Loading...
11/29/2021 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – November 29, 2021 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503 -639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 City of Tigard Planning Commission Agenda MEETING DATE: November 29, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Members Remote via Microsoft Teams Link to virtual hearing online: www.tigard-or.gov/virtualPC Call-in number for public testimony: 503-966-4101 Public testimony call-in time is between 7:15 p.m. and 7:45 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING 7:05 p.m. UNIVERSAL PLAZA & PATH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW CPA2021-00004 & SLR2021-00010 Staff: Associate Planner Monica Bilodeau PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes to construct Universal Plaza and a connecting multi - use path from the Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail. A Type III-Modified Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required to approve the removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory and to remove 0.24 acres (10,360 square feet) of associated buffer to accommodate the proposed plaza elements and path within sensitive lands. LOCATION: 9100 SW Burnham St. WCTM 2S102AC00202, 203 & 204 6. OTHER BUSINESS 8:20 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT 8:30 p.m. November 29, 2021 Page 1 of 10 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes, November 29, 2021 Location: Members Remote via Microsoft Teams Link to virtual hearing online: www.tigard-or.gov/virtualPC Call-in number for public testimony: 503-966-4101 Public testimony call-in time was between 7:15 and 7:45 p.m. CALL TO ORDER President Hu called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: President Hu Vice President Jackson Commissioner Brook Alt. Commissioner Dick Alt. Commissioner Miranda Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Schuck Commissioner (K7) Tiruvallur Commissioner Watson Absent: Commissioner Quinones; Commissioner Whitehurst Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Monica Bilodeau, Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher, Project Planner; Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager; Kenny Asher, Community Development Director COMMUNICATIONS ² None. CONSIDER MINUTES President Hu asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the November 15, 2021 minutes; with the acknowledgement of one additional question and answer, President Hu declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING UNIVERSAL PLAZA & PATH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW CPA2021-00004 & SLR2021-00010 Staff: Associate Planner Monica Bilodeau November 29, 2021 Page 2 of 10 PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes to construct Universal Plaza and a connecting multi - use path from the Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail. A Type III-Modified Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required to approve the removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory and to remove 0.24 acres (10,360 square feet) of associated buffer to accommodate the proposed plaza elements and path within sensitive lands. LOCATION: 9100 SW Burnham St. HEARING STATEMENTS President Hu gave the call-in number for people who may want to testify. He then read the required statements and procedural items from the hearing guide. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: President Hu, Vice President Nathan Jackson, Alternate Commissioner Dick, Alternate Commissioner Miranda, and Commissioner Robert s. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Monica Bilodeau pulled up a PowerPoint (Exhibit A) and gave a summary of the project. The City of Tigard is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove 0.194 acres of Tigard significant wetlands from the Wetlands and Stream Corridor map. For clarification of what impacts are being proposed, she noted that on page 5 of the staff report WKH\·d broken them down further into permanent impacts to the wetland. The impacts to wetland is .004, which is about 159 Sq Feet. $QGWKDW·VSURSRVHGWREHPLWLJDWHGDWD%XWOHU mitigation bank, which is in our local area in Washingto n County. The rest of the impacts ² the 0.194 is to the vegetive corridor. She noted that the impacts are t aking place mostly at the corner of the site where tKH\·YHUHGXFHGWKHZLGWKRIWKHWUDLOWRIHHWZLGH She went over a summary of the project need. She noted that the new path section will provide for controlled access to areas it passes through, there by reducing the introduction and use of rogue paths, which are common along several sections of the proposed path route. A s part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) Consequences Analysis was required. The analysis involved evaluating the trade-offs associated with different levels of natural resource protection. That analysis was provided to the commissioners and it involves identifying the consequences of allowing, limiting, or prohibiting conflicting u ses in areas containing significant natural resources. It concluded that limiting the conflicting use will result in the most beneficial consequences of the three protection scenarios for the City. Monica noted that LQOLPLWLQJLWZHGLGQ·WMXVWRXWULJKWOet the trail go through the wetland. It was designed in a way that limited the impacts to that wetland and gave a tradeoff there. That analysis was also LQFOXGHGLQWKHFRPPLVVLRQHU·VSDFNHWV STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommendation to City Council at the January 4th hearing for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Sensitive Lands Review, subject to findings and recommended Conditions of Approval in the staff report. QUESTIONS President Hu: Is the company that prepared the ESSE report available to answer questions? ´,WGRHVQ·WORRNOLNHWKH\·UHSUHV ent.µ The ESEE pointed out there may be November 29, 2021 Page 3 of 10 accessibility issues? The report says there are accessibility issues ² I walked there today and if I were in a wheelchair, I would have had no problem with that pathway. So, I wonder what the accessibility issues are that they spoke of in the analysis. On page 6, the first full paragraph at the end VD\V´The only other pedestrian or bicycle option to connect the Universal Plaza to the Fanno Creek Trail on the public sidewalks are street routes along Burnham Street and Ash Street, which are indirect and may not be easily DFFHVVLEOHWRSHRSOHZLWKOLPLWHGPRELOLW\µ,·PZRQGHULQJKRZWKH\concluded that it may not be easily accessible to people with limited mobility. Gary Pagenstecher said he ZDVQ·WVXUHKRZ they came to that conclusion. President Hu: ´The entire foundation for removing the wetland from the protected area is based on this ESEE analysis, so I have ORWVRITXHVWLRQV,NQRZZH·UHQRWVXSSRVHGWRH[Sress our opinion right now, but I just found WKLVDQDO\VLVWREHYHU\VXSHUILFLDODQG,GRQ·t find a lot of supporting evidence for the ESSE analysis. Most of my questions are pointing to the ESEE analysis, because this is the only reason we can remove the protection. So, LILW·VQRWFRQYLQFLQJWRPH, I will not be able to support the removal of wetlands.µ Gary P: ´Limited mobility may be the amount of effort it takes to go a distance ² not whether or QRWLW·VIODWWKHZKROHZD\µ So, ZKDW·VWKHdistance difference between the path and the current roundabout way of going around the printing company? ´,I\RX·UHLQWKHSOD]D then as soon as you set out on the trail, you are in the resource and can appreciate the creek in a matter of 10, 20 or 30 feet. If you had to take Burnham and Ash, \RX·GEHJRLng the length of two sides of a large city block to get to the proximation of where you would otherwise have been ² with not so much effort. I think it has to do with ease of access ² both in terms of length, and keeping in mind those who are the most vulnerable among us. President Hu: The second question. Have there been discussions with the printing company next door regarding a public easement through their parking lot for the proposed trail? Gary answered, ´Sean may want to weigh in on this point since Sean is the appl icant and has a lot of the hisWRU\DQGLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWZDVQ·WDSDUWRIWKHDSSOLFDWLRQWKDWKHFDQUHSRUWRQ . They were approached and they declined as far as I remember.µ Sean Farrelly said, ´TKDW·VFRUUHFW they are not interested at this time in having a public easement across their parking lot.µ How about the public wetland next to their parking lot ² immediately adjacent to their parking lot? Would that be less of an impact on the wetland t KDQZKDW·Vcurrently proposed? Since their parking lot is already paved, if you just attached to their parking lot another pathway, would that be less of an impact on the wetlands? If they would have permitted it, it would have been. The alignment cuts the corner right at their property line ² the curve is around the property corner. So , the path goes over the wetland just enough to get further along, not going on the B & B Printing site. Hmm, I guess I need to take a look at a map if you can pull that out later. 7KDW·VDOOWKHTXHVWLRQV I have for now. Can you confirm that the 159 sq feet is each individual piling ² and that those combined equals 159 - VRWKHUH·VQRWH[WUDZDWHURUZHWODQGXQGHUQHDWKWKHUHWKDW·VLQFOXGHG ? The five or six pilings that are in the area is 159 sq. ft. Am I understanding that math correctly? That area is about the size of 5 sheets of plywood. Together the number of concrete beams shown in the drawing are within the wetland. The total is for all the beams - 18 proposed for the length of the boardwalk. :KDWWKH\·UHVKRZLQJLQWKHdrawings as concrete beams, the width of the boardwalk spaced at 10 feet or so ² at the time that we were doing the design GHYHORSPHQWZHKDGQ·WJRWWHQWKH*HRWHFKUHSRUWVRZHGLGQ·WNQRZZKDW kind of sub-support November 29, 2021 Page 4 of 10 WKHUHZRXOGQHHGWREH:H·YHOHDUQHGthat helical piers can be used which have a very light footprint, so the amount of impact in the service provider letter is more than we will actually be creating with this alternative foundation. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Sean Farrelly introduced himself as the Redevelopment Project Manager for the City of Tigard and the City Project Manager/Applicant. He went over a brief presentation (Exhibit B) to explain why they·re doing the project in this location . He noted that the more specific environmental questions should be directed to Gary Pagenstecher. He said the Universal Plaza will be a great place to gather and to hold events, to have a )DUPHU·V0DUNHWPRYLHVLQWKHSDUN etc. This TIF Agency owned p roperty was chosen as the plaza site based on proximity to Main Street and Fanno Creek Park/Trail. The goal is to attract new visitors, customers, residents, and investments to Downtown. ,W·VEHHQLQWKHSODQQLQJ stage since 2018. During that time, they figured out what the theme would be, what kind of amenities they wanted, they did a lot of public engagement and began design and engineering. They had wanted to have much more activity on the temporary plaza that ·s presently there. For now, there are just a few pieces of furniture out there and some art. Unfortunately, the kickoff coincided right about the time COVID hit, so they had to switch gears. They added some public engagement and activation but not as much as they had hoped. They worked with a nationally known designer called RIOS (they do public spaces all over the country) and they are also working with a very well-known national water feature designer called Fluidity. They are planning to go into construction in April 2022. Sean went over the design and showed a ren dition of what it might look like (Exhibit B). ´There will be lots of fun things. Lots of lawn space for children to play. The water feature will be very cool and popular in the summer. It will be lit at night ² the water will go in patterns. This will be a very big attractor to downtown ² we anticipate it will bring many parents and kids ² and I wouldn·t be surprised if not only kids, but adults use the water feature on a hot day. We want it to be used year-round so we are leaving a lot of space for events that could happen there. There will be a restroom, tables, and seating as well as a ´community tableµ ² a larger table where many can eat at once. BXWZH·UHZDQWLQJWKHDUHDWREHXVHGDOO\HDUVRWKHUH·VORWVRIURRPIRUHYHQWV ; lots of seating; and a community table where many people can eat at once. There will be lighting for safety. It·s important to us that safety is addressed in this plan.µ Sean went over the details, which included lots of native plantings in the storm water are a. They·re trying to accomplish a lot on this property. The aim is to have a good storm water area, well planted with interpretive signage about how Fanno Creek watershed works. He said it·s important to connect the Fanno Creek Trail, and that if we did not build a connection, we believe people would make that·s connection anyway. They·d walk through there and maybe not respect the natural area that ·s there. There·s a section of it that·s boardwalk and with the ability to use these h elical piers, there will to be a much lower impact on the areas in question. In a few years there will be a Phase II of this project that would feature a shade structure to protect people from the hot sun and rain. There will also be a community room that will be a great asset to the residents of Tigard. QUESTIONS Thanks for the presentation. So, I·m understanding that 156 sq ft of wetland will be impacted essentially by piers sitting in the wetland. WH·UH basically voting tonight to recommend that this sq footage be removed fURPWKHLQYHQWRU\«LVWKDWFRUUHFW" Yes, November 29, 2021 Page 5 of 10 that·s correct. You are making a recommendation to City Council and they will hear this item as well as public testimony on January 4, 2022. What is the total number of significant wetlands that Tigard has? Assistant Community Development Director Tom McGuire answered, ´I don·t know the exact number of significant wetlands we have . Part of that is that they change a little, and the way our code works, if someone·s proposing to impact them, we have them hire someone to do a wetland delineation, so we get the accurate location and size on the property. I would say that easily it would be over 200 acres at least, if not more. So, the crux of the argument is that there·s a tradeoff for enhancement of the trail to remove this amount from the wetland inventory. As I hear it, in exchange for removing this amount from the wetland LQYHQWRU\WKHUH·VZKDWORRNVWREHDYHU\JRRGSXEOLFEHQHILWDQGVRPHZHWODQG in another place is being improved. Is that the crux of it in a simplified way? Tom: ´That·s essentially right, there are probably a couple of details that haven·t been touched on yet. One of those is that there·s a big chunk of paved surface leftover from the business that used to be there. That is inside that buffer. That·s being torn out and restored to a vegetative buffer, and a natural water quality facility will be placed in that area as well. That·s in addition to the actual wetland mitigation bank for the specific 129 Sq. Ft. or so. I was probably the most skeptical of this idea at the City from the start, and I really pushed the development team (the Downtown Redevelopment Agency) hard to justify this. The key for me is this will be quite an attraction ² a major thing for downtown Tigard and people are going to want to go there. We have this really wonderful reconstruction of the Fanno Creek Trail a few hundred yards to the west. There will be lots of people on that trail and they ·re going to see things going on over there and ² people being people, a good portion of them will go straight to that location. They ·re going to walk right through the buffer and wetland ² we see it all the time ² we get what we call ´demand trails.µ This is very similar to the same argument we made in Dirksen Nature Park. Th e Planning Commission at that time approved the improvements at Dirksen Nature Park. There·s a very special wetland in Dirksen Nature Park where we built a boardwalk and a viewing platform. Part of it goes into the wetland; but we did that specifically to allow people to get access to the resource while controlling that access. So people are on the fenced boardwalk ² it keeps them where we want them instead of wan dering all over through the resource. That was the main argument. The only process we have to be able to go into any portion of our significant wetlands is this ESEE process. I think they did a really good job of re ducing the impact as much as possible, and I think if this trail·s not here, it could end up with a much greater impact than what we·re proposing.µ Will there be nighttime lighting on the path? Not at this point. In the Plaza, yes, there will definitely be lighting. We heard from the planning stage that people want to feel safe there. We would like to get lighting on the Fanno Creek Trail itself ² pedestrian level lighting - sometime in the future. President Hu asked if there were any more ques tions. Tom McGuire asked if he could address some of President Hu·s previously stated concerns. President Hu recognized him. ´<RX·GVDLGthat you felt the ESEE was lacking in a number of SODFHV'R\RXKDYHVSHFLILFWKLQJVWKDW\RX·GOLNHWRFRYHU ? I understand the one that you pointed out and I think Gary had a good evaluation of where that probably came from. It ·s probably not the strongest argument. I think it·s a factor, it·s not the major factor. Your statement was pretty strong and the ESEE Analysis is pretty key to this whole thing so I ·m November 29, 2021 Page 6 of 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY wondering if you want to have any specific things addressed. Is there something you want to cover or that you want answers to? Is there something I can address?µ Yes, I think several commissioners brought up questions« like Commissioner Jackson asked if the proposed pathway would really prevent rogue or ´demandµ trails? The answer given was kind of disappointing. It was a lot of speculation like ´yeah, there are trees there so people will probably not make rogue trails« ok« and social consequences like it would drive up business and business like it. The printing shop next door said no to trails, so they·re obviously not keen on having more trails ² at least on their property, I guess. I feel the answers GLGQ·WGLYHGHHSHQRXJK for me. That·s my personal feeling and the fact that I don·t know if there are any plans to expand Universal Plaza if neighboring lots become available. If the City would love to take over the printing shop at one point to make it part of it ² I mean why can·t we just wait and have the trail there? Or can we just wait to build the trail later when it·s been demonstrated that there are actually rogue trails there? I know the impact section is kind of small, but still - since the ESEE Analysis is the foundation of taking away the protective status« something about this is not sitting right with me. I would like more concrete evidence to support the conclusion they·ve reached. It seems they·re just putting things in there to justify their conclusions. So that·s my concern. I·m not saying it·s poorly done; I·m just saying this is something that·s missing. Tom answered, ´Regarding IXWXUHSODQV«,GRQ·WNQRZ that there are any plans to expand the Universal Plaza. If there are, it would likely go in the other direction I would think. When/if the printing property redevelops someday, the Downtown Plan has a requirement for an alley along the backside of that proSHUW\OLQH7KDW·VZK\ZHWULHG very hard to get them to agree to an easement, because we could have basically put the trail right through the location of where we want the future alley to go. But they were absolutely not interested in that at this time ² they did not want to have that issue. They didn ·t want to disturb their parking lot. I don·t know what future plans they have ² they could redevelop in five years ² it could be 20 years ² we don·t know. We have no control over that, so this was our only other option. Regarding ´demand trails,µ most of the people going to the Plaza will be coming from the existing Fanno Creek Trail direction. To my knowledge, we haven·t been monitoring the other areas where we·ve done this before, but the Parks Division continues to want to do this because anecdotally they are not seeing problems with it. They·re not seeing situations where we·re getting demand trails along with the trail. It seems to be working for them, but we don·t have a specific study that I can point to for you. Also, I just learned that the platform will not have railings, so that·s not actually preventing people from stepping onto the wetland from the trail. That might actually have a negative effect, and that·s another thing I·m thinking now. Today I was actually looking from where the proposed trail would be to Universal Plaza. I thought ´that·s pretty far ² I·m not going to make a rogue trail. If you actually have a platform there ² it would make it easy to step on. It would make it easier to step UP onto the platform too and actually ruin the wetland even more. I just don·t know which direction I·m comfortable with. There are lots of unanswered questions in my mind, so I ·m skeptical. November 29, 2021 Page 7 of 10 NEUTRAL TESTIMONY ² Steve DeAngelo, Past President of Tigard Downtown Alliance, Property Owner at 937 SW Burnham St., Tigard. I have general questions and comments. Did any of the staff, elected officials, or commissioners visit during the recent high-water event? You don·t have to answer, but I want to say that I did go to the high -water event and saw the wetlands impacted by the ´atmospheric river.µ It was interesting. I do recommend and suggest pathway lighting due to the re cent ´activityµ I·ll call it, some of which has been negative - on the Fanno Creek Trail in the recent weeks an d months with the deaths and just vandalism and so forth. I·d suggest that the commission ask about pathway lighting. ,·PLQWHUHVWHGLQWKH educational piece and discussing the flora and the fauna of the area ² not only are the wetlands important, but what grows and lives in there should be considered. How does the raised boardwalk do over the years? I suggest the footings are probably made of conc rete. That boardwalk is eventually going to be absorbed with water. Is that pressure treated wood easing into the eco-system? Parking is a continual issue on Bur nham Street. You asked if ,·P opposed to the Plaza. I·m neutral at this point. I believe the Plaza will be an enhancement for our downtown area, but I think these considerations are of utmost importance. The at-grade maintenance ² whether those pathways become absorbed with water ² are they a permeable material such as the trail along the railbed? Those are my comments and questions. Thank you for the present ation ² it was very enlightening, and I appreciate everyone·s input. QUESTIONS ² I may have missed it but overall are you for, against or neutral toward the proposed trail? I love the accessibility aspect. I certainly want to make sure we don·t impact our wetlands to the point that we would trade off any benefit. At this point how ever, I would say I·m neutral to positive. What did you see when you noticed the flooding? I have pictures and am happy to share them via email. Sean Farrelly knows how to get ahold of me. The B & B corner that·s adjacent to the wetlands was underwater, DQGQRUPDOO\LW·VQRWXQGHUZDWHUThat water was certainly encroaching that corner where the pathway is prop osed. I·ve been a resident of Tigard since 1989, so I know the area floods. I·ve seen the water over Burnham in the old days « not ever encroaching on my property, but when the water comes up it·s a concern. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION President Hu asked the commissioners to share their thoughts, comments, or concerns. Alternate Commissioner Dick·s concern is the wetland area. Without a rail on the pilings portion, she thinks people will step off. She ·s also concerned about the wildlife in the area as it will be noisier with the Plaza there. She knows there·s not a lot of parking, but she likes that WKH\·UHHQFRXUDJLQJD healthy way to get there instead of driving. She thinks a railing would be a good thing. REOPENED THE HEARING November 29, 2021 Page 8 of 10 President Hu reopened the hearing because he had inadvertently failed to ask staff to respond to the FDOOHU·VTXHVWLRQs. STAFF·S RESPONSE TO THE CALLER Regarding the footing that will be used , Gary Pagenstecher answered: The decision for the type of sub-structure hasn·t been decided yet. The helical pier is a metal footing alternative, or concrete which is what·s showing. And on top of that would be either pressure treated wood or possibly plastic lumber, or it could be steel. I thin k Steve DeAngelo brings a good point about maintenance and longevity of what the substructure would be made from and that maintenance and building it for the long term rather than replacement w as the direction the committee was headed. I think at this point, the committee is favoring the helical pier with a metal substructure that would support the decking. Regarding the question of railings, Tom McGuire commented. ´Depending on the style and type of railing, and how on both sides how big they are « what elevations they·re at« there could be some floodplain impacts because as Mr. DeAngelo described a lot of water . That·s not surprising as that is actually a floodplain. It·s designed to have periodic inundation of the trail. That·s why it·s a wetland and that·s how it·s supposed to work. That happens with many of our trails. If anything, the concern causes more maint enance for our Parks staff and they have to factor that into their schedules. Putting railings into that area, we would have to put it in in a way where we don·t cause a rise. It·s a zero rise. So we can·t raise the floodplain elevation at all by putting things in the floodplain. If we do the rails and it does cause a rise , we would have to look into some sort of excavation somewhere else ² which would add a lot of cost. Along the entire Fanno Creek trail from 99W down to Hall ² there are no rails. It·s all very open and you get a very open prairie like look to it all. I·d be concerned about just this small section of trail having fences or rails along it. I GRQ·W think people are going to be jumping off the boardwalk into the wetland. I think people generally just stick to the trail. Regarding lighting along the Fanno Creek trail - Sean Farrelly answered: ´Lighting along the Fanno Creek trail ² at least the downtown part is a future project. WH·OOEH looking at possibly even solar lighting as that·s come a long way. That would be the least intrusive to wildlife. That ·s a separate question from this project ² the only place lighting is being proposed her e is in the Plaza itself. The lighting on Fanno Creek in the Downtown section ² we·ll be taking a look at that separately after this project - likely in the next fiscal year.µ PRESIDENT HU RECLOSED THE HEARING DELIBERATION Commissioner Roberts is generally in favor oILW+HJHWVWKHVDIHW\LVVXHV2YHUDOOKH·VLQ favor. Commissioner Brook, ´I think railings should be up to designers and staff and not us but, I feel kind of conflicted over the lighting situation. If I were walking in the winter when it gets dark early I would want it to be lighted, but I realize it does affect the creatures. ,·PRYHUDOOYery H[FLWHGWRKDYHWKHWUDLOH[WHQGHG,·PQHXWUDO- but neutral positive (like the caller).µ November 29, 2021 Page 9 of 10 Commissioner Watson is moderately positive. In terms of safety and long-term maintenance she likes boardwalks. She·s seen them with plastic lumber and noticed that they wear well. With pressure treated wood you can get warp and knotholes and it dissolves o YHUWLPH7KHUH·VSODVWLF lumber out there that has some benefit. She said she would like to plug for something more durable and consistent in quality than pressure treated wood. Vice President Jackson is also moderately positive. The main argument that persuaded him was the controlled access concept in reducing demand paths. He thinks that·s a good way to do it. He realizes that the ESEE report could come off as more rhetorical but that aside, he liked the report - particularly the part about controlled access. Commissioner K7 is also reasonably positive. He·s completely positive about the Universal 3OD]D7KDW·VZRQGHUIXO and he is all for it. He ·d like to have seen some data on where we have claimed some of the wetland areas in the past« what kind of changes did we see over a period of time? That data would have really helped us to make a good, strong decision. He said he also shares some of the concerns abo ut maintenance given that it·s in the floodplain. Otherwise, he·s reasonably positive. Commissioner Schuck said, ´,·Ppositive! Not moderately positive. We all have our boardwalk stories, and some have come out today. I was recently at Rockaway Beach. They have a 1.2 mile boardwalk trail out to a big tree and it goes over a wetland and a bog. It·VOLNH you·re in a wonderland. The cool thing about th is one is it·s a short one. You don·t have to be a big, long distance hiker. This is in the City, right next to a beautiful creek. It·s the perfect place for falling in love with the environment. That boardwalk trail out in Rockaway Beach ² you hear the water running underneath it. It·s truly like a wonderland. And to think that you can enjoy that because the jurisdiction down there had the foresight to say, ´We need to let people see and enjoy this!µ I agree with the concerns about the data, but ,GRQ·WOLNHWKHUDLOV² I think animals cross over the rails and things. I think people usually stay on the trail ² I don·t think they step off. I like that our staff are so cognizant of the trees and the canopy and they·re protecting our environment, while at the same time wanting us to enjoy it. I don·t know how you could do that without a little bit of sacrifice, so I am a solid positive! ,·GORYHWR walk on the boardwalk along Fanno Creek. Thanks. Alternate Commissioner Miranda ² is a ´positive, positiveµ. She·s excited about the interpretive opportunities for education. She likes that the trail gives the opportunity to make a loop back on Ash ² back to your car if you parked over there - or to the Dog Park. She likes that you don·t have to go on the whole Fanno Creek trail if you don ·t want to, but that if you do, you can. She is very excited about this project. Commissioner Watson ² regarding the topic of data, she suggests the city or applicant look at precedence. President Hu is positive for the Universal Plaza but has serious reservations about the ESEE Report Consequences Analysis, and because WKDW·V the foundation for the trail part, he·s leaning towards ´Neutral to Negativeµ. MOTION November 29, 2021 Page 10 of 10 Commissioner Roberts ´,PRYHthe Planning Commission move for a recommendation of APPROVAL to the City Council for CPA2021-00004 and SLR2021-00010 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the Staff Report and based on the testimony received. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watson. Those in favor ² Commissioner Roberts, Watson, Schuck, Jackson, Brook, & Tiruvaller (6) Those against ² 0 Those abstaining - President Hu (1). MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL PASSES 6-0-1 The City Council will have a hearing on this on January 4, 2022. OTHER BUSINESS Tom McGuire took some time to talk about the pandemic and Hybrid Planning Commission meetings. He asked the Commissioners to voice their opinions on whether they would like to meet in person with masks and social distancing or continue to meet on -line for the foreseeable future. There were concerns voiced about in-person hybrid meetings. COVID variants and the unknown vaccination status of the public was a big concern. Also, having room to meet with everyone who needs to be in the room was of concern. It was noted that at times the applicant has a whole entourage with them, and some meetings draw many from the public. This would make physical distancing and accessibility for the public very difficult. Hearing could be a problem as some people sound muffled as they speak while masked. One of the commissioners likes the free-flowing way of meeting in person, seeing everyone, and being able to interact visually with them; however, he understands the need to meet online at this point. The commissioners unanimously agreed that they would prefer that the meetings remain virtual until the mask and social distancing mandate s are lifted or greatly eased. ADJOURNMENT President Hu adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. _______________________________________ Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary __________________________________ ATTEST: President Yi-Kang Hu CITY OF TIGARDRespect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it DoneUniversal PlazaCPA 2021-00004SLR 2021-00001November 29, 2021Planning CommissionEXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARDProject Summary`The City of Tigard is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove 0.194 acres of Tigard significant wetlands from the Wetlands and Stream Corridor map. CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARDProject Need`Multi-use trail connection to the existing FannoCreek Trail `Critical infrastructure and will serve a dual purpose of fulfilling both public transportation and recreational facility needs. `New path section will provide for controlled access to areas it passes through, thereby reducing the introduction and use of rogue paths, which are common along several sections of the proposed path route. CITY OF TIGARDEnvironmental, social, economic and energy (ESEE) consequences analysis `The Goal 5 ESEE analysis involves evaluating the trade-offs associated with different levels of natural resource protection. `the evaluation process involves identifying the consequences of allowing, limiting, or prohibiting conflicting uses in areas containing significant natural resources. `This analysis concludes that limiting the conflicting use will result in the most beneficial consequences of the three protection scenarios for the City. CITY OF TIGARDStaff RecommendationRecommendation to City Council at the January 4thhearing for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Sensitive Lands Review, subject to findings and recommended Conditions of Approval in the staff report. Universal Plaza & PathPlanning Commission November 29, 2021EXHIBIT B Universal Plaza͞ĞŶƚƌĂůŐĂƚŚĞƌŝŶŐƉůĂĐĞ͟ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶŝƚLJĞŶƚĞƌd/&ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚPlan, Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan: place to hold ĞǀĞŶƚƐ͕&ĂƌŵĞƌ͛ƐDĂƌŬĞƚ͕ŵŽǀŝĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƉĂƌŬ͕ĞƚĐ͘TIF Agency-owned property chosen as plaza site based on proximity to Main Street and FannoCreek Park/TrailAttract new visitors, customers, residents, and investment to Downtown Planning -2018Public engagement, design and engineering-2020Construction-scheduled April 2022 CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 1 OF 17 Agenda Item: 5 Hearing Date: November 29, 2021 Time: 7:00PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = NA SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: UNIVERSAL PLAZA CASE NO.: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) CPA2021-00004 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) SLR2021-00010 REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes to construct Universal Plaza and a connecting multi-use path from the Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail. The Plaza is designed to function as a community public space that will include an interactive water feature, outdoor recreation areas, swings, restrooms, two outdoor event areas, an overhead canopy to provide shelter (Phase II), landscaping, lighting and stormwater facilities. The Plaza’s proposed stormwater detention facility and a portion of its path system is located partially within the 50-foot buffer of Tigard Significant Wetlands. The proposed multi-use trail connection to the existing Fanno Cree k Trail (FCT) passes through Fanno Creek Park and portions of restored vegetated corridor and Tigard Significant Wetlands related to the recent Clean Water Services re-meander of Fanno Creek. All of these improvements are also located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. With these impacts, the proposed project is subject to Sensitive Lands Review. In addition, a Type III-Modified Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required to approve the removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory and to remove 0.19 acres (8,139 square feet) of associated buffer to accommodate the proposed plaza elements and path within sensitive lands. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Sean Farrelly, Downtown Redevelopment Manager Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: 9100 SW Burnham St; WCTM 2S102AC00202, 203 & 204 ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: PR and MU-CBD APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter: 18.120, 18.140, 18.420, 18.510, 18.710, 18.790, 18.910, and 18.920 CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 2 OF 17 SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission find that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and sensitive lands review will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Criteria as outlined in Section V of this report. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council APPROVAL of the proposed amendment along with the sensitive lands review. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORK: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the PLANN ING DIVISION, ATTN: Monica Bilodeau (503)718-2427 or MonicaB@tigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to commencing any site work, the project arborist must perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non -compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of app roval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 2. The project arborist must perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non- compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with an y supporting documents or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer, (971) 713-0281 or JeremyT@tigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 3. Improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities including street and right-of- way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections and must be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards: • City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards • Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards • Tigard Community Development Codes, Municipal Codes • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) Fire Codes • Other applicable County, State, and Federal Co des and Standard Guidelines 4. Improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities including street and right-of- way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connection for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and approval. 5. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater (water quality and quantity facilities) and any other CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 3 OF 17 work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading, u tilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line ite m from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facilit y Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard-or.gov). 6. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a construction vehi cle access and parking plan for approval by the City Enginee r. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking must be provided onsite. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining r esidential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this applicatio n and must include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 7. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. 8. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. 9. Prior to commencing any site wor k, the applicant must submit an erosion control plan as part of the PFI Permit. The plan must conform to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual” (current edition). 10. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a final grading plan showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage and show that the site will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Division. The design engineer must indicate, on the grading plan, areas with natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer, (971) 713-0281 or JeremyT@tigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 4 OF 17 11. Prior to final inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied . 12. Prior to final inspection, the applicant must record all public utility easements with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. 13. Prior to final inspection, the applicant must provide Autocad files and pdf files of the as-built drawings. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The location of the p roposed plaza on Tax Lot 202 west of Burnham Street and north of Ash Street currently consists of a paved lot and grassy area in the footprint of the recently demolished commercial building , with a fringe of vegetation along the southern edge of the lot. The total plaza site area is 1.20 acres and was previously fully developed with 90 percent impervious groundco ver (asphalt parking and building roof). The western half of the site currently sheet flows over asphalt parking directly to the wetland. Adjacent land uses include Burnham Street to the east, B&B Printing to the south, and Stevens Marine to the north , and Fanno Creek Park to the west (Tax Lots 203 and 204) Within the Fanno Creek Park portion of the project area, a total of 1.38 acres of emergent wet land and 0.36 acres of Fanno Creek are present. Stream and wetland restoration occurred within this open space during 2018, as part of CWS’s stream realignment project . All previously identified vegetated corridors associated with the stream realignment project were recently planted with native species. Shrub and tree species are becoming established and are on a trajectory to meeting CWS’s goal of establishing a riparian corridor of native vegetation . The proposed path will connect the plaza with the FCT, which is the main north-south walking and cycling route in south Washington County, and is the parallel walking and cycling route to Interstate 5 and OR 217. The FCT is identified as a Regional Trail in Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan Reg ional Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks. The FCT was recently improved with the CWS re-meander project including a new bridge near where the path is proposed to connect within the unimproved right-of-way for Ash Street within Fanno Creek Park. Proposed Request: The City of Tigard proposes to constru ct Universal Plaza and a connecting multi-use path from the Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail. The Plaza is designed to function as a community public space that will include an interactive water feature, outdoor recreation areas, swings, restrooms, two outdoor event areas, an overhead canopy to provide shelter (Phase II), landscaping, lighting and stormwater facilities. The Plaza’s proposed stormwater detention facility and a portion of its path system is located partially within the 50-foot buffer of Tigard Significant Wetlands. The proposed multi-use trail connection to the existing Fanno Creek Trail (FCT) passes through Fanno Creek Park and portions of restored vegetated corridor and Tigard Significa nt Wetlands related to the recent CWS re-meander of Fanno Creek. All of these improvements are also located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. A comprehensive plan amendment is requested to remove Goal 5 protection from a combined total of 0.194 acres of locally significant wetlands and City regulated vegetated corridors. The amendment is supported by an environmental, social, economic, and energy (ESEE) analysis (Attachment 2). This comprehensive plan change will allow for the construction of the plaza and path that would otherwise be prohibited from construction by the location of existing locally significant wetland. The breakdown of impacts to significant resources is outlined in the following table. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 5 OF 17 Regulated City Resource Areas Total (sq ft/acres) Proposed Mitigation Locally Significant Wetland Permanent Impacts 159/0.004 Purchase through wetland Mitigation bank credits Temporary Impacts 1,352/0.03 Restoration planting in place required. Vegetated Corridors Permanent Impacts 8,139/0.19 Onsite removal of existing asphalt and restoring to vegetated corridor and use of CWS mitigation credit. Temporary Impacts 6,424/0.15 Restoration and planting in place required. The path is critical infrastructure and will serve a dual purpose of fulfilling both public transportation and recreational facility needs. Additionally, the new path section will provide for controlled access to areas it passes through, thereby reducing the introduction and use of rogue paths, which are common along several sections of the proposed path route. Project related planting efforts are also intended to reinforce planned and ongoing restoration efforts and help protect the wetland resources. A separate Type II Downtown Development Review application will address the Universal Plaza improvements located outside of sensitive lands. SECTION IV. NOTICE AND COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES The city sent notice of a Public Hearing to interested parties and posted the request on the city’s website on November 2, 2021. No comments were received before the publish of this staff report. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The following summarizes the review criteria applicable to this decision, in the order in which they are addressed: Applicable Review Criteria 18.120 Commercial Zones 18.140 Park and Recreation Zones 18.510 Sensitive Lands 18.420 Landscaping and Screening 18.790 Text and Map Amendments 18.910 Improvement Standards SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The following subsections address only the approval criteria applicable to this decision. 18.120 COMMERCIAL ZONES 18.130.020 List of Base Zones MU-CBD: Commercial Business District CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 6 OF 17 The proposed plaza, located on property zoned MU-CBD, is classified as a Community Services use, an allowed use per Table 18.120.1, Commercial Zone Use Standards. Other provisions of this chapter are not applicable because the proposed project does not include the development types regulated or are otherwise addressed in the Downtown Plan District, Chapter 18.650, subject to review under a separate DDR application. 18.140 PARKS AND RECREATION ZONE 18.140.030 Other Zoning Regulations The regulations within this chapter state the allowed uses and development standards for the base zone. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations as provided elsewhere in this title. The proposed trail, listed as “Transportation/Utility Corridor” under Oth er Use Categories, is allowed conditionally in the Parks and Recreation Zone per Table 18.140.1. However, footnote number five states multi-use trails are allowed. No base zone development standards apply. 18.510 SENSITIVE LANDS 18.510.040 General Provisions for Special Flood Hazard Areas A portion of the plaza site containing the stormwater facility and the path are located in the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area, however, proposed path improvements are not structures as defined by this code section and, as such, this section is not applicable. 18.510.070 Sensitive Lands Applications. B. Within a special flood hazard area. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; 2. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the special flood hazard area storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other d evelopment unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroach ment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; As shown on Exhibit C of the No Net Rise Memorandum, KPFF, July 12, 2021, the proposed plaza and path are not located within the floodway of Fanno Creek but are located within the floodplain fringe. This standard does not apply. 3. Land form alterations or developments within the special flood hazard area shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the community developm ent code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; Improvements within the sp ecial flood hazard area for the plaza and path are proposed in areas zoned commercial Mixed Use Central Business District (MU-CBD) and Parks and Recreation (PR). The proposed landform alterations are allowed in the commercially zoned areas. Multi-use trails are categorically allowed in the PR zone (per Table 18.140.1 Parks and Recreation Zone Use Standards ). This standard is met. 4. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the special flood hazard area it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 7 OF 17 As demonstrated in the No Net Rise Memorandum, KPFF, July 12, 2021, “The site improvements located within the floodplain were designed to provide a no-net-rise in earthwork/volume within the designated Special Flood Hazard Area. A cut and fill exercise was completed to determine the final impacts, see attached Exhibit D “Floodplain Grading”. The overall earthwork balance for the Plaza and Path projects results in a net cut of 80 cubic yards (CY). Cut and fill elevations and volume were determined from existing surface to top of finished grade surface. Earthwork volume affected by pavement sections, topsoil stripping, utility trenching, etc. are not included in this approximation. 220 CY, CUT (Plaza) – 75 CY, FILL (Boardwalk Path) – 65 CY, FILL (Asphalt Path) = 80 CY, CUT As seen in the attached exhibits and stated above, construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area consists of net excavation, creating a surplus of cut which will not negatively impact the volume or storage capacity of the Special Flood Hazard Area.” As explained in the analysis above, the proposed development will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the Special Flood Hazard Area. This standard is met. 5. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the hearings officer as untimely; The path is not identified in the City’s 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) because at the time it was last amended in 2017 the plaza site had not yet been secured . This standard does not apply. 6. Pedestrian/bicycle pathway projects within the special flood hazard area shall include a wildlife habitat assessment that shows the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community’s recreation and environmental educational goals; According to the Natural Resources Assessment, PHS, Updated August 23, 2021, PHS completed a wildlife habitat assessment for the proposed new path section located within the special flood hazard area of Fanno Creek that concludes, on page 6, that “no measurable decrease in available habitat is anticipated.” The proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community’s recreation and environmental educational goals. These standards are met. 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and The proposed project will encroach within the special flood hazard area and within Tigard Significant Wetlands. Therefore, a Joint Permit Application for proposed impacts to wetlands will be submitted by PHS to both Oregon Department of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Conditions will be imposed to ensure compliance with CWS’s stormwater connection permit and Service Provider Letter. This standard is met. 8. Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the special flood hazard area, the city shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the special flood hazard area in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bic ycle pathway within the special flood hazard area in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 8 OF 17 Portions of the proposed Universal Plaza will be allowed within and adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area, the area is also adjacent to Fanno Creek Park, which already consists of sufficient dedicated open land area within and adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area is where the construction of the pedestrian/bicycle pathway from the FCT to the plaza is proposed. The path was not identified in the adopted Transportation System Plan or Greenways Trail System Master Plan s as both plans predated acquisition of the plaza site and the resulting need for the p ath connection. As designed, and shown in Exhibit D of the No Net Rise Memorandum, the path alignment is of a suitable elevation (144 feet to 148 feet elevation) for the construction of the pathway within the Special Flood Hazard Area. This standard is met. E. Within wetlands. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; 2. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the comprehensive plan special flood hazard area and wetland map nor is within the vegetative corridor as provided in “Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths” and “Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments” of the CWS “Design and Construction Standards,” for such a wetland; Portions of the proposed land-form alterations and development are located partially within Tigard Significant Wetlands (path) and its associated 50-foot vegetated corridor buffer (paths and stormwater facility). These impacts will be addressed as required by Sectio n 18.510.100 Plan Amendment Option. This standard is met. 3. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; Land form alterations have been limited to the minimum area required for construction of the plaza elements within sensitive lands as shown in the Natural Resource Assessment’s (NRA) Stormwater Basin Map Options (Option 2A proposed), which reduced the stormwater facility footprint to 1,600 square feet within the buffer. The proposed connecting path has been designed to be both functional and safe for use as a multi-use path accommodating both pedestrians and bicycles. This includes minimizing the width of the at-grade segment to 10 feet (from 12 feet) and limiting the boardwalk segment to 12 feet, which also functions as an overlook for the Creek. With these permanent encroachments and the temporary construction access encroachments shown on Figure 4 of the NRA, th e extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration and development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use. This standard is met. 4. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage that would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; As show in Figure 4A of the NRA, permanent wetland impacts from a portion of the elevated boardwalk (456 square feet, 0.01 ac), will be mitigated through the purchase of wetland credits from one of the two wetland mitigation banks with service areas that encompass the Tigard area. This standard is met. 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be repla nted in like or similar species in compliance with CWS “Design and Construction Standards”; Compliance with the erosion control provisions of the Washington County’s Surface Water Management program and replanting of disturbed areas will be ensured through conditions of approval implementing the conditions of CWS’s stormwater connection permit and Service Provider Letter. As conditioned, this criterion is met. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 9 OF 17 6. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; All other sensitive lands requirements have been met, as detailed through findings to the applicable standards in Section 18.510. This standard is met. 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals must be obtained; The proposed project will encroach within the Special Flood Hazard Area and within Tigard Significant Wetlands. Therefore, a Joint Permit Application for proposed impacts to wetlands will be submitted by PHS to both Oregon Department of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . Conditions will be imposed to ensure compliance with CWS’s stormwater connection permit and Service Provider Letter. This standard is met. 8. Physical limitations and natural hazards, special flood hazard area and wetlands, natural areas, and parks, recreation and open space policies of the comprehensive plan have been met All of the elements, resource areas, and policies referenced above have been addressed through findings for the Tigard Development Code’s implemen ting standards within this application. This standard is met. 18.510.080 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek A. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0030) pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard “Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map” are protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland, except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.510.100. The subject property includes locally significant wetlands th at are identified as locally significant wetlands on the City of Tigard “Wetlands and Stream Corridors” map and are, therefore, protected. A wetland delineation for the CWS Fanno Creek re-meander project and an additional delineation by Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. established the wetland boundary as shown on the project site plans. Proposed impacts to significant wetlands are addressed below in compliance with Section 18.510.100.B. The applicant has applied for the Plan Amendment Option in Section 18.775.130 to remove Goal 5 protections from 0.194 acres of significant wetlands to allow the proposed trail. 18.510.100 Plan Amendment Option A. Comprehensive plan Amendment. Any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor (1) protection of significant wetlands and/or (2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed separately through an alternatives analysis , as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS “Design and Construction Standards.” The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following: B. ESEE analysis. The applicant may prepare an environmental, social, economic and energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040. The applicant has chosen to demonstrate the amendment is justified through an ESEE analysis, rather than a demonstration that the wetlands are not significant . An ESEE Analysis by PHS, Inc., dated September 29, 2021 prepared in accordance with OAR 60-23-040, provides CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 10 OF 17 justification for removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory and to remove 0.19 acres (8,139 square feet) of associated buffer, on the subject property. The analysis concludes that “limiting the conflicting use will result in the most beneficial consequence of the three protection scenarios for the City. A decision to limit the conflicting use will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting the conflicting use, but more importantly will allow benefits to be realized. There is a wealth of data available documenting the economic, social, and energy benefits th at can be realized from an efficient trail system and a community space. It is true too, that although limiting the conflicting uses will impact the wetland, the relatively low functions and values of the wetland will be offset by the use of wetland mitigation credits from a local wetland mitigatio n bank.” 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, considering both the impacts on the specific resource site and the comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area; The Site Specific ESEE Analysis in Section 4.0 considers the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing, limiting, and prohibiting the proposed conflicting use. In summary, limiting the conflicting use would adversely impact a small portion, 0.004 acres of Wetland E-6, from the City’s Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map and 0.19 acres of the wetland buffer but would otherwise provide education and recreation benefits and help limit demand paths that could result in greater degradation of sensitive lands. As the location of the Universal Plaza site is unique in the city for its intended purpos e, comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area is unwarranted . This standard is met. 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource; As described in the ESEE Analysis, Economic Consequences, Section 4.1, prohibiting the proposed conflicting use would avoid a relatively modest capital construction expenditure by the City for the costs of the trail section and for ongoing maintenance, but the economic benefit of optimizing the plaza extent and completing the connection with the Fanno Creek Trail (enhanced access, improved connectivity, maximum user benefit , economic benefits that can be attributed to the creation of the plaza as a community showpiece) will outweigh these relatively small costs. This standard is met. 3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning Area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use; The proposed plaza and path use cannot be located on buildable land on other sites within the Tigard Planning Area because other sites could not meet the specific needs of the Universal Plaza. The Universal Plaza site was acquired by the City for the purpose of providing a central downtown location for a civic urban park. The Plaza site was the culmination of a deliberate planning process with City Council review and approval. A public design development process resulted in the design of the proposed programmable portion of the Plaza. The design of the subject property’s western edge to accommodate a stormwater facility adjacent to the Fanno Creek remeander site includes a portion of the vegetated corridor (VC) and is the subject of the alternatives analysis described in the NRA with the preferred alternative that minimizes encroachment into the VC to the maximum extent feasible. With the location of the Universal Plaza park established, providing access to the site with a connecting path to nearby FCT was an important addition to the City’s growing pedestrian network within the urban izing core of the city. The intent of the Fanno Creek Trail is to promote bicycle and pedestrian “off -street” alternatives for walking or commuting to commercial, residential and public areas in the Tigard area, including Universal Plaza. There are no development options for the new con necting path that will not disturb sensitive areas or VC within the available publicly owned land. The only alternative that avoids the wetland and VC is to require pedestrians to utilize existing sidewalks and streets on Ash Avenue and Burnahm Street, but this would not serve desire lines expected in the direction of the FCT or interest in exploring Fanno Creek Park and Fanno Creek itself. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 11 OF 17 Because of the adjacent proximity of the Plaza to Fanno Creek Park and its associat ed wetland resources, the importance of providing access for connectivity and access management control, and the fun ction provided by the boardwalk for access to and appreciation of the resource, the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter. This standard is met. 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney, all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis; The ESEE Analysis was prepared by a qualified team con sisting of a land use planner and environmental scientist qualified in their respective fields with experience compiling such analyses. The Project Team for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and ESEE Analysis includes Shawn Eisner, Project Manager and Natur al Resource Specialist Planner with Pacific Habitat Services and John van Staveren, Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) and President of Pacific Habitat Services. This standard is met. 5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the “Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map” shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. On approval of this request, 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 sites from the inventory. 18.420 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.420.030 General Provisions A. All required trees must meet the city’s Urban Forestry Manual (UFM) standards as follows: 1. Street trees must meet the street tree planting and maintenance standards in UFM Section 2 and street tree soil volume standards in UFM Section 12; 2. Parking lot trees must meet the parking lot tree canopy standards in UFM Section 13; and 3. All other trees must meet the tree canopy site plan requirements in UFM Section 10, Part 2. An Urban Forestry Plan was prepared/approved by Todd Prager, RCA #597, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board Certified Master Arborist with Teragan & Associates, Inc. The Plan is included in Attachment S. Section one and two above do not apply as this is a trail project. This standard is met. 18.420.040 Landscaping Standards A. Landscaping standards are provided in Table 18.420.1. L andscaping standards must be met as required by the applicable development standards chapter in 18.200 Residential Development Standards or 18.300 Nonresidential Development Standards. B. Landscaping or other areas used to meet the minimum landscape area stan dard must be provided on site and may be met by any combination of the following: 1. Landscaping, including parking lot landscaping, that meets the L-1 or L-2 landscaping standard; 2. Landscaping that meets the S -2, S-3, or S-4 screening standard as provided in Table 18.420.2 where required by the applicable development standards chapter; or 3. Other areas as specified by the applicable development standards chapter. There is no minimum landscape area standard for a trail use. These standards do not apply. 18.420.060 Tree Canopy Standards A. Site tree canopy standards, which are stated as a percentage of effective tree canopy cover for an entir e site, are provided in UFM Section 10, Part 3, Subparts N and O. Parking lot tree canopy standards are CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 12 OF 17 provided below. The Project is considered non-residential development and a minimum 25 percent effective tree canopy cover is required for the overall development site. A Supplemental Arborist Report, dated September 23, 2021 has been prepared for the path and plaza site by Todd Prager, RCA #597, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board Certified Master Arborist with Teragan & Associates, Inc. The Tree Preservation & Removal Site Plan (Sheet LU3.0) and Tree Canopy Plan (Sheet LU3.1) are included in the Report. As shown in the Report, 81 percent effective tree canopy is provided for the whole site, which meets the minimum 25 percent requirement. This standard is met. B. An urban forestry plan is required to demonstrate compliance with site and parking lot tree canopy standards and must meet the requ irements of UFM Sections 10 through 13. An urban forestry plan must: 1. Be coordinated and approved by a project landscape architect or project arborist, i.e. a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor, except that land partitions may d emonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only; 2. Demonstrate compliance with UFM tree preservation and removal site plan standards; 3. Demonstrate compliance with UFM tree canopy and supplemental report standards and provide the minimum effective tree canopy cover; 4. Demonstrate compliance with parking lot tree canopy standards, where applicable, by providin g the minimum effective tree canopy cover of 30 percent for all parking areas, including parking spaces and drive aisles. Only the percen tage of tree canopy directly above parking areas may count toward meeting this standard; and 5. Include street trees where right-of-way improvements are required by Chapter 18.910, Improvement Standards. a. The minimum number of required street trees is determined by dividing the length in feet of the site’s street frontage by 40 feet. When t he result is a fraction, the minimum number of street trees is the nearest whole number. More than the minimum number of street trees may be required along the site’s frontage depending upon the stature of trees chosen and the specific spacing standards for the chosen trees. b. Street trees must be planted within the right-of-way wherever practicable. Street trees may be planted a maximum of 6 feet from the right-of-way when planting within the right-of-way is not practicable as determined by the City Engineer. c. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that: i. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the subject site; and ii. The tree would be permitted as a street tree in compliance with UFM street tree plant ing and soil volume standards if it were newly planted. Tree protection fencing and other root protection measures are to be utilized. The disturbed areas adjoining the sides of the trail will be seeded to provide a safety corridor for good views and surveillance. The land managers of each parcel (CWS and Tigard) have long term restoration planting goals the site that will be restored using appropriate plant materials and spac ing to support the various habitats as well as provide good visual access for safety. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 13 OF 17 Only one tree is proposed for removal, this tree is an 11-inch DBH columnar English oak (Quercus robur ‘Fastigiata’) that conflicts with proposed utilities and grading. The effective tree canopy cover is 81 percent of the overall development area. As conditioned these standards are met. 18.910 IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.910.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is no t carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development p roposal plan. A Preliminary Stormwater Report (dated September 27, 2021) for the Universal Plaza site has been prepared by KPFF and is submitted with the application. Due to the topography of the site and specific storm water management requirements, the stormwater runoff from the site is proposed to be collected and detained in the low area of the site (southwest). As a portion of the detention facility is within the 50-foot buffer of Tigard Significant Wetlands and within the floodplain, it is subject to sensitive lands review in this application. The site plan shows stormwater is separate and independent of any sa nitary sewerage system. Surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street. Surface water drainage patterns are shown on the development plan. This standard is met. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. The proposed Universal Plaza and boardwalk are on public land. The applicant proposes to connect a new 12-inch storm line through the neighboring property to the south in a new e asement. Prior to final inspection, the applicant must record all public utility easements with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and the City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on C lean Water Services requirements. Culverts are not proposed or deemed necessary to accommodate an upstream drainage area. This standard is met. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 14 OF 17 A Preliminary Stormwater Report (dated September 27, 2021) for the Universal Plaza site has been prepared by KPFF and is submitted with the application. The site falls within the CWS jurisdiction and must meet Water Quality, Conveyance and Hydromodification requirements. The total site area is 1.20 acres and was previously fully developed with 90 percent impervious groundcove r (asphalt parking and building roof). The western half of the site currently sheet flows over asphalt parking directly to the wetland. The proposed plaza developm ent will significantly reduce impervious area on the site to about 43 percent impervious gro undcover (concrete plaza and future canopy building roof). Because the project results in the permanent removal of more than 1,000 square feet of impervious surface, the treatment area is zero based on section 4.08 of CWS Design and Construction Standards. The project is required to meet hydromodification requirements for all new or modifie d impervious surface proposed; thus, a vegetated detention pond with flow cont rol structure is proposed. In addition, the site plans and storm drainage report for the path indicate that the project proposes to utilize filter strips, include the existin g Vegetated Corridor where necessary, as well as construct infiltration trench es along the side of the path to treat the run-off generated from the path. Run-off from the path surface will sheet flow to either the Vegetated Corridor or the infiltration trenches where it is paved asphalt on-grade. The boardwalk portion of the path, elevated over landscaped vegetated corridor and wetlands, is considered pervious and does not require stormwater drainage facilities. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepa red and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construct ion Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. Prior to commencing any site work, the app licant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Prior to final inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. 18.910.150 Installation Prerequisite A. Approval required. No public improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans have been approved by the city, permit fee paid, and permit issued. B. Permit fee. The permit fee is required to defray the cost and expenses incurred by the city for construction and other services in connection with the improvement. The permit fee shall be set by council resolution. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work includin g stormwater (water quality and quantity facilities) and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvement s associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submitta l. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Enginee ring cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Bu ilding CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 15 OF 17 Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements . Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard-or.gov). Improvements associated with public infrastructures including st reet and right-of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections must be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards: • City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards • Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards • Tigard Community Development Codes, Municipal Codes • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) Fire Codes • Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a construction veh icle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this p lan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking must be provided onsite. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets . Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and must include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. 18.910.170 Plan Check A. Submittal requirements. Work shall not begin until construction plans and construction estimates have been submitted and checked for adequacy and approved by the City Engineer in writing. The developer can obtain detailed information about submittal requirements from the City Engineer. B. Compliance. All such plans shall be prepared in compliance with requirements of the city. Improvements associated with public in frastructure and stormwater facilities including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connection for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and approval. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. 18.910.190 City Inspection of Improvements Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the city. The c ity may require changes in typical sections and details if unusual conditions arising during construction warrant such changes in the public interest. Requirements for City Inspection will be coordinated during PFI Permitting. Prior to final inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied. Prior to final inspection, the applicant must provide Autocad files and pdf files of the as-built drawings. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 16 OF 17 SECTION VI. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City Police Department reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The City Public Works Department was notified of the proposal and did not provide comment. SECTION VII. AGENCY COMMENTS Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife was notified of the proposal but provided no comment. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Division of State Lands, Washington County, and Metro were notified of the proposal but provided no comment. Clean Water Services issued a Service Provider Letter (CWS file 21-000530) for this proposal on September 15, 2021, and determined that this project will significantly impact the existing or potentially sensitive area(s) found near the site. The agency also submitted written comments, dated November 16, 2021, requesting a condition of approval that requires the applicant t o obtain Storm Water Connection Permit Authorization. This request has been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The City of Tigard and CWS have an intergovernmental agreement stating that the City will ensure implementation of CWS Design and Cons truction Standards; therefore, this approval is conditioned to satisfy CWS requirements. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal, and had no objections SECTION VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION ANALYSIS: As shown in the analysis above, the applicant’s ESEE analysis addresses the requirements of the Tigard Development Code, Chapter 18.510 Sensitive Lands. The subject property contains locally significant wetlands protected under Goal 5 safe harbor. The applicant has applied for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under a Type IV procedure. The application is based on a specific development of trail connection to Fanno Creek Trail. The applicant has demonstrated that such an amendmen t is justified by an ESEE analysis consistent with OAR 660-23-040. The ESEE analysis concludes that limiting the conflicting use to the proposed trails would result in the most positive consequences of the three decision options. A decision to limit the conflicting use will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting the conflicting uses. Through the application of site design and development standards to conflicting uses, the impacts on the significant wetland further can be minimized, and the remaining resource can be enhanced. There will be a relatively high level of economic, social, environmental and energy benefits achieved. Limiting the conflicting use offers the most bene fit to the wetland (through controlled access and enhancement) and to the community (transportation corridor for all and education opportunities), and it strikes a balance between conflicting uses and regional transportation goals. CONCLUSION Based on the findings and analysis, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code, Chapter 18.510 Sensitive Lands. Staff agrees with the conclusion of the applicant’s ESEE Analysis and recommends removing 0.194 acres from the significant wetlands inventory for public trail connection purposes. CPA2021-00004 UNIVERSAL PLAZA CPA PAGE 17 OF 17 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of t he proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment modifying the current resource protection decision from prohibiting conflicting uses to limiting conflicting uses and removing 0.194 acres from the significant wetlands inventory described in the “Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map”. Attachments: Attachment 1: Site Maps Attachment 2: Applicant’s ESEE Analysis Attachment 3: City of Tigard Engineering Department, Memorandum dated November 22, 2021 PREPARED BY: Monica Bilodeau Associate Planner November 22, 2021 APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire Assistant Community Development Director 145144146147148149145 144 146 147 148 149 150 147148149 151 S D S D S D S D S D14014114214014114114114114114114114114514514514514514515011501501421421421421421421421421421421431 5 0 1 4 7 1 4 5 144UNIVERSAL PLAZA Wetland A (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Proposed 10' Wide Asphalt Path Wetland Impact Boardwalk Footings (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Wetland A Continues Beyond Study Area Wetland A and Fanno CreekContinues Beyond Study AreaF a n n o Creek Limits of Disturbance Proposed Raised Boardwalk and Footings (18) Existing Paved Path (Not Surveyed / Approximate Location) Existing Pedestrian Bridge VC impact Associated with Wetland Fill (456 sf / 0.01 ac) (To be mitigated at Mitigation Bank) Regulated Corridor Width of 50 Feet As Shown Construction Limits Proposed Storm Line Proposed Split Rail Fence Interpretive Sign Proposed Split Rail Fence Interpretive Sign LEGEND Project Area Boundary (169,240 sf / 3.88 ac) Wetland (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Waters of the State/US (15,649 sf / 0.36 ac) Ordinary High Water (OHW) Tigard Significant Wetlands Vegetated Corridor Direction of Flow Wetland Impact (Permanent) (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Wetland Impact (Temporary) (1,352 sf / 0.03 ac) Vegetated Corridor Encroachment (Permanent Total 12,459 sf / 0.29 ac) Vegetated Corridor Encroachment (Temporary Total 6,424 sf / 0.15 ac) Vegetated Corridor Permanent Encroachment Within Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area (Permanent 2,450 sf / 0.06 ac) Vegetated Corridor Temporary Encroachment Within Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area (3,564 sf / 0.08 ac) Regulated Corridor Width of 50 Feet As Shown Existing Vegetated Corridor Remaining Vegetated Corridor Site plan provided by Alta FIGURE 4ADevelopment Site Plan and Encroachments Universal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855 8-18-2021 C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\SNRO Figures\Fig4A SitePlan.dwg, 8/18/2021 4:32:57 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3 COLOR COPY 21-000530 09/15/202134 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Consequences Analysis (ESEE) Universal Plaza and Trail Connecting the Universal Plaza with the Fanno Creek Trail in Tigard, Oregon Prepared for City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Prepared by John van Staveren, SPWS Shawn Eisner Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 570-0800 (503) 570-0855 FAX PHS Project Number: 7145 September 30, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 1.1 ESEE Analysis Requirements ................................................................................2 1.2 Existing Local Protections ......................................................................................3 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS ..................................................................................................4 3.0 SIGNIFICANT WETLAND AND BUFFER IMPACTS ............................................4 3.1 Significant Wetlands ..............................................................................................4 3.2 Buffers ....................................................................................................................5 3.3 Descriptions of the Conflicting Use .......................................................................6 4.0 SITE SPECIFIC ESEE ANALYSIS .............................................................................7 4.1 Economic Consequences ........................................................................................8 4.2 Social Consequences ............................................................................................10 4.3 Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................11 4.4 Energy Consequences ...........................................................................................13 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................14 5.1 Decision ................................................................................................................15 APPENDIX A: Figures ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard (City) proposes to construct the Universal Plaza and a connecting multi-use path from the Universal Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail. The Universal Plaza, which is proposed for development at 9100 SW Burnham Street is designed to function as a community public space that will feature interactive and engaging experiences both onsite and virtually, and will include events, gatherings, art installations, and other community focused activities. The project will include an interactive water feature, outdoor recreation areas, swings, restrooms, two outdoor event areas, an overhead canopy to provide shelter, landscaping, lighting, and stormwater facilities. The connecting trail includes both at-grade and boardwalk components and will be 10-feet wide. It will connect with the Fanno Creek Trail, which is a regional multi-use path that will eventually connect the West Hills of Portland, at the headwaters of Fanno Creek, to the Tualatin River at Durham. It is a regional trail in Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan Regional Pedestrian and Bicycle Network1. The proposed trail connection and a portion of the Universal Plaza will require construction within one Locally Significant Wetland (LSW) as well as buffers associated with the significant wetland adjacent to Fanno Creek (Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources). As construction within these features is not allowed without an approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the City is pursuing an amendment to remove 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory2 and to remove 0.24 acres (10,360 square feet) of associated buffer. These actions will remove the land from sensitive lands protections as provided by Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.510.100. The following table itemizes the permanent impacts to sensitive lands that will be required for implementation of the project. Resource/Impacts Trail (sq ft/ac) Universal Plaza (sq ft/ac) Total (sq ft/ac) Locally Significant Wetland Permanent Impacts 159/0.004 0.0/0.0 159/0.004 Goal 5 Buffers Permanent Impacts 1,836 /0.04 8,524/0.20 10,360/0.24 Impacts to the significant wetland and its buffer will be required from trail construction and from grading for the Universal Plaza and its stormwater facility. Of the total 0.24 acres (10,360 square feet) of buffer, 0.16 acres (7,074 square feet) are already impacted by the previous development of 9100 SW Burnham Street. As such, less than 1/3 of the total impact to buffers is to undeveloped surfaces. The encroachments to both wetlands and buffers have been minimized to the extent practicable. Mature native trees have been avoided and the trail has been aligned to keep out of a larger portion of the significant wetland adjacent to Fanno Creek. By necessity, the path must cross sensitive areas in order to connect the Universal Plaza with the Fanno Creek Trail. In fact, the 1 2014 Regional Active Transportation Plan (Metro, 2014) 2 City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Assessment (Fishman Environmental Services, 1994) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 2 trail section cannot be constructed if avoidance of sensitive areas were required; the only other pedestrian or bicycle options to connect the Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail currently exists in the form of public sidewalks or street routes along Burnham Street and Ash Street that are indirect and could pose issues for people with limited disabilities. The proposed route is the most straightforward route that could be identified for the path alignment on publicly owned property. The path is designed to control access through the resource area of expected desire lines for those Universal Plaza visitors interested in seeing Fanno Creek, experiencing Fanno Creek Park, and using the trail to access the Fanno Creek Trail. Likewise, the full extent of the Universal Plaza cannot be utilized without developing the portion that will impact a small amount of wetland and buffers. As described in the Plan Amendment Option section (TDC 18.510.100), the Code allows applicants to impact significant wetlands and City-regulated buffers if the amendment is justified under one of two options. The first option is to conduct an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis that considers the consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use. The second option, which is specific to wetlands only, is to demonstrate the wetland’s “insignificance.” Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. (PHS) reviewed the significance thresholds included in the City of Tigard’s Local Wetlands Inventory3 and determined that the quality of the wetland adjacent to Fanno Creek warrants its significance designation. As such, the Applicant is submitting an ESEE analysis in accordance with the necessary comprehensive plan map amendment via a Type-III procedure. This report is the ESEE analysis that examines the consequences of potential alternatives regarding a conflicting use impacting previously documented and protected significant lands in Tigard. This ESEE analysis has been prepared in accordance with applicable provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Goal 5) and the Goal 5 Rule (OAR Chapter 660, Division 023). 1.1 ESEE Analysis Requirements The analysis is based on the targeted removal of a small portion of one locally significant wetland (Significant Wetland E-6) and its adjacent buffer, which extends 50-feet from the edge of the delineated wetland. A portion of the buffer was recently revegeted . The Goal 5 ESEE analysis involves evaluating the trade-offs 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:  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 660-023-0010(1)]  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.  Analyze the ESEE consequences — The ESEE analysis considers the consequences ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 3 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.  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. 1.2 Existing Local Protections The Universal Plaza will be constructed on property that is zoned Mixed Use Central Business District (MU-CBD), which is classified as a Community Services use, an allowed use per Table 18.120.1, Commercial Zone Use Standards. The proposed trail is located partially within a designated Parks and Recreation Zone (PR) and partially within the MU-CBD zone. Table 18.140.1 Parks and Recreation Zone Use Standards identifies “Transportation/Utility Corridors” as a Conditional Use, but further clarifies under Note 5 that multi-use paths are allowed uses. Section 18.140.040.B Allowed development affirms that when associated with a Community Service use, certain types of developments, such as multi-use trails, are allowed without site development review provided they comply with the development standards and other regulations of the TDC. Each zone classification defines permitted and prohibited uses, as well as development standards including setbacks and building height restrictions. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Conditional uses are subject to a Type-III review, and development in or near sensitive lands trigger review under the City's Sensitive Lands chapter (18.500). Sensitive lands are defined as lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within:  The 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater.  Natural drainageways.  Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of State Lands or are designated as significant wetland on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Stream Corridors Map”.  Steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground; and  Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of Tigard “Significant Habitat Areas Map.” The Sensitive Lands chapter outlines the permitted and regulated activities and uses within sensitive lands, as well as defines the review and approval processes for development considerations based on the type and intensity of the impact. The chapter further outlines processes for requests for variances or plan amendments. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 4 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The Universal Plaza (Tax Lot 202) currently consists of a paved lot, with a fringe of vegetation along the southern edge of the lot. The connecting trail is proposed on adjacent open space (Tax Lots 203 and 204) to the south of the Universal Plaza. Within the open space, a total of 1.38 acres of emergent wetland and 0.36 acres of Fanno Creek are present. Dominant species within the wetland include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and grasses, such as tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus) and bluegrass (Poa sp.). Stream and wetland restoration occurred within this open space during 2018, as part of Clean Water Services stream realignment project (CWS file number: 18-000570). To the north of the wetland is a buffer, which was revegetated with native species. There are two vegetated corridor plant communities within the project area that are regulated by Clean Water Services (Figure 3). Plant Community A (23,014 square feet / 0.53 acres) consists of the area within 50 feet of Wetland A. This community was impacted in 2018, and subsequently restored, by CWS as part of their stream realignment project. Plant Community B (17,987 square feet / 0.41 acres) consists of an area previously set aside as “Advanced Mitigation Credit” for the City of Tigard’s use on City projects. Both of these plant communities consist of recently restored or previous vegetation corridor mitigation areas, which have been approved by CWS. 3.0 SIGNIFICANT WETLAND AND BUFFER IMPACTS 3.1 Significant Wetland In 1994, the City of Tigard contracted with Fishman Environmental Services (FES) to prepare its Local Wetland Inventory (LWI). Expanding upon a wetlands inventory previously completed by another firm3, FES developed an approach for completing the Goal 5 inventory and conducting the ESEE analyses that identified stream corridor segments as resource units. The study was completed in 1994 and approved by DSL in 1997. It is the basis for the adopted "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map". The significant wetland proposed for impact by the proposed path includes a small portion of E- 6. Wetland E-6 is mapped surrounding Fanno Creek. When the inventory was conducted, the reach of Fanno Creek within the project was straight. Two years ago, CWS meandered the creek to a more natural alignment. Although a wetland delineation was conducted at that time, the hydrology of the project area has changed, and a new wetland delineation was required. Figure 2 shows the results of the updated wetland delineation, which will be submitted to the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) for review and approval. Within the project area is 1.38 acres of Wetland E-6. Although recently planted with trees and shrubs by CWS, the wetland is dominated by herbaceous vegetation and the Cowardin classification is palustrine emergent, seasonally saturated (PEMY). Some Oregon ash (Fraxinus 3 Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon (Scientific Resources, Inc., 1989) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 5 latifolia) is present within the wetland, along with spirea, reed canarygrass, tall fescue, and soft rush. The hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification is Slope. The proposed limits of removal of the 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland is immediately south of the Universal Plaza. The proposed trail leaves the Plaza at its southeast corner, where it has no option but to enter wetland. It is then aligned to minimize the impact to the wetland by bending the trail to the southeast, so that its alignment is primarily through the buffer. Footings to support the boardwalk portion of the trail will unavoidably impact 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of Wetland E-6. In comparing the LWI mapping with the recent wetland delineation, the portion of the wetland that is proposed to be removed is close to but did not appear to be present (or at least inventoried) when the LWI report was completed. The change in wetland boundaries could be due to several factors considering the length of time between the studies and the disturbance that has occurred to the property in the last several years. Table 1 below provides summary data from the Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory of the quality (functions) for E-6. Table 1 Functions of locally significant wetland proposed for impact Unit Area (acres) Wildlife Habitat Fish Habitat Linkage Uniqueness Water Quality Hydrologic Control Recreation Education Aesthetic E-5 1.38 H H H L H H H H H H = High FM = Moderate L = Low NA = Not assessed The conflicting area is 0.004 acres of significant wetland (E-6). Although in the LWI the wetland as a whole was attributed a number of high designations for several functions, the small section of wetland that will be impacted within and immediately adjacent to the Universal Plaza is of lower quality. Wildlife habitat is impaired due to the close proximity of an adjacent parking lot. Water quality and hydrologic control functions generally implies a wetland with topographic relief that is able to store water and prolong contact time with vegetation. The area of conflicting use is flat, and although vegetated with grasses, will not temporarily detain or slow the flow of water to any appreciable extent. As such, although the wetland is technically locally significant, in reality, its functions are generally low and will be offset through the purchase of credits from a local wetland mitigation bank. 3.2 Buffers Due to the proximity to Fanno Creek and the adjacent locally significant wetland, the project area includes an area of City regulated buffers. The regulated limits of this resource area are identified on the attached graphics but are the same as the location of buffers regulated by CWS. Although there are differences between the two jurisdictions (e.g., non-significant wetlands do not include buffers at the City level and CWS only requires corridors 25 feet wide adjoining wetlands less than one-half acre in size), there is no difference within the ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 6 project area, and a 50-foot corridor is required by both the City and CWS. That said, of the total 0.24 acres (10,360 square feet) of buffer proposed for impact, 0.16 acres (7,074 square feet) are already impacted (i.e., paved) by the previous development of 9100 SW Burnham Street, with only 3,286 square feet (0.08 acres) of undeveloped area. Mitigation for the encroachment to vegetated corridor will include deduction from the City of Tigard’s Advanced Mitigation Vegetated Corridor Credit area which is located onsite. As stated previously, the trail encroachments have been minimized to the extent practicable and it could not be constructed if avoidance of wetland and its buffer is required. The only other pedestrian or bicycle options to connect the Universal Plaza to the Fanno Creek Trail are on public sidewalks or street routes along Burnham Street and Ash Street, which are indirect and may not be easily accessible to people with limited mobility. The proposed route is the most straightforward route that could be identified on publicly owned property. The 0.20 acres (8,524 square feet) of impact to the buffer within the Universal Plaza property is from the proposed stormwater facility and grading to support the Universal Plaza, including enhancement of the buffer on either side of the trail in the southern portion of the Plaza by removing existing pavement followed by plantings. As with the trail, the encroachment has been minimized to the extent practicable. Due to the topography of the site and specific stormwater management requirements, the stormwater runoff from the site is proposed to be collected and detained in the low area of the site (southwest). This area also happens to be within the updated buffer boundary. 3.3 Description of the Conflicting Use An important step in the ESEE analysis is identifying conflicting uses that “exist or could occur” within regionally significant resource areas and identified in the impact area. The Goal 5 Rule (OAR 660-023-0010) defines conflicting uses as follows: (1) "Conflicting use" is a land use, or other activity reasonably and customarily subject to land use regulations, that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource (except as provided in OAR 660-023-0180(l)(b)). Local governments are not required to regard agricultural practices as conflicting uses. The Goal 5 Administrative Rule (OAR 660-023-0040) describes how conflicting uses are identified: (2) Identify conflicting uses. Local governments shall identify conflicting uses that exist, or could occur, with regard to significant Goal 5 resource sites. To identify these uses, local governments shall examine land uses allowed outright or conditionally within the zones applied to the resource site and in its impact area. Local governments are not required to consider allowed uses that would be unlikely to occur in the impact area because existing permanent uses occupy the site. The following shall also apply in the identification of conflicting uses: A) If no uses conflict with a significant resource site, acknowledged policies and land use regulations may be considered sufficient to protect the resource site. The determination that there are no conflicting uses must be based on the applicable zoning rather than ownership of the site. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 7 (Therefore, public ownership of a site does not by itself support a conclusion that there are no conflicting uses.) B) A local government may determine that one or more significant Goal 5 resource sites are conflicting uses with another significant resource site. The local government shall determine the level of protection for each significant site using the ESEE process and/or the requirements in OAR 660-023-0090 through 660-023-0230 (see OAR 660-023-0020(1)). The conflicting uses identified in this report are the construction of the trail and the Universal Plaza. The impacts are unavoidable if a section of trail is to connect Universal Plaza with Fanno Creek Trail. With the location of the park established, providing access to the site with a connecting path to nearby Fanno Creek Trail was an important addition to the City’s growing pedestrian network within the urbanizing core of the city. The intent of the Fanno Creek Trail is to promote bicycle and pedestrian “off-street” alternatives for walking or commuting to commercial, residential and public areas in the Tigard area, including Universal Plaza. There are no development options for the new connecting path that will not disturb sensitive areas or VC. The only alternative that avoids VCs is to require pedestrians to utilize existing sidewalks and streets, but this would not serve desire lines expected in the direction of the Fanno Creek Trail or interest in exploring Fanno Creek Park. The trail connects to the Fanno Creek Trail, which is part of a regional multi-use path envisioned for connecting the West Hills of Portland, at the headwaters of Fanno Creek, to the Tualatin River at Durham. In addition to being a project of local concern, Metro’s 2018 Regional Transportation Plan identifies existing and planned sections of the Fanno Creek Trail as a Bicycle Parkway on the Regional Bike Network Map and as a Pedestrian Parkway on the Regional Pedestrian Network map. The section leading to the Universal Plaza will add an important connection The Universal Plaza will provide a unique community gathering space within the City. For it to comply with CWS’ stormwater treatment and detention standards, plus though of the National Marine Fisheries Service, a facility must be constructed within the southern part of the property. This facility, plus grading to support the facility, plus the trail connection, can only occur within the significant resources. The 0.004 acres of significant wetland that will be removed from the City’s Local Wetland Inventory, represents only a very small fraction of the total significant wetlands within the City. 4.0 SITE SPECIFIC ESEE ANALYSIS This section discusses the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) impacts to the relevant portions of the two subject wetlands for the following three alternative protection scenarios:  Prohibit conflicting uses providing full protection of the resource site. o The action to prohibit the conflicting use would prevent development actions that conflict with, or degrade, Significant Goal 5 Natural Resources. This scenario emphasizes resource protection. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 8  Limit conflicting uses while offering limited protection of the resource site (balance development and conservation objectives). o The action to 'limit conflicting uses' within the context of this ESEE Analysis is defined as allowing the limited impacts to the wetland and buffers sufficient to be able to construct a portion of the Universal Plaza and connect it with the Fanno Creek Trail.  Allow conflicting uses fully with no local protection for the resource site. o The action to allow conflicting uses is to allow the development of the full range of permissible uses noted in the underlying PR zone and MU-CBD zone. The PR zone includes such amenities as playgrounds, picnic areas, shelters, structures, sport courts and fields and other related items. The MU- CBD zone is designed to provide a pedestrian-friendly urban village in downtown Tigard. A wide variety of commercial, civic, employment, mixed- use, apartments, and rowhouses are allowed. 4.1 Economic Consequences The following describes the economic consequences for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full protection) It is highly likely that once the Universal Plaza is complete, users will enter the Plaza both from Burnham Street on its northern boundary and from the Fanno Creek Trail on its southern boundary. The economic consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses will likely result from several factors including increased maintenance costs due to demand trails being created by users walking through the buffer and wetland between the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza. The creation of demand trails will adversely impact the vegetation within the wetland and buffer, which will degrade its functions. The lack of connectivity between the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza would mean that it would not be open to bicyclists of every capability and would not be useable for those with mobility difficulties. The Universal Plaza was designed with community input and is intended to be a showpiece for revitalizing downtown Tigard. The Universal Plaza can be reduced in size if full protection is selected, but its size ensures the maximum user benefit, which is very important for the economy of downtown Tigard. The Gallup/Knight Foundation's three-year study called the Soul of the Community4 found that community spaces that offered were a primary driver for community attachment, which shows a strong positive correlation between resident attachment local economic growth. The trail connection between the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza will add to the economic benefits that can be attributed to the creation of this community showpiece. 4 https://knightfoundation.org/sotc/pdf-documents/ ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 9 Numerous studies point to the economic benefits of trails. A study from New York5 found that the public investment in building and maintaining trails outweighed the revenue they bring to a community. They noted that trails increase the value of nearby properties and boost spending at local businesses. Trails make communities more attractive places to live and, when considering where to move, homebuyers rank walking and biking paths as one of the most important features of a new community. Trails can influence business location and relocation decisions because companies often choose to locate in communities that offer a high level of amenities to employees as a means of attracting and retaining top-level workers. Trails can make communities attractive to businesses looking to expand or relocate both because of the amenities they offer to employees and the opportunities they offer to cater to trail visitors. The creation of the Universal Plaza is expected to attract a large number of people, which can be directly linked to an increase in the City being an attractive location for businesses to move to. These benefits represent an economic return on the money invested in this section of trail. As such, prohibiting the conflicting use would avoid a relatively modest capital construction expenditure by the City for the costs of the trail section and for ongoing maintenance, but the economic benefit of completing the connection with the Fanno Creek Trail will outweigh these relatively small costs. Limit Conflicting Uses (limited protection) From an economic standpoint, limiting the conflicting use should have a net positive economic impact. This economic gain will result from users of the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza being able to freely travel back and forth. The economics of trail use have been well documented. Consumers have been documented to spend more on equipment (e.g. bicycles) necessary to use the trail. Metro cites a study from South Carolina, where a bike shop saw a 20% annual increase in sales resulting from the construction of a nearby trail. The connection between the trail and the Universal Plaza could generate more money spent by tourists. Numerous studies across the country have shown an increase in tourism in relation to trail use, including a $12 million annual increase in recreation dollars associated with trail use in Virginia. In the Portland area, bicycling tourism and activities generate $89 million in annual economic activity.6 The benefit of both experiences (trail use, and the interactive and community-gathering focus of the Universal Plaza) should provide a boon to local spending by a variety of users. Negative economic consequences associated with limiting the conflicting use include the annual costs of maintaining the trails and the initial costs of its construction, though short- term benefits are seen from increased construction-related employment. As stated above, community gathering spaces provide residents attachment to where they live, which leads to higher local gross domestic product (Soul of the Community study). 5 Greenways and Trails – Bringing economic benefits to New York (New York Parks and Conservation Association, July, 2018) 6 2014 Regional Active Transportation Plan (Metro, 2014) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 10 Limiting the conflicting use for the Universal Plaza will result in full build out of the Plaza and with it all of the economic gains that will result. Allow Conflicting Uses for local protection The economic consequences of allowing conflicting use for the trail construction are mostly negative. Allowing most of the permissible uses from the underlying PR zone would result in degraded wetland functions and values, require a capital expenditure for the City, on-going management, and related and required mitigation. The benefit of allowing the conflicting use is a short-term boost for construction and its related benefits, which would not be in balance with the required mitigation and ongoing costs of infrastructure maintenance. The economic consequences of allowing the uses for the MU-CBD zone are not likely to be negative for the City. It is assumed, that the City will choose to develop the same use as that proposed for the Universal Plaza, although many other development scenarios are possible in the MU-CBD zone. As such, the economic gains realized by allowing the limited conflicting use will all apply for allowing the conflicting use. 4.2 Social Consequences The following describes the social consequences (recreation, community involvement, health benefits, education, etc.) for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full protection) Prohibiting the conflicting use would have local, if not regional social consequences. Prohibiting the conflicting use would potentially restrict access between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail. People with limited mobility would not be able to travel between both spaces. The Universal Plaza is a public gathering space that will be used throughout the year. Its benefit is based on the importance of areas where public discourse and social interaction can occur, which is essential for a healthy, functioning society. Public spaces, such as the Universal Plaza, and trails serve as meeting places and foster community involvement and pride and provide an opportunity for people of different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds to interact.7 Maximizing the Universal Plaza and connecting it with the Fanno Creek Trail will ensure that passive recreation opportunities like bird watching or environmental learning would be unhindered and accessible for all. The value of trails from a social perspective is demonstrated by research that shows quality of life is an important factor in businesses and workers’ location-choice decisions. This could also extend to the public gathering space that will be Universal Plaza. In Washington, knowledge-focused industries, such as technology companies, were found to prioritize quality of life when choosing where to locate and expand. Companies that want their location to reflect their corporate culture place a higher value on quality of life for their selected location. Companies see the social benefits of locating in close proximity to trails, such as 7 The Social, Health, and Heritage Benefits of Trails (GoforGreen, 2000) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 11 allowing their workers to exercise during breaks, and providing opportunities to experience the mental health benefits of being in nature, to socialize with co-workers, and even to commute via a trail. These would not be realized if the conflicting use were prohibited. Limit Conflicting Uses (limited protection) The social consequences of limiting the conflicting uses in Wetland E-6 and adjacent buffers are positive. Limiting the conflicting uses will provide significant social benefits to all trail users, including those with limited mobility, and will ensure the Universal Plaza is as large and as effective as it can be. Both the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail provide multiple social benefits, as will the connecting trail. Those who will gain access to the Fanno Creek Trail from Universal Plaza will be accessing a travel corridor that will provide exercise, education, and social benefits from interacting in a public setting. It has been documented that people who live near trails walk on average 15 to 30 minutes more per day than those who live in neighborhoods with fewer trails or other ways to get around without a car. The Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza can provide opportunities for educational experiences as they can become outdoor classrooms. Having people outside and experiencing or learning about nature can create a society that is more likely to take the steps needed to protect our environment and ensure greater community interaction and an increased quality of life. Allow Conflicting Uses (no local protection) The social consequences of allowing the conflicting uses are mixed. The PR zoning would allow for the development of additional park amenities, but the amenities will likely not be in keeping with the social benefits that a trail provides. Allowing the conflicting use for the Universal Plaza is essentially the same as limiting the conflicting use, as we assume the City will choose to develop the property with the same use. 4.3 Environmental Consequences The following describes the consequences to water quality, hydrologic control, wildlife habitat (as well as other relevant factors) for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full protection) The environmental consequences of prohibiting the conflicting uses are mixed. The City’s Development Code aims to protect significant wetlands by not allowing direct impacts to them, but indirect impacts will happen from trail users traversing the gap between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail. Trail users could create several trails, called demand trails, in locations where no defined trail exists. Limiting the users to a defined and controlled location will limit the area of impact. The wetland functions provided by E-6 were documented as mostly high, though the specific functions of the wetland where impacts are proposed are moderate to low. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 12 Prohibiting the conflicting use and reducing the area that can be impacted by the Universal Plaza will reduce the effectiveness of the uses the Plaza will provide. The connection that Universal Plaza users will have with Fanno Creek and its buffer has been shown to encourage people to think and act on their environment. The process of engaging a community in thinking about their environment is called Placemaking8. Placemaking is dedicated to encouraging and empowering the public to take ownership and positively contribute to their world beyond their homes. It has been called an essential element of environmentalism, though that word is used in the framework of people caring about their environment and does not mean anything radical. Prohibiting the conflicting use will reduce the effectiveness of both the plaza and the connecting trail in ways people can interact with and care for their environment. Limit Conflicting Uses (limited protection) Limiting the conflicting use to bridging the gap between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail and constructing a portion of the Universal Plaza will require approvals from Oregon’s Removal-Fill Law, which is administered by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which is administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Both the Corps and DSL require an alternatives analysis to demonstrate that impacting wetlands is unavoidable, but both require mitigation when avoidance is impracticable. Mitigating, which will likely be through the purchase of credits at a wetland mitigation bank, ensures there will be compensation for lost wetland functions and values. DSL requires that before a mitigation bank can be used to compensate for proposed impacts, a series of Principal Objectives for wetland mitigation must be met (OAR 141-085-0680(2)). These Principal Objectives include requirements such as ensuring the replacement of lost functions and values and providing local replacement of locally important functions and values. Wetland E-6 provides mainly moderate to lower quality functions and values. As such, it can be argued that limiting the conflicting use would allow for a higher quality mitigated wetland as compensation. Limiting the conflicting use will also allow impacts to the buffer, though greater than two-thirds of that impact are to areas that were already developed prior to the property being purchased by the City. It should be noted that although the trail will impact Wetland E-6, the impact results from the construction of a boardwalk through and above the wetland. This boardwalk will impact the wetland but will ensure that hydrologic connectivity within the wetland will remain. As such, limiting the conflicting use, at least in this area, will not result in complete loss of wetland function. Limiting the conflicting use will ensure the maximum benefit is derived from the Universal Plaza and its connecting trail, such that the benefits of Placemaking and its resulting environmental awareness will be fully realized. Allow Conflicting Uses for local protection The environmental consequences of allowing many of the permissible conflicting uses of the underlying PR zone is generally negative. Mitigation for impacting the wetlands will likely 8 https://www.pps.org/article/happy-earth-day-reframing-the-environmental-movement ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 13 result in improved functions and values elsewhere, but the actual impacts to the wetland resulting from allowing the conflicting use would likely have indirect impacts to the wetland and the surrounding environment. Measures, such as boardwalk construction, would likely not be used to diminish the severity of the impacts. Allowing the conflicting use will likely result in the same impacts as limiting the conflicting use, as the City will choose to develop the open space as the Universal Plaza, which can be seen as the highest and best use of the property. 4.4 Energy Consequences The following describes the energy consequences (transportation connectivity, efficient urban development, etc.) for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full protection) The energy consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses would likely be negative. The smaller footprint of the Universal Plaza and the lack of connecting trail may mean that fewer people use the Plaza. A connecting trail may ensure that some commuters can use the trail to travel from their home to their work or for social interactions. As stated previously, in 2005 it was estimated that trails in the Greater Portland area save $1.1 billion per year on gas and other auto-related expenses. Although the gap is small, the energy savings would not be realized without a connection between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail. Limit Conflicting Uses (limited protection) The energy consequences of limiting the conflicting use fully develop the Universal Plaza and to construct the trail would be positive. Creating a connection between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail will ensure people with disabilities will have access to the entire Fanno Creek Trail for commuting or travelling between communities, which can save energy costs. It has been estimated that over 18% of all trips are made by walking and by bicycle within the Portland area. The City’s 2035 TSP describes how traffic congestion has consistently ranked as the number one issue facing Tigard in community attitude surveys and the city is committed to finding solutions to this issue. Multi-modal trails are being constructed all across the country to provide an alternative to gas-powered vehicular traffic. Allow Conflicting Uses (no local protection) The energy consequences of allowing the conflicting uses in the PR zone is mixed. Allowing the conflicting uses in the PR zone will result in a complete trail, which has positive energy consequences, though could also result in the installation of recreational amenities, such as playgrounds, shelters, and structures. Maintaining these amenities over many years is not energy efficient. Allowing the conflicting use will likely result in the same consequences as limiting, as the City will likely choose to full develop the Universal Plaza. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 14 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS The following summarizes the anticipated impacts of the three alternatives related to the conflicting use: Prohibiting the conflicting use would avoid a relatively modest capital construction expenditure by the City for the costs of the boardwalk and from on-going maintenance of the trail. There would be a greater cost for maximizing the footprint of the Universal Plaza. It is likely, however, that prohibiting the conflicting use will result in degradation of the already lower quality wetland from trail users choosing to traverse the gap themselves and creating what are called demand trails. Although the gap will not be accessible to some commuters and for people with limited mobility, the wetland will be used by those still wanting to make the connections. Not maximizing the Universal Plaza will result in a loss of benefits that a trail and the Universal Plaza provide, including economic benefits (e.g., revenue increase from trail connection, lower health care costs) and social (the community benefits from both the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail, the health and education benefits realized from trail use, etc.). Limiting the conflicting use will ensure that the benefits from both a regional trail and the Universal Plaza are accessible. There is a relatively large pool of data to document the economic, social, and energy benefits of trail use and community spaces, such as the Universal Plaza. From an economic perspective, both trails and community spaces can increase property values, increase tourism, and entice companies, which create jobs, to relocate to areas that have these amenities. Trails can benefit physical and mental health, which can in turn reduce medical costs. The Universal Plaza and its connecting trail can serve as conduits for community involvement and engagement. Passive educational opportunities are best served by a trail system. This benefit can also be attributed to the Universal Plaza, which has been designed to be an interactive community space that can be used year-round. Limiting the conflicting use would result in the loss of 0.004 acres of wetland and the permanent impact to 0.24 acres of buffer. The encroachments will result in lost functions and values of the wetland and buffer, though both will be mitigated, ensuring no net loss of both resources. As stated above, it should be noted that greater than two-thirds of the buffer impact is to a buffer that has already been developed. Although the wetlands are categorized as locally significant, in reality, its functions are generally low to moderate and can be offset through the purchase of credits from a wetland mitigation bank that ensures replacement of locally important functions and values. Allowing most of the permissible uses from the underlying PR zone would not only further deteriorate the wetland resource and the surrounding environment, but the relative costs would be high for capital construction, mitigation, and on-going management. The development of non-resource-oriented amenities will likely not fit within the context of the land surrounding the trail. Allowing uses within the MU-CBD zone underlying much of the Universal Plaza, will likely be no different than limiting the uses, as the City will likely choose to develop the same project. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 15 5.1 Decision This analysis concludes that limiting the conflicting use will result in the most beneficial consequence of the three protection scenarios for the City. A decision to limit the conflicting use will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting the conflicting use, but more importantly will allow benefits to be realized. There is a wealth of data available documenting the economic, social, and energy benefits that can be realized from an efficient trail system and a community space. It is true too, that although limiting the conflicting uses will impact the wetland, the relatively low functions and values of the wetland will be offset by the use of wetland mitigation credits from a local wetland mitigation bank. Based on this analysis, the recommendation is to limit the conflicting use (i.e., remove a small portion (0.004 acres) of Wetland E-6) from the City’s Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map and 0.24 acres of buffer in order to accommodate the future development of the Universal Plaza and a trail connecting the Universal Plaza with the Fanno Creek Trail. Appendix A Figures Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 FIGURE 1 General Location and Topography Universal Plaza Boardwalk and Trail- Tigard, Oregon United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beaverton, Oregon 7.5 quadrangle, 2020 (viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic) Project #7145 5/5/2021 Study Area N Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 FIGURE 2 Tax Lot Map Universal Plaza Boardwalk and Trail - Tigard, Oregon The Oregon Map (ormap.net) Project #7145 5/5/2021 N Study Area Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Local Wetland Inventory Universal Plaza Boardwalk and Trail - Tigard, Oregon Fishman Environmental Services, 1997 Project #7145 5/5/2021 N 640 ft Study Area FIGURE 2A Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Aerial Photo Universal Plaza Boardwalk and Trail - Tigard, Oregon GoogleEarth, 2020 Project #7145 5/5/2021 N Study Area FIGURE 2B EMCGM1401411421401411411411411411411411411451451451451451451501421421421421421421421421421421431 5 0 1 4 7 145144Significant Wetland E-6 (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) F a n n o CreekExisting Pavement Wetla n d A C o nti n u e s B e y o n d St u d y Ar e a Wetland A and Fanno CreekContinue Beyond Study Area TL 203 TL 204 TL 100 TL 202 2018 Wetland Delineated Boundary Existing Paved Path (Not Surveyed / Approximate Location) Existing Pedestrian Bridge (Plant Community B) Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area. (17,987 sf / 0.41 ac) Existing Development Areas Buffer Width of 50 Feet As Shown ASH AVENUE LEGEND Study Area Boundary (169,240 sf / 3.88 ac) Significant Wetland E-6 (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Waters of the State/US (15,649 sf / 0.36 ac) Ordinary High Water (OHW) Direction of Flow Vegetated Corridor Boundary (VC) (41,065 sf / 0.94 ac) Plant Community A (23,078 sf / 0.53 ac) (On Track to Good Per CWS File # 18-000570) Plant Community B (17,987 sf / 0.41 ac) Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area. (On Track to Good Per CWS File # 18-000570) 50 Foot Goal 5 Wetland Buffer Existing Development Areas Survey provided by KPFF. Survey accuracy is sub-centimeter. Wetland and Stream boundaries collected with Trimble Hand Held GPS Unit accuracy is sub-meter. FIGURE 3 Existing Conditions Universal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855 6-18-2021 C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\ESEE Figures\Fig3 ExistCond.dwg, 6/22/2021 2:22:13 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3 145144146147148149145 144 146 147 148 149 150 147148149 151 SDSDSD SD SD CEMCGM1401411421401411411411411411411411411451451451451451451501511501501421421421421421421421421421421431 5 0 1 4 7 145144UNIVERSAL PLAZA Significant Wetland E-6 (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Proposed 10' Wide Asphalt Path Wetla n d A C o nti n u e s Beyo n d St u d y Ar e a Wetland A and Fanno Creek Continues Beyond Study AreaF a n n o Creek Limits of Disturbance Existing Paved Path (Not Surveyed / Approximate Location) Existing Pedestrian Bridge Buffer Encroachment Within Existing Developed Areas (7,074 sf / 0.16 ac) Buffer Width of 50 Feet As Shown ASH AVENUE Buffer Encroachment (1,211 sf / 0.03 ac) Buffer Encroachment (625 sf / 0.01 ac) Buffer Encroachment (1,450 sf / 0.03 ac) Wetland Impact Boardwalk Footings (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Proposed Raised Boardwalk and Footings (18) LEGEND Study Area Boundary (169,240 sf / 3.88 ac) Significant Wetland E-6 (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Waters of the State/US (15,649 sf / 0.36 ac) Ordinary High Water (OHW) Direction of Flow Wetland Impact (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Buffer Encroachment (3,286 sf / 0.08 ac) Buffer Encroachment Within Existing Development Areas (7,074 sf / 0.16 ac) 50 Foot Goal 5 Wetland Buffer Site plan provided by Alta FIGURE 4 Development Site Plan Universal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855 9-30-2021 C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\ESEE Figures\Fig4 SitePlan.dwg, 9/30/2021 3:31:46 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 2, 2021 TO: Monica Bilodeau, Associate Planner FROM: Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer PROJECT: CPA2021-00004 Fanno Boardwalk FINDINGS OF FACT: CHAPTER 18.910 IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.910.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development p roposal plan. A Preliminary Stormwater Report (dated September 27, 2021) for the Universal Plaza site has been prepared by KPFF and is submitted with the application. Due to the topography of the site and specific storm water management requirements, the stormwater runoff from the site is proposed to be collected and detained in the low area of the site (southwest). As a portion of the detention facility is within the 50-foot buffer of Tigard Significant Wetlands and within the floodplain, it is subject to sensitive lands review in this application. The site plan shows stormwater is separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system. Surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street . Surface water drainage patterns are shown on the development plan. This standard is met. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. The proposed Universal Plaza and boardwalk are on public land. The applicant proposes to connect a new 12-inch storm line through the neighboring property to the south in a new easement. Prior to final inspection, the applicant must record all public utility easements with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and the City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on Clean Water Services requirements. Culverts are not proposed or deemed necessary to accommodate an upstream drainage area. This standard is met. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements. A Preliminary Stormwater Report (dated September 27, 2021) for the Universal Plaza site has been prepared by KPFF and is submitted with the application. The site falls within the Clean Water Services (CWS) jurisdiction and must meet Water Quality, Conveyance and Hydromodification requirements. The total site area is 1.20 acres and was previously fully developed with 90 percent impervious groundcover (asphalt parking and building roof). The western half of the site currently sheet flows over asphalt parking directly to the wetland. The proposed plaza development will significantly reduce impervious area on the site to about 43 percent impervious groundcover (concrete plaza and future canopy building roof). Because the project results in the permanent removal of more than 1,000 square feet of impervious surface, the treatment area is zero based on section 4.08 of CWS Design and Construction Standards. The project is required to meet hydromodification requirements for all new or modified impervious surface proposed; thus, a vegetated detention pond with flow control structure is proposed. In addition, the site plans and storm drainage report for the path indicate that the project proposes to utilize filter strips, include the existing Vegetated Corridor where necessary, as well as construct infiltration trenches along t he side of the path to treat the run -off generated from the path. Run-off from the path surface will sheet flow to either the Vegetated Corridor or the infiltration trenches where it is paved asphalt on -grade. The boardwalk portion of the path, elevated over landscaped vegetated corridor and wetlands, is considered pervious and does not require stormwater drainage facilities. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standa rds and the City of Tigard Standards. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. Th e City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Prior to final inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. 18.910.150 Installation Prerequisite A. Approval required. No public improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans have been approved by the city, permit fee paid, and permit issued. B. Permit fee. The permit fee is required to defray the cost and expenses incurred by the city for construction and other services in connection with the improvement. The permit fee shall be set by council resolution. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater (water quality and quantity facilities) and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water impro vement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard -or.gov). Improvements associated with public infrastructures including street and right -of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections must be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards: • City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards • Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards • Tigard Community Development Codes, Municipal Codes • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) Fire Codes • Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehi cle parking must be provided onsite. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction o f site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and must include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. 18.910.170 Plan Check A. Submittal requirements. Work shall not begin until construction plans and construction estimates have been submitted and checked for adequacy and approved by the City Engineer in writing. The developer can obtain detailed information about submittal requirements from the City Engineer. B. Compliance. All such plans shall be prepared in compliance with requirements of the city. Improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connection for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and approval. Through the Conditions of Approval, this stan dard is met. 18.910.190 City Inspection of Improvements Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the city. The city may require changes in typical sections and details if unusual conditions arising during construction warrant such changes in the public interest. Requirements for City Inspection will be coordinated during PFI Permitting. Prior to final inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied. Prior to final inspection, the applicant must provide Autocad files and pdf files of the as-built drawings. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. ADDITIONAL CITY OR AGENCY COMMENTS: Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction which require the construction of on -site water quality facilities. In addition, a maintenance plan must be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI pe rmit. Plans must be submitted to the City for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Pr ior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit an erosion control plan for review and approval. The plan must comply to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual” (current edition). Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a final grading plan showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage and show that the site will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Division. The design engineer must indicate, on the grading plan, areas with natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary. Through the Conditions of Approval, this standard is met. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORK: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer, (971) 713-0281 or JeremyT@tigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facilit ies, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections and must be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards: • City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards • Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards • Tigard Community Development Codes, Municipal Codes • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) Fire Codes • Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines 2. Improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connection for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and approval. 3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater (water quality and quantity facilities) and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard-or.gov). 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking must be provided onsite. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and must include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 5. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. 6. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. 7. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit an erosion control plan as part of the PFI Permit. The plan must conform to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual” (current edition). 8. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a final grading plan showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage and show that the site will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the stre et or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Division. The design engineer must indicate, on the grading plan, areas with natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer, (971) 713-0281 or JeremyT@tigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 9. Prior to final inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure and stormwater facilities must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied. 10. Prior to final inspection, the applicant must record all public utility easements with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. 11. Prior to final inspection, the applicant must provide Autocad files and pdf files of the as- built drawings. CWS File Number Page 1 of 7 Service Provider Letter This form and the attached conditions will serve as your Service Provider Letter in accordance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (R&O 19-5, as amended by R&O 19-22). Jurisdiction: City of Tigard Review Type: Tier 2 Analysis Site Address 9100 SW Burnham St SPL Issue Date: September 15, 2021 / Location: Tigard, OR 97223 SPL Expiration Date: September 15, 2023 Applicant Information: Owner Information: Name SEAN FARRELLY Name MARTIN MCKNIGHT Company TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Company TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Address 13125 SW HALL BLVD Address 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Phone/Fax (503) 718-2420 Phone/Fax (503) 718-2420 E-mail: sean@tigard-or.gov E-mail: martin@tigard-or.gov Tax lot ID Development Activity 2S102AC00202, 203 & 204 Tigard University Plaza and Connector Trail Pre-Development Site Conditions: Post Development Site Conditions: Sensitive Area Present: On-Site Off-Site Sensitive Area Present: On-Site Off-Site Vegetated Corridor Width: Variable Vegetated Corridor Width: Variable Vegetated Corridor Condition: Good/Marginal Enhancement of Remaining Vegetated Corridor Required: Square Footage to be enhanced: 0 Encroachments into Pre-Development Vegetated Corridor: Type and location of Encroachment: Square Footage: Stormwater approach and path (Permanent encroachment; mitigation required) 5,689 Boardwalk adjacent wetland fill (Permanent encroachment; mitigated through purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits per R&0 13-12) 456 Trail through Advanced Mitigation Area (Subtracted from Advanced Mitigation total) 2,450 Trail access and construction (Temporary encroachment; Restoration and planting in-place required) 6,424 Mitigation Requirements: Type/Location Sq. Ft./Ratio/Cost On-site Removal of existing asphalt and restoring to Vegetated Corridor (Replacement mitigation) 4,320/1:1 Use of Advanced Mitigation credits from SPL 18-000570 for City of Tigard Advanced Mitigation and educational signage for public benefit 3,369/1.25:1 Conditions Attached Development Figures Attached ( 3 ) Planting Plan Attached Geotech Report Required This Service Provider Letter does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. 21-000530 X X X X X X CWS File Number Page 2 of 7 21-000530 In order to comply with Clean Water Services water quality protection requirements the project must comply with the following conditions: 1. No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, pet wastes, dumping of materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted within the sensitive area or Vegetated Corridor which may negatively impact water quality, except those allowed in R&O 19-5, Chapter 3, as amended by R&O 19-22. 2. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction the Vegetated Corridor and water quality sensitive areas shall be surveyed, staked, and temporarily fenced per approved plan. During construction the Vegetated Corridor shall remain fenced and undisturbed except as allowed by R&O 19-5, Section 3.06.1, as amended by R&O 19-22 and per approved plans. 3. Prior to any activity within the sensitive area, the applicant shall gain authorization for the project from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The applicant shall provide Clean Water Services or its designee (appropriate city) with copies of all DSL and USACE project authorization permits. 4. An approved Oregon Department of Forestry Notification is required for one or more trees harvested for sale, trade, or barter, on any non-federal lands within the State of Oregon. 5. Prior to any ground disturbing activities, an erosion control permit is required. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Erosion Control, in accordance with Clean Water Services' Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, shall be used prior to, during, and following earth disturbing activities. 6. Prior to construction, a Stormwater Connection Permit from Clean Water Services or its designee is required pursuant to Ordinance 27, Section 4.B. 7. Activities located within the 100-year floodplain shall comply with R&O 19-5, Section 5.10, as amended by R&O 19-22. 8. Removal of native, woody vegetation shall be limited to the greatest extent practicable. 9. The water quality swale and detention pond shall be planted with Clean Water Services approved native species, and designed to blend into the natural surroundings. 10. Should final development plans differ significantly from those submitted for review by Clean Water Services, the applicant shall provide updated drawings, and if necessary, obtain a revised Service Provider Letter. 11. The Vegetated Corridor width for sensitive areas within the project site shall be a minimum of 50 feet wide, as measured horizontally from the delineated boundary of the sensitive area. 12. For Vegetated Corridors up to 50 feet wide, the applicant shall enhance the entire Vegetated Corridor to meet or exceed good corridor condition as defined in R&O 19-5, Section 3.14.2, Table 3-3, as amended by R&O 19-22. 13. Removal of invasive non-native species by hand is required in all Vegetated Corridors rated ""good."" Replanting is required in any cleared areas larger than 25 square feet using low impact methods. The applicant shall calculate all cleared areas larger than 25 square feet prior to the preparation of the required Vegetated Corridor enhancement/restoration plan. 14. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction, the applicant shall provide Clean Water Services with a Vegetated Corridor enhancement/restoration plan. Enhancement/restoration of the Vegetated Corridor shall be provided in accordance with R&O 19-5, Appendix A, as amended by R&O 19-22, and shall include planting specifications for all Vegetated Corridor, including any cleared areas larger than 25 square feet in Vegetated Corridor rated ""good."" 15. Prior to installation of plant materials, all invasive vegetation within the Vegetated Corridor shall be removed per methods described in Clean Water Services' Integrated Pest Management Plan, 2019. During removal of invasive vegetation care shall be taken to minimize impacts to existing native tree and shrub species. 16. Clean Water Services and/or City shall be notified 72 hours prior to the start and completion of enhancement/restoration activities. Enhancement/restoration activities CWS File Number Page 3 of 7 21-000530 shall comply with the guidelines provided in Planting Requirements (R&0 19-5, Appendix A, as amended by R&O 19-22). 17. Maintenance and monitoring requirements shall comply with R&O 19-5, Section 2.12.2, as amended by R&O 19-22. If at any time during the warranty period the landscaping falls below the 80% survival level, the owner shall reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity and the two year maintenance period shall begin again from the date of replanting. 18. Performance assurances for the Vegetated Corridor shall comply with R&O 19-5, Section 2.07.2, Table 2-1 and Section 2.11, Table 2-2, as amended by R&O 19-22. 19. Clean Water Services shall require an easement over the Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor conveying storm and surface water management to Clean Water Services or the City that would prevent the owner of the Vegetated Corridor from activities and uses inconsistent with the purpose of the corridor and any easements therein. FINAL PLANS 20. Final construction plans shall include landscape plans. In the details section of the plans, a description of the methods for removal and control of exotic species, location, distribution, condition and size of plantings, existing plants and trees to be preserved, and installation methods for plant materials is required. Plantings shall be tagged for dormant season identification and shall remain on plant material after planting for monitoring purposes. 21. A Maintenance Plan shall be included on final plans including methods, responsible party contact information, and dates (minimum two times per year, by June 1 and September 30). 22. Final construction plans shall clearly depict the location and dimensions of the sensitive area and the Vegetated Corridor (indicating good, marginal, or degraded condition). Sensitive area boundaries shall be marked in the field. 23. Protection of the Vegetated Corridors and associated sensitive areas shall be provided by the installation of permanent fencing and signage between the development and the outer limits of the Vegetated Corridors. Fencing and/or signage details to be included on final construction plans. This Service Provider Letter is not valid unless CWS-approved site plan is attached. Please call (503) 681-3653 with any questions. Lindsey Obermiller Environmental Plan Review Attachments ( 4 ) 6 + 0 0 7 + 0 0 8 + 0 0 9 + 0 0 10+00 10+86 141142141141141141141142142142142 14 0 14 1 14 214 0 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 114514 5145145145145150150 151 150150 152 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 3 144150147145 145 144 14550'6%50'9%Wetland A(59,917 sf / 1.38 ac)FannoCreekSW BURNHAM STREETSW ASH AVENUEWetland A ContinuesBeyond Study AreaWetland A and Fanno CreekContinue Beyond Study AreaTL 203TL 204TL 100TL 202TL 200(Plant Community B)Advanced VegetatedCorridor MitigationCredit Area.(17,987 sf / 0.41 ac)2018 WetlandDelineated BoundaryExisting PavementExisting Paved Path(Not Surveyed /Approximate Location)ExistingPedestrianBridge Existing Development Areas(7,074 sf / 0.16 ac)Regulated Corridor Widthof 50 Feet As ShownLEGENDStudy Area Boundary(169,240 sf / 3.88 ac)Wetland(59,917 sf / 1.38 ac)Waters of the State/US(15,649 sf / 0.36 ac)Ordinary High Water (OHW)Direction of FlowVegetated Corridor Boundary(41,065 sf / 0.94 ac)Regulated Corridor Width of 50 FeetAs ShownExisting Development AreasSlope MeasurementPlant Community A (23,078 sf / 0.53 ac)(On Track to Good PerCWS File # 18-000570)Plant Community B (17,987 sf / 0.41 ac)Advanced Vegetated CorridorMitigation Credit Area.(On Track to Good PerCWS File # 18-000570)0'%Existing Conditions and Vegetated Corridor Plant Community OverviewUniversal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, OregonPacific Habitat Services,Inc. Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855FIGURE3Survey provided by KPFF.Survey accuracy is sub-centimeter.Wetland and Stream boundariescollected with Trimble Hand HeldGPS Unit accuracy is sub-meter.6-18-2021NOTE:See Figure 3A for Photo Points A-F.C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\Fig3 ExistCond OV.dwg, 7/1/2021 1:44:11 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3COLOR COPY21-00053009/15/202114 145144146147148149145144146147148149150147148149151152SDSDSD6 + 0 0 7 + 0 0 8 + 0 0 9 + 0 0 10+00 10+86 141142141141141141141142142142142 1 4 0 14 1 14 2 1 4 0 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 114514 5145145145145150150 151 150150 152 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 3 144150147145 145 144 145FannoCreekUNIVERSAL PLAZASW BURNHAM STREETSW ASH AVENUEProposed 10' WideAsphalt PathWetland A ContinuesBeyond Study AreaWetland A and Fanno CreekContinues Beyond Study AreaLimits ofDisturbanceExisting Paved Path(Not Surveyed /Approximate Location)ExistingPedestrianBridgeWetland A(59,917 sf / 1.38 ac)VC impact Associated withWetland Fill (456 sf / 0.01 ac)(To be mitigated at Mitigation Bank)(Reclamation/Enhancement)(2,342 sf / 0.05 ac)(Reclamation/Enhancement)(1,978 sf / 0.04 ac)LEGENDStudy Area Boundary(169,240 sf / 3.88 ac)Wetland(59,917 sf / 1.38 ac)Waters of the State/US(15,649 sf / 0.36 ac)Ordinary High Water (OHW)Existing Vegetated CorridorRemaining Vegetated CorridorDirection of Flow(Reclamation/Enhancement Area)(Total 4,320 sf / 0.09 ac)Development Site Plan OverviewUniversal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, OregonPacific Habitat Services,Inc. Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855FIGURE4Site plan provided by Alta8-18-2021NOTE:See Figure 4A for Vegetated Corridor Temporaryand Permanent Encroachments and WetlandTemporary and Permanent Impacts.C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\SNRO Figures\Fig4 SitePlan OV.dwg, 8/18/2021 3:21:11 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3VC Creation Area 1VC Creation Area 2VC CreationCOLOR COPY21-00053009/15/202124 145144146147148149145 144 146 147 148 149 150 147148149 151 S D S D S D S D S D14014114214014114114114114114114114114514514514514514515011501501421421421421421421421421421421431 5 0 1 4 7 1 4 5 144UNIVERSAL PLAZA Wetland A (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Proposed 10' Wide Asphalt Path Wetland Impact Boardwalk Footings (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Wetland A Continues Beyond Study Area Wetland A and Fanno CreekContinues Beyond Study AreaF a n n o Creek Limits of Disturbance Proposed Raised Boardwalk and Footings (18) Existing Paved Path (Not Surveyed / Approximate Location) Existing Pedestrian Bridge VC impact Associated with Wetland Fill (456 sf / 0.01 ac) (To be mitigated at Mitigation Bank) Regulated Corridor Width of 50 Feet As Shown Construction Limits Proposed Storm Line Proposed Split Rail Fence Interpretive Sign Proposed Split Rail Fence Interpretive Sign LEGEND Project Area Boundary (169,240 sf / 3.88 ac) Wetland (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Waters of the State/US (15,649 sf / 0.36 ac) Ordinary High Water (OHW) Tigard Significant Wetlands Vegetated Corridor Direction of Flow Wetland Impact (Permanent) (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Wetland Impact (Temporary) (1,352 sf / 0.03 ac) Vegetated Corridor Encroachment (Permanent Total 12,459 sf / 0.29 ac) Vegetated Corridor Encroachment (Temporary Total 6,424 sf / 0.15 ac) Vegetated Corridor Permanent Encroachment Within Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area (Permanent 2,450 sf / 0.06 ac) Vegetated Corridor Temporary Encroachment Within Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area (3,564 sf / 0.08 ac) Regulated Corridor Width of 50 Feet As Shown Existing Vegetated Corridor Remaining Vegetated Corridor Site plan provided by Alta FIGURE 4ADevelopment Site Plan and Encroachments Universal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855 8-18-2021 C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\SNRO Figures\Fig4A SitePlan.dwg, 8/18/2021 4:32:57 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3 COLOR COPY 21-000530 09/15/202134 0ACTIVITY PROJECT NAME FILE NUMBERENHANCEMENT CREDIT USED (sf)NEW PROJECTMain Street Plaza and Building 16-001930 0NEW PROJECTSW Frewing St Stormwater Line 19-001076NEW PROJECTFrewing St Sidewalk Improvements 21-002110NEW PROJECTTigard Universal Plaza and Trail 21-000530NEW PROJECTTigard Universal Plaza and Trail 21-000530NEW PROJECTNEW PROJECT0CITY OF TIGARD ENHANCEMENT/MITIGATION CREDITAVAILABLE CREDIT (RUNNING TOTAL OF AVAILABLE - USED) for File #18-000570BEGINNING CREDIT BALANCE (For File # 18-000570)CITY OF TIGARD - CWS FANNO CREEK TRAIL | ASH TO MAIN10,464MITIGATION CREDIT USED (sf)1,5801,8102,4505137423,369NOTES: Credits aquired within CWS Fanno Creek trail and stream meander project (18-000570). Use of credits for project 21-000530 include 2,450 SF of trailwithin advance mitigation area.COLOR COPY21-00053009/15/202144 Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com MEMORANDUM DATE: September 23, 2021 TO: Gary Pagenstecher (City of Tigard) FROM: Todd Prager, RCA #597, ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, AICP RE: Supplemental Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Summary This is the Supplemental Arborist Report for the Tigard Universal Plaza project as required by Chapter 18.420 of the Tigard Development Code and Section 10.3 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Eighty-one (81) percent effective tree canopy will be provided for the overall site through the preservation of existing street trees and the planting of new trees. The required minimum effective canopy is 25 percent for the overall site. Therefore, the proposal exceeds the minimum effective canopy requirements. Background The City of Tigard is developing Universal Plaza park at 9100 SW Burnham Street in Tigard, Oregon. The assignment requested of our firm for this project was to: • Assess the existing trees at the site and on adjacent properties; • Review the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan prepared by RIOS, as required by Chapter 18.420 and Urban Forestry Manual Sections 10.1 and 10.2; and • Prepare a Supplemental Arborist Report for the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan as required by Chapter 18.420 of the Tigard Development Code and Urban Forestry Manual Section 10.3; Supplemental Arborist Report The Supplemental Arborist Report requirements in Section 10.3 of the Urban Forestry Manual consist of three main parts: 1) an inventory of existing trees and tree removal/protection recommendations; 2) an inventory of trees to be planted and planting recommendations; and 3) a determination of whether the canopy requirements for the development have been met and/or recommendations for Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com meeting the canopy requirements. This section of the report addresses these three components and is based on the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan prepared by RIOS. Inventory of Existing Trees and Tree Protection/Removal Recommendations This section of the report addresses the inventory of existing trees and tree protection/removal recommendations. Inventory: On June 21, 2021 I completed the inventory of existing trees within and adjacent to the development site. The complete inventory data for each tree is provided in Attachment 1 and includes the tree number, common name, scientific name, trunk diameter (DBH), crown radius, crown area (canopy), whether the tree is open or stand grown, whether the tree is a heritage tree, condition rating, suitability for preservation rating, pertinent comments, and whether the tree will be removed or retained. The tree numbers in the inventory in Attachment 1 correspond to the tree numbers on the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan in Attachment 2 and Tree Canopy Site Plan in Attachment 3. Tree Removal and Retention: The only tree proposed for removal is tree 5724 at 9100 SW Burnham Street. This tree is an 11-inch DBH columnar English oak (Quercus robur ‘Fastigiata’) that conflicts with proposed utilities and grading. The remaining trees within and adjacent to the site will be retained and protected according to the tree protection recommendations in the next section of this report. Tree Protection: The trees to be retained will be protected according to the following methods: • Tree Protection Fencing: Place 5-foot metal tree protection fencing in the locations shown in Attachment 2 to protect the area within the driplines of the trees to be retained. When construction is required within the driplines, the fence may be adjusted, and work may occur under the onsite supervision of the project arborist. Take care not to contact or otherwise damage the crown and branches that extend beyond the tree protection fencing. Note that additional recommended tree protection fencing is shown in red in Attachment 2. • Grading Adjacent to Trees 5722 and 5723: The grading adjacent to trees 5722 and 5723 should be adjusted to at least six feet from tree 5722 and three feet from tree 5723 as shown in Attachment 2. The construction of a retaining wall may be required to move the grading further from the trees. • Trail Construction within Driplines: The trail connections to be constructed within the driplines of the offsite trees to the south of the site should be constructed under the onsite supervision of the project arborist to ensure the tree root systems are properly protected. Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 2 of 22 Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com • Sediment Fencing: Sediment fencing shall be installed outside the tree protection zones to minimize root disturbances. If erosion control is required inside the tree protection zones, straw wattles shall be used on the soil surface. • Pruning: If pruning of the trees is required for construction clearance or other reasons, it shall be completed in a manner that is consistent with ANSI A300 pruning standards by an ISA certified arborist as directed by the project arborist. Additional detailed tree protection recommendations for the trees to be retained are provided in Attachment 4. Inventory of Trees to be Planted and Tree Planting Recommendations This section of the report addresses the inventory of trees to be planted and tree planting recommendations. Inventory: The complete inventory data for each individual tree to be planted is provided in Attachment 5 and includes the tree number, common name, scientific name, caliper, mature crown (canopy) spread, mature crown (canopy) area, and available soil volume within a 50-foot radius of the tree. The tree numbers in Attachment 5 correspond to the tree numbers on the Tree Canopy Site Plan in Attachment 3. In addition, two stands of trees are proposed to be planted in the rear of the site. The complete inventory data for each stand of trees to be planted is provided in Attachment 6 and includes the stand number, common name, scientific name, caliper, number of trees, and average spacing for each tree species to be planted as part of the stand. The mature canopy area of each stand is also provided. Tree Planting Recommendations: New trees that are planted to meet the effective canopy requirements shall conform to the applicable standards in the City of Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. They shall be planted in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree planting (A300, Part 6) and additional standards adopted by the Oregon Landscape Contractors Board (OLCB). Nursery stock shall meet the requirements of the American Association of Nurserymen (AAN) for nursery stock (ANSI Z60.1) for Grade No.1 or better. Double stake trees only if needed for stability. The site soil consists of primarily Verboot silty clay loam, which is considered farmland of statewide importance, but poorly drained. Note that this area is highly disturbed so there was likely significant past importing and exporting of soils as is typical in urban areas. The existing trees and vegetation directly adjacent to the site appear to be performing well which indicates the existing soils are capable of supporting new trees and landscaping. However, it will be very important to provide adequate drainage at the site so the tree root systems do not become waterlogged and are able to respire. Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 3 of 22 Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com To prepare compacted areas for new planting, backhoe turning should be used to loosen soil. Remove any layers of good topsoil and temporarily stockpile. Spread 3- to 4-inches of organic (high-lignin) compost or ESCS (Expanded shale/Calcine Clay) amendment over the area prior to turning the soil. Maintaining a safe distance (angle of repose) from paving, sidewalks, structures, and utilities, use a backhoe to turn soil to 36-inch depth. Break soil into large peds and loosely incorporate the soil amendment. Maintain a slope of compacted soil at the edge of the paving (angle of repose) so as not to undermine the paving sub-base. Hand turning may be necessary along the edges of paving and at walls. Do not till to a depth greater than the bottom of footing. After turning, re-spread topsoil and add 3- 5-inches of yard waste organic amendment over the surface and lightly till to break the soil into texture suitable to fine grade. All new trees to be planted will be provided a minimum of 1,000 cubic feet of open soil volume. Canopy Requirements The proposed development is non-residential development within the MU-CBD zoning district which requires at least 25 percent effective canopy for the overall site. The area of the subject site is 52,272 square feet. The canopy summary is provided below: -Existing canopy retained: 515 square feet (eligible for 200 percent credit) -Mature canopy of planted native trees: 2,514 square feet (eligible for 125 percent credit) -Mature canopy of planted native stands of trees: 14,337 square feet (eligible for 125 percent credit) -Mature canopy of planted non-native trees: 17,921 square feet (eligible for 100 percent credit) -The total effective canopy provided: 42,434 square feet -Percent effective canopy provided: 81 percent The minimum effective canopy requirement for the site (25 percent) is met. A summary of the effective canopy is provided in Attachment 7. Street Tree Requirements This section of the report provides recommendations for meeting the street tree requirements in Chapter 18.420 of the Tigard Development Code and Urban Forestry Manual Section 12. Street Tree Requirements Chapter 18.420 of the Tigard Development Code requires one street tree for each 40 feet of street frontage. When the result is a fraction, the required number of street trees is rounded to the nearest whole number. Section 12 of the Urban Forestry Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 4 of 22 Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Manual requires street trees to be provided minimum soil volumes based on the width of the sidewalk right of way. The right of way frontage along SW Burnham Street is approximately 155 feet. Therefore, four street trees are required. The Tree Canopy Site Plan in Attachment 3 shows two street trees will be retained and no additional street trees will be planted. Therefore, a street tree fee in lieu of planting will be required for the remaining two required street trees. Over 1,000 cubic feet of soil volume is provided for the two existing street trees. Therefore, the street tree soil volume standards have been met. Tree Plan Recommendations This section of the report includes a review of the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan prepared by RIOS. Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan Attachment 2 substantively includes the required information for a Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan listed in Section 10.1 of the Urban Forestry Manual. It will be important to ensure the final construction documents include the tree protection notes from the project arborist so that the contractors understand how to implement the plan. Also, the additional tree protection fencing shown in red should be included in the final draft of the construction documents. Tree Canopy Site Plan Attachment 3 substantively includes the required information for a Tree Canopy Site Plan listed in Section 10.2 of the Urban Forestry Manual. It will be important to ensure the construction documents include the planting preparation notes from the project arborist so that the contractors understand how to implement the plan. Note that root barriers are required when trees are within five feet of paved areas. Also, it will be very important to provide adequate drainage at the site so new tree plantings are able to survive. Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 5 of 22 Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Conclusion Eighty-one (81) percent effective tree canopy will be provided for the overall site through the preservation of existing street trees and the planting of new trees. The required minimum effective canopy is 25 percent for the overall site. Therefore, the proposal exceeds the minimum effective canopy requirements. Based on the proposed number of street trees, a street tree fee in lieu of planting will be required for two required street trees. Please contact me if you have questions, concerns, or need any additional information. Sincerely, Todd Prager ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #597 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, WE-6723B ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor AICP, American Planning Association Attachments: Attachment 1 - Inventory of Existing Trees Attachment 2 - Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan Attachment 3 - Tree Canopy Site Plan Attachment 4 - Additional Tree Protection Recommendations Attachment 5 - Inventory of Individual Trees to be Planted Attachment 6 - Inventory of Stands of Trees to be Planted Attachment 7 - Summary of Effective Canopy Attachment 8 - Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 6 of 22 Existing Tree Inventory Tree No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment 1172 Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 12 12 452 O N 3 3 retain (offsite) 1173 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a previously removed n/a 1174 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a previously removed n/a 1175 red alder Alnus rubra 13 15 707 O N 2 2 codominant at 4' with included bark, upper branch dieback retain (offsite) 1176 Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 23 16 804 O N 3 2 multiple leaders throughout crown retain (offsite) 1376 columnar English oak Quercus robur 'Fastigiata'16 14 616 O N 3 2 multiple upright leaders retain (offsite) 1377 Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 28 25 1963 O N 2 2 multiple leader failures, but natural layering has sustained viability retain (offsite) 1378 Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 10 15 707 O N 2 2 multiple leader failures, but natural layering has sustained viability retain (offsite) 1379 Pacific willow Salix lucida 28 16 804 O N 2 2 multiple leaders at lower trunk with included bark retain (offsite) 1380 Pacific willow Salix lucida 8,7,6,5 12 452 O N 2 2 multiple leaders at ground level retain (offsite) 1381 Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 14 12 452 O N 3 2 multiple leaders at 1'retain (offsite) 1382 Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 20 6 113 O N 3 2 multiple leaders at 1'retain (offsite) Teragan Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 7 of 22 Attachment 1 Existing Tree Inventory Tree No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment 1383 Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 11 10 314 O N 2 2 extensive watersprouts at lower trunk retain (offsite) 1384 Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 14,12,12 18 1018 O N 1 1 significant dieback and failures retain (offsite) 1385 Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 8 8 201 O N 2 2 extensive watersprouts at lower trunk retain (offsite) 1386 Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 15,6 18 1018 O N 1 1 significant branch dieback retain (offsite) 1387 English hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 12,9 16 804 O N 2 2 multiple leaders at ground level and lower trunk retain (offsite) 1388 English hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 12 12 452 O N 2 2 multiple leaders throughout crown retain (offsite) 1389 English hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 11,8,7,7,5 15 707 O N 2 2 multiple leaders at lower trunk retain (offsite) 1390 English hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 10,10,6 10 314 O N 1 1 fallen over, uprooted retain (offsite) 1391 red alder Alnus rubra 9 6 113 O N 1 1 extensive dieback and decay retain (offsite) Teragan Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 8 of 22 Attachment 1 Existing Tree Inventory Tree No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment 1853 orchard apple Malus domestica 18,10 21 1385 O N 2 2 not maintained for fruit production retain (offsite) 1854 purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera 18 16 804 O N 2 2 multiple leaders at lower trunk, headed leaders at lower trunk retain (offsite) 1855 Austrian pine Pinus nigra 16 15 707 O N 3 3 retain (offsite) 1856 Pacific willow Salix lucida 24 15 707 O N 2 2 multiple leaders at 1', history of branch failure, moderate branch dieback retain (offsite) 1857 Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 16 12 452 O N 2 2 failed codominant stem at 8', wilted foliage at upper crown retain (offsite) 1858 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 19,19,9 26 2124 O N 2 2 multiple leaders at ground level with included bark retain (offsite) 1861 English hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 15 18 1018 O N 3 2 multiple leaders at 7'retain (offsite) 1862 purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera 16 16 804 O N 2 2 multiple leaders with included bark, significant watersprouts retain (offsite) 1863 sweet cherry Prunus avium 12 18 1018 O N 2 2 upright crown growth retain (offsite) 1864 columnar English oak Quercus robur 'Fastigiata'8 15 707 O N 3 2 irregular crown due to competition with adjacent trees retain (offsite) 1865 purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera 18 18 1018 O N 2 2 multiple leaders, significant watersprouts retain (offsite) 1866 purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera 10,5,4 15 707 O N 2 2 multiple leaders, significant watersprouts retain (offsite) Teragan Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 9 of 22 Attachment 1 Existing Tree Inventory Tree No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment 1867 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 7 8 201 O N 3 3 retain (offsite) 1868 orchard apple Malus domestica 22 15 707 O N 2 2 lower crown competition from plum stem growth retain (offsite) 1869 ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa 32 17 908 O N 3 3 retain (offsite) 1870 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 10 10 314 S N 2 2 one sided, marginal trunk taper retain (offsite) 1871 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 10 10 314 S N 2 2 one sided, marginal trunk taper retain (offsite) 1872 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 14,12 18 1018 S N 2 2 codominant at ground level, one sided, marginal trunk taper retain (offsite) 1873 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 15,10 18 1018 S N 2 2 codominant at ground level, one sided, marginal trunk taper retain (offsite) 1874 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 7 8 201 S N 1 1 branch dieback retain (offsite) 1875 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 28 15 707 S N 1 1 extensive branch dieback retain (offsite) Teragan Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 10 of 22 Attachment 1 Existing Tree Inventory Tree No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment 1876 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 42 35 3848 S N 2 2 multiple leaders at 4' with included bark retain (offsite) 1877 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 11 8 201 S N 2 2 one sided, marginal trunk taper retain (offsite) 1878 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 34 18 1018 S N 0 0 codominant at ground level, extensive dieback, leans towards apartments retain (offsite) 1879 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 8 10 314 S N 2 2 one sided, significant lean, marginal trunk taper retain (offsite) 1880 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 13,10 18 1018 S N 2 2 codominant at ground level, one sided, marginal trunk taper retain (offsite) 1881 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 6 7 154 S N 3 2 one sided retain (offsite) 1882 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 8 8 201 S N 3 2 moderately one sided retain (offsite) 1883 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 10 10 314 S N 3 2 moderately one sided retain (offsite) 1884 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 7,6 7 154 S N 3 2 codominant at ground level, marginal trunk taper, moderately one sided retain (offsite) 1885 columnar English oak Quercus robur 'Fastigiata'16 18 1018 O N 2 2 bent over with multiple leaders at ground level retain (offsite) 1886 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 11 15 707 S N 3 2 codominant at ground level, marginal trunk taper, moderately one sided retain (offsite) Teragan Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 11 of 22 Attachment 1 Existing Tree Inventory Tree No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment 1887 black walnut Juglans nigra 40 40 5026 O N 2 2 multiple large overextended leaders, upper branch dieback retain (offsite) 1888 Scots pine Pinus sylvestris 11 12 452 O N 2 2 overtopped by adjacent trees, significant lean northwest retain (offsite) 2130 Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 3 9 254 O N 3 3 retain (offsite) 2304 Raywood ash Fraxinus oxycarpa 'Raywood'9 12 452 O N 3 2 multiple leaders at 5'retain (offsite) 2305 Raywood ash Fraxinus oxycarpa 'Raywood'8 12 452 O N 3 2 multiple leaders at 4'retain (offsite) 2544 hedge maple Acer campestre 10 15 707 O N 3 2 multiple leaders at 4'retain (offsite) 2546 hedge maple Acer campestre 12 18 1018 O N 3 2 multiple leaders at 6'retain (offsite) 2547 hedge maple Acer campestre 12 18 1018 O N 3 2 multiple leaders at 3'retain (offsite) 2548 hedge maple Acer campestre 12 21 1385 O N 3 2 multiple leaders at 3'retain (offsite) 2549 hedge maple Acer campestre 9 15 707 O N 3 2 multiple leaders at 3'retain (offsite) 4268 columnar English oak Quercus robur 'Fastigiata'9,8 12 452 O N 2 2 codominant at ground level with one previous dead leader, significant parking lot damage retain (offsite) 4269 sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 13 12 452 O N 3 2 codominant at 6', significant parking lot damage retain (offsite) 5710 black tupelo Nyssa sylvatica 6 8 201 O N 3 3 retain (onsite) Teragan Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 12 of 22 Attachment 1 Existing Tree Inventory Tree No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment 5711 black tupelo Nyssa sylvatica 6 10 314 O N 3 3 retain (onsite) 5712 black tupelo Nyssa sylvatica 7 10 314 O N 3 3 retain (offsite) 5722 columnar English oak Quercus robur 'Fastigiata'12 14 616 O N 1 2 multiple upright leaders retain (offsite) 5723 columnar English oak Quercus robur 'Fastigiata'6 7 154 O N 3 2 multiple upright leaders, headed lower branches retain (offsite) 5724 columnar English oak Quercus robur 'Fastigiata'11 8 201 O N 3 2 multiple upright leaders, trunk wounds remove 5724.1 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 14 11 380 O N 3 2 multiple leaders at 3' with included bark, added to site map in approximate location by arborist retain (offsite) 5726 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 17 17 908 O N 3 3 retain (offsite) RATING VIGOR CANOPY DENSITY PESTS 0 dead to severe decline <30%Infested 1 declining 30-60%Infested 2 average 60-90%Minor 3 good to excellent 90-100%None 7Pres is the numerical suitability for preservation rating (0-3) as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual: RATING 0 1 2 3 major conks and cavities DEADWOOD FAILURE HISTORY major scaffold branches >1 scaffold 6Cond is the numerical condition rating (0-3) as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual: The tree is dead, in severe decline, or declining but may still be retained if desirable for wildlife or other benefits because it is not considered a "hazard tree" or "hazard tree abatement" could be performed. The tree has average health and/or structural stability that could be alleviated with treatment; the tree will be less resilient to development impacts and will require more frequent management and monitoring after development than a tree rated as a "3". The tree has good to excellent health and structural stability; the tree will be more resilient to development impacts, and will require less frequent management and monitoring after development than a tree rated as a "2". twig and branch dieback scaffold branches small twigs small branches little or none none one to a few conks; small cavities present only at pruning wounds absent to present only at pruning wounds CONSIDERATIONS The tree is a "hazard tree" as defined in chapter 18.120 of the Tigard Development Code and "hazard tree abatement" as defined in Chapter 18.120 in the Tigard Development Code cannot be completed in a manner that results in tree retention consistent with tree care industry standards. DECAY Teragan Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 13 of 22 Attachment 1 (145)(150)(144 ) (146) (147) (148)(149)(151)(151)(152) (145)(146)(147)(148)0.9%1.0%2.7% 2 . 9%0.6%1.6%1.3%4.5%3:13:13:15.5%1.6%1.0%1.5%150.00 FF150.00 FF150.00 FF150.00 FF(152.0±)(151.9±)(???±)(151.8±)(150.5±)(151.4±)(151.7±)(151.1±)(150.3±)(146.5±)(146.1±)(145.7±)(146.5±)(147.0±)(145.8±)(146.5±)(???±)(152.4±)148.00 FG147.47 FG147.48 FG145 144 146 147 148 149 1451441461471481493:13:1 14.4%16.1%3:1150147 148 149151152(±5.2%)(±10.5%)(±4.0%)5.2% 8.9%147.99 FG149.36 FG148.35 FG(145)(150)(144 ) (146) (147) (148)(149)(151)(151)(152) (145)(146)(147)(148)0.9%1.0%2.7% 2 . 9%0.6%1.6%1.3%4.5%3:13:13:15.5%1.6%1.0%1.5%150.00 FF150.00 FF150.00 FF150.00 FF(152.0±)(151.9±)(???±)(151.8±)(150.5±)(151.4±)(151.7±)(151.1±)(150.3±)(146.5±)(146.1±)(145.7±)(146.5±)(147.0±)(145.8±)(146.5±)(???±)(152.4±)148.00 FG147.47 FG147.48 FG145 144 146 147 148 149 1451441461471481493:13:1 14.4%16.1%3:1150147 148 149151152(±5.2%)(±10.5%)(±4.0%)5.2% 8.9%147.99 FG149.36 FG148.35 FG213POTENTIAL STORMWATERMANAGEMENT AREAPOTENTIAL STORMWATERMANAGEMENT AREAWWHOSE BIB, TYP.HOSE BIB, TYP.HOSE BIB, TYP.ECW STUB-01W HB-01 (90°)32 LF - 2"W W TEE-01W78 LF - 2"WW TEE-02W147 LF -2"WW STUB-0217 LF - 1-1/2"W W WM-01W RPBA-011172144.7510" DTR 1173144.3616" DTR 2 1174145.5817" DTR 1175147.3910" DTR 21176142.0810" DTR 2137 6 53.08 12" D T R 1377 51.0312" D T R 3 1378 51.56 10" D T R 1379 50.22 12" D T R 1380 50.8 6 8" DT R 138150.526" DT R 138251.008" DT R 3 138350.418" DTR138450.558" DTR138550.848" DTR 5138650.238" DTR138750.808" DTR 2 138850.728" DTR 138951.4412" DTR 4139050.7810" DTR 3 1391 50.749" DTR SDSDDDSDSEBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIVIVIVS5629152.0 0 EL 5631 151.7 0 EL571056.846" DTR5711 56.806" DT R5712 57.51 6" DTR572254.6 4 8" DT R 572353.2 6 8" D T R 572454.53 6" DT R 5 572657.5216" DTREMCGM1702 151.5 1 FF WMWM185354.388" DT R 3 185456.08 8" DT R 3 185557.8016" ETR1856 52.96 8" DTR 61857 53.95 10" D T R 1858 53.3 8 19" D T R 3 1861 54.18 14" D T R 1862 53.95 12" DTR1863 54.11 10" D T R 1864 53.92 7" DTR1865 53.34 16" D T R 1866 52.5 7 10" D T R 1867 51.95 8" DT R 1868 54.408" DT R 1869 55.20 30" E T R 187054.5410" D T R 1871 56.44 12" D T R 187255.0914" DTR 31873 55.93 14" D T R 2 187 4 55.5 7 8" DT R 1875 55.3 7 24" D T R 1876 54.5736" D T R 3 1877 54.86 10" D T R 187 8 56.04 15" D T R 2 187955.84 7" DT R 1880 55.90 12" DTR 21881 56.72 6" DT R 1882 56.00 7" DT R 188355.8610" D T R 1884 58.04 6" DT R 2 1885 55.03 16" D T R 188661.808" DT R 2 188 7 59.98 27" D T R 2 1888 55.44 10" E T R 426856.78 12" D T R 2 4269 57.2 2 12" D T R 4270 57.85 5" DT R254356.298" DT R 254 4 57.0 6 8" DT R 2545 57.60 3" DT R 254657.90 12" DT R 2547 58.83 10" D T R 2548 58.4 9 8" DT RIVIV SDSSSSDSDGVEB 2304 57.86 9" DT R 2305 57.86 8" DT RSS 5+006+007+008+009+0010+0010+86141141145150150150152151152145142144150147145145144145145146147148149149151152150149144(145)(150)(144 ) (146) (147) (148)(149)(151)(151)(152) (145)(146)(147)(148)0.9%1.0%2.7% 2 . 9%0.6%1.6%1.3%4.5%3:13:13:15.5%1.6%1.0%1.5%150.00 FF150.00 FF150.00 FF150.00 FF(152.0±)(151.9±)(???±)(151.8±)(150.5±)(151.4±)(151.7±)(151.1±)(150.3±)(146.5±)(146.1±)(145.7±)(146.5±)(147.0±)(145.8±)(146.5±)(???±)(152.4±)148.00 FG147.47 FG147.48 FG145 144 146 147 148 149 1451441461471481493:13:1 14.4%16.1%3:1150147 148 149151152(±5.2%)(±10.5%)(±4.0%)5.2% 8.9%147.99 FG149.36 FG148.35 FG(145)(150)(144 ) (146) (147) (148)(149)(151)(151)(152) (145)(146)(147)(148)0.9%1.0%2.7% 2 . 9%0.6%1.6%1.3%4.5%3:13:13:15.5%1.6%1.0%1.5%150.00 FF150.00 FF150.00 FF150.00 FF(152.0±)(151.9±)(???±)(151.8±)(150.5±)(151.4±)(151.7±)(151.1±)(150.3±)(146.5±)(146.1±)(145.7±)(146.5±)(147.0±)(145.8±)(146.5±)(???±)(152.4±)148.00 FG147.47 FG147.48 FG145 144 146 147 148 149 1451441461471481493:13:1 14.4%16.1%3:1150147 148 149151152(±5.2%)(±10.5%)(±4.0%)5.2% 8.9%147.99 FG149.36 FG148.35 FG213POTENTIAL STORMWATERMANAGEMENT AREAPOTENTIAL STORMWATERMANAGEMENT AREAWWHOSE BIB, TYP.HOSE BIB, TYP.HOSE BIB, TYP.ECW STUB-01W HB-01 (90°)32 LF - 2"W W TEE-01W78 LF - 2"WW TEE-02W147 LF -2"WW STUB-0217 LF - 1-1/2"W W WM-01W RPBA-011172144.7510" DTR 1173144.3616" DTR 2 1174145.5817" DTR 1175147.3910" DTR 21176142.0810" DTR 2137 6 53.08 12" D T R 1377 51.0312" D T R 3 1378 51.56 10" D T R 1379 50.22 12" D T R 1380 50.8 6 8" DT R 138150.526" DT R 138251.008" DT R 3 138350.418" DTR138450.558" DTR138550.848" DTR 5138650.238" DTR138750.808" DTR 2 138850.728" DTR 138951.4412" DTR 4139050.7810" DTR 3 1391 50.749" DTR SDSDDDSDSEBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIVIVIVS5629152.0 0 EL 5631 151.7 0 EL571056.846" DTR5711 56.806" DT R5712 57.51 6" DTR572254.6 4 8" DT R 572353.2 6 8" D T R 572454.53 6" DT R 5 572657.5216" DTREMCGM1702 151.5 1 FF WMWM185354.388" DT R 3 185456.08 8" DT R 3 185557.8016" ETR1856 52.96 8" DTR 61857 53.95 10" D T R 1858 53.3 8 19" D T R 3 1861 54.18 14" D T R 1862 53.95 12" DTR1863 54.11 10" D T R 1864 53.92 7" DTR1865 53.34 16" D T R 1866 52.5 7 10" D T R 1867 51.95 8" DT R 1868 54.408" DT R 1869 55.20 30" E T R 187054.5410" D T R 1871 56.44 12" D T R 187255.0914" DTR 31873 55.93 14" D T R 2 187 4 55.5 7 8" DT R 1875 55.3 7 24" D T R 1876 54.5736" D T R 3 1877 54.86 10" D T R 187 8 56.04 15" D T R 2 187955.84 7" DT R 1880 55.90 12" DTR 21881 56.72 6" DT R 1882 56.00 7" DT R 188355.8610" D T R 1884 58.04 6" DT R 2 1885 55.03 16" D T R 188661.808" DT R 2 188 7 59.98 27" D T R 2 1888 55.44 10" E T R 426856.78 12" D T R 2 4269 57.2 2 12" D T R 4270 57.85 5" DT R254356.298" DT R 254 4 57.0 6 8" DT R 2545 57.60 3" DT R 254657.90 12" DT R 2547 58.83 10" D T R 2548 58.4 9 8" DT RIVIV SDSSSSDSDGVEB 2304 57.86 9" DT R 2305 57.86 8" DT RSS 5+006+007+008+009+0010+0010+861411411451501501501521511521451421441501471451451441451451461471481491491511521501491441378137713791380138113911390138713881389138613851383138413821172137657225723572457265712571157104269426818681861185518541853185618571858186725482547254621302544254918881887186918701871186218631864186618651880187918861884188518831882187818811877187618731872187418752304230511761175FANNO CREEKWETLANDBOUNDARYVEGETATED CORRIDOR BOUNDARY50' WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARYVEGETATED CORRIDOR2S102AC002042S102AC00203UNIVERSAL PLAZA9100 SW BURNHAM ST2S102AC00202REFER TO SHEETS LU0.1-LU8.2 FORDEVELOPMENT IMPACT AREA INFORMATIONFANNO CREEK TRAILCONNECTION PATHX5' H METAL TREE PROTECTION FENCE, TYP.(E) TREE TO BE REMOVEDTREE PRESERVATIONAND REMOVAL SITE PLAN15 September 20211" = 50'LU3.01"=50'0150'100'50'LAND USE PERMIT15 JUNE 2021UniversalPlaza9100 SW Burnham St.Tigard, OR9722319345PLOT 3101 W EXPOSITION PLACELOS ANGELES, CA 90018PH: 323.785.1800FAX: 323.785.1801rios.comRios, INC©Fluidity - Water Feature Design & Engineering724 S Spring St., Ste. 1401Los Angeles, CA 90014213.739.9291KPFF - Civil EngineeringKPFF - Structural Engineering111 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2600Portland, OR 97204503.542.3860Interface - Electrical EngineeringInterface - Lighting DesignInterface - Mechanical EngineeringInterface - Plumbing Engineering100 SW Main St., Ste. 1600Portland, OR 97204503.382.2266Sweeney & Associates - Irrigation Design38730 Sky Canyon Dr., Ste. CMurrieta, CA 92563951.461.6830I ATTEST THAT THE TREE PRESERVATIONAND REMOVAL SITE PLAN MEETS ALL OFTHE REQUIREMENTS IN UFM SECTION 10,PART 1.Arborist Report for Tigard Universal PlazaGary Pagenstecher, City of TigardSeptember 23, 2021Page 14 of 22Add tree protectionfencing in the locationsshown in redAdd tree protectionfencing in the locationsshown in redConstruct retainingwall to prevent gradingwithin 6 feet of tree5722 and within 3 feetof 57236 ft3 ftProject arborist tooversee constructionof trail within driplinesof trees to be retainedAttachment 2 WWWWWWWWWWWEEEECCCCW STUB-01W HB-01 (90°)W32 LF - 2"W W TEE-01WW78 LF - 2"WW TEE-02WWWW147 LF -2"WW STUB-0217 LF - 1-1/2"W W WM-01W RPBA-01137 6 53.0812" DTR 137751.0312" DTR 3137851.5610" DTR 137950.2212" DTR 138050.868" DTR138150.526" DTR 138251.008" DTR 3138350.418" DTR138450.558" DTRS DDDSEBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIVIVIVS5629152. 00 EL5631151.70 EL571056.846" DTR571156.80 6" DT R 5712 57.5 1 6" DT R 572254.6 4 8" DT R 5723 53.2 6 8" DTR 572454.536" DT R 5 572657.5216" DTREMCGM1702 151. 51 FF WMWM5+006+007+00145150150150152151152145150147145144145572857295730573157325733573457355736573757225723572657125711571013781377137913801381138413821383573857395740574157425743574457455746MATURE TREE CANOPY DRIPLINE, TYP.5' H METAL TREE PROTECTION FENCE, TYP.UNIVERSAL PLAZA9100 SW BURNHAM ST2S102AC00202REFER TO SHEETS LU0.1-LU8.2FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT AREAINFORMATION574757485749575057511376580358045805580758085809PLANTED STAND 1PLANTED STAND 2TREESCODEBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZEQTYABI CONABIES CONCOLORWHITE FIR3" CAL.5ABI GRAABIES GRANDISGRAND FIR3" CAL.2ALN RUBALNUS RUBRARED ALDER3" CAL.29GLE TRIGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`SHADEMASTER HONEY LOCUST3" CAL.11MAG GALMAGNOLIA X `GALAXY`GALAXY MAGNOLIA3" CAL.6PIN CONPINUS CONTORTASHORE PINE3" CAL.2PLANT SCHEDULEPOP BALPOPULUS BALSAMIFERABALSAM POPLAR3" CAL.23STE PSESTEWARTIA PSEUDOCAMELLIAJAPANESE STEWARTIA3" CAL.4TREESCODEBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZEQTYTREE CANOPYSITE PLAN22 September 20211" = 20'LU3.11"=20'060'40'20'LAND USE PERMIT15 JUNE 2021UniversalPlaza9100 SW Burnham St.Tigard, OR9722319345PLOT 3101 W EXPOSITION PLACELOS ANGELES, CA 90018PH: 323.785.1800FAX: 323.785.1801rios.comRios, INC©Fluidity - Water Feature Design & Engineering724 S Spring St., Ste. 1401Los Angeles, CA 90014213.739.9291KPFF - Civil EngineeringKPFF - Structural Engineering111 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2600Portland, OR 97204503.542.3860Interface - Electrical EngineeringInterface - Lighting DesignInterface - Mechanical EngineeringInterface - Plumbing Engineering100 SW Main St., Ste. 1600Portland, OR 97204503.382.2266Sweeney & Associates - Irrigation Design38730 Sky Canyon Dr., Ste. CMurrieta, CA 92563951.461.6830SHRUBS12,479 SFCAMASSIA QUAMASH / SMALL CAMAS624 SFBULB5%CAREX OBNUPTA / SLOUGH SEDGE9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocDESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASS9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocIRIS DOUGLASIANA / DOUGLAS IRIS9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocIRIS SIBIRICA / SIBERIAN IRIS9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocJUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocMAHONIA REPENS / CREEPING MAHONIA6495 GAL20% @ 24" ocSPIRAEA DOUGLASII / WESTERN SPIREA6495 GAL20% @ 24" ocTURF GRASS17,870 SFCROCUS TOMMASINIANUS / TOMMASINIANUS CROCUS1,787 SFBULB10%LOLIUM PERENNE / PERENNIAL RYEGRASS8,042 SFSEED MIX45%POA PRATENSIS / KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS8,042 SFSEED MIX45%PLANT MIX SCHEDULEI ATTEST THAT THE TREE CANOPY SITEPLAN MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTSIN UFM SECTION 10, PART 2.Arborist Report for Tigard Universal PlazaGary Pagenstecher, City of TigardSeptember 23, 2021Page 15 of 22Attachment 3 Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Attachment 4 Tree Protection Recommendations The following recommendations will help to ensure that the trees to be retained are adequately protected: Before Construction Begins 1. Notify all contractors of the tree protection procedures. For successful tree protection on a construction site, all contractors must know and understand the goals of tree protection. a. Hold a tree protection meeting with all contractors to explain goals of tree protection. b. Have all contractors sign memoranda of understanding regarding the goals of tree protection. The memoranda should include a penalty for violating the tree protection plan. The penalty should equal the appraised value of the tree(s) within the violated tree protection zone per the current Trunk Formula Method as outlined in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal plus any resulting fines by government agencies. c. The penalty should be paid to the owner of the property. 2. Fencing a. Establish fencing around each tree or group of trees to be retained. b. The fencing should be put in place before the ground is cleared to protect the trees and the soil around the trees from disturbances. c. Fencing should be established by the project arborist based on the needs of the trees to be protected and to facilitate construction. d. Fencing should consist of 5-foot high steel fencing on concrete blocks or 5-foot metal fencing secured to the ground with 7 to 8-foot metal posts to prevent it from being moved by contractors, sagging, or falling down. e. Fencing should remain in the position that is established by the pro ject arborist and not be moved without approval from the project arborist until final project approval. 3. Signage a. All tree protection fencing should provide the following signage so that all contractors understand the purpose of the fencing: TREE PROTECTION ZONE DO NOT REMOVE OR ADJUST THE APPROVED LOCATION OF THIS TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Please contact the project arborist if alterations to the approved location of the tree protection fencing are necessary. Todd Prager, Project Arborist - 971-295-4835 b. Signage should be placed on every other fence panel. Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 16 of 22 Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com During Construction 1. Protection Guidelines Within the Tree Protection Zones a. No traffic should be allowed within the tree protection zones. This includes but is not limited to vehicle, heavy equipment, or even repeated foot traffic. b. No storage of materials including but not limiting to soil, construction material, or waste from the site should be permitted within the tree protection zones. Waste includes but is not limited to concrete wash out, gasoline, diesel, paint, cleaner, thinners, etc. c. Construction trailers should not to be parked/placed within the tree protection zones. d. No vehicles should be allowed to park within the tree protection zones. e. No activity should be allowed that will cause soil compaction within the tree protection zones. 2. The trees should be protected from any cutting, skinning or breaking of branches, trunks or woody roots. 3. The project arborist should be notified prior to the cutting of woody roots from trees that are to be retained to evaluate and oversee the proper cutting of roots with sharp cutting tools. Cut roots should be immediately covered with soil or mulch to prevent them from drying out. 4. No grade changes should be allowed within the tree protection zones. 5. Trees that have woody roots cut should be provided supplemental water during the summer months. 6. Any necessary passage of utilities through the tree protection zones should be by means of tunneling under woody roots by hand digging or boring with oversight by the project arborist. 7. Any deviation from the recommendations in this section should receive prior approval from the project arborist. After Construction 1. Carefully landscape the areas within the tree protection zones. Do not allow trenching for irrigation or other utilities within the tree protection zones. 2. Carefully plant new plants within the tree protection zones. Avoid cutting the woody roots of trees that are retained. 3. Do not install permanent irrigation within the tree protection zones unless it is drip irrigation to support a specific planting or the irrigation is approved by the project arborist. 4. Provide adequate drainage within the tree protection zones and do not alter soil hydrology significantly from existing conditions for the trees to be retained. 5. Pruning of retained trees may be necessary prior to construction or prior to final placement of trees, shrubs, ground covers, mulch, or turf. 6. Provide for the ongoing inspection and treatment of insect and disease populations that are capable of damaging the retained trees and plants. 7. The retained trees may need to be fertilized if recommended by the project arborist. 8. Any deviation from the recommendations in this section should receive prior approval from the project arborist. Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 17 of 22 Planted Tree Inventory Tree No. Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name Caliper or Height Mature Canopy Spread (ft) Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) Available Soil Volume (cu. ft. of soil)Comments 5728 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5729 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5730 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5731 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5732 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5733 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5734 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5735 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5736 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5737 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5738 Galaxy magnolia MAGNOLIA X `GALAXY`3"15 177 1000+ 5739 Galaxy magnolia MAGNOLIA X `GALAXY`3"15 177 1000+ 5740 Galaxy magnolia MAGNOLIA X `GALAXY`3"15 177 1000+ 5741 Japanese stewartia STEWARTIA PSEUDOCAMELLIA 3"25 491 1000+ 5742 white fir ABIES CONCOLOR 3"25 491 1000+ 5743 grand fir ABIES GRANDIS 3"40 1257 1000+ 5744 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5745 white fir ABIES CONCOLOR 3"25 491 1000+ 5746 white fir ABIES CONCOLOR 3"25 491 1000+ 5747 shore pine PINUS CONTORTA 3"35 962 1000+ 5748 grand fir ABIES GRANDIS 3"40 1257 1000+ 5749 white fir ABIES CONCOLOR 3"25 491 1000+ 5750 white fir ABIES CONCOLOR 3"25 491 1000+ 5751 shore pine PINUS CONTORTA 3"35 962 1000+ 5803 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 18 of 22 Attachment 5 Planted Tree Inventory Tree No. Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name Caliper or Height Mature Canopy Spread (ft) Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) Available Soil Volume (cu. ft. of soil)Comments 5804 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5805 Shademaster honeylocust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER`3"35 962 1000+ 5807 Japanese stewartia STEWARTIA PSEUDOCAMELLIA 3"25 491 1000+ 5808 Japanese stewartia STEWARTIA PSEUDOCAMELLIA 3"25 491 1000+ 5809 Japanese stewartia STEWARTIA PSEUDOCAMELLIA 3"25 491 1000+ Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 19 of 22 Attachment 5 Planted Stand Inventory Stand No. Dominant Tree Species Tree Species Common of 2nd Tree Species Common of 3rd Number Number Number Hgt. or Container Size Hgt. or Container Size Hgt. or Container Size Avg Spacing Avg Spacing Avg Spacing Total Canopy Area (sq ft)Comments Alnus rubra /red alder 23 3"10' o.c. Populus trichocarpa /black cottonwood 18 3"10' o.c. Alnus rubra /red alder 7 3"10' o.c. Populus trichocarpa /black cottonwood 5 3"10' o.c.2 4,305 1 10,032 Teragan Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 20 of 22 Attachment 6 Effective Canopy Summary Lot No. Area (sq. ft.) 2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Preserved Trees (w/ condition and preservation rating > 2) 2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Preserved Stands (w/ condition and preservation rating > 2) 1.25 x Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Native Planted Trees Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Non-Native Planted Trees 1.25x Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Planted Stands Tree Canopy Area (sq. ft.) per Project Area Effective % Canopy (Canopy Area / Project Area) overall site 52,272 1,030 0 3,143 20,340 17,921 42,434 81% The minimum requirements for effective tree canopy cover are outlined below: 1. Subdivisions and land partitions: a. 40 percent for the overall development site in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zones, and 15 percent for each lot designated for single detached house development. b. 33 percent for the overall development site in the R-12, R-25, and R-40 zones. 2. Apartments: 33 percent for the overall development site. 3. Nonresidential development: 33 percent for the overall development site, except nonresidential development in the MU-CBD, MUC-1, I-L, and I-H zones and schools (as defined in TCDC Section 18.60.050.J) are only required to provide 25 percent for the overall development site. 4. Mobile home parks: 33 percent for the overall development site. 5. Wireless communication facilities: zero percent for the overall development site. Teragan Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 21 of 22 Attachment 7 Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com Attachment 8 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. The site plans and other information provided by RIOS and other members of the project team was the basis of the information provided in this report. 2. It is assumed that this property is not in violation of any codes, statutes, ordinances, or other governmental regulations. 3. The consultant is not responsible for information gathered from others involved in various activities pertaining to this project. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. 4. Loss or alteration of any part of this delivered report invalidates the entire report. 5. Drawings and information contained in this report may not be to scale and are intended to be used as display points of reference only. 6. The consultant's role is only to make recommendations. Inaction on the part of those receiving the report is not the responsibility of the consultant. 7. The purpose of this report is to: • Assess the existing trees at the site; • Review the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan prepared by RIOS, as required by Chapter 18.420 and Urban Forestry Manual Sections 10.1 and 10.2; and • Prepare a Supplemental Arborist Report for the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan as required by Chapter 18.420 of the Tigard Development Code and Urban Forestry Manual Section 10.3. Arborist Report for Tigard Universal Plaza Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard September 23, 2021 Page 22 of 22 5+006+007+00~~~SMH 7 RIM=151.74'IE(NW)8" CONC=144.78'IE(NE)6" CONC=144.98'IE(SE)8" CONC=144.83'GAS FINK~~~~~~~MISSING CATCH BASIN~~~~~~~ELECTRIC VAULTELECTRIC VAULTELECTRICTRANSFORMER~~COMM. DUCTWHEEL STOPS18' HEDGECOMM. VAULTCOMM. VAULT150144~5+006+007+00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WHEEL STOPSEBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIVIVIVEMCMWGM18' HEDGE(THIS AREA SHOT FOR ELEVATIONS ONLY)COMM. VAULTCOMM. VAULTWM1751151.69WMWM1752151.37WM1779144.20WET C111780145.03WET C101781145.01WET C91782145.37WET C81783144.71WET C71784144.87WET C61785145.93WET C21786145.73WET C31787145.10WET C41788144.98WET B191789144.92WET B181790144.77WET B171791144.77WET B161792144.92WET B151793145.13WET B141794145.05WET B131859152.29CP BERNSDDDSSSMH 7 RIM=151.74'IE(NW)8" CONC=144.78'IE(NE)6" CONC=144.98'IE(SE)8" CONC=144.83'GAS FINKELECTRIC VAULTELECTRIC VAULTELECTRICTRANSFORMERSMH RIM=144.52'LID UNDER WATER,COULD NOT OPENCOMM. VAULTCOMM. VAULTSMH RIM=147.59'IE (NW) 24" CONC=138.49'IE (SE) 24" CONC=138.39'145150150151 1501 5 2 152145147145149148146148149151151 151 149150148SW BURNHAM STREETFANNO CREEKEXISTING 15.00' WIDESANITARY SEWEREASEMENTEXISTING 30.00' WIDESANITARY SEWEREASEMENT3112FLOODPLAINELEVATIONFLOODPLAINELEVATIONWETLAND BOUNDARYSTEVEN'S MARINE BUILDING306.90'154.39'305.30'189.82'VEGETATED CORRIDOR44SCALE201 INCH = 20 FEET20400File: N:\c\p\2019\1900470-COT-Universal-Plaza\CAD\PLOT\LAND-USE\0470-LU1.0-EXST.dwg TAB:LU1.0Plotted: 9/27/21 at 2:49pm By: ABrooks LU1.0LAND USE PERMIT8 JUNE 2021UniversalPlaza9100 SW Burnham St.Tigard, OR97223193453101 W EXPOSITION PLACELOS ANGELES, CA 90018PH: 323.785.1800FAX: 323.785.1801rios.comRios, INC©Fluidity - Water Feature Design & Engineering724 S Spring St., Ste. 1401Los Angeles, CA 90014213.739.9291KPFF - Civil EngineeringKPFF - Structural Engineering111 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2600Portland, OR 97204503.542.3860Interface - Electrical EngineeringInterface - Lighting DesignInterface - Mechanical EngineeringInterface - Plumbing Engineering100 SW Main St., Ste. 1600Portland, OR 97204503.382.2266Sweeney & Associates - Irrigation Design38730 Sky Canyon Dr., Ste. CMurrieta, CA 92563951.461.6830DATEAS NOTEDA PORTION OF LOT 3 "BURNHAM TRACT"LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OFSECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF TIGARD,WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON- SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE- STORM DRAIN MANHOLESD- CLEAN OUTIV- IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVEGV- GAS VALVEGM- GAS METER- MAIL BOX- CATCH BASIN- LUMINAIRE- COMM JUNCTION BOX- WATER VALVE- WATER METERWMLEGEND- ELECTRIC METEREM- UTILITY POLE- FIRE HYDRANTHYD - GUY ANCHOREB- ELECTRIC JUNCTION BOXC- COMM RISERCBTPMW- SURVEY CONTROL POINT- FOUND SURVEY MONUMENTTOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYNOTES1. THIS SURVEY MAKES NO GUARANTEES THAT THEUNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE ALL THE UTILITIES INTHE AREA. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE BASEDON LOCATE PAINT MARKINGS IN THE FIELD AND AS-BUILTMAPPING. UTILITIES SHOWN MAY NOT BE IN THE EXACTLOCATION AS NOTED ON THIS SURVEY, BUT ARE LOCATED ASACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM PAINT MARKINGS ON THEGROUND. THE PAINT MARKINGS ON THE GROUND WEREPROVIDED BY ONE CALL UTILITY LOCATES [811].THE LOCATES IN RED BEING SHOWN ARE FROM AS-BUILT MAPSPROVIDED BY THE UTILITY PROVIDERS THE UTILITY LOCATECOMPANIES AND GIS INFORMATION.2. STORM DRAIN AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHOWN AREAPPROXIMATE AND BASED ON VISIBLE ABOVE GROUNDEVIDENCE AND AS-BUILT MAPS.3. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM AND BASIS OF BEARINGS IS NAD83 (2011) EPOCH 2010.00 OREGON NORTH 3601,INTERNATIONAL FEET. GPS OBSERVATIONS USING THE OREGONREAL TIME NETWORK (ORGN) WERE HELD AT CONTROL POINTNUMBER 10 AND 11. TERRESTRIAL GROUND MEASUREMENTSWERE TAKEN BETWEEN ALL OF THE INTERVISIBLE CONTROLPOINTS.4. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD 29(CITY OF TIGARD DATUM).AN ELEVATION OF 169.45' WAS HELD AT CITY OF TIGARD BENCHNUMBER 78. A BRASS DISC AT THE NW SIDE OF PACIFICHIGHWAY AT THE SW END OF THE CONCRETE ENTRANCE TO ST.ANTHONY SCHOOL.XKEY NOTESNOTEDESCRIPTION1EXISTING BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED.2CURRENT CONDITION INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF VARIOUS SITEFURNISHINGS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS AS A PART OF ACTIVATIONPHASE. THESE AMENITIES ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THIS "EXISTINGCONDITIONS" PLAN. FIELD CONDITIONS MAY VARY.3WHEEL STOPS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.4EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN.STSSC W GOH- UNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN LINE- UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER LINE- UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION LINE- UNDERGROUND WATER LINE- UNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS LINE- OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE- FENCE LINE TV- UNDERGROUND CABLE TV LINE- CONCRETEE- UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE- LINE CONTINUES TO UNKNOWN LOCATION- DECIDUOUS TREE (DTR)- EVERGREEN TREE (ETR)EXAMPLE12" DTR 5DIAMETERTYPENO. OF TREESFROM ONE BASE~ DMHCBFI- STORM DRAIN MANHOLE- CATCH BASIN- FIELD INLET SMH- SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE- ASPHALTT- UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE SIG- UNDERGROUND TRAFFIC SIGNAL LINETOTAL SITE AREA = 52,484 SF = 1.20 ACIMPERVIOUS AREA = 47,402 SF = 1.09 ACEXISTINGCONDITIONS PLAN RESTROOMBUILDING5+006+007+00~~~GAS FINK~~~~~~~STEVENSON, MICHAEL J. & KAY L.9040 SW BURNHAM ST2S102AC00100~~~~~~~TIGARD, CITY OF8955 SW COMMERCIAL ST2S102AC00204CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY9110 SW BURNHAM ST2S102AC00202CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY8955 SW COMMERCIAL ST2S102AC00203150144~5+006+007+00~~~~~STEVENS, PAGE9180 SW BURNHAM ST2S102AC00200~~~~~~~EBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIVIVIVEMCMWGM(THIS AREA SHOT FOR ELEVATIONS ONLY)CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY13125 SW HALL BLVD.2S102AC00202WM1751151.69WMWM1752151.37WM1859152.29CP BERNSDDDSSGAS FINK1451501501 5 1 1501 5 2 152145147145149148146148149151151 151 149150148SW BURNHAM STREETFANNO CREEK15 0 146 147 148149151152152152 1501 5 0 146 147 148 14910.33' 10.33'FLOODPLAINELEVATIONFLOODPLAINELEVATIONTAX LOT 202OF LOT 3 "BURNHAM TRACT" LOCATED IN THENORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 2,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF TIGARD,WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGONSTEVEN'S MARINE BUILDINGWETLAND BOUNDARY15.00'SANITARY SEWEREASEMENT30.00'SANITARY SEWEREASEMENTBOOK, 890 PAGE, 753OUTLINE FORFUTURE CANOPYOUTLINE FORFUTURE CANOPY12145319.00' VARIES 25.00' 25.00'19.10'VARIESVEGETATEDCORRIDORBOUNDARYVEGETATED CORRIDORBOUNDARYPROPOSED 15.00'STORM EASEMENTASSUMED 30.00'SANITARYSEWEREASEMENT50.00'WETLAND BOUNDARY9.50'R22.00 '1.SEE SHEETS LU5.0.LU6.0 , AND LU6.1 FOR ONSITE PROPOSED UTILITIES, SANITARY SEWERFACILITIES, AND STORM DRAINAGE FACILITY DETAILS.2.PROPOSED CONTOUR LINES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE. SEE LU4.0 FOR ADDITIONAL GRADINGINFORMATION.XKEY NOTES#DESCRIPTION1FUTURE ALLEY2WATER FEATURE3STORMWATER DETENTION POND. SEE SHEET LU6.0 AND LU6.1 FOR MORE INFORMATION.4REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY IN ENCLOSURE, ABOVE GRADE5EXISTING MAILBOX TO REMAINSHEET NOTESFile: N:\c\p\2019\1900470-COT-Universal-Plaza\CAD\PLOT\LAND-USE\0470-LU2.0-SITE.dwg TAB:LU2.0Plotted: 9/27/21 at 2:50pm By: ABrooks LU2.0LAND USE PERMIT8 JUNE 2021UniversalPlaza9100 SW Burnham St.Tigard, OR97223193453101 W EXPOSITION PLACELOS ANGELES, CA 90018PH: 323.785.1800FAX: 323.785.1801rios.comRios, INC©Fluidity - Water Feature Design & Engineering724 S Spring St., Ste. 1401Los Angeles, CA 90014213.739.9291KPFF - Civil EngineeringKPFF - Structural Engineering111 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2600Portland, OR 97204503.542.3860Interface - Electrical EngineeringInterface - Lighting DesignInterface - Mechanical EngineeringInterface - Plumbing Engineering100 SW Main St., Ste. 1600Portland, OR 97204503.382.2266Sweeney & Associates - Irrigation Design38730 Sky Canyon Dr., Ste. CMurrieta, CA 92563951.461.6830DATEAS NOTEDSCALE201 INCH = 20 FEET20400SITE DEVELOPMENTPLAN RESTROOMBUILDINGEBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIVIVIVEMCMWGMWM1751151.69WMWM1752151.37WM1859152.29CP BERNSDDDSSSW BURNHAM STREETFANNO CREEKFLOODPLAINELEVATIONFLOODPLAINELEVATION(145)(150)(144)(146) (147) (148)(149)(145)(150)(146) (147)(148)(149)(151) (152) (150) (148) (149) (151) ( 1 5 1 )(151)(145)(146)(147)145 144 146 147 147 148 145 144 146 147 148 149 1501491511521461471481491501511501501511520.9%1.8% 2.7% 2 . 9%0.6%1.5%1.5%8.5 %3:13:13:1???APPROXIMATEGRADINGEXTENTS1.5%1.3%1.0%1.5%150.00 FF150.01 FF150.01 FF150.02 FFFF=150.02VEGETATED CORRIDORBOUNDARYWETLAND BOUNDARY(152.0±)(151.9±)(151.9±)(151.8±)(150.6±)(151.5±)(151.7±)(151.2±)(150.3±)(149.1±)(146.4±)(146.2±)(145.8±)(146.5±)(146.2±)(145.8±)(146.5±)(144.7±)(152.4±)147.99 FG147.47 FG147.48 FGPROTECT EXISTING TREESTO REMAIN. DO NOT GRADEAROUND TRUNKS.3:1 APPROXIMATEGRADINGEXTENTSAPPROXIMATEGRADINGEXTENTS1471480.8%4.6%0.8%2.0%2.0%CONTOUR MAJOR (FG)CONTOUR MINOR (FG)EX. CONTOUR MAJOREX. CONTOUR MINORGRADING SLOPE AND DIRECTION (DOWNHILL)X.X%SPOT ELEVATIONDESCRIPTION LISTED BELOW.NO DESCRIPTION MEANS TP OR TGBOSBOTTOM OF SWALEBOWBACK OF WALKBSBOTTOM OF STEPBWBOTTOM OF WALLEGEXISTING GRADEFFFINISHED FLOORFLFLOW LINEGGUTTERHPHIGH POINTLPLOW POINTRIMRIM OF STRUCTURETCTOP OF CURBTGTOP OF GROUNDTPTOP OF PAVEMENTTSTOP OF STEPTWTOP WALLXX.XX XXGRADE BREAK1.SLOPES PROVIDED ON SLOPE ARROW ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY.2.LANDINGS ON ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% IN ANYDIRECTION.3.ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL COMPLY WITH CURRENT ADAACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR BUILDING AND FACILITIES (ADAAG).CALLOUT DESCRIPTIONSHEET NOTESSHEET LEGENDGRADING LABEL LEGEND(XXX.X±)EXISTING GRADE(MATCH WHERE APPLICABLE)3:1INLET PROTECTIONDRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTIONSEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE. PLACE AT PROPERTY LINES,UNO (SHOWN OFFSET FOR CLARITY).INSTALL MATTING IN CHANNELAPPROXIMATE GRADING EXTENTSFile: N:\c\p\2019\1900470-COT-Universal-Plaza\CAD\PLOT\LAND-USE\0470-LU4.0-GRAD.dwg TAB:LU4.0Plotted: 9/27/21 at 2:50pm By: ABrooks LU4.0LAND USE PERMIT8 JUNE 2021UniversalPlaza9100 SW Burnham St.Tigard, OR97223193453101 W EXPOSITION PLACELOS ANGELES, CA 90018PH: 323.785.1800FAX: 323.785.1801rios.comRios, INC©Fluidity - Water Feature Design & Engineering724 S Spring St., Ste. 1401Los Angeles, CA 90014213.739.9291KPFF - Civil EngineeringKPFF - Structural Engineering111 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2600Portland, OR 97204503.542.3860Interface - Electrical EngineeringInterface - Lighting DesignInterface - Mechanical EngineeringInterface - Plumbing Engineering100 SW Main St., Ste. 1600Portland, OR 97204503.382.2266Sweeney & Associates - Irrigation Design38730 Sky Canyon Dr., Ste. CMurrieta, CA 92563951.461.6830DATEAS NOTEDSCALE201 INCH = 20 FEET20400GRADING ANDEROSION CONTROLPLAN RESTROOMBUILDING~~~~~~~~~~~SW BURNHAM STREET~~~~~~~SW BURNHAM STREETEBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIVIVIVEMCGM(THIS AREA SHOT FOR ELEVATIONS ONLY)WM1751151.69WMWM1752151.37WM1779144.20WET C111780145.03WET C101781145.01WET C91782145.37WET C81783144.71WET C71784144.87WET C61785145.93WET C21786145.73WET C31787145.10WET C41788144.98WET B191789144.92WET B181790144.77WET B171791144.77WET B161792144.92WET B151793145.13WET B141794145.05WET B131859152.29CP BERNSDDDSSSW BURNHAM STREETFANNO CREEKWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWEEEECCCCEXISTING 15.00' WIDESANITARY SEWEREASEMENTEXISTING 30.00' WIDESANITARY SEWEREASEMENTFLOODPLAINELEVATIONFLOODPLAINELEVATION4"S 4"S4"S4"S INSTALL NEW MANHOLETO TIE INTO EXISTINGSANITARY SEWER MAINS MH-1014"S MH-1021S CO-1014"S STUB-101S2"W 2"W2"W1-1/2"W2"W STUB-01WW HB-01 (90°)TEE INTO EXISTINGDOMESTIC WATER MAIN1-1/2"W STUB-021W WM-01W RPBA-01ECSITE WATERFEATURE. SEELANDSCAPE PLANSCONNECT TO EXISTINGELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERCONNECT TO EXISTINGTELECOMMUNICATIONS PULL BOX0+00 1+002+002222222VEGETATEDCORRIDORVEGETATEDCORRIDORBOUNDARYWETLAND BOUNDARYNOTEDESCRIPTION1CONNECT TO WATER FEATURE WATER TANK ANDMECHANICAL VAULT (BELOW GRADE)2CONNECT TO HOSE BIBCCONNECT TO BUILDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS.SEE ELECTRICAL PLANSECONNECT TO BUILDING ELECTRIAL. SEEELECTRICAL PLANSSCONNECT TO BUILDING WASTE LINE. SEE PLUMBINGPLANS.WCONNECT TO BUILDING DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM.SEE PLUMBING PLANSRPBAREDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLYWMWATER METERSTRUCTURE TYPEPIPE LABELXXLF - XX" XXUTILITY SIZEUTILITY LENGTHUTILITY TYPES=X.XX%XX XX-XXN=XXXX.XXE=XXXX.XXRIM=IE IN = XX.XIE OUT = XX.XSTRUCTURE TYPE CALLOUTUTILITY TYPE (SD=STORM DRAINAGE, S=SANITARY SEWER,W=WATER, FP=FIRE PROTECTION)ID NUMBER (WHERE APPLICABLE)STRUCTURE INFO (WHERE APPLICABLE)LOCATION (WHERE APPLICABLE)STRUCTURE LABEL1.ON-SITE PIPE BEDDING AND BACKFILL FOR ALL UTILITIES SHALL BEDONE PER CITY OF TIGARD REQUIREMENTS.2.ALL UTILITY LINES WITH LESS THAN 2' OF COVER TO BE DUCTILE IRONSLOPE (WHERE APPLICABLE)CALLOUTDESCRIPTIONCOCLEANOUT TO GRADEDCVADOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLYFCMHFLOW CONTROL MANHOLEFHFIRE HYDRANTGVGATE VALVEHBHORIZONTAL BENDMHMANHOLEOVFLOVERFLOW INLETRPBAREDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLYSTUBSTUBTEETEE CONNECTIONWMWATER METERXUTILITY KEY NOTESSHEET NOTESUTILITY LABEL LEGENDCALLOUTDESCRIPTIONFDCFIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONFHFIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLYTEETEERPBAREDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLYVALVEISOLATION VALVEMHMANHOLECOCLEANOUTANACID NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMMETERWATER METERWATER LINEWFIRE HYDRANT LINEFHFIRE PROTECTION LINEFPFHFPEEELECTRIC LINESANITARY SEWER LINESWTCCTELECOMMUNICATIONS LINENGNGASNATURAL GAS LINESDSTORM DRAIN LINEUTILITY LINETYPE AND SYMBOLS LEGENDSCALE: HORIZ: 1" = ' VERT: 1" = 'SS-A PROFILE140145150155160140145150155160-0+100+000+501+001+502+002+4024 LF - 4"SS=1.00%39 LF - 4"SS=1.00%155 LF - 4"SS=1.00%IE 4" IN=145.45 (SW) CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER RIM=151.38 2+17.29 MH-103SS-A IE 4" IN=147.20 (SW) IE 4" IN=147.20 (SE) IE 4" OUT=147.00 (NE) RIM=150.31 0+62.52 MH-101SS-A IE 4" IN=147.58 (SE) IE 4" OUT=147.58 (NE) 0+23.95 CO-101SS-A IE 4" OUT=147.82 (NW) 0+00.00 STUB-101SS-A File: N:\c\p\2019\1900470-COT-Universal-Plaza\CAD\PLOT\LAND-USE\0470-LU5.0-UTIL.dwg TAB:LU5.0Plotted: 9/27/21 at 2:51pm By: ABrooks LU5.0LAND USE PERMIT8 JUNE 2021UniversalPlaza9100 SW Burnham St.Tigard, OR97223193453101 W EXPOSITION PLACELOS ANGELES, CA 90018PH: 323.785.1800FAX: 323.785.1801rios.comRios, INC©Fluidity - Water Feature Design & Engineering724 S Spring St., Ste. 1401Los Angeles, CA 90014213.739.9291KPFF - Civil EngineeringKPFF - Structural Engineering111 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2600Portland, OR 97204503.542.3860Interface - Electrical EngineeringInterface - Lighting DesignInterface - Mechanical EngineeringInterface - Plumbing Engineering100 SW Main St., Ste. 1600Portland, OR 97204503.382.2266Sweeney & Associates - Irrigation Design38730 Sky Canyon Dr., Ste. CMurrieta, CA 92563951.461.6830DATEAS NOTEDSCALE201 INCH = 20 FEET20400UTILITIES PLAN EEEECCCCRESTROOMBUILDING~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SW BURNHAM STREET~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SW BURNHAM STREETEBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIVIVIVEMCGM(THIS AREA SHOT FOR ELEVATIONS ONLY)WM1751151.69WMWM1752151.37WM1779144.20WET C111780145.03WET C101781145.01WET C91782145.37WET C81783144.71WET C71784144.87WET C61785145.93WET C21786145.73WET C31787145.10WET C41788144.98WET B191789144.92WET B181790144.77WET B171791144.77WET B161792144.92WET B151793145.13WET B141794145.05WET B131859152.29CP BERNSDDDSSSW BURNHAM STREETFANNO CREEKWWWWWWWFLOODPLAINELEVATIONFLOODPLAINELEVATIONSD DI-01SD FCMH-0112"SD DETENTION PONDAPPROX TOP AREA= 3,100 SFAPPROX VOLUME = 7,700 CFBOTTOM OF POND EL = 144.0OVERFLOW EL = 146.91TOP OF FREEBOARD = 147.97PONDING DEPTH = 2.91'TOTAL DEPTH = 3.97'EXISTING 30.00' WIDESANITARY SEWEREASEMENTEXISTING 15.00'WIDE SANITARYSEWEREASEMENT76.45'38.07'VEGETATED CORRIDORBOUNDARYVEGETATED CORRIDORBOUNDARYWETLAND BOUNDARYPROPOSED15.00' STORMEASEMENTSD OF-016"SD SD AD-01STRUCTURE TYPEPIPE LABELXXLF - XX" XXUTILITY SIZEUTILITY LENGTHUTILITY TYPES=X.XX%XX XX-XXN=XXXX.XXE=XXXX.XXRIM=IE IN = XX.XIE OUT = XX.XSTRUCTURE TYPE CALLOUTUTILITY TYPE (SD=STORM DRAINAGE, S=SANITARY SEWER,W=WATER, FP=FIRE PROTECTION)ID NUMBER (WHERE APPLICABLE)STRUCTURE INFO (WHERE APPLICABLE)LOCATION (WHERE APPLICABLE)STRUCTURE LABEL1.ON-SITE PIPE BEDDING AND BACKFILL FOR ALL UTILITIES SHALL BEDONE PER CITY OF TIGARD REQUIREMENTS.2.ALL UTILITY LINES WITH LESS THAN 2' OF COVER TO BE DUCTILE IRONSLOPE (WHERE APPLICABLE)CALLOUTDESCRIPTIONFCMHFLOW CONTROL MANHOLEMHMANHOLEOVFLOVERFLOW INLETSHEET NOTESUTILITY LABEL LEGENDWATER LINEWFIRE HYDRANT LINEFHFIRE PROTECTION LINEFPFHFPEEELECTRIC LINESANITARY SEWER LINESWTCCTELECOMMUNICATIONS LINENGNGASNATURAL GAS LINESDSTORM DRAIN LINEUTILITY LINETYPE AND SYMBOLS LEGENDDRAINAGE FLOW ARROWFile: N:\c\p\2019\1900470-COT-Universal-Plaza\CAD\PLOT\LAND-USE\0470-LU6.0-STRM.dwg TAB:LU6.0Plotted: 9/27/21 at 2:54pm By: ABrooks LU6.0LAND USE PERMIT8 JUNE 2021UniversalPlaza9100 SW Burnham St.Tigard, OR97223193453101 W EXPOSITION PLACELOS ANGELES, CA 90018PH: 323.785.1800FAX: 323.785.1801rios.comRios, INC©Fluidity - Water Feature Design & Engineering724 S Spring St., Ste. 1401Los Angeles, CA 90014213.739.9291KPFF - Civil EngineeringKPFF - Structural Engineering111 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2600Portland, OR 97204503.542.3860Interface - Electrical EngineeringInterface - Lighting DesignInterface - Mechanical EngineeringInterface - Plumbing Engineering100 SW Main St., Ste. 1600Portland, OR 97204503.382.2266Sweeney & Associates - Irrigation Design38730 Sky Canyon Dr., Ste. CMurrieta, CA 92563951.461.6830DATEAS NOTEDSEE NEXT SHEETFOR CONTINUATIONSCALE201 INCH = 20 FEET20400STORM DRAINAGEPLAN4OVERFLOW MANHOLEFLOW CONTROL MANHOLE DESIGN CRITERIAFCMH-1[A]INVERT ELEVATION (IN)[B]INVERT ELEVATION (OUT)142.69[C]OVERFLOW ELEVATION[D]RIM ELEVATION[E]SUMP ELEVATIONLOW-FLOW ORIFICE SIZE = 0.5-INCHES STRUCTURE TYPEPIPE LABELXXLF - XX" XXUTILITY SIZEUTILITY LENGTHUTILITY TYPES=X.XX%XX XX-XXN=XXXX.XXE=XXXX.XXRIM=IE IN = XX.XIE OUT = XX.XSTRUCTURE TYPE CALLOUTUTILITY TYPE (SD=STORM DRAINAGE, S=SANITARY SEWER,W=WATER, FP=FIRE PROTECTION)ID NUMBER (WHERE APPLICABLE)STRUCTURE INFO (WHERE APPLICABLE)LOCATION (WHERE APPLICABLE)STRUCTURE LABEL1.ON-SITE PIPE BEDDING AND BACKFILL FOR ALL UTILITIES SHALL BEDONE PER CITY OF TIGARD REQUIREMENTS.2.ALL UTILITY LINES WITH LESS THAN 2' OF COVER TO BE DUCTILE IRONSLOPE (WHERE APPLICABLE)CALLOUTDESCRIPTIONFCMHFLOW CONTROL MANHOLEMHMANHOLEOVFLOVERFLOW INLETSHEET NOTESUTILITY LABEL LEGENDWATER LINEWFIRE HYDRANT LINEFHFIRE PROTECTION LINEFPFHFPEEELECTRIC LINESANITARY SEWER LINESWTCCTELECOMMUNICATIONS LINENGNGASNATURAL GAS LINESDSTORM DRAIN LINEUTILITY LINETYPE AND SYMBOLS LEGENDDRAINAGE FLOW ARROWRESTROOMBUILDING~ ~ ~ ~ 18 5 3 54 . 3 8 8" D T R 3 185 4 56. 0 8 8" D T R 3 18 5 5 57. 8 016" E T R 18 6 1 54 . 1 8 14 " D T R 18 6 8 54. 4 0 8" D T R 18 6 9 55. 2 0 30" E T R 18 8 7 59. 9 827" D T R 2 18 8 8 55 . 4 4 10 " E T R 426 8 56 . 7 8 12 " D T R 2 426 9 57. 2 2 12" D T R 42 7 0 57. 8 5 5" D T R 42 7 3 59. 5 7SH R U B 42 7 4 59 . 6 8 SH R U B 42 7 5 59 . 5 1 SH R U B 25 4 8 58. 4 9 8" D T R 23 0 4 57 . 8 6 9" D T R 23 0 5 57. 8 68" D T R 23 0 6 60. 5 4SH R U B 23 0 7 60. 3 5 SH R U B 23 0 8 60. 4 4 SH R U B 23 0 9 60 . 3 2 SH R U B 23 1 0 60. 4 0 SH R U B 23 1 1 60 . 5 0 SH R U B 23 1 2 60. 5 1 SH R U B 23 1 3 60. 0 8SH R U B 23 1 4 60. 4 0 SH R U B (THIS AREA SHOT FOR ELEVATIONS ONLY)30148 . 9 8 CP M A G S P K 1779144.20WET C11 1780145.03WET C101781145.01WET C91782145.37WET C81783144.71WET C71784144.87WET C6 1785145.93WET C21786145.73WET C31787145.10WET C4 17 8 8 14 4 . 9 8 W E T B 1 9 17 8 9 14 4 . 9 2 W E T B 1 8 17 9 0 14 4 . 7 7 W E T B 1 7 17 9 1 14 4 . 7 7 WE T B 1 6 17 9 2 14 4 . 9 2 WE T B 1 5 17 9 3 14 5 . 1 3 W E T B 1 4 17 9 4 14 5 . 0 5 W E T B 1 3 SMOKING SHELTER ASPHALT BERM G V 213 5 15 1 . 8 7 GV 21 3 6 15 1 . 9 3 W V 213 7 15 2 . 0 2WV 21 4 2 152 . 5 6 SG N 21 4 3 15 2 . 6 7 S G N 214 4 15 2 . 4 8 BO L 21 4 5 152 . 4 6BOL214 6 15 2 . 5 0 SG N 21 4 7 152 . 2 6 SG N 21 4 8 152 . 2 7 SG N EB2149152.62EJB21 5 0 152 . 5 1 LU M ~SSS21 2 3 152 . 5 8 SM H E D21 2 4 152 . 5 2 DM H 2 2 S21 2 5 15 2 . 0 3 SM H D 21 2 6 152 . 4 6 CB C I 2 1 21 2 8 15 1 . 5 4 CB 2 3 ~~S 262 0 15 2 . 0 6 SM H D 2 S 26 2 1 15 2 . 5 9 SM H E 2 WFLOODPLAINELEVATIONFLOODPLAINELEVATION SD OSMH-01 (60-IN)CONNECT TO EXISTING30" STORM MAINDETENTION PONDAPPROX TOP AREA= 3,100 SFAPPROX VOLUME = 7,700 CFBOTTOM OF POND EL = 144.0OVERFLOW EL = 146.91TOP OF FREEBOARD = 147.97PONDING DEPTH = 2.91'TOTAL DEPTH = 3.97'SD DI-01SD FCMH-0112"SD12"SD0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+00EXISTING 30.00' WIDESANITARY SEWEREASEMENT ASSUMED 30.00' WIDE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT PROPOSED 15.00'STORM EASEMENTEXISTING 15.00'WIDE SANITARYSEWER EASEMENTSD OF-016"SDSD AD-01WETLAND BOUNDARYVEGETATED CORRIDOR BOUNDARYSCALE: HORIZ: 1" = ' VERT: 1" = 'STORM-1 PROFILE130135140145150155160130135140145150155160-0+200+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+504+70IE 12" IN=142.69 (NW)IE 12" OUT=142.69 (SE)RIM=148.080+68.68 FCMH-01STORM-1 IE 12" IN=141.57 (NW) CONNECT TO EXISTING 30" STORM MAIN 4+40.63 RIM=151.99 STORM-1372 LF - 12"SDS=0.30%EXISTINGGRADEPROPOSEDGRADEIE 12" OUT=143.03 (SE)RIM=144.300+00.00 DI-01STORM-169 LF - 12"SDS=0.50%EXST SS4+29.95IE=139.57PROVIDE PIPE SLEEVEWHERE COVER <36"PROVIDE CDF BETWEENPIPES WHERESEPARATION < 12"±5.5"File: N:\c\p\2019\1900470-COT-Universal-Plaza\CAD\PLOT\LAND-USE\0470-LU6.0-STRM.dwg TAB:LU6.1Plotted: 9/27/21 at 5:50pm By: ABrooks LU6.1LAND USE PERMIT8 JUNE 2021UniversalPlaza9100 SW Burnham St.Tigard, OR97223193453101 W EXPOSITION PLACELOS ANGELES, CA 90018PH: 323.785.1800FAX: 323.785.1801rios.comRios, INC©Fluidity - Water Feature Design & Engineering724 S Spring St., Ste. 1401Los Angeles, CA 90014213.739.9291KPFF - Civil EngineeringKPFF - Structural Engineering111 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2600Portland, OR 97204503.542.3860Interface - Electrical EngineeringInterface - Lighting DesignInterface - Mechanical EngineeringInterface - Plumbing Engineering100 SW Main St., Ste. 1600Portland, OR 97204503.382.2266Sweeney & Associates - Irrigation Design38730 Sky Canyon Dr., Ste. CMurrieta, CA 92563951.461.6830DATEAS NOTEDSCALE201 INCH = 20 FEET20400STORM DRAINAGEPLAN Universal Plaza Preliminary Stormwater Report for Land Use Prepared for: City of Tigard Project Engineer: Alexi Brooks, PE Project Manager Daan Dommels, PE September 2021 | KPFF Project #1900470 KPFF’S COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY As a member of the US Green Building Council, KPFF is committed to the practice of sustainable design and the use of sustainable materials in our work. When hardcopy reports are provided by KPFF, they are prepared using recycled and recyclable materials, reflecting KPFF’s commitment to using sustainable practices and methods in all of our products. 1 Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Table of Contents Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Proposed Development ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Applicable Standards .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Stormwater Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Stormwater Modeling Software ......................................................................................................................... 4 Hydromodification ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Detention Pond Location ................................................................................................................................... 5 Final Discharge ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Conveyance ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Tables and Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Table 1: Existing vs. Proposed Surface Properties ………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 Table 2: Hydromodification Flow Matching ………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Table 3: Treatment Area………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 Table 4: Treatment Volume and Flow ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Table 5: Design Storms ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Table 6: Detention Pond Design Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………5 Appendices Appendix A Code Compliance Documentation Appendix B Geotechnical Information Appendix C Basin Maps Appendix D Proposed Condition 2 Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Purpose The purpose of this report is to describe the stormwater management strategy and its adherence to design guidelines for the land use package. Please note that this is a preliminary design and facility sizing is subject to change as design develops. A formal stormwater report detailing the stormwater management system will be prepared for City Engineering review as part of the building permit process. See appendices for additional details. Proposed Development The project consists of the redevelopment of a City-owned lot located at 9110 SW Burnham Street, which was previously occupied by a commercial building and parking lot. The lot borders Fanno Creek wetland to the southwest. The existing building has been removed and temporary park programming is currently active on the site. The finished condition will house a public park and open-air event space with public restrooms and future connection to walking paths along the newly realigned Fanno Creek. See vicinity map below: Figure 1: Vicinity Map The total site area is 1.20 acres and was previously fully developed with 90 percent impervious groundcover, including asphalt parking, and building roof. The western half of the site currently sheet flows over asphalt parking directly to the wetland. The proposed plaza development will significantly reduce impervious area on the site to about 33 percent impervious groundcover, including asphalt plaza and future canopy building roof. See a brief summary of the current and future conditions of the site in Table 1, below. 3 Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Table 1: Existing vs. Proposed Surface Properties Existing Proposed AC CN* AC CN* Total Site Area 1.20 75 1.20 86 Impervious Area 1.09 0.39 98 Pervious Area 0.12 0.81 78 % Impervious 90.3% 32.5% *Curve Numbers based on Web Soil Survey and CWS Design and Construction Standards Reduction in Impervious Area = 30,352 Applicable Standards The Universal Plaza project adheres to the Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards and City of Tigard Stormwater requirements. The stormwater management approach proposed for the plaza development will follow requirements of section 4.01 of the CWS Standards for water quality, hydromodification, and Low Impact Development Approaches. According to the CWS standards, the project does not trigger treatment. See section below on water quality for further explanation. The project site falls within hydromodification approach category 2. The risk level, as found on CWS’s Hydromod Planning Tool map, is moderate for the receiving reach. It falls within developed area and is considered a medium -sized project as it falls within 12,000 and 80,000 square feet of modified impervious surface. Therefore, per section 4.03.5.b. of the CWS Design Standards, the project must demonstrate peak flow matching detention per Table 2 below. The proposed stormwater conveyance system will be sized to convey the 25- year storm per section 5.04 requirements. Table 2: Hydromodification Flow Matching Post-Development Peak Runoff Rate (cfs) Pre-Development Peak Runoff Rate Target (cfs) 2-year, 24-hour 0.31 50% of 2-year, 24-hour 0.01 5-year, 24-hour 0.47 5-year, 24-hour 0.18 10-year, 24-hour 0.55 10-year, 24-hour 0.22 Stormwater Quality Because the development results in a permanent removal of 1,000 square feet or greater of impervious surface, the treatment approach shall be sized for three times the replaced impervious surface, in addition to the new impervious surface, as shown in the formula below from section 4.08.1.d of the CWS Design Standards. Because all impervious area in the proposed condition was previously impervious, the water quality area is zero, as the equation results in a negative number. Therefore, no stormwater treatment is proposed. 4 Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Table 3: Treatment Area New Impervious Surface Modified imperv. Permanently removed imperv. Area (square feet) 0 17,050 30,352 Table 4: Treatment Volume and Flow Water Quality Area 0 ft2 Water Quality Volume 0 ft3 Water Quality Flow 0 cfs Stormwater Modeling Software The proposed stormwater management facilities (detention, pipes, and flow control) are designed using the Autodesk Storm and Sewer Analysis 2018 (SSA) software. This software models flows for a 24-hour design storm using the Technical Release 55 (TR-55) method. Design storms from the CWS Chapter 4 design and construction standards (shown in Table 5 below) are applied to the unit hydrograph, resulting in peak flows for both the pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Stormwater facilities and conveyance piping are also modeled and calculated to meet CWS requirements. See Appendix E for results and inputs used in the stormwater model. Table 5: Design Storms Recurrence Interval Total 24-Hour Precipitation Depth (water equiv. inches) 2-year 2.5 5-year 3.1 10-year 3.45 25-year 3.9 Hydromodification Detention to meet the Hydromodification requirements for a category 2 project will be achieved in a detention pond. The facility has been sized to accommodate runoff from the proposed redevelopment. The natural topography of the site slopes to the southwest. The vegetated detention pond is located at the southwest edge of the site to capture runoff from the impervious asphalt pavement and restroom roof. Runoff is directed to the detention pond prior to discharging through a ditch inlet. A flow control manhole with orifice flow control tee is located just downstream of the detention pond ditch inlet. The orifice size and elevation in relation to the detention facility are sized in SSA to restrict post -developed flows the predeveloped flows listed in Table 2, above. A geotechnical report by GeoEngineers, dated 08/17/20, reported very low infiltration rates at the site. Therefore, infiltration is not proposed. See Appendix B for relevant excerpts from the Geotech report and 5 Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT information used to determine the NRCS curve number which was used in the SSA stormwater model. The full Geotechnical Report will be included in the final stormwater report for building permit. Site soils can be categorized as Type-D, meaning they have low infiltration potential. A predeveloped curve number of 75 was used per requirements of the CWS Design Standards, paragraph 4.08.6.d. Post developed curve numbers of 98 for paved areas and 78 for grass areas were used. Pre-developed time of concentration calculations is shown in Appendix C, on the existing basin map. Though the site was previously developed, the time of concentration shown estimates the topographic and ground cover conditions prior to any manmade site changes. The pre -developed, calculated time of concentration is 41.90 minutes. A minimum time of concentration for the post-developed condition is assumed to be 5-minutes. The detention pond size was calculated using the information described above and the design criteria outlined in section 4.09.2 of the CWS Design Standards for detention ponds. The freeboard exceeds the minimum required, over one-foot from the 25-year design storm water surface elevation. See Appendix E for the SSA results from the 25-year design storm routed through the detention pond and flow control manhole. See table below for facility design summary and results. Table 6: Detention Pond Design Summary FACILITY CONTRIBUTING AREA TOTAL Volume FACILITY BOTTOM EL FACILITY OVFL. EL STORM EVENT TARGET PEAK FLOW PEAK INFLOW PEAK RELEASE PEAK WATER EL TOTAL WATER DEPTH (ac) (ft3) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cf) (ft) DET-1 1.20 7,864 144.00 146.91 2-YR 0.01 0.37 0.01 146.91 2.91 5-YR 0.18 0.54 0.09 146.95 2.95 10-YR 0.22 0.63 0.11 146.96 2.96 25-YR 0.77 0.15 146.97 2.97 Detention Pond Location As mentioned, the southwest portion of the site borders a wetland and is located within part of the vegetated corridor and wetland 50-foot buffer. It is also within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. Due to the topography of the site, the stormwater runoff is to be collected and detained in the southwest portion of the site as this is where the site naturally drains. Because the southwest portion of the site is within the wetland buffer and vegetated corridor, special consideration was given to reduce the overall impact of the stormwater management facility on these sensitive areas. These considerations informed the elevation and shape of the detention pond that is shown as well as the amount of pervious paving used onsite. Final Discharge There is an existing 18-inch public storm main running south to north in SW Burnham Street approximately 5-feet below road grade. Due to stormwater infrastructure elevations and grading constraints, connecting 6 Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT stormwater from the detention pond into the public stormwater main in SW Burnham Street is infeasible. In order to minimize disturbance to the wetland and due to inadequate pipe cover, piped outfall directly to Fanno Creek is also infeasible. Therefore, the project proposes to connect a new 12-inch storm line through the neighboring property to the south in a new easement. It will connect to an existing 30-inch public storm line that is just upstream of an existing outfall into Fanno Creek at the termination of Ash Street. Conveyance Pipe capacity will be calculated using Manning’s Equation. The Manning’s n value of 0.013 for PVC pipe shall be used in capacity calculations. Pipes will be designed to convey the 25-year design storm. Full calculations will be provided with the final design and permit application. Conclusion The proposed stormwater management facilities are designed to safely manage the proposed redeveloped area that drains to them. The proposed stormwater strategy is outlined in this narrative to meet the Clean Water Services and City of Tigard requirements. The stormwater design will continue to abide by these standards to effectively manage stormwater. A formal storm report will be provided as part of the building permit review. 10101900470- pm Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Appendix A Code Compliance Documentation Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. 4.03.3 Hydromodification Assessment Methodology A Hydromodification Assessment is necessary to determine the Reach- Specific Risk Level, Development Class, and Project Size Category for a project. These three parameters are used to determine the Hydromodification Approach requirements for a project. A Hydromodification Map is published on the District’s website to assist with the assessment, and below is the methodology for determining each parameter: Chapter 4 RUNOFF TREATMENT AND CONTROL 3. Identify the Receiving Reach, which is the section of stream that begins at the Point of Discharge and extends along the centerline of the stream for ¼ mile downstream from the Point of Discharge. 4. Determine the Risk Level A) Locate the Receiving Reach on the Hydromodification Map and use the Map Key to determine the mapped Risk Level. If the Receiving Reach includes more than one Risk Level, select the highest level. B) If the applicant, City, or District identifies additional Receiving Reach conditions that may result in a different Risk Level than is identified on the Hydromodification Map, conduct a site-specific evaluation of each Receiving Reach in accordance with the Risk Level Evaluation described in Section 4.03.4. 5. Use the result of Section 4.03.3.(a)(4) above to identify the Risk Level, which will be one of the following categories: A) High B) Moderate C) Low 2. Use the result of Section 4.03.3.(b)(1) to identify the Development Class, which will be one of the following categories: A) Developed Area B) Expansion Area 4.03.5 Hydromodification Approach Selection Using the results of the Hydromodification Assessment described in Section 4.03.3, determine the corresponding project category from Table 4-2 below. TABLE 4-2 HYDROMODIFICATION APPROACH PROJECT CATEGORY TABLE Development Class/ Risk Level Small Project 1,000 – 12,000 SF Medium Project >12,000 – 80,000 SF Large Project > 80,000 SF Expansion/High Category 1 Category 3 Category 3 Expansion/ Moderate Expansion/ Low Category 2 Developed/ High Category 3 Developed/ Moderate Category 2 Category 2 Developed/ Low see previous page b. Category 2 Projects in Category 2 represent those with a moderate anticipated risk. Any of the following options may be used to address hydromodification: 1. Infiltration facility, using the Standard Sizing, described in Section 4.08.5; or 2. Peak-Flow Matching Detention, using design criteria described in Section 4.08.6; or 3. Combination of Infiltration facility and Peak-Flow Matching Detention, using criteria described in Section 4.08.5 and 4.08.6; or 4. Any option listed in Category 3. 4.08 Stormwater Management Approach Sizing When modification results in the permanent removal of 1,000 square feet or greater of impervious surface, the treatment approach shall be sized for three times the replaced impervious surface, in addition to the new impervious surface. In this case, the area requiring treatment is shown in the formula below: Area = New Imp. + 3(Modified Imp. - Permanently Removed Imp.) Impervious areas shall be determined based upon building permits, construction plans, or other appropriate methods of measurement deemed reliable by District and/or City. Quantity required for conveyance capacity or hydromodification: All new and modified impervious area created by the development. area required to be treated area required to meet hydromodification see table 3 of narrative 4.08.2 Storm Events Used in Design a. Design Storms to be used in Water Quality Evaluation Stormwater quality approaches shall be designed for a dry weather storm event totaling 0.36 inches of precipitation falling in 4 hours with an average storm return period of 96 hours. b. Design storms to be used in Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis TABLE 4-4 Recurrence Interval Total 24-Hour Precipitation Depth (water equivalent inches) 2-year 2.5 5-year 3.10 10-year 3.45 25-year 3.90 4.08.5 Standard Sizing a. Water Quality Volumes and Flows (applies to approaches in Section 4.04.3.c.1 (A)-(C)) 1. Water Quality Storm The water quality storm is the storm required by regulations to be treated. The storm defines both the volume and rate of runoff. The water quality storm is defined in Subsection 4.08.2. 2. Water Quality Volume (WQV) The WQV is the volume of water that is produced by the water quality storm. The WQV equals 0.36 inches over the impervious area that is required to be treated as shown in the formula below: Water Quality Volume (cu.ft.) = 0.36 (in.) x Area (sq.ft.) 12 (in./ft.) 3. Water Quality Flow (WQF) The WQF is the average design flow anticipated from the water quality storm as shown in the formulas below: Water Quality Flow (cfs) = Water Quality Volume (cu.ft.) 14,400 seconds or Water Quality Flow (cfs) = 0.36 (in.) x Area (sq.ft.) 12(in/ft)(4 hr)( 60 min/hr)(60 sec/min) see table 4 of narrative see table 4 of narrative c. When required as a hydromodification approach, a combination of on-site detention and infiltration approaches may be used. Approaches shall be designed such that the post-development runoff rates from the site do not exceed the pre-development runoff rates in the table below. If the resulting orifice size is less than the minimum diameter listed in under the Design Standards in Section 4.09, then the post-development flow may be permitted to exceed the target to comply with the minimum orifice size requirement. TABLE 4-7 Post-Development Peak Runoff Rate Pre-Development Peak Runoff Rate Target 2-year, 24-hour 50% of 2-year, 24-hour 5-year, 24-hour 5-year, 24 hour 10-year, 24-hour 10-year, 24-hour 4.08.6 Peak-Flow Matching Hydraulic Design Criteria b. When quantity management is required due to a downstream conveyance capacity deficiency, a combination of on-site detention and infiltration approaches may be used. Approaches shall be designed such that the post- development runoff rates from the site do not exceed the pre-development runoff rates in the table below. If the resulting orifice size is less than the minimum diameter listed in under the Design Standards in Section 4.09, then the post-development flow may be permitted to exceed the target to comply with the minimum orifice size requirement. desired outflow rates. 8. Minimum orifice size: ½-inch diameter, unless a local jurisdiction has an alternate, but the minimum may be no greater than 1-inch. 9. Maximum ponding depth: 5 feet. 4.09.2.c d. If a proposed project includes modified impervious surface (Redevelopment), a curve number (CN) of 75 shall be used as the pre- developed condition for all modified impervious surfaces. The CN for new impervious surfaces shall be based on actual Pre-Development site conditions. see table 2 of narrative for project specific values 4.09.2 Detention Pond a. Applications 1. Quantity control for conveyance capacity 2. Hydromodification 3. LIDA b. Sizing Criteria 1. Peak-Flow Matching, per Section 4.08.6, is applicable in the following scenarios: A) Detention is required as a result of conveyance capacity requirements outlined in Section 4.02 B) Peak-Flow Matching Detention is required as a result of Hydromodification Requirements identified in Table 4-2. 2. Flow Duration Curve Matching, per Section 4.08.7, is required when identified as the applicable Hydromodification Requirement in Table 4-2. c. Design Criteria 1. The facility can be a combined water quality and quantity facility provided it meets all relevant criteria. 2. Interior side slopes up to the Maximum Water Surface: 3H:1V or flatter. 3. If interior slopes need to be mowed side slope: 4H:1V or flatter. 4. Exterior Side Slopes: 2H:1V or flatter, unless analyzed for stability by a geotechnical engineer. 5. Minimum Freeboard: 1-foot from 25-year design water surface elevation. 6. Provide an approved outlet structure for all flows. 7. Certain situations require use of multiple orifice plates to achieve desired outflow rates. 8. Minimum orifice size: ½-inch diameter, unless a local jurisdiction has an alternate, but the minimum may be no greater than 1-inch. 9. Maximum ponding depth: 5 feet. 10. A pond overflow system shall provide for discharge of the design storm event without overtopping the pond embankment or exceeding the capacity of the emergency spillway. 11. Provide an emergency spillway sized to pass the 100-year storm event or an approved hydraulic equivalent. Emergency spillway shall be located in existing soils when feasible and armored with riprap or other approved erosion protection extending to the toe of the embankment. 12. Construction of on-site detention shall not be allowed as an option if such a detention facility would have an adverse effect upon receiving waters in the basin or subbasin in the event of flooding, or would increase the likelihood or severity of flooding problems downstream of the site. 13. Landscaping plan A) Plant species selection per Appendix A, LIDA Handbook, or approved alternate; must include 3 or more evergreen species and be suitable for site conditions. B) Pond bottom, side slopes, and freeboard must be fully vegetated for erosion protection, with establishment of 90% aerial coverage. d. Maximum Pond Depth Variance The City or District may approve a maximum pond depth greater than 5 feet, if the design complies with all other standards and design criteria and the following: 1. The ponding depth is not greater than 9 feet. 2. The design does not result in an embankment regulated under dam safety rules. The City or District may require an inundation analysis pursuant to OAR 690-020. 3. The facility is accessible and maintainable with the standard equipment used by the jurisdiction responsible for maintenance. 4. If water quality treatment is co-located with the detention pond, all water quality design criteria must be met. 5. Perimeter walls that are higher than 30 inches (not including footings) shall not surround more than 50% of the facility. 6. The design complies with the local jurisdiction’s development codes and design standards. Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Appendix B Geotechnical Information Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. August 17, 2020 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Attention: Sean Farrelly Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services Universal Plaza 9110 SW Burnham Street Tigard, Oregon GeoDesign Project: Tigard-37-01 Table 2. Infiltration Testing Summary Location Depth (feet BGS) Observed Infiltration Rate1 (inches per hour) Soil Type at Test Depth Fines Content (percent) B-1 4 1.2 Sandy SILT, trace gravel and organics 70 B-4 4 0 Clay with sand, trace organics 82 1. In situ infiltration rate observed in the field. The results of our infiltration testing presented above indicate that the on-site soil has little to no infiltration capacity. In addition, groundwater was observed at depths between 11 and 15 feet BGS in our explorations. The infiltration rates shown in Table 2 are short-term field rates and factors of safety have not been applied. Correction factors should be applied to the measured infiltration rates by the civil engineer to account for soil variations and the potential for long-term clogging due to siltation and buildup of organic matter, depending on the proposed length, location, and type of infiltration facility. We recommend a minimum factor of safety of at least 2 be applied to the field infiltration values presented above. 3.3 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Infiltration testing was performed in two borings (B-1 and B-4). The infiltration tests were completed at a depth of 4 feet BGS. The infiltration testing procedures are described in the Appendix, and the results of the infiltration and laboratory testing are described in the “Infiltration Systems” section. 1 Alexi Brooks From:Shawn Dimke <Shawn.Dimke@nv5.com> Sent:Friday, March 26, 2021 7:10 AM To:Alexi Brooks Cc:Daan Dommels; Tyler Pierce Subject:RE: City of Tigard Universal Plaza Hi Alexi, Yes, we did encounter some shallow fill but it generally appears to be reworked native soil so the NRCS classification provided below is consistent with our explorations. Sincerely, Shawn Shawn Dimke, P.E., G.E. | Principal | NV5 703 Broadway Street, Suite 650 | Vancouver, WA 98660 | Office: 360.693.8416 | Direct: 503.726.3121 | Cell: 503.880.5245 | Field Scheduling: 503.704.0341 *GeoDesign is now NV5, please note my new email address. Electronic Communications Disclaimer From: Alexi Brooks <alexi.brooks@kpff.com> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 12:43 PM To: Shawn Dimke <Shawn.Dimke@nv5.com> Cc: Daan Dommels <Daan.Dommels@kpff.com> Subject: City of Tigard Universal Plaza Hi Shawn, Hope you are doing well. I saw that you did the Geotechnical Report for the City of Tigard Universal Plaza project. I’m hoping you can help confirm the hydrological soil group. The project is required to detail post-development peak flows to match pre-development flows for half of the 2-year, 5- year, and 10-year storm events. Our detention analysis requires the NRCS soil classification be determined to evaluate the existing soil condition for input into the hydrology model. WebSoil Survey, a data source operated by the USDA NRCS, gave us a Hydrologic Soil Group D: 2 For a summary of the different hydrologic soil groups you can reference the attached document (and snip below). Based on your geotechnical investigation, would you agree with the hydrologic soil group classification provided by WebSoil Survey? Thanks for your help! Alexi Brooks PE Civil Engineer | KPFF Portland Civil + Survey O 503.542.3860 D 503.542.3818 111 SW 5th Ave, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97204 United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Washington County, OregonNatural Resources Conservation Service February 9, 2021 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 503051050305305030550503057050305905030610503063050306505030670503051050305305030550503057050305905030610503063050306505030670517830 517850 517870 517890 517910 517930 517950 517830 517850 517870 517890 517910 517930 517950 45° 25' 45'' N 122° 46' 19'' W45° 25' 45'' N122° 46' 13'' W45° 25' 40'' N 122° 46' 19'' W45° 25' 40'' N 122° 46' 13'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 40 80 160 240 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:843 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Landform:Flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Hydric soil rating: Yes Wapato Percent of map unit:4 percent Landform:Flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Other vegetative classification:Poorly Drained (G002XY006OR) Hydric soil rating: Yes 2027A—Verboort silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2mj15 Elevation: 150 to 300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 165 to 210 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Verboort and similar soils:94 percent Minor components:5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Verboort Setting Landform:Flood plains on terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Concave Parent material:Loamy alluvium over silty and clayey glaciolacustrine deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 8 inches: silty clay loam A - 8 to 12 inches: silty clay loam E - 12 to 19 inches: silty clay loam 2Btg - 19 to 28 inches: clay 2BCtg - 28 to 33 inches: silty clay 2Cg - 33 to 60 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:16 to 26 inches to abrupt textural change Drainage class:Poorly drained Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 8 inches Frequency of flooding:FrequentNone Frequency of ponding:Frequent Available water capacity:Low (about 4.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Forage suitability group: Poorly Drained (G002XY006OR) Other vegetative classification: Poorly Drained (G002XY006OR) Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Waldo Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Concave Other vegetative classification:Poorly Drained (G002XY006OR) Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Appendix C Basin Maps Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. ~~~~~~4+005+006+007+008+00~~SMH 7 RIM=151.74'IE(NW)8" CONC=144.78'IE(NE)6" CONC=144.98'IE(SE)8" CONC=144.83'SMH 2 RIM=152.63'IE(W)8"=142.39'IE(N)6" PVC=147.41'IE(SE)8"=142.56'SMH RIM=147.59'IE (NW) 24" CONC=138.49'IE (SE) 24" CONC=138.39'DMH 1 RIM=152.50'IE(W)24" PVC=145.3'IE(NE)14" PVC=146.62'IE(SE)24" PVC=145.38'IE(N)8" PVC=147.23'DMH 5 RIM=151.26'IE(NW)18" CONC=146.66'IE(SE)18" CONC=146.68'IE(SW)12" DI=147.63'DMH 3 RIM=151.59'IE(NW)24" PVC=145.87'IE(SE)18" CONC=146.14'IE(S)12" DI=147.73'IE(SW)8" DI=147.44'~DCO RIM=151.25'DMH 6 RIM=151.53'IE(NW)18" CONC=146.86'IE(SE)18" CONC=146.87'IE(S)12" DI=147.53'DCO RIM=151.04'CB 8 RIM=151.43'IE(N)12" DI=147.8'IE(SW)8" PVC=147.65'BTM=146.38'(DEBRIS)CB 12 RIM=150.78'IE(N)8" DI=147.73'~CB 11 RIM=150.79'IE(NE)12" DI=147.74'DCO RIM=150.55'CB 4 RIM=151.74'IE(N)12" PVC=147.87'DCO RIM=150.76'DCO RIM=149.57'MONITORING WELLRIM=148.87'HEAT PUMP~~SHEDSTEVENS, PAGE9180 SW BURNHAM ST2S102AC00200~STEVENSON, MICHAEL J. & KAY L.9040 SW BURNHAM ST2S102AC00100~~~~~~ELECTRIC VAULTELECTRIC VAULTELECTRICTRANSFORMER~~CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY13125 SW HALL BLVD.2S102AC00202WHEEL STOPSFANNO CREEKDMH 9 RIM=152.93'IE(NW)18" CONC=147.33'IE(SE)18" PVC=147.41'SMH CRIM=144.52'IE (S) 60" CONC=128.00'IE (NW) 60" CONC=127.90'CB RIM=151.14'TOP H20=150.44'BOTTOM (DEBRIS)=148.64'CB RIM=150.68'TOP H20=150.08'BOTTOM (DEBRIS)=148.98'SW BURNHAM STREET 37.5'37.5'EBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIVIVIVEMC MWGM18' HEDGE1 4 1 141145150150150152 15 1 152 145142144(THIS AREA SHOT FOR ELEVATIONS ONLY)COMM. VAULTCOMM. VAULTCB RIM=147.41'IE OUT=146.81'BOTTOM=144.76'FINISH FLOOR=151.5'(CREEK LOCATED TO TOP OF BANK ANDADJACENT SLOPE ONLY)150 147 145 145144 4" BLOCK WALL37.5'37.5'145 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY13125 SW HALL BLVD.2S102AC00202CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY13125 SW HALL BLVD.2S102AC0020215' WIDESANITARY SEWEREASEMENT30'30' WIDESANITARY SEWEREASEMENTBOOK, 890PAGE, 753WMWMB9B10SP3SP4B11B12B13B14B15B16B17B18B19C4C3C2C6C7C8C9C10C11145 146SDSDDDSDSBUILD ING HASBEEN REMOVEDIE 24" HDPE=141.94'~SHEET 1 OF 2TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY503.968.6655 www.cesnw.comTigard, Oregon 9722313190 SW 68th Parkway, Suite 150CESNW PROJ: 3586DATE: 04-27-2021NOTES1. THIS SURVEY MAKES NO GUARANTEES THAT THE UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES SHOWN ARE ALL THE UTILITIES IN THE AREA. THEUNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON LOCATE PAINTMARKINGS IN THE FIELD AND AS-BUILT MAPPING. UTILITIES SHOWNMAY NOT BE IN THE EXACT LOCATION AS NOTED ON THIS SURVEY, BUTARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM PAINT MARKINGS ONTHE GROUND. THE PAINT MARKINGS ON THE GROUND WERE PROVIDEDBY ONE CALL UTILITY LOCATES [811].THE LOCATES IN RED BEING SHOWN ARE FROM AS-BUILT MAPSPROVIDED BY THE UTILITY PROVIDERS THE UTILITY LOCATE COMPANIESAND GIS INFORMATION.2. STORM DRAIN AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHOWN AREAPPROXIMATE AND BASED ON VISIBLE ABOVE GROUND EVIDENCE ANDAS-BUILT MAPS.3. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM AND BASIS OF BEARINGS IS NAD 83 (2011)EPOCH 2010.00 OREGON NORTH 3601, INTERNATIONAL FEET. GPSOBSERVATIONS USING THE OREGON REAL TIME NETWORK (ORGN)WERE HELD AT CONTROL POINT NUMBER 10 AND 11. TERRESTRIALGROUND MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN BETWEEN ALL OF THEINTERVISIBLE CONTROL POINTS.4. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD 29(CITY OF TIGARD DATUM).AN ELEVATION OF 169.45' WAS HELD AT CITY OF TIGARD BENCHNUMBER 78. A BRASS DISC AT THE NW SIDE OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY ATTHE SW END OF THE CONCRETE ENTRANCE TO ST. ANTHONY SCHOOL.PRELIMINARY1 INCH = 30 FEET0153030PROFESSIONALLAND SURVEYORREGISTEREDOREGONRENEWS: 6/30/21MAY 21, 2013PAUL ALLEN KOHN58964PLSA PORTION OF LOT 3 "BURNHAM TRACT"LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 2,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN,CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON- SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE- STORM DRAIN MANHOLESDSTSSC W GOH- UNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN LINE- UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER LINE- UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION LINE- UNDERGROUND WATER LINE- UNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS LINE- OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE- FENCE LINE- CLEAN OUTIV- IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVEGV- GAS VALVEGM- GAS METER TV- UNDERGROUND CABLE TV LINE- CONCRETE- MAIL BOXE- UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE- LINE CONTINUES TO UNKNOWN LOCATION- DECIDUOUS TREE (DTR)- EVERGREEN TREE (ETR)EXAMPLE12" DTR 5DIAMETERTYPENO. OF TREESFROM ONE BASE- CATCH BASIN- LUMINAIRE- COMM JUNCTION BOX- SIGNAL JUNCTION BOX- WATER VALVE- WATER METERWMLEGEND- SIGN- ELECTRIC METEREM- UTILITY POLE- FIRE HYDRANTHYD- GUY ANCHOREB- ELECTRIC JUNCTION BOXC- COMM RISER~ DMHCBFI- STORM DRAIN MANHOLE- CATCH BASIN- FIELD INLET SMH- SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE- ASPHALTCB- WETLAND FLAGT- UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE SIG- UNDERGROUND TRAFFIC SIGNAL LINE- TEST PITTP- MONITORING WELLMW- SURVEY CONTROL POINT- FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT221.6 f t33.0 ft52.6 ft19.4 ft22.8 ft3 8 . 1 f t 4 0 . 7 f t 14.9 f t 157.8 ft22.0 ft17.5 ft20.7 ft37.6 ft32.6 ft 19.2 ft8.3 ft TOTAL SITE AREA = 52,484 SF = 1.20 acIMPERVIOUS AREA = 47,402 SF = 1.09 acPERVIOUS AREA (SHOWN IN GREEN) = 5,082 SFPre-Dvelopment ToC:Sheet Flow:Flow Length = 221LFSlope = 2.5%Mannings N = 0.4 (poor grass cover, moderately rough surface)= 41.90 minutes BOARDWALK (PERVIOUS) WETLAND ENCROACHMENT TO VC = 1,600 SF 50' WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY/VEGETATED CORRIDOR 50' WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY/VEGETATED CORRIDOR 1,598 sf TOTAL SITE AREA = 52,484 SF = 1.20 ac IMPERVIOUS AREA (SHOWN IN ORANGE) = 17,020 SF = 0.39 ac PERVIOUS AREA = 35,464 SF = 0.81 ac (INCLUDES 5,460 SF PERVIOUS PAVING SHOWN IN YELLOW) PERVIOUS ASPHALT BASIN MAP Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Appendix D Proposed Condition Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. CONSTRUCTION 1. Detention Pond shall be over-excavated and filled to final grade with 12-inch amended topsoil. Topsoil amendments shall be garden compost, not conventional fertilizer amendments. 2. A biodegradable Erosion Control Matting shall be placed over the topsoil throughout the Detention Pond cross section, fabric shall be held in place in accordance with the manufacturer's installation requirements. Anchor spacing shall be based on 3 fps flow over the fabric. a. Pond bottom - high-density jute matting (Geojute Plus or other approved equal) b. All other areas - low-density jute matting (Econojute or other approved equal) 3. Plant materials shall be placed in accordance with the plan and plant table as shown on approved plans. 4. The facility shall be deemed acceptable to begin the maintenance period when plant growth and density matches the Engineer's design as shown on the approved plans and all other requirements have been met. The Engineer must certify the facility to be functional, in accordance with the approved plan design to begin the two-year maintenance period.. MAINTENANCE 1. The permittee is responsible for the maintenance of this facility for a minimum of two years following construction and acceptance of this facility per Chapter 2. 2. Irrigation is to be provided per separate irrigation plan as approved. Note: Irrigation needs are to be met using a temporary irrigation system with a timer during the dry season. Systems should be winterized during the wet season to assure longevity and guard against damage from freezing temperatures. Water source shall be as shown on the approved plans. 3. Engineer or Owner's Representative is required to perform Monitoring and Maintenance of the Site and provide Documentation as required in Appendix A, 2.5 of the Design and Construction Standards. The Approved Plans shall include a Maintenance Schedule per Appendix A, 2.6.e of the Design and Construction Standards. 4. The Facility shall be re-excavated and planted if siltation greater than 3 inches in depth occurs within the two-year maintenance period. 12"X18" SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED IN A MANNER AS TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE SENSITIVE AREA AND VEGETATED CORRIDOR. THIS WILL INCLUDE ALL POINTS OF ENTRY SUCH AS THE BEGINNING OF PATHS. TRAIL HEADS AND ANY PLACE THAT THE PUBLIC MAY WANT OR BE ABLE TO ENTER AREA. 4"X4" SIGNS SHALL BE USED FOR AREAS WHERE A LARGE NUMBER OF SIGNS ARE NEEDED SUCH AS THE BACK OR SIDE YARDS ON EACH LOT ADJACENT TO THE SENSITIVE AREA OR VEGETATED CORRIDOR IN NEW SUBDIVISIONS OF PARTITIONS. VEGETATED CORRIDOR SIGNAGE NOTE: SIGNS TO BE MOUNTED ON POSTS, AND AT FREQUENCIES & LOCATIONS AS APPROVED BY DISTRICT OR CITY. Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Appendix E Storm and Sanitary Analysis (SSA) Calculations Universal Plaza | KPFF Consulting Engineers LAND USE STORMWATER REPORT Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. PRE-DEVELOPMENT BASIN POST-DEVELOPMENT BASIN DETENTION POND 0.5" LOW-FLOW ORIFICE IN FCMH 10" OPEN-TOPPED OVERFLOW RISER PIPE IN FCMH Project Description 20210419-SSA-CoT-Plaza-work-det-1.SPF Rainfall Details SN Rain Gage Data Data Source Rainfall Rain State County Return Rainfall Rainfall ID Source ID Type Units Period Depth Distribution (years)(inches) 1 Rain Gage-01 Time Series half 2-yr Intensity inches Oregon Washington 2 1.25 SCS Type IA 24-hr File Name ......................................................... This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. Rainfall Details SN Rain Gage Data Data Source Rainfall Rain State County Return Rainfall Rainfall ID Source ID Type Units Period Depth Distribution (years)(inches) 1 Rain Gage-01 Time Series 2-yr Intensity inches Oregon Washington 2 2.50 SCS Type IA 24-hr Rainfall Details SN Rain Gage Data Data Source Rainfall Rain State County Return Rainfall Rainfall ID Source ID Type Units Period Depth Distribution (years)(inches) 1 Rain Gage-01 Time Series 5-yr Intensity inches Oregon Washington 5 3.10 SCS Type IA 24-hr Rainfall Details SN Rain Gage Data Data Source Rainfall Rain State County Return Rainfall Rainfall ID Source ID Type Units Period Depth Distribution (years)(inches) 1 Rain Gage-01 Time Series 10-yr Intensity inches Oregon Washington 10 3.40 SCS Type IA 24-hr Rainfall Details SN Rain Gage Data Data Source Rainfall Rain State County Return Rainfall Rainfall ID Source ID Type Units Period Depth Distribution (years)(inches) 1 Rain Gage-01 Time Series 25-yr Intensity inches Oregon Washington 25 3.90 SCS Type IA 24-hrHALF 2-YEAR2-YEAR5-YEAR10-YEAR25-YEAR Subbasin Summary SN Subbasin Area Weighted Total Total Total Peak Time of ID Curve Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Concentration Number Volume (ac)(in)(in)(ft³)(cfs)(days hh:mm:ss) 1 POST 1.200 86.67 1.25 0.36 1559.45 0.080 0 00:05:00 2 PRE 1.200 75.00 1.25 0.09 378.97 0.009 0 00:41:54 This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. Subbasin Summary SN Subbasin Area Weighted Total Total Total Peak Time of ID Curve Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Concentration Number Volume (ac)(in)(in)(ft³)(cfs)(days hh:mm:ss) 1 POST 1.200 85.50 1.25 0.32 1385.21 0.060 0 00:05:00 2 PRE 1.200 75.00 1.25 0.09 378.97 0.009 0 00:41:54HALF 2-YEAR2-YEAR5-YEAR10-YEAR25-YEARPOST-DEVELOPMENT DETAINED FLOWRATE TARGET FROM 5-YEAR DESIGN STORM POST-DEVELOPMENT DETAINED FLOWRATE TARGET FROM 10-YEAR DESIGN STORM POST-DEVELOPMENT DETAINED FLOWRATE TARGET FROM 2-YEAR DESIGN STORMSubbasin Summary SN Subbasin Area Weighted Total Total Total Peak Time of ID Curve Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Concentration Number Volume (ac)(in)(in)(ft³)(cfs)(days hh:mm:ss) 1 POST 1.200 85.50 2.50 1.21 5275.12 0.340 0 00:05:00 2 PRE 1.200 75.00 2.50 0.65 2831.40 0.090 0 00:41:54 Subbasin Summary SN Subbasin Area Weighted Total Total Total Peak Time of ID Curve Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Concentration Number Volume (ac)(in)(in)(ft³)(cfs)(days hh:mm:ss) 1 POST 1.200 85.50 3.10 1.71 7448.76 0.500 0 00:05:00 2 PRE 1.200 75.00 3.10 1.03 4473.61 0.180 0 00:41:54 Subbasin Summary SN Subbasin Area Weighted Total Total Total Peak Time of ID Curve Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Concentration Number Volume (ac)(in)(in)(ft³)(cfs)(days hh:mm:ss) 1 POST 1.200 85.50 3.40 1.97 8576.96 0.590 0 00:05:00 2 PRE 1.200 75.00 3.40 1.23 5362.24 0.220 0 00:41:54 Subbasin Summary SN Subbasin Area Weighted Total Total Total Peak Time of ID Curve Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Concentration Number Volume (ac)(in)(in)(ft³)(cfs)(days hh:mm:ss) 1 POST 1.200 85.50 3.90 2.41 10506.67 0.740 0 00:05:00 2 PRE 1.200 75.00 3.90 1.59 6934.75 0.310 0 00:41:54 Node Summary SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Time of Total Total Time ID Type Elevation (Max)Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Peak Flooded Flooded Elevation Attained Depth Flooding Volume Attained Occurrence (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft²)(cfs)(ft)(ft)(days hh:mm)(ac-in)(min) 1 Jun-03 Junction 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 144.02 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 2 Out-01 Outfall 0.00 0.01 0.00 3 Out-02 Outfall 142.00 0.01 142.02 4 DET-01 Storage Node 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.08 144.96 0.00 0.00 This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.HALF 2-YEAR2-YEAR5-YEAR10-YEAR25-YEARDETAINED FLOWRATE FROM FCMH DURING 2-YEAR DESIGN STORM DETAINED FLOWRATE FROM FCMH DURING 5-YEAR DESIGN STORM DETAINED FLOWRATE FROM FCMH DURING 10-YEAR DESIGN STORM MAX. WATER LEVEL WITHIN DET-01 DURING STORM EVENT MAX. WATER LEVEL WITHIN DET-01 DURING STORM EVENT MAX. WATER LEVEL WITHIN DET-01 DURING STORM EVENT Node Summary SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Time of Total Total Time ID Type Elevation (Max)Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Peak Flooded Flooded Elevation Attained Depth Flooding Volume Attained Occurrence (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft²)(cfs)(ft)(ft)(days hh:mm)(ac-in)(min) 1 Jun-03 Junction 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 144.02 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 2 Out-01 Outfall 0.00 0.01 0.00 3 Out-02 Outfall 142.00 0.01 142.02 4 DET-01 Storage Node 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.06 144.98 0.00 0.00 Node Summary SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Time of Total Total Time ID Type Elevation (Max)Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Peak Flooded Flooded Elevation Attained Depth Flooding Volume Attained Occurrence (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft²)(cfs)(ft)(ft)(days hh:mm)(ac-in)(min) 1 Jun-03 Junction 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 144.03 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 2 Out-01 Outfall 0.00 0.09 0.00 3 Out-02 Outfall 142.00 0.01 142.03 4 DET-01 Storage Node 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.34 146.91 0.00 0.00 Node Summary SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Time of Total Total Time ID Type Elevation (Max)Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Peak Flooded Flooded Elevation Attained Depth Flooding Volume Attained Occurrence (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft²)(cfs)(ft)(ft)(days hh:mm)(ac-in)(min) 1 Jun-03 Junction 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 144.07 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 2 Out-01 Outfall 0.00 0.17 0.00 3 Out-02 Outfall 142.00 0.09 142.07 4 DET-01 Storage Node 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.50 146.95 0.00 0.00 Node Summary SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Time of Total Total Time ID Type Elevation (Max)Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Peak Flooded Flooded Elevation Attained Depth Flooding Volume Attained Occurrence (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft²)(cfs)(ft)(ft)(days hh:mm)(ac-in)(min) 1 Jun-03 Junction 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 144.08 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 2 Out-01 Outfall 0.00 0.22 0.00 3 Out-02 Outfall 142.00 0.11 142.08 4 DET-01 Storage Node 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.59 146.96 0.00 0.00 Node Summary SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Time of Total Total Time ID Type Elevation (Max)Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Peak Flooded Flooded Elevation Attained Depth Flooding Volume Attained Occurrence (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft²)(cfs)(ft)(ft)(days hh:mm)(ac-in)(min) 1 Jun-03 Junction 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 144.09 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 2 Out-01 Outfall 0.00 0.31 0.00 3 Out-02 Outfall 142.00 0.15 142.09 4 DET-01 Storage Node 144.00 148.00 0.00 0.73 146.97 0.00 0.00 Storage Nodes Storage Node : DET-01 Input Data 144.00 148.00 4.00 0.00 -144.00 0.00 0.00 Storage Area Volume Curves Storage Curve : DET-1 Stage Storage Storage Area Volume (ft)(ft²)(ft³) 0 880 0.000 1 1349 1114.50 2 1875 2726.50 3 2458 4893.00 4 3097 7670.50 Evaporation Loss ............................................................. Invert Elevation (ft) ........................................................... Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ................................................... Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ........................................................ Initial Water Elevation (ft) ................................................. Initial Water Depth (ft) ...................................................... Ponded Area (ft²) .............................................................. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. Storage Node : DET-01 (continued) Outflow Weirs SN Element Weir Flap Crest Crest Length Weir Total Discharge ID Type Gate Elevation Offset Height Coefficient (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft) 1 Weir-07 Rectangular No 146.91 2.91 2.62 1.00 3.33 Outflow Orifices SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient Diameter Height Width Elevation (in)(ft)(mm)(ft) 1 Orifice-14 Bottom CIRCULAR No 0.50 144.00 0.61 Output Summary Results 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.00 146.91 2.91 145.47 1.47 1 00:00 0.000 0 0 0.00 Total Time Flooded (min) ................................................. Total Retention Time (sec) ............................................... Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ............................................ Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ................................ Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) ..................................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .................. Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) .................................. Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ........................................... Peak Inflow (cfs) .............................................................. Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) .................................................. Peak Outflow (cfs) ............................................................ Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ..................................... Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ....................................... This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. POST-DEVELOPMENT DETAINED PEAK FLOWRATE FROM 2-YEAR DESIGN STORM ELEVATION OF TOP OF THE OPEN STANDPIPE WITHIN FCMH (OVLF) =3.14*10" (10" RISER PIPE) UNDETAINED POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK FLOWRATE FROM 2-YEAR DESIGN STORM2-YEAR Storage Node : DET-01 (continued) Outflow Weirs SN Element Weir Flap Crest Crest Length Weir Total Discharge ID Type Gate Elevation Offset Height Coefficient (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft) 1 Weir-07 Rectangular No 146.91 2.91 2.62 1.00 3.33 Outflow Orifices SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient Diameter Height Width Elevation (in)(ft)(mm)(ft) 1 Orifice-14 Bottom CIRCULAR No 0.50 144.00 0.61 Output Summary Results 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.00 146.95 2.95 145.80 1.8 0 16:46 0.000 0 0 0.00 Total Time Flooded (min) ................................................. Total Retention Time (sec) ............................................... Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ............................................ Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ................................ Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) ..................................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .................. Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) .................................. Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ........................................... Peak Inflow (cfs) .............................................................. Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) .................................................. Peak Outflow (cfs) ............................................................ Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ..................................... Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ....................................... This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. POST-DEVELOPMENT DETAINED PEAK FLOWRATE FROM 5-YEAR DESIGN STORM UNDETAINED POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK FLOWRATE FROM 5-YEAR DESIGN STORM5-YEAR Storage Node : DET-01 (continued) Outflow Weirs SN Element Weir Flap Crest Crest Length Weir Total Discharge ID Type Gate Elevation Offset Height Coefficient (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft) 1 Weir-07 Rectangular No 146.91 2.91 2.62 1.00 3.33 Outflow Orifices SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient Diameter Height Width Elevation (in)(ft)(mm)(ft) 1 Orifice-14 Bottom CIRCULAR No 0.50 144.00 0.61 Output Summary Results 0.59 0.59 0.11 0.00 146.96 2.96 145.90 1.9 0 14:35 0.000 0 0 0.00 Total Time Flooded (min) ................................................. Total Retention Time (sec) ............................................... Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ............................................ Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ................................ Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) ..................................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .................. Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) .................................. Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ........................................... Peak Inflow (cfs) .............................................................. Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) .................................................. Peak Outflow (cfs) ............................................................ Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ..................................... Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ....................................... This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. POST-DEVELOPMENT DETAINED PEAK FLOWRATE FROM 10-YEAR DESIGN STORM UNDETAINED POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK FLOWRATE FROM 10-YEAR DESIGN STORM10-YEAR Node ID:DET-01 Jun-03 Out-02 Rim (ft):148.00 148.00 Invert (ft):144.00 144.00 142.00 Min Pipe Cover (ft):0.00 Max HGL (ft):146.91 144.03 142.03 Link ID:Orifice-14 Link-04 Length (ft):20.00 Dia (ft):0.04 1.00 Slope (ft/ft):0.0000 0.0150 Up Invert (ft):144.00 142.30 Dn Invert (ft):144.00 142.00 Max Q (cfs):0.01 0.01 Max Vel (ft/s):0.00 2.06 Max Depth (ft):0.00 0.03 Autodesk Storm and Sanitary AnalysisAutodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 2-year STORM THROUGH DETENTION POND AND FLOW CONTROL MANHOLE WATER LEVEL REACHED IN DETENTION POND FLOW OUT OF FCMH REPRESENTS THE LOW-FLOW ORIFICE WITHIN FCMH Node ID:DET-01 Jun-03 Out-02 Rim (ft):148.00 148.00 Invert (ft):144.00 144.00 142.00 Min Pipe Cover (ft):0.00 Max HGL (ft):146.95 144.07 142.07 Link ID:Weir-07 Link-04 Length (ft):20.00 Dia (ft):1.00 1.00 Slope (ft/ft):0.0000 0.0150 Up Invert (ft):146.91 142.30 Dn Invert (ft):146.91 142.00 Max Q (cfs):0.08 0.09 Max Vel (ft/s):0.00 3.81 Max Depth (ft):0.00 0.07 Autodesk Storm and Sanitary AnalysisAutodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 5-year STORM THROUGH DETENTION POND AND FLOW CONTROL MANHOLE WATER LEVEL REACHED IN DETENTION POND FLOW OUT OF FCMH REPRESENTS THE OPEN STANDPIPE WITHIN FCMH WATER LEVEL IN POND EXCEEDS OVFL ELEVATION, THEREFORE WE SEE FLOW OVER THE WEIR Node ID:DET-01 Jun-03 Out-02 Rim (ft):148.00 148.00 Invert (ft):144.00 144.00 142.00 Min Pipe Cover (ft):0.00 Max HGL (ft):146.96 144.08 142.08 Link ID:Weir-07 Link-04 Length (ft):20.00 Dia (ft):1.00 1.00 Slope (ft/ft):0.0000 0.0150 Up Invert (ft):146.91 142.30 Dn Invert (ft):146.91 142.00 Max Q (cfs):0.10 0.11 Max Vel (ft/s):0.00 4.04 Max Depth (ft):0.00 0.08 Autodesk Storm and Sanitary AnalysisAutodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 10-year STORM THROUGH DETENTION POND AND FLOW CONTROL MANHOLE WATER LEVEL REACHED IN DETENTION POND FLOW OUT OF FCMH REPRESENTS THE OPEN STANDPIPE WITHIN FCMH WATER LEVEL IN POND EXCEEDS OVFL ELEVATION, THEREFORE WE SEE FLOW OVER THE WEIR Node ID:DET-01 Jun-03 Out-02 Rim (ft):148.00 148.00 Invert (ft):144.00 144.00 142.00 Min Pipe Cover (ft):0.00 Max HGL (ft):146.97 144.09 142.09 Link ID:Weir-07 Link-04 Length (ft):20.00 Dia (ft):1.00 1.00 Slope (ft/ft):0.0000 0.0150 Up Invert (ft):146.91 142.30 Dn Invert (ft):146.91 142.00 Max Q (cfs):0.14 0.15 Max Vel (ft/s):0.00 4.41 Max Depth (ft):0.00 0.09 Autodesk Storm and Sanitary AnalysisAutodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 25-year STORM THROUGH DETENTION POND AND FLOW CONTROL MANHOLE WATER LEVEL REACHED IN DETENTION POND FLOW OUT OF FCMH REPRESENTS THE OPEN STANDPIPE WITHIN FCMH WATER LEVEL IN POND EXCEEDS OVFL ELEVATION, THEREFORE WE SEE FLOW OVER THE WEIR TOP OF FACILITY MUST BE 1' ABOVE LEVEL REACHED DURING 25-YEAR STORM EVENT TOP = 147.97 111 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2600, Portland, OR 97204 503-542-3860 | www.kpff.com 145144146147148149145 144 146 147 148 149 150 147148149 151 SDSDSD SD SD CEMCGM1401411421401411411411411411411411411451451451451451451501511501501421421421421421421421421421421431 5 0 1 4 7 145144UNIVERSAL PLAZA Significant Wetland E-6 (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Proposed 10' Wide Asphalt Path Wetla n d A C o nti n u e s Beyo n d St u d y Ar e a Wetland A and Fanno Creek Continues Beyond Study AreaF a n n o Creek Limits of Disturbance Existing Paved Path (Not Surveyed / Approximate Location) Existing Pedestrian Bridge Buffer Encroachment Within Existing Developed Areas (7,074 sf / 0.16 ac) Buffer Width of 50 Feet As Shown ASH AVENUE Buffer Encroachment (1,211 sf / 0.03 ac) Buffer Encroachment (625 sf / 0.01 ac) Buffer Encroachment (1,450 sf / 0.03 ac) Wetland Impact Boardwalk Footings (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Proposed Raised Boardwalk and Footings (18) LEGEND Study Area Boundary (169,240 sf / 3.88 ac) Significant Wetland E-6 (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Waters of the State/US (15,649 sf / 0.36 ac) Ordinary High Water (OHW) Direction of Flow Wetland Impact (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Buffer Encroachment (3,286 sf / 0.08 ac) Buffer Encroachment Within Existing Development Areas (7,074 sf / 0.16 ac) 50 Foot Goal 5 Wetland Buffer Site plan provided by Alta FIGURE 4 Development Site Plan Universal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855 9-30-2021 C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\ESEE Figures\Fig4 SitePlan.dwg, 9/30/2021 3:31:46 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3 102143.90FND 5\8RBR POE 1356147.96TOP.111357144.62TOE.22TOP.111359143.36TOE.22137653.0812" DTRS DDDEBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIV5456150.85IRRIV5457151.73IRRIV5458151.80IRRS5629152.00EL5631151.70EL5649151.53STM.465650151.18STM.465651151.55STM.465653151.07STM.46571156.806" DTR572254.648" DTR 572353.268" DTR 572454.536" DTR 5572756.88SHRUB 572856.19HL.20 18 W572955.89HL.20E18 W EMCMW5732148.87MI M O NIT OR WELL GM1702151.51FFWMWM150150151152145150147ABI CON13MAG GAL3STE PSE3ABI GRA2GLE TRI3GLE TRI3GLE TRI5POP BAL2ALN RUB6POP BAL5ABI CON2PIN CON2ABI GRA1ABI GRA1PIN CON1ABI GRA1PIN CON1STE PSE1GLE TRI1MAG GAL1MAG GAL5STE PSE6POP BAL4POP BAL3POP BAL5ALN RUB16POP BAL10ALN RUB9WETLAND 50' BUFFER BOUNDARYVEGETATEDCORRIDORBOUNDARYWETLAND BOUNDARYPLANTING PLAN05 August 20211" = 10'L7.201"=10'030'20'10'19345Universal Plaza 9100 SW Burnham St.Tigard, OR972233101 W EXPOSITION PLACELOS ANGELES, CA 90018PH: 323.785.1800FAX: 323.785.1801rios.comRios, INC©Fluidity - Water Feature Design & Engineering724 S Spring St., Ste. 1401Los Angeles, CA 90014213.739.9291KPFF - Civil EngineeringKPFF - Structural Engineering111 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2600Portland, OR 97204503.542.3860Interface - Electrical EngineeringInterface - Lighting DesignInterface - Mechanical EngineeringInterface - Plumbing Engineering100 SW Main St., Ste. 1600Portland, OR 97204503.382.2266Sweeney & Associates - Irrigation Design38730 Sky Canyon Dr., Ste. CMurrieta, CA 92563951.461.6830DD50%DD90%DD100%19 February 20215 March 202119 March 2021TREESCODEBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZEABI CONABIES CONCOLORWHITE FIR3" CAL.ABI GRAABIES GRANDISGRAND FIR3" CAL.ALN RUBALNUS RUBRARED ALDER3" CAL.GLE TRIGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOSINERMIS`SHADEMASTER`SHADEMASTER HONEY LOCUST3" CAL.MAG GALMAGNOLIA X `GALAXY`GALAXY MAGNOLIA3" CAL.PIN CONPINUS CONTORTASHORE PINE3" CAL.PLANT SCHEDULESHRUBS12,479 SFCAMASSIA QUAMASH / SMALL CAMAS624 SFBULB5%CAREX OBNUPTA / SLOUGH SEDGE9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocDESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASS9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocIRIS DOUGLASIANA / DOUGLAS IRIS9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocIRIS SIBIRICA / SIBERIAN IRIS9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocJUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocMAHONIA REPENS / CREEPING MAHONIA6495 GAL20% @ 24" ocSPIRAEA DOUGLASII / WESTERN SPIREA6495 GAL20% @ 24" ocTURF GRASS17,870 SFCROCUS TOMMASINIANUS / TOMMASINIANUS CROCUS1,787 SFBULB10%LOLIUM PERENNE / PERENNIAL RYEGRASS8,042 SFSEED MIX45%POA PRATENSIS / KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS8,042 SFSEED MIX45%PLANT MIX SCHEDULEPOP BALPOPULUS BALSAMIFERABALSAM POPLAR3" CAL.STE PSESTEWARTIA PSEUDOCAMELLIAJAPANESE STEWARTIA3" CAL. Case #: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Master Land Use Appli City of Tigard cation LAND USE APPLICATION TYPE (I Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) 1 1 Adjustment (1 Annexation X Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment CD Conditional Use Downtown Development Review: CD Type I CD Type II CD Adjustment I I Home Occupation —Type II I 1 Land Partition CD Lot Line Adjustment /Lot Consolidation CD Marijuana Facility Permit f I Miscellaneous: CD Type II CD Type III PROJECT INFORMATION Project name:Universal Plaza and Path to FCT Within Sensitive Lands The City of Tigard proposes to construct Universal Plaza and a connecting multi-use path from the Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail (FCT).The Plaza is designed to function as a community public space that will include an interactive water feature,outdoor recreation areas,swings,restrooms,two outdoor event areas,an overhead canopy to provide shelter (Phase II),landscaping,lighting and stormwater facilities.The Plaza’s proposed stormwater detention facility and a portion of its path system is located partially within the 50-foot buffer of the Tigard Significant Wetlands.The proposed multi-use trail connection to the existing FCT passes through Fanno Creek Park and portions of restored vegetated corridor and Tigard Significant Wetlands related to City <?/Tigard •13125 SW Hall Blvd.•Tigard,Oregon 97223 •www.tigard-or.gov •503-718-2421 •Page 1 of 2 Mixed Use Central Business District (MU-CBD) Site size: 7.62 acres Zone: Parks and Recreation (PR), 2S102AC00203 and 00204 Tax map and tax lot number (s): TL 2S102AC00202, Location (address if available): 9100 SW Burnham SITE INFORMATION located outside of sensitive lands. application will address the Universal Plaza improvements A separate Type II Downtown Development Review sensitive lands. accommodate the proposed plaza elements and path within remove 0.19 acres (8,139 square feet) of associated buffer to feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory and to removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.004 acres (159 square Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required to approve the Sensitive Lands Review. In addition, a Type Ill-Modified With these impacts, the proposed project issubject to improvements are also located within the 100-year floodplain. the recent CWS re-meander of Fanno Creek. All of these I I Zoning Map Amendment CD Modification CD Discretionary Review CD Urban Forestry Plan: CD Temporary Use Permit CD Subdivision 1 1 Site Development Review: CD Type I CD Type II CD Type I CD Type II IEI Type III |x| Sensitive Lands Review: CD Detailed Plan CD Concept Plan CD Consolidated Plan CD Planned Development: CD Modification: CD Type I CD Type II APPLICANT INFORMATION Name:Sean Farrelly Phone:503-718-2420 Email:sean@ tigard-or.gov City /State:TigardMailingaddress:13125 SW Hall Blvd Zip:97223 Applicant’s representative:G;uy Piguistcdher Phone:503-956-9430 Email:garyp@ rigard -(mgov Same as applicantPROPERTYOWNERINFORMATION (Attach list for additional owners) Name:City of Tigard c /o Martin McKnight Mailing address:13125 SW Hall Blvd Phone:503-880-3180 City /State:Tigard,OR Email:Martin@ tigard -or.gov Zip:97223 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS In addition to this application form,you musL submit all required items listed in Subsection 18.710 .030 .C of T'lgard’s Community Development Code.It you are unsure what is required with your application,please contact the planner on duty at 503-718-2421 or tigardplanncronduty@ tigard -or .gov. I certify that I am the property owner or I am eligible to initiate this application,as provided in the Tigard Community Development Code.To the best of my knowledge,all the information provided within this application package is complete and accurate. 7/20/21SeanFarrelly Applicant^jtignariirc *Print name Date Martin Mcitinighfr-•^7 Property owner's signature Print name Date Property owner's signature Print name Date *The owner must sign this application or submit a separate written authorization when the owner and applicant are different people. STAFF l )SE ONLY Application fee: Determined complete by: Received by:Date:Case No.: Date:Related Case (s): City o/Tigard •13125 SW Hall Blvd.•Tigard,Oregon 97223 •www.tigard-or.gov •503-718-2421 •Page 2 of 2 Natural Resource Assessment Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail in Tigard, Oregon Prepared for City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Prepared by Michael See, Caroline Rim, Shawn Eisner John van Staveren Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 570-0800 (503) 570-0855 FAX PHS Project Number: 7145 May 7, 2021 Revised August 23, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................1 3.0 DISCUSSION OF WATER QUALITY SENSITIVE AREAS ...................................1 4.0 VEGETATED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT ...............................................................1 4.1 Vegetated Corridor Width Determination ..............................................................1 4.2 Vegetated Corridor Plant Communities and Condition .........................................2 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................2 5.1 Vegetated Corridor Encroachments and Mitigation ...............................................3 5.2 Alternative Analysis ...............................................................................................3 5.3 Discussion of Wetland and Vegetated Corridors Functions and Values ................9 6.0 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................10 APPENDIX A: Figures APPENDIX B: Photo Documentation APPENDIX C: NRA Definitions and Methodology and References APPENDIX D: Construction Plans - Universal Plaza Trail Connection Natural Resource Assessment - Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. (PHS) conducted a Natural Resource Assessment (NRA) for a proposed development in Tigard, Oregon. The study area consists of portions of Tax Lots 202, 203 and 204 (Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Section 2AC); see Figure 1 for limits of the study area. All figures are in Appendix A; photo documentation is provided in Appendix B. This project involves the construction of Universal Plaza (Plaza) along the south side of SW Burnham Street, and a multi-use path that will extend from the Plaza to the existing Fanno Creek Trail located to the south. This report presents the definitions and the methodology used to assess the natural resources within the project site as required by Clean Water Services (CWS) design and construction standards (R&O 17-05); Appendix C contains NRA Definitions and Methodology. The field components of the natural resource assessment for the project site were completed on March 3, 2021. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the proposed Plaza (Tax Lot 202) currently consists of a paved lot, with a fringe of vegetation along the southern edge of the lot. Adjacent land use on Tax Lots 203 and 204, which are located along the south side of the Plaza site, consists of open park space. Within this portion of the project area, a total of 1.38 acres of emergent wetland and 0.36 acres of Fanno Creek are present. Stream and wetland restoration occurred within this open space during 2018, as part of CWS’s stream realignment project (CWS file number: 18-000570). All previously identified vegetated corridors associated with the stream realignment project were revegetated with native species. Shrub and tree species are becoming established and are on a trajectory to meeting CWS’s goal of establishing a riparian corridor of native vegetation. 3.0 DISCUSSION OF WATER QUALITY SENSITIVE AREAS The natural resource assessment field work and data collection were conducted on March 3, 2021. Field work included a delineation of all sensitive areas within the project area. As steep slopes are not present, vegetated corridor (VC) widths more than 50 feet wide will not be required. Documentation of the results of the PHS delineation is included in a wetland delineation report, which has been submitted to the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and is currently under review (DSL File # WD2021-0435). 4.0 VEGETATED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT 4.1 Vegetated Corridor Width Determination In order to determine the regulated width of the VC, the slopes adjacent to the sensitive area were assessed. The location of the VC, adjacent slopes, buffer widths, plant communities, and photo documentation points are shown on Figure 3. The regulated VC widths were determined as shown in Table 1: Natural Resource Assessment - Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 2 Table 1. Summary of VC Widths Sensitive Area VC Width Justification Wetland A Variable Up to 50 feet  Not isolated  Part of a wetland greater than 0.5 acres  Adjacent slopes are <25% Wetland A within the project area exceeds 0.5 acres and is hydrologically connected to Fanno Creek; therefore, the VC width was determined to be 50 feet wide. The VC was truncated in areas which were previously developed and currently consist of paved areas. 4.2 Vegetated Corridor Plant Communities and Condition There are two plant communities within the project area. Plant Community A (23,078 square feet / 0.53 acres) consists of the VC within 50 feet of Wetland A. This community was impacted in 2018, and subsequently restored, by CWS as part of their stream realignment project. Plant Community B (17,987 square feet / 0.41 acres) consists of an area previously set aside as “Advanced Mitigation Credit” for the City of Tigard’s use on City projects. Both of these plant communities consist of recently restored or previous vegetated corridor mitigation areas, which have been approved by CWS, and as such, PHS considers these plant communities to be on a trajectory to “Good” corridor condition. In addition to the vegetated corridor, the regulated corridor of 50 feet extends into existing development areas, which consist of pavement; approximately 7,074 square feet / 0.16 acres of this paved regulated corridor is located within the study area, on Tax Lot 202 (Figure 3). 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT The City of Tigard proposes to construct Universal Plaza and the connecting multi-use path from the Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail (Figure 4). The Plaza is designed to function as a community public space that will feature interactive and engaging experiences both onsite and virtually, and will include events, gatherings, art installations, and other community focused activities. The project will include an interactive water feature, outdoor recreation areas, swings, restrooms, two outdoor event areas, an overhead canopy to provide shelter, landscaping, lighting, stormwater facilities, and a multi-use trail connection to the existing Fanno Creek Trail. The proposed path passes through portions of restored VC related to the recent CWS realignment of Fanno Creek and includes activities listed in Section 3.05.6/7/8 of CWS Design and Construction Standards. The stormwater plan will adhere to CWS design and construction standards. Stormwater will be treated through a conveyance system of low impact development approach (LIDA) stormwater treatment facility. Natural Resource Assessment - Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 3 5.1 Vegetated Corridor Encroachments and Mitigation The project includes permanent encroachment within portions of existing VC along the proposed path alignment, and the southwestern portion of the Plaza, which includes an onsite stormwater management facility. This VC encroachment includes the limits of the path and shoulders (including the boardwalk), and the limits of grading and disturbance for the stormwater facility. Construction plans, including cross-sections, for the trail connection are included in Appendix D. The areas of existing development located within the 50-foot regulated corridor consist of pavement; however, because these areas do not meet CWS’s Pre-Existing Standards 3.03.2.a, grading to remove the pavement in these areas are also included as permanent VC encroachment. Impacts to VC have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The combined area of all permanent encroachments to the VC resulting from the proposed path and Plaza, as described above is 12,459 square feet (0.29 acres), of which 2,450 square feet (0.06 acres) is located with the Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area; temporary VC impacts resulting from work within the construction corridor totals 6,424 square feet (0.15 acres), of which 3,564 square feet (0.08 acres) is located within the Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area. In addition, to the VC impacts, the proposed path will also result in 159 square feet (0.004 acres) of unavoidable permanent impact to wetland, resulting from the placement of boardwalk footings, and 1,352 square feet (0.03 acres) of temporary wetland impact resulting from work within the construction corridor (Figure 4A). The areas of temporary encroachment within the wetland and VC will be restored and revegetated with native plants. Mitigation for proposed permanent encroachments to the VC and regulated corridor within the existing development area includes utilization of the Advanced Mitigation Credits, as well as VC creation in the form of reclamation and enhancement of a portion of the existing development area. Mitigation for the proposed wetland impact will be met through the purchase of wetland credits from a wetland mitigation bank, and as such, mitigation for VC encroachment associated with the wetland impact area will be accomplished through the CWS Payment to Provide for mitigation program. 5.2 Alternatives Analysis As discussed above, the City of Tigard proposes to construct the Universal Plaza and a connecting multi-use path from the Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail. The proposed path will pass through portions of VC related to the recent CWS stream realignment project. The proposed Plaza stormwater facility encroaches into a degraded VC where the encroachment exceeds 30% of the depth, in addition, the path will impact a small area of wetland; therefore, a Tier 2 Alternatives Analysis is required. The elimination of the VCs meets the following criteria, as required under a Tier 2 analysis: 1. The proposed encroachment area is mitigated in accordance with Section 3.08. Mitigation for 12,459 square feet (0.29 acres) of permanent VC encroachment will be consistent with CWS’ standards (per Section 3.08 Replacement Mitigation Standards, and Appendix A: Planting Requirements of R&O 19-05). Mitigation includes a deduction of 8,139 square feet from the City of Tigard’s Advanced Mitigation Credit Area, which is located onsite; in addition, mitigation will also include VC creation in the form of reclamation and enhancement of 4,320 square feet of the existing development/paved area within the 50-foot regulated corridor, along the east and west sides of the Natural Resource Assessment - Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 4 boardwalk access point in the southern portion of the Plaza. The reclamation and enhancement will involve removing the existing pavement/asphalt, and enhancing this area with native vegetation, to Good corridor condition (see Figure 5 - Landscape Plan). Mitigation for the wetland impact (159 square feet / 0.004 acres) will be achieved by purchasing wetland credits from a wetland mitigation bank, and as such, mitigation for 456 square feet (0.01 acres) of encroach of the VC associated with the wetland impact, will be achieved through the CWS Payment to Provide (PTP) for mitigation program as outlined in Section 3.08 of CWS Design and Construction Standards. The mitigation criteria are intended to protect water quality for public benefit. 2. The replacement mitigation protects the functions and values of the Vegetated Corridor and Sensitive Area. The mitigation areas at the City’s Advanced Mitigation Credit Area have established a native riparian plant community consistent with standards required by CWS; in addition, the Advanced Mitigation Credit Area and the VC creation areas adjoin the existing VC and will provide similar functions and values to those lost through the implementation of the project. 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 replacement mitigation area (City’s Advanced Mitigation Credit area) has been approved by CWS, and therefore, this area is considered to be in Good corridor condition and/or on a trajectory to Good corridor condition, and the VC creation areas within 50 feet of the resource, will be enhanced to Good corridor condition, with native vegetation. As for the replacement area associated with the wetland impact, the CWS PTP program ensures that the replacement area will be enhanced to Good corridor condition in accordance with CWS’s requirements. 4. A District Stormwater Connection Permit is likely to be issued based on proposed plans. The City of Tigard reasonably expects to obtain a District Stormwater Connection Permit based on proposed plans for the project. 5. Location of development and site planning minimizes incursion into the Vegetated Corridor. The path encroachments have been minimized to the extent practicable by avoiding mature native trees and keeping the path within allowed use areas of the corridor except where, by necessity, the path must cross between or over existing sensitive areas along the proposed alignment. To further reduce the amount of VC impacts, the at-grade trail has been reduced from 12 feet wide to 10 feet wide, which is the same as the existing trail; the boardwalk retains 12 feet width to accommodate “overlook” use capacity. None of the path sections could be constructed if avoidance of sensitive areas or their regulated VC were required; the only other pedestrian or bicycle options to connect the Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail currently exist in the form of public sidewalks or street routes along Burnham and Ash that are indirect. The proposed route is the most straightforward route that could be identified for the path alignment on publicly owned property. The path is designed to control access through the resource area of expected desire lines for those Plaza visitors interested in seeing Fanno Creek and experiencing Fanno Creek Park. Natural Resource Assessment - Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 5 The stormwater facility encroachment has been minimized to the extent practicable. Due to the topography of the site and specific stormwater management requirements, the stormwater runoff from the site is proposed to be collected and detained in the low area of the site (southwest). This area also happens to be mostly within the updated VC boundary meaning the stormwater hydromodification facility is creating a partial encroachment into the VC. Stormwater Management Requirements The Plaza site falls within the Clean Water Services (CWS) jurisdiction and must meet Water Quality, Conveyance and Hydromodification requirements. The total site area is 1.20 acres and was previously fully developed with 90 percent impervious groundcover (asphalt parking and building roof). The western half of the site currently sheet flows over asphalt parking directly to the wetland. The proposed Plaza development will significantly reduce impervious area on the site to about 43 percent impervious groundcover (paved Plaza and future canopy building roof). Because the project results in the permanent removal of more than 1,000 square feet of impervious surface, the treatment area is zero based on section 4.08 of CWS Design and Construction Standards. The project is required to meet hydromodification requirements for all new or modified impervious surface proposed; thus, a vegetated detention pond with a flow control structure is proposed. Final Discharge There is an existing 18-inch public storm main running south to north in SW Burnham Street approximately 5-feet below road grade. Due to stormwater infrastructure elevations and grading constraints, connecting stormwater from the detention pond into the public stormwater main in SW Burnham Street is infeasible. In order to minimize disturbance to the wetland, piped outfall directly to Fanno Creek is also infeasible. Therefore, the project proposes to connect a new 12-inch storm line through the neighboring property to the south in a new easement. It will connect to an existing 30-inch public storm line that is just upstream of an existing outfall into Fanno Creek at the termination of Ash Street. Grading and Floodplain Design Constraints Because the southwest portion of the site is located in the 100-year FEMA floodplain, that portion of the site must not create a net fill. The Plaza is also intended to be fully ADA accessible, allowing everyone in the community to use the Plaza and to have access to the educational information on site. Therefore, grades will gently follow the natural slope of the property. The requirement not to create net fill in the floodplain keeps us from shedding impervious area to another location onsite; the final Plaza grading needs to maintain existing general slopes. See Figure 6 for a detailed grading plan and explanation of why the final grading dictates the location of the facility. Stormwater Management Alternatives Analysis The goal of Universal Plaza is to be a universally accessible meeting place that encourages interaction with the wetland. The design team chose to utilize visible low impact development approaches (LIDA) for the stormwater detention facility rather than storing water in below grade detention pipes. According to CWS’s Low Impact Development Approaches Handbook, LIDA facilities mimic the natural habitats, processes, and hydrology of a particular site. The facility is proposed to be planted with native plantings at the density required for revegetation of the vegetated corridor. It will therefore blend and essentially become an extension of the surrounding vegetated corridor, creating additional habitat for native species. There was also a desire to incorporate the stormwater management facility into the Plaza with signage and overlooks that engage and educate Natural Resource Assessment - Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 6 visitors with the stormwater feature. By removing the existing parking lot, revegetating the site, highlighting, and engaging the public with the management of stormwater runoff, and enhancing the surrounding vegetated corridor, the Universal Plaza stormwater design meets both the goals of protecting sensitive lands (CWS Chapter 3) and treating and controlling stormwater runoff (CWS Chapter 4). Many configurations of the stormwater facility were considered with respect to the aforementioned factors and its impacts to the VC. As the design progressed, different creative elements were added or modified to avoid encroachment to the vegetated corridor. Toward the beginning of design, the Plaza programming was maximized throughout the site. There was planned space for a heated boulder experience near the VC. At this stage of design, the idea was to extend the stormwater facility below the raised boardwalk to bring people as close as possible to the stormwater management feature to provide in-person and direct experience and education. Once the final wetland and VC delineation was completed, it was decided that extending the detention pond below the boardwalk would place it wholly within the VC and at least partially within the wetland itself. To accommodate for this new information, the team decided to eliminate the heated boulders which became real estate for the pond as it was shifted away from the wetland. In an effort to explore all possibilities, the team also looked at covering the site with a majority of pervious paving so that the site fell below the 12,000 square foot threshold that requires detention/hydromodification. Though this would mean no stormwater impact to the vegetated corridor, the maintenance required for the pervious pavers is not desired for use in this public facility that will likely enjoy lots of use. Some vehicular use is expected for vendors and set up for events at the Plaza which is not ideal for pervious paving. The team decided to look into an option to strategically place additional pervious paving away from areas that may likely be used by vehicles. This was explored after incorporating feedback from CWS during a meeting on August 2, 2021 with Linsey Obermiller and Elle Allan. It results in a smaller stormwater detention pond that creates less encroachment to the VC. The best solution is to incorporate a modest amount of pervious paving and vegetate the detention pond to blend and act as an extension of the vegetated corridor. This will be easier to maintain, enhance the quality of the area, and educate the public that will visit the Plaza. See a more detailed breakdown of the design progression described above in the options outlined below. The different approaches are summarized in following options which correspond to Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10:  Option 1 (Figure 7): Appropriately size the stormwater management facility and locate near the southwest property line to maximizing the open space for Plaza programming. In this design concept, the stormwater facility extends below the boardwalk path connection to create an interactive place where people can get very close to the facility to learn about stormwater management. This option was rejected because it places the stormwater management facility fully within the VC.  Option 2 (Figure 8): Appropriately size the storm water management facility and shape the facility so that the impacts to the vegetated corridor are minimized. As mentioned above, grading within the floodplain limits the ability to locate a facility completely Natural Resource Assessment - Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 7 out of the VC and still capture runoff from all impervious area. It provides the least amount of pervious paving.  Option 2A (Figure 9): This option was added to explore an option between Options 2 and 3. It creates less stormwater encroachment to the VC but requires more pervious paving. This option prioritizes fitting as much of the facility out of the VC as possible while still creating a vibrant public space that offers in-person and direct experience and education in regard to the stormwater management, vegetated corridor and wetland, and Fanno Creek by appropriately balancing pervious and impervious hardscape. The sizing and location of the pervious paving reinforces the design story of Universal Plaza as situated between and a gradient of the urban and natural realms. By locating a concentrated section of the pervious paving near the educational signage, an opportunity to inform the public on the function and benefit of this material choice is created.  Option 3 (Figure 10): Minimize impervious area onsite. The site would be mostly covered in a pervious pavement material and/or landscape to bring the overall site impervious surface below 12,000 square feet. This would place the project in a lower hydromodification/stormwater management category where we could pay a fee in lieu of a hydromodification/stormwater facility. This would result in no stormwater management impact to the VC. This is not desired due to the increase in maintenance at the pervious paving, which would render the Plaza overall less useful to the community. Additionally, the fountain area could not be pervious pavement as shown, which would be a limiting factor that would preclude Option 3. See Table 2 below for a comparison of the pervious asphalt, impervious area, and stormwater detention pond encroachment into the VC. This table corresponds to Options 1, 2, 2A, and 3 (Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10). Table 1: Comparison of Stormwater Options OPTION SITE AREA (sf) IMPERVIOUS (sf) PERVIOUS (sf) PERVIOUS ASPHALT (sf) STORM VC ENCROACHMENT (sf) 1 52,484 21,760 30,724 2,600 4,000 2 52,484 22,590 29,894 1,820 2,526 2A 52,484 17,020 35,464 5,460 1,600 3 52,484 11,905 40,579 12,470 0 Option 2A is the best design to adequately meet CWS requirements for the onsite management of stormwater given the grading and floodplain constraints. This option takes into account the encroachment to the VC, which is being minimized to the maximum extent feasible. 6. No practicable alternative to the location of the development exists that will not disturb the Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor. The Universal Plaza site was acquired by the City for the purpose of providing a central downtown location for a civic urban park. The Plaza site was the culmination of a deliberate planning process Natural Resource Assessment - Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 8 with City Council review and approval. A public design development process resulted in the design of the proposed programmable portion of the Plaza. The design of the subject property’s western edge to accommodate a stormwater facility adjacent to the Fanno Creek realignment site includes a portion of the VC and is the subject of the alternatives analysis described above with the preferred alternative that minimizes encroachment into the VC to the maximum extent feasible. With the location of the park established, providing access to the site with a connecting path to nearby Fanno Creek Trail was an important addition to the City’s growing pedestrian network within the urbanizing core of the City. The intent of the Fanno Creek Trail is to promote bicycle and pedestrian “off-street” alternatives for walking or commuting to commercial, residential and public areas in the Tigard area, including Universal Plaza. There are no development options for the new connecting path that will not disturb sensitive areas or VC. As described in #5 above, the only alternative that avoids VCs is to require pedestrians to utilize existing sidewalks and streets, but this would not serve desire lines expected in the direction of the Fanno Creek Trail or interest in exploring Fanno Creek Park. Because of the adjacent proximity of the Plaza to Fanno Creek Park and its associated wetland resources, the importance of providing access for connectivity and access management control, and the function provided by the boardwalk for access to and appreciation of the resource, there is no practicable alternative to the location of the development that will not disturb the Sensitive Area or VC. In the southwestern portion of the Plaza, fencing and signage will be installed along the outer Vegetated Corridor boundary, to delineate and protect the enhanced natural area from encroachment by visitors and conflicting maintenance and other uses. The fencing will consist of a type that will allow for wildlife passage, such as split-rail fencing. Signage indicating the presence of a “Protected Natural Area” will be attached to the fence at the ends and in the middle of the fence, at 100-foot intervals, at approximately 3 feet in height. 7. The proposed encroachment provides public benefits. Universal Plaza is designated as a community scale urban park, and by virtue of its proximity to Fanno Creek Park, will provide a unique environmental education resource for the City. Although the alignment of the planned boardwalk connection to the Fanno Creek Trail is designed to minimize impacts to the wetland and associated VC, it will provide an environmentally sensitive, accessible extension of the park trails through the wetland habitat, where necessary. The boardwalk will provide managed and controlled access near and into the wetland areas with an aim to eliminate rogue, off-trail passage through the wetland resources and to enable the successful restoration of the wetlands in those areas. The boardwalk will further the environmental education opportunities for park users and provide a safe, accessible platform for the public to view and understand and appreciate the park’s natural features and importance of the wetland habitats without damaging them and disturbing wildlife. A couple of interpretive/educational signs will be located at the north end of the trail (south end of the Plaza) and at the south end of the proposed trail where it joins the existing Fanno Creek Trail. These signs will provide the public with information on the uniqueness, and functions and habitat values of the protected resources; sign details are forthcoming, and will be provided for review during engineering plan review. Natural Resource Assessment - Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 9 The proposed stormwater facility in Option 2A, in #5 above, is appropriately sized and shaped to minimize impacts to the VC. This option attempts to best fit the facility out of the VC where possible while still allowing for Plaza programming to occur. The Plaza’s perimeter path will be coterminous with the contour of the facility and elevated above it, providing an immediate vantage point to interpret and appreciate the design and functions and values at work. In addition, the reclamation and enhancement of the currently paved areas within 50-feet of the sensitive area, and the transition of the existing impervious pavement, to permeable surfaces and landscaping will provide a public benefit to water quality. 5.3 Discussion of Wetland and Vegetated Corridors Functions and Values As a Tier 2 Alternatives Analysis is necessary for the proposed project, a function and values assessment is required for the sensitive areas and VCs on site. The functions and values of the wetland and adjoining VCs were assessed within the study area using the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Classification Judgmental Assessment Method. Water quality and quantity The vicinity of Fanno Creek Park is located entirely within the 100-year floodplain, and as such, seasonal inundation is common. The extent of vegetative cover in the wetlands and VC within Fanno Creek Park mean that floodwaters encounter high stem densities, both woody and herbaceous, allowing for significant slowing of stream velocities, which decreases erosive potential, as well as bed load and suspended load capacities. It also increases contact and inundation times, allowing for the filtering and associated removal of sediment and pollutants. Proposed plans will not affect how and where Fanno Creek floods in the project vicinity. There will be a small net increase in the footprint of impervious area but no net increase in stormwater flow as all precipitation will continue to drain from the path surface into adjoining vegetated areas. Fish and Wildlife In addition to Fanno Creek itself, Fanno Creek Park provides a good mix of upland and wetland forest and shrub habitat. Herbaceous habitats are present but generally limited to either wetland areas bordered by forested habitat, or narrow corridors of mowed lawn adjoining some path sections near the east end of the park. The park provides habitat for many species. As the extent and location of path improvements do not represent a land use change and most of the proposed encroachments within the VC will occur within areas currently managed as lawn, no measurable decrease in available habitat is anticipated. Increased bike and pedestrian connectivity to the south likely means an increase in path use but increased path usage is not anticipated to affect wildlife usage within the park. Native Plant Communities and Species Diversity Fanno Creek Park has been the site of numerous trail, riparian restoration, and vegetated corridor enhancement projects over the past decade or more, in addition to City lead initiatives to improve vegetative cover and diversity, the project corridor is dominated by native species. Non-native species are common, and even locally dominant in the understory, but invasive species have been controlled throughout the park. Natural Resource Assessment - Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 10 Recreation and Education The site is located on public property, and as such, recreation and educational opportunities are present. 6.0 REFERENCES Clean Water Services, 2019. Design and Construction Standards (R&O 19-05). US Geologic Survey, 2017. 7.5-minute topographic map, Beaverton, Oregon quadrangle. Appendix A Figures Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 FIGURE 1 General Location and Topography Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard, Oregon United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beaverton, Oregon 7.5 quadrangle, 2020 (viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic) Project #7145 5/5/2021 Study Area N 0’ 600’ Study Area Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 FIGURE 2 Tax Lot Map Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail - Tigard, Oregon The Oregon Map (ormap.net) Project #7145 5/5/2021 N Study Area 6+007+008+009+0010+0010+86EBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIVIVEMCGM14114214114114114114114214214214214014114214014114114114114114114114114514514514514514515015015115015015214214214214214214214214214214214314415014714514514414550'6%50'9%Wetland A(59,917 sf / 1.38 ac)FannoCreekSW BURNHAM STREETSW ASH AVENUEWetland A ContinuesBeyond Study Area We t l a n d A a n d F a n n o C r e e k C o n t i n u e B e y o n d S t u d y A r e a TL 203TL 204TL 100TL 202TL 200(Plant Community B)Advanced VegetatedCorridor MitigationCredit Area.(17,987 sf / 0.41 ac)2018 WetlandDelineated BoundaryExisting PavementExisting Paved Path(Not Surveyed /Approximate Location)ExistingPedestrianBridge Existing Development Areas(7,074 sf / 0.16 ac)Regulated Corridor Widthof 50 Feet As ShownLEGENDStudy Area Boundary(169,240 sf / 3.88 ac)Wetland(59,917 sf / 1.38 ac)Waters of the State/US(15,649 sf / 0.36 ac)Ordinary High Water (OHW)Direction of FlowVegetated Corridor Boundary(41,065 sf / 0.94 ac)Regulated Corridor Width of 50 FeetAs ShownExisting Development AreasSlope MeasurementPlant Community A (23,078 sf / 0.53 ac)(On Track to Good PerCWS File # 18-000570)Plant Community B (17,987 sf / 0.41 ac)Advanced Vegetated CorridorMitigation Credit Area.(On Track to Good PerCWS File # 18-000570)0'%Existing Conditions and Vegetated Corridor Plant Community OverviewUniversal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, OregonPacific Habitat Services,Inc.9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855FIGURE3Survey provided by KPFF.Survey accuracy is sub-centimeter.Wetland and Stream boundariescollected with Trimble Hand HeldGPS Unit accuracy is sub-meter.6-18-2021NOTE:See Figure 3A for Photo Points A-F.C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\Fig3 ExistCond OV.dwg, 7/1/2021 1:44:11 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3 EMCGM1401411421401411411411411411411411411451451451451451451501421421421421421421421421421421431 5 0 1 4 7 14514450' 6%50'A B C D E F9% Wetland A (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) F a n n o CreekExisting Pavement Wetla n d A C o nti n u e s B e y o n d St u d y Ar e a Wetland A and Fanno CreekContinue Beyond Study Area TL 203 TL 204 TL 100 TL 202 2018 Wetland Delineated Boundary Existing Paved Path (Not Surveyed / Approximate Location) Existing Pedestrian Bridge (Plant Community B) Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area. (17,987 sf / 0.41 ac) Existing Development Areas Regulated Corridor Width of 50 Feet As Shown LEGEND Study Area Boundary (169,240 sf / 3.88 ac) Wetland (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Waters of the State/US (15,649 sf / 0.36 ac) Ordinary High Water (OHW) Direction of Flow Vegetated Corridor Boundary (VC) (41,065 sf / 0.94 ac) Slope Measurement Photo Points 0' % Photo Points Plant Community A (23,078 sf / 0.53 ac) (On Track to Good Per CWS File # 18-000570) Plant Community B (17,987 sf / 0.41 ac) Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area. (On Track to Good Per CWS File # 18-000570) Regulated Corridor Width of 50 Feet As Shown Existing Development AreasSurvey provided by KPFF. Survey accuracy is sub-centimeter. Wetland and Stream boundaries collected with Trimble Hand Held GPS Unit accuracy is sub-meter. FIGURE 3A Existing Conditions Universal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855 6-18-2021 C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\Fig3A ExistCond.dwg, 7/1/2021 1:44:35 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3 145 144 146 147 148 14914514414 6 1 4 7 148149150147148149151152SDSDSD6+007+008+009+0010+0010+86EBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIVIVIVEMCGM141142141141141141141142142142142140141142140141141141141141141141141145145145145145145150150151150150152142142142142142142142142142142143144150147145145144145FannoCreekUNIVERSAL PLAZASW BURNHAM STREETSW ASH AVENUEProposed 10' WideAsphalt PathWetland A ContinuesBeyond Study Area We t l a n d A a n d F a n n o C r e e k C o n t i n u e s B e y o n d S t u d y A r e a Limits ofDisturbanceExisting Paved Path(Not Surveyed /Approximate Location)ExistingPedestrianBridgeWetland A(59,917 sf / 1.38 ac)VC impact Associated withWetland Fill (456 sf / 0.01 ac)(To be mitigated at Mitigation Bank)(Reclamation/Enhancement)(2,342 sf / 0.05 ac)(Reclamation/Enhancement)(1,978 sf / 0.04 ac)LEGENDStudy Area Boundary(169,240 sf / 3.88 ac)Wetland(59,917 sf / 1.38 ac)Waters of the State/US(15,649 sf / 0.36 ac)Ordinary High Water (OHW)Existing Vegetated CorridorRemaining Vegetated CorridorDirection of Flow(Reclamation/Enhancement Area)(Total 4,320 sf / 0.09 ac)Development Site Plan OverviewUniversal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, OregonPacific Habitat Services,Inc.9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855FIGURE4Site plan provided by Alta8-18-2021NOTE:See Figure 4A for Vegetated Corridor Temporaryand Permanent Encroachments and WetlandTemporary and Permanent Impacts.C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\SNRO Figures\Fig4 SitePlan OV.dwg, 8/18/2021 3:21:11 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3VC Creation Area 1VC Creation Area 2VC Creation 145144146147148149145 144 146 147 148 149 150 147148149 151 SD SD SD SD SD CEMCGM1401411421401411411411411411411411411451451451451451451501511501501421421421421421421421421421421431 5 0 1 4 7 145144UNIVERSAL PLAZA Wetland A (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Proposed 10' Wide Asphalt Path Wetland Impact Boardwalk Footings (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Wetl a n d A C o nti n u es B ey o n d St u dy Ar e a Wetland A and Fanno CreekContinues Beyond Study AreaF a n n o Creek Limits of Disturbance Proposed Raised Boardwalk and Footings (18) Existing Paved Path (Not Surveyed / Approximate Location) Existing Pedestrian Bridge VC impact Associated with Wetland Fill (456 sf / 0.01 ac) (To be mitigated at Mitigation Bank) Regulated Corridor Width of 50 Feet As Shown Construction Limits Proposed Storm Line Proposed Split Rail Fence Interpretive Sign Proposed Split Rail Fence Interpretive Sign LEGEND Project Area Boundary (169,240 sf / 3.88 ac) Wetland (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Waters of the State/US (15,649 sf / 0.36 ac) Ordinary High Water (OHW) Tigard Significant Wetlands Vegetated Corridor Direction of Flow Wetland Impact (Permanent) (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Wetland Impact (Temporary) (1,352 sf / 0.03 ac) Vegetated Corridor Encroachment (Permanent Total 12,459 sf / 0.29 ac) Vegetated Corridor Encroachment (Temporary Total 6,424 sf / 0.15 ac) Vegetated Corridor Permanent Encroachment Within Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area (Permanent 2,450 sf / 0.06 ac) Vegetated Corridor Temporary Encroachment Within Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area (3,564 sf / 0.08 ac) Regulated Corridor Width of 50 Feet As Shown Existing Vegetated Corridor Remaining Vegetated Corridor Site plan provided by Alta FIGURE 4A Development Site Plan and Encroachments Universal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855 8-18-2021 C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\SNRO Figures\Fig4A SitePlan.dwg, 8/18/2021 4:32:57 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3 102143.90FND 5\8RBR POE 1356147.96TOP.111357144.62TOE.22TOP.111359143.36TOE.22137653.0812" DTRS DDDEBCGVEBHYDEBWMEBCGVIV5456150.85IRRIV5457151.73IRRIV5458151.80IRRS5629152.00EL5631151.70EL5649151.53STM.465650151.18STM.465651151.55STM.465653151.07STM.46571156.806" DTR572254.648" DTR 572353.268" DTR 572454.536" DTR 5572756.88SHRUB 572856.19HL.20 18 W572955.89HL.20E18W EMCMW5732148.87MI M O NIT OR WELL GM1702151.51FFWMWM150150151152145150147ABI CON13MAG GAL3STE PSE3ABI GRA2GLE TRI3GLE TRI3GLE TRI5POP BAL2ALN RUB6POP BAL5ABI CON2PIN CON2ABI GRA1ABI GRA1PIN CON1ABI GRA1PIN CON1STE PSE1GLE TRI1MAG GAL1MAG GAL5STE PSE6POP BAL4POP BAL3POP BAL5ALN RUB16POP BAL10ALN RUB9WETLAND 50' BUFFER BOUNDARYVEGETATEDCORRIDORBOUNDARYWETLAND BOUNDARYPLANTING PLAN05 August 20211" = 10'L7.201"=10'030'20'10'19345Universal Plaza 9100 SW Burnham St.Tigard, OR972233101 W EXPOSITION PLACELOS ANGELES, CA 90018PH: 323.785.1800FAX: 323.785.1801rios.comRios, INC©Fluidity - Water Feature Design & Engineering724 S Spring St., Ste. 1401Los Angeles, CA 90014213.739.9291KPFF - Civil EngineeringKPFF - Structural Engineering111 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2600Portland, OR 97204503.542.3860Interface - Electrical EngineeringInterface - Lighting DesignInterface - Mechanical EngineeringInterface - Plumbing Engineering100 SW Main St., Ste. 1600Portland, OR 97204503.382.2266Sweeney & Associates - Irrigation Design38730 Sky Canyon Dr., Ste. CMurrieta, CA 92563951.461.6830DD50%DD90%DD100%19 February 20215 March 202119 March 2021TREESCODEBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZEABI CONABIES CONCOLORWHITE FIR3" CAL.ABI GRAABIES GRANDISGRAND FIR3" CAL.ALN RUBALNUS RUBRARED ALDER3" CAL.GLE TRIGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOSINERMIS`SHADEMASTER`SHADEMASTER HONEY LOCUST3" CAL.MAG GALMAGNOLIA X `GALAXY`GALAXY MAGNOLIA3" CAL.PIN CONPINUS CONTORTASHORE PINE3" CAL.PLANT SCHEDULESHRUBS12,479 SFCAMASSIA QUAMASH / SMALL CAMAS624 SFBULB5%CAREX OBNUPTA / SLOUGH SEDGE9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocDESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASS9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocIRIS DOUGLASIANA / DOUGLAS IRIS9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocIRIS SIBIRICA / SIBERIAN IRIS9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocJUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH9131 GAL11% @ 15" ocMAHONIA REPENS / CREEPING MAHONIA6495 GAL20% @ 24" ocSPIRAEA DOUGLASII / WESTERN SPIREA6495 GAL20% @ 24" ocTURF GRASS17,870 SFCROCUS TOMMASINIANUS / TOMMASINIANUS CROCUS1,787 SFBULB10%LOLIUM PERENNE / PERENNIAL RYEGRASS8,042 SFSEED MIX45%POA PRATENSIS / KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS8,042 SFSEED MIX45%PLANT MIX SCHEDULEPOP BALPOPULUS BALSAMIFERABALSAM POPLAR3" CAL.STE PSESTEWARTIA PSEUDOCAMELLIAJAPANESE STEWARTIA3" CAL.FIGURE 5 LANDSCAPE PLAN SITE'S ENTIRE NORTH EDGE ON SW BURNHAM IS FAIRLY UNIFORM AND ROUGHLY ±152 SITE'S SOUTH EDGE NEAREST WETLAND IS ±146 NEED TO MAINTAIN ADA SLOPES WITHIN THE PLAZA SITE FALLS WITHIN FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN...NO NET FILL SOUTH OF THIS LINE EDGE OF PLAZA HELD AT ±148 TO ±149 TO ACCOMODATE ADA SLOPES AND BUILDING FFE ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION KEEP RESTROOM BUILDING 1-FOOT ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION NO GRADING WTIHIN THE FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY CANNOT DIRECT SURFACE RUNOFF TO THIS SIDE AND MAKE A FACILITY THAT IS WIDE ENOUGH TO FIT IN THIS SPACE. ADDING PIPED CONNECTIONS MAKES THE FACILITY TOO DEEP AND UNABLE TO FIT. CB NEEDED TO PIPE TO DETENTION POND 8/13/21FIGURE 6 GRADING PLAN PERVIOUS ASPHALT BASIN MAP OPTION 1 BASIN MAP OPTION 1 BASIN MAP OPTION 1 ENCROACHMENT TO VC = ±4,000 SF MOST STORMWATER ENCROACHMENT TO VC EXTEND SW UNDER BOARDWALK TOTAL SITE AREA = 52,484 SF = 1.20 ac IMPERVIOUS AREA (SHOWN IN ORANGE) = 21,760 SF = 0.50 ac PERVIOUS AREA = 29,894 SF = 0.70 ac (INCLUDES ±2,600 SF PERVIOUS PAVING SHOWN IN YELLOW) BOARDWALK (PERVIOUS) WETLAND 50' WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY/VEGETATED CORRIDOR 50' WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY/VEGETATED CORRIDOR 4,004 sf ALLOWS MORE SPACE FOR PARK PROGRAMMING INCLUDING HEATED BOULDER AREA 2,602 sf FIGURE 7 2,526 sf TOTAL SITE AREA = 52,484 SF = 1.20 ac IMPERVIOUS AREA (SHOWN IN ORANGE) = 22,590 SF = 0.52 ac PERVIOUS AREA = 29,894 SF = 0.68 ac (INCLUDES ±1,820 SF PERVIOUS PAVING SHOWN IN YELLOW) PERVIOUS ASPHALT PERVIOUS ASPHALT BOARDWALK (PERVIOUS) BASIN MAP OPTION 2 WETLAND ENCROACHMENT TO VC = 2,526 SF MEDIUM STORMWATER ENCROACHMENT TO VC 50' WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY/VEGETATED CORRIDOR 50' WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY/VEGETATED CORRIDOR 285 sf 1,539 sf FIGURE 8 BOARDWALK (PERVIOUS) WETLAND ENCROACHMENT TO VC = 1,600 SF 50' WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY/VEGETATED CORRIDOR 50' WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY/VEGETATED CORRIDOR 1,598 sf TOTAL SITE AREA = 52,484 SF = 1.20 ac IMPERVIOUS AREA (SHOWN IN ORANGE) = 17,020 SF = 0.39 ac PERVIOUS AREA = 35,464 SF = 0.81 ac (INCLUDES 5,460 SF PERVIOUS PAVING SHOWN IN YELLOW) PERVIOUS ASPHALT BASIN MAP OPTION 2A LESS STORMWATER ENCROACHMENT TO VC FIGURE 9 TOTAL SITE AREA = 52,484 SF = 1.20 ac IMPERVIOUS AREA (SHOWN IN ORANGE) = 11,905 SF = 0.27 ac PERVIOUS AREA = 40,579 SF = 0.93 ac (INCLUDES ±12,470 SF OF PERVIOUS PAVING SHOWN IN YELLOW) PERVIOUS ASPHALT PERVIOUS ASPHALT BASIN MAP OPTION 1 BASIN MAP OPTION 1 BASIN MAP OPTION 3 WETLAND NO STORMWATER FACILITY REQUIRED: 0 SF STORMWATER IMPACT TO VC 2. Quantity required for conveyance capacity or hydromodification: All new and modified impervious area created by the development. c. Project Size Category 1. The Project Size Category is determined by calculating the area of proposed new and/or modified impervious surface. Calculate this area using the methodology described in Section 4.08.1. 2. Use the results to identify the Project Size Category, which will be one of the following: A) Small: 1,000 to 12,000 square feet B) Medium: over 12,000 to 80,000 square feet C) Large: over 80,000 square feet and larger TABLE 4-2 HYDROMODIFICATION APPROACH PROJECT CATEGORY TABLE Development Class/ Risk Level Small Project 1,000 – 12,000 SF Medium Project >12,000 – 80,000 SF Large Project > 80,000 SF Expansion/High Category 1 Category 3 Category 3 Expansion/ Moderate Expansion/ Low Category 2 Developed/ High Category 3 Developed/ Moderate Category 2 Category 2 Developed/ Low a. Category 1 Projects in Category 1 represent those with the lowest anticipated risk. Any of the following options may be used to address hydromodification: 1. Infiltration facility, using the Simplified Sizing, as described in Section 4.08.4;or 2. Payment of a Hydromodification Fee-In-Lieu in accordance with District Rates and Charges; or 3. Any option listed in Category 2 or 3. 4.08.1 Impervious Area Used In Design CWS CHAPTER 4 EXCERPTS: <12,000 sf NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA MEANS WE CAN PAY FEE IN LIEU OF HYDROMOD 50' WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY/VEGETATED CORRIDOR 50' WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY/VEGETATED CORRIDOR NO STORMWATER ENCROACHMENT TO VC FIGURE 10 Appendix B Photo Documentation #7145 Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Photodocumentation Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail, Tigard, Oregon Both photos taken on March 3, 2021 Photo A Looking southeast at Wetland A (foreground) and Vegetated Corridor along the eastern edge of the wetland. Photo B Looking east at Wetland A (foreground), and Vegetated Corridor along the eastern edge of the wetland. Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area seen in the distance. Vegetated Corridor Wetland Wetland Springville Creek 4/6/2021 Sample Point 1 Sample Point 2 Sample Point 3 Sample Point 4 #7145 Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Photodocumentation Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail, Tigard, Oregon Both photos taken on March 3, 2021 Photo C Looking west at the southern portion of the Vegetated Corridor (foreground), and Wetland A immediately beyond. Photo D Looking north at the southern portion of the Vegetated Corridor. Vegetated Corridor Wetland Wetland Springville Creek 4/6/2021 Sample Point 1 Sample Point 2 Sample Point 3 Sample Point 4 #7145 Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Photodocumentation Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail, Tigard, Oregon Both photos taken on March 3, 2021 Photo E Looking northwest at the north end of the Vegetated Corridor. Photo F Looking north at the central portion of the Vegetated Corridor. Vegetated Corridor Wetland Wetland Springville Creek 4/6/2021 Sample Point 1 Sample Point 2 Sample Point 3 Sample Point 4 Appendix C NRA Definitions and Methodology Appendix C – NRA Definitions and Methodology Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. Page 1 NATURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT (NRA) Regulatory Jurisdiction Clean Water Services, as part of their revised Design and Construction Standards, requires that natural resource assessments be conducted for Sensitive Natural Resource Areas within their jurisdiction. Sensitive Natural Resource Areas include intermittent and perennial creeks, wetlands, springs and seeps, and associated VCs. The intent of these requirements is to “…prevent or reduce adverse impacts to the drainage system and water resources of the Tualatin River Basin” (CWS 2019). CWS requires a wetland determination/delineation and VC assessment on projects that contain or are within 200 feet of a Sensitive Area. Natural Resource Assessment Methodology The Natural Resource Assessment (NRA) contains two components: a delineation of the water quality sensitive areas and a VC evaluation. A detailed discussion of the methodology is included in Chapter 3 of CWS’s revised Design and Construction Standards (CWS, 2019). A brief description of each component is included below. Delineation of water quality sensitive areas A delineation of all on-site water quality sensitive areas (wetland, intermittent/perennial streams, springs, and natural lakes or ponds) must be conducted. For wetlands, the required criteria and suggested methodologies of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Technical Report Y- 87-1, (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) must be used to delineate the boundaries. This manual defines wetlands as requiring indicators of hydric soils, a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. A determination as to whether streams are intermittent or perennial must be made. The extent of all streams, springs, and natural lakes or ponds must also be determined. When known sensitive areas exist on adjacent properties, an attempt must be made by the applicant to obtain access to delineate the limits of these off-site features, especially if VCs associated with an off- site sensitive area may extend onto a proposed development site. Determine Vegetated Corridor Width and Condition The width of the VC must be determined at least every 100 feet along the boundary of the water quality sensitive area. The corridor width can range between 15 and 200 feet and is measured horizontally from the outer edge of the water quality sensitive area. The boundaries of the sensitive areas and their VCs must be staked, surveyed, and mapped within the property and within 200 feet of the property line on a base map. The VC width is based on the type of water resource (wetland, lake, stream), the size and nature of the water resource (acreage and/or perennial/intermittent), the size of the watershed, and the adjacent slope. Upon identification of the regulated VC boundary, the existing condition of the VC must also be determined. This is accomplished by 1) identifying the plant community types present in the VC, 2) documenting representative sample points, 3) characterizing each plant community type, 4) determining the cover by native species, invasive species, and noxious plants, and 5) based on this information determining whether the existing VC condition for each plant community is good, marginal, or degraded. Appendix D Construction Plans Universal Plaza Trail Connection SW BURNHAM STFANNOCREEKASH STFANNOCREEKTRAILT R A I L A CC E S S UNIVERSALPLAZATIGARD - OREGONPROJECT NO. 2021-066CONSTRUCTION PLANS50% DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08.11.2021VICINITY MAPSCALE 1" = 100'UNVERSAL PLAZA TRAIL CONNECTIONCITY OF TIGARD877 SW BURNHAM STTIGARD, OREGON 97223OWNERALTA PLANNING + DESIGN711 SE GRAND AVENUEPORTLAND, OREGON 97214ENGINEERING FIRMSHEETDWG NOTITLE1G100COVER SHEET2G101LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS3CP101PLAN & PROFILE4CP102PLAN & PROFILE5S501BOARDWALK FOUNDATION DETAILS6S601BOARDWALK TYPICAL SECTIONINDEX OF SHEETSPROJECT S ITE2021-066G100COVER SHEETDCWDCW8.10.2021AS SHOWN16PROJECT NO:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:DATE:SCALE:SHEETOFSHEET NO.SHEET TITLEMARKDESCRIPTIONISSUEDATEINTIALCITY OF TIGARDPROJ NO: 2021-066UNIVERSAL PLAZA TRAIL CONNECTION711 SE Grand Avenue | Portland, OR 97214503-230-9862 | altago.comP R E L IM I N A R YDIAL TOLL FREE1-800-332-2344AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYSBEFORE YOU DIGUnderground Service AlertATTENTION: OREGON LAW REQUIRES YOU TO FOLLOW RULES ADOPTED BY THE OREGONUTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER. THOSE RULES ARE SET FORTH IN OAR 952-001-0010THROUGH OAR 952-001-0090. YOU MAY OBTAIN COPIES OF THE RULES BY CALLING THECENTER. NOTE: THE TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR THE OREGON UTILITY NOTIFICATIONCENTER IS 1-800-332-2344 (OR 811). CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY THE CENTER AT LEASTTWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE, BUT NOT MORE THAN TEN DAYS BEFORE, COMMENCINGEXCAVATION.CALL BEFORE YOU DIG1-800-332-2344 TOPOGRAPHIC LEGENDABBREVIATIONSEXISTINGLINE CONTINUES TO UNKNOWN LOCATIONUNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINEUNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN LINEUNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER LINEUNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION LINEUNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINEUNDERGROUND CABLE TV LINEUNDERGROUND WATER LINEUNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS LINEUNDERGROUND TRAFFIC SIGNAL LINEOVERHEAD UTILITY LINEFENCE LINESANITARY SEWER MANHOLESTORM DRAIN MANHOLECATCH BASINFIELD INLETPROPOSEDFOUND SURVEY MONUMENTSURVEY CONTROL POINTCATCH BASINWATER VALVEWATER METERSANITARY SEWER MANHOLESTORM DRAIN MANHOLECLEAN OUTIRRIGATION CONTROL VALVEGAS VALVEGAS METERMAIL BOXLUMINAIRECOMM RISERCOMM JUNCTION BOXSIGNAL JUNCTION BOXELECTRIC METERELECTRIC JUNCTION BOXUTILITY POLEGUY ANCHORFIRE HYDRANTSIGNWETLAND FLAGTEST PITMONITORING WELL2021-066G101LEGEND &ABBREVIATIONSDCWDCW8.11.2021AS SHOWN26PROJECT NO:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:DATE:SCALE:SHEETOFSHEET NO.SHEET TITLEMARKDESCRIPTIONISSUEDATEINTIALCITY OF TIGARDPROJ NO: 2021-066UNIVERSAL PLAZA TRAIL CONNECTION711 SE Grand Avenue | Portland, OR 97214503-230-9862 | altago.comP R E L IM I N A R YDIAL TOLL FREE1-800-332-2344AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYSBEFORE YOU DIGUnderground Service AlertSDSTSSC W GOHIVGM TVEWMEMHYDEBC DMHCBFI SMHCBT SIGMWGVTPCONSTRUCTION LIMITSGRADING LIMITSWETLANDWETLAND BUFFERASPHALT PATHBOARDWALKBVCEBEGINNING VERTICAL CURVE ELEVATIONBVCSBEGINNING VERTICAL CURVE STATIONEVCEEND VERTICAL CURVE ELEVATIONEVCSEND VERTICAL CURVE STATIONKRATE OF CURVATURELVCLENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVEPVIPOINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTIONPCPOINT OF CURVATUREPIPOINT OF INTERSECTIONPCCPOINT OF COMPOUND CURVEPRCPOINT OF REVERSE CURVEPTPOINT OF TANGENCYABBREVIATIONSVERTICAL CURVESBVCEBEGINNING VERTICAL CURVE ELEVATIONBVCSBEGINNING VERTICAL CURVE STATIONEVCEEND VERTICAL CURVE ELEVATIONEVCSEND VERTICAL CURVE STATIONKRATE OF CURVATURELVCLENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVEPVIPOINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTIONABBREVIATIONSHORIZONTAL CURVESPCPOINT OF CURVATUREPIPOINT OF INTERSECTIONPCCPOINT OF COMPOUND CURVEPPOINT OF REVERSE CURVEPTPOINT OF TANGENCYA.B.C. AGGREGATE BASE COURSEACASPHALT CONCRETEASPH ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENTB.B.C.BITUMINOUS BASE COURSEBCBEGIN CURVEBCRBEGIN CURB RETURNBLDGBUILDINGBPBEGINNING PROJECT (ALIGNMENT)BTMBOTTOMCBCATCH BASINC&GCURB AND GUTTERCIPCAST-IN-PLACEC/L, CLCENTER LINECOCLEANOUTCONCCONCRETECONDTSCONDUITSCONTCONTINUOUSCR-GUTCROSS GUTTERDDELTADEMODEMOLITIONDETDETAILDIADIAMETERD/WDRIVEWAYDWGDRAWING(E)EXISTINGEACEDGE OF ASPHALTEBEASTBOUNDECEND CURVEECREND CURB RETURNEGEXISTING GRADEELELECTRICELEVELEVATIONEOCEDGE OF CONCRETEEP, EOPEND OF PROJECT (ALIGNMENT)EDGE OF PAVEMENTEPBELECTRIC PULL BOXEQ.EQUALETWEDGE OF TRAVEL WAYEVLTELECTRIC VAULTEWEACH WAYFGFINISH GRADEFHFIRE HYDRANTFLFLOW LINEFNDFOUNDFSFINISH SURFACEGBGRADE BREAKGVGAS VALVEGRNDGROUNDHH-MM-SSHOUR, MINUTES, SECONDS (ANGLE)HMACHOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETEHPHIGH POINTIEINVERT ELEVATIONLLEFT, LENGTHLFLINEAL FOOT/FEETLPLOW POINTLTLEFTMAXMAXIMUMMINMINIMUMMHMANHOLEMWMONITORING WELLNICNOT IN CONTRACTOCON CENTERPCCPORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETEPCCPPORTLAND CEMENTCONCRETE PAVEMENTPPPOWER POLEPTPOINTRRIGHT, RADIUSRTRIGHTSSLOPESDSTORM DRAINSFSQUARE FOOTSHTSHEETSTASTATIONS/WSIDEWALKTBDTO BE DETERMINEDTBVTO BE VERIFIEDTELVLTTELEPHONE VAULTTYPTYPICALUVLTUTILITY VAULTWBWESTBOUNDw/WITHØ or DIADIAMETER 15' WIDESANITARY SEWEREASEMENT30'30' WIDESANITARY SEWEREASEMENTBOOK, 890PAGE, 753SS145146147148145145 1451461472+003+004+00148149WETLAND BOUNDARYTIGARD SIGNIFICANT WETLANDSBUFFER BOUNDARYTAX LOT #202TAX LOT #203TAX LOT #204TAX LOT #203TAX LOT #100TAX LOT #203UNIVERSAL PLAZATIGARD SIGNIFICANTWETLANDS BUFFER4321310'10'BP: 1+00.00PC: 1+74.05 PC: 3+74.1 7 PT: 2+50.51 555R100.0 ' R10 0 . 0 ' R68.0' FG ELEVEG ELEV 1" = 20' HORZ.1" = 2' VERT.PROFILESCALE:1451501551451501551+002+003+004+004+50-1.54%0.80%GB: 1+21.99FG 148.15 PVI STA: 1+96.12PVI ELEV: 147.01K: 21.35LVC: 50.00BVCS: 1+71.12BVCE: 147.39 EVCS: 2+21.12 EVCE: 147.21LOW PT. STA: 2+04.09LOW PT ELEV: 147.14EG @ C/LFG @ C/LSCALEPLAN SCALEFEET0202010401.FIELD VERIFY EXISTING FEATURES AND UTILITIES ASREQUIRED.2.PROTECT ALL EXISTING FEATURES WHETHER SHOWN ORNOT.GENERAL SHEET NOTESKEYNOTESPLANSCALE: 1" = 20'PROJECT NO:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:DATE:SCALE:SHEETOFSHEET NO.SHEET TITLEMARKDESCRIPTIONISSUEDATEINTIALCITY OF TIGARDPROJ NO: 2021-066UNIVERSAL PLAZA TRAIL CONNECTION711 SE Grand Avenue | Portland, OR 97214503-230-9862 | altago.comP R E L IM I N A R YDIAL TOLL FREE1-800-332-2344AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYSBEFORE YOU DIGUnderground Service AlertLEGEND1.CONSTRUCT ASPHALT PATH. SEE SHT CP202 FORTYP SECTION.2.CONSTRUCT BOARDWALK. SEE SHT S601 FOR TYPSECTION.3.CONSTRUCT BOARDWALK ABUTMENT. SEE SHTS501 FOR DETAILS.4.COORDINATE ABUTMENT CONSTRUCTION WITHPLAZA PVMT CONSTRUCTION.5.PROTECT (E) TREE.CONSTRUCTION LIMITSGRADING LIMITSWETLANDWETLAND BUFFERASPHALT PATHBOARDWALK2021-066CP101PLAN & PROFILEDCWDCW8.23.2021AS SHOWN36M A T C H L I N E = 4 + 5 0 - S E E S H T C P 1 0 2 IVIVSMOKING SHELTERSMALL LIGHT POSTS~ ~~SDSSSSW ASH STREET2 5 ' EXST SDMH-A1 (60-IN)RIM=146.40IE IN=138.33 (NE)210 LF - EXSTS=0.55%145 1461471485+006+00149148147146145144 149150151149150FANNO CREEK TRAIL CONNECTIONTIGARD SIGNIFICANTWETLANDS BUFFER BOUNDARY21WETLAND BOUNDARYEP: 6+30.53PRC: 5+23.32R100.0'R100.0'1451501551451501554+505+006+007+00-4.50%0.80%GB: 6+13.40 FG 143.57 PVI STA: 4+85.68PVI ELEV: 149.32K: 9.44LVC: 50.00BVCS: 4+60.68BVCE: 149.12EVCS: 5+10.68EVCE: 148.19HIGH PT. STA: 4+68.22HIGH PT ELEV: 149.15EG @ C/LFG @ C/LFG ELEVEG ELEV 1" = 20' HORZ.1" = 2' VERT.PROFILESCALE:10.0''PATH2.0'SHOULDER2.0'SHOULDERTYPICAL SECTIONASPHALT PATH NOT TO SCALE5%5%1.5%3:1 MAX. SLOPE3:1 MAX. SLOPE2 1/2" ASPH ON 4" OF 3/4"-0PER CITY DWG NO. 166FINISH GRADEEXISTING GRADESCALEPLAN SCALEFEET0202010401.FIELD VERIFY EXISTING FEATURES AND UTILITIES ASREQUIRED.2.PROTECT ALL EXISTING FEATURES WHETHER SHOWN ORNOT.GENERAL SHEET NOTESKEYNOTESPLANSCALE: 1" = 20'MATCHLINE = 4+50 - SEE SHT CP101PROJECT NO:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:DATE:SCALE:SHEETOFSHEET NO.SHEET TITLEMARKDESCRIPTIONISSUEDATEINTIALCITY OF TIGARDPROJ NO: 2021-066UNIVERSAL PLAZA TRAIL CONNECTION711 SE Grand Avenue | Portland, OR 97214503-230-9862 | altago.comP R E L IM I N A R YDIAL TOLL FREE1-800-332-2344AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYSBEFORE YOU DIGUnderground Service Alert1.CONSTRUCT ASPHALT PATH. SEE TYP SECTION,THIS SHEET.2.SAWCUT EDGE OF (E) ASPHALT. MATCH ELEV OF(E) PATH.LEGENDCONSTRUCTION LIMITSGRADING LIMITSWETLANDWETLAND BUFFERASPHALT PATHBOARDWALK2021-066CP102PLAN & PROFILEDCWDCW8.11.2021AS SHOWN46 2021-066S501BOARDWALKFOUNDATION DETAILSSFJSWCJT8.11.2021AS SHOWN56PROJECT NO:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:DATE:SCALE:SHEETOFSHEET NO.SHEET TITLEMARKDESCRIPTIONISSUEDATEINTIALCITY OF TIGARDPROJ NO: 2021-066UNIVERSAL PLAZA TRAIL CONNECTION711 SE Grand Avenue | Portland, OR 97214503-230-9862 | altago.comP R E L IM I N A R YDIAL TOLL FREE1-800-332-2344AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYSBEFORE YOU DIGUnderground Service Alert 2021-066S601BOARDWALKTYPICAL SECTIONSFJSWCJT8.11.2021AS SHOWN66PROJECT NO:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:DATE:SCALE:SHEETOFSHEET NO.SHEET TITLEMARKDESCRIPTIONISSUEDATEINTIALCITY OF TIGARDPROJ NO: 2021-066UNIVERSAL PLAZA TRAIL CONNECTION711 SE Grand Avenue | Portland, OR 97214503-230-9862 | altago.comP R E L IM I N A R YDIAL TOLL FREE1-800-332-2344AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYSBEFORE YOU DIGUnderground Service Alert Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Consequences Analysis (ESEE) Universal Plaza and Trail Connecting the Universal Plaza with the Fanno Creek Trail in Tigard, Oregon Prepared for City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Prepared by John van Staveren, SPWS Shawn Eisner Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 570-0800 (503) 570-0855 FAX PHS Project Number: 7145 September 30, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 1.1 ESEE Analysis Requirements ................................................................................2 1.2 Existing Local Protections ......................................................................................3 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS ..................................................................................................4 3.0 SIGNIFICANT WETLAND AND BUFFER IMPACTS ............................................4 3.1 Significant Wetlands ..............................................................................................4 3.2 Buffers ....................................................................................................................5 3.3 Descriptions of the Conflicting Use .......................................................................6 4.0 SITE SPECIFIC ESEE ANALYSIS .............................................................................7 4.1 Economic Consequences ........................................................................................8 4.2 Social Consequences ............................................................................................10 4.3 Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................11 4.4 Energy Consequences ...........................................................................................13 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................14 5.1 Decision ................................................................................................................15 APPENDIX A: Figures ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard (City) proposes to construct the Universal Plaza and a connecting multi-use path from the Universal Plaza to the nearby Fanno Creek Trail. The Universal Plaza, which is proposed for development at 9100 SW Burnham Street is designed to function as a community public space that will feature interactive and engaging experiences both onsite and virtually, and will include events, gatherings, art installations, and other community focused activities. The project will include an interactive water feature, outdoor recreation areas, swings, restrooms, two outdoor event areas, an overhead canopy to provide shelter, landscaping, lighting, and stormwater facilities. The connecting trail includes both at-grade and boardwalk components and will be 10-feet wide. It will connect with the Fanno Creek Trail, which is a regional multi-use path that will eventually connect the West Hills of Portland, at the headwaters of Fanno Creek, to the Tualatin River at Durham. It is a regional trail in Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan Regional Pedestrian and Bicycle Network1. The proposed trail connection and a portion of the Universal Plaza will require construction within one Locally Significant Wetland (LSW) as well as buffers associated with the significant wetland adjacent to Fanno Creek (Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources). As construction within these features is not allowed without an approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the City is pursuing an amendment to remove 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland from the Local Wetland Inventory2 and to remove 0.24 acres (10,360 square feet) of associated buffer. These actions will remove the land from sensitive lands protections as provided by Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.510.100. The following table itemizes the permanent impacts to sensitive lands that will be required for implementation of the project. Resource/Impacts Trail (sq ft/ac) Universal Plaza (sq ft/ac) Total (sq ft/ac) Locally Significant Wetland Permanent Impacts 159/0.004 0.0/0.0 159/0.004 Goal 5 Buffers Permanent Impacts 1,836 /0.04 8,524/0.20 10,360/0.24 Impacts to the significant wetland and its buffer will be required from trail construction and from grading for the Universal Plaza and its stormwater facility. Of the total 0.24 acres (10,360 square feet) of buffer, 0.16 acres (7,074 square feet) are already impacted by the previous development of 9100 SW Burnham Street. As such, less than 1/3 of the total impact to buffers is to undeveloped surfaces. The encroachments to both wetlands and buffers have been minimized to the extent practicable. Mature native trees have been avoided and the trail has been aligned to keep out of a larger portion of the significant wetland adjacent to Fanno Creek. By necessity, the path must cross sensitive areas in order to connect the Universal Plaza with the Fanno Creek Trail. In fact, the 1 2014 Regional Active Transportation Plan (Metro, 2014) 2 City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Assessment (Fishman Environmental Services, 1994) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 2 trail section cannot be constructed if avoidance of sensitive areas were required; the only other pedestrian or bicycle options to connect the Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail currently exists in the form of public sidewalks or street routes along Burnham Street and Ash Street that are indirect and could pose issues for people with limited disabilities. The proposed route is the most straightforward route that could be identified for the path alignment on publicly owned property. The path is designed to control access through the resource area of expected desire lines for those Universal Plaza visitors interested in seeing Fanno Creek, experiencing Fanno Creek Park, and using the trail to access the Fanno Creek Trail. Likewise, the full extent of the Universal Plaza cannot be utilized without developing the portion that will impact a small amount of wetland and buffers. As described in the Plan Amendment Option section (TDC 18.510.100), the Code allows applicants to impact significant wetlands and City-regulated buffers if the amendment is justified under one of two options. The first option is to conduct an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis that considers the consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use. The second option, which is specific to wetlands only, is to demonstrate the wetland’s “insignificance.” Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. (PHS) reviewed the significance thresholds included in the City of Tigard’s Local Wetlands Inventory3 and determined that the quality of the wetland adjacent to Fanno Creek warrants its significance designation. As such, the Applicant is submitting an ESEE analysis in accordance with the necessary comprehensive plan map amendment via a Type-III procedure. This report is the ESEE analysis that examines the consequences of potential alternatives regarding a conflicting use impacting previously documented and protected significant lands in Tigard. This ESEE analysis has been prepared in accordance with applicable provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Goal 5) and the Goal 5 Rule (OAR Chapter 660, Division 023). 1.1 ESEE Analysis Requirements The analysis is based on the targeted removal of a small portion of one locally significant wetland (Significant Wetland E-6) and its adjacent buffer, which extends 50-feet from the edge of the delineated wetland. A portion of the buffer was recently revegeted . The Goal 5 ESEE analysis involves evaluating the trade-offs 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:  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 660-023-0010(1)]  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.  Analyze the ESEE consequences — The ESEE analysis considers the consequences ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 3 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.  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. 1.2 Existing Local Protections The Universal Plaza will be constructed on property that is zoned Mixed Use Central Business District (MU-CBD), which is classified as a Community Services use, an allowed use per Table 18.120.1, Commercial Zone Use Standards. The proposed trail is located partially within a designated Parks and Recreation Zone (PR) and partially within the MU-CBD zone. Table 18.140.1 Parks and Recreation Zone Use Standards identifies “Transportation/Utility Corridors” as a Conditional Use, but further clarifies under Note 5 that multi-use paths are allowed uses. Section 18.140.040.B Allowed development affirms that when associated with a Community Service use, certain types of developments, such as multi-use trails, are allowed without site development review provided they comply with the development standards and other regulations of the TDC. Each zone classification defines permitted and prohibited uses, as well as development standards including setbacks and building height restrictions. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Conditional uses are subject to a Type-III review, and development in or near sensitive lands trigger review under the City's Sensitive Lands chapter (18.500). Sensitive lands are defined as lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within:  The 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater.  Natural drainageways.  Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of State Lands or are designated as significant wetland on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Stream Corridors Map”.  Steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground; and  Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of Tigard “Significant Habitat Areas Map.” The Sensitive Lands chapter outlines the permitted and regulated activities and uses within sensitive lands, as well as defines the review and approval processes for development considerations based on the type and intensity of the impact. The chapter further outlines processes for requests for variances or plan amendments. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 4 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The Universal Plaza (Tax Lot 202) currently consists of a paved lot, with a fringe of vegetation along the southern edge of the lot. The connecting trail is proposed on adjacent open space (Tax Lots 203 and 204) to the south of the Universal Plaza. Within the open space, a total of 1.38 acres of emergent wetland and 0.36 acres of Fanno Creek are present. Dominant species within the wetland include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and grasses, such as tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus) and bluegrass (Poa sp.). Stream and wetland restoration occurred within this open space during 2018, as part of Clean Water Services stream realignment project (CWS file number: 18-000570). To the north of the wetland is a buffer, which was revegetated with native species. There are two vegetated corridor plant communities within the project area that are regulated by Clean Water Services (Figure 3). Plant Community A (23,014 square feet / 0.53 acres) consists of the area within 50 feet of Wetland A. This community was impacted in 2018, and subsequently restored, by CWS as part of their stream realignment project. Plant Community B (17,987 square feet / 0.41 acres) consists of an area previously set aside as “Advanced Mitigation Credit” for the City of Tigard’s use on City projects. Both of these plant communities consist of recently restored or previous vegetation corridor mitigation areas, which have been approved by CWS. 3.0 SIGNIFICANT WETLAND AND BUFFER IMPACTS 3.1 Significant Wetland In 1994, the City of Tigard contracted with Fishman Environmental Services (FES) to prepare its Local Wetland Inventory (LWI). Expanding upon a wetlands inventory previously completed by another firm3, FES developed an approach for completing the Goal 5 inventory and conducting the ESEE analyses that identified stream corridor segments as resource units. The study was completed in 1994 and approved by DSL in 1997. It is the basis for the adopted "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map". The significant wetland proposed for impact by the proposed path includes a small portion of E- 6. Wetland E-6 is mapped surrounding Fanno Creek. When the inventory was conducted, the reach of Fanno Creek within the project was straight. Two years ago, CWS meandered the creek to a more natural alignment. Although a wetland delineation was conducted at that time, the hydrology of the project area has changed, and a new wetland delineation was required. Figure 2 shows the results of the updated wetland delineation, which will be submitted to the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) for review and approval. Within the project area is 1.38 acres of Wetland E-6. Although recently planted with trees and shrubs by CWS, the wetland is dominated by herbaceous vegetation and the Cowardin classification is palustrine emergent, seasonally saturated (PEMY). Some Oregon ash (Fraxinus 3 Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon (Scientific Resources, Inc., 1989) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 5 latifolia) is present within the wetland, along with spirea, reed canarygrass, tall fescue, and soft rush. The hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification is Slope. The proposed limits of removal of the 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of wetland is immediately south of the Universal Plaza. The proposed trail leaves the Plaza at its southeast corner, where it has no option but to enter wetland. It is then aligned to minimize the impact to the wetland by bending the trail to the southeast, so that its alignment is primarily through the buffer. Footings to support the boardwalk portion of the trail will unavoidably impact 0.004 acres (159 square feet) of Wetland E-6. In comparing the LWI mapping with the recent wetland delineation, the portion of the wetland that is proposed to be removed is close to but did not appear to be present (or at least inventoried) when the LWI report was completed. The change in wetland boundaries could be due to several factors considering the length of time between the studies and the disturbance that has occurred to the property in the last several years. Table 1 below provides summary data from the Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory of the quality (functions) for E-6. Table 1 Functions of locally significant wetland proposed for impact Unit Area (acres) Wildlife Habitat Fish Habitat Linkage Uniqueness Water Quality Hydrologic Control Recreation Education Aesthetic E-5 1.38 H H H L H H H H H H = High FM = Moderate L = Low NA = Not assessed The conflicting area is 0.004 acres of significant wetland (E-6). Although in the LWI the wetland as a whole was attributed a number of high designations for several functions, the small section of wetland that will be impacted within and immediately adjacent to the Universal Plaza is of lower quality. Wildlife habitat is impaired due to the close proximity of an adjacent parking lot. Water quality and hydrologic control functions generally implies a wetland with topographic relief that is able to store water and prolong contact time with vegetation. The area of conflicting use is flat, and although vegetated with grasses, will not temporarily detain or slow the flow of water to any appreciable extent. As such, although the wetland is technically locally significant, in reality, its functions are generally low and will be offset through the purchase of credits from a local wetland mitigation bank. 3.2 Buffers Due to the proximity to Fanno Creek and the adjacent locally significant wetland, the project area includes an area of City regulated buffers. The regulated limits of this resource area are identified on the attached graphics but are the same as the location of buffers regulated by CWS. Although there are differences between the two jurisdictions (e.g., non-significant wetlands do not include buffers at the City level and CWS only requires corridors 25 feet wide adjoining wetlands less than one-half acre in size), there is no difference within the ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 6 project area, and a 50-foot corridor is required by both the City and CWS. That said, of the total 0.24 acres (10,360 square feet) of buffer proposed for impact, 0.16 acres (7,074 square feet) are already impacted (i.e., paved) by the previous development of 9100 SW Burnham Street, with only 3,286 square feet (0.08 acres) of undeveloped area. Mitigation for the encroachment to vegetated corridor will include deduction from the City of Tigard’s Advanced Mitigation Vegetated Corridor Credit area which is located onsite. As stated previously, the trail encroachments have been minimized to the extent practicable and it could not be constructed if avoidance of wetland and its buffer is required. The only other pedestrian or bicycle options to connect the Universal Plaza to the Fanno Creek Trail are on public sidewalks or street routes along Burnham Street and Ash Street, which are indirect and may not be easily accessible to people with limited mobility. The proposed route is the most straightforward route that could be identified on publicly owned property. The 0.20 acres (8,524 square feet) of impact to the buffer within the Universal Plaza property is from the proposed stormwater facility and grading to support the Universal Plaza, including enhancement of the buffer on either side of the trail in the southern portion of the Plaza by removing existing pavement followed by plantings. As with the trail, the encroachment has been minimized to the extent practicable. Due to the topography of the site and specific stormwater management requirements, the stormwater runoff from the site is proposed to be collected and detained in the low area of the site (southwest). This area also happens to be within the updated buffer boundary. 3.3 Description of the Conflicting Use An important step in the ESEE analysis is identifying conflicting uses that “exist or could occur” within regionally significant resource areas and identified in the impact area. The Goal 5 Rule (OAR 660-023-0010) defines conflicting uses as follows: (1) "Conflicting use" is a land use, or other activity reasonably and customarily subject to land use regulations, that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource (except as provided in OAR 660-023-0180(l)(b)). Local governments are not required to regard agricultural practices as conflicting uses. The Goal 5 Administrative Rule (OAR 660-023-0040) describes how conflicting uses are identified: (2) Identify conflicting uses. Local governments shall identify conflicting uses that exist, or could occur, with regard to significant Goal 5 resource sites. To identify these uses, local governments shall examine land uses allowed outright or conditionally within the zones applied to the resource site and in its impact area. Local governments are not required to consider allowed uses that would be unlikely to occur in the impact area because existing permanent uses occupy the site. The following shall also apply in the identification of conflicting uses: A) If no uses conflict with a significant resource site, acknowledged policies and land use regulations may be considered sufficient to protect the resource site. The determination that there are no conflicting uses must be based on the applicable zoning rather than ownership of the site. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 7 (Therefore, public ownership of a site does not by itself support a conclusion that there are no conflicting uses.) B) A local government may determine that one or more significant Goal 5 resource sites are conflicting uses with another significant resource site. The local government shall determine the level of protection for each significant site using the ESEE process and/or the requirements in OAR 660-023-0090 through 660-023-0230 (see OAR 660-023-0020(1)). The conflicting uses identified in this report are the construction of the trail and the Universal Plaza. The impacts are unavoidable if a section of trail is to connect Universal Plaza with Fanno Creek Trail. With the location of the park established, providing access to the site with a connecting path to nearby Fanno Creek Trail was an important addition to the City’s growing pedestrian network within the urbanizing core of the city. The intent of the Fanno Creek Trail is to promote bicycle and pedestrian “off-street” alternatives for walking or commuting to commercial, residential and public areas in the Tigard area, including Universal Plaza. There are no development options for the new connecting path that will not disturb sensitive areas or VC. The only alternative that avoids VCs is to require pedestrians to utilize existing sidewalks and streets, but this would not serve desire lines expected in the direction of the Fanno Creek Trail or interest in exploring Fanno Creek Park. The trail connects to the Fanno Creek Trail, which is part of a regional multi-use path envisioned for connecting the West Hills of Portland, at the headwaters of Fanno Creek, to the Tualatin River at Durham. In addition to being a project of local concern, Metro’s 2018 Regional Transportation Plan identifies existing and planned sections of the Fanno Creek Trail as a Bicycle Parkway on the Regional Bike Network Map and as a Pedestrian Parkway on the Regional Pedestrian Network map. The section leading to the Universal Plaza will add an important connection The Universal Plaza will provide a unique community gathering space within the City. For it to comply with CWS’ stormwater treatment and detention standards, plus though of the National Marine Fisheries Service, a facility must be constructed within the southern part of the property. This facility, plus grading to support the facility, plus the trail connection, can only occur within the significant resources. The 0.004 acres of significant wetland that will be removed from the City’s Local Wetland Inventory, represents only a very small fraction of the total significant wetlands within the City. 4.0 SITE SPECIFIC ESEE ANALYSIS This section discusses the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) impacts to the relevant portions of the two subject wetlands for the following three alternative protection scenarios:  Prohibit conflicting uses providing full protection of the resource site. o The action to prohibit the conflicting use would prevent development actions that conflict with, or degrade, Significant Goal 5 Natural Resources. This scenario emphasizes resource protection. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 8  Limit conflicting uses while offering limited protection of the resource site (balance development and conservation objectives). o The action to 'limit conflicting uses' within the context of this ESEE Analysis is defined as allowing the limited impacts to the wetland and buffers sufficient to be able to construct a portion of the Universal Plaza and connect it with the Fanno Creek Trail.  Allow conflicting uses fully with no local protection for the resource site. o The action to allow conflicting uses is to allow the development of the full range of permissible uses noted in the underlying PR zone and MU-CBD zone. The PR zone includes such amenities as playgrounds, picnic areas, shelters, structures, sport courts and fields and other related items. The MU- CBD zone is designed to provide a pedestrian-friendly urban village in downtown Tigard. A wide variety of commercial, civic, employment, mixed- use, apartments, and rowhouses are allowed. 4.1 Economic Consequences The following describes the economic consequences for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full protection) It is highly likely that once the Universal Plaza is complete, users will enter the Plaza both from Burnham Street on its northern boundary and from the Fanno Creek Trail on its southern boundary. The economic consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses will likely result from several factors including increased maintenance costs due to demand trails being created by users walking through the buffer and wetland between the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza. The creation of demand trails will adversely impact the vegetation within the wetland and buffer, which will degrade its functions. The lack of connectivity between the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza would mean that it would not be open to bicyclists of every capability and would not be useable for those with mobility difficulties. The Universal Plaza was designed with community input and is intended to be a showpiece for revitalizing downtown Tigard. The Universal Plaza can be reduced in size if full protection is selected, but its size ensures the maximum user benefit, which is very important for the economy of downtown Tigard. The Gallup/Knight Foundation's three-year study called the Soul of the Community4 found that community spaces that offered were a primary driver for community attachment, which shows a strong positive correlation between resident attachment local economic growth. The trail connection between the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza will add to the economic benefits that can be attributed to the creation of this community showpiece. 4 https://knightfoundation.org/sotc/pdf-documents/ ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 9 Numerous studies point to the economic benefits of trails. A study from New York5 found that the public investment in building and maintaining trails outweighed the revenue they bring to a community. They noted that trails increase the value of nearby properties and boost spending at local businesses. Trails make communities more attractive places to live and, when considering where to move, homebuyers rank walking and biking paths as one of the most important features of a new community. Trails can influence business location and relocation decisions because companies often choose to locate in communities that offer a high level of amenities to employees as a means of attracting and retaining top-level workers. Trails can make communities attractive to businesses looking to expand or relocate both because of the amenities they offer to employees and the opportunities they offer to cater to trail visitors. The creation of the Universal Plaza is expected to attract a large number of people, which can be directly linked to an increase in the City being an attractive location for businesses to move to. These benefits represent an economic return on the money invested in this section of trail. As such, prohibiting the conflicting use would avoid a relatively modest capital construction expenditure by the City for the costs of the trail section and for ongoing maintenance, but the economic benefit of completing the connection with the Fanno Creek Trail will outweigh these relatively small costs. Limit Conflicting Uses (limited protection) From an economic standpoint, limiting the conflicting use should have a net positive economic impact. This economic gain will result from users of the Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza being able to freely travel back and forth. The economics of trail use have been well documented. Consumers have been documented to spend more on equipment (e.g. bicycles) necessary to use the trail. Metro cites a study from South Carolina, where a bike shop saw a 20% annual increase in sales resulting from the construction of a nearby trail. The connection between the trail and the Universal Plaza could generate more money spent by tourists. Numerous studies across the country have shown an increase in tourism in relation to trail use, including a $12 million annual increase in recreation dollars associated with trail use in Virginia. In the Portland area, bicycling tourism and activities generate $89 million in annual economic activity.6 The benefit of both experiences (trail use, and the interactive and community-gathering focus of the Universal Plaza) should provide a boon to local spending by a variety of users. Negative economic consequences associated with limiting the conflicting use include the annual costs of maintaining the trails and the initial costs of its construction, though short- term benefits are seen from increased construction-related employment. As stated above, community gathering spaces provide residents attachment to where they live, which leads to higher local gross domestic product (Soul of the Community study). 5 Greenways and Trails – Bringing economic benefits to New York (New York Parks and Conservation Association, July, 2018) 6 2014 Regional Active Transportation Plan (Metro, 2014) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 10 Limiting the conflicting use for the Universal Plaza will result in full build out of the Plaza and with it all of the economic gains that will result. Allow Conflicting Uses for local protection The economic consequences of allowing conflicting use for the trail construction are mostly negative. Allowing most of the permissible uses from the underlying PR zone would result in degraded wetland functions and values, require a capital expenditure for the City, on-going management, and related and required mitigation. The benefit of allowing the conflicting use is a short-term boost for construction and its related benefits, which would not be in balance with the required mitigation and ongoing costs of infrastructure maintenance. The economic consequences of allowing the uses for the MU-CBD zone are not likely to be negative for the City. It is assumed, that the City will choose to develop the same use as that proposed for the Universal Plaza, although many other development scenarios are possible in the MU-CBD zone. As such, the economic gains realized by allowing the limited conflicting use will all apply for allowing the conflicting use. 4.2 Social Consequences The following describes the social consequences (recreation, community involvement, health benefits, education, etc.) for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full protection) Prohibiting the conflicting use would have local, if not regional social consequences. Prohibiting the conflicting use would potentially restrict access between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail. People with limited mobility would not be able to travel between both spaces. The Universal Plaza is a public gathering space that will be used throughout the year. Its benefit is based on the importance of areas where public discourse and social interaction can occur, which is essential for a healthy, functioning society. Public spaces, such as the Universal Plaza, and trails serve as meeting places and foster community involvement and pride and provide an opportunity for people of different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds to interact.7 Maximizing the Universal Plaza and connecting it with the Fanno Creek Trail will ensure that passive recreation opportunities like bird watching or environmental learning would be unhindered and accessible for all. The value of trails from a social perspective is demonstrated by research that shows quality of life is an important factor in businesses and workers’ location-choice decisions. This could also extend to the public gathering space that will be Universal Plaza. In Washington, knowledge-focused industries, such as technology companies, were found to prioritize quality of life when choosing where to locate and expand. Companies that want their location to reflect their corporate culture place a higher value on quality of life for their selected location. Companies see the social benefits of locating in close proximity to trails, such as 7 The Social, Health, and Heritage Benefits of Trails (GoforGreen, 2000) ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 11 allowing their workers to exercise during breaks, and providing opportunities to experience the mental health benefits of being in nature, to socialize with co-workers, and even to commute via a trail. These would not be realized if the conflicting use were prohibited. Limit Conflicting Uses (limited protection) The social consequences of limiting the conflicting uses in Wetland E-6 and adjacent buffers are positive. Limiting the conflicting uses will provide significant social benefits to all trail users, including those with limited mobility, and will ensure the Universal Plaza is as large and as effective as it can be. Both the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail provide multiple social benefits, as will the connecting trail. Those who will gain access to the Fanno Creek Trail from Universal Plaza will be accessing a travel corridor that will provide exercise, education, and social benefits from interacting in a public setting. It has been documented that people who live near trails walk on average 15 to 30 minutes more per day than those who live in neighborhoods with fewer trails or other ways to get around without a car. The Fanno Creek Trail and the Universal Plaza can provide opportunities for educational experiences as they can become outdoor classrooms. Having people outside and experiencing or learning about nature can create a society that is more likely to take the steps needed to protect our environment and ensure greater community interaction and an increased quality of life. Allow Conflicting Uses (no local protection) The social consequences of allowing the conflicting uses are mixed. The PR zoning would allow for the development of additional park amenities, but the amenities will likely not be in keeping with the social benefits that a trail provides. Allowing the conflicting use for the Universal Plaza is essentially the same as limiting the conflicting use, as we assume the City will choose to develop the property with the same use. 4.3 Environmental Consequences The following describes the consequences to water quality, hydrologic control, wildlife habitat (as well as other relevant factors) for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full protection) The environmental consequences of prohibiting the conflicting uses are mixed. The City’s Development Code aims to protect significant wetlands by not allowing direct impacts to them, but indirect impacts will happen from trail users traversing the gap between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail. Trail users could create several trails, called demand trails, in locations where no defined trail exists. Limiting the users to a defined and controlled location will limit the area of impact. The wetland functions provided by E-6 were documented as mostly high, though the specific functions of the wetland where impacts are proposed are moderate to low. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 12 Prohibiting the conflicting use and reducing the area that can be impacted by the Universal Plaza will reduce the effectiveness of the uses the Plaza will provide. The connection that Universal Plaza users will have with Fanno Creek and its buffer has been shown to encourage people to think and act on their environment. The process of engaging a community in thinking about their environment is called Placemaking8. Placemaking is dedicated to encouraging and empowering the public to take ownership and positively contribute to their world beyond their homes. It has been called an essential element of environmentalism, though that word is used in the framework of people caring about their environment and does not mean anything radical. Prohibiting the conflicting use will reduce the effectiveness of both the plaza and the connecting trail in ways people can interact with and care for their environment. Limit Conflicting Uses (limited protection) Limiting the conflicting use to bridging the gap between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail and constructing a portion of the Universal Plaza will require approvals from Oregon’s Removal-Fill Law, which is administered by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which is administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Both the Corps and DSL require an alternatives analysis to demonstrate that impacting wetlands is unavoidable, but both require mitigation when avoidance is impracticable. Mitigating, which will likely be through the purchase of credits at a wetland mitigation bank, ensures there will be compensation for lost wetland functions and values. DSL requires that before a mitigation bank can be used to compensate for proposed impacts, a series of Principal Objectives for wetland mitigation must be met (OAR 141-085-0680(2)). These Principal Objectives include requirements such as ensuring the replacement of lost functions and values and providing local replacement of locally important functions and values. Wetland E-6 provides mainly moderate to lower quality functions and values. As such, it can be argued that limiting the conflicting use would allow for a higher quality mitigated wetland as compensation. Limiting the conflicting use will also allow impacts to the buffer, though greater than two-thirds of that impact are to areas that were already developed prior to the property being purchased by the City. It should be noted that although the trail will impact Wetland E-6, the impact results from the construction of a boardwalk through and above the wetland. This boardwalk will impact the wetland but will ensure that hydrologic connectivity within the wetland will remain. As such, limiting the conflicting use, at least in this area, will not result in complete loss of wetland function. Limiting the conflicting use will ensure the maximum benefit is derived from the Universal Plaza and its connecting trail, such that the benefits of Placemaking and its resulting environmental awareness will be fully realized. Allow Conflicting Uses for local protection The environmental consequences of allowing many of the permissible conflicting uses of the underlying PR zone is generally negative. Mitigation for impacting the wetlands will likely 8 https://www.pps.org/article/happy-earth-day-reframing-the-environmental-movement ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 13 result in improved functions and values elsewhere, but the actual impacts to the wetland resulting from allowing the conflicting use would likely have indirect impacts to the wetland and the surrounding environment. Measures, such as boardwalk construction, would likely not be used to diminish the severity of the impacts. Allowing the conflicting use will likely result in the same impacts as limiting the conflicting use, as the City will choose to develop the open space as the Universal Plaza, which can be seen as the highest and best use of the property. 4.4 Energy Consequences The following describes the energy consequences (transportation connectivity, efficient urban development, etc.) for each of the three protection scenarios. Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full protection) The energy consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses would likely be negative. The smaller footprint of the Universal Plaza and the lack of connecting trail may mean that fewer people use the Plaza. A connecting trail may ensure that some commuters can use the trail to travel from their home to their work or for social interactions. As stated previously, in 2005 it was estimated that trails in the Greater Portland area save $1.1 billion per year on gas and other auto-related expenses. Although the gap is small, the energy savings would not be realized without a connection between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail. Limit Conflicting Uses (limited protection) The energy consequences of limiting the conflicting use fully develop the Universal Plaza and to construct the trail would be positive. Creating a connection between the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail will ensure people with disabilities will have access to the entire Fanno Creek Trail for commuting or travelling between communities, which can save energy costs. It has been estimated that over 18% of all trips are made by walking and by bicycle within the Portland area. The City’s 2035 TSP describes how traffic congestion has consistently ranked as the number one issue facing Tigard in community attitude surveys and the city is committed to finding solutions to this issue. Multi-modal trails are being constructed all across the country to provide an alternative to gas-powered vehicular traffic. Allow Conflicting Uses (no local protection) The energy consequences of allowing the conflicting uses in the PR zone is mixed. Allowing the conflicting uses in the PR zone will result in a complete trail, which has positive energy consequences, though could also result in the installation of recreational amenities, such as playgrounds, shelters, and structures. Maintaining these amenities over many years is not energy efficient. Allowing the conflicting use will likely result in the same consequences as limiting, as the City will likely choose to full develop the Universal Plaza. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 14 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS The following summarizes the anticipated impacts of the three alternatives related to the conflicting use: Prohibiting the conflicting use would avoid a relatively modest capital construction expenditure by the City for the costs of the boardwalk and from on-going maintenance of the trail. There would be a greater cost for maximizing the footprint of the Universal Plaza. It is likely, however, that prohibiting the conflicting use will result in degradation of the already lower quality wetland from trail users choosing to traverse the gap themselves and creating what are called demand trails. Although the gap will not be accessible to some commuters and for people with limited mobility, the wetland will be used by those still wanting to make the connections. Not maximizing the Universal Plaza will result in a loss of benefits that a trail and the Universal Plaza provide, including economic benefits (e.g., revenue increase from trail connection, lower health care costs) and social (the community benefits from both the Universal Plaza and the Fanno Creek Trail, the health and education benefits realized from trail use, etc.). Limiting the conflicting use will ensure that the benefits from both a regional trail and the Universal Plaza are accessible. There is a relatively large pool of data to document the economic, social, and energy benefits of trail use and community spaces, such as the Universal Plaza. From an economic perspective, both trails and community spaces can increase property values, increase tourism, and entice companies, which create jobs, to relocate to areas that have these amenities. Trails can benefit physical and mental health, which can in turn reduce medical costs. The Universal Plaza and its connecting trail can serve as conduits for community involvement and engagement. Passive educational opportunities are best served by a trail system. This benefit can also be attributed to the Universal Plaza, which has been designed to be an interactive community space that can be used year-round. Limiting the conflicting use would result in the loss of 0.004 acres of wetland and the permanent impact to 0.24 acres of buffer. The encroachments will result in lost functions and values of the wetland and buffer, though both will be mitigated, ensuring no net loss of both resources. As stated above, it should be noted that greater than two-thirds of the buffer impact is to a buffer that has already been developed. Although the wetlands are categorized as locally significant, in reality, its functions are generally low to moderate and can be offset through the purchase of credits from a wetland mitigation bank that ensures replacement of locally important functions and values. Allowing most of the permissible uses from the underlying PR zone would not only further deteriorate the wetland resource and the surrounding environment, but the relative costs would be high for capital construction, mitigation, and on-going management. The development of non-resource-oriented amenities will likely not fit within the context of the land surrounding the trail. Allowing uses within the MU-CBD zone underlying much of the Universal Plaza, will likely be no different than limiting the uses, as the City will likely choose to develop the same project. ESEE for Trail Construction linking Universal Plaza to Fanno Creek Trail and for the construction of Universal Plaza in Tigard Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS # 7145 Page 15 5.1 Decision This analysis concludes that limiting the conflicting use will result in the most beneficial consequence of the three protection scenarios for the City. A decision to limit the conflicting use will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting the conflicting use, but more importantly will allow benefits to be realized. There is a wealth of data available documenting the economic, social, and energy benefits that can be realized from an efficient trail system and a community space. It is true too, that although limiting the conflicting uses will impact the wetland, the relatively low functions and values of the wetland will be offset by the use of wetland mitigation credits from a local wetland mitigation bank. Based on this analysis, the recommendation is to limit the conflicting use (i.e., remove a small portion (0.004 acres) of Wetland E-6) from the City’s Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map and 0.24 acres of buffer in order to accommodate the future development of the Universal Plaza and a trail connecting the Universal Plaza with the Fanno Creek Trail. Appendix A Figures Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 FIGURE 1 General Location and Topography Universal Plaza Boardwalk and Trail- Tigard, Oregon United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beaverton, Oregon 7.5 quadrangle, 2020 (viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic) Project #7145 5/5/2021 Study Area N Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 FIGURE 2 Tax Lot Map Universal Plaza Boardwalk and Trail - Tigard, Oregon The Oregon Map (ormap.net) Project #7145 5/5/2021 N Study Area Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Local Wetland Inventory Universal Plaza Boardwalk and Trail - Tigard, Oregon Fishman Environmental Services, 1997 Project #7145 5/5/2021 N 640 ft Study Area FIGURE 2A Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Aerial Photo Universal Plaza Boardwalk and Trail - Tigard, Oregon GoogleEarth, 2020 Project #7145 5/5/2021 N Study Area FIGURE 2B EMCGM1401411421401411411411411411411411411451451451451451451501421421421421421421421421421421431 5 0 1 4 7 145144Significant Wetland E-6 (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) F a n n o CreekExisting Pavement Wetla n d A C o nti n u e s B e y o n d St u d y Ar e a Wetland A and Fanno CreekContinue Beyond Study Area TL 203 TL 204 TL 100 TL 202 2018 Wetland Delineated Boundary Existing Paved Path (Not Surveyed / Approximate Location) Existing Pedestrian Bridge (Plant Community B) Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area. (17,987 sf / 0.41 ac) Existing Development Areas Buffer Width of 50 Feet As Shown ASH AVENUE LEGEND Study Area Boundary (169,240 sf / 3.88 ac) Significant Wetland E-6 (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Waters of the State/US (15,649 sf / 0.36 ac) Ordinary High Water (OHW) Direction of Flow Vegetated Corridor Boundary (VC) (41,065 sf / 0.94 ac) Plant Community A (23,078 sf / 0.53 ac) (On Track to Good Per CWS File # 18-000570) Plant Community B (17,987 sf / 0.41 ac) Advanced Vegetated Corridor Mitigation Credit Area. (On Track to Good Per CWS File # 18-000570) 50 Foot Goal 5 Wetland Buffer Existing Development Areas Survey provided by KPFF. Survey accuracy is sub-centimeter. Wetland and Stream boundaries collected with Trimble Hand Held GPS Unit accuracy is sub-meter. FIGURE 3 Existing Conditions Universal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855 6-18-2021 C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\ESEE Figures\Fig3 ExistCond.dwg, 6/22/2021 2:22:13 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3 145144146147148149145 144 146 147 148 149 150 147148149 151 SDSDSD SD SD CEMCGM1401411421401411411411411411411411411451451451451451451501511501501421421421421421421421421421421431 5 0 1 4 7 145144UNIVERSAL PLAZA Significant Wetland E-6 (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Proposed 10' Wide Asphalt Path Wetla n d A C o nti n u e s Beyo n d St u d y Ar e a Wetland A and Fanno Creek Continues Beyond Study AreaF a n n o Creek Limits of Disturbance Existing Paved Path (Not Surveyed / Approximate Location) Existing Pedestrian Bridge Buffer Encroachment Within Existing Developed Areas (7,074 sf / 0.16 ac) Buffer Width of 50 Feet As Shown ASH AVENUE Buffer Encroachment (1,211 sf / 0.03 ac) Buffer Encroachment (625 sf / 0.01 ac) Buffer Encroachment (1,450 sf / 0.03 ac) Wetland Impact Boardwalk Footings (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Proposed Raised Boardwalk and Footings (18) LEGEND Study Area Boundary (169,240 sf / 3.88 ac) Significant Wetland E-6 (59,917 sf / 1.38 ac) Waters of the State/US (15,649 sf / 0.36 ac) Ordinary High Water (OHW) Direction of Flow Wetland Impact (159 sf / 0.004 ac) Buffer Encroachment (3,286 sf / 0.08 ac) Buffer Encroachment Within Existing Development Areas (7,074 sf / 0.16 ac) 50 Foot Goal 5 Wetland Buffer Site plan provided by Alta FIGURE 4 Development Site Plan Universal Plaza Trail Connection - Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Phone: (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855 9-30-2021 C:\Users\Lisa\Desktop\WorkFromHome\7145 Universal Plaza Boardwalk\AutoCAD\Plot DWGs\ESEE Figures\Fig4 SitePlan.dwg, 9/30/2021 3:31:46 PM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3