03/08/2023 - Agenda
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 2
City of Tigard
Town Center Advisory Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE/TIME: March 8, 2023 – 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. (Business meeting)
HYBRID MEETING INFORMATION:
In-person: Tigard Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. or
MS Teams: https://www.tigard-or.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1949/637770827974830260
1. CALL TO ORDER Tom 6:00
2. CONSIDER MINUTES Tom 6:05
3. CALL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS Tom 6:10
4. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom 6:15
5. FOLLOW UP FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Tom 6:20
6. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION OF Sean 6:25
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILY PROMISE
Action Item
7. PRESENTATION ON REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT
ASSISTANCE FROM AVA TIGARD DEVELOPMENT Sean/AVA Developers 6:40
Potential Action Item
8. DISCUSS GOAL KPI’S Tom/Mandy 7:10
9. NICK WILSON MEMORIAL PLAZA DISCUSSION Sean 7:15
10. TCDA BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT DISCUSSION Sean 7:25
11. DOWNTOWN PARKING Sean 7:30
12. APPOINTMENT OF LIAISONS Tom 7:45
13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS All 7:55
14. ADJOURN BUSINESS MEETING Chair 8:00
*EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Town Center Advisory Commission may go into Executive Session to discuss real property
transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the
Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not
disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final
decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
Upcoming meetings of note:
Tues., March 21, 6:30 p.m. TCDA Meeting
Wed., April 12, 6:00 p.m., Regular TCAC Meeting
Related websites and information:
Tigard TIF Districts
Tigard Construction Updates
TOWN CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 2 of 2
The City of Tigard tries to make all reasonable modifications to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal
opportunity to participate equally in all city meetings.
Upon request, the city will do its best to arrange for the following services/equipment:
• Assistive listening devices.
• Qualified sign language interpreters.
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Because the city may need to hire outside service providers or arrange for specialized equipment, those requesting
services/equipment should do so as far in advance as possible, but no later than 3 city work days prior to the meeting.
To make a request, call 503-718-2481 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD- Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF TIGARD
TOWN CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
February 8, 2023
Members Present: Adrian Hinckley (Vice Chair), Tom Murphy (Chair), Mandy Sharp, Elise
Shearer, Chris Sjolin, Bob Tomasovic, Gabe Velasquez, Justin Watson (Ex Officio), and Derrick
Wright.
Members Absent: Travis Diskin, Scott Hancock, and Renette Hier.
Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly, Sr. Transportation Planner Dave
Roth, and Sr. Administrative Specialist Joe Patton.
Others Present: TCAC Council Liaison Council President Yi-Kang Hu and Alternate Liaison
Councilor Jeanette Shaw.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. The meeting was held in Town Hall with a
hybrid MS Teams option.
2. CONSIDER MINUTES
The January 11, 2023, TCAC Minutes were unanimously approved.
3. CALL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS – N/A
4. PUBLIC COMMENT – N/A
5. FOLLOW UP FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS – N/A
6. TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN TIF DISTRICTS
Dave gave a brief presentation including some of the key projects in the TIF Districts from the
Transportation System Plan (TSP), grant application for Phase 1 of 72nd Ave. and the planned street
sections, Red Rock Creek trail alignment study, Electric Mobility Strategy and Curbside Management
Plan, Downtown Reimagined, and Downtown Parking. He will work with Sean on a letter of
support from TCAC for the 72nd RAISE grant application. Sean noted the Downtown Reimagined
project will be discussed more in depth at the March meeting as well as the parking survey results for
downtown.
7. TCDA JOINT MEETING RECAP
Commissioners noted the advantages of establishing a long-term strategic plan to establish
consistency. Establishing annual goals at the beginning of the year and having to provide an annual
report to Council by December 1 also creates a very short timeline. Aligning TCAC goals with
Council/TCDA goals was well received. Council was appreciative of commissioner’s efforts.
TOWN CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION
February 8, 2023
Page 2 of 2
8. ADOPT 2023 TCAC GOALS
Commissioners unanimously adopted the areas of emphasis. Commissioners decided to defer full
adoption of the goals and form workgroups around the areas of emphasis to refine and establish
Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) to present at the March meeting. Tom, Adrian, Gabe, and
Mandy will take the lead on the need for a consultant to help establish a long-term strategic plan and
report back in March.
9. FORMATION OF AREAS OF EMPHASIS GROUPS/DISCUSS GOAL KPI’S
Commissioners volunteered to work on the adopted Areas of Emphasis: Bob, Derrick, and Elise on
Connectivity and Access, Adrian and Travis on Equitable Business Development, and Justin, Gabe,
and Tom on Affordable Housing and Houselessness. Mandy will work on the new process. A
representative of each workgroup will take part in a KPI orientation with Mandy to help establish
them for each Area of Emphasis. Bob, Adrian (unless Travis is available), and Tom volunteered.
The goal is to establish the KPI’s before the April meeting.
10. NICK WILSON MEMORIAL PLAZA DISCUSSION
This item was deferred until March as the item was in response to a request from Travis.
11. TCDA BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT DISCUSSION
This item was deferred until March as the item was in response to a request from Travis.
12. APPOINTMENT OF LIAISONS
Commissioners suggested other committees, organizations, and agencies where it would be
beneficial to liaison with on an informal basis: TTAC, PRAB, CHART, TDA, Stable Table, Just
Compassion, Blanchet House, CPAH. The topic can be readdressed at the March meeting.
13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS – N/A
A. Sean noted the February 14, 2023, TCDA Board meeting will include a TIF presentation and
invited Commissioners to attend.
B. Sean stated the project updates and a TCDA Financial Impact Report were included in the
agenda packet. If Commissioners have questions they will be addressed at the March
meeting.
14. ADJOURN BUSINESS MEETING
The business meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm.
Joe Patton, TCAC Meeting Secretary
Tom Murphy, Chair
TO: Town Center Advisory Commission
FROM: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager
RE: Agenda Items 6 and 7 Development Assistance Applications
DATE: March 2, 2023
Process
The Tigard Triangle TIF District Plan and the City Center TIF District Plan includes
Development Assistance as projects. Projects that contribute to the Area’s diversity and
vitality, such as mixed use, affordable, and green buildings are eligible to be considered for
financial assistance.
The Development Assistance program has a process with the following basic steps:
1. Applicant/developer submits an application and the assistance ask (limited to 10% of
project cost or $1 million- whichever is lower).
2. Staff makes a recommendation on whether to approve the application and the level of
funding to the Town Center Advisory Commission, which makes a formal
recommendation to the Town Center Development Agency Board.
3. This grant amount and associated requirements are memorialized in a Development
Agreement, which is then considered for approval by the Town Center Development
Agency Board.
Family Promise of Tualatin Valley/ Quality Inn Property Purchase Application
Family Promise of Tualatin Valley (FPTV) is an affiliate of the national Family Promise
organization and operates as a separate 501c3 organization. FPTV was formed in 2017 and
started serving clients in March of 2019. Its mission is to “equip vulnerable families and
individuals to end the cycle of homelessness through a community-based response.” It
accomplishes this by providing emergency shelter, food, clothing, and services including case
management, housing navigation, mentoring, financial literacy classes and job readiness
support to homeless and at-risk families.
The Quality Inn site is a 2.75-acre property located within the Tigard TIF District at 11460
SW Pacific Hwy. FPTV is in escrow to purchase the property and wishes to close by June
30, 2023. The Quality Inn building is approximately 60,000 sq. feet and 4 stories. It will
provide 40-70 rooms of shelter to serve family and adult-only households experiencing
homelessness. 95% of the families that enter shelter are at or below 30% Area Median
Income (AMI). The building will also include laundry facilities, a community room, clothing
and food pantries, a commercial kitchen offering hot meals cooked by volunteers, and
computer stations for program guests.
The total purchase price of the property is $12.5 million. $10 million towards the purchase
of the property is funded through a state Project Turnkey grant administered by the Oregon
Community Foundation. FPTV has also made a $1.5 million funding request from
Washington County. FPTV is applying for $1 million from the Tigard Town Center
Development Agency’s Redevelopment assistance program to assist with the acquisition and
also possibly to fund some of the improvements to the property.
FPTV, the city, and Washington County are currently negotiating for flexibility in the shelter
to help meet the City of Tigard’s houselessness needs.
Representatives of Family Promise of Tualatin Valley (FPTV) presented the proposed
project at the February 8 TCAC meeting in executive session. At the March meeting
commissioners will review the staff recommendation on the requested development
assistance and consider making a recommendation to the TCDA Board.
Staff Recommendation
Staff scored the proposal against the criteria and awarded it 505 points. 200 points is the
minimum for funding.
Staff recommends awarding the requested amount $1 million to enable Family Promise of
Tualatin Valley to purchase the Quality Inn property. The conversion will benefit all of
Tigard and help implement “New Tigard Triangle: Planning for Equitable Development”
priority for affordable housing and actions that address displacement.
Next Steps:
If the TCAC recommends approval and the Board of the TCDA authorizes the
development assistance, a legal agreement will be executed with FPTV. The grant would be
paid upon closing on the property. The funds would be available in the FY 2023-24 TCDA
budget.
Development Assistance Project Scoring Matrix
Family Promise
Project Attribute / Criteria Points Description Notes
Housing and Housing Affordability
Regulated affordable
housing at 80% AMI or
below
10 Per unit, no max 40 units (minimum)
Market rate housing 1 Per unit, max of 150
points
Mixed-income project
(At least 20% regulated affordable
housing and 20% market-rate
housing)
Multi
- plier
(x1.5)
Mixed-income
projects will receive
1.5 times the total
number of points
earned in the
regulated
affordable and
market-rate
housing categories
above.
N/A
40 units (minimum) @ 80% AMI and below x 10 = 400
Other Triangle Goals
For each of the following 35 Maximum each
Public Amenities 25 Provide amenities
above and beyond
City standards,
including public
plaza.
Co-located services
benefiting low income
families such as WIC, OHP
sign-ups, mobile dentistry,
mental health supports
(not only for residents)
High-quality Urban Design 10 Discretionary:
landscaping, design.
No major building/site design
changes are contemplated
FPTV will make
any future improvements
with an eye to pedestrian
friendly elements,
Equitable Economic Opportunities 25 MWESB employment,
below-market
commercial rent.
FPTV will seek bids for any
future remodel or
construction projects from
Disadvantaged, Minority,
Women, Service-Disabled or
Emerging Small Businesses
Placemaking and Local Identity 15 Active frontage, art,
wayfinding.
Project will add wayfinding on
the site. Art and murals
planned for the interior
spaces
Improves Multimodal Conditions 20 Transit proximity, bike
infrastructure, etc.
Bus stop (and future light rail
stop directly in front); electric
car charging, public bike
repair station
Mitigates Env. or Stormwater Issues 10 Green building
standards (e.g.,
LEED), green
infrastructure,
capital projects.
Will purchase energy
efficient appliances for
commercial kitchen created
and explore green
construction for any
proposed remodeling
projects
Located in a Triangle Priority Area 0 Specific area
requirements
Not within SW 72 Ave., SW
Dartmouth St., SW 68 Pkwy,
and Red Rock Creek
Other Triangle Goals Subtotal 105
Housing and Housing Affordability 400
Minimum Points to Qualify for RDAP 200
Total Points 505
AVA Roasteria Application
The AVA mixed use project broke ground in December 2022. The three story 24,766 sq ft
building will have 6,980 sq ft of retail and common areas on the ground floor, and 22
apartments on the second and third stories. The retail space will have four owner-occupied
cross-functional businesses, including a coffee shop, roastery, bakery, and coffee cocktail
bar.
The site is a former brownfield, which the TCDA purchased, with the strategy of
remediating the property with a $400,000 EPA Brownfield grant. The clean-up grant work
was completed and the TCDA received a Prospective Purchaser Agreement Certificate of
Completion in 2018. The Agency then partitioned the property, (retaining the Fanno Creek
portion) and issued a Request for Letters of Interest to developers. The Agency selected
AVA Tigard Development and entered into a Development and Disposition Agreement.
The Agency sold the property to AVA in January 2021.
This project faced many unforeseen and ongoing challenges. AVA reports $380,000 in
unanticipated costs due to the discovery of unstable fill material and very large boulders
down to 9 feet below grade level, which resulted in additional excavation, disposal, and
substantial proper backfill material costs. This material was encountered where the previous
buildings had stood. Geotechnical reports were performed before the buildings were
demolished and so this issue was not identified before site work began.
Ava Reported Project Overages
Construction Work Contract Budget Overage
• Excavation $473,500 $230,000
• Concrete $380,000 $40,000
• Schedule delay 2 to 3 months $110,000
• Estimated Inflation 7% on the remaining cost $402,255
Total $782,255
Additionally, AVA reports $402,255 in increased costs due to inflation and a shortage of
labor and material, which is estimated to increase the construction cost by 7%.
Staff Recommendation
Staff scored the proposal against the criteria and awarded it 237 points. 200 points is the
minimum for funding.
The applicants have requested a grant of $922,423, or 10% of the project cost. Staff
recommends awarding lower than the requested grant amount: $200,000. This would
partially cover the $380,000 directly attributed to the discovery of unstable fill material and
boulders. AVA’s construction project budget does have a contingency, but this is an
unusually large hit so early in the project. $200,000 would help defray these costs and
continue the project on this challenging site. This is an important project for downtown.
There has not been a new building constructed on Main Street in twenty-two years. Active
ground floor usage, new residents in new apartments, and the Fanno Creek public space all
advance the goals of the City Center TIF District Plan.
Next Steps:
The TCAC could consider approval at the March 8 meeting, or continue the deliberation to
the April meeting. If the TCAC recommends approval and the Board of the TCDA
authorizes the development assistance, a legal agreement will be executed with AVA
Development. The grant would be paid upon completion of the project and pay for a
portion of the project’s SDC’s. The funds would be available in the FY 2023-24 TCDA
budget.
Development Assistance Project Scoring Matrix
AVA Tigard Development
Project Attribute / Criteria Points Description Notes
Housing and Housing Affordability
Regulated affordable
housing at 80% AMI or
below
10 Per unit, no max
Market rate housing 1 Per unit, max of 150
points
22
Mixed-income project
(At least 20% regulated affordable
housing and 20% market-rate
housing)
Multi
- plier
(x1.5)
Mixed-income
projects will receive
1.5 times the total
number of points
earned in the
regulated
affordable and
market-rate
housing categories
above.
N/A
22 market rate units x 1 = 22
Other Triangle Goals
For each of the following 35 Maximum each
Public Amenities 35 Provide amenities
above and beyond
City standards,
including public
plaza.
Developers are providing
a public viewing deck (and
easement) adjacent to
Fanno Creek.
High-quality Urban Design 35 Discretionary:
landscaping, design.
The building features high-
quality landscaping,
materials, and architectural
elements
Equitable Economic Opportunities 25 MWESB employment,
below-market
commercial rent.
AVA is in the process of
certifying as a Disadvantaged,
Minority, Women,
Service-Disabled or Emerging
Small Businesses
Placemaking and Local Identity 30 Active frontage, art,
wayfinding.
The ground floor will be
highly active with retail
frontage and a covered
seating area. The
development features areas
dedicated to outdoor
wayfinding and signage to be
installed in public viewing
areas to exhibit Fanno Creek’s
natural habitat and history.
Improves Multimodal Conditions 25 Transit proximity, bike
infrastructure, etc.
Building is located adjacent to
the Fanno Creek Trail and in a
highly walkable area. Bus
stops are close by and Tigard
Transit Center is less than 0.3
miles away.
AVA provides TriMet transit
passes to their employees.
Mitigates Env. or Stormwater Issues 30 Green building
standards (e.g.,
LEED), green
infrastructure,
capital projects.
Site is a former brownfield,
and the project will install a
vapor barrier remedy to
prevent possible hazardous
chemical exposure resulting
from the adjacent property.
Building is designed to be
able to install solar panels at
a future date
Located in a Downtown Priority Area 35 Specific area
requirements
Site is in the high priority
Main Street area
Other Triangle Goals Subtotal 215
Housing and Housing Affordability 22
Minimum Points to Qualify for RDAP 200
Total Points 237
Prepared by Atlas Landscape Architecture
July, 2014
Fanno Creek Public Space
Feasibility Study
Agenda Item 10
Acknowledgements
Prepared by Atlas Landscape Architecture
Nick Wilson, Landscape Architect
Civil and Structural Engineering:
WDY , Inc.
Cole Presthus
Environmental Consulting:
Pacific Habitat Services
Shawn Eisner
Transportation Consulting:
DKS Associates
Adam Miles
Prepared for City of Tigard
Mayor and Council:
John L. Cook, Mayor
Gretchen Buehner, Councilor
Marland Henderson, Councilor
Jason Snider, Councilor
Marc Woodard, Councilor
City Center Advisory Committee:
Thomas Murphy, Chair
Carine Arendes, Vice Chair
Deanie Bush
Sherrie Devaney
Laura Fisher
Henry March
Paul Miller
Linli Pao
Richard Shavey
Lynn Scroggin, Alternate
Staff:
Kenny Asher
Community Development Director
Sean Farrelly
Redevelopment Project Manager
ATLAS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this feasibility study is to explore options to
create a public pedestrian connection between Main Street
and the existing Fanno Creek Trail adjacent to Max’s Fanno
Creek Brewpub. (See Existing Configuration right). In order to
close the egress, a new two-way access must be constructed
to serve the parking in the rear of the building.
The simplest solution is to expand the existing ingress on
the southwest side of the building. However building is
approximately 17’ from the existing property line and at least
20’ is required for two way access. Therefore a new two way
access would require an acquisition of a strip of land from the
adjacent Main Street Apartments. Three options were studied.
Option 1 is to widen the existing ingress on the south west side
of lot 1100 to provide two way access. Option 2 is to create a
new driveway connecting to Maplewood Drive, a private road
serving the Main Street Village Apartments. Option 3 is a hybrid of Options 1 and 2. The existing one-way ingress is
reversed becoming a one way egress. A new one-way ingress accesses the site through Maplewood Drive.
The analysis included physical and regulatory constraints. Review of the proposal included civil and structural engineering
expertise provided by WDY, Inc. an environmental review by Pacific Habitat Services, and a transportation review by DKS
Associates. Their comments are included in full in Appendices C, D and E respectively and have been incorporated into
the narrative. The feasibility review did not include a geotechnical analysis of the stability of the banks of Fanno Creek.
They are over-steep and there is some evidence of localized erosion but they have been in their current condition for many
years and they are assumed to be stable. Additional study may be warranted.
The study was based on mapping data from two different surveys and design information from two different projects.
The data did not match up entirely but is considered reasonably accurate and sufficient for feasibility purposes. Previous
work had been based on data derived from aerial photographs and the new data is likely to be much more reliable If the
project moves forward, a new survey will be required.
The study includes some graphic representations of what a design solution might look like. It was not intended as a final
design but simply a vision for decision-makers and a basis for establishing a budget. A budgetary cost opinion is included
in Appendix A. A plan view design graphic and five perspective renderings of the Fanno Creek Public Space are including
in Appendix B.
Parking
One-way
Vehicular
Traffic
Max’s
Fanno Creek
Brewpub
Existing Configuration
Fanno Creek Public Space
Feasibility Study
FANNO CREEK PUBLIC SPACE FEASIBILITY STUDY2
Stakeholders
The project would impact four tax lots: 1101, 1100, 201 and 204 on Map 2S102AC. Tax lot 1101, the location of Max’s
Brew Pub, and lot 1100 immediately to the west which collectively share the existing ingress and egress are now under a
single ownership. Lot 201 is the Main Street Village Apartments and lot 204 is City-owned park land. In addition to the
three owners, tenant stakeholders, include the Brew Pub, office and retail tenants as well as residential tenants in the
apartments. Leaseholders have certain rights and interests that could be positively or negatively impacted and should be
fully considered in the decision making process. One of the primary considerations for tenants is the availability of parking.
Existing parking is limited and any project that reduces parking, would not likely be viewed favorably. The existing parking
is mostly gravel and not striped. However in conjunction with the recent regrading and re-rocking “blue top” hub marking
whiskers have been placed to mark parking stalls. These are not permanent and in fact are already nearing the end of
their useful life. With the existing layout, there are about 50 parking stalls but most of these are tandem stalls that will
only work for valet or other organized
parking systems.
Option 1
Option 1 would require the acquisition
of an approximately 10’ strip of land
from lot 201 (Main Street Village
Apartments) to widen the existing
driveway to 20 feet. This option
would require a new retaining wall
and relocation of power lines. It
also removes a significant number
of existing trees. This option
exacerbates existing conflicts with
ground floor tenants who currently
use the front yard for parking.
The proximity of the driveway to
Maplewood Drive exacerbates
existing conflicts. The turning radius
of the entrance particularly for eastbound right turns is limited and sight line limitations from the west. There are also
sight line limitations for pedestrians exiting the building with respect to vehicles approaching Main Street from the parking
lot. This is currently not an issue because vehicles approach from the opposite direction. It could be mitigated by design
but not likely without impacting front parking options. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) was not concerned about
the limited turning radius since the
approach would likely be from the
northeast from Station 51 on SW
Burnham St. TVF&R has expressed a
preference for this option as it does
not require them to cross the new Main
Street median. However crossing the
median is required to access the 237-
unit Main Street Village Apartments
and the median was designed for that
purpose. Option 1 appears to have
the least impact to Main Street Village
Apartments.
Option 2
Option 2 is to create a new driveway
connection from Maplewood Drive to
the rear parking lot approximately 65
feet south of Main Street. This option Option 2.
Option 1.
ATLAS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 3
requires a new easement (or fee simple acquisition) from Main Street Village and the construction of a new driveway.
This option also also requires the removal of some trees but allows retention of most of the trees. It also requires a new
retaining wall. It slopes up modestly to Maplewood Drive. Option 2 reduces traffic conflicts with the existing front yard
parking, and pedestrian movements into the building. It also reduces the conflicts caused by the proximity of the driveway
with Maplewood Drive. The turning radii and visibility are better where the driveway meets Maplewood Drive than where
it meets Main Street in Option 1. The turning radii are large enough to accommodate most vehicles, and visibility is good
in all directions. Option 2 would de-couple the front and back parking areas. It is assumed that the front parking would
remain as-is. It is not clear whether a non-conforming parking lot in the front would be allowed to remain under the
development code. Some patrons may find an entrance from Maplewood counter -intuitive however the existing entrance
given its narrow configuration, the existing trees and proximity to the building also lacks visibility. Signage can assist
with way-finding. This option is acceptable to TVF&R but not the most preferred option because of the need to cross the
median.
Option 3
Option 3 is a hybrid of Option 1 and
Option 2. It splits the ingress and
egress with a new one-way ingress
from Maplewood and uses the
existing driveway for egress. This
would reverse the existing direction
of the driveway which is necessary
to avoid crossing of traffic at a blind
corner at the rear of the building. This
option reduces impacts by using the
existing driveway and narrowing the
needed new driveway into the parking
lot from Maplewood. This option
reduces impacts to existing trees and
may minimize the new retaining walls
needed. It provides good turning radii
in all directions. However it does not
meet the TVF&R’s need for a 20’
minimum access width.
Conclusion
Based on transportation accessibility, safety, and geometric review
(see DKS Associates memorandum in appendix E), Option 2 is the
preferred alternative, followed by Option 1. Option 3 appears to be
ruled out based on minimum fire access requirements.
Project Constraints
An initial concern about the physical width of the entrance in all
options appears to be resolved. Specifically the distance between
a retaining wall supporting the nearest apartment building and
the nearest building wall on the project site is constrained. (see
photo below.) The space between them is 22’-6” and there is a
slope at the base of the wall that may indicate a shallow footing.
However, subsequent study has indicated that the width is physically
adequate, the slopes can be addressed and the wall appears to be
sound and is not subject to negative impact of a widened driveway.
The primary constraints impacting the feasibility of the proposed
project are political, financial and regulatory. And the three are
Option 3.
FANNO CREEK PUBLIC SPACE FEASIBILITY STUDY4
interconnected. The political constraints are dependent on whether the various stakeholders interests are sufficiently
aligned to reach an agreement to proceed. The degree to which a political consensus can be reached depends to some
degree on the project cost and how costs are shared. And regulatory constraints add to the project cost. The remainder
of the feasibility study addresses the regulatory constraints, the likely project cost and designs to equip decision makers
with the information necessary to make an informed decision.
Tigard Development Code
This study is concerned primarily with the new public space along Fanno Creek. The project was conceived as constructing
only the public space and the minimum improvements necessary to close the existing access which initially included only
the new driveway. However the Tigard Development Code requires that any change in access will trigger a need to bring
the entire parking lot into compliance with all applicable standards in chapters 18.805 through 18.810 including the off-
street parking standards contained in 18.765.
Although a detailed review of the standards was not undertaken because actual parking lot design was not included in
the scope of the study, it is assumed that all the standards can be met and that meeting them is simply a matter of cost
and the number of spaces that can be incorporated.
The one standard that will require either an adjustment or variance is the driveway entrance width. The development
code requires 24’ curb to curb width for commercial driveways. Staff had indicated that a 20’ width would likely meet
the criteria for approval under the adjustment process. There is also a requirement that new driveways must be spaced
a minimum of 30’ from another driveway. Staff has indicated that this requirement would be likely waived through an
adjustment process also.
Clean Water Services (Storm Water)
On redevelopment sites, Clean Water Services (CWS) requires treatment of new impervious area and a percentage of
existing impervious area depending on the size of the existing impervious area and the area of disturbance. Detention
is not required. The volume of treatment required in cubic feet 0.03 X the impervious area to be treated. Because this
project spans four tax lots, it is premature to determine exactly how large the basin would need to be. Normally, CWS
requires each lot to be treated separately and thresholds for treatment differ depending on changes to impervious area
and area of disturbance. But if the entire impervious area existing and proposed is required to be treated (approximately
1 acre), it would require approximately 1300 cu. ft. of treatment volume or 650 s.f. at two feet of depth. The area shown
on the site plan for the water quality facility is sufficient but it may require retaining walls around the perimeter depending
on the volume actually required.
Fire Lane
The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Fire Marshall has reviewed the plan with the the three access options as well as the
entire conceptual design including the parking lot and the public pedestrian area along Fanno Creek. The existing parking
lot access is not in compliance with the requirements for a fire lane. The fire code requires that all portions of the building
be within 150’ of a public street or approved fire lane. Portions of the existing building are longer than 150’ from Main
Street. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed hammerhead turnaround and indicated a likelihood of approval
based on the preliminary review. However Option 3 does not meet the minimum requirements for a fire lane and would
not likely be approved.
Natural Resources
The natural resources found on the site associated with Fanno Creek are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
the Oregon State Division of State Lands (DSL), Clean Water Services (CWS) and the City of Tigard. The jurisdiction of
the agencies varies. The Corps and DSL have overlapping jurisdiction and permit projects jointly. Corps/DSL jurisdiction
ATLAS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 5
include the waterway up to the “ordinary high water mark” (OHWM) and its associated wetlands. CWS regulates a
vegetated corridor buffer area that from the Corps/DSL jurisdictional boundary upland an additional 50 feet or in the
case of previously developed sites, up to the limit of the existing developed area. Tigard imposes additional regulations
on “Sensitive Lands” defined in this case as areas within the 100 year floodplain.
The permitting process begins with a delineation of the jurisdictional boundaries. The boundary has been recently
delineated for tax lot 1101 and therefore no new delineation is required. However, improvements to tax lot 1100 are
anticipated as well and a new delineation may be required for that portion of the site. Lot 1101 was the subject of a
previous improvement project when the brew pub was opened. At that time, the driveway egress was widened and water
quality facilities were installed and a previously developed site was added to the resource buffer area and mitigation
planting was installed.
This project does not necessitate impacts to Corps/DSL jurisdictional resources as currently proposed. However, if the
city would like to address improvements to the creek also, it would be preferable to treat that work as a separate project
because of the complexity that federal permitting would entail.
CWS requires that encroachments into existing vegetated corridors be mitigated on a 1:1 basis on the project site. The
mitigation area is required to be incorporated into the remaining Vegetated Corridor on the project site and meet the
Good Corridor Condition standards. In addition, CWS requires that the entire vegetated corridor within the development
be enhanced to meet or exceed Good Corridor Condition.
The project encroaches as much as 3800 s.f. into the existing vegetated corridor. The amount of encroachment could
be reduced if the storm facility size requirements are reduced, or if it can be relocated from the place shown on the
plan. It could be completely removed from the vegetated corridor by reducing parking spaces but it is understood that
stakeholders place a high value on parking spaces and loss of spaces would likely mean a loss of support for the project.
Pathways are an allowed use in a vegetated corridor so long as they meet certain criteria. However the cantilever deck
shown in the concept drawings are not. It would be subject to an alternatives analysis and may be deemed insufficiently
justified by CWS. It should be noted that similar decks functioning as interpretive facilities associated with pathways have
been permitted within vegetated corridors.
The project would likely be approved subject to additional City-owned land nearby be set aside for additional corridor
width and mitigation installed according to CWS requirements.
Project Budget
A budget for the project has been estimated at $737,000, including soft costs such design and permitting. The cost of
acquiring easements as not been included in the project budget. Of the total, $94,000 is attributed to soft costs and
$643,000 to construction. Of the construction budget, $395,000 is attributed to the public open space and $248,000
to the parking lot and new driveway. The project includes a 20% contingency. The parking lot and driveway budget is
less flexible than the public space budget since its design is driven primarily by regulatory parameters. The public space
budget could be increased or decreased depending on the level of improvement desired. The budget reflects a medium
level of improvement based on the plan graphics and images prepared as a visioning exercise for the project. The budget
detail is included in Appendix A.
Project Design
This feasibility study was not intended for purposes of developing a specific design for the project. It was intended to
develop a vision for the project to equip decision makers and stakeholders with information to evaluate the proposal to
determine whether there is consensus to pursue it further. However, there are several principles to observe in completing
FANNO CREEK PUBLIC SPACE FEASIBILITY STUDY6
any design. The purpose of this project is to allow the public to appreciate and to enjoy views of downtown’s primary
amenity, Fanno Creek. In order to appreciate the creek’s attributes, it is necessary that they be visible. CWS will require
that the creek be restored to “good corridor condition.” Good condition is defined by the corridor’s vegetation. It should
consist of a combination of trees shrubs and ground cover covering greater than 80% of the community and greater
than 50% tree canopy. In order to achieve that goal, CWS requires specific plants be planted at certain minimum sizes
and densities. For example, small trees (2’-3’ height at planting) are required to be planted at 10’ spacing which could
interfere with views. The goal of 50% coverage could be achieved by planting larger trees at greater spacing but the code
does not allow this. In addition there is little flexibility in the types of shrubs that are planted. Lower shrubs can achieve
the 80% coverage goal while allowing views of the creek. The City of Tigard should negotiate with CWS to allow some
flexibility in achieving good corridor condition while supporting the additional pubic benefits of being able to see the creek.
Secondly, public spaces are most successful when supported by their adjacent uses. This site is adjacent to the Fanno
Creek Brew Pub. The project’s design should be integrated as much as practical with the adjacent private uses to be
mutually supportive.
Finally, there is a unique opportunity to engage the public in learning about their downtown asset, Fanno Creek. Establishing
a relationship with Tigard’s most visible and accessible waterway, creates an opportunity to raise awareness of its role
in the natural environment. There is an the possibility to create a new artful storm outfall from Tigard’s new Main Street
Green Street and to tell its story. There is also an opportunity to link in to the USGS’s water quality monitoring facility that
could give a viewer real time information about the creek’s water flow, temperature, turbidity and other information that
could help raise awarenesss of our urban stream and appreciation for protecting its water quality and wildlife.
Plan graphics and images were developed to help visualize what a finished project might look like. They are included in
Appendix B.
Fanno Creek Public Space
Feasibility Study
Budget Estimate Appendix A
Page 1 of 3
Entire Project Budget
Section No.Item Description
Bid
Quantity Bid Units Unit Price Subtotal
01 00 00 General Requirements
01 57 13 -01 Sediment fence 500 lin. ft. $3.50 $1,750
02 00 00 Existing Conditions
02 41 00 -01 Asphalt and concrete paving removal 11000 s.f. $0.70 $7,700
03 00 00 Concrete
03 30 00 -01 seatwall footing 13 cu yd. $350.00 $4,550
03 30 00 -02 concrete seatwall 430 f.f. $60.00 $25,800
03 45 00 -01 precast seatwall wall cap 6 cu yd. $800.00 $4,800
04 00 00 Masonry
04 42 00 -01 seatwall stone veneer 860 s.f. $35.00 $30,100
04 22 00 -01 trash enclosure 1 allow $10,000.00 $10,000
05 00 00 Metals
05 52 00 -01 stainless steel railing 40 l.f. $300.00 $12,000
06 00 00 Wood, Plastics & Composites
06 15 33 -01 hardwood decking over steel 1000 s.f. $50.00 $50,000
10 00 00 Specialties
10 73 16 -01 glass canopy 500 s.f. $155.00 $77,500
26 00 00 Electrical
26 56 00 -01 pole lights 7 ea. $3,000.00 $21,000
26 56 00 -02 site electrical allowance 1 l.s. $10,000.00 $10,000
31 00 00 Earthwork
31 13 00 -01 Tree removal 6 ea $500.00 $3,000
31 22 00 -01 Common excavation & haul off 1200 cu. yd. $35.00 $42,000
32 00 00 Exterior Improvements
32 11 00 -01 3/4" minus aggregate base 500 cu.yd. $35.00 $17,500
32 12 16 -01 Class C - AC 18500 s.f. $2.00 $37,000
32 13 13 -01 Driveway apron 350 s.f. $7.50 $2,625
32 14 13 -01 60 mm conc. Unit pavers 3500 sq. ft. $6.00 $21,000
32 16 13 -01 Type C PCC curb, 16" depth, machine form 770 lin. ft. $23.00 $17,710
32 17 23 -01 Paint Striping, signage 1 allow $1,500.00 $1,500
32 32 23 -01 MSE retaining wall 300 f.f. $25.00 $7,500
32 31 13 -01 6' chain link fence 250 lin. ft. $25.00 $6,250
32 33 00 -01 8-foot bench 3 each $1,500.00 $4,500
32 33 00 -02 Trash receptacle 2 each $1,200.00 $2,400
32 90 00 -01 Mitigation Planting (on-site) 0.15 acre $12,000.00 $1,800
32 90 00 -02 Mitigation Planting (off-site) 0.10 acre $12,000.00 $1,200
32 90 00 -03 Landscaping 10500 s.f $4.00 $42,000
33 40 00 Utilities
33 40 00 -01 storm system allowance 1 l.s. $35,000.00 $35,000
Subtotal $498,185
General Conditions/OH/Profit l.s. 7.50% $37,364
Subtotal $535,549
Contingency 20.00% $107,110
Grand Total $642,659
Fanno Creek Public Space
Feasibility Study
Budget Estimate Appendix A
Page 2 of 3
Public Space Budget
Section No.Item Description
Bid
Quantity Bid Units Unit Price Subtotal
01 00 00 General Requirements
01 57 13 -01 Sediment fence 300 lin. ft. $3.50 $1,050
02 00 00 Existing Conditions
02 41 00 -01 Asphalt and concrete paving removal 3000 s.f. $0.70 $2,100
03 00 00 Concrete
03 30 00 -01 seatwall footing 13 cu yd. $350.00 $4,550
03 30 00 -02 concrete seatwall 430 f.f. $60.00 $25,800
03 45 00 -01 precast seatwall wall cap 6 cu yd. $800.00 $4,800
04 00 00 Masonry
04 42 00 -01 seatwall stone veneer 860 s.f. $35.00 $30,100
04 22 00 -01 trash enclosure 0 allow $10,000.00 $0
05 00 00 Metals
05 52 00 -01 stainless steel railing 40 l.f. $300.00 $12,000
06 00 00 Wood, Plastics & Composites
06 15 33 -01 hardwood decking over steel 1000 s.f. $50.00 $50,000
10 00 00 Specialties
10 73 16 -01 glass canopy 500 s.f. $155.00 $77,500
26 00 00 Electrical
26 56 00 -01 pole lights 5 ea. $3,000.00 $15,000
26 56 00 -02 site electrical allowance 0.5 l.s. $10,000.00 $5,000
31 00 00 Earthwork
31 13 00 -01 Tree removal 0 ea $500.00 $0
31 22 00 -01 Common excavation & haul off 155 cu. yd. $35.00 $5,425
32 00 00 Exterior Improvements
32 11 00 -01 3/4" minus aggregate base 80 cu.yd. $35.00 $2,800
32 12 16 -01 Class C - AC 0 s.f. $2.00 $0
32 13 13 -01 Driveway apron 0 s.f. $7.50 $0
32 14 13 -01 60 mm conc. Unit pavers 3500 sq. ft. $6.00 $21,000
32 16 13 -01 Type C PCC curb, 16" depth, machine form 0 lin. ft. $23.00 $0
32 17 23 -01 Paint Striping, signage 0 allow $1,500.00 $0
32 32 23 -01 MSE retaining wall 0 f.f. $25.00 $0
32 31 13 -01 6' chain link fence 250 lin. ft. $25.00 $6,250
32 33 00 -01 8-foot bench 3 each $1,500.00 $4,500
32 33 00 -02 Trash receptacle 2 each $1,200.00 $2,400
32 90 00 -01 Mitigation Planting (on-site) 0.075 acre $12,000.00 $900
32 90 00 -02 Mitigation Planting (off-site) 0.05 acre $12,000.00 $600
32 90 00 -03 Landscaping 6875 s.f $4.00 $27,500
33 40 00 Utilities
33 40 00 -01 storm system allowance 0.2 l.s. $35,000.00 $7,000
Subtotal $306,275
General Conditions/OH/Profit l.s. 7.50% $22,971
Subtotal $329,246
Contingency 20.00% $65,849
Grand Total $395,095
Fanno Creek Public Space
Feasibility Study
Budget Estimate Appendix A
Page 3 of 3
Parking and Driveway Budget
Section No.Item Description
Bid
Quantity Bid Units Unit Price Subtotal
01 00 00 General Requirements
01 57 13 -01 Sediment fence 200 lin. ft. $3.50 $700
02 00 00 Existing Conditions
02 41 00 -01 Asphalt and concrete paving removal 8000 s.f. $0.70 $5,600
03 00 00 Concrete
03 30 00 -01 seatwall footing 0 cu yd. $350.00 $0
03 30 00 -02 concrete seatwall 0 f.f. $60.00 $0
03 45 00 -01 precast seatwall wall cap 0 cu yd. $800.00 $0
04 00 00 Masonry
04 42 00 -01 seatwall stone veneer 0 s.f. $35.00 $0
04 22 00 -01 trash enclosure 1 allow $10,000.00 $10,000
05 00 00 Metals
05 52 00 -01 stainless steel railing 0 l.f. $300.00 $0
06 00 00 Wood, Plastics & Composites
06 15 33 -01 hardwood decking over steel 0 s.f. $50.00 $0
10 00 00 Specialties
10 73 16 -01 glass canopy 0 s.f. $155.00 $0
26 00 00 Electrical
26 56 00 -01 pole lights 2 ea. $3,000.00 $6,000
26 56 00 -02 site electrical allowance 0.5 l.s. $10,000.00 $5,000
31 00 00 Earthwork
31 13 00 -01 Tree removal 6 ea $500.00 $3,000
31 22 00 -01 Common excavation & haul off 1045 cu. yd. $35.00 $36,575
32 00 00 Exterior Improvements
32 11 00 -01 3/4" minus aggregate base 420 cu.yd. $35.00 $14,700
32 12 16 -01 Class C - AC 18500 s.f. $2.00 $37,000
32 13 13 -01 Driveway apron 350 s.f. $7.50 $2,625
32 14 13 -01 60 mm conc. Unit pavers 0 sq. ft. $6.00 $0
32 16 13 -01 Type C PCC curb, 16" depth, machine form 770 lin. ft. $23.00 $17,710
32 17 23 -01 Paint Striping, signage 1 allow $1,500.00 $1,500
32 32 23 -01 MSE retaining wall 300 f.f. $25.00 $7,500
32 31 13 -01 6' chain link fence 0 lin. ft. $25.00 $0
32 33 00 -01 8-foot bench 0 each $1,500.00 $0
32 33 00 -02 Trash receptacle 0 each $1,200.00 $0
32 90 00 -01 Mitigation Planting (on-site) 0.075 acre $12,000.00 $900
32 90 00 -02 Mitigation Planting (off-site) 0.05 acre $12,000.00 $600
32 90 00 -03 Landscaping 3625 s.f $4.00 $14,500
33 40 00 Utilities
33 40 00 -01 storm system allowance 0.8 l.s. $35,000.00 $28,000
Subtotal $191,910
General Conditions/OH/Profit l.s. 7.50% $14,393
Subtotal $206,303
Contingency 20.00% $41,261
Grand Total $247,564
1
Nick Wilson
Subject:FW: Fanno Creek Trail---Storm Water Treatment Requirements
From: Cole Presthus [mailto:colep@wdyi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:50 PM
To: Atlas-Nick
Subject: RE: Fanno Creek Trail---Storm Water Treatment Requirements
Nick,
Regarding the above project, following is a summary of our site observations & research of the structural and civil
engineering issues we were requested to look at. Namely, any structural concerns regarding placing the new access road
immediately adjacent to the downhill side of the existing concrete retaining wall located on the adjacent apartment
complex property to the south; and perform a brief review of potential storm water facility requirements that may be
needed for the project. Please give me a call if you have any questions, Thanks, Cole
A. Structural observation of existing concrete retaining wall on adjacent private property:
The concrete wall on adjacent private property appears to be in adequate condition and performing its intended
function, modification of the wall is not recommended.
The existing grade at the downhill face of wall appears to be low enough that the proposed access driveway can
be installed adjacent to the wall without causing detrimental effects on the existing wall.
Approximate 3 inch diameter drainage weep holes were noted along the base of the wall on the downhill face.
These weep holes must not be obstructed by future development as they allow drainage of the soil backfill
behind the wall. Provision for collecting water seepage coming out of these weep holes should be provided for
in the design of the new access driveway.
B. Storm Drainage considerations for redeveloping or adding new impervious areas to the two Tax Lots (TL 1100 and TL
1101):
In accordance with CWS standards for determining storm water facility requirements, the development on
each Tax Lot will be considered separately as they are distinct legal parcels. It is possible to provide one storm
facility on one lot for both the lots but it would require new storm drainage easements and maintenance
agreements to be created with final review and approval authority by CWS and City of Tigard.
Note that CWS will not require storm water detention facilities, but facilities for storm water quality treatment
may be required.
Both tax lots are approximately 0.6 acres in size, and each has approximately 16,000 SF of existing impervious
area. Per CWS standards, if a lot has more than 5,280 SF of existing impervious area and less than 0.5 acres of
existing impervious area, then if more than 1,000 SF of existing impervious area is disturbed in a re‐
development project, then ALL storm drainage from both new and existing impervious area must be collected
and treated in a storm water treatment facility. That means all roof runoff and all parking lot or other
impervious areas must be collected and treated.
If less than 1000 sf of existing impervious area is disturbed, then no storm water quality treatment will be
required. Storm water treatment is required for all new impervious areas.
Storm water treatment facilities should be located toward the low end of each lot and outfall provided to the
adjacent Fanno Creek.
Cole Presthus, P.E., S.E.
WDY Structural ‐ Civil Engineers
6443 SW Beaverton‐Hillsdale Hwy.
Suite 210
Portland OR 97221
Oregon General Contractors: CCB# 94379
April 14, 2014
Nick Wilson
Atlas Landscape Architecture
12562 SW Main Street, Suite 210
Tigard, OR 97223
In Re: Fanno Creek Public Space – Regulatory Memorandum
PHS Project Number: 5401
Nick:
Thank you for your recent description of your vision for the Fanno Creek Public Space project just south of
Main Street in Tigard. I have considered the topics we discussed and reviewed the conceptual site plan you
prepared. Based upon that information and a review of existing conditions I have made some assumptions
regarding the need for several common natural resource permits and approvals. Those likely to be required for
work in the vicinity of waterways and wetlands include wetland/waterway fill permits from the Oregon
Department of State Lands (DSL) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); and a Service Provider Letter
(SPL) from Clean Water Services (CWS). All three of these agencies will rely upon the results of a wetland
delineation to determine the limits of their respective jurisdiction in the vicinity of the project. This memo
includes a discussion of each of these elements and how they might affect the project as proposed. The City of
Tigard also has specific natural resources reporting requirements but their needs will very likely be met by
and/or encapsulated within reports or applications required by these three other agencies.
Water areas delineation
The purpose of the delineation is to identify the limits of potentially jurisdictional waterways or wetlands, in
this case the limits of Fanno Creek, within the project area. The Corps and DSL will rely upon the delineation,
the results of which will be documented in a report, to identify the jurisdictional boundaries of the creek (and
wetlands, if present). Clean Water Services uses the delineation to identify where vegetated corridors adjoining
the water resource begin. If no impacts to jurisdictional water bodies are anticipated then a standalone report is
not necessary for CWS. The results of a delineation can be incorporated into the supporting documentation for
a natural resources assessment (see below). If a recent delineation of the project area already exists a full
delineation and associated report may not be necessary for this project. Assuming impacts to Fanno Creek are
necessary; concurrence of the delineation report will need to be obtained separately from Corps and DSL and
will take approximately 120 days. This review can occur concurrently with any application for wetland or
waterway impacts (see below).
Wetland/Waterway fill permit (DSL & Corps)
Though our on-site discussion generally revolved around the need to obtain an SPL from CWS, the proximity
of the project to Fanno Creek itself means that the project and the work to implement it will need to be carefully
designed if permits from both the DSL and Corps are to be avoided. As there remains a potential need for such
permits, I have included a discussion of the permitting process.
PACIFIC HABITAT SERVICES, INC
9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 (800) 871-9333 (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855
Wilsonville, OR 97070
Nick Wilson, Atlas Landscape Architecture
Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5401
Page 2 of 3
The need for permits from the DSL and Corps could be triggered by a number of actions. Should the banks of
Fanno Creek that flows through the middle of the project area need to be shaped or stabilized, permits would be
necessary regardless of impact area or quantity of removal or fill. This is because Fanno Creek is mapped
essential salmonid habitat (ESH) and is a known to provided habitat to listed fish species. Even if these
elements will benefit the system, such as the removal of unpermitted fill material, or the addition of fish habitat
elements, or to increase channel complexity, permits will be needed. Though every impact to jurisdictional
wetlands or waterways require some form of mitigation, it is assumed that proposed elements could be
quantified as improvements to the existing habitat and would therefore be self-mitigating. This would be
important to prove within the permit application because direct impacts to waterways with listed fish species
are more difficult to get approved and additional mitigation (on-site or off) may need to be provided.
The permitting process for a project including stream bank restoration can be relatively straightforward,
provided the project will result in a measurable increase in bank stability. Projects that include water control
structures, such as the boulders shown on the conceptual plan, can also be considered restoration elements. If a
permit is necessary, the application will be submitted to the DSL and Corps and both agencies can be expected
to issue a permit within approximately 120 days of submittal. If proposed elements cannot be considered an
instream enhancement, a biological assessment of the project may need to be provided. This requires an
extensive report documenting the project and its effect on fish habitat within the project area and beyond. This
report is then reviewed by the Corps and National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), before NMFS issues a
biological opinion (BO); a process that can take four to six months.
Following the recent issuance of SLOPES V (for Stormwater, Transportation or Utilities), a biological opinion
and agreement between the Corps and NMFS, any project including wetland or waterway impact that results in
a permanent increase in impervious surfaces will trigger the need to provide a level of stormwater treatment and
detention that exceeds current local standards, including those of CWS. In addition to treating stormwater
runoff from all contributing areas, storm retention or detention facilities must limit discharge to match pre-
development discharge rates (i.e., the discharge rates assume natural groundcover before any development). The
stormwater detention requirement may necessitate a storm pond, subsurface storage, and/or the utilization of
pervious pavement or other LIDA stormwater techniques. Again, this elevated storm plan is only triggered if the
Corps needs to issue a permit and the project includes increased impervious surface. Therefore, if at all
possible, it may be necessary to treat some of these public space improvements as different projects and thereby
limit the federal nexus for stormwater treatment. Decreasing overall impervious surfaces within the project area
would also eliminate the need for the higher stormwater standards.
Service Provider Letter from CWS
Clean Water Services will not only be directly involved with stormwater elements, but due to their natural
resources nexus, their regulations will also need to be addressed from a surface water standpoint as well. CWS
regulates activities in vegetated corridors adjoining all wetlands and waterways. Fanno Creek and any adjoining
wetlands will have a vegetated corridor extending 50 feet from the resource edge. Where development lies
within 50 feet, the vegetated corridor will extend to the very edge of development. As the public space
improvements as you have described them will include expanding development out into vegetated areas west of
Fanno Creek, vegetated corridor impacts are anticipated. Though payment to CWS in lieu of direct mitigation is
sometimes an option for vegetated corridor mitigation, those triggers would not apply for a project such as this
(unless the entire area of encroachment can be kept beneath 300 square feet).
CWS requires the applicant to submit a Natural Resource Assessment (NRA) report that identifies wetlands,
streams, and vegetated corridors. The NRA also identifies impacts to resources and the vegetated corridor
enhancement and proposed mitigation plans. CWS reviews the NRA and issues a Service Provider Letter within
approximately 15 business days. The review period is extended when additional information is requested by
Nick Wilson, Atlas Landscape Architecture
Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5401
Page 3 of 3
CWS. Fees associated with CWS include $500 initial review fee, and when corridor impacts this close to a
water resource are proposed, an additional $1,000 tiered review fee.
As the project will include some extensive work on both sides of the existing building west of Fanno Creek, as
well as the potential for additional improvements to the east of Fanno Creek, it is anticipated that CWS will
require complete enhancement of vegetated corridors on both sides of Fanno Creek within tax lots that are part
of the proposed project. Enhancement entails the removal of existing invasive species such as reed canarygrass
and Himalayan blackberry as well as the planting of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover to a CWS required
density. The requirement for on-site enhancement and the likely need for mitigation for project related impacts
mean that off-site mitigation will likely need to be identified in order for this project to be approved by CWS.
The identification of off-site mitigation opportunities is beyond the scope of this memo, but in general CWS
will be looking for such mitigation to occur as close as possible to the development area. Typically, mitigation
must occur beyond the regulated vegetated corridor boundary, that is it would need to occur beyond the
standard 50 foot vegetated corridor boundary associated with that system. Ratios for offsite mitigation vary
depending upon the distance from the site and the condition of the onsite vegetated corridor.
As you have described, recent (2009) work in this area included parking lot and driveway improvements (in the
form of pavers) as well as the removal of asphalt along the east side of the parking area and egress drive as well
as the addition of a storm pond. With the possibility for additional impacts in this area, including the potential
for some new encroachments for a seating area and trail connections, all within areas planted with native
vegetation as part of the prior project, I would recommend that this project be submitted CWS for comment and
review prior to any official submittal for the SPL. This will allow the City to discuss the need to impact areas
that had been planted as part of a prior project. Of course, the utilization of LIDA elements will help alleviate
CWS concerns, though it is possible that additional mitigation may need to be provided.
I have attempted to provide information that includes several assumptions that may or may not apply now or as
project elements change but hopefully this includes a reliable indication of the complexity of obtaining
approvals for the project as planned. Feel free to contact me at your convenience with any additional questions
or comments.
Sincerely,
Shawn Eisner
Wetland Biologist
Pacific Habitat Services
13125 SW Hall Blvd.• Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171
TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov
City of Tigard
February 28, 2023
Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Delegates:
We are writing to express our support for the City of Tigard’s Universal Plaza Phase 2
request for funds to build a community room and plaza canopy.
We are members of a volunteer citizens body, the Town Center Advisory Commission
(“TCAC”), that provides input to the Tigard City Council on matters related to our two
tax increment financing districts. The Universal Plaza, currently under development, is at
the heart of the downtown district.
Our Main Street commercial area has long been in need of revitalization. A public
gathering place has been a key element of the vision for its rebirth, ever since the inception
of the tax increment district in 2007. The Universal Plaza will make that vision a reality.
The addition of a community room and a canopy in the second phase of the project will
enhance the benefit to our community substantially.
The downtown district includes hundreds of units of low-income housing, including two
apartment complexes for low-income senior citizens (one of which is currently under
construction 2.) All are within convenient walking distance of the Universal Plaza site.
Hence, the Plaza, and particularly the Phase 2 community room and canopy, would serve
city residents who are of limited means and have been historically underrepresented.
We ask that you give positive consideration to City of Tigard ’s Universal Plaza Phase 2
request. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy Adrian Hinckley
TCAC Chair TCAC Vice Chair
13125 SW Hall Blvd.• Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171
TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov
February 27, 2023
City of Tigard
The Honorable Pete Buttigieg
Secretary
United States Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Secretary Buttigieg:
We are writing to express our support for the City of Tigard’s application for RAISE 2023 funding to
complete Phase 1 of the SW 72nd Avenue Corridor project within the Tigard Triangle.
The Tigard Triangle is a 550-acre area roughly the size of Downtown Portland l ocated in the northeast
corner of the City of Tigard. As a designated ‘Town Center,’ the Triangle is a key growth area for new
affordable and market-rate multi-family housing and commercial development in Tigard. Over the past five
years, the city has seen 337 new affordable and market rate apartments permitted and completed along the
Triangle’s main arterial spine, SW 72 nd Avenue. An additional 315 units of affordable and transitional
housing have been built or are planned within a quarter-mile of 72nd Ave.
Although development momentum is building, a fragmented and incremental approach to complete
planned roadway improvements will not support the type of transformational change desired in the
Triangle. Today, SW 72nd Avenue lacks complete sidewalks, bicycle facilit ies, safe pedestrian crossings, high
quality transit stops, and on-street parking. In short, the roadway is not yet complete and does not serve
the mobility or access needs of the hundreds of new residents moving into the Triangle today – particularly
those choosing to move about on foot, by bicycle, or by public transportation.
In 2017, Tigard voters approved a Tax increment Financing District in the Tigard Triangle to fund
infrastructure and other projects to facilitate its development into a mixed use, mixed income
neighborhood. The Triangle is in the early years of a TIF District. Available funds are insufficient to
complete a project of this size, but can provide a source to match a federal grant.
An investment in SW 72 nd Avenue will be transformative for the Triangle. Implementing planned
improvements will enhance safety, provide critical multi-modal connectivity, and support economic
development and provision of new housing where it is needed most.
The Tigard Town Center Advisory Commission (TCAC), an 11-member volunteer-led committee
representing a wide-range of local interests, is pleased to support this grant application . Thank you for your
time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy Adrian Hinckley
TCAC Chair TCAC Vice Chair