 7 N PARKING LOT TREE CANOPY P AN l I.w r u oscAPeceul�sArloNmes i E (503)399-1090 (503)270.-2100 Ai-�t- A�� ""PNCS'g E,.D STE GNTNGPLAN —- I - - - ' lcsamcssr en ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CAREjC architecture, inc. p AO 3150 Kettle Cart SF,S0lem,C x197301 Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR MAKING A DIFFZR!NC! IN BENFDR LIVING // P 503 399 1090 F 503 399 0565 w lenityachitecture.com M ARS V'"P TC—j' 4 1 m� �/9/2 2— y� �WAWA loll ;: it■� _ ` 3 ■ �� 1■■I ® m ® ■■■1 1 r ,' , I�rrr '' xl�t-c � : ■1 ■ ��ry •�� _.i �.� ......,. ■ � � �■ �. � .1 1 � '11 :, imrr--• � e . _ --___._ � � -.. � m . ' � � .� 11 I IA I III I „�- - I�■.. � ■■l 1■ 1■ 1 i 1 11. r ��I �r a Y��' _..-.{:�■1�~` :y.:�s.' c to 'C ._ r -p '__�-"..�- - IVY gj if I ro1 -0 NO ( ■W Sao 1 ■ ■��- � NMI 3 4 Ars- .a ,� , i IP T7 I I- Q ti.. l .v , r , C&rA �3 r _ mt(N`SWr--,ET Orn ji c � v lei i .` ASSISTED LIVING & BAREMEMORY �Ic AE�� A14 architecture, inc. p 3150KetYleCourt SE,SGIem.O n97301 Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN EENiAR LIMINA a 503 3991090 r 503 399 0555 w lerengtyarch Z.rexom i )�'+no N y � 2 2 _ �.= _ r •Ti-tis ��E �a JI/ WLU- S HAs Wo OF 7"14 C ts�22E1�'T G� ALL S vD. S' T�S;I t NAecOR-Arm Y F Omni .S y .. I � lenASSISTED` LIVING & MEMRY CARE sAIC architecture, inc. O AGEMENT LAi 3150 Kettle Court SE,Salem,Oregon 37301 Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 1^F110 w 'IF'ENENC IN BENIION LIVING P 503 3991080 F 503 399 0565 w ienliy�chi?ec ure.cnm � r/AtY� T7��+Y1 t h. •L( i /7—r'1 Attachment 2 ELILDING DA;� T�GARD, OR xNEBI-T & ` TORIES.. PAST FLGR- x'.04556.FT. JOOGI SO.FT. _ SELCC ONNDCFL FLOOR: _ _ _+7 31J 5Q Fi. ' 1 ` \ A ISTFD I 17,252 SD. THIRD IF_DC MNG 96.12�SO.FT. Jq.126 SO,FT. �L ff !`E PLA ,WATERAsslsTEoCmN�TREATM ASINYP.SEE CIV \ OR> D NGFCOORTOTAL.FLOOR TOPRE4 RlTro fFAR,} 2,110w0 \ LLJBURO,NG UNIT MI"A5515A UNITS(t BED, &s UIT S WALK a \ •e DNDSE119Ep1 _-- s2 UIT 217 LANDSCAPE c GNRslaaEdsl _ _ zSUITES _ _ - TUTAL unrts is9 surras _ r LPFtIVATEk1NIT3 y1-EEO} - 11 SUITES 12SUlies_needsi23DOORs VICINITY MAP 30'VISION ry `\ TorALu Rs 22 SUITES 33 ee6s_T3�000iss II TRIANGLE `_\ - ' =yRv oTAL - iel sulrEs- -_ ! J° c 'SNARED ME140 Y CARE UNITS CONTAIN 1 SNARED BATHROOM,IT ISONE NOT TO SCALE SUiTEWITH]DOORSACCESSEDFROMTHECORRIDW CDNIMONLY CALLED A JACK AND JkL SUIT£. F ON CK _ "� .�__�` y ! E IRED, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRDPD D FIR Ax.J MINIMUM LOT Sa 09QUARE FEET 93,388 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 3FEET 527 FEET MWIMUM SETBACK-FRONT DF E ET 1FEET,a INCNES `� •. A3C D M INIMLMSEfBACK. 5FEET EFEETAFTER ROW STREET SIDE RANO DEOICATION ft00F L MINIMUMSETBACK-SIDE OORo FEET ADJACENT 59 FEET,5 IN iNE6A5TE ! �rI II` YD RE7o DJA N FEET.SIN IM(EAS I ABOVE SHOW - MINIMUMSETBACK-REAR O OR M FEET ADJACENT 93'-Y FEET(BDUTH, 30,VISION f 1 p D / MµlI SETBACK-FRONT 20 FEETTo�S TO R-+2 10 FEE TRIANGLE MA%IMuM SETBACK- 20 FEET 5PEET(WND) ^- \ _ STREET SIDE BFEETIMOfTADE1 D_OPDF£ , MAIIHEIGHT 75 FEET e9FEET.SMHM CD D.. 2 _ MAkIIAUM LOT COVERAGE e0x 711 27 ° ° N /r MINIMUM LA 95GAPE AREA MIS 21,15 18"x18" MINIMUM FM o.9 xo ! �s' COLE'. `\ Mµ1MUM FAR NONUj E 2.3 VEHIC E s'NG FRONT i STAC 11 SETBACK ZREQUIRED, ' S SIDE SETBACK O FROM R.O.W. FROM R.O.W. O' 1 PROJECT DATA SITE OA A WALK O ------- p E%iSTING PROPERTY 0.REA 293 ACRES(110.558 SQ FT1 N 8't4' TRASH 13 3g. °' - raxLDrnuA,eERs ssi2eaeo aoG s_g6Danogco s 2BDBC5909 - _-_- LANDSCAPE N --- [AFTER HPLLL92N6 DEDICATION 1pp 5835{1 FTI - T =r V76AR BREAKDOWN E - - SugDINc;. 97e s4 T L3 AA. WALL W1 FENCE,SEE CIVIL a -- wrwSETcRouHD FLo6R: y9,Bz3_sasr�_z..x, 1 FOR MORE INFORMATICN ELEV. I L _BUILDING�OOTFFINTTOSAL: 51,eD+so,FT.-4s*)- I , I �I I 0'SETBAC I ' RO PIEOPPSEU 51 E .OVAL 93,88A SQA P014l - ---- ------ - - 1 lT7:1 - �- --T-- _ I R20' -- ]AISCAP6 rou,S_uNDscACEAReA- 1sa,oT sa FT E,Baxl . .__ K VESTIBULE PROJECT 35'VISIONA* T._%LEURTARDNC ,gF1 [,TRIANG SCAFE AREA TOTAL= Ea5'SIDE • WALL CROSSWAL TOTAL, -s.nEsa:rT. [2rrx1- \ t`r ABOVE qlb I I FRONT FARAINO BREAxWIYNI TOWNHOUSES'- I 1 SETBACK-� STAIR �� 1 R2 SETBACK OPEN SPACES N I 1 ._ DRENACCBSSI _ysAA�C-FTS _ _ --62 _ LINE OF r 61 cavEREa SPACES COLS. CONC. cbveREDACGEssisGESFAGEs a� 8 TRANSITION _Li R K' .�4.. R FROM R.O W. - - - _--- __ �..� R23' TDTPI4PACE5 92 2R 4 Mme(. BICYCLE PARKING BREiVfDOWN, — EI T 5PAGES 1� -- l----- `---- I 18' 20' 18' '� -15 • LOBBY' OBBY j I BEGINNING OF 1 1 32'-0". 18' 26' 18' C I % PRIVATE I O I VESTIBULE Lc�IrF--5riIII TE Ill Cy".'6"XAITV As .f._ DRIVEWAY ' S(Mikt a4'i$'rs( 1Uk�0 1 /� ELEVPAINTED TE 1 OWNHCUSEBCROSSWALK Iv' -LAW CaP' A I � �d'�VdG-CCic.n�tJ �E�l��C'i'41/14'TIdJ � L1r'NS+l�•�7CF�� 311'VISION \ 18x18 ole- COLS. d �0�r��s/7� 4� A ,,�1y TRIANGLE �+ COLS. N , 26 1� d �1"�f'Z�A•TATVv9� L� DG-Mk%-'L L� L2 Clio I e C o(5 AN D SU RVt roR�r P R p ` I R25' 8'P.U.E. 1 y 10 E p MR-A-W Cv%o PROPERTY 1 1 l m II • - - - - SW MONTAGE LANE + LINE + 59'-1 T 1 "2 II �T'rG7��5 1 4 �+ w 1;u— I s -P ps aw F 5r-3° V �7�TC1V� PrL� !' - I -AERIAL �I S'SIDE _ R28' ACCESS ti BUILDING�--• P j'Ik f .f _. R25 ' F. ............ - __AC-------- ------------ -- -- -------------- C �I- l }+VE �., �y �M�I fL�Nig 30'VISION - -----"--"---- TRIANGLE / -- - I - --T -- -%-� - MULTI-MODAL SETBACK •Tkil..M� A�y � �m}}IAj BEGINNING OF / - 'O PATH{8' 5 111 l'«� !/ f f �. '-.' WIDE) S` iTl"r1� L`'P PER t.*<N1�5r PRIVATE � r - � � I DRIVEWAY SITE PLAN "�(ou P 'M5 `MS E 1,22 WALL SEE c' CIVIL L PRO ERTYLINE --------o 13 zG ao eo WALL SEE WALL,S IVI FOR MORE CIVIL INFORMATION Gill 1 ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY C A EM E T Al architectures 311V. Hall Blvd., T'Irard, OR �MA I�ND A DIFFERENCE IN P BENIOLIVIN 3150 Kettle Coat SE,Solern,Oregon 97301 I GM e N tf .rl��}�2 z P 503 3991090 F503 399 0565 w Ienitycrchitecture.COM &A4!B!T H -W— TREE �,ce1•n rww«a..:Rw.a TREE INFORMAPON rl'"i i1 \ =74 9-UT 6•,9'APPLE 191N r ASH ,ONES Tr LOCUST 107]6 9117(2)P,r,6'LOW 10261 SLIT(2)IVO MST 1014 SPOT 5',9',r-W COTTONWOOD ,�T111 rrIn1 \ 10076 13'APPLE 10120 Y ASN 141ffi r U7CISr 10242 SWr r,9•t= 1M12 9911{9)6',15-CHDx'F wt9 6'DCUL110U5 V V \ \ 10065 SWT 9',r APPTE ,0,23 6.ASH 10192 SWT r,Y A91 1074/ SWT 10',,9'LAOIS_ IOM4 SPUE{1}s',r HAWRIp61 ,6]20 S'oEGlalous \ 10067 9'A91 ,011e SWT$.6'ASH 10219 SWT(2)le',1e'OAA 1P245 22'LOW 10261 5FW 5',r(2)r RAVTHM NO 4'KMOU6 Liz Z- Qb0� 10101 1'ASH ,0191 7'HAFAICAH ,9727 r D(COUWS 10247 19•LOCUST 70255 r HAWTHM 29506 If om w - \ \ CATCH KW 10105 r WTIOHWOCO ,x74 MIT 7,,rMOIW ,r HAW10226 r LOCUST 10750 IY APPLE 10264 SHR IV2r OAR Z W \ \ FAi.23157 10164 9'ASH lax Cuw*Am 10227 CHRIP OECnocus mi it LDWsl 10291 sWr{2)f HARM 7m63 SY 7HA0-i;HIGH I"I'��1 -.i Iff T \ \ •\ 1Y I.E.WT M] 251I' Taos r AIH 1x02 8'LOCIST IED37 2r LOCUST 10052 9911 r,Ir LOCUST 10112 SWT 6',r Cor*a= 20676 32'9VAC-}]d HIGH 1 1.ex 40 M Z C \ .\ Iaa9 tr ASH 10161 SPOT r.10110= 10254 22'LOCIST 10755 13•IDCV31 10717 r COTTINM 7m r+x01 SATWOLE LE 0.233 By.�7, EXIS TING LEGEND ` Z w \ ^ `�• ,\ ��W\\`•.\ L<r 00(p`221s DEMOS TREE MOVED { WJ Q j YNRICLE /I 55 RY-23271 OE[LUW5 RIFE V U RNS10 "'' �•\ \\ \ `\ . LE IY NA-7766 FRE PDRN1T n c rr fi '1� '� \ ` `•� LE 1Y Wz ISE)•226.9' WATER hm s y CATCH BOM WATER VALVE q ^ •� \•\. \ RN-MIT SANITARY SEWER WA/1WIE i TY LL W(MD•2307 520!61 SEW CATCH BA.9H ■ '_ ,\ 12 LL WT{SE}•t29AF • sSAN NAHMIf umoRLI KSE'IRR YNIIiOIE i GAS Kv ■ \*A• ., \ ,\° tE-r x(HW}.22x7 GAY VANE F tE r OUT(SCJ-221.7 UUTTkYTf POLWRE E 'O CR#=Sm PIPE IN w 2767 IE�iE1'Hf/l[/MAL6fl sa+LOSER 1Y IE.CUT(9E}.7162' I j OLV7M S1mII WIIF'IFxN WWY MO LWD41 N10W:lE SMPPE : �-— � 5_ 12'IL(st)-2267' IY LL x(HCl-2270 sloe F Um UKz 12•LE OUT(SE).227.4' I PR9PFAfY UK CCWCRCTE STORY GUM I G B T^_•- EJ} ,Y1�,,,� 2i.W n .�'\ � ,a•ITL{SE)-usa6 _____ PROPOSED Zr ROW DEDICATION A9 I,! + 'I .i, '� 1+4� �'[>p f�•LIFE�� _^--- — }w— e PART OF CEOMSM DErLLMIENT rl j 3 I 'yPq :.'": -`:\ p" ` \ I O"m EDGE ---- - (f) n ` POWER LK H \W 94EREW WIRE ----�- � {{ , TEIPPIIOHE LWIE .•. .'.f,::`fw 01010.,4 /i`\ r, \ a j 4 GAS LIE �■— Z Q '9i/ i pl• -,� \� �� `` \ SAH wA.E mw 2WA LK — - �*— O A9y,H.- ` \ ' q('.. RY-22.94' SAVVTARY Z"mx ----�•- (� Y m +� I�(<• ,/ �\•.'�: \ \ LL lo M(Hv-1168' WAIEA INE ---":- O t LL lo-N(10 2-21 O LLrwr(st}-n6r Z CC s If IIT �If + ! ,i 1/-I J// j //�•` ��4soD� '�i Jam,\)` \ \�.` mwAE7F STORY PPE I I I I >�1�:•� .I I /� • ti 4Y IE vi(RWJ.2267 x i' II j I AM R■Iir9rMrA[ • / ARq i'�' I I l \ \. ',p. °�' S7'fE OUT ISE)-2201' +' I j I R 19PD1R' 4 / PROPOSED 45'ROW 9EpCAT TO AS J '�;� \ �. M \ LL1Lu 8 PART a CWk4NOOK OEVTLOVNEt1r / ��. 7 \ `tel- (, �� sT Iw= / TIES TO BE AOAOVrED Ir -i M,•ld' `� \ N Jil Pa1w I urn rSAN W*KUE �•2 '' Dare, a5vlsrcN II --- - ��_ I ! / / / / /•�2EE1 ,�•/q�:\'1`i\,�e- )~ �\ _7./ rx iL is)E)-2' IE r 081(Y)• D4.7' I" ORa■ 40 Tib W.m •\\`+"'� PTA'PR—EPARED F06: } 4,{Lp �Hx ADA-VS0t% \\ TARY wow �Eart(W') --f---YY 17"�Ld~' r. cTcxBA9Y /11/ Q /'frw�x,TADi)� � `*�1 ' i j iw•a-r-Ye � �1� \I '�� lI ..{��(] �.y HOLDINGS,LLC RIM-27607' jo // - �.�y I��^ll IV] / I ` 63115W CAPITOL HWY.. uexrADE 1 r 1Y 101 WT Isl- / gprA9piAYY, , / JF J am•+ `9A4-,Vi1 �✓ ]INYA59IGlE - SIIWP-221,1 I i r 1133,roRnAuD,dW I!3•7762E 511x1 % WEhAlO /�' .�~ / I �` �T� ` �L 1 9]339591-llo.•5l9 ,l TK FlTAD SUINEY Fpl hYS IIAPIIAS i1DYF1169R e - r Two I 1/ / 49.51/ L rLy'/ryryryS� 0.F®RET --�-..,G (_ },yam 1 WWAR 2)EIEVAR01F4 AND CLH10VA3 ARE am ON �AMK , WE APot l9 A TIRFSS d9(x TAY.726e7 L a -,127 THE TRX Rmu BASE Al 111E SOUT7EAST OWO OF N MAN ROM AW SW HALL BOULEVARD IT HAS AN tY I.E.iN(1)-223.9' --- -_ - ----'.T14J'_ LIVA10 OF 21675 FEET di 1HE MM$909 DATK 1YI.LA(H)-2211 - �_-- 12,I.L CIT(S)-7773' q.,�. .. tm I k - 5}IIx BASt1 OF 6FARYGS ra 1195 9Rh[Y 15 6ri 31516 96P-m e EOIICPER 9AI61 , ro w 151 au 1■Rn tae 181 g ru 1911W 3 ' WY 15-rise 270 4)W6 ROT-OF-WAY WIDTHS IN ESTABLISH USYO UFMkTIM!RW REM Rft-YS AND"TAX ASSES -S WP. � TY LE lR'6y• ' ml-uRr 1w mr,ax , wR n-l-aec m la1 sf � 1 �a}Inv I wrcrnx /li�� J 1 Sl AET THE WAS NOT PRMIOED WIH R TITLE RUM FOR M PAp'EAIY. IF 6 YKFOWi F NH'EASOdsrS F7i0A1BOt m OUT THE PAOPLRtt. 9)3F 1IWMCN0 UIIII M ARE BASED M THE YMpHOs PFA LOATL MKET H11YE013 19261012 NO 1P799901 DATE: 1711lamo gRAWN DN. OK SSW"STATEMENT DSLcv DSY CPK S M WOR[RMI)UrUM MW HAVE ID LOCATED EROY FFSD SL9IC WOIYATKA AHO 0051x0 MW M T E CHECM BY: CPK SSW"_DUES AH WARM6E THAT M FMTMO0 0 440 TW S11DYI THAT THE All SLt7A ID UT L W TIE AREA,ARE Ill Y 9U.WT o0.ABN 100 M 9URNC,Ok RM E HOT WNWNIT Mor TLE AS ADO UIIC Y AS P DIMWLE ARE x EEJ TOE fYAGY LCCAAOH LL THE ROIWW S 006 ODTIFY Y LO TIED Alf ULXAtWWMCI As ACWAAI0.Y M PO4�lE FR011 xFORWIItlE AVlLABFL M 91R+EIOA HAS 107 M11'9Cl1LY tA[a}ED M 160fRGOLND U7k1M£ 1 ' UpEaled 7—and Sall Auesaneat al GCaNfeeM FabfVply Caneye4a14 a1�4 c.1l bill Real Esme TREE INFORMATION �T"Sl�v� I MI �721l�"C��t�� oFF—�- Attachment 1 u ` \ \ 10074 SPLIT 6',9 APPLE ;10114 6'ASH a(Z 'buJ 10165 }0'LOCUST ��40236 SPOT(2)3',5' L-S 0261 SPLIT{2)18,20 EDLD$T 10354 SPLIT 5,6,8,9 COTTONW000 .J \ 10076 13'APPLE u�10120 7'ASHC�o1rW�1O186 6°LOCUST ,r�10242 SPOT B',9' DCIIST 10262 SPllT{3)6",14'CHERRY 10319 6'DECIDUOUS y \ 16085 $PUT 6',9"APPLE 10122 6"ASH -'� 0192 SPUT 6',7'ASH(MlZiEl SPLIT 10',16°LOCUST 10281 SPUT{2)5°,B'HAWTHORN 10320 4'DECIDUOUS z \ 10087 6'ASH 10148 SPLIT 5',6'ASH 10216 SPLIT(2)16',18'OAK.�S.�IC245 22"LOCUST 10282 SPLIT 5',6'{2)7'HAWTHORN-rO415 4'OEG0UYU5 j}+ �ml'I' � �L} Z_ \ CATCH BASIN 10102 6'ASH 10151 7"HAWTHORN 10223 9'DECIDUOUS 1'{)10247 19"LOCUST 10283 9'HAWAIORN 20508 13'BIRCH \ RIM=235.32' 10103 6'C07TONTYOW 10174 SPLIT 7',8"HAWTHORN 10225 6"LOCUST 10250 13'APPLE �}10284 SPLIT 19',20'OAKj 20509 14"BIRCH w xo w eP 10104 6'ASH 10181 CLUMP W1iLOW5 10227 CLUMP DECIDUOUS 10251 10'LOCUST 10291 SPUT{2)5'HAyyprR�jORN 20563 33'SNAG-}3d HIGH W Lu,~^, Ay \ 12'I.E.IN(E)=2331' ol Q 12'I.E.OUT(W)-233,1' 10105 6"ASH y' IOIB2 8"LOCUST 10233 25'LOCUST 10252 SPUT 8',10'LOWST 10312 SPLIT 6',8'COTTONWOOD -0676 32"SNAG- 'RIGH �� I �a�n = ao rL. J Z o0 \ 10106 10'ASN CSN 10163 SPLIT 3-.10'LOCUST 10234 22'LOCUST 10253 13'LOCUST 10313 8'COTTONWDOO - � 0709 8"-BNtOM-" All o I.E.e"IN(l-224.2'SAN MANHOLE EXISTING LEGEND —�. i.E.B'IN(N} 224.6' 8'OUT(SE)=224.1' I DECIDUOUS TREE RFMOVEO 0' a \ \\ Y STM MANHOLE RIM= DECIDUOUS TREE U V 232.71' 3qr _ \•\ ``�. \ ` I.E.15'IN(NW)=226.8' FIRE HYDRANT I.E.15'OUT(SE) ,225.6' WATER BLOWOFF WATER Ill m C \ \4 CATCH BASINa RIM=252.15' WATER VALVESEWER MANHOLE 0 w a 12'I.E.IN(NVQ a 230.2' STORMRSEWER CATCH BASIN ■ 6 -,I Z'LE,OUT(SE)=229.8' STORM SEWER MANHOLE f z �.\ �� .`*•. � 1 SAN MANHOLE MAILBOX eo a RWM-232.13' GAS METER o a I.E.8"IN(NW)=223.2' GAS VALVE \ O s WxM eMAsnlnC \ Y WIRE ANCHOR F I.E.I 6'OUT{SE)=221.2' ,a CONCRETE STORM PIPE UTILITY POLE 12'LE IN(NW)=229,0' ELECTRICAL METER 12'I.E.OUT I-228-2' I I T PHONE/IELEN510N RISER T CONCRETE STORM OUTLET �' la \�\ \. I 12'I.E.(SE)-2293- I• b .�\ \ .1}l \ SIGN CONCRETE STORM PIPE I I FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT • -_ O \ w \ !�^\\ 2'V.E.IN(N MJ=227.8' I I RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE � 23� 12'I.E.OUT(SE)-227.4' I BOUNDARY LINE Q Q PROPERTY LINE ------- J _l I o•Tc srMws •+a'°qE*' � `Q � ,titin !�i-\ CENTERLINE Ilk I ++ I f1ETu nlM+a RMu -�sr„h`,. . `i3- \ „' \ CONCRETE STORM OUTLET I I I DITCH --- -- 27.00' A. r 18'LE.(SE)m 225.00' CURB (f) Q I I I ,F..•. EDGE OF PAVEMENT ----- LLJ U PROPOSED 27'ROW DEDICATION A$ 1 r I r \ ; AWS '1` 21g I FENCE LINE J PART OF CEOARBROOf DEVELOPMENT II I - ,` /y.W,h\ . \ I GRAVEL EDGE ----------- Q ~ -� llii III I I f I s, ' 4C[ POWER LINE ----P+•- �-- G] OVERHEAD ARE __--•�w- O Q m 1 > TELEPHONE LINE --m- GAS UNE Q II 1 I I E` �II1iI�'I10 1 IIIiIIII"I t lI 154+ifI++II II iILIIIII I f 11I // ,.\ •watl//9;,�/�`,��/I/ - � ,�rygq�'///II+� /%I '� '` *\g'°'� I/.`/\`M1 ��I� "�/��"a 3-"�\4\`5\ =�\\��\�ti1 �I`mw!)\I�wr- Ay'I ` STORM EWER UNE SAN MANHOLE -sw- 0 24.94' SANITARY SEWER LINE ---RIM n 2/ MI / \\?\ I.E.8"IN 2189WATER LINE -- -— T—��` O(CZ , OI.E.10IN 2189QYOG J E.a"out(sE)=21e,7' co ia wWprtx ' � .00 ` CONCRETE STOAMPIPE ryti ` 12"LE IN I 2207� X Qrs .,w \ 1 . ) J¢x ioa BUT(SEN R I 'PITYATE PROPERreI t ��` \ \. f 6 Ds x1a rRAE I f PROPOSED 45'ROW DECICAAON AS Lv \_ 'w. \, \ L--I d PART OF CEDAPBROOK DEVELOPMENT \ xmdrAii[ / f/ Tut LOT'm / TREE TO HE REMOVED � +r ti�~,�r All � AAr1r1»ze0e// /Y{TYPICAL) +\3prti 'IhrHaMle'{'I "I - Lm 7e \ \ Larn jl ,4,r/ SII / /J / ,q` N a�� . SAN MANHOLE I _ `T!' / �' y / �'1•`` \�r. ,q" \ AIM-215.35' DAT(NW) E. R1iVISIUN ur I.E.a"IN =206.3' LE,a IN(s)-204.6' I I" 'MOMTACC /� IAT 31 I.E.a'D.17(sE)=2041 } LOT 77 I / / / ' + / e/ `•� _216 \ I I \1 I cmss // m 0% =2I I / - Stand#2 - / / / , / / rAc Lm eco- I I -s 1 / / / MMA 15-1-2eoe T C / SANITARY MANHOLE _ �- T 7#1 IPLAN PREPARED FOR RW E.228.23' I _�7 ' I TYPICAL TREE 70 BE REM9I�ED,-� LTAx 1 ao1 � ADAMSON B'LE.IN N) ( ) Yl e+v Is-1-xms a cJIU -t- a wMr01� " I �!� CATCH BASIN / / / 01 I 1- k 6"I.E.OUT(w) --�-----T-�- A' J I11M=zzs.07'./ / / i--- .11V�� ""-�. / R.f O�— �z 4�,cr►•,�9RRc,,hnf�' L2';L�3} ,�7 HOLDINGS.LLC SW MOHTACF NE 1 EXISTING WETLAND STORM MANHOLE�fri - 1 9 2,3 12'I.E.OUT(S)=223,7' I // BOUNDARY' 'LtiO I/� , Iv f 1 SUMP=221.7' i G PI33 PORTLAN0.0R Y,. RIM=228-28' slRm -../ /. /BOUNDARY/ WE1LANO� // �l!/ ti�9i \4+ NOTES 97239 in3-3311-2613 0• /f 1 1)THE FIELD SURVEY FOR THIS MAP WAS COMPLETED ON NOVEMBER 27,2019 CURB go05g, -_rte� rJe��I- ��-- J 44'x/ -1 '\� 'ry,� 2)ELEVATIONS AND COYTWRS ARE BkED ON WASHINGTON COUNTY BENCHMARK NO.105. THE BENCHMARK IS A BRASS DISK IN RIM=226.82' 217 THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL BASE AT THE SOUIHEAST CORNER OF SW GREENSURG ROAD AND SW HALL BOULEVARD IT HAS AN 12'I.E.IN(W}=223.6' _ -- ��=-- 15.23'_ w ELEVATION OF 240.75 FEET ON THE 1 1929 DATUM. 12"I.E-IN(N)=223.7' -- - - - 12-I.E.WRINGS T{S)-2235' - wT 1 �� _Y s 3)THE BASIS OF BEAFOR THIS S.RVEY IS SN 33518- SUMP=227.8' CONCRETE STILtRM-ODTLfT LOT 2 �-LST 1 TMA 101 100 3-9 LOT 301 T.JIT 701 MAP 15-1-7A0C TA LOT 813 l I 12"I E.(NW}=223.6' MAP 15-1-7MRc MAp,^rl-21ac MuMts-1-2M0o- TO LOT 2Ni 4)THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS WERE E°TAB l9H USING INFORMATION FROM RECORD SURVEYS AND THE TAX ASSESSOR'S MAP. 11 I Aa A10FNfM CRIES' MMP ls_t_=._� M _ r Sta�td<' 5)THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT PROVIDED%47H A TI7LE REPORT FOR THE PROPERTY. IT IS UNKNOWN IF ANY EASEMENTS ENCUMBER OR BENEFIT THE PROPERTY. » -Stan.�. o ,5[TO 6)THE UNDERGROUND UTLTES ARE BI ON THE MARKINGS PER LOCATE TICKET NUMBERS 19283092 AND 19299903. DATE 12111/2020 D1Ae DRAWN BY. CPK 1 E �( UTILITY STATEMENT DESIGNED BY CPK THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HALE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE CHECKED BY CPK (V U' SV RA MAKES NO WARAHIEE NAT THE UNOERCRWND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTNi1E5 IN THE AREA,EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN SHEET THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS PGSSIBLE FROM c i� INFORMATION AVAILABLE E VEYBt NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND MULES i 01 i G��t`��.��/�A Ste' �B. v '� Xi4ISiT ' PROPOSED LEGEND EXISTING LEGEND --------- STRITT CETJTERUNE �p '! ! ---------- STREET ROW LINE 0 V ��,• ! ^`\ ---------- PROPERTY LINE z CURB W Z N S, CONCR FIRE HYDRANT A W4 0 m a b ��,...' ..'�_��y.:_,•:1 SIDEWALKS WATER BLOW ,�o Y• ! ^\ PROPOSED CATCHBASIN WATER METER r � �W c `!•! !� `v \ ^` W/RLTERBAG INLET PROTECTION WATER VALVE {$ ,..(Z C t Inch = 40 rt. SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 0O �• !``^ \� \ �• i� 0 PROPOSED STORM CLEANOUT STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN ■ _ t (� .E•� ■ PROPOSED SANITARY CLEANOUT STORM SEWER MANHOLE • `��' •!. ` \ ' PRDPDSED STORM (TRAIN MANHOLE MAUWX ■ (I} 3 GAS METER W N _ !• _`` \^ PROPOSED STORM LINE W/45'WYE GAS VALVE is r GLY WIRE ANCHOR PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT UTIUTY POLE Q ELECTRICAL METER PROPOSED FDC TUI;PHONE/lElEMS0 RISER ■ ,y 0 E, 230.00 so `�� •+ ` ` ��`` ROOF DRAIN ® PROPOSED WATER METER FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT • y; r-A SAN- PROPOSED SANITARY LINE RIGHT-IIF-WAY UNE BOUND RYUNE PROPETY UNE CENTFRUNE - - - - DITDI CURB �'• EDGE OF PAVEMENT FENCE LINE ----- eO \" I GRAVEL EDGE ------------- LIZ�j Z r� FM UNE -ne- R I CVERI_w WIRE ----cM- fg 'IF SEE,Dd SEE 1HHi BLw siREET j TELPPHOW LINE ----a- o UDA STORM LATERAL TY? IE . `` ROOF DRAIN PLAN FOR SIDRIA DE947H GAS LINE __--�--- 2 ( ) II I Nj .. - INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC, j STORM SEWER UNE: --s•- CONNECTION TO MAIN. I yl \\. +';+4,` RDK SANITARY SEWER LINE `�\ I WATER UNE _ --ttra- Z PUBUG 40A PLANTERS I FOR Wt]AND DEIENTICk IE: 27000 � I II _ \` ��IE 22250 i JU) l ¢ Lu U ROOF DRAIN f ! I ^. ROOF DRAW I- _j � s PRIVATE UDA PLANTERS I 1 + _ �.�`w\�\ ',` ' FOR WO AND WUTI0H RIM: 22250 WRENCH GRAN E. 220.30 6'It WT. 220.30 LLJ CIS Z LOA STORM LATERAL 1YP I� .oO g I ) I I (I RDGF DRAIN c'3 CJ7 CONNECOON TO MAIN. li r , i d Q C] I �,�` �_ �\ o PUBLIC UDA PLANTERS 'f II �I I �' �00.'� • 6•'c`I / :�•a.:.. '�` �.:.. ', .''" :\ � J d FOR WO AND DETENTION ,: ... E(Sk 221.55(6') , :�1.` `:�.�.: Q c) J 5 �,I It(S 220.77 i �*'� -` � C) ¢ ~¢ LIDA STLATERAL(TYP) ii ROOF DRAM ORM 2 CONNECTION T'D IAN. m C0-2 CATCH04N I f t tmm _ PARKING GARAGE I ` R \. E EAS:227.00 �ya�1�I IE:�'- CATCH BASINS DRAIN / .._ q Q �! Lu e' FOONNECT TO DMI wr■ (ROOF DRA N mr n TO SANITARY SYSIETA. \` �:�� V 92NDAVE STORM I I I f - `+� IROOF 1DRNN� _ I - S'SAN 6 MAN. J ,pEyW��2jj70. J _-�- FIRE i IE: 221.39 _ I _ 12'X1Y WYE' It(Sk 220.77 ;a ROOF DRAIN •h 1NCH CO 4 r w/6"REDUCER _ ! .-II 4 :, '' M:222Sx •!.` Hsi '' ' ll m's i `U/ e _ aza.64 "�i2 �I ` I ``r. DAM: xEVLsrax FF 222.00 , OOF6Rl30WH suay.m.Y ting - I - raxlni m ADS PERFORATED DETENTION SYSTEM IE OUT(B017DM& 217.60 aY ;. \ I FF 222.00 �-. TDP OF PIPE am +�. \ - I RIM: saa sD RkAt 44. ; It ItIIi X85 s I 1217.57 IN(N) ,a _ -.---_-•-I- IE 221.50 '� + ROOF DRAIN It N' 215.75 "220.10 IN(E} 1 _ - y E} 220.10IN STOW MANHOLEST mm' �E �� r RgAo 22!00,SUMP ,,i _ ----- E WT 215.4- - �217y577,WT S) $ PLAN PRr;PA.AED FDA: y_ IE IN: 72Q14 1 --- r Ll?ICH GB ape HIT Y IE OUT:220.14 RIM:221.57 ADAMSON el-neer RIM: 2217.4 tY LEN{1fj.nae' MI(m sinal Wt<LT E: 214.90 IE IN:. 217 HOLDINGS,LLC tY LE x()a M7' It LF OS'}.=J' _ E OUT. 21729 APITOL_ IY LE ally(s)-2Las' �• - ,:1.,,:._.._....:_..g... _ ;„........:...., -.-- •.• COH7ECI WIT VAULT m #153,PO16312 SW>'1T 4WD,OR S SWP.m.e' .. ......... ..-.._. 217.261N 97239503-330-2613 HEADWALL1c e -co --- 21546 OUT I IE: 22176 ' t i ,ZG `11 2 ma CB, Inr s 'r Lot-211V xl Tut tar xa Tu lar an RIM:221.80 +� 1(v WALL OUTFALL 12.0' CG-30 co tit-atuc nr Hit-moa arp IT-I-me nu car mi It OUT: 215.43 PUBLIC STORM RIM: 224.00 E: 220,1�-II MAP is 1-2WC va"r4 EASEWT.HATCH E:221.50 PUBLIC STORM 'WIDE XF195'LONG X 4'DEER T.. 2 OUTFALL It OUT: 215.0 SUMPEL RAPT VAULT EASTCH PUBLIC w0 at LDESAC UDA RUNOFF RAk 224.00 RIM. 224 HATCH FOR P11EL.IC WLDESAC STORM RUNOFF H30'FLOW CONTROL MANHOLE IE OUT 217.89 IM: 27200 1E 221.20(NYQ E WT: 217.84 ' 7x470 30'ADS PERFORATED201 DETENTION SYSTEM E N(N.217.57 IEt PLANTER (W} E OU 217,06 T O (PIP 2} 2n.60 E N( 217.57 S A KT PLANIEA OVERFLOW WEIR 72120 E OUT: 216.$6 TOP OF PPE 21010 SINIP 217.20 E OUT(4 217.57 wAOha IA1CW L4 C+q Tn Se ml-CI AC LES cC rn4t q �l�ci-1Y`TR�c �Rl fP-G(1�IG�IR M�-�e`�ST�taullLt�rC -SC'�4 t t:;_11 tE/n1 DAVE: 1/3In022 S �e.fl � fSemq_L F oTr_re7 prgo+�pl7ot� NCEl3� -ro Fe-o-EeT "7+6 )�o� D�1�-LIN7�A'�f2EA �2oM �� DHnwNEIY: CPK CLQ fln�NG�,s/r� Wo.2 may, IXC 1�J4 ri o AJC y[c �yc(i�((.( �an,`JCrs 5'Tat Lj c7�Es oR �t'r 0/�i�2�=moi o f�►l�nJ� DPSICrNED BY: CPK S �' aa.v ! A. CbI�T f� CHECKED BY crx : aP sawTee �m ( ZVII-7741.,J 7FfSrr i p r <,,!7z%sr�G�E� + Stt>�C106 lQW[BIT K1 r-- p' a •, a�\ I,�.- M1 \._ •5_' ` �\` �! yj'•�.r FJ(ISTINGTRE2SCHEDULES f! � \ h:J 4mavml[emmon aEH 4nWYllrF1 Olrax A»J6nwm Ner�TWeTreei Wk.Ra'rN Rea RrCnl iresrei Ce:»rcne Tr .�:,\1 7 ¢ b \\.•.- � •-�� \ - a 3j�Y N�fAFw. ,r :ea 1 �H-�I... .p 'J ` Imn ..ra1:wW. aa• ua mn x x I Imel r...IrwlA,n rF•.r.r IU wen i x SqbWIC ia.UuklNM1 Y• laawn ! i _ rrwY dl+:b" d RR • . \ A _ 11� f.nNrvr un IJ' Ill ece" i 1 II+ VY � 1%M fM:'NwsJNF )•A• IYf'� I , 1jf I I w •1, I \ �' � �ICv� �.\\,, Vie.\ � ' o,I�e r""""'"'..aere Iw °R'" rw IJ I . y �+�_. \_ F r \ r.1• �� y II .R�nl..rw.� :a• ameR.. x a I I I I- `--\�� a• '' 1 ."�.. � ��_ � �LliW)"� `"-�. -��r��-...r �� Q�I�.�'ti 7O� Ioxu a�rrro.� u•.Is,u' zxw.+ �w� x I n. �Rw.raa yn•- JJ '4✓j, H r -\ \ ` `= ` C�1 yr, - nWnuaruc 'F'.s• w.Mr r i. N aUP edrinNrelack lwuN �^ xYI� ` < �• y� c - '/ imu F,awKwua a•.a•.r vT w.r� I x /! •w `CS.� \ � r- .J f✓C; -.` / 14'!M r' i�e 1u11) rwuwVeaemnwwa s• ssT wen ) a rw I I .,`C '3�' If fs �} /' awN NwwMc«Me.ow �.s•.r,r AA r 7x, v L wRkr �r_— ap Mr--R5T7,7WV tee.rl Flu r- } si ae.n o 0 _/,j >ora �aRH��Ra�r. ow Nxwrn o Y x 11 I _ TI/•/i �b� \ •^i !1 e1 nw .n ue aWwllnr�e w.a wus IHIi r... a,wrlrrll rum I I � (INTI 7' � /1:y k• i �\ .�' '1L r 1'^+ ww MLewRaala.,,H r J- .wwR I /f _ \ \ � � �[p B�;�I��v�. �_`f/1� scall ws.Wel.rLra<Ru zs• : AABORYITAE15c NIGH MOVE m I ff IJ ("M,. �✓� x6Fal RnMWllxLlw�a r .. - _ ' -\ A A' V R' OYh]bMWllxkrawr - - r A Ona Rmeremslo.,eo M' I : I J � -_AREORVIrAEm1H11 TsbvES � /� ,` s a a „ �7�7 M.xki«u I d N SAS • -! f :o om weeR) as o �� \ �� w)el o.uxwrl,•nne., as• , a a� f \ 1 "�li, ,l wln neu.r�N.u.lr r x I SGIea MOMIYTa<k Laue LI• I i V' SOIIf ROAn'rIB'xhlornrx L," a I ' �� a'v"` �' � •� �\ \. .f \-. � J? -nx� lel%RNnbNeMlavr r a I » - .-n_ \ /•" tay,�_ ` �\\ rF :i� mlaz N.rtwa•" s.r , I �'f :� leWl rnw•wrn r x a 1 � < \ �'�� •r '\ �� awal N.rwMR� a a Z7. L 1 I �� •• �� r r' ~ a,, , \` w,es w,.SwR.n A ,r P , +I \• wMe •umrv,A 11 a b.wga.Yri.•e�:urr ]r aea cw.,eMhwnwn I [- ` ,- ._ .. - � Daws nra•R:nMawnv: r a a r.mar - .-_.. .... ...,. FENCE/ <f - '; _ J / \ i`-\\� XOOTPROTECT[ON ZONE: '-TRLEPR _ - - 1¢ D ENdiOACHA£NrINTO THE ROOT PROTECTION h]NE ISALLON'EO WITH IAN09GPE ARGHITELTAPPROVALAB _ DES IBED IN 7 r EEXCAVATONN THE TOP 24"O Hams:THE � SOIL IN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA 5HOULO BEGIN AT THE EXCAVATION +a UNE THAT IS TO THE TREE. (!1 0.R90RVITAE 13Y Hl .awue.r � / _ 2TXE EXCAVATION SNWLDBE PONE BYHANp16HOVELORWITH ABACXVHOp AND APERSON by�THASHOVEL. 1 9 •. ARBORVITAE 104 HIGH _ l \� �'f. IF DON OBHEARS,ANOAPRUkINc SAW. (UJ /'„ T � 3 IF DONE BY HANOI,ALL ROOTS 1"OR URGER SHOVED BE PRUHE6 AT THE EXCAVATION LINE J ry. h tr THE OPERATOR 7ART THE CUT EFUU_YLlli6T`FOR ROSANO S18TAN E.WHENTb LARCERTNANI CE,DIATH ER 4-PXGVAIIRONHLINE ANO�CKHEF�ULTLYI�EEL�F�O,T9lRF99TANCE WHEN TMHE�RE63 RE'91BTAHCE,ATHEHPPRSON ' ____—_ --•..---....�___�,__._-�,,,—__ I WITH THE SHOVEL HAN00 " - \ TREE PROTFLEION NOTES: A NO CHANGES SHALL BE MADE TO ANY ASPECT OF THE APPROVED URBAN FORESTRY PLAN WITHOUT WPI r5N CONSENT FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR CITY ARBORIST f --- 11` ,Y R ND OF -_e_ Iu vnLL EEINBruLED PR[oa rG f -- - I DIN - TI ANY GlItOIND DIS;IRBA10E O[NG CLEARIINSTALLATION GRADING PL FOLLOW. MEASURES;WORK WILL BFOIN ry WITHIN(3}WEENS OF PFT PERMITi3b.UANLE BY THEdTY TREE PROTELTKKFW I � f•M)MAT RIALS EAR VA CLERSON AND GRADING MILL FOLLOW. h'rg i I _ Nr5 ANP SPIE TRTX)N NO PERSON 34A1LATTACH ANY OBJECT TO AHY TRE ' P116 ECT ` C PLACING MATER5NEARTREES,IID PERSON MAY CONDUCT ANY ACTIVITY WITHIN TME PROTECTED AREA OF TREESTAND tl TREE LOCATE BURNNHOMERw. AND � %..__. -""'�� jF'�'- ...... `I OF �ACNMENTS TO TREES OURINGN�sUIXNG DEPOSITS, NOT LIMITED TO.PPA1(I LMPINIG HIXIT IP . TREE FENCEr' OESIONATED FOR PRESERVATION M y LEGEN❑ E. ROTECTIVE EIARREER PROR TO ANY GROUN6015TU1RBANCE BY THE CONTPACTOR: + i � - --------- - 1 1.SHALL ERECTANO MANTNN READILY VH313lE TREE PROTELTIONFEHCINGALCNG THE WEREDGE RHOS IXISTHG TREE TO BE REMOVED J X r+ 1 URED TO 8 FT TALL MEYAL Pp$ J rmwn i EXISTING TREE ORIPI•INE ._ .... ._._ % 1- BFIDYdN FELHCES 8k1ALN ECON97A CTEOOF Sf�'f.TELL MET/�y MESH,SEC AOR CRWPS OF TREES AS SIMILAR MATERIAL. THE ROO ZOJEQ ATREE IN ORDER TO PROTECTROOTS ORV DAMAGE CAUSED EX.TING TREE GINOPY AREA FROM DAMAGE CAUSED ' 3 "�J f �� '` '^' • t J - 3 SHALL PROHIBIT EXCAVATION CHt COIAPAGTING OF BY GVA�ONTOF A POTENTIALLY DEEP HTVITTHE CANOPY AREA f N� Rm J WITHIN BE RI WiOTO MINIMIZE!MAYOF THE TREE TO ECTI NE OND DAMAGE (Z) ,A PROPCSEO TREE PROTECTION FENCE --- -'- I_ - F/;�2 _ OF THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE,TO CLEANLY SEVER THE ROOTS OF TREES TO BE RETAINED. I }' f{, / B.MAY BE REWIRED TO HALVE CORRECTIVE PRUNING PERFORMED ON PRESERVED TREES IN ORDER TO AVOID EXISTING WATER METER r'LTI - -� / f • / MAGEFROMMACHINERYORBUILDINGACTIMTY MAYBE REOLIREDTO MAINTAIN TREESTHRWGIOUT f-' ( _ 6 5KAUL.A, PN THEE EE PROT*ATERJNOANO FERTL121NG EXZ71NGWATERVALVE A�OPIBTALN TTigRQE4 THERREAgY FENCING IN PLACE UNTIL THE LANDSCAPE AACHITECTANO CITY EXISTING POEXISTING IYWER HYDRANT "�INE aFFSITE TREES _ ��.`'... �I/ 1= 1 ��1[/(y„ T BNPLL ENSURE THAT ANY LANl]SOAPING➢ONE IN TI#TREE PROTECY16N TANS SU63EOUEFIT TO z11E 1 /// (� L7 REMOVAL OF THE BARRIERS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH UGHTMACHINERY ORHI LABOR USE NI EXISTING ------- MATERIA WITH ATI A REQUIREMENTS TO TREE TO BE PRESERVED AND DIRECT ANY a ._ l - - _ R,IPAIG4TION 9PRAV AWAYFEVATED£TFWNRS. s .PK27,IL h4Tc� .E I-Y F THE ORALE SHALL NOT BE ELEVATED TR E.REWCEO WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE N9THWT THE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER I� 79;SrJ - 1 I,� �(LI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSALT HORIFATION THE LANDSCAPE ARCHIL MAY ALLOW COVERAGE OF UP TO ONE m �A' / I �I / `Ty}] HALF OF THE AREA OF THE TREE'S ROOT ZONE WITH LIGHT SOILS IIA CLAY)TO THE MINIMUM DEPTH _ 4 4 9 `?T I i r - ��R-- NECESSARY TO GARY WTGRAOIHGOR LANPSCAHNG PUNS,IF ITWILL NOT IMPERIL THE SURVIVAL OF THE EXISANDGAEVALVE L��.�Fl :,APN Tl��i- r11�, �, /•, ! ' TREEAERATIOHDEVICES TO ENSURE THE TREES SURVIVAL. -I--_ _ R> r i ---�_ .,,.---_., 6 EF THEGMOE A93ACENT TORPRESERVED TREE IS RAISED SUCH T}1AT IT CAUL09LOUCH OR EROOEINFOTHE I ,. _ 1 AvTREE PROTECTION ZONE,R SMALL BE PERMANENTLY SABILIZED TO PREVENT SUFPOCATON Or THE ROOTS. E%ISTlkO OAS '.-_--- -_ ...' -__.._ _ as PEARGHITECT eunruxTmly TO H ANT SURFACE SHALL XOT BE IN ALLEO WITHIN THE TREE PROTECT1GxN ZONE OF ANY TREEBE ON OF THE EXISTING TELEPHONE STRrJCrDRE ® —' : - -......,,�� __. - -TREE STAND 44 _- -- REQUIRE SPECT CIC ONSTRUPq SEWED WITHOUT CDONI EnTHODS ANGOR USE OFAERATION DEVICES 70 ENSURE TREE'S ..., .. I EXISTIHG TELEPHONE LINE IIiS,`r I: l - ::...:.....:,�-- .. �� --. ... .... pENC<CTX? I TRE I. TO�I GREATEST AM OEXTENT PRACTICAL,UTEITYE THE m7mpAL OTRENNCCHER HOOT 5SHALL BE LOCATED OUTSIDEOF THE ECED DAMAGE 70 THE IMPERVIOUS ms. 7REF37ANDM5 R ... ... .-••__.. ( �v app i( PROTECTION ZONE OF TREES TO BE PRESERVED THE IANDBWEARCHTECT MAY REQUIRETHAT UTIUPES BE on�_- TPEE PROTECTION FENCE / TREES 19 IBX•• FXJSTINGBTOHM MANFIOV.E J�1 ""' _ UNDERTHE SIGNIF ANTE TRFETO TBE HE CHANCE OIF 7HELAND9CMEARCNILEC7 DETERMINES THAT TRENCHING WELULD LING.DiREO 3NALFELLICE OF TREES SHALLTHETRE TOAVRVNAL EAISTING STORM CURB INLET C5' I r'! I - I :. / ..'1 �' DIRECTIONAL FORPRSIRVTIONiL FELLING OF TREES SFWLLSEUSED TO AYQ'D DAMAGE TO TREES DESIGNATED FOR PRESERVATION. EAIBTINC STORM CATCH BASIN ADOTN]NALRE UIRMAENTS ELWO.SCAPEARCMTECTMAYREQWREAODIT% -TREEPRESERVATIOX E%ISTNG STORM PIPE ------- =-/S' a �f�� a� -- - MEASURES WHICH MECONSL97ENT WITH TREE CARE INDUSTRY STANDARDS. EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE �'/Y. .hyvaalwgxryaaA599arrtiuUu - - - - ' NpTE-REFER TO SHEET L5 FOR TREE PRGTECTIOIH FENCING DETAIL EAISPNGSANITARY PIPE - RESERVATION & REMOVAL PLAN IXISTINGSFT.CONTWR ,'-"� A__-.r_ - TREE P or T _�.J L_-..77, ..I-1.._,. 11Y1022 EXISTING H FT.CDNTOLIR 10151 - i 1'- D 041 v, OFFslrernEE G tiS r ER > - ��Q Z.16 ,c•x I 4� 521 �O G PRELIMINARY, �J y. L7 F.�rlS L + iir /� .�-- j r if { ! C ,IT ► {�E6�y r/1� �p �L� t/ 9 1Q 20 40 q ➢r15P 11, Lind [) fl1 t'T�1�P111 �Tro� rJ�l � - / Re7 1)R IP U�rj A-� IW 1 �� `-�^��1�-l �^ x �o si/oa/w lei i I" ASSISTED ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CAREE Ic 1°14p;pp' ~ architecture, inc. fAA, AGEMENT L1 [] rhe r Pfow•neNon and RerrxweJ S,FR Wan moors eZuf lhR raquiwwrru m UFM SaCbi}B.Per!1. Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR TA SPPNmwrAaRP ea 9gby d FM 9MRM f0 PANJw WpepeMdky CgEPe1A 8aJr MAKING A DIFFERENOE IN SENIOR LIVING 39 Cattle court SE•Swam•aTe�n 97301 6 CY Z P5033991090 503 39J 10098 F 503 399 0565 w Ie7ii4ygfChiteCELak.Carn � ,� j S'V4 r f 02111=22 e uary upaama T,.•ana s.d Ae11—at e.darae.N Pepe 5 0111 c ey x.n MerMi.n Mal Estate Attachment 2 LANDdcApE g11,OVLaLYIgxs CANOPY TREE LEGEND. X 1 1 SITE AREA: 93.]663F SYMBOL BOTANICAL!COMMCN NAMES oUA-TIN III FORM V� a µ E AREA {syrM.ls retluutl 1 D PERVIOUSRVIOUsµp95GAPE AREA. 15•]01 SF STRpre dran.h+M A Pir} 19 I-i/2'nal.BBB T TREES MPER TOTAL LANDSANDSCAM AREA 441E 8F tfin.MapM ICWS Appentlis-Atreel Stantlrrtl %TOTAL ANUOS PPF AR 19,1T69P %TOTALµN09cAPE AREA: 21% f�+�,} GMNpo bileha'PdncN.n Sentry' 8 111 R"cI EdB IMPERVIOUS LAND AREA 2212 6% } - ( cel„mner Maia.nhex T. 9j•nderd \\✓/ L-2 LANDSCAPING STANDARDS- C:MCPYTIEES 9d ` Cero ISb P....Wm 1-1R-n1B PERVIOUSµNDSCAPE AREA, t5a-}9F • Nefawa T1. &enaard o GENERN TREE CANOPY STANDARDS5 1.112'cM.96B I TR EE1600SFµND9CAPEAREAt930I1900• 25STREE5 O EastamR eaWa Shnderd TREE-F--POSED IEAGLV DES 5T TREES- 27 TREES K.eNeuhria peninWata 9 t11T 01969 • T� SHRUBS RSQUIRED 150%DFµND5C0.PE AREAL T6508F • G.Id•nrainrrae 9hMe'd L Ggeacus NiI.c 3 1—dual%B Il MI URGE SHRUBS 06'0G SPACING 1]9SFp 37145F Orep.n Nhar OarlMtivel Shntl•d URGE SHRUB MAAIMUM SPADING T O C a�. Zep.•a wnah'Vix.pe Gr.v� 3 I-112'ca1Bas ME01UEDIVMIL SHRU MAK- fir CC SPACING 12 SF)- 4]369F CCNIF ROIJS Stallard TOTAL fREALLSHRUB MPAINI U SPPCINGsoC ""• TOTAL AREA COVERED BY 9NRVB6• 6057 RF 1526%I CONIFEROUS TREE c v •„' TRx1P pliwla'vires.e.s' S 6T n 666 VISION LE \ REMAINING AREAS PLANTED YATN PERENNIALS. 3'•• YWahrn Red Crtler lNaSve} V151DN Law branchlnp TRIAN GRASSES PND GROUND COVERS WITH MULCH LARGE SHRGBS NOTE-ADDITP]NAL SHRUBS MALL RF PROVIDED WITHIN THE ® Dsrm n5luad.I—Yi 6 29x1 MEMORY CARE COURTYARD D.hvey OamenMus OGN: k-- COT,,ARD � P19 29a1 I.ANDIMING O i wzz. BE DEIMMUNED V... 7 2ps1 XucMeberry Tl �• ® . lu. STREET TREE POssTIOxs MAY E-III— 'Is ADJUST DEPENDING UPON PCRTE ` �•kI\ STORM-WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ® YSumum time Wab.atwn' 63 29x1 COCHERE / LOCATIONS R.un Ge•I Laurusdnus MEDIUM 15MALL 5HkU5- 3FTMIIEFIN •.im•u G � bptl��in vlHier 9 Igsl, HEDGE � Q O O a Gs II nPIeM . N CoaT.d EawNllumaon Dwar" 21 I pel VISION FT OFF EEN' TRIANGLE OJOINING NTRY i C la 1 ROPOFF u� � C SWheX ntl XehaSWhraandv � I paI alien sky P blantl' I .I. Island Jap.....H.IIy O J \ 0 sk r-I1 .Fy PrrwlY I] 1ps1 � E.7 � n MNy Pee eHanH a.m pe• 95 I pal crr.Pl.v Man.n- ! d.mnxn'GWI Suuin ]3 !gal TT` GUY SIr.am Heay.nlM Bamboo O N enema d.me.ura'ITUIii Owe? 52 1111 Narb.r D-H HurenlY Samboo n .• m m o m 51:7 MIN WIDTH "' - O Glmanln.s.1hMy-leand h.t•�.pPOsmanR.o-11n.h 2p t qal O GI H.XusN R c n 5-]-GREE- m •. . O RNM1.dndw 'cdpinensa' as p R v,i ®R IS. .'N.emrf 95 P TRIANGLE \ Appphbswm F. Caryel R.. g S.....mews, 19 19x1 R..W.e sFlmmla Fes— m • q A ` GRAS9E9r PERENNIALS 9 .R Ap:panthus'Oueen Anne e-Nil• 15 I9al � ou en Annx Lily-.f-th aFTIIx- r .. ,J _ ......INooinn9Ial Ber9ema 16 1g EVERGRE N - HEDGE C.Mx m.n.vnl'In Dana' III 1 gal �� ` x .a • //N H.1,...Pi Japanese 1. t° 19.1 -_ r `1/?-42- 14.1,... Fa ma.re'Au,..Ia' 9 0 � O <--6 FT S-4 SCREEN AL R x ^ J lePaneTe F.rast Grass R' Ha,mr.nl9s-111.1urni 21 1 1 PARKING LCT EDGE R R X R L"vq is j I,T/_ pa R RRA ••L .�L .RNurns DayNlY - p 1 FaY� lima RIcbY NeucA r&i,y 14 t g•I BUILDING p "'wl LZ Ophi.P.gonp_.P.s Nle__ 37 gal. rD NA, iii M.,&Gra„ FORTE • - GROUND COVER r eFT❑s.-cRFENAT ❑ IM © . COCNERE - Fnpana cNl.emx 125"pee at8'oc DEL V ERY AREA manMt Slrawbany . 5 FT MIN.WIDTH RIO,FII.TR0=PIAITFR STRIP j r 3-3 SCREEN 3FT MIN HIGH EVERGREEN HEDGE ® o •.3 am ® - — P". nEW 5 FT FEncE — _ Junnus Paavns 5-N SP...d p dRusF P, � NOTES /. ;., R n g R R ❑ ` l ❑ !` Ax❑ ® _ I AUTGMATIG HALL BE 37 IRRIGATION LED TOPROVIDE EF1 uTCOVE A,CE TO •� TECHNOLOGY SHALL BE HISTALLED TO PROVIDE 100%COVERAGE TO gOµNDI I'MI AREAS �- m 2 OEA2-MIN FRESH BAkK MULCHµVER IN ALLPµxnxG AREAS \ ] REFER TO SHEET L5 FOR PLPDETAILS AND NOTES TO ARCNITECTVRAL PLANS FOR OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS R Tt7�C`lc L7Z 10415 \ �VlsICx TRIANGLES `\� \ aR JIL ❑ ❑ ❑ NN NEWI FENCEATDP i5/RETAINING WALL / t�40 d� ��\\l�II�Rr�u �� ...J %I&MIN WIDTH rl• >�FT� q S-3SCREEN ` SPT MIn NAOTN A 1 z�*'O t7 Mi.CIREEN - (A ISSIr.►,1Gi Fpm ANIS 10319 I W r•Y:�M:v �1��l(u-S� �� yy F7`-AIA, Il 1dtfT SR MIN MOTH S-3 SGAEE- NEW 6FT FENCE y� � / - FXISTING WATER � I quAUTV FACILITY E%CHAINiINKFENGE C,r Al ° LANDSCAPE PLAN lit` ERS• - V_20 02111170IMMUNE72 q�L • E D., ,• j t• PRELIMINARY E- ID2U"T • q Bnan D Llnd (� NEW6FTFENCEATOP MULCHµTER ONLY 0 1D 20 4C 60 OREGON k7 101 BEN EATHORESERV 1-216 Q 11/08/02 e RETAINING WA LL r/� 1.1_ p� GWC TREE \ SC C� Iii � � AS ED LIVING & V CRY �A �zb Ic ��7iA. AGEMENT architecture, inc. T F� &IS�i,,- " R� c 3 Half Blvd.,Tigard, OR AKIN A DIFFERENCE IN SCE�NIOR LIVING 3150 Kettle Court SE,Sakem,Opegon 87301 9 '� r �'Fc /��j Q4k}t� P5033991090 F 503 399 0565 w lenity�chitecture.tocn e�AVJ(N& U-© �k 0F ` —ffC iZkrAlldc-0 5�15'r NN --Meas n,*AAtj PF'I0r f_.,V 1 SITE TREE CANOPY TABLE I � �.�\ �` i WN-IITry I)O,'ANMAIKAME COMMON IMME MAl11aE CANOPY FACN MIIT1REUflOPYSUeTOTAL �\ .�\ 1 t9 Am cAdrREum YxIC Mxpb{Slrce[TnteICAS Li'rq•.dl}l3 afj El•]d `.� .- �\ I 6 Gak•o MhW'PrhYartonSm,ry' AleldnMukrnel5lr••,Trw YN 9ErWl T5'IPM1d1]]1fD lOQ 9f ] C•r[MIPM'r3emlaPankr.W KAua•r..e m'sPrwd13E56 d} arw re • 1 .�,- `..�\ \ I l ! Xocir.uh�b r'Wnlnrl•h �4okke k'" 35'•Pread(wd) mug �f I 3 a.".wrmne• Oram wlan�x so'1ar«alsaa•flll.zsY �sw>f I d zaneae aemusmd • I _ i - \ s Tlwle�',csw'rxewm YRM Wm Rrd Cedar v.PreW Illi 4} MO 2 •WN'MalrzewrxsLts 1awrKUTne Lllx 15'SPreetl ll]t#} 3ald I R' r• ��c `� I Ta1NQ•R[YFB Mriun C+noPf MY: 32,4739 Ii \ - II ry l I CANOPYTREELEGEND, SYMBOL BOTANICAL I COMMON NAMES QUANTITY EIZEf FORM w4opyfflM C6YCPYARISTAL ' 1 '{ A•:. �'�*- \ (n]mhda reduced} STREET M115 214]•f V-Mapxa{CWS A�PPo W.Aran) 19 Srl B8B Ila at. I TRfA �.N Ck �Pri�xxnn 3"" 6 1-IRl.Bi 'ub ,TIO,! 1062.f TPoANGLE- � ` •\` 0*MlAxlaxhlxl Tran $wMeM ��' _ �• �A' �� .\Awa 1 ' \ ` ___� CANOPY TREES II I _ '�� - '` - • - - CeT I-17cW.BSB 12560. SN2a.1. Kelson Tma 9UrMaM 49 ee 5 1 1? BSE ,a1 2455 E a STREE71RE[PdSIThnN$MAY • �/ Kmlmuletl&PankWAle 4 1-1/2•eel.BAB gate,! 3a1B 5.f I I r 1 �• ADJUST GEPENDING'UPON --- G0Wn h Tree SwlWerd 1 1 /`1 / • \^. 6TOgA4WATER INFRASTRUCTURE J I LOCATIONS 3 I- D W Whin Oek(Ndhe) St,,Wwd 533x1,2+• 2!5l T5 / t 5 I Ouurcua garryela 1T,.1 BBB 1B63sf ]381 of � ,. -- 1 I BYrxpe rdlatlrAN 2 1-1 r{'ad.Ban 117]..1 354 Mf I !� A '� �`.l 4 �. O 3ewnwW rren LAac SlarWeW I �� Ft � f l 2Morn wnnm Yinpn Grcaf 9 I-IR'aI.BBB 1533 xf 5585 s.1 E VISION ti 1 _ l . - �I / / 1 J'„ `�_ CONI EROUseTREETRIANswndaW r N r N l �� •-. \ .r 1 L_ TMrJe Plluea Vlr IWY 5 L6.7 A-b BBB F13e1. 4M.f Netivo) La.�Gml�ChlnS TOTAL 3Z,lTB e.l � ��'/(/\yam ! 1 m•no � TREE CANOPYCWERAGE sTt AREA 43.344 S.F. 3WCANoPYPEOUIREO 31,Og2&.F- '�� ` , I • \ CANOPY PRON9E0 72,ITS 5.F, (411 IIr F _'. fzv err -JR ce jJ I Ra •® �"�► + / \ "r .D pr`F'-r' / �f _�TRIANOLE T 7_ VIRION k�Ckle 7f >9PftT/�- fa4y�1/..i � ! �♦\� \. =� �e•y�y ��1��/ �1J,�Y ' - 1 �_ - 1LC�V'IL'. `f _ - _ -- _. --' f _ �` Tier '�ar��.bRl/'- 3 ` P LEGEND q1 �_ -— i •' `; J' EXISTING TREE DRIPUNE --- A / ' � � ♦ ,`a �... y � ALANTFC TREE MATURE CRIRINE I ;\ 1 '..� '•� - r DEMOLISHED TREE MgPLINE EXwwo TREECANOPYAREA iii /..... TREE CANOPY AREA r -- 1 •♦� \ i(-`� - _ 0- `\ PROPOSED TREEPROTECTIONEENCE I I I w I1I{ � �( EXISTING WATER MISTER [IE \' -_.4F7..—___.: IT I7` �) ` EXISTING WATER VALVE ---.L i 1 EXISTING HYDRANT b' 1 I EKIBTING WATER LINE ----••- 1 , / C •� � 1 r / /' EXISTING POWER POLE 1 ,\ / --_-1 _ -- � Lam• EXIATING OVERHEAD POWER I } v -,•- ? --- O a.v .�- _ '.' ! / • EXISTING POWER I ).TF / r� -_�� ♦ I -._- - : � EYISTNdO GAS VALYE _�I X _ l !` E%18TIN0 WS .�_ I\ �:�� `\� ♦ ® r C �'1i'!L ® '1i rr' EXISTINO TELEPHONE STRL'1 %, a � EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE VSION7RA4OLE-\ ` ,�` I I N { • EXISTING STORM MANHOLE E%ISTINDSTORMCURBIMFT f 14 C EXISTING STORMCATCH BASIN 111 1 ; l •.! EXISTING STORM PIPE • y r 1 I 11 EXISTING SANITARY MSMgLE EXIST NO SANITARY PIPE ♦ I _-_„- --"-- - _.' - EXISTING SFT.CONTOUR -�- .. EXISTING/fT CONTOUR ---'^--� - NP J -- "- •�' ---J_ -'r=� •-..._.— ._. � - TR�EE CANOPY SITEPL02ANp2 2 �isTFR IQ \ Ea�ABnTRNaE�PF m _ PRELIMINARY'[ / ^ '.,♦ I O 10 20 40 SD 9 Drt¢n D. Lind C) ♦ �? }[� L viii ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE AIC architecture, inc. AGEMENT L3 Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR rM Trcd GmdYSM Pe meWa5d wegdnm•rXa LTMS far l6,Pert2 MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN SENIOR LIVING 3150 Kattee Loltl� 0 651@:Tt•oE�on973131 9 ' 02)1 f=22 tM �)e Lip 1 8_5"11V1oi L�'' v 503 3891060 v503 389 OSGS w IenNiypfchit8thrre.COfn ROOT PROTECTION ZONE: �X fs 1 T N ENCROACHMENT INC THE ROOT PROTECTION ZONE IS ALLOWED WITH PROJECT ARBORIST APPROVAL AS DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING NOTES, 1.EXCAVATION IN THE TOP 24'OF THE SOIL IN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREASHOILD BEGIN AT THE EXCAVATION LINE THAT IS CLOSEST TO THE TREE 2 THEE%CAVATION SHOO LOBE DONE BY HMIDISHCVEL OR WITH BACKHOE AND APERSON WITH A SHOVEL,PRUNING SHEARS.ARD A PRUNING SAW 3.IF GONE BY HAND,ALL ROOTS 1"ORLARGER SHOULD BE PRUNED AT THE EXCAVATION LINE. 4.IF DONE WITH A BACKHOE{MOST LIKELY SCENARIO).THEN THE OPERATOR SHALL START THE CVT AT THE EXCAVATION UNE AND CAREFULLY"FEEL'FOR ROCTSBRESISTANCE.WHEN THERE IS RESISTANCE,THE PERSON WITH THE SHOVEL HAND DIGS AROUND THE 80073 AND PRUNES THE ROOTS LARGER THAN 1'DIAMETER IRRIGATION: IRRIGATION TO BE"DESIGN BUILD"BYTHE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.PROVIDE PLANSTOTHE C WIND DIRECTION CRYFOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO BEGINNING INSTALLATION. 2 PLY GREEN RIfBBEft ROBE REMOVAL 0. WORINAND AMENDED SOILS FOR PLANTER AREAS: P)412 GAUGE GALV WRE 1I TWISTED ODN7RAC7OR SHALL REMOVE ALL DEBRIS FROM PLANTER AREAS AND EXCAVATE TD A SET ROOT SA-L 2-ABOVE FINISH DEPTH OF 3s INCRES SLOPE SLUES of EXCAVATIONS AT 1.1 SLOPE OR SHORE EOGSB TO GRACE TO ALLOW FORSETILING PREVENT UNDERMINING OF VEHICLE LOAD AREAS AND TD PROVIDE ASLOPED PROFILE OF SOIL TRANSITION BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND STRLVWRAL FILL.DISPOSE OF DEBRIS AND SUBSOIL 3"DEEP MULCH.OR ATDEPTH STOCKPILE F%X"VAMO TOP9014 IN APPROVED AREA OFFSITE REOUIREO BY LOCAL JlNiI3dCTION EXISTING AND IMPORTED TOPSOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE LANDSCAPE - WATER BASIN-Y'i DEEP, ARCHITECT AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ARBORIST SOIL MIXING SHALL BE DONE IN R REMOVE AFTER THOROUGH DESIGNATED AREAS OR IN THE SUPPLIERS YARD,Md AMENDMENTS WITH TOPSOIL WHEN PUNTER PIT SATURATION SOIL IS IN AHAII CONDITION ONLY(UAMP AND NOT MUDDY WITH ADECUATE MOISTURE TO BREAK INTO CLOCe WHEN TURNED AND WILL NOT LEAVE A MUG BTAIN ON THE HANG WHEN SQUEEZER. < J�Qu�� / j FINISH GRADE WNT(UCTOR TO PROVIDECERTIFICATE OF CONTENT AND PERCENT OF 901E MIXER BUILDING LINENVAUJ \' WITH ALL AMENDED SOIL TO THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION x x x x x CURB,ETC CZREA21 GRAM,FERTILIZER UOE BLENDED SOIL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION: �y -�- CONIFER OR OECIWOL9 ROOT BALL,QUANITY PER PLACEDRIABLE WHEN PLACE x x x x ry` x x� x MEEI9HRU6 BhLL MANUFACTURERSMALL DES SPECb.BY MORE EE THHM FINDEPTH PRWIDE3F"SEEWITHA2' OMPACTSIN LAYERS OF RATENBRATING NOT //�/// p��` gP CINCA A AS INDICATED GONTFINEWGALPEft SIZE COMPACTOR COMPACITTOBDRE%MMIMLM DRY DENSITYAS MEASUREDRY THE PROCTOR x\ x x x ffl�l}5yy x i) BACKFLLMIXA33RSCIRED 7E9TORASARPROVEDFORSPECIFICBLENOEDSOILMIXES. JN A ON PUIN71NG PLAN _.. - IN HEAVY CLAY SOLS OR WHERE STANDAROCOVERED SOIL VOLUME SPECOrCATION3'. < �X CURAILAWN,FTC '% THERE ISA HARD PAN,AUGER AN 211 V HOLE TO A FREE DRAINING VFD1LM THROUGH TFiE HARDPAN PART 1.COVERED SOIL MATERIALS: (BACKFILL WITH AMENDED SOIL.) ADM�izTURE39OIL SHALL CONSIST OFTHE FOLLOWING MIXTURE OFGRAVEL,SOIL ME GROUNDCOVER PLANTING CONIFER TREE PLANTING I.CRUSHED ROCK GRADATION pR OF 10076 PASSING 120 INCH,MAO(,30%PASSING 8.T51NC. THREADED OAW CM (�) SECTIONnLOAAVdiGANIcroPaGL SCALE:NOT TO SCaLC TAve^�'MPees�oC+ '+ SCALE:NOT TO SCALE MI.BOIL BINDER SUCH AS,87ARGO;ER;AND t B-R„ N WATER PART 2.PROPOR110w OF COVERED SCIL MATERIALS LONG,Wl(2)BYSk12ga_ WELDED CLIPS.GALV, A THE PROPORTIONS OF COVERED SOL MATERALS. AFTER FABRICATION.(2JR10 _ WD SCREWS EA SIDE TO 2A RAILS III HOOT BARREN PANELS II15TALLEUALONO TREE STARES -TREE TIES-2 PLY RUBBER HOSE i MATER A4 AN 0412 GAUGE WIRE TWISIMO, �- — BACK OF CURB ANDgR EDGE OF SIOErVALK PER —TREEnE I(STALL TIES PERPENDICULAR TO AMOUNT PORI CY AMWXT FOR I,SCY MANUI&CNRETS SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRESS MhiEFML - - SAWN 14 FE CE BOROUGH DIRECTION OF PREVAILING WINDS OFCOVEREDSOIL OFCOVERECSOIL SAWN TIGHT KN SOS. PLANTED WITHIN 54r OF THESE SURFACES, TRUNKCRUSHED ROCK 28.2 OJ.FT, 4 WYOB. SPACE IWMAXIMUM RIBREDSIDETORE PIACFDOIJ TREE SIDECF ///7-11 PROVIDE MULCHEDAREA 2"LOOP EFOUR OR CEDAR TREE TOPSOIL S.9 CU.F7. OCU.YD. (STAINED) PUNTER MANUFACTURED BY FORALLSTREETTREES STAN ESI2IRFODREQGONOT COIL HINDER 11702 ALBS. — TOP IL BOTTOM RAJ L W,R.C VCSPRO I NO OR D Ek?ROOT CORP. PLANTEC IN LAWN PENETRATE FOOTBALL WATER 1 1.0 GALS, AB GALS, 2xA CONT VW M Ad GALV GU1TEp WATER RA&N 3"'DEEP AT EA FENCE B0, REMOVE AFTER THOROUGH B.THE TARGET MID37U IE CONTENT Is 2D%BY WEIGHL OF THE TOPSOIL WEIGHT THE l WAIA PER CIML b PLANTER PIT SATURATION ABOVE WATER CONTENTS ASSUME THE TOP IS DRY.THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WILL SET PLANT Z ABOVE LING OF GRADE • -AWN I'• TO ALLOW FOR SETTLING OF SOIL NEED TO BE ADDED WILL BE UEPENDENT ON THE MOISTURE CONTENT CF THE RAW qg�q�p GROVFW CO4ER MATERIALS.ACTUAL AMOUNTS OF WATER USED SHALL BE DETERMINED DURING MIXI NO. �VA7tfES•/ ;2' 9"DEEP MULCH.OR AT DEPTH _ REQUIRED SY LOCAL JURISDICTION PART3.COVERED BOIL MIKINGPROCEDURE3 I I• 8'Ox38"MIN,GONE BURY FERTILRER TAMA T '� FIMSHGRADE A.MIX COVERED SOIL IN BATCHES OF ANAPPROPRIATF 312E FORTHE EQUIPMENT �- TGRPM,20-16E BEIHCUSED THE END RESULT ISTD BE A LATERAL THAT 3 UNIFORMLY BLENDED ELEVATION PIPE 34' BACKFILL MI%h39PECIFIEO 310EWALK!PAYING EDGE PLACED EVENLY TOGETHER.Dd NOT BATCH IN QUANTITIES THAT WILL NOT ALLOW THE EQUIPMENT TO AROUND ROOT BAL COMPLETELY MI%THE MATERIAL DETERMINE BATCH SMEANDQUANTMESOF EACH S' S' WMITRY PER } MATERIAL NEEQED FOR THE BATCH Y MAHUFAOTURER'S _ SPECS.Ry INHEAVY.YSOILS01111 RE B START VATH HAL OF THE CRUSHED ROCK MATERIAL f.,. 17 CpNTMNERlOALIPE - THERE ISA HARD PAN,NAERAN ADD ALL OF D.ADDTHEMLOINDERgL MATERIAL FENCE SEC SYE MEOUM T AFRRCXIEH THENING PAN, _ T HOLE TO AFREE IXWNWG E.ADO HALF Of THE ESTIMATED WATER, F.AV THE OTHER HALF OF THE CRUSHED ROCK MATERIAL GMIX THEMATERIAL 70GETHER 8 scale NT.s .mwuRRaenuaPu wwPEAASe+mexn+ae ROOT BARRIER TREE PLANTING BACIFILLWITHAMENDBO L. H.9LOWLYADO WATER TO THE MIRTUREAND CONTINUE TO Md.THE FINAL AMOUNT OF WATER WILL VARY WITH MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE CRUSHED ROCK AND (SECTION) To ,PML ADD WATER IN INCREMENTAL AMOUNTS AND Md THE MATERIAL BETWEEN SCAI.F. NOT TO SCALE ^E" +�2}' L SCALE:NOT TO SCALE TIREADOTIONS OF WATER I STOP ADDING WATER AND MIXING WHEN TITERS ISA MINUTE AMOUNT OF FREE TOPSCILREMAINING.THE TOPSOIL WILL COATCRUSHED ROCK AND NOT FALL OUT OF THE MATERIAL.ALL OF THE CRUSHED ROCK SHALL BE UNIFORMLY COATED WITH �{--�FHRFjADED GALT.CAP NO TE TOPSOIL THERE SHALL RENO CLUMPS OF TOPSOIL OR UNCOVERED CRUSHED ROCK ' I IN THE MDOUPE 1 METAL FENCE"TREE J_IFTOC MUCH WATER 13 ADDED TO THE MIXTURE.WATER WILL DRAIN CUT OF THE LLI 'SCHED,40 PIPErC-Or WATERBASIN-3'-1-DEEP PROTECTION DEVICE ONLY. - MATEMALAND7HETOPSOILWILLWA5HOFFOFTHE CRUSHED ROCK IFTHIS OCCURS C :ILONG.W!(2)6•M3',12p REMOVE AFTER THOROUGH 'L BOUNDIJOESOFPROMUTION THE RATCHOF MATERIAL SHALL RE DISCARDED AHG SHALL NOTRF INARPORATED WELDED CLIPS,OALV PLANTER PR SATURATION AREA WILL BE ESTASUSHEO IN INTO THE COMPLETED WORK AFTER FABRICATION.(2)910 BFT PLANT 2'ABOVE RMSH THE FIELD BY THE ANSIPROTECTED TPE ERREE 2aM RAILS J BWNDARIESOFPROTECTKN4 WD.8CREWSEA.SIDETO PRIORTOCONSTRUCTION. GRADETOALLOW FOR GROUPS i PARI 1.PLACEMENT OF COVERED 901E SETTLEMENT OF SOIL AREA 8110ULD BE STAIRED ARD 3'DEEP MULCH IN SHRUB FLAGGED BY THE ARBORIST D A_PROTECT SOILS ANN EES FROM A5SOHHING EXCESS WATER AND FROM G-0"LONG W-R,G.TIGHT hREAS.p{AT OEPTTI REO'0 BY RIOT TO INSTALL] EROSION ATALL TIMES-00 NOT STORE MATERIALS i1HPgGTEC7EO FROM RAINFALL KNOT ROUGH SAWN 14 LOCAL JURISDKTKON DEVICES Y SW ARE.9 GAUGE EVENTS.DO NOT ALLOW EXCESS WATER TO ENTER SITE PRIOR TO COMPACTION.IF FENCE 505.SPACE 1!4' 1 AVOID DAMAGE TO CRITICAL GALVANIZED WIRE MESH WATER I3 INTRODUCED INTO THE MATERIA.AFTER ORI ALLOW MATERIAL TO MAXIMUM(STAINED) FIMSH GRACE ROOTZONE.DO NOT DAMAGE DRAIN OK AERATE TO OPTIMUM COMPACTION M04STURE CONTENT. OR SEVER LARGE ROOTS B.ALL AREAS TO RECEIVE COVEREDSOIL MIXTURESFALL BE INSPECTED BYTHELANT BIT-2 TIMES THE WHEN INSTALLING POSTS ROOT D PROJECT LANDSCAPE ANDgR PROJECT EHCINEER BEFORE START7HG PLACEMENT OF TOP SBOTTW RAIL-RCIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL. S DEVICE SHOULD SE HIGHLY V1816LF FLAGGING MIXTURE,ALL DEFECTS SUCH AS INCORRECT CRADING,OOMPACTIONAND aCONT W1{2)M GALV. ROLL b SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM MAINTAINED THROL040 S-p MAX. ATTACHED TO TOP OF M INADEQUATE DRAINAGE,ETC_SHALL RE CORRECTED PRIORTO BEGINNING ATEA,FENCE BD. OF PET LOOSEN RDOTBALL CONSTRVCi1ON, ANCFK]R POSTS PLACEMENT OF COVERED SOL C CONFIRM T}IATILE SLB-GRADE IS AT THE PROPER ELEVATION AND COMPACTED GRADE -BACKFILL MIX AS SPECIFIED ANCHOR POSTS TO BE 2" AS REWIRED.SUB- ELEVATIONS SHALL SLOPE PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED ♦ '�• STEEL u-ChANNEL OR 2-171 t I" EAISnbIG GRACE GRADE.CLEAR THE EXCAVATION OF ALL THE CONSTRUCTION DESRI9,TRASH,RUBBLE - Y GIA STEEL iVMNG OR LAI t ANDFOREIONMATERIAL,FILL ANY OVER EXCAVATION WITH APPROVED FILL AND A+BC18'MIN.CONC BURY >, TMBER.SF7 WLENGTH --_. COMPACT TO THE REWIRED SUB-GRADE COMPACTION FERTIPIPE 94' --2r WREAYYCLAY SOLSOR UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL D.INSTALL COVEREDSOLIN&INCH LIFTS AND SPREAD UNIFORMLY OVER THE AREA 2,GR M 2 TABS: WHERE THERE ISAHARDPML ANCHOR POSTSµIGT BE COMPACT EACH LIFTTOTHE REQUIRED MAXIMUMIIENSITY DELAY PLACFWKT24 2T GRAM,20fOd ROUGES e'HOLE THROUGH THE INSTALLED TO A DEPTH OF \ HOURS IF MOLSTIIRE CONTENT EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE,PROTECT COVERED ELEVATION OCAS- 1SxGALLON HARD PAN ANDAR ELEVATE 1l3 MIN.7HETOTAL _ _ '—SILT FABRIC ATTACHED SOL WITH PLASTICORPLYWODD GURINGOELAY-TAKE PARTICULA ROAM MOTTO 3TABS- 7GA GALLON PLANTING(BACKFILL DM ATTR HEIGHT OF POSTE- - 12•A90VE GRADEWHERE 3 TABS- 1 GALLON ATABI-EM;N (BACKFILL WITH pEAL1RED 7HEBEDAMAGED n TIESFOR WHENINSTALLING LINESHALL BE ERED COMPAC CWEREDFOM70TWILL BE I 4TAUS- 15 GALLON AMENDED SOIL) THE BREDIRG FOR UTILITY rLIT SHALL SE COMPACTED TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREDRACEIN THE NTILA IL LINE.DO FNOT COMPACT TIIEI SAOVE VICINITY UTILITY FENCE SECTION SH RU BIGROUNDCOVER PLANTING TREE PRESERVATION FENCING LINE IS REhCHEO E BRING COHERED BOILS TO FINISHED OWES ASSHCNMINTHE APPROVED Tme,Ewua FAcFAaoxol (��9ECONITY OF TIGARD A BRI NGS IMMEDIATELY PO FINIS EfIC DO WESA SHOWNISOIL RIALTHE FROMCONTAMINATION BYWATERBYOOVERINGWITH PLASTICOR PLYWOODSCALE:N.T.S. NOT T09CALE *�A"F -v"� SC.4LC NOT'O SCALL ''U" '2NL 'M ' GIS IS T Z jIi'�* 4 5Z) O LANDSCAPE DETAILS & NOTES PRELIMINARYE 1 011112072 3 Brian U. Lind U $, OREGGR' W leni ` "MECASSISTED LIVING & MEMOR_ Y_ CAR L5 architecture, inc. \]'��/� TMQ� +��{/ x'9///,7//� 3150 Kettle Court SE,Salem,Oregon 97301 Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR gAp �4 —Li -t09 1• 'A •A/ � L I-9 lrL— MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN SENIOR LIVING P 503 3991090 F 503 399 0565 w l"ItyaMI1tectLre.cwn CATCH BASIN NAM RIM-23&15 RIM-232.7512'LE 1N(NW)-2301 \ \ '� � MANHOLE 12'I.E.OUT(50-229.6' \ RIM:224.91' N N E I.E.15'N{NWj=226.8' � MANHOLE CONCRETE STORM PRE \ LE 15"OUT{SE)s 226.6' CONCRETE sNaRN PIPE tfY LE B'IN(MAPF)=21a.9' m Bal=23213' 12 I.E.IN(NW)r 227.8' / G l CONCRETE STORM PRE ,-, C} 12'I.E 1N{NW)=MAY \ LE 10"W(N)=218.9' n I.E 8'8N(NWJ 223.2' 12'LE OUT(SE)=427.4' CONCRETE STORM OUTLET , C'' 12"LE IN(NW)=720.Y n a Z l2'LE WT(SE)=22NLY LE 8'WT(SE)=218.7 _ my - - -I.E.a�OUT `(SE)-221.2' - - - - - 16'I.E.{SE)=!! / ` __ _ _12'I.E.bili(SE)SMI' _ - -.- `- � «-• _ 4-.1/2'GAS UNE - - --srw--- _ VJ \ _ ` - I \- SW HALL BOULEVARD", A \1 %`. DOUBLE YELLOW STRIPE I (COUNTY ROAD NO.1165) \ DOUBLE YELLOW 5181 -- --------- - -^^- y 510fWAlK BARRICADE -yv--- ,..�~ ......-",r- -- -wr- r-..._ .,....,^Mr..^-WATERT FOG STRRwrE- _ ..r - iQ 1E PROP ...` ` _-` l - ��••' 562 '1' ^l 'LATE 1 I POLE KITH DROP 2*3 GRAVEL r ATE \ POLE WITH + r OPERTY }r TRANSFORMER CONCRETE ST CRN OUTLET _ \ i Blf$STOP 51GR �T Ig751 fes, 112'l.E.(SE})-220 sas2 DRIP- 4� 1 \ r •\ I \ 1 , Gltl 5-,, (7►-EE cj 99 F, iAX LOT 1000 �� f Z 13 02+2 yl z0.OVAss, \ ©'` o o" o ''� TAX LOT 841 �¢q MAP 1S-1-26DB t # AX LT 900 1SA �1 S-1-26DB MAP 2fiDB r� }y 40 / 1 1 Iseen s mos A C, FL+�� 1 w I 4' J -7 � \ \�\;\ , � � ,' ARBORVITAE 1 y 1 C LEGEND `11 ` `` J LOT 29 \eti 3� !IN Z� G.fG P-4 23 p DECIDUOUS TREE \ ` \p,!Ey TowHHWSE , J FIRE HSDRANT ALOT 30 WATER BLVAI \� \ r9WATER METER l "/ �imar WATER VALVE oa \\ \ \ 1 \ P�' , I ,ma y > LOT 3 go , \ \ LOT 31 T, ! �'` / ,Dias STORM S S C TCHBaF In \\ ! \ LOT 28 1\ \ Irr i � f to Q� TAX LOT 203 SHORN StIIEn CATCH SASH ` `y STORM SEWet MANHOLE ® a � "'>� - LOT 32 �i rl W14 ��f� MAP 1S-1-260C 3J MAILBOA BID \ \ \ TOWNHOLISE I \ / I 19.E GAS METER IM ` \ i X104 j AS xoiFA1 GAS YAIVF lN0 PARIUNO' \\ 1 \ / / LOT 2 GUY WE ANCHORE•-- \� \ \ /'✓ ,CATCH BASK I 1 ' J .--"� � � '-01► TAX LOT 202 LAs UTIUTY POLE `O-+ ` "MONTAGE" >4\ RIM=226.01 + _T12`� MAP 1S-3-2bDC ELECTRICAL METER \ \ \ LOT 33 / 10312 r 12'LE OUT(S)=223.7/ 1 r PREPARE R; FO \ \ 1 a.\ ', I �, = / TELLPINONE/lASgN EWRISER ® ....Y ' Q ti SUMP 221.7' 1 !!t �° LOT 1 "OAKEN GA ES" Faun SURYEY L0ANENT • ` , ` ° •• " /J` i\' Nim r >// / TAX LOT 01 WF-Wer LINE -- - \ \\ \ .••�wK1R�' � y �;.�� / ,�M:-� 2 BOUNDARY LINE V \ SANITARY MANHOLE a \ f1 i �'LS" MAP 1S-1-26DC SCALE L" - 20 ITEM REVISIONS: IMM•ANHOLE /�/ fi ` NNllu RELEASE DEC 11,2019 PROPERTY UNE 8•I.E N N dN71ERUE ------- \,\ 6'I.E.OUT C�� i ' ] S 'i SHIED 1)jHEF�IED SURVEY FOR THIS MAP WAS COMPLETED ON NOVEMBER 27.2919. - s CITCN ---- -^ -- > \ �� +�' * � Imp 'S 2)fLE17ATI0N5 ANO CONTOURS ARE III ON WASHIMTON COUNTY B31CFAFRK N0.tOS THE BENCHMARK IS A BRASS DISK IN P .G C'�1�. . THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL BASE AT THE SlMI1HEASi CORNER OF SIM GRELTVDURG ROAD M'0 SW HALL BOULEVARD IT HAS AN REOISTEREO CURB \\ `� � � / CS '6 ��/ ELEVATION OF 240.75 FEET ON 1HE NCA}1928 DATUM. MO rESSIONAL !�OF PAVEMENT - - --- \ 5MEET OM INLET �� Im& 1 1✓V 1...=�/J ) �a+ L 11 511 �r-'s I ( LAND SURVEYOR SIGN RM=226.82' 1a291 /q� 1 3)THE BASS OF BE RI NCS FOR THIS SUFIMEY IS SN 33515. CRA4�EL EDGE --- -LINEp-- 12"LE!N(M)=223.6' TLS A l Y J y � �� ] 4)THE RN#TT^OF-WAY WI WERE ESTABLISH USING wFMIATKIN FROM RECORD SLRJEYS k1O THE TAK ASa�OR'S MAP. o ��N �liMIDLE If LE.N(N)-223.7' l G V l A �t f 12'I.E.OUT(S)=223.5' SAMUARY 1s, RM=228.78' S)THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT PROVIDED TNTH A RISE REPORT FOR THE PROPERTY. 9 IS UNKNOWN IF ANY 031MUM ENCUMBER cum FL SryBSS,N. POKER IlE -- -"" SUMP-221.5' CONCRETE STORM OUTLET }�'� OR BENEFIT THE PROPER", ea LS OVERHEAD WRE - - - -«*- TREE INFORMATI,.„N 12'1.z(NWT)-2236' 0�_ I � RTIiEI%/30/X 6)THE LkEERGBWNp UILJTES ARE BASED ON THE MARKNOS PER LOCATE Tau TIMBERS 19289002 AND 19299903. 1ELPENONE UNE ---n- 100'34 SfiIT 6',-f APPLE 10114 5•ASH 1010 lo"L{CMsr 10238 spur(2).T's',s"LOCUST 10261 SPLIT(2}1a`,2o"LocusT 103t. SPLIT s-.s•,B•9°Co-TTDNW000 10076 43"APPLE 10120 T ASH 10156 6"LOCUST 10242 SPLIT 8',9'LOd15T 70262 SPLIT{3)6',14'CHERRY 10319 6.OECWUODS �St m L L � "TU • �. ''°�NUMBER GAS UWE °"-"- 10085 SPUT 8',9'APPLE 10122 6•ASH 10192 SPUT 6",7'ASN 10244 SPLIT 10',16•LOCUST t0261 SPLIT(7)5',6•HAWTHORN 10320 4'OECDJCUS UTILITY STATEMENT �1 STORM SEWER ZINE ---��- 10087 6'ASH 10146 SPLIT 5,6•ASH 10216 SPUT(2)36',18"OAK 10245 22'LOCUST 10282 SPLIT 5',8'(2)7'HAWTHORN 10415 4'OECINOUS THE UNDERGROUND DRIVES SHOWN HAVE SEEN LOCATES FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EASIRNG DRAWNM THE 2022 10102 V ASH 10151 7'HAWNOPN 10223 9'Oft DUCUs I0247 19"LCGUS7 lam 9'HAwIHORN 20508 13'BIRCH 1 SURVLYOR MAKES NO GUARANIYE THAT THE UNOMOIND UTIUTES SHOWN COMPWSE ALL SUCH UTILITIES N THE AREA,EITHER SANITARY 5£KER LMNE ----- --------w--- 1DIO 6'COTTONWOOD 10774 SKIT 7•,6•HAWTHORN 10225 6'LOCUST 10250 13'APPLE IMF SPLIT 19',20"OAK 20509 14"BIRGN �[�r i l,= yC� IN TIE E Va OR ABANDONED. ATION D. THE SURVEYOR H D061 DOES 'NOT�TP�ARE THE LOCA AS ACCURATELY AS PSS ARE SYN SHEET W0.TGt LA'S - -- -Mr- 10704 6'ASH 10181 CLUMP WALOWS 1022] CLUMP DECIDUOUS 10251 TO"LOCUST 36291 SFY1T(2�5'HAWTHORN 20863 33'SNAG-;30'WG4 aiLJ�-v/V-� NAE, ayAaq AYAA./Si,E. THE 51ILYElOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED 1LIE UNDERGROUND UIILIIIES, 1 OF 1 10105 6'ASH 10182 B•LOCUST 10233 23'LOCUST 10252 SPLIT 6',10'LOCUST 10312 SPILT 61 COTTONWOOD 20878 32"SNAG-±30'FgGH ��L_w x't��M 10106 10.ASH 10183 SPLIT 7',10'LOCUST 10234 22"LOCUST IOW 13'LOCUST 10313 B"COTTONWOOD 20708 r BRCN t L`J`{L��V /'L 1.4 ARK-"OP 'TLSTt(vkct� Y From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 11:12 AM To: Carol Krager Cc: Agnes Lindor Subject: FW:Testimony for City Council 10 May 2022 Attachments: Cedarbrook Testimony.pdf From: Fran OREGON <fran.warrenor@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 10, 2022 11:07 AM To:Jason Snider<Jason @tiga rd-or.gov>; Heidi Lueb<heidil@tigard-or.gov>; Liz Newton <lizn@tigard- or.gov>;Jeanette Shaw<jeanettes@tigard-or.gov>;John Goodhouse<joodhouse @tigard-or.gov>; Aishiki Nag<youthcouncil@tigard-or.gov> Subject:Testimony for City Council 10 May 2022 Some people who received this message don't often get email from fran.warrenor@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender Dear Mayor Snider, Councilors Lueb, Newton, Shaw, Goodhouse, and Nag. Sorry for this late submit, I just received information of this meeting. Having lived on Cooper Mountain for 35 years, I am quite familiar with this entire area and have a great appreciation for all these adjoining neighborhoods. Please do consider this testimony for this evening. I appreciate your time and your service to the community, Fran. Please Stay Safe - Stay Health , Fran f "Nature is My Medicine" O Virus-free. www.avg.com DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." To: Tigard City Council Re: Quasi-Judicial Annexation and Site Development Review Cedarbrook(ZCA2021-00001/SDR2021- 00001) This testimony is intended to highlight concern regarding the impacts of increased impervious surfaces in the Tigard City Limits which are, and will continue to, increase neighborhood temperatures. Existing mature trees are a first-line defense to climate uncertainties. Removal of existing mature trees removes this first line defense. Since there are some significant issues still outstanding here, I would recommend that the City of Tigard postpone any decision on this project until more research has been done to answer these questions. According to Tigard's Your Government Community Development published website, Carbon Responsible Community Development I City of Tigard (tgard-or.gov),Tigard is vested in Carbon Responsible Community Development . It is acknowledged on the city's website that: "Energy use, mostly from the use of buildings and roads, makes up nearly 75%of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, buildings and transportation, along with industry, account for almost 60%of all worldwide GHG emissions." The recent expansion of 217 to alleviate traffic congestion is adding more impervious surfaces all through the City of Tigard. The Cedarbrook development has plans to add more paved surfaces. There is even question as to whether this paved surface—and/or infrastructure will be causing destructive stress on the root zone of the adjoining properties' mature Oregon White Oaks. Some Empirical Evidence: 1) Neighborhood Heat Increases: - There are worldwide studies showing the overall increase in temperature to not only a single house, but also to entire neighborhoods, when a community of trees is removed (even a small number of mature trees). - Studies show that a mature tree is 70+times more effective at climate defense such as (carbon sequestration,transvaporation (cooling by evaporation through the leaves), stormwater filtering, and other beneficial attributes than planting a new tree. -The removal of mature trees has shown to increase some neighborhood temperatures in Portland from 9-15 degrees (This Is the Hottest Place in Portland (wweek.com): "Four ZIP codes east of 42nd Avenue, lined by major arterial roads or interstate highways, had four deaths apiece.That's the second-highest number in the city, exceeded only by downtown.These four ZIP codes accounted for nearly a quarter of Portland's heat deaths. That comes as no surprise to Shandas: He's been warning Portland about just how severe these hot areas of the city are for a decade. "To see folks that have died?We had so much evidence to show this was a likely outcome," Shandas says. "Without direct mitigation of these places that are often 15, 20 degrees hotter,we're going to continue seeing people die." 2) Tree Root Zone Protections: -According to Purdue Forestry & Natural Resources, "One of the most challenging issues with any construction project is protecting and preserving existing trees on the site. Established and mature trees on a construction site can be preserved if provisions are made to ensure the tree trunk, limbs and root system are not damaged or disturbed." Construction and Trees: Guidelines for Protection • FNR-463-W These are just a few of the issues which might still be evaluated by the City and the City Planning Department. In summary, some of the outstanding questions are: 1) Has anyone done a "Urban Heat Islands Study" of the area and/or heat projections given the upcoming known changes ... and the impacts of the new construction? 2) Has anyone done an analysis of the loss of carbon sequestration, stormwater filtration, etc due to the loss of trees in the area? 3) Has the developer offered reduced carbon footprint options such as underground parking? 4) Has developer provided study regarding tree root zone calculations to ensure construction (heavy equipment and digging) will not harm neighboring trees? I do have more research information available to support these few questions to consider. Please feel free to contact me if you, or Tigard Planning, have any further questions or would like to pursue any of these. Thank You, Fran Warren ZSUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR ■ 05-17-2022 MEETING - ITEM 6. _ City o,f Tigard MEMO Date: May 16, 2022 To: Tigard City Council From: Agnes Lindor,Associate Planner RE: Cedarbrook Public Hearing (Case #ZCA2021-00001)-Additional Information At the May 10, 2022 Tigard City Council public hearing for the Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Review, the Council asked staff to provide information on particular retirement living facilities in Tigard and their impacts. Staff examined the four requested facilities with pertinent details summarized below. In regard to parking impacts, staff would like to remind Council that there is no code required parking minimum for the Cedarbrook development. Bonaventure (Constructed) Bonaventure,located at 15000 SW Hall Boulevard,is a facility that contains 152 units (70 independent living, 59 Assisted living,23 memory care). The facility's height ranges from 37 feet to 48 feet. The building proposed a step-down approach with the lower height closest to neighboring development. According to the applicant's traffic study, the estimated trip generation for the total facility (independent living, assisted living and memory care) is 477 weekday trips,including 23 weekday AM peak hour trips and 35 weekday PM peak hour trips. The development provides 120 parking spaces;guest parking spaces were not provided. The Bonaventure project was constructed under the old code that considered this development a Group Living use. The parking requirement for Group Living at the time was one vehicle parking space per 2.5 beds. Therefore,if considering the Cedarbrook development under the old code, a total of 78 vehicle parking spaces would have been required. No sensitive lands are present on the site. Brookside I (Constructed Brookside 1,located at 11045 SW Hall Boulevard,is a facility that provides 42-beds for memory care. The facility is two-stories and approximately 32 feet in height. A traffic study was not required with the land use application for this development. Based on the size of the facility,the traffic impacts are reasonably estimated to be similar to that of Brookside 11 (see description below),which has an estimated trip generation for the assisted living facility of 130 weekday trips,including 10 weekday AM peak hour trips and 13 weekday PM peak hour trips. The development provides 11 parking spaces;guest parking spaces were not provided. No sensitive lands are present on the site. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 9 Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 0 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 Brookside II (Land Use Approved Brookside II,located at 11065 SW Hall Boulevard,is a facility that provides 50-rooms (not considered dwelling units) for memory care. The facility is two-stories above ground (approximately 32 feet), and underground parking. According to the applicant's traffic study, the estimated trip generation for the assisted living facility is 130 weekday trips,including 10 weekday AM peak hour trips and 13 weekday PM peak hour trips. The development provides 26 parking spaces;guest parking spaces were not provided. No sensitive lands are present on the site. Steadfast (Land Use Approved) Steadfast,located at 9244 SW Oak Street,is a facility that provides 110 units, that are for 25 memory care, 67 for assisted living, 18 for independent living (only independent living units are dwelling units) The facility is four-stories, approximately 45 feet in height.According to the applicant's traffic study, the estimated trip generation for the assisted living facility is 380 weekday trips,including 28 weekday AM peak hour trips and 38 weekday PM peak hour trips. The development provides 87 parking spaces and 10 guest vehicle spaces. The development did require a sensitive lands review due to the parking lot being located partially in the Special Flood Hazard Area. A No-Rise certificate was provided to comply with the Special Flood Hazard Area approval criteria. SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR OWAIKELLINGTON 05-17-2022 MEETING - ITEM 6. ,D LAW GROUP, Pc Wendie L.Kellington Phone(503) 636-0069 P.O.Box 159 Mobile(503) 804-0535 Lake Oswego Or Facsimile(503) 636-0102 97034 Email:wk klgpc.com May 16, 2022 Via Electronic Mail Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council C/O Agnes Lindor Associate Planner City of Tigard, Or 97223 RE: Applicant's Final Written Argument- Cedarbrook Annexation and Site Development Review (ZCA 2021-00001 / SDR 2-21-00001) Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This firm represents the applicant in the above referenced matter. This is the applicant's Final Written Argument for your proceeding in the above captioned matter, as authorized per ORS 197.797(6)(e) and TMC 18.710.100(5)(b). Please include this letter in the record. Introduction - The Standards that Apply As your planning commission and staff found after exacting analysis and consideration, the proposal meets all relevant standards in the city's adopted code. That is important because state law and the implementing standards in the city's code require that only the standards and criteria in the city's adopted code may be applied to this application. ORS 227.173(l). A project, to include this one, may not be denied on the basis of a standard that is not in the city's code, under the so-called "codification" rule. Waveseer v. Deschutes County, 308 Or App 494 (2021);Nehmzow v. Deschutes County; 308 Or App 533 (2021);Jones v. Clackamas County, 307 Or App 502, 514 (2020). That means that any standards applied to this application, "must be ascertainable from the local government's legislation." Zirker v. City of Bend, 233 Or App 601, 610, 227 P3 1174, rev den, 348 Or 415 (2010). Standards may not be developed and applied to this quasi-judicial application "through quasi-adjudicative decision-making." Waveseer, 308 Or App 494, citing Zirker. It is respectfully submitted, that when the adopted city code is applied, the proposal warrants approval. There are two applications here, consolidated for administrative convenience. The application for site review, is an application for a "limited land use decision." ORS 197.015(12). ORS 197.195(1) describes the standards that the city may apply to a limited land use application. ORS 197.195(1) says that the applicable land use regulations for this application are limited to those that are specifically listed in the city land use regulations in the Tigard Development Code. Under ORS 197.195(1),provisions in the city's Comprehensive Plan cannot provide a basis for a decision on a limited land use decision, unless they are specifically incorporated into the land use regulations. This application seeks the "development of housing." That means that only "clear and objective" standards may be applied. ORS 197.307(4). The city bears the burden to demonstrate that the standards applied are clear and objective. ORS 197.831. The standards and criteria applied must be clear and objective "on their face. ORS 227.173(2). A standard is not clear and objective if it triggers "subjective,value-laden analyses that are designed to balance or mitigate impacts of the development." (Emphasis supplied.) Rogue Valley Association of Realtors v. City of Ashland, 35 Or LUBA 139, 158 (1998), aff'd, 158 Or App 1 (1999). The prohibited types of non-clear and objective standards are generally standards requiring a "compatibility" or an "adverse impacts" analysis or imposing "conditions" to make a proposal "compatible" or avoid "adverse impacts."' Moreover, ambiguous language in the code is not clear and objective. Nieto v. City of Talent,_Or LUBA_(LUBA No. 2020-100, March 10, 2021);Legacy Development Group, Inc. v. City of The Dalles,—Or LUBA_(LUBA No. 2020-099, February 24, 2021). LUBA awarded attorney fees against the cities in both Nieto and Legacy for ignoring the clear and objective requirements.Legacy Development Group, Inc. v. City of The Dalles,_Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2020-099, Order on Attorney Fees, May 17, 2021). Moreover, state law says that the city may not reduce the density of housing development below the maximum allowed in the city code (ORS 227.175(4)(c)) and may not reduce the height of housing development proposals below the maximum allowed in the city code (ORS 227.175(4)(d)). ORS 197.522(2) states that the city "shall approve" this application for construction of needed housing. There is no dispute that the proposal is for a type of needed housing" in the city. ORS 197.303(1). If you were to disagree with your professional staff and decide that the application does not comply with an applicable standard, then ORS 197.522 requires that "prior to making a final decision on the application" the city "shall allow the applicant to offer an amendment or to propose conditions of approval that would make the application consistent with the plan and applicable regulations." It is respectfully submitted, that denial or limits suggested by project opponents, are simply not warranted in this case. The Process Applied Has Been Fair to Everyone The process that the city has applied to this matter, came straight out of the city's code. TMC 18.710.100(A)(4);Apalategui v. Washington County, 80 Or App 508 (1986).3 As such, as 1 The Neunzert commentors claimed that"relevant Tigard Municipal Codes"included TDC 18.510.010 regarding "compatibility." The commentors are mistaken. There is no such code provision in the TDC,but even if there were, it would be an example of a prohibited type of standard. 2 The proposed facility will be 46-feet in height;the maximum height allowed in the MUR-1 zone is 75-feet. 3 In 1000 Friends v.Lane County, 102 Or App 68,70(1990),the court of appeals held that ORS 197.763 (now ORS 197.797)overrules Apalategui to the extent the waiver rule announced in Apalategui is inconsistent with ORS 2 a matter of law it has been fair to everyone in this process -the neighbors and the applicant. Goal 1 requires the public participatory processes be consistent with the city's code. Deumling v. City of Salem, 76 Or LUBA 99 (2017). Because the processes have always complied with the city code, the processes applied have provided appropriate "citizen participation" as required by Goal 1. The February 28, 2022 hearing before the planning commission was opened by Planning Commission Chairman Hu.4 Because there were technical difficulties, the planning commission continued the hearing to a time and date certain- March 14, 2022. The March 14, 2022 hearing was well attended and many, many people, including those from the neighborhood, gave testimony. While The Proposal Is For The "Development Of Housing", It Does Not Include Any "Dwelling Units" as the City Code Expressly Defines That Term Proposal is a Special Type of Housing The proposal is for the approval of housing for adults who require assisted living or memory care. As such, the proposal is for a type of group living that the TDC says is a "Residential Use Category". TDC 18.60.040(C). The proposed housing is also a "Residential Care Facility" with both Assisted Living and Memory Care facilities.' OAR 411-054-0005(79). A Residential Care Facility provides care in a "homelike setting." Id. The proposal includes no "independent living" housing facilities. The people who live in assisted living are generally ambulatory and can manage basic tasks for themselves,but must and do live within a facility that "offers and coordinates a range of supportive services available on a 24-hour basis to meet the activities of daily living, health and social needs of the residents ***". OAR 411.054-0005(11). On the other hand, "memory care" provides "specialized services in a secured environment for individuals with dementia." (Emphasis supplied.) OAR 411-057-0100. While the list of neurocognitive disorders that fall within the "dementia" umbrella is fairly long (OAR 411-057- 0110(8)), most individuals in memory care are afflicted with "Alzheimer's Disease" which is "a type of dementia that gradually destroys an individual's memory and ability to learn, reason, make judgments, communicate, and carry out daily activities." OAR 411-057-0110(2). 197.763. In Hausam v. City of Salem, 178 Or App 417,422(2001)the court repeated its Apalategui holding that"if proper notice were given before a hearing,it is sufficient that a continuance simply be announced at the close of that hearing." The court explained that rule,however,did not apply in the context of LUBA remands. The relevant point here,however,is that the Apalategui principle is still a valid one-where notice of the initial evidentiary hearing is adequate(as it was here),that initial hearing may be continued to a time and date certain without the necessity of the City providing a new written notice of the continued hearing. That rule is codified by the City in TMC 18.710.100(A)(4). 4 There was a suggestion at your May 10,2022 hearing that the February 28,2022 hearing was not opened. That is mistaken as is evident. It clearly was opened,but it was continued due to technical difficulties. 5 The facility will include an Endorsed Memory Care Community,which we refer to as"Memory Care" for convenience. OAR 411-057-0110(15). 3 Only about 5% (or less) of the residents of"Assisted Living", drive cars. Rather, the vast majority of assisted living residents rely upon on-site bus and van transport to get to appointments, shopping and other destinations. None of the residents in "memory care" drive. None in either group ride bicycles. Meals are provided in a common area,by a common commercial kitchen, to which the residents have no access. Meals are provided as a part of the residents' monthly payments in a common dining room. Assisted living units have "kitchenettes" but the "cooking facilities" in those "kitchenettes", are limited to a "cooking appliance that may be removed or disconnected. A microwave is considered a cooking appliance." OAR 411-054-0300(f)(A). Moreover "cooking appliances must be readily removable or disconnectable" and the facility "must have and carry out a written safety policy regarding resident-use and nonuse. A microwave is considered a cooking appliance." OAR 411-057-0200(1). Microwaves are not intended to remain in assisted living facilities indefinitely, but rather are designed to be removed or disconnected as needed. The Proposal Does Not Include Any City Code Defined Dwelling Units or, if it does, the Proposed Facility is One Dwelling Unit The fact that the proposal is for the development of housing does not mean that it meets the city code definition of"dwelling unit." It does not. The City's definition of"dwelling unit" is specific and requires a "dwelling unit"to have `permanent provisions for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation. " TMC 18.30.020(D)(14)(a). The use of the term "permanent" is meaningful. The dictionary defines the term "permanent" to mean "lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely." (Emphasis supplied.) There is no dispute that the proposed assisted living sleeping rooms will have no "permanent provisions" for "cooking." Rather, the assisted living sleeping rooms' cooking facilities will be limited to a microwave that is expressly intended and required by state law, to be removed by facility staff if it poses a danger or risk to the occupant or others. The microwaves are not and cannot be intended to remain,unchanged, indefinitely, as a matter of state law. Furthermore,there is no dispute that the memory care facilities do not have any "kitchenette" whatsoever. "Permanent" cooking appliances are unsafe in assisted living facilities—it is notoriously easy for a vulnerable person to mistakenly leave flammables on a stove when it is ignited, exposing themselves and others to danger. That is why there are not any stoves in assisted living facilities and no "permanent provisions" for cooking and rather there is instead a common dining room, with meals prepared and served by professional staff, from a single commercial kitchen. A single room occupancy facility does not become a dwelling unit merely because there is an on- site cafeteria or restaurant downstairs. Some opponents say that because there is a commercial kitchen in the facility, that means that the facility's single commercial kitchen causes the facility to have "permanent provision for cooking." They then impute that commercial kitchen to every sleeping room, to erroneously claim the proposed facility has 194 dwelling units. This is wrong. A house or apartment with three bedrooms is a single dwelling unit, not three dwelling units. However, if the code definition of"dwelling unit" were interpreted to say that the presence of the single commercial 4 kitchen in the facility means that the facility has a "permanent provision for cooking," then that would only mean that the facility has one "dwelling unit," like a house with one kitchen and multiple bedrooms is a single dwelling unit. Accordingly, if the facility becomes a dwelling unit because of its commercial kitchen, then it easily meets the requirements of a single, dwelling unit. However, the better interpretation of the city code is that the facility,by design, has no "dwelling units." Purpose of the Limited Definition of"Dwelling Unit" Makes Clear that the Proposal is not, and has no,Dwelling Unit or Units The reason that the City defines dwelling units to exclude facilities without permanent cooking facilities from the term "dwelling unit", is that DUs trigger requirements that expose residents of assisted living and memory care to danger or simply do not make sense. These include requirements for"Private open space" that is "directly accessible" from interior of dwelling unit, contrary to safety needs of residents and, with respect to memory care, are contrary to state law requirements for facility security. TMC 18.230.040(D)(2); OAR 411-057- 0110(15). Similarly, the requirement that dwelling units must have a certain number of vehicle and bike parking spaces for each "dwelling unit" makes no sense applied to the proposed facility, because more than 95% of residents do not have cars (and that is intentional) and 100% do not travel by bicycle. If AL/MC facilities were "dwelling units"that would lead to those facilities being vastly overparked. This is illustrated in TMC 18.230.040 Table 18.230.2: Table 18.230.2 • Quantity Vehicle Maximum Apartment Size Vehicle Minimum Bicycle Minimum (Zones A and B) 500 scl ft or less 1 space per dwelling unit 1 bedroom 1 space per dwelling unit None 1 space per 2 dwelling units 2 bedroom 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit 3 bedroom 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit The interpretation of the city code that is consistent with its express words,purpose and policy is that the proposed facility has no dwelling units or is itself a single dwelling unit. Application of the Rules for Apartments After the hearing, a city council member wondered whether the facility should be reviewed under the "apartment" category at all, suggesting that the proposed facility is "very different" from an apartment, speculating that the proposed facility will have truck trips that an apartment will not have and suggesting that the proposal should be considered a "commercial use." We refer to the express terms of the city code. TDC 18.60.040(A) clearly states that "Residential Use" includes "occupancy of an institution or facility where the components of a 5 dwelling unit are shared by residents." (Emphasis supplied.) This describes the proposal. Further TDC 18.60.040(C) lists "Examples" of"residential uses" as expressly including "memory care facilities" and "assisted living facilities." The TDC has no specific residential use category that corresponds to the proposed type of residential use other than "apartments." TDC 18.230.010 says that apartments "are a type of attached housing within **** multi-story buildings." Per the TDC 18.230.010(B), apartments "provide for a variety of housing types that meet the needs of Tigard's diverse population at all stages of life." The proposal is a type of apartment that either has no dwelling units or is itself a single dwelling unit. Furthermore, it is reasonably surmised that apartments have all manner of truck deliveries - daily, and sometimes multiple times daily, deliveries by Fed Ex, UPS, USPS, Instacart, Grub Hub etc.,; which are deliveries that simply do not happen in memory care facilities and very rarely happen in assisted living facilities. Apartments have moving vans and U-Haul trucks for when people move in and out. Their occupants can have parties and all manner of social gatherings and the many guests can and do park on the street. The garbage trucks that service the proposed facility will be the same trucks already on their route serving garage disposal needs in the neighborhood and area anyway. Apartments allowed in the proposed MUR-1 zone can have restaurants or other commercial establishments on the ground floor and result in more deliveries than can reasonably be expected here. It is respectfully submitted that the concern that the facility is not a type of apartment is misplaced. And regardless, the concern that the proposal is not a type of residential use is inconsistent with the express terms of the TDC 18.60.040(A) and(C). If the proposed facility it not an apartment but there can be no doubt but that it is listed in the code as a residential use, then if the city wishes to impose any standards, then the apartment category is the closest corollary. Parking Staff is correct that there is no parking standard that applies. Regardless, concern was expressed that the 92 parking spaces provided for the proposal are inadequate and parking will spill onto local streets. This is mistaken. The only evidence in the record is that the proposed parking will be adequate and that facility parking will remain entirely on-site and will not result in off-site parking on area local streets. The evidence demonstrates that the proposed parking is within bounds of other similar facilities managed by Mosaic Management, Inc., which will operate the facility. The facility also provides more parking than the Bonaventure facility that the city council discussed at the May 10, 2022 hearing. If the parking assumptions for Bonaventure are applied here, the proposed facility has plenty of parking: 6 e. Off-street parking shall be in accordance vvith Chapter 18.765. Response: An adjustment to the off-street parking standards was originally requested to reduce the minimum required parking from 120 to 105 spaces,consistent with Bonaventure's experience with Senior Housing and Chapters 18.765 and 18.370,but the adjustment is unnecessary as the applicant submitted plans on April 15 that demonstrate parking facilities and a revised unit mix in compliance With the standards of chapter 18.765,as demonstrated in the table below. This standard is met. Parking Standard Proposed March 17 Revised April 21 Independent 1.0 per room 71 70 Assisted 1.0 per 2.5 beds 57 59 Memory Care 1.0 per 2.5 beds 24 23 Total Units 152 152 Required Parking 120 spaces 119 spaces Proposed Parking 1 1 105 spaces 1 120 spaces The Cedarbrook proposal will have 194 beds. Using the ratio of 1 parking space per 2.5 beds for Assisted Living and Memory Care per the above table referenced from the Bonaventure approval, means that the total requirement for Cedarbrook would be 77.6 spaces. Because Cedarbrook proposes 92 spaces, it will provide 14 spaces more than the minimum parking requirement that the city applied to Bonaventure. The point being, that all of the evidence demonstrates that the parking for the proposed Cedarbrook facility is adequate. Road Improvements There were statements that there are inadequate street lights and sidewalks on 92°d and on Montage and so the proposal will not be safe for pedestrians. However, the only evidence in the record is that the proposal will result in a safer experience for pedestrians on SW Montage and 92nd because it will add a 5'planter strip, street lights and 5' sidewalks and half street improvements on its side of 92nd and Montage and, similarly, the Applicants will add improvements to its SW Hall Boulevard frontage where the vast majority of trips will be generated from and to, including additional street right of way, a 5'planter strip (with curb); a 10' sidewalk; and street lights. Opponents Both Want and Object to a New Through Street Instead of a Cul-De-Sac Some commentors asked the city to require a street through the site from SW Montage Ave to Hall Boulevard; others objected to any traffic on SW Montage Ave.,presumably objecting to extending Montage as a through street between SW Montage and Hall. Regardless, there is no serious dispute that the city cannot demand a street through the site under the Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 US 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994)United States Supreme Court holding that such an exaction can only be required if the city demonstrates rough proportionality to justify the exaction. Similarly, to impose an exaction, the city must establish that there is an essential nexus between the posited cut through-street and the proposed Cedarbrook Senior Assisted Living and Memory Care facility to support an exaction under Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n., 483 US 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987). As the Oregon Court of Appeals has explained,Nollan requires that there be a government interest that could form the basis for denial of an application that is substantially impeded by the impacts that flow from a project. Hill v. City of Portland, 293 Or App 283, 289-90 (2018) (citing, Nollan, 483 US at 835-36). Here, the proposal is for a unified assisted living—memory care 7 facility located in a single building occupying much of the site. It requires no more than direct driveway access to Hall Blvd. and to Montage Ln., which is what is proposed, and then adequate on-site circulation for parking and deliveries, which is also proposed. Neither an essential nexus nor rough proportionality can be shown to justify an exaction of a cut through street through the subject property. An exaction cannot be required if it does not meet constitutional tests. Dudek v. Umatilla County, 187 Or App 504, 69 P3d 751 (2003) (affirming county decision not to enforce a provision of its ordinance and not to impose a related condition due to disproportional relationship between development impacts and costs of condition);Hill v. City of Portland, 293 Or App 283, 285, 428 P3d 986 (2018) ("the city cannot evade the requirement that it demonstrate that the impacts of a particular proposal substantially impede a legitimate governmental interest so as to permit the denial of a permit outright, simply by defining approval criteria that do not take into account a proposal's impacts."); Kingsley v. City of Portland, 55 Or LUBA 256, 267-68 (2007), aff'd 218 Or App 229 (2008) (same);McClure v. City of Springfield, 37 Or LUBA at 769 ("We agree with both parties that the fact that an exaction is required by city ordinance is irrelevant to whether an exaction is imposed pursuant to that ordinance is in fact roughly proportional to the impacts of development."). (Emphasis supplied.) Only impacts that reasonably flow from the proposed development can be mitigated by demanded exactions. McClure 1, 37 Or LUBA at 764 (citing, Schultz v. City of Grants Pass, 131 Or App 220, 228, 884 P2d 569 (1994). The city is not allowed to consider benefits to the general public or surrounding neighborhood that will flow from an exaction when evaluating rough proportionality for an exaction. Art Picullel Group, 142 Or App at 337 n 4;McClure 1, 37 Or LUBA at 771; Carver v. City of Salem, 42 Or LUBA at 334-35. Likewise, the fact that an applicant may have known that an exaction might be sought, does not support an exaction.McClure 1, 37 Or LUBA at 770. A single erroneous finding that plays a significant role in the required constitutional analysis can lead to reversal of a decision on constitutional grounds. Art Picullel Group, 142 Or App at 335. Oregon courts have been clear that when a city standard would lead to an impermissible exaction on development, the decision maker can decide not to apply the standard that would impose the exaction. Dudek v. Umatilla County, 187 Or App 504, 506, 69 P3d 751 (2003); Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop County, 58 Or LUBA 235, 241(2009). That is what the city must do here. Thus, it is at this point nothing short of elementary that before the City can impose conditions of approval demanding exactions to include either land dedications or demands for construction of street improvements,that the city must perform the analysis required by Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n,supra, and Dolan v. City of Tigard,supra. As a result, neither a demand for unconstitutional conditions nor denying an application for housing because the developer will not accede to unconstitutional conditions are allowed: "Extortionate demands for property in the land-use permitting context run afoul of the Takings Clause not because they take property but because they impermissibly burden the right not to have property taken without just compensation. As in other unconstitutional conditions cases in which someone refuses to cede a constitutional right in the face of coercive pressure, the impermissible denial of a governmental 8 benefit is a constitutionally cognizable injury." Koontz, St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595, 607 (2013). The burden of demonstrating that an exaction satisfies constitutional requirements rests upon the city; it is not an applicant's burden to show that a condition is unconstitutional. Dolan 512 US at 391. IN this regard, ORS 197.796(4) states "In any challenge to a condition of approval that is subject to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the local government shall have the burden of demonstrating compliance with the constitutional requirements for imposing the condition." The Court of Appeals discussed the government's burden in Art Piculell Group v. Clackamas County, 142 Or App 327, 331, 922 P2d 1227 (1996): "Dolan's test also is more rigorous for the government because it places the burden on the government in the first instance to justify the condition as sufficiently proportionate, rather than giving the property owner the initial burden to demonstrate the lack of the necessary relationship between the impacts of the development and the condition imposed." The city's code in TDC 18.910.020(A)recognizes these legal principles and states that the city may require an applicant to dedicate land or construct a cut-through street through the applicant's property, "only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development." (Emphasis supplied.) Applying these principles, the city's professional staff and planning commission have acknowledged that the city cannot demonstrate rough proportionality to support a demand for a cut-through street exaction through the property, and there is no serious claim otherwise. Mr. Dobson's claim that the City must ignore the Supreme Court's Dolan holding because it is not "clear and objective" or should play semantic games and simply require a public street connection, but call it a "private street", is a nonstarter. If the city imposes a requirement for the construction of a street that the public can use to cut through from Montage Lane to Hall Boulevard, that is an exaction subject to the constitutional rules of Dolan v. City of Tigard. No amount of sematic games can change that reality. Some commentators say that the city code does not allow the city to require a cul-de-sac instead of a cut through street through the site. They are mistaken. TDC 18.910.030(L) says that a cul-de-sac is allowed when "other standards in this code preclude street extension and circulation." This is the situation presented here. TDC 18.910.030(H)(2) says a street connection "is considered precluded" when it is "not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide the required extensions." It is not possible for the city to redesign or reconfigure the street patten to provide a street cutting through the applicant's site without violating the city code and the United States and Oregon Constitutions. As noted above, TDC 18.910.020(A) makes clear that the city may not require the applicant to dedicate land or construct a cut-through street through the property, stating: "Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development." (Emphases supplied.) 9 Traffic The most persistent issue raised by project opponents was their concern that the proposal would generate a lot of traffic on SW Montage Lane and 92nd Avenue. Some said that there was already a lot of traffic on SW Montage and 92nd Avenue and some said that there was not much existing traffic on SW Montage and on 92nd Ave. Some commenters said that the City should use the Applicant's May 19, 2020 PRELIMINARY memorandum which estimated that 20% of the proposed facility's traffic would be distributed to SW Montage Lane and 92nd Avenue and not the Applicant's final January 4, 2021 Traffic Impact Analysis which estimated that just 5% of the site trips would use SW Montage Lane and 92nd Ave. First, it really does not matter which Kittelson analysis that you use - the 2020 preliminary memorandum or the January 2021 FINAL Traffic Impact Analysis, the number of peak hour trips on 92nd/Montage are extremely minimal. As Kittelson explained in their March 28, 2022 Memorandum, even if 20% of site trips were assumed to be distributed to 92nd Ave., and SW Montage Lane, that still results in only 10 PM peak hour trips (4 entering and 6 exiting).6 10 peak hour trips cannot justify a demand for an exaction of a cut through street thorough the property. That is not "heavy traffic" under anyone's definition of that term. The Applicants' final TIA dated January 4, 2021 is accurate and based upon national trip generation treatises as well as site specific information. It is the best evidence on the topic of the facility's trip generation. The applicant's final January 4, 2021 TIA demonstrates that the proposed facility will cause no more than 5% of the facility's total trips to use SW Montage Lane, and 92nd Ave. This in turn means that the proposed facility will have in 2 weekday AM peak hour trips (1 entering and 1 exiting) and 3 weekday PM peak hour trips (1 entering and 2 exiting) on those two local streets. While Kittelson explained that it stands by its final report, you can and should find that the proposal meets all traffic standards regardless of the report you use, the facility will generate only minimal trips on SW Montage Lane and 92nd Avenue and will not cause any safety or congestion concerns. Furthermore, even if all of the site trips used 92nd and Montage (not a valid assumption under the evidence in the record), city staff testimony at the March 14, 2022 planning commission public hearing explained that traffic volumes along SW Montage Lane would remain within the design range for a local residential street(less than 1,500 vehicles per day per City of Tigard Community Development Code Table 18.910.1) even if all of the site trips were to use the roadway(clearly not a reasonable assumption). There is simply no traffic related reason to deny the proposal or impose additional conditions of approval. 6 And if you multiply weekday AM trip generation from Table 3 of page 14 of the Applicants'January 4,2021 TIA by 20%,you get an AM peak hour trip generation of fewer still AM peak hour trips-7 AM peak hour trips(4 entering,3 exiting)on SW Montage Lane. 10 Queues on Special Holidays At the conclusion of the hearing a city council member said that she has personal experience picking up and dropping off of a loved one at a retirement facility. It was not clear whether such council member's personal experience is with an independent living facility or an assisted living facility or a memory care facility. The council member said that in her experience, on Easter or Mother's day, that loading and unloading queues can be long because elderly people take some time to get in or out of a car. From there, the council member wondered whether there would be long queues at the loading and unloading areas on 92nd Ave which accesses the memory care facility. She asked staff to answer this question on May 17, 2022. The answer is there will not be long queues on 92nd Memory care residents, because of their lack of cognitive functionality, are housed within a secured environment with no direct access to the outside, aside from access to an internal courtyard. This is per state rules to ensure resident safety. OAR 411-057-0110( 15). A related safety requirement is that Memory Care residents must be signed in/out by a family member. OAR 411-057-0140(5)(c) (requirement for "policies and procedures" for "wandering and egress prevention ***.") Therefore, there is no such thing as pre or post event family pick up or drop off at the loading area on 92nd. Rather, for Memory Care resident pick ups and drop offs, family members must park in the parking garage and use the elevator to go up and retrieve or drop off their loved one and sign them in or out of the facility. In truth, as is probably intuitive,because of their significant impairments, few Memory Care residents are taken out of the facility by their loved ones. As a general matter, loved ones who visit, do so at the facility(or sadly not at all). The main entrance off Hall Boulevard may have some queues, but there is plenty of room and there has never been a claim otherwise. Trees There were concerns that too many trees were being removed, and also that two white oaks were being removed. There is no serious dispute that the trees to be removed and replaced are entirely consistent with the City's code. The Applicants tree removal, replacement and coverage meets all City code standards. One opponent said that some trees to be removed on the applicant's Arborist Report Attachment 1, are actually on property that does not belong to the applicant. The proposal does not intend to remove any tree that is not on the applicant's property. To assuage concerns and ensure that is the case, the city council should simply impose a condition of approval that no tree shall be removed unless it is on the applicant's property. Landscape Screening Concerns were raised about screening. At the outset we note that there is no dispute that the proposal meets all applicable city screening standards. 11 For the east property line, the project is adjacent to a single-family home and requires and provides the S-3 Screen with 5' width minimum. Specifically, here, the applicant is providing the required S-3 screen between 5 -6' width and short retaining wall along with a 6' tall fence. See Sheet L2. For the south property line, the project is adjacent to single-family home lots and requires S-3 Screen with 5' width minimum. The applicant is providing S-3 screen with along with a 6 ft tall fence and retaining wall. See Sheet L2. For the west property line, no landscape screening is required, except for the passenger loading/unloading which is being provided as required(see below section"Loading Area Screening"). For the loading area screening, the project provides an 8' wide S-4 screen as required between the loading areas and public streets. An S-4 screen 8' in width is provided in front of the loading area north of the Montage Ln cul-de-sac and between the passenger loading/unloading area along SW 92nd Ave. See Sheet L2. Additionally, that applicant is providing a minimum 5' landscaping buffer,plus a 6 ft fence and a retaining wall which will be placed between the western neighbors and loading area. The grade difference is approximately 5- 6', meaning the loading and unloading area is lower than the townhomes across 92nd. The significant screening can be seen from the L-2 screen clips below: 12 a�w,a � x Sam EL Fr- EA EEO IT B B B FT-S4 SCREEN AT DBIV ERY AREA b R R R R � � 13 Memory Care Loading/Unloading Areas: The Memory Care will have up to 33 residents. They will be picked up and dropped off from the parking garage due to security requirements, as explained above. The loading areas are where residents are loaded into or out of vans or busses or medical transport. Queuing will allow up to 3 vehicles to park outside of the right-of-way under the covered pick-up/drop-off area. There is no expectation that there will ever be a need for more than 3-vehicles to be queued for loading or unloading at the Memory Care access on 92nd. As noted above, an elevator is provided within the underground parking area that leads to the Memory Care Wing, which is where family will park to retrieve or dropped off a loved one. See Sheet Al. PMl- PIrIL Fall_ 9 5 FT_MIN_ S-3 SCREEN N 1 IT The Proposal is to Low Impact Type of Residential Use and Compares Favorably to the Uses that Can be Made of the Property Now,Under the Washington County Code The subject property is currently zoned Transit Oriented Residential District, 18-24 Units per Acre by Washington County. In that zone, Townhouses and Rowhouses and "Mid-Rise Apartments" of 3-5 stories (maximum height is 50-feet) is an allowed Type II use. Either would be expected to have more AM and PM peak hour trips than the proposal. Moreover, Group Care is allowed as a 14 Type II use per CDC 375-10 Table A. Moreover, CDC 430-53.3 authorizes a "Resident Care Facility" and CDC 430-53.5 allows a "Retirement Housing Community" as Type II uses and either of which could describe the proposed use. The point is that the applicant could establish essentially the same or a more intense AM or PM peak hour traffic generating use on the subject property through Washington County. Because Washington County is limited by the same rules that apply to the development of housing in the city(clear and objective standards only, not reduce the height or density below the maximum allowed in the zone etc.), the expectation must be that the property will deliver a fairly intensive type of residential or other use, no matter which jurisdiction approves it. Summary It is respectfully submitted that your professional staff and planning commission got it right and that the proposal should be approved. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, '41� 4- Wendie L. Kellington WLK:wlk CC: Client Team Shelby Rihala, Esq. 15 AIS-4915 7. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 05/17/2022 Length(in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: Introduction to Tigard HOME:Housing, Opportunity,Mobility,and Ease Authored By: Hope Pollard Presented By: Associate Planner Hope Pollard Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Public Hearing No Legal Ad Required?: Publication Date: Information EXPLANATION OF ISSUE Receive briefing on the preliminary approach to Tigard HOME (Housing,Opportunity,Mobility,and Ease) code project, scheduled to commence fall 2022. ACTION REQUESTED No action requested at this time--introductory briefing only. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Dates of Previous and Potential Future Considerations This is the first time the Tigard HOME project is being introduced. It will return to the Council: •Fall 2022:Project Kickoff •Spring,Fall 2023:Briefings •February 2024:Adoption Public Involvement Tigard HOME will be designed to achieve complete neighborhoods—neighborhoods where community members have the freedom to use their homes for economic advancement and entertainment while reducing carbon emissions that impact Tigard's air quality and quality of life.It will advance the following Strategic Plan Objectives: Objective 2.1: Create a well-connected pedestrian network that links all Tigard residents and businesses. Objective 3.4: Proactively intervene as necessary to meet the housing needs of all community members. Objective 3.5. Plan and create in a manner that reduces climate impacts to the maximum extent practicable,especially for those most vulnerable. Background and Introduction Tigard HOME (Housing,Opportunity,Mobility,and Ease) is a long-range planning project that aims to create complete neighborhoods that meet community desires while mitigating nuisances and hazards. It responds to three critical and urgent needs as identified by the community and the city's Strategic Plan objectives: 1. Reduce the need for vehicle trips: a comprehensive approach to climate response.Most emissions at a local scale are generated by transportation. Shorter travel distances cause lower emissions.The City needs to rework its land use code to allow for flourishing neighborhoods where housing,economic,and entertainment options are reachable without getting in a car for every single trip. 2. The City has received significant public comment in recent years regarding urban agriculture in Tigard. Comments fall into two apparently opposing categories: Calls for protection against mess,pests,and endangered public health associated with some urban farms. Calls for protection and expansion of the sense of community, education,healthy food and economic opportunity urban farms provide.While these comments appear to demonstrate conflicting desires within local neighborhoods,the project will attempt to define what all commenters are seeking to achieve: clean, safe neighborhoods where neighbors enjoy both community and opportunity. 3. Fill gaps in housing regulations.As the housing crisis worsens in the Metro region,Tigard continues to incorporate improvements to housing regulations with each new legislative (i.e. code) project.Tigard HOME will also seek to ensure that the Development Code's approach to housing is comprehensive and is amenable to a wide range of housing types and affordability levels. The project will include significant community outreach,an audit of existing regulations,and proposed updates to the Development Code. In this briefing we will: •Introduce the project and preliminary schedule •Receive input on project goals from City Council ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION No alternatives to consider at this time. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Attachments Tigard HOME CITY OF ' 1 Respect • Care Do the Right Thing G e t it Done m-- Tigard HOME : Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Ease Project Introduction Presented by Hope Pollard, Associate Planner I May 17, 2022 HOUSING, OPPORTUNITY, MOBILITY, AND EASE Complete Neighborhoods Mai i! 15k�fiTiiT� - t�' yet WHY NOW? w� soh' pH CC KMhH si •Y .n rq [t rf s.w w[,v:eu b - y F �J MCau SA QU- M /� e x o s King ` • .Sly nLLF aF'+4xo - C I 9 x � WHY NOW? foal�� i 'Y' 1 •d } • 4 � � y r.�.r..rr • it _y . i C I T Y O F T I G A R D WHY • C I T Y O F T I G A R D COMMUNTY SERVICES � Ir !! ou CE+QLJ • lillll .. •, •• •• r � !1111111 , I r PROJECT SCHEDULE: WHAT'S NEXT? / Project Kickoff Fall 2022 / Policy and Code Update Proposals: February 2024 -ws- CITY OF ' 1 Respect • Care Do the Right Thing G e t it Done m-- Tigard HOME : Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Ease Project Introduction Presented by Hope Pollard, Associate Planner I May 17, 2022 AIS-4936 8. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 05/17/2022 Length(in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: TCAC Equitable Business Subcommittee Authored By: Sean Farrelly Presented By: TCAC Equitable Business Subcommittee Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Town Center Development Agency Public Hearing No Legal Ad Required?: Publication Date: Information EXPLANATION OF ISSUE The Town Center Advisory Commission (ICAC) has formed an Equitable Business workgroup to support the growth and development of small businesses in the two Tax Increment Financing(TIF) Districts,with a current focus on bringing new businesses to Downtown.The workgroup will share their plans and get feedback from the Board of Town Center Development Agency(ICDA). ACTION REQUESTED The TCDA Board is requested to give feedback to the TCAC Equitable Business Workgroup on plans for engaging with Downtown businesses and the community. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Under its by-laws,the Town Center Advisory Commission (ICAC) may form subcommittees "to investigate areas relevant to its charge or duties."The TCAC presented its draft goals to the TCDA on February 1,2022.The goals were later adopted by the TCAC. One of their 2022 Areas of Emphasis is as follows: Equitable Business Development •Advocate for affected stakeholders,learn about and research the needs,identify the opportunities and constraints within each district to better support equitable business development. •Support the implementation of multi-language resources by City staff;recommend specific programs and policies to City staff and TCDA that directly affect, support and encourage equitable business development downtown and in the Tigard Triangle The TCAC's 2022 goals also includes forming work groups as needed for the three Areas of Emphasis (AOE).Each work group will: •Research and review prior work pertaining to each AOE and summarize it for the whole TCAC. Integrate and make use of work that has been done by others. •Amplify current and previously marginalized voices. •Serve as the TCAC's content experts for the AOE,bringing in outside presenters,recommend reading and resources for TCAC members and lead discussions throughout the year related to TCAC work for each AOE. The TCAC Equitable Business Workgroup consists of five TCAC members,including three downtown business owners.Initially the group is focusing on downtown business recruitment. It has developed a plan to organize workshops to hear community"wants and needs"as an input into developing a business recruitment strategy. Impacts (Community, Budget,Policies and Plans/Strategic Connection) The workgroup's efforts will be volunteer-driven but will require some resources. City teammates have responded to data requests and can provide a limited amount of staff time and some support for meeting costs. ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of the TCDA provide feedback and direction to the TCAC Equitable Business Workgroup. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Town Center Advisory Commission Adopted 2022 Goals Attachments TCAC 2022 Goals Presentation City ofTigard Respect and Care Do the Right Thing Get it Done Town Center Advisory Commission Goals for 2022 Tom Murphy, Chair, Town Center Advisory Commission Scott Hancock, Vice Chair, Town Center Advisory Commission �� City ofTigard Aspirational Goal Continue to facilitate and promote opportunities for the development of affordable housing, provide support for equitable business development, and advance efforts toward improved walkability, equity, and connectivity within and between both TIF districts. City olTigard Areas of Emphasis (AOE) City olTigard Affordable Housing and Houselessness Ce Advocate for stakeholders, learn the needs, identify the opportunities and minimize constraints that exist within each district, and refer to existing studies and assessments where appropriate. • Recommend specific programs, innovations, and policies to City staff and Council that directly affect, support, and encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing forms downtown and in the Tigard Triangle. • Support the City Council's and private entities' response to houselessness City olTigard Equitable Business Development • Advocate for affected stakeholders, learn about and research the needs, identify the opportunities and constraints within each district to better support equitable business development. • Support the implementation of multi-language resources by City staff; recommend specific programs and policies to City staff and TCDA that directly affect, support and encourage equitable business development downtown and in the Tigard Triangle. City olTigard FandConnectivity and Transit entify, prioritize, and recommend opportunities for development that improve living working, foster walkability, and promote equity. • Promote ongoing efforts toward multi-modal connectivity within and between both TIF districts. • Study the options for crossings that could connect the two TIF districts City olTigard Formation of Work Groups The TCAC will form work groups as needed for the three Areas of Emphasis (AOE). Each work group will: • Research and review prior work pertaining to each AOE and summarize it for the whole TCAC. Integrate and make use of work that has been done by others. • Amplify current and previously marginalized voices. • Serve as the TCAC's content experts for the AOE, bringing in outside presenters, recommend reading and resources for TCAC members and lead discussions throughout the year related to TCAC work for each AOE. City olTigard Areas of Emphasis Affordable Housing & Equitable Business Houselessness Development Connectivity and Transit Downtown Tigard TIF District • Participate in the implementation of the Tigard Development Strategy Updated 5-year plan. • Monitor existing projects until completion and assess their outcome with site visits. • Participate in stakeholder meetings and TCAC briefings for the Downtown Reimagined project. • Support projects identified in the City's 2022 version of the 6-year Capital Improvement Plan for Downtown. • Remain informed on the Downtown parking strategy and its impact on the downtown area. • Recruit and support diverse business owners and businesses for vacant spaces in downtown. City olTigard Areas of Emphasis Affordable Housing & Equitable Business Houselessness Development Connectivity and Transit Tigard Triangle TIF District • Continue to provide financial support for projects that meet the project optimization process and equitable evaluation criteria (A New Tigard Triangle, 2020). • Promote and support projects identified for years 2020-2025 in the Implementation and Action Plan (A New Tigard Triangle, 2020). • Recruit and support diverse business owners and businesses for the Tigard Triangle. • Acquire property for parks and trail system. • Ensure that residents and business owners are aware of the Tigard Opportunity Fund. City ofTigard Re.p..t and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done L=�M, -M=M.,.- =Mllk- -A&- Town Center Advisory Commission . Equitable Business Development Workgroup Downtown Eating and Drinking Establishments Research May 17 2022 City ofTigard Problem Statement Downtown Tigard lacks a more vibrant & walkable eating and drinking scene that brings citizens downtown on a regular basis. Why does this problem exist? • There is no strategy for what kind of businesses should co-exist to amplify the draw to the downtown • Grant incentives in the TIF districts are available (that are more generous for food, drink and active retail) but the city has not historically recruited specific businesses • The property owners often engage tenants based upon their needs, not the needs of the downtown area 1 City ofTigard Solution - identify the desires Engage the citizenry, downtown business owners, property owners/landlords in an interactive workshop to hear what eating and drinking establishments they would like to see downtown. Solution - take action.... We will then take the list of businesses and begin actively recruiting those businesses to consider expanding or re-locating their business to downtown Tigard. Recruiting will include sharing the existing incentives and programs the city already has in place to encourage business development. 2 City ofTigard How many workshops will we conduct? 6 1 1 O 1 3 6 O 6 O 5 4 5 4 5 4 3 10, ♦ 1 O 6 1 J54 5 4 3 Observers will be invited to5 4 both workshops • City Manager Workshop 1: —100 citizens ' Econ Dev city staff Workshop 2: —20 • City Council grouped at tables by • Chamber Executive downtown business frequent and in-frequent • TDA President owners downtown visitors (we may ' Downtown Business Owners • Downtown Property Owners and repeat this workshop) Managers 3 City ofTigard How does an interactive workshop work? 1 1 1 i 2 2 6 6 E3 6 5 4 3 5 3 5 6 � a 4 3 0'4 5 a 4 -- _% a Part 1: Moderator asks a Part 2: Post-its are put up on Part 3: Presenter from each question, and the the wall and then the group is identified and they participants write one participants work together as then share their findings to thought per post it a group to find duplicates, the other groups organize, prioritize ..then repeat for each question set 4 City ofTigard Why is a workshop valuable? Participants: • Get to express their ideas - • Get to work with others 4 _ `f • Get to hear from others Observers: "� �" • Hear participants express their thoughts and Flit the feelings behind it Lt • Can interact with participants Sponsors: • Easy way to group consensus • You never know what you are going to learn • Shows you care • Get specific information needed to take actions 5 City ofTigard What do we need to conduct the workshop? Item Details Request help? Location Library- Community room No Frequent visitors online: • exploredowntowntigard.com, City of Tigard social media, Next Door, Chamber social media Advertise sign-up In-frequent visitors online: sheet (invite to ' Paid social media posts targeting of those in remote areas of Tigard, Remote No participate) neighborhoods Next Door Frequent visitors printed posters: • Carwash, Library, Trail In-frequent visitors printed posters: • Progress Ridge, Costco, City Hall, Online sign up sheet Sign up genius No Supplies Post-its, sharpie pens, printed posters Yes Food Water and snacks Yes Workshop Need following personnel to run the workshop: moderator & • Moderator Need translator translator • Translator 6 City ofTigard kL After the workshops • Will create a Report of Findings to present back to the Council • Repeat the workshops for the Tigard Triangle 7 AIS-4905 9. Workshop Meeting Meeting Date: 05/17/2022 Length(in minutes): 45 Minutes Agenda Title: Downtown Parking Management Authored By: Sean Farrelly Presented By: Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Public Hearing No Legal Ad Required?: Publication Date: Information EXPLANATION OF ISSUE As it continues to grow as a place to live,work,and recreate,more visitors and customers will travel to Downtown Tigard.While some visitors will walk,bike,or use transit,a large portion will arrive by automobile.A Downtown Parking Steering Committee was formed with representatives from downtown businesses and city staff,assisted by Rick Williams Consulting.The goal of the committee is to finalize a parking strategy and a multi-year parking management plan.This proactive strategy will precede the opening of Universal Plaza in winter 2022/2023. ACTION REQUESTED This is an update. Feedback is requested on the preliminary direction of the Downtown Parking Steering Committee.A final plan will be presented to Council before the end of the year. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Dates of Previous and Potential Future Considerations TBD: Final Downtown Parking Strategy 02/13/2018: Public Hearing-Consider Amendment to TMC Chapter 7.60 Abandoned Vehicles 01/02/2017 Legislative Public Hearing: Consider Amendment to TMC Chapters 10.28-Parking and 7.60 Abandoned Vehicles 12/05/2017 Downtown Parking Ordinance Introduction 07/18/2017 Downtown Parking Plan As a first step in developing a strategy,Rick Williams Consulting(RWC) performed a downtown parking study.The study was conducted on Saturday,September 11 and Thursday,September 16,2021,between the hours of 9 AM and 7 PM. It found that at its peak,only 55%of the 260 on-street spaces were occupied. It found even lower utilization (37% at the peak hour) of the 1759 off-street spaces in the study area.The report acknowledges that both on-street and off-street parking were somewhat impacted due to COVID-19 and the increase in telecommuting by some Downtown employees. Although the study did not document a current parking shortage,there are several reasons this is an opportune time for a Downtown Parking Strategy: •The opening of the Universal Plaza will attract large numbers of visitors and add to parking demand.Plaza events on evenings and weekends will be accommodated by directing visitors to lots at the Public Works Building and City Hall,but on-street parking will be in demand often,and most acutely on summer weekdays and weekends. •The building of the AVA project,and other future residential/mixed use projects with lower parking ratios could create conflicts between downtown customers and residents. •The 2021 parking study showed a violation rate (overstaying the posted two-hour limit) of 15%for on-street spaces and 23-31%at the public off-street lots.This signals the need for more regular enforcement,which is currently infrequent. Based on the findings of the study,RWC made several recommendations which were evaluated by the Steering Committee.The committee is made up of representatives from downtown businesses (Symposium Coffee,Tigard Taphouse,and Curiosities Vintage) and city teammates from City Management,Community Development,Police Department,and Public Works. In addition,the property manager of Attwell-off-Main was also briefed. During four meetings,business representatives expressed a variety of views;however,there was some agreement on a modified version of regulations enabled by a 2017 Tigard Municipal Code amendment.The amendment authorizes Council to designate areas of 4-hour parking limits that also allow holders of parking permits to park all day.The 2017 plan had not implemented due to impacts to staffing for regular parking enforcement and complexities associated with administration of a permit system.The FY23 proposed budget has a request for$50,000 to hire a private contractor to enforce parking restrictions in the Downtown. The potential changes would convert thirty-one no-limit parking spaces on Burnham Street to a combination of 2-hour and 4-hour limited stay spaces. Commercial Street and Attwell Place would remain unrestricted and will provide parking opportunities for employees and residents without off-street parking. The business members of the Steering Committee and the Atwell-off-Main property manager are interested in pursuing a downtown parking permit program.This will be explored over the next few months with the Steering Committee. Questions for the committee to take up include whether to cap the number of permits,criteria for permit eligibility, pricing,permit type and technology and city issuance methods and workload distribution. Some of these decisions will require Municipal Code amendments. Ultimately,the goal is to have a parking management plan that balances the needs of Downtown employees and residents with the needs of visitors and customers. A key recommendation to address employee parking will be shared parking agreements between business/property owners with surplus parking and businesses who have a deficit.The study found a tremendous amount of unused parking capacity,even at the peak hour.The city has a role to play as a facilitator and a data-clearinghouse but cannot require businesses to participate.The city controls only a small portion of the downtown parking supply, so it is imperative for downtown businesses and property owners to collaborate. ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION This is an update. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES PowerPoint 2021 Downtown Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Attachments 2021 Downtown Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Presentation City of Tigard 2021 Downtown Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update [Updated 3/4/22] This report summarizes the findings of the 2021 Downtown Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study,which evaluated parking activity in the on and off-street supply in downtown Tigard,Oregon and provides comparative analysis (where applicable)to findings derived in the City's 2015 Downtown Parking Study. 1.1 Introduction The City of Tigard is interested in developing a clear and objective understanding of the dynamics of use within the downtown parking supply and to evaluate changes that have occurred since the last Downtown Parking Study,which was conducted in 2015. Usage data related to occupancy,turnover,duration of stay and -- hourly patterns of activity are examples of industry"best practices" metrics used for evaluating municipal parking systems,both on and off-street. This type of data can assist the City in near-term decision-making relative to existing parking supplies;to better understand where parking constraints and surpluses exist,and whether factors such as abuse of time limits is an issue that might adversely affect access. Similarly,this type of data will aid in longer-term city planning efforts to meeting future parking needs related to growth and development in the downtown;providing insight into such issues such as shared parking opportunities and/or future absorption related to planned and future development. Finally,the data provided here will also provide the City with some insight into the impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic may have on the downtown,using 2015 as a base of comparison. Data collection to measure activity within the parking system was surveyed during two time periods: Thursday,September 16,2021 (a"typical weekday")and Saturday,September 11,2021 (a typical "weekend").Survey days were selected in consultation with City staff and the project team.Data was collected for both public and private parking supplies. 1.2 Executive Summary Key Findings Study Area • In contrast to 2015,the study zone was increased significantly,and data was collected on a selected Saturday. The 2021 study area is comprised of 2,151 stalls(on and off-street)as compared to 877 stalls in 2015. This will provide a broader evaluation of on and off-street parking resources in the downtown and adjacent areas. - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update On-street parking(weekday) • 2021 weekday occupancies were up in each hour of the survey day as compared to 2015,with most new growth showing mid-morning(9:00 AM to 11:00 AM)and after 5:00 PM. The increase in vehicle activity is an encouraging trend given the COVID pandemic.l • Nonetheless,occupancies remain low(less than 55%)throughout most of the operating day. • At the peak hour(2021), 130 of 260 on-street stalls are empty. On-street parking(weekend) • Weekend occupancies are higher in nine of the ten hours surveyed as compared to both 2015 and 2021 weekday. • The weekend maintains a two hour peak between 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM,reaching an occupancy of 55.8%. • At the peak hour(2021), 115 of 260 on-street stalls are empty. On-street parking(general) • Weekday on-street parking is not constrained. Overall,there is adequate and conveniently proximate on-street parking across the study area weekday/weekend. • Violation rates at 2 Hour stalls are moderately high,at 15.7%(2021 weekday)and very high on the weekend at 20.1% (2021 weekend),and they have increased over 2015.2 Within the parking industry,an efficient violation rate is targeted between 5%and 9%. • Though violation rates documented here are higher than desired,the low to moderate occupancy rates measured on-street would not likely result(at this time)in a user being unable to find a convenient parking stall proximate to intended destinations. In other words,if occupancy rates were to go up considerably over time,then efforts to enforce signed stalls more actively would need to be considered. Off-street parking(weekday) • 2015 peak occupancy was reached at 12:00 PM,when 53.4%of all stalls were occupied. In 2021, peak occupancy reached 37.0%at 11:00 AM. • The decrease in occupancy between survey years may reflect: ■ The dynamics of a much larger 2021 inventory,2,151 stalls versus 877. ■ A drop in employee parking use due to the COVID pandemic and possibly greater remote working.This may be particularly true in surface lots serving office uses. • At the peak hour,occupancy of all sampled lots reaches 37.0%on the weekday.This leaves 1.109 stalls em12 . i Overall vehicle activity is up(in the downtown,as compared to 2015). Similarly,areas outside the original downtown study zone have similar occupancy levels with the downtown(though these block faces were not included in 2015). This finding assumes that more cars are downtown,which is a good trend. The City may want to investigate follow up measures in the future that could be used to measure non-parking activity in and adjacent to the downtown(Fanno Creek trail users,transit activity,customer intercept surveys,etc.)to assess whether increased trips are translating to better economic activity or commerce. 2 The City does not enforce on the weekend. The violation rates provided for the weekend are simply for comparative purposes. As stated,violation rates weekdays are well above the industry standard of 5%-9%and should continue to be tracked as a means for calibrating enforcement efforts. Page 12 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update • Future efforts to encourage or direct users into these empty stalls in the off-street supply will help maximize access (for longer-term stays)and integrate with the on-street system(catering to shorter-term visits). Off-street parking(weekend) • The City'two public lots maintain strong use activity on the weekend,reaching a combined occupancy 81.8%. However,at 33 total stalls,these lots represent just 1.5%of all off-street parking in the study zone. • No other surveyed off-street lot,with a meaningful number of parking stalls,exceeds 55%(low) occupancy on the weekend. • The combined peak hour occupancy of all sampled lots reaches 27.70%,leaving 1,272 stalls empty in off-street parking facilities. On-street parking(general) • Overall,the off-street system is parked at a low to moderate level. • Different use types maintain varying peak hours and peak occupancies. Nonetheless,at the overall downtown peak hour for both weekday and weekends,between 1,109 and 1,272 stalls are empty. • Of note,just three of 69 sites are "Public,"controlled/owned by the City.These three sites total just 126 stalls,or 5.8%of all off- street parking in the study area. Stated differently,96%of off-street sites and 94%of the supply is in private ownership and control. • To maximize parking opportunities,efficiently,programs and strategies to capture unused supply as a shared use opportunity will need to be explored. 1.3 Study Area The parking inventory study area was determined in the initial project scoping process and in consultation with the City of Tigard.In contrast to 2015,the study zone was increased significantly. Figure A(page 5) illustrates the 2021 study zone,with the 2015 study zone shown in shaded blue. As Figure A(page 5)shows,the 2021 study zone accounts for the area the City defines as the"downtown" (2015 study zone)as well as areas immediately adjacent.The larger study area will(a)provide a broader view of parking use in and near downtown and(b)an evaluation of how parking resources just outside the downtown perform. The study area includes all on-street parking within the public right-of-way,all off-street parking(public and private),and the TriMet park and ride lot at the Tigard Transit Center. 1.4 Parking Inventory(Supply) As a precursor to the data collection effort,RWC senior staff inventoried all on-and off-street parking within the study area on August 30,2021.During the inventory,all 260 on-street spaces within the study area boundaries were catalogued by block face and time limit designation(when applicable,as contrasted to 126 in the 2015 study. Page 13 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Similarly,all off-street parking sites were identified and catalogued by location,number of stalls,assumed type of use(e.g.,office,retail,mixed-use)and owners(public/private). A total of 69 unique sites (2,151 stalls)were identified,as compared to 38 sites (877 stalls)in 2015. 1.5 Methodology-Data Collection Data was collected on Thursday,September 16th and Saturday,September 11th,2021.Hourly on-and off- street parking counts were collected each hour between the hours of 9AM and 6PM. These dates and data collection hours were selected in consultation with City staff and the project team.The two dates allow for a comparison between a"typical"weekday(Thursday)for both the 2015 and 2021 studies,and new weekend (Saturday) data for the first time.3 The data collection methodology for measuring parking utilization was based on Oregon Transportation& Growth Management Program's guide on parking: Parking Made Easy-A guide to Managing Parking in Your Community. On-street On-street parking utilization entails counting each occupied parking stall by recording the vehicle's license plate (each hour, for 10 hours). For the on-street system, parking utilization data was collected for all stalls within the study area,a 100%sample size.Figure B(page 6)provides the on- street inventory, delineating type of stall and number of stalls per block face. Off-street Off-street parking occupancy entails simply counting occupied parking stalls each hour of the survey day. These sites comprise 2,151 stalls,as compared to 877 in 2015. Figure B(page 6)provides a view of all off-street sites located in the study area;each is assigned a unique number. 3 For purposes of consistency,the Saturday counts will be expressed as"weekend"throughout the remainder of this report. Page 4 RWC September 2021 A 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Figure A:Downtown Parking Study Area(2015 and 2021) City of Tigard 2o2t Downtown xER57 e Boundaries 2021 Data Collection Area 2015 Data Sh'c Collection Area ENrFk 3ps a�•t 5 oT s� 35e o� s� �y r k e f r gard 0 m P` 0 r 250 Feet p EW C Page 5 RWC September 2021 2021 Par m;Occupancy/Utilization Study Update • • . Figure mDowntown On-street Inventor bType«»a/@1&per Block Face City 4af Tigard. 20271 m_ww. @,-si_wmmmr � @±_ �2Hour qq m —1$minute gI © � «\ . � ��. ±. - &� % t � ® ^ . ,_� RWc Page 16 R W C September 2021 A 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Figure C.2021 Inventory of Off-street Parking Sites City of Tigard0221 Downtown TER 8r Off-Street Inventory Data Collection Area Off-Street SdYt Sites s 4ps;? I t3 s � �r'GQRpsr. t4 to to ..�, .4i•i.�i 5 26 �.,. is is ad' 2 24 6 17 2D / 1 _ 36y 21 C� t 2 20 tis 22 r 4 47 G�4.G 8 3 46 Rp. Cb O Sri 46 v 9L 44 a3 4$ 3o '� 42 30 41 � 31 51 4062 T 38 37 W 82 S1 33 64 '�+ P�s69T 88 so _ I 67 88 "rz :y 67 5 69 �Mr- 51 62 86 86 Tigard m � z �n 0 250 Feet RW Page 7 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update 1.6 Measuring Performance Parking is constrained when 85%or more of the available supply is routinely occupied during the peak hour.In a constrained system,finding an available spot is difficult,especially for infrequent users such as customers and visitors.This can cause frustration and 44 >8590 negatively affect perceptions of the downtown.Continued Constrained constraint can make it difficult to absorb and attract new supply growth,or to manage fluctuations in demand—for example,seasonal or event-based spikes. 70%-85% Occupancy rates of 55%or less indicate that parking is Efficient readily available. While availability may be high,this may Supply also indicate a volume of traffic inadequate to support 55%-69% <55% active and vital businesses.Occupancy rates betModeratee Low Demand l� y raween Deemandmand {Parking these two thresholds indicate either moderate(55%to (Adequate Readily 69%) or efficient(70%to 85%)Use. parking) Available) An efficient supply of parking shows active use but little constraint that would create difficulty for users. Efficient use supports vital ground-level businesses and business growth,is attractive to potential new users, and can respond to routine fluctuations.RWC's analysis of parking in Tigard uses these categories to evaluate the performance of the system. 1.7 Data Findings ON-STREET PARKING Breakout of Inventory A total of 260 on-street parking stalls were surveyed within the study area boundaries. Parking in the public supply is provided in the form of free parking. Table 1 presents a breakout of all the on-street parking surveyed in the Downtown Study Zone,contrasting 2021 to 2015. As indicated most on-street stalls(67.7% or 176 stalls)are 2-Hour time limited stalls.The remainder is formatted as No Limit4 stalls(31.5%or 82 stalls),15-Minute parking(< 1.0%or 1 stall). 1 ADA stall was also identified. Given the larger 2021 study area,the general percentage distribution of the inventory by stall type is similar to 2015,though the number of 2 Hour stalls dropped by about 5%and the number of No Limit stalls increased about 6%from 2015. Even with an expansion of the study area in 2021,the number of on-street stalls(260)is a small and finite supply. The higher mix of 2-Hour parking is conducive to customer access and turnover. Nonetheless,the great majority of parking in the overall supply is off-street(2,151 stalls);with on-street representing just 10.8%of the total supply of parking in downtown and the larger study area (see Section 1.6 above for a detailed breakout and analysis of the off-street supply).5 4 A No Limit stall is on-street parking with no designated time restriction,allowing unlimited use(during the operating day).As an example,a vehicle using one of these spaces could park for 1 hour or 10 hours continuously on a given day. 5 There are 2,411 stalls in the study area(260 on-street). 260 divided by 2,411 equals 10.8%of the total supply. Page 8 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Table 1:Tigard On-Street Inventory Comparative(2021 vs.2015) Stall TF1=r ype ' 1 Total On-Street Supply Studied 260(2021) 100.0% 126(2015) 100.0% 15 Minutes 1 <10/0 2 1.6% 176 67.7% 2 Hour 92 73.0% 1 < ADA accessible 1% 8 ' No Limit 2 31.5% 32 25.4% Occupancy:Weekday(comparative) Figure D provides an hour-by-hour summary of occupancy performance,contrasting 2015 to 2021 and providing the distribution of occupancy for the added Weekend counts(dark orange line). The 2021 peak hour for the on-street public inventory is between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. At this hour,50%of the 260 parking stalls in the study area are occupied. This contrasts with 2015 when the peak hour reached 65.1% between 12:00 pm and 1:00 PM.Other than at 12:00 PM and 4:00 PM (2015),2021 weekday occupancies were up in each hour of the survey day,with most new growth showing mid-morning(9:00 AM to 11:00 AM) and after 5:00 PM. This is an encouraging trend given the COVID pandemic.6 Based on standards of performance discussed in Section 1.6 above,occupancies remain low(less than 55%) throughout most of the operating day. At the peak hour(2021),130 of 260 on-street stalls are empty. Figure D:On-Street Occupancies by Hour-2021 vs.2015 Weekdays(2021 Weekend included) City of Tigard- Downtown-Occupancy by Hour 2021 vs.2015 Weekdays:On-street comparative occupancies-2021 weekend included(260 vs.126 stalls) 2021 Weekday �2015 Weekday 2021 Weekend 10091. 80% 5% 55.855.8% 54.2% 52.7% 52.7% 53.8% 52.3% 60% 51. - 41.535 40% i31.9% Lnrn Ln 7 M I -Do Mni N M N M M M 091. 1 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM 6 Overall vehicle activity is up(in the downtown,as compared to 2015). Similarly,areas outside the original downtown study zone have similar occupancy levels with the downtown(though these block faces were not included in 2015). This finding assumes that more cars are downtown,which is a good trend. The City may want to investigate follow up measures in the future that could be used to measure non-parking activity in and adjacent to the downtown(Fanno Creek trail users,transit activity,customer intercept surveys,etc.)to assess whether increased trips are translating to better economic activity or commerce. Page 19 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Occupancy:Weekend Weekend occupancies are higher in nine of the ten hours surveyed as compared to both 2015 and 2021 weekday. The weekend maintains a two hour peak between 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM,reaching 55.8%. Occupancies remain consistent at a moderate level (>50%)for eight consecutive hours,beginning at 11:00 AM. Occupancy and Utilization by Type of Stall Table 2 summarizes occupancies,peak hours by stall type (time stay),the number of stalls available at the peak hour,average duration of stay,and rate of violation(where applicable). The table provides comparative data for 2021 and 2015 weekday activity and weekend data for 2021. Table 2:On-Street Utilization by Stall Type(2021 vs.2015 Weekday,2021 Weekend) EmptyStall Violation 1 1 Occupanil Stalls Duration7Rate On-Street 260 5:00 PM-6:00 PM 50.0% 130 2:26 hours 15.6% Supply 126 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM 65.1% 44 2:00 hours 10.7% Studied 260 12:00 PM-2:00 PM 5 115 2:35 hours 20.1% 15 Minutes 1 12:00 PM- 1:00 PM 100.0% - - - Signed 2 Multiple 100.0% - - - 1 Multiple 100.0% - - - 2 Hours 176 5:00 PM-6:00 PM *48.9% 90 1:44 hours 15.7% Signed 92 12:00 PM-1:00 PM 55.4% 41 1:50 hours 11.3% 176 1:00 PM-2:00 PM 59.7% 71 1:00 hours 20.1% ADA 1 multiple 100.0% - 1:30 hours - accessible - 1 3:00 PM-4:00 PM 100% - 1:00 hours 82 9:00 AM-10:00 AM 59.8% 33 5:49 hours *No Limit 32 12:00 PM-1:00 PM 90.6% 3 2:24 hours 82 4:00 PM-5:00 PM 54.9% 3j 4:49 hours As Table 2 indicates: • As stated earlier,2021 weekday data is lower that documented in 2015 (50%versus 65.1%). The overall drop may be due to the larger supply of on-street stalls surveyed in 2021. It is important to note that in eight of ten other measured hours in 2 02 1,weekday occupancies are higher than those in 2015 (see Figure D). • The Weekend peak hour(55.8%)surpasses 2021 weekday peak hour. • At the 2021 peak hours,there are 130 and 115 stalls empty for weekday and weekend,respectively. • The average length of stay for the combined on-street supply was 2:00 hours in 2015. In 2021, duration of stay increased to 2:26 hours(weekday)and 2:35 hours(weekend). • The duration of stay averages noted in the bullet point above for the combined supply are influenced upward by the time stay averages in No Limit stalls. As the table shows,the average duration of stay 7 Average duration is filtered to show non-permit users only(ADA accessible and No Limit exempt)when each stall type is enforced(On-Street Supply Studied and No Limit exempt). Page 110 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update in No Limit stalls on the weekday in 2021 rose to 5:49 hours,from just 2:24 hours in 2015. The 2021 weekend duration of stay average was 4:49 hours. Interestingly,the average duration of stay in 2 Hour signed stalls was well below 2:00 hours for 2015 and 2021,on the weekend the average stay was just 1:00 hour. This indicates that 2 Hour timed stalls are meeting visitor needs. It also indicates that more long-term users of the system(employees and/or residents)are using No Limit stalls during the day. • Violation rates at 2 Hour stalls are moderately high,at 15.7%(2021 weekday)and very high on the weekend at 20.1% (2021 weekend),$and they have increased over 2015. Within the parking industry,an efficient violation rate is targeted between 5%and 9%. Though rates documented here are higher than desired,the low to moderate occupancy rates measured on-street would not likely result(at this time) in a user being unable to find a convenient parking stall proximate to intended destinations. In other words,if occupancy rates were to go up considerably over time,then efforts to enforce signed stalls more actively would need to be considered. Other Characteristics of Use Table 4 provides additional metrics of use for the on-street system.This table summarizes use characteristics of the on-street supply that include unique vehicle trips,turnover,excessive time stays,and incidents when a vehicle moves between timed parking stalls.These metrics provide insights into how many people are visiting the Tigard study area and how efficient the parking spaces are being used. Table 4:Other Use Characteristics(2021 Weekdays and 2021 Weekend) Use Characteristics 2021 20151 Weekday1 1 Unique Vehicle Trips 448 N/A 506 Vehicles Hours Parked 511 1,306 Turnover Rate 4.11 4.99 3.87 #Vehicles parked 5 or more hours in time 0 (4.5%) N/A 42 (8.3%) limited stalls(%of vehicle trips) Vehicles moving between stalls:re-parking 17(3.8%) 11 (2.2%) of vehicle trips Key indicators from Table 4 include: Unique Vehicle Trips(UVT). The recording of license plate numbers allows us to identify the total number of unique vehicles using the on- street system.9 The number of unique vehicles parked on-street over the 10-hour data collection period totaled 448 on weekdays and 506 on the weekend(2021).10 In total,an additional 58 vehicles use the on- street system within the study area on the weekend(about 13%more). 8 It is the consultants understanding that"hours of enforcement"are technically in place only for weekdays. We show the 2021 weekend rates of violation for comparative purposes only. Current on-street signs say M-F 8:00-6:00. 9 Note this does not represent all vehicles in the study area,as license plate numbers were not recorded in most of the off- street facilities. 10 2015 data was not presented here as the significantly lower number of stalls evaluated in 2015 make accurate and parallel comparisons of UVT unfeasible. Page 111 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Turnover(efficiency of the parking system) In most cities,the primary time limit allows for calculation of an intended rate of turnover.For example,if the limit for a stall is two hours,and over a 10-hour period that stall is occupied by five vehicles,it is meeting its intended turnover rate of 5.0 turns.As such,if turnover were demonstrated to be at a rate of less than 5.0,the system would be deemed inefficient.A rate more than 5.0 would indicate a system that is operating efficiently.Most downtowns strive for a rate of 5.0 or higher given the goal for supporting short-term visitor access. Within the study area,the 2021 turnover rate is 4.11 on the weekday and 3.87 on the weekend.These rates are lower than 5.0 and likely a reflection of the high number of No Limit(unrestricted)stalls in the 2021 study area. The turnover rate in 2015 was 4.99,very close to the base efficiency standard to 5.0. Excessive Time Stays (5 or more hours in a time limited stall) This metric is used to understand how many employees or residents might be parking on-street in time limited stalls;stalls intended for customers/visitors.While it is not foolproof,it does provide a sense of how many are using the on-street system for vehicle storage.The on-street parking supply is typically the most valuable and convenient access for downtown patrons.It provides them with the closest access point to their destination.Therefore,it is critical to preserve these spaces,to the highest degree possible,for that user group. In 2021,only 20 vehicles were in this category representing 4.5%of all unique vehicles.On the weekend,the number effectively double to 42 vehicles,about 8.3%of all unique vehicles.As with the issue of violation rates,the City's goal would be to minimize excessive overstays in timed stalls(e.g.,2 Hour stalls). However, low to moderate occupancies likely allow for enough empty parking to assure that visitors are not denied access to a convenient and proximate stall. Over time,it will be important to continue tracking this metric; transitioning these longer-term users to off-street locations to free up these valuable,high-turnover stalls and allow greater access for customers and visitors to the downtown. Re-parking Re-parking refers to vehicles moving between time-limited on-street stalls over the course of a day. This metric can indicate abuse of the system,particularly if those moving their vehicles are employees.Users who shuffle their vehicle from one stall to the next reduce the number of on-street parking opportunities for visitors and customers,creating an artificial constraint on the system. Ideally,those wanting to park for longer periods of time would be directed to No-Limit stalls outside of retail areas or to off-street lots.This would preserve the on-street supply for higher turnover users. The number of unique license plates observed re-parking was 17 on the weekday,or 3.87%of all unique vehicle trips(UVT).The rate is much lower on the weekend with only 11 vehicles observed re-parking between timed stalls (2.2%).These numbers are not substantial,and likely reflect that the study area has numerous No Limit stalls where those wanting a long-term stay option can park. Surplus&Deficits-Parking Occupancy Heat Maps(on-street) Figures D and E visually summarize parking occupancies by block face using a"heat map"of the study area. A heat map uses color to display degrees of occupancy as measured against an industry standard of 85%; when occupancy exceeds that level,the system is considered constrained.Block faces marked in red indicate areas of constraint.Green represents areas of underutilized parking,while yellow and orange represent the Page 112 R W C September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update middle ranges of occupancy. This industry standard for measurement was described in Section 1.6 above. In the study area,there are a total of 22 block faces where on-street parking is allowed. Weekday • As the weekday heat map illustrates(Figure E), there are no constrained block faces at the peak hour within the study zone (red). • Four(4)block faces do reach peak occupancies of between 74%and 85% (orange). These are located: ■ South side of SW Main Street,between SW Burnham and SW Commercial Streets. ■ North side of SW Ash Avenue,west of SW Burnham Street. ■ East side block face bordering Ash Avenue Dog Park ■ South side of SW Ash Avenue,between SW Burnham Street and the railroad tracks. • Though higher in occupancy,these block faces are directly adjacent to block faces with low to moderate demand. • At the block face level,there is adequate and convenient on-street parking across the study area. Weekend • On the weekend(Figure F),one(1)block face reaches a constrained level(red). The block face is located on the north side of SW Main Street,between SW Tigard and Commercial Streets. • There are three block faces that reach occupancies of between 74%and 85%(orange). These are locate ■ South side of SW Main Street,between SW Burnham and SW Commercial Streets. ■ South side of SW Ash Avenue,bordering the Ash Avenue Dog Park at SW Burnham Street. ■ East side block face bordering Ash Avenue Dog Park. • At the block face level,there is adequate and convenient on-street parking across the study area. Weekday on-street parking is not constrained. On the weekend only one of 22 block faces is constrained. Overall,there is adequate and conveniently proximate on-street parking across the study area whether on the weekday or weekend. Page 113 R W C September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Figure E.On-street parking occupancies by block face-Weekday peak hour City of Tigard Weekday Peak Hour: 5:00 PM -6:00 PM 2021 Downtown On-Street Occupancies Data Collection 0 Area Sit, i —>85% C�yp —84%-70% 69%-55% 55°/a +.,rn.rr• —No Parking r.,,• SiSS _ T e P• 3� ar 3'er1lsrd F `P6L F:rCh y-11 �O F 9�S spy e� �y o Nrr� roq P.Ie V. lP ri L r� G� n� pOa 0 Jim Grdr Memor . skge F'.• r`t gar d J m i,r,r•] J O � 0 r ZQ Feet i � i RWM Page 14 RWC September 2021 A 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Figure F.On-street parking occupancies by block face-Weekend peak hour City of Tigard F Weekend Peak Hour: 12:00 PM -1:44 PM 2021 Downtown t On-Street Occupancies ED Data Collection Area S —84%-70% R ST 69%-55% a 55% -- No Parking tir f 5� :� r.ir• scd s- s, �r 00..- co y F 4s T S� �G �y r �V Por 1. 7. r .,4 G r.,.n, r,i Tigan jnI J Ij r.•i J SL C fS� N 0 250 Feet RW Page 15 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update OFF-STREET PARKING Breakout of Sampled Inventory Occupancy data was collected on 59 of 69 unique off-street lots,representing 1,759 of the 2,151 total off- street parking stalls,an 82%sample size.Figure G maps the 59 sites evaluated(shaded pink in the figure)." Figure G.2021 Inventory of Sampled Off-street Parking Sites City of Tigard y�r Deo All 2027 Downtown olCollection Data Colon 0 Data Colletan Area Off-street$nes Collected •� s CF�rERST �•`„' OH-Street 51tes Not Collected to 25 Sr< < m1 9i i � XPi .17 VP e i � h� ,. o u u unr a so ° % 1� "yp er T � 9 {'1 5� a e4 a .rmn K Tigard 0 7 m S� Cres:C r o N Part RW ii The sampled inventory(260 on-street and 1,759 off-street)totaled 2,019 parking stalls,or a 93.8%sample size. This is as a statistically significant sample size and,therefore,accurately represents parking patterns within the study area. Lots not surveyed(blue on map)were gated,access limited to specific use(e.g.,police only),gravel,or determined not likely available to a future shared use(e.g.,car sales dealership). Page 116 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Table 5 categorizes facilities by land use types.These facilities range from"Retail"parking(with 27 sites and 733 stalls)to"Boat Sales"parking(with 1 site and 11 stalls).In total,there are twelve different categories of "use type."12 A summary of each individual off-street lot surveyed,with its unique,use type category,unique peak hour,and occupancy total is attached as Appendix A. Of note,just four of 69 sites are controlled/owned by the City,totaling just 167 stalls,or 7.7%of all off-street parking in the study area. City owned sites include Lots 12-Tigard Street(13 stalls),Lot 44-Burnham Street(20 stalls),Lot 65 -City Hall(93 stalls),and Lot 67-Public Works (41 stalls). Stated differently,94%of off-street sites and 92%of the supply is in private ownership and control.Public lots include Lots 12 and 44 on the Figure G map. Lot 12 -Tigard Street(13 stalls)and Lot 44-Burnham Street(20 stalls)are intended for 2 Hour parking. Table 5:Off-Street Inventory by Land Use Type(2021 vs.2015) Off-Street Supply7- 6 69 100.0% 2.151 100.0% 38 100.0% 877 100.0% Industrial 8.7% 277 12.9% Institution 2 2.9% 21 <1% Boat Sales 1 1.4% 11 <1% Medical 2 2.9% 38 1.8% 2 5.3% 20 2.3% Mixed Use 3 4.3% 47 2.2% Office 12 17.3% 505 23.5% 5 13.2% 36 4.1% Private 1 1.4% 101 4.7% 3 7.9% 126 14.4% ublic 2 2.8% 33 1.5% 5.3% 3.0% Residential 2 2.9% 157 7.3% etail 27 39.1% 733 34.1% 24 63.2% 609 69.4J& Service 4 5.8% 145 6.7% 1 2.6% 24 2.7% Undesignated 3.9% 4.1% 12 Categories were established by the consultant using best information available at the sites(signage,relationship to building,etc.)and inputs from the project team.If more accurate information about sites becomes available,this table can be quickly updated. Page 117 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Occupancy [NOTE:Data samples were taken hourly in 59 of the 69 total off-street facilities in the study area,a supply of 1,759 stalls,about 82%of the supply. All data metrics that follow are based on this statistically significant sample.]13 Figure H provides a comparative hour-by-hour look at off-street parking occupancy on all survey days (2015 and 2021).Generally,occupancies remain low to moderate throughout most of the operating day regardless of day or year surveyed). Weekday • 2015 peak occupancy was reached at 12:00 PM,when 53.4%of all stalls were occupied. In 2021, peak occupancy reached 37.0%at 11:00 AM. • The decrease in occupancy between survey years may reflect: ■ The dynamics of a much larger 2021 inventory,2,151 stalls versus 877. ■ A drop in employee parking use due to the COVID pandemic and possibly greater remote working.This may be particularly true in surface lots serving office uses(see section on Occupancy and Utilization by Type of Facility,below). Figure H.Off-Street Occupancies by Hour-2021 vs.2015 Weekdays(2021 Weekend included) City of Tigard -Occupancy by Hour 2021 vs. 2015 Weekdays: Off-street comparative occupancies-2021 weekend included (1,759 vs. 877 stalls) 2021 Weekday 2015 Weekday 2021 Weekend 100% 80% o a \ o 0 00 M N o OLq 60% c c o\' L6 o Ln 0 �i 1 \ o O o 40% N Om O M M V n n \ V ^ 6 V LOO M M M � 00 N N N M N N 20% 0% 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM Weekend • Unlike weekend on-street activity,which exceeds weekday activity for both 2015 and 2021 across the operating day;weekend off-street occupancy is considerably lower in most every hour surveyed. • The weekend peak hour reaches just 27.7%at 4:00 PM,a low level of use. • This likely reflects lower employee activity on weekends,which is typical of commercial parking areas. 13 Given the size of the sample,it can be confidently assumed that general findings can be extrapolated to the entire supply of parking. Page 118 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Occupancy and Utilization by Type of Facility Table 6 summarizes peak hour occupancies and number of empty stalls available at the peak hour by type of off-street facility.14 Table 6:Off-Street Occupancy by Land Use Type(2021 vs.2015 Weekday,2021 Weekend) Use 1 . Site Sta k Hour- PeakOccupancy 1 Off-Street 59 1,759 11:00 AM- 12:00 PM 37.0% 1.109 Supply Studied 38 877 11:00 AM- 12:00 PM 53.4% 409 59 1,759 4:00 PM-5:00 PM 27.7% 1,272 4 88 12:00 PM- 1:00 PM 73.9% 23 Industrial - - - - - 4 88 5:00 PM-6:00 PM 22.7% 68 1 6 12:00 PM- 3:00 PM 2 Institution 1 - 6 1 1110:00 AM- 11:00 AM 27.3% 8 Boat Sales - _ _ _ 1 11 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 63.6% 4 2 5:00 PM - 7:00 P 13.2% 53 Medical 2 20 2:00 PM-3:00 PM 25.0% 15 2 38 3:00 PM-4:00 PM 5.3% 36 3 47 1:00 PM-2:00 PM 51.1% 23 Mixed Use _ _ _ _ _ 3 47 2:00 PM-3:00 PM 40.4% 28 10 1 481 ' 11:00 AM- 12:00 PM 36.8% 304 Office 36 I 11:00 AM-4:00 PM 47.2% 19 ifili481 6:00 PM-7:00 PM 10.3% 431 1 101 11:00 AM- 12:00 PM 18.8% 82 Private 3 126 12:00 PM- 1:00 PM 88.9% 14 1 101 5:00 PM-7:00 PM 8.9% 92 33 3:00 PM- 5:00 PM 85.0% 5 Public 2 33 10:00 AM- 11:00 A 84.6% 4 2 Multiple 81.8% 6 2 157 6:00 PM-7:00 PM 46.5% 84 Residential - - - - - 2 157 6:00 PM-7:00 PM 54.1% 72 24 649 11:00 AM- 12:00 PM V9.6% 392 Retail 24 609 12:00 PM-1:00 PM 43.5% 344 24 649 4:00 PM-5:00 PM 42.5% 373 2 65 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 44.E 36 Service 1 24 Multiple 79.2% 5 2 65 12:00 PM-1:00 PM 52.3% 31 7 83 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 64 Undesignated 36 12:00 PM- 1:00 PM 97.2% 1 83 12:00 PM- 1:00 PM 16.9% !69 14 As stated earlier,a summary of each individual off-street lot surveyed,with its unique,use type category,unique peak hour,and occupancy total is attached as Appendix A. Page 119 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Weekday • The largest supply type(in terms of number of sites and total supply)is Retail. This supply type is also nearly identical to 2015. There are 24 sampled sites in this category,comprised of 649 stalls.ls Peak occupancy in 2021 is 39.6%. This is a small drop from 2015 when peak occupancy was 43.5%. In 2021,there are 392 empty stalls in lots serving retail uses(a significant supply).16 • The next sizable supply type is Office,comprised of ten sites with 481 parking stalls. At the peak hour these sites reach a combined occupancy of 36.8%,leaving 304 stalls empty. Unfortunately, similarly comparable data for 2015 is not available(only 5 sites and 36 stalls). The 10 sites evaluated in 2021 include Lots 1,2,53,54, 55,62,63,64,65 (City Hall Lot),and 67 (on the Figure G map). • The highest occupancies occur in sites categorized as Industrial. There are four surveyed sites, totaling 88 stalls. Peak hour occupancies reach 73.9%. These four sites include Lots 32,35,45,and 60 (on the Figure G map). • The two public visitor lots(Lots 12 and 44) reached a combined occupancy of 85.0%. This is nearly identical to weekday occupancy data from 2015,when these two lots had a combined peak hour occupancy of 84.6%. Individually,Lot 12 (13 stalls)reached 76.9%and Lot 44(20 stalls)reached 90.0%.Additional evaluation of Lots 12 and 44 is provided in Utilization in Public Off-street Visitor Lots,below,based on their 2 Hour time limit restriction. • All other use types fall within the low to moderate range of use performance. • Overall,the combined peak hour occupancy of all sampled lots reaches 37.0%,leaving 1,109 stalls empty in off-street parking facilities. Weekend • The two public visitor lots maintain strong use activity on the weekend,reaching a combined occupancy 81.8%. Individually,Lot 12 reaches 61.5%and Lot 44 reaches 95%. • No other use type,with a meaningful number of parking stalls,exceeds 55%(low)occupancy on the weekend.17 • Overall,the combined peak hour occupancy of all sampled lots reaches 27.70%,leaving 1,272 stalls empty in off-street parking facilities. Overall,the off-street system is moderately parked. Different use types maintain varying peak hours and peak occupancies. Nonetheless,at the overall downtown peak hour for both days,just under 400 stalls are empty. Programs and strategies to capture unused supply as a shared use opportunity will need to be explored. 15 In 2015 there were the same number sampled sites,but 609 stalls. 16 Each of the 24 sampled sites can be located on the Figure G map and the unique characteristics of each site can be found in the Appendix A table. Given the large number of sites,we did not list them here. 17 The single Marina Lot(Lot 52)with 11 stalls reaches 63.6%for its weekend peak hour. Page 120 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Utilization in Public Off-street Visitor Lots Parking utilization(i.e.,recording license plates) is not typically done in off-street facilities because off-street facilities traditionally serve long-term parkers. Consequently,it less important to track metrics like average duration of stay and violation rates.However,the City maintains two public off-street lots that have time limited of 2 Hours,as an effort to support customer/visitor activity in the downtown. To this end,we thought it important to evaluate these two lots across several metrics that are more comparable to on-street use. They are located: • Lot 12-Tigard Street(13 stalls):Eastside of SW Tigard Street,north of the intersection with SW Main Street. • Lot 44-Burnham Street(20 stalls):Eastside of SW Burnham street,south of the intersection with SW Main Street. Table 7 provides a breakout of activity at these two lots,with comparative data from Table 2 for 2 Hour signed on-street stalls. Table 7.Public Lots 12 and 14(Weekday vs.Weekend,comparative to on-street 2 Hour Parking) 1Violation Use 1 ' 1 Average NumberOccupancy Duration Rate 12 2 Hour 13 12 PM-1 PM 76.9% 2:00 hours 23.3% Tigard St.18 Parking 11 AM- 12PM 61.5% 1:33 hours 16.7% 44 2 Hour 4 PM-6 PM 90.0% 2:04 hours 30.8% Burnham Parking 20 3 PM-6 PM 95.0% 2:43 hours 50.0% On-street 2 Hour 176 5 PM-6 PM 48.9% 1:44 hours 15.7% Signed 1 PM-2 P 59.7% 1:00 hours 20.1% Weekday • Lots 12 and 14 have significantly higher occupancies than on-street parking that is similarly limited to a 2 Hour time stay. The on-street system(176 stalls)peaks at 48.9%,compared to 76.9%and 90.0%for Lots, 12 and 44,respectively. This may be due to the location of the lots near the core of the downtown.Though on-street parking on block faces adjacent to the two public lots are very low use. • Actual peak hours are different in Lot 12 (12 PM-1 PM)versus the on-street system(5 PM-6:00 PM). However,Lot 44(4 PM-6 PM)and the on-street system trend later in the afternoon,a possible reflection of increased activity in downtown restaurants,bars and/or entertainment. 18 The Tigard Street lot includes 4 signed tenant spaces not subject to 2 hour limit,these were not included in average duration of stay or violation rate calculations. Page 121 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update • The two public lots maintain higher durations of stay than the on-street system,reaching or exceeding an average of 2:00 hours. In contrast,the on-street system averages well under 2:00 hours,at 1:44 hours. • The difference in duration of stay data is also expressed in average violation rates,with the two public lots ranging between 23.3% (Lot 12)and 30.8%(Lot 44). This contrasts with 15.7%on- street.This is likely an indicator that the lots are(a)popular and(b)there is a sense by users that enforcement is not in place for the parking lots.As stated earlier in this report,current rates of violation are higher than what the industry would call efficient. The higher occupancies in the public lots (versus the on-street system)suggests a closer look at enforcement at these sites to support turnover and a priority for visitor access. Weekend • Much of what occurs on the weekday occurs on the weekend as well.Peak hour occupancies in the public lots are higher,though the on-street system(59.7%)nears Lot 12 occupancies (61.5%). • Duration of stay data shows a decrease in time stays in Lot 12 (1:00 hours)and on-street(1:00 hours). Lot 44 increases from 2:04 hours(weekday)to 2:43 hours. • The violation rate does go up on-street on the weekend(from 15.7%to 20.1%)but does not compare to Lot 44 that increases violations from 30.8%to 50.0%,with a peak occupancy of 95% (this is nearly one in two users violating the time stay limit). This data does not reflect how enforcement is deployed at this time but reinforces the need for continued assessment of enforcement within the context of occupancies,visitor need/priority,duration of stay,and violation rates. Surplus&Deficits-Parking Occupancy Heat Maps(off-street) Figures I and J (pages 23 and 24)illustrate the off-street parking heat maps for the peak hours for both the weekday and weekend. Each site can be identified by its assigned lot number. On-street heat indicators are also included in both figures.The findings include: Weekday • Three (3)of 59 surveyed facilities are constrained above 85%occupancy at the peak hour on the weekday(red on the Figure I map).This includes lots 36,45 and 47.Theses lots are comprised of a total of 54 stalls(2.5%of the total off-street supply).The largest constrained lot is Lot 44,with a total of 36 stalls. • The level of constraint these lots put on the larger off-street system is clearly minimal.Similarly, these lots are surrounded by both low use off-street facilities and available on-street parking opportunities within proximity to users looking for a location to park. • Five (5)of 59 surveyed facilities fall into the 70%-84%range of occupancy at the peak hour(orange on the map).This includes lots 6,14,21,46,and 55.These lots are comprised of a total of 77 stalls (3.6%of the total off-street supply). The largest of these lots is Lot 55 (which serves Office users) with 30 stalls. • The remaining 51 lots (93%of supply)within the study area are mostly low use at the peak hour. • Overall,there is a sizable amount of empty parking in the off-street supply commonly distributed throughout the study area.19 19 It is important to note that at the weekday peak hour,1,109 stalls are empty within the sampled off-street system at the combined peak hour. This does not assume that they are"available,"as most of this supply is on privately owned parking sites.The data shows there is opportunity to capture more off-street trips,possibly through a coordinated shared parking program. Page 122 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Weekend • Three (3)of 59 facilities are constrained above 85%occupancy at the peak hour on the weekend(red on the Figure J map).This includes Lots 27,36,and 44.Theses lots are comprised of a total of 31 stalls(1.4%of the total off-street supply).The largest constrained lot is the public parking lot(Lot 44),with a total of 20 stalls. • As with the weekday count,the level of constraint these lots put on the larger off-street system is minimal.These lots are widely distributed throughout the study area,leaving available off-street and on-street opportunities within proximity to users looking for a location to park. • Two (2) of 59 surveyed facilities fall into the 70%-84%range of occupancy at the peak hour(orange on the map). This includes Lots 23 and 51. These lots are comprised of a total of 104 stalls (4.8%of the total off-street supply). The largest of these lots is Lot 51 (Public Parking)with 67stalls. Both lots serve retail users • The remaining 54 lots (94%of supply)within the study area are primarily low use at the peak hour (green on the map). • As with the weekday count,there is a sizable amount of empty parking in the off-street supply commonly distributed throughout the study area.20 1.8 Summary Tigard is a growing destination for visitors both local and regional. It appears that on-street use of the study area has increased since 2015,with data showing increased weekday occupancies in each hour of the survey day as compared to 2015,with new growth showing mid-morning and after 5:00 PM.This is certainly an encouraging trend given the COVID pandemic. Nonetheless,occupancies remain low(less than 55%) throughout most of the operating day,providing ample capacity to accommodate new growth and new trips. Also encouraging is that weekend occupancy performance is markedly higher on-street in nine of the ten hours surveyed as compared to both 2015 and 2021 weekday. The weekend maintains a two hour peak between 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM,reaching 55.8%. The off-street system's use is very low per industry standards,reaching just 37%at its two day high. In the peak hours,there are no less than 1,100 empty stalls within the 59 (of 69)sampled off-street parking sites (whether weekday or weekend). Low occupancies may be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic,though in 2015 (pre-COVID),the off-street supply only peaked at just over 50%(though on a smaller sample size). In both 2015 and 2021,there is a large amount of empty parking off-street in Tigard. Further,what hasn't changed 2015 to 2021 is that approximately 98%of the off-street supply is in private control and ownership. To this end,if Tigard is to maximize parking opportunities,efficiently moving forward,programs and strategies to capture unused supply as a shared use opportunity will need to be actively explored.21 20 As noted with the weekday count,1,272 stalls are empty within the off-street system at the combined peak hour.See previous footnote regarding stall"availability." 21 Examples of cities pursuing shared use programs,because of demonstrated low use of private off-street parking, include Bend,Hood River,Milwaukie,Portland(NW and Central Eastside Parking Districts)and Oregon City,OR. Other cities include,Kirkland and Redmond,WA,and Redwood City and San Mateo,CA. Page 123 RWC September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Figure I.Off-street parking occupancies by studied site-Weekday peak hour City of Tigard Weekday Peak Hour: 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 2021 Downtown Combined Occupancies Q Data Collection Area — >85% S`LCF 0 84%- HTFRST � 69%-55°/a 55% <55% 74 18 19 No Parking 26 a.a Sr 15 t�P yy1 25 24 S c:reek �C 21 �E 0 T 1 28° 22 5 s y��PG 46 �O rPr 43 �2�� F'+ori land Py ..� 42 48 3U !P� Firth 9� 50 41 �� 0 40 s� ® 51 A 62 37 JQ 55 0� S� 33 Pv� by 53 54 9�`Sl 68 66 58 O 67 59 63 4 64 62 65 Tigard m.,.i - .S. '0e Q a Far— Park � D �� 250 Feet RWC Page 24 R W C September 2021 - 11 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Figure].Off-street parking occupancies by studied site-Weekend peak hour City of Tigard Weekend Peak Hour:4:00 PM-5:00 PM 2021 Downtown Combined Occupancies Data Collection Area a 85% 84%-70% HT RST 0 69%-55% <55% 1a 1s is No Parking 26 °jo s 75 5f 25 24 q 17 s 21 O 23 2 26 y S 22 T 4 47 G�4• 6 5 s� 460 az 48 30 'acs 41 9A O 51 40 sT 6 ^ r,V77 62 37 JO s� 33 fir:✓ Q�\' GS63 •` 64 1 66 56 58 67 59 63 64 62 65 r q., rr s ari, sr 0 ��P 21 1-1 R W C Page 25 R W C September 2021 r 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Appendix A Off-street Parking Inventory: Off-Street Occupancy by Lot 2021 Weekday vs.2021 Weekend 22 Stalls Peak Hour Occupancy Use Type 23 Available Off-Street Supply Studied 1 759 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 37.0% 11109 (59 of 69 sites) 4:00 PM -5:00 PM 27.7% 1,272 12:00 PM-1:00 PM 83.3% 1 1 Hillary Carter Law 6 - Office 10:00 AM -11:00 AM 16.7% 5 2 Tigard Chiropractic Clini 8 3:00 PM-4:00 PM 62.5% - Office multiple 12.5% 7 Mortgage Cafe NW/Kiss Car multiple 50.0% 3 3 Wash 6 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM 66.7% 2 Retail multiple 57.1% 4 Kiss Car Wash til 5:00PM -6:00PM 71.4% � 12:00 PM-2:00 PM 75.0% _ 5 Tyler's Automotive 8 Retail 2:00 PM-4:00 PM 62.5% 3 6 Ultimate D 13 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 84.6% 2 it 0 - og 3:00 PM -4:00 PM 46.2/0 7 Clear Payments/Hiller's 7 Emblem/Farmer's Insurance 6 na na na Office (gravel) Unknown Lot-12571 SW Main 9:00 AM-10:00 AM50.0% 3 8 S 6 1:00 PM -2:00 PM 50.0% 3 Undesignated 9:00 AM-10:00 AM 75.0% 1 9 Wei Li Acupuncture 4 Retail 3:00 PM-4:00 PM 75.0% 1 Undesignated Dead End 3:00 PM-4:00 PM 57.1% 3 10 parallel Parking 7 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM 71.4% 2 Undesignated 11 Unknown Lot 9 10:00 AM-11:00 AM 44.4% 9 Undesignated 12 2 Hour Public Parking 13 12:00 PM-1:00 PM 76.9% 3o Public 11:00 AM- 12:00 PM 61.5/0 5 0% 4 13 Main Street Cleaners 8 2:00 PM-3:00 PM 50. Retail 12:00 PM -1:00 PM 25.0% 6 Ace Sewing and Vacuum/ multiple 100.0% - 14 Asian Pearl Foot and Body 6 3:00 PM -4:00 PM 66.7% 2 Retail Massage 15 Beer and Wine Outlet 9 6:00 PM-7:00 PM 77.8% 2 Retail 5:00 PM-6:00 PM 55.6% 4 Main Street Stamp and 2:00 PM-3:00 PM 40.0% 6 16 10 Retail Stationery 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 100.0% - 17 17 multiple 23.5% 13 Retail 22 Facilities highlighted red were not collected on the study days but were inventoried. 23 When extrapolated to the whole off-street parking supply(2,151 stalls),a weekday peak occupancy of 37.0%leaves 1,355 stalls available and a weekend peak occupancy of 27.7%leaves 1,555 stalls available. RICK WILLIAMS CONSULTING Parking & Transportation Page 26 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update r Lot Peak all Facility/Site talls Peak Hour Occupan Portland PC Repair/Orient 4:00 PM -5:00 PM 11.8% 15 Pearl Asian Food and Gifts 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 44.4% 5 18 McDonald's Restaurant 9 multiple 11.1% g Retail - 19 Rite Aid/Value Village 255 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 36.5% 162o Retail 4:00 PM -5:00 PM 45.9/0 138 20 Value Village(rear side) 9mna na Retail 21 Rite Aid (rear side) 18 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 77.8% 8 Retail The Elaine Kind Building-8955 10:00 AM-12:00 PM 56.3% 22 SW Commercial St 16 1:00 PM -3:00 PM 56.3% a. Undesignated 6:00 PM-7:00 PM 86.5% 5 23 Paddle Palace 37 Retail 10:00 AM-11:00 AM 100.0% - 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 64.0% 9 24 US Post Office 12:00 PM -1:00 PM 84.0% 4 ervice Bead Bullies/American Family 1:00 PM-2:00 PM 51.4% 18 25 Insurance/La Fuenta/Under 37 2:00 PM -3:00 PM 40.5% 22 Mixed Use Water Works/Private Parking Vacant Lot(previously US - 25 26 Bank) � 25 4:00 PM -5:00 PM 20 24 Undesignated Family Dentistry/Antique 6 multiple 83.3% 1 Mixed Use 27 Barber Shop multiple 100.0% - 3:00 PM-4:00 PM 50.0% 28 Oregon Rifle Works 18 6 Retail multiple 66.7% Trimet Vehicles Only 29 5 na na na Service Reserved Parking Shawn Gardner Dancing/ 5:00 PM-6:00 PM 12.8% 41 30 Ballroom Dance Company 47 12:00 PM -1:00 PM 34.0% 31 Retail 31 T Scandia Motors 24 na na na Retail 32 Magno-Humphries Labs, Inc- 47 12:00 PM-1:00 PM 61.7% 18 Industrial 8800 SW Commercial St - 47 33 Manningmultiple 71.4% 4 Mannings Automotive 14 0 — Retail 9:00 AM -7:00 PM 28.6/ 10 Little World Child Care and 12:00 PM-3:00 PM 66.7% 34 preschool ftm - - 6 Institution 35 Spruce Box-9033 SW 3 3:00 PM-5:00 PM 100.0% - Industrial Burnham St - - 3 Supreme Auto Body/PDX 9:00 AM-7:00 PM 100.0% 36 Graphics 5 9:00 AM -7:00 PM 100.0% Retail 37 De Angelo's Catering and 11 9:00 AM-2:00 PM 27.3% 8 Retail Events multiple 18.2% 9 RICK WILLIAMS CONSULTING Parking & Transportation Page 27 r 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Lot A Peak Facility/Site talls Peak Hour Occupan 38 Henderson's Automotive 40 na na na Retail 39 Wyatt Fire Protection Inc 16 na na na Industrial 5:00 PM-7:00 PM 20.0% 20 40 Tigard Vision Center 25 o Medical 3:00 PM -5:00 PM 8.0% 23 41 Vacant Lot- For Sale-9185 SW 12 12:00 PM-1:00 PM 33.3% 8 Undesignated Burnham St multiple 8.3% 11 Tigard Vision Center 9:00 AM-10:00 AM 11 9 42 13 Medical Employees Only 13 Vacant Lot- For Sale-9185 SW 8 - 8 43 Burnham St(rear side) - 8 Undesignated 4:00 PM-6:00 PM 90.0% 2 44 2 Hour Public Parking 20 0 — Public 0PM -6:00 PM 95.0% 1 da Stevens Marine boat storage 11:00 AM-3:00 PM 100.0% 45 (gravel) 35 5:00 PM -6:00 PM 51.4% 17 Industrial Beach Hut Deli/Maru- 46 Employees Only(rear 10 6:00 PM-7:00 PM 140.0% -4 Retail side/gravel) 5:00 PM -6:00 PM 60.0% 4 47 Tigardville Station 14 2:00 PM-3:00 PM 92.9% 1 Retail 5:00 PM -6:00 PM 107.1% 1 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 18.8% 82 48 Trimet Park and Ride 101 Private 5:00 PM -7:00 PM 8.9% 92 49 Pro Design Solutions/Karate 4 3 Mixed Use multiple 25.0% 50 Tigard Liquor Store 21 3:00 PM-4:00 PM 71.4% 6Retail 6:00 PM -7:00 PM 61.9% g Fish Field Superior Fishing Products/Frame Central/ 1:00 PM-2:00 PM 50.7% 33 51 Curiosities/Thai Delicious/ 67 4:00 PM -5:00 PM 82.1% 12 Retail Stumptown Escape Games 52 Steven's Marine 10:00 AM-11:00 AM 27.3% 8 Marina Inc 11 11:00 AM- 12:00 PM 63.6% AIL 53 B&B Print Source(front lot) 9 12:00 PM-1:00 PM 88.9% 1Office 9:00 AM-11:00 AM 44.4% 5 10:00 AM-11:00 AM 51.4% 34 54 B& B Print Source(rear lot) 70 Office 9:00 AM -7:00 PM 5.7% 66 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 70.0% 9 55 Pacific Community Design 30 Office 6:00 PM -7:00 PM 50.0% 15 Attwell Off Main -Resident 6:00 PM-7:00 PM 65.2% 8 56 23 o Residential Parking(undercover) 5:00 PM -6:00 PM Pacific Rim Martial Arts 57 Academy(gated) 15 na na na Institution RICK WILLIAMS CONSULTING Parking & Transportation Page 28 r 2021 Parking Occupancy/Utilization Study Update Lot Peak Facility/Site talls Peak Hour Occupan 58 NW Preferred-Federal Credit 35 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 37.1% 22 Union - - Attwell Off Main -Resident 134 6:00 PM-7:00 PM 43.3% 76 Residential 59 Parking multiple 51.5% 65 Burnham Business and Storage 3:00 PM-4:00 PM 66.7% 1 60 park 3 5:00 PM -6:00 PM 66.7% 1 Industrial 61 Focus Commercial Inc 173 na na na Industrial Private Parking-8840 S 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 19.3% 138 62 Burnham St 171 9:00 AM-7:00 PM 4.7% 163 Office 8770 SW Burnham St/Kim's 12:00 PM-2:00 PM 23.8% 16 63 Embroidery Inc. 21 9:00 AM -10:00 AM 14.3% 18 Office Facilities Parking Only-City of 9:00 AM-10:00 AM 17 64 Tigard 32 multiple 28.1% 23 Office 10:00 AM-11:00 AM 47.3% 49 65 Tigard City Hall 93 Office multiple 12.9% 81 66 Tigard Police Department 75 na a na Service 67 Public Works-City of Tigard 41 9:00 AM-11:00 AM 51.2% 20Office1:00 PM-2:00 PM 4.9% 39 68 TVFR Station 51 40 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 32.5% 27 Service 9:00 AM -10:00 AM 35.0% 26 69 8955 SW Burnham St-City of 18 na na na Office Tigard RICK WILLIAMS CONSULTING Parking & Transportation Page 29 Downtown Tigard Parking Strategy City Council Meeting May 17, 2022 6:30 PM RWC Where we are in t process Activity �Timeline Steering Committee Meeting #1 January 24, 2022 Steering Committee Meeting #2 February 24 Steering Committee Meeting #3 March 10 Steering Committee Meeting #4 April 21 Presentation of Preliminary May 17 Recommendations to Council Additional Steering Committee meetings Spring and summer 2022 and public input Council presentation and adoption of TMC Fall 2022 amendments Communication of new parking regulations Fall and winter 2022/23 with public RWC Presentation Outline Parking Inventory Summary Data Collection Findings ' Stakeholder/Steering Committee ti l' Process Parking Management Recommendations Next Steps ,�•1 t =t`, / f City cf Tigard y,�°' 2021 Downtown r6Q,sr a Boundaries O 2021 Data Study Area ColleG ion Area 2015 Data 36yC Coll ect;on Area �HrFR qRo Srsyy ram m.•. 4i sr � 2015 . • blue) • • stalls S • 877 stalls • lots) S sf 1; 01 TOTAL: 1,.003 stalls 2021 • 260 stalls siyOff-street: 2,151 . • • lots) eG TOTAL: I sT stalls s Data • ' • September • . September • • . J r,•I 'Yah F eer R W Lr City of Tigard 2021 Downtown On-Street Inventory Data Collection Area �2 Hour(176 stalls) On CNo Limit(82)-Street 15 Minute(1) ADA accessible[1 y Inventory ` F1 o� `L I I I I I I s. type I Stoll �� .� ti� f�ti • f 2015 15-Minute 2 stalls `LGl 1 p ,r l� 2-Hour 92 stalls / �4 1 , 1 , stalls ¢� No Limit 32 stallsalp`• 91 TOTAL • stalls Js� `ry 2021 15-Minute 1 stall 2-Hour • stalls ADA: No Limit 82 stalls Tr ger d TOTAL: • 1 stalls r 0 RWC s° HiQ FBM L � 1 City of Tigard 2 221 Downtown tERs s Data Collection t Data Collection Off � � Area t�Off-Street Sites SjY- Strc� Collected (/ Off-Street Sites Not Collected 1s 19 Inventory u Sts:; r .v �{ 28 �� s F,:, 16 16 ��P2� O 25 Z< 9 » 20 Cr �4 q, V v ' S ' .r. �S�,O 21 T 1 2 2S 'iii, 2t3 � SS 8 sites surveyed e . 22 T 4 117 o c \F\77 stalls9 6 • P`, Jc e3�� QpG' 0 � yf1 T . u � u �•:„�,rh P W ;h k 42 +s 30 siyr ,�,n y� 41 31 0 39 ?ice �O 61 \gyp\ c In 3 37 0 59 sites • � K S 32 tl 0 1,759 stalls 63 QG ?y y941 measured v' Only 2 es � � s 9� 'o public (33 I 9s v' 92% of off-street supply in private .e 66 0 .,r,, ,d control shy s 41, ,' RW On -Street System Findings Weekdays • 2021 occupancies up in 8 of 10 surveyed hours compared to 2015 • Occupancies still remain low (< 55%) throughout the day • Most new growth showing mid-morning and after 5:00 PM • Occupancy trend is encouraging given the COVID pandemic Weekend • Occupancy markedly higher in 9 of 10 hours surveyed compared 2015 and 2021 weekdays • Saturday definitely peak day of week on-street RWC OnmStreet S Findings City of Tigard - Downtown - Occupancy by Hour 2021 vs. 2015 Weekdays : On-street occupancies (260 vs. 126 stalls) 2021 Weekday 2015 Weekday -2021 Weekend 100% 900/o 2021 peak hour = 115 — 130 empty 800/0 stalls (weekend/weekday) 70% 60% 55.8% 54.2 52.7% 52.7% 53.8% 7 . 52.x. 50% ao 40% 31.9` Ui� N 8° 30% a° N Ln ch N N a° lD KI M 10% N cn m rn 0% 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM Off-Street System Findings Weekday • Peak hour 37% (low use) • Use down in all hours compared to 2015 (though larger supply measured) • May reflect drop in on-site employees (COVID-19) Weekend • Peak hour 28% (low use) • Occupancy markedly lower in 8 of 10 hours surveyed compared to 2021 weekday RWC Off=Street S Findings City of Tigard - Occupancy by Hour 2021 vs. 2015 Weekdays: Off-street comparative occupancies - 2021 weekend included (1,759 vs. 877 stalls) 2021 Weekday 2015 Weekday —202 1 Weekend 100% 2021 peak = 1,100 – 1,272 empty stalls 800/o a (weekend/weekday) a° a° a' 0 0 a° o C0 , !Yi 'n N L o 60% o o pCD -moi— C! d �f q C rn Ln 6 40% N m m �'� m — cn m m n M o6 ry N cy'1 N N 2 0% - - 0% 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM 2021 Of-Street Peak Hour Occupancy Heat Map City of Tigard Weekday Peak Hour:11:00 AM-72:00 PM 2021 City of Tigard Weekend Peak Hour:4:00 PM-5:00 PM 2021 Downtown T Downtown T Combined Occupancies Combined Occupancies Data Collectior Data Colleolion Area S Area S a. >85% wee >85% W�FN ® 84%-70% NrFRST 0 84%-70% TFRSr t 0 69%-55% 18 0 69%155% t8 c 55% 74 79 55% <Q), 79 S � No Parking ��" 26 � No Parking - f8 �P,a� 20 ttP °Sr 1 29 25 br 21 y 17 77 S ?a t 3 � 23 22/ Sf 22 ST ve , e tS /� G4`• 8 6 43 \l As 42 30 S�C O Q st si,�`�Rc 67 40 yFR� us RZ T N n 92 S� 33 @� 45l eGRHS'q ®�GR�tiq so GB so n 63 44 44 62 -3 constrained sites at noonpeak ae -3 constrained sites at 4:00 PM peak ffi rgydo � roarrl -31 total stalls(1.4/0 of supply) -54 total stalls (2.5%of supply) -Abundant empty parkin -Abundant empty parking .J throughout study area (on/off- street) study area (on/off- street) L street) RW F i RWC Weekday Peak Hour Weekend Peak Hour RWC Recap of Public Process Met with Parking Steering Committee four times January 24, 2022 February 24, 2022 March 10, 2022 April 21, 2022 Outreach to Attwell off Main Apartments Outreach to lot owners (with available capacity) — shared use opportunities RWC Recommendations 1. Replace some existing No-Limit parking along Burnham with 2-Hour time limits 2 Strategically locate select stalls as 4- Hour Or By Permit (OBP) 3 . Consider extending enforcement to include Saturdays, 8:00 AM- 6:OOPM Actively encourage and promote shared parking agreements 13 Burnham Parking Characteristics (31 No-Limit stalls) M No Limit Parking Along Parking Characteristics Weekday Weekend Vehicles parking 4 hours or more 27 16 Unique vehicles parked 39 42 Parking Occupancies Weekday Weekend 9AM 77.4% 54.8% 10AM 74.2% 58.1% 11AM 77.4% 58.1% 12 P M 77.4% 71.0% 113M 74.2% 58.1% 2 P M 77.4% 54.8% 313M 67.7% 58.1% 413M 61.3% 64.5% SPM 61.3% 58.1% 613M 54.8% 48.4% • Weekdays = 27 vehicles park 4+ hours (69% of vehicles) Weekends = 16 vehicles park 4+ hours (38% of vehicles) • Weekday peak occupancy = 77% (multiple) Weekend peak occupancy = 71% @ 12 PM RWC Replace Existing • Done in coordination with opening Parking of Universal Plaza along Burnham • Provides opportunity for visitors to with access the Plaza and Downtown _ businesses Limits and 4-HR • No time limits between 6 PM and 8 OBP Stalls AM • Establishes paid on-street parking permits, at select downtown locations • Monthly cost — $37 • Permits issued will be capped • Details of program TBD Existing Proposed City of Tigard20 21 City of Tigard "' . 2021 Downtown S4 n Downtown On-Street 7F '4`�n On Street Inventory Recommendations Data Collection Data Collection Area. Area ©2 Hour(176 stalls) 5+ ©2 Hour(178 stalls) —No Limit(82) —No Limit(51) 8 —t5Mlnute(1) •'pr —15Mlnute(t) er r s —ADA accem bte(1) —ADA accessi ble(1) 4 Hour 1511 ?�• or by Permit(2g( x y r h � t.ri R� ryti�'� i. pF. i Pi Sr ,y Y�J rr �- Nyrl Jay y�J U P [(6)4HR OBP 1 U P S Py ,l �yy ��^( / �� rr9�'L y�✓ err �A . .Tigard Tigard s� S't 450 Fee[ h ''•' RWC RWC RWC • Extends M-F 8 :00 AM — 6 :00 PM Consider time limits to Saturday extending enforcement Generates more vehicle turnover • include — allows for more visitor/customer Saturdays trips to downtown on the weekend Need to work out details of permit system Part of a communications strategy ✓ New parking signage ✓ Direct communication with Attwell residents ✓ Work with Tigard Downtown Alliance to spread the word 17 City will encourage more shared parking arrangements between property managers [1,467 of 1,759 (83%) in private control] City will lead with shared Endorse concept • parking during downtown shared parking events — after hours / weekend parking at City Hall City to assist in establishing third-party agreements (share d ata ) Engage Tigard Downtown Alliance or others, as needed, to broker agreements Questions Discussion P.r lab., 7- 71 RWF VPCZCOkk1C t0 1 TIG-ARD �, n rise co c�i>>ionic 19 �.;;iyP i dF yy .� �•_' ,�'',rte ayNloo f 6 Yr� 5 20