The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 11/25/2008 City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SWHall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 25, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED 1:\Ofs\Donna's\Ccpkt3 Phone: 503.639.4171 o Fax: 503.684.7297 o www.tigard-or.gov 9 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 COMMUNITY NOTICE OF MAP CORRECTION SPAl'E1~S The City' of Tigard published a legal notice in last Thursday's Tigard Times newspaper that included an incorrect vicinity map. The public 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO hearing is on November 25, 2008 before the Tigard City Council Box 370 • Beaverton, OR 97075 and is for the "Tri-County Shopping Center Approval Wetland Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 and Stream Corridor Map Amendment/Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2008-00010/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) Email: legals@commnewspapers.com 2008-00005". The purpose of this notice is to provide public notice of the correct vicinity map as shown below. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION _ VICINITY MAP State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS 1, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, rnR=«,a-u,i depose and say that I am the Accounting" Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, LEG8141 in the aforesaid county and state, as defined SITE by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, thatw City of Tigard Notice of Correction t... TT 11220 A copy of which is hereto annexed, was N published in the entire issue of said newspaper for - 1 Successive and consecutive weeks in the Publish 11/20/2008 TT 11220 following issues November 20, 2008 lW C Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Man ger) Subscribed and sworn to before me this November 20, 2008 Sm ~ kkk~~L Qx.,.-Kx ck'_in NOTAR UBLIC FOR OREGON My commission expires ---V%j0V, Acct #10093001 Attn: Patty Lunsford OFFICIAL SEAL City of Tigard SUZETTE I CURRAN 13125 SW Hall Blvd NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Tigard, OR 97223 COMMISSION NO. 422662 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOVEMBER 28, tot t Size: 2 x 4.25 Amount Due 70.98 remit to address above COMMUNITY SPAPEl.S 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO Box 370 • Beaverton, OR 97075 Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 S Email: legals@commnewspapers.com PUBLIC HEARING ITEM AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday November 25, 2008 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. depose and say that I am the Accounting Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The general circulation, published at Beaverton, Council will hold a public hearing on the request prior to in the aforesaid county and state, as defined making a decision. by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that Further information maybe obtained from the City of 1gard Planning Division (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall City of Tigard Tri-County Shopping Center Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171. TT11218 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: . A copy of which is hereto annexed, was COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT published in the entire issue of said (CPA) 2008-00010/ newspaper for SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2008-00005 - TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 1 APPROVAL WETLAND Successive and consecutive weeks in the AND STREAM CORRIDOR MAP AMENDMENT. following issues November 6, 2008 REQUEST: The Director requests a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to correct the City's Significant Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map in the vicinity of SW Dartmouth and Hwy 217. Ua,((,D~k The Tigard City Council approved the Tri-County Shopping Center proposal (Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/Site Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Man ger) Development Review (SDR) 98-0002/Planned Development Subscribed and sworn to before me this Review (PDR) 98-0001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98- November 6, 2008 0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98-0004), which approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resources Overly District, including fill and mitigation of a approximately 1.41 acres of existing wetlands on the property, and other development. The resource maps were not revised as indicated in the findings for the NOTAR PUBLIC FOR OREGON decision. Meanwhile, Army Corps of Engineers and Department My commission expires-) I I of State Lands permits were obtained and grading, filling and mitigation occurred even though the remainder of the development Acct #10093001 was not built. The Significant Habitat Areas map, based on the Attn: Patty Lunsford OFFI wetland inventory, is also in error and needs revision accordingly. City of Tigard SUZET Although Councils approval of CPA98-00002 legally amended NOTARY PI the City's Significant ,Wetlands Map, the Director's application 13125 SW Hall Blvd c is to formally correct the error in mapping. LOCATION: The Tigard, OR 97223 COMMI S My COMMISSION EXPIRE; propert is located south of SW Dartmouth Street and west of Size: 2 x 13.25 SW 72 d Avenue in the Tigard Triangle; Washington County Tax Amount Due 221.27 Assessor's Maps 2SIOIBA, Tax Lot 101 and 1S136CD, Tax Lot .remit to address above 4200. ZONE/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: C- G (PD): General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a city-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use; a wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. In the case of the subjectproperty, the Council applied the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for development. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: City of Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2 and 3; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 5; and Metro Functional Plan, Title 3. VICINITI' MAP CPA2008A)008 ZON2009-00002 FIELDS ZONE ~Pj 4 CTIANGE L.GEt7D SUBJECT / SrrE s, K F F ~ F - - c+_-.:yll.'Y++n - .-dc-7f.'A¢~C mgIF~A.C~ Publish: 11/06/2008 CNI#: TT11218' Agenda Item No. 3, o. Meeting of / e •:7 City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting Minutes TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE /TIME: November 25, 2008/6:30 p.m. Study Session and 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 STUDY SESSION Mayor Dirksen called the Study Session to order at 6:30 PM. Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilor Woodruff and Councilor Buehner. Absent: Councilors Wilson and Sherwood Staff Present: City Manager Prosser, Assistant City Manager Newton, Community Development Director Coffee, Public Works Director Koellermeier, Engineer Duenas, Associate Planner Farrelly, Deputy City Recorder Krager and City Attorney Ramis Mayor Dirksen suggested and Council agreed to hold an Executive Session as the fast item on the agenda. City Manager Prosser read the ORS citation. The City Council went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (e) real property transaction negotiations. The Executive Session ended at 6:45 pm and Mayor Dirksen called the Study Session to order. • Briefing on Upcoming Transit Center Redevelopment Study Intergovernmental Agreement with TnMet and Metro Associate Planner Farrelly briefed Council on an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro and TriiMet He said this agreement commits the City, Metro and TnMet to explore the feasibility of redeveloping the Tigard Transit Center into a mixed-use transit-oriented development. He said the study consists of three main parts: Development Opportunity Study to determine market feasibility of such a transit- oriented development and green building opportunities Concept Site Plan including building footprint and parking location Specific Plan to relocate the transit center functions TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 o f 8 Councilor Buehner said these were great ideas for picking up land for redevelopment. Mayor Dirksen commented that this would give Tigard an opportunity to get things going in that area. Associate Planner Farrelly said the $35,000 consultant fee would be split between the City and Metro. If the study results indicate this site has good potential for redevelopment, then Tigard, TnMet and Metro will continue to cooperate on a second phase, which includes an RFP for a developer. He said consideration of this agreement is scheduled for the consent agenda of December 9, 2008. • Briefing on Resolutions to Surplus and Sell a Portion of the Canterbury Property and a Remnant Parcel of the Water Building Property City Attorney Ramis briefed Council on resolutions to declare as surplus a portion of the Canterbury property and a remnant parcel of Water Building property. He said these two properties have multiple ownerships. (The cities of Tigard and Durham will consider declaring the properties as surplus tonight. King City will do so later. This has already come before the Tigard Water District; however, the result of their vote is unknown) City Attorney Ramis said the City is interested in purchasing the two properties. He said Council's first step is to consider resolutions declaring the properties as surplus and the second step is holding a public hearing and authorizing the sale and the purchase. Public Works Director Koellermeier said if Council decides to purchase the properties, the Canterbury property would be paid for over a five-year period. He said the City plans to convert property not used for water facilities to a park. He said funding for the remnant parcel of the Water Building property would come from the Traffic Impact Fee Fund and is part of the Burnham Street Improvements right-of-way acquisition. City Manager Prosser noted that the meeting of December 16 would be a combination Workshop and Business meeting. Also, the Council meetings of December 23 and the December 30 are cancelled. Mayor Dirksen recessed the Study Session at 7:00 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 At 7:30:07 PM Mayor Dirksen called the meeting of the Tigard City Council and Local Contract Review Board to order. 1.2 Deputy City Recorder called the roll. Name Present Absent Councilor Buehner ✓ Councilor Sherwood ✓ Councilor Wilson ✓ Councilor Woodruff ✓ Mayor Dirksen ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - November 25, 2008 Gty of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 8 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports - none 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items City Manager Prosser introduced new IT and Finance Director Toby LaFrance. Mr. LaFrance said he looked forward to serving the Council and citizens of Tigard 2. 7:32:03 PM CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Chris Zoucha thanked the City for their financial support of the upcoming tree lighting ceremony on December 6 and noted event highlights include: o Radio Disney o Free coffee, cocoa and cookies donated by local businesses o Pictures with Santa and Mrs. Claus He reminded everyone to support local businesses and charities and to buy locally for holiday purchases. Mayor Dirksen said two citizens had signed up to speak under Citizen Communication. 7:36:09 PM • Claudia Coke, Director of Senior GAP (Guardian Assistance Program) at the Tigard Senior Center 8815 SW O'Mara St., Tigard, OR, announced anew service offered at the Senior Center. It is a money management and representative payee service for seniors and persons with disabilities who are confused over their finances and unable to pay their bills. She said this service is free. They receive referrals from disability, veteran, and senior protective agencies as well as banks and others in the community who recognize vulnerable senior citizens who might be taken advantage of. • John Kearney, 2508 NE 24' "n"e, Portland, OR, spoke regarding his property in the Specht Tigard Triangle Local Improvement District. He noted there is no firm assessment amount and he has sought input from staff but is now requesting a meeting. Mayor Dirksen acknowledged that Council received a copy of his letter but said he cannot comment as the matter is an ongoing negotiation. In response to Mr. Kearney asking when they could meet, he said he did not know at this time. 3. CONSENT AGENDA 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes of October 14, 2008 3.2 Local Contract Review Board (LC RB) 3.2.a - Award Contract for Maintenance of the City's Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAQ Systems TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 8 3.3 Consider a Resolution Declaring a Portion of the Canterbury Property as Surplus Property and Stipulating Other Conditions Regarding the Disposition of the Property - Resolution No. 08-68 3.4 Consider a Resolution Declaring the Water Building Remnant Parcel as Surplus Property and Stipulating Other Conditions Regarding the Disposition of the Parcel - Resolution No. 08-69 3.5 Endorse Housing Alliance 2009 Legislative Agenda 3.6 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement with TriMet for Westside Commuter Rail Project Path Maintenance 3.7 Approve Betterments Intergovernmental Agreement with TriMet for Improvements Installed as Part of the Commuter Rail Station Councilor Woodruff made a motion to approve the consent agenda; Councilor Buehner seconded the motion and the motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. Name Yes No Councilor Buehner x Councilor Sherwood (Absent) Councilor Wilson (Absent) Councilor Woodruff x Mayor Dirksen x 4. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER SIGNIFICANT WETLAND AND STREAM CORRIDOR MAP AND SIGNIFICANT HABITAT AREAS MAP AMENDMENT (CPA 2008-00010/SLR 2008-00005) 7:42:16 PM City Attorney Ramis read a summary of the hearing process and procedures. He said a copy of the Rules of Procedure for the hearing was available at the front of Town Hall. 7:45:57 PM Mayor Dirksen opened the Public Hearing. Mayor Dirksen asked if there were any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or if there was a challenge on the participation of any Council member and none was indicated. Mayor Dirksen asked if there were any declarations or challenges. There were none. He asked Council if any members wished to report ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including site visits. There were none. Council indicated that they were familiar with the application. Mayor Dirksen asked for the staff report. 7:46:31 PM Associate Planner Pagenstecher said this site is the subject of a Planned Development Review with Pac Trust for a proposed Target store. He said it became apparent during the pre-application process that the City s maps were not accurate and that a map revision had not been applied. He said this is a simple housekeeping issue. The Pac Trust application includes background materials showing they are TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 8 already undergoing the mitigation called for previously. The Planning Commission has recommended this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He said no substantive public comments were received on the matter. 7:48:11 PM In response to a question from Councilor Buehner about whether this was the area where new trees were being planted, Planner Pagenstecher said it was and the owners are planting a 25-foot buffer from the resource. He said 50 feet is required and they will complete the outer 25 feet when the site work is completed. 7:48:40 PM Councilor Woodruff verified that this work should have been done ten years ago. Planner Pagenstecher said the previous owner completed one year of monitoring on a five-year mitigation plan but then let it go. When Pac Trust bought the property they assumed the requirements and the monitoring period was extended to a ten-year time frame. Mayor Dirksen said no one had signed up to speak and he asked if anyone present wished to testify. The applicant was not present. Mayor Dirksen asked for the staff recommendation. Planner Pagenstecher said the staff recommendation was to adopt the Ordinance to approve this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing at 7:49:52 pm. Councilor Buehner moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 08-19 and Councilor Woodruff seconded the motion. Deputy Recorder Krager read the number and title of the Ordinance No. 08-19. and took a roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO. 08-19 - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA2008-00010) TO CORRECT THE CITY'S SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS AND STREAM CORRIDORS MAP, CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS IN 1998 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER APPROVAL (CPA98-0002) AND APPROVING SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR2008-00005) TO CORRECT THE SIGNIFICANT HABITAT AREAS MAP ON AN APPROXIMATELY 1.41 ACRE PORTION OF THE SUBJECT 17.17-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF SW DARTMOUTH STREET, WEST OF SW 72ND AVENUE, AND EAST OF HWY. 217 IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE (WCTM 2S101BA, TAX LOT 00101 AND WCTM 1S136CD, TAX LOT 04200) Name Yes No Councilor Buehner x Councilor Sherwood (Absent) Councilor Wilson (Absent) Councilor Woodruff x Mayor Dirksen x Ordinance No. 08-19 was adopted by a unanimous vote of Councilors present. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page S of 8 5. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 06-21 (LOCAL FUEL TAX ORDINANCE) EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF COLLECIION Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. 7:51:51 PM He asked if there were any declarations or challenges to any Council member hearing this matter. Councilor Buehner noted that she was the Chairperson of the Task Force that worked on this project. Councilor Woodruff and Mayor Dirksen said they purchase gas in Tigard. 7:52:30 PM Engineer Duenas briefed Council on the proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 06-21, saying there would be a shortfall of gas tax revenue for this project. He said Council indicated their preference was for extending the collection period rather than increasing the tax. He stated that as soon as this project is funded the gas tax would expire. He outlined two proposed changes to the Ordinance: • Expiration date changes from December 31, 2011 to read that it would expire after sufficient funds were collected to fully pay for all the improvements and the financing needed for the project. • Clarification that the intersection project includes Main Street (along with 99W and Greenburg Road) as the original concept design showed. Councilor Woodruff asked for a comparison between the earlier and current estimates. Engineer Duenas said the estimate was $3.5-4 million and now the total project cost is estimated at $5.1 million. He said the shortfall is expected to be slightly more than $3.1 million, which will have to be covered through a bond issue. Using an interest rate of 5.5% and a 2% cost of issue, the amount loaned is expected to be approximately $3.2 million. He said they estimate it will take eight years but if the project is funded sooner, the gas tax will expire sooner. Councilor Buehner asked if supply costs increased the costs significantly. Engineer Duenas agreed that plays a part, but it is mostly due to acquisition of right of way for the widening that is required. And pavement borings . show more reconstruction is needed than originally thought. He said it is possible that the bids might be lower than expected due to working on this in conjunction with the Hall and 99W intersection project and realizing economies of scale. However, he noted that the price of asphalt has doubled in the past few years. Mayor Dirksen said if federal and state funded transportation packages happen, there maybe even more demand for asphalt and that would also drive up the price. Mayor Dirksen asked for public testimony and said one person had signed up to speak- 7:5 8:55 PM Paul Romain, 707 SW Washington, Suite 927, Portland, OR, representing the Oregon Petroleum Association spoke. He said it should not be a surprise that they are opposed to a collection period extension. He said if he was reading the summary correctly, the City is adding eight additional years over the five. Engineer Duenas clarified that this was starting from the beginning, not an additional amount. Mr. Romain asked about the revenue to be raised. CityManager Prosser clarified that when financing revenue bonds the City is required to have a debt service reserve so there is the project cost, which is now estimated at $5.1 million, and financing costs on top of that. 8:01:11 PM Mr. Romain said the Oregon Petroleum Association feels a local gas tax is a horrible wayto finance anything because it is an unfair method of taxation. He said it is easy to buy gas elsewhere. He said the Association will be meeting tomorrow and deciding whether or not to refer this. He said he was less nervous tonight after receiving clarification that it is a total of eight years rather than an additional eight years. Mayor Dirksen said the eight years is an estimate and is based on when the revenue is collected, not a specific timeframe. City-Manager Prosser said it will also depend on the buyers and terms of the bond. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 6 of 8 Mr. Romain said the Petroleum Association doesn't want to put the City in a negative situation but is concerned about this continuing by morphing this project into others ad infinitum. He said they also would like to see any increase be referred to voters which is something they ask of every jurisdiction. He reiterated that the Petroleum Association does not like local gas taxes and would prefer that Tigard work with them to get resources statewide. 8:05:04 PM Councilor Buehner noted that Tigard's gas tax ordinance recognizes the possibility that State legislature may increase the state tax and any increase in State gas tax would reduce the amount of Tigard's tax. She said her personal observation is that the cheapest gas in the Metro area is always here in Tigard, even with the City's gas tax. 8:06:07 PM Mr. Romain said the retail pricing of gas has very little to do with the gas taxes and everything to do with competition. 8:06:50 PM Councilor Woodruff said he appreciated Mr. Romain's perspective. He said he would also like to see a state gas tax increase but it would have to be more than three cents for Tigard to benefit. He said Council feels very strongly that the community is expecting the City to make improvements at 99W intersections. The ordinance has been written to limit it to this one problem intersection. 8:08:35 PM Mr. Romain said the Oregon Petroleum Association is proposing a statewide tax dedicated 100% to local government. He said a statewide tax would require trucks to pay. Local gas taxes put the entire burden on cars to pay for infrastructure improvements and repairs that are made necessary by trucks, too. Mayor Dirksen said, "If we had other alternatives, we would certainlyuse them. We decided upon this one based on the recommendation from a citizen task force and only after we'd looked at other alternatives." He said. there is a need. at the state and the federal level to come up with a better process for the funding of maintenance and improvements to our transportation infrastructure.. He said Council hopes that by being willing to step up in this way and at the same time, asking ODOT to partner on other I-Eghway 99W projects, attention will be focused on this issue and others at a higher level will work out a solution. Councilor Woodruff said the first thing the City did when they heard about the shortfall was to ask ODOT to help with the difference needed for this project. ODOT responded clearly that their funds were totally committed for the next several years and no additional funds were available. 8:11:44 PM Mr. Romain said the fuel dealers appreciate the dilemma the City is in and that is why they do not oppose the statewide gas tax. He said, "We believe we need to be part of the mix; we have no problem with that. It's just how we're part of the mix that concerns us." Mayor Dirksen asked if there was anyone else present who wished to comment. There being none, he asked for the staff recommendation the Ordinance. 8:12:57 PM Engineer Duenas said the staff recommendation is that Council approve the amendment to Ordinance 06-21. Mayor Dirksen asked if there were any further Council comments or questions on this agenda item. There were none so he closed the public hearing. 8:13:16 PM Councilor Buehner moved to adopt Ordinance No. 08-20 and Councilor Woodruff seconded the motion. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov --Pa- 7-of--8 Deputy Recorder Krager read the name and title of Ordinance 08-20 and took a roll call vote. ORDINANCE NO. 08-20 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.65 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED A TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL DEALERS AND PROVIDED FOR ENFORCEMENT, ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION OF THE TAX Name Yes No Councilor Buehner x Councilor Sherwood (absent) Councilor Wilson (absent) Councilor Woodruff x Mayor Dirksen x 8:13:57 PM Ordinance No. 08-20 was adopted by a unanimous vote of Councilors present. 6. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION - City Manager Prosser had some citizen communication follow-up. He said John Frewing attended the last Council business meeting and expressed concerns, about the street maintenance fee and wanted to make sure there would be opportunities to comment. City Manager Prosser said the City set two open houses for citizens to give input on the street maintenance fee. One was held on November 19, 2008 and Mr. Frewing was one of two citizens there. He said there is another opportunity for citizens'to give input at the second open house scheduled for December 11, 2008 at 6:30 pm in Tigard Town Hall. Councilor Buehner requested that this meeting information be run in the cable access announcements. 7. ADJOURNMENT At 8:15 pm Councilor Woodruff made a motion for adjournment and Councilor Buehner seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Carol A. Krager, Deputy City corder Attest: Mayor, ty of Tigard Date:- 9/2• 7D~ J I:\ ADM\ Cathy\CCM\2008\081125.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 ( 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 8 of 8 Agenda Item # SSi U rl Meeting Date November 25, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Tigard Transit Center Redevelopment Study - IGA with Metro and TrriMeet Prepared BY: Sean FarrellY Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: lJl ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Briefing on upcoming IGA with Metro and TriMet to study potential redevelopment of Tigard Transit Center STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive briefing and provide feedback to staff. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff has been working on an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City, TriMet, and Metro. The IGA would commit the three parties to explore the feasibility of redeveloping the Tigard Transit Center into a mixed use transit-oriented development. The main goals of such a redevelopment would be to serve as a catalyst for Downtown development and to increase housing and employment near transit. The first phase of the project would be a Redevelopment Study. It would consist of three main parts: 1. Development Opportunity Study to determine the market feasibility of a transit-oriented development. 2. A Concept Site Plan for the site to include potential building footprint and massing, location of parking, etc. 3. A specific plan to relocate transit center functions to on-street stops consistent with TriMet's requirements and input from local stakeholders. The study would be jointly funded by the City and Metro. If the study finds the site has good redevelopment potential, the City, TriMet, and Metro will continue to cooperate on a second phase, which would include issuing an RFP for a developer. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS Goal 3: "Implement the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan." l:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2008\11-25-08 AIS Transit Ccnter IGA.docx 1 ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Memo to Council dated November 5, 2008 Attachment 2: Tigard Transit Center Vicinity Map Attachment 3: Project Preliminary Schedule FISCAL NOTES The entire cost of the Redevelopment Study by a consultant is expected to be $35,000. The IGA would specify that the cost will be equally split between the City and Metro. Funding for the City share is available in the Downtown Redevelopment budget for consulting services. 1:\LRPLN\Council Materials \2008\11-25-08 AIS Transit Center IGA.docx 2 ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Tigard City Council FROM: Sean Farrelly, Associate Planner RE: Intergovernmental Agreement between the City, Metro, and TriMet to Cooperate on Redevelopment Study of Tigard Transit Center Site DATE: November 5, 2008 Staff has identified the 0.81 acre Tigard Transit Center as a potential redevelopment site in Tigard's Downtown Urban Renewal District. The main goals of such a redevelopment would be to serve as a catalyst for Downtown development and to increase housing and employment near transit. Such a development would be consistent with the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. TriMet, the owner of the property, supports the potential redevelopment of the Transit Center for transit-oriented development, so long as their operational needs are met and the Federal Transit Administration concurs. Metro supports such transit-oriented development projects on sites that are publically owned, and in jurisdictions that have key tools, such as urban renewal, in place. To explore the feasibility of redeveloping the Tigard Transit Center into a mixed use transit-oriented development, an Intergovernmental Agreement JGA) between the City, TriMet, and Metro is necessary. This would commit the entities to cooperate on a Redevelopment Study. The Redevelopment Study would consist of three main parts: 1. A Development Opportunity Study to determine the market feasibility of a transit- oriented development on the Transit Center site. The study would address existing conditions, preliminary market analysis, assessment of opportunities and constraints, recommendations on housing types, number of units, square footage for ground floor commercial space, potential mix of uses for ground floor, lALRPLN\Council Materials\2008\11-25-08 Attachment 1 TfC Memo.docx 1 projected rents, potential financial gap, and potential costs for green building features. 2. A Concept Site Plan for the site to include potential building footprint and massing, location of parking, location of public space and access to Commuter Rail station, and options for site plans with adjoining properties. 3. A specific plan to relocate transit center functions to on-street stops in accord with TriMet's requirements and input from local stakeholders. The City will manage the project, including public involvement. The City will take the lead in No. 3, developing a plan to relocate the transit center functions. The City will initiate meetings with property owners and businesses that would potentially be impacted by proposed expanded bus stop and layover locations. TriMet has provided their technical parameters for a relocation plan. The costs of the consultants performing the Development Opportunity Study and the Concept Site Plan would be shared equally by the City and Metro. If the study finds the site has good redevelopment potential, the City, TriMet, and Metro will continue to cooperate on a second phase, which would include issuing an RFP for a developer. The Transit Center was partially funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA.) TriMet has reported that obtaining FTA's concurrence on a redevelopment project takes anywhere from one month to one year. Once a developer is attached to the project, Metro's Transit Oriented Development (TOD) program could potentially assist with gap financing, as they have with other transit-oriented developments throughout the region. l:\LKPLN\Council Materials\2008\11-25-08 Attachment 1 71'C Memo.docx 2 _ Tigard TransWith ter v Gil is , a: Bus ►-in mp . L~prty P Sus Lies call t•~ 'h.~a~, ` ~~t-. a ,.e 1: .t` \ "•F t~ ja~'"~ ' :r ~ T , fit/ ,z i'« .r '~y`o}- •At ~ +.:c :~~w- :.•4 Ag03:p5PM RCe, vol" ~ 'y4AU ,'-j f ~ ~ Y ~~t~ T~ ~(d'~E~ µY~°p1t1EM•~oF~T~PAUVE w 'Vy' • i'+~ y A'.. ~ . M1 ~ ~ ' . u soR ~R sµE ° PR 9EED ~.yc ~ '~r'`i~ Td1E NEpE 'ERR ~p'fMp~l ~.,1 ~~y f. b° _'tR' ~ . L 'T'`+~ y ' ~V L, tRlw°~~tJ/.RO>FS''~ r'pr w r"i ,r f 7 } City of ~ ~~(FR, ~ ~ ~ Tigard frT. ; "S:. t.~, ULY °fTgtud Tl ~~no Crf 009 P' . psh DRAFT SCHEDULE ATTACHMENT 3 Tigard Transit Center Redevelopment Feasibility Study Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep RFP project team meeting • • • • • • IGA Adoptions by Jurisdictions • • Develop scope • • RFQ • RFQ selection • Consultant work • • • Bus stop/ layover analysis (City of Tigard) • • • Bus stop/ layover property owner outreach (City of Tigard) • • • Review Draft Report • Final Report • Presentations (CCAC, Council) • Phase 2 • • • • - City of Tigard -~-Y4 Tigard Business Meeting - Agenda t~ c [D) TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB MEETING DATE: November 25, 2008 MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 Of PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City-Manager. Tunes noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m Sunday 11:45 a.m Friday 10:00 p.m Monday 6:00 a.m SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB- November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of S .`rg City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting - Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE /TIME: November 25, 2008/6:30 p.m. Study Session and 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION ■ Briefing on Upcoming Transit Center Redevelopment Study Intergovernmental Agreement with TnMet and Metro - Community Development Department ■ Briefing on Resolutions to Surplus and Sell a Portion of the Canterbury Property and a Remnant Parcel of the Water Building Property - City Attorney Ramis • EXECUTIVE SESSION- The Tigard,City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (e) real property transactions negotiations. 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 mal~ing any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council, Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Chamber of Commerce Representative • Citizen Communication - Sign Up Sheet • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication TIGARD CITY COLJNCIL/LCRB- November 25, 2008 City of Tigard _ 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of S 3. CONSENT AGENDA (Tigani City Cmxd and Local Ci7 vast RedewBaao These items are coal bed to be rrxve and may be enacted in ore nu ion wthaut separate disassion A n)ow may west that an item be mmzai by mxion for discussion and separate action Motion to 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes for October 14, 2008 3.2 Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) 3.2.a - Award Contract for Maintenance of the 'City's Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAQ Systems 3.3 Consider a Resolution Declaring a Portion of the Canterbury Property as Surplus Property and Stipulating Other Conditions Regarding the Disposition of the Property - Resolution No. 08- 3.4 Consider a Resolution Declaring the Water Building Remnant Parcel as Surplus Property and Stipulating Other Conditions Regarding the Disposition of the Parcel - Resolution No. 08- 3.5 Endorse Housing Alliance 2009 Legislative Agenda 3.6 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement with TriMet for Westside Commuter Rail Project Path Maintenance 3.7 Approve Betterments Intergovernmental Agreement with TnMet for Improvements Installed as Part of the Commuter Rail Station • Comar A la - Items Rer med for Separate Discussion These items are cwider to be routine and mg be enacted in ore motion u ba e separate disa6sion A raw mry west that an item be mnx& by mntm for disassion and separate as on 4. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - TRI- COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER SIGNIFICAN'T' WETLAND AND STREAM CORRIDOR MAP AND SIGNIFICANT HABITAT AREAS MAP AMENDMENT (CPA 2008-00010/SLR 2008-00005) REQUEST: The Director requests a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to correct the City's Significant Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map in the vicinity of SW Dartmouth and Hwy 217. The Tigard City Council approved the Tri- County Shopping Center proposal (Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/Site Development Review (SDR) 98-0002/Planned Development Review (PDR) 98- 0001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98-0004), which approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resources Overly District, including fill and mitigation of a approximately 1.41 acres of existing wetlands on the property, and other development. The resource'maps were not revised as indicated in the findings for the decision. Meanwhile, Army Corps of Engineers and Department of State Lands permits were obtained and grading, filling and mitigation occurred even though the remainder of the development was not built. The Significant Habitat Areas map, based on the wetland inventory, is also in error and needs revision accordingly. Although Council's approval of CPA98-00002 legally amended the City's Significant Wetlands Map, the Director's application is to formally correct the error in mapping. LOCATION: The property is located south of SW Dartmouth Street and west of SW 72nd Avenue in the Tigard Triangle; Washington County Tax Assessor's Maps 2S101BA, Tax Lot 101 and 1S136CD, Tax Lot 4200. ZONE /COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: GG (PD): General Commercial District. The CG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a city- wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single- TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB- November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 o f S family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use; a wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. In the case of the subject property, the Council applied the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for development. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: City of Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2 and 3; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 5; and Metro Functional Plan, Title 3. a. Open Public Hearing b. Hearing Procedure Statement - City Attorney C. Declarations or Challenges - Do any members of Council wish to report any ex pane contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? - Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? - Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? d. Staff Report: Community Development Department e. Public Testimony - Applicant - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Discussion and Consideration: Ordinance No. 08- 5. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 06-21 (LOCAL FUEL TAX ORDINANCE) EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF COLLECTION a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 08- TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB- November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of S 6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION. The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) 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 maybe held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 9. ADJOURNMENT I:\ADM\Cathy\CCA\2008\081125 P rev business.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB- November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SWIM Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page S of S City ofTigard Study Session - Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE/TIME: November 25,2008/6:30 p.m. Study Session and 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM o STUDY SESSION ■ Briefing on Upcoming Transit Center Redevelopment Study Intergovernmental Agreement with TriMet and Metro- Community Development Department ■ Briefing on Resolutions to Surplus and Sell a Portion of the Canterbury Property and a Remnant Parcel of the Water Building Property- City Attorney o EXECUTIVE SESSION - The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (e) real property transactions negotiations. 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 infortnation 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. Administrative Items: ■ Update on business meeting agenda for tonight: Citizen Communication: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Chris Zoucha will be present to update the City Council on Chamber activities. ■ December 16 City Council meeting is a combined Business and Workshop meeting. Council Calendar: December 9* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 16* Tuesday Council Business and Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 23* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - Cancelled. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA - November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660 (2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660 (2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660 (2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660 (2) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660 (2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660 (2) (i) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (2) 0) - Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. I:\ADM\Cathy\CCA SS - Pink Sheet\2008\081125.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA - November 25, 2008 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov .a City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting O~:R In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard (or , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath I, DO 14 416- l.nJ affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) 09 ~j O , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of A~~ tP with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 0 day of i).z r > AA 10 a- -'2 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Signature of Per on w o Per ormed Posting Subscribed and sworn ("rsf5rnird) before me this /Z-4 day of GL e7n bC.r , 20 Q'. OFFICIAL SEAL ALL M BYARS Si ature of No ary P lic for Oregon .f WTARY PUBLIC • ORE" COMMISSION NO. 427990 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 14.2012 hadmtcethyVonnslpost oNinence 2000.doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 08- / AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA2008-00010) TO CORRECT THE CITY'S SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS AND STREAM CORRIDORS MAP, CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS IN 1998 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER APPROVAL (CPA98-0002) AND APPROVING SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR2008-00005) TO CORRECT THE SIGNIFICANT HABITAT AREAS MAP ON AN APPROXIMATELY 1.41 ACRE PORTION OF THE SUBJECT 17.17-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF SW DARTMOUTH STREET, WEST OF SW 72ND AVENUE, AND EAST OF HWY. 217 IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE (WCTM 2S101BA, TAX LOT 00101 AND WCTM 1S136CD, TAX LOT 04200). WHEREAS, In 1998, the City Council approved the Tri-County Shopping Center proposal in 1998 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/Site Development Review (SDR) 98-0002/Planned Development Review (PDR) 98-0001 /Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98- 0004), which approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resources Overly District that included fill and mitigation of approximately 1.41 acres of existing wetlands on the subject property, and other development. WHEREAS, Although Council's 1998 approval of CPA98-0002 legally amended the City's Significant Wetlands Map, the resource maps were not revised as indicated in the findings for the decision. Meanwhile, grading, filling and wetland mitigation occurred even though the development was not built WHEREAS, The Significant Habitat Areas map, based on the wetland inventory, is also in error and needs revision. WHEREAS, Section 18.380.030.A of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires quasi- judicial zoning map amendments to be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in Subsection 18.380.030.B; and WHEREAS, Section 18.380.030.A.2 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council on an application for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment; and WHEREAS, Section 18.380.030.B.1 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, requires demonstration of compliance with all applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and map designations; and WHEREAS, Section 18.380.030.B.2 of the Tigard Development Community Development Code requires demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinances; and WHEREAS, Section 18.380.030.B.3 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires evidence of change in the neighborhood or community, or a mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application; and ORDINANCE No. 08- I 1 Page 1 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.390.060G of the Tigard Development Code, a recommendation by the Commission, and a decision by the Council, shall be based on consideration of Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statues; any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 6, 2008, and recommended approval of CPA2008-00010/SLR2008-00005 by motion with a unanimous vote in favor; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on November 25, 2008, to consider the request for a quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendment and determuied that the amendments will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets all applicable review criteria. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2008-00010) and Sensitive Land Review (SLR2008- 00005) are hereby approved by the City Council. SECTION 2: The attached findings in the 9/24/08 Staff Report to the Planning Commission are hereby adopted in explanation of the Council's decision. SECTION 3: The City's Significant Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map and Significant Habitat Areas Map shall be amended to represent the approved changes SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this g?V-4 day of PiyZ ° Lam, 2008. Carol A. Krager, Deputy City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this ti day of J20O. Craig D' ksen, Mayor Approved as to form: 4-J (6(- City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 08- Page 2 Agenda Item: 5.1 Hearin Date: October 6 2008 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE a® PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = N A SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER APPROVAL WETLAND AND STREAM CORRIDOR" AMENDMENT CASE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00010 Sensitive Lands Review SLR2008-00005 APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: PacTrust Community Development Dept. 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway Attn: Tom Coffee Suite 300 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Portland, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 PROPOSAL: The Community Development Director regnests a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to correct the Cites Significant Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map in the vicinity of SW Dartmouth Street and Hwy. 217. The City Council approved the Tri-County Shopping Center proposal (Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/Site Development Review (SDR) 98-0002/Planned Development Review (PDR) 98-0001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98-0004), which approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the water Resources Overly District that included fill and mitigation of approximately 1.41 acres of existing wetlands on the subject property, and other development. Although Council's approval of CPA98-0002 legally amended the Gigs Significant Wetlands Map, the resource maps were not revised as indicated in the fin rn s for the decision. Meanwhile, gradin , filling and mitigation occurred, even though the development was not built. The Significant Habitat Areas map, based on the wetland inventory, is also in error and needs to be revised. LOCATION: The subject erty is located south of SW Dartmouth Street and west of SW 72nd Avenue subject the Ti aid Triangle; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101BA, Tax Lot 00101 and 1S136CI3, Tax Lot 04200. ZONING/ COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: CG (PD): General Commercial District. The GG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1 and I., and Policy 3; S-tatewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 5; and Metro Functional Plan Titles 3 and 13. TRI-OOUNTY APPROVAL WETLAND AND STREAM OORRIDOR MAP AMENDMENT OPA2008-00010/SLR2008-00005 10/6/08 STAFF REPORT TO TFIE PLANNING 00MMISSION PAGE 1 OF 8 SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Director recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to City Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Sensitive Lands Review. SECTION. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History e Count approved the Tri-Count' Shopping Center proposal. (Com rehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-00021Site Development Review (SDR) 98-0002/Planned ) evelo ment Review (PDR) 98-0001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98-004) , which approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resources Overly District, including fill and mitigation of a approximately 1.41 acres of existing wetlands on the subject property, and other development. However, the resource maps were not revised asindicated in the findings for the decision (Final Order, page 19). Meanwhile, grading, filling and mitigation occurred, even though the development was not built. The Significant Habitat Areas map, based on the wetland inventory, is therefore also in error and needs to be revised. It *s also noted that the fill and mitigation that occurred followed permits granted by the Division of State Lands and US Army Corps of Engineers. Vicini Information The subject 17.17-acre property-is located south of SW Dartmouth Street, west of SW 72nd Avenue, and east of Hwy. 217 in the Iigardriangle. A 10.42-acre N'. ficant wetland associated with Red Rock Creek is located adjacent to the site on the west. The CG (Pned land is surrounded on the north, west and east by the same zone and on the south by land zoned Proposal Descri tion The Community Development Director requests a Comprehensive Plan Ma Amendment to correct the Cit~s Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map and Significant-Habitat Areas Map Attachment 1). SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA; FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380: 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in Subsection B below. A. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on an application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. Staff requests a quasi-)udicial comprehensive plan map amendment under Type III-PC procedure to correct the City's 'Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map consistent with the findings in CPA98-0002. In addition, staff requests a correction in the Cits Significant Habitat Areas Map reflecting the corrected Wetlands and Stream Corridor Map on which Metro s habitat inventory, was based (Metro Ordinance 05- 1077C, Exhibit C, Attachment 3 includes the wetland inventory map that was adopted as part of the habitat inventory). These resource plans are included by reference m the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on this proposed comprehensive plan amendment. B. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions. A recommendation or decision to approve approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 18.380.030. B.1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; TRI-COUNTY APPROVAL WETLAND AND STREAM CORRIDOR MAP AMENDMENT CPA2008-00010/SLR2008-00005 10/6/08 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. The City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing on September 15, 2008 to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, interested citizens, and agencies. The City published notice of the hearing and posted the site pursuant to TDC 18.390.050 for Type III Procedures. After the Planning Commission public hearing, additional notice will be published prior to the City Council hearing. Two public hearings are held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. With these public involvement provisions, the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING Goal 2.1: Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. The Director requested amendments to the City's Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map and the City's Significant Habitat Areas Map, included by reference in the Comprehensive Plan. The map corrections will provide accurate information on which future development proposals can rely, consistent with maintaining an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - POLICY 3: NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE Policy 3.2.1: The city shall prohibit development within areas designated as Significant wetlands on the floodplain and wetlands map. No Development shall occur on property adjacent to areas designated as Significant wetlands on the floodplain and wetlands map within twenty five (25) feet of the designated wetlands area. Development on property adjacent to significant wetlands shall be allowed under the planned development section of the code. The Council, under CPA98-0002, approved removal of approximately 1.41 acres of wetlands on the subject ropper y Even though the development was not built, the developer graded, filled and mitigated for the wetlproperty. ands. However, the resource maps were not revised as indicated in the findings for the decision (Final Order, page 19). Therefore, the prohibition of development for those wetlands should no longer apply. This proposal would revise the City's Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map, consistent with the legal and material status of the subject wetlands. The subject parcel is zoned GG (PD) and is adjacent to a 10.42-acre significant wetland associated with RO Rock Creek on the west. Therefore, future development on the site will occur under the planned development section of the code (Chapter 18.350). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed map revisions are consistent with the applicable goals and policies contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 18.380.030.B.2 Demonstration of compliance with all a plicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; andp Zoning Ma and Text Amendments 18.380 The applicable Sections o Chapter 18.380 including the process for map amendments and approval standards are addressed in this staff report. Decision Makine (18.390) The standards o apter 18.390.050 for Type III-PC procedures are applicable to this proposal, as identified in 18.380.030. Section 18.390.-050 requires a preapplication conference, application requirements, and procedures for Planning Commission hearings. A pre- application conference was held in July and documented in the July 31, 2008 Memorandum from Tom Coffee to Dick Bewersdorff. An Impact Statement is not required under 18.390.050.B.e. because no development is proposed. Pursuant to 18.)80.030.A.2, the Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on an application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. TRI-OOVNIY APPROVAL WETLAND AND STREAM OORRIOOR MAP AMENDMENT CA2008-00010/SLR2008-00005 10/6/08 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING 001AMISSI0N PAGE 3 OF 8 In addition, 18.775.130 states that any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor protection of significant wetlands may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under a Type IV procedure. CPA98-0002 used the Type IV procedure to remove the wetlands through the ESEE safeharbor analysis. The procedures for this Type III PC process and the Type IV process are similar in that both require hearings at the Planning Commission with a recommendation to Council who makes the decision. However, Type IV decisions require consideration of additional criteria, including any applicable Metro, State and Federal regulations. These additional regulations are addressed below. Sensitive Lands (18.775) 18.775.130 Plan Amendment Option An owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor (1) pprotection of significant wetlands and/or (2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River, Knno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed separately through an Alternatives Analysis, as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and. Construction Standards" The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) consequences analysis. CPA98-0002, which was a specific development proposal, included an ESEE analysis that formed the basis of the Council's approval and removal of the Goal 5 protection from the property. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. CPA98-0002 approved the application and the ESEE analysis was incorporated by reference in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The '}ending in the decision stated "If this application is approved, staff will undertake the appropp ate revisions to the resource maps." However, staff did not revise the Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map, which is the sub)ect of the Director's request. 18.775.140 Significant Habitat Areas Map Verification Procedures The Significant Habitat Areas Map shall be the basis for determining the general location of significant habitat areas on or adjacent to the site. Applicants who believe that the map is inaccurate shall submit a detailed delineation conducted by a qualified professional in accordance with the following methodology to verify the precise boundaries of the inventoried habitat areas by means of a Type II procedure. Verifying boundaries of inventoried riparian habitat. Locating habitat and determining its riparian habitat class is a four-step process: a) Locate the Water Feature that is the basis for identifying n arian habitat, b) Identify the vegetative cover status of all areas on the property that are within 200 feet of the top of bank of streams, rivers, and o en water, are wetlands or are within 150 feet of wetlands, and are flood areas and within 100 feet offlood areas, c) Determine whether the degree that the land slope upward from all streams ravers, and open' pen water within 200 feet of the property is greater than or less than 25% (using the vegetated corridor measurement methodolo y as described in Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards) and d) Identi the npparian habitat classes applicable to all areas on the property using TA le 18.775.2 and able 1 .775.3. The City believes the Significant Habitat Areas Map is inaccurate because it is based on an inaccurate wetlands 'inventory as described in this report and shown in Attachment 1. The methodology rescribed to verify habitat a a boundaries includes locating the water feature that is the basis for identifying riparian habitat. In this case, CPA98-0002 removed two island wetlands that were the basis for the "strictly l mit" habitat classification. Staff proposes to amend the Significant Habitat Areas Map to remove only those two "strictly limit" areas associated with the wetlands that no longer exist legally or materially. Metro Land Use and Planning submitted a comment letter dated September 5, 2008, in which Metro staff concluded that there are no significant issues with the Directors request related to Metro's Habitat Inventory Map or Water Quality Resource Area map. However, Metro staff requested the following TRI-GOWN APPROVAL WETLAND AND STREAM CORRIDOR MAP AMENDMENT CPA2008-00010/SLR2008-00005 10/6/08 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 OF 8 comments be entered into the record based on the requested change and as the City works with the property owner on future development: ♦ The stream on the property, which has been scarified for some time, does appear to be in error. There may be a small remnant in the northeast corner of the lot. Metro receives all its stream layers from the local jurisdictions; consequently we would rely on your identification of this resource and its location. ♦ Metro staff has reviewed aerial photography over severalyears. and has seen no evidence of the two small wetlands shown on the current maps. A previous Comprehensive Plan Amendment passed by the Tigard City Council has already removed the wetlands from the inventory. Since Metro can find no evidence of wetlands in the past, the removal of the habitat designation is consistent with previous decisions on this property. Again, Metro receives local wetlands inventory from the local jurisdictions. ♦ . The lot involved to the west TLID 2S101BA00200, identifies important riparian habitat which provides important protection for both wildlife habitat and water quality within the City of Tigard. RESPONSE: The stream on the subject property currently runs in a course adjacent to SW Dartmouth and is included in the on-going 10-ye year mitigation effort permitted by DLCD and USAGE. The original stream course is indicated on the CWS Stream Corridors Map and on the Significant Habitat Areas Map as "lightly limit". The original stream course is scarified as a result of the gradilg a~proved under CPA98-000 and mapping should reflect these changes. The City's Long Range Planning taff will work with CWS and Metro to amend their respective maps. The Qtys Wetland and Stream Corridors Map will be revised by removing the subject wetland areas and adding the mitigation wetland areas, consistent with this application, if approved. The adjacent TLID 2S101BA00200, owned by Costco, contains important riparian habitat associated with Red Rock Creek On August 29, 2008, the City received an application for retail development on the property that is the subject of this application. The application will be processed as a planned development. The purposes of the Planned Development chapter include preservnn to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities and to provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. Application of the Planned Development standards and process should ensure protection for both wildlife Habitat and water quality on the adjacent parcel. FINDING: The proposal is consistent with the applicable standards of Tigard Development Code. 18.380.030.B.3 Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning. map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. The Director has initiated a comprehensive plan map amendment to address errors in the Ci s Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map and the City's Significant Flabitat Areas Map, which are incorporated by reference into the comprehensive plan map. Consistent with the findings in CPA98-0002, the City proposes to revise the Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map removing the wetlands designation on the subject 1.41 acres of mapped wetlands. In addition, the City intends to revise the City's Significant Habitat Areas Map consistent with Metro's adopted Metro's Goal 5 program known as Nature in Neighborhoods. The wetland inventory map (Metro Ordinance 05-10770, Exhibit C, Attachment 3) that was adopted as part of the habitat inventory was based on the City's erroneous Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map, which included the wetlands removed under CPA98-0002. The Ci s Significant Habitat Areas Map shows "strictly limit" habitat areas associated with wetlands. The removal of the mapped wetlands would remove the basis for the habitat designation. FINDING: The direction for ma revision in the findings for CPA98-0002 provides evidence of a mistake in the City's Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map and the &-/s Significant Habitat Areas Map relating to the subject property. TRI-COUNTY APPROVAL WETLAND AND STREAM OORRIDOR MAP AMENDMENT CPA2008-00010/SLR2008-00005 10/6/08 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 OF 8 18.380.030.C Conditions of approval. A quasi-judicial decision may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions as provided by Section 18.390.050. A legislative decision may e approved or denied. FINDING: The land use action requested is quasi-judicial as it is limited to a specific parcel and does not applygenerallyacross the City. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommendation to Counc>1 may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions. APPLICABLE METRO, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS Pursuant to 18.390.060.G, review of the following Metro, State and Federal regulations are applicable to Type IV procedures which apply generally to legislative matters such as the creation, revision, or large- scale implementation. of pub) c policy and specifically to Goal 5 safeharbor protection of significant wetlands (18.775.130. Metro Framework Plan Metro Functional Plan Title 3 - Water Quality, Flood Management, and Fish/Wildlife Habitat Conservation - protect beneficial uses and functional values of water quality and flood management resources by limiting uses in these areas. Establish buffer zones around resource areas to protect from new development. The Proposed ma corrections simply acknowledge what was previously permitted under CPA98-0002 and the SL and USACE permits. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not conflict with Title 3 requirements. Metro Functional Plan Title 13 - Nature in Neighborhoods - conserve, protect and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside corridor system, from the streams' headwaters to their confluence with other streams and rivers, and with their floodplains in a manner that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and with the surrounding urban landscape; and control and prevent water pollution for the protection of the public health and safety, and to maintain and improve water quality throughout the region. Title 13 is part of the regional appproach to implement Statewide Planning Goal 5. As part of the original land use application for C1 -0002, wetlands, vegetated corridor and habitat were inventoried and delineated and an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) analysis was conducted. The decision required compensatory mitigation and reestablishment of wetland areas. The new wetland areas have been establishedpand will be added back into the inventory of protected sites (GeoEng ineeerrs, Wetland Delineation, Figure 6). The Year-Five Wetland Mitigation Monitorin Report. dated 17ecember 21, 2007, by GeoEnggsneers found that the work completed at t e Tiggard Retail Development site has been conducted in general accordance with the Prropcsed Mitigeation Corrplidnet? Action Purx>'i List reviewed with USACE and DSL. The GeoEngineers monitoring survey complleted on November 27, 2007 included establishment of eight monitoring stations that wiJ.C be used over the remaining five years of the 10-year monitoring period to document the success of the mitigation efforts. Completion of the proposed mitigation activities will create the capability for proper functioning at the site, consistent with the aim of Nature in Neighborhoods. With this application, the City is simply proposing to amend the Citys Wetlands and Stream Corridors and Significant bitat Areas maps for the wetlands removed under CI'A98-0002. New wetlands created will also be mapped accordingly. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed project has addressed the relevant Metro policies. nu-COUNTY APPROVAL WETLAND AND STREAM CORRIDOR MAP AMENDMENT CPA2008-00010/SLR2008-00005 10/6/08 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 OF 8 Statewide Planning Goals Statewide Planning Goal 1- Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390. A notice was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site and the notice was additionally published in the Tigard Times prior to the hearing. After the Planning commission public hearing, additional notice well be published prior to the City Council hearing. Two public hearings are held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Cit Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and standards to review changes to the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed within this report, the proposed amendments comply with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan criteria. Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Natural Resources This goal requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic areas and sites suitable for removal and processing of mineral and aggregate resources. This goal is met because the resources have been inventoried and delineated. Protections are in. lace via the development code restrictions. Staff is proposing to amend the Wetland and Stream Cordors and Significant Habitat Areas maps to correct mapping errors when the subject wetlands were removed from the inventory pursuant to. CPA98-0002, but not removed from the maps. The review process also required compensatory mitggation and reestablishment of wetland areas. The new wetlands on the subject site have been established (Geo Engineers Wetland Delineation, 5/18/07) and will be added back into the inventory of protected sites. A thorough review by state (DSL, RF-9256) and federal (USAGE, case number 98-666) agencies has been conducted and approvals have been issued. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. State and Federal Regulations Oregon Revised Statues Chapter 196 Oregon Revised Statues Chapter 196 addresses general wetland requirements within the state. These statutes are administered by Division of State Lands. DSL reviewed the proposal and issued an approval permit for the subject property (DSL RF-9256). Federal Clean Water Act, section 404 The clean water act is responsible for regulatin impacts to wetlands and other navigable waters, of the United States. The agency pnmanly responsible i nplementin these federal statutes is the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has reviewed the proposal and issued an approval for wetland fill (USA , case number 98-666) FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with applicable State and Federal regulations. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS City of Tigard Long Range Planning Division has reviewed the proposal and intends to amend the maps that are the subject of thus proposal. TRI-CX)LW YAPPROVAL WETLAND AND STREAM CX)RMORMAP AMENDMENT CPA2008-00010/SLR2008-00005 10/6/08 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING C O1vMSSION PAGE 7 OF 8 SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS Oregon Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Land Conservation and Development, Environmental Quality and Division of State Lands were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or ob)ections. Clean Water Services (CWS) has reviewed the proposal and submitted a general comment letter date September 2, 2008. CWS comments do not address the particulars of this application but rather issues rested to the eventual development of the site. Metro Land Use and Planning submitted a comment letter dated September 5, 2008, in which Metro staff concluded that there were no significant issues with the request related to Metro's Habitat Inventory Map or Water Quality Resource Area map. However, there are several comments that Metro staff would like entered into the record based on the requested change. These comments are included in the body of this staff report. A copy of the letter can be found 'n the land use file for this application. ' 10 September 24, 2008 PREPARED BY: G Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner September 24. 2008 REVIEWED BY: Richard ewersdorff DATE Planning Manager IAcurpln\gary\comprehensive plan amendments \cpa2008-00010 (Tri-County) 112I-COUNTY APPROVAL WETLAND AND S'IRB.AM CORRIDOR MAP AMLNDMI.-N"I' CPA2008-00010/Sl.,R2008-00005 10/6/08 STAFF REIPOR1' TO TI II; PLANNING COMMISSION PAGF, 8 OF 8 Nd, ~'&'R gg$qq$ ros, - r r X rr. W, err wVut~g- ill of sY $',2l'L f .{fl^ a. x k ~ pa P r i + ~ 4~ r, Ngzll~3Cs~f3s -l:'E° iW3 ' t 'dom.., - 4 " r"aac t;` sa vA'u Ae Y-wha a, ^a t. x rW Wetlands resraovl~c# b °'r ti"s zstS§ 6€ atE i ra sr: s` CPA9 l 0002 g y ,u . 0-67W 'Wit 1P s K W0° W yyyyy99 ~ ~ ~ t n,.~.vu-n..., x~p+r~ w MAI, f _ ~ Pi.. mV ^'°'N f3s Y a py -v. 48'. 1 ) y CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.08- ,20 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.65 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED A TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL DEALERS AND PROVIDED FOR ENFORCEMENT, ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION OF THE TAX. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 06-21 established a 3-cent per gallon tax on motor vehicle fuel and amended the Tigard Municipal Code to add Chapter 3,65; and WHEREAS, Chapter 3.65 set an expiration date of December 31, 2011 for collection of the tax, unless renewed by ordinance of City Council; and WHEREAS, the net revenue for the tax is dedicated solely for improvements to the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection; and WHEREAS, under Section 3.65.270 (2), the intent of the ordinance is to cease collection of the tax once the improvements are fully funded; and WHEREAS, the assumption in setting the expiration date was that the anticipated revenues of $4.5 to $5.0 million over that 5-year period would be sufficient to fund the project; and WHEREAS, collections, which began on April 1, 2007, are not at the level necessary to fully fund the improvements; and WHEREAS, the period of collection needs to be extended to collect sufficient revenue to fully fund the proposed improvements; and WHEREAS, the current economic conditions are such that the monthly collections have been lower than expected, and the project costs and interest rate could be higher than anticipated; and WHEREAS, the collection period should be extended to collect sufficient revenue to finance and pay for the intersection improvements; and WHEREAS, the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W intersection identified in Section 3.65.270(2) should be more fully defined to mean the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection; and WHEREAS, clarification in the ordinance is needed to ensure that Main Street is recognized as an integral part of the intersection improvements envisioned. ORDINANCE No. 08.2d Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 3.65.030 of Chapter 3.65 in the Tigard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Section 3.65.030 Tax Imposed A motor vehicle fuel tax is hereby imposed on every dealer. The tax imposed shall be paid monthly to the tax administrator. The tax administrator is authorized to exercise all supervisory and administrative powers with regard to the enforcement, collection and administration of the motor vehicle fuel tax, including all powers specified in ORS 319.010 to 319.430. 31, 204 1, bw shaU not reinftin in effeet after that date urAess renewed by ordinanee a the Gity Getineil. Renewal of the tax shall be set for Gauneil eansideration in the &s half of eAettdar year 2 The motor vehicle fuel tax shall remain in effect until sufficient funds are collected to fully finance and pay for the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection improvements. The expiration date shall be set at the end of the month following assurance of both full project funding and adequate notice to all involved in the collection process. SECTION 2: Section 3.65.270(2) in the Tigard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2. The net revenue shall be used only for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of public highways, roads and streets within the City. The net revenue shall be used exclusively for improvements to the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection. The City shall cease collecting the tax once the improvements are fully funded. SECTION 3: All other sections in Chapter 3.65 remain the same. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No. 08-oZ 0 Page 2 PASSED: By UZ~/lr eU.4) vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 2,:f'day of )2008. Carol A. Krager, Deputy Ci ecorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this .~S f &y of IJIi`z° 0 . Craig D ksen, Mayor App oved as to f rm: Attorney 00 'LIV Date iAeng\gus\ordmances\11-25-08 amendment to the local fuel tax ordinance orddoc ORDINANCE No. 08- 2 Page 3 • t, _ b x ~ ~i. s~f.~;r'i rr ';a 1~«. 5 ..y r t' ~{y I~ S e lit vR I Agenda Item # !5x44 U/ Llf /1 ~4 Meeting Date November 25, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Tide Bn_efin_ b City Attorney Ramis on Resolutions to Surplus and Sell a Portion of the Canterburv Pro e and a Remnant Parcel of the Water Building PrMem Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Hear a briefing from City Attorney Ramis on resolutions to surplus and sell a portion of the Canterbury property and a remnant parcel of the Water Building Property. Council will consider these resolutions later in the meeting on the consent agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Participate in the briefing. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ The City of Tigard is interested in purchasing two properties that are jointly owned by the City of Tigard, the City of King City, the City of Durham and the Tigard Water District. ■ Remnant Parcel - Part of the Water Building property, the triangular remnant parcel is located on the south side of Burnham Street near Hall Boulevard, (see Attachment 1). - As part of the Burnham Street Improvement project, the City intends to reconfigure this parcel to create driveway access for two properties. - The parcel was valued at $50,000, and Tigard has the first right of refusal to purchase the parcel. ■ Canterbury Property -The Canterbury property, located at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane, houses some water facilities. - Water facilities only take up a portion of the property and the City intends to convert the remaining "surplus" property into a park, (see Attachment 2). - The surplus property was valued at $605,000, and Tigard has the first right of refusal to purchase the property. ■ The City Attorney's office has prepared a memo (see Attachment 3) describing the process for the City to surplus, sell and purchase these properties. The resolutions considered by Council on the November 25, 2008 consent agenda are described in Section 11 2. of the memo. These resolutions initiate the process, but a public hearing and subsequent resolutions to authorize the sale and purchase of both properties will be scheduled in early 2009. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could decide not to hold the briefing and could give staff direction on how to proceed with the acquisition of these two properties. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ,ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Depicting the Remnant Parcel Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map Depicting Canterbury Surplus Property Attachment 3 - October 30, 2008 Memo from the City Attorney on Procedures for Conveyance of Water Building Remnant Parcel and Canterbury Surplus Property from IWB Members as Tenants-in-Common FISCAL NOTES There is no financial impact associated with the initial resolutions. However, if the Council gives subsequent approval to purchase the properties, and the City satisfies other purchasing requirements, it can expect to pay the appraised value for each property. The $50,000 remnant parcel would be purchased with money from the FY '08209 Traffic Impact Fee Fund. There is $1.3 million in this fund for right-of-way acquisition. The $605,000 Canterbury surplus property would be purchased in five annual installments from FY '08209 to FY '12213. Payments, including interest, are proposed as follows: Fiscal Year Source Total General Fund Park SDC Fund 2008-2009 $82,600 $57,400 $140,000 2009-2010 $76,030 $52,835 $128,865 2010-2011 $80,973 $56,269 $137,242 2011-2012 $86,236 $59,926 $146,162 2012-2013 $91,841 $63,822 $155.663--~ There is $140,000 in the FY '08209 for the City's initial payment. Subsequent payments will be proposed in future budgets as depicted in the above table. Additionally the City has budgeted $400,000 ($322,600 from the General Fund and $77,400 from the Park SDC Fund) in FY '08209 and will propose $175,750 in FY '09210 for the design and construction of Canterbury park. Attachment 1 Remnant Parcel a ivil T NORTH J,f t,4 ' E . , s ,r- _..q ti. 4`j scde is mcutaMb b ° 261 n WIFE pg. 4.48 0337 MA y' <r. l i1' t1' 'nr t ! 1 i!jr MappnMedat GES.NE CfTY ~M1,, am r~ ` RI'~w) q">r IJ' .Y. If RNEDfROM IMtn~ERSE~pRRESENfI,T10N 0R _ d erf~ a`• •.'.1~ .k+ ' i t' ` T'a'J`rEE rJanN'nRn °F w ^ v frJ /,}`pf~~rl pRCMEO NER~EAM M GmppptS OW3g pE~p Fit y ti RE6RROlE yr i . ray of -ngard t~]~25aS,w a '94" '.Y ~'R.k~ i• Canterbo surplus . P p pp,,~ i l Te wAw tr~ jr: 11 Am MURDOCK LN; " F -1► 4Fi, ~r '71 { 50 M 4' n W a µappnrded .nrecrtr M Y . ' ' 7 ° r - ~ ~ vi4~ ~rp~.s 14~ertra~ oa 4T,xaaaoa"~'rat°W^'e`a oa~ETwE ~'+~~'~-,0t'• .,Y' ~ ~ ~~„eo~E~n°µcaER~owE~'~o atd ~ i ~.~'t~ • .DEL jNOMTE ~ Oft T7! ~l fi ~ ~ t ` T ~pY MARION QR-- Attachment 3 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Tigard FROM: City of Tigard City Attorney DATE: October 30, 2008 RE: Procedures for Conveyance of Water Building Remnant Parcel and Canterbury Surplus Property from IWB Members as Tenants-in-Common to the City of Tigard; List of Required Documents File No. 50014-36792 General instructions for the transfer are as follows: 1. On November 12, 2008, the Intergovernmental Water Board ("IWB") votes, pursuant to Section 21 of the Water Building Tenancy in Common Agreement ("Water Building TIC"), on a street dedication and a public utility easement encumbering the Water Building Property: "All determinations to be made by the Owners under the terms of this Agreement, other than sale of the Property, shall be by majority vote of the five (5) members of the IWB. Unless specifically provided otherwise, an affirmative vote of three or more of the IWB members shall be required for any action to be taken, any determinations to be made, or any authorizations to be given by the Owners under the terms of this Agreement". If there is a vote of approval, one (1) original of each of the recorded documents should be executed by each IWB representative. The signatures must be notarized. The City of Tigard staff will process the recording. Date Action 10/31/08 Packet Date - IWB 11/12/08 Vote on documents - IWB II. In advance of the December 10, 2008 IWB meeting, each member jurisdiction (Durham, King City, the Tigard Water District and the City of Tigard) must meet to recommend that their respective representatives to the IWB undertake certain actions. Specifically, each member jurisdiction should consider Resolutions as follows: 1. Each of the City of Durham, King City and the Tigard Water District: (1) considers a resolution authorizing: 1 50014-36792.003 147632 11.docICED/10/30/2008 (A) the sale of its tenant-in-common interest in the remnant parcel (the "Remnant Parcel") of the Water Building property, including the form of deed (with the deed being executed by the City Manager or Chairman, as applicable, following final bid selection); and (B) the City of Tigard to dispose of the entire Remnant Parcel as surplus property according to the City of Tigard's municipal code; and (C) its IWB representative to vote to recommend to the Tigard City Council that the City of Tigard dispose of the entire Remnant Parcel as surplus property; and (2) considers a resolution authorizing: (A) the sale of its tenant-in-common interest in the surplus portion of the Canterbury Property (the "Canterbury Surplus Property"), including the form of deed (with the deed being executed by the City Manager or Chairman, as applicable, following final bid selection); and (B) City of Tigard to dispose of the entire Canterbury Surplus Property as surplus property according to the City of Tigard's municipal code; and (C) its IWB representative to vote to recommend to the Tigard City Council that the City of Tigard dispose of the entire Canterbury Surplus Property as surplus property. The schedule for the respective meetings at which the Resolutions shall be considered is as follows: Date Action 10/31/08 Packet Date - Tigard Water District 11/03/08 Packet Date - City of Durham 11/03/08 Packet Date - King City 11/10/08 Approve Resolutions - Tigard Water District 11/18/08 Approve Resolutions - City of Durham City Council 11/19/08 Approve Resolutions - King City Council 2. The City of Tigard: (1) considers a resolution: (A) declaring the Remnant Parcel surplus and authorizing the sale of the entire Remnant Parcel (including its tenant-in-common interest); and (B) authorizing its IWB representative to vote for the IWB to recommend to the Tigard City Council that the City of Tigard dispose of the entire Remnant Parcel as surplus property according to the City of Tigard's municipal code; and 2 50014-36791.003 147632 11.docICED/10/30/1008 (C) authorizing City of Tigard staff to schedule a public hearing and issue the required public notice for the sale of the Remnant Parcel according to the City of Tigard's municipal code, contingent upon an affirmative vote at the December 10, 2008 IWB meeting; and (2) considers a resolution: (A) declaring the Canterbury Surplus Property surplus and authorizing the sale of the entire Canterbury Surplus Property (including its tenant-in-common interest); and (B) authorizing its IWB representative to vote to recommend to the Tigard City Council that the City of Tigard dispose of the entire Canterbury Surplus Property as surplus property according to the City of Tigard's municipal code; and (C) authorizing City of Tigard staff to schedule a public hearing and issue the required public notice for the sale of the Canterbury Surplus Property according to the City of Tigard's municipal code, contingent upon an affirmative vote at the December 10, 2008 IWB meeting. The schedule for the City of Tigard meeting at which the above Resolutions shall be considered is as follows: Date Action 11/7/08 Packet Date - City of Tigard 11/25/08 Approve Resolutions - City of Tigard City Council III. On December 10, 2008, the IWB meets to consider and vote on the sale of the properties. 'Specifically, the IWB will consider: (1) a resolution recommending to the Tigard City Council that it declare the Remnant Parcel surplus and dispose of the Remnant Parcel as surplus property according to the City of Tigard's municipal code; and (2) a resolution addressing those other properties which are suitable for surplus disposition and recommending to the Tigard City Council that it declare the Canterbury Surplus Property surplus and dispose of the Canterbury Surplus Property as surplus property according to the City of Tigard's municipal code. If there is a vote of approval, one (1) original of each of the Tenancy in Common Memoranda (one for the Water Building TIC, and one for the Canterbury TIC) should be executed by each IWB representative. The City of Tigard staff will handle distribution of copies of the executed documents. Copies of the Tenancy in Common Memoranda will be given to the City of Tigard as notice of its right of first refusal on each of the properties. 3 50014-36792.003 147632 11.docICED/10/30/1008 The schedule for the IWB meeting at which the above Resolutions shall be considered is as follows: Date Action 11/14/08 Packet Date - I" 12/10/08 Approve Resolutions - IWB IV. If there is an affirmative vote at the December 10, 2008 IWB meeting, the City of Tigard shall proceed accordingly to sell the surplus properties according to the City of Tigard's municipal code. Specifically: (1) If not already completed, Staff shall schedule a public hearing and publish a notice of public hearing per the requirements of the City of Tigard municipal code; and (2) At the close of the public hearing, the Tigard City Council determines whether-it will offer each property for sale and the minimum acceptable terms. The Tigard City Council will consider a resolution authorizing the sale of each property and granting the City Manager and/or Staff authority to undertake all tasks necessary in connection therewith. At that same meeting, the Tigard City Council will consider a separate resolution authorizing the City of Tigard to purchase each property, submit bids and exercise its right of first refusal if necessary. That resolution should also authorize the execution and delivery of both right of first refusal exercise notices by the Tigard City Manager to the IWB and grant the City Manager and/or Staff authority to undertake all tasks necessary in connection with closing the sales, including accepting and executing the deeds and paying the purchase price; and (3) If the sale Resolutions pass, Staff shall establish dates for the (i) bid deadlines, (ii) opening of bids; and (iii) acceptance of highest bid, and shall publish notices soliciting bids. Notices must clearly describe the City of Tigard's right of first refusal, and that the City of Tigard has the right to match the highest bid. Notices must also describe the required reservations for the Canterbury Surplus Property; and (4) If the purchase Resolutions pass, the City of Tigard will submit bids to purchase prior to the bid deadlines. If.any other party submits a bid to purchase either property, the City of Tigard may exercise its right of first refusal; and (5) On'the dates previously established, the City of Tigard will open the bids and accept the highest bid for each property, subject to the City of Tigard's right of first refusal; and (6) A deed transfers the interest of all tenants-in-common of the Remnant Parcel to the City of Tigard. City of Tigard pays the purchase price for the Remnant Parcel and 4 50014-36792.003 147632 11.docICED/10/30/1008 proceeds are distributed pursuant to the Water Building TIC or other agreement between the parties; and (7) A deed transfers the interest of all tenants-in-common of the Canterbury Surplus Property to the City of Tigard. City of Tigard pays the purchase price for the Canterbury Surplus Property and proceeds are distributed pursuant to the Canterbury TIC or other agreement between the parties. The schedule for the Tigard City Council meeting at which the above Resolutions shall be considered is as follows: Date Action TBD Packet Date - Tigard City Council TBD Approve separate Resolutions authorizing sale and authorizing purchase of surplus properties - Tigard City Council Required documents to be prepared by Tigard City Attorney: 1. Street dedication deed and public utility easement. 2. Resolutions for Durham, King City and the Tigard Water District for (i) the Remnant Parcel and (ii) the Canterbury Surplus Property. 3. Resolutions for the City of Tigard to declare surplus property for (i) the Remnant Parcel, and (ii) the Canterbury Surplus Property. 4. IWB resolutions for (i) the Remnant Parcel and (ii) the Canterbury Surplus Property. 5. Tenancy in Common Memoranda for (i) the Remnant Parcel and (ii) the Canterbury Surplus Property. 6. Resolutions for the City of Tigard authorizing sale of (i) the Remnant Parcel and (ii) the Canterbury Surplus Property. 7. Resolutions for the City of Tigard authorizing purchase of (i) the Remnant Parcel and (ii) the Canterbury Surplus Property. 8. Affirmative notices from City of Tigard to IWB regarding intention to exercise rights of first refusal (as required by the TIC Agreements). 9. Deed conveying the Remnant Parcel interests to the City of Tigard. 10. Deed conveying the Canterbury Surplus Property interests to the City of Tigard. 5 50014-36791.003 147631 11.docICED/10/30/1008 Crai Prosser, .LLOM: Samantha Drake [Samantha. Drake@tonkon.com] t: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 02:51 PM hbergsma@thprd.org; cao@co.washington.or.us; jarussell59@comcast.net; kstallkamp@yahoo.com; greg@tvwd.org; chiefjohnson@tvfr.com; CruzR@cleanwaterservices.org; AndrewsT@CleanWaterServices.org; dmenke@thprd.com; rdrake@ci.beaverton.or.us; ssparks@ci.beaverton.or.us; jbarnard@ci.beaverton.or.us; Craig Prosser; dwells@ci.king-city.or.us; sheriff@co.washington.or.us; dave hepp@co.washington.or.us; robert davis@co.washington.or.us; Brent Curtis@co.washington.or.us; noreen_lee@co.washington.or.us; Dixie_King@co.washington.or.us; Lisa@HamiltonRealtyGroup.com Cc: Mark Cushing Subject: Bull Mountain/Areas 63&64 Area Meeting Hi All: The Bull Mountain/Areas 63&64 Area Meeting will be held on Monday, 12/1 from 7pm-9pm. We will meet in the Clean Water Services Admin. Building of the the Durham Facility, located at 16850 SW 85th Ave. in Tigard. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thanks, Sam Samantha K. Drake Tonkon Torp LLP 1600 Pioneer Tower 1 888 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 503.802.57121 FAX 503.972.7412 samantha.drake(atonkon.com I www.tonkon.com AM&s message may contain confidential communications and privileged information. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify me Ptly. Circular 230 Disclaimer. If any part of this communication is interpreted as providing federal tax advice, U.S. Treasury Regulations require that we inform you that we neither intended nor wrote this communication for you to use in avoiding federal tax penalties that the IRS may attempt to impose and you may not use it for that purpose. Hal Bergsma - Tualatin Hills Park & Rec. Julie Russell - IWB Rep? Kathy Stallkamp - Chair, CP04K Greg DiLoretto - Tualatin Valley Water District Chief Jeff Johnson - TVF&R Bob Cruz - Clean Water Services Tom Andrews - Clean Water Services Doug Menke - Tualatin Hills Park & Rec. Rob Drake - Beaverton Mayor Steve Sparks - Beaverton Planning Mgr Joyce Barnard (Beaverton Mayor's support stafo Craig Prosser Dave Wells - King City Washington County Commissioners Rob Gordon - WaCo sheriff Dave Hepp - WaCo under Sherriff Robert Davis - WaCo Brent Curtis - WaCo Noreen Lee - WaCo (Commissioner support stafo Dixie King - WaCo (WCCC support stafo Lisa Hamilton Trieck Craig Prosser From: Nick Wilson [Nick@tigard-or.gov] Ont: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 02:43 PM : Craig Prosser; Liz Newton; Councilmail Councilmail Subject: FW: Mtg. Request - SMF Proposal Importance: High From: Amanda Dalton[SMTP:AMANDA(d-)DALTONPR.COMI Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:43:08 PM S~`"K G~yie To: Nick Wilson Subject: Mtg. Request - SMF Proposal Importance: High Auto forwarded by a Rule Hello Councilor Wilson, I'm working on behalf of the Northwest Grocery Association (formerly Oregon Grocery Association) and would like to schedule a meeting with yourself and our Association President, Joe Gilliam. As you may remember, Joe and Dan Floyd (now with Safeway) were instrumental in the original SMF proposal in 2003/04. As such, you can imagine our members have significant interest in the most recent revised rate proposal. I apologize for the last minute request, however we are trying to arrange a sit-down with you prior to the Holiday season. Do you have any time the morning of Monday, Dec. 1st or Tuesday, Dec. 2nd (any time) to &eet with us to discuss the latest Street Maintenance Fee rate proposal? We appreciate your time and consideration, Amanda Dalton cell: 503-884-0415 Amanda Dalton DALTON PUBLIC RELATIONS & GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS p. 503.884.0415 f. 503.200.1945 i • AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: November 25, 2008 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: 6uiior 6A-P Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address SW ` . rGL City .V State zip Phone No. 9, Name: n & N l Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help / the presiding officer pronounce: C~y-Gt Address t06-,;LqV~ 34-7/ 7r(q A-9 city 6aA~47,12 State e,?,A- zip ~~''t I Phone No.SO 3 910,0 /z11q46 Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Agenda Item # Meeting Date November 25, 2008 LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Tide Consider Awarding a Contract for Maintenance of the City's Heating, Ventilating and Air . Conditioning ACSystems Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: r)v ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Shall the Local Contract Review Board award the HVAC Maintenance contract to Reitmeier Mechanical and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award the HVAC Maintenance contract to Reitmeier Mechanical. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ With facilities at nine different locations throughout the City, and with multiple buildings at several of these locations, the City has a consistent need for HVAC maintenance services. ■ The City's HVAC contractor provides the labor, materials and equipment to perform inspections and preventative maintenance. At an additional cost, the HVAC contractor also replaces or makes necessary repairs to various components within the HVAC systems. ■ Staff has determined outsourcing this work continues to be the most efficient and economical way to accomplish the City's HVAC maintenance. ■ A Request for Proposal was issued for HVAC maintenance services and three responsive bids were received: Bidder Bid Amount McKins $24,614 Reitmeier Mechanical $19,116 SSM Mechanical Services $29,872 ■ All bidders scored equally well on their ability to perform the maintenance services, so staff s recommendation to award the contract to Reitmeier Mechanical is based on the fact that they submitted lowest bid - $19,116. ■ Staff recommends the HVAC maintenance contract be awarded to Reitmeier Mechanical. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The LCRB could choose not to award this contract to Reitmeier Mechanical and could direct staff how to proceed with the maintenance of City HVAC systems. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES There was $34,000 in the FY '08209 Property Management Professional/ Contractual Services Fund to cover the $19,116 cost of HVAC maintenance. Due to unanticipated repairs early in the fiscal year, approximately $16,000 remains. Since the term of the HVAC maintenance contract will run from December 2008 through November 2009, the remaining balance of $3,100 will be funded in the FY '09210 budget. The contract will be for an initial term of one year and may be extended for four additional one-year terms. The total expense of the contract, if all five years are exercised, is estimated to be $100,000. Agenda Item # 3 j 3 Meeting Date November 25, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Tide Consider a Resolution Declaring_a Portion of the Canterbury Property as Surplus Property and Stipulating Other Conditions Re din the Disposition of the Pro e Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: fik'---City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Council adopt the resolution declaring a portion of the Canterbury property as surplus property and stipulating other conditions regarding the disposition of the property? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ The Canterbury property, located at 10310 SW Canterbury Lane, houses some water facilities and is jointly owned by the City of Tigard, the City of King City, the City of Durham and the Tigard Water District. ■ Water facilities only take up a portion of the property and the City is interested in converting the remaining "surplus" property into a park. ■ The surplus property was valued at $605,000, and Tigard has the first right of refusal to purchase this property. ■ The Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Society has expressed an interest in partnering with the City to develop the park. ■ This resolution will initiate the process, but a public hearing and subsequent resolutions to authorize the sale and purchase of the parcel will be scheduled in early 2009. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could choose not to declare the property surplus and could direct staff on how to proceed with plans to convert the surplus property into a park. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution Exhibit A - Legal Description and Map FISCAL NOTES There is no financial impact associated with this resolution. If the Council gives subsequent approval to purchase the parcel, and the City satisfies other purchasing requirements, it can expect to pay the appraised value of $605,000. The plan is to purchase the property in five annual installments from FY '08209 to FY '12213. Payments, including interest, are proposed as follows: Fiscal Year Source Total General Fund Park SDC Fund 2008-2009 $82,600 $57,400 $140,000 2009-2010 $76,030 $52,835 $128,865 2010-2011 $80,973 $56,269 $137,242 2011-2012 $86,236 $59,926 $146,162 2012-2013 $91,841 $63,822 $155,663 There is $140,000 in the FY '08209 for the City's initial payment. Subsequent payments will be proposed in future budgets as depicted in the above table. Additionally the City has budgeted $400,000 ($322,600 from the General Fund and $77,400 from the Park SDC Fund) in FY '08209 and will propose $175,750 in FY '09210 for the design and construction of Canterbury park. Agenda Item # 344 Meeting Date November 25, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Consider a Resolution Declaring the Water Building Remnant Parcel as Surplus Property and Stiuulating Other Conditions Regarding the Disposition of the Parcel s Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Council adopt the resolution declaring the Water Building remnant parcel as surplus property and stipulating other conditions regarding the disposition of the parcel? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY ■ The City of Tigard is interested in purchasing the Water Building remnant parcel, which is jointly owned by the City of Tigard, the City of King City, the City of Durham and the Tigard Water District. ■ The triangular parcel is located on the south side of Burnham Street near Hall Boulevard. ■ As part of the Burnham Street improvement project, the City intends to reconfigure this parcel to create driveway access for two properties. ■ The parcel appraised at $50,000, and Tigard has the first right of refusal to purchase the parcel. ■ This resolution will initiate the process, but a public hearing and subsequent resolutions to authorize the sale and purchase of the parcel will be scheduled in early 2009. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Although this would affect the City's plans for the Burnham Street improvement project, the Council could choose not to declare the property surplus and could direct staff on how to proceed with the improvements. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution Exhibit A - Map Depicting the Remnant Parcel FISCAL NOTES There is no financial impact associated with this resolution. If the Council gives subsequent approval to purchase the parcel, and the City satisfies other purchasing requirements, it can expect to pay the appraised value of $50,000. This money would be paid from the FY '08209 Traffic Impact Fee Fund. There is $1.3 million in this fund for right-of-way acquisition. Agenda Item # Meeting Date November 25.2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Housing Alliance 2009 Legislative Agenda Prepared By: Duane Roberts Dept Head Approval: J y City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council formally endorse the Housing Alliance's 2009 Legislative Agenda by authorizing staff to complete and submit the attached endorsement form (Attachment 1)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council endorse the agenda. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In February of this year, the City became a dues paying and voting member of the Oregon Housing Alliance (HA), a statewide coalition of sixty plus member organizations including cities, counties, and nonprofit organizations. The primary goal of the Housing Alliance is to increase state resources for affordable housing. One of the rationales for joining the HA was greater effectiveness in making the case for increased funding at the State Legislature. In September 2008, Council adopted a resolution defining the City's priorities for the 2009 Oregon legislative session. Affordable Housing/Document Recording Fee was one of four identified priorities. As noted in an earlier memo to Council, the HA membership recently endorsed a proposed 2009 funding package (Attachment 2). As part of its marketing campaign, the Housing Alliance is now asking for support of its $100 million housing opportunity agenda. State income tax revenues, lottery funds, and a Document Recording Fee (a City Council legislative goal) are the proposed funding sources for implementing the agenda. Formally endorsing the agenda would help raise affordable housing as an issue in the upcoming legislative session. The bleak State budget picture, i.e., declining State income tax revenues and lottery proceeds, likely will limit the potential for tapping into the General Fund and Lottery for affordable housing dollars. On the other hand, an increase on the document recording fee to create a dedicated revenue source for affordable housing appears to stand a reasonable chance of carrying the day. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Endorse part of the HA's 2009 legislative agenda. l:\LRl'L.N\Council Materials\2008\11-25-08 AIS HA 2009 Legislative Agenda.doc 1 CITY COUNCIL GOAL N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Show Your Support! Endorse the 2009 Housing Opportunities Agenda form Attachment 2: Housing Alliance Legislative Package sheet FISCAL NOTES N/A 1:VAPLN\Council Materials\2008\I1-25-08 AIS HA 2009 Legislative Agenda.doc 2 AT TACHMENT 1 ejj,6~ ~ Show Your Support! HOUSING ! Endorse the ALLIANQ 2009 Housing Opportunity Agenda Member Organizations 1000 Friends AFSCME Local 3267 In 2009, the Housing Alliance will call on the Legislature CASA of Oregon Central l City City Concern to dedicate new sources of funds to meet critical housing city of Ashland City of Beaverton needs City of Corvallis City of Eugene City of Gresham We need City of Medford Housing & Community Development Commission City of Portland affordable homes City of Talent City of Tigard City of Wilsonville for hardworking families and Clackamas Community Land Trust Clackamas County Clackamas Housing Action Network our neighbors on fixed incomes Coalition for a Livable Future Community Action Directors of Oregon Community Action Team, Inc. Community Alliance of Tenants Community Housing Fund Proposed Source of Funds Requested Amount Community Partners for Affordable Housing Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. Habitat for Humanity of Oregon Increase the Document Recording Fee 19.6 million Hacienda CDC Homeless Families Coalition HOST Development, Inc. Devote Lottery proceeds to funding hous- Housing Advocacy Group of Washington Co. Housing Development Center ing programs that support a vital econ- 28.2 million Interfaith Committee on Homelessness om Jackson County Housing Coalition Lane County Legal Aid and Advocacy Center League of Women Voters of Oregon Allocate General Fund 52.2 million Lincoln County Manufactured Home Owners of Oregon, Inc. Metro Multnomah County TOTAL for BIENNIUM $100 million NAYA Family Center NeahCasa Neighborhood Economic Development Corp. Neighborhood Partnership Fund Network for Oregon Affordable Housing Northwest Community Land Trust Coalition We need your support. Northwest Housing Alternatives Oregon Action Please endorse our 2009 Housing Opportunity Agenda. Oregon Council on Developmental Disabilities Oregon Coalition on Housing & Homelessness Oregon Food Bank Oregon Housing Authorities Oregon Opportunity Network Organization: Portland Community Land Trust Portland Community Reinvestment Initiatives, Inc. Portland Impact Portland State Univ., Student Legal & Mediation Services Contact: REACH CDC Rogue Valley CDC Rose CDC Address: Rural Community Assistance Corp. St. Vincent DePaul of Lane County Shelter Care City, State Sisters Of The Road Umpqua CDC Washington County Willamette Neighborhood Housing Services Telephone: E-mail: Contact us: Public Affairs Counsel Mark Nelson, Erica Hagedorn Last Updated: 9.17.08 PO Box 12945 • Salem, OR 97309 (503) 363-7084 Please send or fax your completed form to the Housing Alliance c/o the Neighborhood Partnership Fund • hcloyd@tnpf.org www.oregonhousingailiance.org 1020 SW Taylor St., Suite 680, Portland, OR 97205 • (503) 226-3027 (fax) • 503-226-3001 ext 100 ATTACHMENT 2 Housing Alliance Legislative Package - What We Have What We Want Base Budget - Document HCS Draft Special Initiatives What we have Recording Proposed now Fee - what we want New Funds {not to use it for final] $ millions $ millions $ millions Homeownership 0.8 2.7 (14%) 2.7 Manufactured Homes Part of multi-family 12.3 development -at least one park in 2009-11 Homelessness 6.3 1.9 (10%) 29 3-6 Multi-Family Development 8.2 13.7(70%) 11 & Preservation Land Banking Part of multi-family 2 development Capacity Building 1.1 (6%) 2 Department Stability 5 Package *OAHTC Cap Increase 6 Total 19.6(100%) 68 12 TOTAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY PACKAGE: $100 million on new funds *Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit Agenda Item # 3. V Meeting Date November 25, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Tide Intergovernmental A eement - Westside Commuter Rail Project TriMet and the City of Tigard Maintenance Agreement Prepared By: Kim McMillan Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall City Council approve the Intergovernmental Agreement JGA) with TriMet for the maintenance of the path from the TriMet commuter rail station to Hall Boulevard? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to sign the IGA. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY This is a maintenance agreement for the City to provide maintenance service for the improvements installed along the pathway from the commuter rail parking lot to Hall Boulevard. The maintenance items include the multi-use path, two benches, removable bollards, all landscaping and irrigation along the path. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Leave the maintenance duties with TriMet. However, the maintenance of the path was part of negotiations of betterments with TriMet. CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Intergovernmental Agreement - Westside Commuter Rail Project TriMet and the City of Tigard Maintenance Agreement FISCAL NOTES The annual cost to the Public Works Department for maintenance is estimated to be $5000 - $7000 per year. Agenda Item # / Meeting Date November 25, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Qty Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Betterments Intergovernmental Agreement with TnMet to Pay for Improvements Installed as Part of the Commuter Rail Station Prepared By. Kim McMillan Dept Head Approval: / GtyMgr Approval:. C9 Ow ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall City Council approve the Betterments Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with TriMet for improvements installed with the Commuter Rail Station? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council authorize the Gty Manager to sign the IGA. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY This betterments IGA is for items TnMet and the Gty agreed to in principle regarding design and construction components related to the Commuter Rail Station. These betterments include benches along the multi use path, station shelter footings for future expansion, and paving on Main Street for water main improvements. This agreement was not done previously because the extent of the improvements and the associated costs were not finalized until recently. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS Goal No. 3 - Implement the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: IGA for Construction of Betterments by Washington County Commuter Rail Project, Tigard Station. FISCAL NOTES The benches and station foundations costs total $46,411 and will be paid from the Facilities Fund, specifically the Commuter Rail Enhancements fund, 300 6100 757010. The pavement costs total $22,000 and will be paid from the Water Line Replacement fund, 530 6270 755125. Agenda Item # Meeting Date November 25, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2008-00010/Sensitive Lands Review 2008-00005 to amend the Wetland and Stream. Corridor Map and the Significant Habitat Areas Map. Prepared By: Gary Pagenstecher Dept Head Approval: City i\,Igr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Wetland and Stream Corridor Map and the Significant Habitat Areas Map (CPA2008-00010/SLR2008-00005) consistent with the Tri-County Shopping Center Approval (CPA98- 00002)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Significant Wetland and Stream Corridor Map and the Significant Habitat Areas Map. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Community Development Director requests a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to correct the City's Significant Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map in an area located south of SW Dartmouth Street and west of SW 72nd Avenue in the Tigard Triangle. The request seeks to address a mapping oversight of a previous decision with a public process consistent with the original approval. The City Council approved the Tri-County Shopping Center proposal in 1998 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/Site Development Review (SDR) 98-0002/Planned Development Review (PDR) 98-0001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98-0004), which approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resources Overly District that included fill and mitigation of approximately 1.41 acres of existing wetlands on the subject property, and other development. Although Council's approval of CPA98-0002 legally amended the City's Significant Wetlands Map, the resource maps were not revised as indicated in the findings for the decision. Meanwhile, grading, filling and wetland mitigation occurred even though the development was not built. The Significant Habitat Areas map, based on the wetland inventory, is also in error and needs revision. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposed map amendments and recommended approval to the City Council. No substantive public comment was received on the proposed amendments. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED / N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed Ordinance Attachment 2: 9/24/08 Staff Report to the Planning Commission & Site Map Attachment 3: October 6, 2008 "DRAFT" Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 4: Background Material FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact associated with this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes October 6, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER President Jodie Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners: Anderson, Caffall (arrived late), Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Hasman Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; Darren Wyss, Senior Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES There was a motion-by Commissioner Doherty, seconded; by Commissioner Muldoon, to approve the September 15, 2008 minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Anderson; Doherty, Inman; Muldoon,.Vermilyea, and Walsh NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Fishel. EXCUSED: Hasman, Caffall 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00010/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2008-00005 - TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER APPROVAL WETLAND AND STREAM CORRIDOR MAP AMENDMENT- REQUEST: The Director requests a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to correct the City's Significant Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map in the vicinity of SW Dartmouth and Hwy 217. The Tigard City Council approved the Tri-County Shopping Center proposal (Comprehensive Plan PLANNING COMMISSION ME'll"I 'ING \1INU"I1---S -Octobcr G, 21X18 - Pagc 1 of 7 lACUKPI,N\Gary\Comp Plan Amendment\CPA2008-00010 (Tri-County) \Council Packet\tpc minutes - DRAFT- 10-6-08 (3).docx Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/Site Development Review (SDR) 98-0002/Planned Development Review (PDR) 98-0001 /Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98- 0004), which approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resources Overly District, including fill and mitigation of a approximately 1.41 acres of existing wetlands on the property, and other development. The resource maps were not revised as indicated in the findings for the decision. Meanwhile, Army Corps of Engineers and Department of State Lands permits were obtained and grading, filling and mitigation occurred even though the remainder of the development was not built. The Significant Habitat Areas map, based on the wetland inventory, is also in error and needs revised accordingly. Although Council's approval of CPA98-00002 legally amended the City's Significant Wetlands Map, the Director's application is to formally correct the error in mapping. LOCATION: The property is located south of SW Dartmouth Street and west of SW 72"d Avenue in the Tigard Triangle; Washington County Tax Assessor's Maps 2S101BA, Tax Lot 101 and 1S136CD, Tax Lot 4200. ZONE/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: C-G (PD): General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a city-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are,located on the same site as a permitted use; a wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult 'entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. In the case of the subject property, the Council applied the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for development. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: City of Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2 and 3; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 5; and Metro Functional Plar% Title 3. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Commission President, Jodie Inman, opened up the Public Hearing by reading the required statements for Quasi-judicial Hearings. [Commissioner Caffall arrived late.] She asked if any Commissioner wished to abstain, or declare a conflict of interest. There were none. She asked if anyone wished to challenge any member of the Planning Commission for bias or conflict of interest. No challenges. She asked for Commission members to report any ex parte contacts or site visitations. Commissioner Muldoon reported a site visit. Lastly, she asked if anyone in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the Commission. There were no challenges. At this point, Associate Planner, Gary Pagenstecher, gave the staff report on behalf of the City. He explained that the Community Development Director, Tom Coffee, requested a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to correct the City's Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map and Significant Habitat Areas map (Attachment 1). He noted that 10 years ago the Tri-County Shopping Center had been approved, as well as the removal of the subject wetlands. He said the final order required that PLANNING CONIMISSION N41 1_:1'ING MINUI'F_S -October 6, 2008 - Page 2 of 7 lACURl1LN\Gary\Comp Plan Amendment\CPA2008-00010 ffri-County) \Council Packet\tpc minutes - DRAM 1'- 10-6-08 (3).docx staff make amendments to the map accordingly. Those amendments were not made at the time, so staff was present today to make the amendments in a public manner along the same type of review process. He said this decision would basically be "housekeeping" in nature and, in a transparent manner, for public comment. He noted no public comment was received on the application - two agencies commented - Clean Water Services and Metro. Neither took issue with this mapping revision. Commissioners questions of staff (staff answers are in italics): To clarify - So all actions that were approved in the past were taken with regard to this but the maps were simply not brought up to date at that time? That's right, they got approval for wetlands fill, and they also required new mitigation. The applicant followed through with those actions. They didn't build the development they were approved for. Does that answeryour question? Yes - and then the last part of the question - the housekeeping item - the maps should have been updated at that time? That simply just did not occur? That's right-itjust did not occzrr. It was a finding in the decision, and itjust didn't happen. So I'm curious - why does it have to come back to a public hearing if it had been approved in the past? I don't think it had to. I don't think this was necessary, but it was a decision by managers to run a transparentprocess for issues and sensitive lands that are important.to citi~en~; and just to be sure that they have an opportunity to comment. So it's simply - the maps are going to be updated -no. other action to be taken, or will be taken, as a result of this decision? That's right. It appears prior owners,did not monitor thru the, state. Is that monitoring now being continued or being begun again? Yes it is. PUBLIC TESTIMONY President Inman noted that,no one had signed up either "for" or "against." She asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak.`, John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, ;Tigard, spoke for information sake. [Neither for, nor against.] He noted that the ornginal~decision was acted on in 18 months. He wondered whether they shouldn't have to come back since thi's,has been 10 years, and regulations change. On the surface he said, it looks like they should be coming back. It was pointed out that the original decision was acted upon within 18 months. They didn't,build, so they lost the opportunity to build there, but they would have to come in today for an application to build under today's regulations. It was also pointed out that they were there to talk about the map amendment alone. The original decision was acted on in 18 months. The CPA is related to the original decision; however, the SLR is relative to current standards. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNING COMMISSION M131_: LING \-IINUIMS -October G, 2008 - Pagc 3 of 7 1:\CURPL,N\Gary\Comp Plan Amendment\CPA2008-00010 (Fri-County) \Council Packet\tpe minutes - DRtVl_-T - 10-6-08 (3).doex DELIBERATION No deliberations. MOTION Commissioner Vermilyea made the following motion: "Madam Chair, I move for approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00010/Sensitive Lands Review SLR2008-00005 for the Tri-County Shopping Center Approval Wetland and Stream Corridor Map Amendment as submitted by staff - and I recommend approval to City Council." Commissioner Muldoon seconded the motion. There was a vote and the motion carried as follows: AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Inman, Muldoon, Vermilyea Walsh NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None EXCUSED: Hasman \ 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00006 Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update of Statewide Planning Goal 14: Urbanization REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan Topic 10: Urbanization by updating the goals, policies and recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard- or.gov/code_ amendments. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement; Land Use Planning; Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space; Public Facilities and Services; Transportation; and Urbanization; Metro Functional Plan Title 11; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, and 14. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Commission President, Jodie, Inman, opened up the Public Hearing. At this point Senior Planner, Darren Wyss, gave the staff report on behalf of the City. He stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment before the Planning Commission at this time would update the goals, policies, and recommended action measures pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 14: Urbanization. He noted the Planning Commission had already reviewed this amendment during its Aug 18th public hearing. He said, because the newspaper failed to print the Ad the City sent them, advertising that public hearing, another hearing needed to be held, and the Ad was resent to the newspaper to comply with the City's citizen involvement program. The new Ad was published in the September 18th edition of The Timer. PLANNING CON1N11SSION N1131 PING NIINUITS -October G, 2008- Page 4 of 7 IACURPL.N\Gary\Comp Plan Amendment\CPA2008-00010 (Fri-County) \Council Packet\tpc minutes - DRAFT - 10-6-08 (3).docx As a reminder - The proposed amendment went thru a review process that included two Policy Interest Team meetings hosted by the PC before the public hearing in August. Since that public hearing, the City Council also held a workshop on the amendment. At that time, staff did not realize the newspaper Ad had not been published, and the City Council asked for some clarity on a few of the policies. They asked for clarity between Goal 14.1, Policy 1, and Goal 14.3, Policy 4, both of these were dealing with provision of services outside of City limits. After the conversation and speaking with the City Attorney, Staff worked with the City Attorney to develop new language and the decision was made to eliminate Goal 14.3, Policy 4 and add additional language to Goal 14.1, Policy 1. The changes are as follows: Goal 14.1 1. The City shall only approve the extension of City'services: A. where applications for annexation' for. those properties have been approved; or B. in circumstances where applicable star and county health agencies have declared a potential or imminent health hazard pursuant to ORS 431.705 to 431.760 (Health Hazard Annexation or Service District Formation); or C. as outlined in the intergovernmental agreement regarding water provision within the Tigard Water`Service Area. Goal 14.3 \ 4. The City shall a* Vi*.44ap The Council also asked for the language in-'G'oal 14:2 Policy 3 to be changed from "require" to "encourage," as they felt it was too strong. `The Commission also raised this issue during a workshop; and asked whether this was\ within the City's legal right. The City Attorney suggested changing the language from "require" to. "encourage," and by adding an additional policy to ensure the possibility of requiring annexation in the future, the intent of the language could be maintained. This new policy is now Goal 14.2,'Policy 5. Goal 14.2 3. The City shall evaluate and may r-equit-e enco~urage_ that parcels adjacent to proposed annexations be included to: A. avoid creating unincorporated islands within the City; B. enable public services to be efficiently and effectively extended to the entire area; or C. implement a concept plan or sub-area master plan that has been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. 5. The City shall maintain its right to annex property as allowed by state statute PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MIND E,S -October 6, 2008 -Page 5 of 7 lACURPL.N\Gary\Comp Plan Amendment\ CPA2008-0001 0 (fri-County) \Council Packet\tpc minutes - DRAFT- 10-6-08 (3).docx Staff feels the changes suggested by the City attorney provide better clarity without changing the intent of the language contained in the amendment. Additionally, the City Attorney reviewed the staff report findings and found them adequate. Staff has found the language included in the amendment complies with the applicable state land use goals, the City's municipal code and comprehensive plan policies, as well as federal, state, and regional plans and regulations. Therefore, staff recommends adopting language found in Exhibit A. At this point, President Inman noted that there was no one from the public to testify either for or against the Amendment. She opened up the meeting for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Vermilyea asked - "Can you explain what the rationale is for adding No. 5, in light of the fact that we were silent on this issue? If I understand the law correctly, we would still maintain whatever rights with respect to annexation are given to the City. I think it's redundant to include it. We either have the right or we don't. If we have it, we can exercise it,so I don't know why we would have to say in the Comp Plan that we're going to maintain a right that is'given to us from an external source. Can you shed some light on how that discussion went - where that suggestion came from?" Wyss answered: That suggestion had its basis in the wanting to change "require" to `encourage" in the previous policy thatyou're referring to. The sticking point is in goal 14. 1, policy 3, "The City shall evaluate and may encourage thatparcels adjacent to proposed annexations be included, to: A. avoid creating unincorporated islands within the City - (which is within our right today) .B. enable publirservicer to, be e dently and effectively extended to an entire area, or C. implement a conceptplan or sub-area masterplan that has been_approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. I believe they were uncomfortable with points B, 6- C so" they want to change it to encourage as opposed to "require" and then the City Attorney made the suggestion that, if in the future. we wanted to require something to implement a concept plan, that if we added Policy S ' The,City shall maintain its right to annex pmperdy as allowed by state statute. " Ron Bunch added 'The City Attorney, in recommending this, said that the City does not want to abrogate any rights that it may choose to exercise in this regard So the state law may, or may not, change over time but the City may choose to exercise rights (or may not to) - but it needs to firmly establish those rights within the Plan. Commissioner Vermilyea said he respectfully disagrees with the City Attorney's opinion on that issue and respectfully'disagrees with Council's determination to change the language. He suggested the Planning Commission change it back. He said "If they want to make that ultimate change in the decision that they make when they make the final decision - that's fine - but it sure seems to me that this really waters down what we've talked about in our meetings. I don't agree that the word "require" is as strong as they apparently think it is, because it says "may require" - it doesn't say "shall require" so the word "may" leaves a lot of discretion there. I think that I could go either way on No. 5 but I think it's just surplus verbiage. My suggestion would be that we reject both of those suggested changes." They discussed this idea at length. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNING COMMISSION M13F 1'ING MINUTES -October 6,2008- Page G of 7 lACURPLN\Gary\Comp Plan Amendment\CPA2008-00010 (1'ri-County) \Council Packet\tpc minutes - DRA1-7- 10-6-08 (3).docx DELIBERATION After deliberating, the consensus was the word "encourage" should be changed back to "require" in Goal 14.2.3 but that the additional No. 5 "The City shall maintain its right to annex property as allowed by state statute," be left in. At this point, a motion was made. MOTION Commissioner Vermilyea made the following motion: "I move that the Planning Commission approve CPA2008-00006, as revised and recommended by staff, with the following change - delete the word "encourage" and reinsert the word "require" at Goal 14:2 policy 3, and to recommend approval, as amended, to Council." Commissioner Caffall seconded the motion. There was a vote and the motion carried as follows: ` AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Inman, Muldoon, & Vermilyea\ ` NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Walsh r~ EXCUSED: Hasman \ Ff` 6. OTHER BUSINESS ~ .y Commissioner Walsh said there was good news \ ,he informed'the Commission that the Planned Development "White Oak" has a "heritage tree'~approved. y' Assistant Community Development Director, Ron `Bunch, talked about the upcoming October 21 joint meeting the Planning Commission will behaving with City Council. Bunch referred to a sheet he passed out regarding Planning Commission Goals as of 2/19/68.'They discussed what topics they'd like to discuss with Council. ' 7. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING CON MISSION MEE LING MINUTES -October G, 2008 -Page 7 of 7 lACURPLN\Gary\Comp Plan Amendment\CPA2008-00010 (1'ri-County) \Council Packet\tpe minutes - DRAFT- 10-6-08 (3).docx Craig Prosser, om: Samantha Drake [Samantha. Drake@tonkon.com] t: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 02:51 PM hbergsma@thprd.org; cao@co.washington.or.us; jarusse1159@comcast.net; kstallkamp@yahoo.com; greg@tvwd.org; chiefjohnson@tvfr.com; CruzR@cleanwaterservices.org; AndrewsT@CleanWaterServices.org; dmenke@thprd.com; rdrake@ci.beaverton.or.us; ssparks@ci.beaverton.or.us; jbarnard@ci.beaverton.or.us; Craig Prosser; dwells@ci.king-city.or.us; sheriff@co.washington.or.us; dave_hepp@co.washington.or.us; robert davis@co.washington.or.us; Brent Curtis@co.washington.or.us; noreen_lee@co.washington.or.us; DixieKing@co.washington.or.us; Lisa@HamiltonRealtyGroup.com Cc: Mark Cushing Subject: Bull Mountain/Areas 63&64 Area Meeting Hi All: The Bull Mountain/Areas 63&64 Area Meeting will be held on Monday, 1211 from 7pm-9pm. We will meet in the Clean Water Services Admin. Building of the the Durham Facility, located at 16850 SW 85th Ave. in Tigard. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thanks, Sam Samantha K. Drake I Tonkon Torp LLP 1600 Pioneer Tower 1 888 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 503.802.57121 FAX 503.972.7412 samantha.drake(a tonkon.com I www.tonkon.com s message may contain confidential communications and privileged information. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify me PtiY• Circular 230 Disclaimer: If any part of this communication is interpreted as providing federal tax advice, U.S. Treasury Regulations require that we inform you that we neither intended nor wrote this communication for you to use in avoiding federal tax penalties that the IRS may attempt to impose and you may not use It for that purpose. Hal Bergsma - Tualatin Hills Park & Rec. Julie Russell - M Rep? Kathy Stallkamp - Chair, CP04K Greg DiLOretto - Tualatin Valley Water District Chief Jeff Johnson - TVF&R Bob Cruz - Clean Water Services Tom Andrews - Clean Water Services Doug Menke - Tualatin Hills Park & Rec. Rob Drake - Beaverton Mayor Steve Sparks - Beaverton Planning Mgr Joyce Barnard (Beaverton Mayor's support stafo Craig Prosser Dave Wells - King City Washington County Commissioners Rob Gordon - WaCo sheriff Dave Hepp - WaCO under Sherriff Robert Davis - WaCo Brent Curtis - WaCo Noreen Lee - WaCo (Commissioner support stafo Dixie King - WaCo RCCC support staf> Lisa Hamilton Trieck Craig Prosser From: Nick Wilson [Nick@tigard-or.gov) t: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 02:43 PM Craig Prosser; Liz Newton; Councilmail Councilmail Subject: FW: Mtg. Request - SMF Proposal Importance: High From: Amanda Dalton[SMTP:AMANDA(aDALTONPR.COMI Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:43:08 PM S~'"K j1 G~yie 0 To: Nick Wilson r Subject: Mtg. Request - SMF Proposal Importance: High Auto forwarded by a Rule Hello Councilor Wilson, I'm worldng on behalf of the Northwest Grocery Association (formerly Oregon Grocery Association) and would like to schedule a meeting with yourself and our Association President, Joe Gilliam. As you may remember, Joe and Dan Floyd (now with Safeway) were instrumental in the original SMF proposal in 2003/04. As such, you can imagine our members have significant interest in the most recent revised rate proposal. I apologize for the last minute request, however we are trying to arrange a sit-down with you prior to the Holiday season. Do you have any time the morning of Monday, Dec. 1st or Tuesday, Dec. 2nd (any time) to *et with us to discuss the latest Street Maintenance Fee rate proposal? We appreciate your time and consideration, Amanda Dalton cell: 503-884-0415 Amanda Dalton DALTON PUBLIC RELATIONS & GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS p. 503.884.0415 f. 503.200.1945 1 Attachment 4 TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Comprehensive Plan Amendment Sensitive Lands Review 711-COURTY S oppong C8ntSIr A990 appPodEd ~Mc Uand M Stream Qonldoo- Map Z%Mandmant QC~paJo~Oo0o0oz~~] Background Material 9/26/2008 APPLICATION • V PRE-APP. HELD BY I d t. ~ y „wy i n ~1 1 h 5 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION City of Tigan i Pmnv Ce7r 13125 S W Hall Bhd, Tigqn~ OR 97223 PhorA--• 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 File LPj .gtmk- 0-Wj a Other Case a[) U,&- pV'pd Date 8100k By Receipt 7-1 Fee 1 Date Complete TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR ❑ Adjustment/Variance (I or II) ❑ Minor Land Partition (II) ❑ Zone Change (III) Comprehensive Plan Amendment (IV) ❑ Planned Development (III) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV) ❑ Conditional Use (III) 2rSensitive Lands Review (I,©or III) ❑ Zone Ordinance Amendment (IV) ❑ Historic Overlay (II or III) ❑ Site Development Review (II) ❑ Home Occupation (II) ❑ Subdivision (II or III) PROPOSED LOCATION WHERE ACTIVITY WILL OCCUR (Address available) TAX MAPS TAX LOT . 1 S 36Gt~ • O'~2d0 2 S ! O! SA - ®G/o/ TOTAL I I NIN CI-ASSIFICATION !7 74 ae,4eS G•G• 0>0) W ~i of TIG~~~ MAILING A / -612S' Sw HAZZ 37-vb 0/~ 97223 PHONE NO. F NO. •5'63 . 7/6 -211.3y :5'0 3 • 6F~% 7.Z'17 PRIMARY N A PERSON NE Ale -2 ;ree-eLe 5 4) 3 - 749 *3 ROPER OWNER/DEED HOLDER Accac r more than one P4G 7IZVS7` MAILING ADDRESS/OTY/STAIE/ZIP / 5 35"0 .5 s~t.~/ S/T,3ao I FJ-X NO. 3 'When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY (Please be spec do m 40rrA-VU map CH&V6'tom o 4i n a 776H-id);s 14;A hL--7e*,vr W 67 pruA s ! N1161W72M vRScl,,oV • e 7 kt -CotjAjr SH&PRir/1G- curb In APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET. is\curpln\masters\land use applications\land use pernut app.doc THE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT: ♦ If the application is granted, the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. ♦ All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. ♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s). SIGNATURES OF EACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED. uG us r` ZC~B Owner's Signature Date , Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date C,• ; - Applicant/Agent/ resentative' Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature ' Date TIGARD CITY COUNCIL lip FINAL ORDER CITY Of TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community CITY of TIGARD Washington Country, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Case Number(s): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 98-00021SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 98-0002/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 98-0001/ SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 98-0002/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 98-0004 3 Case Name(s): TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER \lame of Owner: Gordon and Sheila Martin Vame of Applicant: Christensen Engineering, Inc. Attn: Ed Christensen, Protect Manager Nddress of Applicant: 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97035 kddress of Property: 12265 SW 72nd Avenue City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97223 fax Map(s)/Lot No(s).: WCTM 1 S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101AB, Tax Lot 01400; and 25101 BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402. quest: ➢ On June 1, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and recommended approval of this proposal subject to Conditions of Approval. At this hearing, the Planning Commission expressed strong reservations with this project due to traffic impacts to SW Pacific Highway and unfunded regional transportation improvements listed within the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. On June 23, 1998, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing and expressed similar concerns. At that hearing, the City Council approved this proposal as proposed because needed transportation improvements required regional transportation funding solutions and cannot be solved by any single applicant. The approved proposal is as follows: A request for approvalof a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resources Overlay District; fill and mitigation of a portion of existing wetlands on the property, Site Development and Planned Development Review approval to allow development of an approximately 330,895 square foot shopping center on 25.70 acres; and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the, existing parcels to accommodate future ownership interests of the proposed site improvements. e: General Commercial; C-G. The General Commercial Zoning District provides sites for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The property is also designated with the following overlay districts: 1.) The Planned Development Overlay, 2.) The Tigard Triangle Design Standards Overlay, and 3.) The Water Resources Overlay. The Planned Development Overlay was placed on the property to allow flexibility in development practices to permit more efficient use of the property. The Tigard Triangle Design Standards were adopted for all properties within the Triangle. The Water Resources Overlay is a resource protection overlay that provides citywide protection standards for Water Resource areas designated as significant. :)n: ➢ ❑ Approval as Requested CI Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial :e: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: ID Owners of Record within the Required Distance O Affected Governmental Agencies © The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator 0 The Applicant and Owner(s) Decision:% ATE OF FILING: E ,ECI,S~ MA RAE IGNED,O!4 4998 AND BECOMES EFFECTIV N E-O 199$` The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 11: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use P Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. ions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or City Recorder at (5 YSDR 98-21PDR 98-IISLA 98-21MIS 98-4 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.98-P? AN ORDINANCE APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 98-0002), SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR 98-0002), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR 98-0001), SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR 98-0002) AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS 98-0004) REQUESTED BY THE MARTIN FAMILY TO DEVELOP THE TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER. WHEREAS, the applicant has requested approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the City's Water Resources Overlay, Site Development Review, Planned Development Review, Sensitive Lands Review and a Lot Line Adjustment to develop a shopping center known as the Tri-County Shopping Center. The subject properties are comprised of 8 parcels totaling a net acreage of approximately 25.70 acres. The subject parcels are generally located at the southwest corner of SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue. The subject parcels are also known by the Washington County Tax Assessor's office as follows: 1 S 136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S 101 AB, Tax Lot 01400; and 2S 101 BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and received public testimony and recommended approval of the aforementioned land use applications on June 1, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City Council also held a public hearing on the aforementioned land use applications on June 23, 1998 and approved the aforementioned land use applications subject to the findings and Wonditions of Approval contained within the attached "Exhibit A." NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all of the relevant criteria as noted in the attached City Council Final Order, also referred to as "Exhibit A." SECTION 2: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Site Development Review, Planned Development Review, Sensitive Lands Review and a Lot Line Adjustment request, further known as the Martin Family/Tri-County Shopping Center, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as set forth in the attached "Exhibit A." SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. r WDINANCE No. 98- b Page 1 of 2 'ww ,r pp$SED• By Lt h O-N' MS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and . title only, this 23,- May of , 1998. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 03 '-'(day o n , 1998. J e~i/es Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: Cit At orney Date i Acitywidebrd\cpa98-02.ord Mar1c_R II-Jun-98 4:13 PM %DINANCE No. 98- Page 2 of 2 "EIIHIBIT A" ^rr i tga 'te'9 t SA ,,S'.J, tj1'~ n i s c ` y mw~? Rr"~" :FSy g QTIC~OF FINAL ORDER S• ..c t tiff r ^s y-'{ c°`. azi,i~,r v N -77 # .fT •s<.• ~fi' Y r?4 i ,,e a, CITY of nGARD , ~ `vy qi. Y' L t r. p ta. .'c's rs'.*.+ Ac.yyy. t a s. •.r . s d .t` } C i r s `'ldYs »r k v q P x Commu~uty DcveloymuTt w 7~t z y MNY~ a:~~,BYTHETIGARDCIT1(000NCIL~k .A t} o v e >'s,.'`^^s""„ +~trys~t"~ z b . i•~F t~ fs,~0. 1 i Q .Y~~,. ~Y ..t,'~,±-I~ 3'~, i`,s3 n~4 ir,~ik. -st+sc",`~y.r~7 ~:vp•~.... f? i.£ D SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 98-0002 Site Development Review SDR 98-0002 Planned Development Review PDR 98-0001 Sensitive Lands Review SLR 98-0002 Lot Line Adjustment MIS 98-0004 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested approval for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resources Overlay District; fill and mitigation of a portion of existing wetlands on the property; Site Development and Planned Development Review approval to allow development of an approximately 330,895 square foot shopping center on 25.70 acres; and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership interests of the proposed site improvements. APPLICANT: Christensen Engineering OWNERS: Gordon R. Martin; Ed Christensen, Project Manager Gordon S. Martin; and 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 Sheila Martin Portland, OR 97223 12265 SW 72nd Ave. OMPREHENSIVE Tigard, OR 97223 LAN ESIGNATION: General Commercial; C-G. ZONING DESIGNATION: General Commercial; C-G. The General Commercial Zoning District provides sites for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The property is also designated with the following overlay districts: 1.) The Planned Development Overlay; 2.) The Tigard Triangle Design Standards Overlay; and 3.) The Water Resources Overlay. The Planned Development Overlay was placed on the property to allow flexibility in development practices to permit more efficient use of the property. The Tigard Triangle Design Standards were adopted for all properties within the Triangle. The Water Resources Overlay is a resource protection overlay that provides citywide protection standards for Water Resource areas designated as significant. LOCATION: 12265 SW 72nd Avenue; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101AB, Tax Lot 01400; and 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402. The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and includes one (1) parcel within the Hermosa Subdivision. The site is APPLICABLE otherwise north of the Hermosa Subdivision and east of Highway 217. REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.32, 18.62, 18.80, 18.84, 18.85, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164; the Tigard Triangle Design Standards; and the Metro Functional Plan Standards. SECTION II. CITY COUNCIL DECISION he Tigard City Council APPROVES the above request subject to certain Conditions of Approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV of this report. CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 1 OF 42 'UNDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUAP S`;OF SITE AND/OR BUILDING Pf 'AITS, THE. FOLLQ,WING x w vONDITIONS SHALL BE $A §FIEI,:, J t Y Y T (Unless otherwi a noted,'the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, ~';n ` X l " yy ~ ~xg Engineering Department (503} 639-4171.} s • k~~ . 1. Prior to issuance of a site and/or building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit eight (8) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Additional right-of-way shall be. dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW 72nd Avenue to increase the right-of-way to 47 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 4. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Dartmouth Street to increase the right-of-way to 47 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied 0 to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 5. A right-of-way radius shall be dedicated at the comer of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. The radius shall be a minimum of 45 feet. 6. The applicant shall construct street improvements along the frontage of SW 72nd Avenue to meet Tigard Triangle Standards and in accordance with the SDR plan submitted for review. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to curb equal to 66 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. six (6)-foot concrete sidewalks; F. street striping; G. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; H. underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities); 1. street signs; J. driveway aprons; and CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARINGICITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TAI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER* PAGE 2 OF 42 K. adjustments in v ;cal and/or horizontal alignment to Istruct SW 72nd Avenue in a safe manner, as , - -oved by the Engineering Departme' 7. The applicant shall construct the following frontage improvements on SW Dartmouth Street as a part of this project: A. six (6)-foot concrete sidewalk; B. street lighting, as determined by the City Engineer; C. driveway aprons; and D. street striping. 8. A profile of SW 72nd Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet to the south of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 9: The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections and public water line work prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. The roadway cut and repair in SW Hermosa Way shall be inspected by the City of Tigard as a part of their public improvement permit. 10. The public improvement plans shall indicate that the applicant will extend an eight (8)-inch public sewer line southerly in SW 72nd Avenue as a part of the street improvements. The line shall be extended to the south property line. 11. The applicant shall submit a storm drainage plan to the City that clearly indicates how the storm water from this site will be conveyed to Red Rock Creek. If concentrated flows are proposed to convey across the adjacent property to the west, the applicant shall obtain a private storm drainage easement from that property owner prior to construction. Prior to issuance of the site and/or building permit, the applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 13. Prior to issuance of the site and/or building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) that clearly shows the required boundary of the new mitigated wetland areas and a new 25-foot buffer adjacent to each one (1). The plan shall also clearly show the extent of any grading required to construct the private water quality facility(ies). Water quality facilities shall not encroach into a wetland and may only encroach into the associated "buffer" by ten (10) feet. 14. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 15. The applicant shall provide an updated geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Building Division prior to the final inspection. CPA 98-WSDR 98-021PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 3 OF 42 16. The applicant shall obtr a 1200-C General Permit issued t he City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the r deral Clean Water Act. , 17. One (1) of the three (3) disabled parking spaces from Major IIIA and Major IV, Major Anchor Tenant buildings shall be moved near the entrance in front of Major IIIB. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 18. The landscape plan shall be revised along the SW 72nd Avenue frontage to provide an additional two (2) Little Leaf Linden trees. One (1) additional street tree shall be added along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage for a total of 39 Little Leaf Linden trees. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 19. In certain areas the applicant did not evenly disperse parking lot trees at one (1) for every seven (7) spaces. The applicant shall add a minimum of three (3) parking lot trees along the western elevation of the Major Anchor Tenant Building I. The applicant shall also add a parking lot tree on the south side of Major Anchor Tenant Building I, east of the loading dock area, two (2) parking lot trees along the southeast comer of Major Anchor Tenant Building I, and a parking lot tree to the east side of the Pad B Building. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 20. The applicant shall construct a slatted chain link fence or wood fence with a minimum of a five (5)-feet of height. This wall shall be constructed along the entire southern property line that adjoins single-family residences that is not to be provided with a sound attenuation wall as required by the Noise Study. Assuming the proposed Columbia River Willows and Western Crabapple trees are defined as medium sized species that will reach 25-40 feet in height at maturity, a maximum spacing of 30 feet on center is permitted. In two (2) cases, a spacing of more than 30 feet on center has been proposed. The applicant must either add two (2) additional trees or provide proof that the Columbia River Willows and Western Crabapple trees are large specimen trees. The screening and buffering plan included some 171, 24-300 inch Dwarf Winged Euonymous shrubs on only the eastern 793 feet of the buffer. The landscape plan shall, therefore, be revised to add shrub plantings along the entire remaining length of the 20-foot screening and buffering area. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 21. The trash and recycling enclosures serving Major Anchor Tenant Buildings IIIA and IIIB shall be revised to comply with the 24-foot, two-way aisle width standard. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 22. The Pad C and D east Elevation has 1,050 square feet of building elevation area between three (3) and nine (9) feet in height. For this reason, 525 square feet of this area must be windowed. The applicant provided 240 square feet of this elevation area with windows, therefore, this elevation shall be revised to provide an additional 285 square feet of . windowed building elevation. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 23. The mechanical equipment installation limit area shall be revised to include a 20-foot minimum setback along the north and east building elevations of the Major Anchor Tenant building group. To allow the building itself to screen other rooftop equipment on the smaller pad buildings, no rooftop equipment shall be placed within 15 feet of an exterior wall of Pads A-F. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 0 CPA 98-WSDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 4 OF 42 24. ~ The applicant shall rep ; the building elevation plans as . Wed to provide the building parapet at a sufficient h( )t to screen the mechanical equip, nt on Major Anchor Tenant buildings II, IIIA, IIIB and W. The applicant may also provide other screening alternatives. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 25. The finished elevation of Major Anchor Tenant I would be some eight (8) feet higher than residences immediately to the south. The applicant shall screen the loading area for at least the length of the truck that would service this site (likely 65 feet) at a height of a typical servicing vehicle. This may be accomplished through a matching split face concrete block wall or other method as approved by the Planning Division. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 26. Based on the site development constraints and the higher street elevation of SW 72nd Avenue, it does not appear possible to entirely screen rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenant buildings as seen from SW 72nd Avenue. For this reason, all rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenants shall be painted to match the rooftop. The applicant may also provide other methods of blending mechanical equipment into the rooftop. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 27. The applicant shall revise the site and landscape plan to provide a suitable size loading space(s) to accommodate delivery trucks for all applicable tenants that lease 10,000 square feet or more within Pads A, B and D. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 28. The applicant has agreed to provide 68 long-term parking spaces. The applicant shall provide signage designating four (4) of these spaces as vanpool/carpool spaces. The signage shall state that these "spaces are for use by vanpooVcarpool users only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM." These four (4) vanpooVcarpool spaces shall be located as conveniently as possible to main building entrance(s), after the provision of handicapped accessible parking spaces. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 29. The applicant shall modify the parking structure to provide a minimum of 61/, feet of clearance height at all entrances if no carpool/vanpool spaces are provided. A minimum of Th feet of clearance shall be provided if carpool and vanpool spaces are provided. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 30. Along three (3) of the driveways into the site, the applicant has provided five (5) feet of walkway width. The site and landscape plans shall be revised to provide a minimum of six (6) feet of width for all walkways. The applicant shall provide a continuous six (6)-foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials along at least one (1) side of Driveway C from the Major Anchor Tenant buildings to SW 72nd Avenue. The site and landscape plan shall be revised to provide a six (6)-foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials from Pad D to SW 72nd Avenue. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 31. The applicant shall provide a bicycle rack detail that demonstrates when in use, that bicycle racks will not block pedestrian walkways. A minimum four (4) feet of walkway clearance shall be maintained where these are located. The applicant shall relocate the proposed bicycle racks under cover near main building entrances. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 0 CPA 98-021SDR 98-021PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 5 OF 42 ~Jz. i ne two-way access w i standard is 24 feet. The majorit f this site complies with this standard except for the. wo-way drive aisle behind the Major Anchor Tenant buildings. The loading docks behind 1. :for Anchor Tenant buildings IIA art., iB shall be revised a minimum of 24 feet of clear width. Trash and recycling enclosures shall also be revised as needed to provide a minimum of 24 feet of clear width. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 33. The applicant shall submit for review and approval a sign program that complies with the standards for a shopping center in the General Commercial Zoning District with any special limitations as required by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 34. The applicant shall obtain sign-off from the franchise waste hauler for the location of all trash and recycling enclosures and provide a detail of the type of screening to be provided around these enclosures. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 35. Post drive aisles behind Major Anchor stores with "No Parking Fire Lane" signage. All exits required from each building shall have a landing and be connected to the public way via a sidewalk and accessible to persons with a disability. Locate fire hydrants within 250 feet of all exterior walls of each building. Provide a hydrant flow test and complete the fire flow analysis. The median of the roadway between Pads B and C shall be modified to provide a minimum of 20 feet of width. Modify the turning radius at the southwest corner of Pads A-C and in front of the Major Anchor Tenant I Building. Staff Contact: Jim Funk, Building Division. 36. The remaining 66 caliper inches of tree mitigation may be planted off-site or tree mitigation fees paid for the value of purchase and planting of additional trees. Also, the applicant and City may agree to locate existing Christmas trees on the property at off-site City open space sites. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 37. Because trees Numbered 88-96 in the arborist's tree identification plan are six (6)-inches in size and within a sensitive lands areas the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to their removal. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 38. The applicant proposed no windows on the northerly elevation of Pad A. The applicant shall provide 50% of the building elevation between 3 and 9 feet with window glazing. The applicant is proposing to provide approximately 3.5% of the entire Pad B northerly elevation with window glazing. The applicant shall revise the Pad B, north building elevation to provide a minimum of 50% of the elevation between 3 and 9 feet with window glazing. The applicant also proposed a few windows on the northern elevation of the Pad C building. The Pad C building north elevation shall also be revised to provide a minimum of 50% of the building elevation between 3 and 9 feet with window glazing. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 39. The proposed lot lines will need to be revised due to the location of structures on site and potential redevelopment of this shopping center. In particular the lot line aligned south of Pad B, the lot line cutting through the comer of Major Anchor Tenants IIIA, IIIB and IV and the lot lines cutting through the Pad F building. Staff Contact: Jim Funk, Building Department. 40. Proposed Tax Lot 00400 shall be revised to provide a 50-foot average lot width. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 40 CPA 98-021SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 6 OF 42 41. The applicant shall pro, i proof that the Division of State LE 's Permit is still valid and that the Army Corps of En9 irs Permit has been re-issued. : "f Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. THE~F.OLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED r•. Ln t ~s►- PRIOR;TO:THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: , s 42. The applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street in accordance with City standards and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to Final Building Inspection, the plans for this signal work shall be approved by the City Engineer. 43. The applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 68th Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street in accordance with ODOT and City standards. The east leg of the intersection consists of the 1-5 southbound ramp connections at the SW Haines Road Interchange. The 1-5 southbound ramp connections are parts of the State Highway System and under the jurisdiction of ODOT, and as such, the proposed traffic signal needs to be approved by the State Traffic Engineer prior to design and construction. Signal installation may require additional improvements as determined by the State Traffic Engineer. Fourteen- hour (6:00 am to 8 pm weekday) manual turning movement counts at the intersection will need to be provided to. ODOT for the traffic signal warrant analysis. ODOT has provided copies of their signal warrant comparison worksheets for the applicant to use. Prior to final Building Inspection, the applicant shall obtain ODOT permits/approvals for this signal work. 44. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one (1)-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 05. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF' will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. 46. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 72nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 18,700 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 47. Prior to final building inspection signals at Driveway A and/or B shall be installed. The City Engineer shall make a determination whether installation of a signal at Driveway A and/or B is within the best public interest within six (6) months of application for Site and/or Building Permits. In the event that installation of one or both signals is not found to be appropriate with the opening of this center, the applicant shall submit a performance bond to the City in an amount to cover the design and construction costs for two (2) additional signals on Dartmouth Street at the proposed site driveways. This performance bond shall be provided to the City for a period of five (5) years (60 months) from the estimated opening date of the building(s). The amount of the bond shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to submittal to the City. CPA 98-021SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6123198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 7 OF 42 n. I I lu dppllu U it ,l, toul luutot IUIIUVV-up Jlyl lal VV011 al It ' .OUyat1U110 at U 1C tJal t11 IUU.II 1 Street driveways -ace per year over the five (5)-year- .:re of the signal performance bond. If any trz signal warrant, as defined in the . nual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices is met at any time during the five (5) year period, and if it is in the City Engineer's opinion that signalization of one (1) or both of the site driveways is in the best interest of the public, then the applicant will be required to design and construct one (1) or both of the site driveway signals. Any required signal installation shall be complete within 12 months of the City Engineer's direction. B. If after the development has been occupied for five (5) years (60 months) and the driveways do not meet signal warrants, the applicant will no longer be financially responsible for the design or construction of traffic signals at those locations. C. If during the five (5)-year period of the signal performance bond, further signal warrant investigations reveal one (1) or more warrants are being met, the traffic signal(s) shall be constructed. The decision by the City Engineer in determining if a warrant is met shall be considered as final. 48. All site improvements shall be installed as approved, per the revised site plan. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. `THISAPPROVAL SFgLLBEUALID'FOR 30 MONTHS 'tixF..a d?,.. war m. Len:. i .,...s. t.r,. FROM THE•EFFECTINEDATE:OFbTHIS ©ECISIONF. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The site is presently developed with four (4) detached single-family residences and a mixture ofle related farming and other accessory structures. Much of the property contains a mixture of types and varieties of trees. The site also has a wetland's system through the center portion of the site. This site generally slopes towards Highway 217 that is east of the property.. Some 1.63 acres of the northern portion of the property along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage is registered with the Washington County Tax Assessor as a "Christmas Tree Lot". Other portions of the property are also designated as a "Small Woodlands" by the Assessor. The subject property was the site of a similar, previous development application for a 342,500 square foot shopping center with office uses (SDR 94-0019, PDR 94-0002, SLR 94-0004). This application was approved by the Planning Commission and became effective on December 19, 1994 but expired on June 19, 1996 due to inactivity. Related Division of State Lands Permits and Army Corps of Engineers Permits were also obtained for the wetlands fill and mitigation concept. The previous Division of State Lands Permit is still valid for the proposed wetlands fill and mitigation concept. The previous Army Corps of Engineers Permit has expired due to a reorganization of the Army's Nationwide Permitting process. Vicinity Information: The subject property is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street, the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and includes one (1) parcel within the Hermosa Subdivision, but otherwise north of th Hermosa Subdivision and east of Highway 217. Properties to the south within the Hermo Subdivision are developed with detached single-family residences and have a zoning designation o CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6123198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 8 OF 42 Mixed Use Employment (MUE` 4reas to the north are also designat, for General Commercial use. Most of the property to the f.. 4h is currently developed as the . ti Foods Shopping Center. Properties to the east have a zc.... g designation of Mixed Use Emplo, ie and are currently vacant or developed with detached single-family residences. Site Information and Proposal Description: The project proposes approval for 330,895 square feet of gross leasable commercial retail space. The majority of the shopping center has been designed with an emphasis to accommodate larger scale dry goods retailers. The applicant has proposed two (2) driveways to the site along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage and two (2) driveways on the SW 72nd Avenue frontage. The applicant has proposed to develop retail space within 11 buildings that would likely contain five (5) Major Anchor Tenants and several smaller tenants. The applicant also proposes to provide some 1,722 parking spaces to serve the proposed uses. On June 1, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and approved this proposal subject to Conditions of Approval. At this hearing the Planning Commission expressed strong reservations with this project due to traffic impacts to SW Pacific Highway and unfunded regional transportation improvements listed within the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. On June 23, 1998, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing and expressed similar concerns. At that hearing the City Council approved this proposal as proposed because needed transportation improvements required regional transportation funding solutions and cannot be solved by any single applicant. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 4OMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements, necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.32.250 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the projects impacts on public systems. The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure that is required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. After July 1, 1998 the applicant will be required to pay F's of approximately $754,917 based on the 330,895 square feet of commercial retail space that s been proposed. Specific future tenants could increase or decrease this total based on the tenant mixture. CPA 98-021SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 9 OF 42 tSasea on ine estimate mat to, I Ir iees cover 3e_-lo oI aIe IinPdcL 1111aw1 JllCCt n1iNiUVU11iC11tw citywide, a fee that would co jr 100% of this projects traffic im~_ct is $2,359,115 ($754,917 divided by .32). The differE a between the TIF paid, and the .III impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street. system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $1,604,198. The applicant has committed to construct half-street improvements along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage and rebuild of the . SW 72nd Avenue frontage with approximately a 3/4 street improvement. The applicant has committed to install traffic signals at the SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street intersection and at the SW 68th Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street intersection. Additionally, the applicant has committed to install traffic signals at both of the proposed SW Dartmouth Street driveways if warranted. The applicant has valued the cost of all committed street improvements at $834,074. Much of the proposed street improvement work-allows for additional traffic capacity and is, therefore, eligible for a Transportation Impact Fee Credit (TIF). For this reason, the total value of the proposed street improvements, TIF Credits and any non TIF creditable work is expected to equal approximately $834,074. Because the total transportation impact is $2,359,115, the proposed street improvements are easily proportional to the impact of the development. Therefore, the applicant is paying only a portion of the projects impact on the transportation system. Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a shopping center to serve commercial retail tenants. This use is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as Retail Goods and Services. The proposed general retail, commercial use of the property is listed as a permitted use within the General Commercial Zoning District. Dimensional Requirements: The General Commercial Zoning District standards contained in Section 18.62.050 states that there is no minimum lot area and the average minimum lot width is 50 feet. Developments are required to provide a minimum of 15% landscaping or areas not developed with impervious surfaces. The parcel width standard is addressed within the Lot Line Adjustment review portion of the staff report. The applicant proposes to landscape or provide wetlands mitigation areas for approximately 195,534 square feet of the net site area of 25.70 acres of area. This equals 17 % of the net site area and, therefore, complies with the 15% minimum non-impervious surface area requirement. Setbacks: Section 18.62.050 states that there is no front, side, or rear yard setback is required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. To the south, the site adjoins property that is designated as Mixed Use Employment that permits residential use. These properties are also developed with detached single-family residential uses, therefore, the 20-foot setback is found to be applicable. The applicant has provided a minimum of a 40-foot setback with a 20-foot screening and buffering area, in compliance with this standard. Building Height: Section 18.62.050 states that a maximum height of 45 feet is permitted in General Commercial Zoning District. None of the proposed building elevations of the Major Anchor buildings and Pads A-D would exceed a height of 34 feet, in compliance with the 45-foot maximum height restriction. The combined Pad E and F building, west elevation- would have a height of 48 feet. Compliance with the building height exceptions standards are addressed below. Section 18.98 permits structures up to a height of 75 feet in height where the total floor area does not exceed 1 and 1/2 times the area of the site; the yard dimensions in each case a equal to 1/2 of the building height of the principal structure and the structure shall not abut residential zoning district. The total site area is 1,119,492 square feet and the total building area CPA 98-MSDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 10 OF 42 of Fad E and F would equr 13,592 square feet, therefore, thi standard is met. The yard dimensions comply with this std, -lard except for the dimension towar, SW 72nd Avenue. Because the Tigard Triangle Design St~_ Jards require that no more than a 10-foot building setback be provided, therefore, because the building is required to be developed near the street right-of-way and the elevation that exceeds the standard does not face SW 72nd Avenue, this requirement is not found to be applicable in this situation. The proposed structure also does not abut a residential zoning district. Planned Development: Section 18.80 allows the option for an applicant to create a more efficient, economically viable development that preserves natural land features while implementing the land use designation set forth for the property though the Comprehensive Plan. Section 18.80.130(A)(1) (Planned Development Review - Approval Standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community Development Code Sections. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.321 18.62, 18.80, 18.84, 18.85, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116 18.1209 18.150, 18.162, 18.164, the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and the Metro Functional Plan Standards. The proposal's consistency with these sections has been reviewed within this report. The Planned Development Review is a three (3) step process as follows: 1. Approval of a planned development overlay zone; 2. The second step is the approval of the planned development concept plan; and 3. Approval of a Detailed Development Plan is also required. he subject property was previously designated with a Planned Development Overlay. Therefore, mWe first step of this process was previously completed and all development of this property is required to be undertaken through the Planned Development process. The applicant has requested Conceptual Planned Development approval with this application to comply with the second step. The applicant has also requested simultaneous review of the Detailed Planned Development to comply with the third step in the process. Because the Site Development Review application requires the Detailed Planned Development Review level of detail, combining these actions is appropriate. Section 18.80.120(A)(3) provides further review standards for Planned Development that have been addressed below as follows: Relationship to the natural and physical environment: (i) The streets, buildings, and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; (ii) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; (iii) There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off- site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-021MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TAI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 11 OF 42 (v) i rees with a six (e) In( caliper measurea at tour (4) tee I neignt Trom grouna ievei, shall be saved where p+ ssible; The applicant has demonstrated that, based on the intensity and type of proposed land use, that maintenance of the existing topography, wetlands system and vegetation is impossible while developing a single shopping center. Natural drainage has been partially preserved through the site and upstream and downstream of the site but within the property the applicant has demonstrated that drainage will need to be altered to accommodate the proposed improvements and to treat storm water runoff within proposed on-site facilities. A Geological Soils Report was provided concerning soil conditions and indicates that the site is suitable for the type of commercial structures that have been proposed. This report indicates that there is no evidence of slumping or sliding of soils on this site. Maintenance of a 20-foot screening and buffering setback with required landscape materials is proposed to the residentially used properties to the south. Beyond the 20-foot screening and buffering area the proposed structures will be setback a minimum of an additional 20 feet to accommodate other required site improvements. The development has been preliminarily reviewed for compliance with Fire and Life Safety Standards. The Building Division has provided comments and recommended Conditions of Approval concerning these standards. Fire flow calculations, fire hydrant locations and related standards will be reviewed again during the Building Permit Plan Check Review. Solar accessibility standards are not specifically applicable to commercial development elsewhere in the Development Code. Due to grading, tree removal and the configuration of the pads on this site the proposed commercial structures would have solar access. No building has been designed to shade another building. The applicant has proposed to remove extensive numbers of existing trees as part of this development. The tree removal and the applicability of tree mitigation requirements is discussed in detail elsewhere within this report. Buffering, screening, and compatibility between adjoining uses: (i) Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses (for example, between single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential, and commercial); (ii) In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix, the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.100: (a) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; (b) The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; (c) The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; (d) The required density of the buffering; and (e) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; (iii) On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: (a) What needs to be screened; (b) The direction from which it is needed; and (c) Whether the screening needs to be year-round; CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 12 OF 42 Tha site only adjoins residents- ises to the south. The proposed g ling plan shows that the west and east ends of the Major Ai & -)r Tenant Buildings would be roux. at grade with the existing residences. The finished pad ele.ations of Major Anchors II, IIIA, 1118 alld IV would be roughly 10 to 20 feet below the grade of the adjoining residences. The finished elevation of the rooftop of the buildings would be at roughly the same elevation as eye level at the residences. The applicant has agreed not to place rooftop equipment within the first 20 to 40 feet of the southern edge of these 16buildings. Because the roof top equipment would be roughly at eye level of the adjoining residences, the applicant shall revise the plan to provide a building parapet height sufficient to screen from view of rooftop mechanical equipment Major Anchor Buildings 11, IIIA, I1113 and IV and the south east comer of Major Anchor I. Service areas such as loading areas of Major Anchor Tenants II, 111-A, III-B and IV would be screened from view of the residences based on the proposed finished grades. Because the finished elevation of Major Anchor Tenant I would be some eight (8) feet higher than residences immediately to the south, the applicant shall screen the loading area for at least the length of the truck that would service this site, likely 65 feet, at a height of a typical servicing vehicle. This may be accomplished through a matching split face concrete block wall or other method as approved by the Planning Division. Based on the site development constraints and the higher street elevation of SW 72nd Avenue, it does not appear possible to entirely screen rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenant buildings as seen from SW 72nd Avenue. For this reason, all rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenants shall be designed to match the color of the rooftop. Screening and buffering standards have also been addressed through this proposal with a 20-foot screening and buffering area where this site adjoins the detached single-family residential uses to the south. A detailed review of how the proposed screening and buffering area meets the applicable d tandards has been addressed elsewhere within this report. Privacy and noise: (i) Non-residential structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; A noise study has been provided that indicates the site improvements can comply with both Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) noise standards and Municipal Code standards. However, the Noise Study assumes that the allowable noise levels pursuant to the Municipal Code standards are higher than were intended. The Municipal Code was revised in 1996 pursuant to Ordinance 96-06. The Ordinance is interpreted to have placed additional maximum noise standards The applicant interpreted the table to mean that higher maximum noise levels were permitted. Because the City did not set standards based on the percentage of an hour that a noise level can take place, it is interpreted that DEQ standards also apply and that the site as designed complies with the DEQ standards and the City's higher maximum noise level standards. The shopping center grading plan partially addresses this issue because the majority of the site would be below grade of the adjoining residential structures. To comply with applicable noise standards, the consulting engineer recommended sound barriers along a portion of the southern property line. Because of screening and buffering standards, the applicant is required to construct a e, wall or berm with landscaping along the entire southern property line where the site adjoins gle-family y residences. The site plan also restricts the location of roof top mechanical equipment CPA 98-WSDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-021MIS 98-04 6123198 PUBLIC HEARINGICITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 13 OF 42 a.Var 11%i m L11V ouuulc11 Nulut v► ► le Ivldjut Hncnor tenant 131.111Q s. Auunional screening ana buffering measures are discusy..J elsewhere within this report. Because of the type of uses that are proposed and their orientation, maintenance of privacy within the rear yard of the adjoining homes is expected to be addressed through the construction of a continuous sound attenuation wall along the southern property line. Private outdoor area: residential use: (i) In addition to the requirements of subparagraph (iii), each ground level residential dwelling unit shall have an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, porch) of not less than 48 square feet; (ii) Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and (iii) Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the use of the space; Provision of common outdoor open space areas is not required because the applicant has not proposed a residential development. Shared outdoor recreation areas: residential use: (i) In addition to subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of this section each multiple- dwelling development shall incorporate shared usable outdoor recreation areas within the development plan as follows: (a) Studio units up to and including two (2) bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; and (b) Three (3) or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit; (ii) Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable from adjacent units for reasons of crime prevention and safety; (iii) The required recreation space may be provided as follows: (a) It may be all outdoor space; or (b) It may be part outdoor space and part indoor space; for example, an outdoor tennis court and indoor recreation room; or (c) It may be all public or common space; or (d) It may be part common space and part private; for example, it could be an outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room, and balconies on each unit; or (e) Where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet; The provision of common outdoor open space areas is not required because the applicant has proposed a commercial development. Access and circulation: (i) The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.108; (ii) All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and CPA 98-02/SDR 98-WPDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 14 OF 42 (iii) Provisions shall be m i for pedestrian and bicycle way 'f such facilities are shown on an adopted plan; Section 18.108 requires a minimum of two (2) points of access where 100 parking spaces or more are required. The applicant has proposed four (4) points of access two (2) each on SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street in compliance with Section 18.108. The two-way access width lastandard is 24 feet. The majority of this site complies with this standard, except for the way drive aisle behind the anchor tenant buildings. The loading docks behind Major Anchor Tenant buildings IIA and IIB shall be revised a minimum of 24 feet of clear width. The applicant has also shown emergency vehicle access to SW Hermosa Way. Regular commercial access could also take place via this driveway. However, because the adjoining Hermosa Subdivision is still primarily used for detached single-family residential purposes the applicant has not proposed to make this a daily use type connection. The applicant has instead shown a breakaway gate for emergency access. Because four (4) other driveways have been provided to serve this site no additional access is required to be provided. It is suggested that in order to provide an alternate route and reduce congestion at the four (4) proposed major entrances that permanent access via SW Hermosa Way could be provided if the adjoining Hermosa Neighborhood is converted to commercial use. The trash and recycling enclosure shall also be revised to provide a minimum of 24 feet of clear width. The design of the proposed street improvements has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and the Fire District. The Engineering Department reviewed street improvement requirements in detail elsewhere within this report. Conditions of Approval are recommended to ensure compliance with the applicable street improvements standards. The applicant has provided a total of five pedestrian connections from SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue along the main entrances to the site. Bicyclists would likely either share the four 0) proposed commercial driveway improvements into the site or share pedestrian sidewalk improvements. The City's adopted Park and Trail Master Plan also does not currently designate a bicycle and/or pedestrian trail though this site. Landscaping and open space: (i) Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (iv) and (v) of section A of this subsection, a minimum of 20% of the site shall be landscaped; (ii) Commercial Development: A minimum of 15% of the site shall be landscaped; and (iii) Industrial Development: A minimum of 15% of the site shall be landscaped; Section (ii) is applicable to this request. The applicant has demonstrated that a minimum of 17 % of the site will be landscaped or contains wetlands mitigation areas in conformance with this requirement. Section (i) and (iii) are not applicable because no residential or industrial development is proposed. CPA 98-021SDR 98-021PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02fMIS 98-04 6123!98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 15 OF 42 Numic transit: (i) Provisions for public _ Ansit may be required where the abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: (a) The location of other transit facilities in the area; and (b) The size and type of the proposed development; SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue are not presently transit served facilities. The applicant has shown possible locations of future bus stops on the site's SW Dartmouth Street frontage should transit service be made available in this area. The City received no comments from TRI-MET concerning this proposal. (ii) The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: (a) A waiting shelter; (b) A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and (c) Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area; SW Dartmouth Street is not presently a transit served facility, therefore no transit facilities can be required at this time. SW 72nd Avenue is also not a transit served facility. The provision of transit facilities cannot be required along this frontage either. Signs: (i) In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.114, Signs: (a) Location of all signs proposed for the development site; and (b) The signs shall not obscure vehicle driver's sight distance; All future signage at the site will be reviewed through the sign permit process for conformance with the provisions of Chapter 18.114. Parking: (i) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.106; Compliance with the applicable parking standards has been reviewed elsewhere within this report. Drainage: (i) All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.84 and the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; Compliance with these standards has been reviewed elsewhere within this report. Floodplain dedication: (i) Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with th~ floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-021MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 16 OF 42 The, applicant states that fill of ? site that may have been in the 1 year flood plain was done in the early 1980's and does not )nsider these areas to be within 100-year floodplain. It is recommended that the site be considered to be outside of the i00-year flood plain but that verification of this be.made by requiring reissuance of Army Corps of Engineers permits prior to issuance of Building Permits. The City has park system development fees in place to fund planned park improvements. Park system impact fees will be assessed for this development prior to the issuance of building permits. Because the 100-year floodplain elevation does not likely exist on this property dedication of a portion of the property for development of a trail does not appear possible. Sensitive Lands: Section 18.84 contains regulations. for lands within 100 year floodpiains, wetlands and drainageways that are subject to Sensitive Lands Review. Sensitive Lands Review of proposed developments in these areas is intended to implement protection measures and to protect rivers, streams and creeks by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, and preserving scenic quality and recreational potential. Wetlands: Section 18.84.040(D) states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: The proposed landform alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland. The proposed landform alteration. is within 25 feet of wetlands designated as significant within the City's Water Resources Overlay that designates significant wetlands within the Comprehensive Plan. However, the eastern one half of the site presently has a lope of approximately based 10 The applicant has proposed to exchange fill on the steeper ortion of the site to the flatter areas. For this reason, it does not appear possible to develop the entire site as a single shopping center without filling and mitigating the existing wetlands system through the site. The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment application in conjunction with this request to address the impacts to the wetlands system in this area in detail. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use. Development of the site as two (2) or more centers would leave an inaccessible walled canyon type wetland system though the site. For this reason, the proposed fill and mitigation plan is the minimum amount of work necessary given the existing development constraints. Based on the topography of the development proposed, large scale mass grading is necessary to develop the site as a single shopping center. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage that would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated. The applicant has proposed to treat storm water runoff through the site and provide drainage structures that allow drainage to then utilize existing drainage patterns downstream of the site. The site plan provides a 15-foot setback buffer in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency standards to off-site wetlands areas to the west of this site. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to landform alteration or development, asst ion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. Prior to issuance of permits the applicant will provide plans that will be reviewed for compliance with CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 17 OF 42 appncaDie erosion control ste lards. The use of required erosi( control measures will be an ongoing project requirement. 7 a applicant has proposed landscaping that through the Conditions of Approval can comply with a~ , ,cable standards for a shopping L. .ter. Replanting the site with similar plant species is not always appropriate within a shopping center. The applicant has proposed the use of Douglas Fir trees among other that are same or similar to the.species now existing on the property. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met. The applicable sensitive lands requirements have been addressed within this portion of the report. The provisions of Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal, shall be met. The applicant has proposed extensive tree removal on this property in order to undertake the massive grading necessary to develop this site as a single shopping center. Many of the trees on-site were planted as a Christmas Tree Farm and are therefore exempt from the City's tree removal requirements. Compliance with the tree removal standards are dealt with in detail elsewhere within the,report. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. These policies are implemented by the applicable standards of the Community Development Code that are addressed elsewhere within this staff report. Water Resources Overlay: This section addresses the applicable criteria of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Section 18.85.140 requires the following criteria to be addressed, to allow the proposed fill and mitigation of 1.41 acres of wetlands of the total 1.96 acres that exist on this site. The wetlands systems on this site are designated as a portion of the City's Significant Water Resources: . The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use fully, consider both the impacts on the specific resource site in comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area. This wetlands system is part of a larger system that exists within drainage areas leading to the 217 Freeway. Currently the site contains 1.96 acres of wetlands. The applicant has proposed to fill 1.41 acres of these wetlands. A remaining .55 acres of wetlands is not proposed to be filled. This wetlands is located near the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue. The 217 Freeway bisects the wetlands system in this area, so there is no continuous system that is disrupted by this work. The mitigation plan proposes to re-establish wetlands along the site's SW Dartmouth Street frontage that would be designed to function as a , wetlands and would have approximately the same area as the wetlands to be filled. The applicant previously received permit approval for the mitigation plan from the Division of State Lands. Based on review of existing development patterns within the City Limits, the applicants statement that no other largely undeveloped General Commercial Zoned exists within the Tigard Planning Area is found to be correct. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, the or partial loss of the resource. The eastern one-half of the site has a 10 % slope in order to develop the site as a single shopping center maintenance of the wetlands system would likely require large scale retaining walls that would be greatly reduce access to the wetlands and likely impact their quality. After construction the wetlands would essentially be walled off through the center of the site. The applicant cites a cost of $600,000 to build retaining walls around tS- wetlands systems that exist through the site. This estimate appears correct based on the 1,300-foot length of the main wetlands system through this site. CPA 98-MSDR 98-021PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 18 OF 42 Metro and the City have desig- `ed the Tigard Triangle Area as an iployment center. Based on the intensive commercial deveivnment that is proposed, the applica, states that upon completion of this project that some 625 nt- jobs would be created. Because ie applicant has kept some existing wetlands and replaced other " wetlands that would be lost by this development, the proposed fill and mitigation would result in no net loss in Water Resources areas upon completion of this project. 0, In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use. The applicant's narrative has demonstrated that based on the level of buildout of the Tigard Planning Area, the size of the property and the General Commercial Zoning Designation of the property that there are no other vacant or largely under-developed sites in the Tigard Planning Area that could accommodate a single shopping center of the size that is planned. Maintenance of the wetlands area as it exists would make consolidation of the property for development of a single shopping center difficult. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis. The applicants wetlands determination was prepared by A.S.C.G. The applicant lists Dr. Martin Schott as environmental consultant to this project. The project manager is a Ed Christensen is Registered Civil Engineer. Mr. Christensen has extensive experience in compliance with land use regulations. The legal counsel to this project.Mr. Mark Whitlow is a, Land Use Attorney, whom also is experienced. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map shall 4ne amended to remove the site from the inventory. Because an existing map format was prepared for all designated sites. If this application is approved staff will undertake the appropriate revisions to the resource maps. Street Trees: Section 18.100.033 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.100.035. Section 18.100.035 requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). This standard is modified by the Tigard Triangle Design standards that require street trees on Major Arterial street to be a spreading variety with a height of 25 feet and a minimum spacing of 22 feet. The property has approximately 604 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue exclusive of driveway entrances. Because the maximum street tree spacing on a Major Arterial Street within the Tigard Triangle is 28 feet, a minimum of 21 street trees are required to be planted. A total of 19, 3 1/2 caliper Little Linden street trees have been provided at 28 feet on center. The landscape plan shall be revised along the SW 72nd Avenue frontage to provide an additional two (2) Little Leaf Linden trees. The site has approximately 1,096 feet of frontage exclusive of driveway entrance areas on SW Dartmouth Street. The applicant has proposed to provide a total of 38, 3 and 1/2 inch Little Linden Street trees along this frontage at 28 feet on center. Based on the frontage length one (1) additional street tree shall be added along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage for a total of 39 Little Leaf Linden trees. ketw d Use Buffering and Screening: Section 18.100.080 requires that at a minimum the buffer een a proposed commercial use and detached single-family residences must contain the following: 1) a 20-foot width for parking lots of more than 25 spaces, 2) a row of trees at a CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 19 OF 42 -us aan a ~f+a~tl ly ucnivu vii t( neigni at maiurliy and snruns varying numbers based on their size at planting, 3) the 1--,ffer must also contain either a row of evergreen shrubs, a five- foot minimum height fence, r an earthen berm with evergree shrubs which will provide a continuous six (6)4oot screen within two (2) years. This criteria is not found to be applicable to this site to the north and west because there are no existing residential uses. To the east the property is adjoined by residential use but because SW 72nd Avenue intervenes screening but not buffering would normally apply. However, because the Tigard Triangle Design Standards require that new building placement be within 10 feet of the public right-of-way this standard is found to be superseded by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in this case. Along the southern property line screening and buffering of this use from the adjoining detached single-family residential uses is required and has been provided. A 20-foot buffer width has been provided as is required between detached single-family residential uses and commercial uses. A 20- foot buffer is also required between parking lots of 25 spaces or more adjoining detached single- family residential uses. The total length of the screening and buffering area is 1,573 lineal feet. The total area is 31,446 (1,573 X 20). To comply with the required screening standards and applicable noise standards the applicant has proposed to construct a continuous five (5)-foot wall along this property line in accordance with the weight standard discussed in the Noise Study. Due to site grading, the height of this wall will likely be much higher ( up to some 21 feet) as viewed from the applicants property. Based on maximum noise generation standards the wall would likely be no higher than 8 feet as viewed from the neighboring residential properties. Moving from west to east towards SW 72nd, the applicant proposed to plant 36 Douglas Fir trees within the first 350 lineal feet of buffer length. Douglas Fir trees are considered large specimens at maturity and can be planted at up to 30-foot spacing. The applicant has proposed to tightly pack these trees together at 10-foot spacing which complies with the tree planting standard. For the next 170 feet the applicant has proposed four (4) Columbia River Willows and four (4) Western Crabapple trees at varying spacing. Staff was unable to find a discussion of these particular species. Assuming the proposed Columbia River Willows and Western Crabapple trees are defined as medium sized species that will reach 25-40 feet in height at maturity, a maximum spacing of 30 feet on center is permitted. In two (2) cases a spacing of more than 30 feet on center has been proposed. The applicant will therefore need to add two (2) trees or provide proof that these are large specimen trees. For the next 110 feet, the applicant has again proposed to tightly pack together 10 Douglas Fir trees at 12 feet on center. Again because these are considered large specimens at maturity this planting complies with the standard. For the next 150 feet, the applicant has proposed to intersperse some three (3) extra Scarlett Oaks with 13 Douglas Fir trees. Other trees of the same species are also provided but were required in order to shade adjoining parking spaces. Both are considered large species therefore the spacing of these trees at 10-20 feet on center exceeds the spacing standard. For the next 793 feet, the applicant has proposed to intersperse some nineteen extra Scarlett Oaks with 31 Douglas Fir trees. Other trees of the same species are also provided but were required in order to shade adjoining parking spaces. Both are considered large species, therefore, the spacing of these trees at 10-20 feet on center complies with the spacing standard. O CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-021MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 20 OF 42 Because the screening and bL '.ring area has approximately 31,46E luare feet of area, a minimum of 314 five gallon shrubs or 62" one (1) gallon shrubs are requires' The screening and buffering plan included some 171 24 inch- 30 inch Dwarf Winged Euonymous snrubs on only the eastern 793 feet -of the buffer area. The screening and buffering plan shall therefore be revised to add shrub plantings along the entire remaining length of the 20-foot screening and buffering area. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110(A) requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3)-feet-wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Based on the proposed design of the site the majority of the parking lot and service areas will be screened by the buildings themselves. Portions of the parking lot along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage will not be screened by buildings, however, the proposed wetlands mitigation area along this frontage would provide a minimum of a 35-foot buffer between the parking lot and SW Dartmouth Street. A minimum of 246 parking lot trees will be required to serve the proposed 1,722 parking spaces. Presently, some 298 parking lot trees are proposed. Because 1,722 parking spaces are proposed this provides an average of one (1) parking lot tree for every 5.7 parking spaces. In certain areas the applicant did not evenly disperse parking lot trees at one (1) for every seven (7) spaces. The applicant shall add a minimum of three (3) parking lot trees along the western elevation of the Major Anchor I. The applicant shall also add a parking lot tree on the south side of Major Anchor I, east of the loading dock area. The applicant shall also add two (2) parking lot trees along the south east omer of Major Anchor I. The applicant shall also add a parking lot tree to the east side of the Pad B 1iuilding. Landscape islands though out the development have a width dimension of at least five (5) feet in compliance with the three (3)-foot minimum width standard. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2) (2), 30-foot distance points with a straight line. Upon review of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, the Clear Vision standards have been found to be superseded by newer Tigard Triangle Design standards such as building placement. As indicated on the site plan, proposed monument signs have been proposed within Clear Vision areas. Where possible it is suggested that these signs be relocated for traffic safety reasons. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030.(C)(22) requires a minimum of one (1) parking space for each 400 square feet gross floor area for a General Retail Sales use. A maximum of 40% of required parking spaces can be developed as compact parking spaces. e applicant has proposed to provide 1,722 parking spaces. Assuming one (1) space for each 400 lWare feet of gross floor area for 330,895 square feet of General Retail Sales Use, a minimum of 828 parking spaces are required. For this reason, the proposed parking complies with the minimum CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-021MIS 98-04 6123198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 21 OF 42 parking ratio standard. I he ar scant has proposed to 308 compact aces which is less than -40° % (331 spaces), of the 828 requir• --.i parking spaces In compliance with Section 18.106.020(J) parking lots that provide in excess of 20 preferential long term parking spaces shall provide at least 5% of these spaces as. carpool/van pool parking spaces. Each of the proposed vanpooUcarpool spaces are full size parking spaces. Each space shall have signage designating for use only by vanpooUcarpool users between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:30 pm. The applicant has agreed to provide 68 long term parking spaces. The applicant shall designate four (4) of these spaces as varfpool/carpool spaces. In terms of convenience the applicant shall locate the four (4) vanpool/carpool spaces as conveniently as possible to the main building entrance, after provision of handicapped accessible parking spaces. Section 18.106.050 states that parking structures shall have a minimum vehicle clearance height of 7 and 1/2 feet for the entry level (to accommodate car pools and vanpools) and 6 and 3/4 feet for all other levels. A warning bell or other signal shall be provided for exits from parking structures that cross public sidewalks where a standard vision clearance area cannot be provided.. Required bicycle parking spaces for uses served by a parking structure must be covered unless the bicycle parking spaces will be more than 100 feet from the building entrance. The applicant has proposed the use of a parking structure to serve Pads E and F. The applicant has designated preferred parking spaces adjacent to Pads E and F but did not designate carpool or vanpool spaces. Because carpool and van pool spaces may be provided elsewhere on site, the 6 and 3/4-foot clearance height standard can be used for the parking structure entrance. The applicant provided a clearance height of 6 1/4, 8 and 9 feet respectively at the three (3) entrances to the parking structure. The applicant shall modify the parking structure to provide a minimum of 6 and 3/4 feet of clearance height at all entrances, if no carpool, vanpool spaces are provided. The applicant shall provide 7 and 1/2 feet of clearance if carpool and vanpool spaces are provided. The structure is west of Pad F that has frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. For this reason, the Clear Vision standards are not applicable. Required bicycle parking spaces are shown under an awning on the west elevation of Pad F in compliance with the covered bicycle parking standard. In discussions with Metro and the applicant both have stated that because the application includes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that the Functional Plan standards of the Metro 2040 plan apply to this application. In particular the maximum parking ratio standards apply to this site. This site is designated as a Zone B area which is not considered pedestrian and transit accessible. Within the Zone B area maximum parking ratio restrictions specify that a ratio of no more than 6.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be provided. Because the applicant has proposed 330,895 square feet of retail gross space, no more than 2,055 parking spaces can be developed on this site. The applicant has proposed 1,722 parking spaces and therefore this site does not exceed the maximum parking ratio standard. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Section 18.106.020(M) became effective on January 26, 1992. All parking areas shall be provided with the required numbers and sizes of disabled person parking spaces as specified by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards. All disabled person parking spaces shall be signed and marked on the pavement as required by these standards. This section requires 20 disabled parking spaces if up to 1,000 parking spaces are provided. An additional space is required for every 100 spaces or fraction thereof. Because 1,722 parking spaces are proposed a minimum of 28 handicapped accessible parking spaces are required. The plan provides twenty nine (9) disabled parking space in compliance with this requirement. It is recommended that one (1) of the three (3) disabled parkin spaces from Major IIIA and Major IV be moved near the entrance in front of Major IIIB so t* handicapped parking spaces will be available in front of the store entrance of Major Anchor IIIB. CPA 98-021SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 22 OF 42 Bicycle Parking: Section 18. 5.020(P) requires one (1) bicycle irking rack space for each 15 required vehicular parking r ices in any development. Bicycl'. ,arking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. Based on the 828 parking spaces that are required for this development a minimum of 56 bicycle parking spaces are required. The plan notes that bicycle racks for 115 bicycle spaces are proposed to be provided. These bicycle 0 racks are dispersed throughout the site. The applicant shall provide a bicycle rack detail that demonstrates when in use that bicycle racks will not block pedestrian walkways. This will require a four (4)-foot minimum width clear walkway be maintained. Where possible the applicant shall relocate the proposed bicycle racks under cover near main building entrances. Off-Street Loading spaces: Section 18.106.080 requires that every commercial or industrial use having floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, shall have at least one (1) off-street loading space on site. This standard has been addressed on part of this site because each of the Major Anchor Tenants were provided with a loading space. The applicant also marked a standard automobile parking space in front of Pads A-F as loading spaces. Due to the size of a parking space and the size of delivery trucks that may service this site the designated loading spaces do not appear adequate. The applicant shall revise the site and landscape plan to provide a suitable size loading spaces to accommodate delivery trucks for all applicable tenants spaces of 10,000 square feet or more within Pads A, B and D. This standard is not applicable where no tenant occupies a minimum of 10,000 square feet. Access: Section 18.108.080 requires that commercial uses which require more than 100 parking spaces provide a minimum of two (2) access points with a minimum width of 30 feet and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. The applicant has proposed to provide four (4) points of access, two (2) each to SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue, in compliance with this requirement. The majority of this site complies with this standard, except for the two-way drive aisle behind the Major Anchor Tenant buildings. The loading docks behind Major Anchor Tenant buildings W and IIB shall be revised a minimum of 24 feet of clear width. Walkways: Section 18.108.050(A) requires that a walkway be extended from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street that provides the required ingress and egress. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access-driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum six (6) inch vertical separation (curbed), or a minimum three (3)4oot horizontal separation; except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards. The walkway overall width requirement is modified by the Tigard Triangle Design Standard that requires six (6) feet of total width and is reviewed elsewhere within this report. The City wide standard of four (4) feet of unobstructed walkway width does apply. Prior to issuance of Building Permits finished site plans will be reviewed for compliance with this standard. The site and landscape plans as proposed do not require pedestrian to cross driveway aisle of more than 36 feet. Signs: Section 18.114 lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the C-G ing District. The applicant provided a detail of a proposed monument sign and potential Cations on SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue but did not provide any other details or a sign program. The applicant shall submit for review and approval a sign program that complies with the standards for a shopping center in the General Commercial Zoning District with any special CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 23 OF 42 limitations as required by the igard Triangle Design Standards. ie applicant also proposed a ' freeway monument sign in the southwest comer of the site. Becau-e this site is entirely beyond 250 feet the proposed "freeway' s.,,,i is not permitted. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage: Section 18.116 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The application provided the location of trash and recycling enclosures throughout the shopping center. The proposed locations do not allow the center to comply with the two-way aisle width standard of 24 feet behind Major Anchor Tenants III A and IIIB. The trash and recycling enclosures serving Major Anchor Tenants IIIA and IIIB shall be revised to comply with the 24-foot two-way aisle width standard. The applicant shall obtain sign off from the franchise waster hauler for the location of all trash and recycling enclosures and provide a detail of the type of screening to be provided around these enclosures. Site Development Review - Approval Standards: Section 18.120.180(A)(1) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.32, 18.62, 18.80, 18.84, 18.85, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116 18.120, 18.150, 18.162, 18.164, the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and the Metro Functional Plan Standards. The proposal's consistency with these standards is reviewed within this report. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters 18.80 (Planned Developments), 18.92 (Density Computations), 18.94 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations), o~ 18.144 (Accessory Use and Structures) which are also listed under Section 18.120.180.A.1. These Chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Section 18.120.180(A)(2) provides other Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These other standards are either addressed below or are found not to be applicable. The proposal contains no elements. related to the provisions of 18.120.180.3 (Exterior Elevations), 18.120.180.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.8 (100-year floodplain), 18.120.180.9 (Demarcation of Spaces) and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.(A)(2) states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees, topography, and natural drainage and that trees having a six (6) inch caliper or greater, shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. The applicant has proposed to remove existing trees on the site in order to accommodate the massive grading and fill work necessary to develop a shopping center on this site given its topography. Buffering, Screening and Compatibility between adjoining uses: Section 18.120.180.(A)(4)(a) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. This standard has been addressed by the applicant through the land use screening and buffering contained in Secti* 18.100. CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-021MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 24 OF 42 Section 18.120.180.(A)(4)(b) t :es that on-site screening from v _1 of adjoining properties of such things as service and st ige areas, parking lots, and met .nical devices on roof tops shall be provided. Screening of these areas is discussed elsewhere within this report. Privacy and Noise: Section 18.120.180.(A)(5) provides the following Privacy and Noise standards: A. Structures which include. residential dwelling units shall provide outdoor areas for each ground floor unit B. The buildings shall be oriented in a manner which protects private spaces on adjoining properties from view and noise. C. Residential buildings shall be located on the portion of the site having the lowest noise levels. D. On site uses which create noise, lights or glare shall be buffered from residential uses. Subsections A and C are not applicable because the applicant has. not proposed residential development. The applicant has proposed a continuous sound attenuation wall along the southern property line to address view. The applicant proposes a land use screen and buffer that is reviewed elsewhere within this report. Demarcation of Spaces - Crime Prevention: Section 18.120.180.(A)(9) states that structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined in order to establish persons having a right to be in the space, in order to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility. The applicant provided plans to the Police Department that included security lighting. The Police Department did not have any comments or concerns with the plans as proposed. ,rime Prevention and Safe : Section 18.120.180.(A)(10) requires that windows be located so at areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that can be observed by others; mail boxes located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; exterior lighting levels selected and angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and light fixtures shall be provided in areas having pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas. Separated laundry areas are not proposed for this development. The Police Department has reviewed this development and has requested to review the security lighting and addressing plans for this development. Access and Circulation: Section 18.120.180.(A)(11) requires that the City review; a) The number of allowed access points for a development shall be as provided in Section 18.108.070; b.) All circulation patterns within a development shall be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and c.) Provisions shall be made for pedestrianways and bicycleways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. The applicant is proposing four (4) access points which comply with the standards of Section 18.108. This plan has been reviewed by Fire District staff and was generally found to comply with Uniform Fire Code standards. Prior to the issuance of building permits, any necessary minor internal modifications will be required. The City's adopted Park and Greenway Plan does not indicate the existence of Bicycle or Pedestrian Accessway through the site. Public Transit: Section 18.120.180.(A)(12) requires that the City review; a.) Provisions within e plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to fisting or proposed transit route; b.) The requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: (i.) the location of other transit facilities in the area; and (ii.) The size and type of the proposal; c.) The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: (l.) Bus CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6123/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 25 OF 42 stop shelters; (ii.) Turnouts ~r buses; and (iii.) Connecting pr 3 to the shelters. Southwest 72nd and SW Dartmouth St-let are not presently served by transit. A copy of the proposed development plans have beL _ provided to TRI-MET. The City . s not received any comments concerning this proposal. Parking: Section 18.120.180.13 requires that the City review; a.) All parking and loading areas shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Sections 18.106.050 and 18.106.090, Chapters 18.102, Visual Clearance, and 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. Parking standards have been reviewed elsewhere within this report. Landscaping: Section 18.120.180.(A)(14) requires, that the City review; a.) All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.100. b.) In addition to the open space and recreation area requirements of subsections 5 and 6 above, a minimum of 20 % of the gross area including parking, loading and service areas shall be landscaped; and c.) A minimum of 15 % of the gross site area shall be landscaped. Subsections A and B of this standard are not found to be applicable because the applicant has proposed a commercial development. Subsection C is found to be applicable and has been reviewed elsewhere within this report. Drainage: Section 18.120.180.(A)(15) requires that the City review; a.) All drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan. Drainage requirements have been reviewed elsewhere within this report. Provision for the Handicapped: Section 18.120.180.(A)(16) requires that the City review; a.) All facilities for the handicapped shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 487. The applicant has addressed these requirements preliminarily by providing 29 handicapped accessible parking spaces. Prior to issuance of building permits, this entire development will be reviewed in detail for compliance with handicapped accessibility requirements. 0 Signs: Section 18.120.180.17 requires that the City review that all sign placement and construction shall be designed in accordance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.114. All provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections of this title (e.g., the Planned development, Chapter 18.80.; or a Variance granted under Chapter 18.134; etc.) The applicant has not requested sign permits in conjunction with this application. As discussed elsewhere within this report the applicant will need to develop a sign program for this center. Underlying Provisions and Regulations of the Underlying Zone: Section 18.120.180.(A)(18) requires that the City also review all other underlying requirements of the zoning district. The underlying zoning district requirements are reviewed elsewhere within this report. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Based on the massive grading necessary to develop this site, the applicant has proposed to remove all existing trees on the property. Tree removal is appropriate based on the topographic conditions, the plan to develop t~ site as a single shopping center. The applicant has discussed that this site represents the o largely under developed, large scale commercial site available in the Tigard Planning Area. CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 26 OF 42 A total'of 53 trees with 992 ca :r inches were identified on this si' 3s healthy non-exempt trees over 12 inches in diameter. Se , 267 trees exist on the site not it ding the exempt Christmas Trees but many of the trees on site were also exempted under the Washington County Tax Assessor's "small woodlands" exemption. A total of 1.62 acres of the site is exempt from tree mitigation for this reason. *Because all of the healthy trees over 12 inches in diameter are proposed to be removed, 100 % of the caliper inches lost are required to be mitigated. The applicant has proposed to partially mitigate 926 caliper inches on site by upsizing landscape plantings to a 3 and 1/2 caliper size. This equals 1 and 1/2 inches of additional caliper size. In preparing the tree mitigation plan it appears that the applicant included exempt trees at 12 inches in diameter as part of the tree mitigation plan. This would have required an additional 338 caliper inches of tree mitigation. The applicant has proposed to remove trees within wetlands areas that are to be preserved. It is not clear why these specific trees (Numbered 88-96 in tree removal plan) are need to be removed since the wetlands in this area is to be preserved. Because these trees are 6 inches in size and within a sensitive lands areas the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to their removal. The applicant has also agreed to transplant some 1,500 caliper inches of existing Christmas trees at an off-site location, as a tree mitigation credit for a future development project. A 'remaining 66 caliper inches may be planted off-site or tree mitigation fees paid for the value of purchase and planting of additional trees. Also, the applicant and City may agree to locate existing Christmas trees on the property at off-site City open space sites. Street Improvements: Section 18.164.030.A.1 states that no development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street and that streets within and adjacent shall be improved in accordance with ordinance standards. The pplicant has been required to construct street improvements in accordance with this section. his has been reviewed elsewhere within this report. TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS: Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. The following design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, ~ndards in this section shall govern. CPA 98-WSDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6123198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 27 OF 42 STREET CONNECTIVITY: All development must dem_ ~strate how one (1) of the folio, 1g standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.134 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. Performance Option A. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight (8) street intersections per mile. B. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance. C. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. Given the fact that the length of SW Dartmouth Street is 4,100 lineal feet, approximately six (6) intersections would be required to meet this standard. Based on the number of existing and planned streets, this standard is considered to have been met without the extension of a street(s) through this site. Including the intersections of SW Dartmouth Street at SW Pacific Highway, SW Dartmouth Street at the planned Backage Road, SW Dartmouth Street at the planned fly over to SW Hall Boulevard, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 72nd Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 70th Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 69th Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street at 1-5; a total of seven (7) intersections are existing or planned within the Tigard Triangle. For this reason, an extension of a street through the Tri-County Shopping Center site from SW Dartmouth Street is not required. Given the fact that the length of SW 72nd Avenue through the Triangle is 4,400 lineal feet approximately six (6) intersections of SW 72nd Avenue are required through the Triangle. Including the intersections of SW 72nd Avenue at 217, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hampton Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Gonzaga Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Beveland Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hermosa Way, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Dartmouth Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Clinton Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Baylor Street, SW 72nd Avenue at the planned extension of SW Atlanta Street, SW 72nd Avenue at the planned Backage Road and SW 72nd Avenue at SW Pacific Highway; a total of 11 intersections are existing or planned within the Tigard Triangle. For this reason, an extension of a street through the Tri-County Shopping Center site from SW'72nd Avenue is not required. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance standard, has been interpreted as the distance from a driveway entrance to a collector or larger classification street. In this case, the project meets this requirement because of frontage and proposed driveway access to two (2) Major Arterial streets, SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue. The shortest pedestrian trip standard has been interpreted to mean that a pedestrian should not have to travel more than one and one-half (1'/2) times the shortest straight line distance from the driveway entrance to the farthest proposed building entrance. The driveway is an appropriate point of measure in this case because all four (4) proposed driveways intersect with streets designated as Major Arterials, SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. For this reason, th driveway entrance would exceed the collector standard stated in the criteria. CPA 98-WSDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 28 OF 42 The furthest main entrance 'Major Anchor I to SW 72nd Av ae appears to be the most appropriate distance to use to rr - sure compliance with the standar( This distance is the furthest point a pedestrian would have to walk from the public street _into the site. A pedestrian would have a straight line distance of 1,186 feet if the applicant provided a walkway all the way to SW 72nd Avenue; as has been required. A distance of one and one-half (1'/2) times the straight line path is 1,754 lineal feet. Through the recommended Conditions of Approval, the applicant would provide a distance of 1,235 lineal feet which complies with shortest pedestrian trip standard. SITE DESIGN STANDARDS: All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1) acre or larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.134.050 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. Building placement on Major and Minor Arterials and the street - Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of all street frontages along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. The site has approximately 674 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The applicant has proposed two (2) pads with 341 feet of length which is 50% of the site frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The site has approximately 1,270 feet of frontage on SW Dartmouth Street. The applicant has proposed four (4) pads with a total building length of 714 feet or 56% of the site frontage on SW Dartmouth Street. For these reasons, the application as proposed complies with this standard. Building setback - The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features, shall be 0 feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. Pads A, B and C cannot comply with this standard if wetlands this itigation is provided along the site's SW Dartmouth Street frontage. Pads D and F comply with standard on the SW 72nd Avenue frontage because they are proposed to be built up to the street right-of-way. Front yard setback design - Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one (1) street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets. Hard- surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.62.050 (A) 6. The L-1 landscape standard applies to the SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue street frontages. This standard is not found to apply to the SW Hermosa Way frontage because, due to its narrow width, emergency vehicle access and potential future site access is to be provided though this frontage. The applicant has proposed to construct the Pad D and F buildings up to the SW 72nd Avenue frontage right-of-way. Some parking areas will also have frontage on the SW 72nd Avenue right-of-way but the applicant proposed a 16-foot-wide parkway landscape section to partially screen this parking. Also, the topography in this area means that the parking would be some 12 feet below the grade of the street. Along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage the applicant is precluded from complying with this standard due to the wetlands fill and mitigation proposed for this entire frontage. As revised through the recommended Conditions of Approval street tree AWntings will comply with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards as is reviewed elsewhere within W report. CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 29 OF 42 walkway connection to Dwr lg entrances - A walkway conne on is required between the building's entrance and the public street or accessway providing access to the property. This walkway must be at . ast six (6) feet wide and be p~. Jed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.62.050 (A) 6. Except for Pad D, a walkway system has been provided to each main entrance of the proposed pads from SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. The walkway system utilizes modular pavement materials of varying widths. Along three (3) of the driveways into the site, the applicant has provided five feet of walkway width. The site and landscape plans shall be revised to provide a minimum of six (6) feet of width for all walkways. The applicant shall provide a continuous six (6)-foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials along at least one (1) side of Driveway C from the Major Anchor Tenants to SW 72nd Avenue. The site and landscape plan shall be revised to provide a six (6)-foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials from Pad D to SW 72nd Avenue. The applicant has previously expressed concerns that walkway connections to SW 72nd Avenue could not meet handicapped accessibility standards due to the topography of the site. This argument is not persuasive because, while such walkways may not be handicapped accessible routes to the-site, if no walkway connection is provided at key locations. This would unnecessarily limit access to the site by non-handicapped persons, or by persons who have a handicap but may still be able to use a more convenient walkway connection. Parking location and landscape design - Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. The applicant has not proposed to develop parking directly adjacent to the street due to topographic and building placement standards on the SW 72nd Avenue frontage. Similarly, building placement standards, and wetlands mitigation issues on the SW Dartmouth Street frontage preclude placement of parking areas immediately adjacent to the street. Parking areas would, therefore, be a minimum of 16 feet from the edge of SW 72nd Avenue and 35 feet from the edge of the SWO Dartmouth Street right-of-way. For these reasons, no special parking lot screening and/or buffering standards are required. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS: All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.134.050 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. Ground floor windows - All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three (3) feet above grade to nine (9) feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner. Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the eastern elevation of Pads D and F. These are building elevations facing the SW 72nd Avenue frontage. The Pad C and D elevation has 1,050 square feet of building elevation area between three (3) and nine (9) feet in height. For this reason, 525 squar feet of this area must be windowed. The applicant provided 240 square feet of this elevation ar with windows, therefore, this elevation shall be revised to provide an additional 285 square feet o windowed building elevation. CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 30 OF 42 The 'Pad F elevation has 651 , care feet of building elevation betm . r, three (3) and nine (9) feet in height. For this reason, 32- 50 square feet must contain win. ved areas. A total of 413 square feet was provided, in core opliance with this requirement. As proposed, Pads A, B and C would be separated from SW Dartmouth Street due to the proposed wetlands mitigation area. These buildings would range in distance from SW Dartmouth * Street from 12 - 260 feet. Much of the northerly elevation of Pads B, C and D would be some 40- 60 feet from SW Dartmouth Street. For this reason, the window glazing requirement is not applicable because these structures would not be within the 0-10 foot setback. However, this design has essentially proposed windowless walls for some 45% of the street frontage along SW Dartmouth Street. This design feature does not appear to meet the intent of Tigard Triangle Design Standards. The applicant proposed no windows on the northerly elevation of Pad A. It is recommended that the applicant provide 50% of the building elevation between three (3) and nine (9) feet with window glazing. The applicant is proposing to provide, approximately 3.5% of the entire Pad B northerly elevation with window glazing. It is recommended that this elevation be revised to provide a minimum of 50% of the elevation between three (3) and nine (9) -feet with window glazing. The applicant also proposed a few windows on the northern elevation of the Pad C building. The Pad C building north elevation shall also be revised to provide a minimum of 50% of the building elevation between three (3) and nine (9) feet with window glazing. Building facades - Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one (1) of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building off-set of at least 1-foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 0 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. This standard iplies to the northerly elevations of Pads A, B and C and the easterly elevation of Pads D and F. Pads A,B C and D will need to be reviewed for compliance with this standard prior to the issuance of building permits. If a Condition of Approval is required that elevations have a minimum of 50% of window glazing between three (3) and nine (9) feet, this would then satisfy this standard. If a Condition of Approval is not required to add window glazing, the applicant will need to address the Building Facades standards on all of the aforementioned applicable building elevations except for the east elevation of Pad F. Weather protection - Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Awnings and canopies shall not be back lit. The front entrance of each Major Anchor Tenant building is proposed to be provided with a covered entry as part of the building entrance treatment. This standard is also applicable to the building entrances to Pads A - F. These elevations have also been designed with covered entrances as architectural features. Building Materials - Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not Baled for more than 2 feet. Architectural elevations have been provided with a variety of h design materials. Major entrances are provided with significant levels of architectural details on each applicable building elevation. The side and rear elevations of the Major Anchor Tenant CPA 98-WSDR 98-021PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 31 OF 42 buacongs are proposed to b .,onstructed with split face concrt block with concrete accent bands. Stucco cornices and r...,Iumn capital details have also been proposed. Roofs and roof lines - Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The applicant has not proposed to use false fronts or false roofs as part of the building elevations and, therefore, complies with this standard as proposed. Roof-mounted equipment - All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. The applicant has designated areas on the Major Anchor Tenant buildings where rooftop mechanical equipment would be installed. This limit area appears sufficient on the south and west side of the Major Anchor Tenant buildings. The mechanical equipment installation limit area shall be revised to include a 20-foot minimum setback along the north and east building elevations of the Major Anchor Tenant buildings. To allow the building itself to screen other rooftop equipment on the smaller pad buildings, no rooftop equipment shall be placed within 15 feet of an exterior wall of Pads A-F. SIGNS: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.114 of the Development Code the following standards shall be met: Zoning district regulations - development within the C-G Zoning District shall meet the sign requirements of the C-G zone. Signage requirements are reviewed elsewhere within this report. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING: Two (2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening is defined within this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. L-1 Low Screen - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on Major and Minor Arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a Major or Minor Arterial, trees shall be planted at 31/2-inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provided a 3-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one (1) year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Southwest 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street are both designated as Major Arterials. This section requires that landscaping be provided in accordance with Section 18.100. These standards do not apply to the proposed design because parking would be setback a minimum of 16 feet from the public right-of-way. The applicant did provide 3% inch caliper street trees as part of the tree mitigation plan. Lot Line Adjustment - Approval Standards: Section 18.162.060 contains the followi~ standards for approval of a lot line adjustment request: CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 32 OF 42 An 'additional parcel is not eated by the Lot Line Adjustn, . t, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustr` it is not reduced below the min, ;am lot size established by the zoning district, By reducing the lot size, the lot or structure(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; and The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district. The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with these standards. The proposed adjustment will reconfigure the lot lines but no.additional parcel will be created by the adjustment. There is no minimum lot size standard that is required to be maintained in the General Commercial Zoning District. Except for the newly proposed Tax Lot 00400, the 50-foot average width standard has been met. A Condition of Approval has been recommended to require Tax Lot 00400 to be revised to comply with the 50-foot, average width standard. Special Provisions for Lots Created Through Partition Process: Section 18.162.060 states that in addition to meeting the above standards, a Lot Line Adjustment must also meet the following criteria applicable to lots created through the Minor Land Partition process: 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the- case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. - 3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right- of-way by at least 15 feet, or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one (1) lot, a reciprocal easement that will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. 9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108; Access, Egress, and Circulation. 10. Fooodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one- hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the 10 floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. CPA 98-021SDR 98-021PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6123198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 33 OF 42 I I IC dP1JIK;d1IL nds proposes is iconrigure the eignt (tt) existing par s that comprise this site: The 50-foot average lot width of Cr►_;ria 1 is met except for the area shoWil as proposed Tax Lot 00400. Because of its unusual shapt his lot does not meet the average dth standard. Criteria 2 is not applicable because the General Commercial Zoning District does not have a minimum lot size standard. Criteria 3 is satisfied as the lots would have in excess of 25 feet of frontage on a public street or a reciprocal access agreement. Criteria 4 is met because the applicant does not have a minimum setback requirement along the SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street frontages and the applicant provided a setback in excess of the minimum standard along the southern property line for screening and buffering purposes. Criteria 5 and 6 are not applicable as these lots are not residential flag lots. Through the building permit review process, fire hydrants will be reviewed for consistency with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8 will be met because a shared access agreement will be provided. Criteria 9 is satisfied through the existing access provided to these lots via their street frontage. Criteria 10 is not applicable as these parcels are not within the floodplain. Note: The Building Division states that the proposed lot lines will need to be revised due to the location of structures on site and potential redevelopment of this shopping center. In particular, the lot line aligned south of Pad B; the lot line cutting through the corner of Major Anchor Tenants IIIA, IIIB and IV; and the lot lines cutting through the Pad F building. A Condition of Approval has been required to address these issues. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Sections 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 .(Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied as specified below: STREETS: 10 The proposed development is bordered by SW 72nd Avenue on the east side and SW Dartmouth Street on the north side. A small portion of the southern boundary of this site also backs up to SW Hermosa Way. The development will have two (2) points of access on SW Dartmouth Street, with one (1) full access driveway opposite the existing entrance into the Cub Foods/Office Max site, and one (1) full access driveway approximately 600 feet further to the west. There will also be two (2) full access driveways onto SW 72nd Avenue. Traffic Study Findings A traffic impact study, dated February 1998, was submitted with the SDR application by Lancaster Engineering. The purpose of the study was to determine how the traffic in this area will increase when the new development begins operation and to determine impacts on vicinity intersections. The study analyzed the following intersections in the area: 1) SW 72nd Avenue/Highway 99W, 2)SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W, 3)SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue, and 4)SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Avenue. The study assumed that 10% of the trips generated by this development would be pass-by trips, which are trips that were already on one (1) of the adjacent streets, like SW Dartmouth Street or SW 72nd Avenue, and were diverted into the shopping center. It was also assumed that 10% of the new trips would be diverted trips, which are trips that must leave their original direction of travel by an intermediate roadway (SW Dartmouth Street or SW 72nd Avenue) to visit the site. Diverte,& trips in this case would be trips that must leave their original direction on 99W to visit the site; on they leave the site, they would return to their original direction on 99W. Staff finds that both assumptions are reasonable. CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 34 OF 42 Based upon information used ..m TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edit Lancaster found that total new trips generated by the site uld be 11,778 trips per day, with 2 .,new trips generated during the AM Peak Hour and 1,118 new trips generated during the PM Peak Hour. Lancaster also used an average 4% growth rate in traffic per year to help determine what the impact would be in the Year 2003, with.the -new site in place an operating. Using this information, Lancaster found that signals are warranted at the SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Avenue intersections. The applicant's plans indicate they will construct these signals as a part of their project. A Level of Service (LOS) analysis, using ODOT's SIGCAP software program was included in the study. SIGCAP defines LOS F as a saturation value of 1.02 or greater. The analysis found that in Year 2003, considering background traffic alone (no Tri County), the intersections will function as follows: • Highway 99W/Dartmouth Street: LOS E with 93% saturation; • Highway 99W/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-E with 87% saturation; • Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-E with 89% saturation; • Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Avenue: LOS E with 93% saturation. When the proposed site trips are added to the Year 2003 background traffic, the intersections will function as follows: • Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street: LOS E-F with 98% saturation; • Highway 99W/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-E with 87% saturation; • Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue:. LOS F with 122% saturation; • Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Avenue: LOS F with 115% saturation. 10 traffic signals are installed by the applicant at Dartmouth/72nd and Dartmouth/68th, these intersections will operate at LOS C and B respectively. ODOT provided comments with regard to this application (see elsewhere in this report). ODOT staff had recommended certain conditions of approval, such as: 1) provide a signal at SW 68th Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street, 2) provide additional queuing analyses at the intersections of 99W/SW Dartmouth and 99W/SW 72nd Avenue, and 3) provide additional traffic impact information at SW 72nd Avenue/SW Hampton Street and at the Highway 217 northbound and southbound ramp terminals at SW 72nd Avenue. On May 20, 1998, Staff met with ODOT to discuss their comments. ODOT indicated that they met with the applicant and Lancaster to discuss the project. ODOT has since changed their recommendation based upon further review of the above intersections and has determined that #2 and #3 above could be dropped. Therefore, ODOT will stand by their recommendation for a signal at SW 68th Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street. Staff has included an appropriate condition in this report. The study also analyzed the new driveways into the site and found that warrants will be met for both driveways on SW Dartmouth Street. However, Lancaster proposes to hold off on installing these signals until the development is fully constructed and under operation for a time. They suggest that because of the close proximity of the driveways to the SW 72nd Avenue intersection, some queuing may occur west of SW 72nd Avenue which would partially block the eastern driveway for part of each signal cycle. Lancaster recommends that traffic conditions could be 0 d nitored for a period of time by the City to determine if the signals should be installed. Staff s this concept acceptable and recommends the applicant provide financial assurance to cover the cost of design and construction of the two (2) additional traffic signals. This financial assurance should be held by the City for a period of five years (60 months) beyond the date of CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6123198 PUBLIC HEARINGICITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 35 OF 42 occupancy of the buildings. 'ien, the applicant should be regL d to provide follow-up signal warrant analysis' every 12 w -iths over that five-year period. If, "firing that 5-year period, signal warrants are met based up.., actual traffic generated by the ,.,,velopment, and if in the City Engineer's opinion signalization of one (1) or both of the driveways is within the public's best interest, then the applicant shall design and construct the required signal(s) within 12 months of the City Engineer's direction. At the applicant's request the Conditions of Approval that is related to the timing of the installation was modified. The Planning Commission recommended that the applicant work with the city Engineer to determine signal timing within six (6) months of project approval. Staff recommends that the City Council revise this to be six (6) months from the time of Building and/or Site Permit application. SW 72nd Avenue: Proposed Improvements SW 72nd Avenue is classified. as a major arterial street in the Tigard Triangle Plan. The right-of- way (ROW) requirements for this street is 92 feet. At present, there is approximately 20 feet from centerline. The applicant's plan indicates they will dedicate additional ROW to the public to provide 47 feet from centerline, which will meet the Triangle standard. The applicant will also need to dedicate a ROW radius at the comer of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. The ROW radius will need to be 45 feet. At present, SW 72nd Avenue is paved but is not fully improved to the Triangle Standards. The plan indicates that the applicant will construct full-width street improvements along the frontage of SW 72nd Avenue to provide five lanes, in accordance with the Triangle Plan. Additional ROW dedication may be necessary on the east side of the roadway, but it is Staff's understanding that the applicant owns that property as well. The five-lane improvement will help facilitate turning movements into and out of this site, which will lessen the overall traffic impact onto the roadway system. The two (2) full-access driveways into the site from SW 72nd Avenue appear to be designed to function adequately. LOS at these driveways is expected to be B or better. The southern driveway is shown to be aligned with the centerline of SW Elmhurst Street, which will alleviate any left turning movement conflicts. SW Dartmouth Street Improvements SW Dartmouth Street is classified as a major arterial in the Triangle Plan and requires a 94-foot ROW. The applicant's plan indicates they will dedicate additional ROW to provide 47 feet from centerline. SW Dartmouth Street was improved with five lanes along this site frontage as a part of a LID, but is not fully improved with sidewalk and street trees as per the Triangle Standards. The applicant's plan indicates they will complete the improvements of SW Dartmouth Street along the site frontage as a part of this project. Signals at the site driveways were previously discussed in this report. WATER: This site falls within the service area of the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There are existing public water lines in SW Dartmouth Street, SW 72nd Avenue and SW Hermosa Wa The applicant's plan shows connections to all existing water lines in order to adequately serve I site. The plan also indicates the applicant will pay for an upgrade of the existing water line in SW CPA 98-WSDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6123198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 36 OF 42 Hermosa-Way to either a 10-ir or 12-inch line (plan shows 10-in( but narrative says 12-inch). The City will expect the applicar' coordinate with TVWD with resp... to water service and public main construction requirements. No permits for public improvements will be issued by the City until a permit from TVWD is obtained by the applicant. SANITARY SEWER: There is an existing 8-inch public sewer main that is located in SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to this site. The applicant proposes to extend new lines into the site to serve the various parcels. Since this development will result in separate parcels, the new sewer lines will need to be public lines. The overall layout of the public lines appear to be acceptable, as all manholes will be located within paved parking or drive aisle areas. Final design shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to construction. The City's Master Sanitary Sewer Plan indicates that a public sewer line should be extended southerly in SW 72nd Avenue from the main line in SW Dartmouth Street in order to properly serve parcels along 72nd Avenue to the top of the ridge near SW Elmhurst Street. The City's policy for new developments is that public sewer lines are to be extended to property boundaries to serve adjacent uphill, unsewered properties. Since the applicant will be constructing new street improvements in SW 72nd Avenue, and since there are unsewered properties uphill of this site on SW 72nd Avenue, the applicant should extend an 8-inch public sewer line in SW 72nd Avenue as a part of the street improvements. STORM DRAINAGE: The slope of this site falls primarily to the west. There is an existing drainage channel that cuts across the northern portion of the site, flowing from the northeast to the southwest into Red Rock Areek. There are also wetlands within this site that will be partially filled and mitigated on the site. e applicant's plan shows that they will convey all storm water runoff from this site into Red Rock Creek. However, Staff has concerns with the proposed plan. First, the plan shows a portion of the southern parking area to the south of the Major buildings to be conveyed in pipe, then a Swale adjacent to the south boundary of the site. The swale appears to terminate at the southwest corner of the site and the plan is unclear as to how the water will be conveyed from there to the creek. The flow will be concentrated at that point, so direct discharge onto the adjacent property without an easement will not be permitted. Second, the applicant's plan will also need to incorporate a storm drainage system for SW 72nd Avenue. It appears that the runoff from the new street improvements could be directed into the drainage channel that crosses the site to Red Rock Creek. STORM WATER QUALITY: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65% of the phosphorus contained in 100% of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained t ough the year. Prior to issuance of a site and/or building permit, the applicant shall submit Tis and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design andards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of the building permit. CPA 98-02/SOR 98-WPDR 98-01/SLR 98-021MIS 98-04 V23198 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 37 OF 42 Pldl l dpped1-5 muicate tnat the water quality re( ement Tor tnis project wisi De met by providing two (2) bio, .ration swales on the_ site, one (1) located adjacent to south site boundary (discussed in prev:.us section), and the other near t . northwest corner of the site , adjacent to a "Wetland Mitigation Area". Staff has two (2) concerns with the applicants proposed plan. First, there were no water quality calculations submitted with the SDR application to support the proposal that two (2) swales can adequately serve this large site. Staff has doubts that two *(2) swales will meet the USA criteria for water quality treatment. Prior to issuance of the site and/or building permit(s), the applicant shall submit final calculations to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) to show that USA criteria will be met. Second, the northwest swale can not be located within what will be the new mitigated wetland, as per USA regulations. Staff could not tell from the applicant's materials whether or not the Swale will encroach into the new wetland area. Prior to issuance of the site and/or building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan to the City indicating the required new wetland boundary (needed for mitigation to meet the DSL permit requirements) and the extent of the grading necessary to construct the swale(s). No portion of the water quality facilities(s) shall be located within the wetland area. In addition, a 25-foot buffer will need to be shown on the plan adjacent to the new wetland boundary. The water quality facility(ies) may encroach into the buffer, but only by 10 feet with approval from the City. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: There are existing overhead utility lines along SW 72nd Avenue adjacent to this site. Section 18.164.120 of.the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 680 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 18,700. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and has offered the following comments: The proposed lot line adjustment will need to be revised to reflect proposed building footprints and existing/potential, future adjoining building occupancy types. The Geotechnical report must provide recommendations for liquefaction because this is a remote possibility. Relocate the trash enclosure in the rear of Major Anchor Tenant building IIIA maintain a clear width of 20 feet. Post drive aisles behind Major Anchor Tenant stores "N Parking Fire Lane." CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 38 OF 42 All exits required from each bL ng shall have a landing and be co acted to the public way via a sidewalk and accessible to pe• ns with a disability. Locate fire ;rants within 250 feet of all exterior walls of each building. t-rovide a hydrant flow test and complete the fire flow analysis. The median of the roadway between Pads B and C shall be _modified to provide a minimum of 20 feet of width. Modify the turning radius at the southwest comer of Pads A-C and in front of the Major Anchor Tenant I building. :t Note: A Geo Technical Report was provided to address liquefaction. Trash enclosures and a loading dock are required to modified to provide a clear width of 24 feet in the area behind the Major Anchor Tenant buildings to comply with the stricter Development Code standards for two-way access. A recommended Condition of Approval has been provided that will require the other noted issues to be addressed prior to issuance of building permits. The Maintenance Services Department reviewed this application and provided a comment concerning the proposed tree mitigation allowance for 1,500 caliper inches of Christmas trees that are to be relocated to City properties. The developer shall incur the cost of relocating and transplanting to be eligible for mitigation credit. City staff does not have proper equipment needed for this transplantation work, nor has the City budgeted resources for this work. The Police Department reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS Metro has reviewed this application and has the following comments: The applicant identified this ea as a Town Center within the Metro 2040 plan, the Tigard Triangle is actually identified as an mployment center in the 2040 plan. The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this application and has the following comments: Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the above referenced proposed development. The proposed development is located within the Tigard Triangle which is defined by Interstate 5, Highway 217 and Highway 99W. According to the Oregon Highway Plan, Interstate 5 has an Interstate level of importance and both highways have a Statewide level of importance. These facilities serve regional, statewide and interstate travel. We have an interest in ensuring that proposed land uses do not negatively impact the safe and efficient operation of these facilities. Upon careful review of the traffic report submitted by the applicant for a 330,895 square foot retail shopping center at 72nd and Dartmouth Street, we have determined that the applicant cannot meet the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Highway Objectives and Performance Criteria #4 and #5 (Volume 1, Table 111-1, p. 1-225) and Transportation Policies 8.1.3 d. and e. (Volume 2, Section 11, p.55) are not met. Highway Objective and Performance Criteria #4 is "to maintain a reasonable level of speed on principal and arterial routes during the peak hour" and Objective #5 is "to maintain a ~sonable level of speed on principal and arterial routes during the off-peak periods." nsportation Policy 8.1.3 - The City shall Require as a Precondition to Development that: CPA 98-021SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-021MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 39 OF 42 d. Individual devi oers participate in the improves nt of existing street, curbs' and sidewalks, the extent of the development's "npacts; and e. Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided when the development is found'to create or intensify a traffic hazard. The traffic study shows that more than one-third (1/3) of the site generated trips are anticipated to access the site via the Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street intersection. According to the Oregon Highway Plan, the operating standard for 99W is a level of service (LOS) D for signalized intersections which equates to a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 90%. This intersection is currently operating at a LOS of D with a v/c of 83%. Without the proposed development, the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS of E with a v/c of 93% in the year 2003. A v/c ratio of 99% is operating at capacity and anything greater is considered to be failing. With the proposed development, the intersection (including background traffic) is expected to be at a LOS of E with v/c of 99%. ODOT considers the expected increase in the v/c ratio a significant degradation.. of traffic conditions as compared to what currently exists as well as what would be expected in7the year 2003 without the proposed development. The 99W/Dartmouth Street intersection ]ss expected to be operating at capacity with the proposed development. Under such circumstances, progression of traffic along the highway would be virtually impossible. Queuing and delays experienced on the highway and side street would be expected to become severe. Motorists on the highway and side street would typically have to wait through a number of signal cycles to be served, resulting in long delays and excessive queuing. These conditions are expected to lead to erratic maneuvers by motorists (running red lights, drive on the shoulders, etc.), which could aggravate safety concerns at and near the intersection. It is ODOT's position that without the widening of 99W to six (6) lanes between 1-5 and Highway 217, that the development will intensify traffic on 99W and in particular, the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street. If the City chooses to approve the proposed development, we recommend the following be included as Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant be required to install a traffic signal a the intersections of SW 68th Parkway . and SW Dartmouth Street. The intersection is currently controlled by an all-way stop. The east leg of the intersection consists of the 1-5 southbound ramp connections at the SW Haines Road Interchange. The 1-5 southbound ramp connections are parts of the State Highway System and under the jurisdiction of ODOT, and as such, the proposed traffic signal at this intersection needs to be approved by the State Traffic Engineer prior to design and construction. Signal installation may require additional improvements as determined by the State Traffic Engineer. Fourteen hour (6 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays) manual turn movement counts at the intersection will need to be provided to ODOT for the traffic signal warrant analysis. The format shown on the attached traffic signal warrant comparison worksheets should be used as part of the warrant analysis. 2. There is discussion in the report regarding an extension of SW Dartmouth Street west over Highway 217 and additional ramp connections to the highway. ODOT has reviewed and analyzed similar proposals in the past and has no evidence that there would be any improvement in level of service for 99W between Highway 217 and 1-5. ODOT will not allow additional access to Highway 217. • CPA 98-021SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-021MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 40 OF 42 Note: Although-the C iprehensive Plan Policies 8.1.3 c. id a which ODOT cited are appropriate to r dress relative to this applicatioi he applicant is unable by themselves, to provide street improvements that would add lanes to 99W. While this improvement may be needed, widening 99W is a difficult multi- million dollar project that will impact dozens of existing businesses. *Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the application and has the following comments: Sanitary Sewer: The development should be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R & O 96-44 (Unified Sewerage Agency's Construction Standards, July 1996, Edition). Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend service as required by R & O 96-44. Storm Sewer: The development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating flow. Water Quality: Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. Floodplain/Sensitive Area: If the Division of State Lands is satisfied with the removal-fill and mitigation plans for the proposed olect, then USA will be satisfied. The improvement plans should show complete mitigation work 'wAnd vegetated corridor enhancement /restoration, per R & O 96-44. Erosion Control: A joint 1200-C erosion control permit is required. Division of State Lands/Corps of Engineers: A DSUArmy Corps of Engineers permit is required for any work in the wetlands or creek corridor. A revised application may need to be submitted for further approval if current plans differ from original application. Note: The applicant states that fill of areas now considered to be within the 100-year floodplain occurred in the early 1980's. For this reason, the applicant does not consider any portion of the site to be within the 100-year floodplain or floodway areas. The applicant is aware of Sensitive Lands on this site and has provided a wetlands delineation's of the wetlands as part of the plan submittal. The applicant provided a 15-foot buffer to off-site wetlands to the west of the subject property. Because the majority of the off-site wetlands would have 25 feet of more buffer width, a reduction of buffer width is permissible. The reduced buffer width is for only an extreme eastern end of the wetlands in this area. The applicant is currently applying for Army Corps of Engineers Permits. The applicant currently has a Division of State Lands Permit and is in the process of renewing the Permit. CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02JPDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6!23!98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 41 OF 42 i uaiatin valley Water Distr? reviewed this application and pro ed the following comments: Use existing stubouts to pro rty. Firelines require DCDN at rirlht-of-way. Potable sucs will require pressure regulation (i,ite: pressure currently exceeds 80 i).: Meters that are 11/3 inches or larger require double check valve assembly downstream of the meter. The applicant shall use TVWD DET BF 102 or BF 100. Upgrade water line in SW Hermosa Way to 12-inch DIP. Bank meters shall be provided at SW Hermosa Way entrance for various tenants. A 12-inch BTFY valve and a two (2)-inch B.O. assembly shall be provided. Design Engineer shall meet with Tualatin Valley Water District (Stu Davis) prior to plan submittal for project. Portland General Electric (PGE) has reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. iAcurpln\mark rlcpa98-02.cc2 • CPA 98-02/SDR 98-02/PDR 98-01/SLR 98-02/MIS 98-04 6/23/98 PUBLIC HEARING/CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 42 OF 42 i i I LEGEND Sr E DATA, •:l , Cv►.CI .W.i t aWK Ya 10fIi ,rya, 10 ILIy 4 ••0.r- a~I10Y1 r N IMl dil u.1...1 Cr•{IIK WK 71st p1-WA 4011:10 0.41r.aa h N +VI f • r•_ 1 CUBti'OODS IK4 .I.rl 1:7.-+ taK YO.K .w lal.q Llil 1 C/\C~1-~O CAMS a4W( M~ I.-% WII - \ . .'KMR rata ra.ao aMrtG+l W a•I rl y.1 1.111 ~r r • .r z 1 ~ ~ M0/Ol~O l.aallt✓! ra• .Y. )la Wrl • 'ly(- _ _ _ r.ar 6rl.c u«Iw,. 'i• tA11K>f•rI DAiA• ad "LISSIM •.0.i YW IMfa (a/ aril ' _ _ ~ ~ ` I.Kr, .r••w i.ur..+ U ir.roro 1b) vKfs - 1 - Z ~ rrf uw..ao awt •r-.ls a[r4 .•art.wo ~ v.us (VI • ~ r.ocr.(a n +r.ns { 1' -r• PMMART t...4 . f..tf7 q4L, too; ~ _ ~a.~` t"" ral.s us acs 11 it ' PAD-8 +a% L44011 5F) w~M..u7w PAD-d ~ 1• •I V_11•. 1- 1 1. ( f/, (G )ice (Q~( f 4i1 7 It, ~11~=~11- IL-II~HI I1• ;li';il~;lt~*Il %11a 1i3~11+ 1111 1L' 11, it It, I _ 11= 11 il it it. il• It 'I It' ll' 'll' 11• I HIV It. =11' X11= J1. 11: 1 rt -(Op •160'` ' ' 1` N ( ( If / i 1 •r f , i.Afoa ta,at m-~ MIUOR N MAJOR II ~:16 sp »mom ef+. - - ' 1 1 i 30.181 SR. J i i i n.,l.n _ MAJOR I 1 - - - ACf1/ .1 .f v 1 1:9.004 - - - - - 1' UL 1 , ( 1-`. tea) 1 1 1 1 1 ,l 1 I TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER • SIH PLAN CPA 98-0001 SDR 98-0002 EXHIBIT MAP PDR 98-0001 ' SLR 98-0002 MIS 98-0004 ~ - - _ ~v - 1 ereeearww sere i rrr~rr VICINITY MAP _8L - _I.-- I v ; CPA 98-0002 SDR 98-0002 / / tL, n PDR 98-0001 1 I -I SLR 98-0002 (k) SuhIecl Parcels MIS 98-0004 - - ~ - - s P ` \ are Indicated In _ im----------....--......-- Cross-Ilaich Marks TRI-COUNTY si SN 0PPING - CENTER ~ 1 tv~g7MOUn~sr St_ Lli N \ set- - a I- - - .SL - e 400 eoO FpM 0 V, Sao f.61 GONZAGA (fit, (ii-Tigard - Intt-.een an Mr n.p N ro, p....r ree.llen e.+y ...d \ - - - - ~d be wed Mh e.ot r7.v kw-.9 s.yMwr rimsk- ! 93 125 Sw 11,4 PIA rrp..d. OA 97777 f-03)63 11?1 ppad or V. Mtn A- C4 r71M rhln• nor 1 194p• r:•\mnplClmapIC0l.AOr "EXHIBIT B" CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes June 1, 1998 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Castile, Griffith, Neff, and Padgett Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Holland and Scolar Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Mark Roberts, Associate Planner; Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer; Augustin Duenas, Engineering Manager; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary, reminded the Commission that the Parks Master Plan Update meeting with the Citizen's Advisory Committee was scheduled for June 23. She informed the Commission that the new Planning Commissioner, Lisa Incalcaterra, would begin as of the next meeting, pending Council approval on June 9. She mentioned that Ms. Incalcaterra lived outside the city limits in the Bull Mountain area but inside the Urban Growth Boundary. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, mentioned his memo regarding the Council request that the Commission look at parking lots. 4. APPROVE MINUTES Commissioner Griffith moved and Commissioner Padgett seconded a motion to approve the April 6, 1998, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Commissioner Anderson abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING President Wilson reviewed the hearing procedures and criteria. He asked the Commission to declare any conflicts of interest, bias, ex parte contacts, or site visits. Mr. Padgett mentioned that he knew that Tim Roth who was in the audience; Mr. Roth would not be testifying. There were no challenges. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page I 5.1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/Site Development Review (SDR) 98- 0002/Planned Development Review (PDR) 98-0001/ Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98- 0002/ Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98-0004 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resources Overlay to allow fill and mitigation of a portion of existing wetlands on the property, Site Development Review and Planned Development Review approval to allow development of approximately a 330,895 square foot shopping center on 25.70 acres. The applicant has also requested approval for a related Lot Line Adjustment application to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownerships interests of the proposed site improvements. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial; C-G. ZONING DESIGNATION: General Commercial; C-G. The General Commercial Zoning District provides sites for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The property is also designated with the following overlay districts 1) the Planned Development Overlay; 2) the Tigard Triangle Design Overlay and 3) the Water Resources Overlay. The Planned Development Overlay was placed on the property to allow flexibility in development practices to allow more efficient use of the property. The Water Resources Overlay is a resource protection overlay that provides Citywide protection standards for Water Resource areas designated as significant. This generally includes 100- year floodplain and floodway areas which may contain wetlands systems and tributary drainageway systems. LOCATION: 12265 SW 72nd Avenue; WCTM IS 1 36CD, Tax Lots 04200; 2S101AB, 01400 and 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00400, 00401, and 402. South side of SW Dartmouth Street, the west side of SW 72nd Avenue, including one parcel within the Hermosa Subdivision but generally north of the Hermosa Subdivision and east of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.62, 18.80, 18.84, 18.85, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106. 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, 18.162, 18.164, the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and the Metro Functional Plan Standards. STAFF REPORT Mark Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He said that the applicant has requested approval for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow a water resources overlay district for the fill and mitigation of existing wetlands. He noted the applicant's request to allow development of an approximately 330,895 sq.ft. shopping center on 25.7 acres, and for a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership interest of the proposed site purpose. Mr. Roberts used overhead graphics and slides to review the specifics of the proposed development and the existing conditions. He noted the location of the proposed shopping center at the southwest corner of Dartmouth and 72nd Avenue. He said that one of the several parcels involved lay within the Hermosa subdivision. He mentioned that the wetlands to be filled and mitigated ran through the center of the site with additional wetlands at the southwest comer. He said that the easterly half of the property had an approximately 10% slope towards the 217 freeway. He pointed out that a large portion of the north area along Dartmouth was planted in PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 2 Christmas trees. Mr. Roberts said that the applicant proposed five major anchor tenants in the southern portion of the site with an additional four pads on Dartmouth (A, B, C, D) and two along 72nd (D, E). 1,722 parking spaces were proposed throughout the site, including the parking structure to the west of Pad E. Mr. Roberts stated that the applicant has expressed concerns with some of the conditions of approval. He said that staff has recommended eliminating Condition #28 (which required a noise study by the applicant). He explained that if the site complied with the DEQ standards, and with the City's maximum noise levels, then staff believed that it complied with the noise criteria in the 1996 Code revisions. Mr. Roberts recommended allowing a 30 month approval period (page 8) because the applicant has proposed conceptual and detailed plan development review incorporated with the other requests. Mr. Roberts recommended deleting the first sentence of Condition #37, as the applicant has discussed the location of the trash and recycling enclosures with the franchise: hauler who has agreed to their location. QUESTIONS OF STAFF President Wilson asked for clarification on what criteria was used to determine whether or not traffic was an issue. Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer, said that generally staff asked applicants (in their traffic studies) to look at the main intersections in the vicinity of the development. He explained that one of the criteria used to determine whether or not an intersection needed signalization was Level of Service F. President Wilson asked if an application could be denied if the applicant could not mitigate the traffic impacts. He cited an application several years ago that was denied because the intersection at Locust and Greenburg could not handle the increased traffic from an hotel. Mr. Rager said that if the applicant was not willing or not able to fully mitigate the impact of his development to star s satisfaction, then that would be grounds for recommending denial. Commissioner Griffith asked what was the status of the Division of State Lands and Corps of Engineers application on wetlands mitigation. Mr. Roberts said that, as he understood it, the DSL permit from 1994 was still valid but the Corps permit has expired because they changed the permitting system. He commented that apparently the applicant and the Corps were close to reaching an agreement and only minor changes might be made to the general design. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION • Ed Christensen, Christensen Engineering, 7150 SW Hampton, Tigard, said that they have PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 3 been working with staff, and would continue to do so, on many of the issues discussed in the staff report. He mentioned that this was a landmark project for the City of Tigard which they believed met the standard and intent of the Development Code. Mr. Christensen mentioned several specifics of the project. He confirmed that they had five major tenants coming to the site. He noted their work on ADA elements for the project. He pointed out that the ground dropped almost 80 feet in the 1,200 foot plus width, making it challenging to design a site plan that worked both physically and functionally as an economically viable shopping center. Mr. Christensen said that as of last week, they had an agreement with the Corps not to change the site plan at all. He stated that he did not think there would be any problems with gaining a revised Corps permit, and that they would work through any issues arising from a snafu between the Corps and DSL. Mr. Christensen reviewed the conditions of approval of concern to the applicant. He asked to rewrite the second sentence of Condition #9 to read "Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the signal work shall be completed." He explained that giving them the additional time beyond the issuance of the site and/or building permit would allow them the opportunity to work with the City and the development community in preparing a proper analysis of the traffic signal system. He pointed out that they were proposing to add four signals along Dartmouth Street, a project that took time to analyze, design and put together properly. He said that they also needed to work with ODOT on the 68th and Dartmouth signal because it impacted the ODOT controlled system. Mr. Christensen asked to make the same change to the last sentence in Condition #10. He said that they have already started discussions with ODOT and their concerns about the signal. He mentioned that they would meet with ODOT and the City tomorrow to continue the discussion on Tigard Triangle transportation issues. He confirmed to Commissioner Padgett that their request included replacing the words "shall obtain ODOT permits and approvals for the signal work" with "shall be completed...". President Wilson asked what the applicant would do if ODOT did not approve the signal work. Mr. Christensen said that it was not likely that ODOT would not approve the request. He explained that ODOT, the City, and the development community knew that that intersection needed to be signalized because almost any additional traffic from any new development caused it to fail. However it worked well with a signal. He said that they were comfortable with the risk of gaining the necessary approval, confirming that they could not complete the signal without ODOT approval. Commissioner Griffith asked if construction traffic would not impact the intersection. Mr. Christensen said that most of the construction traffic would enter and exit from 72nd Avenue heading for 217 and not greatly impact the intersections. He said that he agreed with "shall obtain an ODOT permit" but argued that that was not the same issue as the building permit versus the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 4 occupancy permit. Commissioner Padgett read the modified sentence as "Prior to issuance of the occupancy permit, the applicant shall complete an ODOT approved signal." Mr. Christensen agreed with the wording. Mr. Christensen spoke to Condition 422, the requirement for the sound wall. He noted on the site plan the location where a sound wall was not needed because the 22 to 28 foot difference in grade between the adjoining properties and the shopping center functioned similarly to a sound wall, and met the same criteria as a sound wall. He said that they would. still put a fence along the entire property line for a visual and physical barrier. He asked that Condition 922 read "The applicant shall construct a sound attenuation wall in accordance with the proposed acoustical study and sound report prepared by Daly Stanley and Associates." Commissioner Padgett asked for confirmation that Mr. Christensen wanted to strike the language from the word "with" to the end of the sentence as it read now. Mr. Christensen said that was correct, and to strike out the next line and to include "the future approved noise study as discussed in the applicant's noise study." Mr. Roberts pointed out that a chain link fence would not meet the screening and buffering standards; they would have to use a slatted or wood fence. Mr. Christensen said that they could add "along the remaining portion of the property construct a slatted chain link fence." Mr. Christensen spoke to Condition #41, arguing that this condition was not applicable to buildings that were more than 10 feet away from the property line (per the Triangle design standards). He said that the 110 foot width between the building and Dartmouth Street was wetlands which would be heavily planted with vegetation growing three to nine feet tall completely obscuring the intent of the design standards to provide pedestrian friendly walking conditions. He explained that the Corps wanted them to move the sidewalk out of the wetlands into the public right-of-way. Mr. Christensen argued that providing 50% glazing for an elevation between three to nine feet for all buildings adjoining their right-of-way was unnecessary since the view of the building would be obscured by the vegetation. He asked that Condition # 41 be rewritten as "provide 15% glazing between three and nine feet for the first 20 feet of each exterior corner of Pads B & C fronting the wetlands." Mr. Christensen asked to write Condition 948 similarly to Condition #9: "The applicant shall construct a traffic signal at driveways A & Bin accordance with the City standards and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the signal shall be completed." He explained that Driveway A was the focal point of the shopping center, and would generate traffic warranting a signal when the Tri-County Center opened while Driveway B was directly across from the driveway to Cub Foods and its adjacent stores, and would warrant a signal by the year 2003. He said that the applicant preferred to construct both signals now because it would be difficult to install them once the Center opened. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 5 Commissioner Padgett asked for clarification on the alignment of the driveways. Mr. Christensen said that Driveway A was a stand alone T intersection that took the majority of the traffic from the Center while Driveway B aligned with the Cub Foods driveway. He commented that they were continuing to work with staff on the issue of adding the signals and timing them with the signals from Highway 99 to I-5. Commissioner Castile asked what the difference was if they made left the condition as it was, requiring a bond after five years if the signals were not built and permission from ODOT and the ' City to build them. Mr. Christensen said that the difference was that the signals were warranted now, as opposed to being studied for five years to determine whether or not they were warranted. He reiterated that they wanted to have the signals in place when they opened the Center so as not to obstruct businesses in the area. Commissioner Castile commented that if the applicant could not convince the City or ODOT that the signals were warranted now, the applicant was asking the Commission to overrule those agencies. • Tom Lancaster, Lancaster Engineering, Union Station #206, Portland, said that in their traffic study, they had not strongly recommended two signals at Driveway A & B because of concerns with putting them so close together. He stated that the staff report recommended studying the situation year by year and installing the signals in the year when the traffic actually met the warrants. He pointed out that the study already showed that by the design year for all the highway improvements (2003), the signals would be warranted. He explained that the developer would prefer to install the signals now as opposed to tearing up the street later and doing a traffic study every year for signals that he already knew would be needed in 2003. He mentioned the importance of synchronizing the signals. Mr. Rager mentioned staff concerns with the close proximity of the driveways and the potential for a signal at the Costco southern driveway. He questioned how four signals on Dartmouth in such close proximity would work. He said that staff was uncomfortable allowing the two signals until they knew what the impact would be on the Costco driveway. He spoke to rewording the condition to resolve the issue with the applicant prior to building permits. He commented that with the applicant willing to install the signals, it was simply a matter of timing: installation now or after they saw how the facility operated once it was up and running. Commissioner Castile asked if staff allowed the installation of piping underground in anticipation of a signal. Mr. Rager said that placing conduits underground now would facilitate the future interconnection of the signals. Mr. Christensen pointed out that the Tri-County Center and Cub Foods combined were four times as large as Costco and they had only two signals. He concurred with the need for additional analysis but reiterated that they believed signals at both their driveways were necessary for the transportation system along Dartmouth to work effectively. Mr. Christensen noted the other consultants were available tonight to answer Commission questions regarding the issues raised this evening. He commented that staff had been great at working with them through this project. He mentioned that they believed that they had the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 6 majority of the Center leased. He asked that they be allowed to move forward as soon as possible. COMMISSION QUESTIONS President Wilson expressed concern about the intersection of Hwy 99 and Dartmouth, noting the traffic study conclusion that without the Dartmouth flyover and widening of Hwy 99 this intersection would degrade to level of service F or further development would have to be restricted (page 28). He observed that the City had no guarantee for funding for either improvement. He asked if Mr. Lancaster was saying that this development would use up the remaining capacity at that intersection, and that any further development would cause it to fail. Mr. Lancaster referenced the Level of Service Summary chart (page 23) showing the saturation rates for Hwy 99 at Dartmouth. He explained that this development plus other developments already committed plus a 4% growth rate yielded a 98% saturation rate for the intersection. He stated that much more development beyond this would create problems at the intersection. He said that they have discussed possible solutions with ODOT but agreed that no one had the money, including the developer, to implement any solutions. President Wilson asked what the level of service was at the Hwy 99 intersections with 217, Hall Blvd., and Greenburg. Mr. Lancaster said that he did not know but he agreed that they were probably close to saturation. President Wilson pointed out the projection that the Center would generate 12,000 trips per day, adding 10% more traffic to Hwy 99 and its intersections. He conceded that those intersections were outside the realm of this traffic study but stated that this project would impact those intersections in a way that they could not handle. Mr. Lancaster disagreed that the intersections could not handle the increased traffic, stating that they were close to capacity. He said that the impact on the Hwy 99/Dartmouth intersection was the worst with the traffic impact dissipating as traffic turned right or left onto Hwy 99. He reiterated that the Dartmouth intersection, while close, was still below capacity. He pointed out that they were building in conformance with the existing zone. As long as they did not shove the intersection over capacity, they should be in compliance. Mr. Rager confirmed that staff did limit the scope of the applicant's traffic study to the intersections in the report. He said that staff followed past practice in recommending approval for a development that was under the capacity of the intersection. He said that he was not prepared to comment about the capacity at the other intersections, as staff did not look at them. Mr. Christensen mentioned the City's current work on an updated Transportation Master Plan. He said that they would discuss the Dartmouth flyover among other issues with ODOT tomorrow. He noted the increase in federal funding to ODOT for transportation projects due to the work of Oregon senators. He commented that Metro modeling was not kind to Tigard, and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 7 said that they were willing to help Tigard work with ODOT and Metro on these issues." Mr. Christensen stated that under the Comprehensive Plan, the development did meet the criteria. M He observed that it was not fair to stop this development from moving forward because of a regional problem. Mr. Lancaster reiterated that there was sufficient capacity for this development at the intersection of Hwy 99 and Dartmouth. Mr. Christensen mentioned that their traffic studies indicated that the majority of traffic turning left onto Hwy 99 went north on 217. Commissioner Padgett asked for verification that the driveways referred to in the second paragraph on page 28 were driveways A & B. Mr. Lancaster said that was corrept. Commissioner Padgett said that tonight he heard Mr. Lancaster say that the driveways already warranted signalization, which was the opposite of his recommendation in the traffic study that the conditions be monitored after completion of the Center to determine if signals were necessary at one or both driveways. Mr. Lancaster said that they took another look at it. He reiterated that the question was not whether or not the signals were warranted - they were warranted by 2003. The question was when to put them in - now or in. five to six years. Mr. Lancaster said that he had been concerned about proper coordination of seven signals in a relatively short space. He said that the City proposed a new option of a year by year analysis of the traffic conditions. He stated that, given the fact that the signals would be warranted in the design year, and the fact that the developer did not want to spend the money for a year by year study but would rather put them in now, he did not think that putting them in a couple years from now as opposed to four years from now made much difference. . Commissioner Castile pointed out that it could make a difference depending on what else developed along the street between now and the year 2003, commenting that other entrances/exits might warrant signals. He agreed that they did not want traffic signals spaced too close together. Mr. Lancaster said that they did not want additional signals. He said that additional development beyond what was expected would provide even more reasons for the signals. Commissioner Neff asked what the out-of-pocket cost for adding the signals later. Mr. Lancaster said that a ballpark estimate was $150,000 per signal, including the cost of synchronization. Commissioner Neff noted another issue of what changed between now and the year 2003. He commented that they might do things differently in the year 2003 because other elements could surface that they needed to work into the whole scheme when they looked at the big picture. Mr. Christensen referenced Mr. Rager's comment that Costco believed that a signal was warranted at their driveway for a 135,000 square foot development. He contended that the two signals at Driveways A and B would be warranted the day their 330,000 square foot development opened, less than three years before 2003. He emphasized the need for traffic control at the Cub Foods/Tri- County Center driveway. He pointed out that their signals would create gaps in the traffic passing by the Costco driveway, enabling the Costco traffic to get in and out. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 8 Mr. Lancaster pointed out that traffic warrants today at the intersection of Dartmouth and 72"d did not warrant a signal but everyone knew that it was simply a matter of time before it would be warranted. Yet the City was requiring the developer to install that signal now rather than spending time trying to figure out exactly when the signal was warranted. Commissioner Neff asked if it was fair that one parcel took all the capacity on Dartmouth, effectively prohibiting any further development on Dartmouth. He asked what to do in this situation. Mr. Bewersdorff said that that was the $64 question. He noted that no policies addressed it, either at the Comprehensive Plan or criteria levels. He said that staff has worked on a first come, first served basis. He agreed that this could impact future development. Mr. Bewersdorff said that to deal with this situation differently the City should have in place a plan that adjusted or allowed certain portions of development in the Triangle or a system of financing all the improvements necessary. However the City had neither of those. Commissioner Neff commented that theoretically TIF should cover that. Mr. Bewersdorff noted that the County TIF covered only 32% of the improvement costs. PUBLIC TESTIMONY President Wilson opened the hearing to public testimony. An audience member said that he needed more information before he could make informed comments. Ms. Gaynor explained that the public could still testify before the Council at the June 23 hearing. No one else testified. Mr. Christensen said that if the Commission kept the record open during their deliberations, they would be happy to answer any questions. He clarified that Tax Lot 300 was also a part of this application. Commissioner Padgett asked to hear staffs comments on the applicant's suggestions. Mr. Rager explained that staff preferred the wording "prior to final building inspection" over "prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy" on Conditions 9 and 10 because the final building inspection was the first hammer for staff. He said that people often moved in after the inspection with the technical certificate of occupancy coming much later. He said that Condition #45 took care of making sure that the improvements were installed prior to final building inspection. Commissioner Castile asked if staff had no problem with the changes the applicant requested on Condition #41 regarding the windows. Mr. Roberts stated that the applicant was proposing that 95% of the frontage along Dartmouth have blank walls, a circumstance which staff did not believe implemented the standards and intent of the Triangle design standards to open up the buildings to the street. He said that staff thought that the applicant could comply with the condition. Commissioner Padgett pointed out that the buildings were set back more than 10 feet from the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 9 street, and the design standards did not address buildings set back further than 10 feet. Mr. Roberts commented that the reason that the buildings were not set up towards the street was because of the wetlands mitigation. Mr. Bewersdorff said that staff had been concerned that blank walls were ugly. Mr. Roberts said that there was no reason in terms of how the site functioned to have blank walls towards the street, since the loading was from the back and the merchandise would probably be stored in a side area pad not necessarily along Dartmouth. Mr. Roberts confirmed that staff did not agree with the applicant's requested changes to Condition #41. Mr. Roberts said that in Condition #22, technically the applicant was correct that he did not need a continuous sound attenuation wall to meet the noise standards. He stated that staff recommended the attenuation wall because it afforded visual buffering and screening, it would match what was done along the other part of the property line, and it was a more permanent construction. He protested changing the condition to the applicant's request for a slatted or wood fence (though that was allowable). He concurred with deleting the third sentence to eliminate the future noise study already eliminated with the deletion of Condition 28. Mr. Rager suggested a rewording for Condition #48 that would allow staff the time needed for further discussions with the applicant and further analysis of the other intersections and driveways on Dartmouth. The first sentence would read "Prior to final building inspection, signals at Driveways A and B shall be installed or, if signalization of said driveways is not deemed to be in the public's best interests by the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit a performance bond." i Commissioner Castile expressed concern that the language implied that the City Engineer would make the determination at the time of the final building inspection. He held that the determination needed to be made before then, mentioning a "drop dead" date for the City Engineer's determination. Mr. Rager concurred. Commissioner Padgett asked how the applicant felt about this suggestion. Mr. Christensen said that they could add a deadline date, such as six months from the project approval, the City Engineer would make a final determination. He commented that they needed six months for the design.and construction of the signal poles. Gus Duenas, City Engineer, suggested that the determination be "for either or both signals." He agreed that six months was a reasonable time period. He expressed his concern regarding the impacts on the Costco driveway, which he suggested be answered by the consultant. Commissioner Castile asked why they could not authorize the signal at the intersection with Cub Foods because they would need that one in any case. -He agreed that the Costco and Driveway A signals were questionable. Mr. Rager said that the applicant preferred installing a signal at Driveway A to one at Driveway B. He suggested further discussions between staff and the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 10 Mr. Rager read the sentence to be added after the first modified sentence: "The City Engineer shall make a determination regarding signals at the driveways within six months of site development review approval." President Wilson asked the applicant if he concurred. Mr. Christensen said yes. President Wilson closed the public hearing. COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS President Wilson noted that the Tri-County Center would be a major regional facility that generated significant traffic. He said that while the applicant's traffic study was good, he did not think that it went far enough with regards to traffic impacts on Hwy 99 to the west. He commented that he realized that staff had not required that information but stated that he did not think that the Commission had enough information on the issue. He mentioned that traffic on Hwy 99 was the major issue of concern to Tigard residents according to a recent survey. Mr. Roberts said that the 120 day rule did not apply because this application included a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He pointed out that Hwy 99 was a long-standing regional issue. He commented that even if they had the money to widen Hwy 99, doing so was problematic because of the impacts on the businesses along Hwy 99. He said that it was questionable to ask the applicant to solve this issue. • President Wilson said that he was not asking them to solve it but he was uncomfortable that the applicant was exacerbating a worsening situation. Mr. Roberts reviewed the improvements the applicant was implementing in order to make the local system work. He pointed out that the development had no frontage along Hwy 99. He mentioned that the applicant was not asking for a zone change. He agreed that the applicant made the problem worse but stated that he did not create the problem. President Wilson asked if Mr. Rager was changing his earlier statement that impacts on Hwy 99 were grounds for denial, and now saying that to the extent that an applicant could mitigate within the confines of Dolan, he would be required to do so but it would have to be permitted. Mr. Roberts said no, it depended on what kind of findings the Commission could make for denial. President Wilson said that he could not make findings without a report that studied those intersections. He observed that they were talking about increasing Hwy 99 traffic by 10% at peak afternoon times. Commissioner Padgett asked what kind of information would President Wilson find helpful. President Wilson said he would like the same kind of information presented in the study for the intersections it did look at - whether or not those intersections would be gridlocked with this development. He suggested imposing an additional condition for a study of the Hwy 99 intersections at 217, Hall and Greenburg. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 11 Commissioner Griffith asked what that would accomplish. He agreed that the traffic on Hwy 99 was terrible but argued that if this development complied with the Code and with the Triangle standards, then they had no grounds to deny the application. Commissioner Neff asked what were they supposed to do if they were at maximum capacity. Commissioner Griffith-said that he was not convinced that they could not handle the capacity. President Wilson commented that neither was he but argued that they had no basis on which to make that determination. President Wilson reiterated his suggestion for an additional condition for a traffic study on those intersections. He mentioned delaying the hearing if it could not be a condition of approval. Mr. Rager suggested asking the applicant how long they needed to prepare such a study, and continuing the hearing until after that time. Commissioner Griffith reiterated his discomfort with this suggestion. He contended that the traffic impact was taken into consideration when they set the zoning. He asked why did they set it at commercial zoning if they did not want the businesses there. He stated that with the information they had at the time, they decided that that was the use that they wanted to go there. He asked if they were now saying that they erred in making that zoning decision in the first place. President Wilson said that he did not know if there had been a mistake or if the traffic conditions have worsened more than was foreseen. Commissioner Neff commented that the question was what did they do if they were at gridlock. Commissioner Griffith held that that was a consideration when they set the zoning. President . Wilson said that not having been involved in that discussion, he did not know if that was considered. Commissioner Neff noted that Wilsonville was shutting down all construction because they could not handle it. He asked when the point came that Tigard could not take any more traffic on Hwy 99. Commissioner Padgett said that, as he remembered it, the Triangle Task Force brought to the Commission a zoning proposal for Mixed Use Employment and Commercial General zoning which the Commission recommended that Council approve. He pointed out that the Task Force. did not recommend a change in the original Commercial General zoning for this area. Commissioner Padgett said that he understood Commissioner Griffith's point as this consideration was inherent in the discussion regarding what to do with the Triangle; it has already been addressed and accepted. He said that he heard President Wilson's point as perhaps it was not taken enough into consideration or the situation has changed and they needed to revisit it. President Wilson said that he did not think that the situation has changed since the Triangle standards were implemented. Commissioner Padgett concurred. President Wilson reiterated that he has never seen a traffic study with that level of detail. He said that this was a serious concern that should be addressed in some fashion. Commissioner Padgett said that the Task Force traffic study did not extend out to Greenburg and Hall; it covered only • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 12 -the Triangle area but did go down to 217. Commissioner Neff asked if the applicant's traffic study was consistent with the Triangle traffic study. Mr. Bewersdorff said that the applicant's traffic study was consistent with the assumptions underlying the Triangle study. President Wilson pointed out that those assumptions included the Dartmouth flyover which might never be funded, even though it would help solve these problems. He commented that they had a plan that allowed a developer to build something that the state would not commit the funds to serve, a situation which he held was built to fail. Commissioner Padgett said that the Task Force had believed that 72nd would eventually be widened south of Dartmouth to the 217 interchange, not realizing that development already built in the area would probably preclude that from happening. He said that perhaps that was a mitigating circumstance to take into consideration. Commissioner Castile spoke to the need to address the traffic problem which would only get worse. Commissioner Neff concede Commissioner Griffith's point regarding the adopted zoning, depending on what the Triangle traffic study said. He requested a comparison of the consistency of the applicant's traffic study with the Triangle traffic study. Mr. Bewersdorff commented that this whole issue related to funding for improvements, noting that there were no plans or programs to take care of the Triangle. Commissioner Padgett reiterated the original question: if there was no funding, and the • development would result in gridlock, should the Commission be approving more development in this area that would contribute to gridlock? He asked Commissioner Neff if he would support the development if the Triangle study showed that the Triangle development would not put the Hwy 99 intersections at gridlock. Commissioner Neff said that he would like the opportunity to compare the assumptions of the two traffic studies in order to gain some basis for a recommendation. He conceded Commissioner Griffith's question on why go through the zoning ordinance process if they denied an applicant who met all the criteria. He commented that the primary issue was traffic, and reiterated that he would like to analyze the traffic studies. Commissioner Castile commented that while he was not sure that they could hold this applicant hostage to this situation, he emphasized they had to deal with this problem. He said that he would like to see more information on the impacts on Hwy 99. President Wilson commented that a comparison of traffic studies was more appropriate to the staff than to the applicant. Mr. Roberts said that staff doubted that the Triangle study went much beyond 217. Mr. Bewersdorff confirmed that staff had assumed that the flyover and other ODOT dependent improvements would happen one day. President Wilson asked for analysis on what would happen if those improvements did not happen; what did Tigard do? Mr. Roberts pointed out that the flyover was a $30 million project PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 13 that could involve all the property owners in the Triangle, mentioning that trying to work out an agreement between 200 property owners was a daunting task. Commissioner Castile suggested making a recommendation to Council based on their traffic concerns. Mr. Bewersdorff said that the staff report would include a summary of the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Castile noted that the Commission could attend the Council hearing to answer questions. Commissioner Padgett noted two issues remaining in contention between staff and the applicant: Conditions 922 (the sound attenuation wall) and #41 (the windows). The Commission discussed wording for Condition #22. President Wilson pointed out that a sound attenuation wall was not needed along the entire length. They agreed on "The applicant will construct a sound attenuation wall or visual screen fence in accordance with the acoustical study prepared by the consultant and Tigard screening standards." Mr. Roberts noted that the applicant wanted a slatted fence or wood fence along the easterly half of the site. He said that staff could craft language to give the applicant some options for fencing materials. The Commission discussed Condition #41. President Wilson said that he did not want the rear end of the building facing the street, citing Office Max as an example of what not to do. Commissioner Griffith pointed out that there was a difference between Office Max located 10 to 12 feet from the street and Pad A located over 100 feet from the street. He contended that with the landscaping the building would not be seen from the street. President Wilson and Commissioner Anderson disagreed. Commissioner Castile said that he preferred windows. Commissioner Padgett said that he had no objection, it was consistent with the standard. Mr. Roberts confirmed that staff wanted to delete Condition 928, change the approval period to 30 months, and delete the first sentence in Condition #37. He said that they would also add Tax Lot 300 to the locational criteria. President Wilson moved to direct the applicant to include in their report a brief analysis of existing traffic level of service on Hwy 99 at Greenburg, Hall Blvd., and 217, and some commentary on this project's potential impact to those intersections, and to recommend approval with strong reservations concerning traffic impacts to Hwy 99 and to the Triangle with regard to improvements that are not funded. Mr. Bewersdorff said that staff would need the applicant's report by June 8. The applicant indicated that they could meet the June 8 date. Mr. Rager reviewed what he understood the Commission was asking of the applicant: to submit information to the staff that would be similar in nature to what was in their current traffic study (individual intersections, background traffic, and level of service and impacts at 2003). He asked if the applicant was prepared to do this. • Mark Whitlow, Bogle & Gates, applicant's attorney, pointed out that the Code required that the Council proceedings be on the record that was made before the Commission. Therefore, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 14 there was a discrepancy between the Code procedures and the motion. He said that they did not want to delay the proceedings. He asked what criteria would the Commission suggest that the Council use other than the criteria they have already reviewed. He stated that they met the criteria under the Code and the Comp Plan. Mr. Whitlow noted that there was capacity for the development, and that Tigard's past practice was to allow development on a first come first served basis. He said that they did not have Wilsonville's policy to allocate capacity. He mentioned that Metro did allow local governments to adopt measures to address these issues in other ways than provided for in the Functional Plan. He asked that the Commission not place this development under more . stringent review criteria than any other application, and that they not be asked to add to the record evidence for the Council that was not before the Commission. President Wilson acknowledge Mr. Whitlow's point. Mr. Roberts said that the Comp Plan policy that dealt with this indicated that the Commission should not refer to the fact or degree of the existing transportation system. He mentioned that staff required the applicant to signalize Dartmouth and 68"' or they would have recommended denial. He commented that the studies might indicate that the applicant should do some improvements to the intersections, citing the $1.25 million unmitigated impact from this project. Commissioner Castile reiterated that the Commission had to deal with the traffic issue no matter what happened with this development. Mr. Christensen pointed out the ongoing staff work regarding the traffic issues, including asking Metro to update their projections to account for pass through traffic on Hwy 99. He said that they have agreed to the staff requirements for traffic mitigation ($800,000 in offsite improvements), according to the proportionality standard set by the City. He said that the unmitigated traffic impacts were part of the transportation system improvements needed in the regional and state systems. Mr. Christensen argued that they were doing their proportional share to meet the transportation system needs of the City, including funding half of the Dartmouth improvements. He stated that staff understood that the City needed ODOT and Metro's assistance in resolving this issue. He reiterated that they were working with staff towards that goal. President Wilson said that no one was suggesting that the applicant was not doing his share. The problem was that the prior developments have not done their share, and the City was faced with a system ready to break down. Mr. Christensen mentioned Mr. Duenas' identification of the problem - Metro's modeling stopped at the city limits and did not take into account all the growth occurring outside the city limits that used Hwy 99. He said that Mr. Duenas was working with Metro and DKS to update those models. Mr. Christensen contended that it was not fair to stop their development when they were doing even more to mitigate the traffic impacts than they were asked to do at the time of their original PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 15 approval (i.e., building the signal at Dartmouth and 68`h to accommodate the increased background traffic). President Wilson noted the legal question that they could not ask the Council to hear something that has not already been heard at the Commission level. The Commission discussed their options. President Wilson commented that they could not make findings for a denial based upon non-existent information. Commissioner Castile moved for to continue the hearing to July 6, and to ask the applicant to come back with traffic studies on the Hall, Greenburg, and 217 intersections of Hwy 99. Commissioner Castile said that the purpose was to include sufficient information in the record to give Council an appropriate basis on which to make a decision. Commissioner Neff seconded the motion with the following amendment: to direct staff to do a comparison of all existing Triangle traffic studies with the applicant's traffic study with particular attention to the assumptions underlying the studies. Commissioner Castile accepted the amendment. Commissioner Griffith said that he would vote against the motion because, even with additional information, the Commission lacked the grounds to deny the application. He pointed out that the development complied with the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. He disagreed with delaying the project. Commissioner Neff said that he thought that there were some Comprehensive Plan standards issues • that might give grounds for a denial. He commented that this was a situation in which a big project was colliding with a big problem in Tigard: traffic. He spoke for taking longer to consider the project than one evening. He mentioned Commissioner Padgett's and President Wilson's earlier points regarding a mistake in the original zoning or a change in conditions as a basis for changing the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Padgett cited the ODOT report (pages 40 to 41) in which they recommended placing a signal at Dartmouth and 68'h He noted that they also stated that they had no evidence from analysis of similar proposals that there would be any improvement in the level of service for 99W between 217 and I-5, even if the ramp connections occurred. He concluded that the ramp connections were not a consideration because they would not make anything better. President Wilson pointed out that the applicant in his traffic study said that as many as 10% of the current trips on Hwy 99 would go over the flyover. A voice vote was taken and the motion failed by a 3-3 vote with President Wilson, Commissioners Castile and Neff voting yes and Commissioners Padgett, Anderson, and Griffith voting no. Commissioner Padgett stated that he did not think that additional study of the other intersections PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 16 were necessarily a part of this application. He concurred that it was a city-wide problem. He held that it was inherent in the application process that the City de facto accepted what the conditions would be at the intersections. He contended that it was not fair to make this applicant responsible for an issue that was of city-wide concern and not dependent on whether or not this application was approved. Commissioner Anderson concurred with Commissioner Padgett. Commissioner Padgett said that the City was stuck with its previous zoning decision or else it had to change the traffic, planning, and zoning concept for the entire city. He emphasized that Hwy 99 was the main arterial through the city, and any problem needed to be addressed on a city-wide basis. He commented that even if the study showed that this development would put a strain on those intersections, he did not believe that that was a basis for denial of the application. Therefore he saw no value in continuing the hearing for the study. Commissioner Padgett moved, and Commissioner Anderson seconded, to recommend to the Council that they approve CPA 998-0002/SDR 98-0002/PDR 98-0001/SLR 98-002/NHS 98- 0004 including the changes and recommendations previously given to the recorder. A voice vote was taken and the motion failed by a 3-3 vote with Commissioners Padgett, Griffith, and Anderson voting yes, and President Wilson, Commissioners Castile, and Neff voting no. The Commission discussed sending this to Council for approval with a strongly worded concern regarding the traffic issues. President Wilson moved, and Commissioner Neff seconded, to recommend approval with the changes as previously noted, and with strong reservations concerning the level of service on Hwy 99 at Greenburg, Hall and 217, and the anticipated improvements in the Triangle which were not funded and had no funding mechanism. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 1, 1998 - Page 17 DSL CONSENT ORDERS F (Dalr`cf)oO regui Department of State Lands RECEIVED 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 ' Salem, OR 97301-1279 8 59 Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor . APR d 1 2008 (503) 378-3805 FAX (503) 378-4844 CERTIFIED MAIL PacTrust www.oregonstatelands.us. April 1, 2008 State Land Board CLL600/6701 Theodore R. Kulongoski PacTrust Governor Attn: Matt Oyen 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 300 Bill Bradbury Portland, OR 97224 Secretary of State RE: Consent Order - DSL Enforcement File 6701 Randall Edwards State Treasurer Dear Mr. Oyen: Enclosed is an amended Consent Order that sets out restoration measures to be accomplished over the next three years. Please read this document carefully. If you agree to the course of action, please (1) sign, (2) make a copy for your records, and (3) return it to my attention by April 14, 2008. If there is anything in the Consent Order that you do not understand, or that you cannot agree to, please call me by April 11, 2008 to discuss. Please note that when you sign the Consent Order, you waive your right to appeal. Completion of the requirements set forth in the Consent Order will resolve the permit non-compliance issue. • You also agree to waive your right to contest this Order and waive any and all claims against DSL, the State of Oregon or any of its agencies arising from this Order or the application of the Removal-Fill Law to the situation described in this Order. Thank you for your cooperation in dealing with this matter. I appreciate your willingness to bring the work into compliance with the Removal-Fill Law. Please feel free to call me at 503- 986-5271 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Lori Warner-Dickason Western Region Operations Manager Wetlands and Waterways Conservation Division Oregon Department of State Lands Enclosure C: Mischa Connine, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife City of Tigard Planning Dept. Mike Turaski, Corps of Engineers, Portland District • • BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of Permit Compliance with CONSENT ORDER Of ORS 196.810 By ) PacTrust ) File No. 6701 ) (.BACKGROUND This matter is before the Director of the Department of State Lands pursuant to the State Removal-Fill Law, ORS 196.800 et seq., (hereinafter "Removal-Fill Law"). The Removal-Fill Law requires a permit from the Department before removing (including alteration) or filling of material within waters of this state. When such removal or filling occurs without a permit or in a matter contrary to the conditions of a permit, the Director may issue an Order to restore the water resources. The Department of State Lands and PacTrust have agreed to the entry of this Consent Order to bring the portion of the Tigard Retail Development mitigation site under Pac Trust's ownership into compliance. • II. STIPULATED FACTS 1. PacTrust owns property locate at Township 2S, Range 1W, Section 1, Tax Lot 10,,0;~I, and Township 1S, Range3W, Section 36 Tax Lot 4200 in Washington County, Oregon (the "Property"). 1 2. The Property contains a portion of the Tigard Retail Development wetland mitigation site, a "water of the state" within the meaning of ORS 196.800(14). 3. Prior to PacTrust ownership of the Property, the required annual mitigation monitoring reports for years 2, 3, and 4 were not submitted to the Department as required in DSL permit 9256-RF. 4. The Department acknowledges that PacTrust is not in violation of the removal/fill law. III. APPLICABLE LAW 1. A permit from the Director of the Department is required before removing or filling material in waters of the state. ORS 196.810 2. Fill means "the total of deposits by artificial means equal to or exceeding 50 cubic yards of material at one location in any waters of this state" ORS 196.800(5) However, in designated Essential Indigenous Anadromous Salmonid Habitat (ESH) • areas (OAR 141-102) and in designated Scenic Waterways (OAR 141-100), "fill" means any deposits by artificial means. OAR 141-085-0010 2 - CONSENT ORDER 3. Removal means "the taking of more than more than 50 cubic yards or the equivalent weight in tons of material in any waters of this state in any calendar year; or the movement by artificial means of an equivalent amount of material on or within the bed of such waters, including channel relocation." ORS 196.800(12) However, in designated Essential Indigenous Anadromous Salmonid Habitat (ESH) areas (OAR 141-102) and in designated Scenic Waterways (OAR 141-100), the 50-cubic-yard minimum threshold does not apply. 4. Material means rock, gravel, sand, silt and other inorganic substances removed from waters of this state and any materials, organic or inorganic, used to fill waters of this state." ORS 196.800(9) 5. "Any person who violates any provision of ORS 196.600 to 196.905 or any rule, order or permit adopted or issued under ORS 196.600 to 196.905 shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount to be determined by the Director of State Lands of not more than $10,000 per day of violation." ORS 196.890 6. Violation means "removing material from or placing fill in any waters of this state without a permit (authorization) or in a manner contrary to the conditions set out in a permit issued under the Removal-Fill law or these rules." OAR 141-085-0010 7. Day of violation means "the first day and each day thereafter on which there is a failure to comply with any provision of the Removal-Fill law, these rules (OAR 141- 085), any rule adopted pursuant to these rules (OAR 141-085), any order adopted in accordance with these rules (OAR 141-085) or any authorization issued in • accordance with these rules (OAR 141-085)." OAR 141-085-0010 8. Waters of this state means "natural waterways including all tidal and non-tidal bays, intermittent and perennial streams (i.e., streams), lakes, wetlands and other bodies of water in this state, navigable and non-navigable, including that portion of the Pacific Ocean which is in the boundaries of the state. "Waters of this state" does not include the ocean shore, as defined in ORS 390.605. OAR 141-085-0010 9. Wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." (ORS 196.800[16]) 10. "If the Director of the Department of State Lands determines that material is being removed from or filling is occurring in any of the waters of this state without a permit issued under ORS 196.825 or in a manner contrary to the conditions set out in the permit, the Director may: (a) Investigate, hold hearings, make orders and take action, as provided in ORS 196.600 to 196.905. Any person aggrieved by a proposed order of the Director may request a hearing within 20 days of the date of personal service or mailing of this notice. Hearings shall be conducted under the provision of ORS 183.310 to 183.550 applicable to contested cases, and judicial review of final orders shall be conducted in the Court Of Appeals according to ORS 183.482. If no hearing is requested or if the party fails to appear, a final order shall be issued upon a prima facie case on the record of the agency" ORS 196.860 3 - CONSENT ORDER • IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The wetland mitigation site is "waters of the state" within the meaning of ORS 196.800(14) and is therefore subject to the requirements of the Removal-Fill Law. 2. PacTrust owns property upon which a portion of the mitigation site was constructed. Upon discovering that the required site monitoring had not been conducted according to the conditions of DSL permit 9256, PacTrust implemented measures to bring the site into compliance. 3. PacTrust has agreed to bring the portion of the mitigation site under their ownership into compliance by performing the restoration measures listed in Section VI, below. VI. RESTORATION MEASURES 1. PacTrust agrees to the following measures to bring the Tigard Retail Development mitigation site into compliance: a. The mitigation areas under PacTrust ownership shall be monitored annually for three additional years. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted by December 31 of each monitoring year, with the first monitoring report due on December 31, 2008. • b. Annual monitoring reports shall contain drawings that identify the limits of wetland enhancement. Annual reports shall also include photos from established fixed photo points and data on percent survival of planted woody vegetation collected from permanent data plots. c. Survival of plants installed in 2007 shall be 80% for the duration of the additional three-year monitoring period. d. By the end of the monitoring period or project development, whichever comes first, PacTrust shall either, (1) install a fence around the mitigation site, or (2) record a deed restriction on the portion of the mitigation site under their ownership in-lieu of a fence. The deed restriction shall be in a format that is mutually agreeable to the Department and PacTrust and shall prohibit future actions that may interfere with the conservation value of the mitigation area. 2. Upon approval of the final annual monitoring report, the Department will notify the responsible party that the Consent Order is satisfied and will close its file on the matter. VII. STIPULATIONS PacTrust has: 1. stipulated to the facts recited in this order; 4 - CONSENT ORDER 2. agreed to the restoration measures set forth in this order; 3. agreed to the timeframe for restoration set forth in this order; and 4. waived the right to appeal or contest this order. VIII. FAILURE TO COMPLY In the event that restoration work is not completed by the designated time or to the satisfaction of the Department, the Department may issue an enforcement order, obtain a court order requiring compliance and/or issue a civil penalty. DATED this day of aO::i P 2008 r Lori Warner-Dickason Western Region Operations Manager Stipulate nd Agreed to: Responsible Party SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this day of - t"V I 200. OFFICIALSEAL~ LINDA K. APPLEBY otary Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: G~ ~S COMMISSION NO. 382653 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 12, 2008 NOTICE: Statute permits judicial review of Final Orders. However, pursuant to this Consent Order, PacTrust has agreed to waive their right to appeal. 5 - CONSENT ORDER regol Department of State Lands CF 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 ` ~ 8 59 ~ Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Salem, OR 97301-1279 • (503) 378-3805 FAX (503) 378-4844 CERTIFIED MAIL wwNv.oregonstatelands.us. March 6, 2008 State Land Board CLL600/6701 Theodore R. Kulongoski PacTrust Governor Attn: Matt Oyen 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 300 Bill Bradbury Portland, OR 97224 Secretary of State RE: Consent Order - DSL Enforcement File 6701-Amended Randall Edwards State Treasurer Dear Mr. Oyen: Thank you for speaking with Lori Warner-Dickason by telephone today to discuss the consent order dated February 28`h. During the phone conversation revisions to the consent order were discussed. Enclosed is an amended Consent Order that sets out restoration measures to be accomplished over the next three years. Please read this document carefully. If you agree to the course of action, please (1) sign, (2) make a copy for your records, and (3) return it to my attention by March 12, 2008. If there is anything in the Consent Order that you do not understand, or that you cannot agree to, please call me by March 14, 2008 to discuss. Please note that when you sign the Consent Order, you waive your right to appeal. Completion of the requirements set forth in the Consent Order will resolve the permit non-compliance issue. You also agree to waive your right to contest this Order and waive any and all claims against DSL, the State of Oregon or any of its agencies arising from this Order or the application of the Removal-Fill Law to the situation described in this Order. Thank you for your cooperation in dealing with this matter. I appreciate your willingness to bring the work into compliance with the Removal-Fill Law. Please feel free to call me at 503- 986-5271 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, jLoNW~~arne~'2-Dicka on Western Region Operations Manager Wetlands and Waterways Conservation Division Oregon Department of State Lands Enclosure C: Mischa Connine, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife City of Tigard Planning Dept. Mike Turaski, Corps of Engineers, Portland District BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of Permit Compliance ) CONSENT ORDER Of ORS 196.810 By ) PacTrust ) File No. 6701 ) (.BACKGROUND This matter is before the Director of the Department of State Lands pursuant to the State Removal-Fill Law, ORS 196.800 et se g., (hereinafter "Removal-Fill Law"). The Removal-Fill Law requires a permit from the Department before removing (including alteration) or filling of material within waters of this state. When such removal or filling occurs without a permit or in a matter contrary to the conditions of a permit, the Director may issue an Order to restore the water resources. The Department of State Lands and PacTrust have agreed to the entry of this Consent Order to bring the portion of the Tigard Retail Development mitigation site under their ownership into compliance. 11. STIPULATED FACTS 1. PacTrust owns property located at Township 2S, Range 1W, Section 1, Tax Lot 100 and Township 1 S, Range 2W, Section 36 Tax Lot 4200 in Washington County, Oregon. 2. The property contains a portion of the Tigard Retail Development wetland mitigation site, a "water of the state" within the meaning of ORS 196.800(14). 3. Prior to PacTrust ownership, the required annual mitigation monitoring reports for years 2, 3, and 4 were not submitted to the Department as required in DSL permit 9256-RF. 4. The Department acknowledges that PacTrust is not in violation of the removal/fill law. III. APPLICABLE LAW 1. A permit from the Director of the Department is required before removing or filling material in waters of the state. ORS 196.810 2. Fill means "the total of deposits by artificial means equal to or exceeding 50 cubic yards of material at one location in any waters of this state" ORS 196.800(5) However, in designated Essential Indigenous Anadromous Salmonid Habitat (ESH) areas (OAR 141-102) and in designated Scenic Waterways (OAR 141-100), "fill" means any deposits by artificial means. OAR 141-085-0010 2 - CONSENT ORDER 3. Removal means "the taking of more than more than 50 cubic yards or the equivalent weight in tons of material in any waters of this state in any calendar year; or the movement by artificial means of an equivalent amount of material on or within the bed of such waters, including channel relocation." ORS 196.800(12) However, in designated Essential Indigenous Anadromous Salmonid Habitat (ESH) areas (OAR 141-102) and in designated Scenic Waterways (OAR 141-100), the 50-cubic-yard minimum threshold does not apply. 4. Material means rock, gravel, sand, silt and other inorganic substances removed from waters of this state and any materials, organic or inorganic, used to fill waters of this state." ORS 196.800(9) 5. "Any person who violates any provision of ORS 196.600 to 196.905 or any rule, order or permit adopted or issued under ORS 196.600 to 196.905 shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount to be determined by the Director of State Lands of not more than $10,000 per day of violation." ORS 196.890 6. Violation means "removing material from or placing fill in any waters of this state without a permit (authorization) or in a manner contrary to the conditions set out in a permit issued under the Removal-Fill law or these rules." OAR 141-085-0010 7. Day of violation means "the first day and each day thereafter on which there is a failure to comply with any provision of the Removal-Fill law, these rules (OAR 141- 085), any rule adopted pursuant to these rules (OAR 141-085), any order adopted in accordance with these rules (OAR 141-085) or any authorization issued in accordance with these rules (OAR 141-085)." OAR 141-085-0010 8. Waters of this state means "natural waterways including all tidal and non-tidal bays, intermittent and perennial streams (i.e., streams), lakes, wetlands and other bodies of water in this state, navigable and non-navigable, including that portion of the Pacific Ocean which is in the boundaries of the state. "Waters of this state" does not include the ocean shore, as defined in ORS 390.605. OAR 141-085-0010 9. Wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." (ORS 196.800[16]) 10. "If the Director of the Department of State Lands determines that material is being removed from or filling is occurring in any of the waters of this state without a permit issued under ORS 196.825 or in a manner contrary to the conditions set out in the permit, the Director may: (a) Investigate, hold hearings, make orders and take action, as provided in ORS 196.600 to 196.905. Any person aggrieved by a proposed order of the Director may request a hearing within 20 days of the date of personal service or mailing of this notice. Hearings shall be conducted under the provision of ORS 183.310 to 183.550 applicable to contested cases, and judicial review of final orders shall be conducted in the Court Of Appeals according to ORS 183.482. If no hearing is requested or if the party fails to appear, a final order shall be issued upon a prima facie case on the record of the agency" ORS 196.860 3 - CONSENT ORDER ti t IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The wetland mitigation site is "waters of the state" within the meaning of ORS 196.800(14) and is therefore subject to the requirements of the Removal-Fill Law. 2. PacTrust owns property upon which a portion of the mitigation was constructed. Upon discovering that the required site monitoring had not been conducted according to the conditions of DSL permit 9256, PacTrust implemented measures to bring the site into compliance. 3. PacTrust has agreed to bring the portion of the mitigation site under their ownership into compliance by performing the restoration measures listed in Section VI, below. VI. RESTORATION MEASURES 1. PacTrust agrees to the following measures to bring the Tigard Retail Development mitigation site into compliance: a. The mitigation areas under PacTrust ownership shall be monitored annually for three additional years. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted by December 31 of each monitoring year, with the first monitoring report due on December 31, 2008. b. Annual monitoring reports shall contain drawings that identify limits of wetland enhancement. Annual reports shall also include photos from established fixed photo points and data on percent survival of planted woody vegetation collected from permanent data plots. c. Survival of plants installed in 2007 shall be 80% for the duration of the .additional three-year monitoring period. d. In-lieu of a fence surrounding the mitigation site, as required by the original permit, PacTrust has agreed to record a deed restriction on the portion of the mitigation site under their ownership. The deed restriction shall be in a form approved by the Department and shall prohibit future actions that may interfere with the conservation value of the mitigation area. 2. Upon approval of the final annual monitoring report, the Department will notify the responsible party that the Consent Order is satisfied and will close its file on the matter. VII. STIPULATIONS PacTrust has: 1. stipulated to the facts recited in this order; 4 - CONSENT ORDER r 2. agreed to the restoration measures set forth in this order; 3. agreed to the timeframe for restoration set forth in this order; and 4. waived the right to appeal or contest this order. VIII. FAILURE TO COMPLY In the event that restoration work is not completed by the designated time or to the satisfaction of the Department, the Department may issue an enforcement order, obtain a court order requiring compliance and/or issue a civil penalty. DATED this ) / f day of -,200'--6 Lori Warner-Dickason Western Region Operations Manager Stipulated and Agreed to: Responsible Party SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this day of 1200. _Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: NOTICE: Statute permits judicial review of Final Orders. However, pursuant to this Consent Order, PacTrust has agreed to waive their right to appeal. Document3 5 - CONSENT ORDER (N ,:t{;.:, x` o Department of State Lands Ureg(,,,i 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 ~ese Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Salem, OR 97301-1279 (503) 378-3805 FAX (503) 378-4844 CERTIFIED MAIL www.oregonstatelands.us. February 27, 2008 State Land Board CLL600/6701 Theodore R. Kulongoski PacTrust Governor Attn: Matt Oyen 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 300 Bill Bradbury Portland, OR 97224 Secretary of State RE: Consent Order - DSL Enforcement File 6701 Randall Edwards State Treasurer Dear Mr. Oyen: Thank you for speaking with Carrie Landrum by telephone on February 25, 2008 to discuss the above referenced compliance matter. During the phone conversation, you agreed to resolve the compliance matter through a Consent Order the objective of which is to create a legally binding agreement that is cooperative in nature and provides guidance on site restoration and any other actions necessary to bring the project into compliance. Enclosed is a Consent Order that sets out restoration measures to be accomplished over the next three years. Please read this document carefully. If you agree to the course of action, please (1) sign, (2) make a copy for your records, and (3) return it to my attention by March 12, 2008. If there is anything in the Consent Order that you do not understand, or that you cannot agree to, please call me by March 5, 2008 to discuss. Please note that when you sign the Consent Order, you waive your right to appeal. Completion of the requirements set forth in the Consent Order will resolve the violation. You also agree to waive your right to contest this Order and waive any and all claims against DSL, the State of Oregon or any of its agencies arising from this Order or the application of the Removal-Fill Law to the situation described in this Order. Thank you for your cooperation in dealing with this matter. I appreciate your willingness to bring the work into compliance with the Removai-Fill Law. Please feel free to call me at 503- 986-5271 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, ' Lori Warner-Dickason Western Region Operations Manager Wetlands and Waterways Conservation Division Oregon Department of State Lands Enclosure C: Mischa Connine, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife City of Tigard Planning Dept. Mike Turaski, Corps of Engineers, Portland District c. • 1 BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of Violation ) CONSENT ORDER Of ORS 196.810 By ) PacTrust ) Enforcement File No. 6701 ) (.BACKGROUND This matter is before the Director of the Department of State Lands pursuant to the State Removal-Fill Law, ORS 196.800 et seg., (hereinafter "Removal-Fill Law"). The Removal-Fill Law requires a permit from the Department before removing (including alteration) or filling of material within waters of this state. When such removal or filling occurs without a permit or in a matter contrary to the conditions of a permit, the Director may issue an Order to restore the water resources. The Department of State Lands and PacTrust have agreed to the entry of this Consent Order to bring the Tigard Retail Development mitigation site into compliance. II. STIPULATED FACTS 1. PacTrust owns property located at Township 2S, Range 1W, Section 14, Tax Lot 1500 in Washington County, Oregon. 2. The property contains the Tigard Retail Development wetland mitigation site, a "water of the state" within the meaning of ORS 196.800(14). 3. The required annual mitigation monitoring reports for years 2, 3, and 4 were not submitted to the Department as required in DSL permit 9256-RF. III. APPLICABLE LAW 1. A permit from the Director of the Department is required before removing or filling material in waters of the state. ORS 196.810 2. Fill means "the total of deposits by artificial means equal to or exceeding 50 cubic yards of material at one location in any waters of this state" ORS 196.800(5) However, in designated Essential Indigenous Anadromous Salmonid Habitat (ESH) areas (OAR 141-102) and in designated Scenic Waterways (OAR 141-100), "fill" means any deposits by artificial means. OAR 141-085-0010 3. Removal means "the taking of more than more than 50 cubic yards or the equivalent weight in tons of material in any waters of this state in any calendar year; or the movement by artificial means of an equivalent amount of material on or within the bed of such waters, including channel relocation." ORS 196.800(12) However, in designated Essential Indigenous Anadromous Salmonid Habitat (ESH) areas (OAR 2 - CONSENT ORDER Y 141-102 and in designated Scenic Waterways (OAR 141 -100), the 50-cubic-yard minimum threshold does not apply. 4. Material means rock, gravel, sand, silt and other inorganic substances removed from waters of this state and any materials, organic or inorganic, used to fill waters of this state." ORS 196.800(9) 5. "Any person who violates any provision of ORS 196.600 to 196.905 or any rule, order or permit adopted or issued under ORS 196.600 to 196.905 shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount to be determined by the Director of State Lands of not more than $10,000 per day of violation." ORS 196.890 6. Violation means "removing material from or placing fill in any waters of this state without a permit (authorization) or in a manner contrary to the conditions set out in a permit issued under the Removal-Fill law or these rules." OAR 141-085-0010 7. Day of violation means "the first day and each day thereafter on which there is a failure to comply with any provision of the Removal-Fill law, these rules (OAR 141- 085), any rule adopted pursuant to these rules (OAR 141-085), any order adopted in accordance with these rules (OAR 141-085) or any authorization issued in accordance with these rules (OAR 141-085)." OAR 141-085-0010 8. Waters of this state means "natural waterways including all tidal and non-tidal bays, intermittent and perennial streams (i.e., streams), lakes, wetlands and other bodies of water in this state, navigable and non-navigable, including that portion of the Pacific Ocean which is in the boundaries of the state. "Waters of this state" does 18 not include the ocean shore, as defined in ORS 390.605. OAR 141-085-0010 9. Wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." (ORS 196.800[16]) 10. "If the Director of the Department of State Lands determines that material is being removed from or filling is occurring in any of the waters of this state without a permit issued under ORS 196.825 or in a manner contrary to the conditions set out in the permit, the Director may: (a) Investigate, hold hearings, make orders and take action, as provided in ORS 196.600 to 196.905. Any person aggrieved by a proposed order of the Director may request a hearing within 20 days of the date of personal service or mailing of this notice. Hearings shall be conducted under the provision of ORS 183.310 to 183.550 applicable to contested cases, and judicial review of final orders shall be conducted in the Court Of Appeals according to ORS 183.482. If no hearing is requested or if-the party fails to appear, a final order shall be issued upon a prima facie case on the record of the agency" ORS 196.860 IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The wetland mitigation site is "waters of the state" within the meaning of ORS 196.800(14) and is therefore subject to the requirements of the Removal-Fill Law. 2. PacTrust owns property upon which mitigation was constructed. Upon discovering that the required site monitoring had not been conducted according to the conditions 3 - CONSENT ORDER of DSL permit 9256, PacTrust implemented measures to bring the site into compliance. 3. PacTrust has agreed to bring the mitigation site into compliance by conducting monitoring for an additional three years to ensure compliance with conditions of DSL permit 9256-RF. VI. RESTORATION MEASURES 1. PacTrust agrees to the following measures to bring the Tigard Retail Development mitigation site into compliance: a. The mitigation areas under PacTrust ownership shall be monitored annually for three additional years. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted by December 31 of each monitoring year. b. Annual monitoring reports shall contain drawings that identify acreage of wetland enhancement. Annual reports shall also include photos from established fixed photo points. c. Survival of plants installed in 2007 shall be 80% for the duration of the additional three-year monitoring period. 2. Upon approval of the final annual monitoring report, the Department will notify the responsible party that the Consent Order is satisfied and will close its file on the matter.. VII. STIPULATIONS PacTrust has: 1. stipulated to the facts recited in this order; 2. agreed to the restoration measures set forth in this order; 3. agreed to the timeframe for restoration set forth in this order; and 4. waived the right to appeal or contest this order. VIII. FAILURE TO COMPLY In the event that restoration work is not completed by the designated time or to the satisfaction of the Department, the Department may issue an enforcement order, obtain a court order requiring compliance and/or issue a civil penalty. • 4 - CONSENT ORDER DATED this 6Ast" day of 200'`6. Lori Warner-Dickason Western Region Operations Manager Stipulated and Agreed to: Responsible Party SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this day of 200_. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: NOTICE: Statute permits judicial review of Final Orders. However, pursuant to this Consent Order, PacTrust has agreed to waive their right to appeal. Document3 5 - CONSENT ORDER ORIGINAL WETLAND FILL PERMIT (6/98) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PORTLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS . P.O. eox 2646 CO-G PORTLAtJD~Y "lU ~G i208-284& Reply to JJ l y CO-G Attention of: Construction-Operations Division SUBJECT: Provisional Nationwide Permit Verification Pt.1 Case No: 98-666 Tay:} T Gordon R. Martin 12265 SW. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Martin: This is your Department of the Army authorization to fill 1.16 acres of wetland with approximately 26,250 cubic yards of material at Section 1, Township 2 South, Range t West, in an Unnamed Tributary of Red Rock Creek, near Tigard, in Washington County, Oregon. Red Rock Creek is a water quality limited stream and turbidity monitoring reports must be submitted to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (See Implementation Conditions # 13 and #14, Enclosure 4). This letter verifies that your proposed activities as presented in your application (Enclosure 1) are authorized under the terms and limitations of Nationwide Permit Number 26, as described in Enclosure 2. However, Section 401 water quality certification from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has not been issued for this nationwide permit. Therefore, this authorization will not become valid until certification is issued. By copy of this letter, we are notifying DEQ of your proposed work and thus requesting their certification. The certification will be considered by Mr. Tom Rosetta, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 811 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204-5694. When water quality certification has been issued, you must provide a copy, along with any imposed conditions, to this office. The conditions included with the certification are to be considered as conditions of this authorization and your activities must be conducted in accordance with those conditions as well as those presented in Enclosure 3 to this letter. Failure to comply with any of the conditions will render your authorization invalid and could result in the assessment of civil penalties. Permits, where required, under Oregon's Removal/Fill Law, as well as other appropriate local authorizations, must also be obtained or your authorization will not be valid. - This verification is valid until Nationwide Permit (NWP) 26 expires or for two years, whichever comes first. Currently NWP 26 expires on December 13, 1998. However, the Corps has proposed to extend the expiration of NWP 26 to March 28, 1999 (See July 1, 1998, Federal Register, 63 FR 3604). The Corps decision on the expiration date of NWP 26 will be publish in the Federal Register. If you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the nationwide permit expires, is modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of the current nationwide permit. • -2- If you have any questions regarding our nationwide: permit authority, please contact une at the above address or telephone (503) 808-4381. Sincerely, Jan Stuart Project Manager Regulatory Branch Enclosures Copies Furnished: ODEQ (Rosetta) ODSL (Parks - DSL No: RF-9256) CO-GP (Black) w/Application Christensen Engineering, Inc. (Christensen) w/Enclosures I DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CO- PORTLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. Box 2946 -GP PORTLAND, OREGON 97208-2946 Repty to June 2, 1998 Attention of: p j1' NATIONWIDE PERMIT PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION Tech Typist Closing Date - Telephone Contact: June 8, 1998 Closing Date - Receipt of Comments: June 18, 1998 Corps Application Number: 98-666 ODSL Permit Number: RF-9256 In accordance with regulations published in 33 CFR 330, Appendix A on November 22, 1991, the following information regarding a proposed discharge or fill that could be authorized under nationwide permit 26, is provided for response. If you have any views as to whether the" net environmental impacts of this project would be more than minimal, this office should be notified by telephone within five calendar days. You will then have an additional ten calendar days to provide those views by letter. Please refer to our application number in your response. Your telephone notification and comments should be directed to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District, CENWP-CO-GP (Jan Stuart) P.O, Box 2946 Poriland, Oregon 97208-2946 The enclosed drawings and project summary sheet are provided. Additional information can be obtained from Ed Christensen, Christensen Engineering, Inc., 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226, Portland, Oregon 97223, (503) 598-1866, or from Jan Stuart, Project Manager, at (503) 808-4381 or FAX at 503-808-4375. Sincerely, W. B. aynter Chie , Regulatory Branch Enclosures Project Summary Drawings List of Addressees i Project Summary Application ID: 98-666 Applicant: Gordon R. Martin Location: South of Dartmouth, west of 72nd Street; east of Highway 217, Red Rock Creek and Unnamed Tributary, Washington County, Tigard, Oregon (Section 1 T2S/R1 V) Purpose: To develop 25.85 acre site for commercial use Project Description: To relocate 0.86 acres of an unnamed stream and associated wetlands from the center of the property and align it along Dartmouth Road. Approximately 0.4 acres of the stream and wetlands in the northeastern corner of the property will not be disturbed. In addition, approximately 0.30 acres in the southwestern corner will be filled for parking lots and building pads. Approximately 0.1 acre of wetland in the southwestern comer will not be impacted. Drawings: Three (3) sheets are enclosed Mitigation: Approximately 0.37 acres of undisturbed wetlands will be enhanced with trees and shrubs. Approximately 1.60 acres of stream channel and wetlands will be created. The stream channel and associated wetlands will be planted to scrub-shrub species, with a grass/sedge understory. The mitigation area along Dartmouth is designed to develop into scrub- shrub/forested, emergent wetlands, with small open water features. The open water features are designed so that they will be heavily shaded by the forested area. The mitigation area adjacent to Red Rock Creek will consist of a series of ponds connected by riffles and runs. Any islands will have a 1:8 (h:v) sideslopes. The riparian vegetation to the east of Red Rock Creek will not be disturbed. The re-aligned stream and associated wetlands next to Dartmouth will have a 15 foot upland buffer. The total landscape area between the retail development and S.W. Dartmouth Street will contain 2.42 acres of upland landscaping, wetland habitat and stream channel. The wetlands in the southwest corner will not have any buffer. Further Information: - There will be three culverts sections of the newly created stream channel; driveway A and B and at the northeast comer of Pad B. The culverts will be 48 inch diameter pipe counter sunk 1.5 feet. To minimize the lengths, retaining walls will be used. The groundwater flow will be captured in French Drain systems directed to the southwestern wetlands after flowing through a water quality pond and to the west center wetland. The water will flow through these wetlands to a pond and Red Rock Creek west of the site. I HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS June 9, 1998 JO: 95-102.01 Mr. John Knez Jr. Knez Building Materials Company. 8185 SW Hunzinker Road Tigard, OR 97223 RE: TRI-COUNTY CENTER OFF-SITE WETLAND BUFFER MITIGATION Dear John: I truly appreciated meeting you this morning and your affirmative response to my proposal for mitigating our commercial development's wetland buffer requirement along the Red Rock Creek bank on your property. I understand that your approval of this proposal is subject to approval from the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies who may have concern over this proposal. Pursuant to your request, I have contacted your wetland consultant, Paul Agrimus of David Evans and Associates, to discuss this matter. I gave Paul the name of all the agency personnel involved in the decision of this matter. Paul and I hope to have a meeting scheduled with the agencies later this week to resolve your • concerns. The Army Corps of Engineers is requesting your signature for consideration of our permit to mitigate the wetland buffer on your site. I will bring this letter to our meeting later this week. If per chance the meeting does not need to take place, I will bring the letter by later this week for your signature. 1 truly hope to have this matter resolved by the end of this week. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. Yours truly, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Ed Christensen, P.E. President cc: Jan Stuart, Army Corps of Engineers Bill Parks, Oregon Division of State Lands Paul Agrimus, David Evans and Assoc. Kendra Smith, Unified Sewerage Agency Phil Lamb, Wetland Conservancy Mark Roberts, City of Tigard Gordon Martin, Tri-County Development 7150 SW IIantpton Street, Suite 226 • Portland, Oregon 97223 Phone: (503) 598-1866 Far: (503) 598-1868 E-Mail: ceiQt cybernw.coro q]HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS July 16, 1998 JO: 95-102.01 Ms. Jan Stuart U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 333 SW 13 St. PO Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208-2946 VIA FACSIMILE: 503/808-4375 RE: TRI-COUNTY CENTER WETLAND BUFFER MITIGATION Dear Ms. Stuart: There is 34,009 square feet or 0.781 acres of wetland buffer (see an attached wetland buffer plan) that is to be created on the adjoining Knez Building Products parcel across Hwy 217 in Tigard as indicated on the attached aerial exhibit. The wetland buffer mitigation is to be performed on a fee-in-lieu basis at a cost: of $30,000 per acre. The wetland buffer mitigation is to be designed, constructed and monitored by the Wetland Conservancy. The total value of the wetland buffer mitigation is 0.781 acres x $30,000, or $23,422. The applicant will pay this wetland buffer mitigation fee prior to the removal or fill of any wetlands on the Tri-County Center site. Further, in accordance with our previous conversations, the on-site wetland impacts may be performed in phases. This will not affect the off-site wetland buffer work or fee which will be controllcd by the Wetland Conservancy. Should you need further information, please do not hesitate to call me at (503) 598-1866. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Edward K. Christensen, P.E. President Attachments cc: Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin EC/jm 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 Portland, Oregon 97223 Phone: (503) 598-1866 • Fax: (503) 598-1868 E-Mail: cei®cybernw.com • o E WETLAND DATA: NITTIOATI F 15 z03 ENIVNICEVENT AREAS COUNTED 0 31 zd TOTAL E%Isr, wE1lAND: 75,572 SF (1.73 ACRES) RATIO (Al-A7): 14701 Sc 3 0 5.05 SF Vj n~y~~1 E TOTAL ON-STE CREATION AVNLAXE Zp^~ , ABA1 TOTAL NON-14WETUNO AREA 25.120 SF (0.59 ACRES) (U-Ctt} 6~9C3 SF H TCTAL AVAILABLE 111 GA10N: 75.178 SF dz ~g TOTAL WPACTEO 'ATTLAND AREA. 18.852 S 11.11 AIRES) ~'.a\ 1,270 SF Lt9f 72rM - 51.122 SF ( 1.189 ACRES) COMPENSAION DEFICIENT-. 7r<7t3 - 75,238 = 1.-45 g 7 ACRIS i NON-NP /%-7MEO PER)-OSL PERMIT MAYO AREA' REC. VITIOARON 0 1.5:1: MEW S' 7,6E5 SF ADDITIONAL WEILAYO 3 FFER TO n 39.318 aq.rt. C6 ABA2 VITOATED OFF-SrrE (A9A1 - Ag15;: 34AS SF ~ caumrc .nlnms ~ rf/(/f/~ ' 7AU Y j} I: . _ ABA3 bra.. 10,698 aq.rL 4 15 80tT'EN v I < 25' BUFFER ' a 524-1 sr o 1 NON- m 1 0 0 0 0 0 ~ we71ANC ulEa• 1 0 D 0 0 0 l~ G T 1 O!QlN .cAAwa ~Q ~ _ 185 5 1..1 a 0 aq7» O Op C>b a[7 t7{7 w 1 ABA ~AL+yy+ 1 A-~A.7 JD Qa CAD IVY 0 aa~~~~ lA~~ C~Aaa1.R CAQCCdll li 742 SF I _ 1,770 sr TOOV, WMA`00 A P0A 1 an ACM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 408-NraePrEO 0 0 0 0 0 x£TUNO AREA . "1 . 857 Sr, t - ~ 000 1I 0 • _ o 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 6 ~~~p~7 1~pff~ERR L ~n~ 0 0 0 o A., B 1` ~EC••T!! 0 AT 3 SF , a 0 Q MARlllY PROP c m as m m m m m m oc, o, m m I I oaA1 ~T~, wEnAw 0 ~ FFF -t AAAA; I ,41,1 Y I! !I Q 9 NCN-II~ACTED - - , _ lI d~ ~ 64! SF Ir nANO f AREk .2a9 9' 4 A3 10 1806 SF J~ . ~ t '°e+ , ti w.,. ~ _ kc 4 t. e; Ati4_'~F~ i,,. • 3''~' V..i 'Df > y F xd`t +t i ~ ~y,a~a cy° ~tE,.• ~«^.t' Ji:t tai .bl~^i f ~ 'L . ~ >_vy s 7^el 46' fi ~~ib y o ~~}~ya~ t( .~t~ ~ w.,:f-~ gr ~"4 k Ay.~ , > ~ ~e e`°`3 $i,.,ln,rns } ,~~,v'~b~. E tMw, " , h ~ e ~ i r R,. v 'yN50r`A btu , t' °,E,. eEy a.° ~ ,ro: fir i ~ 1.~ f~ ° y y. yq tt• ~y~`~Ee. f .,f•}~ 5V r @ey i'. ' j' k '•1,~ 'YV, 4 SE y t , ~si6Sb 4tF" .e ^t a t k Ey~S1 t' ~ k? JK , < ~4. a Ft A i y ~'ss ' 3b~5~~~~ a f a r l IF ,;~ffit ? ' iC 'Y I Y~ • W l s+0~i1~~ vt_k~~ , ili t r ~!'~lat w ..haoy> j°eVV ~ ~~t,`~.. ,e'` ~ or. T r. f ,f~ rK„~a• 44 cw`w. .43. b,r..46, r t r "MM, 8aka:y{{" J -r rrJv k` Q~ v,.. F. IS, . .s 1 ~ K l .,t~ ,s a°p sY+ 'A~vcaH'j t :v+A, b rd/ ~~cb`°ba"4t, S};. 'L 3 F4t~t . r s R. i 7 i }(il E b ....•.~f. ""mN~°~:t~~u`• vg,• $bia`...,i 6; ~y, 4 ~`+'b ,b =1\'~R y e. a P• ?v ~>nFe ,rY u d9q '6?y ."fin R: 4e ..~Y k~yS~ 4'~ 1 E vy~ b tro5c M. ~ ~ t,~,y it yb P'~Y _ ,'Nb +Eh,L k i I + iR~y~.r•, .'L~s^ w' mS V~„ 5;e~°i.1~9' Y ,j~ k '~t•° ta,... 1 "<i''~yyv4`9' \86~~ r.>t'^ vn„i~' :a ^~mRRa ~~caa .'Cy" Fc '~'v mae c t >b boo r f t !a. ¢ W t p t. ~F`; VK fib.- y \~~~,S, fSe Kw. * 1.~ ky~k`7 rc N b '3 z 4'(~"~ \fiiT4f~ 1F 'c RSb ~J~+mc C~^~rT""cR' l• ~yt, i ! ~ ~,F~• "OOkk~MM,F b h1d o P vA ~ Y q,k • C ~~~R~., .t, ,t' ~ • :i\ ib ~ 'a.... t & x vrL•Y, er§.1 it; Lsa t ' , .,~!.;»l i f ~iEl '76..;0 vP s~y~+''@,? < rti • ' :.r w, rnb ' p>Y jja ! s { i~ r~ l r 5 K l . I F ~,Ai..,~ 'c ,pc5°t7. f ~`t•>k~ e ~ i,.i~ . ~ ~,v t I h w.~ - Fi~'y~ 4 . 'e ~ s.v s ~ . i r, roomy y i eA vq'yf,'C~ity > yaY 4 n,l s ~~t~7>r ~Y~c iZ~xcbz~' 4,C ' es t f i ~"a ^ . E'yx. ~ do ii ~v..t. 1 > .1 y'k! ~ 3; • d< t c ti f&" +2 (+~I'.tptb ~4(.u~y,,..Yl+ ~f A~ , e\ :~Ti ~I ~ tRl~ltet ~V9k 1. i,1 Y 8ekix,~`F~ s , • . att. GORDGN MARTIN)... CITY OF TIGA.RD'.:' 1 ill COON 1 L CEN 1 L%1~.\' 3t !7'Y Y4',N $ Yi'hi 1 1 DEVELOPER t >:::.~t,~,i.~•:.:~~,.,hb>,: . +•T+.iff.: i\.»il.,.. :Y, 1k: ^it)j YSi iii'F i wn~ "m !mW{.lAA\ YMR~RR R'~ik3r 11~K7RA60~11ffM W~ \ ( tpUlt IM Mi'I~ Y1l K!M n:~' c~nn.v..wu~w~ur.v.rnvv.u,v.....uv:v.:,"..n.:nv:....wr-..n.r.ri....~t ~.w.imp"ono..v.w.....:....::.wu.wun..~n.wx.n.n.w.nu.,.wn...i+' h.u.v.n.:w..ln.n,n.r......... ..n:r:n•.....,..v"...nr./~I ~ O OV b a' do f sy~~ n ~p I bl bf b1 1 ~ ~ 1 n ~ 1 o t!1 Al ~ l ~ltr If / o 0 8 i ~ ~ 1 g 4 o g 1 1 th ~ bt ~ yt (1 ~ ~ ^ o o f - 1 R, 6,n o a o o o a o Q ~ ~ o o~ti o 0 0 0 >w ° g O O n I '1 3E~~• 1111;1 o 0 0 8 1't,1~~lU ill 111711 . 1L n n f. i • r t: I f r . { 1(J 1 ~ r ,A\YlI1 .t.tY I 1 ! 1 p r Q u r ( r r 3' r r r f 8 rC t .\/at'•_'^~`-E.u~..>.\.\.\t.r.\.\.\.111.1.. 1....'.....,.,~ \ \ yta\~1k33'( •.►.w \ t Ya ,a• 1 'f 11 W~ "•M+f• } AAA r/~~,~~:.MY ~f~~ T1".• v '/i , en ` VY/ ~ ~ r,,,, ~I ~ae~~ N6 --ow, IWIF 7'yam t ' it r s ~ . i , ~ ~ ~ i ~ i y/ri4,'n~'~' i4•>, . ~ i ~ I ~ + r ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ } ~ ! ~t i 1 ~ ~ j3 fi3 ,.i ~ c~CCt\°~• ~.I.t9 i~ ~R a ~~t~ <iR: ~ ~ _ O ~ 1 s fY\ y,. e tit . N r ti f~f^'......-...-. '•Y C\..i~ t~\ j mz. B ti 00000@00a t it :,,fir.., .I ~•,..i..®;.::~•.t•. ~ 'tg~ •Y ~ y ~ ~ ~ 1 5 1 C 'f ' I rE...' • I • ,y.•~i. y Y l.i.'•' p ; l 3 3 14,000 5F. f i 1 l~ o !I W, 72ND. AVENUE 1I=-:~ R$,~ ~~s a R P R R R F F yx • ' = CC P'REL04NARY GINDSGAPE PLAN ~ 't CITY OF TIGARD ED- ER FRESHLEY TRI-COUNTY CENTER y.HRI6T8N9EN WM E ARCHITECT ai NO INC. urn s., .w .o arwM 1 rcao Oroaa . m» WO M 7M AVENt M r.9 'CIC1ARa OR 1W hYt M. C"lt, W9t%tttt, An Rr.v"ot! nw ao >w~ K rf Hr THE RECOVED Wan s JUL. 2t..! 1998 CONSERVANCY A land trust to preserve, protect and restore Oregon's wetlands. REGULATORY 1~.~CH July 16, 1998 PO Box 1195 Tualatin, Oregon 97062 (503) 691.1394 Jan Stuart US Army Corps of Engineers CEN WP-CO-GP PO Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208 Bill Parks Division of State Lands 775 Summer St. NE Salem, OR 97208 DSL permit RF9256 Dear Jan and Bill: • The Wetlands Conservancy will use the $23,422 provided by Gordon Martin in mitigation for project #98-666 to: • develop a management and maintenance plan for the section of Red Rock Creek on our property in Tigard, • provide on-going maintenance of the property, • prepare a planting plan and install riparian shading, • install and maintain a temperature gauge with appropriate monitoring computer, and • take other steps to improve, protect, preserve, and restore the parcel as needed. We «i!! provide you with more detailed information and a progress report. Please conEact me at 503-691-1394 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerel Philip E. Lamb Executive Director jut. ~99F Mr. John Knez Jr., Knez Building Materials Company. RE: TRI-COUNTY CENTER OFF-SITE WETLAND BUFFER MITIGATnog July 23, 1998 Papte 2 of 2 JO. 95-102.01 1, Jahn Knez, do hereby give my permission for the riparian shading mitigation of the Tri-County Center wetland buffer in the area as identified on the attached Aerial Exhibit. The type of Wetland Mitigation being performed is for creating Wetland Buffer to mitigate the thermal impacts in this section of Red Rock Creek resulting from the upstream development. I understand the wetland mitigation planting, administering, and management will be carried out by The Wetland Conservancy. Further, I understand that the mitigation consists solely of riparian shading and will not involve modifications to the existing stream channel. Lastly, I understand that this proposed buffer mitigation will in no way effect the existing Wetland permit approval on this site. KNEZ BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY d41--) &zg - --~3 Qnature Date John Knez, Knez Building Materials Company Attachment cc: Jan Stuart, Army Corps of Engineers Bill Parks, Oregon Division of State Lands Paul Agrimus, David Evans and Assoc. Kendra Smith, Unified Sewerage Agency Phil Lamb, Wetland Conservancy Mark Roberts, City of Tigard Gordon Martin, Tri-County Development OPTIONAL FORM 99 (7-90) FAX TRANSMITTAL 0.1 pftg . To F DOPLIA98MY e O Fax Fox e NS -Ot-317-T.i88 5088-tOt GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 12. Cultural Resources & Burials. If at any time during the conduct of the work authorized, the permittec becomes aware that human burials, cultural resources or historic properties (as identified under Federal historic preservation laws) be affected, the permittee must immediately cease activities, notify the Corps of Engineers and not re-initiate activities until approved by the Corps of Engineers. 13. Turbidity Testing. Turbidity shall be monitored frequently while conducting in-water work. Monitoring points shall be at locations 100 feet upstream (background) and 100 feet downstream. Measurements shall be accomplished with either a turbidimeter or visually and turbidity shall not exceed either 10% above background or be visible (if measuring visibly) at the downstream station. These limits can be exceeded for a maximum of two hours in a 24-hour period provided all practicable erosion control measures have been implemented. 14. Turbidity Reporting. The permittee shall conduct turbidity monitoring as required in the "Turbidity" condition stated above and mail the results to the Department of Environmental Quality, Executive Building, 811 SW. 61° Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, at the end of each week of operation. 15. Other Conditions. The activity must also comply with all conditions added by the Section 401 water quality certification. 16. Compliance Certification. Permittee will complete, sign and submit the enclosed certification (Enclosure 5) regarding the completed work and any required mitigation. 17. Special Conditions. - An in-lieu payment of 523,422 shall be made to the Wetland Conservancy for wetland buffer mitigation. A copy of the receipt of payment shall be submitted to this office concurrent with the tilling activities. • - A wetland scientist/stream ecologist shall supervise the re-alignment of the unnamed creek and construction of the mitigation wetland. - Some large'woody debris (trees greater than 12 inch diameter at breast height uprooted by the root wad), if available, shall be placed within the mitigation wetland and riparian corridor of the realigned stream. Mitigation: a. The mitigation plan must be fully implemented within one year of the date of the permit. Construction for all mitigation work will commence concurrently with the authorized filling activity. b. The mitigation site shall be monitored for a period of 10 years with an 801/a survival rate being considered successful. Yearly reports shall be submitted for the fast three years to this office by December 31 of each year. Additional monitoring reports shall be submitted to this office by December 31 of years 6 and 10. C. The mitigation site shall be deed restricted and a copy of the deed shall be submitted to this office by the completion date of the project. d. Once the compensatory mitigation has been approved as complete, the permiec shall maintain the site, if consistent with the compensatory mitigation goals, by such activities as control of nutria, removal of exotic (non-native) or pest plant species, and controlled burning if consistent with the compensatory mitigation goals. The permittee may not engage in activities inconsistent with the compensatory mitigation goals, such as removal of vegetation or alteration of hydrology, without written approval from this office. IMPLEMENTATION CONDITIONS Case No: 98-666 The following conditions specifically address requirements which mast be met during the permittee's implementation of the authorized work. 1. Work Period. All in-water work shall occur between July 1 and September 30, in accordance with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's recommended in-water work period. 2. Agency Access. Permittee must provide access to the work site to representatives of the Corps of Engineers, DEQ, DLCD(for projects in the coastal zone), and ODFW during all hours of construction or operation. 3. Equipment. Heavy equipment shall not be operated in the active flowing waterway unless specifically authorized. Use of heavy equipment in waters may be authorized if necessary in the interest of safety or due to site conditions prohibiting certain work from the bank. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance 4. Erosion and Siltation Controls. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls (such as hydroseeding, filter bags, organic or fabric soil detention systems, leave strips, berms, etc.) must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction to protect all exposed soil, stock piles and fills from erosion These features, as well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must also be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Materials shall not be placed on unstable slopes, and stockpiles shall not exceed 25 feet in height S. Disturbed Area Protection. Construction access roads and associated staging areas shall be protected with a gravel blanket or other suitable material to protect against erosion of sediments into waterways and wetlands. 6. Dredged Material Disposal: Dredged or excavated material shall not be placed in and shall be prevented from eroding back into waterways and wetlands, unless specifically authorized. 7. Suitable Material. No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist of unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.,) and must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. 8. Pollutants. Petroleum products, chemicals, fresh cement, construction, or deleterious waste materials shall not be allowed to enter waters or wetlands. Special attention shall be given to.preventing sandblasted material and chipped paint from entering the water. Machinery refueling is to occur off site or in a confined, designated area to prevent spillage into waterways and wetlands. 9. Vegetation. Vegetation, not designated for removal or modification in the authorization, shall be protected from disturbance to the maximum extent possible and restored with native plant species when damaged or disturbed. The standard for success is 80 percent cover with native plant species that replace the habitat type lost or damaged. 10. Wetlands. Wetlands adjacent to work areas shall be clearly flagged, or otherwise appropriately identified, to prevent damage or loss of that resource. Damaged areas shall be restored to pre-work conditions. 11. Endangered Species. If at any time during the conduct of the work authorized, the permittee becomes aware that a Federally listed threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation (as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act) or the habitat of such species may be affected, the permittee must immediately cease activities, notify the Corps of Engineers and not re-initiate activities until approved by the Corps of Engineers. 11. Mitigation. All feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the United States shall be considered. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States most be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on-site), unless the District Engineer approves a compensation plan that the District Engineer determines is more beneficial to the environment than on-site minimization or avoidance measures. Compensatory wetland mitigation, where practical, shall be required in accordance with Oregon guidelines for compensatory wetland mitigation. 12. Spawning Areas. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 13. Obstruction of High Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, discharges must not permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters). 14. Adverse Effects From Impoundments. If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 15. Waterfowl Breeding Areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 16. Removal of Temporary Fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to their preexisting elevation. 17. Local Land Use Planning. Proposed work must be consistent with local comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances. 18. Compensatory Mitigation Sites. Proposed work which would adversely impact previously required Federal or state compensatory mitigation or restoration efforts can not be authorized by a Nationwide Pemtit. 19. Territorial Seas. Proposed work occurring within Oregon's Territorial Sea (Base Line to 3 nautical miles offshore) is not authorized until individual coastal zone certification from DLCD is obtained. 20. Fish Passage. The placement of culverts, diversion structures, or changes to the channel morphology must be designed to be consistent with passage standards developed by ODFW and NMFS, titled "ODFW Standards and Criteria for Stream Road Crossings". 21. Fish Habitat Enhancement. Bioengineering designs (conducive to fish usage), shall be preferred and utilized wherever appropriate. Fish habitat enhancement measures (willow sprigs in rock applications, fish resting areas, vegetative stabilization, etc.) shall also be incorporated into non bioengineering designs to the extent practicable as mitigation measures. 22. Nationwide Specific Qualifying Conditions. - Projects affecting more than 1/3 acre require individual 401 certification. - Storm water run off from impervious surfaces (roads, parking lots, etc.) shall be directed into and treated by a biofiltration swale or other treatment facility before entering directly into a waterways or wetlands. V QUALIFICATIONS CONDITIONS Case No: 98-666 The Corps of Engineers has determined, based on available information, that the proposed work is in conformance with the enclosed terms and conditions of the authorizing Nationwide Permit (Enclosure 2) and with the following listed "Qualification Conditions". However, the permittee is responsible for verifying that big activities are and continue to be in conformance with these terms and conditions throughout the execution of the authorization. i. 1. Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. i 2. Proper Maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained to ensure public safety. 3. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may change stream gradients or substantially disrupt the movement of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. 4. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status; unless the appropriate Federal agency, with direct management responsibility for such river, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely effect the Wild and Scenic River designation, or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management agency in the area (e.g., National Park Service, U_S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.) 5. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and bunting rights. 6. Federal Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act, or which is likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. Note: Authorization of an activity by a nationwide permit does not authorize the take of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the Federal Endangered Species Act. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions, etc.) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, both lethal and non-lethal takes of protected species are in violation of the Endangered Species Act. 7. State Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to have adverse impacts to species listed by the State of Oregon as threatened, endangered or sensitive, unless approved by the appropriate state agency. 8. Historic Properties. No activity which may affect historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places is authorized unless, until the DE has complied with the provisions of 33 CFR Part 325, Appendix C. 9. Water Supply Intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake except where the discharge is for repair of the public water supply intake structures or adjacent banks. 10. Shellfish Production. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production, unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWP 4. i Nationwide Permit 26 authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters provided that the activity meets all the following criteria: a. The discharge does not cause the loss of more than 3 acres of waters of the United States nor cause loss of waters of the United States for a distance greater that 500 linear feet of the stream bed; b. For discharge causing the loss of greater that 1/3 acre of waters of the United States, the permittee notifies the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" general condition c. For discharges causing a loss of 1/3 acre or less of waters of the United States the permittee must submit a report within 30 days of completion of the work, containing the information listed below; d. The discharge in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands. (Also see 33 CFR 330.1(e)); and e. The discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete project. Note, this nationwide is valid until Nationwide Permit (NWP)26 expires or for 2 years, whichever comes first. Currently NWP 26 expires on December 13, 1998. However, the Corps has proposed to extend the expiration of NWP 26 to March 28, 1999 (See July 1, 1998 Federal Register, 63 FR 36040). The Corps decision on the expiration date of NWP 26 will be published in the Federal Register. For the purposes of this nationwide permit, the acreage of loss of waters of the United States includes the filled area plus waters of the United States that are adversely affected by flooding, excavation or drainage as a result of the project. The 3 acre and 1/3 acre limits of NWP 26 are absolute, and cannot be increased by any mitigation plan offered by the applicant or required by the District Engineer. Whenever any other nationwide permit is used in conjunction with this nationwide permit, the total acreage of impacts to waters of the United States of all nationwide permits combined, cannot exceed 3 acres. Report: For discharges causing the loss of 1/3 acre or less of waters of the United States the permittee must submit a report within 30 days of completion of the work, containing the following information: a. Name, address, and telephone number of the permittee; b. Location of the work; c. Description of the work; and, d. Type and acreage (or square feet) of the loss of waters of the United States (e.g., 1/10 acre of marsh and 50 Square feet of a stream.) i s i NATIONWIDE PERMIT Nationwide Permit 26 authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters provided that the activity meets all the following criteria: a. The discharge does not cause the loss of more than 2 acres of waters of the United States nor cause loss of waters of the United States for a distance greater that 500 linear feet of the stream bed; b. For discharge causing the loss of greater that 1/3 acre of waters of the United States, the permittee notifies the District 1?ngineer in accordance with the "Notification" general condition. c. For discharges causing a loss of 1/3 acre or less of waters of the United States the permittee must submit a report within 30 days of completion of the work, containing the information listed below; d. The discharge in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands. (Also see 33 CFR 330.1(e)); and e. The discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete project. Note, this nationwide is valid until Nationwide Permit (NWP)26 expires or for 2 years, whichever comes first. Currently NWP 26 expires on December 13, 1998. However, the Corps has proposed to extend the expiration of NWP 26 to March 28, 1999 (See July 1, 1998 Federal Register, 63 FR 36040). The Corps decision on the expiration date of NWP 26 will be published in the Federal Register. For the purposes of this nationwide permit, the acreage of loss of waters of the United States includes the filled area plus waters of the United States that are adversely affected by flooding, excavation or drainage as a result of the project. The 3 acre and 1/3 acre limits of NWP 26 are absolute, and cannot be increased by any mitigation plan offered by the applicant or required by the District Engineer. Whenever any other nationwide permit is used in conjunction with this nationwide permit, the total acreage of impacts to waters of the United States of all nationwide permits combined, cannot exceed 3 acres. Report: For discharges causing the loss of 1/3 acre or less of waters of the United States the pennittee must submit a report within 30 days of completion of the work, containing the following information: a. Name, address, and telephone number of the permittee; b. Location of the work; c. Description of the work; and, d. Type and acreage (or square feet) of the loss of waters of the United States (e.g., 1/10 acre of marsh and 50 Square feet of a stream.) { PACTRUST -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT 1 1 • December 21, 2007 Larry Evans Carrie Landrum U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Oregon Division of State Lands CENWP-OD-GP 775 Summit Street NE, Suite 100 333SW First Avenue Salem, Oregon 97301-1279 P.O. Box 2946 Portland, Oregon 97208-2946 Subject: Year 5 Monitoring Report Tigard Retail Development Site Tigard, Oregon Corps Case Number: 98-666; DSL Permit Number: RF-9256 File No. 2361-041-00 Attached please find the Year 5 monitoring report for the Tigard retail development site. Please contact Matt Oyen at PacTrust (503 624-6300 ext 292) or Judith Light at GeoEngineers (503 735-5474) if you have any questions related to this report. Thank you. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. `4 Judi Light, PWS Senior Biologist JBL:gaw Port: P:\2\2361041\01\Finals\236104101Cover Letter.doc c: Matt Oyen, PacTrust Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Copyrightm 2007 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. r r • YEAR-FIVE WETLAND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SITE TIGARD, OREGON DECEMBER 21, 2007 FOR PACTRUST File No. 1361-041-01 Mitigation Monitoring Report Cover Sheet Oregon Department of State Lands Block 1: Report Information DSL Permit Number RF9256 COE Permit Number98-666 Permittee Gordan Martin County Washington Report Date 12/20/07 Monitoring Year 1 2 3 4( Date Removal-Fill Activity Completed 1999 'R Date mitigation was completed Grading 1999 Planting 1999-2000 Report submitted by: Pac Trust Block 2: Monitoring Report Purpose This monitoring report is for monitoring a project that includes: (check all that apply): XR Compensatory freshwater wetland mitigation for permanent wetland impacts. ❑ Compensatory estuarine wetland mitigation for permanent wetland impacts. ❑ Only non-wetland compensatory mitigation. a Only mitigation for temporary impacts that had a monitoring requirement. ❑ Voluntary wetland enhancement, creation or restoration (General authorization or individual permit) not funded with money from our wetland mitigation revolving fund. ❑ Voluntary wetland enhancement, creation or restoration (General authorization or individual permit) funded with money from our wetland mitigation revolving fund. ❑ Mitigation Bank Report xx Other Stream Relocation Block 3: Results Success Criteria Met? Y/N Comments/Reason for failure" 1. ' wetland constructed Yes concurrent) with fill activity 1 2. wetland constructed as Yes outlined in plan 3. plantings minimum 6' OC Yes with clustering 4. 80%u survival for a 5-year Yes period 5. wetland mitigation area No Fence will be constructed when site is fenced developed 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. i I i Remedial work recommended Yes ❑ No Deed Restriction or other protection instrument attached (note: if a filed deed restriction was required as a permit condition, please attach a copy): Yes El No ® Final Monitoring Report? Yes ® No ❑ 1. Requesting release or partial release of bond? Yes ❑ No ® j Year-Five Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report Proposed Tigard Retail Development Site File No. 2361-041-01 December 21, 2007 Prepared for: PacTrust 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97224 Attention: Mr. Matt Oyen Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 15055 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 140 Portland, Oregon 97224 (503) 624-9274 A dre-.Karan u Bi ogist Ju ith Light, PWS Senior Biologist AEK:AJR:JBL:gaw PORT: P:\212 3 6 1 04 1\011Finals\236104101R.doc Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. j i Copyright® 2007 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. i File No. 2361-041-01 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION/ OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................1 2.0 MAINTENANCE CONDUCTED IN 2007 2 2.1 OVERVIEW 2 2.1.1 Riparian Area 3 2.1.2 Wetland Area ...................................................................................................................4 3.0 METHODS 5 4.0 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................................6 4.1 MONITORING STATION OBSERVATIONS 6 4.1.1 Monitoring Station 1 6 4.1.2 Monitoring Station 2 7 4.1.3 Monitoring Station 3 8 4.1.4 Monitoring Station 4 9 4.1.5 Monitoring Station 5 .......................................................................................................10 4.1.6 Monitoring Station 6 .......................................................................................................11 4.1.7 Monitoring Station 7 12 4.1.8 Monitoring Station 8 .......................................................................................................13 • 4.1.9 Wildlife Observations 14 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 14 6.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................15 7.0 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................15 List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Planting Areas Figure 3. GPS and Aerial Photo Map APPENDICES APPENDIX A - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Appendix A Figures Figures A-1 A-10. Site Photographs File No. 2361-041-01 Page l December 11, 2007 GEoENGINEERS • YEAR-FIVE WETLAND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROPOSED TIGARD RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SITE FOR PACTRUST 1.0 INTRODUCTION i OVERVIEW PacTrust purchased a proposed commercial development site in late 2005 approximately 18 acres in size located between Dartmouth Street SW and SW Hermosa Way near SW 72nd Avenue, in Tigard, Oregon (see Figure 1). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) issued permits for stream relocation and wetland fill on this site in the late 1990's (USACE Case No. 98- 666 and DSL RF 9256-Renewal). These permits covered a larger project site than the area purchased by PacTrust (site limits in issued permits extended east to 72nd Avenue). However, most of the stream relocation and wetland fill activities and associated mitigation work were conducted on the parcels purchased by PacTrust. Although a large fill pad and two access points to the site from Dartmouth Street SW were constructed in 1999 and 2000, no buildings or other infrastructure have been constructed on the site. The wetland and stream mitigation areas were also constructed in 1999 and 2000. PacTrust reviewed general site conditions in relation to the mitigation monitoring and success criteria specified by the permits and reviewed available agency records related to mitigation monitoring. PacTrust determined that the mitigation site not to be in compliance with the permit criteria and conditions. GeoEngineers wetland biologists assisted PacTrust to identify the wetland mitigation requirements specified in the permits issued for the wetland fill activity that needed to be implemented to • be in compliance with the issued permits. PacTrust forwarded a list of proposed measures to bring the site into compliance to the USACE and DSL in November 2006. Based on follow-up discussions with the agencies, GeoEngineers developed a detailed list of actions to be implemented, including a planting list, in May 2007. PacTrust and GeoEngineers met with PacTrust's selected landscape contractor on site to review the proposed actions. At the request of the planting contractor, typical planting schematics were developed to guide plant placement in the three general planting areas: 1) stream buffer; 2) wetland buffer and 3) wetland habitat. The recommended measures were implemented in September and October 2007. The area planted in 2007 was more extensive than specified in the permitted mitigation plan. The original plan included a proposal to conduct wetland buffer mitigation at an off-site location in exchange for reduced buffer widths on the Tigard development site. No documentation could be found that the off-site buffer enhancement work was conducted. Due to this fact and the change in local agencies wetland buffer requirements, the planted wetland and stream buffer areas were extended to 25 feet. The DSL Removal-Fill Permit requires the mitigation area to be monitored for 5 years, while the USACE permit requires 10 years of monitoring. Annual monitoring reports are required for Years l through 5 by both agencies. USACE also specified monitoring reports to be submitted in Years 6 and 10 after mitigation construction. As recommended by USACE and DSL, documentation of the recently implemented measures will be accepted as the Year 5 monitoring report required by the project permits. File No. 2361-041-01 Page 1 December 11, 2007 GEOENGINEEAS.0 The permits issued by USACE and DSL included the following performance and monitoring criteria for the mitigation areas: • Eighty percent survival of the installed plants. • Maintenance of the mitigation site until vegetation has become established and the area is functioning as designed. Maintenance includes activities such as control of nutria and removal of exotic species (non-native) plants. • Photos to be taken annually from fixed photo points for monitoring purposes. • Submittal of the monitoring reports by December 31 of each monitoring year. This report documents the findings of the Year 5 monitoring survey conducted by GeoEngineers in November 2007. 2.0 MAINTENANCE CONDUCTED IN 2007 2.1 OVERVIEW Maintenance work conducted by Bernie's Landscape Contractors Incorporation in September and October 2007 included: 1) removal of Scotch broom (Cylisus scoparius) and non-native blackberries (Rubus spp.) in the mitigation area; 2) installation of a temporary irrigation system; 3) soil augmentation at the planting locations; 4) plant installation; 5) installation of herbivore guards at the base of each installed plant to protect against nutria damage; 6) application of fertilizer at each installed plant and 7) application of wood mulch around the base of the plantings. The plants were installed on October 1 and 2, 2007. The landscape contractor provided GeoEngineers with the invoice (packing slip) of the plants . installed at the Tigard site which identified the species and quantities of plants installed. GeoEngineers' monitoring survey was conducted on November 28, 2007 to document the conduction of the mitigation area after the maintenance measures were completed and to establish eight monitoring plots and associated photograph stations. The plant species and quantities were observed to have been installed in general accordance with the mitigation compliance punch list (GeoEngineers, Inc. May 2007) and the typical planting schematics (GeoEngineers, Inc. September 2007). The soil augmentation generally occurred in a 12- to 14-inch diameter area that extended to a depth of approximately 18 inches. Plant species and forms installed at the site are listed in the following table (Table 1). File No. 2361-041-01 Page 2 December 21, 2007 GEOENGINEERS Table 1. Installed Plant Species and Forms Species Name Scientific Name Form vine maple Acer circinatum 1-gallon red alder Alnus rubra 1-gallon red osier dogwood Cornus sericea 1-gallon black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii 1-gallon Twinberry Lonicera involucrata 1-gallon tall Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium 1-gallon Western crab apple Malus fusca 1-gallon mock orange Philadelphus lewisii 1-gallon shore pine Pinus contorta 5-gallon black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 2-gallon Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menzlesii 1-gallon Cascara Rhamnus purshiana 2-gallon red flowering current Ribes sanguineum 1-gallon Baldhip rose Rosa gymnocarpa 1-gallon nootka rose Rosa nutkana 2-gallon & 3-gallon clustered rose Rosa pisocarpa 1-gallon woods rose Rosa woodsii 1-gallon salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 1-gallon Scouler'swillow Salixscouleriana 1-gallon blue elderberry Sambucus caerulea 1-gallon Spirea Spiraea douglasii 1-gallon The plants were situated through the mitigation areas generally based on expected hydrology and the moisture requirements of each species. Groups of the same species were typically planted in clusters of three or more in effort to mimic the natural distribution of plants usually found on undisturbed sites. A site plan illustrating the planting areas and site features is included with this report as Figure 2. The site has been divided into two general planting zones (riparian and wetland). The following sections describe these zones and the enhancement activities conducted for each zone. 2.1.1 Riparian Area The riparian area is located in the northeastern portion of the site, immediately south of SW Dartmouth Road. This area contains a combination of naturally occurring plants such as Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), Pacific willow (Salix lucida) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera), plants installed during original mitigation construction activities including common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) and Western redcedar (Thuja plicata) in addition to the plants installed in early October 2007 listed in Table 2. Several species of grasses are also present in the riparian area, but mosses were observed to be the most common form of ground cover within the northern limits of the riparian area. Several non-native, invasive herbaceous species such as wild carrot (Daucus carooa), common thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and common dandelion (Taraxacum offlcinale) were observed in scattered clumps in the riparian area. Table 2 indicates the numbers of each species installed in the riparian zone relative to the number of plants File No. 2361-041-01 Page 3 December 21, 2007 GEoENGINEERS proposed for this area. Twinberry (Lonicera involucrata) was installed in instead of red osier dogwood (Corpus sericea) and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) was substituted for approximately half of the thimbleberry (Rubus parviorus). Table 2. Number of Plants Proposed vs. Number of Plants Installed (Riparian) Number Number Species Name Scientific Name Proposed Installed red alder Alnus rubra 8 8 red osier dogwood Comus sericea 20 N/I twinberry Lonicera involucrate N/P 20 tall Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium 80 80 mock orange Philadelphus lewisii 10 10 shore pine Pinus contorta 4 4 black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 4 4 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 4 4 baldhip rose Rosa gymnocarpa 115 115 woods rose Rosa woodsii 125 125 salmonberry Rubus spectabilis N/P 80 thimbleberry Rubus parvitlorus 140 60 Scouter's willow Salix scouleriana 35 35 blue elderberry Sambucus caerulea 10 10 Total 555 555 Note: N/P = Not Proposed, N/I = Not Installed 2.1.2 Wetland Area The wetland area is located in the northwestern portion of the site and includes three interconnected ponds (upper, middle and lower) with an island between the three ponds. Established vegetation surrounding the ponds prior to plant installation consisted of Pacific and Scouler's (Sal& scouleriana) willows, black cottonwood (Populas trichocarpa), nootka and woods (Rosa woodsii) rose, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), black hawthorn (Crataegus douglash) and several species of native herbaceous plants. Some areas near the ponds supported small amounts of invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Table 3 lists the species and quantities installed within the wetland mitigation area in October 2007. The only deviations from the recommend plant list for this area was the addition of clustered rose (Rosa pisocarpa), a small reduction of baldhip rose (Rosa gymnocarpa) and additional plantings of mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii). File No. 1361-041-01 Page 4 December 11. 2007 GEoENGINEERS Table 3. Number of Plants Proposed vs. Number of Plants Installed (Wetland) Number Number Species Name Scientific Name Proposed Installed vine maple Acer circinatum 10 10 red alder Alnus rubra 10 10 Red osier dogwood Cornus sericea 35 35 black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii 10 10 Tall Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium 60 60 Western crab apple Malus fusca 6 6 mock orange Philadelphus lewish 15 25 Shore pine Pinus contorts 14 14 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 5 5 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 9 9 cascara Rhamnus purshiana 10 10 red flowering current Ribes sanguineum 25 25 Baldhip rose Rosa gymnocarpa 75 60 Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 50 50 clustered rose Rosa pisocarpa N/P 15 Woods rose Rosa woodsii 100 100 thimbleberry Rubus parvinorus 90 90 Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 70 70 blue elderberry Sambucus caerulea 15 15 Douglas spirea Spiraea douglasii 15 15 Total 624 634 Note: N/P = Not Proposed, N/I = Not Installed 3.0 METHODS The year-five monitoring survey was conducted on November 28, 2007 to document the condition of the wetland and stream buffer mitigation site after implementation of the maintenance measures in September and October 2007 at the Tigard Retail Development Site. Success criteria established for this mitigation project have been incorporated into the monitoring methods utilized during the monitoring event. Observations recorded during the year-five survey included: • plant survival and general health. • percent aerial coverage. • presence of invasive species. • general condition of the created stream channel and wetland habitat. • hydrology and soil condition in created wetland habitat. • establish monitoring plots and photograph stations. • wildlife observations. is File No. 2361-041-01 page S December 21, 2007 GEoENGINEERS..o • evidence of damage from nutria or human disturbance. The monitoring was conducted in the fall of 2007 after the maintenance measures were completed. A total of eight permanent monitoring stations were established within the mitigation area to document the existing conditions throughout the enhanced wetland, stream and buffer areas. Each monitoring station consists of circular plot with a 25-foot radius marked by a green fence post embedded in the center. To determine plant survivorship for the mitigation area, the number of plants within each monitoring station was counted and the general condition of each plant was noted. Plants were identified to be either, naturally occurring, planted during previous enhancement activities or recently installed. Plants were determined to be alive or dead and any apparent stressors were documented. Indications of nutria damage and human disturbance were also noted when observed. Undesirable non-native species were identified and their percentage aerial coverage was estimated. Additional monitoring observations were made regarding positive wetland hydrology such as the presence of saturated soils and/or open water. 4.0 RESULTS The monitoring protocol described in the methods section of this report was implemented to monitor the success of the mitigation activities and to provide baseline documentation of the maintenance work conducted in 2007. The following sections describe the locations of the monitoring stations and the conditions observed at each station. 4.1 MONITORING STATION OBSERVATIONS Eight monitoring stations were established within the wetland and riparian mitigation areas and were marked with green fence-posts and surveyors flagging. Monitoring Stations 1 through 3 are located in the riparian areas in the northern portion of the site. Monitoring Stations 4 through 8 are located in the wetland and associated buffer area in the northwest comer of the site (Figure 2). As part of the monitoring effort GeoEngineers biologists documented the location of each monitoring station utilizing a Trimble (Global Positioning System [GPS]) receiver. The monitoring station GPS locations are shown in Figure 3. A photographic record of the mitigation area taken from the established photo points is provided in Appendix A. 4.1.1 Monitoring Station 1 Monitoring Station 1 was established in the riparian area north of the created stream between the stream and SW Dartmouth Road (Figure 3). This monitoring station represents the overall condition of the riparian area north of the stream. Recently installed plants in shrub and tree canopy layers dominate this monitoring station with approximately 3 percent aerial coverage due to the small size of the installed plants. The species and quantities of plants observed within Monitoring Station I and the observed health of the plants are provided below in Table 4. File No. 2361-041-01 page 6 December 21, 2007 GEOEmiNEERs.0 Table 4. Species and Coverage of Vegetation at Monitoring Station 1 Canopy # Plant Species Layer Status Planted # Alive # Dead Health/Stress Nootka rose S P 3 3 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa nutkana) Oregon grape S P 5 5 0 Healthy in appearance (Mahonia nervosa) Baldhip rose S P 3 3 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa gymnocarpa) Scouler's willow S P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Salix scouleriana) Twinberry S P 2 2 0 Healthy in appearance (Lonicera involucrata) Total Number of Plants 14 Herbaceous cover 90% Bare ground 10% Aerial Coverage (T,S) 3% Native colonizers 0% Non native / Invasive Species 2 % Wild carrot (Daucus carota) Notes: S = Shrub, T = Tree; P = Planted, PP =Previously Planted, V=Volunteer, 1=Invasive 4.1.2 Monitoring Station 2 Monitoring Station 2 was established in the southeastern portion of the riparian area (Figure 3). This monitoring station includes both recently installed and previously planted species of trees and shrubs comprising approximately 5 percent aerial coverage within the station. The species and quantities of plants observed within Monitoring Station 2 and the observed health of the plants are provided in Table 5. File No. 2361-041-01 Page 7 December 21, 2007 GEOENGINEEBS Table 5. Species and Coverage of Vegetation at Monitoring Station 2 Canopy # Plant Species Layer Status Planted # Alive # Dead Health/Stress Nootka rose S P 4 4 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa nutkana) Red-osier dogwood S P 3 3 0 Healthy in appearance (Corpus sericea) Salmonberry S P 5 5 0 Healthy in appearance (Rubus spectabilis) PP 2 2 0 Western redcedar T PP 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Thuja plicata) Total Number of Plants 15 Herbaceous cover 75% Bare ground 25% Aerial Coverage (T,S) 5 Native colonizers 0% Non native / Invasive Species 0 % Notes: S = Shrub, T = Tree; P = Planted, PP =Previously Planted, V=Volunteer, 1=Invasive 4.1.3 Monitoring Station 3 • Monitoring Station 3 was established within the mid section of the riparian south of the stream (Figure 3). This monitoring station includes both recently installed and several previously established native plant species that appear in generally good health. The ground was covered mostly by mosses and herbs as well as some non-native species such as wild carrot. Aerial coverage at Monitoring Station 3 was observed to be approximately 10 percent. The species and quantities of plants observed within Monitoring Station 3 and the observed health of the plants are provided in Table 6. File No. 2361-041-01 Page 8 December 21, 2007 GEoENCINEEaS Table 6. Species and Coverage of Vegetation at Monitoring Station 3 Canopy # Plant Species Layer Status Planted # Alive # Dead Health/Stress Baldhip rose S P 3 3 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa gymnocarpa) Salmonberry S P 7 7 0 Healthy in appearance (Rubus spectabilis) Scouter's willow S P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Salix scouleriana) Western red cedar T PP 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Thuja plicata) Total Number of Plants 12 Herbaceous cover 80% Bare ground 20% Aerial Coverage (T,S) 10% Native colonizers 0 % Non native 1 Invasive Species 1 % Wild carrot (Daucus carota) Notes: S = Shrub, T = Tree; P = Planted, PP =Previously Planted, V=Volunteer, 1=Invasive 4.1.4 Monitoring Station 4 Monitoring Station 4 was established at the southern portion of the wetland buffer between the upper • tower ponds and consists of both recently and previously planted species. The species and quantities of plants observed within Monitoring Station 4 and the observed health of the plants are provided in Table 7. In general, the plants at Monitoring Station 4 did not show signs of stress or disease except for the Oregon ash which had possible nutria damage. During previous site visits, Scotch broom was observed in the vicinity of this station. No Scotch broom was observed during the year-five survey, indicating that this invasive species has been removed from this area. 0 File No. 2361-041-01 Page 9 December 21, 2007 GEOENGINEENS Table 7. Species and Coverage of Vegetation at Monitoring Station 4 Canopy # Plant Species Layer Status Planted # Alive # Dead Health/Stress Baldhip rose S P 8 8 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa gymnocarpa) Nootka rose S P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa nutkana) Red osier dogwood S P 6 6 0 Healthy in appearance (Comus stolonifera) Douglas spirea S P 2 2 0 Healthy in appearance (Spiraea douglash) Red flowering current S P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Ribes sanguineum) Oregon ash T PP 1 1 0 Damaged (Fraxinus latifolia) Total Number of Plants 19 Herbaceous cover 100% Bare ground 0% Aerial Coverage (T,S) 5% Native colonizers 0% Non native / Invasive Species 3 % Wild carrot (Daucus carooa) Notes: S = Shrub, T = Tree; P = Planted, PP =Previously Planted, V=Volunteer, 1=Invasive 4.1.5 Monitoring Station 5 Monitoring Station 5 was established within wetland habitat associated with the pond system outlet. Soils were observed to be saturated within Monitoring Station 5. The installed plants at Monitoring Station 5 were not observed to show signs of stress or disease. The species and quantities of plants observed within Monitoring Station 5 and the observed health of the plants are provided in Table 8. Approximately 5 percent of Monitoring Station 5 was inundated with water from the lower pond, and aerial coverage of shrubs and trees was estimated to be 4 percent. 10 File No. 2361-041-01 Page 10 December 21, 2007 GEOENGINEERS Table 8. Species and Coverage of Vegetation at Monitoring Station 5 Canopy # Plant Species Layer Status Planted # Alive # Dead Health/Stress Baldhip rose S P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa gymnocarpa) Douglas spirea S P 2 2 0 Healthy in appearance (Spiraea douglash) Scouler's willow S P 6 6 0 Healthy in appearance (Salix scouleriana) Nootka rose S P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa nutkana) Western crab apple T P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Malus fusca) Total Number of Plants 11 Herbaceous cover 100% Bare ground 0% Aerial Coverage (T,S) 4% Native colonizers 0% Non native / Invasive Species 15 % common thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Notes: S = Shrub, T = Tree; P = Planted, PP =Previously Planted, V=Volunteer, 1=Invasive 4.1.6 Monitoring Station 6 . Monitoring Station 6 was installed on the wetland island in the middle of the ponds. The primary source of hydrology for this portion of the site is derived from the ponds. Monitoring Station 6 includes species from recent and previous planting activities and volunteer native and non-native species. The species and quantities of plants observed within Monitoring Station 6 and the observed health of the plants are provided in Table 9. In general, the observed plant species appeared healthy with the exception of one previously planted Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa Raywoodii) tree that was dead. File No_ 2361-041-01 Page 11 December 21, 2007 GEOENGINEEItS.O. Table 9. Species and Coverage of Vegetation at Monitoring Station 6 Canopy # # Plant Species Layer Status Planted # Alive Dead Health/Stress Salmonberry S P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Rubus spectabilis) Douglas fir T P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Pseudotsuga menziesh) Shore pine T P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Pinus contorta) Baldhip rose S P 4 4 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa gymnocarpa) Scouler s willow S P 3 3 0 Healthy in appearance (Salix scouleriana) Nootka rose S P 2 2 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa nutkana) Red osier dogwood S PP 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Comus stolonifera) Raywood ash T PP 1 0 1 Dead (Fraxinus oxycarpa Raywoodii) Cutleaf blackberry S V, 1 0 2 0 Healthy in appearance (Rubus laciniatus) Paradise apple T PP 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance • (Malus pumila) Total Number of Plants 17 Herbaceous cover 100% Bare ground 0% Aerial Coverage (T,S) 15% Native colonizers 0% Non native / Invasive Species 15 % Cutleaf blackberry and wild carrot Notes: S = Shrub, T = Tree; P = Planted, PP =Previously Planted, V=Volunteer, 1=Invasive 4.1.7 Monitoring Station 7 Monitoring Station 7 was installed on the west side of the lower pond within the wetland buffer. This station contains an extensive herbaceous layer comprised of grasses and rushes (Juncos spp.), recently and previously planted species, and volunteer species in the shrub and tree canopy layers. The species and quantities of plants observed within the Monitoring Station and the observed health of the plants are provided in Table 10. The observed plant species at Monitoring Station 7 appeared generally healthy with the exception of a Mock orange shrub that appeared damaged from possible animal grazing and a previously planted Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) tree that appeared damaged by human trampling or exposure to a strong wind. File No. 2361-041-01 Page 12 December 21, 2007 GEOENGINEERS~ Table 10. Species and Coverage of Vegetation at Monitoring Station 7 Canopy # Plant Species Layer Status Planted # Alive # Dead Health/Stress Red flowering current S P 4 4 0 Healthy in appearance (gibes sanguineum) Mock orange S P 2 2 0 1 Healthy and 1 damaged (Philadelphus lewisii) Black cottonwood T P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Populus balsamifera) Nootka rose S P 3 3 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa nutkana) PP 2 2 0 Scouter's willow S P 2 2 0 Healthy in appearance (Salix scouleriana) Baldhip rose S P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa gymnocarpa) Woods rose S V 5 5 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa woodsii) Pacific silver fir T PP 1 1 0 Damaged (Abies amabdis) Himalayan blackberry S 1 2 2 0 Healthy in appearance (Rubes discolor) Total Number of Plants 23 Herbaceous cover 100% • Bare ground 0% Aerial Coverage (T,S) 10% Native colonizers 20% Woods rose Non native / Invasive Species 1 % Himalayan blackberry Notes: S = Shrub, T = Tree; P = Planted, PP =Previously Planted, V=Volunteer, 1=Invasive 4.1.8 Monitoring Station 8 Monitoring Station 8 was installed on the northwestern end of the site between the upper and middle ponds in wetland buffer habitat. Monitoring Station 8 contains recently installed plant species and a previously existing canopy layer. The species and quantities of plants observed within Monitoring Station 8 and the observed health of the plants are provided in Table 11. All plants appeared healthy with no visible signs of disease or stress during the year-five site visit. The ground was mostly covered by mosses and herbs as well as invasive wild carrot. File No. 2361-041-01 Page 13 December 21, 2007 GEOENGINEEAS.0 Table 11. Species and Coverage of Vegetation at Monitoring Station 8 Canopy # Plant Species Layer Status Planted # Alive # Dead Health/Stress Baldhip rose S P 3 3 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa gymnocarpa) Nootka rose S P 3 3 0 Healthy in appearance (Rosa nutkana) Salmonberry S P 4 4 0 Healthy in appearance (Rubus spectabilis) Scouler's willow S P 3 3 0 Healthy in appearance (Salix scouleriana) Western crab apple T P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Malus fusca) Shore pine T P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Pinus contorta) Oregon ash T P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Fraxinus latifolia) Mock orange S P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance (Philadelphus lewisii) Blue elderberry S P 1 1 0 Healthy in appearance Sambucus caeru/ea Total Number of Plants 18 Herbaceous cover 90% Bare ground 10% Aerial. Coverage (T,S) 5% Native colonizers 0% Non native / Invasive Species 5% Wild carrot and other herbs Notes: S = Shrub, T = Tree; P = Planted, PP =Previously Planted, V=Volunteer, 1=Invasive 4.1.9 Wildlife Observations Wildlife observed within the riparian areas included the mourning dove, common snipe and American robin. Wildlife observed in the open water wetland and buffer area included at least four nutria, three pairs of mallard ducks, a mourning dove, a common snipe and an American robin. 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The work completed at the Tigard Retail Development Site has been conducted in general accordance with the Proposed Mitigation Compliance Actions Punch List (GeoEngineers 2007) reviewed with USACE and DSL. GeoEngineers conducted a year-five monitoring survey on November 27, 2007 which included the establishment of eight monitoring stations that will be used over the remaining five years of the 10-year monitoring period to document the success of the mitigation efforts. File No. 2361-041-01 Page 14 December 11, 2007 GEOENGINEEIis Plant species and quantities were observed to be in general accordance to the mitigation compliance punch list. The recently installed plants were in good condition. Several plant species including twinberry, clustered rose and salmonberry were incorporated into the list during plant installation. Several of the plant species substituted into the enhancement areas were identified to have been installed in areas that may not meet the moisture requirements of these species. For example, salmonberry was observed high on the slopes within the riparian buffer areas. This species is typically found in and along the margins of wetlands. Of the previously installed plants located in the monitoring stations the following visible signs of stress or disturbance were observed: 1) Monitoring Station 6 had one dead Raywood ash tree and 2) Monitoring Station 7 had a damaged mock orange shrub and a damaged Pacific silver fir tree. Scotch broom and blackberry were observed within the outer edges of the planted wetland area near Monitoring Stations 7 and 8. Recommendations for maintenance activities to be performed at the site in 2008 include: 1) the removal of blackberry and scotch broom plants from the wetland buffer areas; 2) removal of thistle (or thistle seed heads) from the mitigation area; 3) irrigation of installed plants throughout the dry summer months; and 4) monitoring of plant guard success against nutria. Any questions or comments regarding this report should be directed to Judith Light, PWS at (503) 735- 5474. 6.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of PacTrust and their authorized agents. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. 7.0 REFERENCES GeoEngineers. 2007. Proposed Mitigation Compliance Actions Punch List. (dated May 17, 2007) File No. 2361-041-01 Page 15 December 21, 2007 GEOENGINEERs t E r l 'r'` 4 r•~;~j' pf-'f r,'a. •.a~s "mo t" !.1. 3~ ~i f` ~.t` 3 A ' ~ ~ r e d ~ i-^ ifdt'Jf=~:,`Y J~,~~i" i tp ~y.-,-''J'~'-~`~~~..+".--"'' ~~i_ ~ 1• ~ .s~,• - .+Pt tx:~~ q:, - + ' : ~ t eat { ~ , + [^",q14 ` _ .-,-a--'....'" 1'S ' ~C f, r t. ' N$'!y t \,L+ yl~~'~- ps' ~j',lt ~ f . ~ ~y y j~ . • ~ :u'~~~r 1 ( _ t- 'ii yi '•~i 1)1,=,~d~`~~~~ *riy ~t: il(j .SCI ~7 ,°QA t ; ,._~:s i 8 ,`.•'~"r / s ? ;tea ~fG(~ ~ r ~ .~..-,✓~41` : ' ~1~~,,, • . ~ j ~ ~ _ f~~~ : .t,,, t`' •![r. v .r~•,,,,~t _ ~._:,:t.tv, 1'9; y y '..~•:;-a J'rr ' j ~tl. 'a~ U 'r a S ~ a i ' i. , -2;.. ~ .~y.'. s~i " P 0 44 j • • ~,r'~: ' z S.~ ~~`_V` r~ o ' f ~rT~ , • e*'4 %f` .•v'~...fr ".~w+~-"-' fr'.- ~Tti ~~,a~ to'{.'• ~.,,`'f',f. yt-- Jam,, } ,Y~ , MM-1 "..t #x•y.- of .i t ~ h' 1 t s, ~".o• 4. ia•~E. t It i ~~,'`'~1`y.'?,ti _ i - t•^ $ j -`-~T''~ ~,1.~ •ta.i'` _ -t~ 1. ~y.: i~ , ' T {r.; t .21 ._t ; 1~{ t ~I,' 'rt': ~~•t t ~ j i~~~, ; til'~ -~a ^ : ~t ~ t a r ~~j•: vp~ } +I ti ' o v:7. :Yf~ i~ 1i • tl~i F wyT j \ ~y d r • Y ~ ~ ^}yl~• 1 1~ 1' ~M` ~ .C) ~ Simon "-'••''O"•..•S {]6..^~ U-1 7 N .•f ~'fi + ~ ~ t~ :n n: .ft' ~ t, Jt oq •~'sp - pr W a 't 9~^.'~,1,.•~ jj~:` 4 t'i • s + ~ ~ ` i',y{`(~ t i .i t w j.f. ~ T ^r }r+ ~ c o - a. • .~'S VP's - b~ Lei t f,.1~ .`.l i { ~`y _.c^ ~ ~ 1 ~3' ~ 2 J c 1.." rlnlr f/ '`e p ' Z • • • v • :i•. Nk- eout4o f e A ® SITE o o' ' CO~U CI-A . K 2 004 0 14 Feet W ASH%NGTON a ore90n aV NIaP • V+cin~ty ent Site Yp~HtLL evelopm d Retail on ar ro~mate. assist in w(ig .Tiand, Oreg atures shown a PP is intended t~Elginee Ster g 1 Notes: lions of all fe ation purposes docurne files. The F loure The loca is for inform an attached of elect Tonicofficiai record of t2 This drawing discussed 1n and co n l a as the F.•'S will seN G'_ ■ C showing featu the accuracYlnc. and' or whether G can not guarantee Engineer", c O N {y G pl, file Is smrnurueaOn duce all or any Par< roof or reP nrtission. GeOgrap 'We Society le I this o nlawful use to copy without pe ' a t- 3. It is otrese K pemonal raft tc map f , Minute Qudran9 e~~n patu isa d Data Sources: 2oTW`° ~ - SeelIde n T' Mane North, North obtatnad October ytashin9ton `Siam t _.d con{a% Conic, P.Wi4572017W1%CADWAFIpum6.dw0 SMM:MWJ 12107107 P-.- z a m3 m Am n i F n m o c n l_ m n =t c 6 d 1 y ~''~c m N S~ I cmo ~ 8. I 3 : s 1 ~4 :B.~i.i~ 'm lS 3 3 -o'er-~ } _ !1 \ J WAY ®~i r / ' ei i wmv Y I t• 'I. .y tCOa¢K~ . WIJ ' krt~ n Z _f m om m D O3 ~ B we W m {O ~ c a N 1 p r ~w , t w ary :a r; 4 " ~ tt 1 t, S-8 o MS-~ M N • • Q St O 'I f E • • MS-3 •lMS-1 t ~ lX CO c f trq arXF t 10 X E m E m •c N Q d (7 5'p Legend N cry MS-1 wE X O Sample Location ~ s in 225 0 225 0 Feet cc Notes: C.) 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. GPS and Aerial Photo Map ~y 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in a showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master a file is stored by GeoEngineers, inc. and will serve as the official record of Tigard Retail Development Site this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for Tigard, Oregon j.- personal use or resale, without permission. O Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2005 2006 imagery from Aerial Express. G EO E N G I N E E R Figure 3 N Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983 O North arrow oriented to grid north APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS • i x ;K 1 Photograph 1 Photograph 2 Monitoring Station 1, Facing North Monitoring Station 1, Facing East O O N _ wY Q N L Photograph 3 Photograph 4 a Monitoring Station 1, Facing South Monitoring Station 1, Facing West a x r a o_ m NN O O N N C_ O Site Photographs • 9 GEOENGINEERS Figure A-1 a Tigard Retail Development Site Tigard, Oregon _ L ..a ~tSs_ .:-V,qy by ate r ~ AA • r •Photograph 5 Photograph 6 Monitoring Station 2, Facing North Monitoring Station 2, Facing East M,f ! y r r,, V O W a N Y W Q N L CL f`0 a Photograph 7 Photograph 8 ii Monitoring Station 2, Facing South Monitoring Station 2, Facing West a x d a 0 a 0 CO C, N O O N t0 _C O Site Photographs • GIEOENGINEERS~ Figure A-2 CL Tigard Retail Development Site Tigard, Oregon I , Photograph 9 Photograph 10 Monitoring Station 3, Facing North Monitoring Station 3, Facing East ' 'l r .t L p .,i {a s _ _ . L:I .yr,,..s. n .+1'S •P n r ~r L 0 rn N r R? to L CL N Photograph 11 Photograph 12 CL Monitoring Station 3, Facing South Monitoring Station 3, Facing West a x V r CL _o m c~ N O O N l0 C LL O M Site Photographs GEOENGINEERS Figure A-3 a Tigard Retail Development Site Tigard, Oregon F l r ''1.Sy~~~F 11 i i}.t r„ r. '!S~la••IT xi y, YET'' y y ,l f I{ ti JS, / t.. "I ~7A 7~o , Photograph 13 Photograph 14 Monitoring Station 4, Facing North Monitoring Station 4, Facing East rn - ,,~i• ~'M~?~, , rent o i o, 0 a Photograph 15 Photograph 16 a Monitoring Station 4, Facing South Monitoring Station 4, Facing West x V r N CL C• _o co r> N O O ql (0 C_ O Site Photographs GEOENGINEER . Figure A-4 n. Tigard Retail Development Site Tigard, Oregon S - • 1 ai photogo p5, Facing East u Monitoring Sta photograp5 Facing North Monitoring Station r~. ~ 0 4+ r a.s-~, N photograph 20 cin9 west a nitoling station 5, Fa Mo South ph station 5, 'Fading d Monitoring S Q X r d a 0 pigure p`" CO, Photographs ~ Site ent Site 11 g Tigard RTiaa a pre on ~ ERS ` GINS GEDEN a Y e. e e / t Zak - Photograph 21 Photograph 22 Monitoring Station 6, Facing North Monitoring Station 6, Facing East ~ i I M1 j1 t t" av.. Iii ~ ~ r t.,~ ,t 1'• . ► 'A! 06 O a Photograph 23 Photograph 24 a Monitoring Station 6, Facing South Monitoring Station 6, Facing West x V N CL _O NN O O N l0 C_ O i Site Photographs • Figure A-6 GEOENGINEER Tigard Retail Development Site a Ti and Ore on IlA 4TJrT.jJ(A {f i1 1`i , ~ I s~ l Of r} I J !A 4 t. a .~yiy a o k3k? -ktl- _1111 S. • ~ s a ~ Y d._ Photograph 25 Photograph 26 Monitoring Station 7, Facing North Monitoring Station 7, Facing East k' 1 • , t ^x • ;~r ~ r t t,~ O - w i Z 06 m rn 0 t Photograph 27 Photograph 28 a Monitoring Station 7, Facing South Monitoring Station 7, Facing West x V r N CL 0 v 0 M N O O N f0 LLC_ 7 O CO Site Photographs IL S~ Tigard Retail Development Site Figure A-7 GWENGINEER Tigard, Oregon Jai C°1at= , I Photograph 29 Photograph 30 Monitoring Station 8, Facing North Monitoring Station 8, Facing East I . VY le f 11111pper- • .Q y' 't S 4 , !I T~1 iY11 f '1 t I t.u .1 0 CL Photograph 31 Photograph 32 a Monitoring Station 8, Facing South Monitoring Station 8, Facing West x CL 0 V* 0 0 N ' O O y f0 C_ O O Site Photographs GEOENGINEER Tigard Retail Development Site Figure A-8 Tigard, Oregon ~ G.: In ~ _p'r F? r ~ rL ,~1 r ' f 4 i M s .Ll~ ,'fit 4 , r_. y.s V o , ` A ~t III 64~ k+~ Photograph 33 Photograph 34 Riparian Area, Stream Channel, Facing East Riparian Area, Eastern Portion of Stream Channel, Facing East a - n. h tivt;,Cn .I` riles.:;: s v* h - - O m N r wY Q Vl CL m o ~ 0 t a x v c °L Photograph 35 Photograph 36 S Riparian Area, Facing Northeast Riparian Area, Stream Channel and Culvert to o Wetland, Facing Northwest CO M N O O N l0 S O Site Photographs GWENGINEERS~ Figure A-9 a Tigard Retail Development Site Ti and Oregon iI~ G r •1 r"v b'' ..j fl rry • y , .rbwA d e~b 5,~~y9`1ecc.Y Photograph 37 Photograph 38 Wetland, General Plan of the Site, Facing West Wetland, Eastern (upper) Pond, Facing North ~S,,ti. P •r ~ i _r h V. Y~r O ~ ~ ra t a a Photograph 39 Photograph 40 Wetland, Ponds Connection, Facing Southeast Wetland, Lower Pond and Island, Facing South 0 M N O O h l0 C_ U. O O M Site Photographs GEOENGINEERS Tigard Retail Development Site Figure A-10 .0v Ti and Oregon gESP~NS~ ~ZEM~ W /MAPS PACTRUST 15350 S.W. Sequoia Pkwy., Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97224 Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. 503/624-6300 • Facsimile: 503/624-7755 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 18, 2008 Mailed: Delivered: X TO: Gary Pagenstecher Picked Up: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 FROM: Matt Oyen RE: Dartmouth Property • Enclosed please find the following: # of Copies Date Description 1 4/1/08 Consent Order - DSL Enforcement File 6701 1 7/20/98 Original Wetland Fill Permit 1 Year 5 Monitoring Report 1 2/19/08 Response Memo with Maps By: Lynne Appleby for Matt Oyen 15350 S.W. Sequoia Pkwy., Suite 300 , PACTRUST Portland, Oregon 97224 Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. 503/624-6300 • Facsimile: 503/624-7755 FEB 20 2008 G, V TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2008 Mailed: X Delivered: TO: Mr. Dick Bewersdorff Picked Up: City of Tigard, OR 13125SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97228 FROM: Matt Oyen RE: Tigard Retail Development Site Enclosed please find the following: • # of Copies Date Description 1 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Compliance Packet By: Lynn Appleby for att Oye 15350 S.W. Sequoia Pkwy., Suite 300 OQ,r ©0t6 PACTRus % Portland, Oregon 97224 Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. 503/624-6300 • Facsimile: 503/624-7755 February 19, 2008 Ms. Carrie Landrum. Oregon Division of State Lands 775 Summit Street NE, Suite 100 Salem, Oregon 97301-1279 Dear Ms. Landrum: Re: Tigard Retail Development Site Tigard, Oregon DSL Enforcement File 6701-ENF Corps Case Number: 98-666; DSL Permit Number: RF-9256 0236 1-04 1-00 WETLAND / STREAM MITIGATION COMPLIANCE PacTrust purchased the Tigard Retail site in late 2005. The site purchased by PacTrust was only a portion of the project area covered in the wetland fill permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (case number 98-666) and Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) (RF-9256). Approximately the eastern third of the site covered under these pen-nits is not included in the PacTrust ownership. PacTnist was not responsible for the 5-year past-construction ,,►~onitori;,g following the 1999 construction of the wetland mitigation project. The 5-year monitoring period should have been completed by 2004, one year prior to the PacTrust purchase. PacTrust identified lack of compliance with the permit mitigation requirements after review of the project files and agencies records following purchase of the property. Although only the Year I mitigation report was found in the project records, no permit violation notice issued by USACE and DSL was found in the agency files. After discovery of this non-compliance issue, PacTrust proactively initiated discussions in mid 2006 with USACE and DSL to identify the steps PacTrust should take to bring the portion of the mitigation area located within their ownership into permit compliance. These discussions resulted in a list of proposed steps documented in a letter sent to USACE and DSL in November 2006. These measures included hiring a wetland biologist to help assess potential reasons for poor survivorship of the originally installed - ..b...... a February 19, 2008 plants and recommend maintenance activities to bring the site into permit compliance. PacTrust contracted with GeoEngineers, Inc. to conduct this assessment and prepare a list of actions to be implemented, including a planting plan. GeoEngineers developed these measures in consultation with USACE and DSL staff. PacTrust implemented the measures in late summer 2007, contracted GeoEngineers to conduct the monitoring work, submitted the monitoring report to USACE and DSL in late December 2007 and subsequently received a notice of violation from DSL on December 31, 2007. This letter addresses the issues brought forth in the December 31, 2008 DSL letter. The fifth year monitoring report is the only annual mitigation monitoring report we have received since the site was constructed in 1999. Though your letter to the Department dated November 17, 2006 indicates that a Year 1 monitoring report was submitted, we do not have this report in our file. No annual monitoring reports were submitted for years two, three, and four. As discussed in the introduction of this letter, the 5-year monitoring period should have been completed by 2004, one year prior to the PacTrust purchase. A copy of the Year 1 monitoring report, prepared by W&H Pacific dated December 21, 2001, was found in the agency files review by GeoEngineers in 2006 and is included with this letter. USACE recommended that documentation of the actions conducted by PacTrust in 2007 to bring the site into compliance serve as the Year 5 monitoring for purposes of the USACE monitoring requirements. This issue was subsequently discussed with DSL and no objection to this approach was raised. Lack of these reports is one of the reasons PacTrust initiated permit compliance consultation with the agencies. PaeTrust will continue to monitor the mitigation site for an additional five years and submit reports to USACE in Years 6 and 10 as required by the USACE permit. As required by permit condition 7c, success criteria for planted vegetation is 80% for five years. It is unclear from the 5'h year monitoring report whether any of the original plantings have survived. Some of the plants from the 1999/2000 installation have survived, but no effort was made to determine percent survivorship of the original plantings because so few installed plants were observed in the mitigation area. The density and total area of plants installed in late summer 2007 by PacTrust is significantly greater that, that proposed in the permitted mitigation plan. Based on the mitigation plan submitted with the original permit application, approximately 155 plants were installed in the mitigation area now under PacTrust ownership. PacTrust installed 1,180 plants in this same area in October 2007, approximately 7.5 times more plants than originally installed. Condition of the plants installed in late summer 2007 was very good and guards to deter nutria damage were installed- Therefore, as of Year 5, the replacement plantings were considered to bring the survivorship in the mitigation site within PacTrust ownership to 100 percent. As mentioned above, USACE requires five additional years of monitoring which will include tracking plant survivorship. The 5`h year report indicates that the mitigation site is not yet fenced. This is a requirement of the permit, condition 7e. Although the former owner filled the site to create a building pad in 1999 and 2000, the site remains undeveloped. The approved mitigation for the area included a buffer area -..I- - . February 19, 2008 approximately 15-feet wide. PacTrust replanted the wetland areas and 25-foot-wide buffer extending from the edge of the wetland and stream areas. Under current local Clean Water Services regulations, a 50-foot-wide buffer will be required adjacent to the wetland and stream features when the area is developed. The current condition of the outer 25 feet of the buffer is poor, primarily comprised of fill material and sparsely vegetated with non-native species. Local regulations currently require buffer areas in poor condition to be improved in order to secure water and sewer hook up. Site preparation for future construction will require some grading work in portions of the outer 25-foot buffer area and installation of native plants throughout the outer 25 feet of the buffer to upgrade from existing poor condition. PacTrust has proposed to have the site fenced at the 50-foot buffer edge after the outer 25- foot buffer area is improved at the time of future development. This issue was discussed with the USACE and DSL in late 2006 and 2007 and no objection was raised. Any fencing installed at this time would have to be removed in the future when the site is developed. There is currently no sidewalk along SW Dartmouth Street (along the northern mitigation area limits) or any public access into or across the site. It was determined that the most likely reasons for failure of the original plantings in the mitigation area were: 1) nutria damage; 2) inadequate irrigation after plant installation; and 3) poor, compacted soil conditions in selected area. Neither human nor pet access to the site appeared to be a factor in plant failure. Permit condition 7d requires establishment of 2.0 acres of replacement wetland and preservation of 0.41 acres of wetland. You must submit documentation, such as hydrology data, to demonstrate that at least 2.41 acres of the mitigation site meets wetland criteria. PacTrust does not own the entire mitigation site. Therefore, the replacement acreage specified in the permit will not be present on the PacTrust ownership. To simplify this documentation a visual representation showing the limits of the permitted mitigation area overlain on the wetland and stream mitigation areas identified within the PacTrust ownership has been prepared. Attached please find: 1) the Wetland Data figure from the permit application that shows impacted and mitigation wetland areas; 2) the preliminary landscape plan from the permit application showing the mitigation area limits; 3) a figure showing the wetland boundary limits delineated by GeoEngireers in 2006 (Figure 6) and the limits of the mitigation area and wetland habitat outside of the mitigation area as shown in the permit submittal; and 4) an enlargement showing the limits of the permitted mitigation area (including buffers) on PacTrust property overlain on the areas planted in 2007. Please note that the area identified as Wetland A on Figure 6 is located east of the property owned by PacTrust. Figure 6 shows that the area of existing wetland along the southern and southwest property limits is greater than the wetland area delineated for the permit application. The existing wetland limits in the northwest corner of the property also extend beyond those identified in the permit application. And, the mitigation area planted in 2007, including the 25-foot-wide buffer, is greater that the area mitigation area depicted in the permit mitigation plans. February 19, 2008 The above referenced compliance issues are subject to our jurisdiction and constitute a violation of Oregon's Removal-Fill Law. Over the past 16 months PacTrust has actively worked to bring their Tigard Triangle property into compliance with the USACE and DSL wetland fill permits issued to the previous owner. PacTrust voluntarily undertook this action once they became aware that the mitigation area on the property was not in compliance with the USACE and DSL permits. This effort was not a response to any agency violation citation. PacTrust notified USACE and DSL of the permit compliance shortfalls and solicited input from the agencies to determine how to correct this matter. The agency consultation included numerous telephone conversations, submittal of written documentation on the proposed measures, and a review of conditions at the site with DSL staff. We believe the mitigation area is in better condition than any time since its construction and will provide beneficial habitat once the plants become established. We were very disappointed upon receiving DSL's notice of violation. The fencing requirement specified in Condition 7e is the only outstanding permit issue. But as discussed above, a fence will be installed at the outer edge of the 50-foot wetland buffer when the site is developed. Previous discussions with USACE and DSL indicated that this was an acceptable and rationale approach. A fence would serve little purpose at this time, and lack of a fence has not impacted the success of the wetland to date. We trust that this letter provides the information necessary to revoke the violation notice. Please contact Matt Oyen at PacTrust (503 624-6300 ext 292) or Judith Light at GeoEngineers (503 735-5474) any of these issues. Thank you. Yours very truly, PACLFIC REALTY ASSDCIATES, L.P. Matthew Oyen Attachs. (5) cc: Tina Reed, USACE, Portland District Kevin Moynahan, DSL Mischa Connine, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife City of Tigard Planning 40 h p r. -t 0 ' t• 5. w s rl! n..w.t> :p:.tiA Ilk, y:✓`:'J: Ai:+•X.+''r"fJ"%, .e5 ryma, t' artYY,4.: WT, .r t ~ :1f' f ,J r ~ .eyv - at.n nvtU°. Ydr -5+d „ x r r~' f ~ - -^wm..~. ~-saa ~ . °n`"•`•,7.^Wr. skit ammo . N «m is s.~fi<~. 9'»~. "p... a n.. ,e° ✓4 ~ n -^n#.. j f - A i i2::. 4.4+i t Y i y t i X, ro.~x :c yrbnt :a5w t ~~AW,YrvMIRP`~, ~'~N'x *fl8w~n. pyyi~ ' T MIT plM'r L^t, t Z n6, =i E € a I ~ ~ s j i w^^ 'f 417 n T E t 'A s % tm s 4 M r v 4 .ry L 4 1 1 4 B4 s ' ' to Iodd, x t t µ a C Y x+ A w >'I low t • i h roAiYr, etw[C 1 ~ I!. tr lYr,•.. .~1'S'`.\~'.•''•'. •l.•1' '~Y,1\',\•\t~,rnvti: I,..•,ti.-(^,- run.. I r•_, \ \ TTT `5 CM1JI. .~~~t 1 ' • ~~\[]'WJJ 1 ~ f~i ♦ , it I' , . •1• . M \ \ e ` j' ;~i'Virl"~~•• 1`.;~j'- : ,t'~' ``1~,~~~'~7 V. 7+~`•`• r v ~ +11' 1,Y! • 'til. i ~/7' / 1 <r ! 1 .~•-^y' N R AM ►r ~ , , .r-~,~r NJ t ' *.d7 l `ma`y ~ w, U~r, •1`. .1 1z ` .r ►',y., >l / /`.r ' ~ }lV\ 1~ r~ T~. • ~ \ r ' '~~r ~ .~x+rr.CCi.1u~!o' ~ ` ~ r. ,!~/r/' ` 1 ~ FI~11{ y I ..r\...r r •r.; ' 'i~`L~~~. - L'\~t 1~~ • nr \ ~ ►.,.1 J, VI .1 ......_..._..-......._..........~!T l~~'-_•,r.k. 17 f I Y..M1~ N ~ll~~ I -0 ~ ~ ' 4' r ~ 7\rq ~'~y)~ ~ yak , • ► ! ~ e ~ ~ '~~11p~~ • I Y •'I`xy,' Vr ,I ~ y 1~ ~~~T ~~J,[~yr` .LW: Li ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ *~71~ Y) of ,1 f a ~ Z ~\•.~i':~i+~ _ _ ~ G ~ rl,, 1}5 a g ~ ~ ~.(3`C[C[C[~ k-A ~ r-• r•~ :,ter, ~ n ~..y yy Y~'r Yj .P ~ ~ ~ p ~ _ 1 LJ 1.4 /n +Y `\r ` `Yi `~IryI j r~ r ro r a C ► a 1 aJ :K ;1 ~;~`ea ,V `<Ji;tt~,~~`C. ~y^r •t l 1 • FRS ~-p R~i ~ ~ _ - • I' ` 4 i~• yl, _•lJ Q"W. _ _ ' r- ~ t- 1po l(1.I of 1.~ ~ , .ti :ro,• •i. i 1 . ~ ~ l/, 1{p. ~tyi ~ ~ ~i S 1 t/ 1 1• yr t• r - 0171 _ • r.w . r , ( ~ ~ ~ y ~ 0 + .,ci • r r:_ ,;'~',~t~A: ~5~ . A j • \ 7 C7 T5 in , fJzc~i w,e 1~. 1 ~ J x 9 r~'- , •IL. (l 1, fit v ~,_'1- rR i~T.. ~\r. ~-ter?: s~ t.. )7 r ► ~ r . _ rN fr Ss , _ \I. PAD-E) A s F lilt ( _ - ~,~.,1 Jr. ~,1.:..; ...`.,9~' ."F : i.i_~ t ; 14.t~Jt7~ S~. 1 I e w ~ 4q ~ ~ -77 S. ? 3 N D. AV E N U E 1 , Y p~I F p Ail t\ C d a S ! S Z ~ ~ xitf~~ i! M ► a v , a • a ~ PRRLIIvI~1A3a;Y LAICA]PE PLAN r CITY OF TIGARD c1-1RIS`ror-HER PRESI-IL.EY TRI-COUNTY CEl'~TER H>z15•f•L~S,~,~ ,(fWt1Y~V1 Y MVA W A V'Wn1U11, a&j LANDSCA_P.IE ARCHITECT 4o.nr1 q NC. INC. 1117b 1 Y, Inky x..1.1 I'F'" Lz,D f,if fbll , ur7a w. aa. uwa wn •la • ►a.r1.n #M'•• 1h0a. • MM+N. r Iz.11 iA~M-MM S.W. Tam ~~i ('(~71YZL.. ('(rte <NC1lILCf3, AND 3lIXYYTON4 IMAM OR 9 bgrl~. IIpy7 (M7) •.a..h/7 u.ra2 ravel.+~wW.w9= 1W tt,f. 1111I,M 27 11IIItl iri !Q![.YKt fJ►R"id 11711 Mtb'~ m 7►~IE7 Ylzt tO !D•W WETLAND DATA,: WMU= nA„A XXV WM- VfWAC_yYM AREU COUNED 0 *1 TOTAL COV, NEILMI)i 75,572 5 (1.71 AcREs) RAM (At-A7j 14,404 SF / 3 • 0,433 SF TOTAL Qn-srtE [RFAi1Q1 wAueLE (Ct-CIOJ I ` TOTAL RGN-►W -ACM YIE LAND AREk 25.720 Sr (0,59 ACRES) 69.404 sr TOM Av4AA9U AlxArcY: 74.230 SF TOTAL SF FA FAST IMPACTED N WETLAND 64,857 Si (1,t4 ACRES) + 1,270 SF 72nd 1nd al. t22 Sr (1.169 ACRES) COYMMRICO C )MhCh M4UJ - 73,235 ■ 1,483 SF WETLYM 0.N AREA- 007 A rC1E9 i . NON-nWA E051 PERwR 7'66! "s Si 1 R!0. AIIfMAflON o 1-11 : 70,86,1 S 7, 1 39.316 gq.ttCG asnw ~atAws "A it vp ~ ~ 1o.69e ~4n.CA 1 4 4 0 0 p -F (ANQ'ANCk.: 3F pp 1 t: txps1r~611ttrAS 0 I ~ I 44F U'D N 3 Si KIM 4' C7D W OQ O'0 ~ pp Cq t IANACIED 0 a o wenAND ;REi NON 0 1 ' 11270 SF -btlP ~ t 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 ~ . 0 4 ' ` ' ULMD ARFk 0 4 067 5F ~ ° ° p o o° 0 4 p a o a 0 4 413 o 0 0 o p MARTIN RWMTY ac oc~ m or, a~ taa s m a cam cSa m TOTS k 111 6F 2#dl~ X/3-ALluto 1 62iRi0 1N14 I 1 I I I 9 . I 664 3F' AREA- 4,249 SF A3 + I 4 7696 Sir . Saltc&-T dr / s 8405 SW Nimbus Avenue • Beaverton, Oregon 97008-7141 I 503.626.0455 Fax 503.526.0775 uG`tl#T;pfiT.E L-ANDS A L.a4. ar71. lrGwy RF "VE'G TRANSMITTAL To: Colin MacLaren Date: January 30, 2002 Company: Oregon Division of State Lands Project Number: 820349 Address 775 Summer Street NE Project Name Tri County Wetland Mitigation Site City/State Salem, OR 97301-1279 Re: First Annual Monitoring Report Phone: 503.378.3805 ext. 244 Fax: Confidentiality Notice: This facsimile is intended only for the use of From: Phil Quarterman the individual and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby Phone: (503) 626-0455 notified that the unautho zed dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received Fax: (503) 526-0775 this facsimile in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect). Thank you. We are sending: These Are Transmitted: Copied To- DD Attached ® For Your Info/File [1 Facsimile ❑ As Requested # Of Pages Including Cover For Review & Comment Copies Description 1 Tri County Wetland Mitigation Site, First Annual Monitoring Report Colin, My apologies for the delay in getting this report to you. U Phil Quarterman whpacifrc.com planners surveyors _...._-ts r T aunty Wetland Mitigation Site 4001 Annual Monitoring Report I TABLE OF CONTENTS i INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------=-----------------2 f Permit Conditions and Additional Actions to Comply with Permit ------------------------2 I YEAR 2001 INVESTIGATION ------------------------------------------------------------------3 E Status ofAdditional Work-------------------------------------------------------------------------3 Survival of Plantings------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 i Natural Regeneration-----------------------------------------------------------------------------6 Wildlife Use ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Other Problems Identified------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 General Assessment and Remedial Measures--------------------------------------------------7 TABLES Table 1 Survival of Original Plantings Table 2 Supplemental Plantings FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Mitigation Plan Showing Photo-Points APPENDICES Appendix A Figures Appendix B Photo-documentation. W&H Pacific Project 820349.00100000 t Tri-Cov' ?Wetland. Mitigation Site 2001,Hnnual Monitoring Report • Install a four-foot high vinyl coated fence to protect the created wetlands and adjacent existing wetlands • Install additional tree and shrub plantings, including black twinberry (not part of the original plantings). Additional plantings were needed on the upland between the downstream ponds, and in the areas of additional grading. Quantities were not specified. • Perform the first year of annual monitoring during 2001, and submit a monitoring report. • Document survival rate of plantings. The permit success standard is an 80% survival rate. The permit included the following maintenance and monitoring conditions: • Maintain the wetland for five years until the vegetation is established and the area is functioning as designed. • Take photographs annually for five years from fixed photo-points, and submit annual monitoring reports. The permit also states that the DSL retains the authority to require corrective actions if the created wetlands are not fimctioning as designed within five years. _ YEAR 2001 INVESTIGATION • We performed an initial reconnaissance on site on January 18 2001, prior to a review of DSL files and the interview with Bill Parks. We performed a monitoring site visit on December 19, 2001. This report documents the results of this monitoring. Status of Additional Work Based on our site investigation: • Additional trees and shrubs have been installed since January 2001. The species, quantities and survival rates are documented below. • Additional grading had been performed in the areas indicated by Bill Parks, prior to January 2001. A pool has been enlarged in the middle section of the mitigation area. Six small pools have been excavated in the upper section of the channel to the east. The slopes have been stabilized with straw mulch and seeded. • The additional root wads have not been installed in the upper pools, in the locations Bill indicated. The lower ponds to the west already have at least seven pieces of large woody debris installed. It is not clear if they are all from the original installation, or whether one root wad was added later in response to Bill's request. W&H Pacific Page 3 Project 820349 Tri-Cc y Wetland Mitigation Site 206 ~ Annual Monitoring Report plants that were absent, based on the quantities in the plans. The percent survival shown in Table I factors in the missing plants. Overall, the rate of survival of the 229 plants shown on the plans was 48% (110). Most of the other plants were absent (101), and nearly all of these were absent from the upstream section. However, the survival rate of the plants actually present was quite high (86%). As a general observation, many of the plants, while alive and established, were not thriving. While certain species had no mortality, survival of other species was low. Significant numbers of red-flowering currant, snowberry, spiraea, and blue elderberry were absent. Of the plants that were present, there was significant mortality among dogwood and blue elderberry. Several other species had a high survival rate among the plants actually present, including vine maple, Oregon grape, ash, spiraea, and snowberry. An ornamental variety of dogwood (Corpus kousa chinensis) had been substituted for the native species Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii). Recent supplemental plantings were distinguished by their fresh wire mesh cages and staking. The Douglas fir, rose and willow had survived well, but the red-twig dogwood had experienced a lot of mortality. No black twinberry plants were included. • TABLE 2: SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS Plant species Quantity Plants Dead % Planted Surviving Plants Survival Douglas fir 15 15 - 100% Red-twig 23 15 8 65.2% dogwood Rose 10 10 - 100% Willows 5 4 1 80% As a general observation, the mortality could be due to a combination of factors. The lack of summer moisture, low fertility of the subsoil exposed by grading, the quality of the plant materials, and predation by animals could all be involved to some degree. The permit conditions did not include a performance standard for herbaceous plantings, or for cover of invasive non-native plants such as reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. The planting plan included large numbers of plugs of small-fruited bulrush and slough sedge. The former species was planted within the inundated parts of the ponds. The sedge was planted along the perimeter of the ponds and the upper channel section. Our W&H Pacific Page 5 Project 820349 Tri-Ci 1 Wetland Mitigation Site 2001 Annual Monitoring Report It appears that the slopes along the site have been maintained by mowing. This has helped to keep the blackberry growth in check. The most significant problem with non-native species is with nutria (as noted above). i Wildlife Use: j In addition to the nutria, we observed several ducks using the site. The predominant species is mallard. We also saw a bufflehead. Other resident or migratory wildfowl probably use the site. A large flock of Canada geese were grazing on the nearby uplands. They evidently also graze in the mitigation site. Other Problems Identified: The stream channel has developed a significant problem with bank and bed erosion. This can be seen in Photo PP2/1. The linear sections of the stream channel, in particular, are experiencing down-cutting and head-cutting. The silty-clay loam bed material is gradually eroding. This is due to the velocity of flow caused by the constrained, linear channel plan form and steep-sided cross-section. The channel has begun to develop small meanders, which has helped to absorb some of the energy. But this has occurred at the expense of bank erosion. Rock weirs were installed at the outlet of the ponds and pools, and this has controlled erosion in most places. Bank erosion has occurred immediately downstream of one rock weir in the western pond complex. The pools created in the channel sections have helped a little by allowing accretion of eroded sediments. General Assessment and Remedial Measures: The site plantings have a generally low rate of survival. It appears that the plantings in the upper channel area were either not completed, or were removed and not fully replaced when the additional grading was performed. The additional plantings done in the last year may have fulfilled the DSL requirement for added plantings, but have not corrected the earlier mortality. Vegetative cover on the site in general is sparse- and largely consists of grasses and other herbaceous vegetation, much of it non-native. This is particularly true on the side-slopes and in the deeper water areas of the ponds. Only along the perimeter of the ponds and stream channels is there reasonably good survival of the original plantings and natural W&H Pacific Page 7 Project 820349 i Tri-Cc-., y Wetland Mitigation Site 2001 Annual Monitoring Report • APPENDIX A FIGURES i W&H Pacific Page 9 Project 820349 l y ; Ir r F + f. j PP1 % 1 t 1 - ~ - " • !--~f.Ly..o ~ ~ ti ~ _ ,pry - yY ' y./ PP1 / 2 .y T f V; A lr3ct~ ' pb3`S ~1` ~ 'p~pFp ~ ~ l ~ r~ 1~iD_ t % i~ ~ ✓9.~ J'4 r,'jrt ,i, t ~ y y w• ~ ~ ~ i~l:'M ttvr~y~ w I ,~~1 - , . ar ~rT~;,~{t c ~ , ~~4tiVk`,~ ~c i~'•S<~cl ~,t~ t b Jvb~,r•.cJ,. x::. ,or. lf~. 1= / 61tf r. It } Y ' 90, lo~ ~Ir ' C~ ' f/~ ~.T$'i~ ~ f•r l:~n?lT,. ~ ice,.;: e i2 k``t~~y'bru ~~'~Yurv~ tt ,i•„"~tn. , kti9(t'. 1~ ~1` C•lSl~, ,yt~~[; , t .q~+~. ~~i 'i~~ =rrti'. ~~y~y~y~ i.•~mA 4 r "V ' `fir I3.j of a _ ft f i~ 1:. •t - ,l.:a~-._ tip` - fir.: ~ 1:',:` 'iP'•.' 1 - I !~i -1 - a1'^" S~ 9 - . { 43 Hsu' - pp1 10 f-' f:. _vJy PP4~1 'i i Jd PP4/2 ANN& ~r L r'. +.rt ~.i * ~1~.;s 4Y~ Sy r{`3~ ,tl„t!'~~T , 1 ~ r' R Lkl3r',C,t At. 1,~r~~t! 1 {t ' 1 MA { a t iv rr 1f3~Y~1'~ fhb Ft a r t f t{(l1° KV 1Jr i r~yZ' `l f,"]~.~.1 `s, L .i` !d' Y~I~ y!{j 7 o T•'~•~ 'Fr~` ~ ~ {y7,t.,S't~iP!<Ifr~~ 5 ! rity":t1f!p~t -I F .yr ; A y,,~~y~ ~~y~t w ' f t}tf k ,kC~t ` d Y T if a ~1 kN t~ 4 tJ{.• !!S , 'j•-+~' V, , , r~ilGC1l~~+tt~~ 1 t) I~ ~ r!! S cyl ~~'l Y.- ~ ~lhx~ 4 ~t "5- '~tt ~'y~„ . 1. Y I, ,ci {1f "r'~ ~ ' i ~a S~~' '1~~ ~ - it r~ ir~ F , 1{ s ~ y J F. r r f it w ~ J 00 y' 41' Ab ~f~ ,,rC .i iii ~1~ . ^ f~j. J ,(r~!~~'Y' ~ 5'^t T y' ty~'j~ ~ 'X•'~; fit:.,` ~f~ l y titFs~~- I V . y'`-~ ~~Y(s"~~; ~ J Y~+1 1 1116a'/J~I~~~~cc'• ~ ~yr~.1v y 1 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES City of Tigard , Memorandum To: Dick Berwersdorff, Current Planning Manager From: Tom Coffee, Community Development Director j Re: Initiating Comprehensive Plan Amendment Date: July 31, 2008 PacTrust is pursuing development of a tract of land in the Tigard Triangle formerly known as the Tri- County Shopping Center property on SW Dartmouth Street. At their pre-application conference held June 12, 2008 the City discovered that the City's Significant Wetlands Inventory still showed significant wetlands on portions of the site which is inconsistent with a prior land use approval for Tri-County (CPA98-0002), and the facts on the ground. The City Attorney has recommended processing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to correct the error. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/ Site Development Review (SDR) 98-0002/Planned Development Review (PDR) 98-0001 /Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98-0004 approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resources Overly District, including fill and mitigation of a portion of existing wetlands on the property, and other development. The staff report states in part: If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. Because an existing map format was prepared for all designated sites. If this application is approved staff will undertake the appropriate revisions to the resource maps. Apparently, the resource maps were not revised as indicated in the finding. Meanwhile, grading, filling and mitigation occurred on the ground, even though the development was not built. The City's Significant Wetlands Inventory is in error, as follows: 1) Significant wetlands were not removed 2) Mitigation wetlands were not mapped 3) The Significant Habitat Areas map, based on the wetland inventory, needs revision Therefore, pursuant to TDC 18.390.080.D, the Director initiates a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to correct these errors, effective immediately. 7 3/` O Tom Coffee, Com ty Development Director Date Tri-County Shopping Center Significant Wetland and Stream Corridor Map and Significant Habitat Areas Map Amendment (CPA 2008-00010/SLR 2008-00005) Agenda Item #4 - November 25, 2008 Statement by City Attorney - Quasi-Judicial Land Use Hearing Procedures A copy of the rules of procedure for today's hearing is available at the entrance. The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website and a paper copy of the staff report has been available in the Tigard Public Library for the last seven days. The Council's role in this hearing is to make a land use decision under existing laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Any person may offer testimony. Please wait until you are asked to speak by the Mayor and try to limit your remarks to the application standards for the application. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any conflicts of interest. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member will not participate. Council members must declare any contacts about this case with a member of the public. Council members must also declare if they have independent knowledge of relevant facts, such as from a visit to the site in question. A Council member who describes ex parte contacts or independent information may still participate in the decision. After the discussion of conflicts and ex parte contacts, any person may challenge the participation of a Council member or rebut any statements made. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. Tonight, City staff will summarize the written staff report. Then the parties requesting f he app/) c-qftet, -action and those in favor of the proposal testify. Next witnesses who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. If there is opposition or if there are questions, the proponents can respond to them. The Council members also may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, including any rebuttal, the proponents can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re-open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. You may testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. You should to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that and add any additional points of your own. Please refrain from disruptive demonstrations. Comments from the audience will not be part of the record. The point is, come to the microphone to get your comments recorded, otherwise, they won't be preserved for appeal. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, spelling your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder who will mark these exhibits as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask them to return your exhibits. I:\ADM\Cathy\CCA\quasi judicial rules of procedure\Rules of Procedure -City Attorney QJ Statement - Tri-County Shopping Center Map Amendment - November 25, 2008.doc AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: November 25, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN- UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - TRI- COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER SIGNIFICANT WETLAND AND STREAM CORRIDOR MAP AND SIGNIFICANT HABITAT AREAS MAP AMENDMENT (CPA 2008-00010/SLR 2008-00005) REQUEST: The Director requests a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to correct the City's Significant Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map in the vicinity of SW Dartmouth and Hwy 217. The Tigard City Council approved the Tri-County Shopping Center proposal (Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/Site Development Review (SDR) 98- 0002/Planned Development Review (PDR) 98-0001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98- 0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98-0004), which approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resources Overly District, including fill and mitigation of a approximately 1.41 acres of existing wetlands on the property, and other development. The resource maps were not revised as indicated in the findings for the decision. Meanwhile, Army Corps of Engineers and Department of State Lands permits were obtained and grading, filling and mitigation occurred even though the remainder of the development was not built. The Significant Habitat Areas map, based on the wetland inventory, is also in error and needs revision accordingly. Although Council's approval of CPA98-00002 legally amended the Cites Significant Wetlands Map, the Director's application is to formally correct the error in mapping. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony I/AD W Cathy/CCSignup/QJPH081125 AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: November 25, 2008 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Agenda Item # 5 Meeting Date November 25, 2008 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title: Amendment to Ordinance No. 06-21 (Local Fuel Tax Ordinance) Extending the Period of Collection Prepared By: A. P. Duenas Dept Head Okay ~G City Mgr Okay ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall Council approve an amendment to Ordinance No. 06-21 (Local Fuel Tax Ordinance) extending the period of collection to fully finance and pay for the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection improvements? STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council pass the attached amendment to Ordinance No. 06-21 extending the collection period until sufficient funds are collected to fully finance and pay for the intersection improvements. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The total current project cost estimate for the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street Intersection Improvement Project as of September 2008 is approximately $5.1 million in 2008 dollars. • The current fuel tax collections are not at the level needed to fully fund the intersection improvements. The existing ordinance calls for the local fuel tax to expire December 31, 2011, unless renewed by Council. • City Council has indicated a preference for extension of the fuel tax collection period to address the funding shortfall. • The collection period should be extended until sufficient funds have been collected to fully finance and pay for the intersection improvements. The attached amendment to Ordinance No. 06-21 revises the expiration date to allow for collections sufficient to fully fund the project. The amendment to the ordinance is worded in a way to ensure that the funding needed for the project would be collected before the tax expires. • Based on funding collections to date and projecting collections forward, the shortfall is expected to be slightly more than $3.1 million, which will have to be covered through a bond issue. Using an interest rate of 5.5% (recommended by the City's financial advisor) and 2% cost of issue, the loan amount is expected to be approximately $3.2 million. The monthly revenue collected is currently averaging approximately $56,300 per month. The City's Finance Director recommends using $45,000 per month for repayment of the loan. • The proposed amendment to the ordinance will continue the collections until sufficient funds are collected to fully finance and pay for the project costs. Based on the preceding information, the length of time needed to pay off the bond issue will be determined at the time of bond sale, but is currently estimated to be 8 years from date of issuance. • The proposed amendment also clarifies the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W intersection to more fully define it as the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection. Attached is a conceptual design drawing which depicted the intersection improvements envisioned at the establishment of the local fuel tax in December 2006. • The proposed amendment is submitted for Council consideration at this meeting. A public hearing will be conducted so that Council can hear public testimony prior to taking any action on the amendment. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Adopt a combination of fuel tax increase and period extension to collect the needed funding sooner. If the tax is increased from 3 to 5 cents per gallon, the collection period could be significantly reduced. COUNCIL GOALS This addresses Goal 1: "Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard." ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 06-21 2. Conceptual Drawing for the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W intersection showing Main Street as an integral part of the intersection improvements FISCAL NOTES The proposed ordinance extends the collection period until such time as sufficient funds are collected to finance and pay for the intersection improvements. The collection of the local fuel tax will cease as soon as practical following assurance of full funding for the project, coordination with ODOT to end collections, and adequate notice to the fuel dealers paying the tax to ensure they do not continue the monthly payments. is\eng\gus\council agenda summaries\2008\11-25-08 amendment to ordinance no. 06.21 ais.doc e 'v - AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: November 25, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY SIGN- UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 06-21 (LOCAL FUEL TAX ORDINANCE) EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF COLLECTION Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony is\adm\gmer\ciq-c-J\ccsig-p\ph o dinamedm AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: November 25, 2008 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. /A ~ZDivIA~ ~ ~ 707 5L7 P(n 62. ' ' 72- 0s- S?J3- 8090 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.