02/11/2009 - Packet City of Tigard
s
City Center Advisory Commission — Agenda
MEETNG DATE: Wednesday, February 11, 2009— 6:30-8:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Red Rock Creek Conference Room, City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. Welcome and Introductions ....................................................................................................6:30—6:35
2. Check-in......................................................................................................................................6:40—6:55
3. Review / Approve Minutes .........................................................................I...........................6:55 — 7:00
4. Work Program—Progress Update..........................................................................................7:00 — 7:15
Storefront Improvement Program..........................................................................................7:15 — 7:45
(Phil Nachbar)
6. Budget Overview— CIP / Operating Budget / Urban Renewal........................................7:45 — 8:30
7. Organizational Leadership — Downtown...............................................................................8:30 — 8:50
(Discussion - Preparation for Feb 17 Council Mtg.)
8. Other Business...........................................................................................................................8:50 — 8:55
9. Adjourn ......................................................................................................................................8:55 p.m.
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA— February 11, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 off
V— ,, City Center Advisory Commission
Meeting Minutes
Date of Meeting: February 11, 2009
Location: Red Rock Creek Conference Room
Called to order by: Chair Alice Ellis Gaut
Time Started: 6:30 p.m.
Time Ended: 9:05 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Chair Alice Ellis Gaut; Ralph Hughes; Kevin
Kutcher; Lily Lilly; Peter Louw;Thomas Murphy; Elise Shearer; Martha Wong; Vice Chair
Alexander Craghead (alternate); Linli Pao (alternate)
Commissioners Absent:
Others Present: Marland Henderson, Mike Marr
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Phil Nachbar, Downtown
Redevelopment Manager;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant
AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Ron Bunch, new Community Development
Director, introduced himself and provided a brief history of his career.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Commissioner Shearer asked if the CCAC could get
a map of the Downtown area that shows property lines and existing streets. Ron Bunch will
ask staff to provide such a map.
AGENDA ITEM #2: Check In
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Commissioner Kutcher thanked
Commissioner Craghead for leading a walking tour of the Downtown. The tour was very
beneficial and it was recommended that others take such a tour. Commissioners Craghead
and Louw volunteered to be tour guides.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 11,2009 Page 1 of 8
Commissioner Craghead handed out a list of possible topics for discussion at the retreat on
February 16`h (Exhibit A). For preparation, Chair Ellis Gaut encouraged the Commissioners
to think about their primary concerns from the items on the list. If there's something that is
not on the list, please send an email to the Chair or the Vice Chair. Commissioner Pao
suggested adding a discussion on forming subcommittees to the list.
Commissioner Lilly reported that the CPAH eco-charrette was great. She encouraged the
Commissioners to read the report that she provided.
Commissioner Louw stated that the opening week of the WES Commuter Rail went very
well. He's starting to see a few people in the Downtown and noted that the lack of public
restroom facilities is an issue. Mike Marr advised that the Tigard Downtown Improvement
Plan calls for restrooms in the Downtown. Commissioner Barkley noted that TriMet has
installed public restrooms in other locations, but they are only open for a few months
because they get torn up and have to be closed down. Commissioner Louw advised that
Waterfront Park has public restrooms. A lot of cities use pay toilets to subsidize the
maintenance.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Phil Nachbar will see if there's an opportunity to add
public restrooms in the TriMet building.
AGENDA ITEM #3: Review/Approve Minutes
Important Discussion and/or Comments: None
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by
Commissioner Barkley, to approve the January 14, 2009 minutes as submitted. The motion
passed by a vote of 8-0; Commissioner Louw abstained.
AGENDA ITEM #4: Work Program —Progress Update
Important Discussion and/or Comment: Phil Nachbar reviewed the 08-09 work
program with the Commissioners (Exhibit B). He advised that the Plaza site acquisition is
on hold until Council decides on the specifics of a parks bond measure.
There are funds to look at a feasibility study for mixed use development on the Transit
Center site. Staff has been talking to Dave Nicoli about including private property in this
study. He may be interested in working with the City and may participate in the study.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 11,2009 Page 2 of 8
Staff reported that the Main Street design is underway. There will be extensive public
involvement with this when the final design starts coming together. Chair Ellis Gaut asked
for clarification that there is still opportunity for public input in the final design phase. Phil
Nachbar advised that Main Street has been designed in concept and has gone through the
planning stages. That concept will now be put into a final design; the next level will be more
detailed. At that point, there will be public involvement.
The Commission discussed Hunziker Street. Since 99W / Hall Blvd. will be undergoing
improvements, would it be possible to move Hunziker project up on the project list?
Nachbar said it's a matter of how we perceive and prioritize the project. How important is it
with respect to all the things we're doing in the Downtown? Is it something we want to
spend a lot of money on now or is it a project to come later?
He advised that there is no concept design for the Hunziker-Scoffins intersection yet. It
could be an expensive project because the City will need to acquire property. It was
suggested that, possibly in the meantime, improvements could be installed on one side of the
street. Other suggestions included moving the Hunziker-Scoffins up on the list and
accelerating the Downtown traffic study.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): This topic is a concern to the Commissioners and
will be discussed again at a later time.
AGENDA ITEM #5: Storefront Improvement Program
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Phil Nachbar discussed the Downtown
Fagade Improvement Program (Exhibit C). He provided information on programs at other
cities and reviewed the possible options for Council to consider. He advised that Options 2
and 3 are the basically the same; however, under Option 2, projects with a substantial match
for a $5,000 grant would be given priority.
Commission comments/questions (staff comments in italics):
Why would the City be willing to improve buildings without any contribution from the
owner? In these economic times, it may be hard for owners to spend any money on anything. If the City's
goal is to spend this grant money to improve the Downtown, we would most likely have participation if there
was no match requirement.
Maybe we could consider a different percentage match, e.g., for every dollar the owner
spends, the City spends two dollars. This could be a possible option.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 11,2009 Page 3 of 8
Is the reimbursement for using an architect tied in any way to the Option 1, Option 2,
Option 3 choice? For example, if the City went with the Option 3 choice, would they still
offer the 15% reimbursement for using an architect? Discussion is open for ways to make the
program work. It may be a good suggestion to offer the funds without a match, but require architectural work
for the project. The owner would then pay the architectural costs. The PDC finds that if owners work with
architects, they re better able to get proposals that actually improve the visual quality of the storefront, and it
heos with the contract and bidding process.
That's captured under Option 2. The first $5,000 doesn't require a 50% match, but any
contribution potentially gives the owner priority or some kind of advantage in the scoring.
An underlying premise of this program is that it's desirable if the money is spent— it's
worthwhile to do this kind of fagade improvement and for the City to contribute to it.
Provided that the proposed improvements meet the guidelines, it's better if the money gets
spent than if it doesn't. Option 2 provides the greatest flexibility and the greatest prospect
that the work will actually get done.
We could add a time limit. We can use the no-match option to spur on people to take action
and to kick it into gear so people see something happening, but put a time limit for the free
$5,000.
Portland has an option where they exempt improvements to buildings in development zones
from taxes for the amount of the improvements. The building holds the same value for 10
years or until the building is sold. While the City doesn't benefit from the increase in
revenue, it also doesn't lose capital. This would be an attractive option for the City to
explore.
There's also an option of funding for new energy-saving windows and things that might be
incorporated into this plan. That could benefit a lot of the businesses.
Is there a distinction between a building that is for sale and a building where the owner is
asking for the grant? Would there be a different kind of program that the City would
employ, such as the PDC does when it's trying to spur on economic development? There is
no distinction in this program. Currently, there's not a high vacancy rate, so we're not addressing that
problem directly.
Why are landscaping and sidewalks excluded? The biggest return for the money is probably to
improve the building. Sidewalks will be addressed more with the Main Street improvements. We're hying to
focus the money on the real estate and the visual perception of the building.
Why is it restricted only to Main Street? Wle'll focus our energy on the hub of activity, the area of
Main Street where most of the retail is occurring. We have limited dollars and it's not likely that Council
CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 11,2009 Page 4 of 8
will allocate a large sum for this project. We re trying to make the most impact for the amount of money that
we have.
I'll be happy to see any of the money spent. I'm afraid we're going to box ourselves into
corners if we get too precise about where we want to put this. If there's a maximum of
$5,000 per property, that's at least 12 projects per year. We may not see 12 projects in the
entire district. I don't think we should turn someone down on Commercial Street if they
want to do something with their building. When we're trying to redevelop and create a critical mass of
change, it makes sense to focus the assistance in areas. Just like we've decided to build Burnham Street, then
build Main Street, and then focus on the playa and adjoining development in that area. That's a core area
that we've identified as where we're starfing from. Things follow from there.
For some period of time, we can have it open to Main Street and then open it up to
everyone after that.
This is kind of a pilot program. It makes sense to concentrate it because the effect can be
seen and evaluated a little more if the scope geographically is limited.
Maybe we could do a one-year test run on Main Street only and then expand it to other
streets.
I would have concerns about a project with a minimal economic contribution automatically
jumping ahead of a really good project for an owner who may not have the money to
contribute, but has a good idea.
Phil Nachbar advised that the proposed program will go to Council on February 17`''. He is
hoping to come away from the meeting with some general direction. He would then like to
get input from property owners on Main Street to determine their level of interest in the
program. He clarified that the program would meet the new zoning requirements and
design guidelines, even though they won't be adopted by the time the program would go
into effect.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Kutcher, seconded by
Commissioner Murphy, to support the idea of a fagade improvement program, details to be
determined. The motion passed by a vote of 8-1; Commissioner Louw voted against the
motion.
AGENDA ITEM #6: Budget Overview—CIP / Operating Budget / Urban Renewal
CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 11, 2009 Page 5 of 8
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Phil Nachbar briefed the Commission on the
proposed 09-10 Urban Renewal budget (Exhibit D), Downtown Redevelopment operating
budget (Exhibit E), and Capital Improvement Program budget (Exhibit F). If the
Commissioners think the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) list matches what
the CCAC priorities are, they could make recommendations to support it.
Nachbar noted that the operating budget is money that's planned for use next fiscal year,
pending Council approval of moving forward with the parks bond measure to acquire the
Stevens property. He believes that by June, we'll have an idea of what the bond measure will
look like and if the Plaza site will be in the bond measure.
Much of the environmental consulting costs are associated with the Plaza site. It was
suggested that possibly we could offer to pay for the remediation work if the railroad would
give us a crossing at Ash Creek.
Nachbar advised that before we conduct any of the development studies, we want to make
sure property owners are interested in working with us. He noted that the demolition/site
clearance study is for the Public Works site.
Commissioner Craghead clarified that the money for the Downtown circulation plan is not
reflected in these budget documents. Phil Nachbar said it is being paid from this year's
budget.
Chair Ellis Gaut noted that last year, the CCAC requested and Council approved, $100,000
for consulting and relocation costs (sort of a contingency fund). She wonders if it would be
prudent to request an additional amount in this year's budget. It could be used to pay for
those items that we cannot identify now, but if they arose, we would be prepared. Nachbar
noted that last year we had $195,000 total in that line item and this year we're requesting
$257,000. He believes that requesting any more might be unreasonable.
Commissioner Craghead asked if the numbers are close to what we anticipate spending or
are they estimates. Nachbar responded that they're rounded numbers, but they're based on
his understanding of what things cost. He also used consultants to give him an idea of some
of the costs.
Commissioner Craghead asked if there were things that rise on the priority list that we want
to make sure are approved by the Budget Committee. Nachbar believes the option
agreement for the Stevens property is important. He also believes that we may be able to do
less environmental work. Also, one of the development studies might not be done next
year. There's flexibility in the budget.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 11, 2009 Page 6 of 8
The Urban Renewal budget shows how money would be spent over the next 5 years
(Exhibit D). Staff reviewed the projects that would be paid directly from Urban Renewal tax
increment funds. This is another aspect of the budget that the Commission can endorse or
provide comment on.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Lilly, seconded by
Commissioner Wong, to endorse the Capital Improvement and operating budgets for
Downtown projects for fiscal year 2009-10. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion by Commissioner Kutcher, seconded by Commissioner Barkley, to endorse to the
Urban Renewal budget to the CCDA as presented for fiscal year 2009-10. If adopted by the
CCDA, Commissioner Murphy asked to what extent it is binding as written. Phil Nachbar
said that basically, the CCAC is endorsing the use of funds to be paid with Urban Renewal
dollars. It doesn't specify that a bond has to be issued at a specified time.
Nachbar clarified that the CCAC would be endorsing this as a 5-year budget rather than a 1-
year budget. He advised that in fiscal year 09-10, the request is for $60,000 from general
fund money to be used for the facade improvement program and $60,000 from gas tax
funds to pay for the Main Street grant match. It would also endorse the use of Urban
Renewal dollars to pay back the general and gas tax funds and pay for the other projects
from a bond that would be issued at some point in time.
The motion was withdrawn. A new motion by Commissioner Kutcher, seconded by
Commissioner Barkley, to endorse the use of$60,000 of gas tax funds in fiscal year 09-10 for
the Main Street grant match, and the use of$60,000 in general fund dollars in fiscal year 09-
10 for the facade improvement program;we further endorse the proposed Urban Renewal
budget for fiscal years 09-14 as drafted as of February 5, 2009. The motion passed by a vote
of 8-0; Commissioner Hughes abstained.
AGENDA ITEM #7: Organizational Leadership — Downtown
Important Discussion and/or Comments: For the Council workshop next week, Chair
Ellis Gaut thought the subcommittee could begin the discussion with an overview of the
research that lead up to the final recommendation for Downtown leadership. Commissioner
Craghead anticipates that the CCAC could also update Council on their goal setting efforts.
To improve the lines of communication, the Commission would like to invite Kim McMillan
to give them a presentation on the Main Street project. They would also like to establish
personal relationships with more key players.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 11,2009 Page 7 of 8
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Kim McMillan will be invited to attend the next
meeting to provide an update on Main Street.
AGENDA ITEM #8: Other Business
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Commissioner Lilly announced that she will
be moving out of the Tigard area on March 8`''. It was noted that the bylaws don't address
what happens when a Commissioner moves out of the district in the middle of the term.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will check with the Mayor on how he would
like to handle the vacancy.
AGENDA ITEM #9: Adjournment
Important Discussion and/or Comments: None
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Je ee Lewis, CCAC Secretary
ATTEST:L if
G air Alice Ellis Gaut
CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 11,2009 Page 8 of 8
CCAC Retreat Agenda Proposal
Potential Agenda Items
Goal setting
What's on the horizon
What we feel the need to do
Prioritize and set goals
Bylaws, do they need examination?
Agenda setting
External constraints
Proposed procedure for origination, drafting, & feedback
Agenda item request procedure?
Elections
Deadlines & public meetings laws
Nomination, deliberation & discussion periods
Annual report
Deadlines
Incorporation of annual goals
Meeting times & locations
Frequency vs. length
Updates vs. action items (Time management)
Formats: formal, workshop, charrette?
Communication to staff, council
Organizational Chart changes?
Joint meeting with Council
Development of an Annual Commission calendar, yes or no?
cy,
MEMORANDUM
D
TO: Alice Ellis Gaut, Chair CCAC
FROM: Phil Nachbar, Redevelopment Manager
RE: FY 08-09 Work Program - Project Updates
DATE: February 5, 2009
1. Burnham St. —Budget: est$8 million. Fund: Gas Tax / TIF. Burnham St. —Budget:
est $8 million. Fund: Gas Tax / TIF. There are 22 properties in total, 9 properties
have been acquired, 6 property acquisition prices have been agreed upon and the
remaining 7 are in the beginning stages of negotiations. The goal is to be in a
position to bid the project in the spring 2009 with construction beginning in July.
2. Lower Fanno Creek Park Construction Documents / Permitting Contract - Budget:
est. $ 150,000 Fund: Parks SDC's. Staff has reduced the contract in light of
uncertain long-term funding for construction of the Park. The contract will produce
design development documents and permitting for the entire Lower Park. This will
enable the Lower Park to be shovel-ready and be in a position to be constructed
when a funding source is confirmed. There are several potential sources of funds
including a Parks bond measure, a federal stimulus package, or grants. Walker Macy
has awarded the contract to provide final construction documents and permitting for
Lower Fanno Creek Park.
3. Lower Fanno Creek Park— Construction Budget: $50,000 Fund: Parks SDC's .
Since there is no established construction funding for the Lower Park, anticipated
construction in the Spring 09 will not take place. However, CWS will be completing
the re-meander, ponds and bank stabilization in the summer of 2009. The City will
be providing construction of a trail skirting the ponds, and assisting in other
construction associated with the re-meander project. It is expected that the re-
meander and associated work will be completed by November 2009.
4. Fanno Creek Park Land - Acquisition Budget: varies; Fund: Parks SDC's Staff has
proceeded with the acquisition of the rear portion of the Stevenson property for
expansion of Lower Fanno Creek Park, and use in conjunction with the CWS re-
meander project. An agreement for acquisition of approximately 2.6 acres has been
completed, and closing is anticipated in March 2009. Environmental evaluation of
Downtown Work Program Update—Feb 5
Page 1
the wetlands portion of the Stevens Marine property (1.2 acres) has been on-going as
a necessary step before making an offer to purchase the property for expansion of
Lower Fanno Creek Park.
5. Stevens Marine- Plaza Site Acquisition Budget: est. $ 3.5 million Fund:
Undetermined. Staff has worked closely with Stevens Marine for development of an
option agreement, but has taken time to evaluate the City's resources for acquisition.
Council goals for 2009 include the development of a Parks Bond Measure to acquire
the plaza site. Once a final funding source for the project has been decided, and a
timeframe established, a full option agreement for acquisition of the property will be
pursued.
6. Transit Center Redevelopment Budget: $40,000 Fund: Operating Budget
(Consulting services): This project is intended to set the ground work for a joint
development agreement with TriMet for redevelopment of the Transit Center site at
a later time. An Inter- Governmental Agreement (IGA) between the City, TriMet and
Metro to conduct a feasibility study of redevelopment of the TriMet Transit Center
on Commercial St. has been executed. Consultants will evaluate the TriMet site and
adjoining private property for a mixed-used project (housing / commercial / office)
on the sites. A contract will be signed in late February or early March.
7. Hall / 99W Study Budget: $25,000 Fund: Operating Budget The Leland Study
identified this area as a prime location for redevelopment and recommended that a
development opportunity study of specific properties be done. The first step is to
meet with property owners to determine the level of interest, and if there is
willingness to work with the City to determine the potential for a project. Staff has
contacted several property owners in the area, and is determining whether a project
can be developed. The City would manage a team including property owners, a
consultant, and interested Developers to assess the potential for future investment.
8. Hall / 99W Gateway Improvements Budget: $260,000. Fund: Gas Tax / County /
Urban Renewal. Staff has identified ROW requirements for development of the
"Gateway" to Downtown; the first stage of the plan includes widened sidewalks,
undergrounding of utilities on the south side, street trees, and an area for a gateway
feature at the southeast corner of the intersection. There has been no concept
development of an entry feature itself. The timing for design and construction for an
entryway feature will likely not occur until redevelopment occurs. Staff will evaluate
the use of development standards for a second stage of improvements that would
take place when redevelopment of the area occurs.
9. Temporary Main St. Improvements Budget: $20,000 Fund: General Fund. The
addition of potted trees on Main St. has been discussed by the CCAC and Staff. A
proposal will be presented to the CCAC and the CCDA prior to implementation.
Downtown Work Program Update—Feb 5
Page 2
The CCAC recommended removal of concrete containers holding signage, and a
letter will be sent out to downtown business owners in March.
10. Downtown Storefront Improvement Program Budget (proposed): $60,000 Fund:
General Fund / Urban Renewal. Staff has prepared a memo and program proposal
to the City Center Development Agency for consideration at the February 17th
workshop. In general, the program would provide a grant program for property /
business owners of Main St. commercial property only to assist in improving the
visual appearance of the street-side of buildings. The proposal provides options and
eligibility requirements for an initial program for FY 09-10 pending CCDA direction.
11. Housing Development: No direct funding: Staff is assisting Community Partners for
Affordable Housing (CPAH) to expedite planning requirements for their project to
construct senior, affordable housing in Downtown. The Planning Commission has
recommended approval to Council for a Comprehensive Plan / zoning map change.
The land use action will go to Council February 24th for a final decision.
12. Organizational Leadership & Capacity in Downtown: No direct funding. The Leland
Report (Sept 07) provide several recommendations for developing organizational
leadership in the private sector in downtown. The CCAC was tasked with reviewing
the recommendations, and providing suggestions to the CCDA as to the best course
of action. The CCAC has worked on the issue over the past year, conducted its own
research and evaluation, and will provide its preliminary recommendations to the
CCDA at a February 171h workshop.
Downtown Work Program Update—Feb 5
Page 3
Cx. �
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Center Development Agency (CCDA)
FROM: Phil Nachbar, Redevelopment Manager
RE: Downtown Commercial Facade Improvement Program
DATE: February 3, 2009
Tigard Downtown Commercial Facade Improvement Program
Background / Goals: The City Center Urban Renewal Plan authorizes several types of
planning and development assistance within the District including loans or grants for
rehabilitation of private property, commercial fagade improvements, redevelopment, new
development or technical assistance for property development. The Commercial Fagade
Improvement Program is used in Oregon and throughout the country and, in particular,
where states are authorized to utilize tax increment financing. The use of commercial
storefront renovation is usually a part of a larger redevelopment program, and supports
economic development of existing businesses. The Program serves a dual purpose: to assist
property and businesses to improve the storefront appearance of property within a
commercial district, and to create a distinct identity for a Downtown that is visually
appealing and unified. The provision of a grant to businesses for improvements can be
viewed as economic incentive in that it both assists existing businesses but may also be used
as a way to attract new businesses to a vacant building. Businesses considering renting a
vacant space would view the opportunity to improve their storefront at no or minimal cost
as an incentive to locating in that particular building. Improvements would be used to
enhance the architectural integrity and character of commercial buildings within a defined
area of the Urban Renewal District.
It should be remembered that the appearance of buildings is only one factor that contributes
to the perception people have of an area. Other factors include the street itself and its
design including sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, and maintenance of the area. In contrast to
a commercial facade program focused on Main Street, the planned redesign and construction
of Main Street will have a major impact on the commercial district and the perception of the
area.
Other Programs and Eligibility Criteria: The cities of Portland, Lake Oswego, Hillsboro, and
Beaverton all have some type of commercial fagade improvement program. Tualatin has
Downtown Fagade Program Proposal
Page 1
had a program for over 10 years but discontinued it last year. The Portland Development
Commission (PDC) manages their Storefront Improvement Program in several Urban
Renewal Districts. PDC provides a 50-50% matching grant up to $20,000 per project. In
general, most programs require that the private property owner or business owner match the
grant provided by the public agency. The reason for this is to establish that both the public
agency and private property owner place the same value and importance on the proposed
improvements. For example, an applicant to the PDC program can obtain a grant for up to
$20,000 for improvements to the front facade only of a building if the applicant matches the
amount of grant provided. Both the PDC grant, and the private contribution must be used
on the exterior facade of the building only. PDC has an extensive program with 250 active
projects and 4 staff persons managing projects.
Grant funds may be applied to building facades visible to the street only, and can be used to
reimburse permit and design fees. In general,work which does not affect the visual
appearance of buildings is not eligible. Roofs,structural foundation work, security systems,
non-permanent fixtures, sidewalks or paving are not eligible under PDC's program. Unique
to PDC's program is the reimbursement of the cost of an architect to assist in the design and
contracting process. Architects are able to assist property owners in defining the type of
improvements that will have the greatest visual impact, and work through the bidding /
contracting process.
Lake Oswego's program provides grants up to $15,000 with no private match required but
projects that have a participant match are given priority. Lake Oswego grants may be used
for the exterior facades of buildings, signage, landscape or parking lot improvements, city
fees, and design fees. Hillsboro provides a smaller grant amount of up to $5,000 and
requires an equivalent private match. Hillsboro's program budgets a total of$25,000
annually for their program. Beaverton's Facade Program utilizes CDBG funds and has a
maximum grant amount of$20,000.
While both the PDC and Beaverton programs fund larger grant amounts ($20,000), and the
Hillsboro program funds a smaller grant amount ($5,000), both types of programs fund
similar types of improvements. All programs fund improvements such as signage, canopies
/ awnings, painting, masonry repair and cleaning, exterior lighting, doors, and windows. The
difference would be the total amount of work done on each project. When projects have
multiple construction items, the total cost can easily add to $20,000 to $30,000 and above.
Depending on the goals of the program, the total grant amount could be structured
accordingly. Total project costs to make basic repairs and improve the "drive-by"
appearance would range from $5,000 - $20,000; more extensive repairs and modifications
would range from $20,000 - $40,000.
Design Requirements: Most programs do not have strict design requirements but go
through some type of review process. Lakes Oswego's program requires that improvements
implement the objectives of the Urban Design Plan. Tigard would have similar
requirements and as a requirement of the grant program would ensure that all proposed
Downtown Facade Program Proposal
Page 2
improvements meet the City's new Downtown Design Guidelines, now under development.
All applicable Development and Building Code standards would also be required. If a
commercial facade program were implemented in Tigard beginning July 1, 2009, it would be
possible to condition the receipt of grant funds on conformance with the City's new
Downtown Design Guidelines, even though adoption of the new Downtown Design
Guidelines is not anticipated until later in the year.
Funding_Source: Currently there are no available funding sources for the start of a program
in FY 09-10 except the City's General Fund. For years FY 2010 through FY 2014, there will
be sufficient urban renewal funds to fund a commercial fagade improvement program in
addition to other projects. City General Funds allocated for the first year of the program
starting FY 09-10 could be paid back through execution of an interagency loan fund between
the City and the City Center Urban Renewal Agency (CCDA) authorized by Council.
Program Options: Key options to consider in setting up a program include the total annual
budgeted amount for the program, the maximum amount of a grant per project, eligibility
criteria for applicants and work performed, and the application and approval process. The
application and approval process would be developed if a program were established. In
general, it is beneficial to simplify application requirements so that participation in the
program is maximized.
Requirements for Grant Math: One of the key aspects of the program which will affect
participation is the amount of private match required. While most programs require a 50—
50% match of grant to private funds, it may be difficult to obtain participation especially
during current economic conditions. For example, Hillsboro experienced great initial interest
in their program last fiscal year; eight (8)grants were awarded, but none executed. Though it
is preferred that a public grant amount be matched with an equivalent private amount,
obtaining the highest level of participation is a key goal. The following provides three
options for structuring the amount private participation; Option 1 would required the
greatest amount of private match, and Option 3 the least; it would expected that Option 3
would result in the highest level of participation among property owners, and Option 1 the
least.
Option 1: (required match of 50— 50%with a maximum grant amount of$10,000)
Option 2: (no match required up to $5,000 but projects with substantial participant match
given priority; 50— 50 % match required above $5,000 to a maximum grant amount of
$10,000)
Option 3: (no match required up to $5,000; 50 -50 % match required above $5,000 to a
maximum grant amount of$10,000)
Total GrantAmount Grant amounts provided by other cities range from $5,000 to $20,000.
The lower end would provide the minimum amount for basic improvements with the higher
Downtown Facade Program Proposal
Page 3
amount providing for more significant improvements. A suggested total grant amount of
$10,000 represents a mid-range grant amount that could address a range of improvements.
The total grant amount could be lowered to $5,000 to reflect a more basic program with the
opportunity for the amount to be used by more businesses than a higher amount.
Eligible Work: Rehabilitation of building facades visible to the street, including storefronts;
cornices, gutters and downspouts; signs and graphics; exterior lighting; canopies and
awnings; painting and masonry cleaning; interior window display lighting, permit and design
fees.
Ineligible Work: Maintenance work;roofs; structural foundations; billboards; security
systems; non-permanent fixtures;interior window coverings;vinyl awnings; personal
property and equipment; security bars;razor ./ barbed wire fencing; landscaping, sidewalks
and paving.
Eligible Participants: Commercial property owners and business lessees of property with
written authorization of the property owner (for properties located on Main Street in Tigard
only).
Ineligible Participants:
• National franchises / for profit corporations with multiple locations outside the
Portland Metro Area, unless the corporation is headquartered in Portland;
• Government offices and agencies (non-governmental tenants are eligible);
• Properties primarily in residential use
Downtown Fagade Program Proposal
Page 4
Commercial Fa5ade Improvement Program Options
Estimated Annual Budget $60,000
Private Match Requirements
Option 1 Required Match of 50—50%with a Maximum Grant Amount of
$10,000
No Match Required Up to $5,000 but projects with substantial
Option 2 participant match given priority; 50— 50 % match required above
$5,000 to a maximum grant amount of$10,000
Option 3 No Match Required Up to $5,000; 50 -50 % match required above
$5,000 to a maximum grant amount of$10,000
Maximum Grant Amount $10,000
Commercial property owners and business lessees of property with
Eligible Participants written authorization of the property owner (for properties located on
Main Street in Tigard only)
Ineligible Participants National franchises, Government offices and agencies, residential
properties
Rehabilitation of building facades visible to the street, including
Eligible Work storefronts;cornices,gutters and downspouts; signs and graphics;
exterior lighting; canopies and awnings; painting and masonry cleaning;
interior window display lighting, permit and design fees
Maintenance improvements; Roofs; structural foundations;billboards;
Ineligible Work security systems;non-permanent fixtures;interior window coverings;
vinyl awnings;personal property and equipment; security bars;razor /
barbed wire fencing;landscaping, sidewalks and paving
Design Requirements Must meet new Downtown Design Guidelines, and applicable
Development and Buii1ding Code standards
Design Work Use of a registered architect is reimbursable at 15% of project costs
not to exceed$1,600 per project.
Urban Renewal Budget-Sources& Uses of Funds for Project Using UR Funds
Draft
5-Feb
Fund Uses FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14
Main St. - Grant Match 60,000 380,000
Burnham St. Improvements 350,000
Fa4ade Improvement Program 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Gas Tax/Gen Gas Tax/Gen
Fund Sources* Fund Fund UR Bond UR Bond UR Bond
Subtotal 120,000 790,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Total UR Bond Proceeds*l 1,090,000
* UR Bond Amount based on revised UR Financial Projections- Bond Date: Fall 2010
* Fasade Rehab Program funded with General Fund for FY 09-10, repaid with UR funds in Fy 10-11
* Main St. Match -Funded with Gas Tax FY 09-10, repaid with UR Fund FY 10-11
L-
FY 2009-10 Budget
Division Name: Downtown Redevelopment Division Number: 370
Account Number: 6000 Acct.Description: Professional/Contractual Services
FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2009-10 FY 2009-10 FY 2009-10
Actual Actual Revised Projected Detailed Description Fund Requested Proposed Approved Adopted
$195.500 $158.000 Real Estate Professional Services 100 $40,000
Environmental Consulting Services $67.000
Development Studies $100,000
Consulting/Relocation Expenses $50,000
I
$0 1 $0 $195,500 1 $158.000 1 Total $257,000 $0 I $0 1 $0
1\Citywide\Budget 10\Budget\Division Level Expenditures\Community Development\FY10 ComrRaig4Vzf elopment Downtown Redevelopment_370.xls 2/24/2009 1226 PM
Downtown Operating Budget FY 09-10
Real Estate Professional Services
Plaza site -fee for option (annual) 15,000
Plaza site - Option Agree. legal review 10,000
Plaza site - appraisal work 15,000
subtotal 40,000
Environmental Consultanting Services
Plaza Site
Phase II Stevens Marine 12,000
Phase I/ II Stevens Properties N. of Burnham 10,000
Pond /Wetland Remediation Feasibility 30,000
Stevens Property Remediation/ Prospective
Purchaser's Agreement- legal 10,000
Public Works Site
Phase I/ II Env. Assessments 5,000
subtotal 67,000
Development Studies
Transit Center Redevelopment
Dev. Agreement - legal review 5,000
Engineering Feasibility 20,000
Hall/99W Development Feas. Study 35,000
Plaza Adj. Properties Feas. Study 35,000
Demolition/Site Clearance Study 5,000
subtotal 100,000
Consulting/ Relocation Expenses
Options/ Property assembly
Plaza Site Replacement Property - Option Fee 50,000
subtotall 50,000
Total Operating 257,000
DRAFT
City of Tigard
Fiscal Years 2009-2014 Capital Improvement Program
Downtown Projects
Page Projected
Number Project 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total
7-2 90560-Ash Ave.Extension(Burnham to RR) 750,000 750,000
7-3 90650-Hall Blvd.at Hwy 99W Gateway 260,000 75,000 1()(),(x)O 435,000
7-4 90720-Burnham St.Reconstruction 1,400,000 5,106,463 3,00,000 9,506,463
7-5 95130-Park Land Aquistion 310,000 20,000 330,000
7-6 95830-Commercial St.Intersection(Lincoln to Main) 800,000 800000
7.7 95870-Fanno Creek Trail(Main St.to Grant St.) 115,000 70,000 185,000
7-8 95900-Fanno Creek Plaza([tnfundealq 2,420,000 2,457,000 4,877,000
7-9 95930-Main St./Green St.Retrofit 60,000 60,000 380,000 500,000
7-10 95960-Scoffins/Hall/Hunciker Realignment 75,000 150,000 225,000
7-11 96630-Lower Fanno Creek Park 150,000 170,000 320,000
7-12 96630-Lower Fanno Creek Park(Unjanded) 951,050 414,000 276,300 1,641,350
7-13 96640-Fesuv2l Street 123,000 820,680 943,680
Total Downtown Projects 2,785,000 5,686 463 6,826,050 3,046,000 1,199,300 970,6801 20,513,493
DRAFT
90560-Ash Ave.Extension(Burnham to RR)
The protect includes construction of a 24-foot wide paced section to provide two travel lanes and a`Moot wide sidewalk on the west side Streetlights,storm drain and
sanitary sewer pipes are also included in the project The new street connects the future Rumham/Ash Avenue intersection to the new Park and Ride parkuig lot
eonstmeted be the Cnmmutrr Rad p-Iret
Location
Burnham St to Radroad Tracks
Project Manager(s)
Kirn McMillan,Development Engineering
Funding Status
Fully Funded
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 7011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total
Project by Category
Land/ROW $ 378,920 $ 400,000 $ 400.000 $ 400.000
Design and Engineering $ 100,000 $ 100.000
Construction $ 250.000 $ 250.000
Project Total S 378.920 $ 400.000 S 750.000 S 750,000
Project Funding Source
Gas Tax $ 378,920 $ 400.000 S 750.000 S 750 Ono
Project Total $ 400,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000
DRAFT
90650-Hall Blvd.at Hwy 99W Gateway
The Ball/tKJU intersection is a"catalyst project"in the Downtown Plan and provides landscape and streerscapc improvements at the intersection to create a"Gateway"to
Downtown. The project will occur in stages and be installed as pan of the I STIP3 Hall Boulevard at Highway 99W Right-Tum Lane Widening project managed by
Washington County. The improvements will incorporate the design concept established by the Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape Plan. The first phase includes
sidewalk widening and the installation of street trees that will occur as part of the intersection widening The second phase will include an mtriway feature at the southeast
corner of the intersection. A loan will be provaded by the Gas Tax Fund to the Urban Renewal portion of this project with expected repayment to the Gas Tax Fund.
y'^ Location
Hall Blvd.&1-Iwv 99W
Project Manager(s)
Gus Dumas,Capital Construction&Transportation
Funding Status
Fully Funded
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total
Project by Category
I,ind/Righr of V'ay Acquistion 75,000 100,000 100.000
Construction 160000 75,000 100,000 335.000
Project Total 75,000 260.000 75,000 100.000 435 000
Project Funding Source
Gas Tax 75,000 260,000 75,000 100,000 435,000
Project Total 75,000 260.000 75.000 100,000 435,000
DRAFT
90720-Burnh2m St.Reconstruction
The construction of Burnham Street improvements incorporates design concepts recommended by the Tigard Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape Plan These
concepts include wdenmg Burnham Street between Matn Street and Ash Avenue Thirty eight feet of width will be paved on Ash Avenue and fifty feet on]-fall Boulevard.
Sidewalks,landscaped medians,pedestrian crossings and on-street parking will be provided as part of the widening In addition,a mdtmnal four-wzl-intersection will be
installed at the intersection of Burnham Street and Ash Avenue. Green street stormwater management concepts will be applied fot water quality enhancement.
Consttuction is scheduled to begin in the Summer of 2009
Location
Burnham St.from Main to Nall Blvd
z
-i� Project Manager(s)
Kim McMillan,Development Engineering
Funding Status
Fully Funded
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total
Project by Category
Land/Right of Way Acquistion 421,736 1,300,000 1.300,000 1,300,000
Design and Lriginee,ring 95,000 100,000 100,000
Construction 3.855.000 5.106,463 3000000 8.106.463
Project Total 421,736 5,250.000 1400.000 5106463 3.000.000 5.506.463
Project Funding Source
Gas Tax 1,800,000 2,950,000 1.600.000 4,550.000
Traffic Impact l=ee 421,736 2,350,000 1,400.000 1,300,000 1,050.000 3,750.000
Underground Utility 300.000 300.000 300.000
Water CIP 450,000 556,463 556,463
Urban Renewal Fund 350,000 350,000 350,000
Project Total 421.736 5250.000 1,400,000 5.106463 3,000,000 9.506,463
DRAFT
95130-Park Land Acquisition
This project is to acquire wetland only property for expansion of Lower Fanno Creek Park as defined in the Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park&Plaza
yjl Location
_ Lower Fanno Creck Park
rfi ter° `w Project Manager(s)
't�w--• �'`��"�
Phil Nachbar,Downto vn Redevelopment
Funding Status
Fully Funded
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013.14 Total
Project by Category
LUnd/Right of Way Acquisnnn 808.816 310.000 20.000 330.000
Project Total 808,816 310,000 20.000 330,000
Project Funding Source
Park System Development Charge 808,816 310.000 20,000 330,000
Project Total 808,816 310,000 20,000 330,000
7-5
DRAFT
95830-Commercial St.Intersection(Lncoln to Main)
Commercial Street is located in the doumto or area of Tigard.The improvements tnvolvc rc-construction of the existing pavement and base and construction of stdcwa0t on
the north side of the street to provide a safe walk for the neighborhood to the Commuter station,bus stops and businesses on Main Street.The total paved undrh of
Commercial Street after completion is 28 feet,which wU accommodate two travel lanes,one in each dirccuon.Parking on the street wi8 be permitted between the Highway
991X over-crossing and Maui Street Streetscape improvements for the project will incogxxate design concepts recommended by the Tigard Dtrnntown Comprehensive
Screetscape Plan.The projects storm water treatment facility will also be enlarged to provide treatmcnt for a stgmficanr portion of the downtown Tigard area(approximately
20 acres)and another 20 acres of an older developed area just west of the Highway 99W over-crossing.The additional treatment wdl be funded through the Water
Quality/Quantity Fund while the water will be funded through the War"fund.The design has been substantially completed and the construction has been delayed due to
funding limitations.
Location
+` Lncoln Ave.to Main St,
1
Project Manager(s)
Vmme Nguyen,Capital Construction&Transportation
Funding Status
Unfunded
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 201.3-14 Total
Project by Category
Construction 120,000 800,000 800.000
Project Total 120,000 600,000 800.000
Project Funding Source
Gas Tax 800,000 800,000
\C'ater Fund 120.000
Project Total 120,000 800,000 800,000
7-6
DRAFT
95870-F2nno Creek Trail(Main St.to Grant St.)
This project includes the installation of a trail from Main Sc to Grant St. This trail is a key part of the larger Fanno Creek Regional Trail System from Portland to Tualaun.
Location
Mam to Grant
No Photo Atarlabk Project Manager(s)
Stere Mann,Public\Corks
Funding Status
Fully Funded
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-11 2013-13 Total
Project by Category
Land/Right of Way Acquisoon 115.000 115.000
Construction 70.000 70.000
Project Total 115,000 70.000 185.000
Project Funding Source
Park System Development Charge 26,105 17,000 43.105
General Food 88,895 53,000 141.895
Project Total 115.000 70,000 185.000
7-7
DRAFT
95900-Fanno Creek Plaza
Fanno Creek Plaza is the planned,future gathering place for Downtown,and is part of the Fanno Creek Park&Plaza Master Plan adopted by Council in February 2008. The
Plaza is also part of Upper Park and together form the public spaces for community events and casual use by the public.
Location
Southside of Burnham St near Main SL
Project Manager(s)
-- Phil Nachbar,Downtown Redevelopment
Funding Status
Unfunded
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total
Project by Category
Laid/Right of Way Acgrestion 2,100,000 2,100,000
Design and Engineering 320.000 320,000
Construction 2.457,000 2,457,000
Project Total 2.420,000 2.457,000 4,877.000
Project Funding Source
Unknown 2.420.000 2.457.000 4,877.000
Project Total 2.420.000 2.457.000 4,877,000
'-8
DRAFT
95930-Main St./Green St.Retrofit
The Main Street project is a multi-year project including comprehensive redesign and construction of the full length of Main Street. The project is divided into 2 phases.
Phase 1 starts at the railroad tracks south to Highway 99W and Phase 2 from the railroad tracks north to Greenburg Road Phase 1(MT IP Grant proposal)is to reconstruct
the street in accordance with Green Street Standards for 1400 lineal feet of Main Street,from the Commuter Rail entrance to the south entrance at Highway 99\x'. It
encompasses the entire public right-of-way(ROTC)and includes streets,curbs,sidewalks,landscape and drainage improvements. Design will be based on concept plans as
approved in the Downtown Streetscape Plan
Location
Marra St.
l�MI Project Manager(s)
Kim McMdlan,Development Engmeerirtg
Funding Status
Fully funded
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 201243 200-14 Total
Project by Category
Design and Eng—ring 255.730 60,000 60,000 120,000
Construction 380,000 380.000
Project Total 255,730 60.000 60,000 380,000 500.000
Project Funding Source
Gas Tax 29,269 60.000 60,000 380,000 500,000
Urban Renewal Fund 255,730
Project Total 284,999 60,000 60,000 380,000 500,000
7-9
DRAFT
95960-Scoffins/Hall/Hunziker Realignment
This project corrects the unusual four-leg mtersectton of Hall Blvd/Scoffins/Hunziker Street.Hunztkcr and Scoffms Stmt intersect Hall BoulevArd at an acute angle and at
two separate locations crcauag madequate comer sight distance at four quadrants.The closely spaced offset beru een the two intersecting streets creates a substandard
queue-storage distance on Hall Bled,one of the most heavily traveled streets in Tigard The proposed funding,tf acadable,is for preparation of a traffic study including
alternative resolutions of the problems,conceprual design,and final design.
Location
Scoffins/Hall/Hunzoker
Project Manager(s)
Vannre Nguyen,Capital Construction&Transportation
_ Funding Status
Unfunded
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total
Pmjea by Category
Design and Engineering 75,000 150,000 225,000
Project Total 75,000 150,000 225,000
Project Funding Source
Traffic Impact Fee 75,000 150,000 225.000
Project Total 75,000 150,000 225,000
7-10
DRAFT
96630-Lower Fanno Creek Park
Loner Fanno Creek Park is approximately 25 acres and is a natural area with a planned connection to the future public plaza in Downtown. The Lower Park will provide a
new trail system,habitat restoration,boardwalks and new bridges and provide viewing areas for the public
Location
4 Hall St.to Main St.-south of Burnham St.
Project Manager(s)
-- Phil Nachbar,Downtown Redevelopment
Funding Status
Fully Funded
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008.09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total
Project by Category
Design and Engineering 260.000 150.000 45.000 195.000
Construction 125,000 125,000 125,000
Project Total 385.000 150,000 170.000 320,000
Project Funding Source
Park System Development Charge 385,000 150.000 170,000 320,000
Project Total 385,000 150,000 170.000 320,000
DRAFT
96630-Lower Fanno Creek Park
Lover Fanno Creek Park is approximately 25 acres and is a natural area with a planned connection to the future public plaza in Downtown '17hc Lower Park will provide a
new trail system,habitat restoration,boardwalks and new bridges and provide viewing areas for the public.
Location
Nall St to Main St -south of Burnham St
Project Manager(s)
P - — 4a rw.lfl,r, Phil Nachbar,Downtown Redevelopment
Funding Status
Unfunded
r 7ft
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total
Project by Category
Design and Engineering
Construction 951,050 414,000 276,300 1,641.350
Project Total 951,050 414,000 276.300 1,641,350
Project Funding Source
Unknown 951,050 414,000 276,300 1,641,350
Project Total 951,050 414.000 276.300 1,641,350
7-12
DRAFT
96640-Festival Street
Festival Street is a planned,new street adjoining the Downtown Plaza from Burnham Street,South to Ash Avenue.The street will function to protide vehicular access to
Fanno Upland Park,and can be closed off to provide a place for the Tigard Farmers Market The street is part of the adopted Fanno Greek Park and Plaza Master Platt,
adopted in February 2008.
Location
._ Burnham St.between Main&Ash
Project Manager(s)
Phil Nachbar,Drnvntovn Redevelopment
_ Funding Status
Unfunded
Actual Revised
Through Budget Projected
2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 .2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total
Project by Category
Construction 123.000 820.680 943,680
Project Total 123,000 820.680 943.680
Project Funding Source
Urban Rrncwal Fund 123,000 820.680 943,680
Project Total 123,000 820,680 943,680
7-13
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date February 17, 2009
CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Downtown Organizational Leadership -Preliminary Recommendations
Prepared By: Phil Nachbar Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Discuss and provide direction to the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC)with regard to their preliminary
recommendations for organizational leadership and capacity in downtown Tigard. The City Center Advisory
Commission (CCAC)was tasked with reviewing the recommendations of the Leland report (Sept 07)and suggesting
the best course of action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Consider and provide direction regarding the CCAC's preliminary recommendations: Option 4: 'Take a different
approach. The best way of achieving goals is to utilize a variety of approaches rather than fund a specific association'.
'EY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Leland Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard identified several organizational recommendations as a way to
improve the Downtown redevelopment effort. A premise of the Leland recommendations is that "successful
downtowns are a result of strong leadership on the public and private levels." The recommendations indicate that
strengthening the private sector organization and improving communications between the City and the private sector is
a prerequisite to successful redevelopment.
The CCAC's effort to evaluate the best way to strengthen organizational leadership and capacity in Downtown
identified four (4) key objectives from the Leland report: 1- Better champion and implement projects, 2 - Manage
Downtown at the public and private levels, 3 - Bring stakeholders together for place-making, and 4 - Strengthen
relationships and improve communications between the City and Stakeholders.
There were four (4) options that the CCAC identified to achieve the above objectives. The Commission recommended
option 4, which does not call for funding a Downtown organization at this time, but suggests utilizing a variety of
approaches to achieve goals. A summary of the Commission's research, recommendations, and proposed action plan
is provided in Attachment 1.
The CCAC recommendations provide an action plan as follow-up for implementation. The action plan includes a
process for public input,a period of time to refine the option,additional public input,and final recommendations to the
City Center Development Agency. The proposed process, if directed by the City Center Development Agency,would
start in April and end in November 2009.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Option 1: Fund an association immediately
Option 2: Do not fund an association. It is not an appropriate use of City funds.
Option 3: Consider funding an association,but not until certain conditions or criteria are met
Option 4: Take a different approach. The best way of achieving goals is to utilize a variety of approaches rather
than fund an association.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Council Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1 - Preliminary Recommendations to the City of Tigard: Organizational Leadership and Capacity in
Downtown Tigard.
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
Preliminary Recommendation
to the
City of Tigard
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
January 14, 2009
Prepared by:
City Center Advisory Commission
OLCD Subcommittee:
Alexander Craghead
Thomas Murphy
Elise Shearer
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 2
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Context& Background
Downtown Tigard is a diverse environment with many interests and little community.This makes
communication between stakeholders and the city,as well between the stakeholders and other stakeholders
difficult.It also means that a coordinated vision of the future of downtown does not now exist amongst
stakeholders.
In 2007,the City of Tigard hired the Leland Consulting Group to assist in the creation of a development
strategy for the Tigard downtown core. In the resulting Downtown Strategy,Leland recommends the
creation of a downtown organization partly in response to the concerns previously mentioned.Additional
concerns included providing a forum independent of the city government for advocacy and conflict
resolution,as well as a venue for the private sector to demonstrate their support of downtown
revitalization.
This recommendation was forwarded by the City Council to the City Center Advisory Commission
(CCAC),with the charge of determining if the recommendation should be implemented,and if so how.
The CCAC has been concerned with the complexity of such an effort,and created a subcommittee in May
of 2008 to investigate the issues surrounding the establishment of or support of a downtown association.
This subcommittee conducted extensive research over the course of the summer,presenting their final
research report to the CCAC on September 18,2008.
Following the receipt of this report,the CCAC conducted a series of meetings to discuss the matter
further.In December 2008,the CCAC asked the subcommittee to reconvene and draft three options for a
recommendation to the CCDA.These recommendations were considered by the CCAC at the January 14,
2008 meeting,at which this preliminary recommendation was chosen.
Goals&Objectives
This recommendation seeks to address concerns raised by the Leland Consulting Group in their
Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard. Leland recommends a series of specific options to
"strengthen organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard".They state the basis as follows:
Successful downtowns are the result of strong leadership and great champions at both the public and
private levels. While the city council is solidly behind downtown,private sector leadership is more
fractured.Strengthening the private sector organization and improving communication between the City
and the private sector is a prerequisite to successful redevelopment.
Leland provides a somewhat more specific view of this issue in the strategic framework section of their
report.They state that a"strong organization"is needed to"champion and implement projects"as
"downtowns must be managed at both the public and private levels."They further support their
recommendations by stating that it is critical to"[bring]these stakeholder groups of varied interests and
perspectives together[as]...an integral part of Place Making strategy for Downtown Tigard."They
conclude by stating that their specific recommendations are aimed at"strengthening relationships among
existing(and future)stakeholder groups."
Leland's specific statement of support for funding a downtown association states that the goals of this
funding would be to subsidize the costs of an executive staff member for the association who would"lead
initiatives and outreach,[and]actively[engage]business and property owners."
Thus,we conclude that the objectives of any City funded effort at strengthening organizational leadership
and capacity in Downtown Tigard would be to:
1.Better champion and implement projects;
2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels;
3.Bring stakeholders together for Place Making;
4.Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders.
In examining the options before the CCAC,these four goals are vital.
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 3
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Summary of Research
The subcommittee's research determined that there is no clear route that stands out above all others; in
short there are multiple ways of achieving revitalization goals. Some cities have chosen to participate in
established,traditional forms,such as the National Trust's Main Street program,while others have chosen
to create their own,innovative programs tailored to their specific needs
In very few cases did associations have a direct impact on urban renewal efforts;however,by their nature
they are often positioned well to undertake routine efforts such as promotion,maintenance,advocacy,
business outreach,and other"soft"skills that cities without economic development departments generally
lack.
Failure is common in such associations,and is usually the result of a lack of broad leadership(reliance on
one or too few individuals),a lack of vision or purpose,and a lack of stable funding.Funding levels seem
less important than funding stability.
The subcommittee's conclusion was that the creation or support of a downtown association in Tigard
would be a challenging effort. Making matters more complex is the high degree of failure rates that these
associations experience,along with the broad path of options available. One important fact to note is that
regardless of whether the city chooses to take a traditional role,or a more innovative path,there are other
cities in the state with similar experiences and with whom the city would likely be able to share knowledge
for mutual benefit.
Summary of Alternatives
The CCAC identified five primary options for action.They are:
Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to
immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association.
Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use
of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself.
Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it
is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a
sound investment of public funds.
Option 4: Take a different approach, This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals
set out for the Commission is to utilize a variety of approaches rather than funding a specific
association.
Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the
matter.
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 4
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Evaluation of Alternatives
Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to
immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association.
Analysis.The CCAC identified some positive reasons to support this option, including recognition of the
business community and a sense of keeping the plan moving in spite of economic conditions. However,
the body found far more arguments could be made against this route,including but not limited to:
• The research report demonstrated that there is no nexus between a successful downtown association and
a successful urban renewal effort.
• Funding an association at this time may be premature and simply set up the association for failure once
city funds cease.
• Issues regarding incentive,perceived political endorsement,and lack of sufficient interest in the existing
business community.
* * *
Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use
of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself.
Analysis.The primary principle under this option is that any association that would be strong and healthy
would need to come from the community itself. Funding of an association before there is demand or
critical mass would not be helpful but rather would be setting that association up for failure once city
funding ceased.
The CCAC also identified numerous other reasons to support this option.The subcommittee's research
showed, for example,that there was no demonstrable nexus between the existence of an association and
success in an urban renewal project such as that the CCAC is charged with overseeing,thus making the
extension of seed money to an association both a distraction and outside the purview of the CCAC.
Numerous additional reasons were also contemplated suggesting that funding the formation of an
association would be a poor use of City funds.
* * *
Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it
is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a
sound investment of public funds.
Analysis.The CCAC found many reasons to support this option. The commission felt that this option
best reflected the realities of the current conditions within downtown while leaving the door open for a
more activist role for the City in the future.In the meanwhile,the City would be strongly encouraged to
undertake activities that would lead towards conditions more hospitable to the flourishing of an
association.
The CCAC did identify a few negatives to this route,including the appearance of being ineffective and the
potential for introducing delays into the process.
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 5
organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals
set out for the Commission is to utilize a variety of approaches rather than funding a specific
association.
Analysis.This was the widest ranging of options,considering the possibility that the needs identified by
Leland would be better met by approaches other than an association. It would free the City to focus on
more tangible improvements and projects.
An almost equal amount of weaknesses were identified as well,most notably that,due to its custom
nature,the identification and implementation of a"third way"would be time consuming for the CCAC.
Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the
matter.
Analysis.This option anticipated that the commission would be unable to reach consensus on the decision
of funding an association. The CCAC believes no further analysis of this option is necessary.
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 6
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Preliminary Recommendation
The option that the Commission recommends is Option 4:
Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set
out for the Commission is to utilize a variety of approaches[as outlined below]rather than
funding a specific association.
After careful consideration,the CCAC believes that there are other approaches to better achieve
organizational and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard.
The CCAC believes that this approach would invest far too much time,money,and effort in organizational
development,rather than making direct and meaningful improvements in the concerns outlined in the goals
section of this recommendation. However,the CCAC also believes that the City does have a role in
supporting the development of downtown that goes beyond providing major infrastructure improvements.
These actions may include activities ranging from marketing and branding to maintenance,event hosting,
and the fostering of better communication.
The CCAC believes that the best way to achieve these goals is on a case-by-case basis with solutions
tailored to specific problems. While identifying a customized,unified strategy towards engaging the
downtown will take more time than an"off-the-shelf'approaches such as an association,a decentralized
approach has the benefit of being able to be implemented far quicker.Targeted efforts at outreach,business
support,and communication can be implemented and adjusted based on how staff resources are allocated as
well as on the project priorities of the City/CCDA.
There are specific actions that the CCAC recommends the City take to help foster an environment in which
all stakeholders may thrive.These include:
• Setting of a downtown business strategy/policy.Although the CCAC has made many
recommendations for downtown projects as part of the urban renewal district,so far the commission has
not developed an area business policy for the City.Yet urban renewal projects will greatly shape land
use,rent rates,and the character of the business environment within downtown.The CCAC feels that it
should take the time as soon as practical to examine what its economic development goals are within
downtown, including what kind of businesses it is hoping to retain and/or attract,and then use this
policy as as approach to shape urban renewal activities.
• Improve public outreach efforts.The City can work towards fostering better relationships between
itself and stakeholders by utilizing creative approaches to public input that would maximize
communications.This might include greater one-on-one communication with key stakeholders,as well
as using less traditional input approaches such as chanettes and public workshops.
• Improve the local business climate.The City should examine the local business climate with an eye
towards making improvements that would lead to greater success in downtown. Actions might include
the revision of"red tape"in downtown to make doing business easier,as well as engaging directly in
marketing&economic development activities
• Consideration of a project-based grant program.The CCAC recognizes that third parties such as
associations frequently are able to field interesting project ideas that are beneficial to downtown.The
CCAC therefore recommends that if the City wishes to fund such activities within downtown, that it
establish a clear and fair grant-based approach to the process.This would allow any organization
meeting qualifying criteria to apply for and potentially receiving funding for activities on a project
basis.This approach would largely eliminate many of the political pitfalls of direct funding and further
would clearly measure the disbursement of funds against clear goals for downtown.
• Fast-tracking URD catalyst projects.The City should make catalyst projects such as the public plaza
and various street improvements their number one priority and do everything within reason to achieve
them in the near term.This may include being willing to undertake an unusually high degree of
stakeholder communication as well as using a greater variety of approaches to complete these projects.
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 7
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
This recommendation ineets the four goals identified earlier in this document:
1. Better champion and implement projects. By concentrating on making improvements directly"in the
ground"rather than on organization building,the City will be able to make a direct and beneficial
impact on Downtown Tigard more efficiently.
2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels.This recommendation recognizes the
inherently individualistic nature of Downtown Tigard's private sector. Rather than attempt to change
that, this option honors that uniqueness and instead works to find nontraditional solutions that will
encourage individual private sector stakeholders to manage their portions of downtown better.
3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making.Rather than expending funds and time on the creation
of a new organization,the City has shown it is more than capable of bringing stakeholders together to
undertake Place Making,most notably through the award-winning TDIP process.The City would best
achieve Place Making by building on this experience and taking a central role in such efforts.
4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. Currently
there are numerous URD projects and efforts that will require public input.The City should utilize these
requirements to take creative approaches that will build synergies between public input and community
building.
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 8
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Action Plan
The CCAC suggests the following steps for refining the City's plans for supporting organizational and
leadership capacity in Downtown:
ApriUMay, 2009: Seek out public input on this option.It is recommended that the CCAC develop a
public outreach program that will present Option 4 to key stakeholders and the public at large.The goal
will be to seek reactions,suggestions,and other forms of input from these groups to help refine the option.
This will be especially critical in determining what obstacles currently exist in downtown,as well as what
the business strategy/policy for downtown ought to be.
This outreach will also give the CCAC an opportunity to foster better communication between the City
and stakeholders. It is recommended that the City utilize nontraditional,participatory input methods that
may include tactics borrowed from the charrette model of input.
June-September, 2009: Refine option. Following initial public input, the CCAC will refine this option
over the Summer to develop:
• A business strategy/policy.
• Improved public outreach policies.The CCAC will make a list of recommendations for improving
public outreach policy in the City, including but not limited to the handling of public input and the
opportunities to create relationship building synergies in public outreach programs.
• List of obstacles needing review.
• List of enforcement recommendations.
• List of"direct actions".The CCAC will identify a"menu"of possible non-capital activities that the
City could directly engage in that would benefit the downtown area.
• A grant program.
October 2009: Present draft plans to stakeholders, public. Following the refinement of this option,the
draft recommendation would be presented to the public to receive a final round of input and make any
necessary adjustments.
October/November 2009: Make final refinement of plan and present to Council. Present an actionable
plan to the Council for consideration.
ECO-CHARETTE
For
THE KNOLL AT TIGARD
Prepared for
COMMUNITY PARTNERS
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
JANUARY 16,2009
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE PC
Architecture Planning & Development
322 nor 8th avenue, Portland, oregon
t 503.243.2352 f 503.243.3261 carletonhart.com
CONTENTS
INTfODOCTION.... ...a............................... ....... . .................... .... ..._...,..,..._.... ..,......,..,d
PROJECTOVERVIEW ........................... ........... .......... . . ..,.... ......,., .........,...........,..,.5
r)F30 JPTV0y
3v,CPA5
GREEN BUILDING BRA
PIP N PIINCE"`. , .,.... ... _....
AGENDA
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL ATTIGARD 3
INTRODUCTION
On January 16,2009 Carleton Hart Architecture facilitated an eco-charette for the Knoll
at Tigard senior housing project proposed at 12340 SW Hall Blvd in Tigard Oregon. The
meeting was held in order to bring stakeholders and the design team of the project together
to collaborate with the owner,Community Partners for Affordable Housing. The eco-
charette provided an opportunity to identify sustainable design goals and strategies for
the project,foster teamwork and provide an overview of various green building criteria
available.
The charette process fosters an environment in which all members of the project team can
contribute their ideas,express concerns and recommend actions for the project. It also
creates a foundation on which to build relationships,strengthen communication,and help
define a direction for the project. The following report summarizes the results of the five
hour work session and provides a list of actions for the design team as they move forward
to develop and foster an integrated design process.
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL AT TIGARD 4
PROJECT OVERVIEW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Knoll at Tigard project site includes three parcels for a total of 0.99 acres. Currently,
each parcel contains a single family residence and is zoned for low density residential
development. Consistent with the long range goals of the City of Tigard planning,there is
currently an application in process to rezone the property for more dense and mixed-use
development. The rezone would allow the proposed project,a 45,000 square foot,48-unit
apartment building providing active living for low income seniors.
The program includes 451-bedroom units,3 2-bedroom units,and approximately 2,000
square feet of common rooms and meeting space. The layout of the site is largely shaped
by the parking and access requirements of zoning regulations. An early green goal of the
project is to apply for a reduction to the parking requirements(1.25:1)to provide 1 space
per unit. The parking lot access is required to be off of the low-traffic Knoll Drive to the
north,which largely dictates the location of the building on the site. Arterial streets Hall
Boulevard and Hunziker Street border the site to the west and south respectively,and the
east border is shared with single family houses.
The building is held close to Hall Boulevard,a major access point to downtown Tigard and
the larger community. The opportunity exists for The Knoll to be a new Gateway building
to downtown,and an inspiration to shape future development. Streetscape improvements
are required on all 3 street frontage sides of the property,including development of
sidewalks,street trees,and below-grade utilities. Enhanced pedestrian experience and
connections to the community are additional early goals for the design,
ILI
Lmft
•\• ,,^ - -� fi d, i p, yr//�i'V•i \ *4, r
WN
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL AT TIGARD
1
C mss .
sw wui aLw.
N—
The massing of the building is broken down into three parts,with a 4-story portion
focused towards the busier node of the Hall and Hunziker intersection. Additionally,
the community room functions are focused toward this corner to foster interaction with
the neighboring community. A central lobby&circulation core is a slightly taller mass
set back to encourage approach from Hall Boulevard as well as the parking lot,through
entry plazas and gardens. The northern portion of the building steps down to 3 stories,
matching scale more closely with the neighboring low-density residential. The massing
variety breaks down a long fagade into multiple parts,developing rhythmic patterns for
visual and pedestrian interest. The enlivened streetscape,entry gardens and patios are
further combined with unit balconies and common room balconies to emphasize interaction
between residents and the community.
The roof forms of the buildings reflect the early sustainability ideas for the project. The
simple slopes of the 3-story portion lend themselves to rainwater harvesting for detention
and use in flushing unit toilets. The 4-story mass is a low slope roof with a parapet wall
to be developed as an extensive green roof to provide habitat,cooling and additional
stormwater detention. Green roof carports soften the relationship to the neighboring
properties to the east as well as reduce the heat sink of paved parking surfaces. Living
walls and planted trellises are incorporated at the lobby to delight the senses and provide
visual representation of the green strategies included in the design. Community gardens
and stormwater bioswale landscapes incorporated in the design further enliven the
community and respect the earth.
RM
r1t •-1 p !i E7
Coro
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL AT TIGARD 6
CPAH VISION
Community Partners for Affordable Housing(CPAH)is a nonprofit developer of service-
enriched housing,formed originally with a"call from the pulpit"by Father Loren Kerkof,
at St.Anthony's Catholic Church in Tigard.As the church providing most of the emergency
food boxes in this part of the county,they came to realize that what they were doing was
something of a band-aid.Families needed help with food month after month,but the more
basic issues were low wages and housing insecurity.If they could stabilize the housing
situations of poor working families,they realized they would have much greater impact.
The call expanded to a larger grassroots base,and CPAH was incorporated as a nonprofit
in 1994,with first staff hired in 1995.CPAH has purchased and renovated two projects,
added three through new construction,and owns one single family rental home,for a total
of 226 units.The properties all benefit from active partnerships with police,library,schools,
and local service agencies.At two of the sites,after school programs operate 3-5 days per
week,and an 11-week summer youth program is open to all CPAH residents.A variety of
community-building activities(potlucks,neighborhood watch,holiday celebrations)are
scheduled to provide opportunities for neighbors to get to know each other.Currently
CPAH has six full-time staff,one AmeriCorps volunteer,and dozens of ongoing volunteers
who provide support for a variety of activities.
CPAH has always been interested in healthy housing that operates affordably over time.
The organization's first"green project"was Village at Washington Square,with Carleton
Hart in 2000.With each project added,the intent has been to increase the sustainability—to
achieve a darker shade of green.With Oleson Woods in 2005,the challenge of protecting
and expanding wetlands and woodlands was a core organizing concept.The Watershed
@ Hillsdale involved a brownfield clean-up,and the new mixed-use project is projecting a
LEED Silver certification.For The Knoll @ Tigard,CPAH anticipates a similar size project—
just under 50 units of senior housing,with ample community space and an active street
presence.Serving as a catalyst for further redevelopment and the"re-greening"of Tigard is
an exciting prospect.
ECO-CHARETTE OVERVIEW
This eco-charette was an opportunity to gather ideas and viewpoints from many different
players in the project. The objective was to create a list of goals,strategies and actions
to make the Knoll at Tigard a sustainable project that give pride to all stakeholders.
Participants were familiarized with the site and the current design,but encouraged to think
beyond the drawings in front of them and challenge the design team with new ideas.
Participants were also encouraged to think beyond green rating systems. The goal was
not to chase points but to fully consider the sustainable development of the site. While the
primary focus of the eco-charette was intended to help define green building strategies that
might appropriately fit the project,we expanded the definition of sustainability. Sustainable
community development involves a holistic approach of equitable access to social,
economic and environmental capital. Our work would address sustainable social networks,
sustainable economic opportunity,sustainable long-term operations,and sustainable
environmental stewardship.
The eco-charette was organized into brainstorming sessions with all attendees participating
in the discussion. Categories of emphasis were community,site,water,energy,indoor
environment,materials,and beauty and inspiration. Suggestions ranged from specific
fixtures to broad goals. At the conclusion of the eco-charette,all participants voted on the
ideas that are most important to them. The priority list that this generated will inform the
project as it moves forward.
CARLETON HART,ARCHITECTU2E ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL AT TIGARD 7
PROJECT GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Water and VC',S Mtion
Restoration and Regeneration
Respect for the Polndation of the Project
GREEN BUILDING BRAINSTORMING SESSION
All participants contributed to the brainstorming and generation of implementation
strategies in each of the topic areas:Community,Site,Water,Energy,Materials,Indoor
Environmental Quality and Beauty&Inspiration.
.. y
COMMUNITY
Discussion regarding community began with the overall goal of breaking down barriers
between the senior residents and larger community. This project has the potential to
set the standard for incorporating sustainable design in Tigard's new downtown plan.
Brainstorming focused on the community-building aspects of gardens,workshop spaces,
and human-powered or mass transportation.
• Community garden plot
• Community garden over parking structure
• Food production and connection to local slow food distribution network
• Develop project to be a welcoming area for seniors
• Limit impacts on neighboring properties(ie height,noise,traffic)
• Provide inspiration for Tigard promoting positive development
• Provide hub at project for local food distribution and education
• Facilitate human powered transportation
• Develop'Big Bad Bus Stop'to strengthen connection between Knoll and the city
• Provide workshop space for resident community and to promote interactions with local
community
• Provide local resident dog park area and promote interactions with local community
• Educate community about sustainable systems in project
SITE
The site development strategies emphasize the importance of controlling the project's
impact on the surrounding area—not only limiting its negative impact but creating positive
features. Stormwater retention and detention were heavily discussed with an added focus
of making the control of water an attractive feature. Similarly,the parking lot and sidewalks
were considered as an opportunity for activities,vegetation,visual interest and power
generation.
• Develop safe pedestrian linkages to city services and activities
• Develop design to integrate with Gateway/99 redevelopment and promote new design
standards
• Provide parking with high albedo paving
• Provide permeable paving in parking lot
• Provide trees in parking lot
• Incorporate solar collection over parking
• Provide dedicated zipcar spot
• Provide dedicated electric car charging spot
• Develop site/parking as'festival street'
• Provide secure outdoor bicycle parking
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL ATTIGARD 8
• Incorporate an artistic element into streetscape to add fun and interest
• Provide interest through use of creative sidewalk materials
• Provide storage units for residents
• Develop site retaining wall as a living wall
• Develop interior rain wall in lobby
• Design stormwater to pass through lobby from parking
• Integrate art into stormwater design
• Provide low impact development with visible sustainable stormwater strategies
• Design to retain 100%of site stormwater through integrated detention and retention
• Integrate existing drainage swale into design
• Place utilities along Hall Blvd.underground
• Use larger trees in streetscape design
• Provide tenant gardens
.. - Design warm plant beds
• Provide area for vermicomposting(worms)
• Develop habitat/green roof
• Incorporate native or adaptive native plants with edibles where appropriate
• Preserve existing trees
• Reuse materials from homes to be demolished
• Develop project with a'homey'(not institutional)feel
• Thoughtful focus on universal design to enhance accessibility elements
• Provide overall site safety and particular attention to ground floor units
WATER
Stormwater management was discussed during the site brainstorming session. Additional
water strategies are limiting load with efficient fixtures and utilizing rainwater or graywater
for toilets,laundry,and irrigation. Discussion also included a large city stormwater pipe on
the property that is currently being studied by the city and clean water services.
• Incorporate dual-flush toilets in design
• Incorporate waterless urinals in design
• Incorporate 1.0 GPF toilets in design
• Harvest rainwater for toilets and irrigation
• Design plumbing for future graywater re-use(for toilets,laundry and irrigation)
• Provide large,central stormwater storage
• Integrated cooperative water sourcing with city design
• Provide re-circulating hot water
• Provide roll-in showers
ENERGY
Brainstorming of energy strategies covered a broad range from limiting use through high
insulating materials,provide shading and operable windows to generating power and heat
on site with the sun,water,soil,or plants.
• Incorporate cost-effective ICFs for energy conservation
• Incorporate use of SIPs
• Incorporate advanced framing w/spray-in foam insulation
• Design'high mass'walls(i.e.ICF or masonry)
• Develop'high mass'radiant floors
• Incorporate dedicated 2-pin CFL light fixtures
• Provide A/C and ceiling fans in apartments
• Incorporate efficient dishwashers and garbage disposals
• Provide operable windows
• Provide natural ventilation—use lobby/atrium
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL AT TIGARD 9
• Emphasize daylighting in design
• Provide passive energy reduction by incorporating external shading devices and
deciduous trees on south and west facades
• Generate energy through on-site composting of leaf debris
• Provide flexible energy source heat system
• Incorporate biomass fueled heat system
• Provide gas or solar powered central boiler for hot water
• Incorporate ground source heat pump
• Incorporate heat pump with nearby city stormwater discharge energy source
• Generate energy through water turbines incorporated w/nearby city stormwater
discharge
• Incorporate solar panels for energy generation
• Design for future PV installation
• Provide solar/LED site lighting fixtures
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Participants focused on ventilation to keep fresh air circulating through the building. Those
who live in the area noted that Hall Blvd.quiets down at night,making open windows a
good possibility for night flushing.
• Provide wire shelving for ventilation
• Provide walk-off mats at entries
• Incorporate stained concrete to reduce carpet
• Incorporate automatic ventilation with bath and kitchen fixture use
• Incorporate heat recovery in ventilation design
• Design for stack-effect ventilation
• Incorporate earth tube ventilation design
MATERIALS
Materials with high recycled content and low-VOC levels were discussed. Elements of the
building envelope were considered on their ability to serve as thermal mass and be durable.
• Incorporate carpet tiles with recycled content(for maintenance/recyclable benefit)
• Provide carpet only in bedrooms
• Use FSC certified local hardwood flooring
• Incorporate earthen floors
• Design walls with Faswall
1 • Use Radiata Pine for exterior siding
• Use phenolic resin for exterior siding panels
• Incorporate autoclave concrete blocks
BEAUTY AND INSPIRATION
Vegetation and color were the focus of discussion in this category. Living walls are an
important design feature in this project because of their visual appeal and water mitigation
benefit. Different types of living wall systems will be explored further.
• Incorporate living walls into design
• Incorporate bio-mimicry in design
• Provide gardens
• Use and visually express natural materials
• Use thoughtful color palettes which are cohesive between interior and exterior
• Incorporate exterior artwork(murals)
CA.RLETON FART Ai?CH TEC TUR- ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL AT TIGARD 10
BRAINSTORMING SUMMARY: LIST OF IMPORTANCE
In order to determine the most important ideas generated during the brainstorming
session each charette participant was given (2) red stickers to indicate an item of
the most importance,(3) blue stickers to indicate items of high importance, and (3)
green stickers to indicate easily accomplished items with significance and asked to
vote for the most important ideas.
Red Dots Blue Dots Green Dots
Green Building Strategy Most High Easily
Important Importance Accomplished
Harvest rainwater for toilets and irrigation 3 1 1
Design to retain 100%of site stormwater 3 1
through integrated detention and retention
Develop safe pedestrian linkages to city 3 1
services and activities
Provide tenant gardens 2 3 1
Community garden plot 2 1 2
Incorporate living walls into design 2 1 2
Provide operable windows 2 1 1
Facilitate human powered transportation 2 1
Develop design to integrate with Gateway/99
redevelopment and promote new design 2 1
standards
Incorporate automatic ventilation with bath 2 1
and kitchen fixture use
Provide inspiration for Tigard promoting 2
positive development
Provide passive energy reduction by
incorporating external shading devices and 1 2 2
deciduous trees on south and west facades
Emphasize daylighting in design 1 1 2
Develop habitat/green roof 1 1 1
Incorporate advanced framing w/spray-in 1 1
foam insulation
Provide shared senior services and connect 1 2
to local services with shuttle transit
Provide hub at project for local food 1 1
distribution and education
Design'high mass'walls(i.e.ICF or
1
mason
CARLETOLti HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL AT TIGARD
Provide A/C and ceiling fans in apartments 1
Provide gas or solar powered central boiler 1
for hot water
Provide workshop space for resident
community and to promote interactions with 3
local community
Incorporate native or adaptive native plants 2 1
with edibles where aRproRriate
Food production and connection to local 2
slow food distribution network
Incorporate ground source heat pump 2
Provide carpet only in bedrooms 2
Incorporate heat recovery in ventilation l 2
design
Develop'Big Bad Bus Stop'to strengthen
connection between Knoll and the city1 1
Develop interior rain wall in lobby 1 1
Thoughtful focus on universal design to l l
enhance accessibility elements
Limit impacts on neighboring properties 1 •
Provide covered BBQ area for resident 1
community
Educate community about sustainable 1
systems in project
Provide dedicated zipcar spot 1
Provide low impact development with 1
visible sustainable stormwater strategies
Provide area for vermicomposting(worms) 1
Reuse materials from homes to be
demolished 1
Incorporate dual-flush toilets in design 1
Design plumbing for future graywater re-use 1
(for toilets,laundry and irrigation)
Provide large,central stormwater storage 1
Develop'high mass'radiant floors 1
Provide natural ventilation—use lobby/ 1
atrium
Design for future PV installation 1
Provide solar/LED site lighting fixtures 1
Design walls with Faswall 1
Use Radiata Pine for exterior siding 1
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL AT TIGARD
Provide secure outdoor bicycle parking 2
Provide gardens 2
Community garden over parking structure 1
Provide local resident dog park area and I
promote interactions with local community
Provide permeable paving in parking lot 1
Provide trees in parking lot 1
Develop site retaining wall as living wall I
Use larger trees in streetscape design 1
Provide overall site safety and particular I
attention to ground floor units
Incorporate 1.0 GPF toilets in design I
Incorporate cost-effective ICFs for energy I
conservation
Incorporate dedicated 2-pin CFL light I
fixtures
Incorporate efficient dishwashers and
garbage disposals
1
Generate energy through on-site composting I
of leaf debris
Provide wire shelving for ventilation 1
Design for stack-effect ventilation 1
Incorporate carpet tiles with recycled content I
(for maintenance/recyclable benefit)
Incorporate bio-mimicry in design 1
Use thoughtful color palettes which are 1
cohesive between interior and exterior
Incorporate exterior artwork(murals) 1
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOI-L AT TIGARD 13
APPENDIX
ECO-CHARETTE AGENDA
ECO-CHARETTE ATTENDEES LIST
GREEN COMMUNITIES ECO-CONFERENCE NOTES AND CHECKLIST
(12/18108)
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL AT TIGARD 14
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE
CEL 32.2 nw 8?h avenue Portland . oregon 97209
1 503 243 2252 I 1 503 243 3261 I corlelonhorl.com
ECO-CHARETTE AGENDA
project: The Knoll at Tigard
date/time: Friday, January 16, 2009 / 8:30 am— 1:00 pm
location: Tigard Public Library—Community Room 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard OR 97223
TIME ISSUE DURATION
8:30-9:15 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Introductions, Purpose, Agenda 15 min.
The Knoll at Tigard Program Overview 10 min.
Site, Surroundings and Neighborhood 8 min.
Project Description 5 min.
Eco-Rating Overview—Green Communities 2 min.
Guiding Sustainability Themes 5 min.
9:15 -9:55 BRAINSTORMING SESSION —Sustainability Strategies
Community 20 min.
Site 20 min.
9:55 - 10:05 10-Minute Break
10:05 - 11:45 BRAINSTORMING SESSION—Sustainability Strategies, cont.
Water 20 min.
Energy 20 min.
Materials 20 min.
Indoor Environmental Quality 20 min.
Beauty and Inspiration 20 min.
11:45 - 12:05 BRAINSTORM REVIEW AND SUMMARY
Review& Prioritize Strategies (red, blue and green dots) 20 min.
12:05 - 12:25 Break & Distribute Lunches (lunch provided)
12:25 - 1:00 CONCLUSIONS
Results of Dot-Voting & Relate to Goals 20 min.
Next Steps/Schedule 10 min.
Closing Thoughts, Adjourn 5 min.
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL AT TIGARD
ECO-CHARETTE ATTENDEES
Sheila Greenlaw-Fink Ben Sturtz
Community Partners for Affordable Housing Washington County
sgfink@cpahinc.org Ben_Sturtz@co.washington.or.us
Linn Brillman Brian Wegener
Community Partners for Affordable Housing Tualatin River Keepers
lbrillmanacpahinc.org brian@tualatinriverkeepers.org
Daryn Murphy Pat Lando
Housing Development Center Lando Landscape Architecture
Daryn@hdcl.org pat@lando-landscapearchitecture.com
Mike Di Blasi Greta Holmstrom
Housing Development Center MGH Associates
mike@hdcl.org greta.holmstrom@mghassociates.com
Brian Carleton Dave Humber
Carleton Hart Architecture MGH Associates
brian.carleton@carletonhart.com dave.humber@mghassociates.com
Ben White Gene Johnson
Carleton Hart Architecture Solarc Architecture and Engineering
ben.white@carletonhart.com genej@solarc-ae.net
Melissa Woehr Reese Whitcombe
Carleton Hart Architecture LMC Construction
melissa.woehr@carletonhart.com reesew@lmcincorporated.com
Duane Roberts Chris Duffin
City of Tigard Community Development LMC Construction
Duane@tigard-or.gov chrisd@lmcincorporated.com
Cheryl Caines Lily Lilly
City of Tigard Community Development Center City Advisory Commission
cherylc@tigard-or.gov lilly@blueberrypdx.com
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ECO-CHARETTE FOR THE KNOLL AT TIGARD 16
CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE
CIL 322 nw Bin ovenue portlono, oregon 97209
1 503 243 2252 I 1 503 243 3261 I corletonhor+.Com
MEMORANDUM
to Sheila Greenlaw-Fink date 12.18.2008
Daryn Murphy
Mike Di Blasi
from Ben White cc Brian Carleton
Melissa Woehr
project 20825—The Knoll at Tigard
re Eco- Conference Call
remarks
Thanks to everyone for a great eco-conference discussion this morning. Attached is a checklist of the
Green Communities Criteria we went over and defined as goals for the project. The following notes are minutes
of discussion items corresponding to the numbered items on the checklist. Please let me know if you have any
additions or corrections.
Themes: Water&Vegetation
Regeneration & Restoration
Respect the population of the project
Green Communities Criteria:
1.1 Write up& include as part of CFC application
Consider including in contracts
2.1c Locations cited: Senior Center .6 mi, Downtown strip mall .2 mi, Winco .6 mi,
City Hall .2 mi, Libra .5 mi.
2.4a Not suited for passive solar building orientation, Review prevailing winds& passive
cooling techniques for building orientation, and possibly 2 of the 4points?
2.7 Transit center is .33 mi from site
3.4 This is a key goal of project
4.1 a 14.1 c CHA to research low-flow fixtures for better performance. Update Systems description to
include thesespecifications. Do dual flush usage volumes average to 1.1 GPF?
4.1 b Not Applicable
4.2 No lawn—include plant materials with drip irrigation for design of dog area (i.e. native
grasses trimmed?
5.1 b Not Applicable
5.3a Ensure adequate light levels for seniors with efficient fixtures. CFL's: screw-ins vs. 2-
pin? Tenant replacement affordability & duration of occupancy can lead to tenant
installation of incandescent bulbs. CFL lamps are more expensive, but last longer. New
ballasts eliminate flicker&color temperatures have improved (except`daylight').
Possibly use LED—but typically not high enough light levels yet.
5.5 Aim to exceed standard Energy Star, and exceed code efficiency by 50% - Important to
reduce consumption while maintaining comfort needs.
5.6a Generate to offset energy usage (not necessarily all)—wind turbine, water wheel
possibilities? Ground Source Heat pump is well suited to the project&would provide
efficiencies in both heating &cooling, although large up-front cost(-10K/unit?). CHA to
investigate size and price of system with consultant. Set up meeting with Engineer&
contractor to facilitate understanding of the requirements of the system.
5.6b Accommodating future PV installation is not too challenging, but may not be a good fit.
Site orientation not well suited for PV(not enough southern exposure roof area) &
installation not desirable over green roof area.
6.1 What does Tigard offer or require for waste/recycling? Review with LMC.
6.2 Recycled content is part of the standard spec, where it has found to be well suited. This
is a goal to include but not a main sustainability drive of the project. CHA to review
typical spec to get an idea of current percentage being implemented in projects.
6.3 Many framing members will be engineered. CHA will review FSC certified for cedar
siding accents, etc.
6.4a/6.4b Retention and treatment of site runoff is being achieved through other means (bioswales,
retentionponds)
7.4 Explore less-carpet options, but carpet will be included in at least bedrooms so it will
have to be Green Label (Some increased cost& limited options). Possibly exposed
concrete floor in common areas, increased area of resilient flooring in units.
7.5c Not Applicable
7.6c Not Applicable
7.8 Non-issue with central boiler design. Not in units, in closed room with drain, etc.
7.16 Although may use non-vinyl resilient flooring, want carpet in at least unit bedrooms so
can't achieve this one.
7.17 Meet non-smoking in building goal, but include exterior smoking area. Tri-Met requires
no smoking at bus shelter, and to be 50' away from building (comb. w/dog area?)
requires structure to provide shelter&seat.
8.1 /8.2 Cheat Sheet to be included with binders
Green Communities Criteria Checklist
Z%tl ril ilia It it ICs Revised February 2008
Developer Name:
Project Name:
Address(Street/City/State): Maximum Points
Yes No I1
x Green Development Plan
Submit Green Development Plan outlining the integrated design approach used for this development that Mandatory
demonstrates involvement of the entire development team.
Ycs Na 1C1111 : 11,
x Smart Site Location: Proximity to Existing Development
Provide site map demonstrating that the development is located on a site with access to existing roads, Mandatory
except infill site or
water,sewers and other infrastructure within or contiguous(having at least 25 percent of the perimeter rehabs
bordering)to existing development.
x Smart Site Location: Protecting Environmental Resources-New Construction
Do not locate new development within 100 feet of wetlands,critical slope areas,land identified as habitat Mandatory
for a threatened or endangered species;or on land previously used as public park land,land identified as except
infill site or
rehabs
prime farmland,or with elevation at or below the 100-year floodplain.
X Smart Site Location: Proximity to Services-New Construction Mandatory
Locate projects within a'/4 mile of at least two,or 1/2 mile of at least four community and retail facilities. except infill site or
rehabs
X Compact Development: New Construction
Achieve densities for new construction of at least six units per acre for detached/semi-detached houses; 10 Mandatory
except rehabs
for town homes; 15 for apartments.
X Walkable Neighborhoods: Sidewalks and Pathways
Connect project to the pedestrian grid. Include sidewalks or other all-weather pathways within a Mandatory
multifamily property or single-family subdivision linking residential development to public spaces,open
spaces and adjacent development.
X 2? Smart Site Location: Passive Solar Heating/Cooling
Orient building to make the greatest use of passive solar heating and cooling. 4
X Smart Site Location: Grayfield, Brownfield or Adaptive Reuse Site 10
Locate the project on a grayfield,brownfield or adaptive reuse site.
x Compact Development
Increase average minimum densities to meet or exceed: seven units per acre for detached/semi-detached; 12 5
units for town homes;and 20 units for apartments.
X Walkable Neighborhoods: Connections to Surrounding Neighborhood
Provide a site plan demonstrating at least three separate connections from the development to sidewalks or 5
all-weather pathways in surrounding neighborhoods.
X Transportation Choices
Locate project within 1/4 mile radius of adequate public transit service,or 1/2 mile radius from an adequate 12
fixed rail or ferry station.
Yes No 1 1
X Environmental Remediation
Mandatory
Conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and provide a plan for abatement if necessary.
X Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Implement EPA's Best Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control during construction Mandatory
referring to the EPA document,Storm Water Management for Construction Activities.
x Landscaping
Provide a tree or plant list certified by the Architect or Landscape Architect,that the selection of new trees Mandatory
and plants areappropriate to the site's soils and microclimate and do not include invasive species.Locate aproviding
pp landscaping
plants to provide shading in the summer and allow for heat gain in the winter.
LH =Compatible with a LEED for Homes credit
Revised: Feb 2008 Page 1 of 4
X Surface Water Management
5
Capture,retain,infiltrate and/or harvest the first 1/2 inch of rainfall that falls in a 24-hour period.
X Storm Drain Labels
2
Label all storm drains or storm inlets to clearly indicate where the drain or inlet leads.
Yes No 1 1
X Water-Conserving Appliances and Fixtures: New Construction
Install water-conserving fixtures with the following minimum specifications:toilets- 1.3 GPF; Mandatory
showerheads-2.0 GPM;kitchen faucets-2.0 GPM;bathroom faucets-2.0 GPM
Water-Conserving Appliances and Fixtures: Moderate Rehabilitation
N/A Install water-conserving fixtures with the following minimum specificationsfor toilets and shower heads Mandatory
and follow requirements for other fixtures wherever and whenever they are replaced:toilets—1.3 GPF;
showerheads—2.0 GPF;kitchen faucets—2.0 GPM;bathroom faucets—2.0 GPM.
X ? Water-Conserving Appliances and Fixtures
Install water-conserving fixtures with the following minimum specifications:toilets- 1.1 GPF; 5
showerheads- 1.75 GPM;kitchen faucets-2.0 GPM;bathroom faucets- 1.5 GPM
X Efficient Irrigation
If irrigation is necessary,use recycled gray water,roof water,collected site run-off,water from a municipal Mandatory
recycled water system,or a highly efficient irrigation system including all the following:system designed ifirrigarion is
by EPA Water Sense professional;plant beds with a drip irrigation system;separately zoned turf and necessary
bedding types;a watering zone timer/controller;moisture sensor controller.
Yes No
X Efficient Energy Use: New Construction
Meet Energy Star standards(single family and low rise residential);exceed ASHRAE 90.1-2004 by 15
percent;California-exceed Title 24 by 15 percent;Oregon,Washington,Idaho and Montana--meet Mandatory
Northwest Energy Star
Efficient Energy Use: Moderate &Substantial Rehabilitation
N/A Perform an energy analysis of existing building condition,estimate costs of improvements,implement Mandatory
measures that will improve building energy performance by 15 percent from pre-renovation figures.
X Energy Star Appliances Mandatory
If providing appliances,install Energy Star clothes washers,dishwashers and refrigerators. i(pro`'iding
appliances
X Efficient Lighting: Interior
Install the Energy Star Advanced Lighting Package in all interior units and use Energy Star or high- Mandatory
efficiency commercial grade fixtures in all common areas and outdoors.
X Efficient Lighting: Exterior
Install daylight sensors or timers on all outdoor lighting,including front and rear porch lights in single Mandatory
family homes.
X Electricity Meter Mandatory
Install individual or sub-metered electric meters. (seefaucriteria
for exceptions)
? Additional Reductions in Energy Use
Exceed the relevant Energy Star HERS score for low-rise residential buildings or exceed other standards b Optional
(see jell criteria)
increased percentages.
? Renewable Energy
Install PV panels,wind turbines or other renewable energy source to provide at least 10 percent of the 15
project's estimated electricity demand.
? Photovoltaic (PV) Ready
Site,design,engineer and wire the development to accommodate installation of PV in the future. 2
Yes No M1 1
X Construction Waste Management
Develop and implement a construction waste management plan to reduce the amount of material sent to the 5
landfill by at least 25 percent.
? Recycled Content Material
Use materials with recycled content;provide calculation for recycled content percentage based on cost or 14 •
value of recycled content in relation to total materials for project. Minimum recycled material must be 5
percent
LH =Compatible with a LEED for Homes credit
Revised: Feb 2008 Page 2 of 4
X Certified, Salvaged and Engineered Wood
Commit to using at least 25 percent(by cost)wood products and materials that are salvaged wood, 5
engineered framing materials or certified in accordance with the Forest Stewardship Council.
X Water-Permeable Walkways 5
Use water-permeable materials in 50 percent or more of walkways.
X Water-Permeable Parking Areas
Use water-permeable materials in 50 percent or more of paved parking areas. 5
X Reduce Heat-Island Effect: Roofing
Use Energy Star-compliant and high-emissive roofing or install a"green"(vegetated)roof for at least 50 5
percent of the roof area;or a combination of high-albedo and vegetated roof covering 75 percent of the roof
area.
X Reduce Heat-Island Effect: Paving
Use light-colored,high-albedo materials and/or an open-grid pavement with a minimum Solar Reflective 5
Index of 0.6 over at least 30 percent of the site's hardscaped area.
X Reduce Heat-Island Effect: Plantings
Locate trees or other plantings to provide shading for at least 50 percent of sidewalks,patios and driveways 5
within 50 feet of a home.
Yes No II t
X Low/No Volatile Organic Compounds(VOC ) Paints and Primers
Specify that all interior paints and primers must comply with current Green Seal standards for low VOC Mandatory
X Low/No VOC Adhesives and Sealants
Specify that all adhesives must comply with Rule 1168 of the South Coast Air Quality Management Mandatory
District.Caulks and sealants must comply with Regulation 8,Rule 51 of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
X Urea Formaldehyde-free Composite Wood
Use particleboard and MDF that is certified compliant with the ANSI A208.1 and A208.2. If using Mandatory
nonrated composite wood,all exposed edges and sides must be sealed with low-VOC sealants.
X Green Label Certified Floor Coverings
Do not install carpets in below grade living spaces,entryways,laundry rooms,bathrooms,kitchens or Mandatory
if providing floor
utility rooms. If using carpet,use the Carpet and Rug Institute's Green Label certified carpet,pad and coverings
carpet adhesives.
X Exhaust Fans—Bathroom
Install Energy Star-labeled bathroom fans that exhaust to the outdoors and are connected to a light switch Mandatory
and are equipped with a humidistat sensor or timer,or operate continuously.
X Exhaust Fans—Kitchen: New Construction & Substantial Rehabilitation
Install power vented fans or range hoods that exhaust to the exterior. Mandatory
Exhaust Fans—Kitchen: Moderate Rehabilitation
N/A Install power vented fans or range hoods that exhaust to the exterior. 5
X Ventilation: New Construction & Substantial Rehabilitation
Install a ventilation system for the dwelling unit,providing adequate fresh air per ASHRAE 62.1-2007 for Mandatory
residential buildings above 3 stories or ASHRAE 62.2 for single family and low-rise multifamily
dwellings.
Ventilation: Moderate Rehabilitation
N/A Install a ventilation system for the dwelling unit,providing adequate fresh air per ASHRAE 62.1-2007 for 10
residential buildings above 3 stories or ASHRAE 62.2 for single family and low-rise multifamily
dwellings.
X HVAC Sizing
Size heating and cooling equipment in accordance with the Air Conditioning Contractors of America Mandatory
Manual,Parts J and S,ASHRAE handbooks,or equivalent software.
X Water Heaters: Mold Prevention
Use tankless hot water heaters or install conventional hot water heaters in rooms with drains or catch pans Mandatory
with drains piped to the exterior of the dwelling and with non-water sensitive floor coverings.
LH =Compatible with a LEED for Homes credit
Revised: Feb 2008 Page 3 of 4
X Materials in Wet Areas: Surfaces
In wet areas,use materials that have smooth,durable,cleanable surfaces. Do not use mold-propagating Mandatory
materials such as vinyl wallpaper and unsealed grout.
X Materials in Wet Areas: Tub and Shower Enclosures
Use fiberglass or similar enclosure or,if using any form of grouted material,use backing materials such as Mandatory
cement board,fiber cement board or equivalent(i.e.,not paper-faced).
X Basements and Concrete Slabs:Vapor Barrier
Provide vapor barrier under all slabs. For concrete floors either in basements or on-grade slab install a
capillary break of 4 four inches of gravel over soil.Cover all gravel with 6 millimeter polyethylene Mandatory
sheeting moisture barrier with joints lapped one foot or more. On interior below grade walls,avoid using
separate vapor barrier or below grade vertical insulation.
X Basements and Concrete Slabs—Radon: New Construction&Substantial Rehabilitation
In EPA Zone I and 2 areas,install passive radon-resistant features below the slab along with a vertical vent Mandatory
pipe with junction box available,if an active system should prove necessary.For substantial rehab,
introduce radon-reduction measures if elevated levels of radon are detected.
X Water Drainage
Mandatory
Provide drainage of water to the lowest level of concrete away from windows,walls and foundations.
X Garage Isolation
Provide a continuous air barrier between the conditioned(living)space and any unconditioned garage
space. In single-family houses with attached garages,install a CO alarm inside the house on the wall that is Mandatory
attached to the garage and outside the sleeping area,and do not install air handling equipment in the
garage.
X Clothes Dryer Exhaust
Clothes dryers must be exhausted directly to the outdoors. Mandatory
X Integrated Pest Management
Seal all wall,floor and joint penetrations with low VOC caulking. Provide rodent-proof and corrosion- Mandatory
proof screens(e.g.,copper or stainless steel mesh)for large openings.
X Lead-Safe Work Practices: Moderate&Substantial Rehabilitation
For properties built before 1978,use lead-safe work practices during renovation,remodeling,painting and Mandatory
demolition.
X Healthy Flooring Materials: Alternative Sources
Use non-vinyl,non-carpet floor coverings in all rooms. 5
X Smoke-free Building
Enforce a"no smoking"policy in all common and individual living areas in all buildings.See full criteria 2
for"common area"definition.
X Combustion Equipment(includes space&water-heating equipment)
Specify power vented or combustion sealed equipment.Install one hard-wired CO detector for each Mandatory
sleeping area,minimum one per floor.
Yo tin
X Building Maintenance Manual
Provide a manual that includes the following:a routine maintenance plan;instructions for all appliances,
HVAC operation,water-system turnoffs,lighting equipment,paving materials and landscaping,pest
Mandatory
control and other systems that are part of each occupancy unit;an occupancy turnover plan that describes
the process of educating the tenant about proper use and maintenance of all building systems.
X Occupant's Manual
Provide a guide for homeowners and renters that explains the intent,benefits,use and maintenance of gree
building features,along with the location of transit stops and other neighborhood conveniences,and Mandatory
encourages additional green activities such as recycling,gardening and use of healthy cleaning materials,
alternate measures for pest control,and purchase of green power.
X Homeowner and New Resident Orientation
Provide a walk-through and orientation to the homeowner or new resident using the Occupant Manual from Mandatory
8-2 above that reviews the building's green features,operations and maintenance along with neighborhood
conveniences.
LH =Compatible with a LEED for Homes credit
Revised: Feb 2008 Page 4 of 4
I-
ra
City Center Advisory Commission
Retreat Minutes
Date of Meeting: Monday, February 16 2009
Location: Library Conference Room
Called to order by: Chair Alice Ellis Gaut
Time Started: 10:00 a.m.
Time Ended: 2:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley;Chair Alice Ellis Gaut, Ralph Hughes, Kevin Kutcher,Lily Lilly,
Peter Louw,Thomas Murphy, Martha Wong,Vice Chair Alexander Craghead (alternate),Linli Pao
(alternate)
Commissioners Absent: Elise Shearer
Others Present: None
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director
DISCUSSION ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions
Mr. Bunch provided the commission with an update on where various urban renewal projects stand in light
of current economic forecasts. The commission discussed timelines, financial constraints, and projects on
the horizon for 2009.
DISCUSSION ITEM #2: Goal Setting
The commission shaped a set of draft goals. These consisted of:
A.) Better connect actions to original citizen visions.
* Increase transparency
*Address original visions in oncoming and ongoing project processes (e.g. Main Street, Burnham,
Circulation Plan, Park plans)
B.) Improve CCAC processes.
* Develop new member orientation aids
* More efficiently use meeting time
* Improve agenda setting procedures
* Consider the use of more purpose-centered committees
* Develop an annual calendar
C.) Have a greater awareness of livability,quality-of-life, and business impacts resulting from CCAC work.
*Address business retention and support
* Explore urban renewal end points
*Conduct stakeholder outreach
CCAC Retreat Minutes for February 16, 2009 1
These draft goals will be typed and emailed to the CCAC for consideration.The goals will be discussed,
modified if necessary, and adopted at the March 11 CCAC meeting.
DISCUSSION ITEM #3: Commission Procedures and Workload
The commission discussed CCAC procedures and workload. This included discussion on:
• Agenda setting methods
• Length, time and location of meetings
• Update methods
• Committees and subcommittees
• Need for bylaws revisions
The Chair and Vice Chair offered to work on these issues with the rest of the commission.
DISCUSSION ITEM #4: Communication with Council
The commission discussed various ways to better engage in communication with the City Council.
ADJOURNED: 2 p.m.
CCAC Retreat Minutes for February 16, 2009 2