The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 03/03/2015 TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME:March 3, 2015 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION:City of Tigard - Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Times noted are estimated. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for City Center Development Agency Board meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the City Center Development Agency Board meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME:March 3, 2015 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION:City of Tigard - Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM 1.CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING A.Call to Order B.Roll Call C.Call to Board and Staff for Non Agenda Items 2. CITY COUNCIL: CONTINUATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF A + O APARTMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA2014-00002) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR2014-00003), SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR2014-00004), AND SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR2014-00002) - 6:35 p.m. estimated time 3. APPROVE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES - 7:35 p.m. estimated time 4. RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE MAIN STREET ART AND GATEWAY DESIGN - 7:40 p.m. estimated time 5.NON AGENDA ITEMS 6.EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Center Development Agency will go into Executive Session to discuss real property negotiations under ORS 192.660(2)(e). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. - 8:00 p.m. estimated time 7.ADJOURNMENT - 9:00 p.m. estimated time AIS-2151 2. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date:03/03/2015 Length (in minutes):60 Minutes Agenda Title:Continuation of A+O Apartments Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Planned Development Prepared For: Gary Pagenstecher, Community Development Submitted By:Carol Krager, City Management Item Type: Public Hearing - Legislative Public Hearing - Quasi-Judicial Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE Council will reconvene on March 3rd to deliberate and decide the applications in the case of A+O Apartments. Council should bring their application materials and testimony from the previous meetings to compliment the attachments to this AIS. For your convenience, the material will be made available online until the end of the public hearing by clicking here or pasting this link into your internet browser http://publicrecords.tigard-or.gov/Public/Browse.aspx?startid=661217 . On February 3, 2015 City Council held a hearing to further consider the A+O Apartments proposal. Staff and the applicant presented answers to questions posed by Council at a previous hearing. Additionally, the applicant withdrew their request for the parking adjustment. Council heard additional public comment and then continued the hearing to March 3rd, leaving the record open for written testimony through February 10th, argument through February 17th, and applicant rebuttal through February 23rd. Please see the attached testimony, argument, and final applicant argument (rebuttal). On January 13, 2015, City Council held a hearing to consider the A+O Apartments proposal. Council continued the hearing to February 3rd, keeping the hearing open for public testimony and to hear answers to specific questions posed by Councilors (see Response to Council Questions and Applicant's Memo to Council dated January 22, 2015). On December 15, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended, by a vote of 4 to 3, that City Council approve the applications , subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in the Staff Report. Shall the Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the following applications: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) approval is requested to remove Goal 5 protection from 0.42 acres of significant wetlands, designated as significant on the Comprehensive Plan’s “Wetlands and Stream Corridor Map.” The remaining 6.20 acres of significant wetlands on the site would continue to prohibit conflicting uses and be protected under Goal 5 Safe Harbor/Significant Wetlands. Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) approval is requested to allow modification to the 100-year floodplain of Ash Creek on the site to include reshaping of the existing ground surface to decrease the floodplain area without modifying the flood storage capacity or floodwater transmission capacity of the site. Approximately 2,780 cubic yards of material will be placed in the floodplain. Planned Development (PDR): Concurrent Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan Review approvals are requested to develop 215 multi-family residential dwelling units in four buildings on an 11.17-acre site on the south side of SW Oak Street within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan Area. The proposed planned development would preserve more than six acres of the site as permanent open space including wetlands and riparian area adjacent to Ash Creek, and would include the provision of easements to the city for development of future pedestrian trails in this area. A parking exception is requested to reduce required parking by 9.1 percent (withdrawn by applicant at the Feb 3, hearing). STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST At its hearing on December 15, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the application, subject to recommended conditions of approval. The split 4 to 3 vote is recorded in the PC minutes. In summary, the Planning Commission recommendation to council reflects the sense that the majority believe a balance of natural resource protection and development objectives has been achieved. The minority opinion is that it would be possible to avoid impacts to wetlands and meet the planning goals of the Washington Square Regional Center, although at greater cost to the developer. The livability issues associated with the requested parking exception and increased traffic are in part addressed through recommended conditions of approval #7 and #8, as place holders for council deliberation, as described below. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Procedure for review: First, according to TDC18.390.080.D.2.b.ii, the decision on the Wetland and Stream Corridors map amendment (CPA) shall precede other actions. Second, a decision on impacts to the floodplain, drainageways, and wetlands (SLR) follows as that decision affects the net buildable area of the planned development proposal. Third, in the case of concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed development plan (PDR), separate actions shall be made on each element of the planned development application, i.e., the concept approval must precede the detailed development approval. Key Issues Summary - (See pages 7 and 8 of the Staff Report) Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) TDC18.775.130 states, among other criteria, that “The Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (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.” If Council approves the application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, then the ESEE analysis will be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the “Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map” will be amended to remove the site from the inventory. (See applicant's ESEE Analysis and Staff Report page 9.) Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) Provided the Council agrees to limit conflicting uses in significant wetlands as recommended in the ESEE, then the impacts to those wetlands and the associated vegetated corridor and the floodplain are subject to Tigard's sensitive lands review standards. The proposed development includes approximately 3,423 cubic yards of fill material within significant wetlands and 2,780 cubic yards of fill material in the floodplain. The applicant's coordination with Clean Water Services and Corps/DSL to mitigate for adverse impacts has satisfied the sensitive lands review criteria, and can be approved. (See Staff Report pages 12-20.) Planned Development Review (PDR) Concept Plan The proposed Concept Plan substantially meets the approval criteria, subject to consideration of an enhanced mobility plan to promote walkability and transit use, addressed through recommended Condition #7, below. Detailed Plan The Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria are met or can be met, as conditioned. The following two issues and recommended conditions of approval relate to expected off-site impacts of the proposed development. Parking exception The proposed 9.1% (28 spaces) exception to the minimum parking requirement is less than the 10% allowed. The proposed mix of studio and one bedroom units and the availability of nearby transit can reasonably be expected to lower the demand for on-site parking. It is in the public interest to preserve wetlands to the south of the development site (Wetland A). Therefore, the proposed exception to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces requirement meets the criteria and may be granted. However, staff finds that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use and recommends condition of approval (#7): "The applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet’s comment letter dated December 4, 2014." (See TriMet letter, Exhibit C, Staff Report, and Staff Report pages 23-24.) Funding future transportation Under the Purpose section of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District, TDC18.630.010.C. Development Conformance, states in part: “developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets . . . and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center.” As a purpose statement, it serves as guidance and is not an approval criterion. The statement is highlighted to bring attention to critical improvements that will be necessary in the near future for development in the WSRC to occur. To meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, should the applicant be conditioned, for example, to dedicate SW Lincoln Street from Oak Street to Lincoln, or construct a bike/ped path within a bike/ped easement (subject to nexus and rough proportionality)? Staff has recommended Condition #8: "The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, including the SW Lincoln Street extension." (See Staff Report pages 27-28.) Public Comment (See AIS Attachments 4 and 5) has been generally concerned with the proposed development's adverse impacts on significant wetlands and on neighborhood livability due to increased traffic, particularly on SW 90th Avenue, and off-site parking demand due to the requested minimum parking space exception. At the Planning Commission hearing, two testified in favor of the project while seven opposed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS The proposal is a quasi-judicial land use case that comes before the City Council because of the request to remove significant wetlands from the Wetlands and Stream Corridors map, a part of the city's natural resources inventory and Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, and the City's Park System and Trail System Master Plans apply to the proposal. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Council should bring their application materials and testimony from the previous meetings to compliment the attachments to this AIS. For your convenience, the material will be made available online until the end of the public hearing by clicking here or pasting this link into your internet browser http://publicrecords.tigard-or.gov/Public/Browse.aspx?startid=661217. On January 13, 2015, City Council held a hearing to consider the A+O Apartments proposal. Council continued the hearing to February 3rd, keeping the hearing open for public testimony and to hear answers to specific questions posed by Councilors. Attachments Proposed Ordinance Proposed Resolution Testimony Argument Final Applicant Argument TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 2.0 ESEE ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................1 2.1 Identification of Impact Area .................................................................................2 2.1.1 Overview of Existing Local Land Uses .....................................................2 2.1.2 Overview of Local Natural Features ..........................................................3 2.1.3 Natural Resources within the Development Property ................................3 2.1.4 Identification of Impact Area .....................................................................4 2.2 Potential Conflicting Uses within the Impact Area ................................................4 2.3 Site Specific ESEE Analysis ..................................................................................7 2.3.1 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................7 2.3.2 Economic Consequences ..........................................................................10 2.3.3 Social Consequences ................................................................................11 2.3.4 Energy Consequences ...............................................................................11 3.0 COMPARISON WITH OTHER COMPARABLE SITES WITHIN THE TIGARD PLANNING AREA .......................................................................................................12 4.0 ESEE DECISION..........................................................................................................13 APPENDIX A: Figures Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION DBG Oak Street, LLC proposes to develop 215 multi-family residential dwelling units within four, 4-story multi-family residential buildings on 11.17 acres south of SW Oak Street in Tigard. The property encompasses tax lots 1303, 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300, and 4400. A wetland delineation conducted in February 2014 by Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. (PHS) identified 6.62 acres of wetland within the proposed development site, plus Ash Creek, which flows to the west at the site’s southern boundary. The wetland is designated as “significant” (i.e. a Statewide Planning Goal 5 resource) on the City of Tigard’s “Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map” and is protected. The City does not allow any land form alterations or developments within or partially within a significant wetland, except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130. As described in Section 18.775.130 Plan Amendment, the City allows applicants to impact significant wetlands if one of two options can be demonstrated. The first option is to conduct an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis that shall consider the consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use. The second option is to demonstrate the wetland’s “insignificance.” PHS reviewed the significance thresholds included as an addendum to the City of Tigard’s Local Wetlands Inventory and determined that even though the quality of the wetland, its connection to Ash Creek still ensures it would be regarded as significant. As such, the applicant is submitting an ESEE analysis for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under a Type IV procedure. This document focuses on the significant wetland and does not include a significant habitat evaluation. It is understood the significant habitat evaluation is an incentive based, non- regulatory element within the City's regulatory frame work. 2.0 ESEE ANALYSIS The applicant has prepared an ESEE consequences analysis in accordance with OAR 660-23- 040. The ESEE analysis is used to determine whether a jurisdiction will allow, limit or prohibit a use that may conflict with preservation of the significant natural resource. For the proposed development on SW Oak Street, the subject properties include a Goal 5 resource considered significant (i.e. the wetland that borders Ash Creek). The Goal 5 ESEE analysis involves evaluating the tradeoffs associated with different levels of natural resource protection. As required by the Goal 5 rule, the evaluation process involves identifying the consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses in areas containing significant natural resources. Specifically, the rule requires the following steps: x Identify conflicting uses – A conflicting use is “any current or potentially allowed land use or other activity reasonably and customarily subject to land use regulations that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource.” [OAR 660-23-010(1)] x Determine impact area – The impact area represents the extent to which land uses or activities in areas adjacent to natural resources could negatively impact those resources. The impact area identifies the geographic limits within which to conduct the ESEE analysis. Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 2 x Analyze the ESEE consequences – The ESEE analysis considers the consequences of a decision to either fully protect natural resources; fully allow conflicting uses; or limit the conflicting uses. The analysis looks at the consequences of these options for both development and natural resources. x Develop a program – The results of the ESEE analysis are used to generate recommendations or an “ESEE decision.” The ESEE decision sets the direction for how and under what circumstances the local program will protect significant natural resources. The site of the proposed development has been evaluated in a prior ESEE Analysis. The ESEE Analysis (Tualatin Basin Goal 5/ Natural Resources ESEE Analysis) was prepared in March 2005 by the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places and by Angelo Eaton & Associates. It addressed Riparian Corridors (OAR 660-023-0090); Wildlife Habitat (OAR 660-023-0110); and Inner and Outer Impact Areas. The report divided their study area into sixty nine “streamsheds”. The proposed project is located within the Ash Creek Streamshed (Local site #2) (Figure 1). The ESEE analysis also included information from Metro. For its Goal 5 inventory, Metro divided the entire region into twenty-seven “Regional Sites”. The Metro “Regional Sites” were developed using 5th and 6th field watershed mapping. The proposed project is located in Regional Site #12 (Figure 2). 2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACT AREA Under the Goal 5 rule, “local governments shall determine an impact area for each significant resource site. The impact area shall be drawn to include only the area in which allowed uses could adversely affect the identified resource. The impact area defines the geographic limits within which to conduct an ESEE analysis for the identified natural resource” (OAR 660-23-040(3)). 2.1.1 Overview of Existing Local Land Uses As stated above, the proposed project is located within the Ash Creek Streamshed (Local site #2). Land uses within the streamshed primarily include low density single family residential and high density commercial and mixed use located along major roads. The streamshed is largely developed, with only 40 acres (4%) of the streamshed identified in the City buildable lands inventory (BLI) as vacant or redevelopable. Within the resource areas, 17 acres are designated as buildable. Tigard’s BLI includes vacant sites, consisting of individual or combinations of parcels, ¼ acre or larger. It excludes all Title 3 protected areas (floodplain, wetlands, and buffers). The 17 acres in question are designated for either light or moderate protection. The resource type involved is upland wildlife habitat. Located within the streamshed are the Washington Square Mall, Lincoln Center, and other commercial developments. While the amount of vacant land within this streamshed is small, the potential for redevelopment is relatively large because a major portion of the area falls within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan area. The Washington Square Plan calls for higher density urban development. This higher density includes mixed use developments within the plan area. Other uses in the streamshed include single family attached and detached structures, multi- family developments, Metzger Park, a public golf course, Metzger Elementary School, offices, retail establishments, and eating and drinking establishments. Also present is the subject property and the adjacent pasture located south of Ash Creek and north of Highway 217. Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 3 According to Clean Water Services (CWS), the amount of overall effective impervious area (EIA) within the regional site is 21%. The EIA is a very high 42-70% in the area of the Washington Square Mall and a high 23-41% in the other commercially developed areas. In contrast, the EIA within the residentially developed areas is a low 1-13%. 2.1.2 Overview of Local Natural Features According to Metro’s Regionally Significant Riparian and Wildlife Inventory, Regional Site #12 (2,693.5 acres) contains streams that generally have a medium gradient. Anadromous fish are present in 7 of the 46 stream miles located within the regional site. The Natural Resource Assessment Technical Report for the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan indicates that Ash Creek offers poor habitat for fish. This is because important habitat elements such as large woody debris, cold water temperatures, pool and riffle complexity, and quality spawning gravel areas are largely absent from the area’s stream system. The Tualatin Basin Existing Environmental Health Report (EEHR) rates the overall health of the Regional Site as fair. In terms of the individual components used to assess health, wildlife habitat is rated as fair, water quality as poor and riparian vegetation as fair. Conifer and hardwood forests are identified as the predominant habitat types within the resource site, with wetlands accounting for 13% of the site’s wildlife habitat. The regional site accounts for nearly 4% of the regional wetlands and ranks 6th among the 27 resource sites in terms of wetland acreage. The site is characterized as having relatively small habitat patches with little forest interior, but reasonably good connectivity and very good water resources. The City’s local Goal 5 inventory, conducted in 1994, indicates that water quality is excellent in the stream's upstream reach (including the south fork of Ash Creek). Water quality deteriorates as the stream flows downstream through residential areas and receives stormwater run-off from these areas. This conclusion is consistent with the finding of the EEHR and the Natural Resource Technical Assessment Report, prepared for the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan. 2.1.3 Natural Resources within the Development Property Land use adjacent to the proposed development includes residential, commercial, and open space. The proposed development consists of six tax lots with four houses. The houses are located in the northern portion of the study area along SW Oak Street and include paved driveways, accessory buildings, and existing landscape vegetation. One of the houses is vacant; the other three are currently occupied. Within the study area, PHS identified one large wetland (designated as Wetland A), a stormwater ditch, and Ash Creek. PHS conducted the wetland delineation in February, 2014 (Figure 3). Wetland A: Wetland A is located in the southern half of the study area, and is approximately 288,490 square feet (6.62 acres). The Cowardin class is palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded (PEMC) and the HGM class is Slope. The wetland slopes gently from north to south, and Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 4 continues to the edge of Ash Creek. Vegetation within the wetland consists of pasture grasses; meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), and velvet grass (Holcus lanatus, FAC). Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) is present in the western portion of the wetland. Other facultative pasture grasses are likely present, but due to the time of year, identification was not possible. Vegetation in the adjacent upland consists of the same pasture grasses as in the wetland, however Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) are also present. Soils within the wetland meet the definition for redox dark surface (F6), and are considered hydric. The soils within Wetland A were generally not saturated; hydrology was satisfied using the oxidized rhizospheres indicator, or secondary indicators, including raised ant mounds and geomorphic position. Wetland A continues east, west, and south outside of the study area. A 48,228 sq. ft. (1.11 acre) vegetated corridor regulated by Clean Water Services exists adjacent to the wetland to the north. Due to past disturbance, the quality of the vegetated corridors is considered to be degraded. Stormwater Ditch: A stormwater ditch is located in the northwestern portion of the study area. It covers approximately 471 square feet (0.01 acre) within the study area. The ditch carries stormwater from SW Oak Street, as well as from the existing condominium complex located north of SW Oak Street, and empties into Wetland A. Ash Creek: Ash Creek provides rearing and migration habitat for Lower Columbia River winter steelhead trout to river mile 1.53 (including the reach adjacent to the project site). Ash Creek is a straightened channel within the project area, with a degraded riparian area. 2.1.4 Identification of Impact Area The Impact Area for the ESEE is defined as the 11.17 acres south of SW Oak Street in Tigard, which includes tax lots 1303, 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300, and 4400, all of Wetland A, the stormwater ditch, the vegetated corridor, and Ash Creek. 2.2 Potential Conflicting Uses within the Impact Area The proposed development is located within District C (Lincoln Center-Ash Creek), one of five districts within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. The Regional Center Plan describes strategies that make the most efficient use of urban land in the face of dramatic population growth. Regional centers aim to reach densities of 60 people an acre through housing and employment - the metro area’s second-highest density after downtown Portland. Residents of high density neighborhoods (Lincoln Center is designated as one of the highest within the plan area) will have easy access to nearby jobs, essential services and retail resources. One important component of developing within the property is adherence to the plan’s vision of maintaining the functions of Ash Creek and adjacent sensitive areas. As described in the plan: “plantings, setbacks and other mitigation and enhancement techniques will buffer Ash Creek and adjacent sensitive areas from disturbance.” As will be described in detail below, the proposed Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 5 development achieves a high residential density, while preserving and enhancing Ash Creek and adjacent sensitive areas. Within the property, 0.33 acres of right-of-way will be dedicated for the widening of SW Oak Street across the site’s frontage leaving a potential development area of 10.84 acres; however, the property includes 6.62 acres of jurisdictional wetland and Ash Creek, which flows to the west along the southern property boundary. The project proposes to unavoidably impact 0.42 acres of this lower quality wetland closer to Oak Street, but will preserve 6.2-acres of remaining wetland, which will be protected in perpetuity (Figure 4). There are also 1.02 acres of vegetated corridor impacts and the preservation and enhancement of 0.09 acres. Of the 6.2 acres, 3.2 acres will be enhanced with native tree and shrubs plantings, leaving 3 acres unplanted to create habitat diversity within the floodplain of Ash Creek. The 3.2 acres of enhancement is a voluntary action by the applicant and is not proposed as required mitigation (credits from a local wetland mitigation bank will be purchased to satisfy the Department of State Lands and US Army Corps of Engineers’ mitigation requirements). The density of the project will be 51.8 units per net acre on the development portion of the site, and 19 dwelling units per acre for the entire site. The project site includes six existing parcels, which will be consolidated into a single parcel prior to site development. If a separate tract is required to be created for the open space area, a property line adjustment application will be submitted and the parcels will be reconfigured to create a development parcel and a tract prior to or concurrent with consolidation of the parcels. All existing buildings and site improvements will be removed from the site with initial site grading. Four, 4-story buildings are proposed and will be between 47-feet and 53-feet tall when viewed from SW Oak Street. All together, the proposed buildings will contain 64 studio units of less than 500 square feet in size, 98 one-bedroom units, and 53 two-bedroom units. The apartment buildings will have similar appearances. Variations amongst the buildings will be provided by their varied sizes and by different paint schemes and minor variations in trim packages. The development will include a landscaped plaza with benches, community gardens for the use of residents, landscape beds, and a bicycle parking pavilion. A 20-foot wide public pedestrian easement will be provided along the western edge of the site and into the wetlands area to the south for future development of a public pedestrian trail to connect with a future east-to-west public trail near Ash Creek. The east-to-west trail is described in the City of Tigard’s Parks Master plan as a portion of a planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. The applicant will work with the City on the provision of and the final locations for these public pedestrian easements. A total of 278 on-site parking spaces will be provided. Partially below-ground level parking garages will provide covered parking spaces for 37 vehicles. A surface parking lot will be located to the south of the buildings. A total of 241 surface parking spaces will be provided. The applicant will work with a car share provider to encourage project residents to utilize shared vehicles in order to reduce the demand for on-site parking. Information on a car share program(s) will be provided to residents. A small number of conveniently located parking spaces may be reserved for car share vehicles. Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 6 The application to the City of Tigard requests a 9.15 percent reduction in the number of required onsite parking spaces due to anticipated less than normal demand for parking spaces by project residents, and in order to not increase the amount of proposed wetland impact to create additional parking spaces. Less than normal demand is anticipated for parking due to the relatively small size of the units providing housing for fewer residents (prevalence of studios and 1-bedroom units compared to typical suburban apartment complexes); the availability of car share vehicles, the availability of nearby transit; and the proximity to nearby shopping and employment opportunities. Construction of the proposed project will result in the placement of fill within 0.42 acres of the wetland and 1.02 acres of the vegetated corridor. Mitigation for the wetland impacts are described below, but will include the purchase of credits from the Tualatin Valley Environmental Bank. The planting of 3.2 acres within the wetland and riparian area of Ash Creek is not regarded as wetland mitigation, but is being voluntarily proposed by the applicant. Numerous development plans have been proposed for the property since at least 1996. All of the previous proposals would have resulted in greater than the proposed 0.42 acres of wetland impact proposed in this application. Figures 5A-5C show previous development proposals. Alternative 1: This alternative shows development of the entire site, from SW Oak Street all the way to the banks of Ash Creek (Figure 5A). This scenario would have proposed impacts to almost the entire 6.62 acres of wetlands and would have impacted the riparian area of Ash Creek. Alternative 2: This alternative shows development of the central and northern portions of the site (Figure 5B). Although impacts to the wetland are less than Alternatives 1 or 3, impacts to Wetland A are still significant. Alternative 3: This alternative shows development of the entire site, from SW Oak Street all the way to the banks of Ash Creek (Figure 5C). Again, this scenario would have proposed impacts to almost the entire 6.62 acres of wetlands and would have impacted the riparian area of Ash Creek. In addition, this scenario shows a portion of Wetland A excavated to create a pond. The Applicant also considered an alternative site plan that completely avoided Wetland A. This alternative results in no impact to any jurisdictional wetlands; however, because of the City of Tigard’s requirements for density and parking, this alternative reduces the amount of developable area and does not meet project specific criteria as well as the preferred alternative. For this proposal, the impact to the wetland is lessened significantly from prior proposals. The project proposes to unavoidably impact 0.42 acres of this lower quality wetland closer to SW Oak Street, but will preserve the 6.2 acres of remaining wetland, which will be protected in perpetuity as described earlier. Of the 6.2 acres, 3.2 acres will be enhanced with native tree and shrubs plantings, leaving 3.0 acres unplanted to create habitat diversity within the floodplain of Ash Creek (Figures 6-6A). The proposed design minimizes impacts by proposing underground parking, increasing the building heights, and reducing the proposed number of units. The proposed development is Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 7 clustered together. The proposed residential density is well below that desired by Metro for the property. Ash Creek provides rearing and migration habitat for steelhead trout, which is listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. There will be no direct effects to steelhead from the proposed development plan. The project includes a buffer of between approximately 260 to 300 feet from the creek to the southern edge of the proposed development. The list of trees and shrubs to be planted in the wetland and the riparian area is included below. Wetland Enhancement – 3.2 acres (139,480 SF) Botanical Name Common Name Height (in feet) Planting density (on center) Quantity Trees Alnus rubra Red alder 5-6’ 10’ 139 Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorn 5-6’ 10’ 349 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash 5-6’ 10’ 446 Salix lasiandra Pacific willow 5-6’ 10’ 349 Thuja plicata Western red cedar 5-6’ 10’ 112 Total 1,395 Shrubs/Small Trees Cornus alba Red osier dogwood 2-3’ 5’ 2,092 Spiraea douglasii Douglas spiraea 2-3’ 5’ 1,744 Lonicera involucrata Twinberry 2-3’ 5’ 1,394 Physocarpus capitatus Ninebark 2-3’ 5’ 1,744 Total 6,974 In addition to the buffer and the proposed plantings, all stormwater will be treated to that required by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) V. As such, there will be minimal impact to Ash Creek and the majority of the wetland. Storm drainage runoff will be collected by building laterals and catch basins for onsite runoff. Runoff will be treated using mechanical treatment devices such as StormFilter catch basins and storm drain splitter manholes and StormFilter manholes. The private storm drainage system will discharge to riprap pads above the wetlands in four locations south of the parking area and retaining wall. Stormwater from these discharge points ultimately will flow to Ash Creek through the intervening wetlands. It is anticipated that no on-site storm water detention will be necessary. A Storm Drainage Report for the project is included as an attachment to this application. Stormwater management will comply with SLOPES V, as described in the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Otak. A discussion of alternatives for impacts to the vegetated corridor is included in Appendix B. Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 8 2.3 Site Specific ESEE Analysis This section considers the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of the following: a. Prohibit conflicting uses providing full protection of the resource site. b. Limit conflicting uses offering limited protection of the resource site (balance development and conservation objectives). c. Allow conflicting uses fully with no local protection for the resource site. 2.3.1 Environmental Consequences Prohibit Conflicting Uses: If all conflicting uses are prohibited, then the wetland in its current condition would be conserved. The wetland is privately owned and the property owner has no plans to enhance the property should all conflicting uses be prohibited. Any proposed development would likely be restricted to the redevelopment of the existing houses on SW Oak Street and the wetland in its current condition would remain intact. The wetland provides functions and values, but these are degraded due to past disturbance to the site. Ash Creek likely flowed freely through the property prior to human settlement of the area, but it was straightened decades ago and now forms the southern property boundary. The wetland was grazed for many years and as a result many of the trees and shrubs that dominated the wetland, such as Oregon ash and western red cedar, have been replaced by non-native pasture grasses. Even with the impacts from past human use, however, the wetland still provides important functions and values. Water quality treatment is provided due to the fact that the stormwater ditch discharges into the wetland before reaching Ash Creek. As such, the non-native grasses within the wetland filters the stormwater flowing untreated from impervious surfaces upstream. Wildlife habitat is provided by the open space adjacent to the creek and by the proximity of the creek itself. The property likely serves as a travel corridor for a variety of common urban wildlife species, but also for more uncommon species such as coyotes and deer. The property is partially within the 100-year floodplain. Although the property does not detain flood flows for any appreciable time, it likely provides temporary habitat for steelhead when water levels rise above the top of the bank. The wetland also provides a visual buffer from the adjacent developed areas. Limit Conflicting Uses: If conflicting uses are limited, there will be a balance of development and conservation objectives. The proposed development will unavoidably impact 0.42 acres of the wetland, but will conserve 6.2 acres. As such, only approximately 6% of the wetland is proposed for impact and approximately 94% of the wetland will be preserved in perpetuity (the property owner will record a conservation easement on the undeveloped portion of the property). There are short term construction-related impacts, which would occur when preparing land for and constructing the proposed development. Construction activity will result in the excavation Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 9 and removal of vegetation, or “ground disturbing activities.” However, these disturbances can be restored through native plantings and a strictly enforced erosion control plan will ensure that impacts are limited to the footprint of the proposed development. Construction noise can have a detrimental impact on wildlife, especially during nesting periods. The proposed development will impact a small portion of the total wetland on the site, but it will have little effect on the overall functions and values that the wetland currently provides. It can be argued that allowing the conflicting use will actually enhance the wetland by ensuring the remaining portion of the wetland is enhanced. Limiting conflicting uses would ensure that the remainder of the wetland is enhanced through the planting of native trees and shrubs. A total of 1,395 trees and 6,974 shrubs will be planted within 3.2 acres of the wetland. The remaining 3 acres will remain open to ensure there is a diversity of habitats within the remaining wetland. Open wet meadows surrounded by dense woody vegetation provide an important niche for many species of wildlife and can be uncommon in urban settings. The plantings will be focused on the riparian area on the north side of Ash Creek, which will moderate water temperatures and enhance the quality of instream habitat for salmonids by providing a source of food. The enhancement will also be focused within the northern portion of the wetland adjacent to the proposed development. The dense woody plant community adjacent to the development will provide both a visual and a sound buffer between the wetland and the proposed development. The proposed development will impact a small portion of the 100-year floodplain, but there will be no net rise in floodplain elevation. The addition of 8,369 trees and shrubs to the wetland and the floodplain will, over time, attenuate flood flows, ensuring water is released downstream slower than under current conditions. The proposed development will result in increased impervious surfaces. The proposed 11.28 acre residential development project will consist of 4.39 acres of impervious surface, of which 3.93 acres will be new impervious surface. Allowing conflicting uses, however, will not degrade the quality of the remaining wetland or Ash Creek. The applicant proposes to manage stormwater through the use of proprietary water quality treatment filters, Low Impact Development Approach (LIDA) planters, and underground detention chambers. The A+O Apartments site will be divided into public and private stormwater management systems. Most of the private runoff will be collected and conveyed to a proprietary water quality treatment filter facility and then to an underground detention facility at the south side of the site. Runoff from two small private areas at the eastern and western sides of the site will be treated with proprietary water quality treatment filters and discharged directly to the Ash Creek floodplain without detention. The new impervious area within the SW Oak Street public right-of way frontage will be treated by LIDA treatment facilities (infiltration planters and/or swales). These structures will also provide detention for smaller storm events. All onsite stormwater treatment facilities will be designed to treat the water quality design storm event, which SLOPES V has identified as 50% of the 2-year, 24-hour storm event. Runoff water quality treatment standards will be met using proprietary filter cartridges for the private basins and LIDA facilities for the public impervious areas. The water quality storm event generates 4,010 cubic feet of runoff from the onsite basin under proposed conditions. As the proprietary treatment filters are a flow-based system, a design flow of 1.04 cubic feet per second will be used for sizing the private water quality facilities. New impervious surfaces within the public right-of-way will be treated using LIDA facilities sized to meet CWS design standards. Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 10 LIDA swales and infiltration planters function by collecting runoff generated by the water quality event and filtering it through 18-inches of water quality mix material, which is comprised of topsoil, sand, and compost. Beneath the water quality mix layer is a section of open-graded rock surrounding a perforated pipe. What stormwater does not infiltrate into the native soil is collected and conveyed to the storm sewer system. Allow Conflicting Uses: If conflicting uses are allowed, then theoretically a much larger proportion of the wetland could be impacted by development. Obviously any impacts to the wetland will need to be reviewed and approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Allowing conflicting uses will result in the removal of vegetative cover and habitat for a variety of wildlife. Lost habitat would include feeding places for birds, and loss of feeding and refuge areas for mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and insects. Existing habitat may be replaced with lawns and ornamental, non-native vegetation. Impervious surfaces may permanently replace native habitats. The wildlife migration corridor that the property currently provides will likely be lost or severely impacted depending on the level of wetland filled. The property currently provides habitat connectivity along Ash Creek. Fences and other development can form barriers to wildlife migration. As the range of habitat for indigenous wildlife becomes restricted and isolated, opportunities for recruitment from other areas are limited and wildlife populations become vulnerable to disease, predation and local extinction. Increased impervious surface and vegetation loss can lead to increased storm runoff and peak flows in streams, resulting in erosion, bank failure, flooding, and significant loss of fish and aquatic habitat function. It is assumed, however, that the development resulting from allowing conflicting uses will still need to adhere to the water quality and detention standards set by the National Marine Fisheries Service and CWS. The increase in impervious surface and storm runoff also leads to reduced groundwater recharge and altered volumes of water in wetlands and streams contributed by groundwater. This can alter an area’s hydrology by lowering surface water levels or groundwater tables and removing a local source of water essential to the survival of fish, amphibians and aquatic organisms as well as terrestrial animals. Clearing and grading activities can reduce the capacity of soil to support vegetation and absorb groundwater by reducing soil fertility, microorganisms, and damaging soil structure. As with allowing limited conflicting uses, there are short term construction-related impacts, which occur when preparing land for and constructing the proposed development. Construction activity results in the excavation and removal of vegetation, or “ground disturbing activities.” However, these disturbances can be restored through native plantings and a strictly enforced erosion control plan will ensure that impacts are limited to the footprint of the proposed development. Construction noise can have a detrimental impact on wildlife, especially during nesting periods. Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 11 2.3.2 Economic Consequences Prohibit Conflicting Uses: Prohibiting conflicting uses would keep the wetland intact and likely limit the footprint of the proposed development activity to the existing houses on SW Oak Street. The houses would be remodeled or torn down and replaced by new houses. As there will be no change in density, prohibiting conflicting uses would impact the potential densities planned for (and required) in the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan. The economic benefits for local businesses from developing a high density apartment complex would not be realized. The applicant would also realize far less economic benefit from remodeling or replacing the four houses. There will be a loss in short term construction jobs required when the apartment complex is developed. There are many studies that state living next to an open space increases property values. As such, prohibiting conflicting uses could benefit property values on SW Oak Street in the long term. Limit Conflicting Uses: Balancing development and conservation goals for the property will result in an economic gain for local businesses, while ensuring that adjacent properties benefit from an enhanced and largely intact open space. The applicant’s proposed development of 215 multi-family residential dwelling units will economically benefit businesses in the area, such as Washington Square and Lincoln Center. The applicant will also receive income generated by the proposed development. There will be a gain in construction jobs generated by the construction of the apartment complex. Allow Conflicting Uses: Allowing conflicting uses would increase the population of people residing in the apartment complex and would thus be expected to increase the economic gains of local businesses. There would be more short term construction jobs required to construct the larger complex. Adjacent properties could be negatively impacted by the loss of open space and the increased footprint of the apartment complex, which (at least temporarily) would not be in keeping with adjacent developments. 2.3.3 Social Consequences Prohibit Conflicting Uses: Prohibiting conflicting uses would result in the redevelopment of the area of the houses along SW Oak Street, with the wetland remaining in its current degraded condition. The wetland and the creek would remain in private property and would not be accessible for educational purposes. As such, there would not be any benefit from passive recreation (e.g. bird watching); however, the social benefits afforded from living adjacent to an open space would remain intact. Limit Conflicting Uses: Limiting conflicting uses would allow the development of the 215 unit apartment complex and the enhancement of the wetland. The enhanced wetland and its proximity to a relatively large population would establish new connections for people to the outdoors. Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 12 Although access to the enhanced wetland will be restricted by the home owners association, the proximity of the enhanced resource will benefit passive recreation, such as bird watching. By increasing the amount of buildable land inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), expansion of the UGB onto farm and grazing land could be slightly delayed. Allow Conflicting Uses: Allowing conflicting uses would result in the loss of open space and views, which could negatively affect adjacent properties and the local area as a whole. The property is partly visible from Highway 217, so the visual impact of a large development, with no associated enhancement, could have a negative social effect. Wetlands provide educational opportunities for those living near them, which would be lost if conflicting uses are allowed. Wetlands also provide opportunities for urban quiet and solitude, the lack of which has adverse social consequences. 2.3.4 Energy Consequences Prohibit Conflicting Uses: Prohibiting conflicting uses would result in the redevelopment of the houses on SW Oak Street. This would increase the pressure to expand the UGB in the long term, which could result in people needing to travel farther to work, school, and to shop, which would increase energy consumption. This could also result in the need for new roads and infrastructure further from population centers. Limit Conflicting Uses: Limiting conflicting uses would result in the proposed enhancement of the wetland and the addition of over 8,000 trees and shrubs to the wetland. Trees provide shade that cools buildings in the summer and serve as a windbreak in the winter. Plants absorb sunlight and transpire during the growing season, which can slightly reduce ambient air temperatures. Trees help capture carbon dioxide, a contributing factor to global warming. Trees also reflect and absorb solar radiation before it heats the ground, buildings, or pavement. Trees planted to the south of a building, as will be the case with the proposed development, can reduce air conditioning costs by blocking the sun during the summer. Although access to the enhanced wetland will be limited, it can still provide local recreational opportunities, thus reducing the need to drive for outdoor experiences (i.e. passive recreation such as bird watching). The applicant has asked the City of Tigard for permission to install less than the normally required amounts of on-site parking so as to avoid additional impacts to the wetland. The understanding is that fewer people will rely on owning their own vehicles. The development property has excellent access to transportation corridors for public transportation, pedestrian and bike routes, and local shopping areas, which will reduce energy consumption. Allow Conflicting Uses: Allowing conflicting uses would increase the footprint and the density of the proposed development. This would diminish the need to expand the UGB and ensure that people were more centrally located to businesses, jobs and schools. The need for new infrastructure to support the increase in population would be less. However, the loss of over Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 13 8,000 trees and shrubs, which are proposed to be planted could negatively impact local climate conditions. The larger property may not be buffered from the south by shade, which could increase energy costs during the summer and winter. 3.0 COMPARISON WITH OTHER COMPARABLE SITES WITHIN THE TIGARD PLANNING AREA AND ALTERNATIVE SITE PLANS DBG Oak Street, LLC conducted a thorough analysis of other comparable sites within the Tigard planning area and concluded that none are available. Two potentially available properties were identified as comparable to the proposed development site. Both properties are zoned MUR-1 (no maximum density; 50 units per acre minimum density). Despite the lack of a maximum density requirement, the small size of these parcels and the surrounding pattern of development (detached single-family homes and 2-story multi-family development) make the likelihood of developing this site with over 75 units very unlikely. The first site, known as the Davis property, is located on several parcels to the east, west, and south of the proposed development site. The LWI maps large wetland areas within these parcels, including Ash Creek and a large pond. The applicant expects that these parcels contain at least as much wetland, if not more, than the proposed development site. Although these parcels together total an acreage large enough for the proposed development, the landowner was unwilling to sell the property when the proposed development was being designed. The second site potentially available to the applicant is the Hunziker Road site. This site is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the proposed development, west of Highway 217. Although only encumbered by 1.25 acres of wetland (WD2011-0270), this parcel is steeply sloped. As such, creating a relatively flat area for the development of high density housing would require a large amount of earthwork. Because of the location of the wetland in the west-central portion of the site, it is likely that the entire wetland would need to be filled to create a flat, developable area. The Hunziker Road property is zoned I-P industrial park, which does not allow for multi-family development. This parcel is the largest remaining industrial site within the City of Tigard, and the applicant inquired about the potential for a zoning change. Initial conversations with City staff indicated that they are not supportive of a zoning change. The site abuts a low density residential development, which could make it difficult and controversial for adjacent high- density residential development. Lastly, the presence of Highway 217 and Highway 99W between the Hunziker Road site and the Washington Square Regional Center and the associated traffic congestion in that area functionally disconnects these properties from the Regional Center. It is unlikely that the City of Tigard would allow enough roadway improvements (i.e. sidewalks and bike lanes) to make this area attractive for non-vehicular traffic. The lack of readily available sites of sufficient size and zoning led the applicant to choose the proposed development site as the preferred development site. Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5341 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments, SW Oak Street, Tigard Page 14 4.0 ESEE DECISION Prohibiting conflicting uses within the impact area would preserve the existing wetland, but will remove the opportunities to enhance the resource. The property could not be developed with a higher density, so the pressure to expand the UGB could be slightly increased. Local businesses would not benefit from the larger population base. Construction jobs will be fewer. The open space would be preserved in its current condition, which will preserve property values for adjacent property owners. Limiting conflicting uses would allow for the development of 215 dwelling units and the planting of greater than 8,000 trees and shrubs in the adjacent wetland. The goals of the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan, which calls for higher densities closer to urban centers, would be realized. The enhancement to the resource would ensure that wildlife habitat is improved and the travel corridor along Ash Creek is preserved. When mature, the trees and shrubs will attenuate flood flows. The trees will also moderate air temperatures during the summer, which will decrease energy costs. The increased population density and the focus on mass transit and car share programs will decrease energy reliance. Allowing conflicting uses within the impact area will increase the population density and ensure that local businesses receive the maximum economic gains. Short term construction jobs will be increased. The loss of the open space would negatively impact wildlife habitat (e.g. travel corridor) and wetland functions, such as groundwater recharge, water quality treatment, and hydrologic enhancement. Impacts from increased development in the floodplain could negatively impact adjacent properties. The loss of a visual buffer and open space could negatively impact adjacent property values and investment values. The loss of the open space could diminish recreational opportunities, such as bird watching. The lack of trees to the south of the proposed development could decrease shading and increase energy costs during the summer. Decision: The analysis concludes that limiting conflicting uses would result in the most positive consequences of the three decision options. A limit decision will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting all conflicting uses. Through the application of site design and development standards to conflicting uses, the impacts on the significant wetland can be minimized (only 6% will be impacted) and the remaining resource can be enhanced. There will be a relatively high level of economic, social, environmental and energy benefits achieved. Limiting conflicting uses offers the most benefit to the wetland (through its enhancement) and to the community, and strikes a balance between conflicting uses and planning goals. The recommendation is to limit conflicting uses within the significant wetland. Appendix A Figures p 53 4 1 5/ 2 1 / 1 4 Pa c i f i c H a b i t a t S e r v i c e s , I n c . 94 5 0 S W C o m m e r c e C i r c l e , S u i t e 1 8 0 Wi l s o n v i l l e , O R 9 7 0 7 0 FI G U R E 1 Tu a l a t i n B a s i n G o a l 5 / N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s E S E E A n a l y s i s - S t r e a m s h e d B o u n d a r i e s A+ O A p a r t m e n t s , T i g a r d , O r e g o n Tu a l a t i n B a s i n P a r t n e r s f o r N a t u r a l P l a c e s an d b y A n g e l o E a t o n & A s s o c i a t e s , 2 0 0 5 5341 5/21/14 Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 FIGURE 2 Metro’s Goal 5 Inventory Regional Sites A+O Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Metro, Appendix B Vegetated Corridor Alternatives Analysis Memorandum p Oregon General Contractor: CCB# 94379 June 27, 2014 Damon Reische and Amber Wierck Clean Water Services - Environmental Review 2550 Southwest Hillsboro Highway Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Re: A+O Apartments; CWS File No. 14-001441 PHS Number: 5341 Damon and Amber: Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. (PHS) has prepared this memorandum to address the mitigation requirements pursuant to the development of the proposed A+O Apartments in Tigard, OR (Figures 1 and 2). As discussed in the Natural Resources Assessment (NRA), the project proposes to construct 215 multi-family residential dwelling units within four, 4-story buildings. Plant Community A (48,228 square feet) encompasses the corridor adjacent to the northern and western boundary of Wetland A. Approximately 44,295 square feet of permanent vegetated corridor encroachment will result from the construction of the parking areas and stormwater treatment outfalls (Figure 3). Mitigation for this encroachment will be accomplished through the enhancement of Wetland A. Mitigation for the encroachment will be accomplished through the enhancement of Wetland A. Wetland enhancement (Figure 4) will consist of two areas planted to CWS’ densities for native trees and shrubs. The southern planting area is located along Ash Creek, within the southern portion of Wetland A. Under current conditions, the riparian area adjacent to Ash Creek is narrow, and dominated by Oregon ash (Fraxinuslatifolia), one-seed hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubusarmeniacus). The northern planting area is located along the northern portion of Wetland A, in an area dominated by non-native grasses, including reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), and creeping bentgrass (Agrostisstolonifera). A central planting area, located in the central portion of Wetland A, will consist of three smaller areas that will be planted with native herbaceous species. This area of Wetland A is dominated by non-native grasses, very similar to the northern planting area. Small areas will be cleared, and plugs of native herbaceous species will be planted within the mixed grasses. PACIFIC HABITAT SERVICES,INC 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 (800) 871-9333 z (503) 570-0800 z Fax (503)570-085 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Damon Reische and Amber Wierck ,Clean Water Services A+O Apartments; CWS File No. 14-001441 PHS #5341 June 27, 2014 Page 2 The following table shows the proposed planting densities. Wetland Enhancement for Northern and Southern Areas – 3.20 acres (139,480 SF) Botanical Name Common Name Height (in feet) Planting density (on center) Quantity Trees Alnus rubra Red alder 5-6’10’139 Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorn 5-6’10’349 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash 5-6’10’446 Salix lasiandra Pacific willow 5-6’10’349 Thuja plicata Western redcedar 5-6’10’112 Total 1,395 Shrubs/Small Trees Cornus alba Red osier dogwood 2-3’ 5’ 2,092 Spiraea douglasii Douglas spiraea 2-3’ 5’ 1,744 Lonicera involucrata Twinberry 2-3’ 5’ 1,394 Physocarpus capitatus Ninebark 2-3’ 5’ 1,744 Total 6,974 Wetland Enhancement for Central Area – 0.38 acre (16,670 SF) Botanical Name Common Name Minimum rooting size Planting density (on center) Quantity Herbs Juncus effusus Soft rush 4” plugs Cluster 3,000 Scirpus microcarpus Small-fruited bulrush 4” plugs Cluster 2,500 Juncus patens Spreading rush 4” plugs Cluster 1,919 Total 7,419 The encroachment into the vegetated corridor meets the following criteria, as required under a Tier II analysis: 1. The proposed encroachment area is mitigated in accordance with Section 3.08. As discussed above, mitigation for permanent impacts to the vegetated corridor will be achieved through the enhancement of Wetland A with native trees and shrubs. Section 3.08.4 allows for enhancement of the existing vegetated corridor as mitigation, at a ratio of no less than 2:1. This project is proposing wetland enhancement at a ratio of 3.5:1 (3.6 acres). Two acres of the enhancement area is proposed for required mitigation; the additional 1.6 acres of enhancement is proposed for public benefit to water quality. The enhancement of Wetland A meets CWS’ requirements for mitigation and public benefit as described below. Wider, forested riparian buffers, with densely planted native trees and shrubs, prevent and reduce pollutants, garbage, and human/domestic animal disturbance within wetlands and creeks. Forested riparian areas also provide habitat functions for a variety of wildlife. Damon Reische and Amber Wierck ,Clean Water Services A+O Apartments; CWS File No. 14-001441 PHS #5341 June 27, 2014 Page 3 The existing vegetated corridor, north of Wetland A, is in degraded corridor condition. Vegetation consists of non-native grasses, and Himalayan blackberry; no trees are present. The existing corridor provides little in the way of creek or wetland protection or habitat function. The riparian area adjacent to Ash Creek is narrow, and is dominated by Himalayan blackberry; water quality and wildlife habitat functions and values within the creek and within Wetland A are low. Enhancement of approximately 139,480 acres of Wetland A will more than compensate for the encroachment of the degraded vegetated corridors north of Wetland A. The southern area of enhancement will elevate many functions and values within Ash Creek. Trees and shrubs will provide shade to protect and improve water quality; native trees and shrubs will improve wildlife habitat; a wider forested riparian buffer will reduce human and domestic animal disturbance within the creek. The northern area of enhancement, adjacent to the new development, will also provide several important functions. This area is wetland, and native trees and shrubs will increase the wetland’s functions for wildlife habitat. This area will act as a buffer, reducing the likelihood that area residents will use the wetland in inappropriate ways. Planting in the northern and southern mitigation enhancement areas will occur at 100 percent of CWS densities for trees and shrubs. As such, 1,395 trees (139,480 x 0.01) and 6,974 shrubs (139,480 x 0.05) will be planted within Wetland A. Planting in the central enhancement areas will occur at a density that achieves 100% areal coverage; as such, 7,419 plugs will be planted within Wetland A. 2. The replacement mitigation protects the functions and values of the Vegetated Corridor and Sensitive Area. As discussed above, the vegetated corridor to be impacted is in degraded corridor condition, and is not forested. The vegetated corridor provides very little in the way of protecting the functions and values of the wetland or of Ash Creek. The enhancement of Wetland A as mitigation will occur at a ratio of 3.5 to 1. This large ratio ensures that the functions and values lost through vegetated corridor encroachment will be more than adequately recovered through the enhancement mitigation process. Increasing the width of the riparian corridors adjacent to Ash Creek will greatly improve the functions and values of this area. Native trees and shrubs will provide shade, protecting water quality. A wider, forested riparian area along Ash Creek will reduce human/domestic animal disturbance in the area. Native plantings in the northern enhancement area will increase the wetland’s overall functions and values, as well as provide elevated wildlife habitat. 3. Enhancement of the replacement area, if not already in Good Corridor Condition, and either the remaining Vegetated Corridor on the site or the first 50 feet of width closest to the resource, whichever is less, to a Good Corridor Condition. The wetland enhancement area will be planted to CWS densities for trees and shrubs. The southern enhancement area will occur within the 50 feet closest to Ash Creek, with widths ranging from 50- to 110-feet from Ash Creek. The northern enhancement area will occur south of the development area. The remaining VC will be planted to good corridor condition, at CWS’ densities for trees and shrubs. 4. A District Stormwater Connection Permit is likely to be issued based on proposed plans. The applicant reasonably expects to obtain a District Stormwater Connection Permit based on proposed plans for the project. Damon Reische and Amber Wierck ,Clean Water Services A+O Apartments; CWS File No. 14-001441 PHS #5341 June 27, 2014 Page 4 5. Location of development and site planning minimizes incursion into the Vegetated Corridor. The proposed development plan is located in the northern portion of the site. Retaining walls were used to minimize impacts to wetlands and the vegetated corridor. Permanent impacts are necessary to meet the housing goals and density of the Washington Square Regional Plan Center, minimum parking requirements (assuming the 10% parking reduction variance is approved), neighborhood compatibility with building heights, as well as stormwater treatment outfalls. Encroachment into the adjacent vegetated corridor has been minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Vegetated corridor encroachments are limited to those necessary for construction of the plan as proposed, to accommodate buildings, parking areas, stormwater treatment outfall, and garbage/recycling dumpster areas. The overall development has sought to maximize the developable area on the northern portion of the site because the southern portion is encumbered by the remaining portion of Wetland A and its vegetated corridor. The encroachment is required to adequately site the proposed buildings, drive aisles (access and emergency vehicles), and parking areas within the developable northern portion of the site. The multi-family residential “product” proposed on-site is dimensioned to meet the market demands of this specific housing type and address the neighborhood compatibility concerns of the nearby property owners. Any decrease to the unit count may impact the marketability of this development. As such, the proposed encroachment is limited to the greatest practical extent to make this project economically feasible. A site alternatives analysis is provided (see Attachment 1) that shows a matrix of development alternatives (A-D) that were considered, and a qualitative comparison of impacts, as well as comments regarding building type, parking, stormwater treatment, and site design options. 6. No practicable alternative to the location of the development exists that will not disturb the Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor. Alternative site designs were considered, and the current design was chosen due to site constraints. There are multiple benefits of locating the development at the proposed site, which would be negated if the development were moved off of this site. The site will be a residential development, which is in keeping with adjoining land uses. The project site is located within District C (Lincoln Center-Ash Creek) one of five districts within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. The Regional Center Plan describes strategies that make the most efficient use of urban land in the face of dramatic population growth. Regional centers aim to reach densities of 60 people an acre through housing and employment - the metro area's second-highest density after downtown Portland. Residents of high density neighborhoods (Lincoln Center is designated as one of the highest within the plan area) will have easy access to nearby jobs, essential services and retail resources. The sites location is within walking distance from public transportation, and is centrally located among commercial and retail development, public schools, public parks, as well as many commercial businesses that provide employment opportunities for future tenants. 7. The proposed encroachment provides public benefits. The public benefit of vegetated corridor encroachment includes supporting City and Regional Goals for “smart growth” via affordable housing. The site is located near the Washington Square Mall, which will provide close-in access to retail, restaurant, office, and service businesses, much of it within walking distance of the site. Damon Reische and Amber Wierck ,Clean Water Services A+O Apartments; CWS File No. 14-001441 PHS #5341 June 27, 2014 Page 5 The general objectives in proposing the Planned Development Combined Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan for the A+O Apartments and the open space protection for a large portion of the site are to: x Help meet the need for multi-family housing in Tigard; x Provide market rate multi-family housing within a reasonable distance from the Washington Square Shopping Center, Lincoln Center, and other nearby commercial uses in a location that is (or is planned to be) well connected to those areas by pedestrian and bicycle pathways, public transit, and roads; x Provide an attractive living environment for project residents; x Border the apartment project with preserved open space to the south in order to provide a buffer between the apartments and Highway 217, as well as between the apartments and a developed neighborhood of detached single-family homes to the southeast; x Preserve and enhance valuable open space areas while utilizing portions of the overall site which are not significantly constrained by floodplain, wetlands, riparian areas, or significant vegetation for residential purposes; x Provide adequate parking for the needs of residents and visitors; avoid parking overflow into nearby neighborhoods. Allowing encroachment into the vegetated corridor allows for maximum build out of the site and for the greatest developmental density. Maintaining the high density as proposed reduces the need for development of larger tracts of land and reduces the need for automobile travel. These are not only financial, social, and commercial benefits realized by the public, but are also an overall air and water quality benefit because it requires less disturbance of land, the development of less impervious surface, and the generation of fewer pollutants associated with auto travel. As discussed above, the enhancement of Wetland A at a ratio of 3.5:1 will elevate the functions and values within Wetland A and Ash Creek, providing water quality improvements for public benefit. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Amy Hawkins, PWS Project Manager Attachments: Figures 1-4 Alternatives Analysis Matrix and Exhibits 53 4 1 01 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 4 Pa c i f i c H a b i t a t S e r v i c e s , I n c . 94 5 0 S W C o m m e r c e C i r c l e , S u i t e 1 8 0 Wi l s o n v i l l e , O R 9 7 0 7 0 FI G U R E 1 Ge n e r a l L o c a t i o n a n d T o p o g r a p h y SW O a k S t r e e t D e v e l o p m e n t S i t e - T i g a r d , O r e g o n (U S G S B e a v e r t o n , O r e g o n Q u a d r a n g l e , 2 0 1 1 ) St u d y A r e a Hi g h w a y 2 1 7 SW O a k S t r e e t N 15 ' W I D E P U B L I C S A N I T A R Y S E W E R E A S E M E N T TL 4 1 0 0 TL 4 2 0 0 TL 4 4 0 0 TL 1 3 0 3 T L 4 0 0 0 TL 4 3 0 0 WE T L A N D A (2 8 8 , 4 9 0 s f / 6 . 6 2 a c ) We t l a n d a n d A s h C r e e k C o n t i n u e B e y o n d t h e S t u d y A r e a Ap p r o x i m a t e Ce n t e r l i n e o f As h C r e e k Wetland and Creek Continue Beyond the Study Area 6 4 2 B C D E SW O A K S T R E E T *8 *7 A 6. 5 % 50 ' 4.2 % 50' 4% 50' LEGEND Study Area Boundary (486,558 sf / 11.17 ac)Tax Lot Line Wetland (288,490 sf / 6.62 ac)Direction of Flow Wetland Data Point Vegetated Corridor Data Point Photo Point Vegetated Corridor Boundary Slope Measurement Plant Community A Degraded Condition (48,228 sf/ 1.11 ac)*Existing Conditions A+ O A P A R T M E N T S - T i g a r d , O r e g o n Pa c i f i c H a b i t a t S e r v i c e s , I n c . Ph o n e : ( 5 0 3 ) 5 7 0 - 0 8 0 0 F a x ( 5 0 3 ) 5 7 0 - 0 8 5 5 FIGURE 2 Si t e p l a n p r o v i d e d b y O T A K I n c . 5-16-2014 X: \ P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r i e s \ 5 3 0 0 \ 5 3 4 1 O a k S t r e e t \ A u t o C A D \ P l o t D w g s \ N R A \ E x C o n d . d w g , 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 1 : 0 2 : 4 6 P M WE T L A N D A (2 6 8 , 7 4 4 s f / 6 . 1 7 a c ) Ap p r o x i m a t e Ce n t e r l i n e o f As h C r e e k N SW O A K S T R E E T We t l a n d a n d A s h C r e e k C o n t i n u e B e y o n d t h e S t u d y A r e a Wetland and Creek Continue Beyond the Study Area Pr o p o s e d Re t a i n i n g W a l l Pr o p o s e d St o r m w a t e r Ou t f a l l Fu t u r e Pa t h LEGEND Study Area Boundary (486,558 sf / 11.17 ac)Tax Lot Line Existing Contour Proposed Contour Wetland (268,744 sf / 6.17 ac)Direction of Flow Vegetated Corridor Buffer Vegetated Corridor Encroachment (44,295 sf / 1.02 ac)Wetland Impact (18,472 sf / 0.42 ac) Si t e P l a n a n d W e t l a n d / V e g e t a t e d C o r r i d o r I m p a c t s A+ O A P A R T M E N T S - T i g a r d , O r e g o n Pa c i f i c H a b i t a t S e r v i c e s , I n c . Ph o n e : ( 5 0 3 ) 5 7 0 - 0 8 0 0 F a x ( 5 0 3 ) 5 7 0 - 0 8 5 5 FIGURE 3 Si t e p l a n p r o v i d e d b y O T A K I n c . 5-19-2014 X: \ P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r i e s \ 5 3 0 0 \ 5 3 4 1 O a k S t r e e t \ A u t o C A D \ P l o t D w g s \ N R A \ F i g 3 S i t e P l a n . d w g , 5 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 1 6 : 5 7 A M RESOLUTION NO. 15 - Page 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE A + O APARTMENTS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2014-00002 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2014-00003, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, the proposed construction of a 215 unit planned development south of SW Oak Street will impact the Ash Creek floodplain, drainage ways, and Tigard significant wetlands; and WHEREAS, the proposed impacts to locally significant wetlands are being separately addressed by Ordinance 15- which may result in changes to the Wetlands and Stream Corridors Comp Plan Map; and WHEREAS, Section 18.775.070 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires sensitive lands permits for development within 100-year floodplain, within drainageways, and within wetlands; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.350 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires applicable planned development approval criteria to be met; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has found the following to be the applicable review criteria: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350 Planned Development Review; 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Plan District; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.715 Density Computations; 18.720 Design Compatibility; 18.725 Environmental Performance; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling; 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; 18.775 Sensitive Lands; 18.780 Signs; 18.790 Urban Forestry; 18.795 Visual Clearance; 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements. Comprehensive Plan Goals: Goal 5 Natural Resources, Goal 6 Environmental Quality, Goal 7 Hazards, Goal 8 Parks Recreation and Open Space; Statewide Planning Goal 5; applicable Federal (USACE), Oregon Department of State Lands, and Metro (Titles 3 and 13) statues and regulations. WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 15, 2014 and recommended approval of PDR2014-00003 and SLR2014-00002, by motion with a 4-3 vote in favor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Applications for Sensitive Lands Review, SLR2014-00002, and Planned Development Review, PDR2014-00003, are hereby approved with conditions as set forth in the December 8, 2014 staff report and as amended by the City Council. SECTION 2: The attached findings and conclusions (Exhibit A) are hereby adopted in explanation of the Council’s decision. SECTION 3: This resolution shall be effective immediately. RESOLUTION NO. 15 - Page 2 PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2015. Carol A. Krager, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2015. John L. Cook, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date AIS-2159 3. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date:03/03/2015 Length (in minutes):0 Minutes Agenda Title:APPROVE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Prepared For: Norma Alley, City Management Submitted By:Norma Alley, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: City Center Development Agency Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve City Center Development Agency Minutes for December 2, 2014 and February 3, 2015. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY N/A OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments December 2, 2014 Draft Minutes February 3, 2015 Draft Minutes TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES –DECEMBER 2, 2014 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 2 City of Tigard City Center Development Agency Meeting Minutes December 2, 2014 6:30 1.CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING A.Chair Cook called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. B.Deputy City Recorder Alley called the roll: Name Present Absent Chair Cook  Director Buehner  Director Henderson  Director Snider  Director Woodard  C.Call to Board and Staff for Non-Agenda Items –Chair Cook and Executive Director Wine noted they had a few items. 2.APPROVE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES September 2, 2014 CCDA Minutes Director Buehner motioned to approve the September 2, 2014 CCDA minutes. Director Snider seconded the motion and all voted in favor. Name Yes No Chair Cook  Director Buehner  Director Henderson  Director Snider  Director Woodard  3.UPDATE ON THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly provided the staff report,accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation, reporting a Parking Plan Strategy Recommendation had been completed in August 2011 with the assistance from Rick Williams, parking advisor consultant, for the downtown.Mr. Williams and staff partnered with the Tigard Downtown Alliance (TDA) to receive recommendations in order to best meet the needs of downtown businesses and visitors. Progress had been made on in the following areas: 1.Encouraging shared parking. 2.Developing criteria for 15 minute parking spaces. 3.Developing marketing and communication strategies for a “Customer First” parking program. Director Henderson asked if the WES parking lot was included in any of the downtown parking numbers. Mr. Farrelly answered they were not included as it is not considered public parking. TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCYMEETING MINUTES –DECEMBER2, 2014 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page2of 2 Chair Cook stated the 751 parking spaces seemed high and questioned if the parking lot with McDonalds, Rite Aid and Value Village was counted. Mr. Farrelly replied it was and could be considered for future use of employee parking.Director Snider asked what the demand was for employee parking. Mr. Farrelly said those numbers were unknown but that could be researched. Director Snider suggested looking into commute incentive programs for employers to promote employee commuting. Ms. Wine stated staff can work with TriMet toexplore possibilities. Director Woodard suggested looking at the need for designated loading zones. Mr. Farrelly responded there could be a possibility forthe fifteen minute parking as the loading zones during designated hours. Chair Cook suggested improved signage for public parking areas directing people to the parking lots and also letting them know when they arrived in the lot. Community Development Director Asher summarized the key takeawaysfor the evening as: 1.Having a parking problem is a good thing because it means people are going downtown. 2.It is important to support current businesses. 3.Parking spaces may be reduced in the future as they are replaced forother kinds of uses such as plazas, paths, buildings and such. 4.It is difficult for cars to parkdowntown. 5.The Agencyhas a limited role todayand the solution to these problems should come from the businesses. 6.The Agencyand staff play the coordination and education role. 4.UPDATE NON AGENDA ITEMS Chair Cook announced the CCACconducted committee member interviews and will have recommendations on a future City Council agenda. Executive Director Wine reminded the board of upcoming City Council Groundrules and Guidelines meeting December 18th and a City Council Goals meeting on December 22nd. EXECUTIVE SESSION –At 7:18p.m. Chair Cook announced that the City Center Development Agency would be entering into Executive Session called under ORS 192.660 (2)(e) to discuss real property transactions. Chair Cook closed the executive session at 9:05p.m. and reconvened the public meeting. 6.ADJOURNMENT At 9:06p.m.Director Woodard motioned to adjourn the meeting. DirectorSniderseconded the motionand all voted in favor. Name Yes No Chair Cook  Director Buehner  Director Henderson  Director Snider  Director Woodard  ________________________________ Norma I. Alley, Deputy City Recorder Attest: ____________________________________ Chair, City Center Development Agency Date:_______________________________ TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES –FEBRUARY 3, 2015 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 10 City of Tigard City Center Development Agency Meeting Minutes February 3, 2015 6:30 p.m. 1.CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING A.Chair Cook called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. B.Deputy City Recorder Alley called the roll: Name Present Absent Chair Cook  Director Goodhouse  Director Henderson  Director Snider  Director Woodard  C.Call to CCDA and Staff for Non Agenda Items –None announced. EXECUTIVE SESSION –Chair Cook called the executive session to order at 6:32 p.m. to discuss real property transactions under ORS 192.660(2)(e)held in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room.Chair Cook closed the executive session at 7:31 p.m. and reconvened the public meeting in Town Hall. 2.CONSENT AGENDA: AUTHORIZE THE CCDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ACCEPT THE DEED FOR THREE CONTIGUOUS PARCELS ON BEHALF OF THE AGENCY Director Snider motioned to accept the Consent Agenda seconded by Director Woodard. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the council. Name Yes No Chair Cook  Director Goodhouse  Director Henderson  Director Snider  Director Woodard  3.JOINT MEETING WITH CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC)members in attendance included Chair Carine Arendes, Vice Chair Linli Pao, Joyce Casey, Richard Shavey and Ravi Nagaraj.CCAC Chair Arendes and Vice Chair Pao reported on the CCAC’s 2014 goals of: 1.Support implementation of current City Center Urban Renewal projects and programs. 2.Support planning for medium to long term projects. 3.Review City Center Urban Renewal Plan and prioritize future projects. 4.Continue to improve communications with other boards and committees by providing liaisons. 5.Develop a communication plan to proactively engage with the community on downtown issues. TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES –FEBRUARY 3, 2015 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page2of 10 The CCDA Board thanked the CCAC members for all their hard work and efforts and encouraged them to continue looking at projects that will enhance walkability and downtown livability. Discussions commenced on CCAC’s desire to query the community about downtown issues in the next community survey and the consideration ofholding joint executive sessions to ensure all boardand CCAC members arekept up to date on downtown projects. Redevelopment ProjectManager Farrelly reviewedthe CCACwork planand provided an update on projects (the work plan was entered into the record). 4.REVIEW THE CCDA BOARD’S 2015 CALENDAR Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly reviewed the 2015 calendarand asked if there were any other topics the board would like to see included. Discussion commenced onfuture meeting subjects being: 1.CCAC returningin September to provide an update on their goals and future projectsand staff providedreportson designsuggestions for theTigard Trail’s Tiedemannentrance. 2.Suggestions for conceptual ideas of art on buildings along the Tigard Trail, buildings in downtown and under the Pacific Highway overpass. 3.Concepts attractingvisitors to Main Streetwith things like art, gardens or lighting that may be placed on downtownbuilding’sroofs. 4.Suggestions forpossible amendments to the sign ordinance. 5.PRESENTATION ON THE URBAN RENEWAL TAX INCREMENT REVENUE FORECAST Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly and ECONorthwest Consultant Nick Popenuk presented the staff report accompanied bya PowerPoint presentation with highlights: 1.More than a three percent per year growthoccurredshowing a slow and steady long term growth trend. 2.There was a four percent growth in real property value. 2012-2013 assumptions were at one percent growth reflecting only one development project. 3.Assumptions for the next fifteen years areat4.3percent growthwith the development of a 150 unit mixed usebuilding. 4.Suggested refinancingan existing loan that has almost $1million in a balloon payment and borrowingat least $2million in order for the city to haveat least $200,000 to fund ongoing projects. Chair Cook thanked Mr. Popenukand Mr. Farrelly for their time and the presentation as it was timely since the budget yearis about to begin. 6.CITY COUNCIL: CONTINUATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING – CONSIDERATION OF A+ O APARTMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA2014- 00002) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR2014-00003), SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR2014-00004), AND SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR2014-00002) Opening Public Hearing –Mayor Cook opened the public hearing announcingthis item as a Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing of the City Council which had been continued from the January 13, 2015 Council Meeting. Attorney Dan Olsen stated this is a continuation of the public hearing for the purpose of hearing oral responsesfrom the applicant, staff and the city attorney to the council’squestions presented at the January 13 public hearing. The council may ask additional follow-up questions or may have questions based on any written submittals received since January 13.At the conclusion of the oral presentations, it is the intent of council to close the oral portion of the hearing. Should the council do that, it isrecommendedto allow seven TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES –FEBRUARY 3, 2015 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page3of 10 days for any person to submit written comments on any material relevant to the application byFebruary 10. Then there will be one week for any person to respondto the evidence in the record submitted leading up to February 10. The applicant has requested his statutory right to rebuttaland it isunderstoodthe applicant thinks three days would be sufficient. Assuming that is true, that would be February 20. There is time on the March 3 agendadesignated solely for the purpose ofdeliberation and reaching a decisionto adopt findings or asking staff to prepare findings. At the conclusion of tonight’s testimony the councilis free to continue the hearing for further testimony or revise the schedule. Mayor Cook called for anydeclarations of ex-parte contact, bias or conflicts of interest since the January 13 hearing. Councilor Goodhouse declaredheranthrough the neighborhoodafter the last meeting. There were no other declarations and nochallenges from the community. Staff report –Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher submitted additional written testimony received since the January 13, 2015 public hearing into the record and explained from the last hearing council requested27 questions be addressed. Mr. Pagenstecher stated the applicant addressed most of those questions and requested the applicant present their responses. Applicant’s Presentation –OTAK Planner Don Hanson, OTAKPlanner Jerry Offer, OTAK Engineer Mike Peebles and Pacific Habitat Services RepresentativeJohn VanStavern submitted a new site plan into the record and addressed questions fromthe January 13, 2015 public hearingas provided in their memo presented in the record. Pacific Habitat Services Professional Wetland Scientist VanStavern reported with the new site planOTAK attemptedto reduce the impact on the wetlands as much as possible with onlyasix percent impact preserving 94percent.The applicant met with the Army Corpsof Engineers, Department of State Lands, Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Fishery and Wildlife and Department of Environmental Qualityto address the wetland issues. Approvals have been received from the Corps ofEngineersand OTAKis working on obtaining permitsfrom the Department of State Lands which is awaiting payment of the fee before issuing the permit. The Corps ofEngineers has a strong preference for using a wetland mitigation bank and that is proposed in the application.Mr. VanStavern stated possible wetland mitigation for the areawas suggested and the first thing he did was contact Tualatin Riverkeepers, city of Tigard, and Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District to look forpossible mitigation.Nonewas found so focuswas on the onsite areawith the planting of15,788 native plants. OTAK PlannerJerry Offer testifiedthe neighbor’s and council’s comments and concerns regarding the parking standardswere heard so theplan was changed to remove parking from under Building D and placed under Building C. This changed gainedmore than 50 spaceswhichnow meetsthe city’s onsite parking standards; therefore, the request for a parking exemptionis no longer needed. The application does still proposeparking on Oak Street. The second concern was the wetland and Mr. VanStavern spoke about those. Addressing the thirdquestion about providing access to transit stops andthe school, Mr. Offer stated attempts weremade to obtain an easement with Moreland Limited. They are willing to grant an easement across what will be the future right of way onLincoln Street. This will allow DBGLimitedtheabilityto provide a pathway connection betweenOak Street and the end of LincolnStreetfor connection to the school.Council shared concern regarding the lack of sidewalks or pathwaysalong OakStreet. Mr. Offer stated OTAK will commit to providinga connection between the SW 90th Avenue and Oak Street intersection to connect to the existing sidewalk at Lincoln Center. The existing public sidewalk leads to the transit stopson either side of Greenburg Road across from the Lincoln Center. Mr. Offer said discussions with the Lincoln Center property managers and representativesfrom TriMet were in progress to work through an agreement by which the owners of Lincoln Center will provide an easement,DBG Limited will provide the site grading and concrete pad for a bus shelter and TriMetwill provide the shelter. All three parties are in agreement to this, but a formal agreement has not been signed yet. TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES –FEBRUARY 3, 2015 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page4of 10 OTAK Engineer Mike Peebles addressedthe storm drainage downstream effects testifying there was an existing drainage ditch on Oak Street into the wetlands and OTAK is looking to remove that and replace it with a public storm drain pipe that will route water through the site and out of the wetland area to convey water from the upstream basin. For the actual site development,OTAK is meeting the Clean Water Services (CWS),Tigard’s and Corps ofEngineers requirements for thedetention, water quantity and water quality. To mitigate an increase in impervious surfaces, a detentionis being provided onsiteso the existingrun off will remain the same after construction; therefore, the flood plainin the Ash Creek areashowsno impact to the flood plain. The rest of the downstream bottleneck cannotbe controlledor shouldnotbemodifiedbecause of the unintended consequencesso maintaining the existing conditions isa better approach to managingthe flow models in the area. Council PresidentSnider asked how accurate the model and no rise analysis was.Mr. Peebles replieditisthe standard model using standard engineeringpractices. FEMA and CWS usea hydraulic flow (HEC-RAS) model for the area to set up existing conditionswhich isthe accepted engineering practices.Council President Snider asked how often per year those models were wrong. Mr. Peebles replied he did not know, but there is some calibration within FEMA and the HEC-RASmodel for the jurisdictions that use them. CouncilPresidentSnider stated he was not hearing a level of precision that goes along with this model.Mr. Peeblessaid he could notsay the modelis 100percent accurate as there are too many variables based on the requirements in the code for having to model and check the flood plain in order to meet the no rise analysis, so we followed those. Mayor Cook stated thewaterriseseither upstream or downstream because the water hasto go somewhere. Mr. Peebles explained it isnot a bathtub modelwhere the tubis filled with water and when something is put in itthe water overflows.Instead look at the flow of water because during a flood the water is still flowing downstream conveying through a floodway or flood channel. What would make the flood plain risewould be encroachment or obstruction;especially in the high velocity areas. This is why upstream and downstreamare checked to ensure a 0.00 effect is seen.Council PresidentSnider summarized statingthe velocity of the water and speed of movement is more important than the dropping something in the bathtubeffect. Mr. Peebles answeredyes, it is the velocity times the area so if changes are made then the same flow can go by. Councilor Woodard expressed several concernsabout impacts on the flood plain, the homeowners financial responsibilityfor damages due to flooding, the high density build in the Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC),the up zoneimpacts to the neighborhoods and open spaces, the use of flood plain instead of sensitive wetland,the 35% peak flow increase to date and how that will impact the area for the 25-yearstorm. Mr. Peebles explained when dealingwith storm water different design stormsare considered which are two- year, ten-year, 25-year and 100-yearstorms. This means there is a four percent chance there is going to be a storm event in each of those years.As those different stormeventshappen the rainfall may vary so those are modeledto see what the system impactsare. Those stormshave to do with the amount of rainfall that is landing in the areaat that moment.Mr. Peebles said the 1996 storm was considered the 100-yearstorm and a lot of things were modeled fromthat. These flood plain mapsprovided in the applicationshow the 100-year flood plain event.Tigard designedtheir conveyance system for a 25-yearstorm and conveysall the water down.Therare100-yearstorm is managed by these flood ways and plains. Councilor Woodard stated he was concerned how the system is going to keep up with this development and future developments. He suggestedall the developers interested in the area get together to come up with a solution to alleviatetheflooding problemsas building smartly in the area is really dependent on partnerships. Mr. Peeblessaid additional flooding impacts are being mitigated with the construction of a large detention facility detaining water under the parking lot and providing water quality treatment. In addition there is a series of underground chambers under the detention areagetting installed based on mitigating the impervious areas. It is a large detention system meeting CWS standardsof putting in graveland arch culverts which detainthe water coming offthe site and releasingitthrough a controlled manhole. The water willback up TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES –FEBRUARY 3, 2015 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page5of 10 under the parking area and release into the preexisting condition. The controlled manhole has an orphic at the bottom allowing water to back up behind in the detention system to match the two year and ten-yearstorm events. That will all be permitted and approved through the city of Tigard’s permit review process. Council President Sniderasked what the reason was to encroachon wetlands versus building up. Mr. Offer replied in addressing that and question number two posed on January 13, theneighbors are mostly one and two storybuildingswith some recent three story townhomes, so theythought there maybe political problems if the proposal was for too tall of buildings. The team went to the site, looked at the quality of the wetlands and Mr. VanStavernrecommended this was potentially approvable by the Corps ofEngineers, Division of State Lands and other state agenciesif the proper process and permitting requirements were followed. OTAK looked at the cost of building taller buildings and the balance of the various interests;it wasfelt the best thing was to come in with the four storybuildingsand to go through the wetland filling process. Toavoid filling the wetlands,multi-levelsof parking and bringing the buildings up to seven or eight storieswould have been required. Councilor Goodhouse asked what the model and footprint would look like if the wetlands were not encroached upon. Mr. Peebles said several alternativeswereshown in appendix D Item V, but were pulled after review fromtheCorps ofEngineers and Division of State Lands. Councilor Goodhouse asked for clarification on how the parking footprint got biggerwithout any changes to the wetlands. Mr. Hanson said more parking was placed under a larger building which didnot increase any of the site area impact.Mr. Offersaid in order to maintain the same amount of impervious surface and not lose landscaping, the parking lotwas refigured, the trash and recyclingenclosurewere moved and a few other changes were made to the parking area. This also allowed no changes to the building elevations other than the southern elevations of Building C and D as represented in thenew site plan. Mr. Offer drew attention to OTAK’s memo where they addressed council’s questions presented on January 13. He stated question three relating to parking numbershas been satisfied with the new parking plan. Tigard’s code requires 306 on-site parking spaces and theyare providing that as well as the 14 spaces within the Oak Street right of way. Councilor Goodhouse asked for clarification on TVF&R’s concernwith no parking on Oak Street. Mr. Offer said a plan was included in the original submittal showingthe emergency vehicle routes through the site which providedproperradius and access through the site. He indicated he was not sure what concerns there were beyond that. Mr. Peebles clarified the parking and street widthswill be reviewed by TVF&R as part of the final permit process. Mr. Offer said councilrequested a walking trail between the site and transit stopswhich is in the works with the Lincoln Center and TriMet. It needs to be clear while the traillooks like a probability thereare two outside entitiesnot party tothis application. He askedthe trail not be a condition of approvalas there is no guarantee to an agreement with them.Mr. Offer said OTAK is happy to do the pathwayswithin the public right of way, but cannotguarantee a private landowner will grant an easement over their property to allow a pathway.We fully expect to have a condition of approval foran on street pathway connectingOak Street to the public sidewalk on Lincoln Center property.Mr. McCarthy stated in relation to requiring the applicant to work with the property owner in order to put in a transit stop, it would be possible to add a clause to the condition that they make that improvement or similar improvements as approved by the city engineer providing contingency in case one of those entities refuses to cooperate. Councilor Woodard saidhe noted the lack of sidewalk gaps to thewestbut there is no connection in a section heading east to Hall Boulevard andthere is an existingbus stop on both ends. This is a huge populous that needs the infrastructure and facilities in place to accommodate that type of use. If you are going to develop an area with sensitivities it is beneficial to partner up with developers in the area to bring resources together. Councilor Woodard recommendedpartnershipsto findconnectivitysolutions. Mr. Offer repliedwe are not proposing pathway connections to the eastbecause after looking at transit schedules we discovered there is one busserving the transit stop at Locust Street and Hall Boulevard runningMonday TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES –FEBRUARY 3, 2015 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page6of 10 through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.The transit stops on Greenburg Road serve two bus lines that provide seven daysa week service from before 6:00 a.m. until Midnight. We found it was more important to provide service to the west with sevendaysa week service. Mr. Offer addressed question five regarding the traffic impacts around Metzger Elementary School. The traffic study shows the traffic levels on SW 90th Avenue are consistent with the city’s transportation planand should operate at an acceptable levelof service. He noted Traffic Engineer Austin said the traffic levelsonly warrant restripingand signingso traffic improvements to the SW 90th Avenue and Oak Street intersectionare not necessary. Councilor Woodard expressed concern that there is not much room for a pedestrian to walk down 90th Avenue.Mr. Hansonasked council for clarification if it is a safety impact versusa volume impact. Councilor Woodard answered it is bothas the development will add to the volume impact giving more opportunity for things to go awry. Council President Sniderasked staff what their perspective was on this issue. Mr. Pagenstechersaid he had a discussion with Ms. Austin and she clarified there is about a proposed 300 percent increaseon traffic on 90th Avenue, but even with that,the capacity on 90th Avenue is substantially greater. Streets and TransportationSenior Project Engineer Mike McCarthy said with this proposal the traffic volume on 90th Avenue would be higher, but would have adequate vehicle carrying capacity.As far as handling the through put of vehicles necessary there would be plenty of access capacity, but it would be toward the higher end of local street volumes,making it a little busier.Councilor Woodard asked if the street would meet the standard. Mr. McCarthy answered the citydoesnot have a hard and fast standard, but it is in an allowable rangewithin a local street. Councilor Woodard asked ifit has asidewalk on one side. Mr. McCarthy said it does have a sidewalk on one sidewith parking allowed and some stretches with no sidewalk and no parking. Councilor Woodard asked what the impact projection was for 87th Avenue. Mr. McCarthy said I donot foresee a lot of traffic using 87th Avenue. Mr. Offer said addressing questionnumber ten regarding the prevention ofhead lights in theliving rooms of homes across the street;the central driveway was not directly into the windows of the structuresacross the street. As far as the eastern driveway, the headlights would hit the buildingsacross the streetand thought the homes across the street are mostly townhomes which have living space on the second floor. There isnot much landscaping in the front yards of those homes so OTAK offeredto work with the property owners to provide landscaping at the time the development isbuilt. Mr. Offer addressed question 14 regarding the site analysis requirementstating the code is very general about the alternative analysis and does not give guidanceas to what needs to be done; it is a pretty generic statement. In preparing the application the development objectives were looked at fortrying to develop a moderate size multiple family development close to the Lincoln Center and WashingtonSquare area. OTAK looked at alternative sites existing within a two mile radius and considered asite on HunzikerStreetin some detail and smallersites in the basic WSRCareathat did not meet thesize requirements.All the siteshad some degree of wetlands or flood plain requiringsome sort of ESEE analysis. Council President Sniderasked what the staff’sperspectivewas on this. Mr. Pagenstecher answered the development seemed to address the variety of circumstances and the ESEE analysis criteria are general in nature and the ESEE analysisdidnominally address each of those criteriaso staff is satisfied the issues had beenconsidered.Council President Sniderstated there were comments that this was not done in an acceptable standard which is concerning, but there is still no concern from the applicant or staff. Mr. Pagenstecher agreed there was no concern. Mr. Offer addressed question 15 regarding water quality problems with sanitary sewagein the high water area and treatment of storm water from hard surfaces stating for the sanitary sewage there is a trunk line that TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES –FEBRUARY 3, 2015 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page7of 10 parallels Ash Creek that isnot going to be connectedto.This allows for no additional chance of sanitary sewerage impacts upon the flood plain from that line due to the development.The sanitary sewage lines from the development are going out to Oak Street. Questions to Staff: Mr.Pagenstecher said all questions brought up at the January 13th Public Hearing, as noted in the document titled Response to Council Questions, have been addressed except questions four, fiveand24and threewas partially answered. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire addressed question three statingthere havebeen presentations about federal and CWS permits and alternative analysiswhich areusually how local jurisdictions deal with wetlands regulations. The alternatives analysis takes place onsite to review alternative ways to build in order toavoid wetlands, minimizes the impact on the wetlands and then mitigates. Significant wetland inventory is done under the State Planning Goal 5whichhas a very specific set of procedures for jurisdictions to follow increatingwetland inventory. To protect the wetlands that are identified as significant, the state gives jurisdictions two options. Tigard chose to take the safe harbor optionwhich is the simplest for the local jurisdiction to comply with but leaves less flexibility on the regulatory end when looking at development on specific sites.That isa situation where the safe harbor was used and essentially the city’sregulations say no development in significant wetlands. The Comprehensive Plan Amendmentoption is the only way to impact wetlands at all. A comprehensive plan amendment process has to be done to remove the significant designation. That puts it in the ESEEanalysis which is something the state developed primarily when developing a Goal 5program for a very large area. It is very difficult to work with on a site by site case. Mr. Pagenstecher addressed question fourreporting there is one comprehensive plan amendment decision before the council affording councilthe most discretion in deciding this questionwhich is a gut decision made by weighing the two goodsof keepingwetlands or the benefits of a development.It is a balancing exercise between the impacts of the wetlands and the aggregate economic values. Mr. Pagenstecher stated council asked in question five when the WSRCPlan was adopted and are there any other applicable plans. The WSRC Plan which was adopted by Council on July 25, 2001 andis not subject to periodic review. The WSRC Plan has not been reviewedat and has been dormantsince adoption. Other applicable plans would be the city’s Park System and the Trail System Master Plans. Mr. Pagenstecher said concerns brought up on question 24 are a moot point since the applicant removedthe parking exception. Council President Sniderasked if council has any ability to require the right of way dedication on Lincoln Street. Mr. Pagenstecher answered the city’sengineer said based on the traffic impact analysis it was not warranted and council could not require dedication or improvement to Lincoln Street. Councilor Woodard asked for clarification on the traffic impact on 90th Avenue and whose responsibility it would be to improve that street.Mr. McCarthy said according to the applicant’straffic study the proposed trip generation would be 1,430 tripsper daywhich is in accordance with the standards used by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Of that, because Oak Street at Greenburg Road is restricted to right in and right out, more of the outboundtraffic would use 90th Avenue to get to Locust Street than the inbound traffic. Figuring 75 percent of the outbound trafficand 25percentinbound traffic would use 90th Avenue calculates to 715vehicles per dayadded to 90th Avenue. Our current traffic volume estimates are 600 vehicles per day as of today. Add those together we go from 600 to 1315 on 90th Avenue. Current city design standards on 90th Avenue areto accommodate less than 1500average daily traffic volume, which this development meets that threshold; although this development is pushing itright to the upper end. Acouple hundred more vehicles beyond this would pushthe volume intoahigher level classification. TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES –FEBRUARY 3, 2015 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page8of 10 Councilor Woodard expressed concern there may be a requirement of that development to pay for it as they participated in the increased need with thisdevelopment. Councilneedsto think about what potential development may occur, the impact createdand the need to mediate those impacts. As land inventory is used up it really gets important so councilshould tread lightly and make the best decision possible. Mr. McCarthy said there was a provision in the WSRCPlan that developments need to do their part to work toward the infrastructure plan in that code. Dedication of Lincoln Street could be considered as the developer doing their part, butthat is more of a judgment call. Mayor Cook stated if the plan says everyone should pay their fair share and if they are using up almost all the capacity on the street that is already there, then the next small development bringing the street to capacity, by adding 150 cars, would find itfinancially overwhelmingand notcost effective. Council President Snider added it would not meet an equity standard and sounds wholly different than the previous response about it beingundercapacitytherefore we really cannot require it, but this equity thing seems to disagree with this statement.Mr. McCarthy said that sort of dedication would help transportation in the entire area and what is their fair share isa judgment call. Attorney Dan Olsen said it is important to remember there arecode and plan standards that sound as though they rely heavily on equity among the various property owners. There areconstitutional requirements stipulatinga jurisdiction’s abilityin conditioninga development. First,there must be a nexuswherethe condition actually addressesa problem created by the development. Second, cost of the condition to developer must beproportional to thatimpact. So, if an earlydevelopmentcomesin and adds to a future problem,but not creating an impact at that particular time, it is hard to condition because they are creating a long term impact. Therefore,the immediate impact does notsupport a condition. Ultimately the later developmentcreates the street tobe out of standardand if fixing thestreet isonerous the councilmay be in a position to approve the development regardless.Mr. Olsenaddedin order to require improvements now there would have to be a careful analysis by staff as to the nexus between this development and Lincoln Street and the cost or feasibility of that dedication in proportion to thisdevelopment as opposed to another development. Council President Sniderrequested the analysisbe done. Public Testimony: Ms. JillWarren, 9280 SW 80th Avenue, Metzger, 97223,submitted and read aletter from her attorney into the record. Mr. Steve Nys declinedto speak. Mr. StephenBintliff, 13520 SW122nd Avenue, Tigard,97223, testified in order to make the Goal 5 amendment the ESEEis the rationale for approval but it says almost nothing as to why this is a good deal for the community. He expressed concern aboutthe vague referencestosome economic benefit and requested theybe spelled outif a decision is based on that. Mr. Bintliff requested the applicantlist the alternate sites consideredand make itpart ofthe record if that is going to be deliberatedon. He stated there is a need for sidewalkson both sideson Lincoln Street, curbson 90th Avenue,sidewalk all the way through from Greenburg Road to Hall Boulevard and improvements todrainageand should all happen before a big development like thisis allowed.He said one thing he wasglad to see brought up was the WSRP hasnot been visited in 14 years and shouldnot be considered as so much has changedin the area. Mr. Jim Long, 1070 SW72nd Avenue, Tigard, 97223, chairof the CPO4-M, testified the committeeis unanimouslyopposing this application and want to see it denieddue to someambiguity in the application. Ms. Nancy Tracy, 7310 SW Pine Street, Portland, 97223, submitted her testimony into the record. Ms. Penny Nash, 10231 SW Jefferson Avenue, Tigard,97223, expressed concern for the 100-yearflood plain being altered, the increasing amount of water going intothe area, increased traffic to congestive proportions, TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES –FEBRUARY 3, 2015 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page9of 10 lack ofsidewalks on the Metzger streets,the increased burden on the Metzger schoolsand the damage to the grounds from the combination of the liqueficationand amplification as indicated on the map she submitted into the record. Ms. Allison Wyatt, 8820 SW Thorn Street, Tigard, 97223 testified she agreed with all the questions presented and is concerned with the traffic on the streets,that there areno sidewalks and there is no access to the bus shelter onHall Boulevard. Ms. Trudy Knowles, 10430 SW 82nd, Tigard, 97281, requested the city consider doinganother traffic study in theareaas there is concern for the level of increased traffic on Greenburg Road,Hall Boulevard, 87th Avenue and 90th Avenue. She submitted aflood plain mapinto the record showing the flood plain area forthe proposed development. Mr. RyanO’Brien,1862 NE Estate Drive,Hillsboro, 97123, representing Gene Davis, testified about the desire for Lincoln Street to be dedicatedand concern with a possible condemnation to secure the right of way. He requested the right of way be secured before any planning or development occurs. Mr. Todd Kinsley,8840 SW Spruce Street, Tigard, 97223 testified a five house development is underwaynear his home in which the contractorsignored building standards and the building department didnot catch certain things during the building process. Theneighbors and developers entered into mediation to resolve the issues. Mr. Kinsley expressed concern that the city’s building division be well enough staffedto handle a development of this size andensure compliance. Closing of Public Hearing –Mayor Cook closed the public hearing. Mr. Olsenstated the recommendation to council is to keep the record open for anyone who wantsto submit written material on any matter related to the application,including argumentor new evidence,to be received by 5:00p.m. on February 10th. The record will be held over for one more week for anyone to respond to the evidence in the record,includingthe material that came in during the week leading up to February 10,until February 17at 5:00 p.m.Any person can read the material submitted in the week up to February 10th and can respond.There willnot be new evidenceallowed. Finally, the applicant felt three days would be sufficient to submit rebuttalwhich would allow the applicant to submit rebuttal until 5:00 p.m. on February 23rd. This would be an argument and no new evidenceis allowed. The question is what date the council wishes to continue this matter for deliberation and decision. CouncilorHenderson motioned to postpone the Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing to March 3, 2015, seconded by CouncilorGoodhouse. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the council. Name Yes No Chair Cook  Director Goodhouse  Director Henderson  Director Snider  Director Woodard  7.NON AGENDA ITEMS –None TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES –FEBRUARY 3, 2015 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page10of 10 8.ADJOURNMENT At 11:03p.m. Director Henderson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Director Woodard seconded the motion and all voted in favor. Name Yes No Chair Cook  Director Goodhouse  Director Henderson  Director Snider  Director Woodard  _________________________________ Norma I. Alley, Deputy City Recorder Attest: ________________________________________ Chair, City Center Development Agency Date: ___________________________________ AIS-2115 4. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date:03/03/2015 Length (in minutes):20 Minutes Agenda Title:Art/Gateway Update Submitted By:Sean Farrelly, Community Development Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: City Center Development Agency Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Receive update on Main Street art and gateway design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST No CCDA Board action is requested. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Public art was identified in the Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan as an important element “to bring more vitality to the downtown experience by creating a set of interconnected places and emphasizing the flow of people, history, and nature.” The Tigard Downtown Alliance and others have also identified art as an important component to a vital downtown and has organized events like the Tigard Art Walk this May. On January 7, 2014 the CCDA Board approved the “Petals” concept by artist Brian Borrello that was recommended by the CCAC and the CCAC Public Art Subcommittee. Mr. Borrello has completed fabrication of the 16 foot tall steel sculptures. The last step will be coating the pieces with an aliphatic acrylic polyurethane coating. Mr. Borrello is waiting for the city to give him the go ahead to transport the pieces from the fabricators to the painting contractors and then to the city. Once painted, the number of times the pieces need to be loaded and moved should be minimized due to the potential for scratching. The pieces have been reviewed by a structural engineer. An art conservation specialist has also reviewed it for durability and ease of maintenance. The city has an IGA with ODOT to allow a project, which is technically ODOT right-of-way. ODOT reviewed sight distances and issued a permit in September, 2014. The city also contracted with Koch Landscape Architecture on a plan for the gateway area landscaping lighting plan, and stonework. The firm recently completed 100% design documents for the gateway. It will feature a stone wall, including built in seating made of rock, similar to the Hall Blvd. and Burnham St. gateway. It will feature the message “Welcome to Downtown Tigard.” The artwork would rest on a mounded area behind the wall (approximately 8 feet above grade) to make the artwork highly visible, which was considered a priority by the CCAC Public Art Subcommittee, CCAC and CCDA. Based on the construction drawings, estimates to construct both gateway projects set the costs at approximately $400,000. In addition, Public Works internal costs are estimated at $21,000. $110,000 had been budgeted in the CCDA budget for the gateways, a number that was derived before any design work had begun. The significantly higher estimate is mainly due to the length and height of wall and stone veneer, the fact that this stone wall is serving as a retaining wall for the mounded earth (unlike the Burnham St. and Hall Blvd. gateway), and the cost to install electric utilities for lighting. The landscape architects are currently responding to city staff comments and finalizing the construction drawings. Bids are scheduled to be requested in mid-March. The contractors will be requested to provide alternate bid packages to construct both gateways, and just the south gateway. After the bids are received the CCDA Board will be requested to provide guidance on whether to pursue one or both gateway projects this fiscal year, or to defer the projects to a future fiscal year. This decision will be placed in context with other urban renewal budget priorities. At their February 11th meeting, the CCAC voted to send a letter to the CCDA Board recommending completion of both gateway improvements this Fiscal Year. OTHER ALTERNATIVES No CCDA Board action is requested. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS City Council 2015-17 Goals and Milestones Goal #2 Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be Strengthen downtown’s identity by completing gateway improvements and install art at both Main Street entrances. Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION September 2, 2014: Main Street Gateway Art Update January 7, 2014: Consider Approval of the CCAC/Public Art Subcommittee Recommended Gateway Art Concept October 1, 2013 July 23, 2013 May 7, 2013 March 6, 2012 Fiscal Impact Cost:$420,000 (estimate) Budgeted (yes or no):partial Where Budgeted (department/program):CCDA Additional Fiscal Notes: FY 14-15 CCDA Budget had $929,000 in resources. Approximately $590,000 has been spent or allocated. Attachments No file(s) attached. City ofn Tigard Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done City ofn Tigard Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done City Center Development Agency Board March 3, 2015 Gateway Art City of Tigard Tigard Downtown Streetscape Plan City of Tigard Public Process City of Tigard City of Tigard City of Tigard City of Tigard City of Tigard City of Tigard City of Tigard City of Tigard Timeline Dec. 2012: Borrello selected by CCAC public art subcommittee Jan. 2014: “Petals” concept approved by CCDA Board. Jan. 2014: Landscape architect provides a “guesstimate” of gateway costs before design work begins- $110K March 2014: $110K included as a placeholder in CCDA budget Nov. 2014: Detailed gateway estimate based on plans - $400K Feb. 2015: Plans and specs complete and city comments addressed Mid-March 2015: Out to bid City of Tigard CCDA Budget FY 14-15 Sources $929,000 FY 14-15 Expended and Pending $613,000 Unprogrammed funds $316,000 City of Tigard Next Steps Mid-March: bids Return to CCDA with options including 1)Build both gateways this FY 2)Build one gateway this FY 3)Defer both gateways to future FY City of Tigard City of Tigard City of Tigard