Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/2010 - Packet .. y: �. Completeness Review TIG�ARD for Boards, Commissions and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD Planning Commission_ Name of Board, Commission or Committee 03 - ICS 2,0( v Date of Meeting I have verified these documents are a complete copy of the official record. Doreen Laughlin Print Name Signature ` 8.47-11 Date ■ City of Tigard Planning Commission Agenda TIGARD MEETING DATE: August 16, 2010; 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS — 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING— 7:05 p.m. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2009-00004/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2009-00004/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2009-00005/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2010-00002-WALL STREET EXTENSION (FIELDS) REQUEST: The applicant is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to remove Goal 5 protection from Tigard Significant Wetlands and the riparian corridor surrounding Fanno Creek in order to extend Wall Street across City of Tigard property and Fanno Creek to his property. Sensitive Lands Review is required for proposed work within the 100-year floodplain and wetlands. The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the street improvement standards in order to construct a narrower street section than required by code. Tree removal permits to remove trees within the sensitive lands were submitted under a separate application. LOCATION: Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DA,Tax Lot 690. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DD,Tax Lot 100. 13560 SW Hall Blvd.,Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DD,Tax Lot 200. 6. OTHER BUSINESS —8:35 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT—8:45 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA—AUGUST 16, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of1 PLEASE SIGN IN HERE FR Tigard Planning Commission snpvtri, Agenda Item # g Page I_ of Z_- Date of Hearing 7Y- i Co -( Case Number(s) CFA` .2i0cA -as oCY'i Jz dor / RR"Z0 { },••00 00 Z..1 Case Name L c' \ r-ee. Es b 11\ . c e us Location (..C.t) y' 75C:55t)c'S c?,.c ZS\0 t C3A n—u-6.Cot U)( b If you would like to speak on this item, please CLEARLY PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (FOR the proposal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): Name: `C..� k ...1 ( Name: _i,, 6i{1 l- Address: 7O0O S'.t - \-k -A-1.:lV-0.-.r Address: 1 i iii c,l,3 l NN- \../7 City, State, Zip: ` { �J ion 2:1,' City, State, Zip: t4 ,e eit eftvz_s 1 Name: Name: Gr`° '2-s- Address: t X-?i-C--C----4tj Address: 4 - .40,1.- f City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: S/14"r"o r-i tic )a-1 s- _ i1,7 1 �. IA' Address: Address: i.�4 .I}). /-6e-if gi oa `i City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: � . ,r,A 61 72,.03 Name: Name: v l Q7 `d, zt/5,1 6/4' Address: Address: /435 5/4/ kr , / ., (s) (v City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: �,,e a/P, 77g1c;?2- 6179/6 Name: Name: 6101/19 7,,r9„irs Address: Address: /3676 sig.) ^ ,4 2 City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: 776 42() c 9 3 r11 PLEASE SIGN IN HERE Tigard Planning Commission Agenda Item # Page 2 of Date of Hearing W ( - Case Number(s) L�. O -0 ( L..-E. "2.o o ` - 0 L( j to„ co1,90 2 �! -2_00 c)dock'- Case Name �k\ �'�e h pn � kk i t-�c��] Location t C.6T-mac es S S Mop 1fi � ` La' cA.a \SSttS lD2,S)D,— rr 206 If yo . ould like to speak on this item, please CLEARLY PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (FOR the proposal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): Name: Name: r t kid C,9 e vi,e e Address: Address: NZ 5 6.0 vJ ST .. 1a" City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: L ( 1 7.2 a , Name: Name 0.0 vA \ Address: Address: 7\)1> g' City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip 5� -? Name: Name: f h PO `l� (� Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: } t " O S Name: Name: 1757,...L 14) ? Address: Address: `Z, 2 t?5 / City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: /,//sdcc , O ?./9. Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: . City of Tigard • PLEASE PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO IN THE LEGALS TIGARD SECTION OF THE TIGARD TIMES,THE FOLLOWING: • ---f Formatted:Font:8 pt PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday August 16,2010 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall,13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Planning Commission's review is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division(Staff contact: Cheryl Gaines,Associate Planner)at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223,by calling 503-718-2437,or by e-mail to cherylc @,tigard-or.gov. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA)2009-00004/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW(SLR)2009- 00004/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW(SLR)2009-00005/ADJUSTMENT(VAR)2010-00002 -WALL STREET EXTENSION(FIELDS)- REQUEST: The applicant is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to remove Goal 5 protection from Tigard Significant Wetlands and the riparian corridor surrounding Fanno Creek in order to extend Wall Street across City of Tigard property and Fanno Creek to his property. Sensitive Lands Review is required for proposed work within the 100-year floodplain and wetlands. The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the street improvement standards in order to construct a narrower street section than required by code. Tree removal permits to remove trees within the sensitive lands were submitted under a separate application. LOCATION: No address,Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DA,Tax Lot 690. No address,Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DD,Tax Lot 100. 13560 SW Hall Blvd.,Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DD,Tax Lot 200. No address,Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S10100, Tax Lot 1200. ZONES: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. R-25: Medium High-Density Residential District. The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single-family and multi-family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential and Medium-High Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370,18.380,18.390,18.510,18.745,18.775,18.790 &18.810;Comprehensive Plan Goals 1,2,5,6,7,8,11 &12;Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 9;Metro Functional Plan Titles 3,6 and 13;and Statewide Planning Goals 1,2,5,6,7,8,11 and 12. TT PUBLISH DATE: JULY 29,2010 (PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT 2 TO THIS E-MAIL.FOR THE VICINITY MAP TO ALSO BE PUBLISHED WITH THIS NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION. THANK YOU.) IN q CITY OF TIGARD , CITY OF TIGARD Long Range Planning Div. i Long Range Planning Div. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223 TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223 TO: TO: Fred Fields Group MacKenzie 1149 SW Davenport Avenue Attn: Rhys Konrad Portland, OR 97201 P.O. Box 4310 Portland, OR 97293 IN . . n CITY OF TIGARD ;.i CITY OF TIGARD Long Range Planning Div. i 1 . Long Range Planning Div. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , 13125 SW Hall Blvd. TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223 TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223 TO: TO: Miller Nash L.L.P. Aslak Eikram Phil Grillo By John O. Hayhurst 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 7805 SW Edgewater East 111 SW Fifth Avenue Wilsonville, OR 97070 Portland, OR 97204 N„ CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD,01 INI i Long Range Planning Div. Long Range Planning Div. ---- 13125 SW Hall Blvd. = ---- _ 13125 SW Hall Blvd. -FIG A R D Tigard, OR 97223 TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223 TO: TO: 1,1 . City of Tigard PLEASE PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO IN THE LEGALS TIGARD SECTION OF THE TIGARD TIMES, THE FOLLOWING: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday August 16, 2010 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Planning Commission's review is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 97223,by calling 503-718-2437,or by e-mail to cherylc@tigard-or.gov. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA)2009-00004/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW(SLR)2009- 00004/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW(SLR)2009-00005/ADJUSTMENT (VAR)2010-00002 - WALL STREET EXTENSION (FIELDS) - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to remove Goal 5 protection from Tigard Significant Wetlands and the riparian corridor surrounding Fanno Creek in order to extend Wall Street across City of Tigard property and Fanno Creek to his property. Sensitive Lands Review is required for proposed work within the 100-year floodplain and wetlands. The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the street improvement standards in order to construct a narrower street section than required by code. Tree removal permits to remove trees within the sensitive lands were submitted under a separate application. LOCATION: No address,Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DA, Tax Lot 690. No address, Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DD, Tax Lot 100. 13560 SW Hall Blvd., Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DD, Tax Lot 200. No address,Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S10100, Tax Lot 1200. ZONES: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. R-25: Medium High-Density Residential District. The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single-family and multi-family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential and Medium-High Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.510, 18.745, 18.775, 18.790 & 18.810; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 & 12; Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 9; Metro Functional Plan Titles 3, 6 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1,2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12. TT PUBLISH DATE: JULY 29,2010 (PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT 2 TO THIS E-MAIL FOR THE VICINITY MAP TO ALSO BE PUBLISHED WITH THIS NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION. THANK YOU.) / .k' ''', 4.i .. VICINITY MAP ece JIl V .,. ' \\41., CPA2009-00004 * SLR2009-00004 SLR2009-00005 VAR2010-00002 i WALL STREET EXTENSION • I iIl I aM'11n11Ei11 l In I l I II (FIELDS) Fonnp creek Pork '•1:1 7 a "ar rro ={ i .i .,.. .., .11141kura rik. . ginhi , _ii. . \ NIEL g.... ..... _. .... . a l - uni -mi nil ir. zA. \ igimpt.,.....ii Subject Site aim 4 \ it . . I ;; 'NA , \ A, in ' '"y I [ Y 0 _ , tr ,cnwa r 11.11 in Illitira I iiiii \ .......... ipirip- r , I r i. „,........ ,.......\„. Lt. 11...fai. ... was= \ D NAZI Nuggiaiii Pm, ',RNA II■ 1 ah u. gin Min kiriiiim PP-. U: lum only and should ld this map is for general location - only and should be verified with the Development MINIM = Services Division. li11 _ lti]f� •FAI �f.l . On"' Scale 1:8,000-1 in=667 ft • •�' ������ Map printed at 09:25 AM On 21-JUI-10 urns III Emir ' lip our Q DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CITY OF TIGARD a yam- ralir40,0,.. s ��� MAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE• CONTENT.ACCURACY.TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE gni - , ��� DATAFROOIR ANY ERRORS,OMISS ONS.OR IN CCU ASSUME H LIABILITY FO FMAANN PROVIDE OR REGARDLESS F HOWRA USE.THE lb INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. 'ii 34*�_ ' 11111 Illl - -�- � III IN! City of Tigard MI 13125 SW Hall Blvd Feet _■ Bcn .r TIC ' � Tigard,OR 97223 0 1000 al IN _. II 1 503 639-4171 i a • •'.P a ilia -= www.tigard-or.gov TIGARD IN '' City of Tigard MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Tigard Planning Commission FROM: Cheryl Caines,Associate Planner RE: Fields Wall Street Extension DATE: August 6, 2010 INTRODUCTION The attached staff report evaluating the proposal to extend Wall Street across Fanno Creek to access Mr. Field's property is extensive. It comprises about 35 pages without attachments. The staff report is a detailed response to a complex application by Mr. Field's requesting the City to approve four concurrent requests —a Comprehensive Plan amendment, two sensitive lands reviews and an adjustment. This memo is intended to provide an understanding of the process and structure used by staff to make its recommendations. The following does not address all the issues raised in the staff report,but is meant only to provide an overview of the applications and their interdependence. ORGANIZATION OF THE STAFF REPORT The Planning Commissioner's packet consists of a copy of the applicant's submittal (binder and full size plan set), staff report, and attachments. Please note that the applicant's narrative consists of the original narrative (following the table of contents) and an addendum (following the original narrative and before Exhibit A). The Staff Report refers to exhibits and attachments. Exhibits are found in the applicant's submittal,while attachments are included with the Staff Report. These attachments include the original incomplete letter sent to the applicant, a letter from the applicant's representative regarding public support facilities, comment letters from State and local agencies, and a vicinity map. The Staff Report reviews the proposal against requirements of the Tigard Community Development Code,Tigard Comprehensive Plan,Tigard Municipal Code,Metro Urban Growth Management Plan, and Statewide Planning Goals. Therefore,the report is arranged to reflect this. The report also includes a brief history of Wall Street, a summary of key issues, and an analysis/conclusion. APPLICATIONS The application consists of approvals four concurrent land use requests as follows: 1. A Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove Goal 5 protection from Fanno Creek's significant wetlands; 2. Sensitive lands review to do work in the Fanno Creek Wetland to construct the proposed Wall Street extension, Page 1 3. Sensitive lands review to do work in the Fanno Creek flood plain to construct the proposed Wall Street extension, and 4. An adjustment to the Tigard Development Code (TDC) street improvement standards to construct Wall Street to a narrower section than allowed by the TDC. Request 1: Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove Goal 5 protection The TDC does not allow issuance of sensitive lands permits in significant wetlands; therefore the applicant must request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove the Goal 5 protection from the resource. An Economic, Social,Environmental, Social and Energy (ESEE) Analysis per Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-023-040 is required. The analysis looks at the economic, social, environmental, energy consequences that could result from a decision to allow,limit, or prohibit a use that conflicts with the Goal 5 resource. Staffs detailed evaluation, findings and conclusions are on pages 18-20 of the appended staff report. Comprehensive Plan criteria are also applicable to this request. In pages 24-30 staff has analyzed the application against applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies and has determined that the application does not comply with the applicable criteria. In addition, applicable Metro standards and Statewide Planning Goals must also be addressed. Analyses of these criteria are found on pages 32-35 of the report. Request 2: Sensitive lands review to do work in the Fanno Creek Wetland to construct the proposed Wall Street extension. The applicant is proposing to do work within Fanno Creek's significant wetlands. An area of approximately.19 acres will be affected. Staff has previously recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove significant wetlands protection due to the inadequacy of the Goal 5: ESEE analysis. The TDC also requires that any landform alterations not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use. Staff has found that the applicant has not met the burden of proof to approve a Sensitive Lands Review for work within the wetland and riparian corridor. Staffs detailed evaluation, findings and conclusions are on pages 15- 18 of the appended staff report. Request 3: Sensitive lands review to do work in the Fanno Creek flood plain to construct the proposed Wall Street extension. This project involves work in the hundred year floodplain. Staff finds that the applicant has not complied with standards regarding zero-rise, anchoring, resistance to and minimizing flood damage and the need to place fill within a floodplain area that is zoned residential. Staff's evaluation of the applicant's submittal for sensitive land review to do work within the floodplain is found on pages 12-15 of the staff report. Request 4: An adjustment to the Tigard Development Code (TDC) street improvement standards to construct Wall Street to a narrower section than allowed by the TDC The applicant has proposed a narrower street section and elimination of the planter strip on the bridge portion of the street extension. This requires an adjustment to the street improvement standards. Staff recommends denial of the adjustment to reduce the street section because the applicant has not provided adequate information to prove that the request meets the applicable criteria. Staff's detailed evaluations, findings and conclusions are on pages 7 & 8 of the appended staff report. Page 2 Other TDC Criteria: On pages 20-24 of the staff report, staff evaluates the proposal against the TDC development codes utility and improvement standards. In many instances the applicable criteria are not met. Municipal Code Regulations: Because the applicant is proposing removal and planting of new trees on city property, the requirements of Municipal Code chapter 9.06 are applicable. The applicant has not shown compliance with these regulations. A detailed analysis if found on pages 30-32. CONCLUSION: Staff has found that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that applicable criteria are met as is necessary to approve any of the four land use actions requested in Mr. Fields' application. Page 3 Agenda Item: 5 Hearing Date:August 16,2010 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T I GARD 120 DAYS = NA SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: FIELDS WALL STREET EXTENSION FILE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) CPA2009-00004 Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) SLR2009-00004 Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) SLR2009-00005 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2010-00002 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting concurrent recommendation of approval by the Tigard Planning Commission of four separate actions: 1) an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to remove Goal 5 protection from Tigard Significant Wetlands and the riparian corridor surrounding Fanno Creek in order to extend Wall Street across City of Tigard property and Fanno Creek to his property, 2) two Sensitive Lands Review permits for proposed work within the 100-year flood lain and wetlands, and 3)an adjustment to the street improvement standards in order to construct a narrower street section than required by code. Tree removal permits to remove trees within the sensitive lands were submitted under a separate application (TRE2010-00002). APPLICANT: Fred Fields APPLICANT'S Group Mackenzie 1149 SW Davenport Avenue REP.: Attn: Rhys Konrad Portland, OR 97201 P.O.Box 4310 Portland, OR 97293 APPLICANT'S Miller Nash L.L.P. PROPERTY Same as applicant. REP.: Phil Grillo OWNER 1: 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 111 SW Fifth Ave. Portland, OR 97204 PROPERTY *City of Tigard PROPETY Aslak Eikram OWNER 2: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. OWNER 3: by John O. Hayhurst Tigard, OR 97223 7805 SW Edgewater East *Owner has not signed application Wilsonville, OR 97070 LOCATION: No address,Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DA,Tax Lot 690. No address,Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DD,Tax Lot 100. 13560 SW Hall Blvd.,Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DD, Tax Lot 200. No address,Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S10100,Tax Lot 1200. STAFF REPORT TO TI-IF,PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC IIEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 1 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. R-25: Medium High-Density Residential District. The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single-family and multi-family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. COMP PLAN: Medium Density Residential and Medium High Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.370-Variances and Adjustments, 18.380-Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390-Decision- Making Procedures, 18.510-Residential Zoning Districts, 18.745-Landscaping and Screening, 18.775-Sensitive Lands Review, 18.790-Tree Removal, 18.810- Streets and Utility Improvement Standards; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals: 1-Citizen Involvement, 2-Land Use Planning, 5-Natural Resources and Historic Areas, 6-Environmental Quality, 7-Hazards, 8-Parks, Trails and Open Space, 11-Public Facilities, & 12-Transportation; Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 9 - Parks, Metro Functional Plan Titles 3 (Water Quality and Flood Management) & 13 (Nature in Neighborhoods), and Statewide Planning Goals 1-Citizen Involvement, 2-Land Use Planning, 5-Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces, 6-Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, 7-Areas Subject to Natural Hazards, 11-Public Facilities and Services,and 12-Transportation. SECTION IL STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend DENIAL of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,Sensitive Lands Review,and Adjustment to the City Council. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Wall Street History December 2001 the City and the applicant (Mr. Fred Fields) entered into an Option Agreement in for the City to purchase property from Mr.-Fields to construct a new public library. In October 2002, the parties entered Into a Purchase and Sale Agreement. These documents reference the establishment of an extension road from Hall Boulevard to Mr. Fields adjacent property that lies generally eastward of the property that is now the library property. October 2002 the current Transportation System Plan (TSP), a subdocument of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, was adopted by resolution. The TSP lays out the city's transportation improvement needs over a 20 year planning period. In order to alleviate, and mitigate for,growing congestion problems, the plan identifies possible improvements and connections. One of these connections includes the construction of Wall Street between Hall Boulevard and Hunziker Street. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC IIEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL ST1u•,13I'COMPRIsJ-IENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 2 OIL 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE l..ANIDS REVIEW January 2003 a 42 unit condominium project (Fanno Pointe) was approved on the site to the south of what is now Wall Street. Approval was granted with temporary access from SW Hall Boulevard, but the project's ultimate access would-be from Wall Street. April 2003 the City received approval to construct the Tigard Public Library. The City was studying possible alternative alignments of Wall Street between Hall Boulevard and Hunziker Street at the time of this approval. Access to the library was approved through an interim driveway from Hall Boulevard until such time that the first phase of the Wall Street extension could be completed. Around this same time negotiations began with Mr. Fields and City Council asked Staff to prepare a preliminary engineering report to form a Local Improvement District (LID) to extend Wall Street to Hunziker,which would require an at- grade crossing of the Pacific Western Railroad tracks. The LID proposal originally consisted of two phases. Phase 1 was to extend Wall Street to serve the library and Fanno -Pointe Condominiums. Phase 2 was to complete the Wall Street connection to Hunziker. March 2004 the City submitted a proposal to construct Phase 1 of the Wall Street extension and request approval for the future construction of Phase 2 of Wall Street. At the time of submittal, approval had not been obtained from Clean Water Services or the Army Corps of Engineers for work within the vegetated corridor and floodplain. In addition, the City had not obtained approval from Portland &Western Railroad for an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks. After several discussions with Staff, the application was - revised to eliminate approval for Phase 2. Fall 2005, Phase 1 was further revised to reduce the proposed roadway length from 425 feet to 350 feet in order to avoid development within the 100-year floodplain. The redesign included a retaining wall along the eastern edge of the condominium access to minimize the wetland impact from.25 acre to .11 acre. December 2005 the City granted Mr. Fields a 60-foot wide easement for construction of utilities and roadway on the property purchased from Mr. Fields. This easement follows the Wall Street alignment. June 2006 land use approvals for Phase 1 were granted. The approval included sensitive lands review and a comprehensive plan amendment to remove protection of the impacted areas of "Locally Significant" wetlands for the construction of Wall Street,Phase 1. Construction was completed the following year. August 2007 City Council prepared a memorandum of understanding between Mr. Fields, the Tigard- Tualatin School District and the City to work together on a property exchange that involved the District's bus storage facility on Hall Boulevard for a site owned by Mr. Fields off Hunziker. Mr. Fields would then have access to his property via a route not requiring a bridge across Fanno Creek. The discussions ended when the District decided to retain its Hall Boulevard property. July 2008 Mr. Fields requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to amend his property's zoning designation from Light Industrial (I-L) to Medium High Density Residential (R-25). A concurrent application was made for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Sensitive Lands Review to extend Wall Street across Fanno Creek. The application for Wall Street was withdrawn. The zone change was approved by Council in June 2009. October 2009 Mr. Fields submitted the current application. Staff determined the application was incomplete and sent a letter outlining the completeness items in October 2009 (Attachment 1). The applicant submitted revised materials in February 2010 and requested the City process the application based on the information provided to date as allowed through Oregon Revised Statute 227.178(4)(b). There remained several issues with the application including, tie proposal to use City property to meet zero-foot rise floodplain requirements through proposed cuts/tills without a property owner signature. Proposal Description The applicant is requesting a Type IV Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to remove Goal 5 protection from Tigard Significant Wetlands and surrounding riparian corridor in order to extend Wall Street across City of Tigard property and Fanno Creek. The extension of Wall Street will provide access to the applicant's property that Ties west of the railroad track. This property is not currently served by a public street or improved access. A Type III Sensitive Lands Review is required for proposed work within the 100-year STAFF REPORT TO TIT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC I-IGARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL.STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 3 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW floodplain/floodway and Type II Sensitive Lands Review for the wetlands. The applicant is requesting a Type II adjustment to the street improvement standards in order to construct a narrower street section than required by code. This adjustment would apply only to the bridge ortion of the street. Because the sensitive lands and adjustment were requested in conjunction with the Comp Plan Amendment, each review follows the Type IV review process. Tree removal is proposed to construct the street extension as shown in the application (Arborist Report — Exhibit 1). Removal of non-hazardous trees within sensitive lands requires tree removal permits. The applicant has requested a separate but concurrent review of the Tree Removal Permits (TRE2010-00002). During the review but prior to public notice, the applicant revised the plans to eliminate specific excavation areas which may have provided zero-rise for the fill. The cuts (involving more than 1,100 cubic yards of material) were proposed on City pro-petty, and the applicant has not secured the City's signature on the application as the property owner. Otier work proposed on City property includes mitigation/enhancement of vegetated corridors, which is required to meet Clean Water Services standards. As previously noted, an access easement was granted to the applicant across City property,but according to documentation provided, this easement appears to be narrower than the required 72-foot right-of-way required for a collector street. The easement appears to be the north 60 feet of the 72-foot right-of-way. It is not clearly shown on the plans provided. Wetlands The extension of Wall Street will impact wetlands designated as "Locally Significant" on the Tigard'Wetland and Streams Corridor Map." These impacts are due to the construction of the sections of road leading up to the bridge abutments and required fill slopes. A man made pond (East pond) and wetlands neat Fanno Creek will be impacted to construct the bridge wingwall on the west side of the bridge and the road and fill slopes for the remainder. According to the applicant the proposed impact for Phase 2 will total 8,447 square feet (0.19 acres). Wetland mitigation for the Phase 2 impact was completed as part of Phase 1. A deed restriction was recorded in 2009 for the wetland mitigation. The proposed work appears to be located outside of the restricted area. To complete the proposed work that is located within significant wetlands, the applicant must satisfy the requirements for a Sensitive Lands Review for wetlands, including removal of the Goal 5 protection for the wetland. These criteria are discussed further under the portion of the report addressing section 18.775 (Sensitive Lands). Floodplain Floodplain is also present on the proposal site. Impacts to the floodplain include the addition of structural fill in the areas east and west of the proposed bridge, the construction of wingwalls and retaining walls at both ends of the bridge, and the installation of steel support pilings for the bridge sections. Total impacts will be 2,010 cubic yards prior to mitigation (over a .56 acre footprint). The applicant has stated that mitigation,which is required for a zero rise finding,will occur off-site and that 940 cubic yards of cut volume from Phase 1 may be utilized. Sensitive Lands review for work within the floodplain is requited and is addressed further under section 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) portion of this report. Drainageways A 320-foot bridge is proposed to span Fanno Creek. No in water work is proposed within Fanno Creek. The ?roposed piles for the bridge and fill for the retaining walls and wingwalls are not located within Fanno Cree i.A sensitive lands review for drainageways is not required. Tree Removal(permits requested tinder separate application, see explanation below) The applicant is seeking to remove 26 trees to construct the street extension. All trees within sensitive lands require permits for removal unless deemed hazardous by a certified arborist. According to the arborist's report, 9 of the trees are dead or hazardous. A tree removal ermit has been requested for the remaining 17 trees under separate but concurrent review (TRE2010-00002); therefore the tree removal permit criteria are not addressed within this report. However, the requirements for tree removal on City property found in Municipal Code chapter 9 are addressed in this report. Twenty-one (21) of the trees to be removed are located on City property. Signatures of the property owner are required on the Tree Removal Permit application form, but the City has not signed the application. Secondly, the applicant has not satisfied the applicable tree removal permit criteria. In addition the permit applications have been submitted in the absence of approvals required for construction of the Wall Street extension. For these reasons the tree removal permit has been denied. STAFF REPORT I'O THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC FLEARING CPA2009-00004/FIEL..DS WALL.STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 4 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW Site &Vicinity Information The site consists of four tax lots affected by the proposed street extension. The proposed bridge and road that will provide access to the applicant's site (tax lot 1200) will mainly be constructed on properties owned by the City (tax lots 100 & 200). A 60-foot wide access easement has been granted to the applicant by the City on these two properties, which follows the general alignment of the proposed Wall Street extension. A small portion of the Wall Street extension will be constructed on the applicant's parcel,where it is proposed to dead end in anticipation of future development on the property. Mitigation for the impacts to the vegetated corridor around Fanno Creek and on-site wetlands are proposed on all three previously mentioned parcels and tax lot 690, which is small parcel located just north of tax lot 100 and is owned by a third party (A. Eikram). Tax Lots 1200 and 690 are vacant. A wooded area with dense trees is found along the western and southern boundaries of tax lot 1200 and about half is an open field. Tax lots 100 and 200 are developed with the Tigard Public Library. Sensitive lands exist on the project site including the 100-year floodplain, drainageways (Fanno Creek), wetlands, and Significant Habitat Area. The applicant's property currently has no improved street access, only an unimproved access easement across City property from Wall Street and an existing easement across another City property to the north used to maintain the property. Three of the four properties are zoned R-12 (Medium Density Residential) and the applicant's property is zoned R-25. Surrounding properties are zoned R-12 and R-7 to the south and west, and I-L (Light Industrial) or I-P (Industrial Park) to the north and east. The vacant site to the south zoned I-L is owned by Metro, has mapped significant habitat area, and is used as open space. Beyond the immediate area, properties to the south and west are developed with residences. Sites to the north and east are predominantly developed with industrial uses. Site History A search of City records show several land use applications having to do with four separate projects. In 1994 a sewer trunk line was installed between McDonald Street and Fanno Creek across tax lot 200. This required a sensitive lands review (SLR94-0001) for work within the floodplain. In 2003 the Tigard Library Amro ect was approved (CUP2003-00001 et al.) on tax lots 100 and 200. A Comprehensive Plan endment (CPA2004-00001, et al.) was approved in June 2006 to construct Phase 1 of the Wall Street extension to serve the library and Fanno Place condominiums. Tree removal permits (TRE2008-00001, TRE2008-00002 & TRE2008-00016) were approved in September 2008 to remove groups of trees from the applicant's property. The zoning was changed for the applicant's tax lot (1200) in July 2009 from I-L to R-25 through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 2008-00008) and Zone Change (ZON2008- 00002). No other records were found. Key Issues 1) The application involves properties controlled by the City (tax lots 100 & 200). The application requires signatures of property owners. The City has not signed the application. 2) All four applications are being reviewed concurrently. The four applications are interdependent. 3) The applicant has not met the burden of proof necessary for the City to find and conclude compliance with the applicable criteria. a) Development Code Criteria i) Variances and Adjustments • The applicant did not provide facts about what adverse impacts to the natural resources would be avoided by a narrower bridge deck. ii) Sensitive Lands Wetlands • An Economic, Social, Environmental, Energy Analysis (ESEE) is required to show that the Goal 5 protection should be removed from the Tigard Significant wetland to construct the extension of Wall Street. The analysis fails to show that the positive economic impact outweighs the adverse impact to the resource. It does not address access options that could be constructed outside the resource nor long term effects on constructing a street within a natural area that is currently mostly isolated from vehicles,people,and other disturbances. STAFF REPORT TO'11-IE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC I IEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL SIREET COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 5 OF 37 SI.R2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW • Alternatives to the 320--foot bridge span that avoid or have less impact upon natural resources include a longer bridge span or access from Milton Court across Metro property. The '1DC requires that any landform alteration not create site disturbances to an extent greater that the minimum required for the use. The applicant has not shown that there are no other alternatives to the proposed roadway extension/pbridge. Floodplain • Land form alterations (any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate) are only allowed within 100-year floodplain in areas designated as commercial and industrial on the Comprehensive Plan land use map, except that alterations or development associated with community recreation uses,utilities, or public support facilities are allowed, as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the '1DC. The affected parcels are zoned R-12 and R-25; therefore the proposed earthwork and construction is not permitted. • `Public support facility" is not a defined term in the TDC. The applicant argues that the fill and pilings for the street are public support facilities because they physically support the roadway on the bridge. Based on the context of the'1DC, Staff interprets the code as using the term"public support facilities" to refer to items found along a street that play an ancillary role to the street system and development such as sidewalks, driveway aprons, electrical poles,etc., and not to refer to the fill and piling proposed by the applicant. • The '1DC requires no increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year floodplain due to land form alteration or development. This has not been demonstrated by the applicant. In fact, the hydraulic analysis completed by West Consultants in 2003 shows an increase of.4 feet in the water surface elevation. • Cuts necessary to reach this zero-foot rise have not been proposed. The applicant has stated that a plan will be provided,but no specific locations were identified. • If constructed, Wall Street would be a public street used as access/egress for residential development (including emergency vehicles). The applicant has not provided information on how the road and bridge structure will be anchored or constructed to be resistant to flood damage. iii) Street and Utility Improvements • Wall Street is a public street which requires dedication of 72-foot wide right-of-way (ROW). The majority of the dedication would be on city property. The necessary ROW dedication has not been secured by the applicant. There is a 60-foot wide access easement granted to the applicant. This easement lies within the north 60 feet of the proposed ROW. • A temporary turnaround has not been proposed but is necessary to meet city and fire code requirements. • The applicant states that no utilities are proposed with this application, but one way to provide water to the applicant's property is a public line installed on the proposed bridge. This line must be flood--proof, but the applicant has not addressed this issue since utilities are not proposed. It is unknown if the design of the bridge could accommodate utilities that will be above the floodplain or resistant to flood damage. b) Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 1) This proposal does not comply with the goals and policies surrounding protection of natural resources, water quality, land use planning regulations, and development within hazard areas (floodplain). ii) The applicant states that many comprehensive plan goals surrounding transportation, public facilities, and economic development are in conflict with those related to natural resources and environmental quality, and that a balance must be found between the conflicts. However, there are alternatives that permit access to the applicant's property while having less or avoiding impact to natural resources. These include a longer bridge span than the 320-foot span proposed and access from Milton Court. The applicant did not provide sufficient findings that the proposal has less impact than these alternatives. How can a proposal that compromises natural resource and other Comp Plan goals be approved,if there are alternatives that comply with the goals? c) Municipal Code Regulations Tree planting for vegetated corridor enhancement and tree removal on City property are proposed • with this application. These actions both require approval from.the Public orks Director, and the tree planting requires a maintenance agreement. Neither was provided with this application. In addition there is a question as to whether mitigation is required. Mitigation has not been proposed. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING ARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 6 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SiINSI'I'IVE LANDS RI3VIEW d) Metro Standards and Statewide Planning Goals These standards and goals are not satisfied for many of the same reasons the Comp Plan goals and Development Code standards are not met. The applicant has not met the Metro standards regarding water quality and flood management. Compliance with statewide goals regarding land use planning, natural resources,water quality,and natural hazards has not been shown by the applicant. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA & REPORT LAYOUT A. Zoning Map and Text Amendments 18.380 B. Additional Applicable Development Code Standards 18.370 Variances and Adjustments 18.390 Decision Making Procedures 18.775 Sensitive Lands Review 18.790 Tree Removal 18.810 Street &Utility Improvement Standards C. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies D. Municipal Code Requirements E. Applicable Metro Standards F. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals SECTION V. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS : Quasi-judicial amendments. 2. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on an application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1) Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; 2) Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and 3) Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. The proposed application involves a comprehensive plan map amendment. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to Council on the proposed comprehensive plan map amendment, sensitive lands review, and adjustment. Conditions of approval. A quasi-judicial decision may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions as provided by Section 18.390.050.A legislative decision may be approved or denied. B. ADDITIONAL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Variances and Adjustments (18.370) Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. STAFF REPORT'1'O'11 IE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC FIEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 7 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW FINDINGS: The applicant has requested an adjustment to the street improvement requirements to construct a narrower street section by eliminating the planter strips on the bridge portion of Wall Street. The applicant must show how the wider street results in unacceptable adverse impacts on existing or proposed development or natural features and how these impacts exceed the public benefit of strict application of the standards. The following reasons are listed by the applicant for the requested adjustment: strict application would result in additional wetland and vegetated corridor impacts, inconsistency with the proposed location of Wall Street that has been reviewed within the submitted material and inconsistency with a previously approved (joint Fill) permit. In addition, the applicant states that the adjustment does not impact the public benefit as the proposed street extension will still provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access. The Joint Fill permit referenced by the applicant is now expired and is no longer valid. The applicant has provided inadecuate facts for Staff to evaluate this request. No evidence is proposed to support the applicant's assertion tlat unacceptably adverse impacts on the natural areas will result from a wider bridge deck. Nor has the applicant explained the nature and character of any such impacts and how the impacts are unacceptable. CONCLUSION: The applicant has provided conclusions, but no facts or findings to support the conclusions. The requirements for a street improvement adjustment have not been fully satisfied. Decision Making Procedures (18.390) Chapter 18.390.020 describes the four types of decision-making procedures. Type I procedures apply to ministerial permits and actions containing clear and objective approval criteria and are decided by the Director. Type II procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain some discretionary criteria and are also decided by the Director but include provisions for public notice and opportunities for appeals. Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. Type III-HO actions are decided by the Hearings Officer with appeals to City Council. In cases where both the Hearings Officer and Planning Commission are involved, the Planning Commission has preferential jurisdiction, per Tigard Development Code (TDC) Section 18.390.080(D)(2)(a). Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters which involve the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy. Type IV matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the City Council. FINDINGS: This application includes all three types of decision-making reviews. Pursuant to I8.390.080.D.2, whenever an applicant requests more than one approval and more than one approval authority is required to decide the applications, the proceedings can be consolidated so that one approval authority shall decide all applications in one proceeding and the hearings shall be held by the approval authority having original jurisdiction over one of the applications under Section 18.390.1000 in the following order of preference: the Council, the Commission, the Hearings Officer, or the Director. Therefore, this application will follow the procedures for Type IV reviews, with a recommendation being forwarded from the Planning Commission to City Council, who shall make the final decision on all applications contained herein. Chapter 18.390.050 B2e states that applications shall include an impact study to quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. FINDINGS: The applicant's narrative includes an impact study that addresses the impacts on the transportation system, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. Chapter 18.390.060G states that for legislative map and text amendments (Comprehensive Plan and Development Code) the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: STAFF IU�PORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC IIEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPlun-IENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 8 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW • Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; ♦ Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; • Any applicable Metro regulations; • Any applicable Comprehensive Plan policies; and • Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. FINDINGS: This report addresses the applicable standards listed above in the review section covering the proposed comprehensive plan amendment as it applies to applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Federal or state regulations, Metro regulations, City's Comprehensive Plan policies and provisions of the City's Development Code. CONCLUSION: The Decision Making Procedures are being followed as required. All four applications are being reviewed through a Type IV process, an impact study was provided by the applicant, and all applicable criteria have been considered and area addressed within this staff report. Landscaping and Screening (18.745) All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved,after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. Certain trees can severely damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or can cause personal injury. Approval of any planting list shall be subject to review by the Director. FINDINGS: The applicant has indicated planting 2" caliper Oregon White Oaks as streets trees along Wall Street (except where the planter strip has been ehm nated due to the bridge crossing). This requirement has not been met because trees were not shown on the plan. The maximum allowed spacing for Oregon White Oak (large stature trees) is 30' and planting of trees is required on the bridge because the appscant has not provided findings to support the adjustment request to construct a narrower street section and eliminate the planter strip on the proposed bridge. Therefore, Staff cannot find that this criterion has been met. Section 18.745.060 contains the provisions for re-vegetation where natural vegetation has been removed through grading. Such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. Areas roposed to be disturbed with grading and excavation activities will be planted and re-vegetated in accordpnce with the planting plan developed to meet CWS standards listed in R&O 07-05 Appendix A. The methods for species removal and re-planting will be consistent with CWS standards, which meet or exceed the City standards. CONCLUSION: The Landscaping and Screening standards have not been met because the proposed street trees (Oregon White Oak) are not shown on the plan in accordance with the required spacing standards. Sensitive Lands Review (18.775) The development site includes area of drainageways, associated wetlands, floodplain, and vegetated corridor (stream and wetland buffers). Development of sites that include these areas requires review through the sensitive lands criteria as described below. Fanno Creek is located on-site, but no impacts are proposed to the creek channel. Work proposed within Tigard Significant wetlands and the floodplain includes the placement of structural fill, wingwalls, support piles, and enhancement of the vegetated corridor. Sensitive lands permits can be Type I, II, or III applications depending on the type of sensitive land impacted, type of proposed improvement, and/or the amount of ground disturbance. The applicant asserts that a Type I review is required for the street extension because it is a public support facility. There STAFF REPORT TO TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WAIL STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 9 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW is more discussion later as to why the road and supports are not public support facilities (Pages 13 & 14). A Type II review is requited for disturbance of-areas designated as significant on the City of Tigard Wetland and Streams Corridor Map", and a Type III review is required for ground disturbance(s) or land form alterations in all floodway areas. The affected areas are within significant wetlands and floodway, and the approval criteria are addressed below. 18.775.040 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas Special flood hazard: The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study of the City of Tigard," effective February 18, 2005, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps effective February 18, 2005, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. This Flood Insurance Study is on file at the Tigard Civic Center. FINDINGS: The applicant and staff have reviewed these maps and agree that this site is within one of the identified special flood hazard areas. The application is being reviewed under this premise. Base flood elevation data: When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section 18.775.040.B above, the Director shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer Sections 18.775.040.M and 18.775.040.N below). FINDINGS: The Flood Insurance Study and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps effective February 18, 2005 were consulted by the applicant to verify the 100-year floodplain elevation in the project area. The applicant then cross-referenced with the hydraulic analysis completed by OBEC Consulting Engineers, performed as part of the Alternatives Analysis (Exhibit K) to confirm the floodplain elevation and impacts related to the proposed roadway and bridge extension. As shown in Exhibit 0, the research was conclusive that the floodplain elevation is consistent between both sources (141.4). The elevation is confirmed. Test of reasonableness: Where elevation data is not available either through the Flood Insurance Study or from another authoritative source, applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that the potential for flood damage to the proposed construction will be minimized. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc.,where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet above grade in these sensitive land areas may result in higher insurance rates. FINDINGS: Base flood elevation data is available and has been established at 141.4 feet by the FEMA Flood Insurance Maps. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Resistant to flood damage: All new construction and substantial improvements, including manufactured homes, shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. FINDINGS: The applicant states that this provision does not apply because the improvements do not include structures or buildings. Improvements are defined by the TDC as "any permanent structure that becomes part of placed upon, or is affixed to property" and structure is defined as "...piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner"; therefore the provision does apply to all parts of the bridge structure. The applicant did state that the road will be constructed of materials resistant to flood damage, but no specifics were given. In addition, utility equipment must also be flood resistant. Utilities for future development may need to be provided on the bridge. This standard is not met. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC I IEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREI-IINSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 10 OF 37 Si 82009-00004&SL122009-00005 SENSI'I'IVI?LANDS RE?VIEW Minimize flood damage: All new construction and substantial improvements, including manufactured homes, shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. FINDINGS: Again the applicant states that this provision is not applicable to the pro-Josed road extension. The provision is applicable to the bridge structure. The applicant states that tie roadway materials will be resistant to flood damage, but no specifics were given on what construction methods or practices will be used. This standard is not fully met. Equipment protection: Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. FINDINGS: The proposal does not involve equipment or service facilities. This criterion does not apply. Water Supply Systems: All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the system. FINDINGS: The applicant states that the roadway extension does not include water supply systems. One way to supply water to the site for future development is on the bridge. It is unknown if the current bride design will accommodate a future water supply system, or if the system can be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater if below the flood elevation level. Anchoring: All new construction, all manufactured homes and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure. FINDINGS: The applicant again states that the provision is not applicable to the proposal, but the street is a substantial improvement. The bridge is proposed to provide access for emergency vehicles to future residential development on the applicant's property, including during a major flood event. No specifics were outlined to show how the anchoring requirement will be met. This standard is not satisfied. Sanitary sewerage systems: New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwater. FINDINGS: No new sanitary systems are proposed with this proposal. Therefore this criterion is not applicable. On-site water disposal systems: On-site water disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. FINDINGS: There are no on--site water disposal systems proposed with this application; therefore this standard does not apply. Residential Construction: 1. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure, including manufactured homes, shall have the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated at least one foot above base flood elevation; 2. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect, or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding STAFF REPORT TO'HIE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 11 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW shall be provided; b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; and c. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices, provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. 3. Manufactured homes shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored permanent foundation system. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. FINDINGS: Residential construction is not proposed with this development. This standard does not apply. Nonresidential Construction: New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to the level of the base flood elevation, or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: 1. Be flood-proofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; 2. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; 3. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the Building Official as set forth in Section 18.775.030.E.2; and 4. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not flood-proofed, must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in Section 18.775.040.L.2. Applicants flood-proofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified that flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the flood-proofed level (e.g., a building constructed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below that level). FINDINGS: Non-residential construction with floors or basements is not proposed with this development. This standard does not apply. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, the General Provisions for Floodplain Areas are not met. The applicant has not provided specifics on construction methods to be used to minimize flood damage to the structure/abutments, and anchoring to prevent collapse, floatation, or lateral movement of the structure. In addition, information was not provided on how future utilities will be resistant to flood damage. 18.775.070 Sensitive Lands Permits Within the 100-year floodplain. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; FINDINGS: The applicant states that OBEC Consulting Engineers/West Consultants were retained by the City previously to analyze hydraulic impacts of bridge alternatives (applicant's Exhibit K). This analysis was done as part of a 2002 City proposal to cross Fanno Creek. The applicant states that the analysis concludes that a 320-foot bridge will span the floodway and would meet City/FEMA requirements related to no rise with a balance of earthwork volumes. Because this report did not directly address the requirements of 18.775.070, a memorandum was prepared by Matt Butts, a P.E. with Group MacKenzie. Mr. Butts speaks to the City's zero-foot rise requirement by stating that the net fill due to Phase 2 is approximately 1,069 CY, and that there are excavation areas within the project vicinity to satisfy the needed cut volumes to preserve floodplain storage. These areas of storage are not shown, and the applicant has not provided the necessary information to reach positive findings on zero-rise. This criterion is not satisfied. STAFF REPORT 7'O TI IE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPRI IHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 12 OF 37 SL R2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE(.,ANDS REVIEW Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; FINDINGS: The sites involved are zoned R-12 (Medium Density Residential) and R-25 (Medium High Density Residential. Proposed affected areas within the floodplain are zoned R-12, which is a residential zone. According to this standard, land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain are allowed only in commercial and industrial zones. The only exception is for community recreation, utilities, or public support facilities. The applicant argues that the proposed fill and pilings for the road are public support facilities. Standard 18.775.070.B.2 says that a definition of public support facilities can be found in TDC Chapter 18.120- Definitions, but one is not provided. The applicant points to how the term is used in standard 18.775.020.E.1.a (administrative sensitive lands review), which reads: "...the City Engineer shall review the installation of public support facilities such as underground utilities and construction of roadway improvements including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and driveway aprons by means of a Type procedure..." The appscant states that inclusion of the phrase "construction of roadway improvements" strongly indicates that roadways are allowed in residential floodplains and that support structures for bridges are public support facilities. This interpretation would allow the proposed extension of Wall Street since the roadway is above the floodplain elevation and supported by pilings, structural fill, and wingwall/retaining walls. The applicant then points to the term public facilities as used in the purpose statement of Chapter 18.810 of the Street and Utility Improvements chapter of the TDC. This statement reads `to provide construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage". The applicant states that streets are public facilities; therefore the support structures for Wall Street are public support facilities. The applicant argues the definition of support as something physical,while Staff argues the term is used to show an ancillary role, which is better supported in the context of the code. Staff points to the fact that the items listed in 18.775.020.E.1 only include facilities found along streets, all of which play a supportive role in the street and transportation system. The City of Aurora, Oregon uses the term "public support facilities" within its Land Development Code (Title 16) and defines the term as "services which are necessary to support uses allowed outright in the underlying zone and involves only minor structures such as power lines and poles, phone booths, fire hydrants, as well as bus stops, benches and mailboxes which are necessary to support principal development". Again the examples used are all things found along a street. In response to Staff's prior completeness review request of the applicant to show how the term "public support facilities" has been previously interpreted, the applicant points to a land use approval to construct a portion of the Fanno Creek Trail within the floodplain (SLR2009-00002). This decision permitted the installation of a sidewalk, elevated boardwalk, and bridge across Fanno Creek, within the 100-year floodplain. Most of the work occurred on property that was zoned (I-L—Light Industrial), but a ortion of the bridge is located within land (library property) zoned R-12 (Medium Density Residential). The applicant draws parallels between the pedestrian bridge and the proposed Wall Street vehicular bridge, which is 180 meters downstream from the pedestrian bridge. In a letter dated December 1, 2009 from the applicant's attorney, Phil Grillo, it is stated that both the staff report and the Hearing's Officer's findings for the trail application treat pathways as roads. Staff contends Mr. Grillo's use of terms like roadway, streets, trails, and pathways were taken out of context. These terms were used by Staff to show no land use review is typically required for these facilities unless within sensitive lands in response to testimony about a change of use requirement or to show that the proposed improvements were not commercial, industrial, or non-residential structures that require lowest floor flood-proofing. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL S'IREEI'COMPREI-IENS1VE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 13 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&S1.R2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW In SLR2009-00002, the Hearing's Officer concluded that the surface of the boardwalk met the requirements of 18.775.070.B.5 that pedestrian/bicycle pathways be above the elevation of an average annual flood. When addressing the standard regarding fill within residential floodplain, Staff found that the proposed improvements were allowed because the sidewalk is a public support facility and the trail is a community recreation facility. The sidewalk (public support facility) is located on land zoned Light Industrial. As noted above only a small portion of the liciridge (community recreation) is located within residential floodplain. The applicant is trying to compare a 62-foot long, 8-foot wide pathway bridge that involved approximately 4 cubic yards of fill with the extension of a collector street bridge (320 feet) that involves approximately 2,010 cubic yards of fin. While bicycle/pedestrian pathways have some transportation attributes, they are also community recreation. The applicant has not proven the term public support facilities applies to the proposed fill and pilings required for the extension of Wall Street. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; FINDINGS: The applicant's hydraulic analysis prepared by WEST Consultants, Inc. (applicant's Exhibit K) shows an increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood. These increases are shaded in Table 1 —Results for the Base Flood Event (see footnote #2). This footnote reads that "the shaded area above corresponds to where the 100-year water surface elevations would be increased as a result of the proposed bridge plan." In this case, the elevation for the proposed 320-foot span would increase the elevation between 0.1 and 0.4 feet. This standard is not met. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as untimely; FINDINGS: Wall Street is classified as a collector street in the City's TSP. The proposal includes bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides in accordance with the re uirements for a collector and in accordance with the Master Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans found in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP). This criterion is met. Pedestrian/bicycle pathway projects within the floodplain shall include a wildlife habitat assessment that shows the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community's recreation and environmental educational goals; FINDINGS: No new pedestrian/bicycle pathways are proposed with this application. This standard does not apply. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and FINDINGS: An updated Clean Water Services (CWS) Service Provider Letter has been issued and has been included in the application packet (Exhibit P). However the plans have been modified and proposed areas of excavation are unknown at this time. It cannot now be determined that CWS standards can be satisfied. The applicant has included a copy of the previously issued Joint Fill Permit from the Army Corps and Division of State Lands (DSL), which have since expired. The applicant notes that a renewed Joint Fill permit will be obtained, but a valid permit was not submitted with this application. This standard is not met. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. FINDINGS: Portions of the nearby Fanno Creek trail have already been constructed. No additional dedications for pedestrian/bicycle pathways ate required with this application. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC 1 TEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREI-IENSIVI;PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 14 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above the criteria for sensitive lands permit within a 100-year floodplain are not met. The applicant has not provided information that shows no increase in the flood elevation levels, has proposed fill within a floodplain in a residential zone which is not permitted, and has not obtained current/updated approvals from necessary agencies such as U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DSL, and possibly CWS. Within wetlands: The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within the vegetative corridor established per "Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths" and Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards", for such a wetland; FINDINGS: The subject site contains areas designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map and a vegetative corridor of 50 feet from the edge of the wetland. The vegetative corridor for this wetland is a CWS water quality buffer and is not subject to the safe harbor provisions of Goal 5. Work is proposed within Tigard significant wetlands totaling .19 acres (8,447 square eet); therefore the applicant has requested to remove the Goal 5 protection from the impacted area as required by section 18.775.130 of the TDC. The impact is due to construction of the eastern and western sections of the road that lead up to the bridge abutments and required fill slopes. According to the applicant, there will be minor impacts to the man-made pond (East Pond) and wetlands located east of Fanno Creek to construct the bridge wingwall on the west side of the bridge and the roadway and fill slopes for the rest of the alignment. No work is proposed within Fanno Creek. The improvements proposed within the vegetated corridors for Fanno Creel and the significant wetlands have been approved with conditions by CWS (see the Service Provider Letter, Exhibit P, in the application packet), but the applicant may need a revised CWS letter if floodplain excavation occurs in areas other than those shown on the CWS approved plans. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; FINDINGS: The applicant states the Alternatives Analysis demonstrates that the proposed impacts are the minimum practicable for the project and that no other alternatives exist. There are other alternatives, including a longer bridge that spans the entire floodway and avoids the wetland. Another alternative is to gain access across Metro property to the south from Milton Court. These alternatives were not discussed In the Alternatives Analysis (Exhibit K), only within the applicant's narrative. The amount of disturbance to the wetlands for each alternative was not provided. A longer bridge would not impact the wetland and there are no mapped Tigard significant wetlands on the Metro site. The applicant has not shown how the proposed land form alteration will create the minimum disturbance to the wetland for the use. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; FINDINGS: The applicant states that the only change in drainage associated with this proposal is the conveyance of stormwater associated with the road and bridge. The stormwater is directed to a water quality facility, where the treated stormwater will be directed into the wetland mitigation area. The applicant states that this will ensure wetland hydrology on the site is maintained and that it does not adversely impact existing wetlands. A letter to the applicant from Shawn Eisner, Wetland Scientist with Pacific Habitat Resources, does not speak directly to the issue of draining into the wetland. In addition a new permit from DSL must be obtained. There is inadequate information to find this criterion is met. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC I-IEARING CPA2009-40004/FIELDS WALL S'1RE'E'1'COMPREI-IENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 15 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and screening. FINDINGS: The applicant has submitted a Grading/Erosion Control Plan (sheet R2.2). Fencing is shown on the plans, but the applicant did not provide details about what other measures are being taken nor how these measures will protect the water resource during construction. The applicant states that all disturbed areas that are not covered with impervious surface will be planted upon completion of construction. CWS has conditionally approved a mitigation planting plan for Phase 2,which the applicant has included in the packet. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; FINDINGS: The proposed project involves 100-year floodplain which has been addressed previously, but Staff found that all of the requirements have not been met. These unmet standards include no increase in flood elevation levels (18.775.070.B.1 & 3), anchoring of structures, resistance to and minimizing flood damage (18.775.040.E, F, &I), and fill within a residential zone (18.775.070.B.2). The necessary U.S. Corp of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained. FINDINGS: An updated Clean Water Services (CWS) Service Provider Letter has been issued and has been included in the application packet (Exhibit P). However the plans have been modified and roposed areas of excavation are unknown at this time. It cannot now be determined that CWS standards can be satisfied. The applicant has included a copy of the previously issued Joint Fill Permit from the Army Corps and Division of State Lands (DSL), which has since expired. The applicant notes that a renewed Joint Fill permit will be obtained, but a valid permit was not submitted with this application. This standard is not met. The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal shall be met; FINDINGS: A tree plan is not required because the request does not involve a subdivision, partition, planned development, conditional use permit, or site development review. Tree removal is proposed within the sensitive lands. A total of 26 trees will be removed. Seventeen (17) are non-hazardous and require tree removal ermits. The applicant has requested the tree removal permits be under separate but concurrent review (I�RE2010-00002). The applicant has met the applicable approval criteria regarding tree canopy and erosion control, nor provided the property owner signatures needed to approve the tree removal permits. Therefore, this standard is not satisfied. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands., Natural Areas, and Parks Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. FINDINGS: Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are addressed under Section "C" of this report. As discussed there, all Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are not completely satisfied. Therefore, this standard is not met. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safeharbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0030) pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map" are protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland, except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130. FINDINGS: The proposed extension of Wall Street impacts .19 acres of wetlands designated as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridor Map." The applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment under a Type IV procedure to remove Goal 5 protection from the impacted area, as required by section 18.775.130. This amendment is addressed later in this report. The findings indicate that the removal criteria are not met and that the Goal 5 protection cannot be removed. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/I-IELDS WAIL STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 16 OF 37 SI.R2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0030) pertaining to riparian corridors, a standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area, measured horizontally from and parallel to the top of the bank, is established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek. 1. The standard width for"good condition"vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River is 75 feet, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. If all or part of a locally significant wetland (a wetland identified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map") is located within the 75-foot setback area, the vegetated corridor is measured from the upland edge of the associated wetland. FINDINGS: The site is not adjacent to the Tualatin River. This criterion is not applicable. 2. The standard width for "good condition" vegetated corridors along Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek is 50 feet, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. If all or part of a locally significant wetland (a wetland identified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map') is located within the 50-foot setback area, the vegetated corridor is measured from the upland edge of the associated wetland. FINDINGS: According to the CWS Service Provider Letter, the vegetated corridor condition is marginal or degraded. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. 3. The minimum width for "marginal or degraded condition" vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek is 50% of the standard width, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. FINDINGS: As noted above, the vegetated corridor is in marginal or degraded condition. The applicant states that the required 50-foot vegetated corridor has been shown on the plans in accordance with CWS standards utilizing a professional survey and wetland delineation. However, the applicant does not address if any reductions are proposed or by how much the width is reduced. 4. The determination of corridor condition shall be based on the Natural Resource Assessment guidelines contained in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." FINDINGS: According to the CWS Service Provider Letter, the vegetated corridor condition is marginal or degraded. 5. The standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area applies to all development proposed on property located within or partially within the vegetated corridors, except as allowed below: a. Roads, pedestrian or bike paths crossing the vegetated corridor from one side to the other in order to provide access to the sensitive area or across the sensitive area, as approved by the City per Section 18.775.070 and by CWS "Design and Construction Standards"; b. Utility/service provider infrastructure construction (i.e. storm, sanitary sewer, water, phone, gas, cable, etc.), if approved by the City and CWS; c. A pedestrian or bike path, not exceeding 10 feet in width and meeting the CWS "Design and Construction Standards"; d. Grading for the purpose of enhancing the vegetated corridor, as approved by the City and CWS; e. Measures to remove or abate hazards, nuisances, or fire and• life safety violations, as approved by the regulating jurisdiction; f. Enhancement of the vegetated corridor for water quality or quantity benefits, fish, or wildlife habitat, as approved by the City and CWS; g. Measures to repair, maintain, alter, remove, add to, or replace existing structures, roadways, driveways, utilities, accessory uses, or other developments provided they are consistent with City and CWS regulations, and do not encroach further into the vegetated corridor or sensitive area than allowed by the CWS "Design and Construction Standards. STAFF REPORT TO TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALT.STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 17 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW FINDINGS: The proposal is to extend a public street, which would be exempt under "g" above if the development were consistent with City regulations. A Service Provider Letter was issued by CWS approving the original plan, which included cut/fill within specific locations within the floodplain for zero-rise. The plans have since been modified by the applicant. There is no specific information provided to how the zero-rise requirement will be met. The applicant is proposing a separate plan that will show a balance cut and fill. Since a revised letter may be required, it is unknown at this time if the revised proposal will meet CWS regulations; therefore this standard is not met. 6. Land form alterations or developments located within or partially within the Goal 5 safeharbor setback or vegetated corridor areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the CWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies, are not subject to the provisions of Section 18.775.090.B, except where the: a. Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially within a good condition vegetated corridor, as defined in Sections 18.775.090.B.1 and 18.775.090.B.2; b. Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially within the minimum width area established for marginal or a degraded condition vegetated corridor, as defined in Section 18.775.090.B.3. These exceptions reflect instances of the greater protection of riparian corridors provided by the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. FINDINGS: The proposal is subject to the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of regional agencies like CWS,Army Corps and DSL. The proposal is not exempt from 18.775.B.3 because proposed land form alterations are located within the minimum width area for a marginal or degraded vegetated corridor. ESEE Analysis (Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy) Any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor (1) protection of significant wetlands and/or (2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed separately through an Alternatives Analysis, as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by preparing an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) consequences analysis in accordance with OAR 660-23-040 or demonstrate that the sensitive area site no longer meets applicable significance thresholds defined by the Goal 5 administrative rule, relative to other comparable resources within the Tigard Planning Area. FINDINGS: The applicant has chosen to provide an ESEE consequence analysis to remove the Goal 5 protection from the Impacted significant wetland (see applicant's Exhibit R). According to Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023-040, "this is an analysis that looks at the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences that could result from a decision to allow, limit, or prohibit a conflicting use. Findings shall demonstrate that requirements under each of the steps have been met. An ESEE analysis need not be lengthy or complex, but should enable reviewers to gain a clear understanding of the conflicts and consequences to be expected." FYI - DAR. 660-023-0010 defines resource site as a particular area where resources are located. A site may consist of a parcel or lot or portion thereof r may include an area consisting of two or more contiguous lots or parcels. 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, considering both the impacts on the specific resource site and the comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area; FINDINGS: The applicant has outlined positive and negative consequences for allowing and prohibiting the conflicting use, but did not discuss the impacts of limiting the use on the resource site. Also, the analysis does not look at comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC 1-TEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL S'1REIr1'COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 18 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SL112009-00005 SENSITIVI3 LANDS REVIEW 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource; FINDINGS: The applicant concludes that allowance of the impact would result in relatively minor impacts to the resource, while permitting the development of the applicant's property. According to the applicant, prohibiting the impact limits the opportunities for vegetative corridor enhancement provided by the applicant and avoids legal questions related to takings by not permitting access to the site. In addition, the applicant notes that completion of the street extension will help accomplish the eventual connection of Hall Boulevard with Hunziker Street (shown in the TSP). However, the proposal to complete this portion of the Wall Street extension is purely speculative as to the development of the applicant's property. While physical access to the site increases the likelihood of the site to be developed, it does not guarantee it. Because Wall Street is a public street, once constructed, the community then takes on the cost to maintain, repair, and alter the facility, including any necessary environmental permitting costs. Vegetative corridor enhancement can occur with or without development and is not reliant upon this proposal to occur. Connection of Hall to Hunziker is currently shown on the TSP, but at this time there is no approved at-grade crossing of the railroad. Previous applications for a crossing were not approved. The applicant points out the mitigation for the temporary construction impacts, but does not discuss the long term impacts of constructing a road through the resource. The applicant's wetland scientist, Shawn Eisner, states that the resource will still have the connection for wildlife to pass under the bridge, but what effects will the introduction of cars, people, pollutants, including garbage, have upon an area that is inaccessible to these things now? A comment letter from Elizabeth Ruther with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Attachment 4) also underscores the inadequacy of the applicant's ESEE in relation to on-going, permanent effects on species and habitat. 3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use; FINDINGS: The applicant outlines how there are no alternative access options to serve the site. The proposed extension is aligned with the access easement granted from the City to the applicant. This alignment minimizes impacts to wetlands and the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the applicant states that all other alternative access options have been exhausted. The applicant then concludes that there are no other sites in Tigard that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use. Yet the applicant does not discuss the option to provide a longer bridge span that will avoid the impact to the wetland and still provide access to the site for development. There is buildable land on which to construct the road and meet the need for access to the site. 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney, all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis; FINDINGS: The applicant states that the ESEE was prepared by a wetland scientist and wetland biologist with Pacific Habitat Services and a certified planner with Group Mackenzie. 5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. FINDINGS: Denial of the application is being recommended. If the finial decision is to approve the application, then the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC I-IEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 19 OP 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW CONCLUSION: The applicant has not proven that the positive impacts outweigh the adverse impacts. Also the applicant did not thoroughly consider the alternative of a longer bridge span and access from Milton Court, which would allow access to the site and avoid impact to the Tigard significant wetland. Therefore, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the OAR 660-23- 040 requirements of the ESEE. Tree Removal (18.390) 18.790.050 states that tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the criteria found in 18.790.050.A. FINDINGS: The applicant has proposed the removal of 17 trees within sensitive lands. A Tree Removal Permit is required to remove non-hazardous trees from areas designated as sensitive lands. The applicant has requested separate but concurrent review of the tree removal permit (TRE2010-00002). The permit was denied on August 9, 2010 because the application form had not been signed by all property owners and the approval criteria regarding erosion control and tree canopy were not adequately addressed. A tree plan is not required with this application under 18.790 since the proposal does not involve a partition, subdivision, conditional use permit, site development review, or planned development. Utility and Improvement Standards Charter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.4 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030E and Figure 18.810.1 require a S- lane arterial to have right-of-way varying from 100 feet to 104 feet, a 3-lane collector to have right- of-way varying from 70 to 74 feet, and a local street to have a 54-foot right-of-way. Other improvements required include sidewalks, bike lanes if designated as bike routes, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, planter strips and street trees. FINDINGS: Wall Street is a collector street as designated in the TSP and requires 72 feet of right-of- way. A significant portion of the street is on the Tigard Library property, on which the applicant has a 60- foot access easement. This easement is of inadequate width to accommodate the improvements (street, sidewalk, planter strips,utilities, etc.) required for a collector street. Additional requirements for the street include sidewalks, bike lanes, storm drainage, street lights, planters, and street trees. The applicant has proposed a 72-foot right of way with sidewalks, bike lanes, street lighting, storm drainage, planter strips, and street trees. The one exception is the bridge portion of the street. The applicant has requested an adjustment to permit construction of a narrower bridge section (50 feet vs. 72 feet without the planter strips and street trees. The criteria for the adjustment have not been met, which is discussed in more detail under the Variances and Adjustments section of this report. Because the application does not meet the criteria for an adjustment, then the required improvements are not proposed. In addition, the necessary right-of-way has not been dedicated; therefore, the applicant's proposal does not satisfy these standards. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.F states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FII J.DS WALL STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 20 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. FINDINGS: A future street plan is only required in conjunction with a subdivision or partition application; therefore a plan is not required with this submittal. Extension of Wall Street is proposed across City property to the applicant's property in anticipation of future development. A temporary hammerhead or cul-de-sac must be constructed as the terminus for the extended Wall Street. In addition signs must be posted west of the bridge to indicate a dead-end street, and a temporary easement shall be delineated and dedicated to the City to accommodate the temporary turnaround until such time as Wall Street is extended or the property is developed with interior roadways to provide that turnaround capability. The applicant has not proposed any such turnaround; therefore this standard is not met. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. FINDINGS: Although the TSP shows Wall Street connecting with SW Hunziker Street, a full connection is not possible at this time. Extension beyond the applicant's property is prevented by the existing railroad tracks to the east. The roadway has been designed to accommodate a future at-grade crossing. Previous requests by the City for an at-grade crossing of the railroad right-of-way have not been approved. Approval of an at-grade crossing would be required for further extension of Wall Street in the future. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. FINDINGS: The applicant states that the extension is designed to not exceed a grade of 12%. A profile of SW Wall Street (see sheet R2.1) shows a slope of.5% or less. The proposed extension complies with this requirement. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way. Wherever the proposed development contains or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way, provision shall be made for a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land. The distance shall be determined with due consideration at cross streets or the minimum distance required for approach grades and to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting along the railroad right-of-way in nonindustrial areas. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 21 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following: 1) A parallel access street along the arterial or collector; 2) Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street; 3) Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a non-access reservation along the arterial or collector; or 4) Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; 5) If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access should be from the lower classification street. FINDINGS: One of the four parcels involved is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. Another parcel is traversed by an existing collector street (Wall Street). However, these standards apply to a proposed development project, which this application does not include. The applicant notes that the future development on the applicant's site will need to address standards for streets adjacent to railroad right-of- way and access to collectors. Easements: Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development traversed by a watercourse, or drainageway, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. FINDINGS: The proposed street extension includes an 8-foot public utility easement on either side of the proposed right-of-way. The easement has not been legally entered into by the affected property owners and recorded; therefore this standard is not met. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side. FINDINGS: Six foot sidewalks are shown along both sides of the proposed street (sheet R8.1). These meet City design requirements. Planter strips: A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities, there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, significant habitat areas, etc) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required, or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less). Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case-by- case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. FINDINGS: Planter strips are proposed along the Wall Street extension with the exception of the bridge portion of the street. The applicant has requested an adjustment to exclude the planter strip and construct a narrower street section m order to lessen the impact on the adjacent natural areas. Staff has recommended denial of the adjustment because the applicant did not provide adequate findings and meet the burden of proof. This is discussed further under the Variances and Adjustments section of this report. If the criteria for the adjustment are not met, this standard is not met. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS: An existing sanitary sewer line runs along the western boundary of the applicant's property. All adjacent lots are served. There is no need to extend sewer with the roacway; connections for future development will be addressed at the time of application. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/1IELDS WALL MEET COMPREI IENSIVs PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 22 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SI,R2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIIW Storm Drainage General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). FINDINGS: The City's Design Review Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that no facilities to accommodate upstream drainage are required with this proposal to extend a public street. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. FINDINGS: The applicant has provided preliminary stormwater calculations completed by Group Mackenzie. The report states that proposed stormwater infrastructure will meet the City and CWS standards, but the applicant has not submitted final calculations. Detention is not required because the Sproperty is adjacent to Fanno Creek. Neither the fee-in-lieu of detention has been paid nor has a CWS tormwater Connection Permit been obtained. This requirement is not satisfied. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: 1) As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes and where identified on the City's adopted bicycle plan in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the Downtown Urban Renewal District shall be determined by the City Engineer. 2) Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3) Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this document and on the adopted bicycle plan. FINDINGS: Bike lanes are required on Wall Street. The street is a collector and bike lanes are identified on the Master Bicycle Plan in the TSP. The application includes the provision of bike lanes that meet this standard. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and STAFF REPORT TO'PI IE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREI IENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 23 OIL 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under- grounding. FINDINGS: The applicant states that all utilities are available on the east side of Panno Creek and that no new utilities are proposed. CONCLUSION: The Street and Utility Improvement standards are not met. The applicant has not secured the right-of-way needed to construct the private street nor easements on City property for the proposed public utility easements, the fee-in-lieu of detention is not satisfied, a CWS Stormwater Permit has not been obtained, the design excluding planter strips does not meet the collector street section standard that is required if the adjustment is denied, and an approved temporary turnaround that meets City requirements has not been proposed. C. APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES The City has an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan consistent with the statewide planning goals. The applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are addressed in this section of the staff report. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Policy 2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. Goal 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and B. information on issues in an understandable form. Policy 1. The City shall ensure pertinent information is readily accessible to the community and presented in such a manner that even technical information is easy to understand. Policy 2. The City shall utilize such communication methods as mailings, posters, newsletters, the internet, and any other available media to promote citizen involvement and continue to evaluate the effectiveness of methods used. STAFF REPORT TO THE PI.,ANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC BEARING CPA2009-00004/PIEI,DS WALL STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 24 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW Policy 6. The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and staff regarding issues that concern.them. FINDINGS: The applicant's representative sent out notices to surrounding property owners and neighborhood representatives, posted a sign on the property, and held a neighborhood meeting on June 12, 2008 in accordance with the City of Tigard's neighborhood meeting notification process. According to the minutes of the neighborhood meeting, 18 people attended. Discussion related to future development of the site, impacts on sensitive lands, the extension of Wall Street, and alternative access points to the site. In addition, the City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, interested citizens, and agencies and published notice of the hearing pursuant to TDC 18.390.050 for Type IV Procedures. With these public involvement provisions and the applicant's documented participation, this application is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. LAND USE PLANNING Goal 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. Policy 14. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and,when necessary, those of the state and other agencies. FINDINGS: The analysis in this staff report illustrates the inconsistencies of the proposal with the applicable code standards, goals and policies. The applicant has not shown how the proposed plan amendment is consistent with the Development Code, Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code and requirements of other agencies. The applicant has not met the burden of proof required to approve the application requests. Policy 15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. Policy 22. The City shall identify, designate, and protect natural resources as part of its land use program. FINDINGS: Fanno Creek runs through portions of the subject property. Wetlands and floodplain associated with Fanno Creek and Pinebrook Creek also are on the site. The City has implemented standards for development in these areas through the Sensitive Lands chapter of the TDC (18.775). The applicant has requested sensitive lands approval to construct the street extension (including floodplain and significant wetland), but the applicant has not satisfied the requirements as discussed under the Sensitive Lands section of this report. Therefore the proposal is not in compliance with policies 15 and 22 of Goal 2.1. Goal 2.2 To enlarge, improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic, ecological, and social benefits of trees. Policy 3. The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees,within environmentally sensitive lands and on lands subject to natural hazards. FINDINGS: The applicant has proposed the removal of 17 non-hazardous trees within sensitive lands to construct the extension of Wall Street. Tree removal permits are required for this removal by the STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMMIE'IENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 25 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSTTIVE LANDS REVIEW Development Code. The applicant has requested the required permits under a separate but concurrent application. Policy 4. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street trees, unless demonstrated infeasible, on all new roads or road enhancement projects. Trees should be planted within planter strips, or at the back of sidewalks if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit the preservation of existing trees. FINDINGS: Street trees are proposed on the street extension with the exception of the bridge. This policy is implemented through the landscaping standard in the Development Code. The landscaping standards have not been met (see further discussion under the Landscaping and Screening section of this report). Policy 5. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's investment in trees and vegetation located in parks, within right-of-ways, and on other public lands and easements. FINDINGS: The Tigard Municipal Code (Chapter 9) regulates trees and vegetation in parks, within right-of-ways and on public lands. The applicant has not complied with those regulations as discussed under section "D" (Municipal Code Regulations) of this report. NATURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC AREAS Goal 5.1 Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they provide and, to the extent feasible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning systems and high levels of biodiversity. FINDINGS: The applicant states that many other comprehensive plan goals surrounding transportation, public facilities, and economic development are in conflict with those related to natural resources and environmental quality, and that a balance must be found between the conflicts. To illustrate a means to find the balance, the applicant details positive impacts to Pinebrook Creek and associated wetlands by mitigation done for Phase I of the Wall Street extension. These impacts included improved wetland/creek function by increased water storage, reductions in water temperatures, and improved animal habitat areas. The applicant draws the conclusion that the construction of Wall Street will also have more positive impacts to the resources, but has not provided adequate data to support this conclusion. The sensitive lands chapter of the TDC implements the regulation of Tigard's natural resources and the applicant has not satisfied all the criteria to support the proposed street extension. Specific policies regarding protection of natural resources an addressed below. Policy 7. The City shall protect and restore riparian and upland habitats to the maximum extent feasible on public and private lands. Policy 8. The City shall protect and, to the extent feasible, restore the diverse ecological and non- ecological functions and services of streams,wetlands, and associated riparian corridors. Policy 13. The City shall identify, preserve, and create linkages between wildlife habitat areas, to the extent feasible, as a key component of parks, open space, and surface water management plans. FINDINGS: The applicant outlines how the proposed alignment (Alternative 9) was chosen as the Wall Street alignment because it minimized the impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and natural resources to the greatest extent practicable. In addition, the applicant points out how the unavoidable impacts are being mitigated and riparian area enhancement will include removal of invasive species and installation of native plants. The applicant states that restored habitats will support habitat connectivity in adjoining areas. Although these temporary impacts of construction are shown to be mitigated, the applicant does not address the permanent impact of a bridge, carrying cars and people, through the habitat area. The long term affects of these impacts, and what, if any, mitigation will occur for these impacts is not addressed by the applicant. The applicant does not illustrate how a 320-foot bridge is a better option than the alternatives that include a longer bridge span or access from Milton Court. Therefore, the applicant has STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC I-TEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL sTREEr COMPREEIENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 26 OIL 37 SLR2009-00004&Si.R2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW not demonstrated that the proposed extension of Wall Street protects natural resources to the greatest extent feasible, and these policies are not met. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Goal 6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality. Policy 1. The City shall require that all development complies with or exceeds regional, state, and federal standards for water quality. FINDINGS: Compliance with these standards is assured through obtaining permits from the appropriate regulating agencies. Such approval has been obtained from CWS. The applicant has only provided an outdated Army Corps/DSL Section 404 permit. In addition the applicant has not obtained a DEQ 1200C permit; therefore the applicant does not show compliance with state and federal standards. Policy 3. The City shall encourage the use of low impact development practices that reduce stormwater impacts from new and existing development. FINDINGS: The applicant states that the extent to which low impact measures can be used for public road construction is somewhat limited, but such solutions were selected for this project. One such solution included the choice to construct a 320-foot span bridge rather than a shorter span, thus preserving existing vegetation in the floodway. In addition the applicant has proposed the use of water pre-treatment and bioswales for stormwater. However, the applicant has not discussed in detail other possible low impact alternatives, such as a longer bridge span or access from Milton Court. This policy is Implemented by the storm drainage regulations of the 1 DC. These standards have not been completely met by the applicant as discussed under the Streets and Improvements section of this report. Policy 4. The City shall protect, restore, and enhance, to the extent practical, the natural functions of stream corridors, trees, and water resources for their positive contribution to water quality. FINDINGS: The required wetland mitigation for Phase 2 was completed as part of Phase 1, and mitigation proposed with, this application is limited to that required for impacts to vegetated corridors. There is no direct impact to Fanno Creek, but the applicant is proposing to remove several trees under separate permit from the natural area to construct the improvements. The applicant states that mitigation and proposed plantings of native species will have positive effects on water quality because vegetative improvements tend to increase water quality by increasing nutrient uptake and filtering capacity of floodwaters. Policy 5. The City shall require measures to minimize erosion and storm run-off from development sites during and after construction. FINDINGS: The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan; this plan has received approval with conditions from CWS. In addition, a CWS Service Provider Letter was submitted with the application. Inspections will occur throughout construction to monitor compliance. Plantings required by the regulating agencies will ensure erosion control over the long term. Policy 7. The City shall investigate and use, to the extent practical, measures that limit the community's effective impervious area. FINDINGS: A new street requires increased impervious area to the community. The applicant states that the impervious area proposed is the least possible to meet the collector street standards required by code and is minimized through treatment of runoff created by the new street. One option not considered by the applicant is an alternative access from Milton Court. As noted, Wall Street must be built to collector standards because it is a public street. A narrower, private street could possibly be constructed from Milton Court to access the site. The applicant did not provide information to show how the two possibilities would compare. STAFF REPORT IT)THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/I?IELDS WALL STREET COMPREI-IENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 27 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW HAZARDS Goal 7.1 Protect people and property from flood, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe weather hazards. Policy 4. The City shall design and construct public facilities to withstand hazardous events with a priority on hazard protection of public services and facilities that are needed to provide emergency response services. Policy 7. The City shall comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood regulations, which include standards for base flood levels, flood proofing, and minimum finished floor elevations. FINDINGS: Wall Street is a public street and will provide emergency response access to future development on the applicant's site. Therefore, it is important that this facility be protected from flood damage. The regulations found in the Sensitive Lands chapter require details on how structures will be anchored and built of materials resistant to flood damage. The applicant addresses both those regulations and policy 7 by stating no structures are proposed and that flood proofing is not applicable. Under policy 4 the applicant explains how the bridge spans the floodway and how the roadway and bridge deck will be above the 100-year floodplain elevation. However, the supports (wing and retaining walls and pilings) for the bridge and roadway are part of the bridge structure and the applicant has not shown how these are resistant to flood damage. Policy 8. The City shall prohibit any land form alterations or developments in the 100-year floodplain which would result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year floodplain. Policy 9. The City shall not allow land form alterations or development within the 100-year floodplain outside the zero-foot rise floodway unless: A. The streamflow capacity of the zero- foot rise floodway is maintained; and B. Engineered drawings and/or documentation shows there will be no detrimental upstream or down-stream effects in the floodplain area. Policy 10. The City shall work with Clean Water Services to protect natural drainageways and wetlands as valuable water retention areas and, where possible, find ways to restore and enhance these areas. Policy 11. The City shall comply with Metro Title 3 Functional Plan requirements for balanced fill and removal in the floodplain. FINDINGS: The site contains areas of 100-year floodplain and construction of Wall Street requires fill within the floodplain. The applicant has chosen a bridge that spans the entire floodway to limit impact to the floodplain. Excavation is proposed to provide zero-rise within the floodway, but detailed drawings with exact locations have not been provided at this time. The applicant points to a hydraulic analysis done by WEST Consultants in June 2003, which shows no detrimental upstream effects, but this document does not consider the revised elements of the 2009 application. The methods to obtain a zero-rise are not known at this time and were not part of the 2003 analysis. PARKS, RECREATION,TRAILS,AND OPEN SPACE Goal 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both: A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system. Policy 17. The City shall maintain and manage its parks and open space resources in ways that preserve, protect, and restore Tigard's natural resources, including rare, or state and federally listed species, and provide "Nature in the City" opportunities. FINDINGS: Two of the four affected parcels are owned by the City of Tigard. The natural areas found on these sites are part of the City's open space. The proposed extension lies within Fanno Creek Park. The applicant states that the extension of Wall Street is acknowledged in the 2003 Master Fanno Creek STAFF REPORT TO 7'I-I[.?PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL,STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 28 OF 37 SI,R2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVT.?I.,ANDS REVIEW plan, but this plan is not a regulating document. As noted under the Sensitive Lands section of this report and within an ODFW comment letter, the applicant has not adequately addressed the long term effects upon this open space and wildlife habitat nor how, or if, they can be mitigated. Development within parks is not directly addressed within the TDC or Municipal Code with the exception of trees in parks. These regulations have been addressed in this staff report (Section D —Municipal Code Regulations); the applicant has not fully complied with all of the regulations for trees within parks. Tree removal and protection on City property requires approval by the Public Works Director, and the applicant has not obtained the requiredapproval. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Goal 11.1 Develop and maintain a stormwater system that protects development, water resources, and wildlife habitat. Policy 1. The City shall require that all new development: A. construct the appropriate stormwater facilities or ensure construction by paying their fair share of the cost; B. comply with adopted plans and standards for stormwater management; and C. meet or exceed regional, state, and federal standards for water quality and flood protection. FINDINGS: Stormwater from the proposed street extension will be treated by a new bioswale near the east end of the bridge and an existing water quality facility found on the Tigard Library site, which was constructed in Phase 1. Preliminary calculations were provided. The Sensitive Lands and Street and Utility Improvement standards of the TDC regulate stormwater and resources. Water quality and flood Cprotection requirements are not met because the applicant has not obtained the necessary approvals from WS (Stormwater Connection Permit),Army Corps of Engineers, and DSL as previously discussed within this report. Policy 6. The City shall maintain streams and wetlands in their natural state, to the extent necessary, to protect their stormwater conveyance and treatment functions. FINDINGS: The proposed street spans Fanno Creek, but does impact a Tigard Significant wetland and vegetated corridor, The applicant has not satisfied the requirements necessary to remove protection from this wetland in order to construct the proposed improvements. This was discussed in more detail under the Sensitive Lands portion of this report. Goal 11.4 Maintain adequate public facilities and services to meet the health, safety, education, and leisure needs of all Tigard residents. Policy 4. The City shall require that all new development: A. can be provided fire and police protection; D. have a street layout and design that is accessible by emergency vehicles; and FINDINGS: Wall Street is a public street. The extension will serve future development on the applicant's site; however a future connection to Hunziker Street is uncertain. The proposed design meets the collector street requirements, but as noted previously, the applicant has not provided roof to show resistance to flood damage or anchoring. That factor is discussed m more detail under the Sensitive Lands portion of this report. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The 2001 Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) updates the comprehensive plan and policies. However, it does not fully replace all elements of the comprehensive plan adopted prior to the 2001 TSP. Goal #4, Policy #1 of the Tigard TSP correlates to the following comprehensive plan policy: Goal 12.1 Transportation System FINDINGS: The policies under this goal outline how transportation facilities must enhance livability, incorporate all modes of transportation (motor vehicle, bike, pedestrian, mass transit, and other modes), achieve safety and performance measures, and provide accessibility and efficiency for users. Sl`AhP REPORT TO'I'i-in PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC I-TEARING CPA2009-00004/FII;I I)S WALL STREET COMPRIiI IENSIVI:PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 29 OP 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW Design. requirements within the Streets and Utilities section of the TDC implement these policies. If preliminary approval is given for the construction of Wall Street, then the detailed street design will be reviewed during the PFI phase of the permitting process. Goal 12.2 Trafficways Policy 6. The City shall adopt the following transportation improvement strategy in order to accommodate planned land uses in the Tigard Triangle: E- Analysis indicates that there is a long term (20-30 years) need for Dartmouth Road to continue over Highway 217 and potentially south to Hall Boulevard as well as for extending the collector- distributor roads from the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange through the Highway 217/Highway 99W interchange. The Highway 217 corridor analysis to be performed by Metro and ODOT should consider the advantages and disadvantages of these improvements. The Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard should be constructed only if further system improvements to Hall Boulevard are made concurrently. If additional capacity is not added to Hall Boulevard south of where the Dartmouth extension would be connected, the effectiveness of this connection would be diminished. Alternatively, another roadway could be constructed that provides a connection from the Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street. FINDINGS: Although the above connection is not shown on the current TSP, it is assumed that the extension of Wall Street as proposed could facilitate the connection from Hall Boulevard to Dartmouth Street. The proposed extension is in compliance with the collector designation on the TSP for Wall Street, and does not preclude the future extension of Wall Street to connect with Dartmouth. This policy is met. CONCLUSION: With the exception of the Transportation goal, the proposal does not comply with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. The goals not met include those pertaining to natural resource protection, floodplain management (hazards), and water quality. D. APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS Because the applicant is removing and planting trees on City property and proposing work within the root zone of trees on City property. The regulations of Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 9 (Trees on City Property) apply. Provisions regarding planting and protection of trees are addressed below. Regulations regarding tree removal are addressed as part of the Tree Removal Permits requested under a separate application. 9.06.030 Tree Planting (1) Tree Planting A. No person other than the City shall plant a tree on City property without the written approval of the Public Works Director or designee. In approving tree plantings, the Public Works Director or designee may impose conditions of approval; B. Any City department responsible for City property shall consult with the Public Works Director or designee before planting trees on City property; C. The Public Works Director or designee may grant approval of tree-planting on City property under subsection a of this section only if the applicant has submitted a tree plan showing compliance with the standards set forth in the Tree Manual, and has signed a maintenance agreement consistent with the standards set forth in the Tree Manual. The requirement for a maintenance agreement may be waived if the tree-planting is voluntary and not required by any City code provision or condition of approval; D. All tree plantings on City property shall be undertaken in a manner consistent with the approval of the Public Works Director or designee and the standards set forth in the Tree Manual; STAFF REPORT TO T1II:;PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WAL,I.STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 30 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS RI;VILW E. Only trees listed in the Street Tree List or those specifically approved by the Public Works Director or designee may be planted as street trees. FINDINGS: The applicant has submitted a Landscape Plan (R2.5) that shows plantings to occur on the project site, including City property. The proposed planting schedule includes trees, shrubs and other plants required to meet CWS requirements. The City Arborist has reviewed the landscape plan and notes that more detail is required. Specifics needed include details on tree planting location and species, along with a maintenance schedule. These specifications must conform to section 030 and 050 of the Tigard Tree Manual or as otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. It is difficult for the City to evaluate compliance, and monitor long term growth of the trees on City property without a detailed plan. In addition, a signature of approval from the Public Works Director on the tree planting plan and a three year maintenance agreement are required. The applicant has agreed to comply with all these regulations within the narrative but the information was not provided. Due to the lack of specifics and detailed plans, Staff has determined the proposal does not comply with these regulations. 9.06.030 Tree Planting 1} Tree Planting No person other than the City shall plant a tree on City property without the written approval of the Public Works Director or designee..In approving tree plantings, the Public Works Director or designee may impose conditions of approval; 13. Any City department responsible for City property shall consult with the Public Works Director or designee before planting trees on City property; C. The Public Works Director or designee may grant approval of tree-planting on City property under subsection a of this section only if the applicant has submitted a tree plan showing compliance with the standards set forth in the Tree Manual, and has signed a maintenance agreement consistent with the standards set forth in the Tree Manual. The requirement for a maintenance agreement may be waived if the tree-planting is voluntary and not required by any City code provision or condition of approval; D. All tree plantings on City property shall be undertaken in a manner consistent with the approval of the Public Works Director or designee and the standards set forth in the Tree Manual; E. Only trees listed in the Street Tree List or those specifically approved by the Public Works Director or designee may be planted as street trees. FINDINGS: The planting plan (R2.5) and schedule provided do not give specific tree planting location, and species. A maintenance program for trees to be planted on City property was not proposed. The planting plan and maintenance program must conform to section 030 and 050 of the Tigard Tree Manual or as otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. It is difficult for the City to evaluate compliance, and monitor long term growth of the trees on City property without a detailed plan. The applicant also has not obtained the approval from the Public Works Director for a planting plan and has not entered into a three year maintenance agreement for those trees. The applicant has not shown compliance with the regulations for tree planting on City property. 9.06.040 Tree Care and Maintenance (1) General Provisions A. All trees planted pursuant to the written approval of the Public Works Director or designee under Section 9.06.040 shall be cared for and maintained according to the standards set forth in the City Tree Care Manual. FINDINGS: As noted above, the applicant has not provided written approval from the Public Works Director for the proposed tree removal and tree planting. In addition, the applicant has not proposed nor STAFF RE1'O12'1"I'O THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREI-IENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 31 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW entered into a 3-year maintenance agreement with the City as required by the Tree Care Manual. This proposal does not comply with this regulation. 9.06.050 Tree Protection (1) Care of Trees on City Property. The City shall follow the Tree Manual in caring for and protecting trees on City property. (2) These requirements shall provide for the proper protection of tree roots, trunk(s) (or stem(s)), branches, and foliage within a tree's critical root zone for any tree on City property during any type of construction activity or project (excavation, demolition or any other type of disturbance); FINDINGS: A tree protection plan has been provided by the applicant. There are inconsistencies between the Abborist Report and the Tree Protection/Removal Plan (EX-1). It has not been determined whether or not trees 56, 57, and 58 will be 7reserved. Also, the tree protection recommendations and tree protection fence dimension (to scale) per Cie 1-8-2010 arborist report should be included on sheet EX-1. In addition, the location of all staging, stockpiling, and access area should be shown on the plans and the project arborist should provide a signature of approval on the tree protection/removal plan certifying that it is consistent with their recommendations. The applicant has not provided the necessary information to determine if trees will be protected from all site activities for construction of the street extension. 9.06.070 Removal of Trees from City Property (1) Removal of Trees from City Property other than Right of Way Prohibited. No person other than the City or a person acting under contract with the City shall remove a tree from any City park or any City-owned property without written approval of the Public Works Director or designee. Any person removing a tree from City property other than right of way shall provide mitigation as specified in the Tree Manual. FINDINGS: A tree removal plan was submitted, but the removal plan has not been approved by the Public Works Director. Most of the trees to be removed are within proposed right-of-way (ROW) with the exception of trees 56, 57, and 58. Mitigation is required for removal of these three trees. The ROW for the street has not yet been dedicated and it is unknown at this time whether that will occur. The applicant has not proposed mitigation for any trees to be removed. This requirement is not satisfied since the removal plan has not been approved by the Public Works Director and a mitigation plan has not been provided. CONCLUSION: The applicant has not shown compliance with the Municipal Code regulations, regarding protection and removal of existing trees, mitigation, and maintenance of Pplanted trees on City property: The applicant has not provided approval from the ublic Works Director, mitigation for proposed tree removal and a detailed planting plan that meet the requirements of the Tigard Tree Manual, and an executed maintenance agreement for planted trees. E. APPLICABLE METRO STANDARDS Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Title 3— WaterQualiy and Flood Management This title aims to reduce flood and landslide hazards, control erosion, and reduce water pollution. FINDINGS: The performance standards of this title are addressed through the City's sensitive lands requirements of Section 18.755, Comprehensive Plan Goals (6 & 7), and Clean Water Service Requirements. Sections C and D of this report address these requirements and staff concludes that the requirements are not met. Therefore, compliance with Title 3 has not been demonstrated. Title 6—Regional Accessibility (Regional Transportation Plan) This title addresses the coordination of transportation and land use planning by requiring improvements to STAFF RLPOR'I TO'ME IE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 96,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL ST EET COMPREHENSIVE PI.AN AMENDMENT PAGE 32 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW local street grids,mode split targets in regional centers, and the revisions to level of service standards. FINDINGS: The Wall Street connection from Hall Boulevard to Hunziker Street is shown on the Street Improvement Plan (Figure 8-19) and connectivity plan (Figure 8-12) in the City's 2003 TSP, which has been adopted by the City Council and acknowledged by DLCD. Therefore, the applicant's proposal to extend Wall Street from its current terminus into the applicant's property is within compliance with the City adopted TSP. However the ability to achieve this connection due to the resistance of the Portland & Western railroad for a crossing is uncertain. Title 13—Nature in Neighborhoods The purpose of this title is to conserve, protect, and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside corridor system that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and the surrounding urban landscape. FINDINGS: Standards were adopted into the TDC in 2006 to comply with this title. Most of the standards were adopted into the Sensitive Lands chapter (18.775). These standards did not establish development restrictions, only provided flexibility to encourage habitat friendly development. A copy of the proposal and a request for comments was sent to Metro representatives and no comments were received. CONCLUSION: The applicant has not met the applicable standards of the Metro Urban Growth Management Plan, specifically Title 3,Water Quality and Flood Management. F. APPLICABLE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS Statewide Planning Goal 1— Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and for changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDINGS: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Chapter 18.390. Notice has been published in the Tigard Times Newspaper prior to the public hearing. In addition a notice was posted on the City website. Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. FINDINGS: The Tigard Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process for, and policies to review changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The City's plan provides analysis and policies with which to evaluate a request for amendment consistent with Goal 2. Through this fact based analysis it has been determined that the applicant has not satisfied all the requirements of the TDC and has not complied with all of the City's Comprehensive goals and policies. Statewide Planning Goal 5—Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources This goal outlines the protection of natural resources and conservation of scenic, historic and open spaces. FINDINGS: This site includes both open space and natural resources. The regulations outlined in the Sensitive Lands chapter (18.775) of the TDC protect these areas, along with the goals and policies found in Goal 5 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. As discussed previously in this report, the applicant does not comply with the implementing codes or City goals. The applicant has not met the burden of proof to remove the protection from the Tigard Significant wetland. Insufficient information was provided for alternatives such as a longer bridge span or access from Milton Court to determine if the proposed 320- foot bridge has the least impact on natural resources. Long term affects of the bridge were also not discussed in relation to habitat and wildlife species found in the area. STAFF REPORT TO Ti-IE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREI-IENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 33 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW Statewide Planning Goal 6—Air, Water and Land Resources Quality This goal presents guidelines on how to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. FINDINGS: The proposal is to extend a street across Fanno Creek with impact to an adjacent wetland and associated floodplain. The applicant has proposed a water quality facility to treat stormwater from the street prior to being released into the wetlands. However the applicant has not shown full compliance with the Sensitive Lands (18.775) and stormwater (18.810) regulations of the City,which regulate the water quality goal. Statewide Planning Goal 7—Areas Subject to Natural Hazards This goal requires local governments to adopt comprehensive plans (inventories, policies and implementing measures) to reduce risk to people and property from natural hazards, including floods, earthquakes, landslides,wildfires, etc. FINDINGS: Because the site is located within a floodplain, this goal is applicable to the proposal. The Sensitive Lands chapter (18.775) of the TDC and Goal 7 of the Comprehensive Plan address development within a floodplain. The applicant has addressed these requirements, but has not shown full compliance as previously addressed in this report. The reasons for this include: the applicant has not met the burden of proof for zero-rise within the floodplain and anchoring/flood resistance of the bridge, fill, wingwalls, pilings, etc. Statewide Planning Goal 8—Recreation This goal ensures the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors are satisfied and, outlines how to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts where appropriate. FINDINGS: As noted by the applicant, this goals main focus is large-scale resort opportunities,which is not applicable to this application. However, this proposal does impact a large tract of Tigard open space that is part of Fanno Creek Park and currently is relatively undisturbed. As noted under the review of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 8.1, the applicant does not provide information on how the long term impacts proposed will be mitigated within this open space and natural area. Statewide Planning Goal 11--Public Facilities This goal requires that jurisdictions plan and ensure adequate and appropriate extension of public facilities and services to direct urban and rural development. These facilities include, but are not limited to, sewer, water and transportation. FINDINGS: The applicant has proposed extension of Wall Street to provide road access to the site. Because the proposal includes sensitive lands and the applicant has not met the criteria to permit construction of the access, Staff is recommending denial of the request. Utilities such as water and sewer will be addressed with future development of the site and are available on-site or near the applicant's property. However, there is some question as to whether flood-proof utilities can be provided on the proposed bridge design. Statewide Planning Goal 12—Transportation This goal outlines provisions to insure a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Transportation plans must consider all modes of transportation, meet local, regional, and state transportation needs and plan requirements, conserve energy, and facilitate the flow of goods and services. STAFF REPORT TO'I'l IF PLANNING COMMISSION • AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2009-00004/PI LDS WALL STREET COMPREI-II NSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 34 OF 37 SI..R2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW FINDINGS: The current TSP outlines the transportation system requirements and improvements to be made and currently shows Wall Street extending from Hall Boulevard to Hunziker Street; therefore the transportation goal is satisfied. CONCLUSION: The proposal does not comply with statewide planning goals 2 — Land Use Planning, 5 — Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources, 6 —Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, and 7 —Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard Arborist and Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and comments have been incorporated into this report. The City's Public Works department had no comments or concerns on the proposal. The Tigard Building Division and Police Department were both sent copies of the proposal but neither responded to the request for comments. Clean Water Services reviewed the proposal and noted that a CWS Storm Water Connection permit must be obtained by the applicant. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Amanda Punton of DLCD has reviewed the proposal and sent a comment letter which is attached as Attachment 3. The letter was sent to help the City navigate overlapping review requirements and clarifies how Metro Title 13 was not intended to meet Goal 5 for wetlands. Ms. Punton states that the applicant had submitted an ESEE analysis as required that speaks more generally of the wetland resource as a whole (including significant fish and wildlife habitat). She states that it is reasonable to conclude that the analysis was submitted to address the proposed changes to the wetland protection measures of Goal 5. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Elizabeth Ruther has reviewed the proposal and sent a letter (Attachment 4). Ms. Ruther states that ODFW does not support removal of Goal 5 protection from the resource area because the applicant has not demonstrated consistency with Goal 5 and its administrative rule. Matters of concern regarding the Alternatives Analysis include the applicant's failure to address species and habitats of special conservation concern, long term impacts caused by habitat fragmentation, and the increased noise, traffic, and associated pollution. She also notes that the Metro Council has designated this area as a Class 1 riparian (highest value) and a High Habitat Conservation Area. ODFW encourages the City to work with the landowner and Metro to consider a conservation easement or outright purchase of the property to benefit the Fanno Creek Linkages Project and safeguard the area for future generations and wildlife. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and endorses the proposal predicated on certain criteria and conditions of approval (Attachment 5). These criteria address the issue of access for future development of the site and when a secondary access is needed for development. Metro Land Use and Planning, ODOT (Region 1), Oregon Division of State Lands, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland & Western R/R, Burlington Northern/Santa Fe R/R, Oregon Electric R/R, and Southern Pacific Trans. Co. R/R were mailed a copy of the proposal but provided no comment. STAFF REPORT I'O TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC I TEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STREET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 35 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SECTION VI. STAFF ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Review (CPA) to remove the Goal 5 protection from a Tigard Significant Wetland in the project area, a Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) for wetlands, a Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) for the 100-year floodplain, and an Adjustment (VAR) to the street requirements in order to construct a narrower street section and eliminate the planter strip on the bridge deck. The applicant has failed to provide the facts and findings necessary to meet the burden of proof required for the proposal. Staff is recommending a denial of all four applications associated with this request. The applicant has failed to meet the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies applicable to the CPA including those associated with water quality, protection of natural resources, land use planning, and hazards (floods). The applicant's ESEE analysis and information on alternatives such as a longer bridge span and access from Milton Court do not provide sufficient information for Staff to determine if the proposed 320-foot bridge is the best alternative and protects natural resources as much as possible while still allowing Mr. Fields to access his property. Facts about long term impacts of the placement of the bridge in this location upon the natural resources, habitat, and wildlife, particularly sensitive species, were not provided. In addition land form alteration is not permitted in floodplain zoned residential, except for public support facilities and community recreation. The parcels involved are zoned R-12 and R-25. The applicant has asserted that the fill and pilings support Wall Street, which is a public facility; therefore the proposal is permitted. Staff contends that public support facilities play a supportive role to the roadway system. This is supported by the context in which the term is used in 18.775.020 .E.1.a, case history, and by previous definitions of the term within the Development Code. Much of the applicant's information related to alternatives and affects on the resources was prepared in 2003 and 2005 for the application of the Wall Street extension and were revised once the City's application was scaled back to only include Phase 1. For example, the alternatives analysis (Exhibit K) has a good deal of information explaining how the alignment of Wall Street to connect with Hunziker was chosen and the reasoning behind that choice. However, the applicant's alternative analysis did not provide such detail for the longer bridge span or access from Milton Court. The criteria for Sensitive Lands Review for the floodplain were not met because the applicant has proposed a plan that does not meets the zero-rise requirement within the 100--year floodplain. Over 2,000 cubic yards of fill are necessary for the street extension, but a specific plan to meet zero-rise was not provided. In addition, this extension is intended to serve future residential development on the applicant's property. The applicant did not submit information to show that wingwalls, fill, and pilings below the 100-year flood elevlation are flood proofed and anchored to prevent movement or collapse. Wall Street is a public street and would provide emergency service access to future residential units. It is important that these residences can be served, especially during times of flooding. Denial is also recommended for the Sensitive Lands Review for the wetland due to the fact that Staff cannot recommend the removal of the wetland's Goal 5 protection. In addition, the applicant did not clearly show that the proposed 320-foot bridge is the minimum impact to achieve access to the applicant's property when also considering other alternatives such as a longer bridge or an access from Milton Court. . Finally the adjustment to the street improvement standards for a 72-foot street section and planter strips on the bridge deck are recommended for denial. The applicant asserts a narrower section would have fewer impacts on natural resources, but does not describe the adverse impacts. Without demonstrating the nature and extent of the impacts that are to be forgone if the adjustment is permitted, it is impossible for the applicant to establish that the foregone impacts are unacceptable, ant that public interest is served by not strictly enforcing the subject standard, as is required to grant the adjustment. Secondarily, recommending approval for an adjustment to avoid impacts to a resource while also recommending approval of the 320-foot bridge span and street extension which also causes impacts seems contradictory. How are the impacts for the bridge acceptable,while those for a wider street section not acceptable? The applicant wishes to obtain a developed street access to his property. One option is the extension of Wall Street, a public street, across Fanno Creek. The applicant's proposed alignment of this extension 72- STAFF REPORT TO TI IF.PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC FIEARING CPA2009-00004/PI7 I,DS WALL STREET COMPREHENSIVE,PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 36 OF 37 SLR2009-00004&SL R2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW foot ROW is the same general alignment of a 60-foot access easement conveyed to the applicant by the City of Tigard across City property. The 2003 TSP shows.the extension of this collector street providing a connection between Hall Boulevard and Hunziker Street to relieve congestion and improve circulation, but since the railroad crossing is not possible, the completion of this connection is uncertain. Therefore the proposal to construct the street for development of the applicant's property is speculative in nature. The applicant points to development of the site as a positive impact that counters any adverse impact on the natural resources. However there is no guarantee that the development will happen and there are other options that would have no or much less impact to the natural resources in the area and still allow access to the applicant's property. SECTION VII. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings and analysis, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan, Sensitive Lands Reviews, and Adjustment are inconsistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code (Chapters 18.390, 18.745, 18.775, 18.790, & 18.810), Comprehensive Plan (Goals 2-Land Use Development, 5-Natural Resources and Historic Areas , Goal 6-Environmental Quality, Goal 7-Hazards, Goal 8-Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space, and 11-Public Facilities and Services),Tigard Municipal Code (Chapter 9.06-Trees on City Property), Statewide Planning Goals 2, 5, 6, and 7, and Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Title 3. SECTION VIII. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, sensitive lands reviews, and adjustment to City Council. 6 . (a,,, August 9. 2010 PREPA D BY: Cheryl Caines DATE Associate Planner -A vL- ig(4 v,d August 9. 2010 REVIEWED BY: Ron Bunch DATE Community Development Director Attachments: 1. 10/30/09 Incomplete Letter to applicant from Staff 2. 12/01/09 Letter from Phil Grillo to Staff regarding public support facilities 3. 03/08/10 Letter from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) 4. 03/12/10 Letter from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 5. 04/06/10 Letter from Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) 6. Illustration showing 2002-TSP connection and surrounding area 7. Vicinity Map STAFF REPORT "1.0 TI IE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,2010 PUBLIC I-IEARING CPA2009-00004/FIELDS WALL STRE'T"I'COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 37 OF 37 SL R2009-00004&SLR2009-00005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 SW Hall Blvd. o Tip, , a ATTACHMENT I 111 ,, 1 tt r'. October 30, 2009 Rhys Konrad Group Mackenzie 1515 SE Water Ave., Suite 200 Portland, OR 97214 Dear Mr. Konrad: RE: Notice of Incomplete Application Submittal—Fields Wall Street Extension (CPA2009-00004, SLR2009-00004, & SLR2009-00005) The City has not received the information necessary to begin the review of your Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Sensitive Lands Review for the extension of Wall Street. The project site is located at the end of Wall Street, east of the Hall Boulevard intersection. This letter is to inform you of Staffs concerns regarding the application and materials necessary to deem the application complete and to provide the best information for decision makers and the public. I. Application Form. The project involves property owned by others than the applicant, Mr. Fields. Owner signatures will need to be obtained for those affected properties. ® City of Tigard (2S102DD-00100 &00200 and 2S102DA-00600) ® A. Eikrem (2S102DA-00690) 2. Narrative. - Please address the following codes/plans: O Comprehensive Plan—state how the proposal will promote these goals and policies. Goal 5.1,Policies 7 & 8 Goal 7.1,Policies 4& 7 Goal 8.1,Policy 17 Goal 11.1,Policies 1 & 6 Goal 11.4, Policy 4-D Goal 12.1,Policies 1, 2, 3-G & 5-A Goal 12.2, Policy 6-E 1 . Phone: 503.639.4171 0 Fax: 503.684.7297 ® www.tigard-or.gov o TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • Tigard Community Development Code 18.775 Sensitive Lands: 18.775.040 - E, F and I 18.775.040.H (if water lines will be carried across the bridge) 18.775.090.B.5 —it is unclear how the response relates to the criterion • Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 7.40.090 Greenway Maintenance Chapter 9.06 Trees on City Property. • Metro Urban Functional Growth Management Plan Title 13 —Nature in Neighborhoods 3. Supporting Documents. • ESEE — please provide on the document the names and titles of those who prepared it. Also provide the facts, findings, and conclusions in the narrative to show how 18.775.130.A criteria are met. Does this updated analysis consider changes that may have occurred since the original ESEE was completed for Phase 1? • Alternatives Analysis — Page 8 of the analysis is not legible. Please ensure that future copies of this page are legible for readers. Was the wildlife biologist/wetlands ecologist involved with analyzing the environmental impact of the two new alternatives? • Department of State Lands Removal/Fill Permit — Permit 31719-RF has expired and you state that a new permit will be requested. The supporting documents for this permit were prepared several years ago and will likely be required by the permitting agency. Please provide copies of updated supporting documents. 4. Adjustment. An adjustment has been requested to the street improvement requirements. A fee of$310.50 ($621 x 50%) is required. 5. Tree Removal Permits. The plan shows removal of trees within sensitive lands. Removal permits are required. Please address the relevant criteria under 18.790.050 and pay the proper fee of$94.00 each ($188 x 50%). 6. Public Facility Items. Please provide the information required by the Development Review Engineer, as shown on the attached sheet (Attachment 1). 7. Arborist Comments. Please provide the information required by the City Arborist, as shown on the attached sheet (Attachment 2). 8. Areas of Concern. • The narrative reads,under 18.775.070.B.2, that code references are cited to support your interpretation of the term"public support facilities." There is one citation, no discussion of how this term has been previously interpreted by the City, and how the proposed interpretation is different. 2 e Is this design the most environmentally friendly? The applicant is requesting exceptions/adjustments to the street design to avoid impacts to natural areas,but then is proposing fill within these same natural areas. Beginning on page 8 of the narrative,you briefly outline the impacts to the on-site sensitive areas. These impacts axe a key concern of the stakeholders. Please ensure that impacts to the natural areas and wildlife are clearly outlined. Document where and from whom this information was obtained. If you have any questions about the above comments, please contact me at (503) 718--2437 or cherylc@tigard-or.gov. Sincerely, Cheryl Gaines Associate Planner c: CPA2009-00004 Land Use File Fred Fields, owner Dick Bewersdorff,Planning Manager Ron Bunch, Community Development Director • • 3 PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN Project: .-fields Wall St. Extension COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Date: 10-27-09 GRADING ❑ Existing and proposed contours shown. _ ❑ Are there grading impacts on adjacent parcels? ❑ Adjacent parcel grades shown. ❑ Geotech study submitted? STREET ISSUES ® Right-of-way clearly shown. 1. ROW required for a collector street is 58 feet minimum. This includes 2-12-foot travel lanes, two 6-foot bike lanes, two 5-foot planters and a 6-foot sidewalk on each side. If the proposed section eliminates the planter strips on the bridge, there needs to be strong justification for doing so and approval of an adjustment is required. 2. For a 3-lane section, the ROW needs to be 70 feet wide. 3. Dedicate required ROW on the Fields property outside City property boundary. 3. Dedicate an 8-foot Public Utility Easement on borh sides of the dedicated ROW for placement of franchise utilities. 4. Street segment within City property will have to be dedicated as ROW as well with appropriate PUE's on both sides. ❑ Centerline of street(s) clearly shown. ❑ Street name(s) shown. ❑ Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown. ❑ Street profiles shown. ❑ Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles, topo on adjacent parcel(s), etc. ❑ Traffic Impact and/or Access Report ❑ Street grades compliant? ® Street/ROW widths dimensioned and appropriate? Show 58-foot ROW with improvements as listed above. Adequate justification needs to be provided for reducing the ROW width less than 58 feet. ❑ Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and width appropriate? ® Other: 1. Final plans should show street lighting and street trees. 2. Franchise utilities shall be placed underground where possible and designed to cross with the bridge installation. 3. Adequate turnaround needs to be shown for vehicles that cross the bridge. Turnaround sufficient to meet TVF&R requirements needs to be provided with the development of the lot. SANITARY SEWER ISSUES REVISED: 10/28/09 ® Existing/proposed lines sht. 1. Sewer is avc,_.able on-site to serve the property. There is no need to extend sewer _ lines with the street. ❑ Stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? WATER ISSUES ® Existing/proposed lines w/ sizes noted? Street improvements shall include water service lines as part of the bridge installation. ® Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? Fire hydrant locations should be shown as part of the development of the lot, whenever that occurs. ❑ Proposed meter location and size shown? ® Proposed fire protection system shown? Adequate fire protection measures need to be shown as part of development. They do not need to be provided with the street extension only. STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES ® Existing/proposed lines shown? Storm drainage needs to be addressed for the east side of the bridge. The distance across the bridge eastward is too long to the nearest catchbasin. Revise the storm drain plans to reduce that distance. ▪ Preliminary sizing talcs for water quality/detention 1. Final plans shall include calculations for provided? water quality so that adequacy of treatment facility can be determined. 2. Pay fee for detention. ❑ Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? ❑ Area for facility match requirements from calcs? C Facility shown outside any wetland buffer? ❑ Storm stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? The submittal is hereby deemed ❑ COMPLETE ® INCOMPLETE By: [� t,►� 1"• ! Date: &72. /0 ti REVISED: 10/28/08 Fields Wall Street Extension Completeness Item Met _ Not Met N/A Comments 9.06.030: X -Not addressed in narrative. Tree Planting -The applicant is proposing to plant trees on City property as indicated on sheet R2.5 in areas E, F, G, and I. Therefore, the requirements in sections 9.06.030 of the Municipal Code and section 050 of the Tigard Tree Manual shall be addressed and met. 9.06.040: X -Not addressed in narrative. Tree Maintenance -The applicant is proposing to plant trees on City property as indicated on sheet R2.5 in areas E, F, G, and I. They will also be required to maintain their plantings per City standards. Therefore, the requirements in sections 9.06.040 of the Municipal Code and section 060 of the Tigard Tree Manual shall be addressed and met. 9.06.050: X -Not addressed in narrative. Tree Protection -The applicant is proposing construction activities on City property in close proximity to existing trees. Therefore, the requirements in sections 9.06.050 of the Municipal Code and sections 070 and 090(2) of the Tigard Tree Manual shall be addressed and met. 9.06.070: W -Not addressed in narrative. Tree Removal -The applicant is proposing to remove trees on City property. Therefore,the requirements in sections 9.06.070 of the Municipal Code and section 090 of the Tigard Tree Manual shall be addressed and met. -Note: Mitigation will not be required 18.745: X Not addressed in narrative. Landscaping and Screening 18.745.030: X Not addressed in narrative. General Provisions 18.745.040: X -Not addressed in narrative. Street Trees -Street trees are not shown on the plans for the non-bridge portion of the Todd Prager City Arborist October 14, 2009 roadway. I recommend continuing the species selection used for"Phase 1". 18.745.050: X Buffering and Screening 18.745.060: X Not addressed in narrative. Re-vegetation 18.790.030: X Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.050: X -Not addressed in narrative. Permit Applicability -No tree removal permit applications provided. Todd Prager City Arborist October 14, 2009 ATTACHMENT 2 0 PORTLAND OREGON SEATTLE.WASHINGTON CENTRAL OR WASHiNG?O•. MILLER NASHLLP CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM RECEIVED PLANNING DEC 04 2009 Phillip E.Grillo phil.grillo @millernash.com (503)205-2311 direct line CITY OF TIGARD December 1, 2009 BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Ms. Cheryl Caines Associate Planner City of Tigard Department of Community Development Current Planning Division 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Fred Fields'Access Application (CPA2009-00004, SLR2009-00004, & SLR2009-00005) Dear Cheryl: I am writing on behalf of the applicant, Fred Fields, to provide you with additional information concerning TDC 18.775.o7o(B)(2), as it applies in this case. As you know, this standard has been the subject of ongoing discussions between the City and the applicant's team. Based on our recent discussions, I am uncertain what your current position is with regard to the meaning of this standard and how you would interpret and apply it in our case. Your letter dated October 30, 2009, to • Mr. Konrad indicates that you are interpreting TDC 18.775.o7o(B)(2) to prohibit the proposed access bridge in the floodplain, because the site is zoned for residential use. The surface of Mr. Fields' access street and the bridge will be located well above the floodplain elevation and will therefore be located outside the floodplain. I believe this complies with your position that under TDC 18.775.o7o(B)(2), the street cannot be located in the floodplain. The only development or landform alterations that are proposed to occur in the floodplain are the support facilities that extend below the street and bridge, and that are necessary to elevate the street and bridge above the floodplain. These supports constitute "public support facilities,"which under TDC 18.775.o7o(B)(2) are allowed in residentially zoned floodplains. PDXDOCS:1871075.1 >�/},►�) PORTLAND,OREGON SEATTLE.WAS4IGTON VANCOUVER,WASr:!NCroN MILLER NASHLLP CENTRAL OREGON TTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Ms. Cheryl Caines December 1, 2009 � :. Page 2 As you know, Wall Street is a public street shown in the Tigard Transportation Systems Plan ("TSP"). The planned extension of that street will be located exclusively on City-owned land or within the public right-of-way, as will the support needed to elevate those facilities (e.g., footings and fill). These footings and fill are necessary to support the principal development, namely the planned extension of Wall Street as described in the City's TSP. The proposed Wall Street extension and bridge were designed by an engineering firm (DeHass) that was employed by the City for that purpose. As part of the process of selecting a design for the bridge and street, the City looked at many alternatives and selected the design prepared by DeHass. This design was selected by 1' the City to minimize impacts to the natural area and the floodplain, while at the same p p time ensure that the roadway extension could reasonably be constructed. Overall, this planned street extension has been anticipated for many years. It is not only required by the City's TSP, it is also necessary for Mr. Fields to access his property. The supports that are needed to elevate this planned street extension above the floodplain constitute "public support facilities," and are therefore allowed in -' ' residential zones pursuant to TDC 18.775.o7o(B)(2). Without the exception for "public support facilities,"it would be impossible to build planned transportation facilities in residentially zoned lands, unless the floodplains were relatively narrow. That being said, we agree that the surface of planned transportation facilities should be located above the floodplain elevation, especially in residentially zoned lands. Locating the surface of streets or pathways above the floodplain elevation is necessary for public safety to facilitate access during flood emergencies. But "public support facilities," such as footings and fill, often need to be located in the floodplain in order to elevate planned transportation facilities, like public streets and pathways, above the floodplain. As you know, many planned transportation facilities already cross, or are planned to cross, the floodplain. Accordingly, any ambiguities in TDC 18.775.o7o(B(2) should be interpreted in a way that makes planned public transportation facility crossings possible by allowing them to be elevated by footings and fill in the floodplain, when needed. The issue of whether footings and fill can be located in the floodplain under TDC 18.775.070, if they are used to elevate a planned transportation facility above the floodplain, came before you and the City's land use hearings officer earlier this year in the Fanno Creek Trail &Bridge case (SLR 2009-00002, decided July 22, 2009, attached). By coincidence, the planned pathway extension proposed in the Fanno Creek Trail &Bridge case is located on the same City-owned property as the proposed Wall PDXDOCS:1871075.1 Vir \ MILLER NASH ' PORTLAND o?eeoN SEATTLE V.ASH.wOTO N VANCOUVER WASI-,NG TON CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS A'LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Ms. Cheryl Caines December 1, 2009 Page 3 Street extension, namely Tax Lot 2S102DA-0041. The similarities in the two projects do not end there. For example: - The Fanno Creek Trail &Bridge case involved a proposed extension of a planned transportation facility on residentially zoned land,just as the planned Wall Street extension project does in our case. -The Fanno Creek Trail &Bridge case involved a proposed crossing of the creek with a bridge. The travel surface of the bridge is located above the floodplain and is supported by footings and fill located in the floodplain,just as the planned Wall Street extension project does in our case. -The Fanno Creek Trail &Bridge case involved the extension of a planned transportation facility shown on the City's TSP,just as the planned Wall Street extension > project does in our case. , - In the City's staff report in the Fanno Creek case, staff noted that "Most of rk the work is proposed within the 100-year floodplain and floodway." (Staff report at 2 t:: of 15.) Grading is shown in the floodplain on the maps attached to the staff report. Even though most of the work proposed in that case would occur within the floodplain, `Y`' staff clearly stated that: "Land form alterations within the 100-year floodplain are _ permitted within the commercial and industrial zones. Community Recreation and ': Public Support Facilities are permitted within residential zones as an exception. The - „ trail and sidewalk therefore, are permitted within the R-12 zoning. This standard is met." (Staff report at 6 of 15.) The staff report definitively states that "The proposed improvement on this site (sidewalk widening and signal installation) is classified as a =r Public Support Facility." (Staff report at 11 of 15.) In the hearings officer's detailed opinion, he agreed with staffs conclusion and elaborated on the issue in response to opposing testimony provided at the hearing. The hearings officer's findings are particularly noteworthy and highly relevant to our case because they explain the City's interpretation of the sensitive lands provisions in TDC 18.775.070 as they relate to planned transportation facilities located in the floodplain. In that case, the hearings officer carefully explained how the provisions in the sensitive lands section of the code work together with the City's TSP to allow planned transportation facilities to be constructed through the floodplain, even on residentially zoned lands. With regard to planned transportation facilities located in the floodplain, the hearings officer found as follows: PDXDOCS:1871075.1 PORTLAND.OREGON SEATTLE°u \c-c: MILLER NASH- VANCOUVER,wasni :GT° CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Ms. Cheryl Caines December 1, 2009 Page 4 "i. The opponents interpretation that the elevation standard of TDC 18.775.o7o.B(5) applies to the entire boardwalk structure, would likely preclude all pathways that cross any portion of the floodplain below the average annual flood elevation. With the exception of relatively narrow floodplain areas, it would be impossible to extend a bridge or boardwalk over such areas without using support that extend below the elevation of the average annual flood. However the City's adopted transportation plan clearly shows pathways crossing floodplain areas." (See hearings officer decision at 20, attached.) "ii. The appellants argue that, because this criterion is included in the sensitive lands section of the Code, it must be intended to protect sensitive lands by prohibiting structures that could catch debris or increase flood levels. However, this standard is not necessary to achieve those purposes. A surface pathway below the elevation of the average annual flood would have no effect on flood levels or debris flows. These problems only arise with elevated pathways located on fill or a boardwalk, bridge or other structure. Compliance with the "no-rise" standard of TDC 18.775.o7o.B(1) is sufficient to ensure that any structure supporting a pathway will not impact flood heights." (See hearings officer decision at 20.) "d. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the elevation requirement of TDC 18.775.070 B(5) only applies to the surface of the boardwalk, where the "pathway" is located. As discussed above, the surface of the boardwalk can be located above the average annual flood. Therefore the applicant can comply with TDC 18.775.o7o.B(5)." (See hearings officer decision at 21.) In other words, when dealing with planned transportation facilities in floodplains, the hearings officer made a clear distinction between the need to locate the surface of planned public transportation facilities above the floodplain elevation and the competing need for public support facilities to extend below the floodplain elevation to support these transportation facilities. As he correctly concluded, unless the provisions of TDC 18.775.070 are interpreted in this way, it would be "impossible"to construct planned transportation facilities through the floodplain, except in relatively narrow floodplain areas. Roads are treated the same under the TDC as pathways. Both the staff report and the hearings officer decision in the Fanno Creek Trail & Bridge case treat pathways as roads under the TDC. Regarding nonresidential construction in the floodplain, the staff report concludes that "[t]his standard does not apply as this development is for roadway purposes." (Staff report at 6 of 15.) Staff testified before the PDXDOCS:1871075.1 0 PORTLAND.OREGON SEATTLE.'IASH NGTO' MILLER NASH VANCOUVER.WASHING-0,, CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Ms. Cheryl Caines December 1, 2009 Page 5 hearings officer that "[t)rails are treated as streets"under the TDC. (See hearings officer • decision at 13.) The hearings officer found that "trails * * * are treated as transportation facilities, similar to a road" under the TDC. (See hearings officer decision at 15.) Mr. Fields'bridge proposal should be treated the same as the City's bridge proposal. In the Fanno Creek Trail & Bridge case, the width of the floodplain was approximately 400 feet. Even so, the City approved a 60-foot span bridge, and allowed the applicant (itself)to place footings and fill within the floodplain under TDC 18.775.070 in order to support the bridge. (See attached photos.) In our case, the width of the floodplain is wider. The width of the floodplain at the planned crossing is approximately 500 feet. Likewise, the span of our proposed bridge is approximately 320 feet,which is much longer that the relatively short bridge proposed in the Fanno Creek case. Forcing Mr. Fields to remove the needed footings and fill from the floodplain and build a much longer bridge without footings or fill in the floodplain, in order to span this extremely wide floodplain, would be completely inconsistent with the hearing officer's reasoning and decision in the Fanno Creek Trail & Bridge case, and would be in direct conflict with the applicable law. The purpose of TDC 18.775.o7o(B)(2) is not to make required transportation facilities impossible to build on residentially zoned land, or to make them so costly than they cannot be built. Nor is its purpose to keep all development and landform disturbances out of the floodplain. Its purpose is to keep the transportation facility safe by keeping the surface above the floodplain elevation in residentially zoned areas so that people and emergency vehicles can access homes during flood • emergencies. As is explained by the hearings officer, other provisions in TDC 18.775 ,j expressly protect the floodplain, such as the "no-rise" standard of TDC 18.775.o7o(B)(1) and the "anchoring" requirements of TDC 18.775.040(I). (See hearings officer decision ,° at 21.) • - In closing, we ask that you interpret and apply any ambiguous provision in TDC 18.775.070 in a way that is consistent with the hearings officer's reasoning in the ' above-mentioned case. The hearings officer's decision is consistent with the applicable law. That decision was not appealed by the City or by any other party. In fact, City staff argued persuasively in favor of the position ultimately adopted by the hearings officer. g/ Issues raised in that case have already been resolved. The hearings officer's reasoning in LZ that case is practical, lawful, and applicable to Mr. Fields' application. We should not be treated any differently by the City in this case, than the City treated itself in that case. Mr. Fields is trying to do precisely what the City just did in the Fanno Creek case, namely extend a long-planned transportation facility through a floodplain by using a PDXDOCS:1871075.1 ` PORTLAND.OREGON SEATTLE.WASHINGTON VANCOUVER,wASHING'C'+ MILLER NASH- CENTRAL OREGON ATTC?NEYS !A.. WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Ms. Cheryl Caines December 1, 2009 Page 6 design that keeps the roadway surface out of the floodplain. Such a design is implemented by elevating the surface of the planned transportation facility and the • bridge itself above the floodplain by locating some footings and fill inside the floodplain, but outside the stream channel. As the hearings officer concluded, the ambiguous provisions of TDC 18.775.070 should be and have been interpreted and applied in a way that enables the travel surface of transportation facilities to be above the floodplain, but allows footings and fill ("public support facilities")to be located in the floodplain as needed to support a reasonably sized bridge that protects the stream channel. As the attached • photos clearly show, that is exactly what the hearings officer approved in the Fanno • Creek case, and it is exactly what Mr. Fields is asking for in this case. The hearings officer recognized that planned transportation facilities must be allowed to cross floodplains in a practical and financially viable way, and interpreted ambiguous provisions in TDC 18.775.070 consistent with that purpose. We hope that you will too. Please let me know if you have any further questions with regard to this issue, and thank you again for your careful consideration. Very truly yours, /.4a Phillip E. Grillo cc: Mr. Fred Fields Mr. Tim Ramis, City Attorney PDXDOCS:1871075.1 120 DAYS = 12/22/2009 (139 day extension) DATE OF FILING: 6/22/2009 Er 11 DATE MAILED: 6/22/2009 CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER Case Numbers: SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2009-00002 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2009-00003 MINOR MODIFICATION (MMD) 2009-00007 MINOR MODIFICATION (MMD) 2009-00013 Case Name: FANNO CREEK TRAIL& BRIDGE/HALL BLVD. CROSSING Applicant's Name/Address: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Owner's Name/Address: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223 Address of Property: 13125 and 13500 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223 Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington Co.Tax Assessor's Map No. 2S102DA,Tax Lots 00401 and 00600. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW AND MINOR MODIFICATIONS, THE CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS,NARRATIVE,r•L.TERL\T S,COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISIONS STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE HEARINGS OFFICER HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 11, 2009 TO RECEIVE 'TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. Request: ➢ The applicant requested approval to construct portions of the Fanno Creek trail. Construction involves installation of a sidewalk and signalized crosswalk on Hall Boulevard north of the Fanno Creek Bridge. A boardwalk is approved through the floodplain and vegetated corridor of nearby wetlands and Fanno Creek on the eastern side of Hall Boulevard, and a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek is approved east of Hall Boulevard to connect the new boardwalk with the existing trail north of the Ti and library. At the May 11, 2009 public hearing, the Hearings Officer ultimately held open the record until July 13, 2009 (9 weeks), and then approved the request, subject to conditions of approval. Zones: CBD: Central Business District; I-L: Light Industrial District; and R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.390, 18.510, 18.520, 18.530, 18.745, 18.775 and 18.810. Action: ➢ ❑ Approval as Requested © Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: El Owners of Record within the Required Distance © Affected Government Agencies © Interested Parties © The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact and decision can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard Permit Center at City Hall. Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON JULY 22,2009 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON AUGUST 6,2009 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with • standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of tie decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON AUGUST 5, 2009. Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by the City of Tigard for ) FINAL ORDER .sensitive lands review and other approvals for construction) of a section of the Fanno Creek,trail north of Fanno Creek) SLR2009-00002' and east of Hall Boulevard, in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Fanno Creek Trail) A. SUTTA24RY 1. The applicant, City of Tigard, requests sensitive lands review and minor modification of the Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") approval for the Tigard Library to construct a segment of the Fanno Creek trail located north of Fanno Creek and east of Hall Boulevard, at 13125 and 13500 SW Hall Boulevard; also known as tax lots 401 and 600, WCTM 2S102DA(the "site"). The proposed trail segment will connect the existing trail sections north of the Library, which currently ends at the south bank of Fanno Creek, with the existing trail section on the west side of Hall Boulevard, north of Fanno Creek and south of the Tigard City Hall. The applicant proposed to install a bridge across Fanno Creek, an elevated boardwalk through the floodplain and vegetated corridor of nearby wetlands north of Fanno Creek, a sidewalk on the east side of Hall Boulevard north of Fanno Creek and a signalized crosswalk on Hall Boulevard between the end of the proposed sidewalk and the existing trail section west of Hall Boulevard. Additional basic facts about the site and surrounding land and applicable approval standards are provided in the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated April 29. 2009 (the "Staff Report"), incorporated herein by reference. 2. Tigard Hearings Officer Joe Turner (the "hearings officer") held a duly noticed public hearing on May 11, 2009 to receive and consider public testimony in this matter. At the public hearing City staff recommended conditional approval of the application. Representatives of the applicant testified in support of the application. Two persons testified in opposition. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer ordered the record held open. Ultimately, at the parties' request, the hearings officer held open the record until July 13, 2009. See the June 26, 2009 "Order Opening the Record." Exhibit 9. The principal issues in this case include the following: a. Whether the City is required to include copies of prior development approvals on and near this site in the record for this case; b. Whether changes to the design of the bridge supports constitute a significant change in the application; c. Whether changes in the plans require additional review by DSL; 'This decision also addresses SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013. d. Whether this application qualifies as a minor modification of the CUP approval for the library; e. Whether a traffic study and/or access report is required for this project; f. Whether the pathway will be located above the elevation of the average annual flood; g. Whether the boardwalk and bridge are subject to the flood proofing requirements of TDC 18.775.040.M; h. Whether the boardwalk and bridge can comply with the anchoring requirements of TDC 18.775.040.1; i. Whether the City is required to find that the project complies with CWS's Design and Construction Standards; j. Whether Goal 5, the Tualatin Basin "Limit"Decision and the City's "Significant Habitat Areas Map" are applicable approval criteria for this application; k. Whether the wildlife assessment is adequate; 1. Whether the applicant is required to stabilize the banks of Fanno Creek on the site; m. Whether the applicant is required to remove the trees on the site; n. Whether the provisions of the comprehensive plan are an applicable approval criteria for this application; o. Whether the applicant is required to construct frontage improvements on Hall Boulevard abutting the site; and p. Whether the hearings officer can limit grading on the site. 3. Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed sensitive lands review and minor modifications do or will comply with the applicable criteria of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. Therefore those applications should be approved subject to such conditions. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fan no Creek Trail) Poge 2 B. HEARING AND RECORD HIGHLIGHTS 1. The hearings officer held a duly noticed public hearing on May 11, 2009 to receive and consider public testimony in this matter. The record includes a witness list, materials in the casefile as of the close of the record, including materials submitted after the hearing, and an audio record of the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected relevant testimony offered at the hearing. 2. City planner Cheryl Caine summarized the Staff Report and responded to testimony from the parties. a. She noted that the City approved a 1,090-foot segment of the trail south of Fanno Creek and north of the Tigard Library in 2005. Final Order SLR 2005- 00016/MMD 22005-00015. The approved trail segment terminated at the south bank of Fanno Creek. With this, 2009, application the City proposes to extend the trail over Fanno Creek and connect it with an existing section of trail located on the west side of Hall Boulevard. b. She noted that Condition of approval 5 of the 2005 decision required that the applicant conduct a wildlife assessment to address the impact of the project within the area north of Fanno Creek and design the section of the trail north of the creek to "[r]espond to and take into account the results of the wildlife assessment." She argued that the proposed trail alignment strikes a balance between safe and convenient trail access and the preservation of wildlife habitat. c. She noted that there are wetlands on both sides of Hall Boulevard. Therefore Sensitive Lands Review is required for this section of the trail. No work is proposed within the wetlands, but the trail will be located within the vegetative corridor associated with Fanno Creek and the wetlands. Clean Water Services ("CWS") issued a letter approving the proposed work in the vegetative corridor. The trail meets the no net rise standard for the floodway. She recommended the hearings officer approve the application subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report. 3. City project planner Duane Roberts, consulting wetland scientist Caroline Rim and City engineer Vannie Nguyen testified in support of the application. a. Mr. Roberts summar;ed the design of the proposed trail segment. i. He testified that this section of the trail is designed to achieve two competing goals; safety of the trail users and protection of turtles and other wildlife. The field on the north side of Fanno Creek provides important breeding habitat for western pond turtles. The proposed trail will impact turtle habitat. But the applicant designed the project to minimize such impacts to the maximum extent possible. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002. SLR2009-00003, AMMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 3 ii. The trail must cross Fanno Creek to connect the two existing trail sections and provide a signalized crossing over Hall Boulevard. The existing Hall Boulevard bridge across Fanno Creek does not meet ADA requirements for pedestrian accessibility. (A) Hall Boulevard currently carries more than 14,000 vehicle trips per day, making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the street at unsignalized intersections. Hall Boulevard is subject to the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT"). ODOT approved a signalized pedestrian crossing on Hall Boulevard at the proposed location north of Fanno Creek. The approval is site specific. ODOT will not allow a signalized pedestrian crossing south of Fanno Creek or elsewhere on Hall Boulevard. (B) There is an existing signalized crossing at the intersection of Wall Street and Hall Boulevard south of the site, at the southwest corner of the Library site. However trail users would be forced to undertake out of direction travel to use this crossing to access the remainder of the trail. Under existing conditions the majority of pedestrians run or walk across Hall Boulevard at unsignalized locations. iii. He testified that the majority of the boardwalk will be elevated 30-inches above the ground. The railing will be 42-inches above the boardwalk. The different elevations listed in the text of the application are typographical errors. iv. He testified that the CWS mitigation project on the site is only required to mitigate impacts to offsite wetlands. Although CWS performed mitigation activities throughout the site, the upland mitigation areas are not part of the required mitigation project. The trail development will have no impact on the mitigated wetlands on the site. v. He noted that compliance with Metro's Fanno Creek Trail guidelines is not an approval criterion. Metro's preferred alignment extends through wetland areas north of Fanno Creek and east of Hall Boulevard. CWS approved the proposed alignment. The City's original alignment was located closer to the creek, in the southwest corner of the site as suggested by the Wildlife Assessment. However CWS required that the City move the trail to the northeast in order to reduce its impact on the vegetative corridors. vi. He argued that the alternative trail alignment proposed by Mr. Frewing is not a reasonable alternative alignment. The alternative route will provide an equally direct route for pedestrians traveling through the area on the trail. However it will not accommodate other trail users. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR 2009-00003. MMD2009-00007 and MMLID2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 4 (A) The alternative alignment will force westbound and northbound bike riders to make a difficult, unprotected, left turn across Hall Boulevard in order to rejoin the trail north of Fanno Creek. There is no center left turn lane on Hall Boulevard at that location. (B) The alternative alignment proposed by Mr. Frewing does not provide a direct connection between the trail and the Library. Therefore those trail users are likely to cross Hall Boulevard at the unsignalized intersection of Hall Boulevard and O'Mara Street rather than undertaking additional out of direction travel needed to access the signalized crossing at Wall Street. The Library is a primary destination for many trail users. vii. He testified that he may have been mistaken about the posted speed limit on Hall Boulevard. However there is no substantial evidence of traffic traveling at 50 mph as alleged by the appellants. viii. He argued that the trail was designed to protect turtles. The application addresses all of the applicable approval criteria in the Code. b. Ms. Rim testified that the City conducted a habitat review of the site three years ago, which was recently updated. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW") and CWS undertook habitat mitigation activities on the site to enhance its value as turtle habitat. The updated analysis did not note any other significant changes on the site. c. Ms. Nguyen testified that she designed the trail and other engineers and experts reviewed the project. The stream bank is stable and capable of supporting the proposed bridge footings. The City does not have design standards for trails. The City relies on a case-by-case design process. i. She argued that the combined,two-way,bike path proposed by Mr. Frewing only serves bicyclists who are traveling on the trail. It will create a hazard for riders traveling northbound on Hall Boulevard. Those riders will be forced to turn left across Hall Boulevard at Wall Street to access the two-way path on the west side of Hall Boulevard; then cross Hall Boulevard again at an unprotected location in order to access the existing bike path on the east side and continue north on Hall Boulevard. ii. She testified that the City considered Ms. Beilke's and ODFW's concerns about impacts to turtles and their habitat. The City proposed the elevated boardwalk to allows turtles to cross under the trail, reducing the trails impact on turtle habitat and the potential for contact between humans and turtles. CWS reviewed the project and approved the proposed alignment. The trail is located in the corner of the site in order to minimize impacts to the habitat value of the site. The remainder of the site will remain protected and undisturbed. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003, AIMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 5 4. John Frewing summarized his written testimony. Exhibit 1. He testified that, although he generally supports enhanced pedestrian amenities and connectivity,he is opposed to the specific trail alignment proposed in this application. The proposed trail alignment does not meet City standards and it will have cause impacts to turtles and turtle habitat that cannot be avoided or mitigated with conditions of approval. a. He outlined an alternative trail alignment that avoids impacts to the turtle habitat north of Fanno Creek. His alternative trail alignment would utilize a new trail segment connecting the existing trail sections south of the Library with the existing trail section south of City Hall, on the west side of Hall Boulevard. The City cannot rely on the existence of the trail section on the Library site to justify approval of the proposed trail section north of Fanno Creek. The condition of approval of the 2005 decision approving the trail on the Library site required that the applicant complete a wildlife assessment of this site. The hearings officer's decision approving that trail segment site specifically stated that construction of the trail on the south side of Fanno Creek was "at the City's own risk." b. He argued that the proposed trail constitutes a major modification of the Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") approval for the Library, CUP 2003-001. Therefore TDC 18.330.020.B(2) requu-es that the applicant submit a new CUP application. This application constitutes a major modification of the prior CUP approval based on the following: i. CUP 2003-001 approved a public Library as a "cultural institution."Inclusion of a boardwalk and regional trail constitutes a change in the approved land use. TDC 18.330.020.B(2)(a). ii. This application changes the design of the Hall Boulevard crossing and sidewalk, "A change in the type and/or location of access ways and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected." TDC 18.330.020.B(2)(c). iii. This application reduces the width of the trail from ten feet to eight feet, "An elimination of project [recreational] amenities by more than 10%..." TDC 18.330.020.B(2)(g). iv. The City has not fulfilled conditions of approval 21 and 28 of CUP 2003-001; which require that the City fund the on-site portion of the Fanno Creek Trail and Hall Boulevard frontage improvements for the balance of the subject site frontage and a portion of the Fanno Creek bridge replacement costs prior to final occupancy of the library. Hearings Officer Final Order .SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-000]3 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 6 c. He argued that the record m this case is incomplete,because it does not include the prior land use and site development approvals for development on this site and the City Hall site across Hall Boulevard. Those decisions must be included in the record to determine whether approval of this application constitutes a major modification of those prior approvals. i. In addition, the record does not include a copy of the information provided to the Division of State Lands ("DSL")based on which DSL concluded that DSL permits were not required for the trail project_ d. He argued that the proposed trail will not comply with TDC 18.775.070.B(5), which prohibit pathways below the elevation of an average annual flood. He argued that the Code uses the terms "pathway" and "trail"interchangeably. i. He argued that this criterion should be construed to require that the- entire trail, including its foundation, support structure, decking and railings, must be above the annual flood level. The 2003 Metro Design Guidelines for the Fanno Creek Trail include all of those elements. In addition,the elevation requirement is listed in the Sensitive Lands section of the Code, which indicates this requirement is intended to protect sensitive lands. This criterion would be included elsewhere in the Code if it was intended to ensure that the trail is usable/accessible for transportation and recreation year-round. ii. He further argued that even the walking surface of the trail is located below the elevation of an average annual flood. The applicant's Average Annual Flood Certification Letter is based on the two-year flood. However the Certification is based on an estimate of an estimate, a statistical extrapolation of stream flow from a 100- year floodplain model,which itself is based on the Santa Barbara Urban H.ydrograph, with questionable applicability to the site. iii. He testified that,based on USGS stream flow data for the past eight years, the actual average annual flood elevation at the site is equal to or higher than 1996 flood, when Fanno Creek was flowing 18-inchs above the curb level on the Hall Boulevard bridge, a flood elevation of roughly 143.87 feet msl. iv. He noted that the applicant's plans do not show the elevation of the proposed boardwalk structure, making it impossible to review the application for compliance with this criterion. e. He argued that the boardwalk is a"nonresidential structure" subject to TDC 18.775.040.M This section requires that the lowest floor of the structure must be elevated to the level of the base flood elevation,the 100 year flood, or that the structure be flood proofed in compliance with TDC 18.775.040.M(1) and (2). Based on the City's floodplain maps,the boardwalk is "several feet"below the base flood elevation on the site. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003.MiTD2009-00007 and AIMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 7 f. He argued that the trail cannot comply with CWS Design and Construction Standards, which require that"the path shall avoid the Vegetated Corridor where possible." It is possible to avoid the vegetated conidor along Fanno Creek by utilizing a combination of the City's "Option 2" and "Option 3," what he titled the "habitat protection alternative." This trail alignment uses the existing pedestrian bridge over Farina Creek north of the Senior Center, south to O'Mara Street,then east to Hall Boulevard, as shown in the applicant's "Alignment Option 2," then south along the west side of Hall Boulevard to the signalized intersection at Wall Street, connecting to the existing trail near the Fanno Point Condominiums, as shown in the applicant's "Alignment Option 3."There are existing bicycle lanes on both sides of these streets. This alignment provides an equally direct trail alignment that avoids impacts to the vegetative corridor and the turtle habitat on the site. i. This aligrunent is consistent with the range of alternatives shown in Metro's 2003 Fanno Creek Greenway Trail Action Plan(Attachment D of Exhibit 1) and Metro's guidelines for the trail (Attachment A of Exhibit 1). Although portions of this alignment are on street, it is consistent with Metro policy that calls for 75-percent of the trail length to be off-street. Over 90-percent of the overall trail is off-street. This alignment also provides access to several Tigard neighborhoods,which the City's alignment does not provide. ii. This alignment is safer than the City's alignment, since pedestrians will cross at an existing signalized intersection. The pedestrian actuated signal proposed by the City north of Fanno Creek is located at the bottom of a dip in Hall Boulevard. Vehicles are accelerating as they travel downhill approaching this crossing. The posted speed limit on Hall Boulevard is 40 mph, not 35 mph as stated in the Staff Report. (A) The majority of trail users have no incentive to cross Hall Boulevard at O'Mara Street. This crossing only provides a shorter route for trail users traveling to and from the Library. The habitat protection alignment provides an equally direct route for all other hail users. The City should not base its trail design on the assumption that citizens will ignore traffic laws. However the City can eliminate this hazard by installing a fence at the east end of O'Mara Street to direct pedestrians to the signalized crossing at Wall Street. iii. The habitat protection alternative is equally scenic compared to the alignment proposed by the City. It also avoids the noise and exhaust generated by vehicles on Hall Boulevard and the railroad. It also avoids putting trail users in close proximity to the recently identified hazardous waste site north of the Library. iv. This alignment is also cheaper for the City, since it avoids utilizes existing streets, sidewalks and bridges. New construction is limited to the installation of signage to identify the route of the trail. hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003, MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 8 v. The City cannot rely on the existing trail north of the Library to justify a stream crossing in this location. The City built that trail section at its own risk. g. He argued that a traffic study is required for the proposed trail development: i. TDC I 8.810.030.AC(1)(c) requires a traffic study where "high traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect movement into or out of the site," TDC 18.810.030.AC(1)(c)(1), or"the proposal requires a conditional use permit..." TDC 18.810.030.AC(1)(c)(5). ii. TDC 18.810.030.AC(2)provides that a traffic study may be required"when the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facility."Hall Boulevard is an ODOT facility. iii. The traffic study for the Library noted that the O'Mara!Hall intersection is operating at Level Of Service("LOS")F, a failing condition, during the PM peak hour. ODOT policy prohibits new development that makes a failing condition worse. The addition of a pedestrian actuated signal across Hall Boulevard will make the failing conditions at the O'Mara/Hall intersection worse. h. He argued that the applicant should be required to submit an access report to ensure that all applicable state, county, city and AASHTO standards are met. TDC 18.705.030.H(l) requires an access report for all new development. i. He noted that the existing bike lanes on Hall Boulevard at the Faamo Creek Bridge do not meet City standards. Therefore they should be eliminated and bicycle traffic rerouted to the "habitat protection alignment" of the trail. Elimination of the bike lanes would"free up" space on Hall Boulevard to provide a two-way bike lane on the west side of Hall Boulevard between O'Mara and Wall Streets, eliminating the need for cyclists to make an unprotected left turn across Hall Boulevard to access the trail. The City can also restripe O'Mara Street to provide two-way bike lanes on the south side of the street. j. He argued that the applicant is requited to construct frontage improvements along the section of Hall Boulevard abutting the site. i TDC 18.810.030.A(3) prohibits new development unless the adjacent streets are improved to City standards, including a required planter strip. The existing Hall Boulevard frontage does not comply with City standards. Frontage improvements were required as a condition of the Library approval, but the City has not constructed them. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MAID 2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fan no Creek Trail) Page 9 k. He argued that this development "makes a commitment to further development" that will impact sensitive lands in the area. Those "committed developments"have not been evaluated for compliance with applicable approval criteria. In addition, construction of those committed developments may exceed the deadlines for phased developments set out in TDC 18.330.020.D. I. The proposed boardwalk is located in a sensitive lands area designated "highest value habitat" on the City's "Significant Habitat Areas Map." TDC Table 18.775.3 classifies this area as "Strictly Limit." Therefore CWS's"avoid where possible" standard applies. The proposed trail is not an outright permitted use in this area, because TDC 18.775.020.B(3) lists outright permitted uses as "community recreation uses, excluding structures..." TDC 18.775.020.B(3) also excludes areas designated Vegetated Corridor, as defined in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." The proposed boardwalk is a "structure" as defined by the Code. Therefore it is not an outright permitted use in this area and is not allowed if it can be avoided. The Library approval only authorized stormwater and sanitary sewer lines in the 100-year flood plan. m. He argued that the proposed trail alignment will impact and disturb an existing wetland mitigation site, in violation of state standards for such sites. n. He noted that the application classifies the proposed development as a "community recreation" facility. However the Staff Report refers to the development as community recreation facility, a"public support facility" and"development...for roadway purposes."The facility should be reviewed under the classification designated by the application. Staff should not be allowed to change the classification of the development to avoid applicable approval criteria. o. He noted that the application requests CUP approval. P 12 of the application narrative. However the Staff Report does not identify or review compliance with the CUP criteria. In addition, the application narrative, in response to TDC 18.330.020.C(3)(a), only claims compliance with the CUP criteria. p 13. This section requires that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the entire Code,not just the CUP standards. p. He noted that there are two trees on the site whose roots are severely undercut by erosion of the stream bank. Attachment L of Exhibit I_ Construction of the proposed bridge abutments will likely cause these trees to fail, reducing shade cover on the stream. In addition, construction of the bridge will prevent Fanno Creek from continuing to meander. 5. Professional biologist Sue Beilke testified on behalf of herself and Fans of Fanno Creek. She summarized her written testimony, Exhibit 2. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003, MAID2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 10 a. She argued that there is no evidence the development can comply with the anchoring standard of TDC 18.775.040. The Staff Report notes that the applicant did not address this standard.A condition of approval requiring the applicant to address this standard later in the process does not allow for public review and comment on this issue. b. She noted that the banks of Fanno Creek are failing under existing conditions and cannot support a bridge. ODFW staff stated that this project contributes to deteriorating stream function, which impacts federally listed steelhead. ODFW staff recommend repair and restoration of the stream bank before the bridge or any other structure is constructed in this area. The City is required to consult with ODFW on this issue, since it relates to a federally listed species and its habitat. c. She reiterated Mr. Frewing's testimony about the average annual flood elevation of Fanno Creek. Determination of the average annual flood elevation should be based on measured stream flow data rather than modeling of the two-year storm event. Based on the stream flow data the average annual flood elevation is roughly 142.37 feet msl, above the elevation of the proposed boardwalk. Therefore the application does not comply with TDC 18.775.070.13(5). i. She noted that the "flashiness" of the stream is increasing over time as upstream development adds more impervious surface area and increases the rate and volume of stormwater runoff flowing into the creek. The stream flow data demonstrates that the average annual flood elevation has been increasing in recent years. Future increases are likely to impact the proposed bridge and trail. Stream bank erosion is currently impacting portions of the existing trail that were built too close the stream. Attachment C of Exhibit 2. d. She argued that CWS's Design and Construction Standards prohibit the proposed development within the vegetative corridor because it is possible to avoid impacts to the vegetative corridor as demonstrated by the alternative alignments proposed by the applicant or the "habitat protection alignment"described by Mr.Frewing. i. This site is very unique and important. The western pond turtle is declining throughout its range and is now considered rare within the Portland.Region Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB"). This site is the only turtle nesting habitat within the Portland UGB and the only nesting site in public ownership. The turtles are highly sensitive to disturbance. The habitat on the site is designated for the highest level of protection. Therefore the applicant should "go the extra mile" to protect this site. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003, MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Farm() Creek Trail) Page I I ii. ODFW opposes the proposed trail alignment due to its potential impacts to turtles and their nesting habitat. Construction of the trail will impact habitat and human activities on the trail, including noise, dogs etc. within the turtle habitat area will disturb the turtles and preclude use of the nesting habitat. In addition, people and their pets will travel off of the trail and enter the turtle habitat, causing additional disturbance to turtles and their habitat. The City should address ODFW's concerns to ensure compliance with statewide planning Goal 5, Metro Titles 3 and 13 and the City's comprehensive plan. e. She argued that the application failed to adequately address the relevant comprehensive plan policies. i. The application did not address Policy 4 of the Natural Resources section of the comprehensive plan, which requires that the City actively coordinate and consult with certain persons and agencies regarding the inventory, protection and restoration of natural features. The City failed to actively coordinate with ODFW over impacts to turtles, listed fish and other species, especially in light of ODFW's letter in opposition to the proposed trail alignment. ii. Policy 6 of the Parks,Recreation, Trails and Open Space section of the comprehensive plan requires that the City acquire and manage some open spaces to solely provide protection of natural resources. Policy 17 of this section requires that the City maintain and manage its parks and open space resources in ways that preserve, protect, and restore the City's natural resources, including rare or state and federal listed species. The application failed to adequately address either of these policies by proposing a trail that will impact rare and listed species and their habitats. iii. The application states that the project"minimizes the impact on natural areas."But it does not provide any evidence demonstrating what the potential impacts may be, how they were measured and how they have been reduced. f. She noted that the conditions on the site have changed significantly since the habitat assessment was completed in 2006. For the past two years ODFW and Fans of Fanno Creek have been working with CWS and TriMet to protect and create turtle nesting habitat on this site as part of TriMet's mitigation project. The applicant should be required to perform a new habitat assessment of the site to take into account the recent mitigation project. g. She argued that the wildlife assessment should address all wildlife that may use the site, including turtles, federally protected migratory birds that nest on the site, federally listed fish etc. and provide evidence demonstrating how the project has attempted to avoid or minimize these impacts. Hearings Officer Final Order ST.R2009-00002,SLR2009-00003, MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fauna Creek Trail) Page I2 h. She argued that a buffer of at least 150 meters is recommended to be maintained between nesting habitat and any trial in order to minimize disturbance from trail users. The proposed trail alignment does not maintain the recommended buffer width. i. She noted that Metro moved an entire parking lot at Smith and Bybee Lakes to reduce disturbance to turtles and their nesting habitat. The City of Gresham relocated a segment of a regional trail to avoid turtle nesting habitat. 6. City planning director Dick Bewersdorff argued that this is a difficult project due to the location of the stream and turtle habitat and the existing trail. The City must evaluate the impact of the trail on the natural resources on the site. He argued that a trail is not listed as a land use requiring approval as defined by the Code. Trails are treated as streets, which are not subject to land use review unless sensitive lands or other development is involved. The trail is not part of the CUP approval for the Library. 7. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer ordered the public record held open for three weeks to allow the applicant and City staff an opportunity to submit additional testimony and evidence regarding the issue raised at the hearing. The hearings officer held the record open for an additional two weeks to allow the public to respond to the new evidence. The hearings officer held the record open for a final two weeks to allow the City to respond to the information submitted by the public and to submit a final argument. a. The City submitted additional evidence during the third open record period. Mr. Frewing requested an opportunity to respond to that new evidence as allowed by TDC 18.390.050.D(4). Therefore the hearings officer issued an Order Opening the Record, Exhibit 9, allowing the public an additional week to respond to the new evidence submitted by the City and a final week for the applicant to respond in writing to the comments submitted during the first week and to submit a final argument, without any new evidence. The record in this case closed at 5:00 p.m. July 13, 2009. C. DISCUSSION 1. City staff recommended that the hearings officer approve the application, based on the affirmative findings and subject to conditions of approval in the Staff Report. The - applicant accepted those fmdings and conditions without objection. 2. The hearings officer finds that the Staff Report accurately identifies all of the applicable standards for the application and contains sufficient findings showing the application does or can comply with those standards subject to conditions of approval, based on substantial evidence in the record. The hearings officer adopts the affirmative findings in the Staff Report as his own except as otherwise provided herein. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003.MA1D2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fannc Creek Trail) Page 13 3. The hearings officer finds that the applicant is not required to include copies of prior development approvals on and near this site, because those documents are not included in the list of application requirements for Type III review, which set out in TDC 18.390.050.B. The prior approvals and associated documents should be on file at the City and the hearings officer can take official notice of those approvals where necessary. Some of those documents may be missing, based on Mr. Frewing's unrebutted testimony. But there is no evidence that those documents are necessary for review of this application. 4. The applicant revised the design of the bridge supports during the review process. The applicant replaced the proposed poured concrete "spread footing"with fl- inch diameter steel piles driven into the ground to anchor the bridge. See p 5 and Attachment 13 of Exhibit 7. a. The hearings officer finds that this change does not constitute a change in the application that requires additional notice or opportunity for public review. The revised supports will not alter the proposed use, a pedestrian/bicycle trail, or the alignment or footprint of the facility. The new supports may reduce the impact on the project,by reducing the amount of excavation required for installation of the bridge. b. The applicant is not required to provide detailed engineering designs at this stage of review. The purpose of the preliminary plans is to determine whether it is feasible to comply with applicable criteria. The preliminary plans are conceptual, and analysis of all technical details is not required. See Meyer-v. City of Portland, 67 Or App 274,n 6, 678 P2d 741, rev den 297 Or 82 (1984). ([C]onditions of approval may include conditions that specific technical solutions to identified development problems be submitted and reviewed and approved by the government's technical staff."). To require complete, detailed engineering plans prior to preliminary approval of the application, or and to prohibit changes to those plans after preliminary approval, would require re- working the entire plan any time amendments or modifications of the plans are required. This would be highly inefficient and is not necessary to protect the public interest. City staffs review of the final plans provides adequate protection of the public interest. The law does not require an opportunity for public review and conunent on the final engineering plans . c. As the applicant noted, CWS will have an opportunity to review the final engineering design of the project, including any changes that may be required to comply with conditions of approval imposed by this decision, during its review of the Stormwater Connection Permit. CWS and other affected agencies have sufficient authority to require new or revised permit approvals to address the revised designs if required by their applicable regulations. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 19 i. Condition of approval 12 of the CWS Service Provider Letter expressly requires that the applicant provide updated drawings, and if necessary, obtain a revised Service Provider Letter, "should final development plans differ significantly from those submitted for review by the District..." 5. The hearings officer finds that the opponents' concerns about the accuracy of the information submitted to DSL is not relevant to this review, because it does not relate to any of the applicable approval criteria. DSL has sufficient authority to ensure compliance with its regulations. The applicant can apply for a removal/fill permit if required by the applicable regulations based on the fma] design of the project. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. a. The applicant conceded that the plans submitted to DSL differed from the plans submitted with the application. The applicant modified the trail alignment to address CWS's concerns about impacts to the vegetative buffer. However the alignment changes did not impact wetlands, impact Fanno Creek or other areas within DSL's jurisdiction. Therefore additional DSL review is not required. b. The applicant further testified that the original design of the project included minor work below the OHWL of the creek; installation of outfall pipes for the bridge abutment foundation drains. However the applicant revised the design of the bridge to eliminate need for foundation drains and the outfall pipes. The current design does not include any impacts below the OHWL of the stream. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. 6. The hearings officer finds that this application does not constitute a major modification to the prior CUP for the Library on the site. a. This application does not propose a change in land use. TDC 18.330.020.B(2)(a). The CUP approval for the Library expressly included the proposed trail. The decision approving the Library,Final Order CUP 2003-001, SLR 2003-001 and VAR 2003-009 and-020 (Tigard Library), discussed the trail in several sections of the decision. Condition of approval of 21 of the Final Order required that the applicant provide adequate financial assurances to ensure construction of that portion of the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail that crosses the property. The "property"in that decision included this site, tax lot 600, WCTM 2S 102DA. This decision merely identifies a specific location for the trail on the library site. In addition, as Mr. Bewersdorff testified, the Code does not regulate trails as a"land use." They are treated as transportation facilities, similar to a road, which does not require City review and approval except where, as here, the alignment impacts sensitive lands. As discussed below, trails and roads constitute "development" as defined by TDC 18.120.030.A(57). However the Code does not provide for review of trails and roads as separate land uses. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek 1'rail) Page 15 b. No dwelling units were approved on the Library site and non are proposed in this application. Therefore this application will not increase the dwelling unit density. TDC 18.330.020.B(2)(b). c. As discussed above, the Library CUP decision approved the segment of the Fanno Creek trail on the site, including a connection to the existing trail segment on the west side of Hall Boulevard. This application may change the location of the Hall Boulevard connection, but there is no substantial evidence that the change in location will affect offsite traffic. TDC 18.330.020.B(2)(c). The street crossing(crosswalk and signal) itself is subject to ODOT jurisdiction and is not relevant to this criterion. d. This application does not include any buildings. Therefore TDC l 8.330.020.B(2)(d) is inapplicable. e. The proposed trail will not reduce the amount of open space on the site. TDC 18.330.020.B(2)(e). The proposed trail itself is "open space;" an "open space facility" as defined by TDC 18.120.030.A(102). In addition, the trail was approved on this site as part of the prior CUP for the Library. f. The proposed trail is not subject to setback requirements. Therefore TDC 18.330.020.B(2)(f) is inapplicable. g. This application will not eliminate the amount of amenities included in the Library CUP approval. TDC 18.330.020.B(2)(g). i. The"amenity" in this case is a segment of the Fanno Creek Regional Trail, connecting two existing trail segments. This application retains that amenity, although in a slightly different location and width. ii. The applicant was required to construct sidewalks and other frontage improvements along the site's Hall Boulevard frontage as a condition of the Library approval. See conditions 16 and 28 of Final Order CUP 2003-001, SLR 2003-001 and VAR 2003-009 and -020 (Tigard Library). The City did not complete construction of the frontage improvements or include the improvements in the City's 2004-2009 Five- Year Capital Improvement Plan. That appears to be a violation of the conditions of approval of the prior CUP approval. However the violation is an enforcement issue. It is not relevant to this application. Approval of this application will not alter the requirement that the City construct the required frontage improvements on Hall Boulevard. h. The trail will not alter the density on the site. Therefore TDC 18.330.020.B(2)(h) is inapplicable. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003, Mi11D2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 16 7. The hearings officer finds that a traffic study is not required for this project. a. TDC 18.810 030.AC(1)requires a traffic study when the proposed development will generate a 10% or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision intersections identified by Washington County, TDC 18.810.030.AC(1)(a), or when traffic generated by the development exceeds a certain percentage of existing traffic, TDC 18.810.030.AC(1)(b). There is no substantial evidence that the proposed development will meet either of these criteria. b. TDC 18.810.030.AC(1)(c)requires a traffic study "If any of the following issues become evident to the City engineer..." The hearings officer finds that TDC 18.810.030.AC(1)(c) grants the City engineer exclusive discretion to require a traffic study in these circumstances. The City engineer did not require a traffic study in this case. Therefore the hearings officer must conclude that the cited issues were not evident to the City engineer in this case. The hearings officer has no authority to overrule the City engineer and require that the applicant provide traffic study. c. TDC 18.810.030.AC(2)provides that a traffic study"[m]ay be required..."when certain listed conditions occur. In this case the site is located within 500 feet of an ODOT facility, Hall Boulevard. TDC 18.810.030.AC(2)(a). However there is no substantial evidence that the proposed bicycle/pedestrian trail will generate a sufficient increase in vehicle traffic on this facility to warrant a traffic study. The City, in its discretion, chose not to require a traffic study. ODOT analyzed the impacts of the pedestrian signal on the operation of Hall Boulevard when it granted a permit for the pedestrian crossing and signal. 8. The hearings officer finds that an access report is not required for this project. TDC 18.705.030.H(1) requires an access report for" [a]ll new development proposals..." As discussed above, the proposed trail was approved on this site as part of the prior Library CUP. The City reviewed an access report for that CUP application and concluded that driveways and streets serving the site are safe and meet applicable standards. This application merely approves the specific location of the trail on the site. It does not alter the location or design of streets or driveways serving the site. Therefore it does not constitute "new development" subject to TDC 18.705.030.H(1). In addition, there is nothing for the access report to address because this project does not include any streets or driveways. 9. The hearings officer finds that the surface of the proposed boardwalk will be located above the elevation of the average annual flood,based on the expert testimony of the applicant's engineer. TDC 18.775.070.B(5). Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fan no Creek Trail) Page 17 • a. The applicant's engineer calculated the stream flow volume for the two- year storm as 2,000 cubic feet per second ("cfs"). This flow volume is higher than the highest volume measured in Fanno Creek over the past eight years,based on the flow data submitted by Mr. Frewing. The highest measured flow over past eight years was 1670 cfs,measured on December 3, 2007 at the USGS measuring gauge at Durham Road, downstream from the site. See p 4 of Exhibit 1. As noted by the applicant's engineer, the two-year storm event is, by definition, higher than the average annual flood. See Attachment 4 of Exhibit 4. b. The applicant's engineer input the calculated stream flow volume for the two-year storm into the regulatory floodplain model to determine the water elevation of Fanno Creek at the location of the boardwalk. The floodplain model estimated the water level during the two-year storm at 142.22 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum ("NGVD"). The lowest portion of the boardwalk surface is at 143.18 feet NGVD. Therefore the entire boardwalk surface is above the elevation of the average annual flood, based on the applicant's engineer's calculations. c. The opponents dispute the results of the regulatory floodplain model, based on their observations of floodwater elevations during 1996 flood and flow volumes measured in Fanno Creek during that flood. Fanno Creek registered a peak flow of 1,090 cfs at the Durham Road USGS station during the 1996 flood, when Fanno Creek was flowing at least 18-inches above the surface of Hall Boulevard. Attachment A of Exhibit 2. The water volume in Farmo Creek during the 1996 flood was lower than the average flow volume measured over the most recent four year period and roughly equal to the average flow volume over the past eight years. P 4 of Exhibit 1.Therefore, because the average annual flow volume over the past eight years is equal to or greater than the flow volume measured during the 1996 flood, the water level during the average annual flood will equal or exceed the water levels observed during the 1996 flood. The top of the proposed boardwalk is lower than the curb level of the Hall Boulevard bridge, which was inundated during the 1996 flood. Therefore the boardwalk will be below the elevation of the average annual flood, based on recent stream flow data. d. The hearings officer finds that the regulatory floodplain model provides the best evidence of the flood elevations in Fanno Creek for a particular storm event. i. As the applicant's engineer testified, the regulatory floodplain model is based on "[d]etailed studies meeting high technical standards, which are subjected to very intense review by FEMA._. Use of flows other than those contained within the current regulatory model would not be acceptable to FEMA due to the level of technical review already given them." P 2 of Attachment 4 of Exhibit 4. (Italics in original). The regulatory floodplain model was calibrated based on the high water marks observed during the flood events of February and November 1996. The regulatory floodplain model is accepted by FEMA, the federal agency charged with regulating development in floodplains. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page I8 ii. The eight years of stream flow data submitted by the opponents is substantial evidence. But it is not sufficient to dispute the results of the regulatory floodplain model. As discussed in Attachment 4 of Exhibit 4, the average annual flood may occur more than once in a year or may not occur at all. The eight years of stream flow data submitted by the opponents may represent a statistical anomaly with higher than usual stream flows or, as the opponents allege, it may indicate that upstream development is increasing the amount of runoff flowing into Fanno Creek, which is increasing the elevation of the average annual flood. There is no substantial evidence in the record to support either conclusion. The hearings officer finds that the regulatory floodplain model, which is based on observations of water levels over a long period of time, and is accepted by all relevant regulatory agencies as the best method for predicting flood elevations,provides the best evidence of the average flood elevations in Faiuno Creek. 10. There is a dispute about the meaning of the term"pathway" as used in TDC 18.775.070.B(S). The applicant argues that the elevation requirement of this provision only applies to the surface of the pathway,the top of the boardwalk. The opponents argue that TDC 18.775.070.B(5)requires that the entire boardwalk structure, including the substructure and supports,be located above the elevation of the average annual flood. 11. The hearings officer finds that the term"pathway" is ambiguous. The TDC does not define the term, and its meaning is not plain on its face when considered in context. Therefore the hearings officer must construe the term "pathway." a. When construing the City's ordinances the hearings officer is required to follow the rules of statutory construction set out in the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in Portland General Electric v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (PGE v. BOLI). The hearings officer must attempt to discern the intent of the City Council from the text and context of the ordinance and related ordinances. In analyzing the text of the ordinance for definition,words of common usage are given their plain, natural and ordinary meanings.Id. at 611. The hearings officer finds that the term "pathway" should be construed consistent with its common, dictionary, usage. i. Webster's New World College Dictionary, Retrieved July 20th, 2009, from vp.w.v yourdictionary.comipathway, defines "pathway" as a"path." Webster's defines "path" as: 1. a track or way worn by footsteps; trail: 2. a walk or way for the use of people on foot, as in a park or garden. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MA1D2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trod) Page 19 11.Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from httpi://www.meniam-webster.corn/dictionar-y/path, defines "pathway" as "path, course." Merriam-Webster defines "path" as: 1: a trodden way 2: a track specially constructed for a particular use Merriam-Webster defines "course" as: 1: the act or action of moving in a path from point to point 2: the path over which something moves or extends b. Based on these definitions, the hearings officer finds that the term pathway is limited to the walking surface, regardless of whether the pathway is located on the ground or on a bridge or other structure. c. This is consistent with how the term is used in the Code. i. The Code expressly allows raised walkways and pedestrian bridges as "passive use open space facilities" TDC 18.120.030.A(102)(b). The opponents' interpretation, that the elevation standard of TDC 18.775.070.B(5) applies to the entire boardwalk structure, would likely preclude all pathways that cross any portion of the floodplain below the average annual flood elevation. With the exception of relatively narrow floodplain areas, it would be impossible to extend a bridge or boardwalk over such areas without using supports that extend below the elevation of the average annual flood. However the City's adopted transportation plan clearly shows pathways crossing floodplain areas. ii. The appellants argue that, because this criterion is included in the sensitive lands section of the Code, it must be intended to protect sensitive lands by prohibiting structures that could catch debris or increase flood levels. However this standard is not necessary to achieve those purposes. A surface pathway below the elevation of the average annual flood would have no effect on flood levels or debris flows. These problems only arise with elevated pathways located on fill or a boardwalk, bridge or other structure. Compliance with the "no-rise" standard of TDC 18.775.070.B(1) is sufficient to ensure that any structure supporting a pathway will not impact flood heights. Hearings Office-Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMI)2009-00013 (Fan no Creek Trail) Page 20 d. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the elevation requirement of TDC 18.775.070.B(5) only applies to the surface of the boardwalk, where the "pathway" is located. As discussed above; the surface of the boardwalk can be located above the average annual flood. Therefore the application can comply with TDC 18.775.070.B(5). e. As Mr. Frewing noted, there is conflicting evidence about the height of various boardwalk components in the application materials. See pp 3 and 4 of Exhibit 1. This makes it difficult to determine the actual height of the propose boardwalk. Therefore in order to ensure compliance with TDC 18.775.070.B(5), the applicant should be required to demonstrate that the lowest portion of the boardwalk surface is higher than 142.22 feet NGVD based on the final design of the boardwalk. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. 12. The hearings officer finds that the proposed boardwalk and bridge are not subject to the flood proofing requirements of TDC 18.775.040.M. The boardwalk and bridge are "structures" as defined by the Code.'However these "structures" do not have a "lowest floor" or"basement" that can be elevated or flood-proofed. Therefore this requirement is inapplicable. a. Mr. Frewing argued that compliance with this standard is necessary to ensure that the structures will not wash downstream and create a hazard. p 8 of Exhibit 11 The hearings officer finds that compliance with the anchoring requirements of TDC 18.775.040.I is sufficient to address this concern. 13. The hearings officer finds that it is feasible to comply with the anchoring requirements of TDC 18.775.040.I. A certified bridge engineer designed the bridge, and support structures. See e.g., pp 18 and 19 of Exhibit 4 and Attachment 13 of Exhibit 7. The applicant is required to demonstrate actual compliance with this standard based on the final design of the structures. See condition 1. As discussed above, the applicant is not required to provide detailed engineering designs at this, preliminary, stage of review. 14. The hearings officer finds that the CWS Design and Construction Standards are not relevant to this application. a. Mr. Frewing argued that the Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") between the City of Tigard and CWS,Attachment S of Exhibit 5, requires that the City apply CWS's Design and Construction Standards as part of its development review process. However the IGA, by its terms, appears to relate exclusively to the operation and maintenance of sanitary and storm sewer systems. Nothing in the sections of the IGA included in the record addresses vegetative corridors or assigns the City responsibility for 2 TDC 18.1200.030.A(136)provides `Structure' or 'building' -See`Building."'TDC 18.120.030.A(30) provides "Building"- That which is built or constructed,an edifice or building of any kind,or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003, MMD2009-00007 and MMt'MD2009-00013 (Farina Creek Trail) Page 21 applying the Design and Construction Standards.' There is no substantial evidence in the record to the contrary. b. Nothing in the Code requires that the City apply CWS's Design and Construction Standards as a development approval criteria. i. TDC 18.775010.0 states that one of the purposes of the Sensitive Lands Chapter is to implement those standards. But the purpose statement is not an approval criterion. The purpose statements are implemented through compliance with the applicable approval criteria. ii. TDC 18.775.020.A requires that all proposed "development" as defined in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards,must obtain a Stormwater Connection Permit from CWS pursuant to its Design and Construction Standards. TDC 18.775.030.A requires that the City "jr]eview all sensitive lands permit applications to determine that all necessary permits shall be obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is also required."However the City has no authority to determine compliance with the Design and Construction Standards or to issue the service provider letter and/or Stormwater Connection Permit. That is within the CWS's exclusive authority. c. CWS issued a service provider letter for the proposed trail. Therefore the application complies with TDC 18.775.030.A. i. The opponents argue that the proposed trail design is inconsistent with the conditions of the CWS service provider letter. The plans do not show permanent fencing between the development and the outer limits of the vegetated corridors as required by condition 26 of the CWS Service Provider Letter. The applicant testified that such a fence would cause the project to exceed the no-rise limitations of TDC 18.775.070.B(1). Therefore the applicant plans to negotiate with CWS to allow the use of thorny vegetation rather then metal fencing as a barrier between the trail and the vegetated corridor. P 5 of Exhibit 12. (A)It is unclear whether this condition requires a fence behind the sidewalk on Nall Boulevard. Nothing in the Code requires such a fence. CWS's regulations, as implemented through condition 26 of the Service Provider Letter, may require such a fence. But that is up to CWS to determine. ii. The hearings officer finds that this issue is not relevant to the applicable approval criteria for this application. Condition 26 of the CWS Service Mr.Frewing's letter refers to Section Iv of Appendix A of the IGA. See p 6 of Exhibit 5.However Appendix A was not included with the attachments to Exhibit 5. Attachment S of Exhibit 5 is limited to the "Council Agenda Item Summary," the odd numbered pages of the amended IGA,labeled "Attachment 1" and the odd numbered pages of"Appendix D."The hearings officer attempted to take official notice of the remainder of the document,but he was unable to locate a copy on the Internet_ Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003, MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 22 Provider Letter requires that the applicant show the fence on the final plans. Failure to include the fence on the preliminary plans submitted with this application is not a violation of the Service Provider Letter. iii. The applicant can negotiate with CWS during the ongoing design process to modify the condition. If the negotiations fail and CWS requires a fence, the applicant may need to alter the design of the project to ensure compliance with the no-rise requirement. Such changes may require additional review by the City. However the applicant can address that issue when and if it arises. d. The parties made a number of arguments related to whether it is "possible" to design the path to avoid the vegetative corridor as required by Section 3.02.4.b(2)(d)(1) of CWS's Design and Construction Standards. The hearings officer finds that those issues are not relevant to this application,because they do not relate to any applicable approval criteria. CWS determined that this criterion is met when it issued a Service Provider Letter for the project. The hearings officer has no authority to review that decision in this proceeding. The phrase "avoid where possible" doe not appear- in the TDC. 15. The hearings officer finds that Goal 5, the Tualatin Basin"Limit" Decision and the City's "Significant Habitat Areas Map" are not applicable approval criteria for this application. a. TDC 18.775.090.B provides that the Goal 5 requirements are implemented by compliance with the standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area. 18.775.090.B(5)(c) exempts pedestrian or bike paths, not exceeding 10 feet in width and meeting the CWS "Design and Constriction Standards" from compliance with the standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area requirements. b. The Tualatin Basin"Limit"Decision only relates to the Significant Habitat Areas Map Verification Procedures in 18.775.140. A map • amendment/verification is not proposed in this case. c. TDC 18.775.100.B allows adjustments to the standards in the underlying zoning district when development is proposed within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor area or within or adjacent to areas designated as "Strictly Limit" or "Moderately Limit" on the City of Tigard"Significant Habitat Areas Map." TDC 18-775.100.0 allows similar adjustments to protect areas identified on the "Significant Habitat Areas Map."However these are elective standards that provide incentives to protect the identified areas. Compliance with these standards was not requested or required in this case. 16. The hearings officer finds that the applicant's wildlife assessment is sufficient to fulfill the conditions of approval of Final Order SLR 2005-00016/MMD 22005- 0001.5(Fanno Creek Trail). Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003, MAID2009-00007 and MIvID2009-00013 (Fan no Creek Trail) Page 23 a. Condition #5 of that decision provided: A wildlife assessment will be conducted to address the impact of the project within the area north of Fanno Creek prior to construction of the trail section north of the pedestrian bridge. The trail design north of the creek will respond to and take into account the results of the wildlife assessment. The assessment and design will be subject to a public hearing by the Hearing Officer. The applicant did that. A professional biologist conducted the assessment, using accepted criteria and standards. The assessment identified potential impacts of the project on wildlife and wildlife habitat on the site. See the Wildlife Assessment for the Fanno Creek Trail Extension, PHS Project No.: 3693; dated November 17, 2006, by Pacific Habitat Services (the"Assessment"). The applicant modified the alignment and design of the trail in response to the results of the Assessment, incorporating the suggestions in the Assessment to the extent possible. The applicant replaced the proposed at-grade asphalt trail with an elevated boardwalk and modified the alignment to minimize encroachments unto habitat areas. Therefore the applicant fulfilled this condition of approval. The applicant testified that it attempted to shift the trail alignment further into the southwest corner of the site as recommended by the assessment. However CWS required that the City alter the alignment to minimize the footprint of the project within the vegetated corridor. Pp 14-15 of Exhibit 7. b. Although the opponents would like the applicant to conduct a broader and more detailed assessment, quantifying the extent of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures, the hearings officer has no authority to impose such a requirement. Neither the Code nor the conditions of the prior approval establish any minimum standards for the conduct of a wildlife assessment. The standards of other agencies are not relevant, because the City has not adopted them. i. The Assessment primarily focused on the impact of the project on turtles,because "The Western Pond Turtle is the only SOC [Species of Concern] or SC [state-listed Critical Species] of wildlife documented within the proposed site..."p 2 of the Assessment. Turtles were also the primary wildlife concern in the prior decision approving the Library, and presumably the reason for Condition #5 of Order SLR 2005- 00016/MMD 22005-00015(Fanno Creek Trail). Therefore it was appropriate to focus the Assessment on that species. However the Assessment also listed "[o]ther species which may potentially use the site." See Table 1 of the Assessment. The Assessment also noted that the recommended modifications to the design of the trail would reduce the impact of the trail on other wildlife likely to use the site. p 3-4 of the Assessment. Condition#5 was included in the Staff Report for File No SLR 2005-00016/MMD 22005-00015(Fanno Crcck Trail).The basis for the condition was not discussed at the hearing or in the Final Order. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR200.9-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-000]3 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 24 U. The Assessment was not required to address the fish and wildlife in Fanno Creek or the stability of the steam bank because the proposed facility will not impact the stream or the stream bank. The bridge will be supported by abutments that are setback ten feet or more from the banks of the stream. No in-water work is proposed. The opponents argue that the bridge will impact protected fish in Fanno Creek. However there is no substantial evidence to that effect. ODFW and relevant federal agencies with_jurisdiction over protected fish species have sufficient authority to require additional review and mitigation if they conclude that such impacts are likely to occur. iii. The Assessment notes that the author met with Ms. Beilke on the site and identified her as an ODFW biologist. The Assessment did not include Ms. Beilke's comments and concerns. But Ms. Beilke's concerns are clearly set out in the record in this case. iv. The Assessment did not address recent improvements to the habitat conditions on site. However Ms. Rim testified at the hearing that those changes did not affect the conclusions in the Assessment. The site provides habitat for turtles and the trail will impact turtles and their habitat to some extent v. The Assessment could not consider police use of ATVs to patrol trails in the City. As the applicant noted, the City acquired the ATVs in the same month that the applicant submitted the application. See p l 0 of Exhibit 12. In addition, the applicant testified that ATVs are not needed on this section of trail, which is easily visible from Hall Boulevard. On-trail patrols will be limited bicycle officers. Id. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. vi. The Assessment did not evaluate the impact of the lighted pedestrian crossing on Hall Boulevard. However the hearings officer finds that this lighting will not have a significant impact on turtles. The lights are located on Hall Boulevard, not on the site. No lights are proposed on the site. The pedestrian crossing lights are less bright than normal streetlights. The lights are off most of the time. They only turn on when a pedestrian pushes the crossing request button. See p 10 of Exhibit 12. Headlights from vehicles on Hall Boulevard are likely to have a greater impact than the pedestrian crossing. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. vii. The Assessment did not evaluate the potential for the cable barrier to stretch and loosen over time, reducing the effectiveness of this barrier. However any of the barriers discussed in the Assessment may become damaged over time The City testified that the cables are designed with adequate support to prevent stretching and loosening and the City Parks Maintenance Division will inspect and maintain the cables to ensure that they continue to serve their intended purpose. P 10 of Exhibit 12. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003, MiiID2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 25 viii. The Assessment was not required to address the ponds on the site. The trail project will not impact the ponds or the water source that supplies and maintains them. See p 15 of Exhibit 7. ix. The Assessment recommends that the City avoid construction work in the grassy field on the site between May and July, when female turtles are searching for nesting sites. The Assessment further recommends that the applicant consult with ODFW regarding construction scheduling on the site in order to avoid impacts to incubating eggs. P 4 of the Assessment. Conditions of approval are warranted to that effect. x. The project will not impact any wetland mitigation areas on the site. The upland mitigation areas are not required to mitigate offsite impacts of the TriMet rail project. Therefore protection of these areas is not required to ensure compliance with TriMet's mitigation requirement. The City is required to replace any proposed or planted vegetation within the corridor or construction staging area damaged during construction. Condition 23 of the CWS Service Provider Letter. c. There is no dispute that the proposed trail will impact turtles, and other wildlife, on the site. The Assessment identifies a number of impacts from the project. See p 3 of the Assessment. The Assessment recommends a number of mitigation measures to reduce those impacts, but it is not possible to eliminate all of the impacts. However the Code does not prohibit impacts to turtles or other wildlife. Protection of wildlife is just one of the many issues the City must consider. As the applicant noted"The City has broad responsibility for both resource protection and bike/pedestrian safety. No one policy can be considered separately from others. In the case of the present project,the City attempts to strike an appropriate balance between the two in meeting its dual responsibility."P 22 of Exhibit 7. The apparent purpose of the Assessment requirement was to provide the City with information about the wildlife on the site and the potential impacts of the project on that wildlife to allow the City to make an informed decision about the alignment of this segment of the trail. After considering the results of the Assessment, and information obtained through consultations with other agencies and members of the public,The City chose the proposed trail alignment and design. CWS concluded that the trail design complies with its Design and Construction standards. The hearings officer has no authority to second-guess the City's alignment choice in this proceeding. If the application complies with the relevant approval criteria it must be approved. 17. There is no dispute that the banks of Fanno Creek are subject to severe erosion impacts. Based on Ms. Beilke's testimony, erosion of the stream banks impacts protected steelhead and other fish and wildlife species in the creek. See pp 1-2 of Exhibit 2 and pp 1-2 of Exhibit 6. However this is an existing condition that will continue to exist regardless of whether this project is constructed. The applicant is not required to remedy all existing or perceived problems in the area, only those that the project creates or exacerbates. There is no substantial evidence in the record that the proposed bridge and Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003, MMD2009-00007 and AliVID2009-00013 ("Fannn Creek Trail) Page 26 walkway will increase the risk of erosion or destabilize the banks of Fanno Creek. The bridge will be elevated above the stream and the supports will be setback from the stream bank. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. Ongoing erosion in the future could eventually undercut the bridge and cause it to fail. However the City can continue to monitor the stream and bridge and close bridge or take other action if warranted based on future conditions. In addition, the City is planning to undertake a project to stabilize the banks of Fanno Creek in this area. P 4 of Exhibit 12. Completion of that project may alleviate the erosion issue. 18. There is no dispute that the trees identified in the arborist's report are being undercut by erosion of the stream bank. This is also an existing condition that the applicant is not required to remedy. The arborist's report included with the application demonstrates that the project will have no impact on the future survival of these trees. As noted in the Arborist's report, the trees are suitable for retention during construction. However, because they are hazard trees, the City can remove them at any time in the future if it concludes that the trees pose an unacceptable risk of failure and impact to people or property. 19. The hearings officer finds that the application complies with relevant comprehensive plan policies,based on the affirmative findings to that effect in the Staff Report and the application. The hearings officer adopts those findings as his own, except to the extent inconsistent with the following findings. a. The City actively coordinated and consulted with relevant parties as required by Policy 4 of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5, Natural Resources. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting about the application and discussed the project with the opponents on several occasions. The applicant also consulted with CWS, ODFW, DSL and other relevant agencies. Policy 4 only requires consultation. It does not require that the City agree with or adopt those agencies recommendations,merely that it consult with • them. The applicant did so in this case. That is sufficient to comply with this policy. b. Policy 6 of the Parks,Recreation. Trails and Open Space section of the comprehensive plan provides: "The City shall acquire and manage some open spaces to solely provide protection of natural resources and other open spaces to additionally provide nature-oriented outdoor recreation and trail-related activities."This requirement only applies to "some" open spaces. There is no evidence that this particular property was acquired or intended to be managed solely for resource protection. c. Policy 17 of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8, Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space,provides: "The City shall maintain and manage its parks and open space resources in ways that preserve,protect, and restore Tigard's natural resources, including rare, or state and federally listed species, and provide "Nature in the City" opportunities." This section requires that the City preserve and protect natural resources, but it does not altogether prohibit impacts to such resources. The City designed the trail project to minimize impacts on sensitive species while fulfilling other competing policies, such as Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002: SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and A'1MD2009-00013 (Farina Creek Trail) Page 27 "[dJevelop[ing], and maintain[ing] a diverse system of parks, trails, open space, and recreational facilities that are safe, functional, and accessible to all of its population," (Policy 1 of the Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space section of the comprehensive plan), and "[l]ocat[ing] bicycle/pedestrian corridors in a manner which provides for pedestrian and bicycle users, safe and convenient movement in all parts of the city,by developing the pathway system shown on the adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan." (Policy 1 of Section 5 of the comprehensive plan). As the applicant stated, the City cannot consider a single policy in isolation. It must give equal weight to all, striking a balance between competing goals and policies. p 22 of Exhibit 7. 20. The hearings officer finds that this application is subject to the frontage improvement requirements of TDC 18.810.030.A(3). That section provides: No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter,provided,however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. The applicant argues that trails are not listed in the Code as land use requiring approval. That may be true. However the proposed trail constitutes "development" as defined by TDC 18.120.030.A(57).5 Construction of the trail will result in a material change in the use or appearance of the site; adding a public use trail, elevated boardwalk and bridge, on what is currently a vacant parcel of land_ The section of Hall Boulevard abutting the site is not improved to current City standards. Therefore the applicant is required to construct frontage improvements along the site's Hall Boulevard frontage. 21. However TDC 18.810.020.A provides that the cost of right of way dedication and frontage improvements must be roughly proportional to the impact of the development.6 The city bears the burden of proof under this standard. The trail will likely attract additional pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic to the area, increasing the need for sidewalks and other frontage improvements on Hall Boulevard. However there is no substantial evidence in the record that the trail will generate a sufficient amount of traffic to justify the cost of frontage improvements on Hall Boulevard. The trail will accommodate the majority of pedestrian and bicycle trips,providing a direct and convenient connection to the existing buildings on the site and to the existing trail segments to the east and west. The trail may generate some additional vehicular traffic, as TDC 18.120.030.A(57)defines"Development"as: 1)A building or mining operation;2)a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land;or 3)division of land into two or more parcels,including partitions and subdivisions as provided in Oregon Revised Statutes 92. TDC 18.810.020 reflects the holding of the US Supreme Court's opinion in Dolan v. City of-Tigard, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304(1994). Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fan no Creek Trail) Page 28 people drive to the site in order to access the trail. However there is no evidence that the trail will generate a significant increase in vehicular traffic sufficient to justify the cost of frontage improvements. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the City failed to bear its burden of proof that the cost of frontage improvements on Hall Boulevard would be roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed trail. a. Mr. Frewing argues that the Code requires a connection between the trail and the existing sidewalk on the Hall Boulevard bridge over Fanmo Creek. P 3-4 of Exhibit 11. However he fails to cite to any Code section imposing such a requirement. 22. Mr. Frewing argues that the applicant should limit grading on the site to a maximum 5:1 slope in order to minimize the impact of the project. P 5 of Exhibit 5. The applicant testified that the finished slopes from the back of the sidewalk shoulder to existing ground will be graded to 5:1 slope. However a temporary reduced slope area will be provided to allow for construction vehicle access during the construction process as determined by the contractor. P 8 of Exhibit 7. The applicant further testified that it will consider"using 3:1 slopes. P 13 of Exhibit 12. The hearings officer encourages the applicant to do so in order to minimize the impacts on the site. But the hearings officer has no authority to impose such a requirement,because it does not relate to any of the applicable approval criteria. D. CONCLUSION Based on the findings adopted and incorporated herein, the hearings officer concludes that the proposed sensitive lands review and minor modifications applications comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with the recommended conditions of approval with changes warranted by the discussion herein and with applicable local, state, and federal laws. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein; and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves SLR 2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013(Fanno Creek Trail), subject to the following conditions of approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall provide information from a registered engineer to certify that the design and construction of the improvements will be resistant to flood damage and anchored to prevent flotation, collapse; and lateral movement. 2. The applicant shall obtain a removal/fill permit from DSL prior to undertaking any work in areas of the site subject to DSL's jurisdictions. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MALD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 29 3. The applicant shall demonstrate that the lowest portion of the boardwalk surface is higher than 142.22 feet NOV]) based on the final design of the boardwalk. 4. The City shall periodically inspect and maintain the fences, cables, and other barriers on the site to ensure that they continue to serve their intended function of limiting access between the trail and the adjacent vegetative corridor and turtle habitat areas. 5. Unless otherwise provided by CWS, no work will be undertaken within the grassy field on the site between May 1 and August 1, when female turtles are searching for nesting sites. The applicant shall consult with ODFW regarding construction scheduling in the field at other times in order to avoid impacts to incubating eggs. DATED this 22nd day of July 2009. v Joe Turner, Esq., MCP City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Hearings Officer Final Order SLR2009-00002, SLR2009-00003,MMD2009-00007 and MMD2009-00013 (Fanno Creek Trail) Page 30 STAFF REPORT TO THE " r r- HEARINGS OFFICER •r m` • FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • 120 DAYS = 8/5/2009 SE CTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: FANNO CREEK TRAIL BRIDGE/HALL BLVD. CROSSWALK CASE NOS.: Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) SLR2009-00002 Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) SLR2009-00003 Minor Modification 1\�Ni 1D2009-00007 Minor Modification ✓Ilv1D MMD2009-00013 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval to construct portions of the Fanno Creek trail. Construction involves installation of a sidewalk and signalized crosswalk on Hall Boulevard north of the Fanno Creek Bridge. An elevated boardwalk is proposed through the floodplain and vegetated corridor of nearby wetlands and Fanno Creek on the eastern side of Hall Boulevard, and a edestrian bridge (Woodruff Bridge) over Fain-10 Creek is also proposed east of Hall Boulevard to connect the new boardwalk with the existing trail north of the Tigard library-. APPLICANT/ OWNER City of Tigard Ann:Duane Roberts 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATIONS: CBD: Central Business District. The CBD zoning district is designed to provide a concentrated central business district, centered on the City's historic downtown, including a mix of civic, retail and office uses. Single-family attached housing, at a maximum density of 12 units/net acre, equivalent of the R-12 zoning district, and multi-family housing at a minimum density of 32 units/acre, equivalent to the R-40 zoning district, are permitted outright. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, utilities, facilities with drive-up windows, medical centers, major event entertainment and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. (The CBD zone is located west of Hall-Boulevard). I-L: Light Industrial District. The I-L zoninb district provides appropriate locations for general industrial uses including industnal'service, manufacturing and production, research and development, warehousing and freight movement, and wholesale sales activities with few, if any nuisance characteristics such as noise glare, odor, and vibration. (The I-L zone is located east of Hall Boulevard and north of Fanno Creek). R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to acconnmodate a full range of housing types at a m;nimunr rot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. (The R-12 zone is located east of Hall Boulevard and south of Fanno Creek). LOCATION: 13125 &13500 S\X/Hall Blvd.;WCTM 2S102DA,Tax Lou 401 &600. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.390, 18.510, 18.520, 18.530, 18.745, 18.7/5 and 18.810. SLR2C09-0x002/SLR2009-0x003 MMD2C09-003D7/MMD20C9-00013 FANNO CREEK TRAIL/HALL BLVD PAGE 1 OF 15 SECTION II. DECISION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Sensitive Lands Review and Minor Modification requests will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meet the Approval Standards for a Sensitive Lands Permit and Minor Modification. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL,subject to the following recommended Condition of Approval. CONDITION OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SI-TALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCF OF SITE/BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Department(Cheryl Caines, 639-4171, ext. 2437) for review and approval: 1. The applicant shall provide information from a registered engineer to certify that the design and construction of the improvements will be resistant to flood damage and anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, and lateral movement. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proposal Description: The applicant rs requestintr to construct a segment of the Fanno Creek trail to connect two existing sections between City Hall-and the Tigard Library. The proposal includes construction of a crosswaLt across Hall Boulevard, north of the Fanno Creek Bridge, a sidewalk along the east side of Hall Boulevard (140 Feet), an elevated boardwalk from the sidewalk to the creek (132 feet), and a new pedestrian/bike bridge across the creek (62 feet). This bridge, to be known as Woodruff Bridge, will align with an existing trail on the south side of the creek. Most of the work is proposed within the 100-year floodplain and floodway-. The plans have been designed to avoid construction within the wetlands but do impact the vegetated corridors of the wetlands and Fanno Creek Mitigation for the project's permanent impacts is proposed off-site at SW Fern Street and 139th Avenue. On-site mitigation possibilities are limited due to current Clean Water Services (CWS) restoration activities already in progress, the future widening of Hall Boulevard, an access easement extending through the property, and potential impacts to turtle habitat. Site/Vicinity Information The site is made up of two parcels (2S102DA-00600 and 2S102DA-00401). The main project site (tax lot 600) is located on the north side of Fanno Creek just north of the existing Tigard Library. Some of the proposed work will also occur on the west side of just Boulevard on the City Hall site (tax lot 401). This work is limited to relocation of a sidewalk ramp for the proposed crosswalk and installation of a pad for the crosswalk signal pole. Tax lot 600 has dual zoning, Light Industrial (I-L) and Medium High Density Residential (R-12). The City Hall site is zoned Central )3usuness District (CBD). Both sites are encumbered by sensitive lands, which include wetlands, floodplain, and drainageways (Fanno Creek). Parcels in the area are zoned I-L, CBD, and R-12. Site History Staff conducted a search of City records for the subject property. The Tigard Library was approved for tax lot 600 in 2003 (CUP2003-00001). Various other approvals have been granted to construct a gazebo in the open space adjacent to the library, modify the library parking lot and construct portions of the Fanno Creek Trail. A Minor Modification and Sensitive Lands Review was approved in 2005 (SLR2005- 00016/hVIIv1D2005-00015) to construct a segment of the trail around the Tigard Library, including the section proposed in this application. Condition #5 of that approval required a wildlife assessment to be completed prior to construction of the trail section north of Fanno Creek The trail design north of the creek must respond to and take into account the results of the wildlife assessment. The assessment will be subject to a public hearing by the Hearings Officer. This application seeks to satisfy that condition. SL R2CC9-C0002/SLP.2LG9-cC003 MMD2009-00,90711vN11)2009-0 013 FANNOCREEK TRAIL/HALLBL\D PAGE 2 OF 15 On the City Hall site land use applications related to on-site work include construction, expansion and remodel of the existing buildings and the construction of the Tigard Skate Park. These include a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Department of Motor Vehicles office within an industrial zone (CU 18- 76), construction of an office/warehouse building to be used by an electrical contractor (SDR24-77), redevelopment of the sire for the City Hall complex (SDR91-0017) and various minor modifications. Case file SDR2006-00005 approved the development of the Tigard Skate Park. No other land use cases were found to be on file with the City besides some temporary sign permits. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to construct a missing segment of the Fanno Creek Trail. This facility is defined as Community Recreation within the use classification section of the Tigard Development Code. Community Recreation is permitted within the CBD zone and is a conditional use within the R-12 and I-L zones. Su.rnmary Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The proposal requires a Sensitive Lands Review within the 100-year floodplain, which is a Type III-HO (Hearings Officer) decision. • SECTION V. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATI`E TRAIL ALIGNMENTS The applicant evaluated four alternative trail alignments during the 2005 design process. An explanation of this evaluation is found on pages 3 - 5 of the applicant's narrative. Alternative alignments were considered to look at ways to m.ir mn.e impacts to natural resources while providing a bike-pedestrian friendly path. The proposed location/design was chosen as it provides a balance between the two, as well as being Handicap accessible. The applicant s evaluation is summarized below: Hall Boulevard is an Oregon Department of Trans Jortation (ODOT) facility. ODOT has refused to allow a signalized or un-s1 nal17ed crossing between t_-ie Fanno Creek Bridge and the signalized crossing at Wall•Street to the south. This existing crossing is too far out of direction for trail users to consider it to cross Hall Boulevard. The majority of pedestrians cross just south of the bridge during gaps in traffic. creating a dangerous situation for both pedestrians and drivers. Some of the alternative alignments would involve bicycle traffic turning left across Hall Boulevard. Other alternatives would require modifying the existing Fanno Creek Bridge to accommodate a cantilevered walkway, winch was rejected by ODOT. For these reasons the applicant chose the proposed alignment north of the Fanno Creek Bridge. The design of the trail was also modified to lessen impacts to the wildlife habitat. The proposed trail has been shortened and shifted closer to Hall Boulevard than the 2005 design. In addition, the original 10-foot asphalt trail has been replaced by an 8-foot, raised boardwalk on pre-cast foundations that eliminate the need to dig holes or pour concrete. The boardwalk provides 30 inches of clearance for wildlife to pass freely uncer the trail. Cable fencing and shrubs are also proposed on the trail to discourage users from leaving the trail. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A sunnmary of the applicable criteria in the Chapter order in which they are addressed are as follows: A. 15.775 Sensitive Lands Review Criteria B. Other Applicable Development Code Standards 18.330 (Conditional Use) 18.360 (Site Development Review) 18.510 sidential Zoning Districts) 18.520 Commercial Zonin Districts) 18.530 ndustrial Zoning Districts) 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards) C. Impact Study(18.390) ST.P2009-00002/ST R2DD9-00M3 Mv1MD2009-00007/1.11AD2009-00013 FANNOCREEK TRAIT/HAT I.BLVD PAGE 3 OF 15 SECTION VII. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. SPECIFIC SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW APPROVAL CRITERIA Sensitive Lands (Section 18.775): Section 18.775.020.F states that the Director shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the following areas by means of a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070 C-E: Drainageways; e Slopes that are 25% or greater or unstable ground; and s Wetland areas which are not regulated by other local, state, or federal agencies and are designated as significant wetlands on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map. Section 18.775.020.G states that the Hearings Officer shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the 100-yearfloodplain by means of a Type IIIA procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070. General Provisions for Floodplain Areas 18.775.040. Special flood hazard: The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study of the City of Tigard," effective February 18, 2005 with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps effective February 18 2005, is hereb adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. This Flood Study is on file at the Tigard Civic Center. The applicant and staff have reviewed these maps and agree that this site is within one of the identified special}hood hazard areas. The application is being reviewed under this premise. Base flood elevation data: When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section 18.775.040.B above, the Director shall obtain review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer Sections 18.775.040.M and 18.775.040.N below). The base flood elevation for the subject sites are shown to be 144 and 145 feet according to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps of February 18th,2005. Test of reasonableness: Where elevation data is not available either through the Flood Insurance Study or from another authoritative source, applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that the potential for flood damage to the proposed construction will be minimized. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet above grade in these sensitive land areas may result in higher insurance rates. Base flood elevation data is available and has been established at 144 and 145 feet by the FEMA Flood Insurance Maps. 'Therefore,this standard does not apply. Resistant to flood damage: All new construction and substantial improvements, including manufactured homes, shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to determine if this criterion is met. Information should be submitted from the applicant's engineer regarding the design's resistance to flood damage. A condition has been imposed to ensure this standard is met. Minimize flood damage: All new construction and substantial improvements, including manufactured homes, shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. SLR2009-C0002/SLR2009-00003 K )2O09-00007/NAD2009-00013 FANNO CREEK TP.AIUHRLL BLVD PAGE 4 OF 15 A flood study prepared by the applicant's engineer has been provided. The study shows that the proposed improvements will not result in an increase in flood levels. Equipment protection: Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Water Supply Systems: All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the system. Anchoring: All new construction all manufactured homes and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure. The bridge will be anchored to abutments installed on each side of Fanno Creek. The boardwalk will be constructed on piers attached to low impact foundations. Information about the movement, collapse, flotation was not provided by the applicant. A condition of approval will ensure this standard is satisfactorily addressed. Sanitary sewerage systems: New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the systems and.discharge from the systems into floodwater. On-site water disposal systems: On-site water disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. No service facilities/equipment, water, sewer, or water disposal systems are proposed with this project. These standards do not apply. Residential Construction: 1. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure, including manufactured homes, shall have the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated at least one foot above base flood elevation,. 2. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect, or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided;b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; an c. Openings may be equipped with screens louvers, or other coverings or devices, provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. 3. Manufactured homes shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored permanent foundation system. Anchoring methods may include,but are not limited rm to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. Residential construction is not proposed with this development. This standard does not apply. Nonresidential Construction: New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement elevated to the level of the base flood elevation, or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: 1. Be flood-p roofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water 2. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; 3. Be certified by.a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted-standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural desi n, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the Building Official as setlorth in Section 18.775.O30.E.2• and 4. Nonresidential structures that are elevated; not flood-proofed, must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in Section 18.775.O40.L.2. Applicants flood-proofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified that flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the flood-proofed level (e.g., a building constructed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below that level). SLR2009-00002/SL1S20O9 00O03 MMD2009-00007!MMD2039-000 1 3 FANNOCRL-EK TRAIL/HALLBLVD PAGE 5 OF 15 'I'his standard does not apply as this development is for roadway purposes. No habitable structures are proposed. This standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis" above, the General Provisions for Floodplain Areas can be met as conditioned below. CONDITION: The applicant shall provide information from a registered engineer to certify that the design and construction of the improvements will be resistant to flood damage and anchored to prevent flotation,collapse,and lateral movement. 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map", and to a vegetated corridor ranging rom 25 to 200 200 wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the wet�and, per "Table 3.1 Vegetated Corridor 'Widths" and "Appendix C" Natural Resource Assessments of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards' . Wetland locations may include but are not limited to those areas identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon," Fishman Environmental Services, 1994. The location of the proposed improvements is identified as having two locally significant wetlands (E-13 and E-14- 1994 City orrigard Wetland Inventory). The extents 01 the vegetated corridors,as determined by CWS, are shown in the applicant's plans. Work is not proposed within the wetlands, but will occur within the vegetated corridors. The proposal is therefore, subject to a Type II sensitive lands review for wetlands. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense. The extent of the vegetated corridors as determined by CWS are shown in the applicant's plans. According� to the applicant's narrative,Fishman Environmental Services prepared a wetland delineation to meet CWS requirements. 18.775.070.B states that the Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; The proposal includes alterations within the floodway and 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek. The applicant hired an engineering consultant to perform a floodway and floodplain study to measure the impacts of the proposed improvements on area flood levels. Chanves were made to the project before sealing on the current design. According to the applicant's engineer `the proposed boardwalk, crosswalk and pedestrian bridge will not impose any-meaningful hydrauic impacts to the Fanno Creek floodplain elevation." Therefore,the proposal meets the zero- oot rise requirement. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; The development site lies within three zones. One is commercial, the second is industrial, and the third is residential. Land form alterations within the 100-year floodplain are pemitted within the commercial and industrial zones. Community Recreation and Public Support Facilities are permitted within residential zones as an exception. The trail and sidewalk therefore, are permitted within the R-12 zoning. This standard is met. SLR2009.000Q/SLR2OO9-o00c3 1.61D2009-00007/MM D2009-00013 FANNO CREEK TRAIL/HALL BLVD PAGE 6 OF 15 Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; The modeling results provided by the applicant's engineer show that the proposal will not result in any increase in the flood elevation. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as untimely; The development proposal is only to construct a segment of the Fanno Creek Trail. The design is in accordance with the City's pedestrian/bicycle plan. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood; The proposed pathway is located above the average annual flood elevation as shown in a letter prepared by the applicant's water resources consultant(Pacific Water Resources,Inc.). The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and Fanno Creek will not be impacted by the construction of the bridge. The bridge will completely span • Fanno Creek and with construction below the top of bank The trail and sidewalk are located-outside the wetlands on both the library and City Hall site but are within the vegetated corridor. Because no wetland or streams are impacted by the proposal, permits are not required by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Department of State Lands. A service provider letter is required by OX'S for the work within the vegetated corridors. The letter has been obtained and is included in the application packet. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. The proposal is to construct a missing segment of the Fanno Creek Trail between City Hall and the Tigard Library. No dedication is necessary as the trail will be entirely on City owned property. Within wetlands: The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been • satisfied: The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within the vegetative condor established per "Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths" and Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards", for such a wetland; The subject site contains areas designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map and a vegetative corridor of 50 feet from the edge of the wetland. The vegetative corridor for this wetland is a CWS water quality buffer and is not subject to the safe harbor provisions of Goal 5. No work is proposed within the significant wetland. Some aradlng and trail construction is proposed within the vegetative corridor and 7nas already been approved by (WS (see service provider letter). The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; sL R2009-0000vSLr.2009-x)003 \AID2009-00007/1vAff32009-00013 PAW)CREEK TRAIL/HALL BLVD PAGE 7 OF 15 The applicant has indicated that the disturbance to the vegetated corridor will be the minimum required for the development. The portion of the trail within the vegetated corridors will be the minimum allowed (8 feet). A boardwalk design has been chosen and will be constructed with 42 inch piers. These piers eliminate the need to dig holes or pour concrete, therefore mina zing the disturbance. Because the applicant has revised the trail alignment/design, the amount of permanent impact area has been reduced from the original design. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; The impacts to the vegetative corridor will be for the proposed boardwalk, bridge abutments, and crosswalk signal pad. These improvements have been approved by CWS. There is no encroachment into the nearby wetlands. The proposed sidewalk along the east side of Hall Boulevard will change drat nacre by directunc, stormwater that now flows over land from street to the sidewalk, north to the end of the sidewalk. Water will then flow over land into the wetland. The site contours will remain relatively unchanged. The change will not have an adverse affect on the wetland. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in fike or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and screening. The applicant's plans show erosion control measures to be used during construction. Disturbed vegetation will be replaced. Both proper erosion control and re-vegetation are conditions of the CWS Service Provider Letter. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; Fanno Creek runs through the project sites. No work is proposed within the creek but is proposed within the floodway and 100-year floodplan. The criteria for work within the flood areas have been met as shown within this staff report. The necessary U.S. Corp of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained. Fanno Creek will not he impacted by the construction of the bride. The bridge will completely span Farm Fan Creek and with construction below the top of bank. The tram and sidewalk are located- ocated outside the wetlands on both the library and City Hall site but are within the vegetated corridor. Because no wetland or streams are impacted by the proposal, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Division of State Lands does not require permits. A service provider letter is required by CWS for the work within the vegetated corridors. The letter has been obtained and is included in the application packet. The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal shall be met; There are two trees on the library site that may be affected by construction of the trail/bridge. Neither tree will be removed. The applicant has provided a tree protection plan for both trees. This criterion does not apply. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. The applicant addresses the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies within the narrative. These include Water Resources Quality (Goal 6), Hazards (Goal 7) and Parks,Recreation, Trails and Open Space (Goal 8). The design meets regional, state and federal water quality standards by meeting COG'S permit requirements. A flood study shows that the improvements will not result tin an increase i n flood elevation. The construction of this gap in the trail connects two larger open space areas near the Tigard Library and City Hall and furthers the policy of creating an interconnected regional system of trails. The applicant has proposed a design that tries to balance the policies of providing greenway trails and mini nrzung the impact on natural areas. This criterion has been met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicant meets the criteria for sensitive lands permit in wetlands. SLR20C9-Cco02/SLR2009-00003 MMD2009 T,7.'A 4D2009-00013 FANNO CREEK TRAIL/HALL BLVD PAGE 8 OF 1 S 18.775.090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and South Fork of Ash Creek In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safeharbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0030) pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map" are protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland,except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130. The proposal does not include any work within a significant wetland. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0030)pertaining to riparian corridors, a standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area, measured horizontaay from and parallel to the top of the bank, is established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek. The standard width for "good condition" vegetated corridors along Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the •South Fork of Ash Creek is 50 feet, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. If all or part of a locally significant wetland (a wetland identified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map') is located within the 50 loot setback area, the vegetated corridor is measured from the upland edge of the associated wetland. The CWS Service Provider Letter designates the pre-development vegetated corridor as 50 feet and in degraded condition. CWS has begun a restoration project on the site (including the area where the bridge and trail are proposed) that will upgrade the condition to good. The requu-ed vegetated corridor width is 50 feet as approved by CWS and is delineated on the project plans. There are no wetlands within the 50 foot setback; therefore,the vegetated corridor is measured from the upland edge of the wetland. The minimum width for"marginal or degraded condition" vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek is 50% of the standard width,wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. As noted above, the vegetated corridor will be in good condition once the CWS restoration project is complete. The required 50-foot width requirement is met. The determination of corridor condition shall be based on the Natural Resource Assessment guidelines contained in the CV'S "Design and Construction Standards". CWS has classified the vegetated corridor as degraded based on the site conditions at the time of the site assessment. A long term restoration project has begun on-site and over time the plantings will improve the vegetated corridor to good condition. Amber Wrerck, with CWS, has indicated that this change does not create any issues with the current Service Provider Letter. The standard setback distance or vegetated conidor area applies to all development proposed on property located within or partially within the vegetated corridors , except as allowed below: a. Roads, pedestrian or bike paths crossing the vegetated corridor from one side to the other in order to provide access to the sensitive area or across the sensitive area, as approved by the City per Section 18.775.070 and by CWS "Design and Construction Standards' ; b. Utility_ /service rovider infrastructure construction (i.e. storm, sanitary sewer, water, phone, gas, cable, etc.),if approved by the City and CWS; c. A pedestrian or bike path, not exceeding 10 feet in width and meeting the CWS "Design and Construction Standards"; d. Grading for the purpose of enhancing the vegetated condor, as approved by the City and CWS; e. Measures to remove or abate hazards, nuisances, or fire and life safety violations, as approved by the regulating jurisdiction,- 1. Enhancement of the vegetated corrior- for water quality or quantity benefits, fish, or wildlife habitat, as approved by the City and CWS; g. Measures to repair, maintain, alter, remove, add to, or replace existing structures, roadways, driveways, utilities, accessory uses, or other developments provided they are SLR2039-J0002/SLR2009-OJ003 MA D2009-00037/?vAID2009-CC0r3 FANNO(REEK TRArt/HALL BLVD PAGE 9 OF 15 consistent with City and CWS regulations, and do not encroach further into the vegetated corridor or sensitive area than allowed by the CWS "Design and Construction Standards. A portion of the proposed pedestrian/bike trail and sidewalk alteration (City Hall site) is located within the wetland vegetated corridor. The proposed trail is 8 feet wide. The existing sidewalk on the western side of Hall Boulevard is being modifiec to relocate the handicap ramp and install a new crosswalk signal. This modification will be approximately 31 square feet of permanent impact to the vegetated corridor on the City Hall site All work meets the CWS Design and Construction Standards as Shown in the approved CWS Service Provider Letter. Only a and c above apply to this tail project. Land form alterations or developments located within or partially within the Goal 5 safeharbor setback or vegetated conidor areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the CWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies, are not subject to the provisions of Section 18.775.090.B, except where the: a. Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially within a good condition vegetated conidor, as defined in Sections 18.775.090.B.1 and 18.775.090.B.2; b. Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially within the minimum width area established for marginal or a degraded condition vegetated conidor, as defined in Section 18.775.090.B.3. This proposal is subject to the provisions of 18.775.090.B since a portion of the improvements are located partially within vegetated corridor areas established for Fanno Creek As shown, this proposal meets those provisions. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, the applicant adheres to the special provisions for development along Fanno Creek No work is proposed within significant wetlands or along the Tualatin River,Ball Creek,or the south fork of Ash Creek B. OTHER APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS CONDITIONAL USE (18.330) Section 18.330.020 of the Tigard Development Code Conditional Use Review Section, states; "if the requested modification meets any of the rna)'or modification criteria, that the request shall be reviewed as a new Conditional Use application.' Section 1S.330.020.B.2 states that the Director shall determine that a major modification(s) has resulted if one (1) or more of the changes listed below have been proposed: A change in land use; The proposal is to construct a sidewalk, boardwalk and bridge to complete a gap within the Fanno Creek trail. Currently tax lot 600 is developed with the Tigard Library and trails within the Fanno Creek Green-way. No new uses are proposed at this time. This criterion is met. A 10% increase in dwelling unit density; The site is not developed with a residential rue; therefore,this criterion is not applicable. A change in the type and/or location of access ways and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected; There is no change in the type and/or location of access ways and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected. This standard is met. An increase in the floor area proposed for non-residential use by more than 10% where previously specified; The request is to construct a section of the Fanno Creek trail. No increase in floor area of the existing structures is proposed. This criterion is satisfied. A reduction of more than 10% of the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open space; SLR2009-000 i2/SL 82009-0003 NSID2009 OC�37/11141)2009-00013 FANNO MEEK TRAIL'HALL BLVD PAGE 10 OF 15 Placement of a trail within open space does not reduce the amount of open space. This criterion is satisfied. A r eduction of specified setback requirements by more than 20%; The applicant has not requested changes to the building location or proposed setbacks. Trails,sidewalks, and budges are not subject to setback requirements. This standard is not applicable. An elimination of project amenities by more than 10% where previously specified provided such as: (a) Recreational facilities; (b) Screening; or(c) Landscaping provisions; The proposed trail segment will inScreening will not be affected by the proposal. The percentage of landscaping on-site is reduced by the construction of the boardwalk, but the library site has over five acres of open space. Open space is included in the landscaping percentage. The construction of 1,056 square feet of-boardwalk will eliminate less than a .5%, of the open space on-site. This standard is met. A 10% increase in the approved density; The proposed modification request does not involve residential development; therefore, no increase to density is involved in the request. FINDING: This request is determined to be a minor modification to an existing site as demonstrated in the above analysis and meets all applicable requirements of Tide 1g as indicated within this report. The requirements for a minor modification have been met. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(18.360) Section 18.360.050.B contains the following criteria for approval of a request for Minor Modification: Section 18.360.050.B states that the Director shall determine that a major modification will result if one or more of the following changes are proposed.: There will be: An increase in dwelling unit density, or lot coverage for residential development; There are no dwelling units on the property. Therefore,this criterion does not apply. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwellings; There are no dwelling units on the property. Therefore,this criterion does not apply. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.765. The proposed improvement on this site (sidewalk widening and signal installation) is classified as a Public Support-FFacility. These uses require no parking. This criterion is satisfied. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Code; There are no proposed changes in the type of structures. Therefore,this criterion does not apply. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20%; There is no proposed change in building height. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. A change in the type and location of access ways and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected; The proposal does not change the type or location of access ways or parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected. Therefore,this criterion is met. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the increase can be expected to exceed 100 vehicles per day; SLR2009-O0002/SLR2 00 9-0000 3 14 D2009-00CC7iMMD2009-00013 FANiNO CREEK TRAIL/HALL BLVD PAGE 11 OF 15 The proposal does not increase vehicular traffic to and from the site. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by more than 10% excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet; No increase in floor area is proposed. Therefore,this criterion does not apply. A reduction in the area reserved for common space and/or usable opens ace which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code or reduces the open space area by more than 10%; The construction of the pad and signal ole, affecting 31 square feet of land, will not appreciably reduce • the acreage of the site amenities. The City Hall tax lot has approximately 4 acres of open space. This criterion has been satisfied. A reduction of project amenities below the minimum established by this code or by more than 10% where specified in the site plan: a. Recreational facilities; b. Screening; and/or c. Landscaping provisions. The proposal does not reduce the site's recreational facilities or screening. Open space is part of the landscaping on the City Hall site. The landscaping will be reduced by 31 square feet. This decrease does not reduce the percentage to less than that requu'ed by code (15%), and does not reduce the percentage of existing landscaping by more than 10%. Therefore,this criterion has been satisfied. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of site development review approval, which are not the subject of B 1 through 10 above of this subsection. The original site plan was approved under SDR 29-84. The conditions for this and subsequent approvals have been reviewed. This proposal does not conflict with nor modify any of these previous applied conditions. FINDING: This request is determined to be a minor modification to an existing site as demonstrated in the above analysis and meets all applicable requirements of Title 18 as indicated within this report. The requirements for a minor modification have been met. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.510) 18.510.030 Uses Table 18.510.1 lists Community Recreation as a Conditional Use within the R-12 zoning district. The library site has dual zoning (R-12 and I-L). Trails are classified as a ConumunityRecreation use,which are listed as a conditional use within Table 18.510.1. The applicant has requested a minor modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to allow the trail. The requirements of the Residential Zoning District leave been met. COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.520) 18.520.030 Uses Table 18.520.1 lists Community Recreation as a Permitted Use within the CBD zoning district. The City Hall site is zoned Central Business District (CBD). A small portion of the proposed work is on- site, but the majority of the work will be within the adjacent right-of-way. Sidewalk modifications and the proposed crosswalk signal are classified Public Support Facilities. These uses are permitted outright within the CBD. The applicant has applied for a minor modification to the previously approved Site Development Review to permit the proposed work. The requirements of the Commercial Zoning District have been met. INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.530) 18.530.030 Uses Table 18.530.1 lists Community Recreation as a Conditional Use within the I-L zoning district. SLR2009-00002/sIR2ozzi-0''.,003 M D2o09-0000'/h1MD200900013 FANNO CREEK'TRAIL/ILALLBLVD PACE 12 OF 15 As noted above, the library site has dual zoning, including Light Industrial (I-L). Community Recreation is permitted as a Conditional Use within the zone according to Table 18.530.1. Footnote 10 states that the use is limited to outdoor recreation on land classified-as floodplain on City flood maps, when the recreational use does not otherwise preclude future cut and fill as needed in order to develop adjoining industrially zoned upland. According to FEMA flood maps adopted by the City,the industrial-portion of the trail nght-of-way is located entirely within the floodplain and does not adjoin any industrially zoned upland. STREET UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS (18.810) 18.810.070 Sidewalks Section 18.810.070.0 requires a planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already, exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities, there are significant natural features (large trees, water features significant habitat areas, etc) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required', or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less). Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case by case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. The proposed sidewalk along the east side of Hall Boulevard is designed without a planter strip and is not proposed at ultimate location so as to limit the impact on the adjoining natural area. This is allowed as an exception to the standard. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways 18.810.110.C. requires: 1. Minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. 2. Minimum width multi-use paths separated from the road is ten (10) feet. The width may be reduced to eight(8) feet if there are environmental or other constraints. 3. The minimum width for pedestrian only off-street paths is five (5) feet. 4. Design standards for bike and pedestrian-ways shall be determined by the City Engineer. • The proposed multi-use path is 8 feet wide. This narrower width was chosen to limit the impact on the sensitive lands. The proposal has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and no objections to the design were indicated. C. IMPACT STUDY(18.390): Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected • private property users. The proposed trail and sidewalk improvements -will not increase traffic to and from the site. A signalized crosswalk is roposed where the trail crosses Hall Boulevard. It is expected that the proposed trail sidewalk, and crosswalk will reduce the number of pedestrians crossing Fall at unsigned- locations and provide a safer alternative to the stretches of Hall Boulevard without sidewalks. The proposed trail segment will result in improved recreational opportunities by closing a gap within the current Fanno Creek trail system and connect the open spaces of Fanno Creek Park and tche library site. Water and sanitary sewer systems will not be impacted by the development. Minimal impervious area will be added by the improvements. Storm water will continue to be directed over land, through the vegetated corridors, and into the wetland or Fanno Creek Noise levels from the trail are expected to be minimal. Any noise created by trail users is likely to have less of an impact than current traffic noise from Hall Boulevard. SLR2009-0 02/SLR20c9-c 3 MMD2009-0000?/MMD2009-07313 FANNO U.E.EK 7R JJJHALL BLVD PAGE 13 of 15 SECTION VI. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering Department commented that the proposed work is within the Fanno Creek floodplain regulated by TDt 18.775.070.B,the submittal is an acequate showing of compliance with these standards. 18.755.070.B.3 requires that the trail not be below the elevation of an average annual flood. The applicant's engineer has submitted no-rise certifications that the pathway is above the average annual flood elevation. These reports have been reviewed and found to comply with the ilk requirements. The applicant has obtained the required ODOT permit to connect the pathway to the Hall Boulevard sidewalk. City of Tigard Arborist requested that the drawings have the tree rotection fence shown to scale and specifications per the Arboust Report. It was also noted the Tigard Municipal Code requires tree protection for trees on City property. RESPONSE: No trees will be removed for the proposed improvements. Protection required by the Municipal Code is not a land use regulation. Regardless the applicant has provided an arborlst report outlining measures to be taken to protect existing trees duneg�gg construction. The applicant should work with the City Arborist to ensure the Municipal Oode protection requirements are met. Tigard Police have reviewed the proposal and have no objections. The Tigard Parks Department noted that the suggestion for a 6-foot fence is a little overboard. If fencing is installed,a 3 to 4 — foot fence would be preferred for securitypulposes. The Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection. SECTION VII. AGENCY COMMENTS (Copies of the complete letters are found in the file). Clean Water Services issued a Service Provider Letter(4714) with conditions dated April 1, 2009. Oregon Division of State Lands has commented that no removal-fill permit is required because it appears that the proposed bridge, elevated pathway, and crosswalk improvements avoid impacts to wetlands and waters. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife does not support the placement of the trail within floodplains and vegetated corridor due to adverse impacts such as fragmented habitats, disturbance of sensitive species such as the Western pond turtle and affects on water flow. The bride is being placed in an area with severely eroding banks which could cause future maintenance problems. The placement could also preclude future restoration projects. It is recommended that the City use the Senior Center/O'Mara Street/existing Hall Boulevard crossing as the trail connection to avoid any negative impacts to the North Library wetlands and mitigation site. RESPONSE: The applicant's proposal meets or can meet the current requirements of the Tigard Development Code and other regulatory agencies. The design and location of the pathway has been modified prior to the review process to minimize unpacts to natural areas, therefore these comments and suggestions were passed on to the applicant for their review and consideration. Metro provided comments about the proposed trail. Of the four alternative alignments, the proposed alignment best suits the Metro requirements for regional trails. This application has four of the five components of the Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan framework used to prioritize regional trail capital improvements. Because of the trails location within a natural area that supports rare Western pond turtle, the writer emphasized that the greatest care should be taken and outlined p possible adverse impacts of the trail on nesting populations of turtle. Metro praises the boardwalk and budge design but also states that the applicant should be encouraged to protect rare and sensitive species. Suggestions provided include: • Installing any necessary silt fencing for construction prior to mid-May, to avoid the risk of trapping nesting turtles in the construction site. • Keeping construction materials and equipment away from suspected turtle nesting areas. SLR2007-03002'SLR2009-0003 MIA:02009-00007/MMD2 09-00013 FANNO CREEK 1-RAIL/HALL BLVD PAGE 14 OF 15 RESPONSE The applicant's proposal meets or can meet the current requirements of the Tigard Development Code and other regulatory agencies. The design and location of the pathway has been modified prior to the review process to minimize impacts to natural areas, therefore these comments and suggestions were passed on to the applicant for their review and consideration. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality commented that care should be taken to control erosion and sediment migration during construction activities. RESPONSE: Erosion control measures are shown on the applicant's plans and are a condition of approval of Clean Water Services. Verizon wrote that the proposed clams indicate working where there are several underground cables that run south of the east side of Hal Boulevard. Coordination to adjust any manholes will require early contact with this office and final grade information. Locates will be required. Qwest states that the project location falls out of the Qwest service area. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Clean Water Services, Oregon Department of Transportation, U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, Portland General Electric,—NW Natural Gas, Comcast Cable Corporation, and Tri-Met Transit were given an opportunity to review this proposal but offered no comments or objections. l�Y April 29,2009 PREPARED BY: Cheryl Carnes DALE E Associate Planner • -„ April 29,2009 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewer4dorff DA IE Planning Minager 59. 2/5] U9- 333 1`11∎D20099-000A2,X4MD2039-0OD13 FANNO CREEK IRAIL'HALL BLVD PAGE 15 OF 15 " feY6V hes ttana VICINITY MAP ,•.,stt't t/D t uup P.n1�.14, `,, \ SLR2009-00002• V 1 SLR2009 00003 �\ MMD2009-00007• \?\ MMD2009-00013 l\ :,�\ T\ r % BJ CROSSWALK 1'afx Y 25102DA00401 ,.^ -°•_ a •7 . . . :,--,..__...• et ", J E3Lii I J I ! 1 \ fzrinu Creek i'mf+ W:. Q i:i``t Ti '.rd �� 2S102DA00600.i ' 41115ri7 ri_ lilt tat.-'71111k III 1 Ng sir 4\ , gio :iii En •V :1 1 -------7 1,.T,_1,J 81J Public LIC flyt OMARA ST _ CO r — -�—.� ,� "� #'�?' Information on this map is for general location S - only and should he verified with the Development 11+I A' Services Division. B Scale 1:5,500..1 in=45a 17 1 .. I 4 ;) Map printed at 08.Apr•09 1 LOIN AM REGINA LN ` Ea tabs Griva• B EDGE1Npp ._ ® DATA is DERIVED FROM NN•TTRE SOURCES THE CITY or STOT D ST .. IAARES NO WARRANTY.REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE 1 CONRNT ACCURACY,IWRTHESS OR RTIC.IE0ENIS1 Or ANY 11 TNT I —• T r DATA PROVIM MHEREIN,NE CITY 0E S 0*INACCURACIES 0 NO- - — I —� I I 1 r'�-1 lIAa1wro FOR ANYfRRORS.OMISLpIS.CNI INACCUMCIftW INS IJ �,,,_ 1.,.._J I r WrORMANUNPROVIOFOREWRGUf FSOFNOWCAUSfO J �� r� I_.j, • City at Tigard r- D 13125 SW Hall Blvd — ` t� l.-l I 1 GAR PS Tigard,OR 97223 L ���.J L—J 1 A sn3 e39.4»1 a+t ✓ �� r8ft NV,'ligard•or gov t r _'87TH CT \ f C 1 'I . . .. . . . i... __.--....--_.._._._-L.-L. ----..____________ IC'.L. ,,\\ ‘ \:•,\\\\-\\\-\‘s.,.;,),\\\-\ `N., .,,,,\.:\\S.\‘`›/7 J.,so // ,.. .so.\\xs.. ,\::\.■\\,,,\\ \ \ \ , \\\\.,. ..)>, -- -------- -X<-< .\ ' \\ Ns*\\\\ \ \ \ \>'' • 7 Impac1 Areas Included ,,/ / 8/vd Crosswalk Project with Han / / /...- " 77. --.. - :.,, \/ 2.<';/\/, ,. lr • - ... -, ,g, \ \/ 7 / '''' .j'i• ' : . ' . ,-.7-. -----.--- -'. .-'''''''L---.. , •-■•-■..--. • '\</X X/ \ Xs< /\A/ Ke / ' . ' AP.;4 . • • ., , .' . / . . , , • . \ / ', l' • .:: : :11,:elia 1 ..--7----''.-' ' ..---,-...-2.......__.: • . / / \ \ V , ' \i4, — _ .eileV.j\\/ ' N !" ; /11k ,' 7 ;7\1 / , —_ . ea/tilkOil;17_ __, ____. _ / \/\C ./ L/\V i 7\7\ "/ ) " / / ,. -/— I - 7 ---- — — --.— _ i / 7 . •- ___ _ ,../ ,,,,, egetated Corr dor /\. .„. / . / \Vegetated/ i ,..-- / / y / / / , Corridor X ' '' • /. / / '> .•"<f\\K„\'/ / / • / .. , ....<\ ,., / /7 / A., / Temporary Impact 110 A < / \-->-O .K ' \ 1985 Square Feet • // Temporary Impact / / ,- / / , t>,‘,.. .7 , 7 ,,../-2664 Square Feet / / P74„,: /410°c,, / / /C \ r )('-\/\/ ''• . 410' ,\\ ' \)../\ 4Ar" I ) ,‘\ •/ \i \ ' :' 'X f Y X"X. ! ,,,e , X \7 / ' ' \ \/\,, cii\X' '• • ;\ itt /111:0014. 2 , II ,.... ,. \ , " 7- - , N " V X / >: >,', 1 '\KY \cYA. Y .,./ \„vegetated Corridor ;•,{ ,)<\ >!, >„ r / / , •••;7 X \ / 'X '( 4b, ./\- y \ . V Y f. \ \ i .< ,/ ..• x x/'>,/'`, \/ y\s/ .:,..."-- i 1 et 4,4 i .-...•4 ' . .,,_(,\ <p 7,1 • . It."1•11'p ' \ 495 Square Feet 'c/ . X/ / '. V\ \,/' \/.\/\1/‘•,/ . k \ .#40 "Veto 4-.11,..,,„•,, iir 4 .• , 4:4,, ..,4,„,gritIatto %1010 kt, , ,. \ . . w.•'11 MI 41 " / / ' \ / \>Y \. Y ■ V,'gig: , ; s \ ri /\ \,/\,/\\? 7 x V;\V \/.\ /, \/\/ ' . ' . ' . ' . ' . .7-.----• " ;f 1• ;ti .' .., /, 4C4N14 ,, ,. // \,e _.,>,/.:\,/‘ \r/ . \7.\Z.)'. , - . \ , • j\ ---'. • . • , • . . . • • , ass%, •'..,'/'.. . , \/.• **:*\4.1N9**** Y \< > ' • • • ' • • /' ' A' ' / • • • . • • • . . / .-...._ 17: \ X..„,,''''' •,i°• /-`• 'S /• • XI ' • ' ' ' ' ' • ' • ' • ' / ' • •/. ' • ' /. ' • . • . • > • ..--• 2:-. 2--""-". .-•( '• / / N.\34 II>'\,X4i),. • ' ir,\ \,>(/' . ' , . ' Wetland " , . . t . . / . Wetland • . .1 . I. • l• • • • t!. .1''' . i • Jt. ,/,■ \ %. , \Permonent Impact (Bridge Footing/Wolk) 1 • 1 • . /. ' . '1" • . ./ . . . 5° . \_,,</.ai /X %**P. 78 Square Feet V \••/\ ...>. ' • ,A \ . ./ „.,.. CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION AND i f IQ(015, TRANSPORTATION DIVISION Fanno Creek Trail FIGURE .i Permanent Impacts: 5 73 Sq Ft ::: -"O'n'a.';;PcO.g•P;13 HAII Blvd to Fanno Creek /.1 Temporary Impacts- 4649 Sq Ft iP"- _-•",::"fc.g..c igita= FILE NO fic,,...,..•—•o'ow.,ncArre-on.cov CWS Vegetated Corridor Impacts ,.iwizi444441r; _ y\ /\/'\ >X\' /\/\ti/s.Y/ jl 'y C �Y )< X ,,\/ \ I \ , N \''s\/ / \/\�/ �,/•` '� �x\( \\,,i{ / \ r\��/'`y� 1\y y\ Y,!`•\/', \j(y\ \,, '\ ./\)// i`C� /• / � !�! '� / ,!\/ / �`\ . '`\/ \��i r a�-�°� \ tom', fiXszy xl x ,QK>:' s.' 'X„,.,X ' . ,X,/ s .\,/ , \„/ / A ' /\/K, ,././ „, / /\/'*;',': s;< <• \,6, / . \>,/' /\/)>/'>: Y / /\/ .„„/ \./ . / ';4, ox X ,,,,x,/,‘,/,5;.,„/.,/\:, . x , A /\2\ ,/\ \•,./•,/\</ • / \/' 'y . , ', . \ .\?\,/ \,/ „,\K . ;,,,T ,./N N< „ l\ „, \,,.,\s„.,/ \?' \/ .* \ 'X' ' \‘,./\ ,./Vc/ / ›,,> <\,/'x'XXX , '.* , / / / ' y' ,,,,e iNe X s< ,t/, ' '•\<<\./ / ... ' /' `);',/V \/\/>' .,., ><• X, ,%'s 7(X\/ v›<\/\ , ,; ,/2Y\' ,-, ,,\,X ,X •s</ \'/"‹ , /\ >,'\/?(X/X\7( / ,/ • f '.,. , . !, ' '.\ i//\< / \y- \/ `./ v •„; > • /\ '•;, >\.j�; /\, .. \: \,! i\� \/'� \( ‹ �s ° - - e- ��I-i' --- iliallliN_ 'aL` " - Temporary Impact 5'SQ \ • \ \\\ \ \ a:,.�w. Sv / 1,34 Square Feet \ \ ` \\\., Beaverton-Tualatin I^ Ferrnonent lmaact , F\\ \\ \\\\ \ Hwy �r141 (Noll Rlvd) l 31 Square Feet \' \-\\\ V 5.30 \\\ \ \\\\\\, \\. \\.v'' Temporary Impact \'`\ \ \\\,`�\, Permanent Impact Limits of Grading --\ 362 Square Feet I. �`\\��•\ _ 354 Square Feet U /...._;:____",.._-„,--i---,---_--,______, , ,,y -.......•�.... 1 _A. ......... 1 .'��� - -._ _..__ _ _ —__ — - --_- .. ___ x/\ '* \r/17`r< ' • ' • : ... ' ' / ;k �; Vegetat�rrrdor\ ! /:>/ ` ` .sr \1 I /-Sr s��/--sr tr s!-sF - sr- ^SF --sv.=-sr� / // .� / , . .\7\„7, ii ,;„.,,, :Aix\ \ „>< y.„,.. >>'-/11,K / ..., ,./ \ 4.../ i 0 \/ / •' / / f",., ,7 / / .." '/ / ,� Templ�rory Impact 4 ,'` \ �\/ .�\/r W fond . / \ (>) \----Z:1 / / ! ,i �ege oted�orrrdor \ / / e• I / / 111 Square Feet u � • � %j,' • P. /.\ .", /.\7Y/\//)Y\/ '' C' :(7114\.>77;\ .V / \A". ' 7 ( X?‹')c,) 1 /' , T 6 pJ iy N. CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION UNION AND Beaverton-Tualatin ualatin r Iwy FIGURE iw Totals TRANSPORTATION DIVISION c vo Permanent Impacts: 385 5' !•t ^IJ')3 sw g.;aw n_ .i q �nw.o.o.ccow 9):73 (Hall Blvd) Crosswalk Temporary Impacts.. 607 S' Ft NXCB SOJ-6J9-.Ili P Y P 4 {rnr 30J-671-0337 FILE NO r � h.»wne+.°-anGov CWS Vegetated Corridor Imparts 06 52 • i t j‘ 4 . .. . _ .. .., • ve 4 • , • „ak,• s.. . N I/ • ,,, .) ,ta,.., . I • . ' , - • .4......• N ., .111 - Ps VW '• . CO • 31' ••, , 's"...- .1"' li ' . •' ''' • .- ' k - . - 4? li•e.I "1.„ . *l,' , ' t fl'.,•t 1, ,. d. ••"•1 -;- •1.-4.. ! j : a - i I'. -(,'`I'""•,„J„/P '4. , . . ... J -IN,- • . 7 . . ,• • lit • i . 'e ' 4.; ... _.......i. , . , . • . .4 i 4 ''s 1 • ', i . go,1 ,f'''• 4 r.,. . • I. „:"'4.• _. .*Zit".... ..at a i• IIII g th• , • __....,4,11.... • ...........,4,;•.711.77, ., 1' e t '+....., • a ' - . .‹- '.—)- '4' "" ' ■ 4 \. •. s.... •'' t ".• , . . , . t...-0, l..A r AN . ,o'ars. / ., . I . / 44, -,.. . A• ' $ . ._ , .00"t.% ,:;''' • ' .., (..6 -a . ' 46.1 .: ,,, k ,. Nifie P' ` „ . . • ,.... C-3/- i • -4 -7%44\4 •., 4, -, .,- .•.5. ,.,,c, ,- • - : .", I ir; t 0 ' ' 6. , ‘.1 1-''•..••"' •• ' . . ' r 1 •9"4'. 4 •• '1 • i`41••••• s'" ' 4 ';'''''. • \' '‘''''''''' • . s ,• • . '".• ' . . ' J•74‘...,'.r'',. , ..' i . 4.'.' :4•6,••._ A ...1., 9 ''■N".. . ' I ,"7 . '‘'''''''' ''''5,;:■4' 1 4.0 11410 4, ' ', .of • !' , 1 .• "....... ' f . .‘. • ' ' • 1 A . .44 . ... , i . . • , . .'..". * cl , . . i 'go qr l'i'.:. :4 ' Atlt\ Al' :r• r',-/.. t- 01 s °' ,'r- . . , • • • • 1 ' • at. 4i'pei • 1 s ,a, 'haN.`‘. i 7'* • . .... a ',4troft 1 , ---J -: !!''' I ` ' . ' . 4'. t• . , . ..-4.... •flTri .... --..$ . ". • I \ , • 41' -t- • ). ' . -,.• ■ 1.°1,.., •, . • •00 „si .4 .N. '' ' •• a*• . I " 1'L eilii 14 - A ill1'• ii l ., ' liz.. 7 'e . , . , ;• . -A((...e-fiAllfrilP "All ' ••••0 i ".•ti •‘,.op t:-.1frili•:••gt . ,48a , p n 'y. ..., , -- w • -, ,- : •-.., - "! .. it ''- ' • ',. 4 ' . 111 di . •. . 4. .,11'il .• • I 1'...'• /. 7...AO;`9 '. '. ' • ' • .4 •; ' .4.,14. • , % •...... 7 4... • It m. ma p Ng. ''1 '! ' . r , V.:,. ' . P)i,.. t .-, ' .1.e .'":4,' ?1 4'' , . w ;4 1 4 .-• 0 4 t • " .1 '.• i• • ;',. ) . •41,- r€,•4 ., $4 . - .At . • ; . t. .,,) • 7 . . _,,, ,,, ,. , ..,„ , . . . _ .,, . •• , .4.0.,I : .., .7.• . r , 1 ;.i. ..,1 \ ,...,,, tor; .„,,, ,• 7.IN.4 r ‘ r ' t'• • rev 4 ,. .rsrAlt - _ - 1:.• 1 ' '+' ,,,•„ , • I ' -' ,4.' ' ' - °$ ' . 1 %.. , •i ■ 1/4. . '',i 144!t, ,,,, , ". : 3 _ • ..qkn6la- ‘•.s,.. i .4' ..1. t . ....114.1 --„7" _ ..r...:,• , .__Ts„lit '1, .. 41 'Alt . ,.. ...... , ....... r., . ,,..,. ._. f'f , , -....%6 'It ',$ i' • Ii• . ..,, . IL : r• 1... 4 4 1i7 . • .1 1 . Itihk... .. ••• • 1.• .....1 " i , • , -...- --,,, Ala. ,... .4 ..-: . . 4, 1 . ...,.. • -..... •-.4c_... . ) , -, L f';'14, r --I -• '•*... - - ' ' ' it r' ... tri. - I.- .-4-4 . • . ,,....-• r r.r 7' ,a, , ir. ' -..... . I i •••■-g 1' - '-,- ' I' - %••; . .11 , .- . irsir...'i,j,::. - :f..N ' ' 1 A.A. lk - . ,, ., . ,,._ , ,.. , . .,... . ,, . . • , .. ... , ... . . ,i,..,: .„. .. . . ,......, ...... . ..... * . •a it. :.,/ . l' " •••• • —4: ri ill t i •fr A N.... ..., •' "4";X • ....- 140 v. ti 1..0- 1. 1 , -- / i lib . .? - . , • ' li -,' — ' i . .,. .... ,, • t '-- V• • " . _ , ..‘-„? t.'t k ,„. . -.soy' : s • 44 • it. . 1, t , ! ....:4.7,-,r..„ - ! 141* ,I.,• ' '*P; '101.4 V A -1 -t. ' .' ''''• - - - t t - 1....•I It. ,. T is '4 • ' ‘''. '..it ' ' ' ..t • . Iv , br, • • , -••• .• ' '1/4 •• V... .-- ? - ....c4, • • ; • ., ,/ - ', P% ...,„ • •,... 11 i Ilt ,..../ ...""' it [ i I . 1 - . ,. is • IP' ....- .. -4#1111111&1111111k\l" _ iiiiftk.L L T ' ' ...", - 50 . Lei .... . -, - , ,fAirs".. • ,- -*weft'"4' / 111 • \ • 0. . ;II'1' • "*1�/i ' 1 • 01 „....,...., )1 • ,i,il -• d•• ..' 04P . t., ),, ,■,t .,.',5;A*i"".... aii(illivrrii"....i.::::'..' 11111. I ier:1111 --- ' __----- , ,� t "� �'. •*rib:el! ,,,,41 ... • ,,, _ -0,24• .....1•� ,. 1.0 ' � ! a . . �i te !}_I, i .r . , 1' t . .....• _ • A , _ ate7. +4 M �� 4itt ' fJ toy p • t. tit( t i ' • . - .. ' - '--- ---7---- '—'-'---:4 -- —7 ' . r: . • - ' '7 C.;, ..: • _ , ---- •: ' ,-. - •a • ' -• `"Iii * .0%," k- ) • — ..,,,....3.- • .- .. - • -- ..*- , , , • - - .....4 1,1, , - -,.. -. . .,. . . , . . ff,-41 . _ - ril-. • -- -.- . --. ., - • .. ...i ,, -, —.---t __. -. . . ,. 1 . • N,,,,- ..-410P-4.1:"*" :• 4.- *c.- •-•OL %,-"., . _, ,. .i, 4* . •'• • ' . '. . 1 •'. ' - . - C-•' „,.,,_ „ ....„,. . ./ ,„.• . • .. _ ,..,..* ; or a - :''''' • •• 1 . - - . _, . „it,. ' . . , . .,. . . 4..14. .1 ft • . 11.4.6,.... , .7 ... :rr.A .'. '• i • ' I.!'S 16* ' ' ' row, • - -- .. 4 , . , /,„ ( • -•b• _. „ • . . •- - 3_ , •• . .Al • ' ''a,: ,z . ..'a IV,- "•;._ .• • . 4.Si- ••-..- • -.:::" _ k.;2.- • 1 ., -- . - . •• 1, ..0. ii- ' .. ' • ■ • ' 'Z •••‘• • 33. . 14 " 1. • • \ ''' • ; . . . 4,„.• a4 • .' • ' . . . •. :4 ••• . a •-.. .. .' . • . •-. . - .. ••••,„i ....i, Z• • . • : ,„,_ •••-. — -. ... V...0 • , st a l :I' - -..4., . ' *it. . . sr..- , A.•• ' •- ,„, .. I ' 'Ai.el,A.... • • • • - . ' . .. 4141.;. • ''' . V' I L'''.'••••-:- '•• 1 . . i ..,! . - ..`.••.. . ' , .tiria.0 . aii"ri • , :-....lois. ,.. .,...., •..4..i N'alfir • .` *le ,• ,1-., -..:. ,- 'It.• r.' . lir 1 , :"i'n—"•-. -.W"w ...i ..4•, . 1 ,., ..' .• _, „,•. --I -- - ,- • . , • -t C.;-•-• . l_I-i i ii! ....... - .4‘,.. % .. II • t..:04111P- . • . .• . ..pir • • . •''' • i ' e 1 —1111011111111111r' • , inAl 2kipsitir.- . - • . ., AM, • - - . - - :. 1.• 1 #1161.1411111r. to • ... .___._ , _ • . ,4. . . a * • • v • . v - . • ... _ f.-- 41* • 1 • r---- • . . . . . ,.. • , :,....0„...4 virt,frelPt - - . .. , . • t.. ...% ,,... . , .,• „A,I,4• ..-• iv 47.4 c....Fil,,,i -.. t , • 041 • •ty, -rak' 30 Itellitii;:-. _ , . :P It' 44 1W or -•IAlimy A... . - ,,,.,■ -ob.. .;._ ...,. ...- . :•-..r -. -,,,„,71&z:44.• ' , • rii. •.- •1, virlogirew.p.4,._ . ,-.44„...74-7;•• ,ii. .....,..., ,A; it .-. . ,•;.'”iii fr- :''- •v.,•11. ••• - - " - •Nbw,,,,,i .e.' `r *4' ,'..ity.1 irs'''' II •,*. .. ._ t..- •• . , -. . .1"1101`,1. to.- , '.•, h.i9 4 •--,• •- .., I -f.. .. 48,■•• :. t*''. 7:"--ZP' . ...-t• i leglels. la r. . . I u• -4.,-. •- ... ''''- .2.4.'"ft, , _ . ,•F'. '' - ' . -, 1.4. • .-- NiAl-re.r.-4.-.. - -,_ .. 1 : 3. - - . .. -: 56 :- ,` :•0f.% ■,.. • % 1.-''' N. . . -,4„ -A--4,•,. ._:.,.,,,• • • — 2. • . .. ...:.„. . . 4.., .. , ,. • .4 • . ...,• • • ...„, . .-,b .... . . , 'la • ' A - -. - . . • 0:- -'$.1'..- $1, ' ,'" -`.t - ' ..--.- .- :.` -. - • -. ..4.2r• '. • - . ..--. ' ' ',. . --- t - • ' - . , ' V . . -i,1- - —sr4 'a • -• a! `.*:'. ,,' " ' . I • (t--'.--T- , ,. ... , - . IA. • , . t- 0.•i:::, ,;• f' 4, . .,,, ..... . .• • ....., .. .. ., .. . .... , . .1, t'• • •.: 1 ••■•I '. .re '.. . • •41 , !.4. i , . . • •...._ .. i a. - _ ,,-• ••-. : , ' r .. • -,....: . .." .4,,,,, .. - ••• .21* F- , , , - lk 1 1 • . ' ..lf ,1•411, 4 , -. . ), l; „:4 .. - It. r 4r. N. ■ ' - h - - "*' . _ `. . 4 ... ,,, $ .. . ... .". . . . , 1, .... ... .,, is ' . • „ ..„, . • ...;...I...4.- ' ... A ....•• .. 1,,. • 4 , .,••• l ,. . A . ). , ..• ..ed . ,,,, . i; . - ' , ' 7"c"-.."."...• .•:.-----:-..: *,/IN • .. . • a ". e ..,••- ,.., , .,.. •"''' ' • .its • ' - i. • IA .„ ••. -,..e.• • - ,,,,i : . ,... --,... , . . .... , titoror... , 1, 477,..,.10. ,11,,..1 b• ,T* / 0 , ,..of • . r. ,S, ,i,di, , •••1-...I) ‘..cii'r -""‘"i-r—f—'^°• -''' ' • ' 'r .- . . . . , , • ,. . -f• 764eiz•-.--., ‘ - ..~,. ,.. . 1.. , . - , 114.1, N: , . . . • ' 1,,, ty _--. ,,,. :, _ ...- , 'dr ,..• ' r'trt lo . - '- t. 4r , I'va:. ..... .411 .'• . . V.c........' .' • ... . ...e- , . • • .. * - '. -*It•-..".* ''.••'L ',.,** - - 744. .r. ‘'' ,-i' 4 • .... , _ , • ....,... . ......4....i..,pt........v... .._.. 0,.. .4.,.:.:44 „ . ,,,.... .., ie. .. ..... .2.1.,,... ., .....,.. ..... .,, ,.... ,.. . "b7'.,„...,• ,*;,,rer •,„.. .... ' . ••••••.•' .c.rti.-....-;`, • - •''''',- . . .,,,,,.. - ••• • 4 At".... *r' . ' - . fr• ' • .0..4.4i. r ...... .- , :%sok •,4 Aictler......., „IMP? *It-le • • it..4 • ',... ; . . , 1 4.- „ •• .1 ;4,014 0 ,.. . .. 1 •-10""'n :ft.:. *' ‘"1."** ' 1 , -,'4. %s:-** /fr, ., '4; , ,..: 5..."• . . , ••.,, • * .` ... 'aPO •. ./0";), tirti AO.1,=', ,- ?0,"" - , .* ,libc, ... !../.1■.. • Art. .....I. ,-,. ,:.-, , . ' - -, . A , ', • 4,*., A,,i. ,,,.. .,. go. ','10,,,, „IL At.. ON :.•2114, ,110' '"' - ir--,,...it k•,-ice,41.4,gor•411 , ,, „‘„ • ....'',,.•, , • ' ' •• ' 1 - 41rt '' • •I** 4 ' - '. .' ;AI., '4,, • ,., .. .0", %. ' .4.4%.. ' .: . -",,....,,,,, - - .. ''.- * Vict''.4, ' , , "","-rritokert-diar: ... .., t , $ . , ■"1...,,,,,4 ',.,: 41 .iviwat,„0. . •••• i '1,•il'• . ,, . , 40 .•''' ..$1,11 1 1.•1 ...;.')" ty ot• '• . 4,,, .s . . i.' t • . . i• ..t..1.:.•fr et" I. , * .‘,.„, •; .. I, ';•4.. ',/ .44. lo=e. -4• - '‘''' .- . ., ',014.. .-,4`..r.. ,•,al • , , -. 4. _ , .. . • ' . 1 Ain..a: 4' . . ,- ' '• .''41 ......... tit. .., . 7 .N4 I 1..' 0„.. ,...,-.'."...• .„ . ,, 0 !, , , . ,• .-111' - .• ,■ .- ,,,,,f:.• A.,_nigm,..,,,.: yr-.•-"...- , .,-. -. .•dt i.. -..., ,.., • , •, • . l':- - O. ......Jr New maw '., , d.:.. "c *, .. s. .. ..,.4 • ., .. - ,.....- ..,-,:- .' - 40 , .. . 4 , r. • - --- .' lot...--. ..-'At-...-tts_..1. +.1 " ' ..'-'' .'i:,.ki,..-107•*. . e , . 1 /%. ' , i "t ' 'a• } t, , e .1...i. ...tilmor. - '„. . , - E" 'it:* ibt• MOP• i 1. r t' ; 4 i ' ■ 'tA• ' •4.,I ' .1. #1• • tiliAl 1161116C•h" Ili i '•*.* ' . ‘.0. 1 ' d.,_ • IC'0.14 ''-'' #ph , 4,.., 64. • •' A ••■L , ' ... - '- P "".•. . . ' 0 lir di': .,• II. ,I. ,,, ' :-. fr iltr• '. , i t . . - . . ••••- „ 4,. • 'I l'. ts fr. '' 4. * - • of • % '... - s L.. • . . , , . „....fr•. . . . ., . -• ,.. • • • '41 .. - .._ .. , ,, 4 .,.............. • •••"7,....■••••■•• •'• 4. • t'''. 'ti. ' '. ... 110.• . -' a:-• ., ' It ' ' ;s 'Ie.'. .- *- ' - I .* •••,' ... .. ... . . , ---• - -.,-.4r1.114:, .-,- . .16 , illrart- . ''. ' 4."1"-^-',e,..• •••8.4,,..-e. :11r.. •■ % 410 41.40.. ' ■ , . . , • - •••■•••-,#-----all" ""r*..." "'"_1'.•r'' ' • . "".10!.,i,s.0',.,' ' . ••if..' Ili :ILE abr.1 .. I . t..., ..... ,- • . * I t k joir.,..- • ..0. •,...i......"--. :1.4•• . _ -4, ......... • 4 It- • ■fr •.A lfr ' : at"^ilfr t .• s Ito frifr „ .....•r....4 ..trii • • - ' I , -•-er - * !kb, IP . i , ......... f.....,.•. . . -.. . .....- ..... . . . , ....- ... . _ .- . . , 4.441' t''Nt , .... it" ho t- . ._ • .-,. t * •6/. .414 , , .- • . .• .. itib II.. ...410 ..• . "4. A . . v. ,- •.,-. • - -*,..:-......41. .'..' 141 t X . r , 4 4. - . ...• i - . • .. , .• .... ., P.li, - I% %• • .." • . t . • , • IA! -Jr-''' ' .,. . .. 1 , 'ti t ih .Itikiit 1/4 . 9 ; . .4,4 t‘; ' .. . • ..:I. . , . . • 46 11: ' .,. .. . .. • ...,__ Ail , i ..., .k.' .• - v...ka s •. , • ‘ .14.. - s'..1 • r • • li- ,, • 41, .. '"1.,-. -...\..:-..., ... . , •s i • •_- -• t. - gt• -,• . a 7 . , . —'. Pile‘iih! if i. • ••11 ..A. ik. j,i,,, w,v...• Lis,. .0",•• „ • .. „ . • .1....-. . .P.. % 7•1 .:. • II ,,r t„, , • • . • se. • - i-. . - - . -1...--, ,,,-.40 . .• I. AV--- - -It••4 it ' ' - 4•0‘. allih'-116\ •--..;4" (V 1 • IL :■V • ' . . - - .. .... • -4- ... . . illIPP, Irk 4 r % - 4.. .... • i .,.? . le• * '-----■ .. 1,4. . ei r , AI • :'. ....4711).e:'.414-.:1;$0.' ". .I.. 41",..,..\.'. ,, '..'.',.:',. '-'4',....21'. '..:.-, ' .....7...: r ....:.- . '. ".i."''N.- t7 Li I ) 00z,„901::li 1; 11,4 . i , , )2.2 icy,).-.4t. I 1 Y i • t ��d '`• T. .\ L �' t 1. �. T � .1 „. i ryf r Illi • j•'.1.. 'N‘ ■k * *k II.. i .. ” i -, .• .4,1 •.%• 1-,"„4■^' ■ar \ ... I, , ,...\ i 1 't.s, '�`;\t ••r ' ,. r'y' • .i ter.l+n.l • f i *0. ' 4' oi'�4 1� 4. "1 r P • ti4 4 k ..."""J D yr, _ , rl..'0'.w+ • '� --° fit '1/4 ' .:;...Z":441.... . . ... . .. - ' • ..�. .. +.�,ter^ 11fi+1� iikii- ...1 ....,- r . . ,. 4,,.. . , 9� '.It' -�r i•• tom. �' '' • x , • •• N d • Wit. t �' vL �.{^w •li . ••• ♦ to S f +4 ,4 ' ■ '� 1 •,�. ATTACHMENT 3 Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue March 8, 2010 Cheryl Gaines, Associate Planner City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Wall Street Extension (Fields) (CPA) 2009-00004 Dear Cheryl, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) DEAD END ROADS: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround. (IFC 503.2.5) 2) ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS—COMMERCIAL: Where buildings exceed 30 feet in height or three stories in height shall have at least two separate means of fire apparatus access. Buildings or facilities having a gross area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provided with at least two separate means of fire apparatus access. Buildings up to 124,000 square feet provided with fire sprinklers may have a single access. (IFC D104) 3) ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS—ONE-OR TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: Where there are more than 30 one-or two-family dwelling units, not less than two separate approved means of access shall be provided. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units and all are protected by approved residential sprinkler systems, a single access will be allowed. (IFC D107) 4) ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS—MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: Where there are more than 100 multiple-family dwelling units, not less than two separate approved means of access shall be provided. Projects up to 200 dwelling units that are protected by approved residential sprinkler systems may have a single access. Projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall have two separate approved means of access regardless of whether they are equipped with fire sprinkler systems. (IFC D106) 5) REMOTENESS: Where two access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. (IFC D104.3) 6) BRIDGES: Where a bridge or an elevated surface is part of a fire apparatus access road,the bridge shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges: Bridges and elevated surfaces shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus.Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges when required by the fire code official. Where elevated surfaces designed for emergency vehicle use are adjacent to surfaces which are not designed for such use, approved barriers, approved signs or both shall be installed and maintained when required by the fire code official. (IFC 503.2.6) North Division Office 14480 SW Jenkins Road,Beaverton,OR 97005 Phone: 503-356-4700 Fax: 503-644-2214 www.tvfr.com • Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue While we understand the applicants' intent with this proposal,we would be remiss if we did not include the above-noted Fire Code requirements.The fire district will not endorse the issuance of any site development permits unless fire code requirements for secondary access roadways are met. We trust this letter will be helpful with the final design of this proposal insofar as fire apparatus access is concerned. If there is anything about this letter you do not understand, disagree with, or wish to discuss further, please call me. Sincerely, Pim JC. Datfui John K. Dalby, Deputy Fire Marshal II Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, North Division 14480 SW Jenkins Road Beaverton, OR 97005-1152 (503) 356-4723 North Division Office 14480 SW Jenkins Road,Beaverton,OR 97005 Phone: 503-356-4700 Fax: 503-644-2214 www.tvfr.com ATTACHMENT 4 '��tx >i regon f�r�: regon Department of Fish and Wildlife Yhflf,i �S 'ti `' Sauvie Island Wildlife Area ' Theodore R.Kulpogpsiti,Governor North Willamette Wildlife District 18330 NW Sauvie Island Road Portland,OR 97231 503-621-3488 FAX 503-621-3025 RECEIVED PLANNING .OREGON' fir/4 MAR 19 2010 FIsild Date: March 12, 2010 CITY OF TIGARD To: Cheryl Caines City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Request for Comments CPA 2009-00004/SLR 2009-00004 and 00005/VAR 2010-00002/TRE 2010-000002 Dear Ms. Caines: This correspondence is in response to the request for comments received by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW)from the City of Tigard Planning Division on March 1st, 2010.The applicant would like to remove Goal 5 protection from the area surrounding Fanno Creek and is undergoing a Sensitive Lands Review in order to work within the 100-year floodplain. Overall, ODFW is very concerned about the fish and wildlife species and habitat resource values present in this area that would be negatively impacted if protections were removed and work was allowed to occur. ODFW agrees with the City of Tigard's initial assessment in(include date)that the area in question is a significant natural resource. ODFW does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan amendment is consistent with Goal 5 and its administrative rule. For these reasons,ODFW does not support removal of Goal 5 protection from this area. ODFW reviewed the submitted documents and several matters of concern were illuminated. They are bulleted below and addressed in more detail within the following paragraphs. • The Alternatives Analysis (Section K),Part 4 and 5 is incomplete.Part 4 does not address species and habitats of special conservation concern(e.g., State Sensitive Species,wetland habitat, etc.) that are present within the project site. Nor does it address the long-term impacts to fish and wildlife from the chosen alternative. Therefore,Part 5,Ecological Impacts of Alternatives, is not accurate and does not adequately describe ecological impacts from the chosen alternative. • The Economic, Social, Environment, and Energy(ESEE)Analysis that was completed as part of the process to request a removal of Goal 5 protection from the area is also incomplete. The analysis does not address impacts to a wide variety of wildlife including, but not limited to, state classified and federally listed species and long-term impacts to species and habitat.Therefore, the ESEE Analysis is not accurate and does not adequately describe impacts to the environment. • The applicant did not demonstrate that the amendment to remove Goal 5 protection is consistent with Goal 5 pursuant to and including OAR 660-023, 1 • The proposal does not include other existing alternatives that would meet transportation safety and property access objectives and likely remove the need for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as well as remove impact to the area. ODFW recommends analyzing the impacts to natural resources after the following information has been considered and included in the analysis for the public's record of information. ODFW has documented this reach of Fanno Creek as critical for a number of wildlife and fish species, including those of special conservation concern. At present, ODFW has documented a breeding population of the western(Northern Pacific)pond turtle in this reach of Fanno reach. The western pond turtle is a federal Species of Concern in Washington County, a State Sensitive-Critical species,and a Strategy Species within the Willamette Valley Ecoregion as per the Oregon Conservation Strategy(OCS) (ODFW 2006). This breeding population , in fact, is the last known location for a breeding population of western pond turtles, not only in the Fanno Creek basin, but within the entire Metro Urban Growth Boundary.Additionally, ODFW has documented a breeding population of northern red-legged frogs, Federal Species of Concern, State Sensitive-Vulnerable species and OCS Strategy species, in this reach of Fanno Creek. ODFW recommends the City of Tigard continue to recognize this reach of Fanno Creek as Significant Wildlife Habitat under the safe harbor provision stated in OAR 660-023-0110 (4)a. This section states that local governments may apply safe harbor criteria where the habitat has been documented to perform a Iife support function for a wildlife species listed by the state of Oregon as sensitive. Additionally,the Department of State Lands has designated Fanno Creek as Essential Salmonid Habitat(ESH). ODFW has documented this reach of Fanno Creek as rearing habitat for Cohn salmon and spawning habitat for steelhead(Lower Willamette River ESU,winter run), a state-classified vulnerable sensitive species, federally listed threatened species, and OCS Strategy species. ODFW expects that there are several other species of special conservation concern that use habitats within the area of interest for at least part of their life cycle including,but not limited to,the little willow flycatcher, slender-billed nuthatch, and California myotis (bat). It is important to note that OAR 635-044-0130 protects state classified sensitive species. The impacts to the significant wetland, riparian, and wildlife habitat found within the area would be substantial, in the long-term, as well as the short-term. Short-term impacts from actual bridge construction are not the only impacts,nor the largest. Long term impacts to fish and wildlife from increased, noise, traffic, associated pollution,the physical bridge, and future development include: o A reduction in migratory bird use and nesting waterfowl from noise, increased use, and physical presence of the bridge covering the East Pond. o Increase in non-native plant and animal species due to more soil disturbance and increased accidental introduction. o Increased encroachment and development threat to deciduous/conifer forest and the largest oak-camas prairie habitat(an OCS Strategy Habitat) left within Portland's Urban Growth Boundary. o A reduction in stream health and function and impact to fish habitat from increased run-off, less tree cover, and increased garbage. ODFW works hard to maintain and increase populations of native and identified sensitive species. As such,the removal of Goal 5 protection from this reach is undesirable given its significance and does not support ODFW's future desired conditions for the occurring species or potentially occurring species. ODFW recommends that Goal 5 protection not be removed from the designated significant resources at Fanno Creek. The request for a Plan Amendment to remove Goal 5 protection from this area is not consistent with ODFW's management guidelines,the Oregon Conservation Strategy Actions,the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Goal 5.1, or Metro's Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan. The Metro Council has designated this area as a Class 1 riparian(highest value)and a High Habitat Conservation Area. 2 ODFW recommends conserving this area as a fish and wildlife movement corridor and linkage to adjacent suitable habitats.Habitat fragmentation is a limiting factor(i.e.,threat)to habitats and associated species within the Willamette Valley Ecoregion and the OCS provides guidance through Actions 4.2 and 4.3. Fanno Creek is a clear corridor among an otherwise highly urbanized area. ODFW recommends analyzing other alternatives to meet transportation safety objectives for Hall Boulevard and property access to the area on the east side of Fanno Creek that do not impact significant aquatic and terrestrial habitats, State Sensitive Species,and/or OCS Strategy Habitats and Species. ODFW commented on the DSL permit application(#31719RF)for work related to this project. In the comments, dated April 9, 2004, it is stated that an alternative that widens Hall Boulevard to handle transportation issues was discussed during a pre-application meeting. ODFW supports considering alternatives including the widening of Hall Boulevard that do not impact this reach. ODFW supports exploring other uses for this property with the landowner. Given the complex history of the property, reduced access options,high-value natural resources present, and high social benefits gained from this particular area, ODFW encourages the City of Tigard to work with the landowner and the Metro Council to consider a conservation easement or outright purchase of the property to benefit the Fanno Creek Linkages Project and safeguard this area for future generations and wildlife. In summary, ODFW highly supports revision of the ESEE analysis of this designated significant natural resource and important and rare habitat and to make the information available to the public. Since the removal of a Goal 5 protection for this area is not consistent with ODFW management guidelines or the Oregon Conservation Strategy and the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment is consistent with Goal 5 and its administrative rule, ODFW does not support removing Goal 5 protection. However, ODFW does support looking for alternatives that do not impact the significant wetland, riparian, and wildlife habitat in and around Fanno Creek to satisfy transportation safety and access issues including the possible acquisition of the property or conservation easement. Please address any questions you may have regarding these comments to Elizabeth Ruther at 503.621- 3488 x228. Sincerely, r" . Elizabeth J. Ruther District Habitat Biologist North Willamette Watershed District Cc: Patty Snow, ODFW Tom Murtagh, ODFW Susan Barnes, ODFW 3 ATTACHMENT 5 Department of Land Conservation Sr Development i, tuA,..?:7_ ,:'• z IIIIIregon� Portland,OR 97232•John A.Kilzhaber,M.D.,Governor (503)731-4065 FAX(503)731-4068 April 6,2010 Cheryl Caines Tigard Planning Department. , 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ! Tigard, OR 97223 • Subject: Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment(PAPA)to amend Goal 5 program for wetland protection. Local file number DCA 2010-0001 (DLCD file#002-10) Dear Ms. Caines, The Department of Land Conservation and Development appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed amendment to the city's Goal 5 program for protecting locally significant wetlands.Based on a review of the material submitted in the notice for this action and a.conversation we had in March I have the following comments: • This proposal is to allow a road to be built through a site along Fanno Creek that has been recognized as locally significant due to the riparian,wildlife habitat and wetland characteristics of the site. Statewide land use Goal 5, Oregon Administrative Rule 660-23-0090, 660-23-0100,660- 23-0110,and Metro's Title 13 all have bearing on the proposed amendment to the city's program to protect this area for the natural resource functions it provides. State and federal rules for permitting fill of a jurisdictional wetland also apply,but these permits are administered by . Oregon Department of State Lands and the US Army Corps of Engineers,so are not the subject of this letter.My intent is to explain the interface between ORS 660-23 and Metro's Title 13 so that the procedural requirements for amending your local Goal 5 protection program are clearer. As a regional government Metro has the ability to identify land use planning issues of regional significance and to adopt regional rules to comply with state Iand use laws for addressing such issues.Water quality,riparian protection and wildlife habitat protection have been identified as issues of regional concern by Metro.In 2007 Metro's Title 13 was acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission for compliance with Goal 5 for riparian areas and Wildlife habitat. In other words, if a jurisdiction meets the inventory and protection criteria set by Metro,and implements their local program in compliance with Title 13,they are also in compliance with the Goal 5 and the OAR 660-23 for riparian areas (660-23-0090) and wildlife habitat(660-23-00110).In an email I received,on March 11, 2010 Tim O'Brien,Metro Planner, explained that the city's process for evaluating the proposed changes to it's Title 13 program met • Metro's requirements and that Metro did not plan to comment. 1 r► i Cheryl Caines Tigard Planning Department April 6,2010. —page two of two Title 13 however was not intended to meet Goal 5 for wetlands,for this reason OAR 660-23-0100 applies directly to amendments to the city's program for protection of locally significant wetlands.To meet the requirements of OAR 660-23-0010 the applicant has correctly provided an analysis of the environmental,economic, social and energy consequences of a decision to allow, limit or not allow uses that conflict with the wetland resource. [Appendix R of the Meackenzie Group Report]Although the description of the Goal 5 ESEE process at the beginning of the analyses talks about significant fish and wildlife habitat,the information provided in the analysis speaks more generally of the wetland resource as a whole. Is seems reasonable to conclude that this ESEE was submitted to address the Goal 5 considerations for proposed changes to the wetland protection measures for the site. I recognize that this parsing of the subject area into riparian,wetland and wildlife habitat is a bit artificial because all of these attributes exist in one place.Unfortunately our construct of local, regional,and state efforts to protect theses resources do not come together as seamlessly as nature. I hope this letter helps the city with navigating the overlapping review requirements. I am available to answer further questions that arise,as is our DLCD Metro Area Field Representative, Jennifer Donnelly.I can be reached by phone at 971-673-0961 or e-mail at amanda.punton @state.or.us. Sincerely, Amanda Punton Natural Resource Specialist cc: DLCD staff-Rob Hallyburton,Jennifer Donnelly,File • - .7 , , likbla#1,edrzinisrimm; / -.N. t1)1\\It\ ‘11-114 , .,.. , :ktT ::fotiew , rA7 ..., .• 4 ) . .1 1 '•' ,1 '•x\ A, V:, 4 N ri..r 4 AO*'d ..: \\.1 s....**'' ' * •,/ ' . . •' V r.- i '—'' _*.St '„\4'‘ 4.•--..%. . \:- P„.44,0 0-i. 0-.•I11, \ 1 lkinAn.t , , tool "•. . "..../\IIII' it ' 11014/W, a .Lf ill C:_19 • * ,. .., . . Li&Javadia,,:41.,a, 1'1 444 , . :. • 41,4rabh. At till. I itil L:411714. "AWN: ..'11t 1.. . .•-' . . \ , r .••••.:\ \ , lio , ,./- . •. 1 , -'•,,'.• .e- - 1 , ,, N' - , 1 . • I ••• ol ' . r 4 "."- .4.1....:..._.-11 ' '4116' x'4■• • 4 IN-: ' % . 441 I otAis s4;'... )14k 1* - '' • N," N Is 1 - ...... ....,/ Irlotitipiki, . •• ilkt.''' • - \• t re;4.- pfniiiiiii"Wirii.U1 t „,...!.,11.11114 11141pro7lri—.7.---1___ , \ ‘ , 11iiLIE '' ail 4-w7v7-7, . 16 ,.... ,- *-if'7*------'- , lalill! . 1 a ..J.T” , -..-17T-!--'''' • 7 ..................'W-•.....'"AL: ';T., • 46'' — I , ^% lir •44/411- -- i 1 rill CI ..Nil .1g; .,, .:, 140...... .,-..... , • -• • .y h Ilk ' . . . r•-,..--.....„..,, I,. :•*,). „?_..4.,....t, , \ 2:.---- 4+ 002 TSP Connection IL • t . ... .. ito 1 t T - - ,.. •vb i lull- .,. . . \ . ... , Affected Property 1.1 ilh Property Boundary -,..., a .. • Stream ... •:- Fields,Prope 4 . .J. ;,--- , - , , -...- 'Y „ _ ,,,,. Wetland ft. INN. 1 1134. . : - r-- . - ,,,„.0,. _. . ..,;.•...., 4:: ,,,,, _ CWS Vegetated Corridor 1';..**.lett i , .- -0*,•st,/;•'',...,...., - „ — \ . ,--f > ILPir ' . 100-yr Floodplain 4.•16—) 4......41. • '? s '14. A Illtli:13j::::' . 1. - 1„ftr mlir"si 1 • . • 'NI. '\ • --'. j''' .. . ,,,,,..... ...,_. „ . . .. ,, _ .. ,..v . 1104114. L•.-ir *, •• Pilli-7---Frosa-m, a i .4. • ;_- "gliillmilirt•.7r717...... ."::.;....a - -I—, li- --,:• 's --— -".1 r.1 •r • ,....._,, • , • • ' •r L ....6, 116241471 ,:".rini:,;;,;•.°" .'-o_ t7,..'- . - .1..0 ,. • .sliik.,*iSa \ - - 75,-,--,, 1. I VICINITY MAP . _ CPA2009-00004 ( SLR2009-00004 111- 1 \ i i 2 = sLR2009-0000 µ -. ` VAR2010-00002 -F" ` v- ' WALL STREET EXTENSION R _ (FIELDS} 0';'•f „ ..--.17-_:" ..1.-g",,,, g4figfigfiftm. I'i RiSit2`.-A' II rj.kams ,,..:::1...T2lai.:2,;r:_:„.5,._,,, T :,7:_77:::::4.,...1i. :im ii,:i1.7_14...„. gm- .. ,,..„,,,,:„.,,,,...:,..„:„... ,.. ,...... ,..;,,,,t:,_ . .19F:,:,...,;::„.1,....:, , ......„,„...„......„....„,,,,,,,.::_:,..,....,„:, s.„,.. , 411112312 2111L ic,T.C=.rio.. .:-4,,..z..--Jg i,, \ Ili � � r� 11111 o .. � L Subject Site ` rte- 111111111111 IN ; = .. 1 11111111 MI. IIMIllellr!rill Mira z i 0 - _ �, . =''. . .., iiiiiii,,,,iiiiiiii \ , , ,I. — • / ...,. ................a........,,_ ...„, i_k_iigi. p....-.„...... ,...-........*:„,„:„,„:::::,,,..„,,,„,„,.:_.:.„..„,...,.,,,,„,,,,„,,.....„ �` ��� ' r -. r'>:, Information on this map is for general location gall lirim ilia fir= ����� iturati. �� _ { only and should be verified With the Development II r � � A Services Division. '=. I�� 1111 _ - ^•µ..AN.? Scale i:13,000-7 In=5s7 n 11�li�� �� ��� ��"- -_���- ,,�s,Fes. ,�-_ Map panted at 09:25 AM on 21-Jul-10• III cI�1� -. '.,. A sXI S_,_ .•::,•;•.fJ•. DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES-711E WY OFIIGARD iii' S: ... li~ a •r:f °2� 7 HAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATON OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE II 51"� It li�t� ��.. ,' ait:. cOM'ENT,ACCURACY.,REFRESSOTION OR GUARANTE ASTO THE ^ := y '°`��^ %^Li -%='�� DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.TIE CITY OF TIGaARD SHALL ASSUME NO �� ll -. 11/�1/1all, R :• fi = _ uA&Lf1Y FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISSIONS.OR INACCURAgE51N THE l��,l ��. �E■ i� + NFORAATgNPRO DEDREGARDLESSOFHAM1CAUSED. ■�0.m��1111m mIIIIIIIR II'� .' 1�1.111i111l Yom' 1,a" < ; �,,r'V"� mill!!! , ., Cltyofngarq 1312 5W Hatl Blvd Feet t -,'w.. B. n J` 'r ' Gila TiE3639.4 rd OR 97223 ■ fl 1646 4" Elfl iWI =ti 1� 171 =imp TIGARD II - ;L www.tigard-0r.gov tll V MACKENZIE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Project Summary 2 II. Project Overview 3 III. Sensitive Lands Review 10 IV. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 33 V. Other Applicable Code Sections 38 Exhibits REQUEST FOR A. Application Form COMPREHENSIVE B. Property Deed PLAN AMENDMENT/ C. Pre-Application Notes SENSITIVE LANDS D. Neighborhood Meeting Materials REVIEW E. 10/30/02 Purchase and Sale Agreement F. 1 /19/06 Grant of Easement To G. Final Order (06-05) City of Tigard H. DSL Permit #31719-RF/Corps #200300137 I. CWS Service Provider Letter #4203 For J. Memorandum of Understanding Fred Fields K. Alternatives Analysis/Hydraulic Analysis L. Wall Street - Phase 2 plans Initial M. Preliminary Stormwater Calculations Submittal N. Stream Restoration and Mitigation Plan October3,2009 (Revised) Completeness O. Floodplain Impact Memorandum Response P. 08-003183 CWS Service Provider Letter January 15,2010 Q. Pacific Habitat Services Enhancement Planting Complete Submittal Letter February 2,2010 R. ESEE Analysis Supplemental Submittal June 14,2010 Project Number 2070334.06 GROUP MACKENZIE PROJECT SUMMARY Applicant: Fred Fields 1149 SW Davenport Avenue Portland, OR 97201 P: 503-228-7084 Applicants Representatives: Group Mackenzie 1515 SE Water Avenue, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97214 Contact: Rhys Konrad P: 503 224-9560 F: 503-228-1285 rk @grpmack.corn Miller Nash LLP 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 111 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-3699 Contact: Phil Grillo P: 503-224-5858 F: 503-224-0155 phil.grillo @millernash.com Proposed Project: Phase 2 Wall Street extension to serve the Fields property. Project Location: 2S1010001200 2S 102DD000100 2S 102DD000200 Zoning: R-12/R-25 Requests: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove locally adopted significant designation from impacted wetlands necessary for the Wall Street extension. Sensitive Lands Review for the impacts to locally significant wetlands and 100-year floodplain. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 2 GROUP MACKENZIE II. PROJECT OVERVIEW This application requests City Council approval for an extension of Wall Street to serve the applicant's property east of the Library. This extension will fill the gap that was created between the current terminus of Wall Street constructed by the City, and serve what is now a land-locked residentially designated parcel of approximately 24.73 acres. This extension will provide access to Mr. Fields' property as contemplated in the 2002 Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Tigard library property. The following package includes narrative, plans, drawings, and other documentation in support of this application. This section of the application summarizes the history related to the Wall Street extension, and provides details of the proposed application. PROJECT BACKGROUND In December 2001, the City of Tigard and Mr. Fields (applicant) entered into an Option Agreement to purchase property owned by Mr. Fields for the purpose of constructing a new City library. Following the execution of this agreement, a purchase and sale agreement was entered into between the two parties in October 2002. Provisions related to an "extension road" were listed throughout these two documents. The "extension road" was generally defined as providing access from Hall Boulevard to other properties owned by Mr. Fields.' In January 2006, the City granted Mr. Fields a permanent non-exclusive easement for the purposes of construction, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and replacement, utilities and a roadway on, over, under and across the property subject to the Purchase and Sale Agreement2. The purpose of this easement was to facilitate the construction of the "extension road" previously included with the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The "extension road" is identified as Wall Street which is shown on the City's TSP as a future collector. On June 8, 2006 the City Council granted approval for Phase 1 of Wall Street that included a 360-foot extension from Hall Boulevard to support the new library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums (Ord 06-05)3. The approval included a comprehensive plan amendment to remove the locally significant designation from impacted wetlands (CPA 2004-00001), sensitive lands approval for impacts to wetlands and drainage ways and the proposed reconfiguration of Pinebrook Creek (SLR 2004-00003 and 2006-0001), and a tree removal permit (TRE 2006-00001 through 00009). Included with this approval by exhibit was a Joint Fill Permit (Exhibit H) from the Department of State Lands ("DSL") and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") (Permit Number 31719-RF) and CWS Service Provider Letter (Exhibit I) for wetland and sensitive area impacts. The approved permits were based on drawings prepared by the City's consultant, DeHaas and Associates Inc, which included the full extension of Wall Street as shown on the City's TSP (ie. Hall to Hunziker). The approved permits related to wetland and buffer impacts 1 See provision 6(d) of the 10/30/02 Purchase and Sale Agreement included as Exhibit E. 2 See provision (1) "grant of easement" per the 1/19/06 Grant of Easement included as Exhibit F. 3 See Exhibit G included as reference only. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 3 GROUP MACKENZIE included the full extension of Wall Street, even though the City's land use approval included only the first 360 feet (Phase 1). Although not included with the City's Phase 1 approval, Phase 2 of the Wall Street extension included a bridge crossing over Fanno Creek and an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks for the ultimate connection with Hunziker Street. An overwhelming reason for the City approving only Phase 1 of the extension was due to difficulties negotiating with the railroad for a crossing over the tracks north of the site. Regardless of difficulties with the railroad crossing, the Phase 2 extension was included on all exhibits and plans, and the permits and approvals from the Corps, DLS, and CWS were issued for both phases. In these permit documents two primary reasons were stated for the Wall Street extension as approved: the first is to comply with the City's TSP designation of Wall Street as a collector, and the second to provide access to the property east of Fanno Creek and west of the railroad (ie. applicant's property. The 2002 Purchase and Sale Agreement contemplated the possibility that the railroad would refuse to allow a crossing. The Agreement states that if the railroad refuses to permit a crossing of the tracks, the City will cooperate with Mr. Fields to establish an alternate roadway access from Hall Boulevard to serve Mr. Fields' adjacent property4. In the spirit of cooperation, and in accordance with the Purchase and Sale Agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding between Mr. Fields, City of Tigard, and the Tigard/Tualatin School District was developed (see Exhibit J). One item of this memorandum was to identify an alternate access point to serve Mr. Fields property by creating a new roadway through the existing School District property. Mr. Fields acted in good faith with all parties to come to an agreement where this roadway extension could be established. Unfortunately, an agreement could not be made and as such this alternative is not viable. Therefore, this request seeks City of Tigard approval for access to Mr. Fields property as originally contemplated with the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and further described by the Grant of Easement by the City. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The City's Phase 1 application included a detailed Alternatives Analysis for the full extension of Wall Street (Exhibit K). This Analysis considered ten different alternative alignments for the full extension of Wall Street from Hall Boulevard to Hunziker Street. A phasing plan was assumed consisting of a first extension to serve the library, and a second phase with a bridge crossing Fanno Creek. The Alternatives Analysis was developed in part to obtain necessary approvals from natural resource regulatory agencies as well as ODOT as Hall Boulevard is under their jurisdiction. As briefly stated above, the necessary approvals related to wetland impacts associated with the full extension (ie. Phase 1 & 2) of Wall Street were obtained. The preferred alternative, Alternative 9, was selected as it avoided and minimized impacts to wetlands and 100-year floodplain to the greatest extent practicable. 4 See provision 6(e) of the Purchase and Sale Agreement included as Exhibit E. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 4 GROUP MACKENZIE The approved City application included plans and associated permits and approvals necessary to construct the full extension of Wall Street, to the applicant's property. These permit documents are included with Exhibit H as reference. A major reason for approving only Phase 1 of the extension was due to difficulties negotiating with the railroad for a crossing over the tracks. The City's phasing plan has created a gap between Mr. Fields' property and the Phase 1 terminus of Wall Street. Since learning of the issues related to the railroad crossing, the applicant has worked closely, and in good faith, with the City of Tigard and Tualatin/Tigard School District in accordance with an adopted non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit J). Tasks associated included investigation into providing the School District with a new bus facility on the applicant's property north of the railroad, as well as a new facility for the City's public works department. In addition, the applicant has exhausted all efforts with abutting property owners to investigate the possibility of providing access to the subject site in an alternative alignment from the extension of Wall Street. As stated above, an agreement could not be reached between the two parties. In addition to the ten alternatives analyzed in the City's Alternatives Analysis, this application includes discussion of two additional access points to serve Mr. Fields' property at the suggestion of the City of Tigard. Option 1 Access: Tigard-Tualatin School District Property Alignment Access to SW Hall Boulevard through the existing School District property was investigated based on the assumption that the school bus facilities would be removed and relocated to the applicant's property north of the railroad tracks. The location of the access would be subject to ODOT requirements, and would most likely need to align opposite the Tigard City Hall driveway. The access could not be located south of the Tigard City Hall driveway because of left-turn conflicts on SW Hall Boulevard. An access located north of the City Hall driveway was investigated, but would not meet ODOT spacing standards. Access was assumed to be either a private driveway or public street. Signal warrants and initial site distance requirements were also reviewed, and would require coordination with ODOT for approval. The most feasible access would align with the City Hall driveway on the north side of SW Hall Boulevard and be directed through the bus yard, curving parallel to the shared property line with the railroad. The roadway length required to access the Fields property is approximately 1,248 feet, and for purposes of this review assumed a local street width of 34 feet inside a 50-foot right-of-way. Review of existing grades indicates the roadway would need to be placed on significant fill adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. As the street turns through the School District property, it would impact City identified significant wetlands (approximately 0.75 acres) and fill material will be necessary to address floodplain impacts (approximately 1.02 acres). The new roadway would bisect the existing School District property, resulting in two industrially designated parcels of 23,011 SF and 42,156 SF. We have assumed a culvert extension of the current railroad crossing of Red Rock H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 5 GROUP MACKENZIE Creek would be necessary, and contractor field information indicates a culvert diameter of 84 inches. Mitigation of both wetland and floodplain impacts would require appropriate permits from DSL/Corps as well as CWS. Option 2 Access: Milton Court Extension Access to the subject site via an extension of SW Milton Court was also investigated. This access could either be a public street extension or a private access in an easement. Metro owns the property immediately abutting the subject site to the south, and has purchased this property to remain as open space. Abutting the Metro parcel between the existing right-of-way is City-owned property. As such, this access would require approval and coordination with Metro/City as it crosses the Metro parcel. Extension as a public street through the Metro and City parcels would be more expansive and require a turnaround on site, which may be avoided if a private extension is approved by the City of Tigard. A cul-de-sac is already provided at the end of SW Milton Court. Access for SW Milton to the major street would be at SW Bonita Road. The intersection of SW Bonita Road with SW Milton Court is stop controlled on Milton Court. A left-turn lane is provided on SW Bonita Road at the intersection. Depending on the level of development on the site, traffic volumes could increase such that traffic signal warrants are met at this location. Additional mitigation could include striping on SW Milton Court to provide separate left- and right-turn lanes at the approach to SW Bonita Road. A connection from the existing SW Milton Court cul-de-sac would serve the Fields site via an approximate 450-foot roadway extension. We have assumed a local street width of 34 feet inside a 50-foot right-of-way. The new roadway would require a creek crossing, and would impact significant habitat areas and require extensive tree removal on Metro's property and the subject site. Due to the zoning on properties fronting on Milton Court, development of the site via this access option may be more appropriate for industrial than residential uses. However, the length of this dead-end roadway under this scenario is significant, and would be difficult for any development type as the primary access. In any event, Mr. Fields does not have permission to construct a road across Metro or the City's property. As is discussed above, these two additional access options are not feasible for primary access for several reasons including but not limited to impacts on a greater amount of sensitive lands, and crossing of properties which are either currently developed, have been purchased for open space, and/or are not under the control of the applicant. As a result, Alternative 9 continues to be the preferred and only feasible option to provide primary access to the applicant's property. As such this application requests approval to continue the extension of this alternative to provide access to the applicant's property. The details of this application remain consistent with the assumptions related to the Phase 2 H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 6 GROUP MACKENZIE extension as contemplated in the City's Alternatives Analysis, and as designed by DeHaas and Associates for the City. PROPOSAL With no other alternative available to provide access to the applicant's property, this application proposes a 662' extension of Wall Street from its current terminus to serve the applicant's property. The Phase 1 extension of Wall Street, by not fully extending through the City property to the boundary of the applicant's property, created a gap. This application proposes to fill this gap so as to effectively provide public street access to Mr. Fields' property as previously considered by the City of Tigard, and as documented through the various agreements between Mr. Fields and the City of Tigard. ROAD DESCRIPTION The design of the proposed road extension is unchanged from the previously proposed Phase 2 of the City-initiated Wall Street extension approval. The exception is that the proposed crossing of the railroad tracks and continuation of Wall Street up to Hunziker has been excluded. The proposed drawings indicate that a crossing of the railroad tracks is feasible, in accordance with the City's TSP, however would still require approval by the railroad. The City of Tigard TSP (Figure 8-3) identifies Wall Street as a proposed collector. TDC 18.810 and Table 18.810.1 define the requirements for a collector street. The following table illustrates these requirements and provides information related to the proposed extension of Wall Street. Table 1 : Proposed Street Elements Street ID ROW Paved Number Min. Bike Sidewalk Landscape Median Width Width of Lane Lane Width Strip Width Lanes Width Width Width City 58'- Varies 2-5 11' 6' (New 6' (Res. 5' 12' Collector 96' (Refer Streets) & Ind. Standard to TSP) Zones) Proposed 72' 48' 3 11' 6' 6' 5' 12' Street Section Proposed 72' 63' 2 12' 6' 6' None None Bridge Section Figure 8-11 of the TSP identifies Wall Street as having 2/3 lanes. This figure notes that 2 lanes may be used for segments where environmental constraints limit a roadway and access is controlled to eliminate left turn movements. As H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 7 GROUP MACKENZIE allowed under Figure 8-11, the proposed bridge section provides 2 lanes and eliminates the planter strip to minimize impacts to sensitive lands. Typical street and bridge deck sections have been included with this application and can be found on Sheet R8.1 of Exhibit L. In addition to the proposed right- of-way, an 8' public utility easement is proposed. The design of the proposed bridged extension remains consistent as previously proposed with the preferred Alternative 9. The proposed bridge of 320' spans both the creek and floodway associated with Fanno Creek. The paved width will be reduced to 36' with curbs, bike lanes, sidewalks, and handrails for a total improved width of 50 feet. The bridge will be constructed in four 80 foot sections using precast prestressed concrete slabs supported by three rows of eight 16-inch diameter steel pipe piles at the junction of each of the sections. The piles will be located outside of Fanno Creek and delineated wetland areas. The eastern end of the proposed extension terminates as a temporary dead-end. Conversation with TVF&R (John Wolf) confirmed that the proposed dead-end terminus of the proposed extension would typically be satisfactory as there will be no development on the applicant's property for TVF&R to serve. Future development applications will need to provide an approved turnaround per TVF&R requirements. Additionally, future development applications will address the need and provide secondary access. A new bioswale will be constructed east of Fanno Creek to treat runoff from the proposed extension. The proposed bioswale is consistent with the previous plans, and includes capacity to treat impervious surfaces from the streets and sidewalks associated with the Phase 2 impacts as well as future extension to a proposed high point in the profile east of the existing railroad track crossings. A portion of the stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces to the west of the bridge span will be treated with the water quality facility constructed with Phase 1. The previous approval sized this facility appropriately for the ultimate build-out of both phases. Preliminary calculations are provided in Exhibit M per City and Clean Water Services standards. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The previously prepared Alternatives Analysis considered both wetland and 100-year floodplain impacts.5 The preferred Alternative 9, as currently proposed, indicated a total of 0.27 AC wetland impact and 0.55 AC floodplain impacts. The Joint Fill permit approved a total of 0.30 acres of wetland fill for the full extension (ie. Phase 1 & 2). Approved wetland impacts for Phase 2 include 8,447 SF (0.19 acres) as are shown on Sheet 4a of 13 of the approved Joint Fill permit (Exhibit H). The proposed application includes the same amount of wetland impact. The impacts are primarily due to the construction of the western and eastern sections of road leading up to the bridge abutments and required fill slopes. The proposed application will have minor impacts to a man-made pond (East Pond) and wetlands located east of Fanno Creek in order 5 See page 10 of 21 in Exhibit K for a summary of the ten alternatives analyzed. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 8 GROUP MACKENZIE to construct the bridge wingwall on the west side of the bridge and the roadway and fill slopes for the remainder of the alignment. No impacts are proposed to Fanno Creek from the proposed extension. The proposed wetland impacts are shown on Sheet 2.4Bof Exhibit L. Approved mitigation for wetland impacts for both phases included a stream channel and wetland creation of 0.08 acres, wetland enhancement of 0.29 acres and wetland restoration of 0.20 acres. Attached to this application is the revised wetland mitigation plan prepared for the City by Zion Consulting, which demonstrates the mitigation measures that were constructed (Exhibit N). It should be noted that the mitigation approved and constructed with Phase 1 was actually of a size and level appropriate (as approved by DSL/Corp) for the full extension of Wall Street (ie Phase 2). As such, the proposed Phase 2 impacts have already been mitigated before even though the 0.19 acres of impact has not yet occurred. Floodplain impacts associated with the proposed extension are limited to placement of roadway structural fill in the areas west and east of the proposed bridge and support piles. Mitigation will occur off-site in an area to be determined in accordance with applicable standards. Impacts are further limited to match previous design assumptions through the construction of wing and retaining walls on both sides of the bridge span. Total floodplain impacts indicated for the proposed extension, prior to mitigation, are 2010 CY (over a 0.56 AC footprint). An OBEC Consulting Engineers/West Consultants team was retained by the City previously to analyze hydraulic impacts associated with various bridge alternatives (Exhibit K). The study concluded that a 320' bridge would span the floodway, and would have minimal impacts on the floodway and would meet FEMA requirements related to no rise in the floodplain elevation. A memo summarizing the information in this report has been prepared for further information see Exhibit O. APPROVALS REQUIRED The stream, pond and wetland impacted by the proposed road extension are mapped on the City of Tigard's Wetlands & Stream Corridors Map. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required to remove the locally significant designation from the impacted wetlands, which effectively removes Goal 5 under Section 18.775.120 of the City of Tigard Development Code. The Sensitive Lands Review is required for the proposed for the impacts to wetland and 100-year floodplain areas. In addition, per review of the Final Order by the Tigard City Council dated 5/9/2006, future extensions of SW Wall Street across Fanno Creek require a separate review and approval by the City. The following package includes narrative, plans, drawings, and other documentation in support of this application to remove the significant wetland designation from affected wetland and stream areas, and sensitive lands approval to extend Wall Street into the applicant's property. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 9 GROUP MACKENZIE III. SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW Chapter 18.755 of the City of Tigard Development Code identifies the approval criteria and requirements for development in floodplains, wetlands, and drainageways. The following addresses how the proposed road extension meets the applicable criteria. 18.775.020 Applicability of Uses; Permitted, Prohibited, and Nonconforming A. CWS Stormwater Connection Permit. All proposed "development", must obtain a Stormwater Connection Permit from CWS pursuant to its `Design and Construction Standards". As used in this chapter, the meaning of the word "development"shall be as defined in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards": All human-induced changes to improved or unimproved real property including: 1. Construction of structures requiring a building permit, if such structures are external to existing structures; 2. Land division; 3. Drilling; 4. Site alterations resulting from surface mining or dredging; 5. Grading; 6. Construction of earthen berms; 7. Paving; 8. Excavation; or 9. Clearing when it results in the removal of trees or vegetation which would require a permit from the local jurisdiction or an Oregon Department of Forestry tree removal permit. 10. The following activities are not included in the definition of development: a. Farming activities when conducted in accordance with accepted farming practices as defined in ORS 30.930 and under a Senate Bill 1010 water quality management plan; b. Construction, reconstruction, or modification of a single family residence on an existing lot of record within a subdivision that was approved by the City or County after September 9, 1995 (from ORS 92.040(2)); and c. Any development activity for which land use approvals have been issued pursuant to a land use application submitted to the City or County on or before February 4, 2000, and deemed complete or before March 15, 2000. Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street includes several types of"development" as defined above including grading, paving, and excavation. As such a CWS Stormwater Connection Permit will be required prior to issuance of building permit for the construction of the proposed extension. This standard is met. B. Outright permitted uses with no permit required. Except as provided below and by Sections 18.775.020.D, 18.775.020.F, and 18.775.020.G, the following uses are outright permitted uses within the 100 year floodplain, drainageways, slopes that are 25% or greater, and unstable ground when the use does not involve paving. For the purposes of this chapter, the word "structure"shall exclude: children's play equipment,picnic tables, sand boxes, grills, basketball hoops and similar recreational equipment. 1. Accessory uses such as lawns, gardens, or play areas; except in (a) a Water Quality Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor, as defined in the CWS `Design and Construction Standards", or (b) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 10 GROUP MACKENZIE 2. Farm uses conducted without locating a structure within the sensitive land area; except in (a) a Water Quality Sensitive Area or Vegetative Corridor, as defined in CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or (b) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. 3. Community recreation uses, excluding structures; except in (a) a Water Quality Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor, as defined in the CWS `Design and Construction Standards", or (b) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. 4. Public and private conservation areas for water, soil, open space,forest, and wildlife resources. 5. Removal of poison oak, tansy ragwort, blackberry, English ivy, or other noxious vegetation. 6. Maintenance of floodway excluding re-channeling; except in (a) a Water Quality Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor, as defined in the CWS `Design and Construction Standards", or(b) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. 7. Fences; except in (a) the floodway area, (b) a Water Quality Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor, as defined in the CSW "design and Construction Standards", or (c) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. 8. Accessory structures which are less than 120 square feet in size; except in (a) the floodway area, (b) a Water Quality Sensitive Area or Vegetative Corridor, as defined in the CWS `Design and Construction Standards", or (c) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. 9. Land form alterations involving up to 10 cubic yards of material; except in (a) the floodway area, (b) a Water Quality Sensitive Area or Vegetative Corridor, as defined in the CWS `Design and Construction Standards", or (c) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street is not permitted outright subject to the above listed exceptions. As such this application requests Sensitive Lands approval for impacts to significant wetlands and 100-year floodplain associated with Fanno Creek. C. Exemptions. When performed under the direction of the City, and in compliance with the provisions of the City of Tigard Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area Management, on file in the Engineering Division, the following shall be exempt from the provisions of this section: 1. Responses to public emergencies, including emergency repairs to public facilities; 2. Stream and wetlands restoration and enhancement programs; 3. Non-native vegetation removal; 4. Planting of native plant species;and 5. Routine maintenance or replacement of existing public facilities projects. Response: Wetland mitigation for proposed impacts related to the extension of Wall Street include stream and wetlands restoration and enhancement that has been constructed for the proposed extension with Phase 1 (see Exhibit M). Enhancement and mitigation of encroachment to CWS vegetated corridors has been approved per the attached Service Provider Letter (Exhibit P). To meet condition 13 of the SPL, a landscape plan has been provided in accordance with draft landscape plan details provided by Pacific Habitat Services (Exhibit Q). As specified on sheet R2.5of Exhibit L the enhancements will include the removal of non-native vegetation in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards Appendix A as adopted by R&O 07- 20. Although these improvements are proposed, they do not exempt the impacts to significant wetlands and 100-year floodplain. Therefore this application requests Sensitive Lands approval. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 11 GROUP MACKENZIE D. Jurisdictional wetlands. Landform alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, CWS, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies, and are not designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map", do not require a sensitive lands permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive land permits for areas within the 100 year floodplain, slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground, drainageways, and wetlands which are not under state or federal jurisdiction. Response: The proposed impacts related to the extension of Wall Street require updated permits from the DSL, the Corps and CWS. Additionally, the City of Tigard has designated wetlands necessary for impact as significant per the Wetland and Streams Corridors Map. As such a Sensitive Lands permit is not exempt per this standard. E.Administrative sensitive lands review. 1. Administrative sensitive lands permits in the 100 year floodplain, drainageway, slopes that are 25% or greater, and unstable ground shall be obtained from the appropriate community development division for the following: a. The City Engineer shall review the installation of public support facilities such as underground utilities and construction of roadway improvements including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and driveway aprons by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this Chapter; b. The City Engineer shall review minimal ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations involving 10 to 50 cubic yards of material, except in the floodway area,for land that is within public easements and rights-of-way by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this Chapter; c. The Director shall review minimal ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations involving 10 to 50 cubic yards of material, except in the floodway area by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this Chapter; d. The Director shall review the repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which is less than 50 percent of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction provided no development occurs in the floodway by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this Chapter; e. The Building Official shall review building permits for accessory structures which are 120 to 528 square feet in size, except in the floodway area; and f The Director shall review applications for paving on private property, except in the floodway area by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this Chapter. Response: The project area includes a 662' expansion of Wall Street over three residentially designated properties. Wall Street is identified as a collector per the City's TSP, and Phase 1 has been constructed. As a requirement to construct the proposed extension, including a 320' bridge as identified by the preferred Alternative 9, wetland impacts and 100-year floodplain impacts are necessary. Specific to 100-year floodplain impacts, a total of 2010 CY (over a 0.56 AC footprint) of roadway structural fill is required to support the new public roadway as proposed. The bridge support pilings include negligible impacts to the 100-year floodplain per the previous H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 12 GROUP MACKENZIE OBEC/West Consultants report (Exhibit K). The actual paved surface and related improvements do not create 100-year floodplain impacts and are elevated above the floodplain elevation with more than the required 1' freeboard. The proposed structural fill is needed to elevate the proposed public roadway above the 100-year floodplain. As the roadway itself does not have floodplain impacts, and the structural fill supports the proposed public roadway, the proposed 100-year floodplain impacts are allowed as public support facilities as the term is used in 18.775.020e.1.a above. These thresholds are met. 2. The responsible community development division shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a development permit, as described above, based on the standards set forth in Sections 18.775.050, 18.775.070, and 18.775.080. Response: Impacts to the 100-year floodplain proposed with the public support facility trigger an administrative review. However, the concurrent comprehensive plan amendment to remove the locally significant designation from project impacted wetlands upgrades this application to a Type IV. This provision is met. F. Sensitive lands permits issued by the Director. 1. The Director shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the following areas by means of a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070: a. Drainageways; b. Slopes that are 25%or greater or unstable ground; and c. Wetland areas which are not regulated by other local, state, or federal agencies and are designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map". 2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required for the areas in Section 18.775.020.F.1 above when any of the following circumstances apply: a. Ground disturbance(s) or land form alterations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; b. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction; c. Residential and non-residential structures intended for human habitation; and d. Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside floodway areas. Response: This application does not include impacts to the areas listed in this Section. G. Sensitive lands permits issued by the Hearings Officer. 1. The Hearings Officer shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the 100 year floodplain by means of a Type ILIA procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070. 2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required in the 100 year floodplain when any of the following circumstances apply: a. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in all floodway areas; b. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in floodway fringe locations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; c. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction provided no development occurs in the floodway; H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 13 GROUP MACKENZIE d. Structures intended for human habitation; and e. Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside of floodway areas. Response: This application does not include impacts to the areas listed in this Section. H. Other uses. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this chapter, all other uses are prohibited on sensitive land areas. Response: No other uses are proposed which would be prohibited under this section. I. Nonconforming uses. A use established prior to the adoption of this title, which would be prohibited by this Chapter or which would be subject to the limitations and controls imposed by this Chapter, shall be considered a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.760. (Ord. 06-20) Response: Nonconforming uses do not exist, this section does not apply. 18.775.030 Administrative Provisions A. Interagency Coordination. The appropriate approval authority shall review all sensitive lands permit applications to determine that all necessary permits shall be obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is also required. 1. As governed by CWS `Design and Construction Standards", the necessary permits for all "development'; as defined in Section 18.775.020.A above, shall include a CWS Service Provider Letter, which specifies the conditions and requirements necessary, if any,for an applicant to comply with CWS water quality protection standards and for the Agency to issue a Stormwater Connection Permit. Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street includes "development" in the form of grading, paving and excavation as defined in Section 18.775.020.A. A previous CWS Service Provider Letter was issued for the full extension and submitted with the Phase 1 application (Exhibit I). The SPL included approval of the impacts proposed with this application. The applicant has obtained an updated CWS Service Provider Letter which specifies encroachment, enhancement, and mitigation areas related to the proposed extension of Wall Street (Exhibit P). The conditions of the SPL require various items to be completed prior to issuance of a Stormwater Connection Permit. To meet condition 13 of the SPL, a landscape plan has been provided in accordance with draft landscape plan details provided by Pacific Habitat Services (Exhibit Q). As specified on sheet R2.5 of Exhibit L the enhancements will include the removal of non-native vegetation in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards Appendix A as adopted by R&O 07-20. By complying with the conditions as specified in the updated SPL, this application ensures compliance with water quality protection standards and a Stormwater Connection Permit will be issued with building permit. This provision is satisfied. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 14 GROUP MACKENZIE B. Alteration or relocation of water course. 1. The Director shall notify communities adjacent to the affected area and the State Department of Land Conservation and Development prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration; 2. The Director shall require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of a watercourse so that the flood-carrying capacity is not diminished. Response: This application does not include any alteration or relocation of Fanno Creek. These provisions do not apply. C. Apply Standards. The appropriate approval authority shall apply the standards set forth in Sections 18.775.040, and 18.775.070 when reviewing an application for a sensitive lands permit. Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street falls under a Type I process as it involves impacts related to a public support facility. However, the concurrent comprehensive plan amendment to remove the City's significant wetland designation upgrades this request to a Type III-PC process. Therefore, the City Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council who will be the ultimate approval authority subject to the standards listed in this section. This application addresses applicable standards related to the proposed request. This provision is satisfied. D. Elevation and flood proofing certification. The appropriate approval authority shall require that the elevations and flood proofing certification required in Section 18.775.030.E below be provided prior to permit issuance and verification upon occupancy and final approval. Response: The attached memo, previous reports, and the 2005 Flood Insurance Study indicate the floodplain elevation in the project area in compliance with 18.775.030.E. This provision is satisfied. E. Maintenance of records. 1. Where base flood elevation data is provided through the Flood Insurance Study, the Building Official shall obtain and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement; 2. For all new or substantially improved flood proofed structures, the Building Official shall: a. Verify and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level); and b. Maintain the flood proofing certifications required in this chapter. 3. The Director shall maintain for public inspection all other records pertaining to the provisions in this chapter. Response: The base flood elevation for the project area has been determined through the Flood Insurance Study effective February 18, 2005. No structures are proposed with this application other than the new roadway for the extension of Wall Street. These provisions do not apply. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 15 GROUP MACKENZIE 18.775.040 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas A. Permit review. The appropriate approval authority shall review all permit applications to determine whether proposed building sites will minimize the potential for flood damage. Response: The proposed application does not propose any structure or building that would require review to determine the potential for flood damage. The proposed bridge span for Wall Street is elevated above the 100-year floodplain. This provision is met. B. Special flood hazard. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study of the City of Tigard," effective February 18, 2005, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps effective February 18, 2005, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. This Flood Insurance Study is on file at the Tigard Civic Center. Response: The Flood Insurance Study and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps effective February 18, 2005 were consulted to verify the 100-year floodplain elevation in the project area. This information was cross-referenced with the OBEC Hydraulic Analysis performed as part of the Alternatives Analysis (Exhibit K) to confirm the floodplain elevation and impacts related to the proposed roadway and bridge extension. As stated in Exhibit 0, the research was conclusive that the floodplain elevation is consistent between both sources at 141.4. This provision is met. C. Base flood elevation data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section 18.775.040.B above, the Director shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer Sections 18.775.040.M and 18.775.040.N below). Response: Base flood elevation data is available for the project area as discussed in the finding for 18.775.040.B above. This provision does not apply. D. Test of reasonableness. Where elevation data is not available either through the Flood Insurance Study or from another authoritative source, applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that the potential for flood damage to the proposed construction will be minimized. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks,photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet above grade in these sensitive land areas may result in higher insurance rates. Response: Base flood elevation data is available for the project area as discussed in the finding for 18.775.040.B above. This provision does not apply. E. Resistant to flood damage. All new construction and substantial improvements, including manufactured homes, shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. Response: The proposed application does not include improvements in the form of structures or buildings. The proposed roadway will be constructed on materials resistant to flood damage. This provision does not apply. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 16 GROUP MACKENZIE F. Minimize flood damage. All new construction and substantial improvements, including manufactured homes, shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Response: The proposed application does not include improvements in the form of structures or buildings. The proposed roadway will be constructed on materials resistant to flood damage. This provision does not apply. G. Equipment protection. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Response: The proposed roadway extension does not include these types of equipment or service facilities. This provision does not apply. H. Water Supply Systems. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the system. Response: The proposed roadway extension does not include water supply systems. This provision does not apply. I. Anchoring. All new construction, all manufactured homes and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure. Response: The proposed application does not include improvements in the form of structures or buildings. The proposed roadway will be constructed on materials resistant to flood damage. This provision does not apply. J. Sanitary sewerage systems. New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwater. Response: The proposed roadway extension does not include sanitary sewerage systems. This provision does not apply. K. On-site water disposal systems. On-site water disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. Response: The proposed roadway extension does not include on-site water disposal systems. This provision does not apply. L. Residential Construction. 1. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure, including manufactured homes, shall have the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated at least one foot above base flood elevation; 2. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect, or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided; b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; and c. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices,provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 17 GROUP MACKENZIE 3.Manufactured homes shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored permanent foundation system. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over- the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. Response: No residential construction is proposed. These provisions do not apply. M Nonresidential Construction. New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to the level of the base flood elevation, or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: 1. Be flood proofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; 2. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; 3. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the Building Official as set forth in Section 18.775.030.E.2; and 4. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not flood proofed, must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in Section 18.775.040.L.2. Applicants flood proofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified that flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the flood-proofed level (e.g., a building constructed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below that level). Response: No nonresidential construction of structures is proposed with this application. These provisions do not apply. N. Subdivisions and partitions in 100 year floodplain. Subdivisions and partitions in the 100 year floodplain shall meet the following criteria: 1. The design shall minimize the potential for flood damage; 2. Public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems shall be located and constructed so as to minimize flood damage; 3. Adequate drainage shall be provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; and 4. For subdivisions or partitions which contain more than 50 lots or 5 acres and where base flood elevation data is not available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or another authoritative source, the applicant shall generate base flood elevation data to be reviewed as part of the application. Response: A subdivision or partition is not included with this application. These provisions do not apply. O. Recreational vehicles. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within zones Al-A30, AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map either: 1. Are on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days; 2. Are fully licensed and ready for highway use: a. Are on wheels or jacking system, b. Are attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and have no permanently attached additions;or c. Meet the requirements of E, F, I, and L above and the elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes. (Ord. 05-01) H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 18 GROUP MACKENZIE Response: These provisions do not apply to the proposed application as the project area is not within zones Al-A30, AH and AE nor does it include provisions related to recreational vehicles. 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands A. Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map" and to a vegetated corridor ranging from 25 to 200 feet wide, measured horizontally,from the defined boundaries of the wetland, per "Table 3.1 Vegetated Corridor Widths" and `Appendix C" Natural Resource Assessments"of the CWS `Design and Construction Standards". Wetland locations may include but are not limited to those areas identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon,"Fishman Environmental Services, 1994. B. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense. Response: Fanno Creek, abutting significant wetlands and associated Tigard riparian setbacks are mapped within the area proposed for the extension of Wall Street on the City of Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridors Map. Several delineations by qualified professionals have been conducted to determine the actual boundary of wetlands within the project area as shown on the attached plans. These surveyed boundaries have been concurred with by DSL and were used for plans necessary to obtain the Joint Fill permit from the Corps and DSL. Additionally, the wetland boundaries and survey information were used to determine vegetated corridor widths in the project area. This provision has been satisfied. 18.775.070 Sensitive Lands Permits A. Permits required. An applicant, who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as defined in Chapter 18.775, must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area, either a Type II or Type III permit is required, as delineated in Sections 18.775.020.F and 18.775.020.G. The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas, e.g., floodplain, are presented in Sections 18.775.070.B — 18.775.070.E below. Response: The proposed street extension requires minor wetland impacts to a manmade pond (East Pond) and wetlands located east of Fanno Creek. Additional impacts to the 100-year floodplain are proposed including structural roadway fill and retaining walls on the east side of the extension to support the roadway. The bridge spans Fanno Creek and its associated floodway, with minor impacts related to the placement of the steel support pilings. Due to the impacts to both wetlands and 100-year floodplain, this application requests a Sensitive Lands Permit for this project. This provision is satisfied. B. Within the 100-year floodplain. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100 year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 19 GROUP MACKENZIE certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; Response: An OBEC Consulting Engineers/West Consultants team was retained by the City previously to analyze hydraulic impacts associated with various bridge alternatives (Exhibit K). The study concluded that a 320' bridge would span the floodway and would meet City / FEMA requirements related to no rise in the floodplain elevation with a balance of earthwork volumes. A memo summarizing the information in this report has been prepared, for further information see Exhibit O. Mitigation will be identified off-site to balance the required fill volumes in accordance with this standard. This criterion is satisfied. 2. Land form alterations or developments within the 100 year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; Response: The project area includes a 662' expansion of Wall Street over three residentially designated tax lots. The applicable zoning districts of R-12 and R- 25 allow public support facilities as a permitted use. Wall Street is identified as a collector per the City's TSP, and Phase 1 has been constructed. This term is not defined in Chapter 18.120, and as such we have interpreted this term by citing other references in the Tigard Development Code. As the term is used in 18.775.030.E.1.a, it is interpreted that this term is meant to allow a public roadway to be constructed above a floodplain in a residential zone as long as the roadway is elevated above the floodplain elevation. This interpretation would allow 100-year floodplain impacts supporting the proposed roadway such as pilings, cut and fill to support the construction of the roadway. Floodplain impacts associated with the proposed extension are limited to placement of roadway structural fill in the areas west and east of the proposed bridge and support piles. Impacts are further limited to match previous design assumptions through the construction of wing and retaining walls on both sides of the bridge span. An OBEC Consulting Engineers/West Consultants team was retained by the City previously to analyze hydraulic impacts associated with various bridge alternatives (Exhibit K). The study concluded that a 320' bridge would span the floodway and would meet City / FEMA requirements related to no rise in the floodplain elevation. A memo summarizing the information in this report has been prepared for further information see Exhibit O. As the roadway itself does not have floodplain impacts, and the structural fill supports the proposed public roadway, the proposed 100-year floodplain impacts are allowed as public support facilities as the term is used in 18.775.020e.1.a above. These thresholds are met. This criterion is satisfied. 3. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100 year flood; H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 20 GROUP MACKENZIE Response: An OBEC Consulting Engineers/West Consultants team was retained by the City previously to analyze hydraulic impacts associated with various bridge alternatives (Exhibit K). The study concluded that a 320' bridge would span the floodway and would meet City / FEMA requirements related to no rise in the floodplain elevation with a balance of earthwork volumes. A memo summarizing the information in this report has been prepared, for further information see Exhibit O. Mitigation to balance the earthwork volumes will occur off-site in an area to be determined in accordance with this standard. This criterion is satisfied. 4. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as untimely; Response: As is shown on Sheet R8.1 of Exhibit L, the proposed road extension includes bicycle paths and sidewalks on either side of the road in compliance with the collector designation per the City's TSP. This criterion is satisfied. S. Pedestrian/bicycle pathway projects within the floodplain shall include a wildlife habitat assessment that shows the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community's recreation and environmental educational goals. Response: The proposed project involves pedestrian/bicycle connectivity as an element of the proposed public street extension. This criterion does not apply. 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and Response: Included as Exhibit H in this application is the previously issued Joint Fill permit from the Corps and DSL. This permit authorized the impact and mitigation related to wetland impacts associated with the full extension of Wall Street (ie. Phase 1 and 2). Construction activities associated with Phase 1 completed mitigation to a level, as approved, which included Phase 2 impacts (see Exhibit N). Although this permit has since expired, the mitigation requirements remain unchanged. A renewed Joint Fill permit will be obtained after approval from City Council. An updated CWS SPL has been obtained for this application and has been included as Exhibit P. Conditions of this permit will be met as required prior to the issuance of a Stormwater Connection Permit and building permit from the City of Tigard. Accepting a condition of approval requiring the necessary permits to be obtained prior to building permit issuance satisfies this criterion. 7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100 year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street proposes improvements within a 72' right-of-way. A dedication and public utility easement will be granted to the City to facilitate the construction of the proposed public improvements. This criterion is satisfied. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 21 GROUP MACKENZIE C. With steep slopes. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; 3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. Response: These criterion are not applicable as the project area does not contain any areas with slopes of 25% or greater. D. Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the use. 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property. 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. 6. The necessary US Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. 7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100 year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Response: TDC 18.120.130.A.60 defines a drainageway as follows, " "Drainage way" - Undeveloped land inundated during a 25-year storm with a peak flow of at least five cubic feet per second and conveyed, at least in part, by identifiable channels that either drain to the Tualatin River directly or after flowing through other drainage ways, channels, creeks or floodplain." The only drainageway within the project area per this definition is Fanno Creek. No impacts associated with the proposed extension of Wall Street are proposed to Fanno Creek. These criteria do not apply. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 22 GROUP MACKENZIE E. Within wetlands. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within the vegetative corridor established per "Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths" and Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments" of the CWS Design and Construction Standards,"for such a wetland; Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street impacts 0.19 acres of wetland designated as significant on the Comprehensive Plan Wetlands & Stream Corridors Map. This application includes a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to remove this designation from the impacted wetlands. The revised wetland mitigation plan previously approved by DSL and the Corps as part of the wetland permits issued for the entire project has been included as Exhibit N. Mitigation for the wetland impacts has been constructed with Phase 1 of the Wall Street extension. The proposed roadway alignment also impacts 0.65 acres (27,381 SF) of CWS vegetated corridor. A vegetated corridor mitigation plan has been approved by CWS as part of the Service Provider Letter issued for the project (Exhibit P). A landscape plan has been provided in accordance with draft landscape plan details provided by Pacific Habitat Services (Exhibit Q). As specified on sheet R2.5of Exhibit L the enhancements will include the removal of non-native vegetation in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards Appendix A as adopted by R&O 07-20. A total of 30,021 SF of enhancement is provided along with 27,383 SF of mitigation enhancement for a total of 57,404 SF of vegetated corridor plantings. These areas will remove non-native species and will be densely planted with 312 trees and 2,114 shrubs. All remaining areas not planted will receive a native herbaceous seed mixture. This criterion is met by demonstrating approval of the standards as specified in 18.775.130, effectively removing the significant designation from impacted wetlands and through the wetland mitigation already completed and the proposed CWS vegetated corridor enhancement. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; Response: The Alternatives Analysis conducted for the project demonstrates that the proposed wetland and 100-yeear floodplain impacts are the minimum practicable for the project. No other alternative exists to provide access to the applicant's property. Eliminating the planter strip on the 320' bridge portion has minimized the extent of the proposed roadway extension. The remainder of the proposed extension meets the design standards of a collector facility as specified in Table 18.810.1 per the TSP, and therefore cannot minimize disturbances further. This criterion is met. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 23 GROUP MACKENZIE 3. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; Response: The only change in drainage associated with this proposal is the conveyance of stormwater associated with the road and bridge. All such stormwater is directed towards a water quality facility. Treated stormwater from the water quality facility will be directed into the wetland mitigation area to ensure that wetland hydrology on the site is maintained and that development does not adversely impact existing wetlands. No additional impacts are associated with the proposed extension. See sheet R2.2 of Exhibit L. This criterion is therefore met. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; Response: Erosion control provisions of Washington County's Surface Water Management program will be met (see sheet R2.2 of Exhibit L). All disturbed areas that are not covered with impervious surfaces will be seeded and planted upon completion of construction. The 50-foot vegetated corridors adjacent to Fanno Creek and wetlands will be planted to meet Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards. Planting plans are included in the CWS approval (Exhibit Q) for Phase 2. This criterion is met. 5. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; Response: As this narrative demonstrates, all applicable requirements of the Sensitive Lands Chapter are met. 6. The necessary US Army Corps or Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; Response: Included as Exhibit H in this application is the previously issued Joint Fill permit from the Corps and DSL. This permit authorized the impact and mitigation related to wetland impacts associated with the full extension of Wall Street (ie. Phase 1 and 2). Construction activities associated with Phase 1 completed mitigation to a level, as approved, which included Phase 2 impacts (see Exhibit N). Although this permit has since expired, the mitigation requirements remain unchanged. A renewed Joint Fill permit will be obtained after approval from City Council. An updated CWS SPL has been obtained for this application and has been included as Exhibit P. Conditions of this permit will be met as required prior to the issuance of a Stormwater Connection Permit and building permit from the City of Tigard. Accepting a condition of approval requiring the necessary permits to be obtained prior to building permit issuance satisfies this criterion. 7. The provisions of Chapter 18. 790, Tree Removal, shall be met; Response: TDC 18.790.030 lists the threshold criteria for requiring a Tree Plan Review to remove trees. As the proposed application does not involve a subdivision, partition, site development review, or conditional use, a Tree Plan Review is not required. However, a Tree Removal Permit subject to a Type I procedure is necessary for the removal of trees associated with the proposed H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 24 GROUP MACKENZIE extension of Wall Street. A separate, but concurrent Tree Removal Permit has been applied for which addresses the provisions of TDC 18.790.050. These provisions are met. 8. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. Response: The following identifies the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan and addresses how the proposed road extension meet each. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY — GOAL 6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality. Response: The proposed roadway expansion involves work within wetlands and 100-year floodplain associated with Fanno Creek. As mentioned in the application, no impacts are proposed to Fanno Creek or its floodway as the proposed 320' bridge will span Fanno Creek and its floodway. Actual installation of the bridge will be subject to a DEQ 1200C permit and an updated Corps/DSL Section 404 permit allowing work within wetlands. Such permits require extensive erosion control measures to prevent siltation of waterways during construction activity. Once the roadway extension is constructed, a stormwater system will convey runoff from the new impervious areas to water quality facilities (i.e., vegetated swales). Stormwater treatment facilities as well as erosion control measures will ensure that the community's water quality is protected. Preliminary plans demonstrating the proposed stormwater and erosion control measures have been provided with this application (Exhibit L). This goal is met. Policy 3. The City shall encourage the use of low impact development practices that reduce stormwater impacts from new and existing development. Response: Although the standards applying to public road construction somewhat limit the extent to which low impact development techniques can be used, nearly all available low impact solutions were selected for this project. An example would be the use of a longer 320 ft. bridge span, which will help preserve much of the existing vegetation within the floodway. Also, the use of water pre-treatment and bioswales will both ensure a high level of water quality and enhance the natural environment. In summary, the project utilizes low impact design alternatives to the greatest practical extent and thereby is consistent with this policy. Policy 4. The City shall protect, restore, and enhance, to the extent practical, the natural functions of stream corridors, trees, and water resources for their positive contribution to water quality. Response: Wetland mitigation for impacts for the full extension have been approved and constructed. Additional plantings are proposed as required by CWS to mitigate vegetated corridor impacts. The end result of the natural functions of the project area is far greater than its current state due to the required mitigation measures. These plantings, and proposed vegetated water quality swales will provide increased positive contributions to water quality. This Policy is met. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 25 GROUP MACKENZIE Policy 5. The City shall require measures to minimize erosion and storm run-off from development sites during and after construction. Response: The project will include an erosion control plan meeting both City of Tigard and CWS requirements. In addition, the project will meet the erosion control and water quality conditions contained in the DSL and Corps wetland permits and in the water quality certification issued by DEQ as part of the Corps permit. Erosion control measures will be regularly inspected and maintained during project construction. The project will be consistent with this policy through the implementing measures discussed above. Preliminary plans demonstrating the proposed stormwater and erosion control measures have been provided with this application (Exhibit L). Policy 7. The City shall investigate and use, to the extent practical, measures that limit the community's effective impervious area. Response: A new street extension requires that some impervious area be created in order to provide for safe transportation conditions and public access. To minimize the impacts of impervious area, the proposed application includes treating stormwater through the existing water quality facility located near the City Library, as well as an additional bioswale with an outfall into the existing wetland area. These measures are considered best practices for treating runoff created by impervious areas. Further, the impervious area proposed is the minimum required to construct the public facility based upon compliance with the City-defined collector standard. The proposal is consistent with this standard. HAZARDS — GOAL 7.1 Protect people and property from flood, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe weather hazards. Response: The proposed bridge extension does not affect the City's protection against potential hazards listed above. The preliminary design indicates the bridge section profile maintains the required 1' freeboard clearance over the 100-year floodplain elevation of 141.1' determined at the crossing location. The proposal is thereby consistent with this goal. Policy 8. The City shall prohibit any land form alterations or developments in the 100- year floodplain which would result in any rise in elevation of the 100- year floodplain. Response: The proposed application does not propose any significant impacts in the 100-year floodplain. The conclusions of the Hydraulic Analysis (Exhibit 5) state that the base flood and floodway water surface elevations upstream of the proposed bridge would be less than the design base flood elevation of the City Library. However, in order to prevent increase in the base flood elevation the bridge would have to span a length of 320 feet. As currently proposed, the bridge will span 320 feet with impacts resulting from the necessary bridge pile supports and fill slopes. To ensure compliance with the conclusions of the Hydraulic Analysis and no impacts to the 100-year floodplain, mitigation in the form of excavation within the floodplain to balance earthwork volumes will be provided off-site in a location to be determined. This Policy is met. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 26 GROUP MACKENZIE Policy 9. The City shall not allow land form alterations or development within the 100-year floodplain outside the zero foot rise floodway unless: A. The streamflow capacity of the zerofoot rise floodway is maintained; and B. Engineered drawings and/or documentation shows there will be no detrimental upstream or downstream effects in the floodplain area. Response: As previously indicated, there will be a revision in a portion of the 100-year floodplain with the proposed extension. The Revised Wall Street Alternatives Analysis (March 2005) indicated that the preferred alternative for bridge construction (which is here again proposed) does not present any detrimental upstream or downstream impacts that would result from the proposed Wall Street extension. In fact, the Alternatives Analysis (Exhibit 1) showed that an extension of Wall Street would have positive benefits on the streamflow of Pinebrook and Fanno Creeks by re-directing the flow on Pinebrook Creek and disconnecting it from a nutrient-rich pond. "Reconnecting Pinebrook Creek to this historic channel and taking the East Pond off-line from Pinebrook Creek will eliminate overflows of warm, nutrient-rich water from the East Pond into Fanno Creek." The creation/restoration of wetlands in the area of the two ponds during Phase 1 was predicted to have positive affects on water storage capacity during flood events. Phase 2 improvements have been shown not to increase the level of the 100-year floodplain as the bridge itself will be elevated above the base flood elevation by mitigating the fill volumes off-site in a location to be determined. Further, Corps/DSL requirements prohibit downstream siltation/water quality impacts and prescribe a monitoring program to ensure that such impacts do not occur. Given that the project will not increase the severity of the mapped 100- year floodplain, because water storage capacity was increased with Phase 1, and because it will very likely cause improvements to the upstream and downstream water quality, the proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 10. The City shall work with Clean Water Services to protect natural drainageways and wetlands as valuable water retention areas and, where possible, find ways to restore and enhance these areas. Response: This application does not propose impacts to Fanno Creek, a natural drainageway. Necessary wetland impacts related to the proposed extension of Wall Street were reviewed by CWS with the Phase 1 application. The previously issued service provider letter indicated detailed mitigation plantings for vegetated corridor impacts for the full extension. This application includes an updated CWS service provider letter which states the required plantings to mitigate impacts to, and restore the regulated vegetated corridors. As shown on Sheet R2.5, a total of 57,404 SF of vegetated corridor plantings are proposed. These areas will remove non-native species and will be densely planted with 312 trees and 2,114 shrubs. All remaining areas not planted will receive a native herbaceious seed mixture. The end result of these plantings will likely be an enhanced drainageway and wetland near the proposed street extension. The proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 11. The City shall comply with Metro Title 3 Functional Plan requirements for balanced fill and removal in the floodplain. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 27 GROUP MACKENZIE Response: Metro Title 3 broadly sets forth performance standards governing impacts to floodways, floodplains, and drainageways. These include standards related to water quality, vegetated corridors, and erosion/sedimentation. Although this is now an applicant-driven infrastructure proposal, it largely builds upon the plans completed by the City for the same extension project in 2005. The proposed application does not propose any significant impacts in the 100-year floodplain. The conclusions of the Hydraulic Analysis (Exhibit 5) state that the base flood and floodway water surface elevations upstream of the proposed bridge would be less than the design base flood elevation of the City Library. However, in order to prevent an increase in the base flood elevation the bridge would have to span a length of 320 feet. As currently proposed, the bridge will span 320 feet with impacts resulting from the necessary bridge pile supports and fill slopes. To ensure compliance with the conclusions of the Hydraulic Analysis and no impacts to the 100-year floodplain, mitigation in the form of excavation within the floodplain to balance earthwork volumes will be provided off-site in a location to be determined. Sufficient evidence has been submitted in order to show that compliance with Title 3 is feasible (Exhibits K, M, and 0), and because most of Title 3 sets forth performance rather than design standards, conformity will be monitored during development. This Policy is met. SUMMARY As demonstrated in the consideration of the sections above, the proposal is consistent with the specified portions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 18.775.090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and South Fork of Ash Creek A. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0030)pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map" are protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland, except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130. Response: As stated throughout this application, the proposed roadway extension of Wall Street requires wetland impacts in the form of grading and filling to support the new public road. Wetlands within the project area are designated as significant on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map. In order to allow these impacts a comprehensive plan amendment to remove this designation for 0.19 acres of wetlands is proposed pursuant to Section 18.775.130. This provision is satisfied. B. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0030)pertaining to riparian corridors, a standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area, measured horizontally from and parallel to the top of the bank, is established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 28 GROUP MACKENZIE 1. The standard width for `good condition"vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River is 75 feet, unless wider in accordance with CWS `Design and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. If all or part of a locally significant wetland(a wetland identified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map') is located within the 75 foot setback area, the vegetated corridor is measured from the upland edge of the associated wetland. Response: The proposed application does not involve the vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River. This provision does not apply. 2. The standard width for `good condition"vegetated corridors along Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek is 50 feet, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. If all or part of a locally significant wetland (a wetland identified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map') is located within the 50 foot setback area, the vegetated corridor is measured from the upland edge of the associated wetland. Response: Utilizing the survey and wetland delineations prepared by quality professionals, the required vegetated corridor has been shown on the attached drawings in accordance with CWS standards for a width of 50'. This provision is satisfied. 3. The minimum width for "marginal or degraded condition" vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek is 50%of the standard width, unless wider in accordance with CWS `Design and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. Response: Existing vegetated corridors adjacent to Fanno Creek and its wetlands are largely marginal or degraded per CWS standards. However, with the proposed enhancement plan, these will be densely planted and will meet the `good' standard as a result. This provision is satisfied. 4. The determination of corridor condition shall be based on the Natural Resource Assessment guidelines contained in the CWS `Design and Construction Standards". Response: A natural resource assessment has been prepared by Pacific Habitat Services as part of the request for a service provider letter. See Exhibit P. This provision is satisfied. 5. The standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area applies to all development proposed on property located within or partially within the vegetated corridors, except as allowed below: a. Roads,pedestrian or bike paths crossing the vegetated corridor from one side to the other in order to provide access to the sensitive area or across the sensitive area, as approved by the City per Section 18.775.070 and by CWS "Design and Construction Standards"; b. Utility/service provider infrastructure construction (i.e. storm, sanitary sewer, water,phone,gas, cable, etc.), if approved by the City and CWS; c. A pedestrian or bike path, not exceeding 10 feet in width and meeting the CWS "Design and Construction Standards"; d. Grading for the purpose of enhancing the vegetated corridor, as approved by the City and CWS; e. Measures to remove or abate hazards, nuisances, or fire and life safety violations, as approved by the regulating jurisdiction; H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 29 GR�� MACKENZIE f Enhancement of the vegetated corridor for water quality or quantity benefits, fish, or wildlife habitat, as approved by the City and CWS; g. Measures to repair, maintain, alter, remove, add to, or replace existing structures, roadways, driveways, utilities, accessory uses, or other developments provided they are consistent with City and CWS regulations, and do not encroach further into the vegetated corridor or sensitive area than allowed by the CWS "Design and Construction Standards. Response: The proposed roadway expansion includes grading and fills for the construction of a new public road which will include sidewalks and bike paths. The proposed expansion fully mitigates necessary impacts to vegetated corridor as specified in the attached service provider letter and as demonstrated on the proposed landscape plan (Exhibits P and Q). This provision is satisfied. 6. Land form alterations or developments located within or partially within the Goal 5 safeharbor setback or vegetated corridor areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the CWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies, are not subject to the provisions of Section 18.775.090.B, except where the: a. Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially within a good condition vegetated corridor, as defined in Sections 18.775.090.B.1 and 18.775.090.B.2, b. Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially within the minimum width area established for marginal or a degraded condition vegetated corridor, as defined in Section 18.775.090.B.3. These exceptions reflect instances of the greater protection of riparian corridors provided by the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. Response: The proposed roadway expansion meets the permit criteria of CWS per the attached service provider letter through the proposed enhancement and mitigation. DSL and Corps permits have already been issued for the proposed wetland impacts, and the Phase 1 construction has already mitigated for these impacts. The proposed roadway expansion impacts vegetated corridors that are currently marginal or degraded. As such the provisions of this section apply and have been addressed above. This provision is satisfied. Section 18.775.130 Any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor (1)protection of significant wetlands and/or (2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed separately through an Alternatives Analysis, as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards". The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following: Response: Section 18.775.130 of the code provides the option for a Type IV Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove Goal 5 protection from a parcel based on a specific development proposal. This amendment does not remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit. A specific development proposal has been prepared, which is based on the previously H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 30 GROUP MACKENZIE designed Phase 2 extension proposed by the City. The applicant will comply with the requirements related to the service provider letter and will obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection permit prior to construction of the proposed roadway extension. Demonstration that an amendment is justified can be done by either an ESEE analysis or a Determination of "insignificance." The following addresses the ESEE analysis option for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove Goal 5 protection from the site and remove the site from the inventory. A. ESEE analysis. The applicant may prepare an Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy(ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040. 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, considering both the impacts on the specific resource site and the comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area. Response: This application contains an ESEE analysis (Exhibit R) for the project site and compares this site to others throughout the City. The ESEE has been prepared using a methodology used by the City for the Phase 1 of Wall Street that is compliant with the ESEE methodologies currently in use by Metro and the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places (TBPNP) of which the City of Tigard is a member. The ESEE more thoroughly contemplates and better balances the environmental, social, economic, and energy implications of developing this particular site with this particular proposal. 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflict use are sufficient to juste the loss, or partial loss, of the resource. Response: The ESEE contains an explanation of the impact to the natural resources and the economic importance of providing public access to a significant amount of residentially zoned land that is currently land-locked. The ESEE conclusions demonstrate how the project has been designed to minimize impacts to the natural resources on the site. In addition, providing the requested extension will allow for development of the subject site that will be of significant economic and social benefit to the city of Tigard. 3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use. Response: The ESEE discusses that ten alternative road alignments were identified and explored in the Alternatives Analysis prepared for the previous Joint Fill permit for the full extension of Wall Street. The Analysis determined that the preferred Alternative 9 minimized both wetland and 100-year floodplain impacts to the extent practicable. In addition, the applicant has exhausted all other alternative access options to serve the subject site as is discussed earlier in the narrative. The proposed extension is aligned with the only easement access route that the applicant has to the property. The proposed extension of Wall Street remains the only viable access option to serve property east of Fanno Creek. Furthermore, this access has been identified through the various agreements between the City and the applicant since the sale of the Library property to the City. The proposed extension to Wall Street complies H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 31 GROUP MACKENZIE with the City's designation on the TSP as a collector. The project description describes multiple other transportation projects that were analyzed in the transportation plan as potential alternatives to this project in this area. For the reasons discussed above and laid out in the ESEE, no other sites within Tigard can meet the specific needs of the proposed use. 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney, all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis. Response: The ESEE analysis has been prepared by Pacific Habitat Services and a land use planner from Group Mackenzie; both are qualified in their respective fields. S. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map"shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. Response: This application includes mapping materials used in the preparation of the report. These GIS mapping products include updated natural resource site locations based upon site-specific delineation of natural resources and professional land surveying. These materials may be used to update the natural resource inventory for the site, as well as the sensitive lands overlay zone. Upon approval of the requested application, the Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map can be amended similar to Phase 1. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 32 GROUP MACKENZIE IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The 0.19 acres of wetland impact to the man-made East Pond and wetlands east of Fanno Creek proposed with the roadway extension are mapped on the City of Tigard's Wetlands & Stream Corridors Map. Pursuant to Section 18.775.130, a quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendment is requested to remove the locally significant designation from these elements. The following addresses the applicable criteria for the amendment. Section 18.390.060 - Type IV Procedure Response: Section 18.390.060.G includes the factors that the Planning Commission and City council should consider in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. These factors are identified and addressed below. 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; Response: The following identifies and addresses how the proposed project complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. Goal 1 —Citizen Involvement Response: The neighborhood meeting, public notice and public hearings associated with this application ensure compliance with this goal. Goal 2—Land Use Planning Response: This goal's main focus is to direct jurisdictions regarding the creation of land use plans and ordinances. The City of Tigard has an acknowledged comprehensive plan and, as discussed in this narrative, this proposal complies with applicable policies as adopted by the City Council. The review of this application and the requirements to meet specific criteria prior to approval ensure the proposed project complies with the standards of this goal. Goal 5—Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal 6—Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality Response: These goals are intended to protect natural resources, historic areas, and related resources. This application proposes an amendment to the City of Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridors Map to remove the wetland and East Pond impacted by the proposed project from the map. The Phase 1 approval removed 0.11 acres of significant land from the map through a similar request including a portion of the East Pond. The impacts and the mitigation proposed have been previously reviewed and permitted by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of State Lands. Furthermore, Phase 1 provided the mitigation for the Phase 2 impacts. A Service Provider Letter has been obtained from Clean Water Services. This review, with the permits listed above, ensures that the impacts to the identified natural resources have been appropriately protected and mitigated in compliance with these goals. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 33 GROUP MACKENZIE Goal 8—Recreational Needs Response: This goal's main focus is related to large-scale resort opportunities and is not applicable to this application. However, the proposed street alignment does include sidewalks and bike lanes, providing connections to other pathways in the area that provide recreational opportunities within the community. Goal 10—Housing Response: The proposed project meets this goal by providing access to the applicant's property to the east of Fanno Creek. A recent comprehensive plan and zone change was approved by City Council. The result is a significant parcel of R-25 zoned property primed for development, with the exception of access. This application will provide public access to this property allowing development and the economic and social benefits to the City to be realized. Goal 11 —Public Facilities and Services Response: This goal requires that jurisdictions plan and ensure adequate and appropriate extension of public facilities and services to direct development. The subject site does not currently access, however does have utilities in the abutting railroad right-of-way and in the western portion of the site available to serve the site. The request provides access to the subject site with the only viable option by way of an extension of Wall Street as previously proposed by the City over an existing access easement. The City of Tigard Transportation Systems Plan already reflects this proposed extension of Wall Street. Goal 12—Transportation Response: This goal requires that local governments provide "a safe, convenient and economic transportation system," and it requires adoption of transportation plans designed to implement the goal. Wall Street is a public support facility called for by the Street Improvement Plan of the City's Transportation System, which has been adopted by the City Council and acknowledged by DLCD. This request allows for the logical planned extension of Wall Street to provide access to the subject site similar to that planned/built to serve the Tigard Library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums (i.e. Phase 1). 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; Response: The subject street extension, its impacts, and mitigation have received prior approval from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Oregon Department of State Lands, and Clean Water Services. An updated CWS SPL has been included in this application. Updated Corps and DSL permits will be necessary and the information required for such a permit will be provided before construction of the proposed extension. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 34 GROUP MACKENZIE 3. Any applicable METRO regulations; Response: Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan ("Functional Plan") is a regional policy tool that requires changes to city and county comprehensive plans and land use ordinances to implement regional goals and objectives. The following addresses how the proposed project meets the applicable titles of the Functional Plan. Title 1 —Housing and Employment Response: Title 1 of the Functional Plan promotes more efficient use of land by setting target capacities for jobs and housing. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment does not affect job or housing capacities, as it is associated with a revision to the Wetland & Stream Corridor Map, and not the zoning of the property. However, it does facilitate the development of a significant parcel of residentially zoned property, thereby meeting the City's and Metro density requirements. Title 2—Regional Parking Policy Response: This title creates region-wide parking policies that set the minimum and maximum number of parking spaces that can be required by local governments for certain types of new development. This title is not applicable as this request does not include parking. Title 3— Water Quality and Flood Management Response: This title aims to reduce flood and landslide hazards, control erosion, and reduce water pollution. The performance standards of this title are addressed through the City's sensitive lands requirements of Section 18.755 and Clean Water Service Requirements. Section III of the above narrative addresses these requirements. Title 6—Regional Accessibility (Regional Transportation Plan) Response: This title addresses the coordination of transportation and land use planning by requiring improvements to local street grids, mode split targets in regional centers, and the revisions to level of service standards. Wall Street is a public support facility called for by the Street Improvement Plan of the City's Transportation System, which has been adopted by the City Council and acknowledged by DLCD. Approval of this request will allow for the extension of Wall Street to provide access to a land-locked parcel of land. No other alternatives exist. Therefore, with the extension of Wall Street from its current terminus into the applicant's property, exercising the existing access easement, compliance with the City adopted TSP is achieved. 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and Response: Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are addressed in Section III. S. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Response: Applicable provisions of the City's Development Code are addressed in Section V. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 35 GROUP MACKENZIE Section 18.390.050 Type III Procedure 18.390.050.B.2.e Decision Making Procedure /Impact Study Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Response: The following demonstrates compliance with this Section: Transportation System As mentioned above, the current proposed extension of Wall Street is in compliance with the City's designation on the adopted TSP. Bicycle lanes have been provided with the proposed bridge design, which will connect to Phase 1 and eventually onto Hall Boulevard. The proposed removal of the significant wetlands designation itself will not have impact on the transportation system. Drainage System The only change in drainage associated with this proposal is the conveyance of stormwater associated with the road and bridge. All such stormwater is directed towards a water quality facility. Treated stormwater from the water quality facility will be directed into the wetland mitigation area to ensure that wetland hydrology on the site is maintained and that development does not adversely impact existing wetlands. No additional impacts are associated with the proposed extension. Certain aspects of the previous Wall Street design and the Library design involved mutual issues. Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. led the civil design for the Library, and DeHaas & Associates, Inc. led the civil design for Wall Street. Kurahashi & Associates covered the water quality requirements for both projects. Page 2 of the Phase 1 Stormwater Report (referenced in Exhibit 0) indicates the Swale constructed for the Library was sized to accommodate the street impervious area from the Wall Street Extension (Phase 1). Additional impervious area will be handled by this bioswale for new impervious area on the west end of the proposed bridge crossing. A new bioswale is proposed to be constructed east of Fanno Creek to treat runoff from Phase 2 consisting of the proposed bridge and associated sidewalks. A detailed description of the design can be found on Page 3 of Exhibit B of the Joint Permit Application (Exhibit H). Preliminary calculations for conveyance and treatment of flows from Phase 2 are described by Exhibit M. Parks System The project area is not located within the City's parks system; therefore neither construction of the proposed extension or the removal of the significant designation will affect the City's park system. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 36 GROUP MACKENZIE The water system There are no additional users of the City's water system as a result of the proposed extension of Wall Street. The proposed removal of the significant designation will not, in itself, have any impact on the water system in the City. The sewer system There are no additional users of the City's sewer system as a result of the proposed extension of Wall Street. The proposed removal of the significant designation will not, in itself, have any impact on the water system in the City. Noise impacts of the development A temporary increase in noise levels will occur during construction of the project due to the presence of heavy equipment. Sensitive noise receptors adjacent to the project include users of the Tigard Library, and residents of the Fanno Pointe Condominiums. Upon completion of construction, regular use of the extension will have usual noise associated with similar sized facilities. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 37 GROUP MACKENZIE V. OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS Additional sections of the City of Tigard Community Development Code are applicable to the proposed project. The following identifies these code sections and addresses how the proposed road extension meets each. 18.510 Residential Zoning District Response: The project area includes two separate residential zoning districts: R-12 and R-25. The proposed extension is a public support facility identified in the Street Improvement Plan of the City's Transportation System Plan and is a permitted use in both residential zoning districts affecting the project area. No residential development that would be subject to the development standards in this section is proposed. The proposed roadway will connect to the Phase 1 terminus of Wall Street which is also located on residentially zoned property. 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards Response: The project will comply with all applicable state and federal regulations pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system, or streams. 18.775 Sensitive Lands Review Response: The applicable code sections of Chapter 18.775 are addressed in this application. See Section III of this narrative. 18.790 Tree Removal Response: TDC 18.790.030 lists the threshold criteria for requiring a Tree Plan Review to remove trees. As the proposed application does not involve a subdivision, partition, site development review, or conditional use, a Tree Plan Review is not required. However, a Tree Removal Permit subject to a Type I procedure is necessary for the removal of trees associated with the proposed extension of Wall Street. A separate, but concurrent Tree Removal Permit has been applied for which addresses the provisions of TDC 18.790.050. These provisions are met. 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas Response: The roadway will comply with all standards for visual clearance areas at its intersection with Hall Boulevard and both driveways as the previous application demonstrated compliance and this application is merely an extension. 18.810 Street and Utility Standards Response: The roadway is designed to comply with the standards of this section as follows: .030 Streets A. Improvements: 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 38 GROUP MACKENZIE 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter,provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. 4 Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter; S. If the City could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements, the City Engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist: a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. Response: The proposed road extension will facilitate the development of the applicant's property east of Fanno Creek by providing public access and frontage to Wall Street. The proposed design of the roadway meets the standards of this Chapter as is shown on the attached drawings, except as described below pursuant to Section 18.810.030.A.6 &7. In order for development to occur at the applicant's property, the proposed roadway extension will need to be constructed. No future improvements guarantee is proposed with this application. These standards are met. 6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by the City Engineer pursuant to Section 18.81O.O2O.B. 7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. The approval authority may also approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would have a substantial adverse impact on existing development or would preclude development on the property where the development is proposed. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the approval authority shall balance the benefit of the adjustment with the impact on the public interest represented by the standards. In evaluating the impact on the public interest, the approval authority shall consider the criteria listed in Section 18.81O.O30.E.1. An adjustment to the standards may not be granted if the adjustment would risk public safety. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 39 GROUP MACKENZIE Response: An adjustment to the standards for a collector is necessary as there is not an adopted collector bridge cross section per Table 18.810.1. The requested adjustment removes the planter strip from the proposed cross section in order to ensure minimum impacts necessary to natural features. The removal of this portion of the cross section does not impact the public benefit of the proposed public support facility, as the proposed roadway extension will continue to allow vehicle, pedestrian and bicycles access. Please see the following narrative which addresses the adjustment criteria as stated in Section 18.370.020.C.11. 11. Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied:Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. (Ord. 06-20) Response: As mentioned above, additional impacts to natural features would result if planter strips are proposed on the bridge portion of the proposed extension. This would result in additional impacts that would be inconsistent with the preferred Alternative 9, as well as the previously approved Joint Fill permit and would require additional wetland and vegetated corridor impacts. In order to minimize impacts to the greatest extent practicable, an adjustment to the proposed collector cross section is requested for the bridge portion of the proposed extension to remove the required 5' planter strip. This criterion is met. B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be created through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition; however, the Council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed,provided that such street is deemed essential by the Council for the purpose of general traffic circulation: 1. The Council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are found by the Council to be present: a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the Council and is found to be essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street for public use; or b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of one acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the Commission to the Council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or major partitions. 2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication shall be made a condition of subdivision and major partition approval: a. The applicant shall submit such additional information and justification as may be necessary to enable the Commission in its review to determine whether or not a recommendation for approval by the Council shall be made; H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 40 GROUP MACKENZIE b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title; c. The Commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the Council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of this title; and 3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the City and shall name "the public,"as grantee. Response: The proposed application does not include a subdivision, major partition or other land division. The proposed extension provides a public street and bridge crossing. As mentioned previously, the final design has not been selected; however the plans attached demonstrate the preliminary design in accordance with the drawings previously prepared for the City. Currently, a 72' right-of-way is proposed which will be deeded to the City per the appropriate documents at the appropriate time. These standards are met. C. Creation of access easements. The approval authority may approve an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this title provided such an easement is the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created: 1. Access easements shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.207; 2.Access shall be in accordance with Sections 18.7O5.O3O.H and 18.705.030.1. Response: No access easements are currently proposed. These standards do not apply. D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets: 1. Street grades shall be approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Subsection N below; and 2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either: a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas, or b. Conform to a plan adopted by the Commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. Response: The Wall Street extension is identified in the TSP in the general location of the proposed alignment. The design of the proposed extension has been completed to conform with the TSP designation, and the approved Alternatives Analysis prepared by the City. The grade of the road and bridge are dictated by the current grades of the terminus of Wall Street and the floodplain elevation. The review of the design plans by the City Engineer ensures compliance with City standards. The proposed eastern terminus allows the further construction to the north over the railroad tracks using an on-grade crossing. Private street circulation systems associated with future development will be provided with future applications. These standards are met. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 41 GROUP MACKENZIE E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.) These are presented in Table 18.810.1. 1. The decision-making body shall make its decision about desired right-of-way width and pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after consideration of the following: a. The type of road as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter-Functional Street Classification; b. Anticipated traffic generation; c. On-street parking needs; d. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements; e. Requirements for placement of utilities; f Street lighting; g. Drainage and slope impacts; h. Street tree location; i. Planting and landscape areas; j. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians; k Access needs for emergency vehicles. Response: The City of Tigard TSP (Figure 8-3) identifies Wall Street as a proposed collector. TDC 18.810 and Table 18.810.1 define the requirements for a collector street. The proposed extension has been designed in accordance with right-of-way requirements for a collector street and matches the existing right- of-way provided with Phase 1. Table 1 at the beginning of this narrative demonstrates the proposed cross-section and dimensions of the proposed improvements. This standard is met. F. Future street plan and extension of streets. 1. A future street plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. At the applicant's request, the City may prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the City preparing a future streets proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved.A street proposal may be modified when subsequent subdivision proposals are submitted. b.IdentJ existing or proposed bus routes,pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site. Response: The proposed roadway extension does not include a request for a subdivision, partition or other land division. This standard does not apply. 2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed, and H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 42 GROUP MACKENZIE a. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. b. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length. Response: A purpose of this application is to fill in the gap created by the terminus of Phase 1 and the applicant's property, which would not be necessary had the City complied with this requirement. Nonetheless, the proposed roadway extension has been designed to allow the future extension of Wall Street in accordance with the TSP. Additional private access supporting future development of the applicant's property can be provided with the proposed terminus of Wall Street. This standard is met. G. Street spacing and access management: Response: See response to H below. H. Street alignment and connections. 1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. 2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. 3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. 4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development. Response: The purpose of this application is to complete a connection from Wall Street to the applicant's property. If a future street extension is necessary, the proposed roadway has been designed to accommodate an on-grade crossing H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 43 GROUP MACKENZIE of the northerly abutting railroad tracks as previously designed by the City in compliance with the TSP. This standard is met. I.Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than 750 unless there is special intersection design, and: 1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance; 2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angle; and 3. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet. Response: No new intersections are proposed with the roadway extension. As previously approved and constructed, the intersection of the proposed Wall Street extension and Hall Boulevard meets the requirements of this section. J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. Response: The proposed extension will be constructed within dedicated right- of-way that will match the western right-of-way provided with Phase 1. This standard is met. K Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 20 feet; while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. Response: No partial street improvements are proposed with this project. This standard does not apply. L. Culs-de-sacs.A cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: 1. All culs-de-sac shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection point of the two streets to the radius point of the bulb. 3. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. Response: No cul-de-sac is proposed with this application. TVF&R has previously determined that turnaround opportunities in both the Fanno Pointe development and the Library parking lot are acceptable. Future development of the subject site will provide required turnaround opportunities where required without the need for a cul-de-sac, but will be determined during Site Design Review for a specific project. This standard does not apply. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 44 GROUP MACKENZIE M Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of existing streets. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the surrounding area and as approved by the City Engineer. Response: This road extension is named Wall Street as selected by the City of Tigard. This standard is met. N. Grades and curves. 1. Grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12%on collector streets, or 12%on any other street(except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15%for distances of no greater than 250 feet), and 2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. Response: The road extension is designed to not exceed a grade of 12%, per the standards of this section. O. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080; and.: 1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except 2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and 3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. Response: Concrete curbs will be provided as is shown on the attached cross section. This standard is met. P. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way. Wherever the proposed development contains or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way,provision shall be made for a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land. The distance shall be determined with due consideration at cross streets or the minimum distance required for approach grades and to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting along the railroad right-of-way in nonindustrial areas. Response: Future development of the applicant's property will address this standard. The proposed extension of Wall Street allows future extensions to cross, at grade, the abutting railroad right-of-way as previously contemplated by the City and as shown on the TSP. This standard is met. Q.Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following: 1.A parallel access street along the arterial or collector; 2.Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street; 3. Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess reservation along the arterial or collector; or 4. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; 5.If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications,primary access should be from the lower classification street. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 45 GROUP MACKENZIE Response: While Wall Street is designated as a collector on the City's TSP, this street may be limited to serving only future development on the subject site along with the existing Tigard Library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums. Future development on the applicant's property will be required to demonstrate compliance with this standard, should Wall Street remain designated as a collector. This standard is met. R. Alleys, public or private: Response: No alleys are proposed. These standards do not apply. S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance by the City, it shall be the responsibility of the developer's registered professional land surveyor to provide certification to the City that all boundary and interior monuments shall be reestablished and protected. Response: The requirements of this section will be met by the developer's surveyor. T. Private streets. 1.Design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer; and 2. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. 3. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi family residential developments. Response: No private streets are proposed with this application. Future development on the applicant's property will require consultation with the City Engineer to determine private street requirements, if proposed, and provide the necessary assurances required by this standard. Additionally, in the event that future development elects to construct more than six dwelling units to be served by a private street, a planned development application will be required. This standard is met. U. Railroad crossings. Where an adjacent development results in a need to install or improve a railroad crossing, the cost for such improvements may be a condition of development approval, or another equitable means of cost distribution shall be determined by the public works Director and approved by the Commission. Response: No railroad crossings are proposed, although the proposed extension does not preclude a future extension across the railroad should it be approved by the railroad. This standard does not apply. V. Street signs. The City shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names, as specified by the City Engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. Response: Street signs will be installed in compliance with these standards. W. Mailboxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments, with each joint mailbox serving at least two dwelling units. 1. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to roadway curbs; 2. Proposed locations ofjoint mailboxes shall be designated on a copy of the preliminary plat or development plan, and shall be approved by the City Engineer/US Post Office prior to final plan approval; and H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 46 GROUP MACKENZIE 3. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer/US Post Office prior to final approval. Response: This standard does not apply to this proposal as mailboxes are not proposed. X Traffic signals. The location of traffic signals shall be noted on approved street plans. Where a proposed street intersection will result in an immediate need for a traffic signal, a signal meeting approved specifications shall be installed. The cost shall be included as a condition of development. Response: A traffic signal was constructed at the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street intersection during Phase 1 in accordance with ODOT standards. No additional signal improvements are proposed or required. This standard is met. Y. Street light standards. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with regulations adopted by the City's direction. Response: Street lights will be installed in compliance with these standards during construction of the proposed extension. This standard is met. Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop signs and other signs may be required. Response: Additional street name signs, if required, will be installed in compliance with these standards. AA. Street cross-sections. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all new constructed public roadways prior to final City acceptance of the roadway and within one year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later than when 90%of the structures in the new development are completed or three years from the commencement of initial construction of the development, whichever is less. 1. Sub-base and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock; 2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphaltic concrete; 3. The final lift shall be placed on all new construction roadways prior to City final acceptance of the roadway; however, not before 90%of the structures in the new development are completed unless three years have elapsed since initiation of construction in the development; 4. The final lift shall be Class C asphaltic concrete as defined by A.P.W.A. standard specifications;and S. No lift shall be less than 1-1/2 inches in thickness. Response: Cross-section construction and specifications will comply with the requirements of this section. AB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the proposed development will create a negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive speeding, the developer may be required to provide traffic calming measures. These measures may be required within the development and/or offsite as deemed appropriate.As an alternative, the developer may be required to deposit funds with the City to help pay for traffic calming measures that become necessary once the development is occupied and the City Engineer determines that the additional traffic from the development has triggered the need for traffic calming measures. The City Engineer will determine the amount of funds required, and will collect said funds from the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or in the case of H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 47 GROUP -1VACKENZIE subdivision,prior to the approval of the final plat. The funds will be held by the City for a period offive(5)years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy, or in the case of a subdivision, the date of final plat approval. Any funds not used by the City within the five-year time period will be refunded to the developer. Response: Traffic calming devices are not proposed as a specific development is not proposed with this application. This standard does not apply. AC. Traffic study. 1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When they generate a 10%or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision intersections identified by Washington County. b. Trip generations from development onto the City street at the point of access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges: Existing ADT 0-3,000 vpd 3,001-6,000 vpd >6,000 vpd ADT to be added by development 2,000 vpd 1,000vpd 500 vpd or more c. If any of the following issues become evident to the City Engineer: (1)High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect movement into or out of the site; (2)Lack of existing left-turn lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the proposed access drive(s); (3)Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points; (4) The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or intersections is a potential hazard; (5) The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive- through operation; (6) The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local streets. 2.In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facility; and/or b. Trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an ODOT facility; and/or c. Trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT facility. Response: A traffic study is not necessary for the proposed extension as no specific development is proposed with this application. This standard does not apply. .040 Blocks A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 48 GROUP MACKENZIE B. Sizes. 1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the centerline of the streets except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands,significant habitat areas or bodies of water, or pre-existing development, or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads; c. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is exempted by Subsection B.1 above. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. Response: These standards are not applicable to the proposed project. .050 Easements A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development traversed by a watercourse, or drainageway, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B. Utility easements.A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the City, the applicable district and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The City's standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or City Engineer. Response: The proposed roadway extension includes a proposed 8' public utility easement on either side of the proposed roadway. These standards are met. .060 Lots A. Size and shape. Lot size, width, shape and orientation shall be appropriate for the location of the development and for the type of use contemplated, and: 1. No lot shall contain part of an existing or proposed public right-of-way within its dimensions; 2. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2-1/2 times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1-1/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district; 3. Depth and width of properties zoned for commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street parking and service facilities required by the type of use proposed. B.Lot frontage. Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other than an alley,for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land partition in which case Subsection 18.162.050.C applies, or unless the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet. C. Through lots. Through lots shall be avoided except where they are essential to provide separation of residential development from major traffic arterials or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation, and: 1. A planting buffer at least ten feet wide is required abutting the arterial rights-of-way; and 2. All through lots shall provide the required front yard setback on each street. D. Lot side lines. The side lines of lots, as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to the street upon which the lots front. E. Large lots. In dividing tracts into large lots or parcels which at some future time are likely to be redivided, the Commission may require that the lots be of such size and shape, and be so divided into building sites, and contain such site restrictions as will provide for the extension and H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensitive Lands REV.doc 49 GROUP MACKENZIE opening of streets at intervals which will permit a subsequent division of any tract into lots or parcels of smaller size. The land division shall be denied if the proposed large development lot does not provide for the future division of the lots and future extension of public facilities. Response: The proposed road bisects two lots currently owned by the City to the extent that the access easement granted by the City affects them. Dedication of right-of-way will be completed and will provide frontage to the currently land-locked property owned by the applicant. No land division is proposed with this application. These standards are met. .070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks.All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along at least one side of the street.All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. B. Requirement of developers. 1.As part of any development proposal, or change in use resulting in an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identift direct, safe(1.25 x the straight line distance)pedestrian routes within 1/2 mile of their site to all transit facilities and Neighborhood Activity Centers (schools,parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if justified by the development. 2.If there is an existing sidewalk, on the same side of the street as the development, within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality(even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). C. Planter strip requirements.A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities, there are significant natural features (large trees, water features,significant habitat areas, etc) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required, or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less).Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case-by-case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. D. Sidewalks in central business district.In the central business district, sidewalks shall be 10 feet in width, and: 1.All sidewalks shall provide a continuous unobstructed path; and 2. The width of curbside sidewalks shall be measured from the back of the curb. E.Maintenance.Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the continuing obligation of the adjacent property owner. F.Application for permit and inspection.If the construction of a sidewalk is not included in a performance bond of an approved subdivision or the performance bond has lapsed, then every person,firm or corporation desiring to construct sidewalks as provided by this chapter,shall, before entering upon the work or improvement, apply for a street opening permit to the Engineering Department to so build or construct: 1. An occupancy permit shall not be issued for a development until the provisions of this section are satisfied. 2. The City Engineer may issue a permit and certificate allowing temporary noncompliance with the provisions of this section to the owner, builder or contractor when, in his opinion, the construction of the sidewalk is impractical for one or more of the following reasons: H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensitive Lands REV.doc 50 GROUP MACKENZIE a. Sidewalk grades have not and cannot be established for the property in question within a reasonable length of time; b. Forthcoming installation of public utilities or street paving would be likely to cause severe damage to the new sidewalk; c. Street right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate a sidewalk on one or both sides of the street; or d. Topography or elevation of the sidewalk base area makes construction of a sidewalk impractical or economically infeasible; and 3. The City Engineer shall inspect the construction of sidewalks for compliance with the provision set forth in the standard specifications manual. G. Council initiation of construction. In the event one or more of the following situations are found by the Council to exist, the Council may adopt a resolution to initiate construction of a sidewalk in accordance with City ordinances: 1. A safety hazard exists for children walking to or from school and sidewalks are necessary to eliminate the hazard; 2. A safety hazard exists for pedestrians walking to or from a public building, commercial area, place of assembly or other general pedestrian traffic, and sidewalks are necessary to eliminate the hazard; 3. 50%or more of the area in a given block has been improved by the construction of dwellings, multiple dwellings, commercial buildings or public buildings and/or parks; and 4. A criteria which allowed noncompliance under Subsection E.1.b above no longer exists and a sidewalk could be constructed in conformance with City standards. (Ord. 06-20; Ord. 02-33; Ord.99-22) Response: 6-foot-wide sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the road extension. No planter strip is proposed for the 320' bridge portion of the proposed extension in order to minimize impacts to significant lands. Other standards listed in this section will be addressed during the building permit process or during construction. These standards are met. .080 Public Use Areas A. Dedication requirements. 1. Where a proposed park,playground or other public use shown in a development plan adopted by the City is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision,provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. 2. Where considered desirable by the Commission in accordance with adopted Comprehensive Plan policies, and where a development plan of the City does not indicate proposed public use areas, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of parks or other public use,provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. B.Acquisition by public agency. If the developer is required to reserve land area for a park, playground, or other public use, such land shall be acquired by the appropriate public agency within 18 months following plat approval, at a price agreed upon prior to approval of the plat, or such reservation shall be released to the subdivider. (Ord. 99-22) Response: This application does not include development, a land division, or public use areas. These standards do not apply. .090 Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 51 GROUP MACKENZIE Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Sewer plan approval. The City Engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. D. Permits denied. Development permits may be restricted by the Commission or Hearings Officer where a deficiency exists in the existing sewer system or portion thereof which cannot be rectified within the development and which if not rectified will result in a threat to public health or safety, surcharging of existing mains, or violations of state or federal standards pertaining to operation of the sewage treatment system. Response: An existing sanitary sewer line runs along with western boundary of the applicant's property. Future development will be required to analyze this utility to ensure it is sufficient to accommodate development. This standard is met. .100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream,there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantial with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. C.Accommodation of upstream drainage.A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runofffrom its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and: 1. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Response: See Exhibit L, "Preliminary Utility Plan" and Exhibit M, "Stormwater Report" for Phase 2 of the Wall Street Extension. These standards are met. .110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways A. Bikeway extension. 1.As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes and where identified on the City's adopted bicycle plan in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the Downtown Urban Renewal District shall be determined H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 52 GROUP MACKENZIE by the City Engineer. 2.Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way,provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3.Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this document and on the adopted bicycle plan. B. Cost of construction.Development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements in an amount roughly proportional to the impact of the development. C. Minimum width. 1. Minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five (5)feet per bicycle travel lane. 2.Minimum width multi-use paths separated from the road is ten (10)feet. The width may be reduced to eight(8)feet if there are environmental or other constraints. 3. The minimum width for pedestrian only off-street paths is five(5)feet. 4.Design standards for bike and pedestrian-ways shall be determined by the City Engineer. Response: 6-foot-wide sidewalks are provided on both sides of the road as part of the improvements proposed. Additionally 6' wide bike lanes are provided with the proposed roadway extension. These standards are met. .120 Utilities: A. Underground utilities.All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 2. The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground utility facilities, and: 1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and 2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic. C. Exception to undergrounding requirement. 1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 53 GROUP MACKENZIE 2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in- lieu of undergrounding. 3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 4. The exceptions in Paragraphs 1 through 3 of this Subsection C shall apply only to existing utility lines.All new utility lines shall be placed underground. D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the City.All development which occurs within a utility service area shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this code. 2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a front foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due from any developer shall be calculated based on a front foot basis. 3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The City Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the request for credit. 4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding utilities within the City at large. The City Engineer shall prepare and maintain a list of proposed undergrounding projects which may be funded with the fees collected by the City. The list shall indicate the estimated timing and cost of each project. The list shall be submitted to the City Council for their review and approval annually. Response: All franchise and public utilities are available on the east side of the Fanno Creek bridge crossing such that these criteria are met, and no new utilities are proposed. These standards are met. .130 Cash or Bond Required: A. Guarantee.All improvements installed by the developer shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City Council. B. Cash deposit or bond. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. C. Compliance requirements. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.430.090. Response: Compliance with these standards will occur as required with future improvements. .140 Monuments: A. Replacement required.Any monuments that are disturbed before all improvements are completed by the subdivider shall be replaced prior to final acceptance of the improvements. Response: A land division is not proposed, however any monuments disturbed during the construction of the proposed extension will be replaced. This standard is met. .150 Installation Prerequisite: A.Approval required. No public improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans have been approved by the City,permit fee paid, and permit issued. B. Permit fee. The permit fee is required to defray the cost and expenses incurred by the City for H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 54 GROUP MACKENZIE construction and other services in connection with the improvement. The permit fee shall be set by Council resolution. Response: The review and issuance of construction permits for the road extension ensure compliance with these requirements. .160 Installation Conformation: A. Conformance required.In addition to other requirements, improvements installed by the developer either as a requirement of these regulations or at his/her own option, shall conform to the requirements of this chapter and to improvement standards and specifications followed by the City. B.Adopted installation standards. The Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Oregon Chapter A.P.W.A., and Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments)shall be a part of the City's adopted installation standard(s); other standards may also be required upon recommendation of the City Engineer. Response: Conformance with the requirements of this section will occur during building permit review and construction. .170 Plan Check: A. Submittal requirements. Work shall not begin until construction plans and construction estimates have been submitted and checked for adequacy and approved by the City Engineer in writing. The developer can obtain detailed information about submittal requirements from the City Engineer. B. Compliance. All such plans shall be prepared in accordance with requirements of the City. Response: The review and issuance of construction permits for the road extension ensure compliance with these requirements. .180 Notice to City: A. Commencement. Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. B. Resumption. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. Response: City notification of construction will occur in compliance with these requirements. .190 City Inspection: A. Inspection of improvements. Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the City. The City may require changes in typical sections and details if unusual conditions arising during construction warrant such changes in the public interest. Response: Inspections will occur as part of the construction process. .200 Engineers Certification: A. Written certification required. The developer's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade,prior to City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. Response: This certification will be provided upon completion of the road extension. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\091003-Updated Comp Plan Sensifive Lands REV.doc 55 GROUP ACKENZIE1 CELEBRATING50YEARS January 15,2010 (Revised June 14, 2010) City of Tigard Attention: Cheryl Caines 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Completeness Response CPA2009-00004, SLR2009-00004, and SLR2009-00005 Project Number 2070334.06 N n � co Dear Cheryl: 0 N C M The following information has been prepared in response to your letter of incomplete LL application submittal,dated October 30,2009,regarding the request for the extension of Wall Street. We have addressed the items below, with our responses following your comments. 2 0 ° With this additional information,we feel that the burden of proof has been substantially met u, -o and no additional information is necessary to deem the proposed application complete. Our ro c a intent with this submittal is to clarify the pertinent details of this application so as to better a a 81 articulate the proposed extension,and demonstrate compliance with the approval criteria.The ° following are our detailed responses to incomplete items. x m 1 . APPLICATION FORM c a The property owner of tax lot 2S 102DA-00690 has been contacted and a copy of the signed application form is attached to this response(Exhibit A). y O � M 6 2. NARRATIVE Group Comprehensive Plan Mackenzie, Incorporated Natural Resources and Historic Areas— Goal 5.1 Architecture Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they provide and, Interiors to the extent feasible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning systems and Structural high levels of biodiversity. Engineering Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street presents several conflicts with current Civil Engineering comprehensive plan goals and policies including transportation,public facilities and services, Land Use Planning and economic development and those related to natural resources and environmental quality. Transportation Careful consideration of the balance between these oals and policies has been the forefront Planning g 1� Landscape of the extension of Wall Street since the initial planning stages related to Phase 1 in 2002. Architecture Evidence of this consideration is found in the Alternatives Analysis prepared for the full extension of Wall Street (included as Exhibit K), of which this application is in full Locations: Portland,Oregon compliance. The City determined that Alternative 9 was preferred as it would avoid and Seattle,Washington minimize impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and natural resources to the greatest extent Vancouver,Washington practicable. The proposed extension is in full compliance with Alternative 9. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 2 Wetland mitigation for proposed impacts has been designed to improve the functional attributes of wetlands and associated riparian habitats.Functional attributes that will result in improvements or gains as a result of the mitigation efforts will be water storage and delay, nitrogen removal, thermoregulation, anadromous fish habitat support, invertebrate habitat support, amphibian and turtle habitat, wintering and migratory waterbird support, and songbird habitat support. Mitigation for both phases of construction was proposed in the vicinity of Pinebrook Creek, a perennial stream just south of the alignment of Phase 1 of the project,because the creek and adjacent wetlands had been degraded by historic straightening of the Pinebrook Creek channel, and by routing the creek through two in-line ponds. These ponds contributed to thermal pollution, and also negatively affected dissolved oxygen and nutrient inputs into both Pinebrook and Fanno Creeks. Mitigation for both phases of this project included routing the channel of Pinebrook Creek away from the in-line ponds (the western pond was eliminated during Phase 1 of construction). Mitigation elements have been implemented to benefit water quality in Fanno Creek by eliminating the warm nutrient rich waters from the remaining pond from entering Fanno Creek. The new alignment of the creek will allow fish passage from Fanno Creek to Pinebrook Creek. Other functions and values that have been restored or improved as a result of wetland mitigation are discussed below, as summarized from the details included in the project's stream restoration and mitigation plan document (prepared by Zion Natural Resources Consulting, 2007). With the use of berms and Newberry riffles there will be an increase in water storage during the wet season that will delay the movement of hydrology towards Fanno Creek. Nitrogen removal will be increased and accomplished through the placement of native vegetation, seasonal inundation, and the placement of downed large diameter trees placed throughout the mitigation site. The function of thermoregulation will increase over time through the overshadowing of the Pinebrook Creek and wetland areas by the planting of trees and shrubs to eventually reduce the temperatures of the water as the vegetation matures. The design of this mitigation area is specifically oriented toward anadromous fish habitat. This design incorporates the reduction of water velocities,provides refuge for young fish during high flow times, will likely increase the presence of invertebrates, and prevents fish entrapment as the hydrology recedes from the site. Invertebrate habitat support and amphibian and turtle support will be accomplished in the same manner through the placement of large boulders and downed wood, variable vegetation forms, and seasonal pools associated with Pinebrook Creek.Seasonal pools, increased native vegetation,and the contributing watershed upstream will provide an increase in functions for wintering and migratory waterbird support. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 3 There is expected to be no loss of functions through the impact of the wetlands once compensated through the implementation of this mitigation plan. Though native species are locally abundant, the existing ecological area is dominated by invasive species and is in degraded condition. By mitigating impacts resulting from the construction of the extension of Wall Street,the ecological function will be vastly improved both from a water quality and habitat perspective. The result of this extensive mitigation, including the removal of invasive species,will be a naturally functioning system with high levels ofbiodiversity.Through demonstration of other alternatives and restoration activities, the proposed extension of Wall Street demonstrates compliance with this goal. Policy 7 The City shall protect and restore riparian and upland habitats to the maximum extent feasible on public and private lands. Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street proposes the minimum impacts practicable. Through the Alternatives Analysis process,the City previously determined that Alternative 9 was preferred as it would avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and natural resources to the greatest extent practicable.The proposed extension is in full compliance with Alternative 9. Furthermore,restoration of riparian habitats will include removal of noxious invasive species and the installation of nearly 3,000 native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants over an area of greater than 1.25 acres. These actions will not only serve to restore habitats disturbed during bridge construction, it will also support habitat connectivity and diversity in adjoining areas. This policy is met. Policy 8 The City shall protect and, to the extent feasible, restore the diverse ecological and non- ecological functions and services of streams, wetlands, and associated riparian corridors. Response:Impacts to Fanno Creek and wetlands within the project area have been minimized through an extensive analysis of alternative roadway alignments. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands are being mitigated through implementation of a wetland mitigation plan that has been approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands and the US Army Corps of Engineers. See Goal 5.1 for a discussion of ecological functions that will be restored or enhanced as a result of these mitigation elements. Specifically,restoration of riparian habitats will include removal of noxious invasive species and the installation of nearly 3,000 native trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants over an area of greater than 1.25 acres.These actions will not only serve to restore habitats disturbed during bridge construction, it will also support habitat connectivity and diversity in adjoining areas. This policy is met. Hazards—Goal 7.1 Protect people and property from flood, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe weather hazards. Response: The Flood Insurance Study and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps, effective February 18,2005,were consulted to verify the 100-year floodplain elevation in the project area. This information was cross-referenced with the OBEC Consulting Engineers/West Consultants Hydraulic Analysis performed as part of the Alternatives H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 4 Analysis(Exhibit K)to confirm the floodplain elevation and impacts related to the proposed roadway and bridge extension. As stated in Exhibit 0, the research was conclusive that the floodplain elevation is consistent between both sources at 141.4. The previously prepared Alternatives Analysis considered the impacts of the full extension of Wall Street including floodplain impacts. The selected design(Alternative 9)demonstrated the most minimal impacts practicable and was, therefore, approved by the City as the preferred alternative.An OBEC Consulting Engineers/West Consultants team was retained by the City previously to analyze hydraulic impacts associated with various bridge alternatives (Exhibit K).The study concluded that a 320-foot bridge would span the floodway,and bridge piling supports would have minimal impacts on the floodway.The 320-foot bridge also meets FEMA requirements related to no rise in the floodplain elevation. A memorandum summarizing the information in this report relative to the proposed extension has been prepared(Exhibit 0). Floodplain impacts associated with the proposed extension are limited to placement of roadway structural fill in the areas west and east of the proposed bridge and support piles. Impacts are further limited to match previous design assumptions through the placement of wing and retaining walls on both sides of the bridge span.Total floodplain impacts indicated for the proposed extension,prior to mitigation,are 2010 CY(over a 0.56 AC footprint). To ensure compliance with the conclusions of the Hydraulic Analysis and no impacts to the 100- year floodplain, mitigation in the form of excavation within the floodplain to balance earthwork volumes will be provided off-site in a location to be determined. This application does not propose any work within the stream corridor associated with Fanno Creek. The actual paved surface and related improvements do not create 100-year floodplain impacts and the bottom chord of the bridge structure is elevated above the floodplain elevation to exceed the required 1-foot freeboard. The proposed structural fill is needed to elevate the proposed public roadway above the 100-year floodplain.Required grading associated with the proposed road construction has been designed using BMP's from DEQ and CWS to minimize erosion and potential sedimentation of Fanno Creek(see sheet R2.2 of Exhibit L). This goal is met. Policy 4 The City shall design and construct public facilities to withstand hazardous events with a priority on hazard protection of public services and facilities that are needed to provide emergency response services. Response:The proposed extension of Wall Street is designed as a public collector street and will serve future residential development on the Fields property. The proposed 320-foot bridge was selected due to the width of the floodway at the proposed extension of Wall Street, and minimizes impacts to meet FEMA requirements related to no rise in the floodplain elevation. The proposed impacts in the floodplain are necessary to elevate the roadway and bridge extension above the 100-year floodplain elevation with 1 foot of freeboard in order to ensure that the constructed roadway will be able to provide emergency response services in the event of a flood, and have been mitigated by balancing earthwork locally. This policy is met. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 5 Policy 7 The City shall comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)flood regulations, which include standards for base flood levels,flood proofing, and minimum finished floor elevations. Response: The proposed design complies with the base flood elevation determined through the Flood Insurance Study and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps,effective February 18,2005.No structures are proposed with this application and,therefore,flood proofing and floor elevations are not applicable. This policy is met. Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space—Goal 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents,including both: A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system. Response: The City of Tigard Parks Master Plan (Res. 09-53) indicates that the proposed extension lies within Fanno Creek Park.This park is indicated as a Linear Park,which abuts designated public open space to the south of the proposed extension. Linear parks are described as follows,"[1]inear parks offer opportunities for trail-oriented outdoor recreation along built or natural corridors, connect residences to major community destinations and provide some active and passive recreation facilities to meet neighborhood needs."A master plan was developed in 2003 for the Fanno Creek Park specific to the area east of Hall Boulevard surrounding the Library. The master plan documents acknowledge the proposed extension of Wall Street on the existing and natural conditions exhibit. The proposed extension of Wall Street as indicated on the City's TSP and acknowledged in the master planning process, does not include any impacts to existing or planned active recreation activities.The existing trail-oriented recreation along the natural area abutting Fanno Creek is proposed to remain unaltered with the exception of the large enhancement activities proposed to meet CWS requirements.The result of these enhancements will be the removal of existing invasive species which dominate a majority of this area,and an improved habitat for a variety of wildlife, as well as positive water-quality benefits. This goal is met. Policy 17 The City shall maintain and manage its parks and open space resources in ways that preserve, protect, and restore Tigard's natural resources, including rare, or state and federally listed species, and provide "Nature in the City"opportunities. Response: As indicated above, the City has acknowledged the proposed extension with its master planning process of Fanno Creek Park.The proposed extension will meet or allow the facilitation of the recommendations of the Wildlife/Habitat Analysis of the Fanno Creek Master Plan as it relates to sensitive plant and animals species.The large enhancement effort proposed to meet CWS requirements will restore and greatly improve the surrounding natural resources for a variety of purposes,including wildlife habitat(both existing and potential)and water quality. Further details regarding habitat species can be found on the attached letter from Pacific Habitat Services. This policy is met. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 6 Public Facilities and Services—Goal 11.1 Develop and maintain a stormwater system that protects development, water resources, and wildlife habitat. Response:A new bioswale will be constructed east of Fanno Creek to treat runoff from the proposed extension.The proposed bioswale is consistent with the plans previously prepared for the City,and includes capacity to treat impervious surfaces from the streets and sidewalks associated with the Phase 2 impacts, as well as future extension to a proposed high point in the profile east of the existing railroad track crossings. As designed and accounted for by previous design and construction, a portion of the Phase 2 stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces to the west of the bridge span will be treated with the water quality facility constructed with Phase 1. The previous approval sized this facility appropriately for the ultimate build-out of both phases.Preliminary calculations are provided in Exhibit M per City and Clean Water Services standards.The two stormwater facilities will meet and exceed water quality treatment standards for the new impervious areas and will maintain or increase the water quality and habitat values of Fanno Creek. This goal is met. Policy 1 The City shall require that all new development: A. construct the appropriate stormwater facilities or ensure construction by paying their fair share of the cost; B. comply with adopted plans and standards for stormwater management; and C. meet or exceed regional, state, and federal standards for water quality and flood protection Response: A new bioswale will be constructed east of Fanno Creek to treat runoff from the proposed extension. The proposed bioswale is consistent with the plans previously prepared for the City,and includes capacity to treat impervious surfaces from the streets and sidewalks associated with the Phase 2 impacts as well as future extension to a proposed high point in the profile east of the existing railroad track crossings.As designed and accounted for by previous design and construction,a portion of the Phase 2 stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces to the west of the bridge span will be treated with the water quality facility constructed with Phase 1. The previous approval sized this facility appropriately for the ultimate build-out of both phases.Preliminary calculations are provided in Exhibit M per City and CWS standards. The two stormwater facilities will meet and exceed water quality treatment standards for the new impervious areas, and will increase the water quality and habitat values of Fanno Creek. This policy is met. Policy 6 The City shall maintain streams and wetlands in their natural state, to the extent necessary, to protect their stormwater conveyance and treatment functions. Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street does not impact the stream channel of Fanno Creek.Wetland impacts include 0.19 acre to construct the westerly bridge wing wall and the roadway and fill slopes for the remainder of the project.Wetland impacts are mainly associated with emergent/scrub-shrub wetlands that are currently dominated by invasive species. These impacts are consistent with the prior Corps/DSL fill permits and the City's H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 7 Alternatives Analysis. Wetland mitigation for the full extension of Wall Street was constructed with Phase 1 of the road extension. Mitigation included 0.20 acres of wetland restoration, 0.29 acres of wetland enhancement, and 0.08 acres of wetland creation. Mitigation and monitoring efforts are ongoing and appear on track to meet the conditions of permits that have been issued by the Oregon Department of State Lands and the US Army Corps of Engineers. While no additional wetland mitigation measures are proposed, additional plantings within CWS buffer is proposed including approximately 326 trees and 2,144 shrubs. The result of the prior wetland mitigation and proposed buffer mitigation is a high-quality and functional natural system.The addition of a new bioswale on the east end of the proposed extension will treat runoff from the new impervious areas prior to the release into the abutting wetlands. This policy is met. Goal 11.4 Maintain adequate public facilities and services to meet the health, safety, education, and leisure of all Tigard residents. Response: The proposed public road extension has been designed in accordance with the collector designation per the City's TSP. The width of the extension will be accessible to serve emergency vehicles. This goal is met. Policy 4-D The City shall require that all new development: Have a street layout and design that is accessible by emergency vehicles; and Response:The proposed extension of Wall Street is designed to be accessible by emergency vehicles that will be needed to serve future residential development on Mr.Fields'property. This policy is met. Transportation—Goal 12.1 Policy 1 —Transportation System Plan, design, and construct transportation facilities in a manner which enhances the livability of Tigard by: A. Proper location and design of transportation facilities. B. Encouraging pedestrian accessibility by providing safe, secure and desirable pedestrian routes. C. Addressing issues of excessive speeding and through traffic on local residential streets through a neighborhood traffic program. The program should address corrective measures for existing problems and assure that development incorporates traffic calming. Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street is shown on the City's TSP as a future collector. The proposed design provides standard width sidewalks that will accommodate pedestrian accessibility. This policy is met. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 8 Policy 2 Provide a balanced transportation system, incorporating all modes of transportation (including motor vehicle, bicycle,pedestrian, transit and other modes) by: A. The development of and implementation of public street standards that recognize the multi purpose nature of the street right-of-way for utility,pedestrian, bicycle, transit, truck and auto use. B. Coordination with TriMet, and/or any other transit providers serving Tigard, to improve transit service to Tigard. Fixed route transit will primarily use arterial and collector streets in Tigard.Development adjacent to transit routes will provide direct pedestrian accessibility. C. Construction of bicycle lanes on all arterials and collectors within Tigard consistent with the bicycle master.All schools,parks,public facilities,and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a bikeway. D. Construction of sidewalks on all streets within Tigard. All schools, parks, public facilities, and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a sidewalk. E. Development of bicycle and pedestrian plans which link to recreational trails. F. Design local streets to encourage a reduction in trip length by providing connectivity and limiting out-of-direction travel and provide connectivity to activity centers and destinations with a priority for bicycle and pedestrian connections. G. Tigard will participate in vehicle trip reduction strategies developed regionally targeted to achieve non-single occupant vehicle levels outlined in table 1.3 of the regional transportation plan. H. Tigard will support the development of a commuter rail system as part of the regional transit network. Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street has been designed in accordance with public street standards, and provides a balance of different modes of transportation modes including motor vehicle,pedestrian, and bicycles. This policy is met. Policy 3 Strive to achieve a safe transportation system by the development of street standards,access management policies and speed controls when constructing streets, and by making street maintenance a priority and through a comprehensive program of engineering, education, and enforcement. G. New roadways shall meet appropriate lighting standards.Existing roadways shall be systematically retrofitted with roadway lighting. Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street will include lighting in accordance with the public street standards, which will be reviewed with the fmal design plans submitted for building permit. This policy is met. Policy 5 Develop transportation facilities which are accessible to all members of the community and minimize out of direction travel by: A. The design and construction of transportation facilities to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 9 Response: The roadway and sidewalk slopes do not exceed ADA maximums. The design meets the requirements of ADA. This policy is met. Goal 12.2—Tra fficways Policy 6 The City shall adopt the following transportation improvement strategy in order to accommodate planned land uses in the Tigard Triangle: E. Analysis indicates that there is a long term (20-30 years)need for Dartmouth Road to continue over Highway 217 and potentially south to Hall Boulevard as well as for extending the collector distributor roads from the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange through the Highway 217/Highway 99W interchange. The Highway 217 corridor analysis to be performed by Metro and ODOT should consider the advantages and disadvantages of these improvements. The Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard should be constructed only iffurther system improvements to Hall Boulevard are made concurrently.If additional capacity is not added to Hall Boulevard south of where the Dartmouth extension would be connected, the effectiveness of this connection would be diminished. Alternatively, another roadway could be constructed that provides a connection from the Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street. Response:Although the above connection is not shown on the current TSP,it is assumed that the extension of Wall Street as proposed could facilitate the connection from Hall Boulevard to Dartmouth Road. The proposed extension is in compliance with the collector designation on the TSP for Wall Street, and does not preclude the future extension of Wall Street to connect with Dartmouth. This policy is met. Tigard Community Development Code 18.775—Sensitive Lands Response:The previously submitted narrative and supporting exhibits addressed this section in detail.No further information is necessary to demonstrate compliance with TDC 18.775— Sensitive Lands section of the Community Development Code for completeness purposes. Tigard Municipal Code 7.40.090— Greenway Maintenance A. The owner or responsible party shall be responsible for the maintenance of the property, subject to an easement to the City or to the public fro greenway purposes. Except as otherwise provided by this section and Sections 7.40.050 through 7.40.120, the standards for maintenance shall be as follows: 1. The land shall remain in its natural topographic condition.No private structures, culverts, excavations or fills shall be constructed within the easement area unless authorized by the City Engineer based on a finding of need in order to protect the property or the public health, safety of welfare. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 10 2. No tree over five feet in height shall be removed unless authorized by the Planning Director based on a finding that the tree constitutes a nuisance or a hazard. 3. Grass shall be kept cut to a height not exceeding ten inches, except when some natural condition prevents cutting. B. In situations where the approval authority establishes different standards or additional standards, the standards shall be in writing and shall be recorded.No person shall be found in violation of this section of the code unless the person has been given actual or constructive notice of the standards prior to the time the violation occurred. Response: TMC 7.40.090 is a nuisance provision that governs maintenance of greenway easement areas. Because no greenway easements exists on this site and because TMC 7.40.090 is a nuisance provision and not a development regulation,it does not apply to our application. Chapter 9.06—Trees on City Property 9.06.030 Tree Planting (A) No person other than the City shall plant a tree on City property without the written approval of the Public Works Director or designee. In approving tree plantings, the Public Works Director or designee may impose conditions of approval; (B) Any City department responsible for City property shall consult with the Public Works Director or designee before planting trees on City property; (C) The Public Works Director or designee may grant approval of tree planting on City property under subsection a of this section only if the applicant has submitted a tree plan showing compliance with the standards set forth in the Tree Manual, and has signed a maintenance agreement consistent with the standards set forth in the Tree Manual. The requirement for a maintenance agreement may be waived if the tree- planting is voluntary and not required by any City code provision or condition of approval; (D) All tree plantings on City property shall be undertaken in a manner consistent with the approval of the Public Works Director or designee and the standards set forth in the Tree Manual; (E) Only trees listed in the Street Tree List or those specifically approved by the Public Works Director or designee may be planted as street trees. Response: Trees proposed to be planted with the extension of Wall Street are required as conditions of the Service Provider Letter issued by CWS(Exhibit P).A total of 318 trees are proposed to be planted within the project area to meet CWS standards for enhancement and mitigation.Most of these trees are to be planted on City property.The details of the proposed plantings are provided in Exhibit Q, including a landscape plan (Sheet R2.5). Prior to installation of the proposed trees, coordination with the City Public Works Director, or designee,will occur to coordinate proposed species and planting details.In the event the City Public Works Director requires a maintenance agreement, in addition to any other special requirements by CWS, an agreement will be provided prior to issuance of building permit. The standards for planting requirements will be coordinated between the Tigard Tree Manual and CWS R&O 07-20 Appendix A. This standard is met. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 11 9.06.040 Tree Care and Maintenance (1) General Provisions (A) All trees planted pursuant to the written approval of the Public Works Director or designee under Section 9.06.040 shall be cared for and maintained according to the standards set forth in the City Tree Care Manual. Response: In the event that the Public Works Director, or designee, deems a maintenance agreement necessary,such an agreement will be provided prior to issuance of building permit for the extension of Wall Street. This standard is met. 9.06.050 Tree Protection (1) Care of Trees on City Property. The City shall follow the Tree Manual in caring for and protecting trees on City property. (2) These requirements shall provide for the proper protection of tree roots, trunk(s) (or stem(s)), branches, and foliage within a tree's critical root zone for any tree on City property during any type of construction activity or project(excavation, demolition or any other type of disturbance); Response: The construction of Wall Street requires the excavation of previously placed fill material to the north of the proposed extension. Trees on the City's property in this area proposed to be saved will protect the critical root zone by providing a buffer in compliance with the definition in the Tree Manual under 020.6.c.Circular areas demonstrating the critical root zone are shown on the tree removal exhibit included with the Arborist Report as Exhibit T,which are areas not to be disturbed. Final construction plans will demonstrate details for construction fencing and other details to ensure no impacts to the trees and their critical root zone occur in accordance with these standards, as specified in the arborist's recommendations. This standard is met. 9.06.060 Removal of Hazardous Trees from City Property (1) Removal Priority (A) When any person reports to the Public Works Director or designee that a tree on City property is hazardous, the Public Works Director, or appointed designee, shall evaluate the condition of the tree. The Public Works Director or designee shall establish a removal priority among trees determined to be hazardous and the City shall proceed with removal of hazardous trees from City property according to the priority established by the Public Works Director or designee, subject to the availability offinancial and other resources. Response:An arborist study was prepared for the second phase extension of Wall Street as proposed with this application which has been included as Exhibit T. The study analyzed a total of 26 trees (four trees were inventoried with the phase one arborist study). Of the 26 trees inventoried, 21 trees are located on City property and are subject to these regulations. The study concluded that of the 21 trees inventoried on City property, five were considered dead or hazard trees,and were recommended for immediate removal.While not delineated as hazardous,an additional 12 trees were identified as having"poor form,internal decay or other defects that make them poor specimens,unsuitable for retention in an ornamental landscape or potential hazard trees as they continue to deteriorate"and recommended for removal.The H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 12 four remaining trees on City property were not identified in the above categories; however, are necessary for removal to accommodate the proposed construction activities related to the extension of Wall Street.Three trees are proposed to be preserved(number 56,57,and 58)as they are not directly impacted by the proposed development. According to Section 090.2 of the Tree Manual,the extension of existing streets as shown on the Transportation System Plan is exempt for the tree mitigation requirements. As such, no mitigation is required.Nonetheless,a total of 318 trees are proposed to be planted within the vegetated corridors within the project area. This standard is met. (2) Removal of Hazardous Trees (A) The removal of hazardous trees from City property shall be performed by City of Tigard employees or contracted commercial tree care companies with experience in tree removal. The Public Works Director or designee shall provide guidance as to the disposition of any wood or debris from any tree removal on City property. Response: Prior to removal of the hazardous trees, the City of Tigard will inform the applicant whether they will be removing the hazardous trees and specific details regarding the disposition of debris. This standard is met. 9.06.070 Removal of Trees from City Property (1) Removal of Trees from City Property other than Right of Way Prohibited. No person other than the City or a person acting under contract with the City shall remove a tree from any City park or any City-owned property without written approval of the Public Works Director or designee.Any person removing a tree from City property other than right of way shall provide mitigation as specified in the Tree Manual. Response: The trees proposed to be removed will fall under right-of-way that will be dedicated prior to issuance of building permit for the construction of the road.According to Section 090.2 of the Tree Manual, the extension of existing streets as shown on the Transportation System Plan is exempt for the tree mitigation requirements. As such, no mitigation is required.Nonetheless,a total of 318 trees are proposed to be planted within the project area. This standard is met. (2) Removal of Trees from Right of Way.No person other than the City or a person acting under contract with the City shall remove a tree from any City right of way without written approval of the Public Works Director or designee. As part of the written approval for tree removal from right of way, the Public Works Director or designee shall require mitigation as specified in the Tree Manual. Response: The trees proposed to be removed will fall under right-of-way that will be dedicated prior to issuance of building permit for the construction of the road.According to Section 090.2 of the Tree Manual, the extension of existing streets as shown on the Transportation System Plan is exempt for the tree mitigation requirements. As such, no mitigation is required.Nonetheless,a total of 318 trees are proposed to be planted within the project area. This standard is met. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 13 (3) Removal of Wood or Tree Debris from City Property.No person shall remove wood or tree debris from City property without written approval of the Public Works Director or designee, provided however that the Public Works Director or designee may retroactively approve removal of wood or tree debris from City property if the removal was under emergency circumstances. This section does not prohibit clearing of paths or other clean-up that leaves wood or tree debris on City property. Response:The removal of wood or other tree debris from the proposed removal of trees,will be coordinated with the City Public Works Director and Arborist. This standard is met. Metro Urban Functional Growth Management Plan Title 13—Nature in Neighborhoods Response: Title 13 (Nature in Neighborhoods) of the Metro Urban Functional Growth Management Plan sets forth regulations and standards for implementation by each local jurisdiction. According to review of Ordinance 06-20, the City of Tigard has adopted regulations and code amendments to ensure compliance with Title 13. In the City's Comprehensive Plan,Chapter 5,goals and policies have been adopted to enforce the policies in Title 13. Similarly,the purpose statement,as listed in TDC 18.775.O10.D,comments that its intent is to implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Title 13. By demonstrating compliance with the applicable provisions of both Chapter 5 and the Sensitive Lands chapter,this request is in compliance with Title 13. 3. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ESEE Please provide on the document the names and titles of those who prepared it.Also provide the facts,findings, and conclusions in the narrative to show how 18.775.130.A criteria are met.Does this updated analysis consider changes that may have occurred since the original ESEE was completed for Phase 1? Response: The revised ESEE for the Phase 2 extension of Wall Street includes the recent changes in zoning of Mr. Fields' property. No other changes have occurred since the completion of Phase 1. The ESEE submitted for Phase 2 was prepared by John van Staveren and Shawn Eisner with Pacific Habitat Services (PHS) and Tom Wright, AICP of Group Mackenzie.The prior narrative adequately addresses the relevant criteria in 18.775.130.A,as are further supported by the revised ESEE document attached. No additional analysis is necessary. The ESEE analysis was prepared by the following PHS staff:John van Staveren,Professional Wetland Scientist(PWS)and Shawn Eisner,Wetland Biologist/Project Manager.PHS is a natural resource consulting firm with expertise in wetland functional assessment and Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 5 work.PHS has completed nearly two dozen Goal 5 projects in the State of Oregon since the early 1990's,many of which included ESEE elements. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 14 John van Staveren,PWS,(B.S.Marine biology and limnology)is the senior scientist at PHS. As Senior Scientist, Mr. van Staveren directs the firm's environmental and regulatory compliance activities.He has conducted thousands of wetland delineations,24 Local Wetland Inventories and riparian inventories, designed and implemented dozens of freshwater and estuarine wetland mitigation plans, provided expert witness testimony, and testified at numerous public hearings. Shawn Eisner (B.S. in Environmental Science and Earth Science; Graduate Certificate in Environmental Geology)is a wetland/environmental assessment project manager.His recent Goal 5 experience includes preparation of local wetland inventories for the planned communities of North Bethany and Bull Mountain in Washington County,as well as for Arch Cape in Clatsop County. Shawn also provides specialized support pertaining to wetland delineations,biological assessments on transportation(bridge)projects,and the environmental permitting process in general. Alternatives Analysis Page 8 of the analysis is not legible.Please ensure that future copies of this page are legible for readers. Was the wildlife biologist/wetlands ecologist involved with analyzing the environmental impact of the two new alternatives? Response:A revised copy of the Alternatives Analysis has been provided with this response. Methodology used to analyze the two new additional access points was consistent with that used to prepare the previous Alternatives Analysis.Impacts were calculated using Arc View based upon the approximate location of the road alignments,estimated width or road grading limits, and natural resource mapping. PHS was involved to help analyze and determine impacts of each additional alternative. Department of State Lands Removal/Fill Permit Permit 31719-RF has expired and you state that a new permit will be requested. The supporting documents for this permit were prepared several years ago and will likely be required by the permitting agency.Please provide copies of updated supporting documents. Response: The previously approved joint fill permit from DSL and the Corps approved wetland impacts associated with the full extension of Wall Street.Approved mitigation was also included with this permit, and constructed with the first phase of the extension. The permit expired January 27,2008,and the impacts for Phase 2 will require a new permit.Per recent discussions with representatives of both DSL and Corps new permits will be necessary and the mitigation completed with Phase 1 can be applied to the impacts proposed with this application.It is possible that updated supporting documents will be required by the agencies; however,this information is not necessary for the City to approve this application. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 15 4. ADJUSTMENT Response: The additional fee of$310.50 has been provided with this re-submittal. 5. TREE REMOVAL PERMITS Response:A separate,but concurrent,Tree Removal Permit request has been submitted with this re-submittal. Per TDC 18.790.050, Tree Removal Permits are processed as Type I applications. These standards are met. 6. PUBLIC FACILITY ITEMS Street Issues Right-of-way clearly shown? Response: 1. An adjustment is requested pursuant to TDC 18.810.030.A.6&7 in order to minimize impacts to the natural features in the area of the proposed bridge over Fanno Creek. These features include wetlands, vegetated corridors, trees, and additional floodplain impacts. The proposed section eliminates the planter section on the bridge portion of the extension;however,continues to provide the required travel lanes,bike lanes,and sidewalks. 2. A 72-foot right-of-way dedication is proposed along the entire length,even in locations where the two-lane improvement section is proposed. 3. Dedication of right-of-way and easements is shown on the typical section of Sheet R8.1. 4. Noted: See previous comment and Sheet R8.1. Street right-of-way widths dimensioned and appropriate? Response:While the road is limited to two-lanes in the bridge section,right-of-way width is maintained at 72 feet for the length of the project. See Sheets R2.1 and R8.1. Other? Response: 1. Final development plans will demonstrate details for both street lighting and street trees. 2. Final development plans will provide details for franchise utility placement underground on either side of the bridge, and attached with the bridge where appropriate. 3. At a previous meeting with City staff,it was indicated the City would defer to TVF&R review. Our discussions with TVF&R indicated that without any structures to protect, no turnaround would be necessary with this phase of work. With any future H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 16 development,circulation and access requirements will have to be followed,including providing an adequate turnaround in compliance with TVF&R requirements. Sanitary Sewer Issues Existing/proposed lines shown? Response: Agreed. Water Issues Existing/proposed lines with sizes noted? Response: Water lines have been added to Sheet R2.3. Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? Response:Agreed.Hydrants will be added with future development according to applicable standards. Proposed fire protection system shown? Response: Agreed. See TVF&R response note above. Storm Drainage and Water Quality Issues Existing/proposed lines shown? Response: Catch basins have been added at approximately Station 18+25, providing a spacing of approximately 390 feet from the westerly roadway profile crest,which meets the City/CWS catch basin maximum spacing requirement(400 feet maximum). Preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention provided? Response: 1. Preliminary calculations are included in the application materials as Exhibit M. Final calculations will be part of the permit application. 2. Fees for detention will be paid with the issuance of construction permits. 7. ARBORIST COMMENTS The provisions of TMC 9.06 and 18.790.050 are addressed above. The following addresses the additional code provisions noted by the Arborist. 18.745 Landscaping and Screening 18.745.030 General Provisions A. Obligation to maintain. Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner, tenant and his agent, if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 17 maintenance of all landscaping and screening which shall be maintained in good condition so as to present a healthy,neat and orderly appearance,shall be replaced or repaired as necessary, and shall be kept free from refuse and debris. Response: This application does not include any landscape or screening materials, as the proposal is for the extension of a public road. CWS buffer enhancement and mitigation plantings are proposed to their"good"standard;however,will be maintained in accordance with CWS standards. Trees proposed to be planted on City-owned property will be maintained in accordance with TMC 9.06.040, or other agreement. This provision is met. B. Pruning required. All plant growth in landscaped areas of developments shall be controlled by pruning, trimming or otherwise so that: 1. It will not interfere with the maintenance or repair of any public utility; 2. It will not restrict pedestrian or vehicular access; and 3. It will not constitute a traffic hazard because of reduced visibility. Response: This application does not include any proposed pruning or trimming of existing landscaping or trees. This provision is not applicable. C. Installation requirements. The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures; 2. The plant materials shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock(ANSI Z6O, 1-1986,and any future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. Response: Proposed buffer enhancement and mitigation plantings will be provided in accordance with CWS standards, which meet or exceed the City's requirements. This provision is met. D. Certificate of occupancy. Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the landscaping requirements have been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the City such as the posting of a bond. Response:This application is for an extension of a public roadway,therefore,this provision is not applicable. E. Protection of existing vegetation. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans(e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around individual trees). Response: The proposed plans demonstrate the trees and vegetation to be protected. Additional construction details and methods will be specified during the building permit process. This provision is met. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 18 F. Care of landscaping along public rights-of-way.Appropriate methods for the care and maintenance of street trees and landscaping materials shall be provided by the owner of the property abutting the rights-of-way unless otherwise required for emergency conditions and the safety of the general public. Response:No impacts are proposed to existing plant materials adjacent to public rights-of- way. This provision does not apply. G. Conditions of approval of existing vegetation. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. Response:Appropriate conditions of approval on the proposed extension of Wall Street may be specified,and will be complied with during the construction process.This provision is met. H. Height restrictions abutting public rights-of-way. No trees, shrubs or plantings more than 18 inches in height shall be planted in the public right-of-way abutting roadways having no established curb and gutter. Response:No landscape plantings are proposed abutting the proposed Wall Street right-of- way with the exception of street trees. A curb and gutter will protect these plantings in compliance with this provision. 18.745.040 Street Trees A. Protection of existing vegetation.All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. B. Street tree planting list. Certain trees can severely damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or can cause personal injury.Approval of any planting list shall be subject to review by the Director. C. Size and spacing of street trees. 1. Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified in the requirements stated in Section 18.745.040.0.2 below. 2. The specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: a. Small or narrow-stature trees under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; b. Medium-sized trees 25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; c. Large trees over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; d. Except for signalized intersections as provided in Section 18.745.O4O.H, trees shall not be planted closer than 2O feet from a street intersection,nor closer than two feet from private driveways(measured at the back edge of the sidewalk),fire hydrants or utility poles to maintain visual clearance; H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 19 e. No new utility pole location shall be established closer than five feet to any existing street tree; f Tree pits shall be located so as not to include utilities(e.g., water and gas meters) in the tree well; g. On premises utilities (e.g., water and gas meters) shall not be installed within existing tree well areas; h. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards; i. New light standards shall not be positioned closer than 20 feet to existing street trees except when public safety dictates, then they may be positioned no closer than 10 feet; j. Where there are overhead power lines, the street tree species selected shall be of a type which, at full maturity, will not interfere with the lines; k. Trees shall not be planted within two feet from the face of the curb;and 1. Trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway: (1) Space between the tree and the hard surface may be covered by a nonpermanent hard surface such as grates, bricks on sand,paver blocks and cobblestones; and (2) Sidewalk cuts in concrete for tree planting shall be at least four by four feet to allow for air and water into the root area. D. Pruning requirements. Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above sidewalks and 13 feet above local street, 15 feet above collector street, and 18 feet above arterial street roadway surfaces. E. Cut and fill around existing trees. Existing trees may be used as street trees if no cutting or filling takes place within the drip-line of the tree unless an adjustment is approved by the Director by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.a. F. Replacement of street trees. Existing street trees removed by development projects or other construction shall be replaced by the developer with those types of trees approved by the Director. The replacement trees shall be of a size and species similar to the trees that are being removed unless lesser sized alternatives are approved by the Director. G. Granting of adjustments.Adjustments to the street tree requirements may be granted by the Director by means of a Type I procedure, as regulated in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.6.b. H. Location of trees near signalized intersections. The Director may allow trees closer to specified intersections which are signalized, provided the provisions of Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance, are satisfied. (Ord. 09-13) Response: The first phase extension of Wall Street provided 2-inch caliper Oregon White Oak (Quercus Garryana). This species and spacing will be continued with the proposed extension of Wall Street,with the exception of where the planting strip has been eliminated with the bridge crossing. These standards are met. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 20 18.745.060 Re-Vegetation A. When re-vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed through grading in areas not affected by the landscaping requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. B. Preparation for re-vegetation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction is to be stored on or near the sites and protected from erosion while grading operations are underway; and 1. Such storage may not be located where it would cause suffocation of root systems of trees intended to be preserved; and 2. After completion of such grading, the topsoil is to be restored to exposed cut and fill embankments or building pads to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting. C. Methods of re-vegetation. 1. Acceptable methods of re-vegetation include hydro-mulching or the planting of rye grass, barley, or other seed with equivalent germination rates, and: a. Where lawn or turf grass is to be established, lawn grass seed or other appropriate landscape cover is to be sown at not less than four pounds to each 1,000 square feet of land area; b. Other re-vegetation methods offering equivalent protection may be approved by the approval authority; c. Plant materials are to be watered at intervals sufficient to ensure survival and growth;and d. The use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and maintenance demands. Response:The areas proposed to be disturbed with grading and excavation activities will be planted and re-vegetated in accordance with the planting plan developed to meet CWS standards listed in R&0 07-05 Appendix A.The methods for species removal and re-planting will be consistent with CWS standards,which meet or exceed these standards. 8. AREAS OF CONCERN The narrative reads, under TDC 18.775.070.B.2, that code references are cited to support your interpretation of the term "public support facilities."There is one citation,no discussion of how this term has been previously interpreted by the City, and how the proposed interpretation is different. Response: In the first area of concern, the City asks for additional information about the meaning of the term"public support facility."The only development allowed in residentially zoned floodplains are those associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities. The relevant code provision reads: Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year fioodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 21 uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards."TDC 18.775.070.B.2. As is stated in the application,the land form alterations and support structures for the bridge that are in the floodplain are"public support facilities."In meetings with Mr.Fields,staff has questioned if the land form alterations and support structures for the bridge qualify as"public support facilities."This term is not defined in the Tigard Development Code. As the applicant's lawyer,Mr. Grillo,explained at the pre-application meeting with staff,the "text in context"rule under PGE v.BOLI provides the appropriate methodology for analyzing the code's meaning in using this ambiguous phrase.' The PGE test involves a two-step analysis.First,the text and context of the provision are examined. Second,if the meaning of the provision is not clear from the first level of analysis, the decision-maker considers legislative history.2 The text of TDC 18.775.070.B.2 quoted above gives little insight to the meaning of"public support facility;" however, another provision in the sensitive lands code gives more explanation of this term.TDC 18.775.020.E.1 provides that,"The City Engineer shall review the installation of public support facilities such as underground utilities and construction of roadway improvements including sidewalks,curbs,streetlights,and driveway aprons** *." The inclusion of the phrase"construction of roadway improvements"in this description of public support facilities strongly indicates that roadway construction is allowed in residential floodplains. It indicates even more strongly that support structures for bridges are public support facilities. As was mentioned in the application, the entire proposed roadway is elevated above the floodplain. It is only support structures for the road that are in the floodplain. Furthermore, this must include land form alterations because constructing roadways, sidewalks, and driveway aprons inherently involves land form alterations. A less plausible interpretation would be that land form alterations and support structures for the street and bridge do not qualify as"public support facilities"because streets are not public facilities. The plausibility of this interpretation is eliminated when the purpose provision in the streets section of the code is considered. TDC 18.810.010 provides that,"The purpose of this chapter is to provide construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage" (emphasis added). By this provision,public streets are public facilities.Wall Street is a public street as contemplated in the TSP and as designed. It is,therefore, a public facility. The support structures for public facilities are naturally public support facilities. Staff's completeness review requests a discussion of how the term"public support facilities" has been previously interpreted by the City.A search for Tigard land use decisions pertaining 1 PGE v.BOLI,317 Or 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993). 2 PGE,317 at 610-11. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 22 to bridge applications over floodplains resulted in only one other bridge application since adoption of the TDC 18.775.070.B.2 provision regarding"public support facilities"quoted above.In SLR 2009-0002,the City approved a bridge and pathway across the Fanno Creek floodplain on this same residentially zoned property approximately 180 meters upstream from the proposed location of Mr.Fields'bridge.As is explained in Mr.Grillo's letter to the City dated December 1,2009 (attached),the City Hearings Officer found that such a bridge was allowed, so long as the road surface was elevated above the floodplain. In meetings with Mr.Fields, staff indicated that the City has not approved a bridge or street over a residentially zoned floodplain since the "public support facility" provision quoted above was adopted. Staff also expressed a belief that such a bridge or street may not be allowed because of staff's long-standing practice to not allow such facilities.While we respect staff's position on this issue, it is not based on the text of the code or even prior land use decisions.As is discussed above,the text and context of the code indicates that grading and supports for bridges over the floodplain are allowed as"public support facilities." Is this design the most environmentally friendly? The applicant is requesting exceptions/adjustments to the street design to avoid impacts to natural areas, but then is proposing fill within these same natural areas. Response: The proposed extension of Wall Street presents several conflicts with current Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, including transportation, public facilities and services,and economic development and those related to natural resources and environmental quality. Careful consideration of the balance between these goals and policies has been the forefront of the extension of Wall Street since the initial planning stages related to Phase 1 in 2002. Evidence of this consideration is found in the Alternatives Analysis prepared for the full extension of Wall Street (included as Exhibit K), of which this application is in full compliance. The City determined that Alternative 9 was preferred as it would avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, floodplains and natural resources to the greatest extent practicable. The proposed extension is in full compliance with Alternative 9. Wall Street is classified as a future collector per the City's TSP. The proposed design is in conformance with the collector standards,with the exception of where the proposed bridge crosses Fanno Creek.The improvement width has been reduced to eliminate the planter strip from the bridged portion of the extension to ensure that impacts to the natural resources (including wetlands,vegetated corridor,floodplain,and trees)are minimized.Furthermore the placement of wing and retaining walls on both sides of the bridge span limit additional grading and wetland fills, although at a higher cost of construction.A design adjustment has been included with this application as allowed in 18.810.030.A.6&7.With the elimination of the required planter strip,impacts are minimized to these natural features in accordance with the previously selected preferred alternative. Beginning on page 8 of the narrative,you briefly outline the impacts to the on-site sensitive areas. These impacts are a key concern of the stakeholders.Please ensure that impacts to the natural areas and wildlife are clearly outlined. Document where and from whom this information was obtained. H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc City of Tigard Completeness Response Project Number 2070334.06 January 15, 2010 Page 23 Response: The impacts proposed with this application are based upon several documents including the original Alternatives Analysis which identified the proposed design as the preferred alternative. Information presented in this application has been provided by professionals in their respective fields, including an arborist, natural resources consultant, civil engineers, and land use attorneys. Several previous studies have been used to base conclusions of this application,which have been reviewed and concurred with by applicable professionals.The proposed extension of Wall Street has been designed to minimize impacts to natural resources to the greatest extent practicable, as is evident by the Alternatives Analysis.Furthermore,this extension has been designed in conformance with the City's TSP to provide access to Mr.Fields'property in accordance with prior agreements with the City of Tigard. Thank you for your response to our application. We look forward to further pursuing this request and working with staff for the upcoming public hearings. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, ig(4) 5 e"-.A. Rhys Konrad,Planner,LEED AP Associate Exhibits: Signed Application Form from A. Eikrem(to be included with prior Exhibit A) Alternatives Analysis (to replace prior Exhibit K) ESEE(to replace prior Exhibit R) S. January 14,2010 Pacific Habitat Services Habitat Memorandum T. Arborist Study U. December 1,2009 Letter From Phil Grillo H:\PROJECTS\207033406\WP\LTR\100115-Completeness Response REV.doc PR&APP.HELD BY ..<..&....... .,s.,°nFi,,....-.r<r..-....«_3`5:..-.;:f__.i.:..'.�.:,•-_,w»�,._..r Y.- :.--,..a. ,.....,.:..F°,,:.-m _ �:.;i� w� a 3of Tz`ard,Pernnt;G n r fi3 l Blvd - d'.OR 9722 ==; c4-'":�x.��. 'S-"°Y... «-}M" �..f._ .,�d,. r",�r:.'.:...:..;'k,'-F•,F ..k' l ash: SEE^_ TI OA AID �u�-�. � i��;Ph'��e.���'03 C1***•40.59 i s' -ter- Filej� Cie ..-.>. .,.—_.a.n............. ..m..,.. ,....:Y.w`...- .......»....._E-.EEtE'yb..._..x'. ,.. ,......-..,,......,....,.,...__...» .. -:...eKn=;.:�. :.>.t,-.>._..,._.....>=.e>=<. ......_..._,...._......,.e... Y r ate'I B acelptf Ih 1)ate C�ir lete TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR ❑Adjustment/Variance(I or II) ❑Minor Land Partition(II) ❑ Zone Change (III) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment(IV) ❑Planned Development(III) ❑ Zone Change Annexation(IV) ❑ Conditional Use (III) ®Sensitive Lands Review(I,II or III) ❑Development Code Amendment(IV) ❑ Historic Overlay(II or III) ❑Site Development Review(II) ❑Home Occupation(II) ❑Subdivision(II or III) LOCATION WHEN PROPOSED ACTIVITY WILL OCCUR(Address if available) TAX MAPS&TAX LOT NOS. 2S102DD00100;2S102DD00200;2S101000100 TOTAL SITE SIZE ZONING CLASSIFICATION R12&R25 APPI.JCANI Fred Fields MAILING ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP 1149 SW Davenport Ave Portland, OR 97201 PHONE NO. FAX NO. 503-228-7084 N/A PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON PHONE NO. Rhys Konrad--Group Madrenzie 503-224-9560 PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER(Attach lit if more than one) Same as Applicant. MAILING ADDRESS/QTY/STATE/ZIP PHONE NO. FAX NO. *When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY(Please be specific) 662'extension of Wall Street to serve the applicant's property.A 320' bridge crossing of Fanno Creek is proposed spanning the floodway.Impacts to locally designated significant wetlands, and 100-year floodplain are proposed. Wetland mitigation has been approved and constructed with Phase 1 of Wall Street.Floodplain impacts are proposed to be mitigated with this application. APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE"BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS"INFORMATION SHEET. is\curpin\masters\land use applications other land use applications.doc THE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT: ♦ If the application is granted,the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. ♦ All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith,are true;and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. ♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria,and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s). SIGNATURES OF EACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED. i L Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date PR&APE HELD BY: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION 111 LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION E ! City of Tigard Permit Center 13125 SWPRall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 'TIGARD. Phone: 503.639.4171 Fax::503.598.1960 File 111 Other Case;# Date . By Receipt# Fee Date Complete TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR El Adjustment/Variance(I or II) El Minor Land Partition(II) ❑Zone Change(III) ❑Comprehensive Plan Amendment(IV) El Planned Development(III) El Zone Change Annexation(IV) ❑Conditional Use(III) ®Sensitive Lands Review(I,II or III) ❑Development Code Amendment(Iv) El Historic Overlay(II or III) ❑Site Development Review(II) ❑Home Occupation(II) ❑Subdivision(II or III) LOCATION WHERE PROPOSED ACTIVITY WILL OCCUR(Address if available) TAX MAPS&TAX LOT NOS. 2S102DDOD100;2.S102DD00270;2S101000100 TOTAL SI'Z'E SIZE ZONING CLASSIFICATION R-12&R-25 APPLICANT* Fred Fields MAILING ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP 1149 SW Davenport Ave Portland,OR 97201 PHONE NO. FAX NO. 503-22&7084 N/A PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON PHONE NO. Rhys Konrad—Group Mackenzie 503-224-9560 PROPERI"Y OWNER/DEED HOLDER(Attach list if more than one) Same as Applicant. MAILING ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP PHONE NO. FAX NO. *When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY(Please be specific) 662' extension of Wall Street to serve the applicant's property.A 320' bridge crossing of Fanno Creek is proposed spanning the floodway. Impacts to locally designated significant wetlands, and 100-year floodplain are proposed. Wetland mitigation has been approved and constructed with Phase 1 of Wall Street.Floodplain impacts are proposed to be mitigated with this application. APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE"BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS"INFORMATION SHEET. is\curpin\masters\land use applications\other land use applications.doc THE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • If the application is granted, the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. ♦ All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,attachments,and exhibits transmitted herewith,are true;and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued,based on this application,map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. ♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application,including the policies and criteria,and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s). SIGNATURES OF EACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED. rte. Z /�5 ,04 A /q 01/14.(:, \1161/O / Ow E. "s Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date 10 Washington County,Oregon 2002-136823 11114/2002 04:18:61 PM 04:1w Cnta1 litfw4 A DUYCK $25.00$1.00$11.00 •TotalaS/42,00 A>a r,R f t" THIS SPACE -ICJ �� :,. a;,:, y 011111111 I III 1I1111III 111111 III 00201948200201388230060058 and Ex-0Rlalo County Clork for Washington CoUnly,n f�tr r do herby cortifythat'o wltti n nsnumont of writing .', ...;a.,.n .,•, MAI nealvoa and rocord.f In 11 bo k of rocordo of q 1 sold county. .1 . r" �� After recording turn to d'� ; ,.• '• City .,,!Ss Jon).R.Hannon,t]k^aetar mimed snd Taxation, '�;lry�;,,*' Cit►Of Tigard Ex-Moto County Cif* 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 ntiol a change is requested oil tax statamtra TL !I op ' shad be sent to the ring address: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hail Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 File No.; NCS-4184-OR1(pb) - Date. October 22,2002 I STATUTORY SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED Fred W. Fields,Grantor,conveys and specially warrants to City of Tigard,an Oregon municipal fa 0 corporation,the following described real property free of liens and encumbrances created or suffered 11 8 1 by the Grantor,except as specifically set forth herein: m ' See Exhibit"A"attached hereto Ix i vs A This property,is freefrom liens and encumbrances,EXCEPT:See Exhibit"B"attached hereto a E 2 THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NTT'ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CTfY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true consideration for this conveyance is$2,1AO,000.00, ACCEPTED: City of Tigard, an Oregon ,V` municipal corporation Fred W. Fields , William A. Monahan City Manager papa 1,or 2 ilia. • 1 • • A?f:114609S1 Statutory Spedal Warranty Deed Je fVo.:fyCS-4164 • 1 cont4ue�d [x:10/22/2oa 2 SPATE OF Oregon ) 1 )ss,• County of CvA s fr : kr A /6'7 ) This Instrument was acknowledged before me on this 3 s day of d b e C__, 202-2: by Fred W Fields. 7 ✓ - . wry Public for Oregon 001.1%.,., OFFICIAL SEAL MycOMMISSon tYIP.,�r�. vEnDA JN GREGG i 47,i NOTARYPUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO,355208 MY COMMISSION EXPfR£S FE6 2T,200ki 1I i • • • • • Pane 2 of 2 • • 2002-136823 • • i F OREGON 2002-136823 County of Clackamas } SS: This instrument was acknowledged before me on Odobs2/1 30 2e,2Ey William A. . Monahan as City Manager of the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. tOh. 010/ Notary Pubric for Oregon Commission sn'AflY i::A.:•;•0;:tEGON My o Expires L5;koi 03 " aa:003 IA • 't r.:,:v(P.1:.'S MAY 10,200$ • OFFICIAL SEAL PlatIUTI PUOUCAPEGON COMMISSION NO.3220011 MY COMMISSION SWIMS MAY*KOS • • • EXHIBIT "A" ' PARCEL t: 2002-136823 The North one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD ACRE TRACTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL II: The South one-half of Lot 1, EDGEW000, In the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL III: All that certain tract of land in the William Graham Donation Land Claim No. 39 in Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, conveyed to Beecher B. Robinson by Deed recorded at page 193 of Volume 126, Washington County, Oregon Deed Records, and being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the aforesaid Robinson Tract In the center of the County Road at the Northwest corner of Cat 1,EDGEW000,a duly recorded subdivision-of Washington-County; Oregon, which beginning point is said to bear 5.60 chains West and 21.02 chains North of the Northwest corner of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian; thence from said point of beginning North 0°22' East In the center of the said county road 989.4 feet to the Northwest corner of the said Robinson Tract; thence South 47°43' East 26.9 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing South 47°43' East 431.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 99.0 feet to an alder tree marked "C.S."; thence continuing South 16,0 feet to a point in the center of Panno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears North 19.9 feet; thence down stream following the center of Fenno Creek the following courses and distance: South 37°01' East 110.0 feet; South 26°58' West 126.0 feet; South 6°44' West 86.8 feet; South 30°08' East 40.5 feet; South 73°51' East 44.8 feet; North 53°56' East 71.7 feet; South 74°06' East 33.1 feet; South 4°44'West 72.8 feet; South 24°24' East 64.3 feet; South 51°2' East 137.0 feet and South 11°35' West 42.7 feet to a point on the North line of said EDGEW000 SUBDIVISION;thence North 89°00' West along the North line of aforesaid subdivision 35.1 feet to a point in the Center of Panno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears South 89°00' East 17.1 -feet; thence running downstream in the center of Panno Creek North 39°18' West 32.8 feet North 58°29' West 104.5 feet, South 86°48' West 41.6 feet and South 12°02' Went 76.4.feet to a point on the North line of aforesaid subdivision, from which point an Iron pipe bears North 89°OO' West 28.0 feet; thence leaving Fanno Creek and running along the North line of said subdivision 528.0 feet to the place of beginning. SAVE AND EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon,by and through the State Highway Commission recorded August 20, 1985 in Book 658, page 306, Records of Washington County. 111 1 • t Exhibit U3rr III 111011 I 111111 2002--138823 I. Statutory Powers and Assessments of Clean Water Services. 2. Rights of the public and of governmental bodies in and to that portion of the premises heroin described lying below the high water mark of Fenno Creek. • 3. Any adverse claim based upon the assertion that some portion of said land has been removed from or brought within the boundaries thereof by an avulsive movement of the Fenno Creek or has been formed by the process of accretion or reliction or has been created by artificial means or has accreted to such portion so created. • I 4. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying within the limits of roads, streets or highways. 5, An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof; Recorded : December 15, 1971 in Book 847, page 55 Favor of : Tigard Water District, a municipal corporation of Washington County, Oregon For : Underground pipeline and/or mains 6. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof; Recorded : July 20, 1972 in Book 5:376, page 295 Favor of : Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, a municipal corporation and county service district of the State of Oregon For : Sewer 7. An easement created byinstrument, including the terms and provisions thereof; Recorded July 20, 1972 in Book 878, page 298 Favor of : Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, a municipal corporation and county service district of the State of Oregon For Sewer =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel# : 2510100 01100 Parcel Number :R0456072 RTSQ: 01W-02S -01 - Owner :Fields Fred W CoOwner Site Address : *no Site Address* Mail Address : 1149 SW Davenport St Portland Or 97201 Telephone : Owner: 503-228-7089 SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 10/16/1997 Loan Amount . Document# : 97055 Multi-parcel Lender • Sale Price : $6,000,000 Loan Type Deed Type :Bargain&Sale Interest Rate . %Owned : 100 Vesting Type . _ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION MktLand : $3,030,150 Exempt Amount : MktStructure : $35,070 Exempt Type . MktOther %Improved : 1 MktTotal : $3,065,220 Levy Code : 02374 07-08 Taxes : $22,660.76 School Dist . Assessed Total : $1,375,830 LPROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid Class Code : Census : Tract: Block • Zoning : IP MillRate NbrhdCd :YI5 Sub/Plat Land Use : 2312 Misc,Non-mfg,Improvement,Ind Zone Legal :ACRES 13.25 • `PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : Lot Acres : 13.25 Year Built . Bathrooms : Lot SqFt : 577,170 EffYearBlt . Heat Method: BsmFin SF : Floor Cover : Pool BsmUnfinSF: Foundation : Appliances : BsmLowSF : Roof Shape : Dishwasher : Bldg SqFt : RoofMatl . Hood Fan : IstFlrSgFt : InteriorMat : Deck UpperFlSF : Paving Matl : Garage Type: Porch SqFt : Const Type : Garage SF : Attic SqFt Ext Finish . Deck SqFt—: Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel# : 2510100 01200 Parcel Number :R0456081 RTSQ: 01W-02S -01 - Owner :Fields Fred W CoOwner . Site Address : *no Site Address* Mail Address : 1149 SW Davenport St Portland Or 97201 Telephone : Owner: 503-228-7089 SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 10/16/1997 Loan Amount . Document# : 97055 Multi-parcel Lender . • Sale Price : $6,000,000 Loan Type . Deed Type :Bargain&Sale Interest Rate . %Owned : 100 Vesting Type . _ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION I MktLand : $2,076,030 Exempt Amount : MktStructure Exempt Type . MktOther %Improved MktTotal : $2,076,030 Levy Code : 02374 07-08 Taxes : $15,358.35 School Dist . Assessed Total : $932,470 LPROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid Class Code Census : Tract: Block . • Zoning :IL MillRate . NbrhdCd :YI5 Sub/Plat . Land Use : 3002 Vacant,Industrial Legal :ACRES 25.69 • `PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : Lot Acres : 25.69 Year Built . Bathrooms : Lot SqFt : 1,119,056 EffYearBlt . Heat Method: BsmFin SF : Floor Cover : Pool BsmUnfnSF: Foundation Appliances : BsmLowSF : Roof Shape : Dishwasher : Bldg SqFt : RoofMatl . Hood Fan : IstFlrSgFt : InteriorMat : Deck UpperFlSF Paving Matl Garage Type: Porch SqFt : Const Type : Garage SF : Attic SqFt Ext Finish . Deck SqFt—: Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. I T > r " `•`, , x-1,,;,,'Kz-liti. i / ` ,,S `Y .,.:. , : ‘, :, ,0 iii_.,....„4 w R „ „,„ ,„ „„ ,,, ,,, ...„ anon. ..,.. . ” ,, , „ 7, >. .., 11 nu ir,..._„:,,,,, ,,,: ,,,;,,,,,,, dill ...,, 0 . ,:lc i?,, ,,,;,. ,',., ,';',,i',,,,',,,,"„'`,,' Air ow 46 6 ''., A. -% ,',�7&90 i- 3 .OE - •C. 898.40• A In _ , • ilk fir. IN Figq. ' ,..., Is .. Eli, 1100 I � 73.25 AC K Y %rt. OVERLAP 9Y ii,.... 1., 7,_,%, {CS 8,6931 j IIII1J1E ' • \.,_, _ 215209 AC •. Innu 1 PE-. _ ICS 9.693] 2 r, { RP= ') i 2samaq;• V <� 'E-EHTRYCCR 98843W - ^• 'C '•- V e ,,,�� V l'ik 41 IP 4, weal ‘,, „ , ', , '. . . , ‹.GRAHAM V SOUTH LINE ��e!I43�4M GRAHAM OLC 39 — ��� , ly y„‘/.y }; `�• ,C +t100„ ,4� '4t ?',y` 2,. ', '28f07AG-R I ill 1 { ``, i; `r }, ,r ,{, 7'180 Ira a "pm mint o r 1 411,L MP 111111111 11111116 1 la 0°5 =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel# : 2S101CA 00100 Parcel Number :R0456063 RTSQ: 01W-02S -01 -SW Owner :Fields Fred W CoOwner Site Address : *no Site Address* Mail Address : 1149 SW Davenport St Portland Or 97201 Telephone : Owner: 503-228-7089 SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 10/16/1997 Loan Amount . Document# : 97055 Multi-parcel Lender • Sale Price : $6,000,000 Loan Type Deed Type :Bargain&Sale Interest Rate . %Owned : 100 Vesting Type . _ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION MktLand : $5,525,110 Exempt Amount : MktStructure Exempt Type . MktOther %Improved . MktTotal : $5,525,110 Levy Code : 02374 07-08 Taxes : $40,096.53 School Dist . Assessed Total : $2,434,430 LPROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid Class Code : Census : Tract: Block • Zoning : IP MillRate NbrhdCd :YI5 Sub/Plat Land Use : 3002 Vacant,Industrial Legal :ACRES 24.16 • `PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : Lot Acres : 24.16 Year Built . Bathrooms : Lot SqFt : 1,052,409 EffYearBlt . Heat Method: BsmFin SF : Floor Cover : Pool BsmUnfinSF: Foundation : Appliances : BsmLowSF : Roof Shape : Dishwasher : Bldg SqFt : RoofMatl . Hood Fan . IstFlrSgFt : InteriorMat : Deck UpperFlSF : Paving Matl : Garage Type: Porch SqFt : Const Type : Garage SF : Attic SqFt Ext Finish . Deck SqFt—: Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. 2S 1 01CA 2S 1 01CA 9`42(/>::‘7-"f: x --`'''''.,:r..--" '' - '`,..-:" - - '‘,,- - - -•,--.-i, %....-',.,- -----. ' ,:,:,:<„:-:.,,,,.;<,-„,-,,,,x,...,:,,,,,,,.,..:.,„:‘,„:„.,.,„%.;..tAv„...),..,,, ,... ,,.,...,:c..-,,,,,,:,, .. .<: ,,,,...-::,,:„,. ,, ...,.,,,, ,, ., ..,,,,,,,,,,,../;.: .---....„, %., ,...,.„..,,,,......,,,,,,,,,,......;,...,,,.......,...\,..,..„....../....,I,A.f........,x......,,.....,,,....,..::: Nivi...,..„.../...), :;..., ,;,.......,....,,,,....., ,,:=',„i'':„7,,:',-,`',,,,:',„•`‘.' -,-,'''•,,,"2,,,:',..,•:.r';..',"';" ::i:',',,,'',.,",','::,,,.%/:,.^..x,%,,%<,:K.:::,,',(-,X.,v,,,s.:,..;:, ;r%....,.,,,,,::,,,7%;,)•,,,la ;k,''•:•%.'''.•",,''':•,''','"',,'"‘• '''.'x•.:"'',''''s!".-/-'; -'%,'''': i :::';.•:.>:',%;,;.'2,e;;I:::-'; :„'/:,'-', ‘-',.,>'',',.-'',1=',,,- -,-"`,/„;')':,f''',;'"'.,'''...-'.\•''..,."',''''f'-',,,' '‘;,"',-;''"'.;-: /: '1„%"„:'',:,",,%,,../,,:•-•,..'"%,..'",,;'' .. , . . %"'.,..'. ,' ..'', '''''. ., .C..,'.,•`• ,-,':04:Q'L'10'•AllyNkoL ,,... . . ... ,, ' :X;:.,';, 1,40c,.-N.',-,' 4.i4i,Crc".';.ik,;,.< -''.,',t ‘,'x-'`.-.,:' '''-'''.,:' "'=-:'•-e' ''':=;:=,: ' '''',;,-- ' 'z --- ,e„.„‘,...„.,,,,,.,,,,,N,.„......,,,,-,,, .. „ . ---„, .', ,,,,,-,,,,,„ , - .-....,. .,,:,..,.... .. ,-'/..,,",,,..-•;,,'..-„:',,::',,:'•.-,-;',.-. ',',-;''/,';',''.-:,X ,',..:::',,' ,•/... ,, ,„ ,, ,, ,., ,, , ,, , ,, , ,,, ....'..... ; .7." '' '-..".e.'''''' ".''''/''Z''1'''''"N•''':'''S''.'‘'Y''■'''''1. '',..'X'..'. .X''..< ',■'...... ■' :'''' ..C./. .a , '' V-.'r'. 4)', ''..'',::''',"'S'''. ;', -:'V.,', ./. %,':"....4, ''. ;<. :-7,,''',;'7, 4,17. ,', ,.. ,7. ... .,:r:...'' '',.'A' ,' WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON ,<-• '.....-":„...:',..„...;".5.....:':„ „ NE1/4 SW1/4 SECTION 01 T2S R1WW.M. SCALE 1°—100' '''',''''...•.'4'...:.''',.../' '...,.'''',,,-7:;'.:,',...'.4#."..<,5: ;-,'...•": ::....W::.,....!.:',: ;... .,.( ', .S....:..;[.. ..‹..;‹ , .):',,..''._;,:,%'.:;;Z•„"',.,'"';'"•/":1'1,,i''C.,," >' x =` '''•;,-4.:.;" ' - 2 ' . '. , I -;' ' ',-,:";>;;; r brepreirompfbi..,orIFF.F, X: '<':'':':';''"''1':'12,•I,xK<1.,:':4"d':.....,::'.'"'<:::,>;'4'':1'!::::->'<'':;.■?e:"''/.:.<;X';‘:;-1'.)‘•'.'.:.1.-':,,..;'.<`,',,:f>:'';:''.,', ,,<,‘:•,,.72."''': \'"'•.7'','',7?:2,/2:r4':,X„ :(''/:.4'.,' I •:• 1 y , 1'",I. .diAgiiAf&cso.z .o.-A A*A Al' .044 7 ro ri:tri if:i;;110,4°0,144::,.',.11+44 r4 r1:4.4;?,:ttl...Psi raeltiA 1 203 - •' — Ats 0146. A. .lib l'Ab .441... .1 . A 0.01A0 .: ,....%4:',:VNr...'%5:/%5: r err.Ir..... IF 41,,,•••tri,.45;" /,;;',';‘;•.'4•,"5'Y'CA';'',,,'4',,'''',,,'',,./.-",•', ',,.: ;,„-.. ,,.', ,,,,x,,',•, ,, 901.A2 •• •- •. „ . t 4 I,e-2. .1•4134.r:1 :A.4501,111,_, le. - '%"' ....: " ' ''• s 10„illill,..4.■110■40,i5....4!.41.12tril.41...it.....*:',APAR ;' ''' '): ,. ;,:.4%, , '' ''...'',": % '' ''''.■`.'■‘',l'''.' If y' i'%:-.-.:':,..->,;.=, ''I';,,-'`‘=''''%(''-,.-'',, Vitt tt•11-1:41.!4AV:4.;;Aiolt....#-.4 ....:>.,.:;......-.:;%:)...., ...........:,:.....,...,..,,><.;..,:v:,,,,.....K...,,,y...,t,....3..‹...,:,,y„....._„-::„: ''' % '': F411'•'41'; 1r471reiX•Tif'M. c.t:,:r,:,,"...;;,...,-.‹.42,::>-:_:.:::,-:.:2..-.',::-.;,;;.-!::..,:,K-,;.-c•,,,i,:,.,:,,,::,.. ...,..` '''x '', "‘,' et:A k.:11,k;t4..i‘tt:iitA41,licri_Rd '%,"`.........-".-,'..../`‘..,-'%, mplit,..41;11.,-.11;14.,.14%,+,70-;,•440;* or: r.:'',52..:%...,.'1%-!;:%:,, %,.:"...%:,:::"',....:',/,'„,:-:,,,:',,..-:•„:<;,::1,',),',,,X' .:•K I'':•'':%,;•'"::,/:, r641',:4144.tr.4 -'4Wr 4':.-4.141:-''..,0941: />: ',,:'r,":."• f,,,: ...":<';2. ;,-!...2.-;';:1,‘.:-.• . :''' '''''''-' ';"%z' FrefirKeir9Pr.70707.Cgt 4r ifr41 ''' "' --- eAd4411IVAt.-AiA151.-4, At.ilo - - , .. .......,.., FOR ADOMMIL MAPS DST OVA 117181TE AT ..,'%%,'....'"'...e ...,: ../>. ,..1•12141. -,..,`, , / , •., — ......... .7C„• WWWCOMPBOlingCOMOEVI ... >....„%..••, ..., ,,•■ ' * '' , .'• '.':."''‘:.Y:::. 7 . „,,.,).7........ ," e C XX ' ;' ' ' l ‘ ' ' ' S' ''''''',,4C:',.::.,t:',....'i■:•'..''.:■,\:::,:•:, X „ ...;......''''''''‘K.'N,-,''%;.:'.• .1:':01,-.,;.,.:,.,,o,,,,,... v, . 23-74 1-:.%,,:::;,:„Y,..."--,,,,,x,. •;::,->4;.:..:,::,4-:,:.;:'-:ip'd.?.':)'‘‘',' 1Y.;:-.' ;.:,Y.,,,'-e...:/..., .,.:”' ::<';.,-.:7;..,;%:,:.:,:, ,7,,..,..t?f,P;•..#:,..;,/,-..,,, ,04, .•':'".1:ru.'" 4:.■''' :::, ‘":.•,'' ' ‘.' '' +.6..' '-:.•,Cre.•':•- 2:%:5;:,e‘f%$'':',■'''. O'c''?‘■.5‘•,e,',,.'..'"ie,.',''C'',.',,. ,/''A',.. / ... . <z'.. 7c,::?■C.:.;, ,...-......-i.xc,.,y.., .,..p.,:.r7 7,-,,,....,.. 200 ... ,.. ' Canoolled Taxlota For:2S101CA ..AC 200-Al 20:141, ,ro., 191,17.1. ...- sw —wrn„ ( ... 5- • ., . .,„;<:: :,.., ...''..-..:*..4.,,-x' L.L, ,,..7 ‘N2r. • •• ..... ..... 1.. < ...7... ■ \ • ••.7.%/..• '..• •.' • ''''.1/4.S.'%/''''' ' ... •• -PH,''',•': , ,.:i2t1k. N. A s..e e a.a.on 9[riA .. ,,: : ../.::-%:= ...:".`:,::;;,!..;:...::;,7":. 0'71)M11111:11.!:;!:::111i!!.::;!::i:i:di:ii il:i 1111111111111 /:>..:• ' 7e ..: L . vv.; T a X a 2 D o rii .. /.. ..-K„x,:.7...„sv.,,.......'„, . ',-,-,."‘K LIJ ' PLOT DATE:September 12,2005 , ',.....:"' -'/:'%,.../C‘v.: \''......,...-',.■ 21F89.4)117810.ES '....'' '.. ',''. ..../ 0 ...: . : 17 „' . FOR OTHER USE , Y,..... ....,.'X...,. ..< :.,.......,: ...!:...‘.. . ...% ;,.. ..-.. ,', ..; ...,.. .. ma p w.doelsweyafre,zowomovveam•ophsioae 'K ,1,,7‹,%1,.5,:._,',,,,,,4',,.5::„.• ....,,.. ' 4.''' '' " Igglf0tif.21,1109/5111e020,12.2MIQMS1Ceektflef412.# ananigreparp.bourx121101.Iftwe gamut the voominn.**, feeiti8W5R1410•94.1012711104.4 / -:: ..:4■•• ...- ...."..2....13../.. . `..„ .^. • ''''..• .,.....:.,X. .."....."....Y....'•\.:'':•„;'''',...'•„..'•,:„..44:, ';';',"'*:,"'/: TLGARD ' ''' •K‘ ''' .' ."‘ .% ).% — .' '- — ' . dlp2S1o01 2S 1 01 CA 2S 1 01 CA =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel# : 2S101DB 00300 Parcel Number :R0458971 RTSQ: 01W-02S -01 -SE Owner :Fields Fred W CoOwner . Site Address : *no Site Address* Mail Address : 1149 SW Davenport St Portland Or 97201 Telephone : Owner: 503-228-7089 SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 10/16/1997 Loan Amount . Document# : 97055 Multi-parcel Lender . • Sale Price : $6,000,000 Loan Type . Deed Type :Bargain&Sale Interest Rate . %Owned : 100 Vesting Type . _ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION I MktLand : $1,393,260 Exempt Amount : MktStructure Exempt Type . MktOther %Improved MktTotal : $1,393,260 Levy Code : 02381 07-08 Taxes : $6,661.71 School Dist . Assessed Total : $404,460 LPROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid Class Code Census : Tract: Block . • Zoning : CP MillRate . NbrhdCd :ZFWY Sub/Plat . Land Use : 2002 Vacant,Commercial Legal :ACRES 3.11 • `PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : Lot Acres : 3.11 Year Built . Bathrooms : Lot SqFt : 135,471 EffYearBlt . Heat Method: BsmFin SF : Floor Cover : Pool BsmUnfnSF: Foundation Appliances : BsmLowSF : Roof Shape : Dishwasher : Bldg SqFt : RoofMatl . Hood Fan . IstFlrSgFt : InteriorMat : Deck UpperFlSF Paving Matl Garage Type: Porch SqFt : Const Type : Garage SF : Attic SqFt Ext Finish . Deck SqFt—: Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel# : 2S101DB 00400 Parcel Number :R0458980 RTSQ: 01W-02S -01 -SE Owner :Fields Fred W CoOwner Site Address : 13085 SW 76th Ave Tigard 97223 Mail Address : 1149 SW Davenport St Portland Or 97201 Telephone : Owner: 503-228-7089 SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 10/16/1997 Loan Amount . Document# : 97055 Multi-parcel Lender • Sale Price : $6,000,000 Loan Type Deed Type :Bargain&Sale Interest Rate . %Owned : 100 Vesting Type . _ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION MktLand : $786,220 Exempt Amount : MktStructure : $119,280 Exempt Type . MktOther %Improved : 13 MktTotal : $905,500 Levy Code : 02381 07-08 Taxes : $4,390.11 School Dist . Assessed Total : $266,540 LPROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid : 655 G5 Class Code :R14 Census : Tract: 307.00 Block : 2 • Zoning :R3.5 MillRate NbrhdCd :4119 Sub/Plat Land Use : 1912 Res,Potential Development,Improved Legal :ACRES 2.00 • `PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :4 Lot Acres : 2.00 Year Built : 1948 Bathrooms : 2.00 Lot SqFt : 87,120 EffYearBlt : 1948 Heat Method:Hot Water BsmFin SF : Floor Cover : Carpet Pool BsmUnfinSF: 721 Foundation : Concrete Ftg Appliances : BsmLowSF : 950 Roof Shape : Dishwasher : Bldg SqFt : 3,342 RoofMatl :Roll Hood Fan : IstFlrSgFt : 1,671 InteriorMat :Drywall Deck UpperFlSF : Paving Matl : Garage Type:Attached Porch SqFt : 336 Const Type :Wd Stud\shtg Garage SF : 525 Attic SqFt Ext Finish :Brick Ven Deck SqFt—: Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. ' Hxy t' ". %;<' . ;^ '';'C/N.\ ^; : ;<", ,>.' '`; 1 TATI OP OR1160N 1 EIS •County al W,iNn4kon I,Jury 11aN�nFpn,' 1 111101;110 Axnrri• k4l�d roE grl�h#�1 • and �d In I 0 ,al rrldd • aaunky..; . i R.'I�a Inkna r!a�I I* Lima 11 47097055 liefat p 196171 6073.00 • 10/16/1447 49107r5apr 11` x' • • • • . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . • • • • •• • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 4 • • • I . . • •11 ��1M�n�yyr TtY TEL r $.�i.K wan, On_Nt1D„-R GRAL& -�SG1;Ja-Whiab-..Z,,Va ii,.11:018, 11kira... apliny aaa4 miaNNOftdu!1ortard'rad And ait111 UOdit Oh*J wiofthr&miAi.tea#GA.NAPA11 i OrAntar, ,__,. ,Ormti.,the fono wing efioodbod Hal#ropriix ativitad in,.,.,,,,1, 11611gkili. LLCounty, F--pix h vn/m4lo-witr . LA641 diferiptian on Ruhibit ""J attiah•d, 1 L. • r 4"'emu 44 ining'F4N NNTV .,. . *rift idllr ' l„ .1 ALM &all 1 PFlqu2Iip WFFICItLJt oO TIHArIpoPIPTiQ I ari Fr1+E�sapl I' The trill comidiritloel Jpr ail aanr#ymfor 4 0,,61 RQ ,104Q•,4R^_pf ir4 oonipfr with art rrguIrilsiclei od Offl4 SUMO ' nDom by wafer of fr,. start baled of dirbvion with fi,=potato Ate,il+vmt..a��d{ilid,a�rl-1 /+ �,,fY„7--...rp_1,L., In: li iii i '. I' 1 -1 {N. .hMT_M!I`A_A4MMi�Mfii1Tf411Fb.�YSamai Wy�1 I I • "�4'4 =1:I.-;',t1!TJ,*' r 6 E;',,:'11.1 r � iii•'''' x,•C:-.".V..- , BY.....y i. .i. �. „P1'lutdent 'I , 1"•?i 'kit-Fury •''1,-1 1 .. flay 1 JM e''':• RP 0 r MONO. •'''N. :tg 1'+I :1 NV ay�,,,,, „ , , ., , „ . - gt,k.siaratrrY• � TAT OP ORROOlF,Como.d_,Jiu Sim e3h._._._-.,.," ,_, �1 . Td ManeeufltWeil makrraW died Ware Atron._m,,,,. 11P4 '-', ..___.___.,,J1).9.7.,y • . ,l,' (,4... 9 OFFICIAL ltta � + y ' ,� fN7"';t OnIOLIbOREGOM iii 4.-. • fii•I'l PIG W17•14 1.'••• >r.a' • •...1 lv{.?e,ti_"a i 11A 4A1m AND Eat MIMED I ATE OF Ohlht4t]JY, Prod V. 1111173s gnAii ba .1149, $,!..4. . Eviypdxc aaamER PartlsRQ, i�re89A 972 1 - shy ghat tier within Jrlatru- ' Q. mad war raeatrid for record on l71r II i #fMr morel'NUM 1I ...,., a}4Y. _,) ,,,.,,,., II ••• E At.,,,._ ethiek, M. and recordrd • r GarCkie Aron' 1n bavklrad/votualr NO,,,....,_.-._...,,,,,en Aeearni . t 4.4 FOL pad Or Ai irplftb ffna3nr- 111 S.N. Go1umbinp,8tLit9 1040 "., ,_._.,,,,,.,,. _...-...... aau9014111 %. metgtf¢ierofimfrteesilorr NP1,,,,,,,,,,,,,_,,•• , Partlo4F Orel 97 4.1- ... Record at 11400 of ufd odrnly. Wit rat n'q' !and and arrl aF Ynl I aril Ir rivigiti.1.WI Hw MiFaaaaafi :curdy alfirad. Ad lio ire r.+r1. hwu•die m P■raCd-„4p1.,,.Siaida . . _ . .._ —/.1.149..$...-4i.- Va!I rr _........ . Han. 'RILE ..2ortla nde_Dregan .92261... rare,460111144.eu ..._._... • r • • • r• RRH1l417 "h" JkRRsk_F1 The North ones-hikf of Lot 1, 1:DGIWCOD ACRE TRACTS, in the city of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, 1k-. .LL The South one-half of Lot 1. 1CA4SWOOO, in the City of Tigard, County of Washiapt.oe and State of Oregon. PARCEL I1li A tract of land in Section 1, Townehig 2 South, Range L squat of the W11,lawltt4 1ieridien, in the City of Tigard, County of 4tashingtOn fled Butt Of Cregon, srole!e pirtiOOYerly described as f011owli Beginning at the most Baitesly Southeast corner of that certain tseot described in—dnad recorded March 21. 154B in Doed Book 24J, page 534, tc Jame Br ota, running thence seat axons the Both line of the brooks tract above described, a distance of 330 fast' 'I thanuo Northerly parallel to the mast tietec1y Neat line of the amid tract described In the Brooks deed above mentioned. to a point on the South Line of Cn oty Road No. ,;451 thence aotitheaeter1y On the South lino Of Said County Road No. 24a to 4 • point on the Rapt line of the tract described in the Brooke deed shove sentionmet thence South along tho Nest line of laid neauks tract to the p1s0a of beginning. p.IR .,-h_- I. All that certain tract of land in the William Graben Donation Land Claim KO. 39 in Towr}ahip 2 South. Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington - and State. of Dragon, convoyed to Beecher 84 RobinIOn by deed - reaorded at page 193 of Volume 12' 1 Washington Cvtuty. Oregon Deed Recorder end being more particularly described as f411Owa, to-wit, beginning at the 6outhwuit corner of the aforesaid Robinson tract is the canter of the Connt.y Road at the Worthw.it corner of Lot k of EparswOOO, a dxtly recorded subdivision of Washington Cou,.ty, Oregon, which beginning point is said to bear 6.64 chains Wuat and 21.62 chains Worth of the northwest corner of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Keridiaat thence from said point of beginning North 0. 83` Warlt in the centOr or the said County Road 969,4 feet to the Northwest corner of the said Rabtnaon ttdobi thence South 47+ 43' Hatt 26.9 feet to an Iran pipet thence continuing South 47. 43' East 431.1 feet t0 an 3 • • ' • s • • . 1,. . { • . 1 I I 1 iron pipes thence South 99,4�y taut to in hldar trim sarkad "C•6'r thing; continuing 80uth .L610 fiat t0 * point in the asntsr of panne Creak , from which point an iron pipe boar■ Borth 1419 filet; thence down otrsat fol1ewing the Centex of Pannn Creek t14& following Dauraes and distanoi; South 37* 01' Mast 7.10.0 feat; Mouth 26* 681 West 126, 0 Cott South 0* e4' went 6616 fistp BoPth 7R+ Pd' Past 40.6 fast: Booth 72. 51' foot 44+4 feet; Worth 03* _ 66{ Bast 71+7 feet, South 74• 001 ;tact 31.1 fast! BOAth 41 44' A'oit 72.6 feet,f Beath 24' 24' gait 64.5 felt: Booth 61* x" BaS4 12)+0 fiat and South 116 35° Went 42,7 foot to a point on the N orth lime or *aid E10414N00D Subdivision! thence North 89* 00" wait along the North lino of aforeuai4 subdivision 96.1 loot to a point in the center of Bann° CXisk, from which point an iron pipe bears South a9■ CC Mast 17,1 fiat; thence running downatr#ate in the mentor of Fanno Creak ;Borth 39' lei west 33.8 feat worth 461 • 29' West 104.5 fiat. BOuth 86' 46' Naet 41.0 fast and Booth 121 02' West 76.4 feet to a paint an the North lino of afarupaf4 £ubdivi0lon, from which paint an iron pips bears Worth BO' 00' Nhdt 29,8 fiitp thongs leaving forma Croak and running along the Worth line of said oubdiviatort 579,0 fiat to the pleas of beginning. 8AVB AND 81:m8FT 2fkRmmR4d5 that portion conveys4 to the State of Oregon. by and through the State Highway Cosr;iseian recorded August 20, 1665 in Soar 454, page 508, R44orai of Washingtaa county* PA RCR_V t heginnii9 at a stun° at the Ncrthweat corner of the W.W. oraham Conatioa teind Claim NO. 34. Township 2 South. Range 1 wont of trio RilLemetta Meidi's, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington , and state of °raga* and running thence South a3. 23' %e at along the northwesterly line of as#d 'Donation Land Claim 734.0 foot 'to a point in the Center or County Ro ad; thane° Mouth 60* 59+ seat in the Center of °aid County Road; 1814.$ feet to a steno at the Northeast ocrner of that Certain tract of land. Oonveyed to R. and Sophia 8onaikur by dead am recorded on Page 271 of Volume 90 of uaultington County, Orayou peed Rnoozder thence South 29* $4' Neat along the East line of maid 13unsikir tract 1t63.9 foot to a point o n the Bortherly boundary of the Southern pacific ilailruad right of way: thence South 42* 00' Seat along laid Nottbarly boundary 120. 0 Moat to on iron papa at the true point of bspinniny of the herein described tract; thsnvo From the above duacxibud *rue • point of beginning Barth 89* 31-118' ;last *long the Korth line of said Runaiker tract 996.4 feat to an iron pipe at the 'moat e asterly tlortheamt corner thecsofp thenaa South l* 14{ Wait along . t he Rapt lino of said Huaeikor tract 1085.6 toot to an iron pipe it the Northerly boundary Lens of the Sontharn Pacific Railroad right Of mays thence Korth 429 00' waist along said Eertherly boundary 148718 feet to the point of beginning. • 14 • ' ' i • beginning at is atone at the Northwest corner of the W.W. Graham Donation Land Claim Wu. 39, in Township 2 South, Range 1 west of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, CeOnt!" of Waihingtan and State of Oregon, and running thanae South 434 23' west *long the Northwesterly line of Raid Donation Land Claim 714.0 feet to a point la the cantor at the, County Roadp thence South 40* 50' east In the ranter of Raid County Road 1814.9 feet tO a stone at the Northeast corner of that a*rtein tract of Land conveyed to R. and Sophia Runaiksr by dead as recorded on page 231 of Volume 94 of Ifaahincton County. Oregon Deed Recoxdsl which point ie the true point of beginning of the herein described roadway) thence from the abate described true point of beginning South 29e 34" Rant along the Feet line of said Hrutiiker trout i 1871.6 fiat to an iron pipe] which pips ih 24.0 feet from, when measured at right angles to the Northerly boundary of the southern paolfia Railway right of wary; thence South 12+ 80" Rost parallel to and 20.0 Coot from. whin measured at right angles to said Northerly boundary a dietence of 144.7 tort to to iron pip* on the North line of said wunriker tract' thoriou mouth S9■ 51- 1/7' West along the said Worth line 86.8 feat t4 An iron pipe On the Northerly boundary of said Southern pacific Railroad right oe way' things North 42" C4" Moot along maid Northerly boundary 141.1 feet to an iron pipet thence Worth 29■ 34" Beat parallel and 24.0 feet from, when meeenred at right engine to the Beet .� lien of maid Nonsiher trout a dietenae of L646.4 feet to a paint in the cantor of said County Road' thence South 64" 59' Rest in the center of said road 20,0 feet to the point of bayinniug. PARCEL VII% 8eginaing at an iron pig* at the reentrant vcsner on the South Line of the W.W. Graham Donation Land Claim No. 39, eat Township 2 Eootri, Range 1 Wept of the Willamette meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Sieahingtan and State of Oregon and running thence North 1* 27' Rest 1020.7 feet to a equere iron at the CIortheaet carmer of BDUEmOOD) thence North 119" 07' Meat along the Worth line of said ■ubdivtei-on 151.1 feet to a soarer of that certain tract of and oonvoyod to R. and Sophia Ilunitker by deed as recorded in Deed Doak 94, page 271) thence worth 4■ 13' Bout along the property Line 597,1 feet to the Southwest corner of that certain tract of Land conveyed to the Oregon electric , Railway Company by deed as reocrdoa in bead Book 83. page 143' + the"nos South 43' 44' seat along the southerly line of Said tract of lead 400.0 feet to the most RaeterLy corner thereof) thence South IL` 35' at £long the Southerly boundary of the dragon Electric Railroad right of way 1796.9 feat to an iron pips on the raaognired south Lino of the said W.W. Graham Donation Land Claim' theme Worth 694 21' West on said r000gnised South lino 13,e7.8 feat to the place of beginning. • • • • • k. - I • Seginniag at the xorthwest c 0ter of Lot 2 of ED E OOD, in the City 0g Tig*Ed, County of Maahington and State of Oregon, and running rant 13.24 chains [973.4 fast) to the bortheaeh corner of maid Lot 2; thence south with Cris East boundary thereof 30 feet; thence West 9068 chains (176.9 feet) ; tbsrroS North PP 30" West 0.977 chains (64.6 loch) to a pipe 3/4" Lei diameter i then0* gilt g.gc Qhair}a (646,8 death more or Leas, to the West boundary of maid Lot 2; thence with said West 401+adary, North 20 feet to the pleat of beginning, Section L, Township 2 $00th, flange 1 cloak of the WilLametta liar#diin, is the. City of Tigard, County of Washington and stets Of Olregan; Beginn4ng 2) chains north and 20 chiina WOat Of the Soutbenet corner of than W.97. Graham Donation Land CLaimr thence West )7,11 chains to Stake; thence North 30* Bast 25;60 chains to center of County Bond' teems south 72+ 44" East 0,41 chains to the southwest corner oo J.A. Kellar's tract of land/ thsnc0 sodth 14 chains to a stake; thence Heat 5 chalks to a stake; thence South ' Lo chains to plans of beginning. EXCXPTXNG TBERIYROK a aertein tract conveyed by Rudolph Hoaheli, et us. and George 3. Erdner, of ux, to Beaverton and Willsburq Railroad Company An shown by instrument recorded in Daed book 79, page 120, on Ray Le. L007, EXCEPT a tract of land in section Y, TownahiP 2 lcuth, Range 1 great of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, more. partiOnlarly deeoribed .sa fal forms. Beginning at the suit Easterly Southaaut corner of that oextsin treat described in dead recorded Hatch 21, 1S4q in Dead Book 263. page 590 to aldns Brooke; rimming thence west along the South lino of the stooks tract above described, a distanau of 33D fait; thence Northerly parallel to the most Easterly Stilt lino of the said tract described in the Brooks iced above mentioned to i pOi.It an the South line of County Road No. 245; thence southeasterly on the south line of maid County Road No. 245; thence $outheeLetArly On the south line of maid County Road to a point on the Rant Line of ens tract described in the Brooks deed above mentioned; thence South along the East Line of said Broak9 tract to the place of beginning. • • • y� . • . . { Bg$JECT T81 • 1. An tasamant areatad by instrument+ irio7.udinq the time' and provisions thereof; Recorded i Apsli 121 194$ in Soak 2B41. pas# 4011 raver of t vLlLka Butcher Af f!Ot■ I Parcels V IL V! Tiflis BuretII oeavayad an undfvid•d pas-half of heir interest In said armament to her husband Paul A. ?etcher' by iastrumti t Recorded t January 0, L951 in Soak 3161 Page 386 2. An esaenent created by inakrumant, including the taros and provisions thereof; Ragordad I oscambar 31, i.452 in Rook 340' pas* 107 'Lear of ; Portland Camara/ Electric Company, A oorpCiratipn of arsgon Fox t t:laatrioal t0Mnsmia•iun lines i1 lsaea t Parcels V, VL s IX 3. As aaaargnt cutetad by instrument, including the torso And provisions thereof I Recorded ; June 14, 1457 in Book 395, page 58 Favor 04+ 1 Portland General neotric Company Aftata ; Parcels v e VI 4. An easement G.;oAtod by instrument, including the Carmel and praviaioti tbsrsoft Recorded 1 IOptember 12, 1460 is Book 425, page 312 . raver of i Tigard hater Dietriot, a municipal acrporation and the Routh Tigard Sanitary District, a municipal corporation Yar t 8a++e-r lines and water lines AffeatB ; Parcel VI . 5. An easement Or eatsd by instrument, inOledimg the terms nni provisions thereof; Reoordad I Dctober 9, 10 11. i.n BOOk 451, Pays 10 revor of i Northwest lintural Gas Company' a corporation of the State of Dragon Fox 1 pipeline Affaats t P1,ccala V1 6 IX . 8. An armament created by instrument, including the terms and prcermictis thereof; , Recorded 1 December B, 1903 in eo#k 580, peg' 313 Favor of ; city of Tigard' A municipal corporittioit of Ofegan AMIGOS IGOS t Paruala VI, VII 1r VIII 7. An armament created by instrument. including the to mo and provisions thereof; Recorded i December 271 1465 in Book 375, page 43 Favor a# 1 D.A. ovarmy*r Warehouse Ca• , *n Paragon corporation pox 1 Railroad spur track pI satI 1 Parcels VI 4 TB The above aa•aebnt was alaigned by instrument Dated 1 ,7une 14, 1966 • Recorded ; July 5, 1466 in Rook 645, page 500 TO t southern paOifie company, a Iselalrara corporation • i • . • • 1 I 'I a. An 4asem■it created by instruments including the terms and provi■iOn■ thereof; R#ocrdad , danuixy 4, 1066 in Sook 4ei, page 256 ?Ivor of , northwest Natural des Company, an Oregon CosporAtich For i tlii pipeline affects t Parcels V 4 IX . 9% An eaigiaht *reatai1 by ineteurient. including the terse and • pravioioni thir*ofp ReoOlydsd t 14ieah 28, 1946 in Book $94, gage 14 raver of % 8*Nthorn Pacific' Company, a Inlayer. corporation Fox 7 Railroad tragic Affoote a Pares/ V . 10. fin ■aisnant *ratted by instrument, including the terns and provisions thereof, sec or4ed , Jong 1a, 1991 in POOR 421, page 113 'Favor of , Tigard Water District, a municipal corporation of Washington County, Oregon . I • For , 1indfigroun+l pipeline endfor name for water ?Afoot' i Parcel VI 11. An essemant created by inetrucsnt, including the term■ and provisions b)*rsat, Recorded , 6optember 14, 1971 in Book 435, gaga 547 revolt Of I Portland Oaneral electric Company, an Oregon corporation For i Anoho r Oaiimant - &floats i 'ironic V=, VI s VIII 12. An sasenann created by insacoment, including the terms and provisions thesauri Recorded i Deoeaher 13, 1971 in Book 8471 gAga 5$ FAIN,' of a Tigard Water Distrtot, a municipal corporation of Washington County, OY4gon For . Undorgroot4 pipeline sad/or mains for she porpoise of aonveyolno rotor fleets r Parcel IV I . ids easement crusted by instrument. including 010 throe and provisions thereof) Raaorded i duly 20, 1972 in B*4k 479. page 296 Favor Of t Unified oowerage Agency of Washington County, A >xuataip41 coirporatlan and oounay Earwig,' district of the State of Oregon For t Fewer Affects t Paronl I I • 1, ti . � t • y , ' i i q i • I I I .• i . . . 5 , i I • + . . , :11 I 14,, Au easement areetab by inetrumantl including %he term' and provision* tM•rscfl Recorded t July 29,. 1972 is Book 578, ghee 290 I kavax cf * Uniflad Lcweriga Agency of Washington County, a Municipal corporation and County aasvlee di■#riot of the State Of Oregon For # SAVOR Affects I parcel S1 4 15,• An easement created by LnItrursit, including the tires and prowls/one thsreofg Recorded I April 19. 1973 in Book 920, page 3 Vamps of t Unified dererftge Agency of WW1-intton O4vntyf a municipal norpnriticn and oouaty service dietriat Of the State of Gre40A . Yor I *ewer , Affects a parcels Yl1 i VIII 1d, An eaae!*ant created by inetrueont, including the term and provisions thereof; Recorded r heplemt,er 15, 1975 in Book 1443r gale 993 moor of ; Ofty of 4igdrd, a mualoigallty of the State Of Dragon Fox ; *treat dedication and slope ea►samaat *Meats 1 Parcels Ste ti ik 17. An aaiement created by Lnetrum■nt, including the terms and pToYielocni thereon . Recorded 1 B#ptaoiher 15, 1975 in Book 1043, page 994 Savor of i City of Tigard, a municipality of the Grate of Oregon For r *Arent dedication and slope aeeement - kftalat:e I Percale VY R II 18.. Are easement aseoted by i,patrument, including tho term. And pro vieibne thereof; Recorded I HoVembex 18, 1975 in Book l45d, •gaga BOB savor of I City OR Tigard, a municipality of trio State of . . Oregon e'er I $tree'k dedieaticm and elope easement Affects t Pascal Ill 19.. Any advs:90 claim based upon the aacertion that Some portion cf maid land have beam removed from 'r brought within the boundaries thereat by an emulsive movement of Tanno Creek or has been fumed by the preening of accretion or fellation. {Affaot■ Parcel IV) 7 • . • . } , .• =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Washington (OR) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel# : 2S102DA 00690 Parcel Number : R0468069 RTSQ: 01W-02S -02 -SE Owner : Eikrem A CoOwner Site Address : *no Site Address* Mail Address : 7805 SW Edgewater E Wilsonville Or 97070 Telephone : Owner: SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred Loan Amount . Document# : 10510649 Lender • Sale Price Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate . %Owned Vesting Type . ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION MktLand : $10,450 Exempt Amount : MktStructure Exempt Type . MktOther %Improved . MktTotal : $10,450 Levy Code : 02374 08-09 Taxes : $10.21 School Dist Assessed Total : $620 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid Class Code : Census : Tract: Block Zoning : R12 MillRate . NbrhdCd : ETIG Sub/Plat Land Use : 1002 Vacant,Residential Legal : ACRES .19 • PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres : .19 Year Built . Bathrooms : Lot SqFt : 8,276 EffYearBlt . Heat Method: BsmFin SF : Floor Cover : Pool Bsm UnfinSF: Foundation : Appliances : BsmLowSF : Roof Shape : Dishwasher : Bldg SqFt Roof Matl . Hood Fan 1stFlrSgFt : InteriorMat : Deck UpperFlSF : Paving Matl : Garage Type: Porch SqFt : Const Type : Garage SF : Attic SqFt Ext Finish . Deck SqFt : Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. • _: __ _ r I$3 I - BARGAIN AND SALE DEED �'.; KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Washington County, a %.. ,; political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called "grantor", for the consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby , grant, bargain, sell and convey unto M % A. Eikrem, hereinafter ' called "grantee" and unto grantee's heirs, successors, and assigns, 1 -; „ 1 all of that certain real property with tenements, hereditaments _ '. ::, and appurtences hereunto belonging or inlanywise appertaining, ' 7-...-1-.:::-.: situated in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, described as follows, to wit: The following described real property sit- uated in Section 2, Township 2 South, Range :-:.':.'•' I West, Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, to'wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of that certain tract of land deeded to Beecher B. s, Robinson by Book 126, page 193, Deed of Records Washington County, Oregon, said ,, point also being the termination of County Road No. 567 and the Northwest corner of s':s,;-.; Lot 1 of Edgewood, a subdivision of Wash- .” : ;i;, ington County, Oregon, thence east along the North line of said Lot 1, 52d feet, to y the center of Fenno Creek and the true point of beginning; thence N. 12° 02' 2 76.4 feet . to a point, thence N. 86° 48' E. 41.6 feet, -` �. thence S 5$° 29'E 104.5, thence s 390 1$' a ..' • E. 32.8 feet to a point on the North line of said lot 1 Edgewood, thence leaving ranno Creek and running west along the North line of said lot to the North line of said lot to the point of beginning. '' more particularly described on: -- Map 25-1-2DA, Lot 690 h .., 's TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said grantee and '. h; A grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever, The true and actual consideration • paid for said transfer, stated in terms of dollars is $100.00, B0Ud1O5j N'L64 R e 0 75-286 ." • %,:. . ' . v,i, . , ,, i!Y 9t: 6. :' a 1i[9s��ew�r�ss� - ti • . 'zr . - - ' • <.:. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Washington County, Oregon, the grantor Q'. above named, pursuant to Resolution and Order of this Board of =':v :,,i.;-i County Commissioners has caused these presents to be executed by tand through the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. , DATED this 28th day of October, 1975. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WAS :•GTOUgUNTY, OREGON • Okla' an ()'11(47./PLL;kt974.,4,,,---/ ... .,., Recording Syretary Atte '7'''fLS6.$ • •.7-q,Ti oms'r'€ erec tor thenids.-andlet"ons WaOigtn q , Oregon n • , „, • 1 �•: WOK 11)51 F;,LEf650 y�ui F: � 7493 1, 1 STATE OF OREGON ) ss 2 County of Washington I 3 On the �F,(js day of 66:64-r- , 19 y5, before me }• 4 R 5 appeared p�"ti'7xr�-w-- L�. 7/..." -a -- C • • and Roger Thamssen, - to me personally known, who being first duly sworn, did say that he, 6 >,1 7 the said ,.�-4,ti— e. l(2,_. ,--- y#., is the duly elected, qualified 8 and acting Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon, and that he, the said Roger Thomssen, is the duly ,. r. 9 appointed and acting Director of the Department of Records and Elec- 10 tions, and ex-officio county Clerk of Washington County, Oregon, and 11 that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the seal of the , 12 Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon; that said ,: 13 instrument was executed by the said Chairman by authority of an order 14 ;�:.;";'ii 15 of said Board of County Commissioners duly and regularly made and entered; and said Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of 16 r a' 17 Washington County, Oregon, acknowledge said instrument to be the free Q 18 act and deed of said political subdivision of the State ,of Oregon. o `;,r IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed r ; 19 ^ r my seal, the day and year first in this my certificate, written. 20 'l?'" i1 21 `e r 33 Hoary Subl)ro for Oregon :t;.: 1): 24 My Commission expires 3--/6'77 .,‘ + zz 25 : , xw 26 27 ::- ' -I to 28 — 'J t,' N J a, OI 29 . U 1.' F 30 • as r :x -oo 31 V • t. 32 ;: Boa<1O51 ma:651 Page 41r ,. •i .r.„.,,,,,. . ,.., ......,.,,, ,,r,/, .,, . :,,,,. .: , a1' 51 ! L --� . . . . . ... y _..,_:,_ „. • •Sr•. -. • .. 7493 • t • •• STATE OF OREGON ) ) sa .' County of Washington ) - On the r29 day of , /9:q3- , before me appeared JoAnn Johansen, to me personally known, who being first duly sworn, did say that she is the duly appointed and -•ff,1i acting Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington . • County, Oregon, and that said instrument was executed by her • ,.� by authority of an Order of said Board of County Commissioners duly and regularly made and entered, and that she acknowledges said instrument to be the free act and deed of said political subdivision of the State of Oregon. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I. have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal, the'day and year first in this my certificate, i written. • tlotzF�blic for Oregon ;;i.• ,.. My Commission Expires: .v /47 ,:'''''..?4 _ STATE OF OREGON i SE — County of Washington f • I, Roger TfjoMS{en Director of Rocc,d5 :=",and Electiont and'So•Officio:tRrcorder of i'- ComeyanCis for said county:.ch:hereby cer ;iv lily that the within instrurnint'of writing was recewod and recorded intonk,of rooerds. ;:$ i. of said ountY .' _ - o Witnesk ypond and"neat offlxe�.,f ROGEfl tF OMSSt:IV;Director :' BoflK�i]51 f r rr�� dt,f�ecnrtls&F�coti n,s4 Oa 3D 851 Ar,'75 . I__ J :,•-,,;:,.,41.. . A, • - - ...l Pre-application notes for Fields Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Sensitive Lands Review April 16, 2009 STAFF PRESENT: Cheryl Gaines,Dick Bewersdorff, Kim McMillan, Greg Berry,Albert Shields APPLICANT:Rhys Konrad Group Mackenzie PROPERTY OWNER: Fred Fields PROPERTY LOCATION: No address for the property located at the end of Wall Street, east of Hall Blvd. and Fanno Creek and west of the railroad tracks. TAX MAP/ LOT#: 2S10100-01200 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove the Goal 5 protection of significant wetlands and Sensitive Lands Review in order to construct the Wall Street extension across Fanno Creek. COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial ZONING: I-L,proposed change to R-25. PROCESS: Type IV Procedure NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: A neighborhood meeting is required for a comprehensive plan amendment and sensitive lands review. NARRATIVE: Include a narrative that responds to the applicable review criteria. This checklist is intended to provide guidance in preparation of your application. Additional criteria may be identified dependant upon the nature of the specific application, or as other issues are raised. In other words, this is not an exhaustive list of all criteria. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all applicable standards are met. In addition a recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for the amendment shall be based on the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies; Comprehensive Plan Policies under Goals 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 6.2, 7.1, 12.1 and 12.2. Again this list is for guidance only. Please note that the Comprehensive Plan is currently being amended. To ensure use of current policies, please utilize the online version found at: http://www.tigard-or.gov/city hall/departments/cd/docs/comp plan volume2.pdf. 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of the Tigard Development Code: Chapters 18.380, 18.385, 18.390, 18.705, 18.775, 18.790, 18.795,and 18.810 3. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of other applicable implementing ordinances; (including but not limited to Metro Urban Growth Functional Management Plan (Tides 3, 6 and 13),Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 11,and 12;and 4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. APPLICATION FEES: Fees for a Legislative Amendment: $8,886.00. All additional application fees at 50%. Other applications may include sensitive lands review, tree removal permits, and variance/adjustment. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Sensitive Lands: Sensitive lands, including Tigard significant wetlands, exist on-site and therefore Sensitive Lands Review is required. No land form alteration or development is allowed within significant wetlands. To do so requires removal of the Goal 5 safeharbor protection through the Type IV process. The process to remove involves either an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy analysis or determination of"insignificance." (18.775.130 Plan Amendment Option). A CWS Service Provider Letter is required at application. A stormwater connection permit is required prior to Public Facility Improvement (PF1) permit issuance if not connecting to the smaller, City line. The applicant should contact Department of State Lands and the Army Corps of Engineers to determine if permits are required. A condition of approval in the land use decision will ensure that all permits from other agencies are obtained prior to site work. Plans: The plans submitted for review must clearly show the work to be done and impact to the sensitive lands in order to determine if the standards are being met. The plans provided for the pre- application conference do not provide sufficient detail. Minimum plan size is 24" x 36". Protection of existing vegetation: Please provide protection plans for existing vegetation, including trees per 18.745.030. Floodplain: 18.775.070.B.2 (Sensitive Lands) states "Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards." Both the library site and Mr. Fields property will be zoned residential. Public support facilities do not include roadways. The badge design will need to span the floodplain to meet this standard. 2 Transportation System Plan: The TSP shows the extension of Wall Street to Hunziker Road. The applicant will need to show how the TSP can be met with the proposed design or amend the TSP to eliminate the connection. PREPARED BY: Ct � Cheryl Caines Associate Planner 3 PRE-APPLICATION NOTES ENGINEERING SECTION SW Wall Street Extension over Fanno Creek Sensitive Lands Approval Criteria 18.775.070 B. Within the 100-year floodplain.The Hearings Officer shall approve,approve with conditions or denyan application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; Show any fill in fringe area. If any how will it be compensated as required by CWS? 2. Land forrn alterations or developments within the 100 year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; How will this be met? 3. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; No filling in floodway is proposed. 4. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as untimely; Not applicable. 5. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood; Not applicable. 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and Show compliance with CWS R&O 07-20 at 5.10 7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway . within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Not applicable. Proposed Bridge The proposed bridge will require a Public Facilities Permit as follows. Applicant proposes to retain the option of constructing the bridge and connecting street as a private facility. However, the Tigard Transportation Plan requires that this be a public street. Lower cord of the bridge should be one higher than the floodplain elevation. Show locations of bents in plan view. • Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineering Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. A • deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of the permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cases where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. NOTE: Engineering Staff time will also be tracked for any final design-related assistance provided to a Permittee or their engineer prior to submittal of a PFI permit application. This time will be considered part of the administration of the eventual PH permit. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The PFl permit fee structure is as follows: CITY OF TIGARD _ .)7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIVISION 1 3125 SW HALL BOULEVARD R TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX: 503-624-3681 (Attn: Patty/Planning) EMAIL: patty@tigard-or.gov REQUEST FOR 500-FOOT PROPERTY OWNER MAILING LIST Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date of your request INDICATE ALL PROJECT MAP &TAX LOT NUMBERS (i.e. 1S134AB,Tax Lot 00100) OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW: 2S 101 Tax Lot 1200 PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ONLY I SET OF LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED AT THIS TIME FOR HOLDING YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. After submitting your land use application to the City, and the project planner has reviewed your application for completeness, you will be notified by means of an incompleteness letter to obtain your 2 final sets of labels. IF YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED BY PLANNING TO OBTAIN YOUR LABELS, PLEASE INDICATE THAT YOU NEED 2 SETS OF LABELS. The 2 final sets of labels need to be placed on envelopes (no self-adhesive envelopes please) with first class letter- rate ostage on the envelopes in the form of postage stamps (no metered envelopes and no return address) and resubmitted to the City for the purpose of providing notice to property owners of the proposed land use application and the decision. The 2 sets of envelopes must be kept separate. The person listed below will be called to pick up and pay for the labels when they are ready. NAME OF CONTACT PERSON:Rhys Konrad or Rachel Farrell PHONE: (.5 0.3) 2 2 4—95 F fl _ NAME OF COMPANY: Group Mackenzie FAX: (503) 228-1285 EMAIL: rkonrad @grpmack.com rlarrell @grpmack.com This request may be emailed, mailed, faxed, or hand delivered to the City of Tigard. Please allow a 2-day minimum for processing requests. Upon completion of your request, the contact person listed will be called to pick up their request that will be placed in 'Will Call" by the company name (or by the contact person's last name if no company) at the Planning/Engineering Counter at the Permit Center. The cost of processing your request must be paid at the time of pick up, as exact cost can not be pre-determined, PLEASE NOTE: FOR REASONS OF ACCURACY, ONLY ORIGINAL MAILING LABELS PROVIDED BY THE CITY VS. RE-TYPED MAILING LABELS WILL BE ACCEPTED. Cost Description: $11 to generate the mailing list,plus$2 per sheet for printing the list onto labels (20 addresses per sheet). Then,multiply the cost to print one set of labels by the number of sets requested. 1 -EXAMPLE - - COST FOR THIS REQUEST - 4 sheets of labels x$2/sheet=$8.00 x 2 sets= $16.00 sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet= x_i_sets= / _1 sheets of labels x$2/sheet for interested patties x 2 sets= $ 4.00 sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet fot interested parties=3 / sets= GENERATE LIST = $11.00 GENERATE LIST p 11.00 Z TOTAL = $31.00 TOT / =$ , E ._. . . , . ...•-.• '''':,,A.:•----II II • •-., . ..^..--7, .1 \\\•;''','t,,',., 0 ...... 1, ' , , { ''-'4',L;rr. ' il 6.'446'-.., ., VICINITY MAP • , c.•.•,• . ,.... ., .• -.,--:;,- ••• ,-- ...- . ii , , H., •-='.,..., ,L=.-:-....:7- . - • I I . -:''.7: :.--.. •-••••>-..-!`•--- •••••-;'(• , ___•-- '..'•''. 1 .. , ...- __ `..-7.3.:-..„re,,,,,,r-C ,...,\ '.•,, •, sV '';':' • 11.J-* , 2510100, 01200 .-_...--,-2,i- ..--, e , .• , : ...... .,, ... ./..:', , ,,, II _. : .__ ., II .__. , _ ......, . ' . !r.•';'`--- ' 0 ■0 -.-M1-■1 I i /. ....."'<, A::',.--\. . ''''''..\• • \ / , .--,.., „ — _ i - • .• .1. ' ••• I ' '.. ' .• • i 1 • Af t ..,..4,, -.--"-- '--•— , ---N,`'.4 . '5'6, .. • . . 1 , .• '' • .• .. „.1,7, \ -.:•.., \\, il . SI .. --. ‘...:". 'S...1 \ '•-•:.---, ;L .. \ , \‘:•:-. ..„.. ---'-...,... 'LI , \...,\„, . . I . . ..., • • ,...,..., . = Subject Site '...:.-4.,.. . . .:!.1!:........ , -- -. ,. —_ ‘,.X .7_.., ' IP e _-- , --,...,\... • --,....,..., ,..... .... ,.. ..:011..m. .„,..., ....... -,,,....„:„ 1 1 ..... ___. . ......................,,,v111::..::::::n:. - \:•..\t-11.....t.\\..\..:,' [I • I ti -11_3-. ri , ( \ >' '•.. "IIII......!IEFIii,.•..............., .....................................,........ ' : i .1.N..•::\ .. ... ./.... .. .-.. .. ...• .1. ,, ...: .. ., _......„.::. ,... , ,. J i . , __,.. • ' I, ............ I I............. •.::::.:', . . , II /----• ,1"ardli 11.1 ,..e •-- ', ' I • I ii......::......." .........,....•.•::::. i . --- ;% -____. __: 1 •, .- , ht. , _ ., I-1y 1;. , ',. ; :''.11.;!i.....1.,..1.,.............":::. \ I I l'---/ -' If-7.--P" .•,..---- ,_ 1 •.-::::. ',...,'N q I •,',,, a I _ . ' 'LL___,... .... , , ,A. ,'e":•,.:. ... ,, i I i .,. \\, I -.--.' . il• f w,ww,w,,,,,wmw••••:. , •—1L ....... -7f;_:)-,,,,,-,-.=7 .1.1 ,,5.--'--.■' .., ..., ! -,1.--.11;.:..•i 7 ■ T----- _. : i iii?"• •.EEi:..::1.......".. 1 1 I 1 --13'. :''''.....). ---",-- I ••:. ,, Amm,..w.usumo.' .....• ."".•.• ' •:::: '' i •••' '. `.. :::-..=7--_-'•• r'..• - • ---' ____ 1 II, -- I b6., . • ',...,-=---- ,..............„:....11,---, ---, . -_:____, -::-...:, '''.„'1„ • '1 ':' i I —4-011. ;`,':::::g ................ ...., . „2 .-rplilliimi............................................ .-.--. \.'„'11 II / MCDONALD - ----- L--i1, __ r.,..I .. .. ,- ••-• •-•- • ''. 1' ,, .-:.,.ji,,, ...::::::::$::::,1...fir.:,3.7..-•:::',•: '''••• ■p •i i . --__ - ____ v,,, , VI, 1 1 i.'r•-■ . , - I I 1 . 1 , H____, 1 ..,. .. ..................... i, ...-_-,.---A- .E".-' '',"', ' ..•" I I 11 l'?-,- II , - -... .. r -::::•:::..— / I ,, 41- . ..— I .'. -----'--.--... \ Information on this map is for general location •• . , ___ • ____ 1 . 17/3%- I 'Ir. . ..,, : only and should be verified with the Development ; ll:t Services Division. -. .... \ .;I\. 11 0. 0. ,=■ .■7.■°° 0 Scale 1:14,417-1 in=1,201 ft . , i I ,, ., ,I . ___ .., —E ON ITO.------:,' '•-,..7,- -, . ,,.•.:_ ___.•-.._- I ,.----1 I , . Map printed at 30-Mar-09/0:44 AM r 'r` ' 11 1 i ' i i•-''' il I I • II , ) . DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES THE CITY OE TIGARD MAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION CR GLARANTEE AS TO THE I 1- 11 I CONTENT,ACCURACY.TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF TRE I DATA PROVDED HEREIN THE CITY OE TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO I ---1 ,I 1 . " LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISSIONS OR INACCLRACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED i 1 ' i 11 . I 1. li II i ___I --Al l,' • i I . IF i 1 • City of Tigard 1 i I II Jr_...t- --L-,..../.___J --I I ____ , D , 13125 SW Hall Blvd H I i I—I 1 1 .: 1 ! \',,,.. :,-- T!GAR rit[hp.> Tiqard,OR 97223 i . ,-,.4. 1 1 503 639-4171 7. .--1 _,. 1 I . lo‘--.A. 1 i .6.11: www,tigard-orgov ------ _ I i , I 1.— — II L__, : , :. , 1 , . - -_---c.- 11 Vb. 11 101000159R 2 102DD0020 CI OF RD , 131 HALL BLVD TI ARD, 97223 2S112BB01800 2S102DD00120 BECKMAN,FRANCES CIT OF TIGARD 8255 SW COLONY CREEK CT 131 W HALL BLVD TIGARD,OR 97223 TJ ARD, 97223 2S102DD90552 28102D090542 BERGMAN,BECKY R CLARK,RODNEY K&PATRICIA A 13682 SW HALL BLVD STE 5 13682 SW HALL BLVD#4 TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112BA06400 2S112BB01200 BONITA COURT-36 LLC CLOUTIER,JEANNE 6711 SW AMBER LN 8345 SW COLONY CREEK CT PORTLAND,OR 97225 TIGARD,OR 97223 .S112BA900e0 2S112BB01400 Ba ITA 'S VILLAGE CONDO COCKREHAM,DENNIS C&MITZI A ASSc?;' ATION OF UNIT OWNERS 8325 SW COLONY CREEK CT 10006- TIGARD,OR 97224 2 112BA11•.ge 2S102DD90361 Bo,(TA dWNHOMES COLE,KATHRYN R TRUST HOM r t!WNERS ASSOCIATION INC BY COLE, KATHRYN R TR 5'i000` 13702 SW HALL BLVD#6 TIGARD,OR 97223 102DD05 .ae 2S112BB15200 B` .DGEP''RK OWNERS OF COLONY CREEK ESTATES NO.6, OWNERS OF LOTS 122-125 -ei00o- 12454 SW EDGEWATER CT TIGARD,OR 97223 2S112BA90681 2S112BB01600 BUSH,DONALD C&BETTY J GRIM!,MARTHA M 7925 SW FANNO CREEK DR#6 8285 SW COLONY CREEK CT TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S102DD90422 2S102DD03200 CHAN,CHI HO CROSS,MALCOLM 13688 SW HALL BLVD#2 8317 SW CHAR CT TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 102DA00•s e 23102DD04600 CI a GARD DAVALA,STEVE C&LAURIE A 13 .' S LL BLVD 8480 SW ARTHUR CT •GARD,OR 223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S112BA90631 2.101000110m DAVIDSON,MELBA J FIE NS, ,^ D W 7925 SW FANNO CREEK#1 114 = -_DAVENPORT TIGARD,OR 97224 P6'TLAN -OR 97201 251020 003300 25101 CA000 DAVIS,NANCY C Fi ..1S,.- OW 16869 SW 65TH AVE#113 114'''-•k DAVENPORT LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 P.RTLA'D,OR 97201 251126801700 2S102DD037 0 DIETMEYER,PHILIP E&ROBERTA L F Y P K,OWNERS OF 8275 SW COLONEY CREEK CT LOTS -15&17-18 TIGARD,OR 97224 ,, 000 25102DA00690 2S112BA90661 EIKREM,A FURLER,JOHN A BY JOHN 0 HAYHURST 7925 SW FANNO CREEK DRIVE#4 7805 SW EDGEWATER EAST TIGARD,OR 97224 WILSONVILLE,OR 97070 2S102DD04700 2S112BA05900 EILERS,ANGELA J& GOODHEAD,DAVID&JAN M JOHNS,MICHAEL J 9846 SW PEPPERTREE LN 8432 SW ARTHUR CT TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97223 251020003100 2S112BA03100 EMERY,JAMES R&KIMBERLEY A HIGGONS, LINDA H REVOC TRUST 8345 SW DEEANN CT BY HIGGONS, LINDA H TR PORTLAND,OR 97224 14080 SW 80TH CT TIGARD,OR 97224 231020090411 2S112BA03200 ENGEL,MARIE C HIGGONS, LINDA H REVOCABLE TRUST 13688 SW HALL BLVD STE 1 BY HIGGONS, LINDA H TR TIGARD,OR 97224 14080 SW 80TH CT PORTLAND,OR 97224 2S102DD90432 251128814900 ESSENBERG,JAMES R HUSTON,SHAWN M&ANGELA M 13688 SW HALL BLVD#3 14072 SW FAN NO CREEK DR TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 102DD90 00 2S102DD02800 FA 0 INTE CONDOS JIANG,WEN Y&HLIAN C OW S OF ALL UNITS 8397 SW DEE ANN CT 0000 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S1010001200 2S102DD02700 FIELDS,FRED W KING,ROBERT V AND 1149 SW DAVENPORT PHILLIPS, PEGGY J PORTLAND,OR 97201 13978 SW FANNO CREEK DR TIGARD,OR 97224 251020090561 28112BA03000 KNOWLTON,SHELLEY MARSH,STERLING E 13682 SW HALL BLVD STE#6 14090 SW 80TH COURT TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 281020001700 2S102DD90511 LANDAR,RICHARD A&DARIA F MASON, RONALD C 13985 SW FANNO CR DR 13682 SW HALL BLVD STE 1 TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 251128814800 25112BA90671 LE,PHUOC Q& MATTILA,ALLEN A LUONG,MAY T PO BOX 19544 14048 FANNO CREEK DR PORTLAND,OR 97280 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112BA03300 28101CC00100 LENKOWSKI, BRIAN T METRO 14060 SW 80TH CT ATTN:APRIL OLBRICH TIGARD,OR 97224 600 NE GRAND AVE PORTLAND,OR 97232 2 S 1128814500 2S 102D D90342 LIVINGSTON,MANDE MILBURN,JOHN& 8302 SW CHAR CT MILBURN,JOANNA M PORTLAND,OR 97224 1715 E MEADOW WOOD ST MERIDIAN,ID 83646 251020090522 2S1020004900 LUNDBERG,SCOTT& MILLER, BARBARA A&ROBERT 0 LUNDBERG,LAUREL 8391 SW ARTHUR CT 13682 SW HALL BLVD#2 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S102D002600 281129801300 LUONG,KHANH& MILLIGAN,JENNY M NGUYEN,CANH 8335 SW COLONY CREEK CT 13942 SW FANNO CREEK DR TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112BA90641 2S102DD90311 MAASS,JANET M MILLS,BERTIE JOYCE 7925 SW FANNO CREEK DR#2 13702 5W HALL BLVD STE 1 TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 281128A90731 251126814400 MALINSKI,MARY E MODICA, KEVIN L 12450 SW FISCHER RD#253 8288 SW CHAR CT TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S102DD04800 2S1020005000 MANSFIELD,JAMES C&LARA L MORRIS,HUGH G 8370 SW ARTHUR CT 8449 SW ARTHUR CT TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102DD90322 2S102D090452 NAG,SAUMYA PRICE,MARY A 13702 SW HALL BLVD#2 13688 SW HALL BLVD#5 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 28112BA90651 2S102DD90442 NESS,KELLI J RYAN,MICHAEL R JR 7925 SW FANNO CREEK DR#3 13688 SW HALL BLVD#4 TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S1020005100 25102D D03000 NOLTE,G SCOTT SACHDEVA,NARINDER 8487 SW ARTHUR CT 8361 SW DEEANN CT TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S1020090332 28102DD03400 OFFENSTEIN,HEATHER SMALL,DEANNE I&RICHARD L 13702 SW HALL BLVD STE 3 8372 SW DEEANN CT TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S102DD90461 25102DD90352 OLSON,GEORGE P& SNELSON,MICHAEL D&BRIANNE L WELLS,SHARON K 13702 SW HALL BLVD STE 5 13888 SW HALL BLVD STE 6 TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 1S135CB00800 251020000400 OREGON,STATE OF SOLARES HOMES L L C DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION BY NORRIS BEGGS&SIMPSON RIGHT OF WAY SECTION LOAN SVC DEPT 355 CAPITOL ST NE,RM 420 121 SW MORRISON#200 SALEM,OR 97301 PORTLAND,OR 97204 25102DD03500 2S112BB01500 PAOLETTI,JAMES E&AMY J STAMPS,CHARLES A TRUST 13984 SW FANNO CREEK DR BY CHARLES A STAMPS TR TIGARD,OR 97224 8305 SW COLONY CREEK CT TIGARD,OR 97224 '28102DD02900 2S102DD90532 PERRY,DAVID JOSEPH& STARK,LYNNE L HUGHMANICK,NANCY ANN 13682 SW HALL BLVD STE 5.3 8383 SW DEEANN CT TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112BA90691 2S101DC04500 PIATZ,CAROLYN R SUMMIT PROPERTIES INC 7925 SW FANNO CREEK DR#7 5550 SW MACADAM BLVD#205 TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97201 25112BB14600 2S101CB00400 PLOUSSARD,AMBER A&FRANCOIS J TCTPI LLC 8334 SW CHAR CT 25977 SW CANYON CREEK RD#J TIGARD,OR 97224 WILSONVILLE,OR 97070 •101CB003ia 2$112BA05 02 TC L TIG1t D ITY OF 2597 t, ANYON CREEK RD#J 1312 HALL BLVD SONVILLE,OR 97070 TI RD, 97223 2S102DD0030.- 2S 12BB15390 TIGA`5 OF TIGA , f'TY OF 1312 f LL BLVD 13125 HALL BLVD T 'ARD,OR 97223 TI RD,O 97223 2 10200004 2S102DA00500 TIG TY OF TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL 131 W HALL BLVD DISTRICT#233 T CARD, R 97223 6960 SW SANDBURG ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2 101DC06-i0 2S112BA06000 TI 'P, ITY OF TRI-COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK INC 1-1 5 ,W HALL BLVD 8320 NE HIGHWAY 99 "TIGARD, *R 97223 VANCOUVER,WA 98665 2S102DD054 25101CA00200 TIG D, Y OF WALL STREET INDUSTRIAL LLC& 1312 HALL BLVD A RICHARD VIAL EXEC CENTER LLC Tl ARD,O 97223 7000 SW VARNS ST PORTLAND,OR 97223 SS102DD03900 2S101DC04000 TIGA D, TY OF WALTON CWOR SOUTHRIDGE 12 LLC 13125 HALL BLVD BY TTA/ePROPERTYTAX DEPT 325 TI RD, R---97-223 PO BOX 4900 SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85261 2 101DCO.400 2 112BA03.G0 TIG''P ITY OF WAD' L EADOWS 131 s S∎ .HALL BLVD HOME• ERS ASSOCIATION yf ARD,O` 223 , 0.9s)ga0 2S 12BA062PI 2S112BB14700 Y OF WINKELS,SCOTT J& 13125 '!f, ALL BLVD COLEMAN, CANDICE L TI . RD,OR • 223 8366 SW CHAR CT TIGARD,OR 97224 23 12B812'10 Y OF 13125 + ALL BLVD TIGA-D,OR • 223 2$ 12BA061d00 TIGA Y OF 13125., HALL BLVD TI D,0 223 Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Design Group PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren Tigard, OR 97281 . 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Diane Baldwin Todd Harding and Blake Hering Jr. 3706 Kinsale Lane SE Norris Beggs & Simpson Olympia, WA 98501 121 SW Morrison, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 CPO 4M Pat Whiting 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:lcurpinlsetupllabels\CrT East.doc) UPDATED: 16-Dec-08 Josh Thomas Susan Beilke 10395 SW Bonanza 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 Gretchen Buehner David Walsh 13249 SW 136th Place 10236 SW Stuart Court Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 Paul Owen Todd Harding and Blake Hering Jr. 10335 SW Highland Drive Norris Beggs & Simpson Tigard, OR 97224 121 SW Morrison, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 Tim Esau PO Box 230695 Tigard, OR 97281 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 Ross Sundberg 16382 SW 104th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Brian Wegener 9830 SW Kimberly Drive Tigard, OR 97224 Joseph Dyar 10285 SW Highland Drive Tigard, OR 97224-4668 Rex Caffall 13205 SW Village Glenn Tigard, OR 97223 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD -SOUTH INTERESTED PARTIES Tog. I of 0 fi:lcurolnlsetun\labels\CIT South.docl UPDATED: 16-Dec-08 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING March 30, 2009 Re: Access extension of SW Wall Street to the Fields property. Dear Interested Party: Group Mackenzie is representing Fred Fields, owner of the property located to the east of the City Library and west of the railroad on Map 2S 101 tax lot 1200. We are planning to propose an extension of SW Wall Street in order to provide access to this property. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary land use approvals, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: April 20, 2009 Tigard Public Library, Community Room 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 6:00- 7:00 PM Please notice that this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to submittal of the application to the City. We look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 503-224-9560 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Rhys Konrad Land Use Planner Group Mackenzie 1515 SE Water Ave. Suite 100 Portland, OR 97214 • • • NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING INFORMATION R As part of the development review process for most land use applications, the City of Tigard requires that developers hold a neighborhood meeting to notify and discuss with property - owners in the area,their proposed development. Below are some frequently asked questions TI GARS about the neighborhood meeting process. • WHAT IS THE PUB.POSE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? • The purpose of'the meeting is to allow the prospective developer to share with you what they are planning to do. This is your opportunity to become informed of their proposed development and to let them know what issues or concerns you have in regard to their proposal. • WHAT RAPPERS AFTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? After the neighborhood meeting,the prospective developer 1i-•aii'es their submittal package (often taking into account citizen concerns)and submits an application to the City.• Sometimes it takes a while before the developer's application is ready to submit,so there could be several months between the neighborhood meeting and the submittal of an application, Once an application is submitted to the City,Staff reviews it for completeness. Once an application has been deemed complete, the formal application review begins. It takes approsi nately 6-8 weeks from the time the application is accepted for a decision to be made. Many types of applications require a public heating at which citizens are given the opportunity to provide comments or concerns.. Property owners within 500 feet will be notified after a complete application is submitted. They will be provided an opportunity to comment. Any appeals are decided based on the provisions of applicable laws and the development code, WHAT IF THE PROPOSAL PRESENTED AT,THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IS NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY SUBNII iTE D? Applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it generally follows the type of development proposed. This provides for the opportunity to address the.neighborhood issues . and address other changes necessitated by the development or staff. If the project is significantly different, a new neighborhood meeting g would be requited as determined by staff. HOW DO I KNOW WHAT ISSUES ARE VALID? A decision is reviewed based on compliance with the Tigard Development Code. Review the city's development code to familiariteyourself with what i s permitted and what may not be permitted. A copy of the development code is available for viewing at the Tigard City Library,on the City's web site at www.ci.tigard.ora s, or a copy may be purchased at the Community Development Services counter. You may also contact city planning staff and ask what the standards are for a specific issue. Be prepared,however,that you may not LIKE all the standards,but at least you know what they are. If a development meets the code standards,it can proceed. For your assistance, attached is a list compiled.of helpful questions to ask that may assist you in • determining your position on a particiilar proposal._ • Page3 • • QUESTIONS TO ASK OF TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD H D - CONCERNS, TO MAKE SURE YOUR CONCERNS ARE i . CONSIDERED 1 ' The following is a list of questions intended to aid you in formulating your own questions for TI GARD proposed development in your area. Feel free to ask more or alter the questions to address your • -. - own unique concerns and interests. PROCESS I. What applications are you(the developer) applying for? When do you expect to submit the application(s) so that neighbors can review it? What changes or additions are expected prior to submittal? d Will the decision on the application be made by City Staff,Hearings Officer,Planning Commission or City Council? How long is the process? (timing) - . I At what point in the process are citizens given notice and the opportunity to provide input? - I Has a pre-application conference been held with City of Tigard staff? Have any preliminary requirements been addressed or have any critical issues been identified? " What city planner did you speak with regarding this project? (This person is generally the planner assigned to the land use case and the one to contact for additional information). - STREETS - 1 Will there be a traffic study doge? What is-the preliminary traffic impacts anticipated as a result of the development and how do you propose to mitigate the impacts if necessary? 1 What street improvements (including sidewalks) are proposed? What connections.to existing streets are proposed? - 1 Are streets proposed to be public or private? What are the proposed street and sidewalk widths? . 0 What are the emergency access requirements and what is proposed to meet those requirements? ZONING AND DENSITY What is the current zoning? What Uses are allowed under this zoning? I Will there be a re-zone requested by the developer? If yes,to what zone? . I How many units are proposed for the development and what is the minimum and maximum number of units allowed in the zone? • RAINAG AND WATER UALITY ) What is your erosion control and drainage plan? What is the natural slope of the property? What axe the grading plans? I Is there a water quality facility planned within the development and where will it be located? Who will own and maintain the facility? - - TREES AND LANDSCAPING I What are the tree removal plans and what is proposed to mitigate for trees removed? ) What ate the landscaping plans? What buffering or fencing is required and/or proposed? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION . - How do I request more information or a follow-up meeting from/with the applicant? CAS alnt rnasters1.ncighhochood mentings 1neienboilioad[neerng infotmation_quglions.doc • Page 4 . .' ...... - - .„..-ei.-..-?•;;t -E'' -.. . • ----„, pje . .. . . - . . .. .. .. „ ...,.... .....,....„.. '':-....., ..,... , . ..., ....,..7.''.---..-...,-.,.. . , . . .... - ...,,..7'''.41-'''-',..:7;;;I",-„e,...t., -. . '. -' '----- ..,.. •.'....s :.:::,...7„..,-".;:-.. ,471--,--771, ...4.;!;ilt5, $1,..,5;; ;',..-3-..'' -f,-.- -'..-"- . ... ...',..,:: ..L.,.. ....,,-1,-... /,. .....v.tr.ri,.,.,q,.. ...,'....• •...--...•''.. . „..., 41,-. ',..,._ ,...46-11<:-?,%% ''.-- ..:.:--„:1: ',..,-•::'''..:' ''-'--• ''-k-i-f4 .- — 4' .'.0' ..., ''',';'''.,-.'.-7.-',..::.--,: "-:-.••.;'-' ::. 1 ,p•-•-•-:',:t'?-..: ..--,.,:' . _.,,:.7,. .'4,F,. ..51 ?.:-.1', ";114.: v; .--ir r.p...-„,-. - ..' " ;#''. '. ........i''.'..-04.0.1*. ;.:- - . ",,, :tt?A„ '''' .• 1 ..... : gt%''' *- - --- . ...:1'-... 45.::-.-kit4,4 ..'i-o4f..'-,-!,,:'•,.....;- itIt'l:,- ,..---•.'"-:-.1.-:-.-7.,-• -.. ' ,,-.• . .• , ..,F,i,-., -- •. :i-.T-.T,.,,T'-.-.,-,... .-......'',....:-4t.i-,:,-;.,.. ...:'.::::, - ,-2 . ., ......zt-k,.i.,..---- -._::::: ...:.., ...::........,....:.,.::.......„.,.::......,:„.,..- ..,. .:, zur.• ,-ii, -.!,4. : . .. ..:_. . .,.. .,, ......-...„. -,.--.::., .11! '; 1.:',, ;;;, :li .:1:::!; ''''.. . .;.,..,,,,: '..::..: ::..;:1,!,:':'''..'::',. ..:-,; ;! ... .;,"! i '1.,'!'."1 .ilt:,!. 111r;':.:..i', '; '":..i:: ....' .147*1.:111'::1;',.;.., ... -..... . . .,....lort „...:.„.,.:..;.!..!„. .1,11.41‘. tte - . ,„„.m.,01,..4.,-.-.-_:,,,,--f- 6.4.,lit....,.,.„,::,,..a,.44,.„. ,.-,-,1?Pli%, . . '::,:.,,,';'4.,,,,.#.4q.e•/;-:,,-'--.,,,,41::;i1X, - ..--•j"... '.::•::•::...:':-.-.',:-. ........-• .'.. ....11.1 . ...iam4 i •••••...,4. ..,,..-01*:',...''.::-..;.;_.':.:,.. t 4 ,,.• rd.::: ---.:1:.k.'7„,:fi S,.,..-'.,::::..;...: . .ffitrif,,,r4r,,,::1-4;:.N, ,, - ,,, l&,.,..'.;....,....t,!T.'„ :',.',.....:::•,.......4...::. ..,.. 1.-:- ",Eakt...4 .--itk-,-;.,--:!;....,1.---•.",:- --..:,...i.....-.-!..:---,.. , -.t; 17.... .,-.,......4;'),,Y-%<,.."..; .-.7--f... • ' -,-..::.--. -..„:., ,---. ,.,,,,,,, ,=--,-,-,=,-,t,--,c.v:*.gt -eat..a_- . - '',7 4.,c'ti.' ''•' - -7'-''':. ''.-''. ''''''-' - miff_. .. ,,,,b,.-....: ......, v-„,,,_._ I.,_.:. ....,N.<9.....",..;-.. c. ...... ,..f,-,!:-...-'...,•':?,..',5..,...': :,.....-'7...:.:7-4;;Fita;1,1?--1.--,!). _r,o'-zr. ..----..;,.- -'. :•- -- , El ...:` '.':f...,--.L,--,.-- . ,,,,-.- _-,.,-„ I;:-.; ....•,... ....„..,........!..-::::::„:.:.J.,.'-::"..:71-.!,,......F.:;:44 ' '''-.. . . , ..:,■ 7....,-.-..,-, ..,.....-:-."1, ',;-' ........ .,.. -- :- ..-. ., ,.., \ -.1(?-6- 114:,4, --t.':7«:"'".',..-::,.}-'''4.- .,..;■':::F-7?.4.1:,„,.......' ....:Lc.....1.'''.':-.'-.gqi,-- 'in':,. .-:' 44 :-..4:V...-.::.:-.:::';'.:-:-'4.:-'. i.,--Tc'....: ..-::...'74:„.;-.-:-. -- • - ;;:-..r-' ..!•:,,.-,::: ';:-.;31i:k.,...s.,.-.-.,-.. .?,•,;:,,,:.:..-.:•,.._••••• • ::.,..•-•:•-:.-: ... , -.. ... -•. : M ill • ,• _ an .". .....„. ...., .a- .:=.:,7•• ' .....,•.:.•••.....,. ,..,7,,,...:-..". '. --ik... ...1„.--..-47:-.. ,...;r4,70, -,--....,:-.----,'..,.;:-..1--...,c,..-.,.-:7,..• t-..:-.-- .-: :i-„,"..-:.,., -: . .- . .• .".:,.- .. ...7.- .,...,:-. ...:-., _.... -,-.;.- - f- -.,... .R.7......„;:.., ,,:..i..... .;:.. . . .: . 4-'4:tir'-,'",--.,..-•.:.....4--- 4,. 4-?'!.'.;N:"!' .gi-. ,• 141ti-.::.' . r.'1,4!:' .-.-----,',..5';-'---..: --...."-c.;.---f:'-'..; -.'..,:-.T.';'7'f...,--.., .-7,-- -',.-4.t,01-4,1' :::--r.•-•: . : :-' .7:- . • -..;--- ..-.... --, ,;' ,-.-',-E'' -,!:-=.?-.":-:•-::i.7-J . ...17. 111111F:..."..-:.--,--.;•='.7-'--.''.::-.7-::::' cur ..4--.,;.--..-::::.:-....'.:;-,:.-.7 ;-....-.........,.:-.: :c..,.:.-; ::-..7.--,.:"-:-:',..-,.:::. ;.jq:,_\.: .!'f;iri,T. ..'' .:;,:..:.:::::.J.:.1....:..;:.-..' , ., ...-.,-,:: :.... FIR.' ,i,,IF.,,,.. -.....A.: r ;Xl.Z..-.:ii.'..;'...,:;.."' :...,!-.. ' --.... ....'. :.; -. : 's ,':... 1•;.':-2t.':':'•i.. .-:.::::.--::..z--.:::::,.::.-2.-.:.'.....,:-'.. .,.......,,,.-.:......1.. . ...;.. `,D'',. , ,,,;,.../e7 „,_..iktAt41,4ft...-':..::. ':'...:'..... . ....-..:::.. :.,:.:''-...-' ....: ..4.... 7i. :,„II '• ..:14::-. [.• ,;,, ,..,4,........... ..,-...;',.. .,.... i:..,.:-: ,,-.. ::..,,,.- ..:,:..-;:-....:•.--.1--.,..,.. .,...i.....,:"....c.,......,.....:,,.±,.,",.:.., :-.. ...... :',...:....,,.'i::.., .:.1,i;.';'.47 ,.4f,.,.n.i...,:::*,11,,vr.F...,-....,...,:. :..: .i..,..,,:•:.... ' :... :......... ,..._,.. , _.... ..... ..K.,..„:: „., mg..-....-. _....; 1....,',,,..t•,:::::'''7,;..- ';',.:.',,,,...7;,•,:1:;-...z7't.,i'4,'6....,,:7:4,..f.,,I,..,. ,....:,...: -7'..'..., :!',..::..H.:..-..„H.:;.,...,, .-....:,..,..-...•.,1..;.-::•;.;'i .:L-..-....,.7...::.-ii.'.....":,;:,....,-:.-'4,'....-J,:i4,:`7,-,ii...-± -....•''-':\k,,t-Q•ii4E',:i*-.. .'••:: -. ..,...::.:.-., -..•..r".7.:::'...."...-.: .::..,:;: .."17' ":''''..1'''':-. ...'!'....'"'''...."- = ::-...' ',. .:,.........:,.!-T.:L::...:,-..,.::.:......i, *. -,4, '.'„,,-.41:. ... . .--.: .. .... ....,-. .:. .. ' . - , . •, .., . ....,, ,,..,.... , - ..4c.' ........,.::- ....:;'.1.::'-.''''....-:',.,■,,:'... ..:'...A-:,'. ..: . - ":':.ifk,...--,-'t- ',' '..?.. ,-.2 2' ....--.:; .::!-., : ...'-' '" .. .f.-.. „:-. :4;''::::'''';',...':::::.,...,..--. ''5..,:•ii. ,-, ;-:°40,-It",,..-:....,::: . -: . .: . .::: .;..:-:.'..:':.:.:----,--7--.:-•••••---.-:::::.e.,...:. :.•.:.....:.,'', •1::::-.---.:-....::.'..'s...,,...,-•••••...qk-.;:-.,-,-,.-7,..:, . , ..,..77.., • '- :;-...:..-;::':::-. _...:.------....,.. .,.. a...........: 1 -.J.'..::.'s.•-;'•% -,.. .. .....,.:,.. ..N... . tion.."'''.....•` .;:..,-:.• ...--:•.,',..,...::::::-..:.:-:.:,-..;.•-:'-•.1::::-..-:..7.,.,31;,,,-.s..--i-.f .!:;:.'.- '. ..:. .,.. . ..:..:. •.•.:---:::-:.:-.:.'..... ... ......:..:‘ ...•.1111.1. 1-.2.:i. .... ..': '.•,.....,;,..... ,.......,...1,..... .,... „,,. . - -.,:::,.,..111111111. ;..;,.. .... •— .,„..,g L 003. , - :,;..,,..--"::.'-' ..2?..,:.....:.-, '. .:7...:.;::.:-.:4......:. '-... '.. , .. . p.. . . :. ::,:,:..:,,,,„„.._.....:i........ ,....., .. ,. .... t- . 15, 7 meet.'"..,. ,,.....v.-.:.;77..„,, : .::.'".....'::.'"::-.-...f':::."'. :-.,-.....'.....-.. ...].'-. ' •:.`,.. ',...i....--." .''.',.., ;...':.: .-•:'-'-..". .. . ,, ,i. ' ... r. . .. --4;r:;0). ..t,4FILN, . ...ri';''.:-1.--' IL.'' ....:. ::,.....,':::;::,:'%:::`:'.'-'.- '..17'f...'.-'Z..'."-.' ;-,•7 -:...:"....'..::'......: ;.:•....',- ,.-•..'". -. :: . . ..''.'.1......'t 1... .;'•'' .. :-.. .:-.-.' -- -.-:,::.; . -,,ft ... . . .. . _ .. .. . .- .,, . .. . : .,.. . ... .. . . ,. ;„ - '..'" --- . . . „ . . . ... . . . . _ .,. . _ .,.. . . .. . .._ ..„,, .... . . .. . • - •, . -... - . ... • r :,41:,..-,-.:-.---• ,-..,,, ..-..cv.:.,.-. ...... iii, -w:,:i...11... . (.1... -.. ......:4:-- .L. . .: .---': : -: ... . :'..:;....,.,:: • -•--.: . :- - r..:-.--...-•---. . - --..,. :-. . . .,- ..-.. -..._.:, •-..... i.-,1.122 --......: . ''''':;:.."' , ,„:.1'IRA - -_, j,:- :1;.:.:..r..r•:.— :,' .,.:0 :,.'...- :....,-: . - -::. . ...„. ..,.,..., ! 1,.i::ON - . r . . • ,. ...- .,..!.4-..,......:;,-- •:....-7.:- '- :. - . .;'.... -..'.'• ..'.-:1 ' • ....; 1.,,..:2:... :i17,..-!:..:;.:-..... .::-.2 '..---- • •... --.,-,':: : ' •-' .::: . ....,-ii.",:_,,...:..--..: ... " .,:-,,:::;-*,-,11;Z:'-:f.-4.-- .--•''''''' • , . -. •r,.! • ,:.-..ZS . ... , ...,. T . !„ :•:-.-..., .:,.. .- .--.:.. ...: : „...! ,.:-.....:•,... . . .... :=.,-; -- :SITE:. ... -'--- ..-1 ._:-_-'L::-....;".• ';- ::,:':.. .;-...:-•;:. ,.11-1.., 417,', ,,,,,-, ,;.:....: ''',...',. .-"..7.:- ''''.' ''''::: iiiii ..,:".'":-:::1: .' ...'";-.- ::.-:-, • ',-;:-;'."..•:::"...". . .. , ..: -.'" .f .:-."- ... - . • -' ...,,:::'".:-.. . '":-.'"i:'':...',r..''..::'.-..-....'...'.:';'....9'; .-:::".:-.:.L.,:--.". . ...!..•:":117:-.'. " ' ..:: I,.1.-:". Ri wci.. ';;;.:.,...::•.. .:...: -.-,--...,...: :-...,-, .....:-.,--.,...-:-.:' -,:: '....,..,.,.:•,..„..i. [.'...,'-'.--,,..• ...! ...--T.'.-... C.-- ''..:-..,-.:...... .. ''..:...i7 -...-;... I . -: - i .....,..:..f.....--:',-.::.. ...4... ..-. ,,,•::•.:-.•••.-.,;,.7.,,,..kw.,.„-,.-..,..A:.•••-:..4..i-i,--...:.: ., :..... . , -- ..• . •••:::::.:-.::•...'.. ; ..,:-. : •• .- ..-. • . ,::... .... • ,-.:- -.....-.. •,. -.. ...... .:•.• ._••::•-..: -..,.......,:.....- • . •-;..iii:iii ,, ..: .: [ mLu ....„, • ,. .• •._,. . .. . . . , . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. ,. [..: • i M.',' .- . . .. -- - . • . - - . . • . - . . ., . . . , . . . . . .. .. .. . • • .., . • .„ . - • .. • . . .. . . . . .. . : ., .. , . „ . ., . • . .., ''''.:‘....,:;.:,::••••"•-.*:,... '..."."-.:-i : .. . •'..,3 . -. -..::•;.,. ••- • . .. .. ... Ok . „. .... . . •. .. ,. . . . .. . , .. ._ .. .. .„ . . ... ..„, ....,., a . . ., .., ..:...',,..o., _ .., ..;..4.i.... - . 4 Q Ha N MIR' : i'''Mb''' - - ...MigirN717 :. .. ...,.'...:.....'.'''';'-'.....i'' '. . : .. .. .; 7.:1-'':■:e■....7.'"".7•.' ..., ,";':"..:',...w: .:.:. .:.... ',-.:.''..'...:... ,',..4 - ' .. .. '... . . lit' .;_ ....... ma.. . I:. - • I : : Ma31 A.,.. i . e-* .....- R...... . , ‘ . ti ., .. . ,.., .,.... . . .„.. , .. ...,... . . ... . . „..... ..._ ,,... ..._ , . ..„. ''-'711., .- ..-,,,,,..;:.:i.":"'"OM°' 11111E1411.. . ''''.':.'. ..,,';',.`"‘"41'..":"... ....•" ...". '.1::1C1J\J.A:11113 ." gekkl. ,:,._,. . . . ..7 --:.....,..'.1":. .-. .... ..- ...... 16, .-.: '..i.!.::1.1.v.,.--:._..-.7., ... : ....::,.. 1.-PL;(150,-*gre--...,--. . ..... .._. ' , • - - -. - - ‘,. .. ,„, i:, ,z,_Emitz-:::::....,•:•:„.-,:-..-z. _,..-:-.. •,;.,,z,..- .. :.. ..% . - ... - 1. ,..,,,.,z,..,-.'...-- •„...-- ' r.;,...,...,:. ,...._ • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING/POSTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD A COPY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE,TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223-8189 IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT&COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. MAILING: I, el w y, (uri rw A ,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the -Or day of /A.p 20,1 _,�1 I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list,a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) 2 S►o y 4c, -i v; 12oc ( i 01,1")5 PP-Pr)i) ,a copyof which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainTyaddressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at t> 5E; S.),(fe \11F with postage prepaid thereon. tir Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) POSTING: I, (Art re,a ,do affirm that I am(represent)the party initiating interest in a proposed land use application for \n/ALL 5--rf-t r Ex`r 6u51 oAv affecting the land located at(state the approximate Iocation(s)IF no address(s)and all tax lot(s) currently registered) 25 1 v I vt, 43 1200 ,and did on the r day of A r 1 ,20 01 petsonallypost notice indicating that the site maybe proposed for a land use application,and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at y✓\LL ?12f 1 e Lr17r,,,4, (state location you posted notice on property) Si ture (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF O6-A° ' ) County of 0Ltoa- ) ss. Subscribed and swornlafthmed before me on the 9 cc__ day of 4r/.( ,200 9 . fy� OFFICIAL SEAS. 1 JAMIE L RANDOLPH NerA�v Pusuc-ol�EGar� MY COMMISSIONIIXPIRES JAN. 1 ,2 0 } JAN. 16,2012 � NO • : P : OF OREGON \My •mmission Expifes: i\cuTla\masce,slneigbborbood=clings\affidavit of mailing-posting neighborhood ooeeting.da ?—h. 1/25, 2012 Page 5 GROiJP MACKENZIE ' PORTLAND,OR I SEATTLE,WA]VANCOUVER,WA SIGN - IN SHEET RlverEast Center 11515 Water Avenue,Suite 100 I Portland,OR 97214 P.O.Box 14310 I Portland,OR 97293 T:503.224.9560]F:503.228.12851 www.groupmackenzie.com PROJECT NUMBER: 2070334.02 PROJECT NAME: Fields Property Comprehensive Plan and Sensitive Lands Application 1.11.81.E01:f- 1Yetghhorh(iod Meeting April 26;'2,16:019 :,.::,.,!: Name Address Phone/Email (Optional) 64,,x. `7‘ hv /4 4/1 U -) o3_) t5 d 3' a NIX- ‘) 6 CH SO S( 0 D*4 so 3 ‘ 361 s_ - /,4 E , .._ ))0 G,yr )... A -'A,. 4,0 9z,--?3 ) 3 7G s 1-4- 1(. 6 .t5- O 3/ 35 ,, S ') 86 (93 07 17 e--5Y 13 C 2- S r ti/ JI C S a 63g — vt.- )14 v,. 496-/ -il b-4) ) e3-7 zz 3 0 S.,„:1-t;r2v1 .„s------a--t___L_ (--Py—cec----- 7--- - ..Y S-----I 9 '11 I ( 1 LI 11— 31' — 1 1nz 5 r3\ c)�- t0 �� � � �\ 4..i C- � Sck 11:IPROJ HCTS12070334021PLANNING\NI-IMtg Sign in.doc G R U P_ W A ACKENZE OR I SEATTLE, MEETING MINUTES R1verEast Center 11515 Water Avenue,Suite 100 I Portland,OR 97214 P.O.Box 143101 Portland,OR 97293 T:503.224.9560 I F:503.228.1285 1 www.groupmackenzie.com PROJECT NUMBER: 2070334.06 ISSUE DATE: June 12, 2008 PROJECT NAME: Fields Property -Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Map Amendment and Sensitive Lands Application RECORDED BY: Rhys Konrad,Planner TO: FILE PRESENT ON BEHALF Fred Fields—Property Owner(Applicant) OF THE APPLICANT: Tom Wright,Rhys Konrad Group Mackenzie(Applicants Representative) The purpose of these meeting minutes is to summarize comments received from interested parties in attendance at the June 2, 2008 neighborhood meeting regarding the Fields property. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a proposed Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Map Amendment and Sensitive Lands Application for the Fields property located east of the City Library(ie. Map 2S 101 tax lot 1200). The meeting was lead by Rhys Konrad and Tom Wright,and began by reading the City-prepared"Statement of Purpose"letter to attendees as required,followed by a brief description of the project as summarized below: • Total Site Size: 24.73 acres ▪ Total area within 100-year flood plain and wetlands: Approximately 4.67 acres • Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to Medium-High Density Residential • Zoning Map Amendment from L-I to R-25 • Sensitive Lands Application to obtain access to the property by an extension of Wall Street(final design not yet complete) • Site characteristics which limit the ability to provide industrial development(i.e.,site shape,surrounding non-industrial zoning designations, lack of access and circulation,natural features) • Site characteristics which support the residential designation(i.e.,surrounding residential,lower vehicle and truck trips, ability to conform to natural features of site) • Brief overview of alternative access locations and coordination with the City and School District • Conclusion of next steps and City process Mr.Fields provided additional supportive comments to the above. The following items are a summary of comments received regarding the proposed project: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ITEMS 1. There were questions regarding the potential number of housing units that would be allowed on the property if it were re-designated to residential. The applicant responded that Mr. Fields has received interest from potential residential developers,but no plans are available at this time. 2. There were questions regarding the eventual development type and design. The applicant responded similar to question#1. H:IPROJECTS12070334021WP\MTG M1N1080602-NH.doc Neighborhood Meeting(June 2, 2008) Fields Property—Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map Amendment and Sensitive Lands Application Project Number 2070334.06 Page 2 3. There was a comment regarding the possibility of leaving the site as open space,or a park.The applicant responded that if the City or other organization was willing to purchase the property at a price comparable to a developer,then Mr.Fields would consider selling it for a park or open space. 4. There was a question of whether we had spoke with Metro regarding the property,and who the contact person was. The applicant indicated we can provide the Metro contact information. 5. Generally,there appeared to be some consensus by those attending the meeting that the property may be more desirable for residential development than industrial,due to surrounding uses,less traffic and other impacts. SENSITIVE LANDS AND ACCESS ITEMS 1. There were questions related to potential transportation impacts in the surrounding area and specifically the capacity of the Wall Street intersection. The applicant indicated that based on preliminary information the intersection has been designed to accommodate more traffic than would be generated by residential development. A traffic impact analysis will be submitted with the application. 2. There was concern of how long the construction process might be with the proposed Wall Street extension.The applicant indicated this is cuiTently unknown and will depend on the type of construction (and seasonal restrictions). 3. There were questions regarding the appropriateness of the proposed Wall Street extension,and questions on alternative access locations surrounding the site. The applicant described the options that had been considered including the school district property and Milton Court. 4. There were concerns regarding potential impacts of Fanno Creek and other natural areas associated with the proposed crossing. The applicant responded by indicating the site included about 20 acres of developable land, and the City was supposed to provide access to the property via the Wall Street extension as part of the agreement to purchase the Fields property for the library. Other options for access are not available; therefore,the proposed crossing of Fanno Creek is the only remaining option. 5. There were questions on how long the bridge would be,and what it would look like and function.The applicant responded that the specific design of the bridge was not determined at this time, and that potentially the bridge could be designed to either public or private standards. 6. There was a comment regarding whether or not the extension of Wall Street would cross the railroad tracks as previously proposed.The applicant responded that the earlier proposal by the City was to cross the tracks which would connect Hall and Hunziker via Wall Street. The current proposal is only to extend Wall Street across Fanno Creek to serve the site, and not cross the railroad. 11:1PROJECTS\2070334021WP\MTG MIN1080602-NH.doc 10/25/2062 11116 5033060290 RAMIS CREW PAGE 02 g h CB SE AND 841X A .R M NT • THfS A.aREEMBNT is entered into as of this ,day of Octobef,2002,by and between FRED W. FIELDS ("Seller") and THE CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal corporation. ("P'tucbaser"). ,XCITAIS A. Seller is the owner of certain real property which is legally described itt Exhibit 1 hereto(the"Property"). B. The City has determined that the Property is needed for public purposes, and has communicated to Seller that necessity and the intention of the City to =else its power of eminent domain in regard to the Property unless the parties Batt awe on terms for acquisition of the Property by the City. C- Purchaser wishes to acquire the Property owned by Seller, and, under threat of condenmatlon,Seller is willing to sell the Property to Purchaser under the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement. - For valuable consideration,the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. hnslue. Seller agrees to sell.to Purchaser at Closing, and Purchaser agrees to purchase at Closing,the Property in accordance with the terns hereof .Purchase Price. Upon Closing,Purchaser will pay Seller an aggregate purchase price of Two Nrillion One Hundred Thousand Dollars($2,700,000.00)for the Property. The purchase price shall be payable all in cash or other immediately available fluids at the Closing. 3.-Title. Title to the Property at Closing will be'lee of encumbrances or defects other than the Permitted Exceptions.(as defined in this paragraph 3)and will be so insurable at and as a condition of Closing, fbr Pu:rclmaer's benefit, as evidenced by a biuuling caruniteent from Escrow Agent to issue an owners extended coverage policy of title insurance (the "Title Policy")_For the purposes of this Agreement, "Permitted Exceptions" will include (a) matters shown as exceptions 1 through 7 as shown on the Deed from Seller to Purchaser of even date herewith;(b)matters of record approved or deemed to have been approved by Purchaser,and(c) exceptions attributable to the acts or omissions of Purchaser or its agents, employees or contractors. Encumbrances to be discharged,if any, may be discharged through escrow out of purchase money at Closing. Page-l—PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT G6R. .Eatelet rlga ur a,'trary5iialuawarmta/055(142iO4).dw • 1B/25/2002 11:19 503050296 RAMIS CREW PAGE 03 • • 4.Mak. Title to the Real Property shall be conveyed by special warranty deed (the "Deed")in the form attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 2, free of encumbrances or defects, except the Permitted Exceptions. 5_ Belle Revesenterions and Warranties. Sailer makes the following representations and warranties to Purchaser: (a)::apes,,A,uthorlrv. Seller has the requisite power and authority to own and operate the Property and to cbdauinmatC the transactions contemplated herein. • (b)Foreign Person. Seller is not a."foreign parson"within the meaning of Section 1445(f)of the Internal Revenue Code. (c)Craiitorn.No attachment , execution proceedings, assignments for the benefit of creditors, insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization or other proceedings are pending or, . . threatened against Seller,nor are any of such proceedings conletnplatedby Setter_ Seller's representations and warratetiee shall survive Closing for a period of twelve(12) months and shalt laminate as of the end of such period except to the extant that Purchases advises Seiler in writing of an alleged breach thereof prior to such termination date,stating with specificity the nature of the alleged breach and providing Seller concurrently therewith with documentation thereof. 6. put seers Representations and Warranties. Purchaser makes the following representations and warranties to Seller: • (a) 'urchasees Autherity. Purchaser.has the requisite power and authority to acquire the Property.The execution,delivery and performance of this Agreement by Purchaser have been duly and validly au&lorized by all necessary action and proceedings, and no fi rher action or authorization is necessary on the part of purchaser in order to consummate the transactions contemplated herein. (b)No.Conflict.Neither the execution nor delivery afthis Agreement by Purchaser, tip/ nor performance of any of-its obligations hereunder, nor consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby,will conflict with,result in a breach oft or constitute a default under,the . terns and conditions of the argaaixatinaal documents pursuant to which Purchaser was organized,or any agreement to which Purchaser is a party or by which it is bound, or any order of any court, regulatory body, administrative agency or governmental body having jurisdiction over Purchaser. (c)ainarece.PITsaia. Purchaser has available to it adequate financial resources to enable it to purchase the Property at Closing without seeking recourse to any contingent funding source. (d)ENtegeten Road, Purchaser will consult and reasonably cooperate with Seiler Page-2—PURCkLA SE AND SALE AGREEMENT ce: aeeter v a o ess0000axee • • • • 19/25/2002 11:19 5033666290 RAMIS CREW PAGE 04 regarding establishment of a road(the"Extension Road")from Hall Boulevard providing access • to other real property waned by Seller(the"Adjacent Property")which lies generally eastward of the Property. ' (e) Eatlinaditardic_Crp:saing. Purchaser will consult and reasonably cooperate with Seller and will establish discussions among Purchaser, Seller(or his representative), the owner/operator of that certain railway track(s)and right-of-way(the"Railway„)bordering the Adjacent Property, and property owner(s)having property(ies)abutting the Railway and having rights that may be affected by the Extension Road,-with the purpose of negotiating a crossing of Said track and right-of-way for the Extension Road. Sn the event the Railway refuses to permit a crossing of said track and right-of-way,Purchaser will consult and reasonably cooperate with Seller with regard to the establishment of alternative roadway access from Hall Boulevard and from Hunz'iker Road to the Adjacent Property. (1) rp D1, L- Purchaser will consult and reasonably cooperate with Seller'in the formation of a local improvement district to finance construction of the Extension Road, with such consultations to include: (i)the appropriate siting of the Bxtension. • Road,(ii)construction of the Extension Road across the Adjacent Property(and possibly across • the Property), and (iii)the appropriate location of a Railway crossing for connection of the Extension Road to SW Hhnziker Avenue. As part of such cooperation, Purchaser agrees to assume, and promptly pay as required, the costs of engineering work and construction management for the formation of the local improvement district and construction of the Extension Road, will discuss and reasonably cooperate with Seller regarding an equitable- diatributlnn of Extension Road costs Through local improvement district assessment liabilities, and will discuss and reasonably cooperate with Seller regarding allocation of local improvement district assessment liabilities- The obligation ofPurchaset'to pay costs of engineering work and construction management for the Extension Road is a continuing obligation that shall survive the Closing. . The representations of Section 5,subsections(d),(e)and(f)will survive the Closing and will not merge into the Deed to be conveyed by Seller to Purchaser pursuant to this Agreement. 7_Cie_i sin (a) Closing will occur in the offices of the Eacrow Agent on a date mutually agreed to by Seller and Purchaser,but no later than October 31,2002.The parties shall cooperate to permit the Closing to occur by means of an escrow and the faxing and couriering of documents so that Closing doss not require the physical presence of the parties in the office of Escrow Agent. (b) At Closing Seller will deposit in escrow the Deed, a PIRETA affidavit and Seller's share of escrow fees,closing costs and prorations. At Closing Purchaser shall deposit the Purchase Price to be paid in cash or other immediately available funds, along with Purchaser's share of prorated items, fees and charges for all title upgrades and special endorsements in excess of that for an owner's extended policy of title insurance,if any,requested by it;one-half(1/2)of the escrow fee;and all other Closing costs, except those designated to be paid by Seller under terms of this paragraph. Seller shall pay the title insurance premium for an .P. e-3—PURCHASE AND SALE AGRERMENT meas.'Ieesnaaarritartraeo*e..devastisssonda. ' .1 t - 5 - ' • le/25/2002 .11:1L 5533965296 RAMIS CREW PAGE 05 ownefs standard coverage policy of title insurance;the recording fee on the Deed,and one-half (1t2)often escrow fee. Each party shall pay its awn attorney&fees. g.Ptelatienes • (a)heal and•personal property taxes,assessments,rents,and operating expenses • of the Property(other than Seller's insurance premiums)shall be prorated as of midnight of the day preceding Closing.Real and personal property taxes and assessments shall be prorated on the basis of the best information available as of Closing including taxes based on the latest assessed valuation for the property. If alb Closing, real and personal property taxes of assessments are determined to be different froth,those apportioned at Closing,then the parties shall promptly adjust the prorated amount to actual,'by payment from the party who paid to little.or received too much of a credit at Closing. (b)For purposes of calculating prorations,Seller shall-be deemed to be in title to the Property, and therefore entitled to the income therefrom and responsible for the expenses thereof;through midnight of the day before the Closing Date. All prorations shall be made on the basis of the actual munber of days of the year and month which have elapsed as of the Closing Date. The amount of proration shall be adjusted in cash after the Closing,as and when complete and accurate information becomes available. Seller and Purchaser shall cooperate in making-post Closing adjustments to prnratiorns within thirty(30)days following Closing,if and to the extent possible. • 9. " ileLearle.;._ ?imitation• Disclaimer Notice Purchaser acknowledges that notwithstanding any prior or contempoxanneous oral or written representations, statements, documents or understandings,this agreement constitutes the entire undemanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter;hereof and smpersedeg any such prior or contemporaneous oral or written representations, statements, documents or understandings. ser etelei of ether• acknowledges that, except as set forth in.paragraph 6 or'the deed(t) heather seller, nor any . principal, agent, attorney, employee, brake(' or other representative of seller has made any representations or warranties of any]wind whatsoever regarding the property, either express or implied, and (ii) that Purchaser is not relying on any vianxanty, representation or covenant, express or implied,with respect to the property, incept as set forth in paragraph 6 or the deed, • and agrees that Purchaser is acquiring the property in wholly art'as"is"condition with all faults and waives all contrary rights and remedies available to it under state and federal law. In particular,but without limitation,except as set forth in paragraph 6 and in the deed,seller makes . no representations or warranties with respect to the use and condition of the property,including without limitation the condition of the soils or gautedwatars of the property and the presence or • absence of hazardous materials on or under the property or its compliance with applicable statutes, laws, codes, ordinances, regulations or requireerneets relating to leasing, zoning, subdivision,planning,building, fee, safety, health or environmental matters or its compliance • with covenants, cazaditiic s and restrictions(whether or not of record)or other local,municipal, regional, state or federal mquirements,or other statutes,elaws, codes,ordinances, regulations or - requirements.Except for the eepmsematiorns and warranties combined in paragraph 6 and in the deed,Purchaser waives,relinquishes and releases any and all rights,claims and causes of action, including,but not limited to all rights of contribution and indemnity,which Purchaser may have or may be entitled to assert against seller wider or with respect to the property or the condition Page-4—PURCHASE ABTA SALE AG -ENT aver .uric +ritrarysreu tri+ssprnsa2aao • • • • • • I - 10/25/2682 11:16 5833066290 RAMIS CREW PAGE 06 - thereof, Purchasers expressly understands and acknowledges that it is possible that unknown problems, conditions or-claims may exist with respect to the property and that Purchaser explicitly took such into account in determining the purchase price for the property, and that a portion of such consideration,having been bargained for between the parties with the knowledge of the possibility.of such unknown problems,conditions or claims,was given in exchange for a • full accord, satisfaction and discharge of all such problems, conditions, losses and claims. Purchaser acknowledges that following closing seller shall have no liability or duty of any kind with respect to property,regardless of the basis for the claim,except for*turd or a breach'of its paragraph 6 or deed representations and warranties, Purchaser's Initials • • l4.l)iaclosure. If prior to Closing either party discovers a fact or circumstance which might reader a representation or warranty by the other party inaccurate in any material respect,it shall advise the other party thereof in, writing promptly upon such discovery_ If Purchaser discovers or is so advised in writing of such a fact or circumstance involving a Seiler representation or warranty,it shall have,as its sole and exoiusrveremedy,the option,exercisable within five(5)business days thereafter to either(a)elect to terminate this Agreement and receive a return of the.Deposit, or(b)to waive such inaccuracy in writing,in.which event it shall he deemed to have waived all claims and causes of action against Seller related thereto. 11.Remedies. (a)If Seller is not in default, and Purchaser fails or refuses to consummate its • pnucbase.of the property,Purchaser and Seller agree that it would be impractical and extremely difficult to estimate the damages that Seller may stiffer.Therefore,Purchaser and Seller agree • • that a reasonable estimate of the total net detriment that Seller would suffer in:the event that Purchaser defaults and fails to complete the purchase of the property is and shall be,and Seller's • sole and exclusive remedy(whether at Jaw or in equity), an amount equal to the deposit. This arnoimt shall be the full, agreed and liquidated damages for any breach of this agreement by • • Purchaser.The payment of this amount as liquidated damages is not intended as a forfeiture or penalty, but is irdend.+ to cona"tiituty liquidated damages to Seller. Upon any default by Purchaser,this agreement shall be terminated and neither party shall have°any Anther rights or - obligations under it, except for the right of Seller to collect such liquidated damages from. Purchaser. • • (b)If Purchaser is not in default and Seller fails or refuses to con ' ate the sale cif the property-without legal excuse,Purchaser-shall have the right to the return of its deposit together with accrued interest thereon as liquidated damages,or be entitled to available legal or equitable remedies including but not limited to specific performance;provided,however,in no event shall Seller be liable to Purchaser for speeds", punitive, consequential or incidental damages,including,but notllmited to,lost profits. By their initials below,Purchaser and Seller specifically acknowledge that they have read and specifically negotiated and agreed to forfeiture of the deposit and limitation of remedies as provided for in preceding paragraphs 12(a)and 12(b). Page-5—PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT - • G:usLEftte ugprdlLatm Owmo trta'mast.02504den • • f( • • 18/25/2092 11:19 '5033060290 RAMIS CREW. PAGE 87 Purchaser's Initials Seller's lnitiaf6 4 . 12,Condemnation,rf any portion of the Property becomes the subject of a condemnation proceeding prior to Closing,Purchaser shall have The right to terminate this Agreement if it so notifies Seller in writing not later than the first to occur of(a)ten(10)days after it is advised of the condemnation proceeding or (h) Closing. Seller shall notify Purchaser in writing of a condemnation affecting the Property within the earlier of(i) Closing or (i) five(5) days of Seller's receipt of notice thereof If Purchaser elects not to terminate This Agreement,then Seller will assign to Purchaser at Closing Sends rights with respect to all condemnation proceeds related thereto_ 13-Notices.All notices provided for herein may be teleccpied(with machine verification of receipt), sent by Federal Express or other overnight courier.service or delivered or mailed registered or certified mail,return receipt requested. If a notice is mailed,it shall be considered • • - delivered upon receipt or refusal thereof If a notice is sent via teleeopy on a business day it shall be deemed received upon receipt of verification of transmission. If a notice sent via overnight courier,it shall be deemed received upon receipt or refusal Wereof. The addresses to be used in, connection with such correspondence and notices are the following, or such other address as a party shall from time to time direct: • To Seller: • Fred W.Fields 1149 SW Davenport . Portland,Oregon 97201 To Purchaser: City of Tigard • Attic.William A.Monahan,City Manager 13125 SW Hull Boulevard Tigard,Oregon 97223 • With Copy to: Dominic G Collette • Rants Clew Corrigan&Bachrach,I.,12 1727 NW Hoyt Street. Portland,Oregon.97209 14 Transfer, 'This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their heirs, asicvessors and assigns;provided, however,Purchaser may not • assign its rights hereunder without Seller's prior written consent,which consent may be withhold in Seller`s sole discretion. No such assignment shall release Purchaser from primary liability under this went In the event of an assignment the term"Purchaser" as used herein shall include Purchaser's assignee, Any assignment in violation of this paragraph 15 will be void. 15. Confidentiality. Purchaser covenants that it will maintain the confidentiality of all information which it receives from Seller or its agents and all. reports, studi 10125/2992 11:10 5033060290 RAMIS CREW PAGE 08 the term hereof shall not be deemed to violate the foregoing ooventnt so long as the recipients . agree to honor the coxdentiality requirement. 16.Applirable_Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. 17.Brokers Fees_ Each party shall pay any real estate brokers or agents fees arising out of agreements such party may have entered into in connection with the purchase and sale of the Property and shall indemnify, defend and hold the other party harmless with respect thereto. This indemnification obligation shall survive Closing. is. ;El and L ionscs. Except as otherwise provided herein, each party hereto will bear its own costs and expenses in connection with the negotiation,preparation and execution of this Agreement and other documentation related hereto and in the performance of its duties hereunder. 19. c lan;cous, (a)Headings.The headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and do not in any way limit or affect the terms and provisions hereof. • • (b) Calculation of Time Periods. Unless otherwise specified, in computing any period of time described in this Agreement,the day of the act or event after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included.and the last day ofthe period so computed is to be included,unless such last day is.a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. The final day of any such period shall be deemed to end at 5:00 p.m.,Pacific Time, • • • • • • Page-7—PURCh,ASE AND SALE AGENT eLri + e< xszp aw ox>aag • • • • • la/25/2002 1:10 5o231360290 RAMIS CREW PAGE @S (c)Time of Fsaeoae. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. (d) Glider. Wherever appropriate in this Agreement, the singular shall be deemed-to refer to the plural and the plural to the singular,and pronouns of certain genders shall be deemed to include either or both of the other genders. (e)Counterparts. This Agreem esnt may bo executed in counterparts,each of which shall be deemed an original, but which when taken together shall constitute one and same . instrument, (f)Feebibite. The Exhibits referred to herein and attached to this Agreement are ineoxposated herein as if set forth in full. , 20. Attorneys' Fermi, If any lawsuit or arbitration arises in connection with this Agreement, intending g without limitation, an action to reacand this Agreement,the substantially prevailing party therein shall be entitled to recover from the losing party the substantially prevailing party's costs and expenses,including reasonable attorneys'fees,incurred in connection therewith, in preparation therefore and on appeal therefrom;including those in any bankruptcy proceeding,which amounts shall be included in anY3udgment enteredtherein. 21.Unenforceability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to he invalid, illegal or " unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or=enforceability shall not affect the remainder of such provision or any other provisions hereof - 22.,AreencimentildodlAcations, This Agreement may not be altered; amended,changed, waived,terminated or modified in any respect or particular unless the same shall be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the party to be charged therewith. 23.Waiver.A party may,at any time or times,at its elcction,`waive any of the conditions to its obligations hereunder,but any such waiver,,ball be elective only if contained in a writing signed by such-party-. No waiver shalt reduce the tights and remedies of such party by-reason of any breach of any other party. No waiver by any party of any breach hereunder shall be deemed a waiver of any other or subsequent breach. 24.Facsimile mss. Each party(i)has agreed to permit the use,from time to time and where appropriate,of telecopied signatures in order to expedite the transaction contemplated by this Agreaurent,(ii)intends to be bound by its respective telecopied signature, (iii)is aware that the other will rely on the telecopied signature, and (iv) acknowledges such reliance and waives any defenses to the enforcement of the documents effecting the transaction contemplated by this Agreement based on the fact that a signature was sent by telecopy. Page a-PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT ached •nteeeserbeeNiuwoa uPis9s{ra .ee, • 10/25/2002 11:19 5839868290 RAMIS CREW PACE 10 • 25.Pe livety ofPossession,Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Purchaser on the Closing Date subjtht to the Permitted Baceptioba. 26.Entire Armament,This Agreement constitutes the estire agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written, c press or implied,and all negotiations or discussions of the parties,whether oral or-written,and there are no warranties,representations or agreements among the parties in connection with the subject matter hereof except as set forth herein. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN A PIRM PROTECTION DISTRICT PROTECTING STRUCTURES, THE PROPERTY IS SUET TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH, IN FARM OR FOREST ZONES, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR SITING OF A RESIDENCE AND WHICH LIMIT LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 IN ALL ZONES.BEFORE SIGNING OR.ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITTE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH ma APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNINGDEMB.TMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES. The City of Tigard,an Oregon. municipal corporation By: Fred W.Fields Its: Page 9-PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT • 10/1E/2002 15:22 FAX 5038847207 City of Tigard f 010 , .l onahan + '2 .'00 ,age 9 the Closing Date subject to the Permitted Exceptions. • 26.Entire Agreement.This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written, express or implied,and all negotiations or discussions of the parties,whether oral or-written, and there are no warranties, represcniations or agreements among the parties in connection with the subject matter hereof except as set forth herein, THR PROPERTY (DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE W1TIIIN A FIRE PROTBCTION DISTRICT PROTECTINO STRUCTURES.THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH,IN FARM OR FOREST ZONES, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR SITING OF A RESIDENCE AND WHICH LIMIT LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 IN ALL ZONES.BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANMNO DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION POR STRUCTURES. The City of Tigard,an Oregon municipal corporation ley: By: " Fred W.Fields Its: r +ci, A / • • Page 9-OPTION AGREEMENT • GA Real_s3 ab agigardtLihrury$1(A4oCU1T1enISNA455(102802).dfse AFTER RECORDING,RETURN TO: City of Tigard Attn: City Recorder 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 GRANT OF EASEMENT THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT ("Easement") is made and entered into the )rj ' day of j A�t,u r , 2006, between THE CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal corporation " rantor") and FRED W. FIELDS ("Grantee"); WITNES SETH WHEREAS, Grantor is the record of owner of that certain real property in the City of Tigard, Washington County, State of Oregon more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Grantor Property"); and WHEREAS, Grantee is the record owner of that certain real property also located in the City of Tigard, Washington County, State of Oregon more fully described in Exhibit " " attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Grantee Property"); and WHEREAS, Grantee is desirous of obtaining an easement on, over across and under the Grantor Property for the construction, installation, repair and replacement of utilities and a roadway for ingress and egress to and from the Grantee Property to a public roadway, and Grantor is desirous of providing such an easement to Grantee; NOW,THEREFORE,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. Grantor conveys and grants to Grantee a permanent non- exclusive easement for the purposes of construction, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and replacement utilities and a roadway on, over, under and across that portion of the Grantor Parcel described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein(the "Easement Area"). 2. Grantor's Right To Convey And Exceptions. Grantor warrants that Grantor has the right to convey this Easement and quiet possession for the uses to be made of the Easement Property by Grantee as set forth in this Easement, subject to all prior easements and encumbrances of record. 3. Grantee's Rights. Grantee, and Grantee's agents, employees, and independent contractors, shall have the right to enter upon the Easement Area for the construction, installation, repair and replacement of utilities and a roadway for ingress and egress to and from the Grantee Property to Hall Boulevard. Page 1 - Grant of Easement 4. Grantee's Notice Of Entry. Grantee recognizes that the Grantor Property is used by the general public for library and other purposes, and agrees to notify Grantor prior to . commencement, and coordinate with Grantor, the timing and scheduling Grantee's construction, repair and replacement of improvements to be located in the Easement Area. 5. Maintenance. Grantee shall maintain and care for the Easement Area and all improvements thereon constructed or operated by Grantee at no cost to Grantor. Grantee shall also replace or restore to its original condition all portions of the Grantor Property which are damaged, disturbed or destroyed by reason of Grantee's, and Grantee's employees', contractors', agents' and invitees',negligence, actions or failures to act. 6. Agreement to Terminate Easement on Public Road Extension. Grantee acknowledges that the Easement Area is part of the alignment of an extension of that certain public roadway currently named Wall Street, and that Grantor may, at some future date, desire to extend Wall Street or its successor public roadway on, over, under and across the Easement Area. In the event the City shall intend to extend the said roadway, it shall give to Grantee written notice thereof. Within sixty (60) days of said notice, Grantee agrees to deliver to Grantor a quitclaim deed conveying to Grantor all Grantee's right, title and interest in the Grantor Property created by and set forth in this Easement. In consideration for delivery of said quitclaim deed, Grantor agrees that it shall at all times after the recording of said quitclaim deed, and during and after construction of said roadway extension, keep open a public access way to and from the Grantee property that is suitable for passage by motor vehicles, and shall relocate and reinstall at the Grantor's expense any utilities located in the Easement Area in a manner that will permit continuation of the use of such utilities without unreasonable interruption. Grantor's obligations pursuant to this Section 6 shall survive the termination of this Easement. 7. Easement in Lieu of Other Easement Rights. The Easement granted herein is in lieu of and supercedes the easement described in that certain License Agreement between Grantor and Grantee dated November 14, 2002, and amended September 13, 2005, by which Grantor agreed to provide Grantee with an easement across the southerly fifty feet (50') of the Grantor Property upon circumstances described in the License Agreement. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the easement granted herein is in lieu of the easement described in the License Agreement and the grant of easement contained herein fully satisfies Grantor's obligation to grant an easement to Grantee as described in the License Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the license set forth in the License A reement, as amen not terminated by the easement : anted herein, but shall remain in - r -et until such ti i e as antee shal ave actua ,physical access to t e antee Property. 8. Indemnification. Grantee agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Grantor from any loss, claim or liability to Grantor arising in any manner out of the use of the Easement Property by Grantee, its agents, employees, independent contractors, and other such parties. Grantee assumes all risk arising out of Grantee's use of the Easement Property and Grantor shall have no liability to Grantee or others using the Easement Property by or through Grantee. 9. Grantor's Warranty. Grantor, its heirs, successors and assigns, covenants that Page 2-Grant of Easement Grantor has the right to convey this Easement to Grantee and to provide quiet possession thereof in Grantee for the purposes stated herein. 10. Time. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE of this Easement. 11. Notice. All notices given pursuant to this Easement shall be in writing and shall be effective when personally delivered, or if mailed, notice shall be deemed effective 48 hours after mailing as registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, directed to the other party at the address below or such other address as the party may indicate by written notice to the other: City of Tigard Fred W. Fields Attn: Agustin P. Duenas, P.E. 1149 SW Davenport Street City Engineer Portland, Oregon 97201 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 12. Breach - Remedies - Equitable Relief. The parties acknowledge that the uses provided by this Easement are unique in that money damages along for breach of this Easement are inadequate. Any party aggrieved by a breach of the provisions hereof may bring an action at law or a suit in equity to obtain relief, including specific performance, injunctive relief and any other available equitable remedy. 13. Legal Effect and Assignment. The provisions of this Grant of Easement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. The rights granted herein run with the land for the benefit of the Grantee Parcel and as a burden upon the Grantor Parcel. 14. Attorneys' Fees. In the event suit or action, including arbitration and any action pursuant to bankruptcy laws, is instituted to interpret or enforce the terms of this Easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the arbitrator or court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at arbitration or trial and on appeal and review. 15. Severability. Nothing contained herein shall be construed so as to require the commission of any act contrary to law, and wherever there is any conflict between any provisions contained herein and any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation contrary to which the parties have no legal right to contract, the latter shall prevail; but the provision of this Easement which is affected shall be curtailed and limited only to the extent necessary to bring it within the requirements of the law. 16. Modification or Amendments. No amendment, change or modification of this Easement shall be valid, unless in writing and signed by all the parties hereto. 17. Waiver. Failure of either party at any time to require performance of any provision of this Easement shall not limit the party's right to enforce the provision, nor shall any waiver of any breach of any provision be a waiver of any succeeding breach of the provision or a Page 3 -Grant of Easement waiver of the provision itself or any other provision. 18. Entire Agreement. This Easement constitutes the entire agreement between and among the parties, integrates all of the teuus and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Easement as of the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: GRANTEE: The City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation s j1 ► ccIli 1. re w r ( /- _3- ' ,L , By: Craig Prosser Fred W. Fields Its: City Manager STATE OF OREGON. ) County of aista1,oki,hv1 ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this t //day of .1 2006,byev( Gtr • —texrrt5 r - / i'r e` 1' DIANE M JEL©ERKS �} NOTARY PUB or Oregon �'� 4, NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON PI} 17,11770M MI SI N EXPIIR SSE PT 25,2007( State of Oregon ) County of 4,`,' . /' ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of G{it/VIG(/I�( ' , 2006,by e•n• Ni�W+ A-%i9ituh, -'D• .e. %t l i i r UU 4 { - .- -- - -r- -.-v-`-��-ti-.- -��-� N 66TARY 'l�':LIC for Oregon p OFFICIAL.SEAL ( v`�. tiler° J BENGTSON ( NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON J (J 1 COMMISSION NO.36808a (} MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR,27,2007 i Page 4 -Grant of Easement csA6 12(i DAYS M N/A O DATE OF FILING: 5/9/2006 RECEIVED ,TY MAY 3 1 2006 CITY OF TIGARD dAgIO Washington County, Oregon NOM PC i ORDER BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Case Numbers: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-(CPA) 2004-00001 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW(SLR) 2004-00003 &2006-00001 TREE REMOVAL(TRE) 2006-00001.through 2006-00009 Case Name: WALL STREET EXTENSION Names of Owners: N/A Name of Applicant: City of Tigard Attn:Vannie Nguyen Address of Applicant: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard,OR 97223 Address of Property: SW Wall Street unimproved right-of-way,east of SWHall Boulevard, south of the Tigard Public Library,and north of the Fanno Pointe Condominiums. Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S 102DD,Tax Lots 200,300 and 90000. 'A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, 2 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEWS AND 9 TREE REMOVAL PERMITS (ORDINANCE NO, 06-05). THE QTY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICAN'T'S PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWNG AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON APRIL 3,2006 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY(COUNCIL ON THE REQUEST. THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON MAY 9, 2006 PRIOR TO MAKING A DECISION ON THE REQUEST. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER Subject: > As part of a capital improvement project, the applicant is requesting Sensitive Lands approval to build a 360-foot • extension of SW Wall Street, east of Hail Blvd, between the Tigard Public Library and Fanno Pointe Condominiums. As part of this extension,the Pinebrook Creek wetlands designated as locally significant will be impacted and reconfigured. In order to carry out this project, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the wetlands impacted by this specific development proposal, but not to remove the requirements related to the - CWS Stormwater Connection Permit. A Sensitive Lands Review is also required for impacts to wetlands and drainageways and the proposed reconfiguration of Pinebrook Creek, a tributary to Fanno Creek. A Tree Removal Permit is required for a number of trees to be removed in the sensitive land areas in order to accommodate the grading and construction of the roadway. The applicant has requested concurrent review of all these permit applications. Phase I of the SW Wall Street extension is aimed at providing a joint access to both the Tigard Public Library and the Fanno • Pointe Condos to satisfy obligations to the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT) which allowed temporary access to the . condos and library from Hall Boulevard. This 360 foot improvement will terminate on the west side of Fanno Creek and west of its 100-year floodplain. Future extensions of SW Wall Street across Fanno Creek will require a separate review and approval by the City,State and Federal agencies. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380,18.385,18.390, 18.510,13.775, 18.790, 18,795 and 18.810; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2,3,4,7 and 8;and Statewide Planning Goals 1,2,5,6, 11&12.. Action: > [] Approval as Requested El Approval with Conditions Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper,posted at City all and mailed to: ® Affected Government Agencies N. Interested Parties Final Decision: THIS IS THE FINAL DECISION BY THE CITY AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 8, 2006. I The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from.the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard;Tigard,Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent to appeal with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures within 21 days. Ouestions: If you have any questions,please call the City-of Tigard Planning Division or the City Recorder at (503) 639-4171. w CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 06- 05 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR200I-00003 AND SLR 2006-00001, TREE REMOVAL TRE2006-00001 THROUGH 2006-00009, AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA200400001 TO REMOVE GOAL 5 PROTECTION FROM THE RESOURCES TO BE IivMPACI'ED BY CONSTRUCTION OF SW WALL STREET AND TO ADD NEWLY CREATED AND RESTORED WETLAND AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES TO THE INVENTORY OF LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT"SITES. WHEREAS, Section 18.775.070 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires a sensitive lands permit for development within drainageways and Wetlands, and approval criteria are presented in Sections 18.775.070D-18.775.070.E. WHEREAS, Section 18.790.050 of the Community Development Code requires a tree removal permit for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive lands area, and approval criteria are presented in Sections 18.790.050.A. WHEREAS, Section 18.775.090 of the Community Development Code establishes special provisions for development within Locally Significant wetland and riparian corridors to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and its safe harbor provisions; and WHEREAS, the proposed construction of the.360 foot section of SW Wall Street, east of Hall Boulevard, will impact sensitive drainageways and wetlands, will require removal of trees within sensitive lands and will impact Goal 5 resources designated as Locally Significant:and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.775.130 of the Tigard Development Code, any owner of property . affected by Goal 5 safe harbor protection of significant wetlands and jor vegetated areas may apply for a quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendment under Type IV procedure;and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.380.030 of the Tigard Development Code, the Tigard Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the Tigard City Council on an application for a quasi- judicial comprehensive plan amendment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.390.060E of the Tigard Development Code, a Type IV decision shall be based on consideration of Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statues; any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable METRO regulations; any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and, any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances;and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be based on a specific development proposal and may be justified by either conducting an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) ORDINANCE No.06-OS Page 1 analysis or demonstrating the site no longer meets the applicable significance defined by the Goal 5 administrative rule;and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard, acting as the applicant, has requested concurrent review of the sensitive lands permit, tree removal permit, and a quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendment for proposed construction of the 360 foot section of SW Wall Street;and • WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a specific development proposal, and conducted an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) analysis demonstrating justification for amending the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the effect of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be to remove Goal 5 protection from the locally significant resources to be impacted by construction of SW Wall Street as shown in Exhibit"A" (Area 1); and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted plans for compensatory wetland,vegetated corridor and tree mitigation, and the newly created and restored wetland and riparian resources will be added to the inventory of locally significant sites as shown in Exhibit"A" (Area 2); and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 3, 2006, and recommended approval of CPA2004-00001, SLR2004-00003 and SLR 2006-00001, and TR.E2006- 00001 through 2006-00009 by motion with a unanimous vote in favor; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on May 9, 2006,to consider the request for sensitive lands permit, tree removal permit and a quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendment based on the specific development proposal for construction of SW Wall Street and testimony provided at the hearing and determined that the construction of SW Wall Street will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets all applicable review criteria. • NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Sensitive Lands Review SLR2004-00003 and SLR. 2006-00001, Tree Removal TRE2006-00001 through 2006-00009, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2004-00001 for the construction of the 360 foot section of SW Wall Street are hereby approved by the City Council_ SECTION 2: The map of locally significant wetlands and riparian corridors created to address Goal 5 safe harbor provisions shall be amended to represent the removal of the significant resources impacted by construction of SW Wall Street as shown in Exhibit"A". • SECTION 3: Newly created and restored wetlands and riparian resources shall be added to the inventory of protected locally significant resources as shown in Exhibit "A". ORDINANCE No.06- D5 Page 2 SECTION 4: The Tigard City Council adopts the City of Tigard Staff Report dated April 3, 2006, the"Addendum to the Staff Report" dated April 25, 2006, and the letter prepared by Group Mackenzie, Inc. (dated April 17, 2006) in response to submitted public comments as findings in support of this decision; copies are attached hereto as Exhibit`B", Exhibit"C" and Exhibit "D" respectively and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5: The Tigard City Council adopts the conditions of approval as stated on page 2 of the City of Tigard Staff Report dated April 3, 2006; a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit`B" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor,and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By aj 011 vote of all Council members present after-being read by number and title only,this_q day of`''1*1l i .l ,2006. a Brine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this t! day of —At 2006. Craig ID- sen,Mayor Appro jd . o form: • i City Alt se, 5 04 Date Certzfzed to be a true copy of the Original on file at ay of Tig City Hall. M1� iyRecorder, Ci of Tigard ' Data I IGSARI? J' �` f $ ORDINANCE No.06- 85 Page 3 Exhibit B • • Agenda Item: 5. Hearing Date: April 3,2006 Time: 7:00 PM • STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD 120 DAYS =NJA SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILENAME: WALL STREET EXTENSION CASE NOS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) CPA2004-00001 Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) SLR2004-00003 Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) SLR2006-00001 Tree Removal(TRE) - TRE2006-00001 through 2006-00009 APPLICANT: City of Tigard APPLICANT'S Group Mackenzie Capital Improvement Div. REP: Attn: Geraldene Moyle,AICP Attn:Vannie Nguyen 0690 SW Bancroft 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Portland,OR 97239 Tigard,OR 97223 PROPOSAL As part of a capital improvement project, the applicant is requesting Sensitive Lands approval to build a 350-foot extension of SW Wall Street, east of Hall Blvd, between the Tigard Public Library and Fanno Pointe Condominiums. As part of this extension, the Pinebrook Creek wetlands designated as locally significant will be impacted and reconfigured In order to carry out this project,a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the wetlands impacted by this specific development proposal, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit. A Sensitive Lands Review is also required for impacts to wetlands and drainageways and the proposed reconfiguration of Pinebrook Creek, a tributary to Fanno Creek_ A Tree Removal Permit is required for a number of trees to he removed in the sensitive Land areas in order to accommodate the grading and construction of the roadway. The applicant has requested concurrent review of all these permit applications. Phase I of the SW Wall Street extension is aimed at providing a joint access to both the Tigard Public Library and the Fanno Pointe Condos to satisfy obligations • to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODO I) which allowed temporary access to the condos and library from Hall Boulevard. This 350 foot improvement will terminate on the west side of Fanno Creek and west of its 100-year floodplain. Any future extensions of SW Wall Street across Fanno Creek would require a separate review and approval by the City,State and Federal agencies. LOCATION: SW Wall Street unimproved right-of-way, east of SW Hall Boulevard, south of the Tigard Public Library, and north of the Fanno Pointe Condominiums; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S102DD,Tax Lots 200,300 and 90000. ZONING: R-12:Medium Density Residential District.The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum.lot size of 3,050 square feet.A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. WATT.STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMtvtISSION PAGE 1 OF 32 CPA20O4-00001/SLR2004-0o003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 • COMP PLAN: Medium-Density Residential and Open Space. AP PLI CABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code (1'L)C) Chapters 18.380, 18.385, 18.390, 18.510, 18.725, 18.775, 18.790, 18.795& 18.810, Comprehensive Plan policies 2,3,4,7&8. SECTION II, STAFF RECOMMENDATION s- 3. n.,'+-t �all�i < �3�. r'f. yrr r- �,�1 _��'9 r 4 i •.. tee tklat thelann�;t: c ssto hnd i*,= �ge di ' .•• s.1,9 Plan L 4p+¢�a 4twi .;t-;,....,- a`Slave La.nclr 14e,F raC�4�.'." -0* .fr:NA t .ltpthD i .� F' e ealth,S1fe •~`= � � tlq •�, 4 J -�.: .ti�'Nl�f+ '1'c+2.'.}r FJt"t.M1�4!T y�r ra�.w� 1.• 'T��q� "L,^`Y%t-% - i �• T i `4 _ 6 e5 _c°: p�J.5�'V��`'CI34__- i a °r °1° ., }`"�sfil] t'tb'i ,d � ''� A�(�,�t��Tl rfleC'`j;�� �� r 2 •. 'wf� -{ �•�`' � � �. .i..-- � ; {S, rte'• "-t ,' Y _ ..o- ,~ { °r• +.. Y°-+,_:.r.,�,.•':':._. -.' - i.-. :a.w. c"•'•�:�. . Q., 13 YE d is t�•>},;�h� t:•i_,. �*. t�,!t;� :F• ,. is YA-'F"-...- •'�._...�.5.����,.'i.'^�1.. a a+ N.��' { a x t''• ate•_: �. • .. Irrt.4-Me.f92...1.4.44.-.7.'S&At n4-... s.iw-' r „�` `^tITSV, Lam.-* .? - 1e...,.yy '.:1— 5t.''•-Irii5-'-__- ::,' hry�i.ii ' F f� Y R { - �2 -'.`4�-,i� Y` ,,E} 9 ri�. `W7n'.*.za111 1'_ - i"Ir?+� Yr1-.\l.O �D�7� C�.�°4- h1Y{!, ` t,^R,,;�r -,,,pk1 -.......-M_!�.:hz-r..1 . N t,.. • The applicant shall finalize a maintenance agreement with the Fanno Pointe Condominium Owners Association for the maintenance to the mitigation site on the Fanno Pointe Condo property and submit the agreement prior to commencement of any site work. s i'-- y..:,+F"ti:x "_•:i:�.irea Ali` }... , .-;.-. �•,:. �,c-:':- ,�,�•A 'YF, :2.._ r,,,. y.::�.� zti„ ka s e#ice ,�r k�k�^ss - r ° �C yt � , v.%..i�,R ,. `,„'' ? . 4.y ::..7c' V.i'. L •�+- ', il:° ,• .:n C S,t'• _, g `"'y.4Is;�; i�^Y'_ `�• `i-;.4:- .'`� _ a. .c "Z-; -- .�.: i."c-__+ri +T x r 7. <3 :. ,-,r-*.3.=i;tra45'.q e The applicant shall comply with the conditions made by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in carrying out the wetland mitigation plan. The project will additionally meet the erosion control and water quality conditions contained in the DSL and Corps of Engineers wetland permits and in the water quality certification issued by the Department of Environmental Quality as part of the Corps of Engineers permit. Submit the monitoring report to be prepared for the Oregon DSL and the US Army Corps to the City of Tigard upon completion of the project showing success meeting the permit conditions. b The applicant shall comply with the conditions made by Clean Water Services in carrying out the vegetated corridor mitigation plan. Submit a monitoring report upon completion of the project showing success meeting the permit conditions. C In carrying out the tree removal plan, any non-native trees shall be girdled and left as snags rather than removed to provide habitat in areas where there are no safety issues. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project History The construction of Wall Street has a long history, and to understand the need for this project,a number of considerations require explanation. First, the primary purpose of Phase one of the Wall Street extension is to provide access to the Tigard Library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums. However, potential subsequent phases would extend SW Wall Street further eastward connecting Hall Boulevard to Hunziker Street as identified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), a subdocument to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The TSP was adopted by resolution 02-33, and became effective on October 10, 2002. The TSP lays out the City's Transportation improvement needs over a 20-year planning period. In the document, existing and projected deficiencies are identified with corresponding improvement projects WALL STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COAL MISSION PAGE 2 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/SLR2004-00003/SLR2006-00001/T RE200G 00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 and techniques to alleviate congestion and improve transportation efficiency. Figure 8-12 of the TSP, on page 8-23 identifies local street connectivity needs including the Wall Street connection between SW Hall and SW Hunziker Streets. The extension appears again on Figure 8-19, page 8-45, for the Street Improvement Plan. These improvements and connections are part of a comprehensive set of tools to alleviate and mitigate for growing congestion problems throughout the City. No single project identified in the TSP will alleviate the traffic issues the city faces. The proposed road is classified as a collector which is described in the TSP as providing"both access and circulation within and between residential and commercial/industrial areas.Collectors differ from arterials in that they provide more of a citywide circulation function, do not require as extensive control of access (compared to arterials) and penetrate residential neighborhoods, distributing trips from the neighborhood and local street system." However, there is an inherent conflict in the Comprehensive Plan as policy 12.11 also identifies that development of industrial sites (the undeveloped land on the east side of Fanno Creek) shall not channel traffic through residential areas (the R-12 zoned Fanno Pointe and Library). This issue is not ripe for discussion as part of this proposal as the street will not be extended to the industrial land as part of phase 1,and no specific development is being proposed for the industrial land at this time. In January of 2003, a private developer received approval to construct a 42 unit condominium project adjacent to Hall Boulevard known as Fanno Pointe Condominiums. During the review of that project, staff received comments from the Tualatin Riverkeepera who initially opposed the project, but following some site plan revisions had indicated their support. The staff report goes on to note: "The group also asked that the existing pond and drainage stream be revised. It is expected that those-improvements will be made when the City of Tigard constructs the future Wall Street extension along the northern boundary of the subject site." The following discussion regarding the future Wall Street was included in the original ,: report for the Fanno Pointe Condo's: s Because the timing of the Libraryproject will likey lag behind this pro_project, the applicant will need an interim access onto Hall Boulevard to support the development. Their ultimate access will come from Wall Street, which will be constructed in part by the City. The City and the applicant have discussed the need for an interim access onto Hall Boulevarddjwith ODOT, and ODOT has agreed to allow the access in the location shown on the applicant's plans...Therefore, the interim access onto Hall Boulevard may be able to be completely removed once the Wall Street access is constructed__. Wall Street This roadwaayy is classified as a three-lane collector street that will eventually connect between Hall Boulevard and Hunzileer Street to the east. In order to connect to Hun jiker Street, a crowing of the railroad ROW will be needed That approval has not yet.been obtained However, the street can be extended from Hall Boulevard to a point where access can be provided Ito both the Library and Fanna Pointe_ Access points for the two projects will align across from each other. " In April of 2003, the City received approval to construct the Tigard Public Library. A number of road improvements were required as part of that decision,including frontage improvements on Hall Boulevard, as well as completion of the first phase extension of Wall Street. An interim driveway was provided to allow access until such time that the Wall Street Phase 1 could be completed. The following discussion was included in the original report for the library: SW Wall Street Wall Street is classified as a three-lane collector street with bike lanes. Ii is to provide an ultimate connection between Hall Boulevard and Hunuiker Street to the east. A %0 foot ROW width is required for this street. The applicant plans to dedicate ROW for Wall Street CIS a part of this project. The applicant should only dedicate this ROW if the Wall Street LID project is approved in the proposed location. A preliminary alignment study was conducted by the City to determine how and where this street would need ' Case tile number SDR2002-00012,p.24 WALL STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMIvtISSION PAGE 3 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/SL.R2004-00003/SLR2006-00001/1RE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Sc 9 to cross Fanno Creek and the railroad ROW to the east- Four options were considered, with the location near the southern border of this the being the finalist. The other options that were considered resulted in more impact to Fanno Creek and the associated wetland areas adjacent to the creek. If the City obtains approval to construct this roadway, the construction would be in phases, with the first phase simply proliding a full-width improvement from Hall Boulevard a distance of approximately 475 fe et to a point where access into the library site and the Fanno Pointe site can be achieved This first phase can be constructed without impacts to Fanno Creek or the railroad A separate effort to deal with the creek and railroad crossing will continue beyond the scope of the library project. As was stated previously, the construction of Wall Street is proposed in two phases, with.the first phase being a segment beginning from Hall Boulevard and funded partly by the City and partly from 111~funds, and the second phase being a LID. The Wall Street project is not part of the library project_ The library project can be served alone by the driveway configuration shown on the plan. This configuration will accommodate the future constriction of the first phase of Wall Street,should it be approved in the location desired by the Cif Should the Wall Street project be delayed, the library projeit can move forward with the driveway plan as shown. This provision has also been discussed with ODOT."2 On March 23, 2004, the City submitted its proposal for sensitive lands review and a comprehensive plan amendment to construct Phase 1 and receive approval for the future construction of Phase 2 of the Wall Street extension. At that time, the applicant had not received approval from Clean Water Services, or the Army Corps of Engineers. Moreover,approval had not been obtained from Southern Pacific Railroad for an at-grade crossing either. The application remained on hold until these approvals could be obtained. In the interim staff held several meetings with the applicant to discuss this project on September 15, December 16 and 22, and again on January 12, 2005. As a result of those meetings, the applicant revised the application to eliminate seeking approval for Phase 2. In the Fall of 2005, the original proposal for Phase 1 was farther revised to minimize the impact to sensitive land areas and meet local planning requirements. As a result,the length of the proposed roadway was reduced from 425 feet to 350 feet in order to avoid development within the 100-year floodplain by shifting the library and condominium accessways to the west. The redesign includes a retaining wall along the eastern edge of the condominium access to minimize the amount of wetland impact. The total wetland impact area for Phase 1 was reduced from 0.25 acre to 0.11 acre. Vicinity Information The area of impact is east of SW Hall Boulevard, and directly between the Tigard Public Library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums west of Fanno Creek. The zoning in this area is R-12 Medium Density Residential. Parcels on the opposite side of Fanno Creek are designated as Light Industrial. To the west of the project is R-45,low density residential zoning. Proposal Description Normally, a comprehensive plan amendment would be heard separately, with development permit applications following final outcome of the comprehensive plan amendment. However, in the case of an amendment to remove Goal 5 protection, the development code requites it to be "based on a specific development proposal". This detail is necessary to determine the extent of the proposed impacts,and to what degree the impacts have been or could be further minimized. For this proposal, at the request of the • applicant, the subsequent permit activities are to be heard. concurrently with the comprehensive plan amendment. This will give decisionmakers a better idea of the full extent of the proposal and gives the applicant better assurance of feasibly completing the project after issues surrounding the comprehensive plan amendment are decided. This consolidated request adds complexity to the application that will be addressed 2 Case file number CUP2003-00001,p.29 WALL STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMbIISSION PAGE 4 OF 32 CPA200-1-00001/51,R2004--00003/SL82006-00002/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 fully in the subsequent analysis. Phase 1 of the Wall Street extension will provide a 350 foot section of roadway.The right-of-way (ROW) is 72 feet wide with 3-lanes meeting the standards for designated Collector streets and additional widths of up to 20 feet outside the ROW to accommodate 8-foot-wide public utility easements and cut and fill slopes.. This first phase encompasses the intersection with SW Hall Boulevard to driveways serving the Tigard Library on the north, and the Farina Pointe Condos on the south. Future phases of Wall Street are.planned to continue across Fanno Creek and the railroad tracks to an ultimate connection with SW Hunziker Avenue, to provide additional east-west connectivity for the eastern area of Tigard between from Hall Blvd. to 72'd Avenue between Hunziker Street and Bonita Road or north-south connections from Hunziker Street to Bonita Road between Hall Boulevard and 72"1 Avenue. However, this application is only for the 350-Foot extension to serve the Tigard Library and the Fanno Pointe Condos. Locally Significant Wetland This first phase encroaches into wetlands and vegetated corridor that are shown on the "Wetland and Streams Corridor Map" as "Locally Significant". An area of approximately 0.11 acres (4,792 s.f.) will be impacted by filling slopes and road construction. The criteria for these wetlands generally prohibit any permanent impacts, with few exceptions. To remove this protection from these wetlands, they must be removed from the inventory by a comprehensive plan amendment, a Type IV procedure. Impacts to the wetland will be mitigated with stream channel and wetland creation (0.08 acres),wetland enhancement (0.29 acres) and wetland restoration (0.20 acre). The stream channel and adjacent wetlands will be reconstructed slightly south of their existing location. Draivageway The wetlands are associated with Pinebrook Creek, a tributary to Fanno Creek that originates to the Southwest along SW McDonald Street, ultimately crossing Hall Boulevard where it is currently culverted twice in culverts not designated for fish passage and meanders through the Fanno Pointe site. According to the Biological Assessment prepared by Fishman Environmental Services, Pinebrook Creek "appears to consist of two to three narrow (approximately 6 inch) shallow meandering channels without a visible main stream channel" and is impassible at its confluence with Fanno Creek Approximately 270 linear feet of this channel will be replaced by a reconstructed channel, approximately 550 feet in length,which will also remove two existing culverts that do not allow fish passage (totaling approximately 170 feet in length). The area of vegetated corridor impacted by the proposed improvements totals 18,429 sf (0.42 acres). The proposed vegetated corridor impacts are summarized in the file (Attachment 11, Figure 1). The relocated Pinebrook Creek will be connected to an historic channel which will flow to the confluence with Farina Creek Only one culvert,under the driveway serving Fanno Pointe,will be required. This new culvert will meet ODF&W fish passage requirements providing fish passage for cutthroat trout and juvenile steelhead during high stream flows of Fanno Creek The current confluence does not allow fish passage since there is presently an approximate eight foot drop in elevation from the downstream edge of the East Pond to Fanno Creek. Floodplain The proposed road improvement is not located within the 100-year floodplain. The watermain extension included in the roadway does not extend into the 100-year floodplain and its elevation is above the floodplain to preclude floodwater from infiltrating into the water system. Portions of the stream restoration and plantings will be located within the floodplain. However per Section 18375.020 C2, stream and wetland restoration and enhancement programs performed under the direction of the City are exempt from the sensitive lands provisions. WALL STREET EXTENSION--STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COM vfISSION PAGE 5 OF 32 CPA 2404-00001/SLR2004--00003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 applicable implementing ordinance; Staff will address the applicable development code standards under their respective chapters, later in this report. 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property. The proposed encroachments will in fact impact the vegetated corridor and wetland resources identified as significant on the"Wetlands &Stream Corridor"map, thus the applicant has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment as per TDC 18.775.130. The proposed change is evidenced by the development of the Fanno Pointe Condos in 2003, completion of the Tigard Public Library in 2004 and ODOT requirements to consolidate the access ways into these two sites. In addition, the Tigard Transportation System Plan completed in 2002 indudes the SW Wall Street connection between SW Hall Blvd and SW Hunziket Street as part of its Street Improvement Plan. Chapter 18.385. Miscellaneous Permits: Chapter 18.385 includes criteria for miscellaneous permits including Tree Removal Permits and Sensitive Lands Reviews. The criteria found in this chapter are repeated in the respective subsequent chapters of the development code, 18.775 and 18.790. This application is requesting a Sensitive Lands Permit and a Tree Removal Permit. Staff will address these criteria under their respective chapters,later in this report. Chapter 18.390. Decision Making Procedures: - Chapter 18.390.020 describes the four types of decision-making procedures. Type I procedures apply to ministerial permits and actions containing clear and objective approval criteria and are decided by the Director. Type II procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain some discretionary criteria and are also decided by the Director but include provisions for public notice and opportunities for appeals. Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. Type III-HO actions are decided by the Hearings Officer with appeals to City Council. In cases where both the Hearings • Officer and Planning Commission are involved, the Planning Commission has preferential jurisdiction, per Tigard Development Code (TDC) Section 18.390.080(D)(2)(a). Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters which involve the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy. Type IV matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the City Council. This application includes all four types of decision-making reviews. Pursuant to 18.390.080.D.2,whenever an applicant requests more than one approval and more than one approval authority is required to decide the applications, the proceedings can be consolidated so that one approval authority shall decide all applications in one proceeding and the hearings shall be held by the approval authority having original jurisdiction over one of the applications under Section 18.390.100C in the following order of preference: the Council, the Commission, the Hearings Officer, or the Director. Therefore, this application will follow the procedures for Type IV reviews, with a recommendation being forwarded from the Planning Commission to City Council, who shall make the final decision on all applications contained herein. In addition, the notice shall identify each action to be taken; the decision on a plan map amendment shall precede the decision on other actions;and the separate actions shall be taken on each application. Chapter 18.390.050 B2e states that applications shall include an impact study to quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services: The permit application includes an impact study (Attachment 8) that addresses the impacts on the transportation system, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the WA II.STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING CONNISSION PAGE 7 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/SLR2004-00003/SLR2006-40001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 noise impacts of the development. Chapter 18390.050G states that for legislative map and text amendments (Comprehensive Plan and Development Code) the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the • Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: • The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adapted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; ♦ Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; a Any applicable Metro regulations; a Any applicable Comprehensive Plan policies; and a Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. This report addresses the applicable standards listed above in the review section covering the proposed comprehensive plan amendment as it applies to applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Federal or state regulations, Metro regulations, City's Comprehensive Plan policies and provisions of the City's Development Code. Chapter 18.510. Residential Zoning Districts: Chapter 18.510 lists the permissible uses and development standards for residential zones. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. No residential uses are proposed as part of this application. The development standards contained in this chapter refer primarily to development occurring on parcels or lots (i.e. lot size, lot width, lot coverage, setbacks). The height limit is universally applied, but the proposal does not approach 35 feet in height. Refer to the profile shown on Sheet L1 in Section 4 of the applicant's submittal. The proposal for a collector street does not conflict with the R-12 zone standards. Chapter 18.725. Environmental Performance Standards 18.725.020. General Provisions:A: Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. This project shall comply with applicable state and federal regulations related to erosion control and water quality as conditioned by the wetlands permits issued by the Oregon DSL and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Violations of other state and federal regulations pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter would be addressed by nuisance enforcement_ Chapter 18.775. Sensitive Lands Permits: Chapter 18.755 contains regulations to restrict development within sensitive land areas. This proposal involves placing limited fill, road improvements and utilities within a wetland area and natural drainagewa T. As such, a sensitive lands review is required for each typ es of resource. As described previously, since this is a consolidated proceeding with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the highest review authority shall make the final decision on all the included requests. Therefore, the application is being processes as a Type IV procedure. 18.775,030 Administrative Provisions Al.Interagency Coordination.The necessary permits for all "development" shall include a CWS Service Provider Letter. An amended service provider letter was issued by CWS(Attachment 11) which specifies conditions and requirements necessary for the applicant to comply with CWS standards. WAT.T.STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 OF 32 CP42004-00001/SLR2004-00003/SLR2006-O0001/TRE2006-000OI,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 Bl.Alteration or Relocation of Water Course.The Director shall notify communities adjacent to the affected area and the State Department of Land Conservation and Development prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse,and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal • Insurance Administration; B2. The Director shall require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of a watercourse so that the flood-carrying capacity is not diminished. Maintenance shall be assured by the fact that most of the impact area is within public right of way,and the remainder will be in a dedicated greenway tract. According to the Wetland Mitigation Plan, the City of Tigard will be responsible for maintenance of the mitigation site during the 5-year monitoring period. Maintenance recommendations for corrective action will be included in the annual wetland monitoring reports, and these actions will be implemented as needed. The Plan goes on to explain that long-term protection of the mitigation site will be ensured by placing deed restrictions over the mitigation site properties owned by the City of Tigard and the Fanno Pointe Condominium Owners Association. According to conditions of the CWS Service Provider Letter (as stated in Attachment 11), maintenance and monitoring, as well as performance assurances for the vegetated corridor shall comply with CWS standards. Condition: The applicant shall finalive a maintenance agreement with the Fanno Pointe Condominium Owners Association for the maintenance to the mitigation site on the Fanno Pointe Condo property and submit the agreement prior to commencement of any site work. 18.775.040 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas. This Section requires permit review for floodplain areas to determine whether building sites will minimize the potential for flood damage. The proposed roadway improvements will not be located within the 100-year floodplain. The watermain extension included in the roadway does not extend into the 100-year floodplain and its elevation is above the floodplain to preclude floodwater from infiltrating into the water system. Portions of the stream restoration and plantings will be located within the floodplain. However per Section 18.775.020 C2, stream and wetland restoration and enhancement programs performed under the direction of the City are exempt from the sensitive lands provisions. • 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands A. Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map", and to a vegetated corridor ranging from 25 to 200 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the wetland, per "Table 3.1 Vegetated Corridor Widths" and "Appendix C" Natural Resource Assessments of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards". Wetland locations may include but are not limited to those areas identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon," Fishman Environmental Services,1994. The location of the proposed roadway improvement is identified as having two locally significant wetlands (E-18, a manmade pond along Pinebrook Creek, and E-19, associatec wetlands). The extent of the vegetated corridors as determined by CWS are shown in the applicant's Attachment 11. The proposal is therefore subject to sensitive lands review for wetlands. B.Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense. Three wetland delineations were conducted by different consultants. A wetland delineation was prepared for the Tigard Library site including the Wall Street extension by Kurahashi & Associates in June 2002. Another c.elineation report for the proposed Wall Street right of way extending east across t e railroad tracks was prepared by Pacific Habitat Services in 2003. A wetland delineation report for the adjacent was prepared for Fanno Pointe Condos by Rhea Environmental Consultants in August 2002. The • • WALL STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COtviMISSIO N PAGE 9 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/SLR2004-O 0003/SLR2UO6-O0001/TRB2€06-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 consolidated delineations are shown in the existing conditions drawing as part of the DSL and Army Corps permit application (Attachment 5—Sheet 2a and 2b). The extent of'the vegetated corridors as determined by CWS are shown in the applicant's Attachment 11. The applicant has submitted a report by Fishman Environmental Services (included in the DSL/Army Corps Permit, attachment 5) and maps from a survey performed by DeHaas and Associates, attachment 11. This criterion is satisfied. 18.775.070 Sensitive Lands Permits Approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas are presented in Sections 18.775.070B- 18.775.070E. 18.775.070A. Permits Required • A sensitive lands permit is required since the applicant is proposing improvements within sensitive lands areas,including drainageways and wetlands. 18.775.070B. Within the 100-year floodplain While the roadway improvements are not located within the floodplain,portions of the stream restoration and plantings will be located within the floodplain. However per Section 18.775.020 C2, stream and wetland restoration and enhancement programs performed under the direction of the City are exempt from the sensitive lands provisions. 18.775.070D.Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; The applicant has conducted an alternatives analysis for the project that demonstrates that the proposed impacts are the minimum practicable for the project goal (Attachment 6). In addition to selecting the most feasible and least impacting road alignment, impacts are further reduced by removing much of the planter strip along the south side of the road to maintain as great a distance as possible from the resource. Phase 1 of the project was recently redesigned to reduce the impacts on sensitive lands to minimize disturbances to the greatest extent possible given the project requirements. The length of the proposed roadway was reduced from 425 feet to 350 feet, thus reducing the vegetated corridor impacts for Phase 1 from 24,274 sf to 18,429 sf(0.42 acres). The proposed vegetated corridor impacts are summarized in the file(Attachment 11,Figure 1). The redesigned Phase 1 also includes a retaining wall along the eastern edge of the Fanno Pointe Condos access to minimize the amount of vegetated corridor and wetland impact. A vegetated corridor mitigation plan has been approved by Clean Water Services as part of the issued Service . Provider Letter.This criteria is satisfied. 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan (refer to Attachment 4D) with final construction documents which includes erosion control features and notes that the erosion control measures shall comply with Erosion Prevension and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual developed by Clean Water Services (CWS) and Field Manual for Erosion & Sediment Control prepared by ODOT. The erosion plan will address temporary and immediate effects of the construction process. The standards noted above will be adhered to during the project, or CWS may issue a stop work order until any noted problems are corrected. In addition, a planting vegetative plan meeting CWS standards (Attachment 11) will be implemented for the long term protection from soil migration. Condition: The project will additionally meet the erosion control and water quality conditions contained in the DSL and Corps of Engineers wetland permits and in the water quality certification issued by the Department of Environmental Quality as part of the Corps of Engineers permit. Erosion control WALL STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/SLR2004-00003/SLR2006-04001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 measures shall comply with Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual developed by Clean Water Services and the Field Manual for Erosion & Sediment Control prepared by ODOT. 3.The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; Approximately 550 linear feet of new stream channel will be reconstructed to mitigate for the appropriate 270 linear feet of Pinebrook Creek to be impacted. As part of the Library project (and Hall Blvd. widening), basin hydrology and culver hydraulics were investigated to set the parameters for continuing stream relocation. Currently, the stream is twice culverted (24" pipe) for a length of 170 feet and not designed for fish passage. The reconfigured stream will be culverted once (57 ' X 38" pipe-arch for a distance of 65 feet) at the same design capacity as the Hall Blvd culvert(to carry 25-yr flows) and will meet fish passage requirements. Waterflow calculations for the Pinebrook culvert at the Fanno Pointe access were made using the Hall Boulveard flows to determine the runoff contributing to the culvert The water surface profile plan created using the HEC-RAS river modeling program (Attachment 14 — memo from DeHass and Associates dated Dec. 2,2005) shows the hydraulic grade line for both 2 year fish passage and 25 year storm flows would be accommodated by a 36" culvert. Given the increased capacity of removing the two smaller culverts and adding a larger (57" X 38") culvert, the application demonstrates that the water flow capacity will no be decreased by proposed improvements. This criterion has been satisfied 4_ Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will he replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; The applicant has provided-an erosion control and vegetated corridor mitigation/planting plan that addresses such measures as approved by CWS and the City of Tigard Engineering. The Phase 1 vegetated corridor replacement area is located both west and east of Fanno Creek and totals 18,829 sf. Plant quantities for this area include 482 trees and 2,411 shrubs. Disturbed areas will be planted upon completion of the construction phase. This criterion has been satisfied. 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; The new culvert and remaining open channel of the reconfigured Pinebrook Creek have been designed to carry 25-year flows along with provisions for intermittent flooding into adjacent wetlands. As stated in 18.775.070 D3, the stream which is currently twice culverted (24" pipe) for a length of 170 feet will be culverted once (57"X38" pipe-arch) at a distance of 65 feet and will meet fish passage requirements. The Library project included a 30-foot wide by 100-foot long stormwater treatment swale that was constructed to accommodate the additional Wall Street impervious surface runoff,maintaining the same characteristics and capacity. Water quality calculation for the Library Project with Wall Street including swale dimensions and design parameters are included in the file (Attachment 13,Stormwater Report,Appendix D). 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall he obtained; The applicant has shown approvals from Clean Water Services (#4203), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps #200300137), and the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL #31719-RF) approvals for both phases of this project. This criterion has been met. 7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100- year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area . within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The property is owned by the City and has been dedicated as greenway. This. project will connect the recently constructed segment of the Farina Creek Trail on the library site with the existing segment of trail along the east side of the Fanno Pointe Condos. The conditions related to trail construction satisfy the requirements of this criterion. WALT.STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 11 OF 32 CP 32004-00(101/SLR2004-00003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 • • 18.773.070E. Within wetlands. The Director shall approve, approve with conditigias or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within the vegetative corridor established per "Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths: and "Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards," for such a wetland; The proposed encroachments will in fact impact the vegetated corridor and wetland resources identified as sign cant on the'Wetlands&Stream Corrddor" map, thus the applicant has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment as provided for in _WC 18.775.130. In doing so, these criteria will not apply to those impact areas. The remainder of the wetlands and vegetative corridor that are beyond the project impact area will not be subject to landform alteration. Due to the proposed encroachments and proximity of construction activities to the significant wetlands and vegetated corridor, construction boundaries shall be clearly defined in order to minimize disturbance of these areas. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; The applicant has conducted an alternatives analysis for the project that demonstrates that the proposed impacts are the minimum practicable for the project goal (Attachment 6). In addition to selecting the most feasible and least impacting road alignment, impacts are further reduced by removing much of the planter strip along the south side of the road to maintain as great a distance as possible from the resource. As stated previously,the length of the proposed roadway improvement was 425 feet to 350 feet in order to avoid development within the 100-year floodplain. In addition a retaining wall along the eastern edge of the condominium access was added to reduce the amount of wetland impact to the minimum. The total wetland impact area for Phase 1 was reduced from 0.25 acre to 0.11 acre. A wetland mitigation plan has been approved by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of State ,ands. 3. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; The applicant has provided a delineation of the wetland and a compensatory wetland mitigation plan, and has gained approval of a mitigation plan from U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of State Lands. The design of the reconfigured Pinebrook Creek will maintain wetland hydrology, and additionally stormwater treated by the water quality facility on the library site will be discharged into the wetland area to maintain its hydrologic characteristics and ensure that wetlands are not adversely effected by development Condition: The applicant shall carry out the wetland/vegetated corridor mitigation plan as approved with conditions by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and. Clean Water Services. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; The applicant has provided an erosion control and wetland mitigation/planting plan that addresses such measures as approved by CWS and the City of Tigard Engineering Department Phase 1 mitigation will consist of wetland creation (0.08 acres), wetland enhancement (0.29 acres) and-wetland restoration (0.20 acres). A detailed plantings plan meeting CWS standards are contained in the file (Attachment 11). Disturbed areas will be planted upon completion of the construction phase. This criterion has been satisfied 5.All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; All remaining sensitive lands requirements of the Sensitive Lands chapter can be achieved as indicated in wA I.I.STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 12 OF 32 CI'A200-100001/SLR2OO4-OO003/SLR2006-00001/'IRE2006-0OOO1,2.,3,4,5,G,7,8&9 the proceeding analysis. This criterion has been satisfied. 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; The applicant has shown approvals from Clean Water Services (#4203), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps #200300137), and the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL #31719-RF) approvals for both phases of this project. This criterion has been met. 7.The provisions of Chapter 18.790,Tree Removal,shall be met; An arborist report is included in the file(Attachment 9)Tree Removal provisions are addressed later under Chapter 18.790 in this report. 8. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. These policies will be addressed later in this report under Comprehensive Plan Policies. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards and Wetlands are addressed under Policy 3.1, Floodplains are addressed under Policy 3.2,Natural Areas are addressed under Policy 3.4, and Parks,Recreation and Open Space are addressed under Policy 3.5. 18.775.090. Special Provisions for Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River, Fan no Creek,Ball Creek,and South Fork of Ash Creek. A. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the safe harbor provisions of Goal 5 administrative rule pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map" are protected. No land form alternations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland, except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130. The proposed roadway improvements for Phase 1 will impact 0.11 acres of wetlands designated as significant on the 'Wetlands and Streams Corridor Map".The applicant has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment under a Type W procedure to remove Goal 5 protections from this area. The amendment criteria are addressed later in this report. B. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the safe harbor provisions of Goal 5 administrative rule pertaining to riparian corridors, a standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area measured horizontally from and parallel to the top bank is established for the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek,Ball Creek,and South Fork of Ash Creek. The ro osed roadwa im.r.v- .-, . ' . - . - designated as significant on the 'Wetlands and Streams Corridor Map". The applicant has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment under a Type IV procedure to remove Goal 5 protections from this area.The amendment criteria are addressed later in this report. 18.775.130. Plan Amendment Option Any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor (1) protection of significant wetlands and/or (2)vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek,Ball Creek, and. the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal.The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property,but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit,which must be addressed separately through an Alternatives Analysis, as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS Design and Construction Standards. The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either preparing an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) WATT.STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMB IISSION PAGE 13 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/5LR2004-00003/5LR2O06-00001/TI'•E2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040 or by determining that the resource is "insignificant": The applicant has submitted an ESEE analysis that adheres to the requirements of OAR 660-23-040. This analysis is contained in Attachment 7 of the file. 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, considering both the impacts on the specific resource site and the comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area; The ESEE analysis was developed to address Phase 1 of the proposed Wall Street project. The applicant's analysis uses the tabular format that has been utilized by the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places (the Goal 5 alliance of local governments in Washington County) which contains three scenarios; Allow, Limit, and Prohibit. The ESEE analysis follows an alternatives analysis (attachment 6) that compares other comparable sites in the planning area. The final alignment was recommended by project biologists to both minimize impacts and allow for mitigation opportunities. Once the preferred option was determined, the ESEE analysis (attachment 7) examines more thoroughly the impacts of allowing the conflicting use, identified as Alternative 2a (Connect Wall Street to Hall Boulevard at the south side of the Tigard Library Site); limit the conflicting use identified as Alternative 9 (Connect Wall Street to Hall Boulevard at the same location as the preferred alternative and shift the remaining roadway northerly to minimize impacts to Pinebrook Creek);and prohibiting the conflicting use(no build alternative). 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss,.or partial loss,of the resource; • The summary of conclusions from the ESEE analysis argues that a strict "prohibit" decision would result in strong economic,social and energy consequences. In addition to the improved (and safer) access to the Tigard Public Library and Fanno Pointe Condos, the extension of Wall Street is identified in the Tigard Transportation System Plan for its importance to the City's overall infrastructure. "Economic consequences including the continued degradation of the transportation system and the levels of service at nearby intersections. Undesirable social consequences stem from gridlock during peak hours. The energy consequences are most obvious when traffic is at a stand still and burn fuel while idling. In addition, increased energy costs to car operators, commercial and industrial traffic is a dual consequence. Both economic and energy costs result." The applicant did not identify as a positive consequence of the "limit" alternative that it may result in increased property values (for adjacent landowners) due to the increased ability to gain enhancement or restoration through mitigation, increased access to the Fanno Creek Trail, and safer vehicle access to the sites. However, the analysis identifies positive social consequences of the "limit" alternative which include reduction of potential loss of passive recreational and educational opportunities, scenic benefits, change to area character and improved road safety. FINDINGS: Staff finds that the application presents sufficient evidence justifying the requested comprehensive plan amendment and reconfiguration of the natural resource. The alternatives analysis identifies nine feasible road alignment options and a final proposed alignment recommended by project biologists to both minimize impacts and allow for mitigation opportunities (refer to Attachment 6). As stated earlier, Phase 1 of the Wall Street extension was recently redesigned to reduce the impacts on sensitive lands to minimize disturbances to the greatest extent possible given the project requirements. WALL STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING CONENGSSION PAGE 14 OF 32 CPA2004-00001fSLR2004-00043/SLR2006-00001/'IRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 • The Biological Assessment prepared by Fishman Environmental Services asserts that extensive modifications have been made to the historic conditions of Pinebrook Creek in the project area (from the culvert under Hall Blvd. to its confluence with Fanno Creek). Negative impacts to downstearn hydrology and water quality has resulted from past development, straightening and shortening of the stream channel causing bank erosion and channel alterations to Pinebrook Creek between Hall Blvd. and Fanno Creek. The Biological Assessment prepared by Fishman Environmental Services found that the associated man- made ponds adversely affect the downstream water quality of Fanno Creek and the Pinebrook Creek is currently impassable at its confluence with Fanno Creek. _ This assessment found that "long term benefits of the project include improvement of fish and wildlife habitat through restoration and enhancement of the altered lower Pinebrook Creek stream channel and associate wetlands, removal of invasive and noxious species, and reconnection of Pinebrook Creek with Fanno Creek to provide fish passage." Although the assessment concedes that the removal of the on--line ponds may result in minor decreases to wildlife habitat value for some species, reconfiguring them into wetland habitat will provide a long-term net benefit to water quality and fish habitat. The report concludes that completion of the proposed mitigation activities (including the reconfiguration of Pinebrook Creek and wetlands) will create the capability for proper functioning at the site, and will likely result in an increase in the total area of properly functioning habitat available_ 3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot he located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use; • To understand this issue fully, one must consider the requirements of the Transportation System Plan (connect SW Hall to SW Hunziker for east west connectivity, refer to the DKS Memo on Linkages between Hall,Hunziker and Dartmouth,Attachment 17), ODOT requirements on access spacing and the need for consolidating access on the State Highway, and the design constraints for providing adequate stacking length for left turn movements both into the library site, and onto SW Hall Boulevard (attachment 12). As part of granting approval for the Fanno Pointe Condos and Tigard Library, ODOT required that once necessary approvals had been obtained, and the street constructed, both projects would take access from Wall Street and not Hall Boulevard. The temporary driveway to the library would be removed as part of the construction process of building Wall Street, and the temporary access to the condo project would be closed off. To handle the traffic needs for these two projects, the applicant submitted a study analyzing the amount of turning lane stacking distance needed. Staff asked that the applicant specifically to look at the limited impacts of these two traffic generators, instead of the total demand for a fully connected street to assess ways to minimize the initial impacts to the resource area. According to the traffic memo provided in Attachment 12, a 100 foot long westbound left-turn lane should be provided along Wall Street with a 100- 165 foot transition zone east of the turn lane. The redesigned improvements will provide 300-feet to accommodate this left-turn lane and a left-turn refuge for eastbound access to the Library and a transition between the two left-turn lanes. Considering the competing goals of resource protection and the need for permanent joint access into the library and Fanno Pointe Condos (as well as ultimately possibility of an east-west connection between SW Hall and SW Hunziker) it is clear why the use cannot be located on sites identified in the buildable land inventory. First, there is no land designated as buildable between the library and condominium properties . WALL STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 15 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/SLR2 00400003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2.,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 that could accommodate the joint accessway. Second, to have any connection between SW Hall and SW Hunziker south of City Hall, a crossing of Fanno Creek is inevitable. As stated above, the applicant examined 9 alternative alignments to minimize the impact to habitat, the floodplain, and wetlands. There are no other sites within the planning area that could accommodate the specific needs of the proposed use. 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney, all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis; According to the applicant's narrative,the analysis was performed by a team from Fishman Environmental Services (FES) consisting of Stacy Benjamin (a wetland ecologists and wetland/environmental assessment project manager with a M.S. in Ecology and Evolution),and Dan Stark(a land use planner that is certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners). 11'ES completed the original City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory that resulted in the Sensitive Lands Overlay Zone, and FES staff has completed at least 20 Goal 5 projects in the State of Oregon since the early 1990's, many of which included ESEE elements." 5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. The applicant has submitted mapping materials including updated natural resource site locations based upon site-specific delineations of natural resources and professional land surveying. These materials may be used to update the City's sensitive lands overlay and be submitted to Metro to update regional GIS layers. FINDINGS: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the applicant has satisfied the applicable review criteria contained in Chapter 18.775 of the Tigard Development Code. 18.790 Tree Removal 18790.030 Tree Plan Requirement. A.Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development review or conditional use is filed. B. The tree plan shall include the following: the location, size and species of all existing trees designated,as significant; a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12" in caliper; trees which are proposed to be removed, and; protection program defining standards and methods used by the applicant to protect the trees, A plan for tree planting, removal and protection is not required since the applicant has filed for a comprehensive plan amendment and not a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use. However, the applicant has submitted a Tree Plan (Attachment 9c) prepared by Steven Goetz, a registered consulting arborist with the Pacific Resources Group, that identifies the location, size and species of existing trees; a program to save or mitigate for the trees, and protection standards and methods. The application includes an Arborist Report (on Phase 1 and 2 of the project) a tree assessment, a tree removal plan, a wetland mitigation/planting plan, an upland buffer planting plan and planting tables. This plan identifies 44 trees greater than 6" diameter. The applicant is WALL STREL EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO' l-iEPL.r1NNINGCOM MISSION PAGE 16 OF 32 CPA2004-40041/SLR2004-00003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 requesting removal of 9 trees greater than 12 inches in caliper size. As described previously,some of these trees are in sensitive lands areas and require permits to remove. The following table provides a summary: Trees 6"or greater proposed for removal:Total = 19 trees (over 12" = 9 trees) #3 (10"hawthorn) #15 (26"locust• #4 (12"hawthorn) #21-25 (hawthorn cluster 5 @12") #6 (8",6",6"olive) #27 (12"alder) #8 (31"cedar) #34(8"ash) #9 (32" cedar) #35-36 (8", 12"ash) #10(10"locust) #37 (18"ash) #11 (10"locust) #38 (15"ash) #12(9" locust) #46 (10"locust) #13 (6",11"locust) #47 (10"locust) #14(10"locust) Trees 6"or greater identified as Dead or Hazard: Total= 10 trees #5 hazard,no permit required) #31 (hazard,no permit required) #7 (hazard,no permit required) #33 (hazard,no permit required) #17 (hazard, no permit required) #39-40 (hazard,no permit required) #20 (hazard, no permit required) #50(hazard, no permit required) #26 (hazard, no permit required) #53 (hazard,no permit required) Trees 6"or greater proposed to be saved:Total= 15 trees (over 12" = 9 trees) #18(10"cedar) #44(19"birch) #19 (14" fir) #45 (10"locust) #28(12"crabapple) #48 (16", 11", 11", 10",10"willow) #29 (15"willow) #49 (14"alder) #30(20"ash) #51 (10"willow) #32 (12"ash) #52 (9",7", 6", 6", 5", 4"willow) #41 (8",6"hawthorn) #54(24"alder) #42(9",8",3",3",3"hawthorn) • Total#of trees: 44 Total# of trees over 12" proposed for removal: 9 Total#of trees over 12" to be saved: 9 of trees >12"retained: 50% Total caliper inches removed: 182" Required mitigation: 91" B2c. Retention of 50% to 75% of existin_• trees over 12 inches in caliper rep uires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated. For the purposes of calculating the amount of required mitigation, the total number of trees that are greater than 12 inches diameter is 18. Nine of these trees (50%) are proposed for removal. The total number of caliper inches represented by this removal is 182 caliper inches" The amount of mitigation required is based on 50 percent of the total caliper inches removed,which equals 91 caliper inches. The applicant's planting plan proposes mitigation that significantly exceeds the minimum requirement. The plan calls for replanting 336 caliper inches versus the 91 caliper inches required to be mitigated. This criterion is satisfied" WALL STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COM14fISSION PAGE 17 OF 32 CP2004-00001/SLR200400003/SLR2000-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 18.790.050 Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775.The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: The Arborist Report indicates that 12 of the trees proposed for removal are within the sensitive land area and thus requires a tree removal permit Of these trees, four are identified as hazardous, two are non- native species and 4 are 12"or less in diameter.. 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b, Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment-laden flows; or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan (refer to Attachment 4D) with final construction documents which includes erosion control features and notes that the erosion control measures shall comply with Erosion Prevension and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual developed by Clean Water Services and Field Manual for Erosion &Sediment Control prepared by ODOT. The erosion plan will address temporary and immediate effects of the construction process. The standards noted above-will be adhered to during the project, or CWS may issue a stop work order until any noted problems are corrected. In addition, a planting vegetative plan meeting CWS standards (Attachment 11) will be implemented for the long term protection from soil migration. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. The applicant is proposing to remove 9 viable trees, totaling 182 caliper inches, from the sensitive lands area to accommodate the roadway, and grading necessary to reconfigure Pinebrook Creek. To compensate for these removals, the area will be enhanced by replanting 104 big leaf maples, 108 Douglas firs, 29 Oregon white oaks, and 1,207 shrubs. The letter from Fishman Environmental Services (Attachment 9e in the file) states that current canopy cover in the area is 40% and that plantings within the stream and wetland corridor will result in a canopy cover greater than 40% within the a few years after plant establishment. The total 10-year canopy cover estimated for these plantings is 86,322 sf and the planting area of proposed mitigation is 24,142 sf. In addition to the trees that will repopulate the area, a variety of shrubs will be planted to provide a dense foliage cover around the stream to provide the benefits of shade which in turn will help regulate thermal pollution into Fanno Creek. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,staff finds that the applicant has satisfied the applicable review criteria contained in Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code. Chapter 18.795.Vision Clearance: 18.795.040 B. Obstructions prohibited.A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence,wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional WALL STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLACING COMMISSION PAGE 18 OF 32 CPA200400001/SLR200400003/SL.R2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 utility pole or tree),exceeding three feet in height,measured from the top of the curb,or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. Based on the present development and the proposed improvements, there are no current or proposed obstructions within the vision clearance area. 18.795.040 A. Arterial streets. On all designated arterial streets the visual clearance area shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. SW Hall Boulevard is designated as an arterial, therefore the more stringent standards will apply to both streets. The road extension plan (Attachment 4C) shows 35-foot clear view triangles to provide visual clearance at both corners of the intersection of Wall Street and Hall Blvd_ FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the applicant has satisfied the applicable review criteria contained in Chapter 18.795 of the Tigard Development Code. Chapter 18.810. Street and Utility Improvements: The relevant portions of this chapter for this project are limited primarily to the required street width. Section 18.810.030. 18.810.030.Streets A. Improvements The purpose of Phase 1 of the Wall Street extension is to provide access to the Tigard Library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums.The extension of Wall Street is identified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), a subdocument to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Subsequent phases are intended to extend SW Wall Street from Hall Blvd, east to the existing Wall Street east of the railroad. B. Creation of Rights-of-way The right of way will be created through a deed of dedication with the construction of the proposed roadway extension. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths This provision specifies that for 3 lane collector streets with bike lanes in residential areas, a minimum 70 foot wide section is required. The applicant is proposing a 72 foot wide right of way to accommodate an additional 2 feet for a wider center turn lane. In one section on the south side of the road, the applicant is proposing to construct a curb tight sidewalk to lessen the degree of impact on the vegetative buffer. This is allowable through 18.810.070 which provides "A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist._.there are significant natural features (large trees,water features, etc) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required." In this case, additional impacts to the sensitive lands would result from providing this planter strip area. By constructing the sidewalk without the planter strip, this area can be"transferred" to the opposite side of the sidewalk and planted with materials that will be consistent with a vegetative corridor. F, Future street plan and extension of streets Subsequent phases of the extension of Wall Street beyond the 350-feet proposed with this project intend to extend the street across Fanno Creek to connect with Wall Street east of the railroad as identified in the Tigard Transportation System Plan. H. Street alignments and connections Phase 1 of the Wall Street extension is intended to provide access to the Tigard Library and Fanno Pointe Condominiums. N. Grades and curves According to the Plan and Profile map (Attachment 4) showing the proposed street improvements,grades WALL STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 19 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/SLR2004-00003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 for Phase I of the Wall Street extension will not exceed 7%, below the standard of 12% for collector s tree ts. Q.Access to arterials and collectors The project will moving access to the Tigard Library and Fanno Pointe Condominiums off of Hall Blvd, which is an arterial and onto Wall Street which is a collector without through traffic. AC.Traffic Study This application includes a traffic study of impacts for this proposed Wall Street extension. The standards for street improvements are met. 18.810:050.Easements The applicant has indicated that easements for the utilities and roadway improvements will be provided as necessary. 18.810.070, Sidewalks Improvements proposed for this project include 6-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street. Due to significant natural features along the south side of the roadway, much of the planter strip was removed form the south side of the street. 18.810.080. Public Use Areas This Wall Street extension will provide access to the Tigard Public Library and connect the north and south segments of the Fanno Creek TraiL 18.810.100.Storm Drainage The Library project included a 30-foot wide by 100-foot long stormwater treatment swale that was constructed to accommodate the additional Wall Street impervious surface runoff, maintaining the same characteristics and capacity. Water quality calculation for the Library Project with Wall Street including swale dimensions and design parameters are included in the file (Attachment 13, Stormwater Report, Appendix D). 18.810.110.Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways The project includes 6-foot wide bike lanes on both sides of Wall Street as required for collector streets. Also, the segments of the Fanno Creek Trail located north and south of the site will be connected providing.bicycle and pedestrian access to this pathway. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the applicant has satisfied the applicable review criteria contained in Chapter 18.810 of the Tigard Development Code. City Comprehensive Plan Policies A review of the comprehensive plan identified the following relevant policies for this application: Policy 2—Citizen Involvement 2.1.1 The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall ensure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. This policy has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390. Notice was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site and notice was additionally published in the Tigard Times prior to the heating,including a property owners•of record. After the Planning Commission public hearing, additional notice will be published prior to the City Council hearing. The date of the Council hearing was included in the original notice to property owners. • WALL STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 20 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/SLR2004-00003/S1R2006-00001/`IRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 • Two public hearings are held (one before the Planning Commission and the .second before the City Council)at which an opportunity for public input is provided. 2.1.3 The City shall ensure that information on land use planning issues is available in an understandable form for all interested citizens. Notice is provided in an understandable form, and contact information is provided for citizens if they have additional questions. Policy 3—Natural Features and Open Space 3.1 Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards and Wetlands The City shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where it can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development. (Note:This policy does not apply to lands designated as significant wetlands on the floodplain and wetlands map.): a.Areas meeting the definition of wetlands under chapter 18.26 of the Community Development Code; b.Areas having a severe soil erosion potential; c.Areas subject to slumping,earth slides or movement; d.Areas having slopes in excess of 25%;or • e.Areas having severe weak foundation soils_ The area impacted by the proposed improvements include part of the vegetative corridor along Pinebrook Creek and wetlands. A field study was conducted on four test pits (in 100 foot intervals) along the Wall Street alignment and finding were summarized in the submitted Geotechnical Report (Attachment 10). Soils encountered in the study were interpreted as topsoil, alluvium,organic debris associated with swampy conditions, and micaceous silt and sand. The report provides design recommendations for site preparation, excavation, and the placement and compaction of all structural fill. Based on this report, there is no indication that the area has severe soil erosion potential, earth slumping, steep slopes, or weak foundation soils. The applicant has submitted final engineered drawings and a final geotechnical review (based on an evaluation of subsurface conditions on the site) which includes the design parameters for pavement structures (based on the number of equivalent 18-kip single axel loads), pavement sections and pavement materials for the proposed roadway. (Attachment 10). The applicant has presented required approvals for impacts to sensitive lands from Clean Water Services (#4203), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps #200300137), and the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL#31719-R1~) approvals for both phases of this project. The application has been reviewed through the sensitive lands procedures which address erosion control issues. The report covers the original proposed 425-foot Wall Street extension,which was recently shortened to 350-feet to avoid the floodplain. 3.2 Floodplains 3.2.1 The City shall prohibit any land form alterations or developments in the 100-Year Floodplain which would result in any rise in elevation of the 100-Year Floodplain. The proposed roadway and watertnaia extension will not be located within the 100-year floodplain. Although portions of the stream restoration and plantings will be located within the floodplain, these restoration and enhancement activities to be performed under the direction of the City are exempt from the sensitive lands provisions per Section 18.775.020 C2. WALL L STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 21 OF 32 CPA200,1-00001/SLR2001-00003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 Nevertheless,the application does include a hydraulic analysis (Attachment 14) prepared by Del-lass and Associates,Inc.with a memo for Phase 1 of the Wall Street extension which certifies that the proposed improvements will"cause no-rise in Fanno Creek during a 100-year flood event" 3.2.4 The City shall prohibit development within areas designated as significant wetlands on the floodplain and wetlands map. No development shall occur on property adjacent to areas designated as significant wetlands on the floodplain and wetlands map within twenty five (25) feet of the designated wetlands area. Development on property adjacent to significant wetlands shall be allowed under the planned development section of the code. As discussed in this application report, the Development Code provides a mechanism for removing the resources from the wetland map,through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Type IV ESEE analysis. By successfully removing these resources from the inventory, this policy would not apply. 3.2.3 Where land form alterations and development are allowed within the 100-year floodplain* outside the zero-foot rise floodway*, the City Shall Require: b. Engineered drawings and/or documentation showing that there will be no detrimental upstream or downstream effects in the floodplain*area,and that the criteria set forth in the sensitive lands section of the code have been met(See FIS September 1981); The Biological Assessment prepared by Fishman Environmental Services states that the project is not expected to increase erosion or flooding upstream or downstream of the project, due to the use of the water duality treatment facility(or bioswale) and energy dissipating rocked pads to prevent erosion at the point of discharge. 3.2.5 The City shall require the consideration of dedication of all undeveloped land within the 100- year floodplain plus sufficient open land for greenway purposes specifically Identified for recreation within the plan. The property already belongs to the City and/or has been dedicated as greenway,.This project will connect the recently constructed segment of the Fanno Creek Trail on the library site with the existing segment of trail along the east side of the Fanno Pointe Condos. 3.4 Natural Areas 3.4.1 The City shall designate, in accordance with Goal 5, the following as areas of significant environmental concern. a. Significant wetlands; - b. Areas having educational research value, such as geologically and scientifically significant lands; and e.Areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animals or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species,or specific natural features,valued for the need to protect natural areas. These areas have been designated and are identified as being within sensitive land areas,primarily wetland and drainageways.The alternatives analysis states that the proposed alignment would impact the Pinebrook Creek riparian corridor and wetlands.Pinebrook Creek provides habitat for a variety of animals that are strictly aquatic, aquatic during one life stage, or highly dependent on the streamfor life requisites. The pond has non-native mosquito fish, a variety of typical aquatic invertebrates,vascular aquatic plats and large amounts of algae (in summer).These impacts would reduce available habitat for aquatic invertebrates,frogs,water fowl,wading birds, and possibly turtles.The presence of a completed road WALL STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE.PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 22 OF 32 CPA 2D 04-OOOOI/SLR2OO400003/SLR2OO6-O0001/'iRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 would introduce human activities that would have a disturbance effect on wildlife,resulting in reduced presence or activity of some wildlife species.The project proposes an upland buffer will be maintained adjacent to the wetland mitigation site and educational signs will be posted to request that the public avoid disturbing•the area in order to increase the wildlife habitat function. The Biological Assessment prepared by Fishman Environmental Services, includes a table (Table 1) summarizing the federally listed threatened and endangered species, candidate species , and species of concern potentially occurring in the Wall Street project area. Based on lists from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Oregon Natural Heritage Program. In 2003, Fishman staff visited the project site on four occassions to delineate wetlands, assess potential impacts, potential enhancement and mitigation areas, existing fish habitat conditions, and tour the site. In 2000, the Northwestern Pond Turtle, a federal Species of Concern (SOC) and a state critical(SC) species, was observed in the vicinity of the project site. The Biological Assessment indicates the project site contains "patches of suitable turtle habitat", however, it goes on to state that turtles have not been documented on site and were not observed during their field visits of the project site. This Assessment states that project design will include turtle conservation measure, will be part of the proposed project, such as creating a turtle barrier (of fencing or dense shrubbery) along the new road. The assessment also indicates that the proposed wetland and vegetated corridor mitigation will improve access and winter cover for turtles. • The recent redesign of Phase 1 will reduce the impacts on sensitive lands to minimize disturbances to the. greatest extent possible given the project requirements. The length of the proposed roadway was reduced from 425 feet to 350 feet, thus reducing the vegetated corridor impacts for Phase 1 from 24,274 sf to 18,429 sf (0.42 acres). The proposed vegetated corridor impacts are summarized in the file (Attachment 11, Figure 1). The redesigned Phase 1 also includes a retaining Wall along the eastern edge of the Fanno Pointe Condos access to minimize the amount of vegetated corridor and wetland impact. Currently, the stream is twice culverted (24" pipe) for a length of 170 feet and not designed for fish passage. The reconfigured stream will be culverted once (57"X38" pipe-arch for a distance of 65 feet) at the same design capacity as the Hall Blvd culvert(to carry 25-yr flows)and will meet fish passage requirements. The . realigned stream will remove the two long culverts,and will follow the historic channel, In general, the report concluded that the "potential for direct adverse effects resulting in significant or direct mortality of a listed species is minimal with this project..Any direct effects would likely be transitory and within the ability of both juveniles and adults to bypass or temporarily leave the proposed action area." FINDINGS: Given the conclusions of the biological assessment and the fact that Phase 1 has been redesigned to minimize the impacts to significant wetland and riparian resources,staff finds that applicant has addressed the potential adverse effects to areas of significant environmental concern. 3.4.2 The City shall: a.Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible; This policy is addressed through the sensitive lands chapter of the development code. d.Address Goal 5 rule Requirements pertaining to the preservation of wetlands once adequate information on the location, quality, and quantity of wetland sites is obtained.This Goal 5 review will include determining which wetland sites are•ecologically and scientifically significant. WALL STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COt4i IISSION PAGE 23 OF 32 CPA2004-00£101/SLR2004-00003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-0 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 Citizens will participate.in making policy recommendations for the protection and preservation of those wetland areas designated as significant.The City shall complete its Goal 5 review of wetland areas before the City's next periodic review,but no later than December 23, 1996. The inventory of wetland areas designated as significant within the City of Tigard was completed by Fishman Environmental Services in December of 1994. 3.5 Parks, Recreation and Open Space 3.5.3 The City has designated the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek, its tributaries, and the Tualatin River as Greenway,Which wiII be the backbone of the open space system.Where landfill and/or development are allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. The property already belongs to the City and/or has been dedicated as greemnay,. This project will connect the recently constructed segment of the Fanno Creek Trail on the library site with the existing segment of trail along the east side of the Fanno Pointe Condos. 3.5.4 The City shall provide an interconnected pedestrian/bikepath throughout the City. This project will connect the recently constructed segment of the Fanno Creek Trail on the library site with the existing segment of trail along the east side of the Fanno Pointe Condos. Policy 4—Air,Water, and Land Resources 4.2.1 All development within the Tigard Urban Planning Area shall comply with applicable Federal, State and Regional water quality standards, including those contained in the Clean Water Services'Design and Construction Manual. (Rev. Ord. 02-15) Compliance with these standards is assured through obtaining permits from the appropriate regulating agencies. Such approvals have been obtained from Clean Water Services,Division of State Lands, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Policy 7—Public Facilities 7.1.1 The City shall: a.Prepare and implement a capital improvements program in conjunction with Washington County and the applicable service districts; b.Work with the service districts to provide a coordinated system for providing services; c. Provide urban services in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to the extent of the City's financial resources; d.Use the capital improvements program as a means for providing for orderly growth and the efficient use of land; These policies serve as the basis for the need for the Transportation System Plan (TSP), a subdocument to the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted by resolution 02-33 (effective on October 10, 2002)_ The TSP lays out the City's Transportation improvement needs over a 20-year planning period and directs where growth or capital projects shall occur, and allows adjacent jurisdictions to coordinate their infrastructure. The extension of SW Wall Street is identified in TSP. 7.2 Storm drainage and wastewater management WALL STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMIvaSSION PAGE 24 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/SLR2004-00003/SLR2006-00041/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 7.21 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development that: a. a site development study be submitted for development in areas subject to poor drainage, ground instability or flooding which shows that the development is safe and will not create adverse off-site impacts: The applicant has submitted detail development plans and has delineated the flood plain. The applicant's engineer has submitted a certification stating that there will be no rise in the base flood elevation, and as discussed previously, the construction will be designed to resist damage. b.Natural drainage ways be maintained unless submitted studies show that alternative drainage solutions can solve on-site drainage problems and will ensure no adverse off-site impacts; The applicant is proposing to realign Pinebrook Creek. While generally discouraged, the present alignment is the result of prior landforming activities that redirected the creek to a more northerly alignment. Currently, the stream is twice culverted(24"pipe) For a length of 170 feet and not designed for fish passage. The reconfigured stream will be culverted once(57"X38"pipe-arch for a distance of 65 feet)at the same design capacity as the Hall Blvd culvert(to carry 25-yr flows) and will meet fish passage requirements. The realigned stream will remove the two long culverts, and will follow the historic channel. c.All drainage can be handled on-site or there is an alternative solution which will not increase • the off-site impact; A stormwater report prepared to evaluate the water treatment facility on the library site considers the drainage from the 1'Phase of the Wall Street extension. Drainage will be conveyed to a stormwater treatment facility and discharged into Farina Creek. e. Erosion control techniques be included as a part of the site development plan. The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan (refer to Attachment 415) with final construction documents which includes erosion control features. Policy 8--Transportation 8.1.1 PIan, design and construct transportation facilities in a manner which enhances the livability of Tigard by: a. Proper location and design of transportation facilities. This Wall Street extension will provide access to the Tigard Public Library and connect the north and south segments of the Fauna Creek Trail.The facilities have been designed and reviewed by the City's Capital Improvement Division within the Engineering Department. b. Encouraging pedestrian accessibility by providing safe, secure and desirable pedestrian routes. The project includes 6-foot wide bike lanes on both sides of Wall Street as required for collector streets. Also, the segments of the Farina Creek Trail located north and south of the site will be connected providing bicycle and pedestrian access to this pathway. c.Addressing issues of excessive speeding and through traffic on local residential streets through a neighborhood traffic program.The program should:address corrective measures for existing problems and assure that development incorporates traffic calming. WAIT STREET EXTENSION—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 25 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/SLR2004-00003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 Not applicable to this application. Wall Street is classified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a collector which is described as providing"both access and circulation within and between residential and commercial/industrial areas." Phase 1 of the Wall Street extension will terminate west the Fanno Creek and is primarily intended to provide access to the Tigard Library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums. 8.1.2 Provide a balanced transportation system, incorporating all modes of transportation (including motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, transit and other modes) The proposed roadway improvements will be consistent with the requirements for a"collector"as described in the TSP. Bicycle lanes, as well as motor vehicle and pedestrians are accommodated in the design. 8.1.3 Strive to achieve a safe transportation system by the development of street standards,access management policies and speed controls when constructing streets and by making street " maintenance a priority and through a comprehensive program of engineering, education and enforcement. These standards are achieved through the requirements in Chapter 18.810 of the development code. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff Ends that the proposed project has addressed the relevant policies contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. METRO Framework Plan Metro Functional Plan Title 3 -- Water Quality, Flood Management, and Fish/Wildlife Habitat Conservation — protect beneficial uses and functional values of water quality and flood management resources by limiting uses in these areas. Establish buffer zones around resource areas to protect from new development. As stated earlier in the review of applicable Development Code criteria, the Code allows for flexibility for developments when they are adjacent to natural resource areas. This is in addition to the City's, Clean Water Services, state and federal standards protecting natural resource areas. The Clean Water Services standards are intended to comply with Metro's Title 3. The proposed development, therefore, does not conflict with Title 3 requirements. Metro Functional Plan Title 6 — Regional Accessibility (Regional Transportation Plan) — The RTP provides a regional plan for transportation improvements and requires City's plans to be consistent. The RTP also provides plans for Transit, TDM and pedestrian mobility. The RTP replaces Metro Functional Plan Title 6. The City has adopted the Transportation System Plan which implements and adheres to the requirements of the Regional Transportation Plan. Metro Functional Plan Title 13 — Nature in Neighborhoods — conserve, protect, and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside corridor system, from the streams' headwaters to their confluence with other streams and rivers, and with their flooplains in a manner that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and with the surrounding urban landscape; and control and prevent water pollution for the protection of the public health and safety, and to maintain and improve water quality throughout the region. WALL STREET EXTENSION--STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 26 OF 32 CPA2G04-00001/SLR2004-o0003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 • Tide 13 is part of the regional approach to implement Statewide Planning Goal 5.As part of the proposed project, wetlands, vegetated corridor and habitat were inventoried and delineated. An Environmental, Social , Economic and Energy (ESEE) analysis was conducted using the methodology compliant with the methods used by Metro and the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places. Protections are in place via the development code restrictions_ The applicant is proposing to amend the wetland inventory to remove the protection to the wetlands, and relocate the waterway. This is being done as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment per TDC Section 18.775.130 to remove the Goal 5 protections from the property. The review process also requires compensatory mitigation and reestablishment of the wetland area_ Once the new wetland has been established, this will be added back into the inventory of protected sites. A thorough review by local (CWS), state (DSL), and federal (USAGE) agencies has been conducted, and approvals have been issued from all three(Attachments 5 and 11). As stated earlier in this report, the Biological Assessment prepared by Fishman Environmental Services found that completion of the proposed mitigation activities (including the reconfiguration of Pinebrook Creek and wetlands) will create the capability for proper functioning at the site, and will likely result in an increase in the total area of properly functioning habitat available. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed project has addressed the relevant policies contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Statewide-Planning Goals Statewide Planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390. A notice was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site and the notice was additionally published in the Tigard Times prior to the hearing. After the Planning Commission public hearing, additional notice will be published prior to the City Council hearing. Two public hearings are held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and policies to review changes to the Goal 5 Safe-harbor Rules consistent with Goals 2 and 5. The applirant's plan provides analysis and policies, with which to evaluate a request for amending the Code consistent with Goal 2. As discussed within this report, the proposed amendments comply with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan criteria. Statewide Planning Goal S'—Natural Resources Requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic areas and sites suitable for removal and processing of mineral and aggregate resources. This goal is met because the resources have been inventoried and delineated. Protections are in place via the development code restrictions. The applicant is proposing to amend the wetland inventory to remove WATT STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 27 OF 32 CPA2004-00001/SLR20011-00003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 the protection to the wetlands, and relocate the waterway. This is being done as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove the Goal 5 protections from the property through preparation of an Environmental, Social , Economic and Energy (ESEE) analysis. The review process also requires compensatory mitigation and reestablishment of the wetland area. Once the new wetland has been established, this will be added back into the inventory of protected sites. A thorough review by. local (CWS), state (DSL), and federal (USACE) agencies has been conducted, and approvals have been issued from all. three (Attachments 5 and 11). Statewide Planning Goal 6—Air, Water and Land Resource Quality, This goal is intended to regulate all waste and process discharges into the air,water,or lands of the state. Waste and Process Discharges refers to solid waste,thermal,noise, atmospheric or water pollutants,contaminants, or products therefrom. The proposal includes a long term erosion control component through its replanting plan,and temporary impacts to soils will be controlled during the construction process. Pollution control manholes and water quality swales will be incorporated into the project to reduce point source contaminants. The combination of these efforts will ensure that this goal is met. Statewide Planning Goal 11—Public Facilities and Services This goal is intended to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The temporary accessways to the Tigard Public Library and Fanno Pointe Condos has been determined unsafe by not meeting ODOT spacing standards. The proposed Wall Street extension will enhance safety and access to the Tigard Public Library and connect the north and south segments of the Fanno Creek Trail. Statewide Planning Goal 12- Transportation: This goal is intended to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and, economic transportation system. This Goal is implemented by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12, which is also known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Chapter 18_810 of the development code was recently amended to ensure consistency with both the Transportation Planning Rule, and the adopted Transportation System Plan(TSP). The applicant's proposal is the first of two phases to complete a connection to SW Hunziker from SW Hall Boulevard, which is identified in the TSP. The city is obligated to pursue improvements identified in the TSP as part of its comprehensive traffic management program. Although,the primary purpose of this project is to consolidate the accessways into the Tigard Public Library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums off of Hall Blvd_, the applicant's request is also in part to implement the objective of the TSP. Since other obstacles exist that are outside the applicant's control(namely the inability to receive approval for an at grade crossing)which prevent Eull connection at this time, only the first phase is being proposed_ This first phase also implements the principles of the TSP by consolidating accesses along the state highway arterial (SW Hall Boulevard)_ FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments do not violate applicable Statewide Planning Goals. WALL STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING CONE MISSION PAGE 28 OF 32 CPA2O0400001/SLR200400003/SLR2O06-00001/TRE2005-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 State or Federal Regulations • Oregon Revised Statutes, ODOTAuthority to Regulate Highways Oregon Revised Statues Chapter 374 addresses ODOT's authority to control access to state highways. The requirement that access be consolidated for the Library and Fanno Pointe complies with these statues generally. Oregon Revised Statues Chapter 196 addresses general wetland requirements within the state. These statutes are administered by Division of State Lands. Federal Clean Water Act,section 404 The clean water act is responsible for regulating impacts to wetlands and other navigable waters of the United States. The agency primarily responsible for implementing these federal statutes is the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has reviewed the proposal and issued an approval for wetland fill (Attachment 5). SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. The Development Review Engineer and Public Works Project Engineer received copies of the proposal for review and submitted no comments or objections. The City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has filed the following comments. Due to the fact that this area is so close to Fanno Creek and a substantial amount of land will be enhanced with native plants, I strongly recommend that any non-native trees be girdled and left standing (if safe to do so).The resulting snags will provide habitat, especially the invasive hawthorns. Response: A condition will be set for the tree removal plan that any non-native trees shall be girdled and left as snags rather than removed to provide habitat in areas where there are no safety issues_ SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS The US Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the proposal as part of the wetlands permit process and submitted conditions of approval(Corps#200300137) which are included with the application. Metro -- Land use and Planning was given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. Oregon Department of State Lands has reviewed the proposal as part of the wetlands permit process and submitted conditions of approval(DSL#31719-RF)which are included with this application. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Land Conservation and Development, Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Transportation were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections_ Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal as part of the vegetated corridor permit process and submitted conditions of approval(#4203)which are included with this application. Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. Comcast Cable Corp, Portland General Electric and NW Natural Gas Company were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. WALL.STREET EXTENSION-STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 29 OF 32 CPA200400001/SLR2004-00 003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,6,7,8&9 PREPARED BY: Denver Igarta DATE Associate Planner REVIEWED BY: Richard Bewersdorff DA I E Planning Manager WALL STREET EXI"ENSIOiNI—STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 30 OF 32 CPA2004-000D1/SLR2004-00003/SLR2006-00001/TRE2006-00001,2,3,4,5,G,7,8&9 N "11111111111r . s, . Y U . l.xs.T�a.Y♦xTa• M W O00a0I 0003 0001 00001-9 o an is wig ow EET o�► �1 � ,,,,-: N P''''''Zr`""Illmarla .„5,;..,,,11 t___..„,v., ‘2._,,f;r&;`' J i _ "may x'77 y y fl 1 Y • \i WF ��\:. " l im ,,," _ .._ .,,_.PI• O \J . ,, ... uhr. v_,..1,,,,,„., 1 g Nam II A. wit • D S9P 2Q4 xC qA PO f+.r /1. ic iii ''.. . . „ • , 0 . . _._______.........._.. ... . .. . . 0 .._. .„.,. . , . < Es ., , 4-'11"''. .--..:liffl-- .., II % 1--''',.'4-• ""VI S' frlaporrirAri %. \ ''..-— -.-4a/i L'r; 1 --ry-' ' ' ,L-- 12L-, . ;t4, • ', '-' 7 U;--1-- :'•- --- J •lic•: --ii-. / ' ' / i-6•4(-",,,LI''f,!°,CD!..e.±F..1 ', --L.7 .. '--N-'\.6-.-.... -,.. "( ,._,.1,..J1.-': 1 1, .„ , at - :-..7* "... si , • / , ,, r-77."'', 7 , ; id , ..,....,,,,,,,. „, , r' / ', I ,-;:!._,,-..•-t-7...-11,-,','"'..---....:71 --•-..'L-7,7__P-,:,4..:_,.:„.•--, p(Al,.,.,.:f.,-<.-,A.,..\.);"1/21 1.y.?„.1- ' ,..7.:------•'-`''•".-: „-,-.,:-.7.-..;,.....---2.-.-- ...,.., --;.-..1.0,-,w-L 1•:•;1 s- ,.]:,,S:11.''..-''.',.1--"' , ; : , 1 ..... -- --- -..,-/---• / '. ,r i ''''\.--Z....5,97.-;- _'''.±-..''..f..47.. 7.-5. 7-':':7-7-'''''''-4.'4.---..;f:.:,-,,'. ',/,'"e..k•L •C VP,,S-1. 1 1 i 1 ' A• itri.../'i;NI 11 nal 118$111 ••,..111 11 'il: 11.4111 . r- ' -21', Al-lidi ,,' I ; t ' ( • ."._-_-::------------'- '.--:..„ ;-s*5:,...f_.„......-i. ,r '',, • 1 L.5V-ig,MMI ! ! '• ' .: / ,"V i . 1 ,- , -:"". .. -•‘:: r.,-• -1,-Tr,:' .■ ' I - ' • .,,,ei j• , , . I i .,:.. ") i•• /- 4 1-I/ 111,„ll I H .1) I 0 I ll I j 'i....1-177",..' \ / 4:5 / ' i - ( -.L....-. ,,..„..:,_ _ ; ‘... ,.) ' ' - - •''..,•;,,,I.: . '.‹.,-;---'-. ,•`ci..-- -,,, I‘`•'; ',' i 'I ■ --.....k----:' ' -ey:',..'..& ,,-;:.---r \ ' i .,,:)‘,.V ,,... '\ -';'.; --,•',.'',.:". • '.:. •''' ''''"••'' r ,\ I •■''t1.1', I / \ } • 1 1 C..,-. ••••. --.[---.--.-- -•-,...- ...1-..._ • ••••- i ) I ' 'A , ..•..'‘, •-•..-''' . '2..‹.....V••;;_, 1r..•• ..1,....."-'-'',-. '......,-*- • -•L•11- • 01••-;•-'1 i .v.,1 -'11[•, ' ; • • I il I r•,-1 ; I i i I, I I I I •-•t•-r--.-.1- ', tits ..[-___. t.--__-7:4;-•“7.14...:•-•<1.F......4V,•'. 1.".'..e..."-....•\1•,.... ' \ 5. t 1 . I L•n-rm ,\.,-. //' N'1/4--••=--e---.r.-- \=;-.-". 2,-,07031-;:#.9 --',. -- 7---.---/----- \, \-.." j 1,,IP ., ,..-:,\.v ...- ,:. st.: •:•,.4.,,,,.:,,,, '..---,....-1.-- ," , c ,,....2,' ".y.' ,. i --.,-- 1. , .:•hi,,. , 74 0 1c-ii o-, .,, co • J,- ,..._!. , , - I I i • 1`1•i`,...-1-'•;:'/ •.t.r.-.:.re,ir•i:Vir:r r.4.0..?;,.:" N-1- 4,--, ,, - /-' . "k ' 1 ‘- 1 . , , .%.1..:::(,...1,-.>-1,2..1.-4'.,../A44,450Al,.--1*/?,,•4--- ''--- ., • ( il 1 / 1 1 1.11,11 114,I.J I I I I N I ,__„' -,ss-L•-'-'7„,--'1-..131 ,0FrArt,1"05,4, •-. c",1\1, it • I I); 1 ' 1 i i 1 ' 1 ' / 27' -:*-- --.:)( I AlitW, )' '.:7 -'' irr / \ ' ^. \ : ii/1' • ' C . • e .--.---'.4- ';'''''-.V.2---';''''' / ' 1'''?,)„V'7-4 c•c-1,t,,, •-''',' ' '' '''''';', ''• , ' \ ', r• J'[1, ; 4 „5.`"- , --- r :..„--.....,- / ....., -.., - rr, .....-.,,, '.\'N, /, ‘, •• ,/••22.f:--2::7;.., 4•,,,‘, \ r •fl,rr. I,.., 0.; 1 .4-2-'' ..' ' 1 '' \ I' ••'''''. ''-' ''--r.-it---.7:_,.A•..-:' ---- .,-.•')...._:_\c ''7');J•'<' 4•21'4':'.:"[''6 \'IVAI'A%IV', ',' .rl ,'• 1,1,-/7, T\\'', ''.,\,,\ :•‘1,,. ! 1,0- ;[ Z , .411\•.24.,.•' .1 : / ...son.....:L---_,...,-4111110111...,s10 -•■:..,-./ ,....I.., __...:2‘. ..- :1-‘,..t.,... ,711•JI.,A, \Al 1.1A,r[■ • '". , ,:•', / r„.2•-•”:7,,s,.•,...,,"••••""r•Z:::::,?-.1-1/ [[[‘k I'-..• V- •■ '11 i — -,, t-■ ,si,--=',..,.4....-. ,., .••C . 01 I riiii ?...f.., 'N.,.--.-..-..41_-._.-: '-•• 11'115. -0.i.'...1...:. - /Ar\''.! ::..--4.1 ......, ......!..-".7 ■,,,.‘■1,.,C) 'ti::!.,!'i 1),r.,.;_•• 'c.',-2., ,..-- :-.•.....:)'.4.:....,. '1. ' t.. :`..1'1 . I.• '46 ....W.Z.V.Waillillitin .- .,., , _,-',/^! 'r • •-••••iF .-..‹....,..,<---„,-, ,ti,.„..._--- ..41/4.ii,it r,. 4. ■. ..,',.,f,..' i .". ■.4.4144r4==rir . I\I,..c-':-._-.--:..Z;://. l. . ii tr.':-."''''."?...'--- :--`...•Alara4.3.t.'-.:Ctrk.!"'-`1 j' 't) ‘.'. -,C. ' ''''. ',1,.1 Iltopv..-----,-,:: t*.i.....,=: -..i.--....411‘,- -,,,-----r,..igt. • N:-.,.,-,- -4,,,t,.._,c,,.. , ,,, •ip ' g•-44--z z-_—_'.1 ,`'.1.Y.• '7 --"irkild _:-.01,14116- ; '4), '--c„-'74,.;'it,-.1..:'•11'.raliggNUt•r:- ) -.... ,; .., •;:':,,,....;., ., '. S ..,... .., , i 4 15011111111r -"- '''' 'ZiOWCV6Plall St,V.Filk7. 7WL4;.s.t.7 . t tL...C.,.., \t-krei5.1•N\b\-\.9‘,...'7---------- .t,';-—--_L..4a 0 1 NI •* 4 .40 -• '''. . • •_,,o,2"--7'iiiir.• • .1.,,,,•scItel:I/A•w'rliiir-li.-".--14-i-41P16" .7'",."..k.,,,,54r 'c''.- H '4" Orc-741,1:,-, '. -- -"-7.age&Nttiii.V'N'illie." ' .a et'■:';-:':.=';','`, '..,'N.' r ''.V- '\ ..."'''':,`\\,"41k kW% : i---1 ‘ ,----- r.r . .. ------(.77 . 41...,Iwgirlit - ' .--- -=-N say------,..',--.., .0'.;\,,,, ..,. • , , o 1:. P. L'14--t.--- ,.... 'r,A.., ''S'%,,./,,44 -5'. -.4 ,„- •41"!45 . *1::'''.L\\11 I / ,., '42.2. ,. I, 40---,- ..*"-< ,• , - -...... • 7 . . . . .,:. ... ,. ,,, , .., Neb ,,- .............1 '. ' "''''''k'Y i -":, -)2 --.-- Is ao • f ! .\.)\ kea v 1 and A&It rid5 • P••:1,1-1 ■ E-1 ■.4 .• Tt LO Cf]. ,4,' ki-..-itAtr: -----v-- ' , - . ,:',: . ',-, , ..y 1, L. • ),i; .,,t'' / • ‘, .1,• ,, 40 .7. • , — ,:,_ .A, .,.4,,,,....,.. ...„,,,,,„.1 - ; ,i. (?) !„- _.• ., sl, , T =, rii) ,,,, ,,,,,,„, I ' 'L, 1. --, ' I Z ° '•=14 n,.,..,Nt„.w..-N-- • - , , / d , ,. , . e.f ; r ■ ..../"$, ., ' 1 • 1 ! C § 'afi • IiIii.'"7:-C:. '711 r4'" ,:.1.--r-f-4,'X --,.,:"7;'A ) ).}., / ,' rail 0+ /('' .4i' _1 ■ \ .e;I ., ,,, ., ,.--:_. .!..,. ,,..."-.). t 1,1 r.,,,..,,i;1,, F' • , --'' ---- ( , ,c,.. ._;:... , ,. ..._ ___,__,---, , J-7..., •„ 1 L I.‘' I ,' / I...4--/rr ----11.4-... ''''1(5f.... '1:'..--. 11 '111(1,.\1 r , '• k a s, , ..e. - • :1.4—}., . ---, r i 1 xt---:::...',■`.-4 1 ---, • i I s • I SCHEDU.CM G •_1.17r_._ .f..:Li . ....... ... 0•11.,,rf&4. Adirtii..DE HAAS *HEET A WALL STREET EXTENSION (PH: 1) •142 -.^.7 P.. .-...H--.-... — —.,.,- .— 411:7Lii A.....=.„ ...............ROAM%CCMC .04‘,4,-..ii STREET 8 UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS --r- -- \..\''.1*.•&„/ Ol'IT OF IMMO w*TLAND 1.11/1aAndarTKIC Alrlia,k71C+i PLAIJ• OF.34 E 7 _ I;.,;[, Ol.67.0.I II t Exhibit C • • .:, ,. ME. MORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Denver Igarta RE: Addendum to the Staff Report on SW Wall Street DATE: April 25, 2006 • After the staff report on the SW Wall Street extension was finalized and disseminated to members of the Planning Commission,the following factual errors were revealed. 1. Based on the application materials, the staff report indicates that the project proposes to extend SW Wall Street by 350 feet to the east of SW Hall Boulevard. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant's representative alerted staff that the length of the proposed roadway was misstated in the project summary of their application. SW Wall Street will actually extend 360 feet to the east of SW Hall Boulevard.The maps, technical materials and impact calculations submitted in the application were not effected by the error in the project summary. This mistake was addressed and clarification was made during the public hearing before the Planning Commission on April 3, 2006. 2. In multiple places within the staff report (pages 5, 11, 23, &25), the two existing Pinebrook Creek culverts planned for removal are classified as 24 inch pipe for a length of 170 feet. In actuality, the culverts include a 12 inch pipe for a length of 140 feet and an 18 inch pipe for a length of 10 feet. 3. The staff report addresses Metro' Regional Accessibility Policy, formerly Title 6 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. This Policy was supetcedeci by Metro's Regional Transportation Plan (RIP)when it was adopted in 2000.All of the requirements of Title 6 have been incorporated into Chapter 6 of the RIP. 4 Exhibit D • G R 0 ll P � ACKENZ1 El • • April 17,2006 City of Tigard . Attention:Denver Igarta 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223-8199 • Re: Wall St Project Number 2050046 rrl N Dear Denver: O gzci � M It is the project team's understanding that four letters have been submitted to date regarding o k the Wall Street Extension project(CPA 2004-0001/SLR 2004-00003/SLR 20 06-0000IfrRE 2006-00001 — 00009). These letters are from The Biodiversity Project of Tigard,John c Frewing,Leander Clifford,and Pamela Sigler. The letters identify similar areas of concern. As such, the following addresses the letters by grouping similar areas of concern and M E providing a response to each. 3 Land Use Application Process: Per the application narrative and the staff report, this al 0 3 application includes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove Goal 5 protection from the wetlands impacted by the roadway improvements, A Sensitive Lands Review is required for in • • impacts to the wetlands and drainageways and the proposed reconfiguration of the Pinebrook Creek and to approve the mitigation proposed for these impacts. Tree Removal permits are required for the removal of trees within the Sensitive Laud Area. The Comprehensive Plan •o Amendment is a Type III PC process, per Section 18.380.030 of the Code. As all of the applications have been submitted concurrently, the applications are elevated to the Type I so a o process. No Conditional Uses are requested with this application. Authorization from all property owners was obtained,and confirmed,as part of the submittal Group {_ process. Federal Insurance Administration notification will occur after the appropriate City Mackenzie. # ; approvals have been obtained. tacorporciod Archlteclvre ; € Wall St Phase Clarification:The land use applications define Phase I of Wall Street as the In Ceders • i extension from Hall Blvd to 360 ft to the east, As no other portion of Wall Street exists at this Land use Planning time,the Phase I title is appropriate. However,in regards to the City's Capital Improvement Group I Program, and the planned construction,the City's engineering department titled the signal • Mcrnicenzie ` improvements previously completed as Phase L As such,with the construction documents for £nginoering, this Wall St extension,it may be titled Phase lb and/or Phase H.Regardless,only 360 ft of Inc°Eporat°d Wall St is proposed at this time. Civil/58,.CIL•ral _ Engineer-mg Uansponati°n Sensitive Lands: Planning 18.385.040: This application includes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove the x°ca"°ae: Sensitive Lands designation from the wetlands and other sensitive lands within the road Poaland.Graven Seanle,Washinglen Vencmv o.WashIngren H:1 Pi2OdE.CrS12050046001WP\LTR406417City.doc • City of Tigard Wall St Project Number 2050046 April 17,2006 Page 2 alignment. With the approval of this application,the Wetland and Stream Corridor map will be modified. • I8.775.020C.2: Section 775.020 concerns the applicability of uses requiring a Sensitive Lands Permit. The roadway is not located within the floodplain; however the proposal includes placing limited fill,road improvements,and utilities within a wetland area and a natural drainageway. In addition, wetland mitigation, including creation and enhancement is located within the floodplain. Per subsection 020C.2,stream restoration and plantings are permitted within the floodplain. Regardless,a Sensitive Lands Permit has been requested and no exemptions have been claimed. • • 18.775.070B.7—This section requires the consideration of dedication of open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain that includes portions at a suitable elevation for pedestrian and bicycle pathways. Per the application and staff report,the project includes a segment of the Farina Creek Trail and the dedication of greenway. a. 100-year Floodplain: Construction of the proposed Phase 1 of the Wall Street extension does not involve grading in the 100-year floodplain for the proposed roadway.Excavation is proposed in the 100-year floodplain to conduct the wetland mitigation activities. These activities will not result in the placement of fill in the floodplain or any rise in the elevation of the 100-year flood. The comment regarding `Modify existing channel as per field E. engineering"refers to the fact that an SWCA biologist will be present in the field during the excavation of the new stream channel to connect Pinebrook Creek to Fanno Creek in order to minimize impacts to existing natural resources in the mitigation area, Wetland Assessment: Wetland delineations for the Wall Street extension project area were conducted by several consultants in 2002 and 2003. These wetland delineations were submitted to the Oregon Department of State Lands(DSL)for review and approval,and DSL issued concurrence letters for the wetland delineations within the project area.The calculation of proposed wetland impacts was based upon the DSL-approved wetland delineation maps. The photos taken by Ms.Beilke showing pending south of the East Pond are located outside the footprint of the Phase I road extension and show the vicinity of the proposed wetland mitigation area and associated Clean Water Services vegetated corridor.No loss of wetland is proposed in these areas. is Permit modifications have been received from the Corps and DSL for the currently proposed 360-foot length of Phase 1 of the Wall Street extension.The modified Corps permit was issued on March 8,2006,and the modified DSL permit was issued on February 8,2006. Clean Water Services: The project design was revised to meet Clean Water Services standards,and the project has been approved by Clean Water Services(CWS File No.4203). The Wall Street extension project as designed is not listed as an approved use by CWS,such as a road that crosses a vegetated corridor from one side to the other, as Ms. Beilke states. Therefore, the project was required to complete Clean Water Services' Tier 2 alternatives analysis review process which requires that the applicant demonstrate the project has been • • x 1PROJBUrsl2osoo46001m'\LTRa6a 17Ciity.dcc f ` City of Tigard Wall St • Project Number 2050046 April 17,2006 Page 3 designed to minimize vegetated corridor impacts and that the project will result in a public benefit resulting from the encroachment into the vegetated corridor, • • The Wall Street extension project design was revised to include a retaining wall along the downstream edge of the Fanno Pointe access Mr. Frewing states. This revision included a retaining wall, which keeps the road construction out of the 100 year flood plain and minimizes vegetated corridor impacts by utilizing a retaining wall along the downstream edge of the Fannin Pointe access as Mr.Brewing states. In addition,a curb-tight sidewalk design was utilized to eliminate the planting strip on the south side of Wall Street from Station 11+25 to Station 14+75,where the proposed roadway is in close proximity to the West Pond and the proposed location for the reconfigured Pinebrook Creek The curb tight sidewalk design resulted in a decrease in proposed vegetated corridor impact of 1,472 square feet. Pinebrook Creek Vegetated Corridor Encroachment: Clean Water Services allows encroachments into the vegetated corridor for up to 20%of the frontage length by 20%of the vegetated corridor width under their vegetated corridor averaging process.Since the proposed Wall Street extension encroaches further than the vegetated corridor averaging process allows, the applicant was required to complete Clean Water Services' Tier 2 alternatives analysis review process. The project has been approved by Clean Water Services (CWS File No. 4203). Pinebrook Creek Culvert—The upstream contribution used hi hydraulic calculations for sizing the Pinebrook culvert was based upon full build-out per the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations. Accordingly,the flow calculations are not upset by development that has occurred since 2003. • Endangered Species—The red-legged frog and great blue heron are not federally listed under the Endangered Species Act.The red-legged frog is categorized as a federal Species of Concern. Neither the red-legged frog or the great blue heron are provided with protection under the Endangered Species Act.It is possible that bald eagle may fly over the project site due to the site's proximity to the Tualatin River,however,Fanno Creek and Pinebrook Creek in the project area are not large enough water resources to provide habitat for the bald eagle. The bald eagle is a threatened species,not an endangered species. Tree Removal— Trees proposed for removal include the minimum amount necessary. It should be noted that while all the trees proposed for removal are listed in the application,a Tree Removal permit is only required for the nine trees within the Sensitive Land Area. In addition,as mitigation for the trees removed,the project include the planting of 336 caliper is inches of trees,which is 369%of the required mitigation of 91 inches. • Removal of the 2 deodora cedars is necessary to conduct the wetland mitigation activities including relocating Pinebrook Creek and creating stream-associated wetlands.The wetland buffer adjacent to the relocated Pinebrook Creek and wetlands will be planted with hundreds of native trees and shrubs as part of the mitigation plan. H.IPROJECTS120500460 \WP L R O64I7City.doc City of Tigard • Wail St Project Number 2050046 April 17,2006 Page 4 Impact Study—The impact study and ESEE analysis considered nine alternative alignments for Wall Street and evaluated the elements required by the City code, See Exhibit 6 and 7. Traffic Analysis and Impacts—The DKS traffic study was reviewed and found acceptable • by the City of Tigard Engineering Department. Fire Truck Access—As shown on the plans,fire truck access to the Library and to the Fanno Pointe Condominiums will be via Wall St;direct access from Hall Blvd to either development will be removed. The Wall Street fire access has been reviewed by the City's Fire Marshall and has been found to meet access standards and be acceptable to the City. The above information addresses the items raised in the letters. If you have any questions or concerns,or need additional information,please call me at 503-224-9560. Sincerely, Geraldene Moyle,AICP Senior Associate,Land Use Planning /wp C: Vannie Ngyuen—City of Tigard Marline DeHaas—DeHaas Engiineeering Stacy Benjamin—SWCA • • • H:1 PROHHcrS12,050046o0\wpv..TR\O6417Cfty.arc • 2050O.i(, IMPORTANT NOTICE DEAR APPLICANT: YOUR RENEWED PERMIT MAY CONTAIN SOME UPDATED PERMIT CONDITIONS. PLEASE READ YOUR PERMIT CONDITIONS CAREFULLY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE FIELD OPERATIONS SECTION AT 503-378-3805. Department of State Lands Permit No.: 31719-RF Renewal 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 Permit Type: Removal-Fill Salem, OR 97301-1279 Waterway: Wetland I Pinebrook Cr. c 503-378-3805 County: Washington Expiration Date: January 27, 2008 Corps No.: 2003-00137 CITY OF TIGARD IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORS 196.800 TO 196.990 TO PERFORM THE OPERATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED COPY OF THE APPLICATION, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS LISTED ON ATTACHMENT A AND TO THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This permit does not authorize trespass on the lands of others. The permit holder shall obtain all necessary access permits or rights-of-way before entering lands owned by another. 2. This permit does not authorize any work that is not in compliance with local zoning or other local, state, or federal regulation pertaining to the operations authorized by this permit. The permit holder is responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals and permits before proceeding under this permit. 3. All work done under this permit must comply with Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340; Standards of Quality for Public Waters of Oregon. Specific water quality provisions for this project are set forth on Attachment A. 4. Violations of the terms and conditions of this permit are subject to administrative and/or legal action which may result in revocation of the permit or damages. The permit holder is responsible for the activities of all contractors or other operators involved in work done at the site or under this permit. 5. A copy of the permit shall be available at the work site whenever operations authorized by the permit are being conducted. 6. Employees of the Department of State Lands and all duly authorized representatives of the Director shall be permitted access to the project area at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting work performed under this permit. 7. Any permit holder who objects to the conditions of this permit may request a hearing from the Director, in writing, within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date this permit was issued. 8. In issuing this permit, the Department of State Lands makes no representation regarding the quality or adequacy of the permitted project design, materials, construction, or maintenance, except to approve the project's design and materials, as set forth in the permit application, as satisfying the resource protection, scenic, safety, recreation, and public access requirements of ORS Chapters 196, 390 and related administrative rules. 9. Permittee shall defend and hold harmless the State of Oregon, and its officers, agents, and employees from any claim, suit, or action for property damage or personal injury or death arising out of the design, material, construction, or maintenance of the permitted improvements. NOTICE: If removal is from state-owned submerged and submersible land, the applicant must comply with leasing and royalty provisions of ORS 274.530. If the project involves creation of new lands by filling on state-owned submerged or submersible lands, you must comply with ORS 274.905 - 274.940. This permit does not relieve the permittee of an obligation to secure appropriate leases from the Department of State Lands, to conduct activities on state-owned submerged or submersible lands. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in civil or criminal liability. For more information about these requirements, please contact the Department of State Lands, 503-378-3805. Michael Morales, W Region Manager 'etlands & Waterways Conservatidn iv- � qon Department of State Lands / lr 4: .7; 4(z-/ _January 9, 2007 -Authorized Signature Date Issued ATTACHMENT A Permittee: City of Tigard Special Conditions for Removal/Fill Permit No. 31719-RF. PLEASE READ AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH CONDITIONS OF YOUR PERMIT. This project may be site inspected by the Department of State Lands as part of our monitoring program. The Department has the right to stop or modify the project at any time if you are not in compliance with these conditions. A copy of this permit shall be available at the work site whenever authorized operations are being conducted, 1. This permit authorizes the placement of up to 2949 cubic yards of gravel and native soil in T2S, R1 W, Sections 1 and 2, Tax Lots 2S101 800, 1100, 1200, 1201, 1202, and 2S102DD 100, 200, 300, 9000 in Pinebrook Creek and wetlands, Tigard, Washington County, as outlined in the attached permit application, map and drawings, received April 2, 2004 and as modified in correspondence and revised application dated November 28, 2005. 2. This permit also authorizes removal and fill activities necessary to complete the required compensatory mitigation. 3. In stream fill or removal activities in the permit area shall be conducted between July 1 and September 30, unless otherwise coordinated with ODEW and approved in writing by ODSL. 4. Prior to any site grading, the surveyed boundaries of the wetland mitigation area and the avoided wetlands shall be surrounded by bright orange construction fencing at all times during construction of the project. There shall be no heavy equipment in this area except during mitigation construction. 5. No removal of vegetation or heavy equipment operating or traversing shall occur outside the designated construction footprint. 6. If any archaeological resources and/or artifacts are uncovered during excavation, all construction activity shall immediately cease. The State Historic Preservation Office shall be contacted (phone: 503-378-4168). 7. During trenching or excavation, the top layer of soil shall be separated from the rest of the excavated material and put back on top when the trench or pit is back-filled. if the native underlying soils are not used as bedding material, and a coarser, non-native soil or other material is used, preventative measures such as clay or concrete plugs shall be used so that underground hydraulic piping does not occur and dewater the site and adjacent wetlands. Attachment A State Application No. 31719-RF Page 3 of 6 8. All temporarily disturbed areas shall be returned to original ground contours at project completion. 9. TURBIDITY/EROSION CONTROLS. The authorized work shall not cause turbidity of affected waters to exceed 10% over natural background turbidity 100 feet downstream of the fill point, For projects proposed in areas with no discernible gradient break (gradient of 2% or less), monitoring shall take place at 4 hour intervals and the turbidity standard may be exceeded for a maximum of one monitoring intervals per 24 hour work period provided all practicable control measures have been implemented. This turbidity standard exceedance intervals applies only to coastal lowlands and floodplains, valley bottoms and other low-lying and/or relatively flat land. For projects in all other areas, the turbidity standard can be exceeded for a maximum of 2 hours (limited duration) provided all practicable erosion control measures have been implemented. These projects may also be subject to additional reporting requirements. Turbidity shall be monitored during active in-water work periods. Monitoring points shall be at an undisturbed site (representative background) 100 feet upstream from the turbidity causing activity (i.e., fill or discharge point), 100 feet downstream from the fill point, and at the point of fill. A turbidimeter is recommended, however, visual gauging is acceptable. Turbidity that is visible over background is considered an exceedance of the standard. Practicable erosion control measures which shall be implemented, as appropriate, include but are not limited to the following: a) All exposed soils shall be stabilized during and after construction in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation. b) Waste materials and spoils shall be placed in an upland location and shall be suitably stabilized to prevent erosion. c) Place fill in the water using methods that avoid disturbance to the maximum practicable extent (e.g. placing fill with a machine rather than end-dumping from a truck). d) Prevent all construction materials and debris from entering waterway; e) Use filter bags, sediment fences, sediment traps or catch basins, silt curtains, leave strips or berms, Jersey barriers, sand bags, or other measures sufficient to prevent movement of soil; f) Use impervious materials to cover stockpiles when unattended or during rain event; - g) Erosion control measures shall be inspected and maintained daily to ensure their continued effectiveness; h) Use a gravel staging area and construction access; Attachment A State Application No. 31719-RF Page 4 of 6 i) Fence off planted areas to protect from disturbance and/or erosion; and j) Flag or fence off wetlands adjacent to the construction area. Erosion control measures shall be maintained as necessary to ensure their continued effectiveness, until soils become stabilized. All erosion control structures shall be removed when project is complete and soils are stabilized and vegetated. 10.HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND WASTE MATERIALS. Petroleum products, chemicals, fresh cement, sandblasted material, and chipped paint or other deleterious waste materials shall not be allowed to enter waters of the state. No wood treated with leach able preservatives shall be placed in the waterway. Machinery refueling is to occur off-site or in a confined designated area to prevent spillage into waters of the state. Project-related spills into water of the state or onto land with a potential to enter waters of the state shall be reported to the Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS) at 1- 800-452-0311. 11.Culverts shall meet Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements for fish passage. 12.Issuance of this permit is contingent upon acquisition of the required permits and approvals from the City of Tigard. 13.When listed species are present, the authorization holder must comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act. If previously unknown listed species are encountered during the project, the authorization holder shall contact the appropriate agency as soon as possible. 14.The permit holder shall notify the Department in writing of any operating conditions imposed by other required permits that would be inconsistent with the approved plan of operation. The Department will review these requirements and, if appropriate to ensure compliance with state regulations, require modification of the approved work plan and/or revise the conditions of this permit. 15.The permittee is responsible for carrying-out the terms and conditions of this permit unless the permit is transferred to another party as approved by the Department. 16.The Department of State Lands retains the authority to temporarily halt or modify the project in case of unforeseen damage to natural resources. Attachment A State Application No. 31719-RF Page 5 of 6 MITIGATION 17.0n-site compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable loss of 0.30 acres, being 0.25 acres of palustrine emergent and palustrine scrub/shrub (riverine impounding), 0.04 acres of palustrine open water (riverine impounding), and 0.01 acres of palustrine emergent (riverine impounding) wetlands, shall consist of wetland mitigation of a total of 0.08 acres creation of palustrine emergent (riverine impounding), 0.29 acres enhancement palustrine forested and palustrine scrub/shrub (riverine impounding) and 0.09 acres enhancement palustrine emergent (riverine impounding), and 0.20 acres of restoration of palustrine forested and palustrine scrub/ shrub (riverine impounding). 18.Mitigation shall be completed prior to or concurrent with the completion of the wetland fill project. 19.The mitigation site shall be constructed in accordance with the mitigation plan included with the revised permit application received November 28, 2005. MONITORING 20.The permittee shall monitor the mitigation site to determine success for a minimum period of 5 years. The annual monitoring report is due by November 30 of each year and shall include the following information: • Permit number • Permittee's name • Project name • Impact and mitigation site location maps) • A brief narrative that describes maintenance activities and recommendations to meet success criteria. • Documentation that the success criteria listed in condition(s) is being met. • Photos from fixed photo points. • Other information necessary or required to document compliance with mitigation plan. 21.The monitoring period will start when the permittee has demonstrated that hydrology has been established and initial plantings have been accomplished. Failure to submit a monitoring report at the above date may result in an extension of the monitoring period, and/or enforcement action. Attachment A State Application No. 31719-RF Page 6 of 6 22.Hydrology will be monitored during the early growing season then annually for the first two years, and determined adequate for the proposed mitigation plant community. if hydrology is determined to be inadequate, adjustments in grading will be done to improve hydrology. 23.An as-built survey shall be provided to the Department of State Lands within 60 days of mitigation site grading. SUCCESS CRITERIA To be deemed successful, the mitigation areas including buffers shall meet the following success criteria. 24.A minimum of 0.57 acres of wetlands, being 0.08 acres of creation, 0.29 acres of enhancement, and of 0.20 acres of restoration, shall meet the hydrology criteria specified in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. 25.There shall be 80% survival of planted trees and shrubs for the duration of the monitoring period. 26.There shall be 30% cover of planted and native recruits of herbaceous species after the first year of planting, 60% after the third year, and 80% after the fifth year. 27.There shall be no more than 20% cover of non-native species. (Reed canary grass, purple loosestrife, blackberry, etc). 28.The Department retains the authority to extend the mitigation-monitoring period and require corrective action in the event the success criteria are not accomplished for two consecutive years within the monitoring period. 29.The mitigation site shall be protected in perpetuity by recording deed restrictions approved by the Department. There shall be no wetland impacts until the approved Deed Restrictions are recorded with Washington County and a copy has been sent to the Department. Renewed: January 9, 2007 G:\WWC1AttachmentAwestLAS\RF Removal Fill Pormits131719-RF 07.doc (7su-Dtb-Al Environmental $ r Vices 4C#4 NW Sixth Ave7nu,,Suilo 304 •• Porilord,Oregon 9809 A 0 I V4$IO b f- Tol 503,2'24.03:33 Fax 0 3. 24.1 t351 C -� M www.sm.o.cYS U SWCA 2 pt ''�` CNVrR06FM TM CC)AI%JIT.W1S November 23, 2005 GRO1Jfc.' { lvzj, Louise Bos Kathryn Harris Washington County Resource Coordinator Washington County Permit Evaluator Oregon Department of State Lands U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 P.O. Box 2946 Salem, Oregon 97301-1279 Portland, Oregon 97208-2946 SUBJECT: City of Tigard Wall Street Project; DSL#31719-RF; Corps#200300137 Request for Modified Wetland Permit Dear Louise & Kathryn, Please find enclosed a revised wetland permit application for the City of Tigard's proposed Wall Street project. The DSL and Corps wetland permits are valid until January 27, 2007 and September 30, 2007, respectively. Construction of Phase 1 of the project is anticipated to begin in 2006. Phase 1 of the project was recently redesigned to meet the local planning requirements of the City of Tigard. The redesign of Phase 1 involves reducing the length of roadway from 425 feet to 360 feet and shifting the library access and Fanno Pointe Condominiums access to the west' to avoid development within the 100-year floodplain. The length of Phase 2 has been correspondingly increased by 65 feet at its western extent. The overall length of the proposed project is unchanged from the previously permitted design. The redesigned Phase 1 includes a retaining wall along the eastern edge of the Fanno Pointe Condominiums access to minimize the amount of wetland impact. Previously permitted wetland impacts were 0.25 acre for Phase 1 and 0.09 acre for Phase 2, for a total project impact of 0,34 acre. As a result of the redesign of Phase 1, proposed wetland impacts for Phase 1 are 0.11 acre and for Phase 2 are 0.19 acre. The total proposed wetland impact for the project has been reduced to 0.30 acre. Revised project drawings are included with the revised permit application. Due to the redesign of Phase 1 of the project, the wetland mitigation area has been revised slightly, and a revised wetland mitigation plan is enclosed. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience to discuss the project, Sincerely, Sc c . . . Stacy N. Benjamin . Senior Wetland Ecologist c: Vannie Nguyen, City of Tigard Marlin DeHaas, DeHaas &Associates Geraldene Moyle, Group Mackenzie Hs : • OF O Joint v:„ :«0 4 Permit Application Form � :.. - S Army Corps `� ``� }�4i:Z .if Engineers THIS APPLICATION WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH AGENCIES $ e Portland District AGENCIES WILL ASSIGN NUMBERS Corps Action ID Number Oregon Division of State Lands No. SEND ONE SIGNED COPY OF YOUR APPLICATION TO EACH AGENCY District Engineer State of Oregon ATTN: CENWP-CO-GP Division of State Lands PO Box 2946 775 Summer Street NE Portland,OR 97208-2946 Salem,OR 97301-1279 503-808-4373 503-378-3805 1 O Applicant Name Vannie Nguyen,P.E. Engineering Manger Business Phone#(503)639-4171 and Address City of Tigard Home Phone# 13125 SW Hall Blvd. FAX#(503)624-0752 Tigard, Oregon 97223 OCo-Applicant Stacy Benjamin Business Phone#(503)224-0333 'Authorized Agent SWCA Environmental Consultants Horne Phone# OContractor 434.NW Oh Avenue, Suite 304 FAX# (503)224-1851 Name and Address Portland, Oregon 97209 Property Owner See Attachment A Business Phone# 1 (if different than applicant) Home Phone# Name and Address FAX# , • PROJECT LOCATION _-ire et,Road or other descriptive location Legal Description Proposed Wall Street extension extends northeast Quarter Section Township Range from SW Hall Boulevard to SW Hunziker Street 1 &2 2S 1W In or Near(City or Town) County Tax Map# Tax Lot# 2S101 800, 1100, 1200, 1201, 1202 Tigard Washington 2S102DD 100,200,300,90000 Waterway River Mile Latitude Longitude Pinebrook Creek&wetlands 45°25' 17"N 122°45' 51"W(at Hall Blvd.) At approximately river mile 3 of Fanno Creek 45°25' 39"N 122°45' 23"W(at Hunziker St.) Is consent to enter property granted by the Corps and the Division of State Lands? • Yes 0 No 0 PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION - Activity Type: •Fill I Excavation(removal) 0 In-Water Structure 0 Maintain/Repair an Existing Structure Brief Description: Construction of the Wall Street extension to connect SW Hall Blvd.with SW Hunziker Street Fill will involve cubic yards annually and/or^ cubic yards for the total project 1,647(Phase 1)+ 1,302(Phase 2)=2,949 cubic yards in wetlands or below the ordinary high Water or high tide line. 1 Fill will be 0 Riprap ()Rock •Gravel 0 Sand 0 Silt 0 Clay 0 Organics •Other •native soil,asphalt,concrete Fill Impact Area is 0.11 (Phase 1)+0.19(Phase 2)=0.30 Acres; length; width; depth Removal will involve cubic yards annually and/or cubic yards for the total project. _ 299(to construct wetland mitigation) cubic yards in wetlands or below the ordinary high water or high tide line. Removal will be 0 Riprap 0 Rock 0 Gravel 0 Sand 0 Silt 0 Clay 0 Organics •Other native soil Removal Impact Area is 0.28(to construct wetland mitigation) Acres; .length width; depth " the disposal area: Upland? •Yes 0 No Wetland/Waterway? 0 Yes •No .ire you aware of any Endangered Species on the project site? 0 Yes •No If yes,please explain in the project Are you aware of any Cultural Resources on the project site? 0 Yes •No description (on page 2,block 4) Is the project site near a Wild and Scenic River 0 Yes •No See Attachment B,page 5 ® PROPOSED PROJECT PURPOSE & DESCRIPTION Project Purpose and Need: ,gee Attachment B Project Description: See Attachment B How many project drawing sheets are included with this application? 13 NOTE: A complete application must include drawings and a location map submitted on separate 81/2 X 11 sheets, Will any material, construction debris,runoff, etc. enter a wetland or waterway? •Yes 0 No (see Attachment B) If yes,describe the type of discharge(above)and show the discharge location on the site plan. Estimated Start Date*: Spring 2006(Phase 1) Estimated Completion Date: Fall 2006 (Phase 1) *A construction schedule has not been determined for Phase 2. © PROJECT IMPACTS AND ALTERNATIVES Describe alternative sites and project designs that were considered to avoid impacts to the waterway or wetland. The applicant is requesting a modified wetland permit. Wetland impacts have been reduced below the previously permitted amount of impact.Phase 1 of the project was recently redesigned to meet the local planning requirements of the City of Tigard. The redesign of Phase 1 involves reducing the length of roadway from 425 feet to 360 feet and shifting the library access and Fanno Pointe Condominiums access to the west to avoid development within the 100-year floodplain.The length of Phase 2 has been correspondingly increased by 65 feet at its western extent.The overall length of the proposed project is unchanged from the previously permitted design.The redesigned Phase 1 includes a retaining wall along the eastern edge of the ,anno Pointe Condominiums access to minimize the amount of wetland impact.Previously permitted wetland impacts were 0,25 acre for Phase 1 and 0.09 acre for Phase 2,for a total project impact of 0.34 acre,As a result of the redesign of Phase 1, proposed wetland impacts for Phase 1 are 0.11 acre and for Phase 2 are 0.19 acre.The total proposed wetland impact for the project has been reduced to 0.30 acre. Describe what measures you will use(before and after construction) to minimize impacts to the waterway or wetland. A grading and erosion control plan will be developed prior to the start of construction to minimize sedimentation into Pinebrook and Fanno Creeks and associated wetlands in order to protect downstream water quality during project construction. The erosion control plan will meet Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards and will include the placement of silt fencing at down gradient locations adjacent to the disturbance area and at additional intervals as needed in areas of grading and silt sacks at storm drains in the project site. are surfaces, not being actively worked,will be seeded, mulched or paved as quickly as possible. Erosion and sediment control measures will be maintained for the duration of construction and until vegetation cover is-established. NOTE: if necessary,use additional Sheets. © ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Adjoining Property Owners and Their Address and Phone Numbers Submitted with previous wetland permit application Has the proposed activity or any related activity received the attention of the Corps of Engineers or the State of Oregon in the past,e.g., wetland delineation, violation, permit, lease request, etc.? •Yes 0 No If yes,what identification number(s)were assigned by the respective agencies: Corps# 200300137 State of Oregon# 31719-RE • 03 10.: 37 FAX 503224/851 FISH FAX • 1004 t. rt._ . 1.,tnty Tanning Department Affidavit (to be completed by local planning official) • .'T,;..-.., •I roieof is not regulated by the local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. _ a..5 "1'f r•. project has been reviewed and is consistent with the local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. ') rt,i!,project has been reviewed and is not consistent with the local comprehensive plan and zone ordinance. • . { #�,, .. „ Astcncy of this project with the local planning ordinance cannot be determined until the following local approval(s) :.,,=.E,:rota I fled:. Q! Conditional Use Approval 0 Development Permit RFr ni, ,, Plan Amendment 0 Zone Change DEC Other 7'yr4...0 flies ,S OPrR't . 2.'E.V ■CV) "/ it fl Ji C •;, • ,has not been r ade for local approvals checked above. i / Ali. 'Ai f i ,„,,,,,,,rt,.r+k'Ec�>tmal planning official/. Title City Date COASTAL ZONE CERTIFICATION ,...,•,-, ,1 activity described in your permit application is within the Oregon coastal zone,the following certification is required before °0c,1r�at.a ti can be processed. A public notice will be issued with the certification statement which will be forwarded to the Oregon i ic,,= ,.•=tr i 11'1�,ind Conservaltion and Development for its concurrence or objection. For additional information on the Oregon Coastal Zone OV`4*rrnt` Program,contact the department at 1175 Court Street NE,Salem,Oregon.97310 or call 503-373-0050. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT ^1,,.,E. r,r the best of my knowledge and belief,the proposed activity described in this application complies with the approved Oregon ,'r:,z1;, 'Management Program and will be completed in a manner consistent with theprogram. `' ` ,•;_4•:' \:aiti «, Title • i,. ,.;H•t gratin• ._,w._. . . Date • ,�•. ,•.I...0 SIGNATURE URE FUR JOINT APPLICATION rr:«91 C, hereby made for the activities described herein. I certify that I am farnitiar with the information contained in the application, ,:s. 'H,r t 0 f my knowledge and belief,this information is true,complete,and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to ;,;: r ,• y{. t„c,posed activities, I understand that the granting of other permits by local,county,stale or federal agencies does not release me . .. :,-,i; •rr,f teat of obtaining the permits requested before commencing the project. I understand that payment of the required state •• . ",.,-.: r•.,•.•does not guarantee permit issuance. _ i. ,r, .5, •,f P.E. Engineer ng.Manage�City of Tigard ”: vrP. carne Title . e.__ '"L/ Ce 1C, _3 . ,,,,;,1tsc;a=,t signature �: 1 Date i v <.ta ,' l may act as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. ..k =;qtr ; :t,,zr _..._..._..-..--=,..—__—._. _..._ _ .-_. Wetland Ecologist,Fishman Environmental Services,LL i !.-iv 'Name Title .. .,0,..1 r1.gt'nt Si attire Date . 1 SUPPLEMENTAL WETLAND IMPACT INFORMATION (For Wetland Fills Only) Site Conditions of impact area • impact area is 0 Ocean 0 Estuary 0 River 0 Lake • Stream •Freshwater Wetlands Note: Estuarian Resource Replacement is required by state law for projects involving intertidal or tidal marsh alterations. A separate Wetlands Resource Compensation Plan may be appended to the application. Has a wetland delineation been completed for this site? • Yes 0 No Three separate wetland delineations were conducted by different consultants in the proposed Wall Street project and mitigation areas.A wetland delineation report was prepared for the Tigard library site by Kurahashi&Associates in June 2002 (DSL WD# 2002-0324;DSL concurrence letter dated October 8, 2002).The study area for the library delineation included the proposed library site as well as the Wall Street right-of-way extending from Hall Boulevard to the west side of Fanno Creek.A wetland delineation report for the proposed Wall Street right-of-way extending from the west side of Fanno Creek to the east side of the railroad tracks was prepared by Pacific Habitat Services in September 2003 (DSL WD#2003-0599;DSL concurrence letter . dated March 15,2004).A wetland delineation report for the adjacent Fanno Pointe Condominiums site to the south,where a portion of the Wall Street right-of-way is located and where partial wetland mitigation is proposed to occur,was prepared by Rhea Environmental Consultants in August 2002(DSL WO#2003-0024;DSL concurrence letter dated June 2,2003). All delineated streams and wetlands are shown on the existing conditions drawings(Sheets 2a and 2b) included with this application. Describe the existing physical and biological character of the wetland/waterway site by area and type of resource. (use separate sheets and photos,if necessary). Fanno Creek, Pinebrook Creek(tributary to Fanno Creek), associated wetlands, and two man-made on-line ponds are located in the project area. The stream banks along Fanno Creek are approximately 8 feet high, steeply sloped, and covered with sense Himalayan blackberry in much of the project site. The riparian corridor along Fanno Creek contains Oregon ash, red ' alder, ornamental hawthorn,Himalayan blackberry, rose, Pacific ninebark and willow. Hydrology and water quality of Fanno Creek have been adversely affected in this reach due to past development, straightening and shortening of the stream . channel resulting in scour and stream bank erosion, and alteration of the confluences of Pinebrook Creek and Red Rock Creek with Fanno Creek due to sewer construction and construction of on-line ponds,Pinebrook Creek has also been extensively modified from its historic condition, and wetlands associated with Pinebrook Creek are dominated by invasive and noxious species including reed canarygrass,bittersweet nightshade,Himalayan blackberry and purple loosestrife. Existing site conditions are described in more detail in Attachment C. Resource Replacement Mitigation Describe measures to be taken to replace unavoidably impacted wetland resources. Proposed stream and wetland mitigation to compensate for 0.30 acre of proposed wetland fill consists of a combination of stream channel and wetland creation(0.08 acre; 0.053 acre mitigation credit at 1.5:1);wetland enhancement(0.29 acre; 0.097 acre mitigation credit),and wetland restoration(0.20 acre; 0.20 acre mitigation credit at 1:1). Due to the redesign of Phase 1 of the project,the wetland mitigation plan has been revised slightly. The revised wetland mitigation areas are shown on Sheet 10 of the wetland permit application. The wetland mitigation data form,is included in Attachment D.The revised wetland mitigation plan is included in Attachment E. • City of Tigard Wall Street Extension—Permit Modification, November 2005 Joint Permit Application List of Figures & Attachments FIGURES Sheet 1. Site Location Map Sheets 2a& 2b. Existing Conditions Sheets 3a & 3b. Proposed Wall Street Site Plan Sheets 4a&.4b. Proposed Wetland Impacts Sheet 5. Wall Street Typical Section Sheets 6a—6£ Wall Street Plan and Profile Views Sheet 7, Bridge Plan & Elevation Views Sheet 8. Bridge Typical Deck Section & Wingwall Detail Sheet 9. Stormwater Quality Facility Plan and Profile Views Sheet 10. Wetland Mitigation Plan Sheet 11. Proposed Wetland Impact Area Cross-Sections Sheet 12. Fanno Pointe Access Road Culvert Location Sheet 13. Fanno Pointe Access Road Culvert Design ATTACHMENTS Attachment A, Property Owners Attachment B. Project Purpose & Description Attachment C. Physical and Biological Character of the Wetland/Waterway Site Attachment D. Wetland Mitigation Data Form Attachment E. Wetland Mitigation Plan • -r II[NGT} gQ SW LACUST S7 r a_ _- Al:i; EAf:' Y °.� {� gi i0 MKT us < a Duo `•'45.1. .YF' i� 'v� r .. e !.E-X-_ - S � • b s ( [� 5T �`'-' P b m 35Y 4' > r; cp $w p _..� - r •1 rVl .$'S { sX S 0 •:' ;s _1..__.. .1_OAK- ._4.-1 ST r-_'tom } - I+ .'et• a 3 4 L�' n•x�1 111 ,g e, a x 9� •—! ' yip Ag�_. N•F" .o` �a�,„'�,p✓'�tC � „�. ' .,J _SW - __I ._A__PINE bD �}� > PC i/ 6;,._ .” Y. nr.°c 4 + SW +y (1� tk' •./� q N y_8000 754Q TODD 'f� y Fs K4 ,-` ,.',. .StIA Y �.%� I? SW SP'LICE� S. ,-per' c, a•• a on. IR a' ".CT R $14 7HDRH __- : 1� y���i c• . I ; P147`.' OT 1 4Aat - ' TIT IT '.'I 9, W 1'H.' 15 X44 . a Mr i ,. r . r t r d �,. jjI!; i .0, ' 'SW pF':F.Lg' �' .PUrK r Sr T •Rn• 8°, PlOE AT ' • sr}• I SW MINES ; • 0'. a •'c 11300 o MIS IIr''Q7 t ���, r. 6 .. ' sx. _ T,r �� •• •• •• sW :..y � _000 HE .4T •• $r v+T lif 1V__ TfST EL cP l�� ��. .' . � a SW .CLI►l1't� � , . S 4/2 SxxA ILRINE;�ST_ Z,gl. t� ..46.}, 1'!II. ' --- r .fark.; k. .rE,7i I ` ,-@�. lie` _ 4 E /' .D a. Pf� �L• i .,u,,::**-41111. .��r�=�� ee!sr �+r � �C-.':.'g'"-]iS � � tit _WPOCL4'i � i"° �, . e� ; Py �r�y'�„� �.1 sr N n .h MID 3 ciroesOµE :GK �`L �� �. c . i arr e PL 5 ST Cp S T E 10.0 ST Ai N-T S '` :.Q3D j e �t4. $1J.NE 7000 I n )r 10'11 r ar ..0:°: �. W4OS0 WY ST W'" _EkI20l :le ^r'i'. 4'�,'R• S �' ,EVE i KLIN ' T ' ° 12 ,,,op. c•1/4 4 .. sj "mtrai s✓` y'v�%r U 2D0 ~ SW SOOT} a a ; �► ' / : off _ I]Ra•1g 'T inns' Sw A._ ~._.' 40 *Q2494 '°Tp .I`r t.ES `_ C"'� ..SW S7 0,114G24 i " ' 4p �a' �.•t Et,p g ��' t Si NA7; 4 0 Sr :' T I, : �, . r:In ,7 PT 1A ST ; ;N E n 4 ctis` ,2 G AL .` '+ i5._y!.. fS ....sr. .` Oo0 o-. ' tA,;( . 'Q4 IaDRGErI y. a m i ar„ .R...,',;...,_ � r' ` ct r n L . i,_ �Fa cnra`. +,b :5 ..._E ( 3`= �— 1 "7' ., -"• .° " GT �, s c Cy.. T - ... f- .,6' Y EI `� ... ,.r fir. ::M,Sz IP•.�, 4 .t t�0' .PARK Sr <Tra� n ',,, c', Q .F%' ' SPf VARNS -- r• N,•4r t Sx sw 10400 ) ,' : ; �i r:•0. rl•� r�l COOK ,R +,..1" D4S`Tf' E. , ,•R ' • h'. $N 1.. � '� -A ' ,a 4- - 1 jr �A g ` 'd y «�"F 1PotAY rim-Fla I-0 • fi ,, Q 5T G 5X >7 ~A i , ...c 'P 9500___._._ , 1. .- 1. 1 t.:4 d'�> r'3 SW `• '�� P o r`a 4.,f G .� FAtPo1AV.H �' rraut� _ ' }.. I ar ' r°m �;4 �� P a Po .s1' . SW fIENBY.OR c,.,,,,' oaukG :° - ?, CT _h sW IitLLVIEw sr ' , •e SW sT �� j -4 ., fit ' 7.•} <j• Otti'EW �i' rTEeft 1-NTf R LEI' '' m l; sue•, sa ,l .. y - ' �v;.- ., F.�L�,..,"CP W ' '%h' [T 4R ;e , - �rll. •� � a—D4b4 W.4,..: r a e rr.�m, s. in 3 "% IPi i'�1 usaa •' - 'j t.me�' au- . F�J',-, ' 24 si Sr ail LIt475E . eft. _ . o.', i Ewebrar M Cr oa, atx a kW Sk`•fkpp 1, ',.• ', 1 k -' '' ff 1 N51• !-Eauo "r �ay t at es v_MI tx ¢ • t t`•SCE {n ,y ., sx war TER- ' 1 7 ':- '..-. •7F •.E , . !.a,I °: ., r,jr - w • x° Hp...4w R y IkE2 P4'IXf2 l' I.liet ^s� , ca S % ' (., Rrsr• C'-•. r o.4 1r TM, .71.,r• , SW BC 111 wal a SW = rr a MICI '�P�rEB,rr, m, ' k r, 7rrr _ ):.,' 6040•nn 5W y FTJROOCK 8 . y .,Fl' '4 7 r° d Is.'s - -=-c ` L . �u el a rrtMfPIWEOarI< • r� r s ';a a L '�'C ARP ', I Ski CRAM CO. t G5 ,'�Zr, M[:}. ^ '{' c, • "aNf1•Yx ,- ]7I XEIOL CT F r4.ell. 3,F ST „r8 yt 5'�'B I" °n 41CC� # alr.y ` ' 3X., .r SW LESLIE CT SW PEIE�4 ',k-ST"`I Lk'''. , 1' C _ ^ Sw 0.1 1/I'AL i:: -.§_I.1'SIIAKESPEARE PD• 5. P,3;a,,, S,a PAp4a cT •la ,. . W:PAi �� t • oe sw P SA I:�R c g' sY Rn r`•° 4i Q �r• I140DYEEh + � Sk' .g-\1` liSW ,,vaLTr EA 'CABLE ''° OW Sr JKFSI°Ei3 • _ m sw � fa a' Sw• ��1p� a 10500-1 m *""' t� sW iaw'� `Z R6UW►�a rj.. o p4 SCIM7ERF1 D 29 ' K jai7LFd ee, 'Y 0 t., 1''et"'u I70 t KABLE mumwp ii 560 urn �uXO J [1 c�(, CUR A m . . " .n s :, s-r as„ rr !� i� SW • e �RF llOI WoV� !u sw w_• s11 4 ` LN Zan' '9 '/ORRIN."iN ,_ ski' 9 u . L s+ ,N' Ar �< rte, �'I� A �c h..--G °R- - .L _ r@ sw �-. tr9 $9 - S 4. . }, s r'•• b ^ d O: �� !�l�-' a P� Q " 9� .r s,' � ,k � : : I :! i g.�. SYa [ 'd.'rAIRCNI 4'4. r0 .,rrraan ,,� s6yy,, a ' 0 p µ & r. • J t rare L 4`i,:, %,. s AWe 5t;1 SW BLSt P4 G S r 'emu' ' Ian /Q` hl, I '.sx., .6-'p-i�T' CENTURY __plr Lxi -'391 N _.&Vp-_ _ c • - 1$w 1 DURHAM 51��1 r R© Z «l ,,i� X94, it 8T?wm y .S 1% X� u� t r tilt' 71300 5 1 10400''51%ER1 ci IT - / L.. 5N(ME ( .- _ o .,. Q, - ,,.T'Ee"'�airlui APPLICANT: City of Tigard -,‘-‘,,-•‘ i Wall Street Extension Site Location Map Vannie Nguyen,Engineering Manager WATERWAY:Pinebrook Creek&wetlands . I CP. /e�, ACTIVITY:Wall Street,permit modification ' I fin �` DATE:November 2005;SHEET: I of).3 • Ama i*.: ‘cog--- 81.-711 i - $pass' CLOo% - i-- ; v+ V. .4:\111°C15 05 "fi i ,w - a. t F;.^ , . `_,ti.. _'?"y�g.�'° :ax_., � .. , . .,. 1�-`! 'A"a. ' a .t � � ) 310 I� 11NI ir.e... Op '' }i iV`•' . f -ssvr— ' + - C .8.133 , t x < - -: , ,y pi � -h Q)388 0 3- I - , r i N c `f rl } r,- .,3 • Ill -trka) 14 y55"S �0 l!< .151X3 /, 4\ a•y/�I �f / . ,, ■f = ..: � . s. lzft A '-"� 1 71,ff c (fir ' , y :'•}_"�,y \`',.,T • II -'_,--- ,, ', - . ti°417":1eVrikir .,„_:i— aliiitkl:,,,,,.'•.avallitrowouommilii I 1 . \ . . k , ..,,,. ,,,,1,,,,,, \ ...,., `\ '4 ! t t� i .,,1 , ,_� i 0. �,. vivo, °i �.11111-YCJ hf3 v , 4��y13 I I t 1. r a \ f"v. `- ate:- .riSQ ^ ,K- „' N \ \ t fp..., ! /- "•'. \ `,...- r I f - _4Y! .7 \ \ i r-/t'!• . , A. \\ �ji 1 t H i ii if J'— '';\ v ki ii .i _i �6fl� r :, L, 1------- - .''''-- \ li i I _f I r�r , _mss f;�•�ri 't :::•----• SCALE: \\ Pill- 1 \ r 's: i ,¢ , i '/ 1 ''_ • • rf i j�////'//�/�//�/,J�� z-I �, j //'1 i �I t' i WETLAND i 1i 1� ' i d t i i ii i CONDITIONS EXISTING f i i XTENSION {PH. 1) i u,,, -,.... WALL STREET E ! } ? DEHAAS '�°SW.` IMPRQVEMEt+ITS 111111x i ' ssaciates, Inc. ' ST�tET x .. `9 B)': - fbnAi 'k$..-..r.'I n ROB �bR-SW -- •-.. . sr � ,. a-rr of nc.�z of Tigard a Sx zmaram* .log:Kr APPLICANT:NgaYe n eering Mane `mow`1 2404 nzszs.r rs - 'Vaanie rtgnyen,�� ,s s+� `�,p,w°`� wre WATERWAY:Pinebrook Creek&wet1ands ?Na 92.629.111 ACI•I'VC Y:Wall Street,permit mo.di#fcatiOn AT Novena ber ZOO5;SHEET= of —— -- _--— _ - foz itIva . - . ,„s,ciet Av4 - -.1. . . 111011V3W (1.1121114-1 /41121"** ,s,',..1 4110AVN etliVigIPM". Alin. ' ..-1.,, GICA'al rtaaN ., 't331P21111°^ t1,1%1NTI ttrsza-Et , otgagfAlti.mttly)40 1Vra 4,:ffle::,. • .......• i", • i • .0.0.i 1 i 1 III . • 44.../ S 00. ,......*..-m,,..1. `,.......2..-t .,., .." ,----.., . ' x n 1 1:3S141 ....,„....,>.'- , ,.......... 1 1- ,,`-. * *.'''11;1." 4: T '■,7-`;'-j-i: 7--14 .i I .11•4 ilk : ."'i . ... ---,-,....,--t.,%i"".'..1,:f., lid" SS S . • • ,toldp08\3' ...,-,Z--'-- \N.,....-1-V.*..,,..,-;.-3.-^ +,iS,--ro--- :,. ---r_k-- -It • i I I. BA NO ,• , . ,0.2,t, C2. ..,-..... , ....... ---...--,...., x .10 x S 1143 • • ..4., 't / ,_ s ...\:. k k,L.PA l's,,..,,,,,,)" .1:=;:15.----:---i---•--,,yq s...;;::i r*-1.1 a Merafi.,841,9 ,,-..,?... .., ...,.,1 ...c.,,,,•,k..,r ; . r t,-.-t -—_-.7:-.=. x tt- 14• 8) 1461S1431 ISS131 , . , -..\ '•, t ,,s..: -,. ..t,i,4--.2:,!-, _,•• • . .1.sst..ts „..., 1 le .111\1 1.3, crsR3:1:30_1iS•rj 4C,„„ ' 14):-A.,:-.•--1:-17:1;.,,,,„,,,1•11.:L7"1.,.•'Y'3":-.;;;-;,.....7',.--,..v.:.....}:4L-1:., i„,I 11 1 '11\C)t . .. ''•-.., ,,e„,r1c4 a....1•3 - . .ttoo ." . ' !" ' • , . t f 1.,,,,''•4....1.',; 1 1 .,"..1,1,--... -• •c.•-•.!t•ft" if N V "---, \■._ .4.26 --.--_:c. sIr-M:!,.._ _..----.,----t.-' it'!', sci0113 wass18 -. -A00 331i 7 -----;%,,----‘- 1,Wk*--t---..----..--ke.._.-7-1- -7-...-- 7,-.;-:- 14:' . \ \ . 03105 -,.. . .. , , ... ,0-,,,a --- --•-•:,-- .iiii,- N. ',.. -1`.•., SIAM) -,''' ,' „.--------e34-■ • ....1. . .m..7-: . ,...1.....•-••.-- ,. \ :31'1•J' , \ , ,,,,... 1. 43 ---. ' , .,---V'''''--,•. .. ......e----ve. ..------ ----- "—^'^.. • ,1 ; ..... \ -...... ;t t'. . s....... '.. . I \ \ t t • t ,, t1.3 0■-• , \ .,.i Crettt •- ' ,. .-.,o' -''-grt•I ' tl : ......1 1 . ' . -,:".. .. ••• 1.- _..... rrim-rrminlirrarrps-rn • \ 1 -3° g.c-re-- -,----;-` -..---1-...--- -, nravi-Hrrfir. \\\\ \ . IL .),...- '.:< .....- ,......- ji , --■I ; t-ill, '''s it . - • • ' .,...-..2'- "...., -,.:"..-',;:-.... , :;.--e! 1 ...1 l' - il:• . '' \ it il. • ,, ,...-- , t,-,,,,.,.1 i ..-- ,. . ' !,j! i it .. .. ...-:, ...........;-- ,. , 11,,.,;3 ,,..-...;41r.■1 -± \ \- \ !i i ft. '1 l'i.........." ' ‘.:<':.,,,,,•.:::-' . ',... 1 ai'l ! I , ja...L.W.L.1„,1111122. .... 1, 1 1 \ . ...........1.11". •i,/. , *,, \' .„......... ....,-.:-...",!...,......-_j ';'•-' '-,-..--- ' :." r„flit ,, ° .4tt...1-0.r•••■ ' ' ,:ti.•‘... a - :.0 r- I.P44,-..; 4,. Jo -4'4411114711 s \ 004 -------- .4-.., --'..---" '' - . .. • - . 1 1 ars,... ViitliaTWS . \ ' '• -r"-A.. . ' ... ,•48''..,,,V.,...... .,...!:,..„.1 i \ \- ..„.. +Li 0 Iti III 1; \ // A}StAdP°rIk . ' . 1 ‘.......■,........ ....' \.,, \ . .V I Ita).- 0- -• '‘. I i 1,1111c 1 T : ' \ . • \ /4.t...,,/ .." 7 A.= .thi,404 ,..' .. t I -.1 .1.4-="- ' '...lit 1\\\\\ ''', -":).‘ 41"`-‘'...% .,.47.,..0. //1-' -''.,."4,.. # ,... • -- - `' .....4 . .. I. 14... .„..„*„..44.„...i..---”9/1-, <,,1 1 \\ .L...". ',/ \ ':‘-e •.- ''',..] \\\\ ",..•.t.....',..;....N. % , , .:•'".s...-,. .',..,:,..k...,.., VA 1.5 0, ;,/ i ,,, , . ij 7. , ...„.„, co i --1-/ , ; it y.; -..,..;„ .k,.., \ \-, \ \-\ 4 --, ..-,:47:--, ,-..."'‘,7 '''..t.t,• -,..-.,,,,,'.--,1,..z.,---.,- -.t. ' i'-'--' . .....tt,„„,..1 \Z.,.. . ".•••--7.i....... 3■41 -,..,... ...• ■ ,ss Vs:' ; • 1 ■ :l ' 1 iti 'Y iii .,: */ , . ..- ik' ! tiIlt tit f! ,..•.... N ill ..-It /1,g,- • . co il -17 / ....i :ii, - i ,. . . i y.,-,/,• ; • .• • ` • 1 %. 'VV,- ____ , , -z-----3/4.-k`.-\\,, \ i. II • ;i. / : OVERALL SITE PLAN . i i 6,,,, 72/30,-, arr. , Inc- A - APPLICANT. ...Y.,,Ve WALL STREET EXTENNPSR1 ACTIVITY;'Walt Street,permit modification • DATE:November 2005;SfIEET °I pa ` . .-- - . . . . - 6--os ,flimaNOI*1* . .„,,,,,.1•3^-1- , • - —t oth'4331st",:sivivol-1-181°c • • c, • .002/vo-, la.N.,i, A'N'' ' voosst000l- . ' . Apolq zit * figig.N. ......-vatrJ glIW- stortv ,tottra`rr4.,,,,,g,30.10 t ' • . .,,,ttos°"' tise° , .---" 1'. ,Z74,- 't ifti 124 ia ''\''' '... '''.”.2,...' • .... .1'919 I. ,,,,,Xitr,°` ,k ,.. . i . . 1\ ''' --"\--- /-"'"'-'-- - , i. .1. , • „.....,,. illlii . •„. ... .,„. .....-. .01/1- VF.rr■ii- ' '..4A•1 c` .....: ■'2' % _.,.- ,,o.'7, i..,....,,, ,,, 2.--..,..T.?_,...,—,p_.;,----,--u-rs ..• l'S lif ''4::::54- 15411155,X.... ......aa s tw,OV)4'le 'Si' ....., •••11 ..... :-.7, \'---1-A'.,',in-'„-;1'•*-`-r4r-f J'‘E-7-5"-,1 . I I 4.0 s 00 ISI•ia*I''' , 4 -•,, ,. ,, ; •t`,..,- -------'/--4 s 1 ir.1.---'`'. •--------"'-.---.' t. 1 ')I.,...Sfs....„......-10. 1.6.11-.14tr, , -•“..*---'-'•-s' . s. i SO 13. I 1 tt,-' .1,„13,-.1-- --e ,-,......_- - .,- . • , e-1,,N. f • 4cf„,-04-1%------ 1 ' 44% p.:t1 iri,-c,,t5,-,...4s-,,..,..„:----** ' .rirefg i s -- kAcl ,.,141-10 '03111.S,.-4 i - k . . \ \- CIAI C14134 1 -MA.- gta ..--ij".-7`•----............„.\.. ( ,, . " At" ii-it-,i' ,. 1 ka.e.4, . . ,tet \ \ ' i t ' \ \ It'iSsvz.LS-4---":,Li .„„11.7Liie ,.. ..3 \ \ otoruati,\ ,--,,'. -,.... --------,, -- .- - gilliOPA`ei,-,•--------.F 'ilk'4•7•II t .• \ \ ' ,• • K .' •: •"- ••tit•••••••'''':.-- A „.,..&,,,o,..",:r-,7;ore . r'.. 1.. , t,.., '''••-••."5,;;;...., , ............- \ -.....1111:`,..:-4.1111.___;._,M....---...-7 ‘.; . ‘.. \ ' :51.13'S \ . 's ;,..1 ',, ''''• 4,... --- .....4•:,,,,..:,:-.e.,.-”,.... . • -A.' --'... \Ai 7,-.'e4 I 'I ■:.;01X::::"....' Si: - -±.%-.r"..-- ...4116.....‘,04.. • 9•r; . N / ::...-i,= .-..,-.-... -104,4 , .,•, 'i. ,...1,.V:i7V .- _,,..ii,e1'...; ii. \. . \ \ „ .:k.'• ',. "s ,.1 6--"z,,-., ,... -T-rv'roglf----trg.-4*J' .1 - 't:I 1 \l'AIQ-GV853‘Ser<1-'7.7 • '''''''.:- .--A.... ...401 -_a1110."1''V.--e",, '.-""''''' aL ' '''' ■k .,. ,--; 030:......1..' ---, ,.... ,, , i'•' ' 1.1 , • .;... 1 ' ,...... 1 1 \ \ • .„ ,.........,.. \ ...,..../1„....,......e 1 r• • :?* X' t.'' . l'•. • --•...--.' t....s. ...../ ' /il 1 . 1 ,.., .--r-...,--- ' ‹...."---- \ \ , '..X..„■. -,*...1. - -------1 t 1 f ' ''''"44...::„....r, - -•, 1, ---% 1 I f to-41*.' I' ' l'1kt\ • .„....4,....f..).,----‘,,,,_ fitlea \ . 1 it -- .s7 \ \ \ - ,.. I....., ' ___.....:_,__... ___. _ \ • .411` --',./.....,,,C.„;-----ri 1 t. • ' ,s„, ,..„, 1 , '''' '''%,\ ' El% . • . • G / ,....-. ....- , : 4,..., !,--,...,;4_____., -..., \\-\ \\3',--// -------.. 1 , asKAV,--------...-\ i `..,3.3f4 0° \ ; • , - ...„...„..___.....„ i 4 4 wit"V ---x. ,,,.. -, - '4-4- At .' . 1 ,,, It - : - \ ,' ,. ..:, i • \ , -• t , ! ,, „,...05.,-, 1, - ‘. -----1 `‘. it 3-.,,A --') --,- -. • f* t...„\\ 1 ..,. "---,,,f, •• I i :t.iit s4, „,--- --!` -:-..--- ;,-...„,_ -:-„ „.>.. ,,'",...,,„,.. .....000111111111."-' -' i-t., tow: ..,..,_.•,---.....2,..,, .,z 1•'',s/...... ''..1 / \ ''s.'' ''',.......,..Z.4.....1. ii 11.‘ '' \ \ t\ ... '''t, '',/_,- .‘ `1..".., I/ -", ;()P ''.' \ ;I,: :::,,,i' :i., \--;/......; .:: I ''s '''' ,/....,,,..„..1 .7's. s,P 2.-t....:i''''Sfill.; s\- .\*. \ yt 4---"--/ sk, \ V....., I I A 1.-. 4,,j ' -,....-, \ ",,... d. I ,.'il ly --fr / "k, \ .... I t. r- .6\ ,. \N .... --, 4,..i. .., • , tr ,; '-:`:, . f . p 1 t,V.,‘/ CR il.,,i I ..f.,a-;f,7 Z.':.%. '','- I l ' 111:;Y:il ;,\,.. ill #li :./ , ,,/ ,..., ... . ; ill 11'':'V '- \ .. 1. • f I,,,tii. ‘, I „.,-.!, i ' CO I -..1 1 ,-;4f; p,11/'1,,agff ,. !, i Z� ��‘t f � Ij � �, 11 \ i ii i� �1�' • i j ;. :i IT rte' \ i :iz +-� t64Y Yr i � ! �� :i rye � " I •50 f' I;i' 'i? i • _ —f-` "-— SCALE=s/ \ F i' i1 r �%� ir—Il�"�%/ r ! }' _ 200' 14 LI :11:1 ' "rx rl J j,1 r.S t 3.1� . fn rn s x f - �(Ipt 1,g! �/• =1 ', r' 1,(7�- —_=_ --:' '""... !..-.2>- r/' WETLAND IMPACT, t WE . r�.t`,f n NO IMPACT THIS SHEET r _..�-�- -f i�it ..•ST i i X11 Ii j � � zzj rt £ j If { t i t i 1 i ! WETLAND ETLAND IMPAc SKEET • j t Y ETENSlC3N tPN. 1 j i _ � W ALL STREET CITY OF 11GARL>. . [L[ [M E HT OF- ! L.,. , DEHAAS �^ STREET & VT TICS R� X � � E i .gin ssooia.tiesas „w,,,,.w ° +. x w .T. we cez-me �1 R>i T'S &�'� : _no. 02529.7 78 APPLICANT:T: tit wM. _ E�neexing-�$g `�, o� ,uaRCr� zao� - �_ VaA.IILE Nguyen, - olz. n+= •N0.�{p9.T5S WA"i" KWA i:PinebrnoK Creek&wetlands AC IIVITY:Wall Street,permit moMfieati°t • of RATE:November Z{k1_;SHEET: — — -- • ---- a Q? ' oaAS p y 4 4 aas �`A3 'i 4p4� d � -- v t ` p�gll . p _�-, �, " ° " 9 r n -, 7sw,sa 10• j0� R \ � ' C� # y ,,,o,. . c � N iX 1) °‘5 �IN 7- bx,010 v,-,;', N7, 5 \ .. ra.,^4'''''''''' y4 ....\ ______\- t ` � n/-3,,, \ 1........:,''°: n t-� � �>7z "s \ • . . \,r .1. A ro \ ' ,• P. ,,t s 5a F \ $'0 �F M/k � uy"'p,>c"o , vt n:5 NSL�i�afSs-0% pZ3,�,� 1 �tY��3A\. 13331 M>>P, wP!Sti:s \ �j ACS. �l ,oN iiO3 t�,y� -9t t •to ..,..•" (.949\1. S. .\. _...........\- �-fit 01 9 ,w-4..yr J..Jr�„ yvyt p• 5- y�i pn��i 11. ,4'� \ ''''''...'••••-----NA _.......... ,Mp3��� Qom,.- f ; � ....'.''''''',.,:e.00. Ps, .u � c ' ' 1 N•a - .1r" gas Y.. r t ay t+9 n R -'' • e- :, • , t lirich r 0...,7 ar, 240\ 5',3 .-.1 3-,•.f.,7.4,-, ----, .--'%7■ 41 ,,,;1,, _.,;'" 1" -.•"'--.r...: : ::.7;,,,,,H".".r.''''_'.;.,,./'''.':.-..--.'".:;--.'-';- I 11 ) 1 ; 1 ;, 1 : 1 ; c„r„,...4 : \ „,,.,.,...7 Lifr,;-57:7.6 f/r . i • • .. -•'''.1-.•...;-"--:\i-.7.•:-...:-,,,,k,-.- \ tr ..• . f --.........c t., 1_ i i_i ; I [ • . ...--."•:&.- .-- .... `,.. • -1 .- --,=Ar'iii,...---' .. 1:r --;,,,,,, ;. --'.'.-;,;;:.:••:,:...:-. -..--•..;.'"."./....;:::,-',.?...:.•--- , ,.... 1 CfRoaus..455.00' ' Zeal edge of Roveyr,w--- .3",,,,,,,,,,,...amp sc. ''""." . ' '■re2 "r"'.'!".1.t.'+"'...,"'"-....,":".4",:-:'-:2:::,--V--,'"' --- • t ii I I III I APR.. 737-90' •; i p-gt-r-A.....4:-.-.•..)-- p.,ocr Std. fie .•t' ... '•,-,c..-e. 11.4z05 f .::;."..:333,..3=4(••••-•3'.33??`::• ..4.(,33%. _.--- % 15' ''11-- .'?.;.,7;,!..V ! i 0.eitrar..,,4.5500. i 7.34.00.00 2..00'Le • •-•ii [repa77 ‘4, A•art. we `.. [;•,.,-;/[z.?/,'...:•;•7[ ..--. [-'-' .." ..., ..... Defeo. LT.19-17- gCof kfaC-2-16C1 e.o.m.. ..."1......0,,,. ...L......."' 1 2 - .12 Iiir -.'":::'••" Transdiaa siteel Arc..hvg..rj- to 4.0- ZS. . .Z. .515 LY r.r PVC C90.0 r Ay At, 1.4.45:,a472.77 i 1_ • .• ; H '' l 1111 1 . i 1 %33 :7- _,.... till,11 * ‘ 77, •...„...."- ," _.... -['[. \.----- - "" i.44•W _...._......‹----.- . San-10-,-- -L.„--2', ...L.,--[.. - - .. •-••• -[L- -‘-'[.----\[ : PLAIV ...- ' Ilir A' Score:1--6o- k • --: - __,. -- --:-. -,1 1, L _..____..-- woo 0 01101011111111*.-- --- .-n, -- _ - .„,1.3.4.,:fo..,I - It--1,...--- : .. .,s,:: ----_____- ...:,- --- -• .._. it ..._ _ _....._. 70050 I -, -;r13 tr. .,..j .- Z.'so ..-1-1-cosi. . .. .,P ........"'- t .L"-"lierria IR..14:-.. ••--....:.f. ._,,,,,_ ___ _...., •"-- DAV Der City fla. 11,2.411111M .POIP..-..01111.1001:10. ...- 41;;;;;'1 .--::------ - ...'2. .,--- _..._ ...,,.. • T''''r4 , priv.-181--- 11.1 e.irC7:74.:.74.57.4.5.,S.0 - ---_ to oifcia St 1 Jlgi . i il 1 . (-1i .1,c1:1,,,,. . 11 10-7-011 7.3.00 24.0' R New RII73.7-\\.9.7 T . •C8(CG-30.)--- 1-4- •.' 74_.i I (?"-----' i , •cn5 Na zav Urp) ---= .....„.. ,.. _ , '\ --- I" si-AIBSI „., - I' I' ''''• . 11 Ai i. 1. ,I .4)‹ri i - laiNIMPONIZZI=X _ - [7. In '1-1 7 Jc. -- 1 r-- ________ , .__ ......:72 ., ,..,,,..:. , __,,,LI 72-PVC C900..-. . l'1N-... '7',•L,:,._,-;' .• ... 8--Flit . Adyst to 0;cni. 4' . . „...„,,,,,. ..... -4...... -, 1-:".= ........... :-....• . I ; ... or. 463; 1.---1-77-ir vr•10(-6 I ;77-, 1 ea vz.K.woo' 41:::::■.'" x-jec4 -2'.. :-.-1.-._.1 _ I t Le gra 13.00 i .I S. : el 14537 ; 71v . 7 ......■ • .,., - -: ... . I 50 1. i ;- -- LP Zit t;•17- 2-y, -.1,- ,. ..,......! r, ,r . - 54,7-1 , _. ,,.. 1 , i 755: i■-•ZE ,,,_ ._ A 1 v.4 5,[,? I 2"4341 ?. • 'g • ; • - , 5 - . ...„, . . .., .c,. c al • c=_,71 755 \ 1S'' -0 04'7 i 'i : ! i '; ••=i...;'''t ..--•'-• d 7.,. ---" g ; • _____ .:•,-,LT--71---L I i :::J• --.. f3 la i „.„,...1% .91....... [ ,,..... ...1....t...,... .. z%.9 -:v -ea rut.,p,ae ._[.. . -.. . . _[3:d.r-:5, -, ..-'3[4' -L_ ._L___-- :1";-,t '-'-•.: '1`9 oe ; rso --L..-:-- • •IFi I I !- -'-1-••••. I ji. bd.'.grouart . ' 1 -1-CS.r, ' --.-- 1 1 I 745! I ..,._. , al I ; j6".'4: 1--- --. , • ! ! 1 ---r ••-. .._ .r , = ! 1 i . f - - 1---. .;..___•--- -rt•-•,•••,""-,,-.N..6-'9',. ..., /1,716'-*9 1 •-.... 740 7--: ..._. t ..".",.. I i -_I -._ I 1 i I .,.6 l27Cat-te)...142311- - •-i 1!I `.... -......... 1,15: i = ; ---- 1• i a , ._._: ■ • 1 I .-. ' ; I . _ i PROFILE 1 ' .e.101 r•-1493 ' Ix ...• co .1-1 ,.., re fx,0 0 +-I 0 0 n,.... Niel nt[n. 0 ei njn. Oita n [0,10 On ,0 . os,o _to 0,n. ,...LO c-4[an le, La I C' , - c..1 -,...1: !r! a! ,r! cc! to.oa ', ct ..!1- 0 .1. Y. r...j.1- ,01.--. ;4,3 g.,' 4-1 ni nr 0 nr nO n •a-•••• nAtl •a[• a n(-.•■• 1:[CO CO M'n ''''[.' '''''[1. '..)4[1. ''' g :,.:,- si :ncl 4- enr, Larl cn„z cn,.tg. (4,2 ai, ,; „6 ad, Cr-P.:„. „.,c;16„ .„i wi, .-6.„ ui„ .6, „.ti ... „6 ci m: csi 6 t,e.6 c",:i ti cw"ce; nl.150. `,',.1 09 N[R 09 9''' ,---113 ei co9 1.251 :2 ■••1 - - - -_ - .125 10.00 10,10 16.80 11.20 11.50 77000 72.40 ___._ ,_7242 - t..1., _ 13.60 141.00 44.40 14.80 '5'2° SCHEDULE A & B 72/..71/06 DE HAAS ,...33:0-4.r...4,4 .our sr.0mrre Gr. SHEET .. sto lif at, aka .........C.I../.0 APPLICANT: City of Tigard .0 4r -41..., SSOCiate inc. WALL STREET EXTENSION (PH. 1) L I. 4.• am . • - Vannie Nguyen,Engineering Manager Jae' 1,1 . . ..,0 . ,n1XtE 0.16.2-2-1-50 An'..-'11. STREET S. UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS - ral de2-.0,3 4 ce \\:•,.\,...,,.m.,..„2/1 . ...... - .._ WATERWAY:Pinebrook Creek&wetlands 44b.,00.0 2.9. 2005 1 eV 62-5...i it!? ctTY Or TIGARD P E.LAN PROFILE . OF 34 E.D.LEMG CCPARnieir 29.316 • ACTIVITY:Wall Street,permit modification 1 ! 1 Wall Street Plan and Profile Views DATE:November 2005;SHEET of)3 C> 60 ... . _ . . /• / W - - i 1 � �`, � , __ �` ..� ' l I .; 320' Bridge --�� - `- lift, ���1--7--- ----�- �c.AN �~�� -i -_.- 4—1--I'--..-"------._ —_,_,. - \\� - -:-. -- ,;�--/— r Score: 1--60' r ��f� � - - r _ - - --�- -- \_ ! / /f_...._/_, -� _ - � --. .4--1. ; � :4171= , y ; � �' /e✓;•�._ - ..-µ € WETLAND L: ' ' " ,y r - _...._.,_ - :�_ t1 r ITS ! 11 k , I -� _ •; f` �r / l f f-- � L_L_ _L;/ -- - 1 11/111//1 r r"-L"---- ! 1, _,r' =, 111 1 / / / w • f-- : \ \� 1111,,/111 ,/ —Z l 1 -� i �i :411ti�' // / / f7/ 111/.71/;/' /< WETLAND •_ e : 11) I / �� ��\� '1/ip//,',/ �� j -LIMITS � , WETLAND 1 r11� €€ ,1 / / f - f,1 `."� •L'\���It // //_i'i _ 1 • «� f 1 1 _ ; H1i 1 I / / , �r 320' °r - 1 1 3 ='� 3 i 160 t 100' VC (1<= 11. 13) Ir755 € I i d'.y} cat 155 I _ I i4r , • LP£1 1143.51 o 150 ze : ° ' ^i ,.- 750 �. ! i !I w W w m - 8 e t• •r4s I. ' I ,��_ ' �" .°rat.°, I °W ' 745 \—F.i.st grade Ir t 8 146 at F 1st 4©u f nd j f . I 140 € I I �at 4 4 - — 1351 ---1---- -�` i ,` i 1 r ,{ j 6 I 1.75 i o f .PROFILE I I ! \r j I i 130 I \— J I 1 i i -o1e: z's.-- T'=fiD- I � i 1 ; Ue1�'. 1 15' I I i I 130 ol 21 n nn- ^ t_O Q .11 N€ �! M� � e7 O �l n N m h ,55 n n- O O O NEEEE h n n h n S�n n O� % M n rn r Q• N n N n n n a. i M - - <- - - - -n a _ _ _ n n1 _+f _i _ - _ - - 125 15+20 15+60 15+00 16+40 16+80 77+20 - 77+60 18+00 18+40 18+80 19+20 19+60 20+00 20+40 20+80 1 sxmT - - 2-- r2/31/0-7 DE HAAS 1450 IX Canmarce Cr. i .r: � � WALL' STREET" - LID APPLICANT: City ofT Tigard "PO a��y�� 1 ssociates, Inc_ � rSR , �,,�_„� 0 11' STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Vannie Nguyen,Engineering Manager ;w,e xx-rc-r 1xe ea-.mn „,4..L.-.T..111, sxE:.ts s+owr �4grxiu*`� CITY OF TIGARO STREET . OF• WATERWAY:Pinebrook Creek&wetlands "a'EC`Ne- °L5 SATE Odo6e. 1, zooz oz629.r7a a owe axc cEP,xu Q 1 ra ACTIVITY:Wait Street,permit m odtfieatlon Wall Street Plan and Profile Views • 0 DATE:November 2005;SHEE'T:Qr.of 43 I' • gyp' - L X o 4+14 ° cn P. F. ry `i ce \\A — Q -•g \ \ \ co \\ T Z \\ \ s 111F--- Q w pq r�r• \�\$+k A,\ ; X—_.A 60'9SJ 1a"X13 1 � L y v - \\, , \\ 013 0' Iii > N 0 v 0 ,� .i'p ■\1 \ \ \ * ) 1 ! .11 I, ,..7 In 111 ..r. ?):, u Ell ir Q, N /N .._: — ' '- '—ws 104 \\\ 5 1\\ '4' — 'w 4... fa -.--.1j i W 4 A I�I , n \ fis.99, !Ill c�.y _ ./___. a `ter .`Mr —4 I �— - . HE 00'99!b••S9+b 6 II ' 7-____ ' � I �} ^R ;:a ) . — –�1~ I F 1 �s8 S I 1 it ba rsJ •6'u+ct'' ppp a __,_ l+ I — — I I! • ia'bS1 0'G9+f ii C �y ig •=—� .�--�I I`-- I I [ 7 .Ja 9rIx. y4� r1"r CC I ^' 111~--�$' E,Ts* `�' u1 �^ "� °•-a�. � `vim _ } "t'' F�"t •• i 111— - NM, Ell , . g 2 --------.*: ---------„...9----:,\I I \mow N C... nigini , iii L \\ 1 li 901.91,3 kid•4. 1 U IV\\ , . \-ii. \ i ).\ .1111( :" 111: 1i� � 3 �� -.\ ail \ . 3' , 11 \\\ I I l � N\\ • crei•� g d 5 cb, .I is �� � eE � « 4' \\ II \ III co'ara q �\ 0 \\ \ ,11 ,,,„ If j/\ t / JI \ L9'B4L iIiiI:\\� 4 r0'sv1 I Egli \�\ II I \\ I ~� �� 9ctrr "eox e.� , ik, • / 1, lump l / 4 ti 4 \ I - ■� ::: \ \\ 4 / 1 srarr \\\ , \„ / U i . A V. '✓3402 7YE n i o h n rr J ,I� 1 j (—— .v ` J/' - - `� -.- -- -_ 55- - �— �- Lei - -1 � [� f - `x�7 R.`--\'.f - -d.'._ vas �c`_�/e.Y sZ`/ '�. '�A. --i ~t55--�� 'low _ - � —s � -- �{` _ F --g PLAN— —1-— —— r r — l' -� L _—,so--— -�— — —�____ — 'S —' //I / 27 • 1 • I - • - 105'VC(K=41.89) ILP 28-0 9 I LP II 53.80 i a 160, - --Z.�T 5- .1 760 04=" 4a • °..7.,;" ow..�&isL ground 155----"--J—_— a +.4.a —.-%•,1-1..* --- . s=0.0'091 I 155 . .5-. L.0 --shah trade ct E 150• f50I • 445 i! u5 • 445 l 740 1• tl 235E _ , —I 135 PROFILE Scare. 51,5 • • . 1..t'_430 N h a M n a O N � h b ' - - _ _725 , � r25 e 26+40 26480 27420 ,27+60 25+00 25+40 28+20 29+20 29+60 30i 30+40 30+80 31!-20 31t60 04K 00895 - I rro. er j rz/s/ar soar sx->scc acr E i� ra DE s "°°� WALL STREET - LID SHEET VIVMe.,Om I DRAM sr: e.e � ssociates. Inc. A.°"°�E" 'W` J `°"°` "� �°� ttlili' STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS �a., .:.ys_cx mx ��� ''u _ av' o { - CITY OF 115850 $TREE? OF __ October 1, 2002 .FILE 017619 776 e0 a U17,ir+2WTr I X • APPLICANT: City of Tigard Vannie Nguyen,Engineering Manager Wall Street Plan and Profile Views WATERWAY:Pinebrook Creek&wetlands • 0 60 ACTIVITY:Wail Street,permit modilication • DATE:November 2005;SHEET:440f i3 • \\ PLAN—" . �= x_ --- _-- e------ --J--- f -- -- ��,. Ili ■— _— r - - - - — — — — — —�.r�.- - - - ~ — - - ' 33+00 f,so�~ -- X34+00 35+00 - ` 0 —� -=— `-Z-_=--_ =---�=L _ --� -- — ---7-_— 3-- 37- - _ \• f mow'^ '',- ]W v (K 5V-2-,,I . G +1P 33+54.80 PP a 159.25 a 4, 760 ......ilemor4W *°a- _�m-iiiiiiiiiciiii ■■ ■INIM■■ 145 ob ■�■■�■�■ ��■�■�■� 740 r 7.3.5 ■130 rirmirriErimonermw ..19; 31.80 32+00 32.40 32+80 33+20 33+60 J4.aV' 34+10. 31-F @0 354-20 35+60 -T6-1-00 36i-}O J6i,B0 125 Sok 001E REVISION 'NQ BY E'er• 12/31/03 � DE HAAS 96C M._fn,M Catmrae I �nn,, '�"` WALL STREET LID sHEET 1 Bt 00 Li.�:-. WI SY: I k' ssociates, Inc_ �- E a,EBfm SY: MCC CwvilBnc>me�ro+!SLnpm, 0 F. SATE: ,�_,CC _ 4 �..1:. STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS • x of X sr re-AS s3o.,. ,,,,...,,,:::.4.1 x 1I STREET wa..+«..,,c�.aunox manec..+o. e+a c.,c October f 2002 1 02.679 1,18 ttcNMEES.c DEPARIV nrr. APPLICANT: City of Tigard • Vannie Nguyen,Engineering Manager Wall Street Plan and Profile Views WATERWAY:Pinebrook Creek&wetlands ACTIVITY:Wall Street,permit modification - DATE:November 2005;SHEETh4e.of 13 Wall Street Plan and Profile Views 14 3 krJ 4 m - > r C r 4m O• I m▪ r• _ m 0) qw 157,49 i3 151,94 156.82 154.49 156.53 46.13 155.88 155.63 155.38 s8+09 PI4 E1 14 S.OD 155.11 154.94 154.79 N 154.73 154.77 kx.1$1,6�p J®£!'?n) 164.89 195.92 16611 15520 755.77 165,01 154.84 tl 154-52 154.18 15399 +50 P14 1? 15295 153.91 El 154 +83 22 nrlxer 8 18/ 8t 154.00 3 f 1 18 II ) 90 • HU/VZKffA fill rs 18 I • 320-0 cit.-cif-- crtd bents , - . 12-2:6's4-0"p'ecost p'esfc $ ed slobs ea spo'n . - 80-0' 80 0• 80- ' 80-0 s�ero/ons vla Span 1 Span z O Sp°' J gv Span 4 $:-i knish grade at a lsenl$ _ - c �� a CS O o 3 h° b.fi �`� N. S �� O'3 p Mttt� ,s I Ifli �` _t.. , -t- 3 1 14. i•r, H87.'0'14 W '' _ 0 O • to+` , "� O tt ; ss `\ X13 s •� h p O t E f t ' '1' t tit' - `l• II: Y t 3_. a roodwOy • k o a - t0 h '.55.-2i.laver; . �` ...1, ' 8'0 Sid 20:4'bridge ,y}a ea side, wing"' • ' erxd pox, e. -end - /his and P LAN -1_-$Q CL Beni 1 CZ 8611 2 CL Berl/ i a Sent 4 a Bent S 336=O'pedesfrion roil cc side 4 1. Pedeslric»roil on sidcwo/k me lccf n cocrete po cpe/ -S:-.140 L,•5•1, 1 O'',30 r PP16r0-.J75 steel tristing geoc.•-)d • v l20 - prpe pile t)p Proadway a "- 110 Remove be 100 yr. flood t:,�. £1. 141.1 -100 ; is/. lip£1 &so. 1rp.. { - N. ELEVATION APPLICANT: City of Tigard Yannie Nguyen,Engineering Manager Bridge Plan & Elevation Views WATERWAY:Piaebrook Creek&wetlands ACTIVITY:Wall Street,Permit modification DATE:November 2005;SHEET: of 13 a roadway 50-0 _"out-out ' i /"--0" 6.-12. 36.-0' • , 6"-.0' • rail s/w 1 Pedestrian roil on roadway s/w roi/ sidewalk moc.nted 12-2--6-x41-0.precast concrete percpel 1 . prestressed concrete ..1 I -slabs,. typ. - .1. .?'nom ACWS 7i 6:-,:-";;::-;---1,t;•-:_t:t.; _ 00.•0:-/•-a_40cy.3-Do°clap:•,<D• • 40.-QQ,QQ 'N'...-PP16x0.375 ,....0' • ..._.c 1/4-.0 .._.0 5/eel pipe . • Pi& I..Y.P. TYPICAL DECK SECTION . . _ . . Pedestrian rail on sidewalk mauled a hen! - concrete parapet I . , I n HAII11II1M11.IE111I1N 11 lM I 11 I!II I P ■ . . 1111 I 1111 S i d e w a 1 kii1111111111111101111 rrockred fin 01111111 • , slab -,..//* ' . // Finish ri • Bridge Typical Deck Section & Wingwall Detail 0 - 9,-ode Win9w011 / P.,,, . ....4,,,,,,,,..... AN - : • : APPLICANT: City of Tigard • • Vannie Nguyen,Engineering Manager • , 1/ , • .. WATERWAY:Pinebrook Creek&wetlands ACTIVITY:Wall Street,permit modification • WINGWALL DETAIL . DATE:November 2005;SHEET: of 13 •---- -----;74--1.-0- , • _ • . -< l ©! I l f � r t 4 i t �o r • - - ,1 ~\ ,35.69 ! , •-- .ss�.y\`\ •1 } I ci 1 f ' V\".' 7,---•=',':.':-A‘114 ---'- -- • 1 ) I i / .. -r— ` �L� 1 t`� ;' -- // It .1\w1 a` Sr; f f i -�` � . 11'11 f,ds I/ . w / WETLAND I l ll'} ' ;/ //� -__ 1 LIMITS 1111 i/! '` 3 ' z f! I - 7111; 4,r l��" 1 '�! r i S _ ifs VI L/ �- — ! 1 --� — — ` ' O1��1� 1 r 5`!' � � — \ —— III * !J I 1 %. f 1A . 1 WOW( � '' > ,5" VET LA 1 l t1I I' :, i —O M ` 1 11 z� ' r. L`IiM ITS\ ' 1 111 1 v Ecs� I 151).A I Original ground • LS Min. 146 C 146 — 147 { - - 142 5. 11 1 138 I - ---1''' A iii 138 Section A-A 134 — �� e S.- 0.030 ,SL=10.0030 0-0030 SL= 9.L7050 134 _ in I-1-.T. 430 7 n e,y I 2->-I4-40 0/L n ca a, I +.-, Wote Oualit MN 130 _ IL III= 135.8 IE 0:t= 13516 PRO 4L$ !E S'-oT?: T a_ ' I 4+80 4-440 4+20 3+80 3440 3+00 2+60 2+20 1480 1+40 1+00 - - 1------ - - -,- L- - ` r2/0D/03 SHEET �Rto°�e ��° SW WALL ST. x APPLICANT: City of Tigard r m E HAAS 70 • VanlnieNguyen,EngineeringManager Sr % �� associates, Inc. ' :I_'}�. STREET 8 UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS K,r' Cwntticr lEaoxn k S\v.tears i.�' _ x s skmw e6'-NN, Ore e OF 1lGA.RD PLAN PROFIL>< OF X WA I tRWAY:Pinebrook Creek&wetlands - a9 ET,°MZEN"`❑EPA NH+' ACTIVITY:Wall Street,permit modification Stoiuiwater Quality Facility Plan.and Profile Views DATE:November 2005;SULU,:i of/3 I . • , . ' '' ' IC.t.- :1::fj:e::31E4:'I:.,ltl°:1I:::a11:::P:''A"''I:_l:ljl,.':-''k'a.l.rllejll'1',•If,,I174NS-,f ,... " ' ritri4NOtEl.:31' Iiallai'l•V --,--,---f SO CI :01•3413 •11g14A. t0.11-31 it0103.411)° " ArOta....-8717 .• cai-pht-'0 • . • - . vr. , ,,o, ift,t-.. ,...,,, 0 .\---w-1 , ..,.... .... ,....30.x110 or.,:. ,,, 073,it•44 ,..• 00,44''.----" -,ti --•%.-N1A3u tIO PL'1U3 Luilgi • 11-1. 13-19 . IY•co, '''' .......--• ,daff,',, .....,.....,,,, 01%9 RI 11)AL°11191i . olaSei CILI 1 -1:55°.3.S ,, 6V0 a tiotlo__. ,... „is.. rivit . „..1.,... 1 , Ira gat svals : -.1 4-.7 1,01:16 4...r0_.--....--.- -- -- ..• -.. i i : t. ".•-t- 30 s1.14s?"° stas1x- 1 ,,, ..,-11,S14s,. al sol itsi CitsVi-'. --'---,\:--------- -, ,- -, ,,,--r-,.....,.._,-,,,, r--1-,---C:.-4....4..-.4 ■■1:". , '.' -".‘,.' ,...";'N-CV,% .:'6!--{,'''. .:C-11 ./. : c...1 : ...t ,-.:;-.1-- r-1,-,. U- l le-NW..... ', ,-, , .---:,,,, \ ,.;‘,„:-.,...k., : x, c !,..„; , ,„ ,b-,._,,.. , t , 4 lt1 1 ':'S, •‘,1 VAS "-:1•:,'-■, . .. -::" .. ..•-::"-'=:--.---. ' 1,--).•-r-•:', ' t'' \ ;..iT"E'' 1.: ('', --,-----CI,-::-----rS, ,4'24.:2-- ' -- fi.4'4-18 tl°11V-- '''''-`--, ..... , . _ i _ kt ..- , . -,----- - ,,,,-•f,,,,.-1-,..-,--,...-.-•:.-- ..--...--, t- r .... , „..- -,,,,_, -• ,i4:F.. ;:.:: 'N,..' '--.---^::''.......* :.'.1`),;r--:.'-.7- -''.,. . .v--' -4. -.....-- 4,t-7,‘, , *.*'.::: -..':::,''..s'. ''. ''... \ ' 'k t .'y',v,. '.. •c .,-,... t '-. , ,. r ; : •'''';.. .i',',c': ,,;:' '''' i ...'` .. --.:,`-'.;,,,,.."■ft''..*C-,,,,,','..„ :! 1 , - %.' - - : . - N k'2'., " I / •• 1.-- 4 t , 1-. k 4- ?' ' .!: -Yr•••„ .. - ::--.."-,'...,*.4%..',-,,,!, '. ,.. , ,I 1- 1,',1, , :cy...--•••\ i . ---.---, pooi3 ; -i-- : t .; . ...'%-. , ,,,, ,. - ...-3.... ,„,. )9.11'\5°\,() \-°'()--13.7,.=±.*:,1-1--,---"-:, ---..------',&- j;itv7a7--tt-irt-- s..41-:. i •Ig tispl.a ' , i• "" 1 ..... ,1..-', , ',- ' :-- :",,: " -..,.24-r- t,--".--E. ' 2.-"' -.;--r- ---,,,, ----' s....„:".41"4, : ':.•i'A, i , .'- .11-.)0X. - -".• .'''', , ' •- ''- -.--"." -'-". ' '--- r --J• ' '-, ''---,"- - --'=" r • M ; , ,--;-i.-I•i fa- , '4i;,. '.,, -. , ;11 , . ,- . - _---:.' ------. .). ---........-., L.,-,...-_„.*, i If ! "* I SPP : , 7 i ' : , ;i „...--•,,, ■ ‘ 4..:-,k .- • . L 1•° I "..7 • r,t kO 14)\ ” "E' ..., '• ;::' : _ :, "••••-,E,$,.,.,-4'__--4 - • ; ; ; tE.,-----•LI ---.0k. ::::-.14., A.-r..-„-..„:„.. ,...r., f,.. • 4 - i. ,,,, , pu- -- - •;::,i :.;.:i:,. ,,,,E.,-,../ --- ,-....„.,,..j„.iiii s-_,-- A.; ; ..;-1 ' .;"; •••4494:4!...E --tt-tEt-4t. ;;;: ---F---- tt41- '41+:4-7--- ' t . C-17 7 = ----`---7.:i.W.e.'"N-,---;°'17tr.- ?,:-!-? "';'/ / '"; - .- '' ....e.0 ...- •,., . . •,. , .,,,,G'.....-. - .11..... L.i %, .....---3--1.,...' '- ,440477:4*-'1.4,iq 1 tt ''' -- , -• irt',,.,,,t : - -..t . -.--,- '- , , ., .-...,-. ,,, / . i ' -:-' 4,.i,-„ 4; ).7,,-;:. -,:.,,...-- ,. „-_,..,....---;-..4 - 01'.7::,-- '' ' '431 0 . ' ' '-'" = '1‘ . , '' ' '''''' '' . ' 'I' ,--1-...-,. " -I 1 i;,-.„..••. 1 "...`4.--4-, - -J. ..-' : . ---;- /1)1-0- i -- t. i •; . "" ,'-.....\.t.. •:-• \ L. 11 "",-... rj....:,4.. 'I:-. -_rr,.77--'". 4 ''" , .."` / Vi* ":4,71 "---. •■,',';51.11';•• ,, f+, 22 I A A 5uvot , tio0* t.s.10',1='k'S ,' '.;•5:,--' :1 ' ;1':--.-, --'-',,;;-,'::. `.--"r`'''''Y" O -.96P3 ' 0 P ikla:PO , ;--•-----':=:?-.. 7 = , \ - ,•••::::,,,,,,,_ -- ---, --,"' I.-,--,. . ..„)).x„ri--' 1 .--- t ., ,,,co. , ! i 0 I kl: -, ,-.,---,:-.:"...-.:---_....-- -_ -•...---,---:-_,..•::-..-,___ .-----...0,,,,....,......:p. .... i • .„---,t-, : S..y, ."7..., . . • OA... -'.....*„ _.„----------- ,r,.... --,...? .<., - • ,:r. I,. -, • ,:. :•-7 - .00t._`■. ""'''.5 " ! r77 -V ,...,(t -'...:;,....:',. :- ,.,.:,- ',. "..'- -5.-„,,,_ 1.1:40:1440.titlt."' ..-j.,'-',, -...........••••,T....- _....,_,,,,...1.- ''{,1 y ..:-.;: : ,,,i hi' 4, /i \- '.:"--.2'''• '' - ',..'.4*,-Vi4;friratIt.:44't*,ta: „ .. •..- 'i "• ' ..f-..,1 ...*. : ;--:'Cl`..\1!„ -:;;-.'L-':1 :6„,_f.":,l,f ..- ii --, ,,;*.,,,..•*''```"*2g".4?:.-.*: ' ,;••• • - .. __ -- '-' '-- ---- --—-' , ----------,----:f •---:4- . A _ , ,(7_,, --------:-.:._--r7r": _,.f.' --- - , ........,,, ___ 1 ,,,.• ;kr-f-( f, 11_459-_, /-liffrfffill — .......-0..„, 0.:--. - -:.-i-•.--:- :--- ' . -j- -•' -..- '- .„...„ vii,"407,,,,Ifir-",...,77,,,,_e„,..., ,: ....-- ilo-, ..;,„-i-.;.?..i.4! ,■''-..- --- - ,...-•:. .,-1.r.•-: =i 1"."- '. .00* -...,.. --s" . ,/. •-•1/4i., ,,!. .-'.•.- :• Z;' -.., I*0 1%* •rneeep.'.---- ----,':4,-------,--/-. „et 1. .. .,_...;,-7,-.7.::::,-2-:: , ,,t.7---,/ , --.,,......, ...1 . ...,,,,.....--,j;; irriir jt„,... ..._,,q,... .._„..„__ -,,AA _„_, ., , , --, -''3;".•,---..t.t----, t : ---,1" ".!■,, .,t 4 •-'47-t : •••,2,,',.„,--*C-,.rte._ -1,a!"... /--..- 4E7 .. -,,,A-- • --:,... ",----/ f:-......:. -,,„..,_, , > - , \;;!..i..`,, - ,.i.--:-\-- or" -,!..'- -•----;:•- :,.. .... 4 -.r,-, , \ ''' ; •'-#44- ',-- '., '‘'- i ' '.- *::' t.--. `,-- ''. .-'5•. _ . _. .. ikt .....-e. .,,, , I ,4-4".,'-: .0?*:---%;:'T. .' ' -=.--..- l''''' ill '' . ., "''''''7---" --.' ' .-- 1 ....,, , . . .. 1 ',.,2-'--%.. 7"-.."'-. •:,-,;','"."-''-',* - : *‘, „ . ... „..- . ,-, .--- ",„....,„--:-.` 0' -.-,-,..-:-i...,-' ''' .-- : V.,..: ' i * . ,.„ . , ... ...,,,,, ,,,-, • ' ' \'' .'t^-44410;'1.-':"--;• r '';'', . ; '''' '''''''.' 7 fi /:.-., ..... '''..4'1.6.... ...'''....:-:-.4:-•";/ . ' '' 474frPW,'6;1'4'4' .j. :•-;''..,,„ , ,, ',,,l.?,; i,e4'■.'104 fii‘Oti$0*'*r-' .."':' if':r.!)■5 1 ■ , ,.. , •'.' ; ''''''l':-;■i opirerryt,,,I,,,,forf-,,•-,- . , . -- - p..,- rt . _-- -:, :,..''....:cio*f43,ia*,-'.,--,7.....;..„.:,..,::::-:-:•,.,,,,,, , — pumr IA ,....---,... - „.,,,,,,exte4Nitiov.:,..„-.7.-.--,,,i ...i....,,,........,„ ,:04.,,,,i,....te:;,:.,:;;;;;•../1.12 " "■"r.......•• c...- . ..,;j170-"bigPilfr ,07,•!;;,,,7 .....!\:_rj`W, .,... .....=- - ,,,-...(....2,1,,y,0411#40,10:4f9e:',2.2-'-7:'-:. •■%.' '.--7,7V1140140A' _,.--- „..s ...'"10,1,,V,..- •7,.• . ..,. • IWetlad 12 150" 750 12 50 — _ — t — 1.Wet land' — — 50 140 s i 140 _ 3 1 1•r , « SO :1 •r s s •s .i .i is 20 - Wcli Street Wetland, 12-\\ 150 1! _____$." ____ MII „ ISO 12 it- 00 �._ _.- N i —_-----Le' 00 -. 140 Oripnel C, nd 140 i - 140 120 100 80` 60 40 20 rL 20 40 60 80 100 120 Scale 1".= 40' Proposed let/and impact Area Cross—Section APPLICANT: City of Tigard 'Fannie Nguyen,Engineering Manager WATERWAY:Pinebrook Creek&wetlands ACTIVITY:Wall Street,permit modification DATE:November 2005;SHEET:ii of 13 ' -V0�":, ' _ -s - • 00., . , ____ _____ __ ., ik Y `� � o-1 •\� q / '� x i `�� a �� r46 t, A iiik s� °� } �� �,° :9 :�y9o` �— 739 �! — W�r te- � \ s „ _�� .". .. = '' 41 5 ZIWAT .1111111.% __'r �� y - s- 5' 1 ` 1 1 -"x i Rough grace c/� `��{ NAlk l'., VA 1;/—�- ``� } \ See sheets R6 and R7\ �q o yx2 PLAN j� �fa fdr typical details.,. y°°; 1® roc. 75(ao' I vrQ f 1 7en.. 7B�'ff'� I rn� p I brq.- N352/r26-1, 1 {f 7r 1� - Z. \ il 0 ® °.c _ °o o 1 RD gh grad ng C/L (Pro.,e grade # I I 1 - m n _� �' I a g;ndl gro n O I a Zr.n-.g .6 _!O c a 1 I r _ _ •n o 0 0 o IIILIIIUIIEI Eli ���� 740 3 44.00 42 ` �r �' _ _��MM- iE 738.54y' =OBS .0 135 730 I 3+65. 5 E_ } 9.50 I i I f ave rse ∎yp -II I PRO 1LE' 1 II•i" "7 07 "} h N N O N _ I ! 125 2 50 - 3+00 3+20 3+40 - - `? n n n 0 s.x 1— • r 3+60 3+50 4+00 4+20 4+40 4+60 4-}-80 5+00 _ SCHEDULE G ' �' DEHAAS ,;,i. APPLICANT: city of Tigard °`�.�i, c .f� . >�mr WALL STREET EXTENSION (PH. 1) SHEET Vannie Nguyen,Engineering Manager. . MX ssoniaan..f Inc....-.,...I.;r r.� -4w�7� STREET & UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS E vaawt WATERWAY:Pinebrook Creek&wetlands ',it+,. CITY or ncaRa 25 629.11e a,�, Aogpsf. 2005 1 ryE 02.629.lIB [+CITY o aIICA D ACTIVITY:Wail Street, OF 34 t,permit modification Farm.o Pointe Access Road Culvert Location DATE:November 2005;SHEET:J c of 13 • I crass f!00 rip-rap(000/Sid.) 1.0 2 dd.depth . pew of bah enas. ... I'terd•x I Writ •:' ; • ' 'r '2 ,-5-...--2-47,- ----- '6". ___-,---7- <-....i-, . -----•'- ------. tiknif,grape C/2 •r-• -(.--. 42-CUP 1%-eti'e erode/ ....;.; 411 sir /'.--) '------ - - ,, . ' - .---- • ; ...,--", ..,--.--" --n-n- ' : ....r-7.-<•^\ , . r• ' _6 ...,_:....,1.---6"dwrps 6--a- . ,e_. .4"..'" , ..1 ::: .i.:---- -v-7; --- ':-., 1 ./Th. 11 lin-- /--• , , ''......!.._. .,.._,:,-,_.„-4...---) 1..„; ..•...-,-,..,, ..... ......,. :-,-:..:-`41E1091 - 1 IIIPV.''.-- e•') •i< .2• y.,.......,./-1 ..........," . ":"-•-••'.....I1 ..."=:L-'.'--,--1- ..';-,--. .' ..,f'.. ''' ''. h'-..; :'--.--',.,"="': ‘"-'''':\ .2!......) Flow. H /-=- ----•• ' ....., _______ — ,-. ...._.....:„ ..... , ....:. •••. ,••- ....,_. ,,,..... .., ...._.... .1-....- ---i• - .—,-i---T.• ; _. '---p---z- _.: .-7•:1.-- Rip-Rap End Slope Detail ,.._..;.,--... % 1.-• ---...V .4..-'..---,---:,--t•-----7 '7 _,.._--- ._... ,....--.„ , ; % ...,-- •..__..,! ..-L--, ...-'"" -'. Scale 1-..6.-47- 7 • Exist prj3e watt 571r 38" • Hall Blvd. Culvert- Outlet Rip-Rap So/.• ,--6---0- • • , ill Stre Wartime . SOnow.fletnane Retititing 141ti, — 740.5 ._,''•;.- ...2-' 76. 14.- 2,1 • . . .. . , How -- ! ' 4.a• - - .. ,-- ! Rough great CA 1 IY.;.,,ALY.,7-2-t r-,■._:::::;.4—A›....,....., :-:','4-; 111M.'•'T.t_ r---- -7---------- to"la,. 42-CAA. 44,NO • i Rough gnode C/2 SC..-0.2002 Etc 12.5. i 11-e-erpn;i> earnego0ons 1.0 /tin. ants-/700 tiVbe beating RoPtecor$td.; w2 Cans/700 67p-Wgpf000T.7140 pen CWS 6 di ir f x d Fenno Point Culvert Section H-H • . s..,.. ,-.5.-.0- SCHEDULE' G 13...rE I ncwwwe I no.1 ..., I .c. .. ,z,34,05 DE EIAAS Sae.■...Cow.. 'Me 5 S.Ormrerte..c. SHEET _ Eau te.14 e'.: -",7"q-- . _._ APPLICAN'T: City of Tigard _ 1... IEW ssociates, Inc. ,W.. „ WALL STREET EXTENSION (PH. 11 R9 IWO Gisraing Wiluerr Scrttpri - Vannie Nguyen,Engineering Manager - ,..... ..7.E.vex 542-2•61. STREET & UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS 29 ' ,,1•V;sfr OTT OF TIGARD .r.S tOC,1 WATERWAY;Pinebrook Creek&wetlands Aoki re [Am Av9.5-4 2005 1,,-E 01.529:I le OF ENcurcpane DERWRIEXT .. 34 ACTIVITY:Wall Street,permit modification Fanno Pointe Access Road Culvert ,-, ._, • DATE:November 2005;SHUT:1.5 of j. . . . . . , . ---- -- - --- ___ 0 CITY OF TIGARD WALL STREET EXTENSION JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION ATTACHMENT A:PROPERTY OWNERS 2S 1 01 800, 1100, 1200 Fred Fields 1149 SW Davenport Portland, Oregon 97201 2S 1 01 1201, 1202 The COE Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 520 Painesville, Ohio 44077 2S 1 02DD 100, 200 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 25 1 02DD 300 Fanno Pointe, LLC 109 E 13th Street Vancouver, Washington 97660 2S 1 02DD 90000 Fanno Pointe Condominiums Jennifer Cosenza,Homeowners Association President 13712 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 • CITY OF TIGARD WALL STREET EXTENSION JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION ATTACHMENT B: PROPOSED PROJECT PURPOSE & DESCRIPTION Permit Modification, Revised November 2005 Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed Wall Street extension is to carry out the requirements of the Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP)which has been acknowledged by LCDC and approved by ODOT and Metro. The connection between Hall Boulevard and Hunziker Street via the extension of Wall Street is identified in the TSP as a needed system . improvement. The TSP is the legally established plan for streets within the city; and it therefore confines the choices available to the city in the completion of its streets system. The Wall Street extension is one of the projects determined by the TSP to be.significant. It is one of only four locations where anticipated connectivity/circulation projects were determined to be primary and significant. The TSP identifies the Wall Street connection as a needed connection, one that is necessary to allow east-west circulation within the city and the region. Completion of this connection is a critical element of the Tigard TSP, a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Tigard is obligated to follow the requirements of the TSP as the city develops. ORS 197.712(2)(e), OAR 660-012-0015, 660-012-0045, • Substitute projects are not included in the TSP, and as a practical matter,there are no alternatives that would be functional substitutes for the Wall Street extension. The purpose of the project is, therefore, to provide transportation connectivity and circulation at the location where it has been determined to be necessary by the city and regional planning processes. The need for the connection has been established by the public planning process which led to adoption and acknowledgment of the TSP. Currently, there is no east-west connection between Hall Boulevard and 72nd Avenue between Hunziker Street and Bonita Road. The lack of a connection results in not only congestion on the east-west streets, but also excessive traffic and congestion on Hall Boulevard and the Hall/99W intersection. The addition of the Wall Street extension will reduce traffic on the existing east-west routes, as well as on Hall Boulevard. The primary goal of the proposed Wall Street extension is to provide a needed additional east-west connection in the eastern part of Tigard as required by the TSP. A secondary goal of the project is to provide access to 26 acres of industrially-zoned land located east of Fanno Creek and west of the railroad tracks. This area currently lacks access. Because Tigard has limited undeveloped industrially zoned land,providing access to the area is vital to theet Tigard's targets for allowing industrial development and meeting employment targets. The project would also improve access to an additional 38 acres of industrially-zoned land east of the tracks and west of Hunziker Street. Wall Street Joint Permit Application Attachment B Page 1 of 5 Another secondary goal is to provide access to the Tigard Library and to the Fanno Pointe Condominiums that is not directly off Hall Boulevard to satisfy ODOT spacing , requirements and improve road safety. Hall Boulevard is an ODOT facility and ODOT has permitted the Tigard library and Fanno Pointe Condominiums to construct temporary entrances off of Hall Boulevard,with a requirement to remove the temporary entrances once permanent access from the extended Wall Street is available. Project Description ' The project is located south of Highway 99W,west of Highway 217, and east of SW Hall Boulevard in Tigard, Oregon at approximately river mile 3.0 of Fanno Creek(Sheet 1). Pinebrook Creek, associated wetlands, two man-made ponds, and Fanno Creek.are located in the project area(Sheets 2a& 2b). The City of Tigard is proposing to construct the Wall Street extension between SW Hall Boulevard and SW Hunziker Street, The project will involve construction of approximately 1,500 feet of new roadway extending northeast of SW Hall Boulevard and crossing Fanno Creek and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks to connect with, and widen, an existing approximately 1,600 linear foot,2- lane paved section of Wall Street(Sheets 3a& 3b). The Wall Street project will include a 320 foot bridge spanning Fanno Creek and its floodway. The City has applied to the Oregon Department of Transportation for permission to construct a signalized intersection to cross the railroad tracks. The Wall Street project is proposed to be constructed in two phases, The wetland permit application includes proposed impacts associated with construction of the entire project. Phase 1 includes construction of the western 360 feet of Wall Street, beginning at SW Hall Boulevard and ending west of the East Pond (Sheet 3a), This phase will involve impacts to Pinebrook Creek and associated wetlands and minor impacts to a man-made pond (the West Pond). Phase 2 includes construction of the remainder of Wall Street to Hunziker Street(Sheets 3a& 3b). This phase will involve additional minor wetland impacts to a second man-made pond(the East Pond) and wetlands located east of Fanno Creek. Proposed wetland impacts for Phases 1 and 2 are shown on Sheet 4a. The basic design of Wall Street includes a 48 foot wide paved roadway (two l lft, travel lanes, a 14ft, median, and two 6ft, bike lanes). The street will have.curbs, 5 foot wide planters,'and 6 foot wide sidewalks on each side. Right-of-way(ROW)width will be 72 feet along with additional widths of up to 20 feet outside the ROW to accommodate 8 foot wide public utility easements and cut and fill slopes. A typical section of Wall Street is shown on Sheet 5, and plan and profile views for the entire alignment are shown on Sheets 6a through 6f. The roadway will be constructed with fills up to 8 feet and cuts up to 3 feet. The highest fills occur at the bridge approaches and are a function of the required elevation of the bridge structure crossing Fanno Creek. A 320 foot bridge over Fanno Creek will span both the creek and its floodway. Bridge details are shown on Sheets 7 & 8. At the bridge crossing, the paved width will be reduced to 36 feet(two 1211. travel lanes and two 611. bike lanes) with curbs, sidewalks and handrails for a total right-of-way width of 50 feet, The bridge will be constructed in four 80 foot sections using precast prestressed concrete slabs supported, by three rows of eight 16-inch Wall Street Joint Permit Application Attachment B Page 2 of 5 diameter steel pipe piles at the junction of each of the sections. The piles will be located outside the stream channel and delineated wetland areas, Since the bridge approach will be constructed on top of up to 8 feet of fill, the elevation of the bridge deck will be located approximately 8 feet above the ground level adjacent to the top of bank of Fanno Creek. Wildlife movement will be possible underneath the bridge deck along Fanno Creek, Stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces associated with the Wall Street project will be captured in storm drains located in the roadway and will be treated in two water ' quality facilities (treatment bioswales). Runoff will be pre-treated in water quality manholes (sumped oil/water separator) prior to entering the bioswales. These water quality manholes will provide heavy sediment and floatable contaminant removal prior to treatment in the bioswales. Runoff from Phase 1 of the project will be treated in the water quality facility that has been constructed on the Tigard Library site. The library bioswale was sized to treat runoff from the library as well as Phase 1 of the Wall Street project. CWS' Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order#03-11, effective April 25, 2003 were utilized with a water quality loading event of 0.36 inches of precipitation falling in 4 hours with a storm return period of 96 hours, an mandated by Oregon Revised Statute 340-41-455(3)(e). The performance of the water quality sumped manhole and bioswale combination was designed in accordance with the CWS model for 65% phosphorus removal from 100% of the newly constructed impervious surfaces as per Tualatin Basin TMDL requirements under OAR 340-41-455, The 65% total phosphorus removal model correlates to 85% total sediment removal efficiency. - A new bioswale will be constructed east of Fanno Creek to treat runoff from Phase 2 of the Wall Street project. The Phase 2 bioswale was sized to accept the impervious surfaces from the Wall Street roadway and sidewalks created by Phase 2 of the project (4.6 acres). The Phase 2 bioswale was designed by the project engineer, Dellaas and Associates, in accordance with the NOAA Fisheries Habitat Conservation Division's stonnwater guidance (2003). The NOAA Fisheries 6-month, 24-hour storm event (approximated by 2/3rd the runoff produced by the 2-year, 24-hour storm of 2.50 inches) utilized the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph technique. This represents treatment of 90-95%of all annual runoff with a resulting water quality discharge of 1.22 cfs. The NOAA Fisheries criteria exceed the CWS requirements of a total precipitation of 0.36 inches falling in 4 hours with a storm return period of 96 hours. The performance of the water quality sumped manhole and bioswale combination was modeled after the CWS model for 65%phosphorus removal. The trapezoidal bioswale will be 168 feet long, with a 6 foot bottom width, maximum treatment depth of 0.5 feet, 4:1 sloped banks, and a channel slope of 0.5%. This results in a minimum residency time of 9.0 minutes with a maximum flow of 1.22 cfs and a discharge velocity of 0.31 fps. Bioswale outfalls will be constructed in wetlands adjacent to Pinebrook or Fanno Creek, and water velocity will be diffused by riprap pads. The outfall from the Phase 1/Tigard Library water quality facility was recently constructed (DSL #30238-RF, Corps #2003-00241) and currently outfalls to Pinebrook Creek in an area proposed to be impacted by the Wall Street Wall Street Joint Permit Application Attachment B Page 3 of 5 project; therefore,this outfall is proposed to be relocated east of its existing location and will outfall into the East Pond which is proposed to be reconfigured into wetland as part of proposed wetland mitigation for the project. The outfall at the downstream end of the Phase 2 bioswale will be located at the edge of a wetland located in the floodplain above the top of bank of Fanno Creek. The wetland is hydrologically connected to Fanno Creek in an area located south of the bioswale. Modeled bioswale discharge from the 6-month, 24-hour design storm is 1.22 cfs with a velocity of 0.31 fps. Bioswale discharge will be further dissipated by outfalling to a 6 foot by 8 foot by 1.5 foot thick rock pad of ODOT class 50 substrate planted with willows positioned at the edge of an elevated Fanno Creek wetland. By discharging the treated stormwater to a wetland area rather than directly to the stream, a further reduction of potential erosive flow forces is attenuated prior to entering Fanno Creek. Flows greater than the 25-year design storm event will be conveyed through a 27-inch diameter high-flow overflow pipe that discharges at a velocity of 9.5 fps into a 7 foot by 12 foot by 2.5 foot thick riprap pad using ODOT class 200 substrate positioned at the uppermost eastern edge of the wetland. Willows will be planted throughout the riprap mattress for temperature mitigation. Sheet 9 provides details of the Phase 2 bioswale, outfall, conveyance system, and overflow outfall. A total of 0.30 acre of wetland fill is proposed for the entire project (Sheet 4a). Wetland impacts for Phase 1 include 0.11 acre to construct the roadway and fill slopes for the first 360 feet of the project. Wetland impacts for Phase 2 include 0.19 acre to construct the westerly bridge wingwall and the roadway and fill slopes for the remainder of the project. Proposed wetland impacts are mainly to Pinebrook Creek and associated emergent/scrub- shrub wetlands which are heavily invaded by invasive species. Minor wetland impacts are proposed to the West Pond, East Pond, and wetlands east of Fanno Creek located above the top of slope adjacent to Fanno Creek. Impacts to Pinebrook Creek are included in the wetland impact calculations. The section of Pinebrook Creek located in the impact area is not a well-defined channel, instead it consists of two to three approximately 6 inch wide shallow channels that flow through an associated reed canarygrass-dominated wetland. The top of stream bank could not be delineated in the field; therefore, the stream impact area could not be separated from the wetland impact area. The project will result in the loss of approximately 270 linear feet of Pinebrook Creek stream channel, and we estimate that the area of stream channel to be impacted is approximately 270 to 400 square feet. Fill activities in Pinebrook Creek will be_.conducted during the ODFW in-water work window of June 1 through September 30. Proposed stream and wetland mitigation consists of a combination of stream channel and wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and wetland restoration (Sheet 10). The Pinebrook Creek stream channel and adjacent wetlands will be reconstructed slightly south of their existing location and Pinebrook Creek will be reconnected to Fanny Creek via a historic stream channel located on the Fanno Pointe Condominiums site. The two man-made ponds will be taken off-line from Pinebrook Creek and will be reconfigured and enhanced as stream-associated wetland areas. The remainder of the project wetland impacts will be mitigated for by removing the upland berm along the south edge of the East Pond to restore historic wetlands. . i Wall Street Joint Permit Application Attachment B Page 4 of 5 Wetland mitigation activities will require 0.28 acre of temporary wetland impact due to removal in existing wetlands. These impacts will include 0.08 acre in the proposed wetland enhancement area in order to reconstruct Pinebrook Creek and associated wetlands. Additional temporary wetland impacts will also be necessary in order to lower the existing elevations in three wetland areas in order to connect the berm removal/wetland restoration area with existing wetlands to the south on the Fanno Pointe site. These three wetland areas to be temporarily impacted include: the East Pond at its the south side (0.02 acre), a small existing drainage south of the East Pond (0.02) and existing wetlands on the Panne Pointe site (0.13 acre). Finally, excavation of the new Pinebrook Creek stream channel on the Fanno Pointe site will result in 0.03 acre of temporary impact to existing wetlands. All temporarily impacted wetland areas will be seeded and planted upon completion of grading according to the mitigation plan. Approximately 550 linear feet of new stream channel will be reconstructed to mitigate for the approximately 270 linear feet of Pinebrook Creek to be impacted. From the location where the existing Pinebrook Creek enters the site from under Hall Boulevard, the stream is currently culverted twice in culverts not designed for fish passage for a total length of approximately 170 feet, The reconfigured Pinebrook Creek will only be culverted once under the Fanno Pointe access road for a distance of 65 feet (Sheet 12). This culvert will be a 42 inch diameter CMP with a flat grade and will be buried 6 inches and have natural substrate (Sheet 13). More details regarding stream and wetland mitigation are included in the wetland mitigation plan included in Attachment D. A Biological Assessment was prepared to evaluate potential project-related impacts on federally listed or candidate fish, wildlife and plant species that may occur in the project area. The primary reason for preparation of the BA is the potential for listed Upper Willamette River winter steelhead to be present in Fanno Creek. The effects of the project activities on listed fish and aquatic habitat were evaluated under the programmatic Biological Opinion issued by NOAA Fisheries (2002) Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) for Certain Activities Requiring Department of the Army Permits in Oregon and the North Shore of the Columbia River. The proposed project activities were modified to meet all applicable terms and conditions of SLOPES that apply to this project, including general construction, road crossings, and stormwater management thereby preventing potential project impacts from negatively affecting listed fish species. A summary of SLOPES terms and conditions and proposed project actions to meet the SLOPES criteria was included in Appendix D of the Biological Assessment. The Biological Assessment was previously submitted to the Corps of Engineers, who determined that consultation with USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries was not required for this project. Wall Street Joint Permit Application Attachment B • Page 5 of 5 ® CITY OF TIGARD WALL STREET EXTENSION JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION ATTACHMENT C:PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF THE WETLAND/WATERWAY SITE The western third of the proposed Wall Street alignment crosses Pinebrook Creek and its associated emergent/scrub-shrub wetlands,two man-made ponds on-line with Pinebrook Creek, and Fanno Creek and its floodplain. Two projects are currently being constructed adjacent to the western portion of the Wall Street project area just east of SW Hall Boulevard and include the Tigard Library north of the project area and the Fatmo Pointe Condominiums south of the project area, The eastern two thirds of the proposed alignment consists of mowed fields dominated by upland pasture grasses including tall fescue, bentgrass and sweet vernalgrass with scattered forbs including spotted cats-ear, Queen Anne's lace, oxeye daisy, English plantain, clover, and wood sorrel. The field edge above the floodplain of Fanno Creek is a narrow,moderately sloped woodland with Douglas fir, Oregon white oak,big leaf maple and Oregon ash in the canopy and snowberry, beaked hazelnut,Indian plum, rose, ornamental hawthorn and Himalayan blackberry in the shrub understory. Scattered sword fern and fringecup are also present. Fanno Creek flows southeast through the west portion of the project site. The stream banks along this reach of Fanno Creek are approximately 8 feet high and are steeply sloped and incised. Banks are nearly vertical and covered with dense Himalayan blackberry in many areas. Sections of Fanno Creek are shaded by native shrubs and trees, including red-osier dogwood,Pacific ninebark,willow, Douglas fir, Oregon white oak, Oregon ash and red alder. Upland trees present near Fanno Creek include Douglas fir and Oregon white oak. Fanno Creek is dominated by glides and pools in the project area with less than 5%riffles. Stream substrate is dominated by fines and silt,with bank material dominated by native soil and clay. Bank erosion is noticeable with observable evidence of recent channel scour. Water quality in Fanno Creek is currently managed under the Tualatin Basin TMDL program,but remains limited for temperature, dissolved oxygen(DO),phosphorus, and bacteria(Jan Miller, CWS personal communication, September 5, 2003). The hydrology of the system at the project site is very flashy with pronounced effects observed during a recent rainfall event. During the September 6 through 8, 2003 rain event, approximately 1.05 inches of rain fell over a 32 hour period of time,during which time discharge at Durham road went from approximately 5 cfs to 160 cfs. Pinebrook Creek has been extensively modified from its historic condition and currently flows easterly through the site to its confluence with Fanno Creek. The stream flows through a series of pipes and is associated with two man-made ponds that adversely affect the downstream water quality of Fanno Creek. The original outfall of Pinebrook Creek onto the project site was from a 115 foot long 18 inch concrete culvert under Hall Boulevard, This culvert has been replaced with a 118.5 foot long, 57 inch wide by 38 inch high arch culvert with natural substrate to meet fish passage requirements as part of the Hall Boulevard widening project that is currently under construction, Hall Street was recently widened approximately 13 to 15 feet east of the existing edge of pavement within the road right-of- way for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet,which was a City and ODOT approval requirement for the Fanno Pointe Condominiums and Tigard Library projects. Wall Street Joint Permit Application Attachment C Page 1 of 4 Pinebrook Creek is daylighted for approximately 55 feet on the east side of Hall Boulevard before it is culverted around an on-line diversion pond in a 12 inch concrete culvert for approximately 140 feet. The diversion pond (the West Pond)was constructed in the early 1960s based upon a review of historic aerial photographs. The pond contains up to 2 feet of sediment and has a silty clay bottom, Concrete cylinders form the walls of the pond at the downstream end. A narrow fringe of emergent wetland vegetation surrounds the pond; vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass, and other common fringe species include purple loosestrife(noxious),common horsetail, and nodding beggar's tick. Only very limited shading is provided by a few small trees including curly willow located adjacent to the northeast corner of the pond and an English birch tree located adjacent to the SW corner of the pond.The pond surface was covered with algae during the August, September,and October 2003 site visits. The shallow diversion pond receives flow from Pinebrook Creek via a 4 inch PVC pipe and outfalls back into Pinebrook Creek in a second approximately 35 foot daylighted section of Pinebrook Creek,that is heavily eroded, located below the pond to the east. Below this second daylighted section,Pinebrook Creek is culverted in an 18 inch concrete culvert for approximately 15 feet. Downstream of this culvert,Pinebrook Creek is daylighted for approximately 200 feet and flows through an emergent/scrub-shrub wetland area dominated by invasive and noxious species including reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, bittersweet nightshade, creeping buttercup and Himalayan blackberry and also including scattered native Oregon ash,rose and willow. Pinebrook Creek appears to consist of two to three narrow(approximately 6 inch) shallow meandering channels through the reed canarygrass. A mainstream channel is not visible, The downstream end of Pinebrook Creek flows into a second on-line man-made pond(the East Pond) located at the top of bank of Fanno Creek. This pond was constructed in the late 1940s or early 1950s based upon a review of historic aerial photographs. The pond appears to have been constructed by pushing up a dirt berm at the downstream end of Pinebrook Creek just prior to its confluence with Fanno Creek,blocking fish passage. The East Pond is heavily silted in and contains 3 to 4 feet of sediment. A fringe of emergent wetland vegetation surrounds the pond; vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass, reed mannagrass,peppermint, and purple loosestrife; other common species include floating pennywort,American speedwell,spotted ladysthumb, soft rush,beggar's tick, and small- fruited bulrush. Limited shading is provided by Oregon ash and red alder trees along Fanno Creek on the southeast side of the pond. The pond surface was covered with algae during the August, September and October 2003 site visits. Pinebrook Creek does not provide any navigational, fishing, or recreational uses, Fanno Creek and adjacent wetlands and riparian areas may provide for passive recreational uses on the project site including activities such as bird watching. In addition,Fanno Creek may provide recreational uses such as canoeing or fishing, although there are no known canoe access or fishing sites on the project site, The design of the Wall Street project incorporates a 320 foot bridge spanning Fanno Creek to avoid impacts to Fanno Creek;therefore,the project should not affect fishing or canoeing uses of Fanno Creek. The project will result in an increase in noise levels on the site,both during construction and upon completion of construction due to noise of vehicles using the roadway,which may reduce wildlife use of the site as well as recreational uses such as bird watching. However,the Fanno Creek Park is Wall Street Joint Permit Application Attachment C Page 2 of 4 proposed just north of Wall Street and the Tigard library site which will provide for continued passive recreational uses near the project site. A new section of the Fanno Creek Trail is planned for construction on the project site as well as to the south of the project site on the Fanno Pointe Condominiums site and to the north of the project site on the Tigard Library site,Phase 2 of the Wall Street project will incorporate a crossing of Wall Street for the Fanno Creek Trail to provide a connection between the future trail segments to be constructed north and south of the project site. Tolerant aquatic insects,three-spined stickleback fish and mosquitofish were present in the West Pond and East Pond during the August 12,2003 site visit by FES aquatic staff. Water temperatures were measured during an overcast morning and it was found that the West Pond(18.0°C)warmed Pinebrook Creek water by 0.5 °C (17.0°C upstream and 17.5°C downstream of West Pond). Pinebrook Creek water temperature entering the East Pond measured 17.5 °C and near the middle of the East Pond water temperature measured 20.0 °C. Water temperature measured 18.0°C in Fanno Creek. Clearly,these two man-made ponds on-line with Pinebrook Creek contribute to thermal pollution in Pinebrook and Fanno Creeks. It is apparent that dissolved oxygen and nutrient inputs negatively impact Fanno and Pinebrook Creeks as a result of the current state of these on-line ponds. Furthermore,the East Pond's outfall to Fanno Creek flows over a highly eroded earthen berm dropping 6 feet vertically, and cascading another 2 feet to Fanno Creek. The current condition of this eroded outfall blocks fish passage and has a high future failure potential,which would result in the accumulated silt load in the East Pond depositing in and negatively impacting Fanno Creek's at-risk aquatic habitat. Forested and scrub-shrub wetlands are present in the floodplain east of Fanno Creek on the project site as well as south of the project site on the undeveloped(open space)portion of the Fanno Pointe site. These wetlands contain several native shrub and tree species including Oregon ash, red alder,willow, red-osier dogwood,Pacific ninebark, and clustered rose,in addition to the invasive species reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry, Shrub cover is dense and often greater than 65%. Due to their diversity of vegetation species and structure, these wetlands provide better wildlife habitat values than the invasive-species dominated wetlands associated with Pinebrook Creek.The road alignment has been located to minimize impacts to wetlands on the east side of Fantlo Creek..Since the roadway will be constructed on top of up to 8 feet of fill at the bridge approaches,the elevation of the bridge deck will be located approximately 8 feet above ground level. Wildlife movement will be possible underneath the bridge deck along Fanno Creek A large forested area located southwest of the railroad tracks and southeast of the Fanno. Pointe site is mapped as wildlife habitat in the Patina Creek Watershed Management Plan. The forest consists of a multi-layered mixed deciduous-coniferous canopy with diverse cover and structure. The canopy provides approximately 60% cover and contains big leaf. maple, Oregon white oak, Oregon ash, Douglas fir,grand fir, and western red cedar.The diameters of trees range from 6 inches to 30 inches,The shrub understory provides approximately 50%cover and includes snowberry,beaked hazelnut, Oregon grape, Indian plum,vine maple, elderberry, serviceberry, English holly and ornamental hawthorn. Groundcover is dominated by large patches of English ivy in the forest edge but also Wall Street Joint Permit Application Attachment C .. Page 3 of 4 • includes sword fern,oniongrass, Dewey's sedge, inside-out flower,bracken fern and trailing blackberry. Himalayan blackberry is present in the forest edge but is not a dominant component of the shrub layer. Snags are common and provide potential nesting sites for cavity nesters; large woody debris is also common and provides refugia for small wildlife species. A second forested area located northeast of the railroad tracks and south of Wall Street is mapped as wildlife habitat by Metro. This forested area does not contain the vegetation diversity or structure of the higher quality wildlife habitat patch to the southwest and contains a higher percentage of Himalayan blackberry. The woodland is mostly deciduous with a patch of Douglas fir with an open understory on the north end close to Hunziker Road. Canopy vegetation is dominated by black cottonwood and red alder with smaller amounts of big leaf maple and Douglas fir. Tree diameters range from approximately 10 inches to 20 inches, The understory is dominated by Himalayan blackberry with scattered ornamental hawthorn,beaked hazelnut, and vine maple. Sword fern is present in the understory with large patches of English ivy. Snags and large woody debris are common. This forest does not contain either a seasonal or permanent water source and is not contiguous with the Fanno Creek corridor due to the presence of the railroad tracks along its southern edge. This forest is currently bordered on the north and west by industrially developed parcels and on the east by residential development. Due to these factors,this forest provides low to moderate wildlife habitat value. • • ' I ' I ' I Wall Street Joint Permit Application Attachment C Page 4 of 4 CITY OF TIGARD WALL STREET EXTENSION JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION ATTACHMENT D: WETLAND MITIGATION DATA FORM (Permit Modification, Revised November 2005) • Mitigation Data Form App#31719-RF App Name: Wall Street, permit modification Resource Coord: Louise Bos Date: 11122/2005 Authorized Impact, Acreage HGM Class Cowardin Class Mitigation Type Auth.Permanent Impact . 1 0.25 1 1 0.04 2 1 0.01 3 1 RI 1 1 1 RI 2 1 RI 1 3 1 PETVI/P45 11 1 POW 2 J PEM 3 Mit.Creation 0.08 1 2 3 RI 1 2 3 PEM 1 2 3 _Mit. Enhancement 0.29 1 2 3 RI 1 2 3 PFO/ 3 1 2 3 Mit. Protection 020 1 2 3 RI 1 2 3 PFOJJ3 1 2 3 Mit. Restoration 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Mit. Bank Credits 1 PTP credits* I Bank Name I _ Note: Be sure that acreage, HGM,and Cowardin class boxes correspond,i.e., if acreage is Q_521,then you are reporting that this relates to RFT z/in the HGM class,and PFO 2/in Cowardin class. If you have"more than 3 of any impactor mitigation type,use the back of this sheet and write OVER on this side. Protection Type Bonding Type Bond Amount ❑ None ® None Required $ ❑ Conservation Easement ❑ Surety Bond ❑ Restrictive Covenant in Deed ❑ Letter of Credit Ave. Buffer Width IZ Deed Restriction ❑ Assignment of CD ft ❑ Other: Monitoring Years (3 or 5): 5 Report Due: Nov. 2007 As-Built Due: Winter 2006 Mitigation Site Location (Only if different from impact site. Add pages for additional sites.) Site Number (if applicable): _ Name (if applicable): Waterbody (on or adjacent): _City (if in city limits): _ County (required): Tax Lot (if applicable): TRSQQ: Mitigation Project Number(For Data Entry Only): G_12003103071_TiglPermit12005 permit revisions\mtproject form.doc CITY OF TIGARD WALL STREET EXTENSION JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION ATTACHMENT E: WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN (Permit Modification, Revised November 2005) • • 4 1 1=i t 1 1,- - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS City of Tigard Wall Street Extension i I Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Prepared for: Vannie Nguyen, Engineering Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 i Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants 434 NW 6th Avenue, Suite 304 Portland, Oregon 97209 _ ; Project 03071110170-199 i ,, 4 Revised November 2005 � � (revised due to permit modification) . t p ) a 5 ,L :.- };- :" i , - ;t #3,:,1,,,,:,,,-..; 1 t om•, . i : v I �- i t a: v • ; i! f 4t s _,�i :..-??7,1% E f q5� '7 F X �„ E t. 3f_r i d , ' .i, :.4V � v 1 y e`s , ; 5 r;�� 4 ��` ti ^, r y3• ° f_�, . - :r Ar . ., t i-'�� � '� � tl� 3.,.q`v�`lrt_ K}� i.- ',4 3�i �.i�,�i. t•`r. tii ?� ° ��. �t��s-,��' _ :�sxr•_ �'s`� t- .}"ik,'s�� t xl. �:?' '�i _ • City of Tigard Wall Street Extension Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Prepared for: Vannie Nguyen, Engineering Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants 434 NW 6th Avenue, Suite 304 Portland, Oregon 97209 Project 03071110170.199 Revised November 2005 (revised due to permit modification) . I Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Project Description 1 3 Existing Site Conditions 2 3.1 Wetland Delineation 2 3.2 Existing Conditions 3 • 3.3 Wetland Functional Attributes 4 3.3.1 Impact Wetlands 4 3.3.2 Mitigation Wetlands 6 3.4 Hydrology 7 3.5 Mitigation Site Area 8 4 Compensatory Mitigation 8 4.1 Mitigation Site Selection 10 4.2 Mitigation Site Constraints 10 4.3 Mitigation Design Assumptions 11 4,4 Mitigation Goals and Objectives 11 4.5 Mitigation Success Criteria 12 4.6 Mitigation Site Grading 12 4.7 Mitigation Site Planting 14 4.8 Mitigation Reference Site 16 5 Mitigation Monitoring 16 6 Construction Schedule 17 7 Maintenance 18 8 Contingency 19 9 Long-Term Protection & Security Instrument 19 List of Tables Table 1. Existing and Proposed Wetlands Functions 7 Table 2. Mitigation Goals and Objectives 11 Table 3. Wetland Planting Mix 15 Table 4. Wetland Tree And Shrub Plantings 15 Table 5. Conceptual Mitigation Project Schedule 18 Fishman/SWCA Project 03071110170-199 i Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 List of Figures Sheet 1. Site Location Map 20 Sheets 2a & 2b. Site Plan 21 Sheet 3. Existing Conditions 22 Sheet 4. Wetland Mitigation Plan 23 Sheets 5a 5d. Stream Restoration Grading Plan & Profile 24 Sheets 6a—6d. Stream Restoration Details 25 Sheet 7. Proposed Stream and Wetland Mitigation Cross-Section Elevations 26 Fishman/SWCA Project 03071/10170-199 ii Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 I Introduction This wetland mitigation plan addresses compensatory mitigation requirements for stream and wetland impacts associated with the City of Tigard's proposed Wall Street Extension project. The mitigation plan meets the Department of State Lands January 15, 2003 administrative rules for compensatory mitigation as well as the U.S Army Corps of Engineers guidance for the establishment and maintenance of compensatory mitigation projects under the Corps regulatory program pursuant to Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (October 31, 2001). The mitigation strategy for proposed stream and wetland impacts focuses on restoration of the extensively altered downstream section of Pinebrook Creek to a more natural condition, including restoring its connection to Fanno Creek and creation of additional stream channel length, along with creation, enhancement and restoration of stream-associated wetlands. The Wall Street project is located south of Highway 99W, west of Highway 217, and east of SW Hall Boulevard in Tigard, Oregon. The City of Tigard is proposing to construct a new segment of Wall Street extending northeast from SW Hall Boulevard to SW Hunziker Street(Sheet 1). The Wall Street impacts to streams and wetlands include modification to Pinebrook Creek,a first order tributary to Fanno Creek, placement of fill in wetlands and man-made ponds associated with Pinebrook Creek, and placement of fill in wetlands associated with Fanno Creek. 2 Project Description The Wall Street project(Sheets 2a& 2b) consists of constructing a new section of Wall Street extending approximately 1,500 feet east of SW Hall Boulevard and crossing Fanno Creek and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks to connect with an existing approximately 1,600 linear foot section of Wall Street. The City has applied to the Oregon Department of Transportation for permission to cross the railroad tracks. The paved Wall Street roadway will be 48 feet wide and will include curbs, 5 foot wide planters and 6 foot wide sidewalks on both sides. The total width of the roadway and improvements is 72 feet. The existing section of Wall Street, located east of the railroad tracks, is a 40 foot wide paved 2-lane road that will be widened to 48 feet and improved to a total width of 70 feet. A 320 foot bridge over Fanno Creek will span both the creek and its floodway. Due to the elevation of Hall Boulevard and existing grades along the proposed alignment, the elevation of the bridge deck will be approximately 6 to 8 feet above ground level and will allow for movement of wildlife along Fanno Creek beneath the bridge. The paved roadway of the bridge deck will be 36 feet wide with 6 foot wi&'sidewalks and pedestrian rails on both sides, for a total width of 50 feet. The City evaluated nine alternative roadway alignments and five alternative bridge lengths for the proposed Wall Street extension in order to minimize impacts to Pinebrook Creek, associated wetlands and ponds and the Fanno Creek floodway. The presently proposed project(Alternative 9) is a variation of the City's previous Preferred Alternative. The present design keeps the intersection of Wall Street with Hall Boulevard at the same location as the Preferred Alternative, Fishman/SWCA Project 03071110170-199 1 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 which has been approved by ODOT, and shifts the remaining roadway up to 70 feet north of the Preferred Alternative. The presently proposed alignment has several advantages over the City's previous Preferred Alternative. The proposed project will result in less impact to Pinebrook Creek and associated wetlands and will allow Pinebrook Creek to remain on the south side of Wall Street, eliminating the need to relocate Pinebrook Creek as would have been required with the Preferred Alternative. Relocating Pinebrook Creek would have required one 90 to 100 foot culvert to take Pinebrook Creek to the north side of Wall Street and possibly a second 90 to 100 foot culvert to take Pinebrook Creek back to the south in order to connect with Fanno Creek in the event that Pinebrook Creek could not be routed underneath the westerly bridge span. In addition, due to the bridge being moved 70 feet north, the bridge will more completely span the East Pond. The Wall Street project is proposed to be constructed in two phases (Phases 1 and 2). The wetland permit application includes proposed wetland impacts associated with construction of the entire project. A total of 0.30 acre of wetland impact is proposed for the entire project. Phase I includes construction of the western 360 feet of Wall Street, beginning at SW Hall Boulevard and ending west of the East Pond, in order to provide access to the Tigard Library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums that is not directly off of Hall Boulevard. Phase 1 will involve 0.11 acre of wetland and stream impacts to construct the roadway and fill slopes for the first 360 feet of the project. This phase will involve impacts to Pinebrook Creek and associated wetlands and minor impacts to the West Pond. Phase 2 includes construction of the remainder of Wall Street to Hunziker Street. Phase 2 will involve 0.19 acre of wetland impact including minor impacts to the. East Pond and wetlands located east of Fanno Creek in order to construct the bridge wingwall on the west side of the bridge and the roadway and fill slopes for the remainder of the alignment. No impacts are proposed to Fanno Creek from either Phase 1 or 2 of the project. A 320 foot bridge over Fanno Creek will span both the creek and its floodway. Bridge pilings will be placed outside the Fanno Creek stream channel and delineated wetland areas. The project also includes construction of one water quality facility to treat runoff from Phase 2 of the project. This water quality facility will be located on the east side of Fanno Creek underneath the bridge span, and will outfall to wetlands associated with Fanno Creek. Runoff from Phase 1 of the project will be treated in the water quality facility recently constructed in the southeast corner of the Tigard library site. This water quality facility was sized to treat runoff from both the library and Phase 1 of the Wall Street project. 3 Existing Site Conditions 3.1 Wetland Delineation Three separate wetland delineations were conducted by different consultants in the proposed Wall Street project and mitigation areas. A wetland delineation report was prepared for the Tigard Library site by Kurahashi &Associates in June 2002 (DSL WD#2002-0324; DSL concurrence letter dated October 8, 2002), The study area for the library delineation included the proposed library site as well as the Wall Street right-of-way extending from Hall Boulevard to the west side of Fanno Creek. A wetland delineation report for the proposed Wall Street right-of- Fishman/SWCA Project 03071/10170-199 2 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 way extending from the west side of Fanno Creek to the east side of the railroad tracks was prepared by Pacific Habitat Services in September 2003 (DSL WD# 2003-0599; DSL concurrence letter dated March 15, 2004). A wetland delineation report for the adjacent Fanno Pointe Condominiums site to the south, where a portion of the Wall Street right-of-way is located • and where partial wetland mitigation is proposed to occur, was prepared by Rhea Environmental Consultants in August 2002 (DSL WD # 2003-0024; DSL concurrence letter dated June 2, 2003). All delineated streams and wetlands are shown on Sheet 3. ,3.2 Existing Conditions Classification of the site wetlands associated with Pinebrook and Fanno Creeks according to Cowardin class is palustrine,persistent emergent and broad-leaved deciduous scrub-shrub wetlands with a saturated semipermanent/seasonal water regime(PEM1Y & PSS1Y). A minor palustrine, broad-leaved deciduous forested, saturated semipermanent/seasonal (PF01 Y) wetland component is also present on the east side of Fanno Creek where a few Oregon ash trees are present. The two man-made ponds associated with Pinebrook Creek are classified as palustrine, open water, permanently flooded, diked/impounded, excavated (POWHhx). Pinebrook Creek and associated wetlands and man-made ponds are shown on Sheet 3. Pinebrook Creek has been extensively modified from its historic condition and currently flows easterly through the site toils confluence with Fanno Creek. The stream flows through a series of pipes and is associated with two man-made ponds that adversely affect the downstream water quality of Fanno Creek. The original outfall of Pinebrook Creek onto the project site was from a 115 foot long.18 inch concrete culvert under Hall Boulevard, This culvert has been replaced with a 118.5 foot long, 57 inch wide by 38 inch high arch culvert with natural substrate to meet fish passage requirements as part of the recent Hall Boulevard widening project. Hall Boulevard was widened approximately 13 to 15 feet east of the existing edge of pavement within the road right- of-way for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet, which was a City and ODOT approval requirement for the Fanno Pointe and Tigard library projects. Pinebrook Creek is daylighted for approximately 55 feet on the east side of Hall Boulevard before it is culverted around a diversion pond (the West Pond) in a 12 inch concrete culvert for approximately 140 feet. The West Pond was constructed in the early 1960s based upon a review of historic aerial photographs. The pond contains up to,2 feet of sediment and has a silty clay bottom. Concrete cylinders form the walls of the pond at the downstream end. A narrow fringe of emergent wetland vegetation surrounds the pond; vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass, and other common fringe species include purple loosestrife, common horsetail, and nodding beggar's tick. Only very limited shading is provided by a few small trees including curly willow located adjacent to the northeast corner of the pond and an English birch tree located adjacent to the SW corner of the pond. The pond surface was covered with algae during the August, September, and October 2004 site visits. The pond receives flow from Pinebrook Creek via a fl- inch PVC pipe and outfalls back into Pinebrook Creek in a second approximately 35 foot long daylighted section of Pinebrook Creek, that is heavily eroded, located below the pond to the east. Below this second daylighted section, Pinebrook Creek is culverted in an 18 inch concrete culvert for approximately 15 feet. Downstream of this culvert, Pinebrook Creek is daylighted for approximately 200 feet and flows through an emergent and scrub-shrub wetland area dominated by invasive species including reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, bittersweet nightshade, Fishman/SWCA Project 03071110170-199 3 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 creeping buttercup and Himalayan blackberry and also including scattered native Oregon ash, rose and willow. Pinebrook Creek appears to consist of two to three narrow(approximately 6 inch) shallow meandering channels through the reed canarygrass. A main stream channel is not visible. The downstream end of Pinebrook Creek flows into a second man-made pond (the East Pond) located at the top of bank of Fanno Creek. This pond was constructed in the late 1940s or early 1950s based upon a review of historic aerial photographs, The pond appears to have been ,constructed by pushing up a dirt berm at the downstream end of Pinebrook Creek just prior to its confluence with Fanno Creek, blocking fish passage. The East Pond is heavily silted in and contains at least 3 to 4 feet of sediment. A fringe of emergent wetland vegetation surrounds the pond; vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass, reed mannagrass, peppermint, and purple loosestrife. Other common species include floating penny-wort, American speedwell, spotted ladysthumb, soft rush, beggar's tick, and small-fruited bulrush. Limited shading is provided by Oregon ash and red alder trees along Fanno Creek on the east side of the pond. The pond surface was covered with algae during the August, September and October 2004 site visits. 3.3 Wetland Functional Attributes Existing wetland functional attributes were evaluated by Fishman/SWCA using the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM)based assessment for the Willamette Valley ecoregion(DSL, February 2001). HGM data sheets are available upon request. Wetlands and ponds associated with Pinebrook Creek belong to the Riverine Impounding class. The two man-made ponds as well as the wetlands along the lower portion of Pinebrook Creek are impounded as a result of having restricted outlets due to the presence of berms and an undersized culvert. Wetland mitigation will be conducted on-site adjacent to Pinebrook Creek. Wetland mitigation will consist of reconstructing the Pinebrook Creek stream channel along with wetland creation, enhancement and restoration of wetlands along Pinebrook Creek within its active floodplain. The two man-made ponds will be taken off-line from Pinebrook Creek and will be reconfigured into seasonally ponded wetlands. The reconfigured East Pond wetland will receive inputs of treated stormwater from the bioswale for the Tigard Library and Phase 1 of the Wall Street project. The mitigated Pinebrook Creek wetlands will consist of temporarily ponded areas within active biennial floodplains and will therefore still be classified as Riverine Impounding. 3.3.1 Impact Wetlands Thirteen functional capacities were assessed for the existing wetlands and ponds associated with Pinebrook Creek. The same functional capacities were assessed for the mitigated Pinebrook Creek wetlands in their proposed future post-mitigation condition. Functional capacities are listed below with the corresponding scores, with"1.0"having the highest functional capacity score and "0" having the least. 1. Water Storage and Delay Score=0.10 2. Sediment Stabilization and Phosphorous Retention Score= 0.93 3. Nitrogen Removal Score= 0.66 4. Thermoregulation Score= 0.51 Fishman/SWCA Project 03071110170-199 4 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 • 5. Primary Production Score = 0.73. 6. Resident Fish Habitat Support Score = 0.68 7. Anadromous Fish Habitat Support Score = 0.0 8. Invertebrate Habitat Support Score= 0.55 9. Amphibian& Turtle Habitat Score = 0.57 10. Breeding Waterbird Support Score= 0.0 11. Wintering & Migratory Waterbird Support Score=,0.48 12. Songbird Habitat Support Score=0.62 13. Support of Characteristic Vegetation Score=0.60 Existing functions 1, 7 and 10 of the Pinebrook Creek wetlands and ponds scored very low(0.10 or lower). Function 1, water storage and delay, scored 0.10 due to the fact that 30% to 60% of the site is inundated only seasonally and the predominant vertical increase in surface water level is less than 2 feet, Since the ponds are permanently inundated, the capacity for these areas to store additional water during seasonal storm events is limited. Function 7, anadromous fish habitat support, scored 0 since Pinebrook Creek is not accessible to anadromous fish during high water due to the presence of a berm at the downstream end of Pinebrook Creek and the East Pond and the 6 to 8 foot nearly vertical banks of Fanno Creek at the confluence with Pinebrook Creek. Function 10,breeding waterbird support, scored 0 since less than 0.5 acre of surface water persists until at least July 1; however, we believe its function to be higher than the HGM score indicates. These ponds do provide some breeding waterbird support function since nearby residents have reported observations of ducklings using the ponds. There is potential to increase the scores for functions 1 and 7 through mitigation. Functions 3, 4 and 13 scored medium (0.51 to 0.66) and also offer an opportunity to increase these functions through mitigation. Function 3, nitrogen removal, is limited due to the fact that the two ponds are ponded at nearly the same depth year-round, which limits the percent of the site that is inundated only seasonally as well as the difference between predominating high and low water levels on the site. Function 4, thermoregulation, scored 0.51; however, we believe its function to be much lower based upon water temperature data collected on the site by Fishman/SWCA. The thermoregulation function is described in the HGM manual"If measured, this function could be expressed as: the decrease in temperature of water exiting a site via surface flow or infiltration, compared with temperature of the water when it enters the site via surface flow." The current functioning of the ponds is opposite to this.definition. Instead of decreasing water temperatures in downstream waters, the ponds remain ponded throughout the summer and contribute heated water to downstream Pinebrook and Fanno Creeks. Fishman/SWCA biologists measured water temperatures as being 17.0 °C in Pinebrook Creek upstream of the West Pond, 18,0 °C in the West Pond, and 17.5 °C downstream of the West Pond. Water temperature near the middle of the East Pond measured 20.0 °C. Water temperature measured 18.0°C in Fanno Creek. Clearly, these two man-made ponds contribute to thermal pollution in Pinebrook and Fanno Creeks. Fishman/SWCA PrOject 03071110170-199 5 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification, November 2005 Function 13, support of characteristic vegetation, is limited by the low occurrence of trees and shrubs and lack of native species in the wetland. 3.3.2 Mitigation Wetlands Functional capacities and their corresponding scores for the proposed mitigated Pinebrook Creek wetlands (post-mitigation) are shown in Table 1 on the following page. Increases or decreases in function from the existing wetlands proposed to be impacted are also shown. According to the HGM assessment, the wetland mitigation will result in functional gains for several functions including water storage and delay, nitrogen removal, anadromous fish habitat support, amphibian and turtle habitat, wintering and migratory waterbird support, and support of characteristic vegetation. Although not reflected by the HGM scores, we believe there will be functional gains for several other functions. The proposed mitigation will result in an increase in thermoregulation function due to removal of two on-line ponds that currently contribute thermal pollution to Pinebrook and Fanno Creeks. The mitigation will also provide a net increase in primary production due to the reconfiguration of the two man-made ponds, which are currently unvegetated, into emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. Resident fish habitat support will also be increased due to the reconfiguration of Pinebrook Creek into a more defined stream channel, whereas its current configuration of two to three shallower undefined channels does not provide fish passage at low flows. The proposed mitigation may result in minor decreases in a few functions. Any minor loss in sediment stabilization and phosphorous retention will be mitigated for by the water quality facility to be constructed as part of this project. The mitigation wetlands may have reduced invertebrate habitat support and songbird habitat support as compared with the existing wetlands due to the removal of the two on-line ponds; however, the presence of other perennial water sources very close to the project site including Fanno Creek and a more natural pond approximately 900 feet to the north of the project area on the Fanno Creek Park site, should mitigate for the loss of the ponds on the site. The increase in vegetation diversity and structure of the mitigation site, removal of invasives, and increase in the number of native species is considered to provide a net benefit in wildlife habitat function. There will be a minor reduction in the breeding waterbird support function, although it is not reflected by the HGM scores. The existing ponds do provide some breeding waterbird support function based upon observations of nearby residents, and reconfiguring the ponds into seasonally ponded wetlands will reduce this function. The existing Pinebrook Creek and associated wetlands provide habitat for wildlife species commonly found in disturbed urban wetlands and that are resistant to human and domestic animal disturbance. Construction of the proposed Wall Street when taken in combination with the recently constructed Tigard library and Fanno Pointe Condominiums adjacent to the wetland mitigation site may reduce the wildlife value of the mitigation site, although species likely to use the site should already be accustomed to human disturbance. In order to increase the wildlife habitat function of the wetland mitigation site, an upland buffer will be maintained adjacent to the wetland mitigation site. In addition, educational signs will be posted to request that the public avoid entering or disturbing the mitigation area, Fishman/SWCA Project 03071/10170-199 6 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 Table 1. Existing and Proposed Wetland Functions Function Impact Wetlands Mitigation Wetlands Net Gain/Loss 1. Water Storage and Delay 0.10 0,20 +0.10 2. Sediment Stabilization and 0.93 0.87 -0.06 Phosphorous Retention _ 3. Nitrogen Removal 0.66 0,81 +0.15 4, Thermoregulation 0.51 0,14 -0,37 5. Primary Production 0.73 0.71 -0,02 6. Resident Fish Habitat Support 0.68 0,61 -0.07 7.Anadromous Fish Habitat 0.0 0.75 +0.75 Support 8. Invertebrate Habitat Support 0.55 0.42 -0.13 ,9.Amphibian.&Turtle Habitat 0.57 0.63 +0.06 10. Breeding Waterbird Support 0.0 0.0 No change 11. Wintering &Migratory 0.48 0.52 +0.04 Waterbird 12. Songbird Habitat Support 0.62 0.46 -0.16 13. Support of Characteristic ' 0.60 0.96 +0.36 Vegetation 3.4 Hydrology The hydrology of Pinebrook Creek and its associated wetlands, as well as wetlands on the east side of Fanno Creek, are driven by inflow of upstream hydrology and direct precipitation on the ground surface and fluctuations in seasonal groundwater levels on the site. In addition,the two man-made ponds both receive surface flow from Pinebrook Creek. The ponds remain ponded year-round since their outlets are restricted due to the presence of berms or an undersized culvert. Both ponds will be taken off-line to prevent these ponds from continuing to contribute thermal and nutrient pollution to Fanno Creek. The ponds will be reconfigured as stream-associated wetland areas (HGM class Riverine Impounding). Wetland mitigation site hydrology sources will include primarily precipitation and groundwater, although the reconfigured East Pond wetland area will also receive treated stormwater from the water quality facility for the Tigard Library and Phase 1 of the Wall Street project. Hydrology is not anticipated to be sufficient to maintain the reconfigured East and West Pond wetland areas as ponded year-round once they are taken off-line from Pinebrook Creek. The reconfigured wetland areas are anticipated to be Fishman/SWCA Project 03071/10170-199 7 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification, November 2005 seasonally shallowly ponded from the fall through the spring. The fact that these ponds will dry up during the summer is beneficial for native wildlife in the area, especially amphibians, since the ponds will no longer provide habitat for bullfrogs, 3.5 Mitigation Site Area Wetland mitigation will occur primarily on-site adjacent to the proposed impacts to Pinebrook Creek and associated wetlands. Existing vegetation in the proposed wetland creation and wetland restoration areas includes primarily non-native upland grasses and forbs with a few non-native black locust trees, generally 10 inches.in diameter. Cover by native species is very limited. Several noxious and invasive species are also present and include giant hogweed, Himalayan blackberry and thistle, Surface soils are generally fine-textured silty clay loarns and are mapped as hydric Huberly silt loam or Quatama loam, which may have hydric Huberly inclusions. 4 Compensatory Mitigation A total of 0.30 acre of wetland fill is proposed for the entire project(Sheet 2a). Proposed stream and wetland mitigation(Sheet 4) consists of a combination of stream channel and wetland creation (0,08 acre; 0.053 acre mitigation credit at 1.5:1), wetland enhancement (0.29 acre; 0.097 acre mitigation credit at 3:1), and wetland restoration (0.20 acre; 0.20 acre mitigation credit at 1:1). The Pinebrook Creek stream channel and adjacent wetlands will be reconstructed slightly south of their existing location, partially in existing uplands and partially in existing wetland. Pinebrook Creek will be reconnected to Fanno Creek via a historic stream channel located on the Fanno Pointe Condominiums site. The two man-made ponds will be taken off-line from Pinebrook Creek and will be reconfigured as seasonally ponded forested/scrub-shrub wetlands. The remainder of the proposed wetland impacts will be mitigated for by restoring wetlands south of the East Pond. A portion of the upland berm along the south edge of the East Pond will be removed. The berm is Iikely material sidecast from excavation of the East Pond and placed in an area mapped as having hydric Huberly soils. The upland area located southeast of the berm may also be excavated to restore wetlands. Fill was likely historically placed in this area, mapped as having soils with hydric Huberly inclusions, during construction of an 8 inch sanitary sewer line located just south of the berm. The berm and the area to the southeast were determined to be upland in the wetland delineation conducted by Kurahashi &Associates for,the Tigard Library site. These areas are surrounded by wetlands on the north, west and south and are bordered by Fanno Creek on the east; therefore we believe the berm and sewer alignment were constructed in historic wetlands and that removal of the berm and upland fill area to the southeast should receive wetland mitigation credit of 1:1, for wetland restoration. The two man-made ponds that are on-line with Pinebrook Creek will be taken off-line to prevent these ponds from continuing to contribute thermal and nutrient pollution to Fanno Creek. The ponds will be reconfigured as stream-associated wetland areas. Wetland mitigation site hydrology sources will include primarily precipitation and groundwater, although the reconfigured East Pond wetland area will also receive treated stormwater from the bioswale for Phase 1 of the Wall Street project and the Tigard Library. Hydrology is not anticipated to be Fishman/SWCA Project 03071/10170-199 8 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 sufficient to maintain these areas as ponded year-round once they are taken off-line from Pinebrook Creek. The reconfigured wetland areas are anticipated to be seasonally shallowly ponded from the fall through the spring. The fact that these ponds will dry up during the summer is beneficial for native wildlife in the area since the ponds will no longer provide habitat for bullfrogs, Approximately 550 linear feet of new stream channel will be reconstructed to mitigate for the ,approximately 270 linear feet of Pinebrook Creek to be impacted, The new section of Pinebrook Creek will be constructed along the south side of Wall Street. The new stream channel will begin at the outlet of the culvert under Hall Boulevard and will head easterly through the reconfigured West Pond wetland area, continue along the north edge of the Fanno Pointe Condominiums site, and then head southerly to connect to an historic stream channel located in the open space tract located east of the Fanno Pointe Condominiums and owned by the City of Tigard. Based upon a review of aerial photos dating back to 1936, this historic stream channel appears to be the historic lower portion of Pinebrook Creek,prior to its realignment in the late 1940s or early 1950s for the purpose of creating the East Pond, The relocated Pinebrook Creek is anticipated to provide improved fish habitat over the existing stream in several ways. Most importantly, connecting the relocated Pinebrook Creek with the historic channel at its downstream end will provide fish passage for cutthroat trout and juvenile steelhead during high stream flows of Fanno Creek. There is currently no fish passage from Fanno Creek to Pinebrook Creek since the confluence of Pinebrook and Fanno Creeks consists of an approximately eight foot drop in elevation from the downstream edge of the East Pond to Fanno Creek. In addition,the relocated stream channel will contain higher flows since it will consist of one main stream channel instead of the two to three shallow undefined channels that currently exist. The historic channel has sinuosity, in-stream woody structure, and a mature willow canopy. These habitat features are lacking for the existing Pinebrook Creek. From the location where the existing Pinebrook Creek enters the site from under Hall Boulevard, the stream is currently culverted twice in culverts not designed for fish passage for a total length of approximately 170 feet. The reconfigured Pinebrook Creek will only be culverted once under the Fanno Pointe access road for a distance of 65 feet. This culvert will be a 42 inch diameter CMP with a flat grade and will be buried 6 inches and have natural substrate (Sheet 6d). Removal of riparian vegetation adjacent to Pinebrook and Fanno Creeks will occur in order to construct the roadway, bridge wingwalls and bridge deck. Construction of Phased of the project will require removal of approximately 12 trees adjacent to Pinebrook Creek. These trees consist mainly of non-native black locust and non-native hawthorn and one willow. Construction of the bridge deck will require larger shrubs and a few trees to be removed, although herbaceous vegetation and smaller shrubs will remain underneath the bridge. The height of the bridge deck will be 6 to 8 feet above grade and will allow light penetration to support vegetation underneath. Construction of Phase 2 of the project, including the bridge, will require removal of approximately 12 Oregon ash and red alder trees and 5 non-native hawthorn trees, Replacement native trees and shrubs will be planted along the top of bank of the Fanno Creek as well as along the new Pinebrook Creek stream channel to mitigate for removal of vegetation in the riparian area. A natural resource assessment and mitigation plan were submitted to Clean Water Services Flshman/SWCA Project 03071/10170-199 9 Wall Street Joint Permit Application • Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 for impacts within the 50 foot vegetated corridors adjacent to Fanno Creek, Pinebrook Creek and wetlands, 4.1 Mitigation Site Selection The mitigation site is located on-site adjacent to the proposed impact area of Pinebrook Creek and associated wetlands and ponds. Reconstructing Pinebrook Creek on the south side of the proposed Wall Street and south of its existing location is preferred over reconstructing the stream 'channel on the north side of Wall Street as was originally proposed under the City's previously preferred alternative alignment for Wall Street. Reconstructing Pinebrook Creek on the south side of Wall Street minimizes the number of culvert crossings of Pinebrook Creek. Relocating Pinebrook Creek to the north side of Wall Street would have required one 90 to 100 foot culvert to take Pinebrook Creek to the north side of Wall Street and possibly a second 90 to 100 foot culvert to take Pinebrook Creek back to the south in order to connect with Fanno Creek in the event that Pinebrook Creek could not be routed underneath the westerly bridge span. An access road for the Fanno Pointe Condominiums will need to cross Pinebrook Creek, but the need for the library access road to cross Pinebrook Creek will be eliminated by reconstructing Pinebrook Creek on the south side of Wall Street, The proposed relocation of Pinebrook Creek on the south also works better for realigning Pinebrook Creek with its historic channel and confluence with Fanno Creek, 4,2 Mitigation Site Constraints Mitigation site constraints include the limited site area that is available in which to reconstruct Pinebrook Creek due to the close proximity of the Tigard Library and the Fanno.Pointe :. Condominiums to the location of the proposed right-of-way for the Wall Street project. The distance between the grading limits of the proposed Wall Street and the grading limits of the Fanno Pointe site is 40 feet wide at its narrowest point. The proposed grading plan for the reconstructed Pinebrook Creek and adjacent wetland creation area is constrained by the elevations of the Fanno Pointe site and Wall Street. The grade of the reconstructed stream channel will be 1 to 2 percent in the upper portion and will steepen to 6 percent in the lower portion in the vicinity of the historic channel. The tendency would be for low stream flows to remain in the stream channel, preventing hydrology from reaching the adjacent created wetland areas. The design of the stream channel takes this into account and incorporates in-stream structure, stream meanders and other measures to facilitate stream flows overtopping the streambanks during the two-year flood event in order to provide requisite wetland hydrology. . In addition, the steep and nearly vertical banks of Fanno Creek will prevent the wetland mitigation site,including the wetland restoration/berm removal area from receiving hydrologic inputs from overbank flooding of Fanno Creek except during very large storm events (the 1996 aerial flood photo does not show any flooding on the site). Fishman/SWCA Project 03071110170.199 10 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 4.3 Mitigation Design Assumptions Design assumptions include the presence of requisite wetland hydrology within the created and restored wetland areas. Design of the reconstructed Pinebrook Creek and the adjacent wetland creation area has incorporated a hydrologic analysis of the upstream drainage basin and existing Pinebrook Creek stream flows to.determine the size of stream channel that would allow the stream to overtop its banks during the two-year flood event in order to provide hydrology to the created wetland areas adjacent to Pinebrook Creek. In addition, The large rocks and root wads to be used in the weir structures will reduce stream flow velocity and facilitate overbank flooding to provide hydrology to stream-associate wetlands during high flows. Construction of Phase 1 of the Wall Street project will require re-routing the outfall from the stormwater quality facility that was recently constructed on the Tigard Library site. The stormwater outfall currently outfalls to wetlands associated with Pinebrook Creek that are proposed to be impacted by the Wall Street project. The outfall will be relocated to the east to the reconfigured East Pond wetland area in order to maintain wetland hydrology of this area once the East Pond is taken off-line from Pinebrook Creek. Hydrology from the reconfigured East Pond wetland area will overflow during larger storm events to provide hydrology to the wetland restoration/berm removal area adjacent to the south and will eventually flow to Pinebrook Creek. 4.4 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Table 2 below lists the goals and objectives for the mitigation project. The goals have been formulated based on the focus of improving fish and wildlife habitat in Pinebrook Creek and the lower reach of Fanno Creek. Table 2. Mitigation Goals and Objectives Goal Objective - Restore Pinebrook Creek to a more natural stream Remove man-made on-fine ponds; reconstruct channel and create associated wetlands Pinebrook Creek stream channel and associated wetlands based on hydrologic analysis of upstream drainage basin Restore wetlands within the 100-year floodplain Remove berm south of East Pond - Improve water quality in Fanno Creek Take two man-made ponds off-line from Pinebrook Creek to eliminate thermal and nutrient pollution inputs to Fanno Creek; plant trees along top of bank of Fanno Creek to improve shading Restore fish passage to Pinebrook Creek from Fanno — Reconnect Pinebrook Creek to Its historic stream Creek during high flow storm events channel on the Fanno Pointe site Improve wildlife habitat adjacent to Pinebrook Creek Remove and control noxious and invasive species including purple loosestrife, Himalayan blackberry and bittersweet nightshade;create stream-associated wetland areas and plant with native species Fishman/SWCA Project 03071/10170-199 .` 11 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 4.5 Mitigation Success Criteria The success criteria listed below are recommended to be met at the end of the 5-year monitoring period. It is likely that some replanting will be necessary during the first few years, and there may be revisions to the species to be replanted based upon adaptive management reacting to seasonal hydrology of the mitigation site. Recommendations for corrective actions (if needed)to achieve mitigation success will be included in the annual wetland monitoring report, and these actions will be implemented as needed throughout the monitoring period to ensure that the success criteria are met at the end of the 5-year monitoring period. Success criteria and length of 'the monitoring period are subject to approval by the Division of State Lands and the Corps of Engineers as conditions of the wetland fill permit. 1. Wetland mitigation areas will meet the wetland hydrology criterion in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The presence of free water or soil saturation within 12 inches of the surface at the time of monitoring will meet the primary wetland hydrology indicator. 2. A minimum of 80% survival of planted trees within the wetland mitigation site.Natural recruitment of desirable native species is encouraged. 3. A minimum 80% survival of planted shrubs within the wetland mitigation site.Natural recruitment of desirable native species is encouraged. 4. A minimum 80%herbaceous cover of facultative or wetter species within the wetland mitigation site. 5. Less than 30% combined cover of non-native invasive species within the wetland mitigation site. Non-native invasive target species include: reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea),teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), common thistle (Cirsium vulgare), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Himalayan blackberry (Rebus discolor) and bittersweet nightshade(Solanum dulcamara). 4.6 Mitigation Site Grading A new, approximately 550 linear foot section of Pinebrook Creek will be co_nstructed south of Wall Street(Sheets 5a-5d). The new stream channel will begin at the outlet of the culvert,under Hall Boulevard and will head easterly through the reconfigured West Pond wetland area, continue along the north edge of the Fanno Pointe Condominiums, and then head southerly to connect to an historic stream channel located in the open space tract to the east of the Fanno Pointe Condominiums. The reconfigured Pinebrook Creek will be culverted once under the Fanno Pointe access road for a distance of approximately 65 feet. This culvert will be a 42 inch diameter CMP with a flat grade and will be buried 6 inches and have natural substrate. The West Pond and East Pond will be taken off-line from Pinebrook Creek prior to the summer of 2006 in order to allow these areas to dry up prior to site grading, estimated to begin in late summer or early fall of 2006. The berm at the downstream end of the East Pond is severely Fishman/SWCA Project 03071110170-199 12 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification, November 2005 eroded and undercut and will require stabilization to prevent the berm from washing out during a large storm event which could potentially result in a large sediment load being delivered to Fanno Creek. Details of the stabilization of the berm will be provided for agency review as soon as construction plans are available. The reconstructed stream channel will be a trapezoidal-shaped channel approximately 2 feet wide at the bottom, 5 feet wide at the top of bank, and 1.5 feet deep, The stream channel will be ,stepped with a series,of rock and/or log weir structures to meet ODFW fish passage criteria for juveniles. The approximate location of the reconstructed stream channel is shown in Sheets 5a- 5d, and cross-sections and weir details are shown in Sheets 6a--6c. The alignment of the reconstructed stream channel may be refined by Fishman/SWCA in the field based upon site topography and other habitat features and will be staked prior to the start of excavation. The stream channel and the adjacent wetland creation area will be constructed using a small track- mounted excavator, or its equivalent, to minimize soil compaction. Erosion control fabric will be used at all weir structures in the restored Pinebrook Creek stream channel to prevent downstream sedimentation into Fanno Creek. Stream-associated wetlands will be created adjacent to the reconstructed Pinebrook Creek and will extend up to 10 feet north and south of the stream channel. The created wetlands will consist of a series of wetland terraces that will parallel the stepped portions of the stream channel. The wetland terraces will contain central depression areas to retain hydrology for longer periods. Since the existing grade will need to be lowered several feet in order to create stream-associated wetlands, a soil conditioner will need to be incorporated in the wetland creation area. We recommend a fully composted ground bark, fine-textured instead of medium bark mulch, with 5 pounds of 22-16-8 fertilizer mixed with each 5 cubic-yards of composted material. Soil conditioner should be spread to a uniform depth of 4 inches throughout the wetland creation area and incorporated to a depth of 6 to 8 inches prior to completion of final grade. Topsoil salvage and reuse is not recommended in wetland creation or enhancement areas due to the presence of reed canarygrass on the site and the possibility that redistributing the seed bank could result in reed canarygrass colonization of the newly graded wetland areas. The design of the stream channel and wetland terraces was based upon a hydrologic analysis of the upstream drainage basin and existing stream flows with the goal of ensuring that the stream would overtop its banks during the two-year flood event in order to provide hydrology to the created wetland areas adjacent to the stream channel. The large rocks and root wads to be used in the weir structures will reduce stream flow velocity and facilitate overbank flooding to provide hydrology to stream-associate wetlands during high flows. In addition, lowering the existing topography in the wetland creation area should intersect the seasonal.groundwater and soil saturation levels to provide additional wetland hydrology, The total stream and wetland creation area will be 0.08 acre and is shown in Figures 5a—5d. Cross-sections for the wetland creation areas are shown in Sheet 7. Wetland restoration will occur immediately south of the East Pond and will consist of removal of a portion of the upland berm that was historically placed in wetlands adjacent to Pinebrook Creek. The upland area located southeast of the berm may also be excavated to restore wetlands Fishman/SWCA Protect 03071/10170-199 13 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification, November 2005 that were likely filled during construction of an 8 inch sanitary sewer line located just south of the berm. The wetland restoration area will total 0.20 acre and will be graded to match the elevation of the reconfigured East Pond wetland to the north and the existing wetlands on the Fanno Pointe site to the south. Since the existing grade will be lowered several feet, soil conditioner will also need to be incorporated in the wetland restoration area. Hydrology of the. wetland restoration area will include inputs of treated stormwater from the reconfigured East Pond wetland and seasonal groundwater. Wetland mitigation activities will require 0,28 acre of temporary wetland impact due to removal in existing wetlands. These impacts will include 0.08 acre in the proposed wetland enhancement area in order to reconstruct Pinebrook Creek and associated wetlands. Additional temporary wetland impacts will also be necessary in order to lower the existing elevations in three wetland areas in order to connect the berm removal/wetland restoration area with existing wetlands to the south on the Fanno Pointe site. These three wetland areas to be temporarily impacted include: the East Pond at its the south side (0.02 acre), a small existing drainage south of the East Pond (0.02) and existing wetlands on the Fanno Pointe site (0.13 acre). Finally, excavation of the new Pinebrook Creek stream channel on the Fanno Pointe site will result in 0.03 acre of temporary impact to existing wetlands 4.7 Mitigation Site Planting Mitigation site planting will incorporate a mixture of emergent and forested/scrub-shrub planting areas. Shrubs will be planted along the top of stream bank of the reconfigured Pinebrook Creek. Stream-associated wetland terraces will be seeded with the wetland planting mix, and sedges and rushes will be planted in the central depression areas. The reconfigured West and East Ponds and the wetland restoration/berm removal area will be seeded and planted with native trees and shrubs to create forested/scrub-shrub wetlands. Seeding and planting specifications for the wetland mitigation site are listed,below in Tables 3 and 4, Planting specifications for the upland buffer were incorporated into the natural resource assessment and vegetated corridor mitigation plan that was submitted to Clean Water Services (CWS File No. 4203). We anticipate seeding will occur in the fall of 2006 after completion of grading and prior to the onset of winter rains. The seed will be broadcast evenly over the mitigation site and hand raked into the top few inches of soil to ensure good soil-seed contact. Straw mulch will be placed over seeded areas and crimped into the soil. Once herbaceous groundcover has fully established, straw mulch may be removed and brush blankets or tree mats will be placed around all tree and shrub plantings to retain moisture and discourage weed growth. Protector tubes will be installed around all tree plantings to protect them from beaver, nutria and small rodent damage;Irrigation of plantings may be needed during the summer months until plants become established. Planting of trees, shrubs, and plugs can occur either after the onset of the fall rainy season if container plants are used or can occur in the winter towards the end of the season if bare-root material is used. Either container or bare root can be used, depending upon seasonal availability and conditions, Smaller shrubs and herbaceous propagules will be installed in groups at moderate densities in random placements. Invasive and noxious species will be removed from the wetland • and buffer mitigation areas prior to plant installation. Fishman/SWCA Project 03071/10170-199 14 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan • Permit Modification, November 2005 Table 3. Wetland Planting Mix • Scientific Name Common Name Type Rate/Spacing Location* Quantity Agrostis exarafa spike bentgrass seed 2 lbs/acre All 1.5 lbs West Pond 75 Carex obnupta slough sedge propagules 1 ft centers in East of West Pond ' 100 • groups of 5 East Pond 100 Eleocharis ovate ovoid spikerush seed 2 lbs/acre All 1.5 lbs Hordeum meadow barley seed 12 lbs/acre All, 9 lbs brachyantherum Juncus tenuis slender rush seed 1 lb/acre ' All 0.75 lbs Lupinus large-leafed seed Blbslacre All 6 lbs polyphyllus lupine West of West Pond 100 Scirpus small-fruited 1 ft centers in microcarpus bulrush propagules groups of 5 West Pond 75 East Pond 100 *Wetland planting mix to be seeded In all wetland mitigation areas and temporary wetland impact areas.Distribute seed uniformly over the.designated area and hand rake to insure that seed is firmly in contact with the soil.Slough sedge and small- fruited bulrush to be planted in central depression areas in wetland terraces to be created east and west of the West Pond and in reconfigured West Pond and East Pond, Table 4. Wetland Tree and Shrub Plantings Scientific Name Common Size* Spacing Planting Location Quantity Name Acer circinatum vine maple 1 gallon West Pond (149-150 ft) 10 5-8 feet on center perimeter of East Pond 10 (139-140 ft) Corpus stolonifera red-osier 1 gallon 5-10 feet on top of stream bank '100 [[sericea]] dogwood center Crataegus douglasii black 1 gallon 10 feet on center West Pond(148-149 ft) 5 hawthorn perimeter of East Pond 5 (138-139 ft) Fraxinus lafifolia Oregon ash 2 gallon 15 feet on center West Pond (147-148 ft) 20 East Pond &wetland 30 restoration area(136- 137ft)I temporary wetland disturbance area FishmanlSWCA Project 03071110170-199 15 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification, November 2005 Table 4. Wetland Tree and Shrub Plantings Scientific Name Common Size* Spacing Planting Location Quantity Name • Physocarpus capitatus Pacific 1 gallon 5-8 feet on center West Pond(148 ft) 10 ninebark perimeter of East Pond 8 (138 ft) Rosa pisocarpa wild clustered 1 gallon groups of 3; West Pond (148-149 ft) 20 rose 3 feet on center perimeter of East Pond 15 (138-139 ft) Salix lasiandra Pacific willow 1 gallon 10-15 feet on top of stream bank 50 or stakes center Salix piperi Piper's willow 1 gallon 5-10 feet on top of stream bank 70 . or stakes center East Pond &wetland 30 restoration area(136-137 ft)/temporary wetland disturbance area Salix scouleriana Scouler 1 gallon 15 feet on center Wetland restoration area 30 willow or stakes (137-138 ft)I temporary wetland disturbance area Thuja plicate western red 2 gallon 15 feet on center West Pond (149—150 ft) 5 cedar perimeter of East Pond 5 (139-140 ft) *Bare root plants may be substituted for container plants based upon seasonal availability and site conditions. 4.8 Mitigation Reference Site A combination of referen e sites was utilized to assist with design of the mitigation plan to be consistent with site conditions typically found along smaller Fanno Creek tributaries and in associated wetlands in the project vicinity. Reference streams and wetlands include Red Rock Creek, Derry Dell Creek and Ash Creek. 5 Mitigation Monitoring A post-construction report demonstrating"as-built"conditions including grading and discussing any variation from the approved plan will be prepared by a wetland biologist and submitted to DSL and the Corps within 90 calendar days of completing construction. In addition, monitoring will be conducted by a wetland biologist annually for 5 consecutive years, beginning the first year following completion of construction and installation of plantings. Monitoring will take place during the growing season,typically in late spring/early summer. Fishman/SWCA Project 03071110170-199 16 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 • Monitoring data will be collected for the following parameters: • The presence of field indicators documenting the presence of wetland hydrology and vegetation (the presence of wetland hydrology will assume the site soils meet the hydric soil criteria). • Photo documentation of the site will be provided from permanent photo monitoring points strategically located in order to visually document site conditions during the monitoring , period. Photos will be taken annually during the field monitoring and presented in the monitoring reports. • Wildlife utilization will be recorded during field visits and summarized in the annual reports. Wildlife utilization will include the siting or signs of wildlife in the area recorded during site visits. • Vegetation monitoring will consist of annual data collection from block transects. Transects will be located to include a representative sampling of all plant communities in the mitigation site. Transects may be revised in number or location based on adaptive management during the project monitoring period. Parameters recorded will include survival of planted trees and shrubs,presence of plant recruitment, growth and vigor of the planted trees and shrubs, percent herbaceous cover and individual species present, and percent invasive species cover and individual species present. 6 Construction Schedule Table 5 on the following page presents a conceptual schedule for the mitigation project. The proposed schedule is subject to change, but provides the general sequence of events and tasks that may take place in the course of constructing,,maintaining and monitoring the wetland mitigation site. Fishman/SWCA Project 03071/10170-199 17 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification, November 2005 Table 5. Conceptual Mitigation Project Schedule Task Estimated Completion Date Site prep (take ponds off-line from Pinebrook Creek, Summer 2006 procure plants and seeds,etc.) Site grading Late summer 2006 Site seeding Early fall 2006 Site planting Fall to winter 2006 As-built report Winter 2006/2007(90 days post-construction) First annual monitoring Late spring/early summer 2007 Maintenance site visits Prior to June 1St&prior to Sept. 30th,2007 First annual monitoring report November t 2007 Supplemental planting/seeding (if necessary) Fall to winter 2007 Second annual monitoring Late spring/early summer 2008 Maintenance site visits Prior to June 1St&prior to Sept. 30th,2008 Second annual monitoring report November 1,2008 Third annual monitoring Late spring/early summer 2009 Maintenance site visits Prior to June 151&prior to Sept, 30th, 2009 Third annual monitoring report November 1, 2009 Fourth annual monitoring Late spring/early summer 2010 Maintenance site visits Prior to June 1St&prior to Sept. 30th, 2010 Fourth annual monitoring report November 1, 2010 Fifth annual monitoring Late spring/early summer 2011 Maintenance site visits Prior to June 1St&.prior to Sept. 30th, 2011 Fifth annual monitoring report November 1, 2011 7 Maintenance During the 5-year monitoring period, the City of Tigard will be responsible for maintenance of the mitigation site. We recommend use of a landscape contractor experienced in maintaining wetland mitigation sites. Maintenance recommendations for corrective actions will be included in the annual wetland monitoring reports, and these actions will be implemented as needed throughout the monitoring period to ensure that the success criteria are met at the end of the 5- year monitoring period. Maintenance tasks include,but are not limited to, minimizing water stress of plants during the first two growing seasons, inspection and repair(as necessary) of browse control measures, installation of supplemental seed or plantings (as necessary), and identification and control of invasive plant species. Fishman/SWCA Project 03071110170-199 18 Wall Street Joint Permit Application Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Permit Modification,November 2005 Irrigation will be used as needed during the first two years of plant establishment. All browse control measures will be inspected annually at a minimum during the monitoring period and ' repairs made to keep them in functioning order. Supplemental seeding and/or planting may be necessary within the mitigation site during the monitoring period, and there may be revisions to the species to be replanted based upon hydrology of the mitigation site. Supplemental plant species and quantities will be based on monitoring results. Invasive species control will be conducted at least twice per year,prior to June 1st and prior to September 30th. Target invasive species include, but are not limited to, purple loosestrife, Himalayan blackberry, bittersweet nightshade, reed canarygrass, giant hogweed,thistle and teasel. We recommend referring to the Clean Water Services' "Integrated Vegetation and Animal Management Guidance" (CWS 2003) •for invasive species management strategies. 8 Contingency If the mitigation goals are not met at the end of the 5-year monitoring period, contingency measures will be implemented to correct the deficiencies. Initially, project deficiencies will'be assessed by wetland experts in order to determine the appropriate response(s)to the problem and to discuss these with the regulatory agencies prior to implementation. Contingencies may include, but are not limited to, planting additional vegetation,performing weed control, performing herbivore control,modifying drainage features, and adjusting site elevations through grading. It is likely that some replanting will be necessary during the first few years, and there may be revisions to the species to be replanted based upon hydrology of the mitigation site. Recommendations for achieving mitigation success will be included in the annual wetland monitoring report, and these recommendations will be implemented as needed throughout the monitoring period to ensure that the success criteria are met at the end of the 5-year monitoring period. 9 Long-Term Protection & Security Instrument Long-term protection of the mitigation site will be ensured by placing deed restrictions over the mitigation site. The mitigation site is located on property owned by the City of Tigard and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums Owners Association. A financial security instrument to ensure compliance with compensatory mitigation requirements is not required for projects conducted by government agencies according to OAR-141-085-0176(2). Fishman/SWCA Project 03071110170-199 19 � .' ' 1 ' I QJ 1 1 a 0 ° �I N- . w . �a � j :ra, o � �, ek { ? , N ' rir,e o I s. +mss pir.4 rtrA-3-i,,,--,-:==01:41timL, , d /4K,_-_ _Atts-z5A-.*:1*..yrA,7,--. O -F, a - '�4 7 l; r yM.,fS:�?G...v'r j ' § _' �� ti -�°'g .4 0,$) si:::: —41 ....,-,y,-,2„..7.i.,:;-..,,,p.--c..47,krA2,-„,-,r...„----.....ph.,---,:ms,--- ( • - =fit � ''J�5• r � -:.\--: Oili'V_:;:- --'17_ .4.----=i-.=f-,-,-.4 •""A*Avoir:ligift -wrriaz,:-..-.-- 4-A•e-,41-*Lnyt,,-,..--.---.,[-„:.-_,[ [,:,--_, -e-..-z,, trice= 1 A f -�� ►-- I ---`- li J c °" ;_ n€ - ,- a s-��_ �€ -;.'",'7.-/'`..-.,....-\ 1 !W--- �1' '�:,�" .3.,$3. �E -- t �-- to - --fig "��- ," �Ir____ ' A 11 ` \\\1\\�l \'A� ` .T . c Tr�•c '''.. _ `I ii-I:,c- z � l -- F - � - c 7 -fi Wiz_ f •/ II r ice Q wto 1L.-- '� � � � -� S � ,g�� a it 20 I � � � „cl�::_F�'",-.���.--, Viat. bf- 1,-t , milll -z,---. :,-,Lk.---!-wlikt.....: •"• . i ..... .----Ier 0 4, '711•W41 ,k-*-11 ---;'1:V3:44:?:1-+C. :11.6.,_ 1141( II% ''N. \73:-:-:'"-::AL;':j4:'-':: :-illtkr-''.lbi''"'" "---„, -.i.w.A:5-.77, \E A ,•: 'U � ,-14``:a)` I `,\ • •� ...•- I,t; `� ` -. rg 4'f‘ '\ 'ft `mil All `�11�1 �3, ar �j^ ��+.+. ? i ► I� .L") ` a _Iris ... ., �rn_VS 1911NII I I "�ri o!lr�'�'�,�y Q.�ff%�. ;111 u I o 4.'-. I Ft --1—/, , irkrivia--7,--k-441.0*11.m...____-41.. 07 -iitotiz-- 14#4,wis4 4.,,, , :t\1\4‘,./Vilk - N*4-14-4-L- -1-1)1 7 ,-A....\ ..,7 II i 1 14,:ra-lilky,t.:,,-",'0,-*".. 1., __x___,-----. --it-urv..„-;),F., -....I' � ` rte. * �yf�/`�'+� Ca.•/ � ''+'`e.�.+f\`�= :.�4�' � �. 1!:e_ iof . , \ :, , ••. ,\\.....„..it A 0 #;-„,),-4"....e. '-.Iv fp a "rip s. ! _�, "fi'' '_( SITE 1 4 .1 h_• •,•€Y.., a .14c /-� ►,c /0I,�•. 1� I fir, , -- -_-- d N �1 I f=;�� /� 41`Q� f � ,r`' x�ilt�i:' •® ,•/�� �..3�� o '� _ __- �c� o I��� a 1f �,'.1-4°A (.9,r i L...////11. 400I d, 'Arial it)(fir-s4.67iii,/ . -..$2. :v41.--. / i — •t. .•.• A� ,/,'L.,-s-----;) li:10----% 4P4P-- • tr,i---42, v wee Autv--i-mi -744-----A11-5-:.,..„-----f-_.:t-:-.,-u--__,-----,;!----- i 4( ----11."..—\-. . 16\gilt ,,,-- 1 1) pip . 4_si-7- __ --.14"-4-L -7474EvArt, ir-ori K.Ititwoille.4-.... . \-_ I- -Th2 :9: 0 1 ,",-;-;-0 ,,.,1,,, . _ -I,,,,,..-_,. ..trzir- toxin, ......„,,, i 4 nt*,,fiti*, 10,---,--. r 4,p,- „ ,,,, dO -e- 11' 11"L__:,.7.1.1.g::' ---== k ir-. - 0' itA4, ,,,,04-% • 61------k-:•: Im-14✓ � %tJ ‘2 ��� f ; � 1 �c fA� _� - ss A ��l ,� j 1 ' , r ei N/A/ �� / ' q , -F£� v r • i3I ii---rit\ I ti 51. ✓k: i i1y� � I 7 { ) *A - fil ) - _..___.__,. .,1...- -w.T..-p-c ..... Af.',/ 0 • .: :;lir, Pr( . 1 fir 7 pit li C.Nit t J0 p0 TTir /ppSS +i 40p � �4J N •II A 1 ".41h .'• Ili\ �jF'' '� � t __�d' zoo. .,II, o ( kPPLICANI: City of Tigard Site Location Map :.nnie Nguyen,Engineering Manager WATERWAY:IInebrook Creek&wetlands ACTIVITY:Wail Street,permit modification DATE:November 2005;SIHEET: of I I - 111()_tts , :.21,:ii:olmi''':-.1:3's.D*44:-------- ______ . ---- . , ..„,„„ s.'...VAL . ' . ' ' - ------ Cal' V.1 _ - ,.. tll 1.• _ - -. " 110103419i) ------------- " 4.00.1q .----- ----- sp1013' .Vi...411VP'° tat'14- 0111.'114A. ,11.3..rri _. - 110 swe • _-----I ., • . . sw. istow ,„,•,-(74‘,' , 500Z to v-t ..4 •- - t414,„:40,1, . i I IX , 2402') W1.1' cfel ;1 i sviA- - ,,,,,,,Isid-ia,,,,),1.1.3 _.%,•,--ci-3,cw ,c2....%,s9,...4.0,0.-, ,, .71fr, . - • corvo-,- -is:, Qvx-'" •otri Om Sa 111C1V71-"`441 ii" • • , ;,,t4•0 ,444t; , 0,0;;.....*'_'',,s'''' -••• ,- ...--, ,40 w• ssil-1111- n I 3-513.1-s 1-*:,-....7.- -, ----._ 7 • ,,,,,,,, . et ..p„.....,.'-:-. .-.;,.*-i. .;I: -, .1 , , 1. 01:16141 I otl )‘.- , - '-"--'1.,:-..., .. . ' 4 ‘4,',"•‘-'' Vt."1' ; ':`.1__.3.-2.1-11/..4.A : A.1. . I:4s -1-sstils .11\"N --,,,.„,.., ,.w.,,,_„:::),..,..„‘„?2,--_,-,:;..._---1-------..7...A7.31••- ,e... iir,64,,faa-6±-41-6L . 30 sl. traV431‘ . .•V-tfra i '.<IP .. , „,_,, ,,,,,, f '1-44" '-' _...,:.,P.r..,.4-. t■ 1 i 4 I \ \.. I 014 dVil C11414 11 .0:7461iti 014,01.3o. ,..;,;.;„................ ioNtarit sv . ......a. ..1.30,4to j..r`le:Loti >too .. ,,, \ ,i. 4:44 44.4.44:4 ;Ds sval_tai______ . 3 1 . c " ••„*F,■7/••-t4r.'"'"; ,*" 4‘-....!'-1"-" ''‘. N '4,i. • .. \ \ 0.:..........-• . \ - \ -,_, 'SI k -""--------------4—f-..-:-..,......_ , \ ,.y4ati, • , , ... -..,,,t...".&,,,,,..-,..,.—___------ ...,.... • ' 4 \ ••` , ‘----,-•••••-. i ,-• - wg44.1/10,_ ,...„... .- 4-- - 41 \• \ • re/ , • -1111-'i•.*P.-A`•"1":ir 4411)%1-q11.„_______.--#4,12■1!V- t *.e4irlik, 4?-"--2-1------- d • • t \ ...-5TOS • 'r\'`' ---% '- iiiii Z A. *14:•,4-*-- 't.r.----.. ..,0,1 „ 1 . _ „ \ \ \ ,1 e,`,.: , 1 '-, cit£, ••t ., „2::11, 1 ,-11,.. 0"Mai" i ' ' ' ,,.• • . . \. 'to ! \'',. 'MO 43-- ".•• •-\....r.,:k:,,,,, ‘ ,4,410,,-- 214;11,,r04. 1.4!fit swell I rfilllaivoul fli t. 4)11 II 1!..1,., ; m::i! :t,41111 . ‘ \ . .4_, -• ,3.P. ‘9.s. is„,..,fer-it .. • \ \ . . • \ 4 •••,... .4,, .44,,Ad -, IN - :• - . \ t 3S / J.', .: • 1 t-; 4• • , \ V:- \ \ .0,40" 0:`......_,--, -4). -- -• . - •••t \ ,.., '- t 41 „ % . --•- ...--- a 34_ t• - , .... , I ,.. -.,-,,,., -,..."„ \ ----,,J. ,,,,;.,•:..--"` ,,..••-'1. -3541-1, \ 4., / _ . , ; I, i ii. e.--- ,,,;,--------• -,:=241111111111111t. ' -1-1 ''''' 11- V i 1. ..- .a......!—L. 1.„..........m.............yg— 1 1 z 3srv"a 1 12r,1-44.4.;',Alit:\-,-?„...-------444------------72.\ -, \ 104 \ i a ( t.7 .0 , ,----__,:,_.,........,,,:.......,... \ „ __,...„ ,.......„....„5:,..__, , ...„. : .„ ,,.... ._ „.. ..;„.. ............,...„ „,, , -.. . ,. „ , • „ ,. ...---,., ... ..,,,,:.-..., \ , „---,„ „.. ...,........ y roviripilWor. . .,w _1'9_V,121110 /14S ..,•,:ff ..-3--.....--' .4, ‘.... •',.. t ''', - ' A t ee, • ' \ \\ \ „..,' -/ir .7 „...-<,,1 \ -. ,V , r .,/, ...--- i \ ', '',, '----41 .i.... *, \-\\ \ ).' ,/,/t ,..6.. .-- 1 1-.. s ' ,,, _,...-- ./..”. °Z\4 \ \ \ i . ; 1 t , '\. ''e \•• .....- / .. 1 ---' \-• 1" ‘ t x ' \ / 4, , .. . i # „..4 - * i i .,— -kv•i 1 , / k;.;•, ,...„.... ---, , i , __, • .... -;, \‘‘,.., ,..,, ../...-N<. \ I ..."1 i,...., ----'s.' i Tt:1 • :7 ' ... .....,,,,, • r.ee . . , ..e7---_•••,;/,-;?,-., ,-,, I,' :' ,` .. „,, \''''...::\ { *-5:,,,,Z,(i.1..,,, ''':..'■:'. ..,,,,,, ''":-..''',... ' -711 i /,N. , i'',)\‘'■., ,''' ..-> ' \ I V: ,V ' ' k_\-,.\, ‘. \ ,... , ---....•:,...-..1._ - ,,,,,,,,---,. .--,...---..{.,,i 1 !ii 1 i.,,,k_/„.4,, ,,„'1) -- ,...„ -s,„ -,.... 'k,.,, , .., ,• 1 : / ig- .,,' „/ ;. \ •Nts,„:•\.;\ ‘t•i. , .,,,"'"--- IV / li ii KY ,-,,i, '''„,. ?' '.4,t_ _,,-",......., ', A„._.. .."' 0 '1. Iv-, /- ,..-,.. i v f PI- ti-j` .• , \.. ; to M ; 171.. ''/ ,.. ,... \ ''''',..:, ' . al: il i. „.7/ r „ , ,, ...... . I,- f 14 . ■^I/ ...., CO I 1 Ig; / Ni (0.1".• 9;411 / , . , . . . . • . , • . : . ' L i i il 1 ' i I ! il • i t 1 iii I 111 \\ • i • . . i ....--1,1-4-----1Z._.____.___4 i 1"."4 -1 1'':. • ••A■ , i i 1 I i if • I . "T. ' '.. ".:. i 1 i .... . 1 fi i X __--- • ---- !i fi _ i si_ ________„.... ,--------- .... ___—*'.'•".-Cr _ \V*, 1- ‘\\ 1: _ _-_,.-,---,'" ,,,,,,,-,..f._,---;--- , !..=:--_=--- '• • 160-V •U ! -El - -,...--.---:: -..---- --- - - ----- . 11 I 1 • 4 [—, 1---- ---''--j'---- •-• - ___---- , • ,..-. , i .i I •E 1 -------- $.:I--1.1 ri E '• / • , ir..t .6.1 3!: zt,..------ L-----"'='--'::-:---•:":::;::--:--.(?::: ------ ' ... _ ___1 el'ifr , . . ,i• --, - .--„,;-..-- ;.,•,,,,,,,,e.....-;.....7` ...., - • . scALE: I,'I,* --r 'ii :i (,•,' 1.I! _.....-A,--,:;"*. ....._----- -..-r- ,..11.• . ----1 1.'71_40 1 n= 2 0 Cr - . ..----..A......—..........-- ;;._ ..;:i...:,....•-- __--- ....--- . ......- „.. „. . ' - ---.- - • Si- ' f ! \.1 , :. I i 1 irl I' .1 • WETLAND iM PACT ::::>.--- .:: .,..-<- 1 I I 1 f•- • NO IMPACT THIS SHEET 1 f i t i i • • i .I i I 1 i i 1 . I i : - i i. i . .. ! -; i . i • ! . • i ,•i I i.: , - i .',C:,o.0 n,e CttSK=.IP.Gc.•n W. ETLAND IMPACT .,. ._ APPLICANT: City of Tigard E es, Inc. WALL STREET EXTENSION (PH. 1) Vanne NguyenEngineerng Vanager 1 STREET & UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS . -x S HEx ET. WATERWAY:Pinebrook Creek&wetlands , 2004 02.529.118 CITY oF VGARD .. x OF MIKE:RING OEPARTI‘MT X ROJECT NO.92-529-K1 DAM K.E • ACTIVITY:Wail Street,permit Modification DATE:November 2005;SHEET:a of '7, ' ... • _ . . • . . . . • . .