Loading...
Agenda Packet - 2018-10-23 AGENDA o � LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING IV �� O October 23, 2018 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall Contact: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder Email: asimpson@lakeoswego.city Phone: 503-534-4225 The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact the City Manager's Office at 503-635-0215 48 hours before the meeting. Electronic presentations must be delivered to the City Recorder 24 hours prior to the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 Appeal of DRC Decision on a Request for Approval of a 6-lot Subdivision and Modification of Delineated RP District (LU 17-0084/AP 18-08) Possible Motions: 1. Affirm the DRC's decision and approve LU 17-0084 with denial of the reduction in the RP district; or 2. Affirm the DRC's decision and approve LU 17-0084 with modified conditions of approval;or 3. Reverse the DRC's decision and deny LU 17-0084;or 4. Remand the decision to the DRC for additional evidence or consideration. (Note: Because of the statutory requirement of ORS 227.178 that a final decision be issued within 120 days after the application was deemed complete, this option should only be exercised with the consent of the applicants to waive the 120-day period.) Public Hearing Process: Pursuant to LOC 55.02.085(4),the hearing before the City Council will be on the record established before the Development Review Commission (DRC). No new evidence may be presented. Only persons who appeared before the DRC orally or in writing may testify. 1. Review of hearing procedure by David Powell City Attorney 2. Staff Report by Debra Andreades, Senior Planner 3. Testimony:the following time limits shall be observed, but may be changed by the 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 2 Council: 15 minutes for the applicants, 15 minutes for the appellant, 10 minutes for representatives of recognized neighborhood associations, homeowner associations,government agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations;five minutes per individual; five minutes for the applicants' rebuttal 5. ADJOURNMENT 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city 4.1 o t'p` 4� COUNCIL REPORT U r o TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Debra Andreades, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Appeal of LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 (6-Lot Subdivision at 1107 Yates Street) DATE: October 12, 2018 MEETING DATE: October 23, 2018 ACTION A quasi-judicial land use public hearing on an appeal of the Development Review Commission's (DRC or Commission) decision to approve LU 17-0084, except that the request for reduction of the RP District was denied.The applicants' request consists of the following: • A 6-lot Subdivision with a private street. Five of the lots will be flag lots (Lots 2-6)1; • RP District reduction of the previously delineated RP District, per LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii; and • Removal of 27 trees to accommodate the project(Additional trees will be removed under separate Invasive and Dead tree removal permits). BACKGROUND The subject site is 2.08 acres in size, is zoned R-7.5 (residential), and abuts the Hallinan Woods Natural Area on the south and east sides of the site.There is a Resource Protection (RP) District consisting of wetlands and a stream corridor on the southern portion of the site that was previously delineated (LU 16-0043).The DRC held public hearings for this application on September 5 and September 17, 2018.The Findings, Conclusion, and Order were adopted by the DRC on September 24, 2018 (Exhibit B-001). On October 9, 2018, a Notice of Intent to Appeal the Commission's decision was filed by Donald Mattersdorff and Christian Huettemeyer,the appellants (Exhibit A-001). Scope of Review by Council On appeal,the Council may consider all issues raised to the Commission, based upon the evidence before the Commission.The Council's review is not limited to the issues stated in the Appellant's Notice of Intent to Appeal. The application was filed prior to the effective date of amendments to the Flag lot and Access code standards. See Staff Report,pg. 14,fn.2. 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 RECORD BEFORE THE COUNCIL The record before the Council consists of the staff report, all exhibits and written testimony presented to the DRC, final DRC order, and the DRC meeting minutes (LOC 50.07.003.7.f.i).The record can be viewed and downloaded at www.lakeoswego.city by entering "LU 17-0084" in the search box at the top of the City of Lake Oswego home page. DISCUSSION The appellants' issues are identified in Exhibit A-1, summarized, below. 1. Flag Lots: Appellants'Argument:The DRC erred in approving the subdivision lots as flag lots.The appellants contend (Exhibits A-001 and G-203)that Lots 2 through 6 do not meet the definition of"flag lot" in LOC 50.10.003.2 because they are not located behind the "parent lot" . DRC Findings:The DRC expressly made no supplemental findings on whether or not the lots are flag lots (Exhibit C-004), however the project was approved with the proposed flag lots (as noted previously,the request for reduction of the RP District was denied).The DRC Findings incorporated the August 10, 2018 Staff Report as support for its decision,which does address the Flag Lot standard. Staff Report:The Flag Lot standards are addressed on pages 14-18 of the Staff Report(Exhibit D-001). There, staff found that Lots 2-6 are flag lots because "access is taken from the private access easement. (See Access discussion below.)" Staff Response to Appeal Issue: As staff discussed with the Commission during the public hearing: "Flag Lot" is defined as follows (LOC 50.10.003.2): "A lot that was created after September 6, 1998, and: a. Has the actual building site located behind another lot;and b. Takes access from the street via: i. A driveway or access lane that is part of the lot and the width narrows to less than the minimum lot width for the zone; or ii. An access easement." Lots 2-6 are flag lots because the lots have their buildable area behind another lot [see Exhibit E-009, which shows that the building area for Lots 2-3 is behind the lots abutting the site to the north (Tax Lots 5901 and 6100), and the building area of Lots 4-6 are behind Lots 2-3 on the site], and access for Lots 2-6 are taken from a private access easement per the definition of"Flag Lot." a. Has the actual building site is located behind another lot 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 3 To be a flag lot,the actual building site of the lot must be located "behind" another lot.A flag lot need not have a traditional "flag" with a "pole"that leads to a public street. In addition, the definition does not state that the building site must be located behind another lot that is on the "parent site"; the building site could be located behind a lot abutting the parent site,for instance. As shown in Exhibit E-009,the buildable area of each lot is behind another lot. At the public hearing, staff outlined a previous interpretation of the flag lot definition made by the City Council (Exhibit C-003, DRC Minutes 9-17-18, page 2) for LU 14-0046, an 8-lot subdivision off of Cedar Street. In that decision,the Council found that all of the lots were flag lots: "Proposed Lots 1-7 are located behind Lot 8 in relation to the public street.The building site of Lot 8 fronts on the access lane rather than the street, and is behind the abutting properties to the west-again with relation to the street.All eight properties take access from the street via an access easement.The City Council finds that the proposed subdivision consists entirely of flag lots as defined in the Code". -Council Finding, LU 14-0046, page 5. [Lot 8 (937 Cedar St. in the map, below) was held to be a "flag lot."] Cedar csD co `�' u� C7 1233 fa, co cn 1255 St (PVT) co co 1287 0 co co co rn 13.05 - Freepons Park The lots take access from Cedar St. (the public street)via an access easement,which extends Cedar St.as a private access lane into the site. In the current proposal, Lot 2 of LU 17-0084, as shown below with approximate building site locations outlined in red, is a flag lot in a similar manner as Lot 8 (937 Cedar St) of LU 14-0046. As stated above and shown by the red arrows in the map below,the actual building site of Lot 2 is behind Tax Lot 5901 in relation to the public street. 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 4 R7.5 3 —v .,1lPiH9p C d ..11 I i srm.wx,m I i Hutt■ i7i r� _ __- OPEN SPACE TRACT Bo 6a i a Y PLR w!toms ! '• - AHDMLPED rtB1Hp.PAW,TON !�-• PP Bilt.Cui. PFOPOWD PNA b. Takes access from the street via: i. A driveway or access lane that is part of the lot and the width narrows to less than the minimum lot width for the zone; or ii. An access easement. As indicated on the Site Plan, Exhibit E-004, access to the lots is taken from a private access easement over Lots 1 and 2 and continues into the site as a private easement that is part of each lot. Access for Lots 2-6 is taken from an access easement. Lot 2 will not have a driveway that goes directly from the garage to the public street, but rather will take access via the private access easement. Lots 2—6 meet the flag lot definition. [Staff notes that amendments to the Flag lot and Access code standards, which limit the number of flag lots that can be accessed from a private easement,were approved and became effective on April 5, 2018. Land use applications are reviewed under the standards in effect on the date of application submittal [ORS 227.178(3)(a)]. This application was submitted to the City on December 18, 2017. Therefore the Flag Lot and Access standards in effect prior to April 5, 2018 apply to this project]. 2. Stormwater: Appellants'Argument:The Stormwater management proposed by the applicant does not meet the Stormwater code.The appellants did not specify which portion of the code is not being met. DRC Findings: The DRC found that the applicants have shown feasibility, per the analysis of the City's stormwater consulting engineer, Exhibit F-009,that a stormwater management facility can be designed where the discharge into the creek will not exacerbate the current drainage situation (Exhibit F-002, Drainage Report, page 4). In addition,the Commission found that the applicant is not required to solve any current overcapacity of the culverts and finds that"the detailed calculations of the downstream 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 5 capacity to be more credible than generalized concerns that are principally resulting from the current isolated flooding event" (Exhibit B-001, DRC Findings, page 10). Staff Report: The Drainage standard is addressed on pages 24-25 of the Staff Report (Exhibit D-001) and Exhibit F-009.There, it is noted that the applicants have demonstrated that that the stormwater system is feasible to infiltrate the stormwater run-off, in accordance with the Stormwater Management Code, with a condition of approval that the facility is maintained [Exhibit B-001, Conditions C(2) and D(2)]. Staff Response to Appeal Issue: As discussed above, staff finds that the Stormwater management Code, LOC Chapter 38.25, is met. RECOMMENDATION The City Council has the following options, with adoption of supporting findings: 1. Affirm the DRC's decision and approve LU 17-0084 with denial of the reduction in the RP district; or 2. Affirm the DRC's decision and approve LU 17-0084 with modified conditions of approval; or 3. Reverse the DRC's decision and deny LU 17-0084; or 4. Remand the decision to the DRC for additional evidence or consideration. (Note: Because of the statutory requirement of ORS 227.178 that a final decision be issued within 120 days after the application was deemed complete, this option should only be exercised with the consent of the applicants to waive the 120-day period.) EXHIBITS A. NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL A-001 Letter of intent to appeal the DRC decision submitted by the appellants, Donald Mattersdorff and Christian Huettemeyer, received October 9, 2018 B. DRC FINDINGS,CONCLUSION AND ORDER B-001 LU 17-0084, dated September 24, 2018 C. MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION HEARINGS C-001 Approved Minutes of August 20, 2018, DRC hearing C-002 Approved Minutes of September 5, 2018 DRC hearing C-003 Approved Minutes of September 17, 2018 DRC hearing C-004 Approved Minutes ofSeptember 24, 2018, DRC hearing D. STAFF REPORT D-001 Staff Report, dated August 10, 2018 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 6 E. GRAPHICS/PLANS E-001 Tax Map E-002 Vicinity Map with Zoning E-003 Existing Conditions Survey E-004 Preliminary Subdivision Plat E-005 RP District Adjustment E-006 RP Buffer Planting Plan E-007 Preliminary Landscape Plan E-008 Tree Removal Plan E-009 Grading Plan E-010 Utility Plan E-011 Street Plan and Profile E-012 Slope Analysis E-013 Cut Sheets and Specifications for Pathway Lighting E-014 Delineated RP District (LU 16-0043, Exhibit B) E-015 Pre-application development alternatives E-016 Updated Buffer Planting and Mitigation Plan E-017 Map adopted with Ordinance 2687 (HBA), submitted by Staff F. WRITTEN MATERIALS F-001 Applicant's Narrative F-002 Preliminary Drainage Report, prepared by Theta Engineering., dated 7/5/18 F-003 Tree Survey prepared by Tree Care Unlimited LLC F-004 RP District Planting Plan, prepared by Terra Science, Inc., dated June 2018 F-005 Addendum-Sensitive Lands, prepared by Terra Science, Inc., dated 7/2/18 F-006 Geotechnical Report, prepared by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc., dated 9/8/17 F-007 Preliminary Operation and Maintenance Plan, prepared by Theta Engineering, dated 6/2018 F-008 Minutes of Neighborhood Meeting held on August 14, 2017 F-009 Attachment A; Engineer's Findings on Stormwater, prepared by Brown and Caldwell, dated 8/1/18 F-010 City of Lake Oswego Fire Marshal Memo dated 12/28/17 F-011 City of Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Director Memo, dated 7/19/18 F-012 City Consulting Arborist E-mail, prepared by Morgan Holen &Associates LLC, dated 7/31/18 F-013 Applicant's Response to Public Testimony G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against (G-001-099) G-001 J. Fisher Letter dated 8/20/18 Support (G100-199) None Opposition (G200+) 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 7 G-200 Snook Email dated 8/20/18 G-201 Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association, Sarah Ellison, Acting Chair; Letter, dated 8/20/18 G-202 Rich &Tuatagaloa Letter, dated 8/18/18 G-203 D. Mattersdorff Email, dated 8/17/18 G-204 Nesbit Email, dated 8/20/18 G-205 Kim Email, dated 8/18/18 G-206 Bennon Email, dated 8/20/18 G-207 B. Fisher Letter, dated 8/20/18 G-208 Reis Letter, dated 8/20/18 G-209 Davitt Email, dated 8/20/18 G-210 Paldi Email, dated 8/20/18 G-211 Osborne Email, dated 8/20/18 G-212 McAlister Letter, dated 8/20/18 G-213 Puhlman Letter, dated 8/20/18 G-214 O'Day Letter, dated 8/20/18 G-215 Watsuru/Tristan Letter, received 8/20/18 G-216 Rich and Tuatagaloa Letter, received 8/20/18 G-217 K. Ellison Letter, received 9/4/18 G-218 Callicotte Letter, received 9/4/18 G-219 Rich and Tuatagaloa Letter, received 9/4/18 G-220 J. Fisher Letter, dated 9/5/18 G-221 Brisley Email, dated 9/4/18 G-222 Memorandum from David Gorman, Ecological Engineering, LLC, dated 9/5/18 G-223 Testimony from Sarah Ellison, Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association, dated 9/5/18 G-224 Martin Email, dated 9/5/18 G-225 Shearer, Photos of short-tail weasel and habitat map, submitted 9/5/18 G-226 C. Mattersdorff Letter, dated 9/5/18 G-227 B. Clark Letter, submitted 9/5/18 G-228 N. Bennon Power Point testimony at hearing 9/5/18 G-229 Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Power Point testimony at hearing 9/5/18 G-230 J. Fisher video testimony at hearing 9/5/18 G-231 B. Fisher letter, dated 9/5/18 G-232 A. Krausz letter, dated 9/16/18 G-233 J. Fisher letter, dated 9/17/18 G-234 D. Gorman, Ecological Engineering Testimony, dated 9/17/18 G-235 D. Gorman, Ecological Engineering Letter, dated 9/17/18 G-236 Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Power Point testimony at hearing 9/17/18 G-237 J. Fisher video testimony at hearing 9/17/18 BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND REFERENCES Use the following link to visit the City's "Project" page. In the "Search" box enter LU 17-0084 then press "Submit": http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/protects 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us AP IC 'O Notice of Intent to Appeal LU 17-0084—Request for approval of a 6-lot subdivision and modification of delineated RP District— 1107 Yates Street. Approved by the DRC on September 24, 2018. We, Donald Mattersdorff and Christian Huettemeyer, appeared orally and/or in writing at the DRC hearing. Appellants: 44 ,+4 - t1i's Donald Mattersdorff RECEIVED f 930 Bullock Street OCT 0 9 2018 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Christian HuettemeyerCITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 1044 O'Brien Street Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Filing Fee:$3,605.00 We do not agree with the DRC's finding that these are flag lots. The definition of a flag lot in our code is clear and concise (see 50.10.003— Definitions). This development does not meet the definition of a flag lot, because the so-called "flag lots" are not behind the so-called "parent lot". This application should be rejected. A proper, code-compliant application should be submitted in its stead. � 4 Q_ �J \u (A) rR.0,, a Lyn( \oik A-001 Notice of Intent to Appeal Signature Page: i4 \ IL, Donald-4attersdorff Christian Huettemeyer A-001 Notice of Intent to Appeal 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 4 SIX LOT SUBDIVISION, REDUCTION OF RP ) LU 17-0084-1959 5 DISTRICT BUFFER AND THE REMOVAL OF 27 ) RAGHUNANDAN AND SANGEETA KAMINENI 6 TREES ) FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &ORDER 7 8 NATURE OF APPLICATION 9 10 The applicants are requesting approval of the following: 11 • A 6-lot Subdivision with a private street. Five of the lots will be flag lots (Lots 2-6); 12 • RP District Reduction of the previously delineated RP District, per LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii; and 13 • Removal of 27 trees to accommodate the project(Additional trees will be removed under separate 14 Invasive and Dead tree removal permits). 15 16 Location of Properties: 1107 Yates Street(21E1ODD01300) 17 18 HEARINGS 19 20 The Development Review Commission (Commission) held public hearings on September 5, 2018 and September 21 17, 2018.The following information was submitted after publication of the August 10, 2018 staff report and 22 prior to the hearing, or was submitted to the Commission at the September 5th and 17th public hearing dates: 23 24 E Exhibits:Graphics/Plans 25 E-016 Updated Buffer Planting and Mitigation Plan 26 E-017 Map adopted with Ordinance 2687 (HBA), submitted by Staff 27 28 F Exhibits:Written Materials 29 F-013 Applicant's Response to Public Testimony 30 31 G Exhibits: Public Comments 32 33 Neither for Nor Against: 34 G-001 J. Fisher Letter dated 8/20/18 35 36 In Opposition: 37 G-200 Snook Email dated 8/20/18 38 G-201 Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association, Sarah Ellison, Acting Chair; Letter, dated 8/20/18 39 G-202 Rich &Tuatagaloa Letter, dated 8/18/18 40 G-203 D. Mattersdorff Email, dated 8/17/18 41 G-204 Nesbit Email, dated 8/20/18 42 G-205 Kim Email, dated 8/18/18 43 G-206 Bennon Email, dated 8/20/18 44 G-207 B. Fisher Letter, dated 8/20/18 45 G-208 Reis Letter, dated 8/20/18 46 G-209 Davitt Email, dated 8/20/18 47 G-210 Paldi Email, dated 8/20/18 48 G-211 Osborne Email, dated 8/20/18 49 G-212 McAlister Letter, dated 8/20/18 50 G-213 Puhlman Letter, dated 8/20/18 LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 1 of 21 1 G-214 O'Day Letter, dated 8/20/18 2 G-215 Watsuru/Tristan Letter, received 8/20/18 3 G-216 Rich and Tuatagaloa Letter, received 8/20/18 4 G-217 K. Ellison Letter, received 9/4/18 5 G-218 Callicotte Letter, received 9/4/18 6 G-219 Rich and Tuatagaloa Letter, received 9/4/18 7 G-220 J. Fisher Letter, dated 9/5/18 8 G-221 Brisley Email, dated 9/4/18 9 G-222 Memorandum from David Gorman, Ecological Engineering, LLC, dated 9/5/18 10 G-223 Testimony from Sarah Ellison, Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association, dated 9/5/18 11 G-224 Martin Email, dated 9/5/18 12 G-225 Shearer, Photos of short-tail weasel and habitat map, submitted 9/5/18 13 G-226 C. Mattersdorff Letter, dated 9/5/18 14 G-227 B. Clark Letter, submitted 9/5/18 15 G-228 N. Bennon Power Point testimony at hearing 9/5/18 16 G-229 Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Power Point testimony at hearing 9/5/18 17 G-230 J. Fisher video testimony at hearing 9/5/18 18 G-231 B. Fisher letter, dated 9/5/18 19 G-232 A. Krausz letter, dated 9/16/18 20 G-233 J. Fisher letter, dated 9/17/18 21 G-234 D. Gorman, Ecological Engineering Testimony, dated 9/17/18 22 G-235 D. Gorman, Ecological Engineering Letter, dated 9/17/18 23 G-236 Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Power Point testimony at hearing 9/17/18 24 G-237 J. Fisher video testimony at hearing 9/17/18 25 26 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 27 LOC Code Section Title • 50.03.002.2 Residential Low Density Zones-Uses 50.04.001.1 Dimensional Standards for Low Density Residential Zones 50.05.010;50.07.004.8 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts 50.06.002 Parking 50.06.003.1 Access/Access Lanes(Flag Lots) 50.06.003.2 On Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads 50.06.003.4; 50.07.004.5 Street Connectivity 50.06.003.5 Transit 50.06.004.1 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 50.06.004.2; 50.07.004.2 Fences 50.06.004.3 Lighting 50.06.005;50.07.004.7 Park and Open Space Contributions 50.06.006.1;50.07.004.10 Weak Foundation Soils 50.06.006.2; 50.07.004.3 Hillside Protection 50.06.006.3; 50.07.004.1 Stormwater Management Standards 50.06.007;50.07.004.9 Solar Access 50.06.008;50.07.004.11 Utilities 50.07.003.1 Application Procedures 50.07.003.5 Conditions on Development 50.07.003.6 Effect of Decision 50.07.003.7 Appeals LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 2 of 21 LOC Code Section Title 50.07.003.14 Minor Development Decisions 50.07.007.2 Flag Lots 38.25 Stormwater Management Code 42.03.130 Sight Distance at Roadway Intersections, Private Streets and Driveways 42.08.400—42.08.470 Streets and Sidewalks 55.02.010-55.02.084 Tree Removal and Mitigation 1 2 CONCLUSION 3 4 The Development Review Commission concludes that LU 17-0084 does not comply with the criteria for 5 reduction of the RP District, but the remainder of the application can be made to comply with all 6 applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions. 7 8 FINDINGS AND REASONS 9 10 The Commission incorporates the August 10, 2018, Staff Report, with all exhibits attached thereto, except 11 for its findings regarding the RP District reduction, as support for its decision, supplemented by the further 12 findings and conclusions, below. If there is any inconsistency between the supplementary findings and the 13 Staff Report, the supplementary findings control. 14 15 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 16 17 1. Sensitive Lands-RP District Reduction [LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iiil 18 19 By the text of LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii, the Commission notes the hierarchy when considering reductions 20 in protected riparian areas: a resource is a stream or wetland, and the resource is surrounded by a 21 protected riparian area (PRA). An RP District consists of the resource (stream/wetland) and the PRA. 22 Although LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii title states that the RP District may be reduced, actually the code section 23 allows reduction only of the PRA element of the RP District—not the resource element. 24 25 The applicant' proposes to reduce the a portion of the PRA that forms the RP District boundary 26 abutting Lots 4-6 and the stormwater facility tract in exchange for an offsetting expansion of the PRA in 27 other areas abutting the existing RP District boundary. (Exhibit E-005). 28 29 The Commission received extensive testimony regarding the requirement and effects of the proposed 30 RP District reduction. The Commission makes the following findings with regard to the respective 31 italicized criteria for the requested RP District reduction. 32 33 iii. The reviewing authority may allow the protected riparian area to be reduced when the applicant 34 shows that: 35 36 (1) The proposed development complies with L0050.05.010.4.f, Progressive Mitigation Steps 37 Required; 38 'The applicants shall be collectively referred to as"applicant". LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 3 of 21 1 2 f. Progressive Mitigation Steps Required 3 The approving authority shall permit development allowable within an RC protection area 4 or RP district only if it finds that the following progressive steps have been met: 5 i. Step#1 Avoidance 6 The applicant shall endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource 7 altogether by providing alternative site plans along with the development proposal 8 demonstrating that alternative designs have been explored. If disturbance of a 9 resource district resource is proposed, the applicant shall first demonstrate that 10 intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or 11 configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would 12 avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the 13 property. 14 15 If intrusion into the RP District occurs--and RP District reduction necessarily proposes an intrusion into 16 the RP District's PRA—the applicant must demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district cannot 17 be avoided by "a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in 18 the design"that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the 19 property. 20 21 The Commission finds that this criterion is triggered when there is a "disturbance"of some portion of 22 the resource by the PRA reduction: 23 24 (1) The RP District reduction criteria requires no net loss in functions and values of the 25 resource (stream /wetland). If protection of the stream/wetland were the only part of the RP District 26 that is to be considered in an RP District reduction analysis,then once having met that criterion, there 27 would be no need for the further consideration of avoidance and minimization steps of Progressive 28 Mitigation Steps,for it would be a truism that if there was no net loss in a stream/wetland's functions 29 and values,then there would be no detrimental impact upon the resource, and thus no necessity to 30 also consider the avoidance and minimization requirement. Yet,the RP District criteria requires more 31 than a finding of no net loss in function and values of the stream/wetland resource. 32 33 (2) This criterion does not have the "no net loss in functions and values" test for effect of the 34 reduction on the resource. This criterion's test is broader: would the PRA reduction result in a 35 "disturbance of a resource district resource" and would that PRA reduction have "adverse effects on 36 the resource." Even assuming the higher bar of"no net loss in functions and values" is met, this 37 criterion looks to whether there is disturbance and "adverse effects" resulting from the RP District 38 reduction upon some portion of the stream/wetland. The Commission finds that this criterion is 39 applicable if a portion of the resource is "disturbed" or "adversely effected" such that the qualities of 40 the resource are lessened in any area, notwithstanding whether or not the reduction and offsetting 41 measures detrimentally affect the overall functions and values of the resource in its entirety. 42 43 The applicant's expert testimony by Terra Science, Inc. on the ecological impacts of the PRA reduction 44 on the resource (Exhibit F-005, pg. 3), looked to the overall effects of the PRA reduction and the 45 offsetting PRA expansion upon the broader resource: (a) buffer planting would provide increased 46 screening between the development area and the PRA, to create "a larger, unbroken zone of protected 47 habitat," that filters light during evening hours, reducing visibility with the PRA; (b) noise reduction; (c) 48 the purpose of the reduction is not only for development, but also for PRA improvement, "when the 49 southwest corner is added,the PRA is larger, and several elements of the PRA are substantially 50 improved; (d) buffer setbacks would not have an adverse effect on the remaining buffer and PRA," (e) LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 4 of 21 1 functions of the creek are improved by the removal of the invasive species throughout the entire PRA, 2 and (f) "buffer reduction on the north side, with the addition of the southwest corner replacement 3 land, is sufficiently large and connected to other natural resource areas that it has viable wildlife 4 habitat." Terra Science's testimony was consistent with its written analysis. Terra Science did not find 5 that there would be no disturbance of the resource at any point but that, looking to the resource as a 6 whole and the effect of the PRA expansion offset and additional plantings and habitat improvement, 7 that the overall effect would be neutral or better upon the resource as a whole. 8 9 Testimony from Ecological Engineering, LLC, (Exhibit E-235, pg.4), on behalf of the Hallinan 10 Neighborhood Association (Exhibit G-223), states that there will be some degree of disturbance to the 11 resource due to: (a) reduction of PRA width near development will lessen the water quality of Hallinan 12 Creek from sedimentation and polluted runoff, e.g.,fertilizers, pesticides, and pet waste; (b) reduction 13 in food production for aquatic organisms near a portion of the resource where the PRA reduction 14 would occur, and the proposed offset area, being more isolated from the resource, will not fully 15 replace the food contribution that the reduced PRA presently contributes; (c) reduction of the PRA will 16 directly result in a degradation of habitat quality in the reduced PRA area abutting the resource; (d) 17 reduction in the opportunity for woody debris to fall into the resource near the reduced PRA area 18 would occur, decreasing the opportunity for aquatic and terrestrial habitat diversity; and (e) reduction 19 of a portion of the PRA will affect the wildlife corridor, and the benefits that wildlife provide to that 20 portion of the abutting resource's ecosystem. Although the testimony focused on the "functions and 21 values" of the resource, and found detrimental effects on functions and values of the resource as a 22 whole, the Commission finds that the analysis is equally applicable to whether or not there is a 23 "disturbance"to the portion of the resource where the PRA reduction is proposed. 24 25 The Commission finds that Terra Science's broader analysis of the effect of the reduction and its 26 offsetting expansion of the PRA in other areas misses the mark for this criterion: is there a 27 "disturbance" in the resource abutting the area where there is a reduction in the PRA, regardless 28 whether offsetting PRA expansion in other areas and other measures in the PRA generally, will result in 29 no net loss in the function and values of the resource generally. The applicant has the burden of proof 30 for this criterion to show that there is no degree of disturbance of the resource abutting the PRA 31 reduction areas. The Commission finds that Ecological Engineering, LLC testimony is more than 32 sufficient to demonstrate that some degree of disturbance is likely upon the resource abutting the PRA 33 reduction area,and the applicant's testimony did not overcome the effects that the PRA reduction 34 could have on the resource where it abuts the reduction areas. 35 36 Having found that the some disturbance of the resource must be assumed from the PRA reduction 37 (because the applicant has not met the burden of proof to show that there is no degree of disturbance 38 on the resource),the next step in the analysis of this criterion is whether the applicant has: 39 40 "demonstrate[d]that intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the 41 size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid 42 adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the property." 43 44 The applicant's stated reasons for the PRA reduction are (a) squared-off lot lines, which will likely result 45 in less inadvertent intrusion in the RP District by future homeowners due to more accurate fencing 46 location; (b)the areas proposed for PRA reduction were subject to earlier disturbance and the 47 offsetting PRA expansion and planting will result in overall PRA enhancement, e.g., plant diversity, 48 higher value habitat; and (c) easier surveying of the boundary lines of the lots and stormwater tract. 49 [Exhibit F-005 (Terra Science, Inc.) and testimony of Bruce Goldson,Theta LLC, responding to the 50 Commission's proposed changes to the conditions of approval.] LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 5 of 21 1 Ecological Engineering, LLC,/Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association stated and demonstrated that 2 there were alternative lot configurations that would still retain the full development value of the 3 property without impacting the PRA. (Exhibits G-222,-223, -234, -235 pg. 1-2). The applicant did not 4 rebut Ecological Engineering's analysis. 5 6 The Commission finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that, but for the requested PRA 7 reduction, development on the site could not occur. If the lots with the RP District boundaries as they 8 were originally delineated can be developed,the applicant has not met the burden of proof to show 9 that a "reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design 10 that would avoid adverse effects on the resource" cannot occur from the applicant's proposed design. 11 In other words, development of the site with the RP District boundaries as they are delineated is one 12 alternative configuration or design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource. 13 14 For the above reasons, the Commission finds that this criterion is not met. 15 16 ii. Step#2 Minimization 17 If the applicant has endeavored to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource according to 18 subsection 4.f.i of this section, and the reviewing authority finds that detrimental impacts 19 cannot be avoided, then the applicant shall minimize impacts by demonstrating that: *** 20 21 This criterion is only applicable if the applicant has endeavored to avoid detrimental impacts to the 22 resource per the avoidance step above,and upon a Commission finding that detrimental impacts 23 cannot be avoided to the resource. As stated above,the Commission has not found so. Accordingly, 24 this criterion is necessarily not met. 25 26 (2) The reduction in protected riparian area is not solely for the purpose of maximizing 27 development of the site;and 28 29 The applicant(Exhibit F-0013, pg. 2), and staff interpret "solely for the purpose of maximizing 30 development of the site" as being applicable only when an applicant's purpose is to increase the 31 number of lots in a development. Others interpret this to include where the purpose is solely to 32 increase the development potential on a lot, e.g., larger house, more useable outdoor area. Some 33 opponents acknowledged that the squared-off lot lines would have some effect in avoiding 34 homeowner intrusion into the RP District, but that did not outweigh the effect of the proposed 35 reduction by the loss of portions of the PRA and the effect upon the functions and values of the 36 resource (see discussion below). (Exhibits G-201, G-223,G-229 and G-236.) 37 38 The Commission finds that the sole purpose of the requested PRA reduction was not to maximize 39 development on the proposed lots, even applying this criterion to the individual lots, rather than to the 40 subdivision as a whole (number of lots). See discussion above under Step 1 Avoidance,Terra Science 41 (Exhibit F-005, pg. 3), and the avoidance of inadvertent homeowner intrusion into the RP District (Staff 42 Report, pg. 12). 43 44 This criterion is met. 45 46 (3) Development abuts a Class I or II resource: 47 (a) The reviewing authority may allow portions of the protected riparian area abutting a 48 Class I resource to be reduced to a minimum of 15 ft. if: 49 LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 6 of 21 1 The applicant proposed a reduction in the PRA width abutting the resource to no less than 19 ft. (Staff 2 Report, pg. 12; Exhibit E-005). This criterion is met. 3 (i) A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce 4 the functions and values of the resource as a whole;and 5 The ecological experts reached differing conclusions as to whether or not the functions and values of 6 the resource as a whole were reduced: Terra Science concluded that they were not (Exhibit F-005, pg. 7 3); Ecological Engineering concluded that they were (Exhibit G-235). The Commission does not reach a 8 conclusion as to this criterion because the Commission has found that another related criterion— 9 disturbance of the resource—was not met and therefore the Commission need not reach a conclusion 10 on this criterion. 11 (ii) The width is increased in other areas to maintain a 30 ft. average width. 12 Staff found this criterion was met (Staff Report, pg. 12, based on Exhibit E-005). No person testified 13 that this criterion was not met by the PRA reduction and offsetting PRA expansion. The Commission 14 finds this criterion is met. 15 16 The Commission finds, for the reasons stated above that the criteria for RP District reduction under 17 LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii is not met because the applicant has not shown that the Progressive Mitigation 18 Steps/Avoidance step per LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii(1) and LOC 50.05.010.4.f.i is met [and the Commission 19 need not find whether the applicant had shown that there is no loss in the functions and values of the 20 resource as a whole, per LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii(3)(a)(i)]. 21 22 2. Tree Removal 23 The Commission received oral and written testimony in opposition to the removal of trees for 24 development purposes. 25 26 Tree#296—Oak Tree 27 Several commenters stated that Tree#296, (the Oak tree in the Yates Street right-of way) could be 28 preserved by curving the access lane to the site around the tree, raising the question whether the 29 applicant has considered alternative site plans per LOC 55.02.080(3), Exception (b). (Exhibit G-207). 30 The applicant submitted drawings (Exhibit F-013)and testified that it is not possible to keep the tree 31 because of impacts on all sides of the tree due to the curb and the location of the water and sewer line 32 connections to the site. 33 34 Tree "removal" means to "remove all or 50%or more of the crown,trunk, or root system of a tree; or 35 to damage a tree so as to cause the tree to decline, die, ..." LOC 55.02.020, "Removal." 36 37 The Commission finds that the existing utilities are located within the drip line of the tree, necessitating 38 root cutting and compaction that would occur during construction of the utility connections that would 39 cause the tree to decline or die. (Exhibit F-001, pg. 30). Further, the Commission finds that even if the 40 roadway was slightly realigned so that the trunk of the tree would not be in the proposed travel 41 surface, construction and future use of the traveled surface of the roadway under the drip line—where 42 the roots of the established tree are located— would cause compaction of the roots that would likely 43 cause the tree to decline or die. (City's Consulting Arborist, Exhibit F-012; Exhibit F-001, pg. 30). 44 45 LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 7 of 21 1 Tree Nos. 283, 285, and 55 2 Commenters testified that each of these three trees are a "significant tree" under LOC 55.02.020,and 3 therefore their removal should be analyzed under LOC 55.02.080(3), Exception (b) (alternative site 4 plan). (Exhibit G-201, -213). The commenters state that these three trees are over 15", healthy, and 5 noninvasive and significant to the neighborhood due to size, species or distinctive character because 6 (a)Trees No. 283 and 285 are visible from the public right-of-way and (b)Tree No. 296 is listed by the 7 applicant as being in a distinctive location. 8 9 Tree No.283. Staff found Tree No. 283 not to be a "significant tree" because "there are other 10 oaks on the site as shown on Exhibits E-[00]8 and F-[00]3, its size is not unique in the neighborhood, 11 the species is not unique in the neighborhood, and it is not located in a prominent location in the 12 neighborhood. (Exhibit E-008)." Staff Report, pg. 28. 13 14 The Commission finds that visibility from a public right-of-way is not sufficient for a tree that 15 meets the first 3 elements of"significant tree"to be, in fact, a "significant tree"; it must also meet one 16 of the next three elements: significant to the neighborhood due to size, species or distinctive character. 17 Staff's site visit evidence regarding the neighborhood tree context was not rebutted by evidence. 18 Accordingly,the Commission finds that Tree No. 283 is not a "significant tree"for the reasons stated by 19 staff. 20 21 Tree No. 285. Staff found that this tree was not a healthy tree—40%dead (Staff Report, pg. 28; 22 Exhibit F-0001, pg. 30; Exhibit E-008). The commenter states that it is a "significant tree" because it is 23 visible from Yates Street. No information is provided by the commenter (the neighborhood 24 association) as to the size or species, and thus why it would have significance to the neighborhood for 25 one of those two characteristics. The commenter also does not indicate why it would be perceived as 26 having a distinctive character compared to other trees in the area. (Exhibit G-201). 27 28 The Commission finds that the poor health of the tree was not rebutted. Further, even if healthy, 29 the commenter has not provided sufficient evidence to show that Tree No. 285 is distinctive from any 30 other tree on the site or in the neighborhood. The Commission finds the applicant has met the burden 31 of proof of showing that the tree is not a "healthy"tree and that its removal of the tree would not have 32 a "significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood." 33 34 Tree No. 55. A commenter states that Tree No. 55 should be deemed a "significant tree" because 35 it is a 34" Douglas fir, the largest tree proposed for removal, and one of the largest Douglas firs located 36 on the site: "Its size and distinctive character make it qualify as a significant tree." Staff made no 37 specific finding regarding this tree in the Staff Report, pg. 28, although it is noted that the tree has 38 basal rot and is 40%dead (Exhibit F-001, pg. 31). 39 40 The Commission finds that Tree No. 55 is interior to the site and thus is not currently readily 41 visible to the neighborhood. A 34" Douglas fir is not unique due to sizes or species to the 42 neighborhood and, again, because it is interior in the site, it has not developed a significance to the 43 neighborhood because of those characteristics. The commenter did not present any evidence as to 44 why a 34" Douglas fir would be significant to the neighborhood due to sizes or species, and given staff's 45 site visit did not reveal anything remarkable about the tree in terms of the neighborhood context, the 46 Commission finds that the applicant has met the burden of proof that removal of Tree No. 55 would 47 not have a significant negative impact to the aesthetics or character of the neighborhood. The 48 Commission also notes that the tree may also not qualify as a "significant tree" due to its health. 49 50 LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 8 of 21 1 Effect of Removal of 27 Trees 2 Opposition to removal of 27 trees has been stated because their removal would alter the 3 neighborhood skyline as seen from Hallinan Woods Park and public property surrounding the 4 development. It was also commented that additional trees would be removed when the lots were 5 developed, and that should be considered in determining the alteration to the neighborhood skyline. 6 (Exhibit G-201, pg. 2-4; -208; -232). 7 8 The 27 trees proposed for removal are located internal to the site. (Exhibit E-008). Staff found that 9 "removal of the 27 trees would not alter the neighborhood skyline because they are internal to the site 10 and the perimeter of the site is surrounded by other trees of similar size and thus the treed appearance 11 of the neighborhood skyline is maintained." Staff Report, pg. 29. The Commission concurs with staff's 12 findings, based on Exhibit E-008. The Commission considers the impact of tree removal only for the 13 trees that are proposed to be removed; separate tree removal applications and opportunity for public 14 comment will be required for tree removal to construct future dwellings. LOC 55.02.080(3)(b). 15 16 As discussed in the Staff Report, pg. 30-31, and for the above reasons,the Commission finds that the 17 Type II tree removal criteria are met and that all 27 trees are approved for removal with the correct 18 amount of mitigation, as conditioned. 19 20 3. Stormwater—Location of Facility 21 One commenter testified (Exhibit G-001), and videos were shown, of an on-site culvert during a 22 rainstorm (Exhibits G-230 and G-237)that the City's culvert ties into, and that neither are functioning. 23 A commenter questioned whether it would be better to discharge the stormwater at the top of the 24 slope,to allow sheet flow down the slope. The applicant testified, through Bruce Goldson,Theta, LLC, 25 that(a)the applicant is willing to work with the City to resolve the functioning of the public culvert, 26 and (b) directing stormwater from the stormwater facility to the wetland/stream through an 27 underground pipe in the RP District is best accomplished as proposed because it channels the 28 stormwater directly to the rip rap that will slow it down before it seeps to the wetland and then 29 enters the stream; if it were to discharge at the top of the slope as some of the commenters 30 suggested, it would create greater erosion. 31 Stormwater Code: The question to the Commission is whether the applicant has demonstrated 32 feasibility to develop the site with a stormwater facility, and in its final design, will meet the 33 requirements of the Stormwater Code and the Lake Oswego Stormwater Manual. LOC 50.06.003.3.b; 34 38.25.120(1)(d)(i)(A), (ii)A). In doing so,the final design: 35 36 a. "shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, site planning and design technique(s)that 37 reduce post-development runoff rates,volumes, and pollutant loads to match pre-development 38 conditions. Such techniques include, but are not limited to, minimization of impervious surface, use 39 of on-site retention to reduce the volume and rate of runoff entering the stormwater management 40 system, development design that reduces the rate and volume of runoff from impervious surfaces, 41 and distributed stormwater management practices that intercept and treat runoff from developed 42 areas. 43 44 and 45 46 "c. Stormwater shall be managed in as close proximity to the development site as practicable. 47 Stormwater management shall avoid a net negative impact on nearby streams,wetlands, 48 groundwater, and other water bodies. ... Surface water discharges from on-site facilities shall be 49 discharged to an approved stormwater facility." LOC 28.25.120(1)(a, c). 50 LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 9 of 21 1 Ecological Engineering's report(Exhibit G-235, pg. 5) notes that the culvert capacity is "exceeded on a 2 regular basis" under current conditions, and that the trail is currently being undermined (see also 3 Exhibit G-1). Ecological Engineering concludes that the proposed development will increase peak 4 rates of runoff and believes the applicant's stormwater analysis does not provide a "full understanding 5 of the potential impacts of the development on the downstream conveyance system." (Exhibit G-235, 6 pg. 5). 7 8 The Commission finds that feasibility has been shown, per the analysis of the City's stormwater 9 consulting engineer, Attachment A to the Staff Report. It is feasible to design a stormwater 10 management facility where the discharge into the creek will not exacerbate the current drainage 11 situation. (Exhibit F-002, pg.4). 12 13 The Commission finds that it is not incumbent upon the developer to solve any current overcapacity of 14 the culverts. Isolated storm events do not necessarily demonstrate that the stream/culvert capacity is 15 exceeded for the design storm;when storms exceed the design storm,flooding will occur, which is a 16 good reason for the RP District PRA widths. Further,the Commission finds that the stormwater 17 contribution of the proposed development will not significantly contribute to the existing stormwater 18 quantities conveyed by the stream. The Commission finds the detailed calculations of the 19 downstream capacity to be more credible than generalized concerns that are principally resulting 20 from the current isolated flooding event. 21 22 One commenter is concerned that by proposing development within 50 feet of a stream, inadvertent 23 illicit discharges into the stormwater facility will occur. (Exhibit G-001, pg. 8). As noted by the 24 commenter, per LOC 38.125.150 illicit discharges are prohibited. There is no standard cited in the 25 Stormwater Code that requires applicants to anticipate illicit discharges and to design against them. 26 There is no unique circumstances presented by this development of the potential for future illicit 27 discharges. The Commission finds that the regulatory prohibition against illicit discharges addresses 28 this concern. 29 30 Sensitive Lands—Utility Crossing. In demonstrating feasibility,the applicant would propose to avoid 31 sheet flow discharge from a stormwater facility, due to erosion potential, by piping the discharge 32 under the steeper portions of the slope. 33 34 Public or private utilities shall not be placed within an RP district unless tunneling under a resource will 35 not cause any adverse effect upon the resource and the functions and values of a resource will be 36 maintained, or there is no other practicable alternative. LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(3). 37 38 The applicant's environmental consultant,Terra Science, reviewed the effects of the underground 39 pipe crossing and discharge to the creek,finding the functions and values of the creek will be 40 maintained and there will not be a negative impact on the stream. (Exhibit F-005, pg. 1-3). The 41 Commission also notes that no comment was received from Ecological Environmental as to negative 42 consequences by the underground tunneling of the pipe upon the RP District's functions and values. 43 For the reasons set forth in the Staff Report, pg. 13, staff found that this standard was met. 44 45 For the above reasons,the Commission finds that the criteria for siting a utility (underground pipe) 46 through the RP resource per LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(c) is met because there is no practicable alternative 47 and it will not cause an adverse impact on the functions and values of the resource. 48 49 50 LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 10 of 21 1 Stormwater Facility appearance 2 One commenter stated concerns about the appearance of the stormwater facility,citing provisions of 3 Goal 5 and the Comprehensive Plan's Healthy Ecosystems policies. (Exhibit G-233). The Commission 4 finds that the applicable criteria and standards are specified in LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii: 5 6 "(1) The requirements of the zone in which it is located; 7 (2) The development standards applicable to minor developments; 8 (3) Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be 9 applicable to the specific minor development application, as provided for in this Community 10 Development Code(LOC Chapter 50),Stormwater Management Code (LOC Article 38.25),streets 11 and sidewalks chapter(LOC Chapter 42), and the tree cutting chapter(LOC Chapter 55);and 12 (4) Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior 13 development permit affecting the subject property." 14 15 The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan policies are not applicable criteria for 16 subdivisions. Compare LOC 50.07.003.15.d.ii(1)(a), which applies applicable regulatory 17 Comprehensive Plan policies to major developments. Subdivisions are minor developments. LOC 18 50.07.003.14.a.ii(8). 19 20 The commenter also cites LOC 50.05.010.5.a.i as requiring visual compatibility of the stormwater 21 facility to Hallinan Natural Area. (Exhibit G-233, pg. 2.) The Commission finds that the cited code 22 section is a general purpose statement and is not itself a standard or criteria to be directly applied to 23 an application. The Commission also finds that, even if applicable, it is to address compatibility of 24 "new development" constructed within the RP District to the functions and values of the RP resource. 25 The stormwater facility in question will not be constructed within the RP district (Exhibit E-016; 26 Condition of Approval A(3));the pipe from the stormwater system will be placed underground. 27 28 Maintenance 29 The commenter also states that the applicant's Preliminary Drainage Report does not address the 30 maintenance and access requirements of LOC 38.25.140(2) and (3)(d). The Commission finds that 31 these code requirements regarding the responsibility for maintenance and stormwater facilities and 32 for access to such facilities by the City for inspection apply to the subsequent operation of the 33 stormwater facilities and, as such,these provisions are codified to require future maintenance and 34 City access for inspection; no condition of approval is necessary to require the developer and 35 subsequent owners to comply with the code requirements. 36 37 4. Park Setback or Screening 38 Oral testimony was received that a greater setback or screening on Lots 3 and 4 should be required 39 because those lots abut Hallinan Woods Park to the east and the view of new homes from the park 40 would be detrimental to the public's enjoyment of the park (Exhibits G-202, -205,-206, -210, -217, - 41 218, -223, -229), and that the existing cyclone fence along east and south boundaries should be 42 removed (Exhibit G-207, -231). The commenters did not reference any specific criterion that required 43 the greater setback or screening that they desired. The applicant noted that the side yard setback of 44 Lots 3 and 4 would be 15 ft., and that there would be fencing and landscaping along those side yards. 45 [Exhibit F-001; Staff Report, pg. 17;and Condition of Approval A(6)]. 46 47 The Commission notes that LOC 50.06.004.1(b)(vi)(1)(c) requires screening and buffering by major 48 public facilities (parks)when developed to screen and buffer from dissimilar uses (residential use), but 49 the converse is not required: residential development in the R-7.5 zone is not required to screen and 50 buffer from dissimilar uses within the R-7.5 zone. LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 11 of 21 1 The Commission finds that the applicant will be conditioned to meet the fencing and screening 2 required for development of the flag lots that abut the Park along the east boundary of the site and 3 thus a new fence along the east boundary will be installed, and that no criteria or standard requires 4 residential development within the R-7.5 zone to screen its residential use from the dissimilar park 5 use. The Commission finds no authority to require the owner to remove the current cyclone fence 6 along the south boundary. 7 8 The Commission finds that no additional conditions of approval are required for the development to 9 comply with applicable criteria and standards in this regard. 10 11 5. Setback to 1225 Hallinan 12 The owner of 1225 Hallinan expressed concern regarding the setback of Lot 1 relative to 1225 13 Hallinan. The commenter does not reference any applicable criteria or standards. (Exhibit G-232). 14 Lot 1 is not a flag lot. 15 16 The Commission finds, as stated in the Staff Report, pg. 11,that Lot 1's compliance with the site 17 development limitations (setbacks, height, lot coverage, floor area, etc.) of the R-7.5 zone will be 18 ensured at the time of building permit application. 19 20 6. Habitat Benefit Area (HBA)on site 21 One commenter testified (and submitted written comments, Exhibits G-216, -219)that the site was 22 "declassified from RC (Tree Grove)to HBA and that this allowed more trees to be removed than might 23 have otherwise been removed. 24 25 The question is whether applicable criteria and standards are met. As the commenter notes, the 26 conversion of Sensitive Lands Overlay from RC to HBA had the effect of allowing tree removal, if the 27 applicant does not elect to receive the HBA incentives. As the applicant has not chosen to receive the 28 HBA benefits, the Commission finds that the HBA tree removal protections are not applicable. LOC 29 50.05.010.7.b, c. 30 31 7. Private Development 32 Commenters testified that the developer should not be permitted to develop the privately owned lot 33 for residential purposes. The commenters did not identify any criteria that would so prohibit private 34 development. (Exhibits G-200, -204, -211, -212, -214, -215, -221). 35 36 The Commission finds that residential use of the lot is permitted, as stated in the Staff Report, pg. 10. 37 38 8. Public Access to the RP District 39 Testimony was received that the public should have access to the RP District on the site that abuts the 40 Hallinan Woods Park because of either a public desire for public access (Exhibit G-001) or because of 41 the strong efforts that have been made to restore the vegetation through a public/private 42 partnership on the site (Exhibits G-223 pg. 5-6, -231). The commenters did not identify any specific 43 criteria that would require the dedication of an easement for public access into the RP District. 44 45 There is no requirement that RP Districts be open to the public. See LOC 50.05.010.6 generally. The 46 RP district that is within an open space tract (see LOC 50.06.005.3.a.iv(1)) is also not required to be 47 open to the public. LOC 50.06.005.3.b, and LOC 50.10.003.2 "Open Space," "Natural Areas" ("Natural 48 areas shall be either dedicated to the public ... or may also be permanently reserved by common 49 ownership among the owners of a development") and "Parks" ([P]rivate land ... and is either 50 dedicated to the public ... or permanently reserved by common ownership among the owners of a LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 12 of 21 1 development"). The Commission finds there is no authority to require public access to the Open 2 Space Tract. 3 4 9. Solar Access—Feasibility 5 The applicant, through Bruce Goldson, Theta LLC,testified that the Basic Option to meet the solar 6 access requirement could not be met if the PRA reduction was not approved and lot sizes were 7 reduced. Staff noted that there are two other options-- Protected Solar Building Line and 8 Performance Option --as well as the opportunity for an exemption or adjustment that could be met. 9 10 The Commission finds that if the PRA reduction is not approved, one of the solar access options, 11 exemptions, or adjustments is available for development of the lots without the small proposed PRA 12 reductions. The Commission finds that a condition of approval [Condition A(7)] can be imposed that 13 requires the applicant to show that one of the solar access options or an exemption or adjustment can 14 be met on Lots 4 through 6. 15 16 ORDER 17 18 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 19 20 1. LU 17-0084 is approved (but with denial of the reduction of the RP District), subject to compliance with 21 the conditions of approval set forth in Section 2 of this Order, below. 22 23 2. The conditions for LU 17-0084 are as follows: 24 Conditions Post Approval Use Only A. Prior to Approval of the Final Subdivision Plat,the Applicants/Owners Shall: Notes/ Dept. Status 1. Apply for and obtain a demolition permit for the existing structures on site.The applicants should note that this may require an asbestos report from a licensed agency to the satisfaction of the Building Official and that a 14-day notice of demolition is required to be posted on the site and mailed to abutting properties pursuant to LOC 45.12.100.The demolition permit shall be accompanied by proper applications for tree protection and erosion control permits, if needed. 2. Provide proof that all structures have been removed per Condition A(1), above. 3. Submit a final plat to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision.*The final plat must be dimensioned as depicted in Exhibit E-4 and reference this land use application—City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department, Case File LU 17-0084, except that Lots 4-6 shall be modified so that the delineated RP District boundary as shown in Exhibit E-014 is not within the Lots and stormwater tract. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one-year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one-year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development that may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and, if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 13 of 21 surrounding development. Failure to submit the final plat by the deadline or to obtain an extension voids the subdivision approval. Per LOC 50.07.007.3.b, if after timely receiving a final plat for review staff determines that it does not conform to the land use approval, the applicant shall be advised by a written notice which shall list the reasons for the decision. The applicant shall then have 30 calendar days to correct the plat or to schedule a review of the final plat by the Development Review Commission. Per LOC 50.07.007.3.b, within 30 calendar days of approval and signature by the City, the final plat shall be recorded with the appropriate county. Failure to record the plat within this timeframe voids the subdivision approval. *Note: LOC 50.07.007.3.a.i is currently proposed for amendment. The final plat must be submitted and/or recorded as required by the then applicable provisions of LOC 50.07.007.3.a.i. The final plat shall include the following information: a. Public utility easements, to the satisfaction of the franchise utility companies. b. Private storm easements for the development's common storm facilities. c. Private storm easements for the development's common storm facilities. d. Public access easement over the pathway that will connect the access lane to the existing pathway in the park to the east. e. Minimum 15-foot wide public sanitary sewer easement over the new sanitary sewer main extension. f. Minimum 15-foot wide public water easement over the new water main through the development site. 4. Submit CC&Rs of the homeowners association for review and approval of City staff prior to recordation, that address the following: a. An operation and maintenance plan for the stormwater facilities in the open space tract, outlining the homeowners' responsibility to control non-native vegetation and maintain the facilities. The maintenance plan shall include the stormwater pipes and catch basins for managing the stormwater runoff from the street serving the development. Specific maintenance schedules and methods shall be adopted and implemented subject to approval by the City Engineer. 5. Submit a maintenance agreement for the shared access lane and the associated 5-foot landscape buffer along both sides of the lane, as well as the Stormwater facility in Tract A, for review and approval of staff. Upon approval, record the maintenance agreement with the Notice of Development Restriction in Condition A(8), below. LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 14 of 21 6. Submit a final fence/landscape plan showing the 5-foot landscape buffer on either side of the access lane, with a mixture of trees and shrubs, taking into account sight distance at the hammerhead, and a 6-foot tall fence along the rear lot lines of Lots 2-6 and on the side lots lines between Lots 2 and 3; and 4 and 5, and 5 and 6, and a 6-foot landscape screen along the rear property lines of Lots 2- 6. 7. Show compliance on Lots 4-6 with one of the options for meeting the Solar Access standard or provide documentation that shows that an exemption or adjustment to this standard can be approved. 8. Submit a Notice of Development Restrictions to be recorded with the final plat, per review and approval by staff(a template can be provided by staff upon request). A reduced copy of the landscape plan illustrating the 5-foot landscape buffer along both sides of the shared access lane shall be included with the Notice and labeled as "Exhibit A".A reduced copy of the surveyed RP District with dimensions called out and labeled as "Exhibit B"shall be included. The exhibits shall be no larger than 81/2" x 11" in size and cannot contain any lettering smaller than 10 point font. The Notice shall include the following: a. A minimum 5-foot landscape buffer is required along both sides of the shared access lane, except where the vehicular and pedestrian access is taken. Maintenance of the landscape buffer, the stormwater facility in Tract A, and buffer plantings in the RP District is the ongoing obligation of the property owner(s)of all Lots. See attached Exhibit"A". b. Lots 2-6 are flag lots. Development of structures on these parcels shall comply with the provisions of LOC 50.07.007.2.e regarding building and site design standards, including height limitations, garage placement, and landscape buffer requirements.The following site development restrictions apply: i. The maximum height of future structures on Lots 2-6 shall be 22.6 feet (regardless if, at the time of building permit review, the footprint meets the definition of"Sloped Footprint" per LOC 50.10.003), measured from the ground to the ridgeline of the roof as defined by LOC 50.10.003, "Height of Building."A greater height than otherwise permitted for roof forms or architectural features, such as cupolas or dormers, may be allowed pursuant to LOC 50.04.001.1.g.ii. ii. The front yards and front of the dwellings on Lots 2 and 3 shall be oriented to the south property lines and the front yards and front of dwellings on Lots 4-6 shall be oriented towards the north property lines. The front setbacks shall be measured from the edge of the shared access lane (or projection thereof) along the front yards of Lots 2-6. iii. The minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks for future structures on Lots 2-6 shall be as follows: LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 15 of 21 Setbacks for Lots 2-6 All Lots-Front setbacks Sum of Sides and Rear Setbacks:45' minimum measured from edge of Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 access lane: Sides 15' (W) 15' (W) 10' (W) 10' (W) 10' (W) 10 ft. --Structure 15' (E) 15' (E) 15' (E) 10' (E) 10' (E) 20 ft.--Garage, Carport Rear opening 15' (N) 15' (N) 20' (S) 25' (S) 25' (S) c. The property contains a delineated Resource Protection (RP) District as described in Exhibit "B", and as determined and documented in City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Case File LU 16-0043, Exhibit E14. Future development is subject to the City of Lake Oswego RP District Development Standards set forth in LOC 50.05.010, including but not limited to: i. Tree removal within the RP District is subject to tree removal permit requirements of LOC Chapter 55 and the provisions of LOC 50.05.010. ii. Manual removal of invasive or nuisance plant material (such as English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, poison oak, and bamboo)within the RP District may be allowed, so long as native understory plants are maintained. iii. The RP District is intended to remain in its natural state to maintain the natural function and character of the resource area, which provides food and shelter for native wildlife. CONTACT THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ACTIVITY INSIDE THE RP DISTRICT. d. Mitigation trees on of Lots 2,3,and 4 and the west side of the stormwater facility as shown on Exhibit E-7, may not be removed unless dead or hazardous because they are mitigation trees for tree removal permitted for the approved development. [This condition may be eliminated if the tree mitigation is moved to a location outside of the lots and stormwater tract]. 9. Submit engineered construction drawings for the public improvements for review and approval by the City Engineer. Drawings shall conform to the City's most current design standards and drafting specifications.All final engineering design drawings and as-built plans submitted for the creation of public facilities (street, wastewater, water and surface water) shall be vertically controlled by the City Datum (NGVD'29)and horizontally controlled by the Oregon State Plane coordinate system (NAD 83/91). [Note: receiving construction plan approval is not a pre-requisite for recording the final plat.] The plans shall include the following: LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 16 of 21 a. Design of a new 8-inch public sewer extension into the subdivision within the street in a minimum 15-foot wide public sanitary sewer easement. The mainline extension shall terminate with a manhole, and service laterals shall be constructed perpendicular to the main and shall not be connected directly to a manhole. In addition, the existing 6-inch mainline immediately downstream from the site (70-foot run) within Yates Street shall be replaced and upgraded to an 8-inch diameter main. b. Design of a new 6-inch public water main extension through the site within the street serving the development and loop the existing 4-inch water main at the end of Yates Street to the existing 4-inch water main located at the end of O'Brien Street. The new water main shall be located within a minimum 15-foot wide public water easement and also have a minimum of 10-foot horizontal separation to the new sanitary sewer main. c. Design of the access lane to public street standards(structurally) serving the development as generally shown on the preliminary street plan.The design shall also include stormwater management for the access lane. d. Design of a new asphalt pathway to connect the end of the access lane within the development to the existing pathway on the abutting park to the east that extends down from the end of Obrien Street. e. Design of the new street intersection for the hammerhead turn-around in compliance with AASHTO and the City's vision clearance standards. f. Design of the individual private water services, sanitary service laterals and storm laterals for each individual lot. g. Final construction plan showing the AASHTO clear sight triangles for the street hammerhead intersection. 10. Following staff approval of the form, execute and record a waiver of remonstrance regarding the formation of local improvement district or an underground district,for the undergrounding of frontage utilities that includes Yates Street from Laurel Street to the site. [Note:The City Manager or the Planning Commission and City Council may be reviewing LOC 50.06.008.4.d, Utilities, in the future as to its applicability for projects in certain areas or along certain streets. If the applicability of this section is modified such that it would not be required for a project of this type or in this location prior to the recordation of the waiver of remonstrance, this condition for execution and recordation of the waiver of remonstrance shall be released by staff.] 11. Construct the improvements required by Condition A(9), above,or submit a financial guarantee to ensure its construction per LOC 50.07.003.9. The financial guarantee shall be based on 120%of an itemized engineer's estimate that is in turn based on final construction plans that are far enough advanced to support the estimates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. B. Within 90 Days of the Recordation of the Final Subdivision Plat,the Applicants/Owners Shall: LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 17 of 21 1. Submit a final title report, or lot book report from a title company demonstrating that the plat was validly recorded and that the public and private easements, CC&Rs, Notice of Development Restriction, LID, and the maintenance agreement, as required by conditions, above, are valid and subsisting, and that the lots are either free and clear of liens or encumbrances, or that the holders of the liens and encumbrances consent to the creation and recordation of the easements and Notice of Development Restriction. C. Prior to the Issuance of any Grading or Building Permit on any Lot,the Applicants/Owners Shall: 1. Complete all public improvements as required by Condition A(9) above, submit certified "as-built" drawings, and receive a certificate of completion and acceptance by the City. 2. Submit a final storm drainage report drainage report, prepared by a registered engineer, in accordance with the Stormwater Management Code and LOSWMM, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The final design report must: a. Demonstrate that the final design plans for stormwater management facilities that are a part of the final storm drainage report meet the minimum geometry and configuration requirements in LOSWMM, Section 4.6. b. Include facility sizing and flow routing calculations to show post-developed peak flow rates matching pre-development levels for the 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year, 24-hour runoff events. If the calculated orifice size for a given facility is less than the City's minimum allowable construction standard of 1.0 inch, the required orifice size should be provided in the calculations but may be increased to 1.0 inch in the design drawings. c. Per LOC Chapter 52, apply for and obtain an erosion prevention and sediment control permit issued through the City of Lake Oswego and a DEQ Construction Stormwater Permit (NPDES 1200-C Permit), and install and maintain all erosion control BMPs as indicated in the permits. 3. Submit a copy of the Geotechnical Report and adhere to the recommendations. 4. Complete construction of the access lane serving the development and pedestrian connection to the existing pathway in the park, and provide certification from a registered engineer that the private access lane was constructed in accordance with the Fire Code. 5. Submit a final landscape and mitigation plan for the mitigation planting in the RP District for the utility approved in the RP District.The final mitigation plan shall include a note that all burlap and wire cages shall be removed before trees are planted. Submit a maintenance and monitoring plan to maintain and monitor the mitigation area for three consecutive years. During the 3-year monitoring period, shrubs and groundcovers shall be replaced as needed to ensure an 80%survival rate, and invasive plants shall be removed as needed to ensure no more than 10% cover. 6. Submit final design plans for stormwater conveyance systems and stormwater management facilities.The final stormwater facility design shall meet the minimum geometry, configuration, planting, and setback requirements in LOSWMM,Section 4.6.12. LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 18 of 21 7. Apply for a Verification tree removal permit for the 27 trees approved in Exhibit E-8 and submit a mitigation plan showing 28 mitigation trees. Apply for any additional Type II tree removal permits for trees adjacent to the stormwater Tract and for the water line loop on the park property and any necessary Type II tree removal permits on each parcel for the construction of future dwellings and submit mitigation plans. Apply for and obtain any necessary tree removal permits on each parcel for the construction of future dwellings and submit mitigation plans in accordance with LOC 55.02.084. Mitigation for the first dwelling on the flag lots shall be with a species that will attain a minimum of 30 ft. in height; deciduous trees shall be a minimum of 2-inch caliper and evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight ft. tall. 8. Install all tree protection fencing as required by Code Requirement No. 1, below. All protection fencing shall be inspected and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 9. For Lots 2-6, the Building Official may allow an alternative to the minimum requirements of the One-and Two-Family Dwelling Specialty Code as authorized by ORS 455.610, which may include, but is not limited to, installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system, because the City of Lake Oswego has determined the fire apparatus means of approach to Lots 2-6 may not meet the local City standards adopted in accordance with the applicable Fire Code and state building code requirements. The owner's or owner's representative shall offer an approved alternate method for fire suppression, such as an NFPA 13-D residential fire sprinkler system, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Building Official. D. Prior to the Final Building Inspection or Occupancy of any Dwelling on Any Lot, the Applicants/Owners Shall: 1. Provide certification from the engineer of record that the stormwater facilities serving the development were constructed according to the design and are functioning properly. 2. Provide proof of recorded operations and maintenance plans(OMPs)for each stormwater facility.The OMP must describe how to properly maintain the facilities,the frequency of maintenance required and the party responsible for maintaining the facilities. In addition, submit for Engineering staff review and approval (and then record)an Operations and Maintenance plan for the stormwater facility to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HOA). 3. Install all flag lot landscaping and RP District mitigation planting, and the 6-foot fence in the rear and side yards of Lots 2-6 as required by LOC 50.07.007.2.f.iii and Conditions A(6) and C(5), above. All landscape materials (except the RP District mitigation plantings,which have a longer monitoring period) must be guaranteed by the owner for a period of one 12-month growing season from the date of installation. A security in the amount of 5%of the total landscaping cost shall be provided to ensure necessary replacement. E. Miscellaneous: 1. The property owner(s) of Lots 1-6 shall maintain the RP District mitigation in accordance with the approved maintenance and monitoring plan required by Condition C(5), above as shown in the final landscape plan and shall provide an LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 19 of 21 annual report to the Planning and Building Services Department by October 31st of each year for a 3-year period,commencing on the 31st of October following the date of issuance of the Final Building Inspection.The report shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall document site conditions with a narrative and pictures. Code Requirements: 1. Erosion Control: Per LOC Chapter 52, apply for and obtain an approved erosion prevention and sediment control permit issued through the City of Lake Oswego, and install and maintain all erosion control BMPs as indicated in the permit. 2. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application as required by LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone.The plan shall include: a. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6- foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts around the tree protection zone, or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. The note shall also inform contractors that the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree protection zone. c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior written approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. 1 2 // 3 4 // 5 6 // 7 LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 20 of 21 1 DATED this 24th day of September, 2018. 2 3 4 David Poulson, Chair Is/ 5 David Poulson, Chair 6 Development Review Commission 7 8 9 Kat Kluge/s/ 10 Kat Kluge 11 Administrative Support 12 13 ATTEST: 14 15 TENTATIVE DECISION—September 17, 2018 16 AYES: Frankel, Poulson, Prichard, Shearer, and Smith 17 NOES: Ahrend 18 ABSTAIN: 19 ABSENT: 20 21 WRITTEN FINDINGS—September 24, 2018 22 AYES: Frankel, Poulson, and Smith 23 NOES: Ahrend and Prichard 24 ABSTAIN: 25 ABSENT: Shearer 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 LU 17-0084-1959 B-001 LU 18-0084 Final DRC Findings Page 21 of 21 C-001 DRC Minutes 8-20-18 APPROVED t,1 ka C *i ..�,:.- CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO mow Development Review Commission Minutes a€�e Monday, August 20, 2018 The Commissioners convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Chair David Poulson, Vice Chair Brent Ahrend, Jeff Shearer, Kirk Smith, and Jason Frankel Members absent: Nick Shur and Paden Prichard Staff present. Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner; Evan Boone. Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Theresa Kohlhoff updated the DRC members on items being addressed by the City Council. FINDINGS None MINUTES None PUBLIC HEARING - Continuance of August 6, 2018 Hearing LU 18-0026, a request by applicants, CenterCal Properties and Trammell Crow Company, for approval of a mixed use project with 208 residential units, approximately 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, and the removal of 43 trees. [Note: An additional 51 invasive trees will be removed under a separate permit.] The site is located at 3975, 4015, &4095 Mercantile Drive (Tax Lot ID 21E08BC00102), and the vacant lot at the SW corner of Mercantile (Tax Lot 1D 21 E08BA01000). Staff coordinator is Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner. Chair Poulson opened the hearing. EvanBoone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process. Mr. Boone then outlined the applicable criteria and procedure, asking DRC members to declare ex parte contacts, biases, or other conflicts relating to applicants or the proposed project. All DRC members present declared that they have no conflict of interests, no ex parte contact, and no bias. Mr. Frankel and Mr Shearer noted that they visited the site- No one challenged any Commissioner's ability to consider the application. StaffReport Johanna Hastay presented additional written testimony and the applicant's plan revisions to the Commission, summarizing the following during her presentation. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 1 of 11 C-001 DRC Minutes 8-20-18 APPROVED • The applicant proposed modifications to the open space compliance plan with a set-aside of 37.9 °Io, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 35°I0 open space and landscaping. • A revision was made to south elevation of the mixed use building facing the parking lot in order to be in compliance with the 45-foot height limit. Ms. Hastay is recommending a condition of approval to be included in Condition B-4 to incorporate this revision in all of the plans. • She clarified the applicable code regulations in response to comments received regarding the north elevation of the Italian Renaissance mixed-use building. The Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) specifically cites "Architecture, Oregon Style" by R. Clark as the point of reference for the permitted architectural styles in the LGVC Overlay District. • Staff concluded that the development proposal does comply with the Italian Renaissance style. In response to public testimony and questions from the DRC at the prior hearing, applicants have presented two alternatives for the north elevation for consideration. • A supplemental traffic impact analysis was provided by the applicant in response to questions from the Commission and comments during public testimony. Ms. Hastay recommended approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report and as modified to reflect the revisions. She noted where new exhibits will need to be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Questions of Staff Mr. Smith inquired about open space and how the City views the proposal as a whole development as opposed to a whole parcel given that the applicant proposes to site open space on a separate parcel (the "Idaho" property) instead of open space on same the parcel. Ms. Hastay explained that the park and open space standard does not specifically prohibit use of an adjacent property to meet park and open space standard. She reminded the DRC and others present that the two properties have been in common ownership and development since 1979. The applicants are using an open space easement on the Idaho property to meet their 20 percent park and open space standards. The City Attorney reviewed the proposal with the applicants and their attorney and agreed that this was permissible under the code. Commissioner Smith then commented that there has to be an easement for open space to make sure the Idaho property stays as open space and a covenant that ties these two properties together. This led to Mr. Smith asking why the two properties are not being remapped so that they are one parcel. Ms. Hastay responded that there is an existing public right-of-way that bisects the two properties. Therefore, to remap into one parcel would require either vacating the right-of-way or rerouting Mercantile Drive. She further explained that net developable area does not preclude an adjacent parcel from being used in the development project to meet a standard. It is allowed by code. Commissioner Ahrend sought clarification that the Idaho parcel is part of the application and, that whether developed or set aside for open space, it is viewed the same under the code. Ms. Hastay confirmed. Commissioner Shearer sought confirmation that the covenant will hold that the open space set aside on the Idaho property will remain and cannot be built upon in the future. Ms. Hastay confirmed that the area could not be built on or used to meet development standards on that site later. A potential future development proposal would have to be sited outside the designated open space set-aside and would have to meet all of the development criteria (e.g. 15 percent open space) described in the code. In formulating his question, Chair Poulson first opined that the intent for having a code specifying a percent set-aside of open space for development is to give an appearance for a certain amount of City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 2 of 11 C-001 DRC Minutes 8-20-18 APPROVED density of development. In this case, the developers used the properties across the street to meet the code, but perhaps miss the intent of the open space requirement. He followed by asking if staff had considered whether the development proposal meets the intent of the code with regard to open space set-aside. Ms. Hastay responded, stating that staff views this proposal as a phased development (this being the first phase). Acknowledging Chair Poulson's question regarding the intent of the code, staff applied the actual code, which does not prohibit having a site adjacent to the parcel being used for park and open space standards. Mr. Boone contributed to the discussion by raising three points. First, the code discusses net developable area of the development. It doesn't specify per lot. Hence, the City doesn't consider the code text requiring the open space being specific to 20 percent of each lot. Rather, the code views the whole development. Secondly, regarding Mr. Smith's comments, staff has reviewed subdivisions that have been created and typically when you have a multiple lot subdivision you'll have an open space requirement that is not necessarily for each lot, but rather the open space is typically on a corner or side of the site that is away from the rest of the residences. Subdivisions are usually constructed out of a whole parcel with a street created where open space can be on the other side of the street. This is not unusual. Finally, when interpreting the code, if the Commission finds that there is ambiguity in the text of what net developable acre of development means, then the Commission would need to look at what the intent is, and then get testimony and evidence as to the context of how the text is used elsewhere in the code or the legislative history when it was adopted. Commissioner Ahrend sought further clarification that if the remaining Idaho parcel were to develop later as, for example, a commercial use, it would be a 15 percent landscape requirement, but only if it were a separate parcel. In contrast, if it were part of the same parcel, wouldn't it be considered a second phase and be subject to the 20 percent for the residential component as well? Mr. Boone responded that there were potentially two ways to go forward. If the applicant were to propose something in the future that relates to this development, then that proposal would be amended into this development under discussion tonight. Therefore, it would apply the whole 20 percent standard to that development. On the other hand, if they were to do a partition to separate the buildable area on the Idaho property from this development, only the commercial open space standard would be applied. Commissioner Smith asked if there was anything that would prevent the two parcels from being consolidated into "Lot A and Lot B" of a new subdivision and whose property lines abut at the centerline of a public right-of-way. Mr. Boone explained that problems ensue where parcels are separated by an existing public right-of-way. Once you have created two parcels separated by a right-of-way, you can't combine them. Instead, staff is referring to the text in the code that says net developable area of a development consists of gross area separated by a public right-of-way minus public accepted open space. When looking at net developable area rather than parcel that specifically excluded out from the definition of public rights-of-way, we presume that a development can cross public rights-of-way. Commissioner Shearer asked Ms. Hastay to walk everyone through the site's northwest corner and the setback issues in relation to nearby sensitive areas. Ms. Hastay elaborated that Mr. Shearer was referring to the Resource Protection (RP) District on the Mercantile property. There is a stream corridor with wetland abutting on either side that was formally delineated as a part of this application. From those resource boundaries, a protected riparian area was created. There is a ten-foot construction setback. Some allowed projections are permitted in the 10-foot setback. The building itself does not project into the setback but there are stormwater planters that do. The applicants will also be going into the protected riparian area to remove non-native plantings and replace them with natives. They will also remove the concrete pathway and repave with a pervious material. The applicant will avoid going into the stream corridor and the wetland boundaries themselves because doing so would trigger the need for additional outside jurisdictional review (DEC) and Army Corp of Engineers). City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 3 of 11 C-001 DRC Minutes 8-20-18 APPROVED Applicant Kurt Shultz, SERA Architects, 338 NW 5' Avenue, Portland, OR 97209 and Brian Dunn, Kittelson &Associates, 851 SW 6' Avenue, Suite 600, Portland, OR 97204, working with the applicants, went over parts of the new information submitted since the last hearing. The project team has provided supplemental material to respond to questions and issues raised during the prior hearing, including a memo that addresses issues such as trash pickup, geotechnical, and stormwater issues. Mr. Shultz began by discussing revisions to the massing along Kruse Way(north elevation)for the Commission's consideration, differentiating between the prior and current options, in an effort to adhere to the Italian Renaissance style. Potential modifications include: • Removing cornices at all notches and courtyards • Dividing the buildings into three larger and two smaller pavilions • Proposing a change in color of the lower three floors of the pavilions Next, Mr. Shultz discussed the open space easement. The easement has been declared and submitted as part of the application and will remain in perpetuity tied to the Mercantile property. Reflecting comments received, the project team has lowered and some cases, removed what previously was a higher continuous landscape wall around the perimeter of the building. Lastly, American Trash Management was hired to consult the project team on how to optimize trash management for the project. Mr. Dunn summarized updates to the revised traffic impact assessment (TIA) for the project site. • A comparative analysis of AM peak hour trip generation concluded that the integrity of the initial traffic study that focused on the PM peak hour and the mid-day period was sufficient. The findings are based on two items that were assessed. First, the TIA determined that the proposed development would generate substantially lower peak hour trips versus what is on the property today (Providence Mercantile Medical Center at its full occupancy). Second, the AM peak-hour volumes were about half of what the PM peak hour would generate. • The project team proposes to install an all-way stop at the intersection of Mercantile Drive and Hallmark Drive. A vehicle queuing simulation analysis was conducted per request from the DRC to assess the queues between the signalized intersection at nearby Boone Ferry Road and the stop sign controlled approach at Hallmark. The study determined that no more than three cars would be queued on the westbound approach—equivalent to 60-75 feet. The distance between the intersection at Boone Ferry and Hallmark is about 200 feet. Therefore, the project team concludes that there is sufficient distance for the vehicle queues to stack up on the stop sign controlled approach. • The remaining five topics addressed in the TIA are in response to public testimony and provide additional evidence in support of findings. Questions of Applicant Commissioner Smith inquired about how the queuing and platooning of delivery vehicles will be managed. Mr. Dunn responded that truck circulation and frequency of trucks was not addressed in the analysis. The anchor tenant has its own isolated space for delivery on the southeast corner of the project. The remaining tenants have enough circulation available within the site to accommodate delivery vehicles. Mr. Shultz added that the anchor tenant will be the only location where small semi-trucks will be making deliveries. The remaining deliveries will be managed and scheduled by CenterCal and Trammell Crow. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 4 of 11 C-001 DRC Minutes 8-20-18 APPROVED Commissioner Shearer asked for some clarification about the cornice, ornamentation, and other facade designs on the pavilions. Mr. Schultz recapped and elaborated further his thinking for the design proposals. Referring to questions regarding the height of the main entry landscape walls to the apartment raised during the public hearing, Mr. Shearer asked the project team to explain if they think that it works well proportionately. Mr. Shultz responded that they lowered the height of the landscape walls in order to mitigate the "museum entry" effect. Mr. Shearer asked the project team to explain the courtyard design with regards to building height. Mr. Shultz indicated that the cornice line is at the 45-foot height limit above the lower grade of the courtyard. The upper portion of the building above the cornice is set back five feet to soften the feel of the building in the courtyard. Mr. Shearer asked for explanation on how parking will be assigned to the apartment units and whether tenants will have to pay for spaces. Mr. Shultz replied that this policy is standard in the market and that he has never worked on an apartment building where parking was not in addition to rent. Mr. Shearer countered that this is not the experience in downtown Lake Oswego. If it is an additional cost for parking spaces, occupants may opt to not rent and park on the street. Mr. Shultz replied that the project will likely be focused toward empty-nesters and doubts any of those renters are not going to be renting parking spaces. Mr. Shearer asked about construction parking, trailers, and lay-down areas. Mr. Shultz responded that will be occurring onsite as part of the construction plan. Mr. Shearer shared that he has never known the Mercantile property to be fully occupied. If Mercantile Village, for example, were to become 80 percent occupied, he asked if the projections in the TIA at full occupancy could be used to extrapolate what the actual impact to the neighborhood would feel like when this project is complete. Mr. Dunn mentioned that traffic engineers have taken similar approaches where a portion of a property is undeveloped and make assumptions of what could be there. That method was not performed in this case, because when the study was conducted, not only were there elements of the property that were empty, but there were tenants where it was not clear as to what category they fit. Chair Poulson followed, agreeing that he can never recall the site ever being fully occupied. He continued, stating that there has been an observed long term pattern established that can be correlated with the site. He opined that to now take the site as fully developed and occupied and then use that as a baseline is not a good reflection of reality for determining whether this proposal will increase or decrease traffic. He expressed that he would like to know what the surrounding neighborhoods are going to feel once the project is developed. He concluded his remark, asking why this type of assessment wasn't included. Commissioner Shearer continued, stressing that although the impacts are going to be less than the fully occupied current site, it is going to be more than what it has been for the past several years. He asked if that was a fair statement. Mr. Dunn responded that he did not know if that was fair. Mr. Shearer opined that the traffic impacts associated with this project are going to be substantial. He singled out a particular concern at the Hallmark Drive and SW Douglas Way intersection where a Starbucks, veterinary clinic, and school are nearby. He questioned the TIA findings projecting no impacts at this location associated with the development. Mr. Shearer followed with a statement expressing his concern that the City needs to more closely assess the overall traffic impacts in Lake Grove associated with not only the Mercantile Village proposal, but with all the prior-reviewed projects and those yet to be reviewed. The City, in his opinion, needs to focus on this area because there is an existing problem of vehicles cutting through local streets to avoid congestion along Kruse Way that will only be exasperated by continual development. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 5 of 11 C-001 DRC Minutes 8-20-18 APPROVED Commissioner Ahrend acknowledged concerns expressed about how the neighbors will feel as a result of the impact. Nonetheless, he agrees that the analysis needs to be weighed based on what the site was approved for(site potential). Mr. Ahrend noted that information on queuing was provided for only the PM peak. Based on 85 left turns coming from Boones Ferry in the PM but 150 in the mid-day, Mr. Ahrend estimates that there will be about five vehicles queued in the mid-day and three in the PM. Therefore, he expressed concern the analysis missed the critical time period for that queue even though the overall volumes are higher in the PM. Mr. Ahrend informed that there is another driveway across from the existing driveway from Mercantile Village where the new truck loading is going to be. There is no left turn going into that driveway from the south. He asked what happens if a vehicle stops to turn left at this location which results in having five vehicles backed up and spilling in to the intersection. After the left turn goes the next movement is the southbound through and someone is going to want to turn right and they are going to stop in the lane because there is no right turn lane. He concluded by opining that the project team hasn't analyzed the intervening driveway to assess the impact. Mr. Dunn expressed that the project team was trying to answer the specific question about the all- way stop signs that Mr. Ahrend was proposing. He interpreted the intent of the analysis was to determine how the change in the traffic control at that intersection of out-site access to an all-way stop sign would affect vehicle queuing from that stop sign going to the east. Mr. Dunn also indicated that the project team is aware of the interim driveway to the retail on the south side. An existing conditions analysis of the driveway for the PM peak found that the condition was low. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Ahrend regarding whether a mid-day analysis was done, Mr. Dunn replied that the City did not direct the project team to conduct a mid-day queuing analysis at this intersection. Mr. Ahrend sought clarification that the AM peak hour number of exiting trips are about the same as the current use. Mr. Dunn confirmed that yes, they are. Mr. Ahrend followed-up to confirm that the numbers do not reflect any kind of a coffee business such as a Starbucks. Mr. Dunn replied no. Mr. Ahrend expressed concern that if a Starbucks or other coffee shop were to move into the site that it would generate a lot more trips in the morning that would not be accurately reflected in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Noting that the project team doesn't know what the eventual tenant mix of the general retail will be, Mr. Dunn replied that the TIA went with the aggregate rate of the shopping center and reflects varying land uses and together they balance each other out. Mr. Ahrend expressed concern that the project team has not provided an AM analysis that shows what the queuing effect would be if, for example, a coffee shop was to be part of the retail. Mr. Dunn responded if there is a coffee shop, it would likely be balanced out by other businesses that may not open until later. That's the point of using the shopping center(ITE Land Use 820) which for the AM peak hour has the trip rate that it has. Mr. Ahrend asked if there was a table that indicates what a shopping center generates in the AM. Mr. Dunn replied that the analysis provides a summary of the total trips in and out and did not distinguish between individual uses. He offered to provide that information. In light of no information on the AM operations, Mr. Ahrend asked if the project team has any concerns. Mr. Dunn replied that he does not, citing that the inbound trips will be reduced compared to existing conditions. Chair Poulson asked for a quick briefing about the potential for soil liquefaction on the site. Brett Shipton, GeoDesion, Inc., 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 300, Wilsonville, OR 97070, explained that the liquefaction analysis indicates total settlement of about 3 inches and differential settlement of approximately 1.5 inches. The structural engineer can still make his structures work at these tolerances. Chair Poulson followed, asking for of an explanation of seismic stability. Mr. Shipton described two sources of seismic ground shaking at the site: City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 6 of 11 C-001 DRC Minutes 8-20-18 APPROVED 1. Cascadia subduction zone could generate a magnitude 9 earthquake. However, the distance is very far so the peak ground acceleration (PGA) of the site would be around 0.2 g based on existing literature 2. Shallow crustal event would generate a much higher PGA but the shaking duration would be shorter and the magnitude smaller Chair Poulson referred to the report recommendation to keep footings a minimum of 10 feet away from slopes and noted that the grading plan in some locations did not appear to be met. Mr. Shipton responded that there are actions that can be taken such as adjusting the depth of the footing. Chair Poulson asked for a summary of the stormwater report. Brady Berry, David Evans &Associates, 2100 SW River Parkway, Portland, OR 97201, described issues associated with the basin, noting that there are historical stream erosion problems between the project site and the lake. He opined that the only way to reduce stream velocities and smaller events is through detention. Chair Poulson followed, asking Mr. Berry if he doesn't think that there is a risk if you hold back the water in detention and then release it. He described two possible scenarios. The first scenario is that the water is held back not long enough and then it goes out anyway. The second, the water is held back long enough and combines with the peak flow of the watershed above and actually makes the erosion issues worse. Mr. Berry responded that the project is one percent of the watershed so he questioned whether the project would tip the scale. Chair Poulson closed Commission inquiries to begin public testimony. Noting the amount time spent at this point of the public hearing, Chair Poulson first sought input from his fellow Commission members regarding continuance for the second hearing on the agenda (LU 17-0084). Mr. Ahrend opined that the Commission should first hear from the LU 17-0084 applicant (Yates Street)to see if they would offer a continuance. Chair Poulson asked if the applicant for the Yates Street project to state if they would support a continuance. Bruce Goldson, Data Engineering, PO Box 1345, Lake Oswego, OR indicated that he was here for the hearing and planned to wait; if the Commission decided to continue the hearing, the applicant would not be extending the 120-day deadline. Public Testimony In Support None Neither for Nor Against Bruce Goldson, Data Engineering, PO Box 1345, Lake Oswego, OR, mentioned that he testified during the earlier hearing and he is here on relatively new input today. He raised the following points: • A memo written by the City Engineer on August 17, 2018 stated that there will not be an increase in use of the sidewalk associated with the proposed Mercantile development. This statement seemed strange to him in that it apparently assumes approximately 500 new apartment dwellers will not use the nearby sidewalk. • Mr. Goldson opined that the developers need to make the road fronting the Idaho property fit the Park Lane standards and the time to implement that standard is now, before a new development is proposed on the remaining piece of the Idaho property. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 7 of 11 C-001 DRC Minutes 8-20-18 APPROVED • He raised a concern about cars stacking out into the intersection, particularly when delivery trucks or garbage trucks, both of which are typically 50 feet in length are in proximity. • Mr. Goldson stressed the importance of reducing cut-through traffic possibilities in the neighborhood. He recommended blocking Galewood Street to the west at the intersection at Mercantile Drive and converting Hallmark Drive to a northbound one-way configuration. Mr. Ahrend asked Mr. Goldson to clarify his remarks on reducing cut-through traffic. Mr. Goldson explained his rationale, citing his opinion that the Galewood intersection is dangerous due to it coming in at an angle. Coupled with the short distance to the roundabout, it makes sense in his opinion to reduce traffic there if possible. In Opposition Jane Wilkinson, 4677 Oakridge Road, Lake Oswego, OR, opined that the proposed development would be too dense and not in keeping with the existing suburban character of the vicinity. The traffic impact is a concern and echoed Mr. Shearer's comments regarding the issue of cut-through traffic. Cindy Maddox, 4735 Heritage Lane, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, submitted prior testimony regarding transportation, refuting the applicant's rebuttal that there is going to be a new TriMet line proposed. After exploring the TriMet website, she believes that statement not to be accurate. She further indicated that she provided statistics on the two existing bus lines and the times that they run with information on ridership. She expressed doubts about the traffic study and opined that there will be way more traffic impact, people will not ride the bus, and TriMet is not going to propose any changes. Finally, she read the description provided of the Italian Renaissance design style and noted wood is not listed as a material listed as part of the Italian Renaissance style. Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denny Court, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, mentioned that she submitted testimony at the first hearing and will present information based on new exhibits received since that hearing. She provided testimony on building design standards and permitted architectural styles. She cited additional information regarding code interpretation on this matter. She expressed disagreement with one of the submittals that the City may not refer to other reference guides in applying the LGVC code. The "Architecture, Oregon Style" by R. Clark is just a guide and not an exhaustive description of the complex architectural style (i.e. Italian Renaissance). She contended that the exhibit she provided previously can also be useful as a guide. She added into testimony another example of Italian Renaissance architecture specifically referenced on page 153 of Architecture Oregon Style as "The Breakers" in the Italian Renaissance style. This is compatible with the other Italian Renaissance design details previously provided by the applicant. The latest design revision provided by the applicant since the hearing are not satisfactory as an alternative to the unsatisfactory flat roof line along Kruse Way(north elevation). She also stressed that nowhere in the code does it say that the view from the street while driving or walking is the most appropriate way to perceive the building. She suggested that it might also be appropriate to consider the north elevation as it might be perceived by other building tenants on Kruse Way with panoramic views of the elevation. Removal of only six apartments on the Level Five floor plan would offer the opportunity to create a more balanced and proportional design for the roofline that meets the definition of Italian Renaissance. She also expressed disagreement with findings regarding the Park Lane streetscape, stating that there is no evidence to suggest that there will be no increase in use of the sidewalk. She opined that it is reasonable to assert that the residents of the new apartment complex might want to visit the designated open space area as it is right across the street. Mr. Ahrend asked for elaboration for how removal of apartment units will accomplish the goal of achieving the Italian Renaissance design standards. Ms. Krebs responded that the opportunity for City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 8 of 11 C-001 DRC Minutes 8-20-18 APPROVED creating a balcony that would break up the roofline would only be achieved by removing those six apartments. Mr. Ahrend asked for clarification regarding her concerns about traffic impacts. Ms. Krebs responded that her concerns center on the traffic impacts to the four-way stop and whether the potential impacts it could have on the Boones Ferry/Mercantile intersection have been adequately analyzed. Cheryl Uchida,15190 Quarry Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, summarized the letter she co-wrote on behalf of the Waluga Neighborhood Association. Topics she expounded upon, and explained in further detail in the August 20, 2018 letter, are as follows: • Traffic Impacts: Ms. Uchida was critical of City staff omitting intersection studies requested along Douglas Way at Hallmark Drive, Boones Ferry Road, and Quarry Road. • Traffic Congestion and Safety: Ms. Uchida expressed concern regarding delivery access and waste management. • Parking: Ms. Uchida opined that there will be parking shortages for outside eating/drinking establishments in the retail/commercial business area. • Architectural Style, Design and Amenities of Residential Buildings: Ms. Uchida was critical of the "monolithic" scale of the structure. • Waluga Neighborhood Plan: Land Use Planning Goal 2 Policy 2, Page 11: After reading the clause text, Ms. Uchida expressed her opinion that the north side of the apartment building is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. • Apartment Amenities, Buffering and Screening: Referring to 50.05.07 of the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, Ms. Uchida provided her interpretation of what the code requires with regards to buffering/screening, noise mitigation, and noise reduction design. • Waluga Neighborhood Plan: Ms. Uchida expressed that the development does not enhance the character of the neighborhood plan or vision of the Lake Grove Village Center. Mr. Ahrend asked Ms. Uchida if she had a specific time of day in mind for analyzing the three intersections she mentioned in her remarks. Ms. Uchida indicated that mornings before school opens would be the best time. Rebuttal Mr. Dunn addressed the potential for cut-through movements going through Hallmark and Douglas. He reiterated his opinion from the prior hearing that this project does not create a potential cut- through problem. He explained that Quarry Road experiences a work-to-home commute pattern that originates from Kruse Way, Interstate-5, and Highway 217. The project is located on the corner of Kruse Way and Boones Ferry Road. He opined that there is no potential for cut-through movements down Quarry Road from this project. He referenced evidence that demonstrates it would be quicker to use the signal next to the project to get onto Boones Ferry Road than to use the cut-through route He followed by discussing comments on the impacts to Douglas Way and Hallmark Drive created by the project. He reminded the Board, and asked them to consider, that the land uses on the property today consist of a medical office with fitness center, Blue Moon Café, and other uses. He theorized that there are already people using, for example, the medical facility, fitness center, or other amenities on the property— perhaps parents after they drop off kids at the nearby elementary school and teachers after students are dismissed. Therefore, Mr. Dunn requested that the Commission consider that there are already existing uses on the property that are generating traffic and some of those trips may already be there on Hallmark Drive today. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 9 of 11 C-001 DRC Minutes 8-20-18 APPROVED Regarding comments made about TriMet, Mr. Dunn stated that they are quoting the transit agency's long-range plan about what they want to do with the existing bus routes along Kruse Way and Boones Ferry Road. He acknowledged that it may not happen when this project is underway or complete. Regarding comments about vehicle queuing, Mr. Dunn stated that analysis considered all approaching vehicles for a full one-hour period looking at the peaks and considered the signal cycles at Boones Ferry Road and Mercantile Drive. Mr. Dunn stated that he wanted to make clear that the truck loading space will have forward progression only. There will be no backing maneuvers off of Mercantile Drive for large trucks. Questions for Applicants Mr. Shearer asked Mr. Shultz to explain the screening around the pool. Mr. Shultz explained that the screening around the pool consist of a low wall with an open ornamental wrought iron fence. Diego Alessi, Landscape Architect, Architects Orange, 144 N. Orange Street, Orange, CA 92866, contributed to this discussion, indicating that the project team was required by the Health Department to have a six-foot fence or wall that must be of a non-climbable surface. The requirements from a design perspective would typically have designers use basalt or similar material. However, this leads to a climbable surface. Therefore, in most situations like this, he prefers to use a wrought iron fence painted black and from a screening perspective have hedges on both sides that are roughly five feet from the sidewalk. Noting that the TIA shows the Carman/Meadows roundabout operating at a LOS F, Chair Poulson asked Mr. Dunn if that LOS was determined based on trip counts at the intersection. Mr. Dunn responded that they did account for the traffic counts. Chair Poulson followed asking if the roundabout was studied from a geometry point of view. Mr. Dunn replied that the analysis does account for the intersection geometry. Chair Poulson asked if the radius of the roundabout was factored into the analysis. Mr. Dunn answered that he does not believe that the analysis accounts for the radius of the intersection. Rather, it relies on standard inputs for a roundabout analysis. Mr. Ahrend inquired what the LOS and volume/capacity ratio (v/c) were at the roundabout based on the PM volumes that were counted there. Mr. Dunn replied that the intersection under existing condition shows a LOS E, delay of 38 seconds, and v/c is greater than 1 (for the eastbound approach). Mr. Ahrend followed to confirm that the roundabout is over capacity. Mr. Dunn replied yes, for that particular eastbound movement. Mr. Ahrend asked if the project team verified that eastbound approach is, in fact, operating as the analysis suggests. Mr. Dunn replied that he has driven that approach and has, indeed, witnessed the intersection during the recorded period and have noticed queues that do develop on the eastbound approach. Mr. Ahrend noted that Mr. Dunn testified earlier that the traffic that the proposed project adds would not be any worse than full occupancy of the current development and asked Mr. Dunn to verify that statement is true. Mr. Dunn replied that the statement is true for the total intersection. Mr. Ahrend asked Mr. Shultz to respond to the suggestion during public testimony to remove six units on the upper floor. Mr. Shultz explained that removing the upper units continuously as suggested would leave a "squatty" and strange proportioned massing. In addition, being that this is the north side of the building and faces Kruse Way, what is left would not work well as a terrace. It would always be in the shade and people would have to contend with the noisy street below. Mr. Shultz explained further that what the project team is trying to do is to replicate the proportions of City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 10 of 11 C-001 DRC Minutes 8-20-18 APPROVED the Italian Villa. Each one of the individual buildings, which are broken by the courtyards, is in the correct proportions for the Italian Villa, both in terms of height and width. He contends that it is really the breaks between the buildings that create that variety. He concluded by opining that by removing the upper story as suggested, it hurts the proportions rather than helps. Mr. Ahrend explained that part of the issue is the repetitive pattern and asked if there is a way to make the design less symmetrical to break up that pattern. Mr. Shultz indicated that it might be possible to do slightly different detailing or color on one of the masses. He further explained that most people would view these structures obliquely rather than straight-on as shown in the displayed elevations. Mr. Boone asked if anyone attending had any additional written testimony. None Deliberations Chair Poulson moved to continue LU 17-0084 for the next hearing. Mr. Smith seconded the motion and it passed 4:1. LU 17-0084, a request by Raghunandan and Sangeeta Kamineni for approval of: • A 6-lot Subdivision with a private street. Five of the lots will be flag lots (Lots 2-6); • Buffer Averaging of the previously delineated RP District, per LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii; and • Removal of 27 trees to accommodate the project (Additional trees will be removed under separate Invasive and Dead tree removal permits). The site is located at 1107 Yates Street (Tax Lot ID 21 E10DD01300). Staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Senior Planner. Chair Poulson moved to continue LU 17-0084 to the next hearing. Mr. Smith seconded the motion and it passed 4:1. ADDITIONAL ITEMS Jessica Numanoglu suggested that the September 51" meeting start at 6 PM given the amount of items to be discussed. Mr. Smith indicated that he would have a schedule conflict at that hour. Chair Poulson suggested leaving the meeting time at 7 PM. All were in agreement. ADJOURNMENT Chair Poulson adjourned the meeting at 9:36 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kat Kluge Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 11 of 11 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes Monday, September 5, 2018 The Commissioners convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Chair David Poulson, Vice Chair Brent Ahrend, Paden Prichard, Jeff Shearer, and Jason Frankel Members absent: Kirk Smith Staff present. Jessica Nurnanoglu, Planning Manager; Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner. Mike Ward, Traffic Engineer; Erica Rooney; City Engineer; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Theresa Kohlhoff discussed the Walker property and the council decision to retain City ownership of the property, citing that there was no public support for selling the property. FINDINGS None MINUTES None PUBLIC HEARING LU 18-0026; a continued hearing for a request by applicants, CenterCal Properties and Trammell Crow Company, for approval of a mixed use project with 208 residential units, approximately 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, and the removal of 43 trees. [Note: An additional 51 invasive trees will be removed under a separate permit.] The site is located at 3975, 4015, & 4095 Mercantile Drive (Tax Lot ID 21E08BC00102), and the vacant lot at the SW corner of Mercantile (Tax Lot ID 21 E08BA01000). Staff coordinator is Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, informed those in attendance that this hearing is continued from the public hearing for deliberation purposes only. Mr. Boone then gave an overview of the public hearing process. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedures, asking the Development Review Commission (DRC) members, to declare any ex parte contacts, biases, or other conflicts relating to applicants or the proposed project. All DRC members present declared that they have no conflict of interests, no ex parte contact, and no bias. Having missed the August 201" DRC meeting, Mr. Prichard noted that he reviewed the audio tape of the meeting and reviewed the written material related to the project proposal. No one challenged any Commissioner's ability to consider the application. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5. 2018 Page 1 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED Deliberations Commissioner Ahrend began by listing the primary issues involved with the proposal: two different building options presented for consideration; the open space "Idaho parcel"; and traffic concerns. He then expressed that although the traffic analysis could have been done better, he is comfortable with the findings. Elaborating further, he mentioned that the central issue is that the proposed project will not generate more trips than what was originally approved for the site at full- build out. Chair Poulson challenged Mr. Ahrend's conclusion given that development currently on the site is not fully utilized. In practical reality, he opined that the number of trips currently generated from the site does not come close to a fully utilized property. Mr. Ahrend acknowledged that equity issues ensue on occasion with traffic analysis, explaining that in reviewing background conditions for a traffic analysis report, if the site was generating half the trips it was approved for or could generate, everyone else around it does not have to include those trips. Commissioner Shearer contributed his interpretation of Mr. Ahrend's statement as saying that the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood will increase, but the road system is designed to handle this impact. Mr. Ahrend answered that the findings of the study suggest that the system will be able to absorb the increased traffic. Mr. Shearer followed, seeking Mr. Ahrend's opinion, that the feel of the impact to the neighborhood will be different from what was presented by the applicant. Mr. Ahrend said that it may differ to some degree. Mr. Ahrend raised a concern about the lack of AM trip analysis information and how a potential coffee shop would impact traffic. Hence, he suggested that any coffee shop be conditioned to perform further analysis documenting that it would not cause a detrimental impact. Chair Paulson commented that the proposal will replace a two-story medical office building with a four-story, 208-unit apartment building with full retail. He expressed skepticism that the trips coming off the new development are going to match what is there today. Mr. Shearer explained his interpretation of Mr. Ahrend's statement, that trips generated from the project proposal will not match what is currently on the site. Rather, the trips will be similar to the existing land uses were they to be fully utilized as previously approved. In other words, the traffic impacts will be greater than what is on the ground today, but would closely match the existing land uses, were the site to be fully occupied. Mr. Ahrend concurred with that interpretation. Commissioner Prichard stated that he shares Chair Paulson's reservations about conclusions from the traffic impact analysis (TIA) that impacts would closely match the existing land uses at full-build out. Observing that the existing building's square footage is currently underutilized, Mr. Prichard questioned the process of assessing traffic impacts based on square footage alone. Referring to a statement made by the applicant's traffic consultant during the August 2011' hearing regarding the on-site fitness center, Mr. Prichard mentioned that the facility has been closed for three months. Mr. Ahrend responded by noting that most of the existing counts were done in November 2016. The fitness center may have been operating then. He continued by stating the central question is whether the City can legally require the applicant to do something more? If the answer is yes, then what is that? Everything has been shown to operate acceptably, with the exception of the roundabout. The City needs to determine mitigation for that roundabout. Chair Poulson asked Mr. Ahrend how a conclusion that the development would not pose increased trips would affect System Development Charges (SDCs)for traffic. Mr. Ahrend questioned if that is something that should be addressed in this case. Developers typically take a credit for the rate of City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 2 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED the prior use. That will likely be the case for the project as well. Mr. Boone added that the amount of the SDCs and how it is applied is not within the land use regulations for DRC review. Mr. Ahrend commented on the facade options that were introduce during the August 20th meeting. He expressed his preference for either the original proposal or Option 1 (E-30). Mr. Prichard opined that Option 1 is an improvement but more needs to be done to address the massing of the building. Observing that the proposed building comprises 420 linear feet with very little variation, he supports breaking it down into more distinct elements. Mr. Ahrend sought and received general consensus from the DRC in favor of Option 1. Mr. Shearer, regarding the Idaho property, sought clarification that the shaded green area of the open space plan (E-33) stays with the parcel. Chair Poulson confirmed that it did. Chair Poulson commented that it is unusual to have the easement tied to both parcels because they are not under the same ownership. Ms. Hastay corrected that they are under same ownership, but are just separate legal lots of record. Mr. Ahrend described his struggle with proportionality. He specifically presented his preference for Park Lane improvements along the Mercantile frontage of the Idaho property, which is being used to meet the development's open space requirement, but acknowledged that it could be challenged. He concluded his remarks observing that a future developer of the small remaining portion of the Idaho property may claim they could not afford to make the Park Lane improvements as part of the partition. Because of this uncertainty, he questioned when improvements would ever be made at this location. Mr. Prichard expressed agreement with testimony from Bruce Goldson during the August 20' DRC hearing that they are counting the Idaho property toward fulfilling their open space requirements, but are not being required to make frontage improvements on that property. Ms. Hastay expounded on the Park Lane concept as being a 20-foot pedestrian pathway and landscape area. Mr. Ahrend referenced page 90 of the staff report as highlighting a cross section of improvements that the applicant would be making on Mercantile Drive fronting the development for Park Lane improvements (Detail 3). Currently a half-street improvement, Mr. Ahrend sought confirmation that if the applicant were required to do the same on the Idaho property, it would have the same cross section. Ms. Hastay confirmed the interpretation. Mr. Shearer sought confirmation that the applicant is currently not required to implement the Park Lane improvement along the Idaho property. Ms. Hastay confirmed that they are not. Because the site is vacant and expected to remain vacant, there was not rough proportionality to exact the pedestrian improvements. Because an exaction was not imposed, an analysis of impact on the sensitive lands area was not conducted. Any Park Lane-type improvements would encroach into those sensitive areas. Mr. Ahrend expressed a difference of opinion with the staff interpretation concerning the site not being developed. He opined that the Idaho property is part of the development site since the applicant is using it so that they can build more on the other parcel. Mr. Ahrend stated he understands why the City would be hesitant to make improvements fronting the Idaho property due to impacts on the sensitive land. Mr. Prichard asked if the curb-to-curb width of Mercantile Drive will change due to the development. Ms. Hastay replied that the curb lines will not change. The pedestrian improvements will increase in width beyond the curb, but will occur without increasing the right-of-way width. Mr. Prichard inquired if the alignment of Mercantile Drive would have to be shifted if Park Lane improvements were imposed on both sides of the roadway. Ms. Hastay indicated that they would City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 3 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED riot and that there would be a more of a balanced analysis between impacts to the right-of-way and the design of the pedestrian improvements. The whole point of the sensitive lands is to first avoid, then to minimize, and then to mitigate any impacts. Chair Poulson asked staff to explain how they interpreted proportionality. Ms. Hastay referred to the rough proportionality analysis described on pages 36 to 41, Volume 1, of the staff report, stating that requirements are based on a minimal increase of trips or similar trip impacts associated with the new use. Mike Ward, Traffic Engineer added that staff did an analysis of the impacts the apartments would create in comparison to expected impacts from a single family home. From there, a determination was made for how much square footage of sidewalk would need to be constructed to mitigate the impact. He determined that the seven-foot wide sidewalk was justified by the impact of the homes. With regard to the sidewalk on the Idaho property, not only did staff need to show that there were impacts generated by the site, but also that there would be a nexus of trips generated commensurate with uses in that area. Ultimately, the City couldn't posit a user of the site crossing the road to utilize the sidewalk on the far side when there was a seven-foot sidewalk on their side. Therefore, staff concluded that the City could not justify requiring the developer to make improvements to that sidewalk as part of that condition. Mr. Prichard requested a description of the four-way stop configuration at Mercantile Drive and Hallmark Drive from staff. Ms. Hastay stated that there is an existing sidewalk along the Idaho property and Mercantile frontages. The proposed crosswalks with the four-way stop will line up with the existing curb and directional ramps. Mr. Prichard asked if there is another point at which the user of the new sidewalk can cross Mercantile and go into the neighborhood. Mr. Ward and Erica Rooney, City Engineer, indicated that there is stop sign control on Galewood Street but no crosswalk. It is a legal crosswalk but not a marked crosswalk, at Galewood and Mercantile Drive. Mr. Ahrend inquired if the City could impose a condition that defers improvements to development or partitioning of the Idaho parcel as a way to ensure improvements could eventually occur. Ms. Hastay responded that the City could impose a condition, but that analysis comes up in any case, either under a partition or a development application (rough proportionality). Mr. Ahrend followed opining that a future applicant could claim to have only a small piece of the Idaho property that could actually be developed and, therefore, make the case that it's not proportionate to the impacts. Ms. Hastay reminded the DRC that the site is currently vacant, so any use is going to be a big change versus no trips; therefore, it would most likely be proportionate to their impacts to improve the entire frontage. Mr. Boone suggested the City could impose a condition for a Local Improvement District (LID)waiver. For example, proportionality for an LID sidewalk project is reviewed as part of the LID. So if a district declared by the City needs a sidewalk, surrounding properties are assessed proportionately. However, for this development, before reserving through a contribution into the future development, the City would first need to identify the amount of proportionality that the current development has that can be transferred. The time to have this discussion is now. Mr. Boone concluded that the City cannot condition the current development to pay for any future development that may occur on the remaining portions of the Idaho property. Mr. Ahrend interpreted staffs remark is that if and when the remnant piece of the Idaho property develops, it is likely that they would be required to make the improvements. Mr. Boone said that it is planning staff's judgement on what the expected use is and their proportionality— based on possible uses. Mr. Prichard interpreted his understanding that when the remnant piece of the Idaho property develops, there is no part of the greenspace easement that can be used for calculation as part of the new development. Ms. Hastay confirmed that as correct. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 4 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED Chair Poulson commented that with the applicant's math, the size of the Mercantile development yields a certain number of pedestrians which gave them a proportionality of just having sidewalks on one side of Mercantile Drive. He is trying to judge whether a smaller development on the Idaho property could generate the same level of proportionality. Mr. Ahrend presented a different viewpoint. Locating the open space on the Idaho property allows the developer to build more on the main parcel (density transfer). He suggested the question is whether the City would still require full frontage improvements on Mercantile Drive if the applicant weren't using the open space on the Idaho parcel, but instead included it on the main parcel, thereby having less dense development. Mr. Ahrend posited that the answer would be yes. Ms. Hastay disagreed. The applicant is not maximizing their height for the entire development site. They intentionally stepped the number of stories down as the development approached Mercantile Drive. If they had to do a smaller footprint to deal with open space being fully on the main site, they could increase the height of the buildings. In other words, there is sufficient room for additional stories that would offset any decreases to the building footprint. Mr. Shearer expressed his issue with the developer getting the benefit of fulfilling their open space requirement by putting it on the Idaho property without having to do any improvements there. Chair Poulson opined that it comes down to the fact that if proportionality does not work, then this becomes a potential Dolan issue, where the City is exacting more offsets to the development than proportionality demands. Mr. Boone explained that staff analyzed the applicant's proposal based on the total development (including the Idaho property). It is not a question of whether the Idaho property is developed. Rather, the issue is what the impacts of the development are. He encouraged the DRC to keep in mind two things: 1. The question is: "What is the incremental impact of this development proposal over that of the existing Mercantile site at full occupancy?" 2. Don't just focus on the improvement to Mercantile Drive and whether this development has provided enough for it. There are other improvements along other streets that have been taken into account. On balance, staff has acquired some additional pedestrian improvements and feels that this is in the rough proportionality range. Mr. Prichard, noting that the improved sidewalk of the project side of Mercantile Drive goes as far as the driveway to the residential parking, asked staff if there is a sidewalk that continues up to Kruse Way on that side of the roadway. Ms. Hastay replied that there is not. However, that doesn't mean that pedestrians would be stopped at that point because there is a pathway that runs through the site in the resource area up to Kruse Way. Mr. Prichard commented that after meeting with staff, he has a better understanding of how the building has been made to meet the 45-foot height limit. Mr. Ahrend reiterated his concerns expressed during the previous hearings about how the site will accommodate moving trucks and mitigate potential conflicts with retail delivery trucks. Ms. Hastay responded, indicating that the applicant intentionally designed the ground floor level where the commercial parking is located with two entrances to maintain circulation in case of a conflict at one of those entrances. Mr. Prichard commented that he could find no code provision for providing space for delivery service vehicles. Nonetheless, he expressed concern that the proposed building with a main tenant surrounded by smaller tenants could create major problems for morning delivery vehicles where the lot could be completely blocked with large trucks. Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager read the parking section of the Code (Section 50.06.002) where it states "Loading berths in sufficient numbers and size to adequately handle the needs of the development shall be required." She concluded that loading really depends on each development and their particular needs. In this case the applicants are providing a separate loading area for the anchor tenant, and they previously City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 5 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED testified that the internal parking area on the site could accommodate the loading needs of the other tenants. Mr. Prichard did not interpret the section of the Code just read by Ms. Numanoglu as requiring any number other than a "sufficient" amount. He asked if this is something staff will regulate later. Ms. Numanoglu responded that the applicants have identified that they can accommodate the loading needs internally for all the tenants except the anchor tenant. For the anchor tenant, they have a specific loading berth which is designed to accommodate semi-trucks. Their testimony was that they can accommodate deliveries within the proposed parking lot in the center of the development and the loading berth for the anchor tenant. Mr. Ahrend commented on fixing some confusion with signing and striping on the Mercantile Drive approach to Boones Ferry Road. He suggested adding, as part of the Condition A.1.b of the staff report, a provision to address any signing or striping issues as needed. Mr. Ahrend referred to public comment suggesting the Idaho parcel be subject to Condition B.10 (submit a stamped and signed survey of RP District boundaries) of the staff report. Ms. Hastay indicated that there is no issue with including the Idaho property and left it to the discretion of the DRC. However, she pointed out that a formal RP District delineation was not performed on the Idaho property because no development was proposed, so while the applicant did have their surveyor out to do an analysis, those boundaries were not verified by the City's own natural resource consultant. Mr. Ahrend asked if the City were to have the applicant delineate the Idaho property, would they have to change Exhibit E-23, which refers to the main parcel. Ms. Hasty suggested that an additional reference could be used. She also noted that the applicant did provide their surveyed boundaries (E-36) at the last hearing. Mr. Boone contributed to the discussion, mentioning the reason a precise delineation is not required at this time is because there is no activity on the site. If development were to occur, a more precise delineation line would then be required. In the meantime, the property is protected per RP District standards even though delineated with a "fuzzier" line. Ms. Hastay added an exemption is built in to the sensitive land standard, so there is no requirement to provide further delineation at this time. Mr. Ahrend referred to public comment questions about parking, asking if there is sufficient parking and whether commercial and residential parking will be separated. He also inquired if residents could be charged for parking. Ms. Hastay said the land use code is silent on how parking spaces, once developed, are managed by property owners. Mr. Ahrend asked if there was going to be some sharing of the parking. Ms. Hastay replied not technically because they have used a numerical method to provide the minimum number of parking spaces for both commercial and residential uses. Mr. Ahrend stated that the property owner can completely segregate the uses into residential and commercial. Ms. Hastay agreed. The existing condition of approval speaks to the fact that the ground floor of the parking garage and surface parking do not have quite enough parking spaces to accommodate the minimum commercial parking. Therefore, there will be some spillover into the second level of the garage. The applicant testified previously that they were looking at ways to encourage employees of the commercial tenant spaces to use the second level of the garage because they have more control of access. Before motions, Ms. Hastay read off conditions added through testimony and hearings: • Require the Option 1 revision to the north elevation • Change in massing to comply with height standards • Incorporate retaining wall changes proposed by the applicants to address concerns from the neighborhood and to address one section that exceeded height limitations City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 6 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED • Condition A.1.b to address signing and striping issues on the Mercantile Drive approach to Boones Ferry Road Mr. Ahrend asked for staff response to his suggestion of restricting uses that have AM trip generation. Ms. Hastay said the applicant's current parking analysis and TIA reflected a reasonable mix of uses and included looking at the small retail pavilion as a specialty food area. As far as parking is concerned, she indicated that the applicant complies with the parking standards. From a trip generation standpoint, she expressed agreement with the applicant's TIA and supports the City engineer's review that the applicant's TIA complies with the standards and offsets the impacts. Mr. Ahrend followed suggesting a condition that would require an updated analysis for a use that would generate more trips than what was assessed in the TIA. Ms. Hastay replied that the City's land use application process is not set up for tracking such items. She added that from a planning perspective, the street system is sufficient to handle the trips proposed with the project. Ms. Rooney stated that the two main roadway facilities in the vicinity (Boones Ferry Road and Kruse Way) experience the highest peak hour volumes during the noon hour. There is more capacity in the morning than there is during lunch time or evening. Mr. Ahrend moved to approve LU 18-0026 with four added conditions read into the record by staff. Mr. Frankel seconded the motion and it passed 4:1. Ms. Numanoglu requested that the DRC hold a special meeting on September 12, 2018 at 6 P.M. to adopt the findings for the Mercantile project. Chair Poulson moved to convene on September 12, 2018 at 6 P.M. exclusively for the purpose of adopting the findings for this hearing. Mr. Ahrend seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. LU 17-0084, a request by Sangeeta Kamineni for approval of the following: • A 6-lot subdivision with a private street. Five of the lots will be flag lots (Lots 2-6); • Buffer averaging of the previously delineated RP District, per LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii; and • Removal of 27 trees to accommodate the project (Additional trees will be removed under separate Invasive and Dead tree removal permits). The site is located at 1107 Yates Street (21 E10DD01300). Staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Senior Planner. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process. He then outlined the applicable criteria and procedure. He asked DRC members to declare ex parte contacts, biases, or other conflicts relating to applicants or the proposed project. All DRC members present declared that they have no conflict of interests, no ex parte contact, and no bias. Chair Poulson, Mr. Prichard, and Mr. Shearer volunteered that they visited the site. No one challenged any Commissioner's ability to consider the application. Staff Report Planner Debra Andreades announced that the City received an additional written comment (Exhibit G24) stating that the application should be reviewed under the current flag lots standards. This application was submitted on December 18, 2017. The flag lot amendments became effective April 5, 2018. Therefore, per Oregon Revised Statutes, a land use application is reviewed under the standards in affect at the time that the application was submitted. This application, therefore, will be reviewed under the flag lot standards in effect on December 18, 2017. The site is zoned R-7.5 and is located in the Hallinan Heights neighborhood; it abuts Hallinan Woods Park. The property contains an RP District with a Class I stream corridor and wetlands City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 7 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED system that was previously delineated in 2016 (case file LU 16-0043). The final delineation maps are available as Exhibit E-14. Another comment received (Exhibit G-219) states that there is a Habitat Benefit Area (HBA) on the property. Intended to ease sensitive lands regulations on private property, the HBA was discussed during a City Council hearing in 2015. The Council decision was to remove the RC (Tree Grove) Districts on private properties and replace it with an HBA designation. Per code, HBA is a voluntary program that offers incentives if the applicant chooses to protect a portion of the HBA. The applicant has chosen not to take advantage of the incentives; therefore, it was not shown on the official delineation map. The minimum lot size is 7,500 square feet for the zone. The maximum allowed density on this site is ten lots and the minimum required density is nine lots. The code allows minimum density to be reduced when the most appropriate design and location for a stormwater facility is above ground and outside the open space and where there is an RP District on the site. In this case the stormwater facility is outside the open space and there is an RP District in the southern portion of the site. Therefore, the area the stormwater facility covers and the RP District can be subtracted from the site area, which equates to a minimum density of six lots. The applicant is proposing six lots in compliance with minimum density. Ms. Andreades provided a definition of a flag lot. Based on the definition described, the site contains five flag lots (Lots 2 through 6). She summarized the requirement for permitting flag lots. Lots 5 and 6 have less than the minimum lot size for the zone. However, dimensional standards for the zone can be modified per the Sensitive Lands Code for the development if it does not increase the amount of density transfer. The proposed project will modify the RP buffer by removing 1,981 square feet of protected riparian area (PRA) along the north side while adding in a total of 3,075 square feet along both the south side and portions of the north side of the open space tract. Ms. Andreades described the three criteria from the Code that allows for a reduction of the RP buffer and how the applicant is adhering to these standards. Staff concludes that there are no detrimental impacts to the resource from the proposed buffer reduction. Ms. Andreades next presented the utility plan. The applicant proposed a stormwater pipe going through the RP District before connecting with the stormwater plant. This is allowed provided that it does not cause an adverse effect on the resource functions and values; that there are no other practical alternatives; and the applicant has considered avoidance and minimization for the stormwater pipe. Due to topography, the storm system in Yates cannot serve the site. Furthermore, on-site infiltration is not sufficient. Therefore, an on-site stormwater facility is needed. The wooded nature of the site will require the removal of 27 trees for access and utility construction. Staff recommends approval with conditions addressing amending the delineated RP District in the Notice of Development Restriction recorded on the deed to include areas on the south part of the property and small areas to the north of the open space that have been added so that future property owners are put on notice of the regulatory protections. Questions of Staff Commissioner Ahrend, inquired if there was a reference to E-6 (RP Buffer Planting Plan)that needs to be replaced in the proposed conditions of approval; how is the correction from E-6 to E- City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 8 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED 16 (Final Buffer Planting Plan) accounted for? Ms. Andreades reviewed her documents and made some corrections. Commissioner Prichard requested an explanation for the average height calculation. He specifically cited using the park as one lot which could have a 28-foot high building. However, the park couldn't have a building on it so how can it be counted as a 28-foot high building? Ms. Andreades replied that when a lot is vacant and is zoned to have a taller height that is allowed in the zone the site is located in, the Code states to use the maximum height allowed in the zone in which the site is located. Even though it is vacant and not a residential lot, it is included as part of the average. Mr. Prichard inquired whether the applicant can realign the pipe as it goes through the resource area in order to save some of the mature trees. Ms. Andreades suggested it was possible; the pipe is not very wide. She referred to Exhibit E-8 (Tree Removal Plan) where it shows a couple trees on the edge that may or may not be impacted by the pipe. Ms. Numanoglu indicated that they will be boring the pipe to avoid trees. Mr. Prichard listed specific trees by assigned number for staff to address. Ms. Andreades responded that the trees identified were unhealthy trees. Commissioner Shearer requested clarification regarding the RP Buffer Reduction that a detached structure could be allowed between the "green line" shown on the site plan in the staff presentation and the edge of the RP District. Ms. Andreades indicated that there is a 10-foot construction setback from the rear lot lines. The "green lines" shown on the plan are the flag lot rear setbacks that are required by condition. The footprint could not go beyond the lines. She stated that an accessary structure could go where the "purple arrows" are shown on the site plan. Mr. Prichard followed with his interpretation that a ten-foot construction setback is actually aligned parallel to the rear property line. They cannot put anything in that area, but they could put something in what was originally the 10-foot construction setback. Ms. Numanoglu qualified the statement. There is a Code provision that states certain accessory structures (e.g., small shed or decks less than 30" above grade) can extend into the 10-foot construction setback, but in no case could it be closer than three feet; so there could be up to a seven-foot intrusion by accessory structures. Mr. Ahrend asked if the open space property will remained fenced. Ms. Andreades responded that it is not required to be fenced. Mr. Ahrend sought clarification that the open space (Tract B) and facility will be owned and maintained by the homeowners. Ms. Andreades replied that they will. Mr. Ahrend inquired if the culvert under the path in the park would be the Park Department's responsibility to maintain. Ms. Andreades confirmed that would be the case. Chair Poulson asked if there is any habitat connectivity that needs to be maintained. Ms. Andreades responded that RP Districts typically contain not only plant communities but also wildlife habitat. Therefore, they are considered travel areas for wildlife habitat. Chair Poulson followed-up questioning the impact to those travel areas resulting from the proposed "necking down" of this travel area through the property by reducing the RP boundary. Ms. Andreades responded that new areas are being added on the south side of the property as well some new areas on the north side of the open space tract. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 9 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED Chair Poulson asked if Tax Lot 10100 is a developable property. Ms. Andreades responded that the tax lot is part of the park and therefore, would not be developed. Chair Poulson sought clarification of how the minimum required density of eight lots can be reduced to six if they provide an above-ground detention facility. In determining minimum density, Ms. Andreades responded that the stormwater tract and RP District area are both allowed to be deducted from the net developable area per code. Applicant Bruce Goldson, Theta Engineering, PO Box 1345, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, introduced Phil Scoles, Terra Science, 4710 SW Kelly Avenue. Suite 100, Portland, OR 97239 who did the delineation of wetlands. Mr. Goldson provided a summary of the proposed project, description of the site, and tasks performed. Many of the trees assessed were determined to be of poor health. Adjoining properties have varying degrees of lots sizes that closely match what is being proposed for this property. Mr. Goldson described some of benefits the project would bring to the community, including a connection from O'Brien Street and Yates Street that better enables access to the park, consolidation of the open space adjoining the property owned by the City, protecting Hallinan Creek, providing an emergency turnaround, which there is none now, providing on street parking, and construction of a looped water system. Mr. Goldson mentioned that the project team explored several scenarios for the site. One included having the RP District be part of the lots. However, it was deemed more appropriate to protect the lots by having a defined RP District that ensures encroachment doesn't happen over time. Questions of Applicant Commissioner Prichard asked if the project team would be amenable to adjusting the south boundary of Lot 4 to be more parallel to the present resource line, thereby avoiding the "pinch point." Mr. Goldson replied the boundary as proposed enables the project to meet Code requirements for solar access. Chair Poulson suggested a variance could be an option. Mr. Prichard added that the amount of trees on the property will limit solar opportunities. Mr. Goldson said the plan proposed is the best option. Mr. Prichard asked if the applicant would be willing to increase the setbacks on Lots 3 and 4 to reduce the impacts caused by a house located so close to the walkway. Mr. Goldson replied that fifteen feet seems like a reasonable amount. Chair Poulson inquired about the condition of the culvert as described in the stormwater report. Mr. Goldson indicated that the culvert has not been well maintained. If it were maintained, there would be no capacity issue associated with the culvert. Chair Poulson asked if the culvert is owned by the City. Based on his understanding, Mr. Goldson replied yes. It was then implied that maintenance responsibility lies with the City. Chair Poulson opined that the stormwater analysis appears to depend upon the culverts being maintained. Mr. Goldson agreed. Chair Poulson offered Mr. Scales the opportunity to present. Mr. Scales offered some of his insight of the property, highlighting the following: City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 10 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED • He did a wetland delineation of the site in 2016 and gave a brief description of the wetlands located on the site. • Squaring up the lots does make a difference for preserving the resource area • Stormwater is being disposed at the base of the hillside • Replacement plantings are focused in a 25-foot zone on the shaded north edge of resource area because it will be more exposed to sunlight once the site is developed. • He described a three-year period for maintaining the mitigation and removing invasive plants. Public Testimony In Support None In Opposition Sarah Ellison, 208 Ash Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, Acting Chair of the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association (HHNA), pointed out the Ecological Engineering report (Exhibit G-222) rebutting some of the data presented in Terra Science's report. Highlights of her comments include the following: • Regarding reduction of the RP District, HHNA contends that the application fails to comply with LOC 50.05.010.4.f. The organization believes the applicant's intent is to maximize the size of the lots on the site. The association advises that the lots be reduced in size. • The applicant has not made a good faith effort to explore alternative designs. • Intrusion into the RP District can be avoided. The reductions being proposed are where they are needed the most. • HHNA proposed alternative lot configurations for consideration. • The lot layout and design proposed by the applicant is not the least environmentally damaging development configuration and therefore does not meet the prerequisite for the application of LOC 50.05.010.f.ii. • The applicant has not made a good faith effort to explore alternative designs. She concurs with comments made earlier that the wooded nature of the site limits solar access. She would be agreeable to a proposed variance option. • The Terra Science report does not reflect the current condition of the property. • Requests a hedge screen instead of a six-foot high fence along Lots 3 and 4. Natalie Bennon, 438 Ash Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, noted that she serves on the Lake Oswego Parks Board and writes about environmental science and policy. She focused on impacts that development will have on the riparian zone. Her comments include the following: • Reducing the size of the riparian zone is not consistent with LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii and will harm the creek by negatively impacting air quality, wildlife and plant life. • Stormwater runoff will increase with flood events increasing. The trail is more likely to fail and the burden will likely fall on the taxpayers. Richard Rich, 16830 Chapin Way, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, expressed his objections to the development as proposed, echoing many of the previous comments. There should be no intrusion into the RP District. He encouraged the DRC to closely review the report submitted by Ecological Engineering (Exhibit G-222). City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 11 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED Christy Clark, 353 Ash Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stressed that she supports smaller lots and smaller homes on the site. She also encouraged enhanced access to the park and the resource area. She supports all the previous comments presented. Chris Huettemeyer, 1044 O'Brien Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, liked the plan, including the landscape buffers. His concerns expressed were as follows: • Incursion into the protected riparian area was addressed, citing LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii (page 12 of staff report). • By choosing larger lot sizes, he expressed suspicion that the applicant is trying to maximize development by placing the largest house possible on each lot (given single-story limitation). • The hiring of a qualified professional is a self-serving rule where the applicant gets their own expert to say the plan is okay. This leaves City staff, who are impartial, to assess the projects based solely on the applicant's expert testimony, unless opposition hires their own expert to counter. • Tree 296 on page 30 of the staff report is a historic tree and was planted before the road was constructed. This tree will not survive the proposed development. Make the road "bend with the tree." The tree is highly visible, so people will notice when it's gone. Jan Castle, 16181 Parelius Circle, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, is chair of the McVey-South Shore Neighborhood Association. She informed the DRC that her organization's preference would be to have the City own the property and be incorporated into Hallinan Woods Park. Short of the City taking control, the association would support measures that would protect the riparian area. Lisa Brisley, 295 311 Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated that the proposed development would have a negative impact to the creek with the large number of trees proposed for removal. Disturbing pervious surfaces will impact the city's watersheds. Importance of Hallinan Woods is clearly expressed on the City of Lake Oswego's website. She expressed support of smaller lot sizes. Paul Shearer, 1532 Meadows Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, recommended that the City purchase the property and incorporate into the resource area. Short of that, he would support reduced lot sizes to enhance the resource buffer. Mr. Shearer distributed some photographic displays of a rarely-seen short-tailed weasel which he has viewed on the property and an illustrative map of the reduced grizzly bear habitat as a result of development in North America. Neither for nor Against Jim and Barbara Fisher, 1023 O'Brien Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, Mrs. Fisher informed the DRC that she and her husband have led efforts to restore Hallinan Woods. She expressed support for the City to purchase the property. If the development does proceed, she listed three recommendations: • The riparian area be purchased as an easement • Mitigate the impact to trees • Remove the cyclone fence around the open space tract because it impedes the mobility of wildlife Mr. Fisher displayed a video of the culvert outlet following a heavy rain event. The culvert is not visible because it is under water—something that happens frequently any time after an intense storm. He expressed surprise that there is some confusion over who owns the culvert and stated that, in actuality, there are two culverts. He provided a history of property owners in the vicinity. Regardless who is responsible for culvert maintenance, they will need access to the culverts. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 12 of 13 C-002 Minutes 9-5-18 APPROVED However, access is blocked by a fence. A retired soil expert, he concluded by providing a description of the soil composition and how it differs from the submitted geo-technical report. Donald Mattersdorff, 930 Bullock Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, expressed opposition to the proposed development. He disputes that the project contains flag lots based on the Code definition. Rebuttal Mr. Goldson confirmed that there are two culverts, both located in the park. Acknowledging that the groundwater is high, he proposed a solution involving a planter facility. The tree discussed is located within the right-of-way; therefore, it is in the path of the expanded roadway. Mr. Scales addressed the reason for the intrusion into the buffer area as give-and-take. As a consequence, there will be removal of invasive plants and some long-term stewardship. Addressing smaller lots, he said that small lots do not necessarily mean a smaller house. Therefore, smaller lots can result in a more intensive use. The proposed project would supplement progress that has already been made to the site. Questions for Applicants Chair Poulson asked why a downstream analysis was conducted. Mr. Goldson replied that the water quality of the facility does provide some slowing up of the water out (coffee filter effect). The water currently flows away now. He wanted to demonstrate that future flows would do so as well. The detention design does not reduce runoff to pre-development standards, which Mr. Goldson confirmed. Mr. Goldson described the water flows that he has observed between the two culverts (upper and lower). Chair Poulson suggested consideration be given for how to redesign it. Commissioner Shearer asked if the applicant intends to fence in the riparian area. Mr. Scoles responded that it is currently fenced. He suggested that as long the owner is responsible for maintaining and monitoring, it should be kept in place. Ultimately, it would be up to the property owner. Mr. Goldson added that there is some liability associated with the creek. Commissioner Ahrend asked if there were any other issues that would preclude smaller lots to avoid the riparian area. Mr. Goldson informed that shrinking the lots mean that the development would no longer meet the solar requirements outlined in the Code. Otherwise, he acknowledged that effects would be minimal. Mr. Boone asked if anyone attending wanted to request that the hearing be left open for additional evidence. The Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association requested the record to be left open. Commissioner Shearer moved to allow additional oral and written testimony for the next hearing. Mr. Prichard seconded the motion and it passed 5:1. Mr. Boone announced that public hearing will be continued for additional written evidence or oral testimony to September 17, 2018 at 7 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Chair Poulson adjourned the meeting at 11:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Is' Kat Kluge, Administrative Support [Note: the spelling of the name Huettemeyer was corrected after DRC approval of the minutes.] City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 5, 2018 Page 13 of 13 C-003 DRC Minutes 9-17-18 DRAFT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes Monday, September 17, 2O18 The Commissioners convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hail, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Chair David Poulson, Vice Chair Brent Ahrend. Paden Prichard, Jeff Shearer, Kirk Smith, and Jason Frankel Staff present' Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner; Alissa Maxwell, City Stormwater Review Consultant, Mike Ward, Traffic Engineer; Erica Rooney, City Engineer, Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support COUNCIL UPDATE No Council update presented FINDINGS No findings presented or discussed. MINUTES No minutes presented or discussed. PUBLIC HEARING LU 17-0084, a request by Sangeeta Kamineni for approval of the following: • A 6-lot subdivision with a private street. Five of the lots will be flag lots (Lots 2-6); • Buffer averaging of the previously delineated RP District, per LOC 50.05.010.6 b.ili; and • Removal of 27 trees to accommodate the project (Additional trees will be removed under separate Invasive and Dead tree removal permits). The site is located at 1107 Yates Street (21 E10DD01300). Staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Senior Planner. This hearing was continued from the September 5, 2018 Development Review Commission meeting. Public testimony on all applicable criteria is permitted. Evan Boone, Deputy Attorney gave an overview of the public hearing process. Mr. Boone then outlined the applicable criteria and procedure, asking DRC members, since the last meeting, to declare ex parte contacts, biases, or other conflicts relating to applicants or the proposed project. All DRC members present declared that they have no conflict of interests, no ex parte contact, and no bias. Having missed the August 20`h DRC meeting, Mr. Smith noted that he reviewed the audio tape of the meeting and read written material related to the project proposal. Mr. Frankel has not visited the site. The remaining DRC members indicated that they have visited the site, with Mr. Prichard and Mr. Ahrend noting that they had visited the site since the September 5' hearing. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 1 of 9 C-003 DRC Minutes 9-17-18 DRAFT No one challenged any Commissioner's ability to consider the application. Staff Report Debra Andreades, Senior Planner informed the Commission that additional testimony since the last hearing had been received and distributed to the DRC. Much of the testimony pertained to the reduction of the RP District Boundary. Ms. Andreades explained that the 6-lot subdivision could still be approved with the original RP boundary if the DRC found that the RP reduction did not meet the criteria. Slides were presented to discuss the following: • Solar Access: Ms. Andreades outlined the three options available for meeting the Solar Access standard. • Flag lot definition: referring to testimony challenging the suggestion that the lots in the subdivision are not flag lots as defined in the Code, Ms. Andreades presented a slide of previous City Council findings for a similar subdivision (Cedar Street Subdivision LU 14- 0046) that showed that similar lots were found to be flag lots. • Stormwater Code: to clarify testimony from the September 5th hearing, the City's stormwater review consultant, Alissa Maxwell, stated that downstream analysis has demonstrated capacity for developed flows. Questions of Staff Chair Poulson, referring to a video presented during the September 5th testimony, questioned the method used for analyzing the downstream culvert and expressed his uncertainty of the capacity of the culvert. Ms. Maxwell replied that no one knows what the conditions were around the culvert when the video was taken. She added that culverts are allowed to back up beyond the rim. Mr. Ahrend followed, asking how the flow of the pipe is being analyzed for a 25-year event. Ms. Maxwell said that downstream flow analysis was calculated assuming that the site was developed. This was then added to the existing total drainage basin that contributes to the culvert. Erica Rooney, City Engineer added that the date the video was recorded was during one of the largest rainfalls experienced in the metro area. Therefore, it may not represent a typical situation. Mr. Ahrend sought clarification of what staff recommends regarding the RP District boundary. Ms. Andreades responded staff believes that applicant has met the Code criteria and that the proposal has no detrimental impacts to the RP District. Mr. Smith questioned how the City is maintaining the 30-foot average RP buffer when this proposal removes over 1,100 square feet of the Protected Riparian Area (PRA). Ms. Andreades responded that the RP Buffer is increased in other areas to make up for the loss and maintain the average buffer. Chair Poulson inquired whether there are limitations to the reduction of the PRA imposed by the City Code. Ms. Andreades responded that there are limits to how much the PRA can be reduced; the PRA must maintain a 30-foot average width and the PRA cannot be reduced to less than 15 feet in width in any location. Applicant Bruce Goldson, Theta Engineering, PO Box 1345, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, mentioned that he submitted two handouts to the DRC for consideration. He highlighted several topics, including: • Discussion of the riparian and slope characteristics of the site • Summarized an arborist report on the oak tree mentioned frequently during the September 5th hearing that is located within the right-of-way of the undeveloped portion of Yates Street. • Regarding recent commentary that suggested using wetland construction for the stormwater, Mr. Goldson explained why it would not work at this site. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 2 of 9 C-003 DRC Minutes 9-17-18 DRAFT • Stormwater analysis was done upstream where all the houses in the basin defined by the contour maps provided by the City were counted. Phil Scales, Terra Science, 4710 SW Kelly Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97239, discussed the letter provided by David Gorman, Ecological Engineering. He noted that Mr. Gorman's letter omits some information, such as no acknowledgement of the area being added to the PRA. Mr. Scales discussed the difference between riparian and upland habitat and values. The riparian area far this site is roughly an area about 25-40 feet from the resource. Riparian areas typically contain steeper slopes and help the water be focused to the resource. Beyond that is upland habitat area. Because this site is pretty homogenous there is not a big contrast between the riparian and upland areas on this site. It is the upland habitat area that is proposed to be affected by the RP buffer reduction and that area is very similar to the area that is proposed to be added to the RP District to offset the buffer reduction. Additionally, the applicant is adding more area to the RP District than is being reduced. Questions of Applicant Mr. Ahrend asked if there was a way to shift the road and save the tree that is within the alignment of the street. Mr. Goldson responded that it would require realignment into an existing neighborhood. He also opined that the tree is already compromised by the surrounding development. Chair Paulson suggested that the design speed of the street could be reduced to 5 MPH. Mr. Goldson stated that if the road could jog around the tree and still meet City standards and if the installation of the utilities and the road would not damage the trees, he is open to the suggestion. Mr. Ahrend asked Mr. Goldson if they had any recommendations for addressing the problems involved with the culverts. Mr. Goldson noted that the applicant does not own the culvert, but is willing to work with the City and neighborhoods to find a solution. Mr. Prichard asked why the centerline of the access road is to the west of the centerline of the existing Yates Street. Mr. Goldson disputed that is the case. Mr. Ahrend agreed with Mr. Prichard. Public Testimony In Support Judith Nichols, stated she had no abjection to the project, but does have requests for construction. She noted that there will be many contractors during the construction process and asked what can be requested of the builders. She asked the builder to name the subdivision Antoinette's Acres, after the former owner. Ms. Numanoglu noted that the City has rules for construction hours and that a traffic control plan would be required if equipment would block the street. She also noted that construction workers could legally park on the street, but the police could enforce any illegal parking. She suggested that there be some communication with the builders/contractors and the neighbors. John McKee, 1052 Yates Street, testified that he has maintained two of the trees on the site that impact his yard. He stated that the tree on the south side is dying. There is invasive ivy affecting the trees. He would miss the tree that is in the street alignment if it was removed, but understands if it has to go. He also noted that he has been impacted by water coming up from the subsoil since the soccer fields above were rebuilt. Chair Poulson asked people to address the code in their testimony. Opposed David Gorman, 2016 SE Henkle Rd., Corbett, OR; Water Resource Engineer with Ecological Engineering, representing the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association, stated the association is not opposed to the development, just opposed to the lot layout and impacts to the protected City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 3 of 9 C-003 DRC Minutes 9-17-18 DRAFT resource area. He asked for the slide of Figure 1 to be shown to the Commission. He addressed the lot layout and impacts to the RP District and protected riparian area. He opined the impacts are totally unnecessary. He cited LOC 50.05.010.4.f, related to reduction of the PRA. The first step is avoidance of impacts by bringing forth alternative site plans to avoid the impacts. He presented an alternative layout for Lots 4, 5, and 6 showing avoidance of impacts. He stated that under the same code section, minimization is the next step, which is only available once avoidance is maximized. He did not believe avoidance has been maximized. He believed that the lot lines were created to meet the solar access standards. The solar access standard could be met using the protected solar building line option, which he showed on his Figure 1. He opined the applicant can avoid all the impacts to the PRA and meet the solar access standard with the changes he proposed. Mr. Gorman talked about the functions and importance of the riparian area and PRA and how critical it is to the environment. The narrower the buffer, the less effective the buffer, he stated. He stated that he did a quick analysis of the stormwater management system and opined that it will not control flow to the pre-development flow, per LOC 38.25.120.1.D.ii.c. He recommended the proposal not be approved as is, but that lot lines should be drawn to meet the RP boundary as delineated and the stormwater system should be adequately designed to meet the code. He also asked that the culvert be replaced. Commissioner Ahrend asked for clarification of the functions and protective measures for the RP District. Mr. Gorman acknowledged his previous comments. Chair Poulson asked Mr. Gorman to talk more about his stormwater analysis. Mr. Gorman said since there was no infiltration capability on site, he modeled detention ponds on the lots that weren't being developed. Chair Poulson said it would have been nice to see the models. Sarah Ellison, 208 Ash Street, Lake Oswego, testified on her own behalf, having an additional 5 minutes ceded to her by another member of the audience. She testified that she would like to see the Parks Department take down the fence around the open space tract and maintain it as part of the natural area. She addressed the applicant's failure to comply with the code for reduction of the RP District (LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii). She opined that 1)the impacts on the resource is avoidable; 2) compliance with both the Sensitive Lands Code and the Solar Access Code is feasible; 3)the applicant has failed to explore available and appropriate options; and 4)the applicant is reducing the PRA solely to maximize lot sizes. She cited the report of Mr. Gorman, a qualified resource professional and asked the Commission to review his report. Ms. Ellison addressed intrusion into the PRA, stating it is permanent, but the applicant's mitigation plan is only for three years. She addressed the loss of trees and habitat. She identified the site as within the Cornell Habitat Cluster, currently impacted by the fencing around the property, and stating it has significant habitat value. Stormwater piping was raised as a concern; she asked that other options for avoidance be explored. Warren Oliver, 4 Grange Grove, London, UK, property owner of 1534 Cherry Lane, adjacent to the site testified on the subject development and compliance with the LOC sections previously cited by Mr. Gorman. He also had a concern with the trees proposed for removal. He opined he was skeptical of the applicant's efforts to protect trees. He is impressed by Hallinan Creek preservation efforts. Gordon Friedman, 1046 Lund Street, Lake Oswego, testified that his main concern is not seeing the deer in the woods on the site, and secondly, he disagrees with a statement on page 1 of the staff report, addressing removal of English ivy and invasive plants. He doesn't believe it will be done. Celine Mattersdorf, 930 Deluxe Street, Lake Oswego, urged the Commission to protect the RP District. She would like to see smaller lot sizes. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 4 of 9 C-003 DRC Minutes 9-17-18 DRAFT Mark Callicotte, 353 Ash Street, Lake Oswego, testified he opposed the plan as proposed due to impacts to the RP area and the existing Hallinan Woods and the path that traverses it. The impacts can't be quantified in dollars. Setbacks need to be increased to protect that area. Neither For Nor Against Jim Fisher, 1023 O'Bryant Street, Lake Oswego, testified he works with volunteers to pull ivy, some of it on the site. He provided a video showing the impacts of a storm and the culvert pipe on the site. His experience of the culvert on this site is that it overflows over the asphalt path. He applauds the applicant's statement to work with Parks and Recreation to maintain the culvert. Mr. Fisher showed slides of a flow through planter in a new development. He noted the proposed one is 3x the size of the one shown on the slide and capacity should be considered, suggesting a constructed wetland would be more compatible. He stated that it will be very visually present and won't be acceptable or compatible. Rebuttal Bruce Goldson stated there is no other way to get the flow over the site to the stream than piping it. He said the applicant is doing the minimum development, not maximizing it. He agreed that the culvert is an issue and looks forward to working with the City on it. He stated that if the RP buffer reduction is not approved, then the area in the SW corner of the site is not in the RP district, and would become a separate tract. It could be used as a "park equivalent". Phil Scales testified about how the water flow would be addressed, explaining the proposed process. He encouraged the neighbors to use their expert to help come up with solutions to the water flow issues. He noted that existing development is impeding wildlife already and there would be negligible impact as it is on the edge of the wildlife corridor. He noted there is only a 3,000 square foot intrusion into the RP zone and it is on the edge of the wildlife corridor. Mr. Ahrend asked how a separate tract would be accessed in the RP District for maintenance. Mr. Goldson said it could be crossed, though it is on private property. The tract and the RP tract would be owned by the homeowners association. Mr. Smith asked about the size of the separate tract. Mr. Goldson said it was about 4,000 square feet. Commissioner Prichard asked if the proposed stormwater pipe location is the only option. Mr. Goldson explained the rationale for the design and function, a factor of gravity. He stated it was the most effective due to the depth of the facility and the most unobtrusive route and avoids steep slopes. It is mitigated at the bottom of the run. Mr. Prichard inquired about Lot 4 and the location of the most sensitive lands on the site. He asked if there was any objection to the design of that lot not being squared out. Mr. Goldson said the squaring off was to meet solar access criteria. Mr. Prichard asked about the setback from the park, which was shown as 15 feet. He suggested the building height could be up to 28 feet. Mr. Goldson said the proposed height is 23 feet. He went on to describe the setbacks and how they are met on the site. Mr. Prichard asked if a 30-foot setback could be provided on the sides abutting the park. Mr. Goldson said that that was not acceptable, but he would be amenable to some screening. Mr. Prichard said that would reduce the impacts to the park. Mr. Boone asked if the applicant wished to delay the hearing for additional testimony. No request for delay was presented. Deliberations Mr. Smith asked Mr. Boone about the interpretation of maximization of development under LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii(2). Mr. Boone expounded on the staff interpretation as the provision relating to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 5 of 9 C-003 DRC Minutes 9-17-18 DRAFT maximizing the number of lots. He explained the purpose of reduction of buffer, but increasing mitigation elsewhere, resulting in no net loss of the PRA. Chair Poulson asked about reduction of the RP buffer and the decision priorities to consider first. Ms. Numanoglu spoke to the minimum density requirement in the code, which the applicants are allowed to reduce by subtracting out the area in the RP District and stormwater tract on the site. She opined they are not seeking to maximize development because the minimum lots required, even after subtracting out the RP District and stormwater tract, is 6 lots and that is the number of lots they are proposing. Chair Poulson asked about the first course of avoidance of the RP area. Ms. Numanoglu emphasized that the code refers to avoiding detrimental impacts to the resource, not avoiding any impact to the resource. Mr. Smith focused the discussion on whether the 6 lots were in the riparian area. Mr. Ahrend explained the tradeoffs being made to protect the resource area and that the applicant is not maximizing development. Mr. Smith sought to clarify whether there is a tradeoff if larger houses can be built. Mr. Ahrend said his interpretation was the number of lots, not the size of homes. Ms. Andreades spoke to the adjustments requested for Lots 4, 5 and 6. Mr. Ahrend repeated that the applicant is not maximizing development. Lot sizes will impact the size of housing and the ability to plant more trees. Mr. Prichard talked about walking the park path and the proximity to the proposed new housing. He sought to justify a greater setback requirement through the code. Mr. Ahrend stated that something cannot be required if it is not in the code. Mr. Prichard stated he does not believe that these lots meet the strict interpretation of the flag lot code as there is no parent parcel that the lots are behind. Ms. Andreades and Ms. Numanoglu cited code language relating to the definition of flag lots and how these proposed lots meet the definition. Mr. Prichard disagreed with the interpretation. Mr. Smith stated that every lot could be defined as a flag lot because most lots are behind other lots. Ms. Numanoglu said there was an "and" in the definition, which was not being considered. Discussion ensued on the flag lot definition and what is and is not a flag lot. Ms. Andreades noted that Lot 1 has the required frontage on a public street, so is not a flag lot. Mr. Prichard noted that the stormwater tract is behind Lot 1 and the other lots are behind that tract, so don't meet the strict definition of flag lot. Ms. Numanoglu noted that the lots have to be behind another lot, whether on or off the site; Lots 2-6 are either behind the lots abutting the site to the north or are behind lots on the site and Lots 2-6 all take access from an access lane. Commissioner Prichard addressed the drainage plan and how it would impact the protected riparian area. He opined there is more desecration of the RP area than necessary. He opined that the applicant should increase the setback next to the park pathway and stay out of the RP area. He supported redesign of the site in a more compatible way with the RP District and said he cannot support the proposal as shown. Commissioner Ahrend opined that the adjustment to the RP District is met at no less than 15 feet. He does riot believe the applicant is seeking to maximize development. He said Exhibit E-15 shows alternatives, but that the current proposal is the best way to go. On the culvert, the applicant should work with the Parks Department. The DRC cannot condition the development to do anything on the Parks land. He would like to see a public street here, but the proposal meets the code. Due to code changes, this type of configuration would no longer be allowed. The DRC cannot deny based upon the interpretation of flag lots. Economic impact of tree loss is mitigated by gaining a pathway to the park. There will also be a benefit of the new stormwater management system. Mr. Ahrend said he is supportive of the project as proposed. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 6 of 9 C-003 DRC Minutes 9-17-18 DRAFT Mr. Shearer said he isn't sure the development couldn't be done without intrusion into the RP District. Chair Poulson agreed. If that means that the southwest corner is not a usable tract it doesn't matter. Chair Poulson said he doesn't know how to quantify and qualify the functions and values of the natural area. He noted the level of participation in the hearing. Mr. Shearer said the neighborhood is not outright opposing the development, but seeking to make it better. Mr. Ahrend asked Mr. Shearer if he thought the buffer reduction would have an impact on the resource. Mr. Shearer stated that he did. The buffer should be moved back, opining that it is a reasonable compromise. He thought the additional setbacks proposed by Commissioner Prichard for Lots 3 and 4 were nice, but could not be required under code. Ms. Numanoglu informed the DRC that they could deny the RP buffer reduction, which would entail some modifications to the recommended conditions of approval to remove references to the RP buffer averaging and associated mitigation. A condition would need to be added to require the lots be modified to be outside the RP District boundary as it was originally delineated. Another condition would be necessary to assure the revised lots meet one of the Solar Access options or a Solar Exemption or Adjustment. Staff did an analysis of the protected solar building line option and is confident it can be met, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the lots qualifies for an exemption or adjustment. Mr. Boone added that if the lots are modified to be outside the delineated RP District, either Lots 1 and/or 6 may also need to be adjusted to accommodate the stormwater facility. Mr. Ahrend asked what happens to the lot in the southwest area. Mr. Boone said it was beyond the scope of the hearing. If the space is being used to meet the open space standard, it may have to remain. Suggestions were made that it be donated to Parks. Ms. Andreades stated the findings would have to be modified and recited a proposed motion. Mr. Shearer made a motion to approve LU 17-0084, and deny the reduction in the RP buffer, modifying or removing the following conditions of approval: • A5, A7, A8, C, C5, D3 and El and adding two conditions: 1. Reconfigure Lots 4, 5 and 6 to comply with the original delineated RP boundary and 2. Comply with one of the Solar Access options. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Boone asked the applicant if they had any comments on the conditions of approval not in the staff report. Mr. Goldson, applicant, said he was disappointed by going back to the squiggly line business for the lot lines and proposed giving in on some land to straighten out lines. Vote passed 5:1. Ms. Numanoglu noted that there is 120-day problem and a special meeting will need to be called on September 24, 2018 at 6:00 PM to adopt findings. Commissioner Ahrend moved to hold a special meeting at 6:00 PM on September 24, which was seconded by Commissioner Smith, vote passed 6:1. PUBLIC HEARING LU 18-0011, a request by Schwab Holdings LLC for approval of a Development Permit to construct a 3-story mixed use project with eight housing units and 3,400 sq. ft. of office space. The proposal includes the removal of three trees. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 7 of 9 C-003 DRC Minutes 9-17-18 DRAFT The site is located at 16607 & 16667 Boones Ferry Road (21E07DD01900 & 21E07DD02000). Staff coordinator is Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process. Mr. Boone then outlined the applicable criteria and procedure, asking DRC members, to declare ex parte contacts, biases, or other conflicts relating to the applicants or the proposed project. All DRC members present declared that they have no conflict of interest, no ex parte contact, and no bias. Only Mr. Prichard and Mr. Ahrend declared that they had visited the site. Mr. Shearer stated that though he didn't visit the site, he drives by it frequently. There was not any challenge to the Commission's ability to hear the proposal. Staff Report Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and noted three new letters submitted as testimony. Two were in support and one in opposition. The site has not yet been annexed into the City, but when it is it will be in the West Lake Grove (WLG) Design District. No variances have been requested. The clear and objective WLG site design standards are met, as are the Oregon Rustic design style guidelines. Parking requirements are met, there is full ADA compliance, open space is met by providing over 40% of the site in landscaping/open space, and there will be right-of-way dedication for the public sidewalk. Three trees are proposed for removal. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Questions of Staff Staff was asked about tandem parking. Ms. Hastay said that the code allows tandem space for residential use, which has to be assigned to specific units. Commissioner Prichard stated that parking for the commercial uses seems to be short by one space. Ms. Hastay replied that parking is met by the 11 provided spaces. Commissioner Ahrend asked about the access easements through the adjacent properties on either side. Documentation of access easements to the adjacent sites has been provided. Reciprocal easements will be required for the proposed development site as a condition of approval. Mr. Ahrend noted that there is boat parking on the site currently. Ms. Hastay stated that there may be an enforcement issue with the boat parking. Mr. Ahrend asked about the width of the off-set sidewalk. Ms. Hastay replied that encroachment further into the site by the sidewalk would impact setbacks and parking stall sizes. Street improvements will be done through the Boones Ferry Road Improvement Project. Applicant Testimony Cameron Schwab, Applicant Representative, introduced the development team. He focused on the project timeline and public engagement. Gabe Headrick, Architect, gave an overview of the building design and function. Bruce Goldson presented the plans for stormwater management. Page 158 of the staff report was cited by Mr. Goldson showing drainage drywells. Chair Poulson asked about the basement and drywell placement, noting infiltration is cited as 2 inches per hour, which may be slow. Mr. Poulson showed the low point on page 215, noting that it may fail as the water is sloping toward the building. Mr. Boone stated that the impacts may be off site. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 8 of 9 C-003 DRC Minutes 9-17-18 DRAFT Commissioner Prichard asked about overflow to the public street. Mr. Goldson referred to the preliminary stormwater report noting that discharge would be to Boones Ferry Road. Public Testimony None The applicant did not wish to leave the record open for additional testimony Deliberations Chair Poulson thought the stormwater management plan was inconclusive to ensure feasibility for infiltration as there was not data provided. Ms. Hastay stated that there is already the requirement for stormwater management plan to meet City code. Commissioner Shearer moved to approve LU 18-0011 as conditioned, adding a reciprocal access easement condition, second by Commissioner Ahrend and passed 6:0. Findings to be brought back on October 1, 2018 at 7:00 PM. ADJOURNMENT Chair Poulson adjourned the meeting at 10:06 pm. Respectfully submitted, Is' Kat Kluge Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 9 of 9 C-004 DRC Minutes 9-24-18 APPROVED • t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ` k Development Review Commission Minutes Monday, September 24, 2018 The Commissioners convened at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Workroom of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Chair David Poulson (via phone), Vice Chair Brent Ahrend (via phone); Paden Prichard, Kirk Smith (via phone), and Jason Frankel Members absent: Jeff Shearer Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, Barb Dillinger, Administrative Support FINDINGS LU 17-0084, a request by Sangeeta Kamineni for approval of the following: • A 6-lot subdivision with a private street. Five of the lots will be flag lots (Lots 2-6); • Buffer averaging of the previously delineated RP District, per LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii; and • Removal of 27 trees to accommodate the project (Additional trees will be removed under separate Invasive and Dead tree removal permits). The site is located at 1 107 Yates Street (21 E 1 OD01300). Staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Senior Planner. Mr. Ahrend stated that the buffering averaging was not now being considered. Mr. Boone stated that staff findings were written minus the buffer reduction request. Commissioner Smith stated he raised a question in an email to Mr. Boone. He asked why the finding that the lots are flag lots was included in the Findings even though it was not voted on by the Commission. Mr. Boone stated that the flag lot question was addressed in the findings because it was raised by Mr. Mattersdorf at the hearing: therefore it has to be addressed in the findings. Since the DRC voted to approve the project with the exception of the RP buffer reduction, staff took that to mean that the balance of the criteria and standards were approvable with the exception of the buffer reduction request. Staff took that to mean that the proposed flag lot subdivision was approved. Commissioner Smith asked if an issue is raised, does the DRC have to address that specifically in the findings. Mr. Boone said that the issue must be addressed in the findings; e.g. whether it met or did not meet the criteria and standards. Mr. Boone said the Commission should approve the project if the criteria are met and not approve it if criteria are not met. Mr. Boone said the definition of flag lot is in the Lake Oswego Code; the actual building site being behind another lot. It is not up to the DRC to define a flag lot. Mr. Smith opined that the DRC's findings on this project may be used as precedence in future land use cases. Mr. Boone cited Council's finding on flag lots in the Cedar Street Subdivision as an example, stating that the DRC could use that interpretation as precedence. Mr. Boone said that if there is another definition the DRC wants to use, it would have to be articulated. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 24, 2018 Page 1 of 3 C-004 DRC Minutes 9-24-18 APPROVED Commissioner Prichard disagreed that this was a strict interpretation of the Lake Oswego Code flag lot definition. He stated he agrees with Commissioner Smith, not using LU 14-0046 [Cedar Street Subdivision] as the definition of a flag lots and applying that same logic to this case. Commissioner Ahrend recalled the flag lot issue being raised by Mr. Prichard, but that he still voted to approve the flag lots. The only exception to the subdivision approval was the buffer averaging. After the Commission hearing, Commissioner Prichard subsequently decided to change his vote to a "no" on this application, informing staff of the change. Mr. Ahrend stated there are 2 "no" votes, himself and Commissioner Prichard. Chair Poulson said he had no problems with the flag lots. Commissioner Frankel said the Cedar Street Subdivision was being used as an example and the Code definition is still valid. A question was asked whether this new definition can be used as precedence. Ms. Numanoglu noted that the flag lot standards changed after this application was submitted. Mr. Boone said the definition of flag lot hasn't changed; but the number of flag lots allowed (on a flag street) has changed. A question was raised by Mr. Ahrend about using this new definition as precedent. Per Mr. Boone, the point of adopting findings is so that the rationale of the Commission can be memorialized and used for LUBA or Council appeals. Mr. Prichard asked if lines 42 through 49 could be struck; the whole part about Cedar Street? Ms. Numanoglu walked through the staff analysis of how the proposed subdivision met the code definition of flag lots, stating Lots 2-6 are all located behind another lot and all take access from an access lane. Chair Poulson stated that looking at the logic of it, if the DRC is accepting the findings and the definition of the flag lot as defined in existing code, and not depend on the precedent of the Cedar Street project, then there is no problem being consistent with the Commission's previous vote. If there is a provision that says flag lots should only follow the Cedar Street precedent, he didn't recall any discussion or vote on that premise. Ms. Numanoglu said staff did not rely on that precedent, but only brought it as an example. Chair Poulson opined it was a supportive element to the Commission for their decision-making. Mr. Smith said if a new definition is now the precedent, he would withdraw his second and affirmative vote. Chair Poulson asked if language can be changed to reference the Cedar Street Subdivision as an example only, and explain how the proposed subdivision is a flag lot subdivision per the code interpretation. Ms. Numanoglu asked if the staff report could just be referenced as the finding for flag lots. Mr. Boone said that the staff findings did not go into enough detail and discussion about the criteria being met. Discussion ensued about whether there would be an affirmative vote by members of the Commission. Calling for the vote, Chair Poulson moved to approve the findings with no modifications for LU 17- 0084 for a 6-lot subdivision, seconded by Commissioner Frankel, and motion failed 2:3. Commissioner Smith moved to approve findings for LU 17-0084, less Item 3, seconded by Chair Poulson; and motion passed 3:2. The next meeting of the DRC is October 1, 2018 at 7:00 PM. ADJOURNMENT Chair Poulson adjourned the meeting at 6:30 pm. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 24, 2018 Page 2 of 3 C-004 DRC Minutes 9-24-18 APPROVED Respectfully submitted, Is1 Kat Kluge Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 24, 2018 Page 3 of 3 C-005 LU 17-0084 APPROVED CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes Monday, September 17, 2018 The Commissioners convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hail, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Chair David Poulson, Vice Chair Brent Ahrend. Paden Prichard, Jeff Shearer, Kirk Smith, and Jason Frankel Staff present' Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner; Alissa Maxwell, City Stormwater Review Consultant, Mike Ward, Traffic Engineer; Erica Rooney, City Engineer, Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support COUNCIL UPDATE No Council update presented FINDINGS No findings presented or discussed. MINUTES No minutes presented or discussed. PUBLIC HEARING LU 17-0084, a request by Sangeeta Kamineni for approval of the following: • A 6-lot subdivision with a private street. Five of the lots will be flag lots (Lots 2-6); • Buffer averaging of the previously delineated RP District, per LOC 50.05.010.6 b.ili; and • Removal of 27 trees to accommodate the project (Additional trees will be removed under separate Invasive and Dead tree removal permits). The site is located at 1107 Yates Street (21 E1 ODD01300). Staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Senior Planner. This hearing was continued from the September 5, 2018 Development Review Commission meeting. Public testimony on all applicable criteria is permitted. Evan Boone, Deputy Attorney gave an overview of the public hearing process. Mr. Boone then outlined the applicable criteria and procedure, asking DRC members, since the last meeting, to declare ex parte contacts, biases, or other conflicts relating to applicants or the proposed project. All DRC members present declared that they have no conflict of interests, no ex parte contact, and no bias. Having missed the August 20`h DRC meeting, Mr. Smith noted that he reviewed the audio tape of the meeting and read written material related to the project proposal. Mr. Frankel has not visited the site. The remaining DRC members indicated that they have visited the site, with Mr. Prichard and Mr. Ahrend noting that they had visited the site since the September 5' hearing. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 1 of 9 C-005 LU 17-0084 APPROVED No one challenged any Commissioner's ability to consider the application. Staff Report Debra Andreades, Senior Planner informed the Commission that additional testimony since the last hearing had been received and distributed to the DRC. Much of the testimony pertained to the reduction of the RP District Boundary. Ms. Andreades explained that the 6-lot subdivision could still be approved with the original RP boundary if the DRC found that the RP reduction did not meet the criteria. Slides were presented to discuss the following: • Solar Access: Ms. Andreades outlined the three options available for meeting the Solar Access standard. • Flag lot definition: referring to testimony challenging the suggestion that the lots in the subdivision are not flag lots as defined in the Code, Ms. Andreades presented a slide of previous City Council findings for a similar subdivision (Cedar Street Subdivision LU 14- 0046) that showed that similar lots were found to be flag lots. • Stormwater Code: to clarify testimony from the September 5th hearing, the City's stormwater review consultant, Alissa Maxwell, stated that downstream analysis has demonstrated capacity for developed flows. Questions of Staff Chair Poulson, referring to a video presented during the September 5th testimony, questioned the method used for analyzing the downstream culvert and expressed his uncertainty of the capacity of the culvert. Ms. Maxwell replied that no one knows what the conditions were around the culvert when the video was taken. She added that culverts are allowed to back up beyond the rim. Mr. Ahrend followed, asking how the flow of the pipe is being analyzed for a 25-year event. Ms. Maxwell said that downstream flow analysis was calculated assuming that the site was developed. This was then added to the existing total drainage basin that contributes to the culvert. Erica Rooney, City Engineer added that the date the video was recorded was during one of the largest rainfalls experienced in the metro area. Therefore, it may not represent a typical situation. Mr. Ahrend sought clarification of what staff recommends regarding the RP District boundary. Ms. Andreades responded staff believes that applicant has met the Code criteria and that the proposal has no detrimental impacts to the RP District. Mr. Smith questioned how the City is maintaining the 30-foot average RP buffer when this proposal removes over 1,100 square feet of the Protected Riparian Area (PRA). Ms. Andreades responded that the RP Buffer is increased in other areas to make up for the loss and maintain the average buffer. Chair Poulson inquired whether there are limitations to the reduction of the PRA imposed by the City Code. Ms. Andreades responded that there are limits to how much the PRA can be reduced; the PRA must maintain a 30-foot average width and the PRA cannot be reduced to less than 15 feet in width in any location. Applicant Bruce Goldson, Theta Engineering, PO Box 1345, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, mentioned that he submitted two handouts to the DRC for consideration. He highlighted several topics, including: • Discussion of the riparian and slope characteristics of the site • Summarized an arborist report on the oak tree mentioned frequently during the September 5th hearing that is located within the right-of-way of the undeveloped portion of Yates Street. • Regarding recent commentary that suggested using wetland construction for the stormwater, Mr. Goldson explained why it would not work at this site. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 2 of 9 C-005 LU 17-0084 APPROVED • Stormwater analysis was done upstream where all the houses in the basin defined by the contour maps provided by the City were counted. Phil Scales, Terra Science, 4710 SW Kelly Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97239, discussed the letter provided by David Gorman, Ecological Engineering. He noted that Mr. Gorman's letter omits some information, such as no acknowledgement of the area being added to the PRA. Mr. Scales discussed the difference between riparian and upland habitat and values. The riparian area for this site is roughly an area about 25-40 feet from the resource. Riparian areas typically contain steeper slopes and help the water be focused to the resource. Beyond that is upland habitat area. Because this site is pretty homogenous there is not a big contrast between the riparian and upland areas on this site. It is the upland habitat area that is proposed to be affected by the RP buffer reduction and that area is very similar to the area that is proposed to be added to the RP District to offset the buffer reduction. Additionally, the applicant is adding more area to the RP District than is being reduced. Questions of Applicant Mr. Ahrend asked if there was a way to shift the road and save the tree that is within the alignment of the street. Mr. Galdson responded that it would require realignment into an existing neighborhood. He also opined that the tree is already compromised by the surrounding development. Chair Poulson suggested that the design speed of the street could be reduced to 5 MPH. Mr. Goldson stated that if the road could jog around the tree and still meet City standards and if the installation of the utilities and the road would not damage the trees, he is open to the suggestion. Mr. Ahrend asked Mr. Goldson if they had any recommendations for addressing the problems involved with the culverts. Mr. Goldson noted that the applicant does not own the culvert, but is willing to work with the City and neighborhoods to find a solution. Mr. Prichard asked why the centerline of the access road is to the west of the centerline of the existing Yates Street. Mr. Goldson disputed that is the case. Mr. Ahrend agreed with Mr. Prichard. Public Testimony In Support Judith Nichols, stated she had no objection to the project, but does have requests for construction. She noted that there will be many contractors during the construction process and asked what can be requested of the builders. She asked the builder to name the subdivision Antoinette's Acres, after the former owner. Ms. Numanoglu noted that the City has rules for construction hours and that a traffic control plan would be required if equipment would block the street. She also noted that construction workers could legally park on the street, but the police could enforce any illegal parking. She suggested that there be some communication with the builders/contractors and the neighbors. John McKee, 1052 Yates Street, testified that he has maintained two of the trees on the site that impact his yard. He stated that the tree on the south side is dying. There is invasive ivy affecting the trees. He would miss the tree that is in the street alignment if it was removed, but understands if it has to go. He also noted that he has been impacted by water coming up from the subsoil since the soccer fields above were rebuilt. Chair Poulson asked people to address the code in their testimony. Opposed David Gorman, 2016 SE Henkle Rd., Corbett, OR; Water Resource Engineer with Ecological Engineering, representing the Hallinen Heights Neighborhood Association, stated the association is not opposed to the development, just opposed to the lot layout and impacts to the protected City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 3 of 9 C-005 LU 17-0084 APPROVED resource area. He asked for the slide of Figure 1 to be shown to the Commission. He addressed the lot layout and impacts to the RP District and protected riparian area. He opined the impacts are totally unnecessary. He cited LOC 50.05.01 0.4.f, related to reduction of the PRA. The first step is avoidance of impacts by bringing forth alternative site plans to avoid the impacts. He presented an alternative layout for Lots 4, 5, and 6 showing avoidance of impacts. He stated that under the same code section, minimization is the next step, which is only available once avoidance is maximized. He did not believe avoidance has been maximized. He believed that the lot lines were created to meet the solar access standards. The solar access standard could be met using the protected solar building line option, which he showed on his Figure 1. He opined the applicant can avoid all the impacts to the PRA and meet the solar access standard with the changes he proposed. Mr. Gorman talked about the functions and importance of the riparian area and PRA and how critical it is to the environment. The narrower the buffer, the less effective the buffer, he stated. He stated that he did a quick analysis of the stormwater management system and opined that it will not control flow to the pre-development flow, per LOC 38.25.120.1.D.ii.c. He recommended the proposal not be approved as is, but that lot lines should be drawn to meet the RP boundary as delineated and the stormwater system should be adequately designed to meet the code. He also asked that the culvert be replaced. Commissioner Ahrend asked for clarification of the functions and protective measures for the RP District. Mr. Gorman acknowledged his previous comments. Chair Poulson asked Mr. Gorman to talk more about his stormwater analysis. Mr. Gorman said since there was no infiltration capability on site, he modeled detention ponds on the lots that weren't being developed. Chair Poulson said it would have been nice to see the models. Sarah Ellison, 208 Ash Street, Lake Oswego, testified on her own behalf, having an additional 5 minutes ceded to her by another member of the audience. She testified that she would like to see the Parks Department take down the fence around the open space tract and maintain it as part of the natural area. She addressed the applicant's failure to comply with the code for reduction of the RP District (LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii). She opined that 1)the impacts on the resource is avoidable; 2) compliance with both the Sensitive Lands Code and the Solar Access Code is feasible; 3)the applicant has failed to explore available and appropriate options; and 4)the applicant is reducing the PRA solely to maximize lot sizes. She cited the report of Mr. Gorman, a qualified resource professional and asked the Commission to review his report. Ms. Ellison addressed intrusion into the PRA, stating it is permanent, but the applicant's mitigation plan is only for three years. She addressed the loss of trees and habitat. She identified the site as within the Cornell Habitat Cluster, currently impacted by the fencing around the property, and stating it has significant habitat value. Stormwater piping was raised as a concern; she asked that other options for avoidance be explored. Warren Oliver, 4 Grange Grove, London, UK, property owner of 1534 Cherry Lane, adjacent to the site testified on the subject development and compliance with the LOC sections previously cited by Mr. Gorman. He also had a concern with the trees proposed for removal. He opined he was skeptical of the applicant's efforts to protect trees. He is impressed by Hallinan Creek preservation efforts. Gordon Friedman, 1046 Lund Street, Lake Oswego, testified that his main concern is not seeing the deer in the woods on the site, and secondly, he disagrees with a statement on page 1 of the staff report, addressing removal of English ivy and invasive plants. He doesn't believe it will be done. Celine Mattersdorf, 930 Deluxe Street, Lake Oswego, urged the Commission to protect the RP District. She would like to see smaller lot sizes. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 4 of 9 C-005 LU 17-0084 APPROVED Mark Callicotte, 353 Ash Street, Lake Oswego, testified he opposed the plan as proposed due to impacts to the RP area and the existing Hallinan Woods and the path that traverses it. The impacts can't be quantified in dollars. Setbacks need to be increased to protect that area. Neither For Nor Against Jim Fisher, 1023 O'Bryant Street, Lake Oswego, testified he works with volunteers to pull ivy, some of it on the site. He provided a video showing the impacts of a storm and the culvert pipe on the site. His experience of the culvert on this site is that it overflows over the asphalt path. He applauds the applicant's statement to work with Parks and Recreation to maintain the culvert. Mr. Fisher showed slides of a flow through planter in a new development. He noted the proposed one is 3x the size of the one shown on the slide and capacity should be considered, suggesting a constructed wetland would be more compatible. He stated that it will be very visually present and won't be acceptable or compatible. Rebuttal Bruce Goldson stated there is no other way to get the flow over the site to the stream than piping it. He said the applicant is doing the minimum development, not maximizing it. He agreed that the culvert is an issue and looks forward to working with the City on it. He stated that if the RP buffer reduction is not approved, then the area in the SW corner of the site is not in the RP district, and would become a separate tract. It could be used as a "park equivalent". Phil Scales testified about how the water flow would be addressed, explaining the proposed process. He encouraged the neighbors to use their expert to help come up with solutions to the water flow issues. He noted that existing development is impeding wildlife already and there would be negligible impact as it is on the edge of the wildlife corridor. He noted there is only a 3,000 square foot intrusion into the RP zone and it is on the edge of the wildlife corridor. Mr. Ahrend asked how a separate tract would be accessed in the RP District for maintenance. Mr. Goldson said it could be crossed, though it is on private property. The tract and the RP tract would be owned by the homeowners association. Mr. Smith asked about the size of the separate tract. Mr. Goldson said it was about 4,000 square feet. Commissioner Prichard asked if the proposed stormwater pipe location is the only option. Mr. Goldson explained the rationale for the design and function, a factor of gravity. He stated it was the most effective due to the depth of the facility and the most unobtrusive route and avoids steep slopes. It is mitigated at the bottom of the run. Mr. Prichard inquired about Lot 4 and the location of the most sensitive lands on the site. He asked if there was any objection to the design of that lot not being squared out. Mr. Goldson said the squaring off was to meet solar access criteria. Mr. Prichard asked about the setback from the park, which was shown as 15 feet. He suggested the building height could be up to 28 feet. Mr. Goldson said the proposed height is 23 feet. He went on to describe the setbacks and how they are met on the site. Mr. Prichard asked if a 30-foot setback could be provided on the sides abutting the park. Mr. Goldson said that that was not acceptable, but he would be amenable to some screening. Mr. Prichard said that would reduce the impacts to the park. Mr. Boone asked if the applicant wished to delay the hearing for additional testimony. No request for delay was presented. Deliberations Mr. Smith asked Mr. Boone about the interpretation of maximization of development under LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii(2). Mr. Boone expounded on the staff interpretation as the provision relating to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 5 of 9 C-005 LU 17-0084 APPROVED maximizing the number of lots. He explained the purpose of reduction of buffer, but increasing mitigation elsewhere, resulting in no net loss of the PRA. Chair Poulson asked about reduction of the RP buffer and the decision priorities to consider first. Ms. Numanoglu spoke to the minimum density requirement in the code, which the applicants are allowed to reduce by subtracting out the area in the RP District and stormwater tract on the site. She opined they are not seeking to maximize development because the minimum lots required, even after subtracting out the RP District and stormwater tract, is 6 lots and that is the number of lots they are proposing. Chair Poulson asked about the first course of avoidance of the RP area. Ms. Numanoglu emphasized that the code refers to avoiding detrimental impacts to the resource, not avoiding any impact to the resource. Mr. Smith focused the discussion on whether the 6 lots were in the riparian area. Mr. Ahrend explained the tradeoffs being made to protect the resource area and that the applicant is not maximizing development. Mr. Smith sought to clarify whether there is a tradeoff if larger houses can be built. Mr. Ahrend said his interpretation was the number of lots, not the size of homes. Ms. Andreades spoke to the adjustments requested for Lots 4, 5 and 6. Mr. Ahrend repeated that the applicant is not maximizing development. Lot sizes will impact the size of housing and the ability to plant more trees. Mr. Prichard talked about walking the park path and the proximity to the proposed new housing. He sought to justify a greater setback requirement through the code. Mr. Ahrend stated that something cannot be required if it is not in the code. Mr. Prichard stated he does not believe that these lots meet the strict interpretation of the flag lot code as there is no parent parcel that the lots are behind. Ms. Andreades and Ms. Numanoglu cited code language relating to the definition of flag lots and how these proposed lots meet the definition. Mr. Prichard disagreed with the interpretation. Mr. Smith stated that every lot could be defined as a flag lot because most lots are behind other lots. Ms. Numanoglu said there was an "and" in the definition, which was not being considered. Discussion ensued on the flag lot definition and what is and is not a flag lot. Ms. Andreades noted that Lot 1 has the required frontage on a public street, so is not a flag lot. Mr. Prichard noted that the stormwater tract is behind Lot 1 and the other lots are behind that tract, so don't meet the strict definition of flag lot. Ms. Numanoglu noted that the lots have to be behind another lot, whether on or off the site; Lots 2-6 are either behind the lots abutting the site to the north or are behind lots on the site and Lots 2-6 all take access from an access lane. Commissioner Prichard addressed the drainage plan and how it would impact the protected riparian area. He opined there is more desecration of the RP area than necessary. He opined that the applicant should increase the setback next to the park pathway and stay out of the RP area. He supported redesign of the site in a more compatible way with the RP District and said he cannot support the proposal as shown. Commissioner Ahrend opined that the adjustment to the RP District is met at no less than 15 feet. He does riot believe the applicant is seeking to maximize development. He said Exhibit E-15 shows alternatives, but that the current proposal is the best way to go. On the culvert, the applicant should work with the Parks Department. The DRC cannot condition the development to do anything on the Parks land. He would like to see a public street here, but the proposal meets the code. Due to code changes, this type of configuration would no longer be allowed. The DRC cannot deny based upon the interpretation of flag lots. Economic impact of tree loss is mitigated by gaining a pathway to the park. There will also be a benefit of the new stormwater management system. Mr. Ahrend said he is supportive of the project as proposed. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 6 of 9 C-005 LU 17-0084 APPROVED Mr. Shearer said he isn't sure the development couldn't be done without intrusion into the RP District. Chair Poulson agreed. If that means that the southwest corner is not a usable tract it doesn't matter. Chair Poulson said he doesn't know how to quantify and qualify the functions and values of the natural area. He noted the level of participation in the hearing. Mr. Shearer said the neighborhood is not outright opposing the development, but seeking to make it better. Mr. Ahrend asked Mr. Shearer if he thought the buffer reduction would have an impact on the resource. Mr. Shearer stated that he did. The buffer should be moved back, opining that it is a reasonable compromise. He thought the additional setbacks proposed by Commissioner Prichard for Lots 3 and 4 were nice, but could not be required under code. Ms. Numanoglu informed the DRC that they could deny the RP buffer reduction, which would entail some modifications to the recommended conditions of approval to remove references to the RP buffer averaging and associated mitigation. A condition would need to be added to require the lots be modified to be outside the RP District boundary as it was originally delineated. Another condition would be necessary to assure the revised lots meet one of the Solar Access options or a Solar Exemption or Adjustment. Staff did an analysis of the protected solar building line option and is confident it can be met, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the lots qualifies for an exemption or adjustment. Mr. Boone added that if the lots are modified to be outside the delineated RP District, either Lots 1 and/or 6 may also need to be adjusted to accommodate the stormwater facility. Mr. Ahrend asked what happens to the lot in the southwest area. Mr. Boone said it was beyond the scope of the hearing. If the space is being used to meet the open space standard, it may have to remain. Suggestions were made that it be donated to Parks. Ms. Andreades stated the findings would have to be modified and recited a proposed motion. Mr. Shearer made a motion to approve LU 17-0084, and deny the reduction in the RP buffer, modifying or removing the following conditions of approval: • A5, A7, A8, C, C5, D3 and El and adding two conditions: 1. Reconfigure Lots 4, 5 and 6 to comply with the original delineated RP boundary and 2. Comply with one of the Solar Access options. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Boone asked the applicant if they had any comments on the conditions of approval not in the staff report. Mr. Goldson, applicant, said he was disappointed by going back to the squiggly line business for the lot lines and proposed giving in on some land to straighten out lines. Vote passed 5:1. Ms. Numanoglu noted that there is 120-day problem and a special meeting will need to be called on September 24, 2018 at 6:00 PM to adopt findings. Commissioner Ahrend moved to hold a special meeting at 6:00 PM on September 24, which was seconded by Commissioner Smith, vote passed 6:1. PUBLIC HEARING LU 18-0011, a request by Schwab Holdings LLC for approval of a Development Permit to construct a 3-story mixed use project with eight housing units and 3,400 sq. ft. of office space. The proposal includes the removal of three trees. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 7 of 9 C-005 LU 17-0084 APPROVED The site is located at 16607 & 16667 Boones Ferry Road (21E07DD01900 & 21E07DD02000). Staff coordinator is Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process. Mr. Boone then outlined the applicable criteria and procedure, asking DRC members, to declare ex parte contacts, biases, or other conflicts relating to the applicants or the proposed project. All DRC members present declared that they have no conflict of interest, no ex parte contact, and no bias. Only Mr. Prichard and Mr. Ahrend declared that they had visited the site. Mr. Shearer stated that though he didn't visit the site, he drives by it frequently. There was not any challenge to the Commission's ability to hear the proposal. Staff Report Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and noted three new letters submitted as testimony. Two were in support and one in opposition. The site has not yet been annexed into the City, but when it is it will be in the West Lake Grove (WLG) Design District. No variances have been requested. The clear and objective WLG site design standards are met, as are the Oregon Rustic design style guidelines. Parking requirements are met, there is full ADA compliance, open space is met by providing over 40% of the site in landscaping/open space, and there will be right-of-way dedication for the public sidewalk. Three trees are proposed for removal. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Questions of Staff Staff was asked about tandem parking. Ms. Hastay said that the code allows tandem space for residential use, which has to be assigned to specific units. Commissioner Prichard stated that parking for the commercial uses seems to be short by one space. Ms. Hastay replied that parking is met by the 11 provided spaces. Commissioner Ahrend asked about the access easements through the adjacent properties on either side. Documentation of access easements to the adjacent sites has been provided. Reciprocal easements will be required for the proposed development site as a condition of approval. Mr. Ahrend noted that there is boat parking on the adjacent site currently. Ms. Hastay stated that there may be an enforcement issue with the boat parking. Mr. Ahrend asked about the width of the off set sidewalk. Ms. Hastay replied that encroachment further into the site by the sidewalk would impact setbacks and parking stall sizes. Street improvements will be done through the Boones Ferry Road Improvement Project. Applicant Testimony Cameron Schwab, Applicant Representative, introduced the development team. He focused on the project timeline and public engagement. Gabe Headrick, Architect, gave an overview of the building design and function. Bruce Goldson presented the plans for stormwater management. Page 158 of the staff report was cited by Mr. Goldson showing drainage drywells. Chair Poulson asked about the basement and drywell placement, noting infiltration is cited as 2 inches per hour, which may be slow. Mr. Poulson showed the low point on page 215, noting that it may fail as the water is sloping toward the building. Mr. Boone stated that the impacts may be off site. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 8 of 9 C-005 LU 17-0084 APPROVED Commissioner Prichard asked about overflow to the public street. Mr. Goldson referred to the preliminary stormwater report noting that discharge would be to Boones Ferry Road. Public Testimony None The applicant did not wish to leave the record open for additional testimony Deliberations Chair Poulson thought the stormwater management plan was inconclusive to ensure feasibility for infiltration as there was not data provided. Ms. Hastay stated that there is already the requirement for stormwater management plan to meet City code. Commissioner Shearer moved to approve LU 18-0011 as conditioned, adding a reciprocal access easement condition, second by Commissioner Ahrend and passed 6:0. Findings to be brought back on October 1, 2018 at 7:00 PM. ADJOURNMENT Chair Poulson adjourned the meeting at 10:06 pm. Respectfully submitted, Is' Kat Kluge Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 17, 2018 Page 9 of 9 ,vs- 0, ,04_,,, c., City of Lake Oswego ° Planning Division OREGOC� File Number LU 17-0084 Report Date August 10, 2018 Applicants' Theta Engineering Raghunandan and Sangeeta Representative Owners/Applicants Kamineni Site Address 1107 Yates Street Tax Reference 21E1ODD01300 Zoning R-7.5 Neighborhood Hallinan Heights 120-day Deadline November 6, 2018 Hearing Date August 20, 2018 Staff Debra Andreades,AICP, Senior Planner - I. APPLICANTS' REQUEST r--...... Laurel— 8t ce• in y The applicants are requesting ,% -‘ t, W 1004 1001 p" 8 n; — N o' approval of the following: o; o co .� N: • A 6-lot Subdivision with a Imo 1023 1022 1021 1023 private street. Five of the lots 1024 1024 will be flag lots(Lots 2-6); —, 1033 1032 1033 • Buffer Averaging of the an Gir 1043 1042 1053 1042 1033 d 1038 previously delineated RP 070 1053 I^rR I5} 1r�l;I 1044 a 1043 m;_ o o 4. District, per LOC 1073 - p 50.05.010.6.b.iii; and - �, :K. • Removal of 27 trees to 1150 11''S Half accommodate the project 1220 1225 (Additional trees will be •:cg removed under separate 240 1245 To 4 :1:`` ;z.,oe..;. ,... Invasive and Dead tree removal s:„, ",:lg r ::: R-15 permits). 260 1265 A•. :�• "` \\ Well 280 1285 1� Pnw 163 I' 1 - allinan 1305 Woods II. RECOMMENDATION Approval of LU 17-0084,with conditions.The conditions of approval are listed below. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 1 of 33 Conditions A. Prior to Approval of the Final Subdivision Plat,the Applicants/Owners Shall: 1. Apply for and obtain a demolition permit for the existing structures on site.The applicants should note that this may require an asbestos report from a licensed agency to the satisfaction of the Building Official and that a 14-day notice of demolition is required to be posted on the site and mailed to abutting properties pursuant to LOC 45.12.100.The demolition permit shall be accompanied by proper applications for tree protection and erosion control permits, if needed. 2. Provide proof that all structures have been removed per Condition A(1), above. 3. Submit a final plat to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision.*The final plat must be dimensioned as depicted in Exhibit E-4 and reference this land use application—City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department, Case File LU 17-0084. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one-year period,the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one-year extension.Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development that may have occurred in the surrounding area.The extension may be granted or denied and, if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. Failure to submit the final plat by the deadline or to obtain an extension voids the subdivision approval. Per LOC 50.07.007.3.b, if after timely receiving a final plat for review staff determines that it does not conform to the land use approval,the applicant shall be advised by a written notice which shall list the reasons for the decision. The applicant shall then have 30 calendar days to correct the plat or to schedule a review of the final plat by the Development Review Commission. Per LOC 50.07.007.3.b, within 30 calendar days of approval and signature by the City,the final plat shall be recorded with the appropriate county. Failure to record the plat within this timeframe voids the subdivision approval. *Note: LOC 50.07.007.3.a.i is currently proposed for amendment. The final plat must be submitted and/or recorded as required by the then applicable provisions of LOC 50.07.007.3.a.i. The final plat shall include the following information: a. Public utility easements, to the satisfaction of the franchise utility companies. b. Private storm easements for the development's common storm facilities. c. Public vehicular and pedestrian access easement over the entire access lane serving the development. d. Public access easement over the pathway that will connect the access lane to the existing pathway in the park to the east. e. Minimum 15-foot wide public sanitary sewer easement over the new sanitary sewer main extension. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 2 of 33 f. Minimum 15-foot wide public water easement over the new water main through the development site. 4. Submit CC&Rs of the homeowners association for review and approval of City staff prior to recordation,that address the following: a. An operation and maintenance plan for the stormwater facilities in the open space tract, outlining the homeowners' responsibility to control non-native vegetation and maintain the facilities.The maintenance plan shall include the stormwater pipes and catch basins for managing the stormwater runoff from the street serving the development.Specific maintenance schedules and methods shall be adopted and implemented subject to approval by the City Engineer. b. An annual maintenance report for the stormwater facilities. c. Provisions for maintenance and cost sharing by the homeowner's association, of the private street(access lane)and pedestrian pathway within the development. d. Upon transfer of the homeowners' association from the developer to the homeowners within the development,the City shall be notified of the name and address of a contact person for the homeowners association. e. Upon election of new officers for the homeowners' association, the City shall be notified of the new contact person. f. The City's right to enforce the provisions of the CC&Rs required, above, including the right to recover all expenses of enforcement,the right to lien the lots to secure enforcement expenses, "non-waiver" of enforcement, non-amendment or rescission of the provisions of the CC&Rs required, above, and indemnification to the City for claims arising from the failure to properly design, locate, construct, or maintain the open space tracts or stormwater facilities. (Suggested text for this requirement may be obtained from the City Attorney's office.) 5. Submit a maintenance agreement for the shared access lane and the associated 5-foot landscape buffer along both sides of the lane, as well as the Stormwater facility in Tract A, and buffer plantings in the RP District,for review and approval of staff. Upon approval, record the maintenance agreement with the Notice of Development Restriction in Condition A(8), below. 6. Submit a final fence/landscape plan showing the 5-foot landscape buffer on either side of the access lane,with a mixture of trees and shrubs,taking into account sight distance at the hammerhead, and a 6-foot tall fence along the rear lot lines of Lots 2-6 and on the side lots lines between Lots 2 and 3; and 4 and 5, and 5 and 6, and a 6-foot landscape screen along the rear property lines of Lots 2-6. 7. Submit a stamped, signed survey that illustrates the amended RP boundary and the 10-foot construction setback.The survey shall be recorded with the Notice of Development Restriction required by Condition A(8), below,as Exhibit B. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 3 of 33 8. Submit a Notice of Development Restrictions to be recorded with the final plat, per review and approval by staff(a template can be provided by staff upon request).A reduced copy of the landscape plan illustrating the 5-foot landscape buffer along both sides of the shared access lane shall be included with the Notice and labeled as "Exhibit A".A reduced copy of the surveyed RP District with dimensions called out and labeled as "Exhibit B" shall be included.The exhibits shall be no larger than 8%2"x 11" in size and cannot contain any lettering smaller than 10 point font. The Notice shall include the following: a. A minimum 5-foot landscape buffer is required along both sides of the shared access lane, except where the vehicular and pedestrian access is taken. Maintenance of the landscape buffer,the stormwater facility in Tract A, and buffer plantings in the RP District is the ongoing obligation of the property owner(s) of all Lots. See attached Exhibit"A". b. Lots 2-6 are flag lots. Development of structures on these parcels shall comply with the provisions of LOC 50.07.007.2.e regarding building and site design standards, including height limitations,garage placement, and landscape buffer requirements.The following site development restrictions apply: i. The maximum height of future structures on Lots 2-6 shall be 22.6 feet(regardless if, at the time of building permit review,the footprint meets the definition of"Sloped Footprint" per LOC 50.10.003), measured from the ground to the ridgeline of the roof as defined by LOC 50.10.003, "Height of Building." A greater height than otherwise permitted for roof forms or architectural features, such as cupolas or dormers, may be allowed pursuant to LOC 50.04.001.1.g.ii. ii. The front yards and front of the dwellings on Lots 2 and 3 shall be oriented to the south property lines and the front yards and front of dwellings on Lots 4-6 shall be oriented towards the north property lines.The front setbacks shall be measured from the edge of the shared access lane (or projection thereof) along the front yards of Lots 2-6. iii. The minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks for future structures on Lots 2-6 shall be as follows: Setbacks for Lots 2-6 All Lots-Front setbacks Sum of Sides and Rear Setbacks:45' minimum measured from edge of access Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 lane: Sides 15' (W) 15' (W) 10' (W) 10' (W) 10' (W) 15' (E) 15' (E) 15' (E) 10' (E) 10' (E) 10 ft.--Structure 20 ft.--Garage, Carport opening Rear 15' (N) 15' (N) 20' (S) 25' (S) 25' (S) c. The property contains a delineated Resource Protection (RP) District as described in Exhibit "B", and as determined and documented in City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Case File LU 17-0084, Exhibit E-5. Future development is subject to the City of Lake Oswego RP District Development Standards set forth in LOC 50.05.010, including but not limited to: i. Tree removal within the RP District is subject to tree removal permit requirements of LOC Chapter 55 and the provisions of LOC 50.05.010. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 4 of 33 ii. Manual removal of invasive or nuisance plant material (such as English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, poison oak, and bamboo)within the RP District may be allowed, so long as native understory plants are maintained. iii. The RP District is intended to remain in its natural state to maintain the natural function and character of the resource area, which provides food and shelter for native wildlife. CONTACT THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ACTIVITY INSIDE THE RP DISTRICT. d. Mitigation trees on of Lots 2, 3, and 4 and the west side of the stormwater facility as shown on Exhibit E-7, may not be removed unless dead or hazardous because they are mitigation trees for tree removal permitted for the approved development. [This condition may be eliminated if the tree mitigation is moved to a location outside of the lots and stormwater tract]. 9. Submit engineered construction drawings for the public improvements for review and approval by the City Engineer. Drawings shall conform to the City's most current design standards and drafting specifications.All final engineering design drawings and as-built plans submitted for the creation of public facilities (street, wastewater,water and surface water)shall be vertically controlled by the City Datum (NGVD'29)and horizontally controlled by the Oregon State Plane coordinate system (NAD 83/91). [Note: receiving construction plan approval is not a pre- requisite for recording the final plat.]The plans shall include the following: a. Design of a new 8-inch public sewer extension into the subdivision within the street in a minimum 15-foot wide public sanitary sewer easement.The mainline extension shall terminate with a manhole, and service laterals shall be constructed perpendicular to the main and shall not be connected directly to a manhole. In addition,the existing 6-inch mainline immediately downstream from the site (70-foot run) within Yates Street shall be replaced and upgraded to an 8-inch diameter main. b. Design of a new 6-inch public water main extension through the site within the street serving the development and loop the existing 4-inch water main at the end of Yates Street to the existing 4-inch water main located at the end of O'Brien Street.The new water main shall be located within a minimum 15-foot wide public water easement and also have a minimum of 10-foot horizontal separation to the new sanitary sewer main. c. Design of the access lane to public street standards(structurally) serving the development as generally shown on the preliminary street plan.The design shall also include stormwater management for the access lane. d. Design of a new asphalt pathway to connect the end of the access lane within the development to the existing pathway on the abutting park to the east that extends down from the end of Obrien Street. e. Design of the new street intersection for the hammerhead turn-around in compliance with AASHTO and the City's vision clearance standards. f. Design of the individual private water services, sanitary service laterals and storm laterals for each individual lot. g. Final construction plan showing the AASHTO clear sight triangles for the street hammerhead intersection. 10. Following staff approval of the form, execute and record a waiver of remonstrance regarding the formation of local improvement district or an underground district,for the undergrounding of D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 5 of 33 frontage utilities that includes Yates Street from Laurel Street to the site. [Note:The City Manager or the Planning Commission and City Council may be reviewing LOC 50.06.008.4.d, Utilities, in the future as to its applicability for projects in certain areas or along certain streets. If the applicability of this section is modified such that it would not be required for a project of this type or in this location prior to the recordation of the waiver of remonstrance,this condition for execution and recordation of the waiver of remonstrance shall be released by staff.] 11. Construct the improvements required by Condition A(9), above, or submit a financial guarantee to ensure its construction per LOC 50.07.003.9.The financial guarantee shall be based on 120% of an itemized engineer's estimate that is in turn based on final construction plans that are far enough advanced to support the estimates,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. B. Within 90 Days of the Recordation of the Final Subdivision Plat,the Applicants/Owners Shall: 1. Submit a final title report, or lot book report from a title company demonstrating that the plat was validly recorded and that the public and private easements, CC&Rs, Notice of Development Restriction, LID, and the maintenance agreement, as required by conditions, above, are valid and subsisting, and that the lots are either free and clear of liens or encumbrances, or that the holders of the liens and encumbrances consent to the creation and recordation of the easements and Notice of Development Restriction. C. Prior to the Issuance of any Grading or Building Permit on any Lot,the Applicants/Owners Shall: 1. Complete all public improvements as required by Condition A(9) above, submit certified "as- built" drawings, and receive a certificate of completion and acceptance by the City. 2. Submit a final storm drainage report drainage report, prepared by a registered engineer, in accordance with the Stormwater Management Code and LOSWMM,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.The final design report must: a. Demonstrate that the final design plans for stormwater management facilities that are a part of the final storm drainage report meet the minimum geometry and configuration requirements in LOSWMM, Section 4.6. b. Include facility sizing and flow routing calculations to show post-developed peak flow rates matching pre-development levels for the 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year, 24-hour runoff events. If the calculated orifice size for a given facility is less than the City's minimum allowable construction standard of 1.0 inch,the required orifice size should be provided in the calculations but may be increased to 1.0 inch in the design drawings. c. Per LOC Chapter 52, apply for and obtain an erosion prevention and sediment control permit issued through the City of Lake Oswego and a DEq Construction Stormwater Permit (NPDES 1200-C Permit), and install and maintain all erosion control BMPs as indicated in the permits. 3. Submit a copy of the Geotechnical Report and adhere to the recommendations. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 6 of 33 4. Complete construction of the access lane serving the development and pedestrian connection to the existing pathway in the park, and provide certification from a registered engineer that the private access lane was constructed in accordance with the Fire Code. 5. Submit a final landscape and mitigation plan for the plantings in the RP District.The final mitigation plan shall include a note that all burlap and wire cages shall be removed before trees are planted. Submit a maintenance and monitoring plan to maintain and monitor the mitigation area for three consecutive years. During the 3-year monitoring period, shrubs and groundcovers shall be replaced a"s needed to ensure an 80%survival rate, and invasive plants shall be removed as needed to ensure no more than 10%cover. 6. Submit final design plans for stormwater conveyance systems and stormwater management facilities.The wet pond and detention pond design shall meet the minimum geometry, configuration, planting, and setback requirements in LOSWMM, Section 4.6.12. Facility side slopes shall be no steeper than 3H:1V and retaining walls must be located outside of the 10- year water level.An emergency spillway shall be provided for the 100-year, 24-hour design event with appropriate freeboard. Maintenance access shall be provided to each cell of the pond. 7. Apply for a Verification tree removal permit for the 27 trees approved in Exhibit E-8 and submit a mitigation plan showing 28 mitigation trees.Apply for any additional Type II tree removal permits for trees adjacent to the stormwater Tract and for the water line loop on the park property and any necessary Type II tree removal permits on each parcel for the construction of future dwellings and submit mitigation plans.Apply for and obtain any necessary tree removal permits on each parcel for the construction of future dwellings and submit mitigation plans in accordance with LOC 55.02.084. Mitigation for the first dwelling on the flag lots shall be with a species that will attain a minimum of 30 ft. in height; deciduous trees shall be a minimum of 2- inch caliper and evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight ft.tall. 8. Install all tree protection fencing as required by Code Requirement No. 1, below.All protection fencing shall be inspected and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 9. For Lots 2-6,the Building Official may allow an alternative to the minimum requirements of the One-and Two-Family Dwelling Specialty Code as authorized by ORS 455.610, which may include, but is not limited to, installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system, because the City of Lake Oswego has determined the fire apparatus means of approach to Lots 2-6 may not meet the local City standards adopted in accordance with the applicable Fire Code and state building code requirements.The owner's or owner's representative shall offer an approved alternate method for fire suppression, such as an NFPA 13-D residential fire sprinkler system,to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Building Official. D. Prior to the Final Building Inspection or Occupancy of any Dwelling on Any Lot,the Applicants/Owners Shall: 1. Provide certification from the engineer of record that the stormwater facilities serving the development were constructed according to the design and are functioning properly. 2. Provide proof of recorded operations and maintenance plans(OMPs)for each stormwater facility.The OMP must describe how to properly maintain the facilities,the frequency of maintenance required and the party responsible for maintaining the facilities. In addition, submit for Engineering staff review and approval (and then record) an Operations and Maintenance plan for the stormwater facility to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 7 of 33 (HOA). 3. Install all flag lot landscaping and RP District buffer plantings, and the 6-foot fence in the rear and side yards of Lots 2-6 as required by LOC 50.07.007.2.f.iii and Condition A(6), above. All landscape materials(except the RP District buffer plantings,which have a longer monitoring period) must be guaranteed by the owner for a period of one 12-month growing season from the date of installation.A security in the amount of 5%of the total landscaping cost shall be provided to ensure necessary replacement. E. Miscellaneous: 1. The property owner(s) of Lots 1-6 shall maintain the RP District mitigation in accordance with the approved maintenance and monitoring plan required by Condition C(5), above as shown in Exhibits E-6 and F-4 and shall provide an annual report to the Planning and Building Services Department by October 31st of each year for a 3-year period, commencing on the 31st of October following the date of issuance of the Final Building Inspection.The report shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall document site conditions with a narrative and pictures. Code Requirements: 1. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application as required by LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone.The plan shall include: a. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6-foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts around the tree protection zone,or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. The note shall also inform contractors that the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree protection zone. c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior written approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. Notes: 1. The applicant is advised to take part in a post-Land Use Approval meeting. City staff would like to offer an opportunity to meet and discuss this decision and the conditions of approval necessary to finalize the project.The purpose of the meeting is to ensure all conditions are understand and to D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 8 of 33 identify other permits necessary to complete the project.To take advantage of this meeting, please contact the staff coordinator at (503) 635-0290. 2. The land use approval for this project does not imply approval of a particular design, product, material, size, method of work, or layout of public infrastructure except where a condition of approval has been devised to control a particular design element or material. 3. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and related code provisions.The applicant is advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the development, i.e.,Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act.Staff may advise the applicants of issues regarding state and federal laws that staff member believes would be helpful to the applicants, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS LOC Code Section Title 50.03.002.2 Residential Low Density Zones- Uses 50.04.001.1 Dimensional Standards for Low Density Residential Zones 50.05.010; 50.07.004.8 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts 50.06.002 Parking 50.06.003.1 Access/Access Lanes(Flag Lots) 50.06.003.2 On Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads 50.06.003.4; 50.07.004.5 Street Connectivity 50.06.003.5 Transit 50.06.004.1 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 50.06.004.2; 50.07.004.2 Fences 50.06.004.3 Lighting 50.06.005; 50.07.004.7 Park and Open Space Contributions 50.06.006.1;50.07.004.10 Weak Foundation Soils 50.06.006.2; 50.07.004.3 Hillside Protection 50.06.006.3; 50.07.004.1 Stormwater Management Standards 50.06.007; 50.07.004.9 Solar Access 50.06.008; 50.07.004.11 Utilities 50.07.003.1 Application Procedures 50.07.003.5 Conditions on Development 50.07.003.6 Effect of Decision 50.07.003.7 Appeals 50.07.003.14 Minor Development Decisions 50.07.007.2 Flag Lots 38.25 Stormwater Management Code 42.03.130 Sight Distance at Roadway Intersections, Private Streets and Driveways 42.08.400—42.08.470 Streets and Sidewalks 55.02.010—55.02.084 Tree Removal and Mitigation D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 9 of 33 IV. FINDINGS A. Background/Existing Conditions: 1. The site is 2.08 acres with approximately 60 feet of frontage on Yates Street, a local street (Exhibit E-1). 2. The site is zoned R-7.5 and contains a single-family dwelling that will be removed as a part of this development(Exhibits E-2 and E-3). Properties to the north and west are also zoned R-7.5 and developed with single family homes.The property to the east and south is Hallinan Woods, a city park zoned PNA(Parks and Natural Areas). 3. The south portion of the property contains a Resource Protection (RP) District(Hallinan Creek)that was previously delineated (LU 16-0043).The site contains numerous mature evergreen and deciduous trees(Exhibit E-3). V. PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICANTS' BURDEN OF PROOF A. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on August 14, 2017,to satisfy the requirements of LOC 50.07.003.1.f(Exhibit F8). B. Public Notice to Surrounding Area: The City has provided adequate public notice and opportunity to comment on this application, as required by LOC 50.07.003.3. No comments comments were received as of the date of this report. C. Burden of Proof: Per LOC 50.07.003.1.b,the applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval.The applicants have provided sufficient evidence to enable staff to evaluate the proposal.These documents are listed as exhibits at the end of this report. VI. LOC 50.07.003.14—MINOR DEVELOPMENT A. Classification of Application: LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(9) and (20)designates a subdivision and RP buffer averaging as minor development. B. Criteria for Review of Application: Per LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii, for any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal complies with: 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 10 of 33 Residential Use of Property[LOC 50.03.002] The site will be subdivided and then developed with single family dwellings(Exhibit E-4). The R-7.5 zone is a low density residential zone.The uses permitted are stated in Table 50.03.002-1 and include single-family dwellings.This standard is met. Residential Low Density Zones [LOC 50.04.001] Maximum Density Maximum density is determined by dividing the net developable area (gross site acreage excluding area in public right-of-way or access easement) by the minimum lot area requirement for the zone and rounding down to the nearest whole number [Table 50.04.001-1,fn 2]. The gross acreage of the site is 2.08 acres or approximately 90,604 sq.ft.The access easement is approximately 9,768 sq.ft., resulting in a maximum density of 10.7 lots.The applicant is proposing six lots;this standard is met. Minimum Density Subdivisions are required to provide a minimum density of 80%of the maximum density allowed by the zone. It is determined by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot size required in the zone and multiplying this number by 0.8.The result is rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5 [Table 50.04.001-1,fn. 1]. Using the maximum density of 10.7 lots,the minimum density is 8.6 lots which is rounded up to nine lots. Per LOC 50.04.003.10.c.i and c.iii,the number of lots required by the minimum density provisions may be reduced where the most appropriate design and location for a stormwater detention or water quality facility is above ground and outside a required open space, and where Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts precludes providing the minimum number of lots.The area of the stormwater tract and the RP District totals 34,960 sq.ft. (Exhibit E-4),which results in the adjusted area for the site of 45,876 sq.ft. Thus,the minimum density is reduced to 6.1,which is rounded down to 6 lots.Thus,the proposed 6 lots meets the minimum density requirement.This standard is met. Lot Dimensions and Site Development Limitations In the R-7.5 zone,the minimum lot size requirement is 7,500 square feet and the minimum lot width is 50 feet [LOC Table 50.04.001-1]. Exhibit E-4 illustrates that all of the proposed lots exceed the minimum 50-foot lot width requirement.As discussed under the flag lot standard, below,the area of access easement shall be deducted from the gross area on a flag lot(also see LOC 50.10.003.2, definition of"lot area").The "flag" portion must therefore be equal to or exceed the minimum lot size of the zone.As discussed in Exhibit F- 1, page 2, Lots 2-4 exceed 7,500 sq.ft. after deducting area in access easement and comply with this standard. Lots 5 and 6 are 6,634 and 6,343 sq.ft. respectively after deducting the access easement,which is less than the minimum lot size of 7,500 sq.ft.These lots abut the RP district and are utilizing the Sensitive Lands provision in LOC 50.05.010.4.b,for reduction in dimensional standards as discussed below. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 11 of 33 The applicant is not proposing to construct any dwellings as part of the land division. Compliance with the site development limitations(setbacks, height, lot coverage, floor area, etc.) of the R-7.5 zone will be ensured at the time of building permit application on each lot. Overlay and Design Districts[LOC 50.05] Sensitive Lands Districts [LOC 50.05.0101 The site contains a Resource Protection (RP) District that was previously delineated (LU 16- 0043, Exhibit E-14).The RP District is a Class I stream corridor/wetland, requiring a 30-foot protected riparian area. LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii, allows the protected riparian area (PRA)to be reduced to no less than 15 feet in some locations provided the width is increased in other areas,the reduction in the PRA is not solely for the purpose of maximizing development of the site, a qualified professional demonstrates that this adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource, and progressive mitigation is provided per LOC 50.05.010.4.f. Exhibit E-5 shows the proposed reduction and expansion areas of the PRA.There is a net increase of approximately 3,061 sq ft. in the RP District, by expanding the PRA on the southwest portion of the property,which is not currently in the RP District.Although there is a net increase in the RP District,the reduction in the PRA is approximately 1,162 sq. ft. Exhibit E-5 shows that the proposed boundary of the PRA follows the rear lot lines of Lots 4, 5 and 6 and the boundary of the stormwater tract.The width of the PRA is increased in some areas and reduced in others with the smallest PRA width at 19 feet adjacent to the stormwater facility(as required, not less than a 15-foot width in any area).The average width exceeds 30 feet as required.The construction setback remains at 10 feet as indicated in the rear of these lots and the storm facility. The applicant's environmental consultant,Terra Science has evaluated the reduction of the PRA(Exhibit F-5),stating that the reduction will not reduce the functions and values of the resource.Although the north boundary of the PRA is proposed in order to correspond to the rear lot lines of Lots 4-6, it will provide better long term management of the PRA because it will be more clear to homeowners where the boundary is and will be less likely to result in encroachments into the PRA compared to an irregular PRA boundary,which would be difficult for a homeowner to locate. In addition,the area proposed for reduction includes areas previously cleared and partially landscaped by the previous owners.The area proposed for PRA expansion on the south part of the site provides higher value habitat as it has less disturbance and greater plant diversity and mature habitat conditions.This area was considered for development because it was not in the RP District, however access to this part of the site was more difficult because it would have required crossing the RP District to access it.The applicant has proposed buffer plantings(Exhibit E-6)that will provide additional screening between the lots and the PRA,creating a larger contiguous zone of habitat.This approach creates a natural barrier and preserves the habitat values, creating improvement in the PRA. In addition, the plan also shows removal of invasive species throughout the PRA, which will improve the functions and habitat value of the wetlands and Hallinan Creek. As a condition of approval, a stamped, signed survey must be submitted that includes the amended RP boundary and the 10-foot construction setback, and shall be recorded against D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 12 of 33 the property in a Notice of Development Restriction to be recorded with the final plat. [Conditions A(7) and A(8)]. Per LOC 50.05.010.4.b,the dimensional standards of the zone, including lot size, may be modified without a variance for a development subject to environmental review if it does not increase the transfer of allowable density from the RP district and the proposed development does not have a greater negative impact on natural resources than would occur without the dimensional modification. Lots 5 and 6 are flag lots and are 6,634 and 6,343 sq.ft. in size respectively after the access easement is deducted from the gross area of the lot.This reduction does not result in an increase in the allowable density that is transferred from the RP district because with six lots,the maximum density is not being provided as discussed previously. Reduction of the size of Lots 5 and 6 does not change the configuration of the lots that would occur without the modification and therefore does not result in a greater negative impact on natural resources. Rather than follow the line of the delineated RP District that would allow the lots to be larger,the applicant has proposed "squared-off" lots as discussed above, which reduces the potential for encroachments in the RP District and associated negative impacts.This standard is met. Utilities FLOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(c)1: The Utility Plan (Exhibit E-10) shows a stormwater feasibility design that directs storm runoff from a stormwater facility outside the RP District to pipes in the RP District ending in an outfall of rip rap to disperse the water. Per LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(c), utilities are not permitted within the RP District unless tunneling will not cause an adverse effect on the resource functions and values, and there is no other practicable alternative; and avoidance and minimization is considered.The storm system in Yates Street, if extended, could not serve the property due to topography(Exhibits E-12 and F-5). In addition, as discussed in Exhibits F-1 and F-5, discharge of stormwater to Yates Street would direct the stormwater to a different drainage basin. Directing the stormwater south through the RP District would allow gravity flow of the stormwater. The soils on the site have poor infiltration rates.The outfall for the stormwater produces a more concentrated amount of water than the soil type can tolerate: if stormwater from the subdivision were to discharge directly to the creek, increasing the creek flow,the current erosion of the creek bank would increase. Discharge of the stormwater through a pipe to a rip rap pad could reduce the velocity allowing the water to flow more slowly to the wetlands, reducing peak flows, and protecting the stream corridor from erosion. It is feasible for a stormwater facility to be located on the western portion of the site because it is closest to the area of the PRA that has had the most historical disturbance, maintaining the natural drainage patterns on the site.Other considered routes would be steeper, requiring a deeper pipe line with more disturbance and removal of trees. See further discussion under the Stormwater Management standard, below. Staff finds that there is no practicable alternative to locating a portion of the stormwater utility through the RP District. Mitigation Requirements(LOC 50.05.010.4) When utilities are allowed within an RP District stream corridor, mitigation is required for any impact to the resource. Mitigation for disturbance within stream corridors is required at a 1:1 ratio.The mitigation shall maintain the total land area,functions and values of resources designated as RP, and shall consist of native plants selected from the City's Restoration Plant List, per mitigation standards of LOC 50.05.010.4.e. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 13 of 33 With regard to the feasibility of a stormwater pipe (utility)through the RP District, a 12-inch diameter pipe could be installed underground with a 15-foot wide work corridor for installation of the pipe and rip rap dissipation pad at the terminus,totaling approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of temporary disturbance within the RP District.This disturbance area is required to be restored to pre-disturbance conditions and enhanced with plantings at a minimum 1:1 ratio.The required mitigation ratio is five trees and 25 shrubs per every 500 square feet of disturbance area, which would require a minimum of 15 trees and 75 shrubs for the 1,500 square feet of disturbance area for the storm pipe.The applicants propose 31 trees and 160 shrubs,which exceeds this requirement (Exhibit F-5). Under the stormwater system demonstrated for feasibility purposes,there would be no net loss of RP District. Exhibits E-6, F-4 and F-5 show a total proposed PRA mitigation area of 8,595 sq.ft. and a wetland enhancement mitigation area of 3,588 sq.ft.,which takes into account the 1,500 sq.ft.temporary disturbance area for the underground pipe and would enhance the area adjacent to the reduced portion of the PRA.The proposed mitigation plant density is shown in Exhibit F-5. As required in Condition C(5), if any work occurs in the RP District,the final mitigation plan shall include a note that all burlap and wire cages shall be removed before trees are planted, that the applicant submit a maintenance and monitoring plan to maintain and monitor the mitigation area for three consecutive years,that during the 3-year monitoring period, shrubs and groundcovers shall be replaced as needed to ensure an 80%survival rate, and that invasive plants shall be removed as needed to ensure no more than 10%cover.As conditioned,this standard can be met. [Condition C(5)]. Flag Lots [LOC 50.07.007.211.2 Parcels 2-6 are being created through the requirements of the Flag Lot standards because access is taken from the private access easement. (See Access discussion below.) (Lot 1 has more than 25 feet of frontage on Yates Street and is not a flag lot. LOC 50.10.003.2, "Flag Lot"). Per LOC 50.07.007.2.a.iv, in addition to the general application requirements, an application to create a flag lot shall include a conceptual plan of complete parcelization of the subject property, and shall include a site plan illustrating the location of existing structures on adjacent parcels to ensure that parcelization of the subject property will not preclude the development of surrounding properties. No future parcelization plan is required because none of the lots can be further divided due to the RP District.The proposed parcelizaton of flag lots does not preclude development of surrounding properties(Exhibit E-2, E-3). Access Per Subsection 2.c.i, access must be consolidated where practicable, including consolidation with the parent lot.Access lanes shall extend through the partition site to abutting 1 The Flag Lot standards are not a zone standard.However;because some of the standards supersede the zone requirements,the flag lot standards are addressed out of numerical code order. 2 This application was submitted to the City on December 18,2017.Subsequently,amendments to the Flag lot and Access code standards were approved and became effective on April 5,2018.Land use applications are reviewed under the standards in effect on the date of application submittal[ORS 227.178(3)(a)];therefore,the Flag Lot and Access standards that were in effect prior to April 5,2018 apply to this'D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 14 of 33 developable property in order to provide a continuous connecting access lane where practicable. It is not practicable for the access lane to be extended through to abutting property because the site is bound by a city park on two sides and lots to the north and west are fully developed. Per Subsections 2.c.iii and LOC 50.06.003.1.d.i and ii, an access lane serving 5-8 dwellings' must be located in a minimum 20-foot wide easement and must have 16 feet of pavement with two-foot shoulders on each side.As shown on Exhibit E-4,the access to all lots is consolidated in an easement that is 30 feet wide, complying with the standard. Per Subsection 2.c.iv, no more than two driveways or access lanes are allowed within 50 feet of each other(the minimum lot width of the zone).As shown on Exhibit E-4, this standard is met. Lot Configuration Per Subsection 2.d.i(1),the front yard of a flag lot is measured from the access lane or from a projected extension of the access lane though the property. On Lots 2 and 3,the front yard shall be measured from the south property line to be consistent with the orientation of Lots 4-6 to the south. On Lots 4-6,the front yard shall be measured from the north property line abutting the easement. (Staff notes that Parcel 1,the non-flag lot,would measure its front yard from the north property line abutting Yates Street). Area of access easement shall be deducted from the gross area of the flag lot.The "flag" portion shall be equal to or exceed the minimum lot size of the zone.As indicated in Exhibit F-1, page 2, Lots 5 and 6 are 6,634 and 6,343 sq.ft. respectively after deducting the access easement, less than the minimum lot size of 7,500 sq.ft.These lots abut the RP district and are utilizing the Sensitive Lands provision in LOC 50.05.010.4.b,for reduction in dimensional standards as discussed previously. Building Orientation and Garage Placement Per Subsection 2.e.i(1),the front of the dwelling on a flag lot shall be oriented towards the projected shared access lane. Subsection 2.e.i(2) requires building orientation provide the maximum separation and privacy from existing dwellings on abutting lots. Parcels 4-6 are internal and do not abut lots outside the site. Lots 2 and 3 will have their rear yards abutting the side yards of properties to the north. Per LOC 50.07.007.e.ii(1-3),garages must be either side-loading, located such that no more than 40 percent of the garage wall area is visible from the intersection of the flag lot driveway and street(Yates Street), or, if it is visible, have more than one plane or fenestration. Compliance with this standard will be determined during building permit review. Height Structures on flag lots shall not exceed either the average height of all dwellings on properties abutting the development site or 22 feet, whichever is taller. Where there is no 3 See prior footnote. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 15 of 33 dwelling on a property, or where a dwelling is located more than 100 feet away from the development site,the maximum height permitted in the underlying zone (28 feet in the R- 7.5 zone) is used for the calculation (LOC 50.07.007.2.e.iii). Staff notes that exceptions to the maximum height for roof forms and architectural features are permitted in compliance with LOC 50.07.007.2.e.iii(4). There are eight lots abutting the partition site, one of which is the Hallinan Woods park site, as indicated on Exhibit E-3.The 28-foot height of the zone will be used for the park property.The survey, Exhibit E-3, and pages 22-23 of Exhibit F-1 show the peak elevation of the seven houses abutting the site.The average height, including the assumed 28 ft. height for the park property, is 22.6 feet,which will be the maximum height of structures on Lots 2-6. (Staff notes that on page 3 of Exhibit F-1,the applicants erroneously state that the average height is 23.46').As a condition of approval,the 22.6-foot height shall be included in a Notice of Development Restriction to be recorded along with the final plat. [Condition A(8)(b)]. Setback Requirements The standard front, side, and rear yard setbacks for primary structures on flag lots in the R- 7.5 zone are superseded by the yard setbacks as outlined in LOC 50.07.007.2.e.v, and are established at the time of flag lot creation.The table, below, lists the applicable setbacks. Flag Lot Setbacks in the R-7.5 Zone [LOC 50.07.007.2.e.v] Numerical Requirements Additional Requirements Front: Measured from the access lane Structure 10 feet Garage(or carport) 20 feet or projected access lane Not less than 45 feet;in no Sum of Side and Rear Provide setbacks similar to those Setbacks case shall a rear or side setback on abutting properties be less than 10 feet The proposed setbacks for all lots are shown in Exhibit F-1, page 2,which does not illustrate the 20-foot setback to the garage and 10-foot setback to the house for the flag lots.The required setbacks are shown correctly in the table below.As shown in Exhibit F-1,the rear and sides of the flag lots add up to 45 feet except on Lot 2, which must be modified to comply.As a condition of approval the setbacks below shall be recorded in a Notice of Development Restriction. [Condition A(8)(b)]. Proposed Setbacks Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Parcel 4 Parcel 5 Parcel 6 Front (west): Structure 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Garage 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 16 of 33 Sides: Sides: Sides: Sides: Sides: 15', 15' 15', 15' 10', 15' 10', 10' 10', 10' Side and Rear Rear: 15 Rear: 15 Rear: 20 Rear: 25 Rear:25 Setbacks Sum of Sum of rear Sum of rear Sum of Sum of rear and and sides= and sides= rear and rear and sides= 45' 45' sides= sides= 40' 45' 45' The applicants' narrative does not address how the proposed side and rear yard setbacks are similar to those on abutting properties; however,the rear yards of proposed Lots 2 and 3 will abut the side yards on the lots to the north and Lots 4-6 abut the park,which has the same setbacks as the yards it abuts. The area of access easement is deducted from the gross acreage of the flag lots for the purpose of calculating lot coverage and floor area. Landscaping and Screening Per LOC 50.07.007.2.f.i, a minimum 5-foot landscape buffer shall be provided along both sides of the access lane serving flag lots to provide a visual buffer for dwellings on abutting lots. Plant materials (a mix of shrubs and trees) used for screening and buffering shall be of a size to provide an effective screen within two years of planting.Trees shall be a minimum 2-inch caliper, and shrubs shall be a minimum of 5-gallons in size at time of planting.The Landscape Plan (Exhibit E-7)shows this buffer along both sides of the access lane but it only consists of 5-gallon Oregon grape shrubs.As a condition of approval, the final landscape plan shall show a mixture of trees a minimum of 2-inch caliper and shrubs a minimum of five gallons,taking into account sight distance at the hammerhead. Per LOC 50.06.010.2, all landscape materials must be guaranteed by the owner for a period of one 12-month growing season from the date of installation.As a condition of approval, security in the amount of 5%of the total landscaping cost shall be provided to ensure necessary replacement. As conditioned,this standard is met. [Conditions A(6) and D(3)]. LOC 50.07.007.2.f.iii and iv requires the rear and side yards of flag lots be screened from adjacent properties with a 6-foot tall fence and a 6-foot landscape screen along , the rear property line of a flag lot.As indicated on Exhibit E-7, the landscape screen on the rear of Lots 2 and 3 is shown on Exhibit E-6.Although plantings are shown in the RP buffer adjacent to Lots 4-6,the landscape screen required by the flag lot standard is not shown on Lots 4-6, and must be shown on the final landscape plan for the flag lots, as a condition of approval [Condition A(6)]. A fence is shown on the east side property lines of Lots 3 and 4,abutting the park and on the rear of Lots 2 and 3.The applicants' narrative, Exhibit F-1, page 27, states that a 4-foot high fence will be installed along the rear of Lots 4-6, however this fence must be six feet high, and no fences are shown on the sides of the flag lots between each lot,which is required.As a condition of approval, prior to approval of the final plat, a final fence/landscape plan shall be submitted showing a 6-foot tall fence along the rear lot lines of Lots 2-6 and between Lots 2 and 3,4 and 5, and 5 and 6, and a 6-foot landscape screen along the rear property lines of Lots 2-6. [Condition A(6)]. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 17 of 33 Conclusion Staff finds that, as conditioned, Lots 2-6 comply with the applicable requirements of the Flag Lot standards. 2. The applicable Development Standards [LOC 50.06]; Parking[LOC 50.06.002] This standard requires that a single family dwelling provide a minimum of one off-street parking space per unit, which shall not be located in a required yard [Subsection 2.a.iii(1) and Table 50.06.002-3]. Exhibit E-4 illustrates that all of the lots are large enough to accommodate one or more off-street parking spaces.This standard is met. Access/Access Lanes(Flag Lots) [LOC 50.06.003.1] This standard requires that, except for flag lots, every lot shall abut a public street for a width of at least 25 feet and that the proposed point of access be adequate for the site based on the topography,traffic volume generated by the development, and classification of the public street from which the access is taken. Determination of the location and configuration of an access shall be based on a traffic study, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager [Subsections c.i, c.ii, and e]. As illustrated on Exhibit E-4, Lot 1 has 36.7 feet of frontage on Yates Street. Lots 2-6 are flag lots.The Engineering staff has not identified any negative impacts on adjacent streets associated with taking access from a private extension of Yates Street.This standard is met. On-Site Circulation-Driveways&Fire Access Roads[50.06.003.2] This standard regulates driveways, including slopes and other aspects of geometric design, particularly those related to emergency vehicle access. Driveway approaches shall be located and designed so that drivers entering or exiting the driveway can see approaching traffic for a sufficient distance to make a safe entrance and exit, and that American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO) standards shall be used in determining compliance with this standard [Subsections b.i]. The applicants' narrative states that sight distance for the private street(access lane)where it meets Yates Street is not applicable since the private street(access lane) is a straight extension of Yates Street.The Engineering staff concurs that sight distance for the new street extension does not need to be analyzed, however,the intersection created by the hammerhead turn-around on-site by the new private street (access lane),shall meet AASHTO standards. No vegetation,fence, or signage may be located higher than 30 inches within a "clear sight triangle." Planning staff notes that the required 5-foot landscape screen on both sides of the driveway will need to adhere to this limitation at the hammerhead location.At the time of review of the construction plans for the public improvements and street design, a final construction plan showing the AASHTO clear sight triangles will be required for the street hammerhead intersection [Condition A(9)(e)]. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 18 of 33 The Fire Marshal states that access is adequate for emergency vehicles (Exhibit F-10) provided one side of the street is posted as a Fire Lane-No Parking. Compliance will be assured during building permit review. On Site Circulation—Bikeways,Walkways&Accessways [LOC 50.06.003.3] This standard is applicable to subdivisions.Accessways for use by pedestrians and bicyclists shall be required when necessary to provide direct routes not otherwise provided by the existing right-of-way and shall be ADA-compliant [Subsections b.ii and b.iii]. Developments shall not be required to provide right-of-way for accessways off site to meet this requirement [Subsection b.v]. An ADA-accessible public pedestrian easement is provided along the new private street that provides a direct connection between Yates and O'Brien Streets, which is not otherwise provided by the existing right-of-way(Exhibit E-4). [For further discussion regarding right-of- way improvements, please see LOC Chapter 42,Street and Sidewalks, below.] This standard is met. Street Connectivity[LOC 50.06.003.4] This standard addresses the planning for connectivity for vehicles, pedestrians,and cyclists to assure the layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices.This standard applies to any development resulting in the construction of a new street, and any land division that is located on a parcel or parcels of redevelopable land of 1.75 acres or more, or that abuts a parcel upon which there is a street that has been "stubbed" to the development site [Subsection a.ii].This project is subject to this standard because it is 2.08 acres and Yates Street forms a "stub"to the site. The standard provides siting requirements for new streets or for a street connectivity plan. [Subsections c.ii, iii and d.i]. Exceptions to a full street connection are permitted, including the presence of"existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions." [Subsection c.vi(3)]. Staff concurs with the applicants' statement in Exhibit F-1 that no through-street connection is possible because the surrounding residential properties are fully developed and a loop connection to Obrien Street would require crossing the Hallinan Woods park property (Exhibit E-2). In addition, there is an RP District on the southern portion of the site that abuts Hallinan Woods, a city park. If an exception to providing a full street connection is allowed, a pedestrian access connection shall be provided so that there is not more than 330 feet between bike and pedestrian connections, unless an exception per Subsection c.vi exists to the presence of a residential pathway.The site plan (Exhibit E-4) shows a 15-foot public pedestrian access over the private street(access lane),which connects to the trail on the park property to the east, and leads to Obrien Street to the north.This pedestrian connection has a spacing of approximately 270 feet between Yates and Obrien Streets.As a condition of approval,the applicants will be required to construct the connection between the pedestrian easement on the site and the pathway on the park property to the east. Staff notes that the City's Director of Parks has consented to this work in the park.As conditioned this standard is met [Conditions A(9)(d) and A(11)]. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 19 of 33 Transit System [LOC 50.06.003.5] This standard is applicable to all new subdivisions located on a transit street or within one- quarter mile of a transit street.This site is located within one-quarter mile of HWY 43, which is a bus route.This development will comply with this standard by providing a pedestrian pathway easement over the access lane (Exhibit E-4)that connects Yates and Obrien streets and rights-of-way beyond leading to transit stops. [Subsection b(ii)(2)].This standard is met. Landscaping,Screening&Buffering [LOC 50.06.004.1] This standard is applicable to subdivisions and requires all development abutting streets to provide street trees on lots at the proper spacing for the species [Subsection a.i, b.iv].This standard is not applicable to a private street(access lane). Fence Standards [LOC 50.06.004.2] In a residential zone,the maximum height of a fence is six feet unless it is within 10 feet of a public or private street or an access easement which serves more than two lots.The combined height of a retaining wall and fence, where the fence is located either on top of or within five ft. of the face of the retaining wall on the upslope side, shall be less than eight ft.,as measured from the lower side of the retaining wall.The grading plan, Exhibit E-9, shows a 3-foot retaining wall surrounding the stormwater facility on the north side adjacent to Lot 1.A cedar fence is shown on the south property line of Lot 1 that is 5.5 feet from the face of the retaining wall in compliance with this standard. Lighting[LOC 50.06.004.3] This standard specifies lighting requirements for public and private streets, pathways, accessways and parking lots, and requires street lights along the frontage of any major collectors and at intersections on local streets. [Subsection v,Table 50.06.004-6]. This development will create increased traffic, bike and pedestrian trips to the intersections of Laurel Street/Yates Street and Laurel Street/HWY 43,thus requiring these intersections to have a street light. Because these intersections have existing street lighting, no street lights will be required for this development.This standard also requires low level lighting of less than 0.3 foot candles for public pathways, with a uniformity ratio not to exceed 20:1. [Subsection b.i].The applicant proposes to light the pedestrian path from the end of the private street to the existing pathway in the park to the east with bollard type lighting every 20 feet.As indicated in the cut sheets for the the pathway lighting, Exhibit E-13,the foot candles are less than 0.3 and the uniformity ratio is 4:1,complying with this standard. Park and Open Space Contributions [LOC 50.06.005] This standard is applicable to subdivisions and requires that 20%of the net developable area be provided as open space.The net developable area is approximately 80,836 sq.ft. (Exhibit E-4). As indicated on Exhibit E-6,the RP buffer planting plan,the RP District is approximately 38%of the site,complying with this requirement. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 20 of 33 Weak Foundation Soils [LOC 50.06.006.1] A small area on the western portion of the site may contain weak foundation soils as identified on the City's Soils Map.The actual presence of weak foundation soil is not a cause for denying development, but may cause structural modifications to be required, or structures to be relocated..[Subsection d].The applicants provided a geotechnical report, which requires structural modifications (Exhibit F-6). As a condition of approval, the applicant shall incorporate all applicable recommendations into the design and construction of on-site improvements [LOC 50.07.004.10.a.ii]. [Condition C(3)]. Hillside Protection—[LOC 50.06.006.2] The site is identified as having a potential slide area on the City's Soils Map. All developments on undisturbed slopes in excess of 12%shall be designed to minimize the disturbance of natural topography,vegetation and soils, and where landslides have actually occurred,or where field investigation confirms the existence of a severe landslide hazard, development shall be prohibited unless a licensed geotechnical engineer certifies that methods of rendering a known hazard site safe for construction are feasible for a given site. [Subsections d.i and iii]. The applicants submitted a geotechnical report(Exhibit F-6), which evaluated the sub- surface conditions at the site and states that the proposed development is feasible provided recommendations on soil preparation and construction techniques are followed. A copy of the Geotechnical report shall be submitted during Building permit review. [Condition C(3)]. No more than 65%of area in undisturbed slopes of 20%to 50%shall be graded or stripped of vegetation and land over 50%slope shall be developed only where density transfer is not feasible. [Subsections d.iv(5) and vi].The applicants submitted a slope analysis(Exhibit E-12) that shows that the area proposed for development of the lots and the street is in the 20% or less slope category.As indicted in Exhibit E-12 and the Utility plan (Exhibit E-10),the underground stormwater pipe is also in an area of 0-20%slope with a small portion of the rip-rap terminus in the 20-50%slope category, significantly below the 65%area limitation. As conditioned,this standard is met. Stormwater Management[LOC 50.06.006.3.b] Stormwater management requirements are applicable where [Subsection 3.a]: i. Greater than 1,000 square feet of impervious surface is created; or ii. The sum of impervious surface created and/or replaced is greater than 3,000 sq.ft.; or iii. Maintenance is performed on greater than or equal to 3,000 sq.ft. of existing impervious surface that results in an additional offsite hydrological impact. Because this development would authorize development that will exceed 1,000 sq.ft. of impervious surface,the applicant must demonstrate that, based upon LOC Article 38.25, Stormwater Management Code,the capacity,type, location,feasibility and land area required of the proposed stormwater management system and stormwater disposal facilities as well as any connection to off-site facilities can be provided. See the discussion under LOC Chapter 38.25,Stormwater Management Code, below.As conditioned under that code section,this standard is met. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 21 of 33 Solar Access [LOC 50.06.007] This standard requires that 80%of the lots resulting from a subdivision approval must comply with the solar design standard. Five of the six lots proposed must, therefore, comply with one of three alternatives: (a) Basic Requirement; (b) Protected Solar Building Line Option; or(c) Performance Option; or the applicant may show that one or more lots qualifies for an exemption or adjustment to the design standard per LOC 50.04.004.1 or 2. [LOC 50.06.007.1. b, d]. As illustrated on Exhibit E-4, Lots 1, 3,4, 5 and 6 comply with the Basic Requirement because they have a north-south lot dimension greater than 90 feet and the front lot lines are oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis.This standard is met. Utilities [LOC 50.06.008] The Engineering staff has reviewed the application and finds that utilities are available or can be made available in accordance with City Engineering Division's policies, design standards,technical specifications and standard details as follows [Subsection 3.a]: Sanitary Sewer:There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer main located in Yates Street, which is reduced down to a 6-inch main from a manhole located approximately 70 feet north of the site, and terminates with a clean-out at the end of the road.A service lateral currently extends from the clean-out to the existing home, which will be removed with the development. A new 8-inch public sewer extension will be required to be constructed within the access lane in a minimum 15-foot wide public sanitary sewer easement.The mainline extension shall terminate with a manhole, and service laterals shall be constructed perpendicular to the main. In addition, the existing 6-inch mainline immediately downstream from the site (70-foot run)within Yates Street shall be replaced and upgraded to an 8-inch diameter main. The applicants submitted a preliminary utility plan (Exhibit E-10)showing the proposed sewer design according to the requirements noted above.The final design and construction plans will be reviewed at the time of development permit review for the public improvements. Water and Hydrants:There is an existing 4-inch City water line in Yates Street that terminates at the end of the street stub (north property line of this site).The closest fire hydrant is located on Laurel Street approximately 400 feet north of the site. The Engineering staff notes that the existing water main in Yates Street currently terminates at the end of the street bordering this site, and the existing water main in Obrien Street currently terminates at the end of the street abutting the City park property to the east of the site.This development will add a total of five homes to the public water system. For water quality and flow purposes,the City Engineering Division's policies, which implement standard engineering practices, require water mains to be looped when possible. Design of water system improvements shall take into account a provision for extension beyond the development to adequately grid or loop the city system (LOC 50.06.008.3.g). Given the existing public water main is 4-inch diameter in Yates Street and the opportunity is available to loop the water system between Yates Street and Obrien Street,this development is D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 22 of 33 required to loop the water main between the two streets.This will provide necessary mitigation to offset any impacts to the public water system as a whole.Water and fire flow will be improved,as well as providing water service for the development and also maintain the service for the existing homes along Yates Street. This development will therefore be required to construct a 6-inch public water main extension in the new private street (access lane) serving the development and loop the existing 4-inch water main at the end of Yates Street to the existing 4-inch water main located at the end of Obrien Street.This will require disturbance on city park property to the east to provide this loop and it is feasible to do so.The City's Park and Recreation Director acknowledges the importance of the looped water line (Exhibit F-11) and supports the disturbance through the Hallinan Woods Natural Area to the east as shown on the Utility Plan (Exhibit E-10) provided that an attempt is made to avoid trees and any areas of disturbance be returned to pre-disturbance condition.Trees that may be impacted, depending on the design location, are Trees#'s 276 and 277 off-site in the park and#'s 278 and 279 in Obrien Street.The Engineering staff states that this will be determined upon review of the final design and construction plans.Any necessary tree removal will require a Type II tree removal permit to be submitted and approved, prior to issuance of the public improvement plans.The new water main shall be located within a minimum 15-foot wide public water easement in the private street, shown on the final plat, and also have a minimum of 10-foot horizontal separation to the new sanitary sewer main. Each lot shall have an individual water service. [Conditions A(9) (b)and (f)]. The Fire Marshal states that distance to the existing hydrant is not adequate for this project and that fire flow is adequate only if a new fire line is installed down Yates Street. The applicants propose residential fire sprinklers for each house instead of a new hydrant and fire line.The Fire Marshal approves this alternate method (Exhibit F-10),which shall be required to be shown on the building permit plans as a condition of approval. [Condition A(9)(d)]. As conditioned, this standard is met. Street and Sidewalks: Yates Street is a paved local public street within a 60-foot public right- of-way and the pavement is in very good condition.The access lane extended from Yates Street into this development will be a private street and will be privately maintained by the lot owners through the development's Homeowner's Association (HOA); however, a public access easement will be required over the entire private street(access lane),which connects to the existing pathway in the park to the east and leads to the end of Obrien Street. [See discussion under LOC Chapter 42,Streets and Sidewalks, below, and Street Connectivity, LOC 50.06.003.4, above,for additional information.] Other utilities: It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain the availability of electric, gas,telecommunications and cable TV. Undergrounding of Utilities: Per LOC 50.06.008.4.d, utilities shall be installed underground [unless exempted by the City Manager(staff)]; this applies to both new on-site utilities and existing utilities along the frontage of the development.Any new utilities leading to the development and within the development site will be required to be installed underground. [Subsection 4.d].Staff notes that there are existing overhead utilities located perpendicular to the site along the east side of Yates Street. By requiring only a portion of this section of D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 23 of 33 road to be underground, it would likely create the need to add an additional utility pole along this section of roadway where the overhead lines would be converted underground. It is likely that any substantial undergrounding of frontage utilities along Yates Street would come through a street-long improvement project, either as part of a local improvement district or as part of an underground district pursuant to ORS 758.210 et seq.To satisfy this code requirement,the applicants shall be required to underground on-site utilities and to execute and record an LID waiver of remonstrance regarding the formation of a local improvement district or underground district,for the undergrounding of the Yates Street overhead utilities, as a condition of approval. [Condition A(10)]. [Note:The City Manager or the Planning Commission and City Council may be reviewing LOC 50.06.008.4.d in the future as to its applicability for projects in certain areas or along certain streets; if the applicability of this section is modified such that it would not be required for a project of this type or in this location prior to the recordation of the waiver of remonstrance,the condition for execution and recordation of the waiver of remonstrance shall be released by staff.] 3. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application; City of Lake Oswego Utility Code—Stormwater Management FLOC Chapter 38.251 The Stormwater Management Code is applicable to development activities that meet the impervious area thresholds in LOC 38.25.120.All stormwater management facilities shall meet the standards for"large projects" if the new and/or redeveloped impervious area is greater than or equal to 3,000 sq.ft. For purposes of determining applicability, all applications on a given parcel or contiguous parcels under common ownership conducted within a three-year period shall be considered cumulatively.This proposal will likely result in development that exceeds 3,000 square feet of new impervious surface and is therefore reviewed as a "large project" [LOC 38.25.120(1)(d)(i)].The applicant for a land division must demonstrate that it is feasible—that a stormwater management system "can be provided" - -for later development, in this case additional dwellings and associated impervious surface, to comply with the Stormwater Management Code, LOC 38.25.001-190, specifically LOC 38.25.120(1)(a-d), and the Lake Oswego Stormwater Management Manual (LOSWMM). LOC 50.06.006.3.b. To demonstrate feasibility, the applicants have submitted a preliminary stormwater report prepared by a registered engineer(Exhibit F-2), storm drainage is shown on the Utility plan (Exhibit E-10), and an Operations and Maintenance Plan in Exhibit F-7. The City's contract Stormwater Review Engineer reviewed the project and detailed the findings in Exhibit F-9,which documents applicant information and findings related to LOC 38.25.120(1)(a-d), Project Classification Procedures and Requirements.The current version of the LOSWMM provides additional information including specifications and procedures for the proper implementation of the requirements of the Stormwater Management Code and is referenced as applicable [LOC 38.25.110]. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 24 of 33 Maintenance [LOC 38.25.190(3)(a) Any storm facilities located on the individual lots shall be maintained by the individual lot owners. In addition, stormwater facilities can be maintained by the HOA.The applicants submitted a preliminary Operations and Maintenance Plan (Exhibit F-7)to demonstrate feasibility of maintenance.As a condition of approval, a final Operations and Maintenance Plan for the stormwater facility will be required to be submitted for staff review and approval during review of the public improvements and recordation prior to final building inspection on any lot [Conditions A(4)(a)and D(2)]. As discussed in Exhibit F-9 and conditioned above,the applicants have demonstrated a stormwater system is feasible to infiltrate,to the maximum extent practicable, 100 percent of the stormwater runoff for a 10-year, 24-hour design stormwater from expected dwellings and impervious surfaces; the applicants will be required to submit a final drainage plan and stormwater design, in accordance with the Stormwater Management Code and the LOSWMM,for review and approval by the City Engineer, and conditions of approval can be imposed to maintain the facilities.The feasibility requirement of this standard for the proposed land division is met. See Condition C(2). Streets and Sidewalks [LOC Chapter 421 This Chapter authorizes the City Engineer to make specific street and sidewalk improvement recommendations after taking a variety of policy and site specific factors into consideration.4[LOC 42.03.015- .050].The City Engineer's comments are included for review of the overall understanding of the project.The City Engineer's conditions of approval are included, as they must be included in the decision,to find that the application will comply with this article. Streets and Sidewalks The Engineering staff has reviewed the development proposal and field conditions in the context of the City's codes, improvement policies and Transportation System Plan (TSP), and offers the following observations and recommendations. The proposed 6-lot subdivision can be expected to contribute an additional 10 vehicle trips to the City's street system per lot per average weekday.5 Additional pedestrian and bicycle trips can be expected as well.The cumulative effect of new trips(all modes), imposes an additional burden and concomitant concerns for preserving street capacity and public safety, particularly for bicycles and pedestrians. The City has a governmental interest in assuring that new development does not contribute to a degradation of adequate, safe and efficient public transportation facilities. New 4 To meet the review criteria for a minor development, the applicant must comply with "any additional... Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application,such as... the Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance." LOC 50.07.003.14.d. The determination of whether or not the application meets the requirements of LOC Chapter 42,Streets and Sidewalks, is under the review authority of the City Manager or City Engineer;the requirements of this Chapter are not under the review authority of a hearing body,other than to find whether or not the City Engineer or City Manager has found that the application complies with LOC Chapter 42, or whether conditions of approval are required for compliance with this Chapter. 5 Trip Generation(8th edition), Institute of Transportation Engineers D-001 LU 17-0084p Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 25 of 33 development should mitigate the negative impacts(increased noise, and the degradation of aesthetics, safety,system capacity, and bicycle and pedestrian mobility) resulting from new development.The City has adopted a broad palette of policies, plans, regulations, and fees that have been designed to offset the adverse impacts of development on the natural and built environment. In this regard,the following regulations, standards and site specific characteristics have a direct bearing on the governmental interest in preserving the functionality and safety of the public infrastructure, and are particularly relevant to this development proposal: • LOC Chapter 42 requires street improvements to be constructed when property is developed. • LOC Chapter 42 directs the City Engineer to recommend to the decision making authority the appropriate width of public rights-of-way,and the width and character of the improvements contained therein. The implementation of the City's plans, policies, and regulations will offset to some degree the negative impacts of development on the public infrastructure. LOC 50.07.003.5 allows the reviewing authority to impose conditions of approval on a development permit when the condition is reasonably related to alleviation of a need for public services or facilities created or contributed to by the proposed development. In addition,the US Supreme Court has ruled (Dolan v. City of Tigard)that, in order to require exactions,the local government must apply a test of"rough proportionality" between the impacts of the proposed development and the need for the mitigation. The Engineering staff has reviewed the development proposal and field conditions in the context of the City's codes, improvement policies and Transportation System Plan (TSP)and makes the following recommendations. Factors considered in the Engineering Division's evaluation of Yates Street include its functional classification and the following site specific factors: • Yates Street is designated as a local level street in the City's street classification system. • The site is located within walking and biking distance of the surrounding neighborhoods and commercial areas. For mitigation purposes,this development will be required to construct street improvements for public access and a new public pathway from the end of the street serving the development to the existing pathway within the abutting park to the east that extends down from the end of Obrien Street. As conditions of approval on the proposed development,the City will require the following mitigations to alleviate impacts created or increased by the proposed development [see Condition A(9)]: • Construct a new asphalt pathway to connect the end of the private street(access lane) within the development to the existing pathway within the abutting park to the east that extends down from the end of Obrien Street. • Grant a public vehicular and pedestrian access easement over and across the entirety D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 26 of 33 of the private street(access lane) serving the development, to (1) allow pedestrian connection from the terminus of Yates Street to connect to the existing pathway within the abutting park, and (2)to allow vehicular use and parking on a common basis with residents of the development. [Condition A(3)(c)]. • Construct and maintain the private street(access lane) serving the development as generally shown on the preliminary street plan to public street construction standards, including stormwater management. The City finds that requiring the above vehicular and pedestrian easements, construction and maintenance requirements for the private street(access lane) and pathway improvements are directly related to mitigating the increased traffic, bike and pedestrian trips and on-street vehicle parking that will be created by this development. Requiring these easements and improvements/maintenance are roughly proportional to the adverse impacts created by the development because: • The development will generate 10 additional vehicle trips per lot per day using Yates Street and the adjacent local street system for vehicle travel and on-street parking. • The above described easements and improvements/maintenance will address the increased vehicle traffic because with common public/resident use of the private street(access lane)for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular use,the traffic capacity of the nearby public streets will be preserved. • The above described improvements will encourage use of the pathways and use of transit, thus reducing the demand that would otherwise arise for vehicle travel on nearby streets. • Mitigation requirements for street improvements have been required for similar developments in the City, with the result being that such improvements have mitigated the increased traffic(vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle) by preserving the functionality and public safety features of the public street system. In light of the above facts and Code requirements, staff finds that the development of this site will place sufficient additional demand on the surrounding street system to justify the public easements and associated improvements/maintenance above, and that these mitigating improvements are roughly proportional to the degree of impact imposed by the new development, as described above, and consistent with the improvements of similarly sized developments of land in the vicinity, as required by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Dolan v.the City of Tigard. Sight Distance at Roadway Intersections, Private Streets, & Driveways [LOC 42.03.1301 This standard requires that no vegetation, fence, or signage be located higher than 30 inches within a "clear sight triangle" [Section 42.03.130(4)(b)].The clear sight triangle is that area enclosed by the lines formed by the intersection approach legs of roadways, private streets and driveways and a straight line drawn diagonally across the corner, connecting those lines at the various distances per AASHTO guidelines [LOC 42.03.130(3)(c)]. As noted above, at the time of development permit review of the construction plans for the public improvements and street design, a final construction plan showing the AASHTO clear D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 27 of 33 sight triangles will be required for the street hammerhead intersection. No vegetation, fence, or signage be located higher than 30 inches within a "clear sight triangle." As conditioned,this standard is met. City of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 551 This Code requires approval of a permit for removal of any tree that is six inches or greater in diameter, subject to Type II criteria as listed in LOC 55.02.080(1-4). Only those trees that must be removed in order to site proposed improvements will be granted tree cutting permits under LOC 55.02.080. (Although not a criterion for approval,the Tree Code also prescribes protection measures for trees remaining during construction.) Tree Removal A tree inventory has been provided (Exhibit F-3).As illustrated on Exhibits E-8, 27 trees are proposed for removal. Other trees that are circled are noted as dead or hazardous and may be removed under separate permits. Trees proposed for removal in conjunction with a minor development can be granted tree removal permits if the following criteria are met: 1. The tree is proposed for removal because it has outgrown its landscape area or the removal is part of a landscape plan, or in order to construct development approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable development regulations. This criterion is met if it would be necessary to remove the trees to construct the proposed development.Staff finds that this criterion is met because the trees proposed for removal are within the proposed development area [Tract B stormwater facility proposed to demonstrate feasibility of managing stormwater from the site, and construction and installation of the private street(access lane) and utilities(Exhibits E-8 and E-10)]. Staff notes that Tree#296, a 34-inch white oak is located in the Yates Street right-of-way where the proposed private street(access lane) on the subject site will connect to Yates Street. 2. Removal of the trees, considering proposed mitigation measures, will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,flow of surface waters,protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; The area where the trees will be removed is not on a steep slope (0-20%slope) and as such the removal will not cause erosion or impact soil stability.The City's consulting arborist has determined that the proposed removal is limited to interior trees, many of which are in poor condition (Exhibit F-12);therefore, she determined that the exposure caused by their removal would not have a significant wind throw impact on the other trees not requested for removal that are along the perimeter of the site [Exhibit F-12]. For these reasons, staff finds that the tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion control, the flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.This criterion is met. 3. The removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood. This standard is met when removal of the trees does not involve: D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 28 of 33 a. A significant tree (over 15"DBH, healthy, noninvasive, and is considered significant to the neighborhood due to size, species, or distinctive character, or the only remaining tree on a property.); Thirteen of the trees proposed for removal are noninvasive and over 15 inches in diameter (Exhibit E-8), but staff concurs that only three of these 13 trees are healthy(Exhibits F-1, F- 3). Of these three trees: • Tree#296, a 34" white Oak:Although visible to the neighborhood because it is a street tree, located at the terminus of Yates Street.The white oak is not unique because there are 20 oaks on the site as shown in Exhibits E-8 and F-3. Therefore, it is not significant to the neighborhood due to size, species or distinctive character because its size is not unique in the neighborhood, the species is not unique in the neighborhood, and it is not located in a prominent location in the neighborhood. • Tree#283, a 39.5" white Oak: Located internal to the site, near the proposed hammerhead. Because there are other oaks on the site as shown on Exhibits E-8 and F-3, its size is not unique in the neighborhood, the species is not unique in the neighborhood, and it is not located in a prominent location in the neighborhood. (Exhibit E-8). • Tree#55: a 34" Douglas fir: Located internal to the site, near the end of the proposed access lane.As shown on Exhibits E-8 and F-3, its size is not unique in the neighborhood,the species is not unique in the neighborhood, and it is not located in a prominent location in the neighborhood. (Exhibit E-8). • None of the 13 trees are the only remaining tree on the property(Exhibit E-8). Subconclusion: None of the 13 trees that are eligible to be significant are, in fact, "significant trees." b. Alterations to the distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline, as viewed from all public streets and properties within 300 ft. of the property; Removal of the 27 trees would not alter the neighborhood skyline because they are internal to the site and the perimenter of the site is surrounded by other trees of similar size and thus the treed appearance of the neighborhood skyline is maintained. c. A tree that serves as a visual screen between a residential zone and an abutting non-residential zone, or between a low density residential zone and a medium or high density residential zone, or between a medium and high density residential zone; Staff concurs with the applicants'findings that none of the 27 trees act as a visual screen between low and higher density zones because the properties abutting the site to the north and west are zoned R-7.5, the same as the site (Exhibit E-8).The trees proposed for removal on the eastern portion of the site are closer to the park property, zoned PNA, however they do not serve as a visual screen from development to this non-residential zone (Exhibit E-8). d. A street tree;or, As discussed above,Tree#296 is in the Yates Street right-of-way, (Exhibit E-8), and is a D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 29 of 33 street tree. None of the other 26 trees are within the public right-of-way, a pedestrian easement abutting a right-of-way, or within a street tree easement, or used to meet the street tree requirements for a prior development permit. (Exhibit E-8). e. Greater than 50%of a stand of trees. A"stand of trees" is defined as "...a group of trees(of the same species or a mixture)that forms a visual and biological unit at least 15 ft. in height with a contiguous crown width of at least 120 ft." (LOC 55.02.020). There are two stands of trees on the property: one is located to the north, in proposed Lots 2 and 3, and one is located on the south, in the RP Tract. • Although Trees#285, 294, 295, 296, 290, 283, 300, 90, 79, 64, 57, 93, 58, 54, 55, 85, 582, 369, 587, and 561 are located in the north portion of the site, near the north tree grove,they are not part of the tree grove (Exhibit F-12). • Trees#4, 29, 42,43,44,45, and 47 are part of the South grove, but not in the RP Tract, and they constitute less than 50%of the South grove. Subconclusion—Subcriteria (a)—(e): Tree#296, a 34" inch white oak is a street tree- its removal cannot not be approved unless the exception to Criterion#3 is met. Other 26 trees:The removal of 26 of the trees does not involve any of the subcriteria of Criterion#3 and therefore,the removal of these trees does not require an exception to Criterion#3. Exceptions: Criterion#3 is not applicable when: a. A tree is likely to or will continue to cause damage to a permanent, viable existing structure, or to infrastructure, such as utilities or paved landscape features, that cannot be remedied through reasonable tree maintenance or pruning;or The applicant is seeking removal based on proposed development, not existing development.This exception criterion is not applicable. b. Alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures (development purpose)or alternate landscaping designs(outgrown landscape area; landscape plan) that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. The applicants' narrative states that alternative development plans were considered but no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone, e.g., subdivision development for six lots. (Exhibit F-1, page 30). D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 30 of 33 Any access to the site must come from Yates Street because access from Obrien would have to cross adjacent property, e.g.,the public park(which is not possible or desirable). Alternative access was considered during the pre-application phase (Exhibit E-14).Tree #296 is located at the terminus of Yates Street approximately 20 feet east of the west boundary of the right-of-way.The existing Yates Street pavement is centered within the right-of-way and will be extended into the site. The tree must be removed to provide access from the existing portion of Yates Street to the property. 4.Removal of the tree is not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views Removal of Tree#296 is not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views because the tree is being removed for development purposes, as stated above. Conclusion: For the reasons outlined above, staff concludes that removal of the 27 trees complies with the applicable criteria.As a condition of approval,the applicants shall apply for a verification tree removal permit for the 27 trees prior to approval of any construction plans. [Condition C(7)]. The City's Consulting Arborist notes (Exhibit F-12)that several trees that are not proposed for removal may be affected by the grading for the stormwater facility(Trees#514 and 519) and the same is true for some trees bordering the proposed access lane (#61 and#57; however#57 is dead).These would require a Type II tree removal permit or the applicants shall demonstrate that they can be protected [Condition C(7)]. Mitigation [LOC 55.02.084(4)(a)(ii)1 Any tree approved for removal under the Type II tree analysis shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio. "Significant trees" removed for development purposes shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. Required street trees do not count towards the minimum tree mitigation requirements. Mitigation trees should have a minimum 1.5-inch caliper diameter for deciduous trees and a minimum 6-foot height for evergreen trees. All native trees must be mitigated with a native species selected from LOC Appendix 55.02-1, Native Mitigation Tree List. All 27 of the trees proposed for removal are native trees and the White Oak,Tree#296, is considered a "significant tree."Therefore 28 mitigation trees are required, all native species.The Landscape Plan (Exhibit E-7)shows 28 mitigation trees, all native species.Staff notes that six of the Pacific dogwood mitigation trees are indicated in the side and rear setbacks of Lots 2, 3, and 4 and on the west side of the possible stormwater facility.As a condition of approval,these mitigation trees must be protected through a Notice of Development Restriction that is recorded with the plat, unless the applicant places them in a different location on the final landscape plan. [Condition A(8)(d)]. 4. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. There are no conditions of approval of prior City development permits affecting the subject property. D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 31 of 33 VII. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicants and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 17-0084 complies with all applicable criteria and standards or can be made to comply through the imposition of conditions. EXHIBITS A-D. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. GRAPHICS/PLANS E-001 Tax Map E-002 Vicinity Map with Zoning E-003 Existing Conditions Survey E-004 Preliminary Subdivision Plat E-005 RP District Adjustment E-006 RP Buffer Planting Plan E-007 Preliminary Landscape Plan E-008 Tree Removal Plan E-009 Grading Plan E-010 Utility Plan E-011 Street Plan and Profile E-012 Slope Analysis E-013 Cut Sheets and Specifications for Pathway Lighting E-014 Delineated RP District (LU 16-0043, Exhibit B) E-015 Pre-application development alternatives F. WRITTEN MATERIALS F-001 Applicant's Narrative F-002 Preliminary Drainage Report, prepared by Theta Engineering., dated 7/5/18 F-003 Tree Survey prepared by Tree Care Unlimited LLC F-004 RP District Planting Plan, prepared by Terra Science, Inc., dated June 2018 F-005 Addendum-Sensitive Lands, prepared by Terra Science, Inc., dated 7/2/18 F-006 Geotechnical Report, prepared by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc., dated 9/8/17 F-007 Preliminary Operation and Maintenance Plan, prepared by Theta Engineering, dated 6/2018 F-008 Minutes of Neighborhood Meeting held on August 14, 2017 F-009 Attachment A; Engineer's Findings on Stormwater, prepared by Brown and Caldwell, dated 8/1/18 F-010 City of Lake Oswego Fire Marshal Memo dated 12/28/17 F-011 City of Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Director Memo, dated 7/19/18 F-012 City Consulting Arborist E-mail, prepared by Morgan Holen &Associates LLC, dated 7/31/18 G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against (G1-99) None Support(G-100-199) D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 32 of 33 None Opposition (G-200+) None Date of Application Submittal: December 18, 2017 Date Application Determined to be Complete: July 9, 2018 D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report LU 17-0084 Page 33 of 33 D-001 LU 17-0084 Staff Report 6490cANcELLED SE 1/4 SE I/4 SEC I T, S. R.)E. W. D.L.C. 2 LE !ODD saes 1-pis m6p tree grgrared ter} F.A. COLLARD HQ. 45 LAKE OSw1EG0 3 a39095rnerHpopoaeonly. CLACKAMAS COUNTY 3200100 i 1001 3400 356000 of __'I ofWOO ae 3700J W300 �3p9pppp :�E MAP N 9 LE MLA ri.rc pp = 2 J 300 rr.•' P•.II .1 . ' . . i''�y a..r+ srp .r= 1 oAc :8 6uRRgen 4400 9, m oa.+n {p - _ n 1� aanr 0 4 1.•,4 r.,s,'',..,'•i o oo 9n405 Ac. 05 II eY', - 4506 5 r 510❑ 1 OM. 1N L—17 •''S _^, ' f4.s rd•"'L.' 3 4.r3 uutL MT 7 p 200 •„•z$$ 5203 +' 1400'' um p P4RCE1.Z '2q a. s. g53400Q(} y Oa ` aAa (� 5600 I- 39 - ; I w 5700 1500 •� •oa•sr...590�0 W tt:e i6100 IX n 20❑ 5301 6 l' 4❑ aa • I Mu . 6291 U) 1•.0 1. a ae� '. [201 ,anpp.1 $ _•+e 65001 • a. 7l p 4 ex ..Sw ' I7'00�F w• . L. l „a 1ME41.S p' 4oa _ .� �T7 :'. -'a.sr. . I - _ ..B00'.Seat. x.+,rr• I 1� p,aana ! - .. 9 42 1203 , S ! NmP�_..+ - - n.. - aay.°. I ttil • .- n �- I f I 2328. I I = 600 +��' . I. 2005 7 J r a ofl ~e rulc" r 87 v i ' 7,0 1.65 xe. � r R Q ],Y �� 'I _ r oRW"' '`' I "wm' •7D2 h. �r 'no L rLA -- 4t i owGEL a 1441 ,� �5R w e T'la. r R B. a Lek - I ar I.rrc[.a r FAP 8I.3 7 01 wN Nami' -esK'• +- o 'ssAr. na.+ 3a °' zooi time g ri4i:'d%, ... •' � r 4", - �P4ie�2 :ara-w ? r a s.�ar.�v fi500� .re. � � O 2p..rr���} ,1 :w. ,� a o fi70 f n12e .36 ed VJ 1- Y u ` IYe Ir. ,S1Y W r 4s .r di,.3 111H 1 gla ral r�r c 515 Rift LNIA C‘i } a ' nt on �. • 1 .2 - 3' k 6405e fi Hong cic STREET it • F..3I E L 1 . t MQRNING SAY CT. 5„ •;. ,42300 _ 11 5402 ,.2 ,. p r1t6 — C(II 10 _ 5C6N `� 111 �' .I 11N3314 2„ "' 6403- No 4 2400 a. x� ? ij 7;p ..-� .,_ G7 r P Ra' 1996-54 a,s'...4' r.. ' ..r. ]1 , I Y .a. - 12 ` S 6E00 I unnn iyS $ y�yi. z$aa oat II 1 sat � 1...1 11 1 r •n 3 77 6306 ff • 11EE •--y y;MC -n 4 5at "e Je $ 3 , ..i i 1g ! S00� Y L 7.11+ 4 e I -� ` 11 �INI, —1'.�,}e HALLMAN ELEMENTARY ,•1.304 ' r3 �, 1 1 f) $1 4 3• � ,..r SCHGpI �r O .aria ° � q4 8 ^•- 8 .. r 1•1 . !.30 a. -r 1 P ,Q 'aal-2 i �� Ill I zees"' • 6S� I - \\ 00 4 �3 -- — - , 'qr----a <,, Gov C Z alFlf IV"' *. IeuE 6200 x In F0 �•yy�� \-b J Nor I4 _ L•L._ SEE 2 IE 15 AA Y ' ear' 1„ `er-+ — ••.-'...P X Q e w�S. 3n aFitd. - z9 i L r a 51 ,µ 29A ,44 f O cv du n x.r rs• -ar R.�a [, n a r.. j ..,. f .. n r 2 IE I ODD 03 LAKE OSWEGO SEE MAY 2 15 1FjAA eot.. 9 _. ri,..,_ Laurel.- �S t __ N C cs cn 00r� o --� CO N) a 1001 co oo o co 1010 1023 1022 1021 1023 1024 1024 �J 1033 1032 1033 art Cir 1043 1042 1053 1 042 , 1033 ii)�' 1053 R-7.5 1043 1038 c I010 1052 '' 1051 1044 00 ,+ 1073 - 1190 1195 o r"., �; 1r H a v. 220 1275 4,, •�: • .. ... tu 240 = Ce, ,+44•'t*•��++o�0���...�:**�`+t+�.�'Si.`++s++:+:44,1 124ti 117 i'i++i+tii'i'i�ii'+b'i+i*:s's+'i�P i : ►...�.�tt..•+:�t.itt.�tta+.4 tt.ti'. * .•X• _ ittt.*t ••••••i.ift.+a.•.'••.•.�.+ y.:•4••1t.r +'t......O.ti'.a�.. to..ta 260 1265 \` well 280 1 1285 •Z`ra- PNA Hallinan 1 :305 Woods ZOO I I i ! I I I i llI 1 ' E-002 Vicinity Map with Zoning ---------- _-- .------------ ,---------'------ a___--------------- ONO MAP - EXISTING CD WA. 1 LOT fl tS UITY30AOEpEGON - L .�INj-e O A 20 SS SCA a30 CO�NOaEMBET' •.d __ -�� �� _ s"swe+. �8� _ " TES: sw mrr sa^' "°so.° riea \\las�. 1 — J Wit: s nsrgo rr g 0°7'n,, r+aa4°gym° {gyp 1 "\$ °" ',XL.°r TM°° wns OW r°°>�+e0y vs, G� 1 aeig, Tex^ia�6 ,µs1PU +t rs rer\1 �P�A r x a �'� 1.,, r rmP ,A� ys.sn°°`Fa,ms400""w� KnOMVI 9` N'''°°�°1°+.nr ¢,, 4 x\f$. , '_ a°�Mg PIA ,,s s0 NK IA Wr W^�TRSpnb sua+s°A' st s� �\\ in9 06E'E) ...-. ,WiT5 s{O warm�"""n• 0,Tens rrrP•nrcRE fl a y•� ,405.." ms PPS^ ,,,, 1 1�' s x lEaOOW. '^\ 'x':.. Mx for te, P°,t,1011' IAr`^gym°'"' ,..sr°r°*IME 74,-r"SV�°UL,£o. . .,.,or Ai e M1 b,, wv as .rmr.0.a ,.. . °s„ *,.. ,rnx. , sac ww m8"69 V, ‘µ• K.'4AV w a ya "° TMc 1 00 rwm.1 0.0 . o•sPc° ssrm 11 r.o ,tl PdaMP I w.lASIS+ep1 dA e,4 m°• t - ''''' r��'elk ,, u ,„,m w ETMmrt"'s a`"C«v^^MaMre"°""tt++mowe°A " rr @ ru urw vwt ur+"',nm+.ra a Nu r°srP �,pM�,rs° tvr N P P3tir>�°y ' H1 M PFN'W t yP^ �.+` ..$� �Cnm ,,1y e r P4s0,1% Gt, i°aY Ai' a,n. ,. k #�A ------------- ZW,+s"'�° TF' P 1.'- �1'v_A,.--: /P 4, c ,„;; ery! S 0 .?! '''" stau smu, On, ..�.� urn igr smsu ,4f , S 1..,4 ik f,-M n m d,,r<.d x°W ,54 e r 6_ / 3 O, e.wm "`° uwr""s W+'°"r �wPk'i sss're• `""ate°u 1,E'er F.'�N q c. $�e -('�a ,Pr. `l z L 1,m1 TMer w! F�.cs -P °' rPx Mr'''. wsm+° f' 5 .�4' s� '�:°' _„ z 1—t, �z s w/, > .--- °ptB+rp wM xW'� F !fl i iti at or n°o °°x a%rrK r z+a.er 001.01* "T,AVtr �1 Go 0, • °t s ss 1 ✓ A' j0artrow ® '°°"sew%"',"+ � 8 ncert"a"`iw ,°rs*a �, z -^""....._ - m° .1' e� n ®ca•d+°rsm o�x"" vx w"`«°'evc r yws W�11orn' L,y "t t `R \ i1' • M ,` , s n' F ..."r u,,,,,,,.. ® 00.wvsl sa°*y yu' ry, zoe -r,�g?y°nsl s �+:;_\\i ` i e.. to awlxsu. ,s V•7, ' p," d% ,...„ ��/qt ,,- ,p , ,f�.a,ry ` ,�,o�E. ,rn, ',.." frJ POW' O °P Nor q�5 t[`,IXw Q,rPk.DC g 'l-j-, � N r , '� 5 ��• , . �� b tlrv- �` K ,I_ ° e s�H + w C� {�s� _i N y \ /M1 ° M us rw� -.-++"` °°wm"�'�'j9 t nv1 s \ ,,,,,,,fir,., y -7- P2 / ter' os,a,a mow- r gssx u,e N € � n, P>a , p 7 " sco �.a, sr 'uws'ua w� are,'''' D�).,,!:',,a,<. �, z s t`I ., „:. �' t >a� Qs° I - �•�,A3 I o urea°" sres n."^'n" .wr • pCRtf ° 1 fi Psr �. l } L a ♦ �5 v z°r JW�I15�3 r `` p. m " 9 mow.' ^a�'Y� U1Nil tO 1,o g i c Y es t `Nr�:..rw+ .....--A,„,°ur o°w,a nM,°""° rum smucv�xoTes .i zs° °.''j' A i 1:CrrC rgsss 1 ,Rm�'A s r.r ws s / -it i ,a`y A w ,:rr SAC /� a;+'r` ersA yS ;'s''r ,x to' tYr,•: /' a?'�uae' PP°srwx 1°'o e!! s "y /x°� .t°,q,t Anv i g . A°' \a7 '''s '„ /� ig,/ BA,� * !!/, s s yM1�f. N` ,ra .� i ry" Cr,/ - s� ., 'i t' t ,s 1,,, sa'c� r-, .%se N6 g.�^.. ri t.. "br yy ';a� �; w l,S"Itsis� ,x. r• A' s r > .s ryj; / As/'�s+s. xs a,` s�.uw cx pe :,asss•er ,, '' %.'' 'j w ad'' asse.m' fs �.r sx°°P :e -Ri imi:...:,:iir.... w m tie° i ss \ \sa`.,� y{m I tros rr.n 'i c.°'sa°' ty —anrw .�mt,r 0°a° tq� �a' 1 �` - ���xxp},eP,+" .� i'i arip6yyN • CtP]. O .R}y^ l�.'1�0.'�.� ... � YO w' uf'! ,'ON,t �Mso°m i" ::: 4. t SA,,4MO.S Eta, \,'.� 3(' R WP gUs°t)LjOS�° '+ I� Frn.65Gt6 st..nm og:-,,1°M°�L(d p + rrott,A/ • (Q AV iC soar —'_ Q- 0 uN G G ., _ R 7.5 2%.i 1Eii3Ort ..i '.• M6s-K42.E tea r rg869 S.F. 1�: i a qq aI Y UUICSCME, �. of gi 9,639 S.F. i, exr .. b yp 1 6. �__ IWS RNA 1 e�� „zr ___j __—— ---- _ I ass our 1S,OP6 SF. I `_" ____..�_._---1iI a 1 R7.5 I" B ��� � q o w r EC 7A63 SY. 1 5 II: 8,8068F, 1 aa9r } .sy_ 7,S01 S.F. 3yyy SCALE:I-IQ �J' 1 Q, sl FOTI Ridi rtacrnER $ PROQos�o YI-9,Tr34E. F� b ny "�ena exrwawI i v�ru.anw ' ' OPEN SPACE w L a' —_ I _ J TRACT B - --- _s — : r RPSRIJNDARY PER Lf116.0043 if /! __-- I ��� ���� iT] AND MODIFIED PER THIS RPPLN,,AT1ON / 1��� 0 O - NA 6 T` H,,,,,, E t q ���~ _ HP BOUNDARY jr` �J' Pa ���Ni L PROPOSED '`�� J,1 --# �����6• SE N V 1 C ES D PNA ' -- . - -- — c jr 0_ r' aaiai� U -— PRELIMINARY PLAT DESIGNED: BOG SHEET O DRAWN: FUG I T r��IL ,. 11 G 1107 Yates Street L� LE: 1'4P PiPIREEH1$G - SURVEYING - PLANNING T.25., R.1 E.,Section 10OD,TL 1300 6 T DATE 7.7,,September,20,11 PC�+e.S %Wee-0= Lake Oswego,Oregon F]LE: Y.ilns Pra+tyPt3 DATE H17. RFVI.^+H1N Iaie[tf.pe,a, cm.c r-t I _ I LINE NO. EXISTING PROPOSED LINE NO. EXISTING PROPCISEC 1 ..- 24 98 25 3CT , 57 80,00 73.00 2 2513 35n 58 5570 65.00 1 1 ' 3 _2529 - 46.261 59 53,52 65,00 I Z -. 4 25,45 58,74 60 51.34 68.00 �_ 0 5 25.61 67.22 61 49.17 35.00 ' „____ 6__ 25.77 7224 • 6263 47.15 35,53 = ! ?c;;I ,• I 7 25 57 71.79 63 49.29 3563 / pp••8 2525 8799 64 47.10 3607 U9 24A3 6418 65 4432 3530• 4600 56.0143652402 570141 nbj D 2e 4o s9.o1eemro3o1I ,34 24 69 3822 32 24 \ (3938® _.,,..70 3695 3147 I % �_" �2938 57.44 71 33.99 3068 <e I29,82 55.49 72 30.07 3000 ` --�+ioi 17 3020 5355 ' 73 3004 2932 ' '' 1 % L_ ^' ��'a 1'�-1 se 18 3042 5220 74 30.00 28.84 '� ..2119 30 h1 51.03 75 29.97 27.96III � n. ro %� .� �1 30 11 52 82 76 29.94 26.60 -• ` s s 1 ^,� �°, , I. 21 3020 5421 77 Z991 28.60 �� �� � ^ 11, ,. ,��r 7 m�22 3030 Sri 80 78 31442582 � § ri'�ji� M." ,' 1 ' ;A, , 23.. 30 40 _57 39 79 3248 25,72 �i0 /i� ,. 'i \24 33335896 � 80 3248 25.72 Ik‘1144,Aili'' � _/1 25 35 83 6D.20 81 324E 25 76 -- 28 3800 59.61 82 3248 25.79 -.27 3265 5873 83 2966 21.80 , i ��2e 3005 ss.7s 64 z96a z,azWETLAND ���� I 25 3004 55.36 - 85 31fi7_ 205; AREA C , ii 30 3004 54.00 86 3495 7.050 , - 31 3004 52631 87 74.74 68.14 f CODE MINIMUM 32 - 31 94 50.97 I 808 72 64 52.19 l} C OFFSET , 33 38 3t 485520 9 75 ---89 fi740 5562 5 27 34 42 76 48.53 90 61.49 48 35 35 44 91 47.31 _. 91 55 56 41 44 r 3s 4609 46.09 92. 5301 3877 1 �I�,1 ' WETLAND _ 37 44 68 M.66 93 49.09 43 36 \ 38 43 61 43 61 94 46.49 38 63 , I' R' \,tilt _AREA39 42 5 4255 95 4228 3472 ._40 47 49 41 49 96 38.73 3082 '� sn��41 43 45 43 45 97 30 69 27 2t '' !/ ' 420 40. 2553 25 34 4I1i :801! 7 37 58 2592 23 32 i44, 58.00 25.92 21.3t lif 44. 57 _ 1 2495 20.15 � ''44. 58. 1 2494 2159 \ i 111�1 25.85 2680 ihhi i3 .a 4® ���1 0 14',� 3 71 , . ' AI'/' , i; - 51 72.89 64.00 - \„ -.- inn 52 71.C6 65.00 ,510 n+i,e 53 69.21 65.00 y r"� 54� 98.32 B0.00 ,c 1 _ sfi se.zz 7s oo �- AREA OF EXISTING RP-28,786 SF , c --- �= _..... ..� ARENOFPROPOSERRP=31,247SF 'I L 1 3 RP BOUNDARY Si-/ oo, c .. PROPOSED pia qNQ RRIOpR CJ . ___ - ____, fgSf q„Nq , y ,� NqN� T ' '' , ,, CIll 1 RffK V „// , E.1':_]0 -_ • 2014-126 RP ADJUSTMENT • DESIGNED: BDG SHEET: 2 3 DRAWN: BJS ='t1�-t a.. 1 C 1.. 1107 Yates Street SCALE: t"=40, ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING T"LS., R.1E.,Section 10DD,TL 1300 1\1 DATE: September,2017 PO Box 139b 503/481A822 Lake Oswego,Oregon FILE: Yates PreApp13 DATE NO. REVISION Lake me,eao,Oregonaroas Mat nay@mmmm.ml 2S 1 E 1 ODA r.:n.M '/7";"vt ur I 1 / I WETLAND AND RRESDUR4 RIPN IAN)BUFFER � I eNmmu un nrx S ' I 6 FENCE S O NLD -.. _ _ PI NI'S E(,B-y F A Is ANITTY PLANTINGS ON LOTS 1,2,387 it:.€4,„,,,,v, I ,,_-J i .G.fi1.-G1�r1r1'.f°Le1 Ll�.Gy44` A'a.C' / s.Aen�w _ ra T.,. �:. 7ti4'r il+rE`riJ+7A,i✓'lcl / °rn"".n,.r yam+, F pa. so ,.7� STLr1•'1: 6'IANDSCAPE I / lbw °a 41 .. \1 1 DUFFER ' I // 'm`"". n"rd'n"'M' E 0, do iiA r'• •ti MITIGATION TREES 1 / w 3 LANDSCAPE 1 �` TWAIN 1 / ' Pme-eneva&itt SUFFER 17 " 1 I1 DRIVEWAY t TENTATIVE1e, • I ,' I 1,LOCATION DRIVEWAY = ' / !7 +y LOCATION Q. /I ton =mew ebbwa�•.�+*..eOn*rw«N*V WWII. W i. moms ACEMENT OF : .. ( I •••••8•• � TS1 •2387 11 ;; � ..__. ._.. sir u,on . ........_......2 TENTATIVE I ,}m <?;...sue:—:•-.. :::::r........ •::] ki DRIVEWAY i Fes' TENTATIVE TENTATIVE LOCATION i ki DRMcWAY DRIVEWAY TENTATIVE ' II t •� i "'t LOCATION LOCATION DRIVEWAY ON O r O 1RP BOUNDARY_ I PROPOSED .iir 'ST1"7, li -----____ \' . 0,s07, °q.t..* *- .46 faU A.::6 .* -41;$30):474:4-4-1414',A.61P-clittitA9'41, ,„,r ,-- - -,-/, ,,,,,,-,, . Ao • „ , ,,....„,.....,,,,,,,,,,, ,, , c (1 4,,,,,,,e7rirtti;),,, .,. 45,4,-,- 7 sz'i;4'01 1:0;4 16k Aro a ...,,, __,. . . 4 . ,,,, . , •1 I 7, o o 4",„,,,,,, , ,, , ,r ,, 1 , 1 ) t cD RP BOUNDARY CD LEBETAT, +,+;1 'Delineated Wddmb wry and CArana7 NW Wake 03200 lJ ,---.Rasowoe P,INeWWR 1RPj Arw CC/ 1 .. PRDISSTIOH AREA suwwir ` cD 0 40 IA M WV**BRRAW1 p«InaW Aee,31247 d. �----+4D SCALE:1'=40 BWfer PIMA4g NMI.B7DD eF, ®WMIMM EnhaSaMENAM Wlantlnq Aron,35BU US e 'sow moo "'�-"`� tague'"°"ad`RAW BUFFER PLANTING PLAN 2014-126 (E DESIGNED: BDG 1107 Yates Street SHEEP: DRAWN: BJS .--- ---.ZZ 4r..=--tc _.. ZZC ^[� CALF: 1'=40' ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING T.2S., R.1E.,Section 10DD,TL 1300 1/1 f� ATE: September,2017 PO Box.. s03,�t.� Lake Oswego,Oregon Da FILE: Yates PreApp13 DATE NO. REVISION take 0OW041.°MO..OM. email:tnerawgCmmnimnret I I i L 6 100 MMGATION TREES; 2S I Ic: ,,A 2;Lr'I''''D 1 DOUGLAS RR 2S I E 1 ODA 1 VIVICf MO MEW OREGON ASH 1 I PLANTINGS ONO:741,2,367 SPECIES TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON SITE CONDMONS Is',I'3.1,:,..•• \ iii• I'LAMSCAPE r 7 - ..-......—.---, . r:"1 \1 471 1 jNITIGAIIONMEES I // / E2,11,1A1, LANDSCAPE BUFFER HED6E AREA I. VACCINIUM OVAATUM••HUCKLEBERRY,VOX. —\\ / / I / 2. WINTERGREEN BARBERRY-B.X STENOPHYLJA \,...4:..Locar......._7..... ._,_......,,.. [ R e[ I TL 1•00 L / / ,B li'i'1000 iii ! 1 .11:7:::,moem:.::::•::::::-:•:AccEss-:::::::::::p:.F.:k7,-:-X-1 1('/ 5400T LANDSCAPE STRIP !AMNIA AOUIEOLIUM-OREGON GRAPE,5 GAL @ 36'0.C. [ lil I .....• e.::„.....,,,X.:<•:,:.:-:,:; DRIVEWAY LOCATION P.E:1 TENTKIIVE YENIAIIVE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY TETRAIWE 1 1 >, .4'•::' LOCATION LOCATION DRIVEWAY 0 LOCATION \\ TL'/500 1 ..12.. 1-4 1: I I VS SE TOOL: R I 0, \\ -- 1.• 1 II 1RP BOUNDARY PROPOSED '- 'I--1 i e 0 1 1 • . 1 I 1 t___ , e e 1 1 0 0 -- ---- 4.NIGNSPLETRAR FENCE ---_____ WETLAND (,,,,, e AREA C 0 ----- • \ 1 e WETLAND 0 0 AREA B o 0 , I 'IL 17(,0 r 2F la 1,00 i i r ' r / 7 i.1,0:3 RP BOUNDARY / I zs........ PROPOSED / , ' C i / C I , / ' / ........-... .. i CD = 3 D 0) -s 0 40 80 I— SCALE:1.=40 SD D Ca TENTATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN 2014-126 0 DESIGNED: BOG SHEF1, 1107 Yates Street CD DRAWN: BJS .---- --.3E7L.,. ..1 . 11_,,1..31..c —,SCALE: 1"•=40' ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING T.2S.,R.1 E.,Section 1 ODD,TL 1300 1/1 DATE: Septernber,2017 POBox13,16 F5021/481.22 Lake Oswego,Oregon LtWe Oswego,Chegon 97CG5 email:tbetaeng@oomcastnet 0.) II,E, Yates PreAPIA3 DATE NO. REVISION = f ` PLANTwIH I; I I_ i 47 POTS] •?''! 'Y ,`..1_ �I SLOUGH SEDGE(CEREX OBNPT44 .Y,� ; ':rF,.:r.. '... V +��LL1 SPREAONG RUSI1 DORMS PATENS] ••S }aT EOM_ODUNT171ES,B61SIAALL FRUITED pC IES ON CENTERL E61F1 al A[MTtlF/ll rf f ' '-' +:'I e•ea wtwm /•-, TREES TO 8E REMOVED \ I 1M ' M SPECIES WSMETEq 296 WHITE OAF 3E 'rr�� M1tt ll 295 ASH ?B [V�y��1 srs ASH IT0- 0 y p i 2x� 283 WRITE OAX 38•Y j 1 % ,'..,� F'. y� 14 p �i+ Cr Sou more ORK 24' - / 1' M1` 144��1 !Y2 c55gp�� /� '� ,rl., ' 4 W4GLkS Fit 27 ��r I z 1 1Y ICS] : 94 DOUGLAS FRI ta' J CCC���777 EEE,,,:::fff 5 r 74 DOUGLAS FIR 25' M �f UNITS OF CREATION `_ la a ° 222��� 34 COUGLASAR 2r 1 � LT" er s,s904Y'4'�'ap I I 1 57 MG LEAF MAPLE r OF REW 1M1-LA[:S 5 LMIo '1-•• zve f 7T" ft.�' -- -L• a v { I rmcmm�*wr_ 59 DOUGLAS FIR f9' STORM 56YSTEM IN PP ..n,'.i 1 i� : _'�_-�__ ��"` ' W I �''� 3T9 DOUGLAS FM 50 ,�..r_ '+ DOUGLASFw lr I • •IV \� / .. t;"9. _ __ 7a. 55 OUGLaS FIR 127 WETLAND f� 001114311101100400u . I L. f J-`�4 ;111 t . __ �:7.;� im ' / RINtl Aadr�I 21 - 592 BIG LEAF MAPLE 12' 1 J y�..�._ i.: •L.13 1.wiwcadlrmsr a,aar ' r 7 u \. �� -may /� - 1 ��yy `R iRE �_$1_.___. `sa7 P4UGLM14 FIR 2A' 6s, RID LFJFMAPLE 15. 5 7� a .�,p V _ _ C: i �' F17�' q 373 NOT A TREE W' ' ,Ir----,W a¢—aI__. ` + % ,_„� sip' 29 M9 LEAF MAPLE i. r ▪ t3 4 47 RIG LEAF MPP E Bs -_ .' ■I © 1 5 �.. `r E ti S 42 WHITE OArc $ . i' ^f++� ri r__]Y ' 6 } 45 WHITE OAR 15.5 /- 'Y' ``y`^1 1 1 s� C ` 43 ERG LEAF MAPLE P c g 1 D I -6i 6 1 I 23S ASH 14.s MfRGAT1ON AREA FOR STORM fs qq v B3 RIGLEAF MAPLE iv' I' ,r�' 1 3 a z I P P ED I .z �� ' I I e NAME tiax to ?IPA LINE IN RP BUFFER Fir 7y �_, P n .L_ L4tir PLUM 22 WHIT as. SCALE: 1' = 10' T f W �- r _ q:y_.. r 896 WHITE Cox wr *'=oak.11.� - r1,1 --If • • 7s'j 1 1 TOTAL 27 1i Cl.. i q E r. 6y�a ,. , "e _ yap — __�p��j� -_a •• i �C2 j.e-`7+ ... ,. yiETLAN[] `� • fi:Yl'� ~` _, ° I 1-_Y 'w 7d - I�Y _ I 2��C 1 1 --- EL2� I! k RER « 9 T ' -9;Lll T' "w �-�J � _ f m r410ENAI9 Q' 1, 4 • • •• •WETIANG 1- were ' I ; •_" II il'InE I 1 4 - -I_ 0_�f_r.7 Y• P 3T7 LJ U' i_ ... r It _ s l MIN snllAA.1POE --y ��--- _ _- 8 .. wETuwo ® _� L • RP BOUNDARY AREA c 1 I, PROPOSED � � ` A - I • CIRCLED TREES: POOR,VERY IT POOR,HAZARDDOUS OR C DEAD PER ARBORIST REPORT. C OC -1 P do Ho CD CD SCALE:I'-.3 X a) TREE PRESERVATION AND REMOVAL PLAN 0 2014.-126 ir- C DESIGNED: 41J0 51.1 DRAWN, eJS T Z� -i .3 R :L G T a1C1 O7 Yates Street s"° T : i".m HMULNPRR1HQ - sURVLYRR - ,,ANNIING 1•�+5.,�.1 G.,Section 100d,IL.7 300 61� V DATE Sepreommr,20i7 Po04^+ = Lake Oswego,Oregon 2)rFILE: Y2k+PwM➢13 DATE NO. REVISICA Ir.o..,epa 0nlx�41Rr[ u�me y..>err xaa•.• M •• ,' , rb, .1_____,1 TL 4,,,;‹, ..*)'.1,.1.0.0,,,, : y I,.zom ,f2/,I.,1 50e i", . -1 st,,,,1,Z MA v i I" ,''....-.1. " •,,A p • :I t , w , ai 1 ff 1004 TL.,000 T,(.,,V0 . c"..., IJ'.•il rt.,Dtl 1.'7' e•5 i E 100A , !,%.' 1--,( i• l . 'g i ,, a Ei'H,:Ca., ';',Y; '4,, --5...-.„, _ - 5.,_- , S „.1.,,,,, ,... ..., /,,, - „ , r—"Ir' ,.. ,.f-'6........ . ' __--L, 11 ..' 1 •••• ?-, '--11 , 1 .t,.......-........ -,if 1 .V i I 1 r— 1 r , ,.......,,,-.„ 1.„„ /''. ' ... '-; 11 l'H `- ‘ •! RI I 1.' .•'''''; ''., '.••;;41 1,,1 ''/i--E.,•',ti 0; II.•+EE., ' , • \-1 ELt.„_:._.„,:y__',--- AJ • i ..E.t IF:11,,,n1 15.-( TL 11.00 I I ,7,,/ P:i.:6'Ofr,?' +--a.- , -I -, --.-- ,...- 42 1 i $a /.-- .. 1.,``• 1 , T--r -— 11----I,....-- —71 To.,,, _..„._h , ............., „ , a 40 80 A ' 6 rlflo., : 't z. : , -' 1 .. '. 1 1 I rt.i 5,,,,,, , , -f, I , i ,..'5 .\,-)rtaf i N,, :,.. I -I \,\ SCALE:I'a 48 An+r:I or.* ior' - 1 1 ,' ' ''--..:-.L1--,;s,( r — k.,6. ,,,, L .--yr "---.... --) III i-RP BOQN_D_ARY!_ .......,-f-_,, ,,, _ ....,_..... , t,z. PlICIPOrD ' ,„, „....... ., _ i , _ ' ao.,-' - eg,-1 L-t--t', - - ---- - / 1-1 LANDSCAPE PON) 1 .........111111.."..% _ -,,.• __: --;-''-'''."-.• 1 , 'OPEN'SP ACE ',-- --1 - a4-- -^-4...-- / ..-- , -". • r ,....,.... ,..f,_ „Ir....21 .......„.... .-., . : TRACTA:::(:.1 ti------ 1..,. .-.- ...._.) _,:r.,-. , , . _,_--_-: -----:- ---;.. ,..- -_lay ,IE,D0,,,, 1 , "-Th ;'-. ' ,-----:•?,17". -.......,..;;-+,:77--:-,•:;;.:- .:.:':- -';.:- -;:-.!'-'-."-:t('i , ,..,, ,v.—pRcEnpEROR FENT,.CENET WAL-TRELAANI5' . ('''' r. " '', '".....-17,r:.--..-:---..Z:,..t. ird ..i.."-ST:,' ':::-:';,,`-'n,1i' I:,',,,I.;;. , \ J '' / 20 10 /3. I r- [ \ EL 250.0 I'. ' "--',,' •.,i j'''''' .::2:„ le gts-D4 :::.:-,,Ivez, ' /'..'', -:--..,:,. ._t-.---•Lt- 258± RETNNING WALL II i i„'‘-'• ,,, ....,,,,......,...„ ,.._PER.E.Q.-W4043:11:>': 'T ..‘„41,j -• ' ::/.7;it. I 1 rOR14 WATER ?,, 13 LOT I ::k:`,:. :.::".:::-.. K,...,-"..."''•--7.-' --..:''..:,::` : '''''.1 .,-."'; Y'',.7., --0 2., '1 ,r— LINED PLANTER ,54, ,„..:+*-7„ 4,:..--- ,;..........-*---\-....„ ,,, , ' ..- ' N ' `•-.....L.1 POND EL 25120 li...1 nV EL 255.1i 0: 8'mEDiula ',(,•• i r CHOKER—----___ . IT DRUNROCK , 25012 .y,;4,i RP BOUNDARY stp , .e.E IE 1555 PROPOSED Fi I ....--.....-.......... ro PERI PPE 'INI,C4t''''''419.1 1E 250 25 , e4 44,e, W 1 -.------.. . / °^Q."4S?E1 4'. .....................1 1 -.. •--. ; I RETAINING WALL SECTION El , , .............., , , u, . SCALE l''. 10' HORIZONTAL m Ii.,IH.EI ' 24 1t;'4,01.) .......... ' r/ Co 1 W ' 1"a 5'VERTICAL i ' 8 • --- , c) . /..___..... a : : , „......... ....,,, ,I < I , al GRADING PLAN .......... , ____....... SHEET: 2014-126 ESIGNED: BOG DRAWN: BJS .-111—'31E-31...bl -II . 41._,,. .C.- ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING 1107 Yates Street T.2S.,R.1E.,Section 10DD,TL 1300 Lake Oswego,Oregon 5/6 (1.,SCALE: r=4II POE.1.5 the comes,.net Lae caaaro.0.0a.0,.. TATE: September,2017 DATE NO. REVISION ILE: Yates Pn8App13 U. = RM:2f3.97 /, IE(5)2/1.]4,8• - � 51NG IE(N)241,34,8' i 1 IDE•PPEuh ` II lER ERIM:XISTING LOeflt OVERFLOW T025].5 ���,// IE(M)24275,6' eY 'py,y `li \E70STNG STM CBJ - EASnWC 55 C8 .. • .. .\..................................._.,.....2S0 RIM:251.77 RIM:257.35 I ........................._. IE(E)&9:87,B' 1 IE(�250.92,B' ,,,,I 821E e I STM•Sm0.62i 3 ..........................__...._..._.._.___. _. OVERFLOW:253,0 a".SIM 1f2 _._..-____.._..........90........................ IE OUT 250.10 5,0. 1 51M MN 2-1 5A.OF0287 37M-2 RET • 'T:,.9,90 STA.1+45.49,5TM•2 ', �\ tE 2f8.80 0 40 ( n 1 +• ;;7 3S",ttl:"i,y 1012 I RIM:2582 1 1 6'1 1 qUT 24B4e l .....1 SCALE I' /0 : RI OT255 SAN MN ;1,;:vck+ :.� :............................... .......................... 49.66 L........,. .................................,....,..................... ._.._........-............. RIM:256.55 ' 1+00 IF.^L TO ' IE(5)24035,e' so4 IE 9t,,n •n,r ',lot'';. �•.W��- ....... .i'1,,loDA 1/ F.(N)248.]5.B' ( EXISTING SAN MN 57M CONiRM MH 2-2 J I Irl 2 0+ ...Y. ...- r - x m 4E2o sTA 1+7s49,sTM-2 STORM DRAINAGE PROFILE fill) ......_ . i ram:2553 ,__._.- �.. r ' I Imo.2 E.N 249,ea EXISnNC 51M® O��,T RELAY 1NE FROM MH ---_.._.._.__ 5`xk4� ¢ IE(N)212.15,B' SCALE: 1" = 45' HORIZONTAL 054N I^. ,� ',4.n2.<D IE OUT 249.88 1" = 5'VERTICAL IF.(E)25].19,a' 'rt 1.0.9 /1 „e rl:14976. EXISTING SNI CO C 4 ,"%Sl l 1F'1 •PVC 1 I / /1 STA Oh00.00,5AN :.<.Y7f)A IE 250,55 RIM:257.6e v CONNECT TO DOSnNC 4-INO1 WA7ER )(I i •.••.•.................C.... { E16snNc GRADE AMD IIICTB:ASE TO 6-61aE5 i ,,., ' / 260�„=`" ----- `•' RNI41 GRADE O PIPEUNE . / NEW 6'W M TO COINER TO ' MING Wean PUBLIC WATER I I p I r \_ __._ 1 1.. ^ / /u47 Ron BOLLARD 15Y01 LF 6•4 5TM 0 S-0.S! T G uQIntIG(4 PLACES) n.811f ia. SAN MN J 2O,0p lF 8'15T MN 1-2 m ', SAN MN 1 STA.2h0200,SAN VI/ �p-SS Oy0OM:259262SiN-i ''� r 5rA Oh7iCA,5N11.I. ® /3 , ...._...__._ ._._._,.__..._._..._._..1E.41.25194._____._... '-_ 250 IE OUT 2ET.]41 TF;410 /s/ �51M YN 1-1 I SI4 CB t-7 I 2;s 1E tO1+L= r ) STA. STA.1+00.00,STAR-t 49063.SMII 1� . _ / •^ STA.O+BU,00.SIIFt :2591 Pow 225E03 I 1 ( ® 26.31 V B ET p ,' _ k E.2A2 E.N253.51 IE.OUT 254.70 if e'WET( ` i 1 E.air 251.31 1 ir--- ;® ®I DATUM BLEV �� 411 3+00 �- ��-� CATO-M.9N I 245.00 1+00 $'(M-� 2+00 1 I I STORM DRAINAGE PROFILE® s I t SCALE: 1" = 40' HORIZONTAL z9...UNED I ( 4 , 1"= 5•VERTICAL PLANTER I 5 1`•--PUNTER BOX1'!..3 kpVl APPRO%ILOT(aa1.EroEx: - .. ® g Fa1EAaL0r(Tw.) ,---� 1 .� �3fi /`' 1I i I 'm4 W I RP BOUNDARY r_1 --� fN85H CHIDE OPIPE CFNIERUNE lit.PFF- I 1PROPOSED,` .' ( _._E.__P _ GRADE 9 PIPE GEN -.. OPEN SPACE I 1 I I TRACT B ;, =i"-- f _ ,S TL,uP11 ( -„-, ----' -__ IDEA _..__,.._.___.._...'--- .,....__ c;i":EiPJATEi WETLAND 1 SMIpE' - •"__°n rf RIPRAP ENERGY DISSIPATER l em I -_ AREA C WSTRUCn°N. ' / le 1 xwv: . -.� /., 4 Ezsnxc ' WETLAND R EXISTING WETLAND REA: =-- --- s.o ex __.._._ ...._ .I PER UUNDDA AREAS ��'I--•_• 'I EwsTuw sul MN 1 250 ° g� 6.y,,,0 1 7 tE tr SAq--' RP ' r-' RIM:256.55 ^= -'- .....- .... 129J1 V SAN STA.2N07 1E(5)24BA5, ,Ap,39 If e'SAN Sa.0.6% SAN MH A + .DD,SAN ` ��� I if_(N)24E35,a- D05TNC SAN CO-- RM:25BIf7•$AN IE 011T 75OJ2 , �r ��, I STA.0+00,00,SAN IE IN 2N.5B \ RIM:237,59 E WT9W.38 lel { 7G.ITOCF DA7'Ud/miry [IN))250.2E K k5i TF.loco N'aNcmml6 24. O0 TO BE RpgYED0+00 1+00 2+00 m 1,•�.. SANITARY PROFILE 1 eiax O ( RP BOUNDARY sA74:40' �, SCALE: 1" = 40' HORIZONTAL "O1' PROPOSED i pe,_,qypO��� / 1" = 5' VERTICAL UTILITY PLAN 2014-126 ' 1107 Yates Street SHEET: DESIGNED: BDG T1ING - to_ 11 NG T,2$•,R.1 E,Section 10DD,TL 1300 4/6 ✓r-t DRAWN: BJS - - SCALE: i"a 40' ENGINBENING SURVEYINGPLANNING Lake Oswego,Oregon PO Bm,13 S .444:1ABi2 TT DATE: September,2017 PO pM9o,O,.9m 4,034 uw:ene�ea.9®m•rsetr'el lJ DATE NO. REVISION FILE: Yates PreAPP13 I�7o.a X a00' ,_ . 1i._.......,,..__�_.___._..._. .__.__.._ ___.....__.. ._._.. HIGH POINT STA 0+47.76 h � . iv. o PN STA=0+32 PN ELEV=260.00 Tis"64 ._.._._ ' _._._ 2SL1 TDff i';F+__-- -___--- laLt^0!_f)Fl. .._,_..� I i 270_.___.. ._ .....-. 60.00'VC.'__.__... —_ .I 2$'E'SODA _— .1_______.___�.. �, �� E!�" .___�..._ �__..____'_"'-' RNI GRADE 0 lER �; y',! ;Nalco 9 E 2Tl 1M,11 g4 iE 1DDA 1 / /� 14 14 1 '!'i.G,^DO I FDGE OF EW6TNC l':'fOJ�4 W Q I PAVDAENT / 261E100A, tx. )' 1' _,.(... 260i_ �_ -- _ , rC:. ..1 11 l / WNTABLE Y,e �..., `, ._ .. /l\i____ /I I I N WNTPBIE 1 ___- .. -- I F1, A / D.Re U1RB Id,;� I 3 // I f 1 — STA QMDO,DO, !. y i ENTRANCE 1 1 // STREET SECTION y g`a 14'-f-1 \,i I END PANEYENT I SCALE: NTS 8 $ 4 i+ STA 0+80.72•o ENTRANCE 1 26'PRIVATE N 1 BEGIN PATHWAY4E11, $ :,pR g1 , .g s l l I . ^, / T � 1,N Ft ET fn AO6SS MIME ,5'-fi ., J— 1 /STA.2+2291,�. ,—... <...�•.-.._ - _._......._�__�._._ ST0.O+OO.DD.@ LEG y STA.1+46.29,f rl.,nOD MATCH i 1 --1 - --- I f I DATUM EL&Y I ,! - �' j,,;`«i::'» 245.00 00 1+00 [ s B' r ENTRANCE END PAVEMENT 15' it 6 e ' 4 I 1 i CENTERLINE PROFILE 1 STA.1+37.72 l0 TL�F,,,, 1 1 5 1 „A 1E126n _ _y o ___A SCALE: 1" _ 45'VERTICAL SCALE.16=40 STORM WATER I i RP BOUNDARY_i TRACT gg< PROPOSED I 11 r.---- 1__..--_ _ -- i +�`/ __ T`_0 1 I-- __.___._� __"-�_ "EJ(I511NG GRADE OGENTERIINE , OPEN SPACE 1 o Ti U •I _F--`--_--� TRACT B _---I/jf- 2 251, 60 L_--._._._. _•_ _�.._.__..L1 FlNISHIIgt 9CFNIQiONE _` 1 0 1 WETUIN [ I \ - 1 ! EXISTING wETurvD , RP BOUNDARY AREA6 /...—EA'D II I . ._. .._...N _.. - _--� --- __ •I PER LU 1 BOUNDARY (F'11011111) I'- i•-'-•--`--...- hi ' i V ky "< F r I ' 'iL1T00 1 rr ! 2501 -$g ......,._____.. .._..___...._.----$ '----__.__..1_ e'om_ gi 'La 1[1GL,D i.�.._..._._. 3. �.__.._. 1 O $.i,YH. xd �� - II IT ( r F Gd 1 ay rn 1 Tt 1203 RP BOUNDARY s sa0• I I I C z:,;E.DC`D PROPOSED �ft Cq� N DA77JM EL6V ___—.._..__..,J..___._..__. _._.__._______ i.__.-- .. N41 ,3 GE- !, 245.00 0+00 LEG OFF ENTRANCE 2+00 "'''�MY' , , w CENTERLINE PROFILE 411 U SCALE 1" = 40' HORIZONTAL _`I! to ' _ 1" = 5'VERTICAL YJDIJ - _ W ... Z ,% = `° STREET PLAN AND PROFILE 2014-126 1107 Yates Street SHEET: Q DESIGNED: BDG r_�-•._- - - a Z SCALE. BJS T.2S.,R.1 E.,Section 10DD,TL 1300 3/6 SCALE: 1'=40' ENGINEERING SURVEYING 1.11UNNING Lake Oswego,Oregon PO Box 1345 e�OBt$8]2 0 DATE: Se9�mEer,2D17 LE.Oswego,Oregon 97035 n:gang®comost. ~' FILE: Yates PrOAppl3 DATE NO. REVISION CD CD) W 25: v S2 ''z'* Ill ' 'l— r -sErB I S3 �s� _ Nfi —I N 3 254,04 2S X -' r-- SETBACK I i v \i 1) / °I 1 I 1 1 4\17 /� /f�// r :258 I •r l rn 1 vj I I�� ��1 i 2 4 co 259 1 I FR NT N� h F NT p tihh <, 0/_____ 4'S 1 CD ,,, i <'° ,s, , „, -...---- 2 Ni 1 R T 1 FRONT h a 1 -I 1 1-15-1 -I I -- - - -N L ti5� I I I I 260 ; :� ; iimi 25b 4 Q I Oh 1 I EXISTINc� r III I 5 _ l HOUS1 I l <o' �259�li i 1 I ti h� I SETBACK _j ♦ 5� N T:),_ I • �h� I ,•OPOND •Y 1 �— — —_I I A- — I 254 �JJ ,n _ ---fir 111"1 )-- --- I ' --- -v - -I 25151 �r4 �; —— - . ry`� 51 / 250 -r41 �• 255 ,�,51- i '') EruwD = �� i AREA:iT. \ : POND :• "#- -.� 1°` `1r/ b a • 1 'ND/�REA B�\ II zsa i•> '66// ,easF ',,1�2a �� fi / • �. `r- 259 -,1�e 56 1 x, _ �_.244 259 SB-- -- 258 'S ✓�,,- lIt 1 4 2e0 �259 &ilk , "' 5 N tied �51 It 263 '267 �'1-c0°. . �. i1 zs ti� ci e4 /63 2 RP BOUNDARY i Ip k, it I PROPOSED i ' I N i I I Color Range Beg. Range End Percent Area ❑ 0.00 20.00 89.2 80851.07 20.00 50.00 10.0 8571.65 50.00 200.00 0.8 654.00 SCALE: 1" = 50' 2014-126 TOPOGRAPHIC BY CENTERLINE CONCEPTS SLOPE ANALYSIS "--K-- 4,-__.:-- .am_ 1 C 1107 Yates Street ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING T•2S•, R•1 E., Section 10DD, TL 1300 PO Box 1345 503/481-8822 Lake Oswego, Oregon Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 email: thetaengr@comcast.net E-012 Slope Analysis Project: Type: Prepared By: Date: Driver Info LED info Type: Constant Watts: 5W Current 3000K 120V: 0.1A Color Temp: (Warm) 208V: 0.06A Color 87 CRI Professional Grade LED Bollards compliment any pathway or 240V: 0.05A Accuracy: landscape design_Low profile 5W Square LED comes in Cool, 277V: N/A L70 100000 Warm and Neutral color temperatures. Bollards come in 18, 36 Lifespan: and 42"versions input 5W Watts: Lumens: 128 Color: Bronze Weight: 7.7 lbs Efficiency: 96% Efficacy: 25 LPW E0013 Cut Sheets and Specifications for Pathway Lighting Page 1 of 3 Technical Specifications Listings Color Uniformity: Finish: UL Listing: RAB's range of CCT(Correlated Formulated for high-durability and Suitable for wet locations Color Temperature)follows the long lasting color IESNA LM-79 &IESNA L.M-80 guidelines of the American National Anchor Bolt: Standard for Specifications for the Testing: Chromaticity of Solid State Lighting The anchor bolts for the BLED's RAB LED luminaires and LED (SSL) Products, ANSI C78.377- have the following dimensions 1/2- components have been tested by an 2017. 13 x 12 114"long with 2 314"hook. independent laboratory in Electrical. Green Technology: accordance with IESNA LM-79 and -- — -- LM-80. Driver: Mercury and UV-free. RoHS LED Characteristics Multi-chip 5W high output long life compliant components. Polyester LED Driver Constant Current, Class powder coat finish formulated without Lifespan: II, 120V-240V, 50/60 Hz, 400mA the use of VOCs or toxic heavy metals. 100,000-hour LED lifespan based on Construction IES LM-80 results and TM-21 - Other calculations Housing: Warranty: Color Temperature(Nominal Precision die cast aluminum housing, RAB warrants that our LED products CCT): lens frame will be free from defects in materials 3000K Mounting: and workmanship for a period of five Lumen Maintenance: 18" Bollard (5)years from the date of delivery to the end user, including coverage of The LED will deliver 70% of its initial Cold Weather Starting: light output, color stability, driver lumens at 100,000 hours of Minimums e r re i performance and fixture finish. RAB's operation -40°C (-40 �� uu Meets and ftgififat 3 piE,PIii VK@yrleighting Color Consistency: conditions found at Maximum Ambient 3-step MacAdam Ellipse binning to Temperature: Equivalency: achieve consistent fixture-to-fixture Suitable for use in 40°C (104°F) Equivalent to 13W CFL or 60W color ambient temperatures Incandescent Color Stability: Gaskets: Buy American Act Compliance: LED color temperature is warrantied High temperature silicone RAB values USA manufacturing! to shift no more than 200K in CCT Upon request, RAB may be able to over a 5 year period manufacture this product to be compliant with the Buy American Act (BAA). Please contact customer service to request a quote for the product to be made BAA compliant. Page 2 of 3 Dimensions Features 5' 12.7 cxn High output LED } 100,000 hour life 5„ Superior heat sinking with die cast aluminum 12 7 cm housing • Meets ADA Requirements 7.6cm 16' 45 7 cm • 2.25' 5,7 cm E0013 Cut Sheets and Specifications for Pathway Lighting Page 3 of 3 BLED5-1 8Y- RAB Lighting Page 1 of 3 IES File tldownloadsfiesllsi27623.les} i LM79(fdownloadsllm79lbied5y-wpled5y-sied5y-Isi27623.pdf) 1 Instructions(/downloadsfinstructionslbled5s.pdf) Spec Sheet(ispecsIBLED6-1BY) BLED5-18Y High output LED 100,000 hour life Superior heat sinking with die cast aluminum housing Meets ADA Requirements View Technical$pew:s) PERFORMANCE EZ-LAYOUT DIMENSIONS Watts 5W Type Constant Current Color Temp 3000K(Warm) 120V 0.1A rr Lumens 12B 20SV 0.06A Efficacy 25 imNW 240V 9.05A Color Accuracy 87 CRI 277V E0On Cut Sheets and Specificatns draw Lighting L70 LiFespan 100,000 hours Input Watts 5W Creak Custom Lr�lii 0 Lav>ur ) flepath=limageslproductllargeLinelbled5- 16 2.png) Weight:7.7 lbs c U L u s S TED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Listings UL Listing Suitable for wet locations IESNA LM-79 Si IESNA LM-e0 Testing RAB LED luminaires and LED components have been tested by an independenl laboratory in accordance with IESNA LM-79 and LM-80. LED Characteristics Ldespan 100,000-hour LED lifespan based on IES LM-80 results Top and TM-21 calculations Color Temperature(Nominal CCT) 3000K https://www.rablighting.com/product/BLED5-18Y 7/2/2018 CY) C op J co L c6 0_ RAB. O (I) Lel G LJGHTING N G o �—..,s c • LUMINAIRE co PP ARRANGEMENT I LAYOUT r EU 2 @ 180 deg.+ 1 Poletop - Q J Radial Arm : 0 ft 73 C ca Cn Cols{X) Rows tY) a) — a) Layout: 1 1 -C Spacing: 1 20 ft 5 � Mounting 0 ra--ii Mou g Height: 3.5 ft co Wrj,—','I Orient: -..0 -.. deg c) Tilt: 0 deg U.I Luminaire Location Summary LV ISOLINES 1 ■ DISPLAY V ANALYSIS ■ UNITS Add V OUTPUT I HELP 1 1 \ i -<' + '+ Q`'BR�1EftS.T `=`` r ` - SOUTH OWEGO PLAT NO.79 . YATEW. ;J. ,�i l = e i .. J ''../J v }E�. ' TL'1.300` ti TL 1400 8 Lis J `r..f ! f' J 1 I ..-. TL 1500 d v ' f `"" ✓ j` - 1 L3:- (,..- = I t tr ./ / 1 ? L4 = 400 Cam. t C1 \ 1 .. \ ,4 L8 L$ LB. i L7 1 a�wp /� �[ 1 r `'AR - -. - i EA �j T L 1700 - COMMENCEMENT TL 1203 PARTITION PLAT 1996-54 I CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA C1 38.07 54.40 33.02 49.89 N85°17'42"W 81°52'51" C2 30.00 29.44 16.03 28.27 N82°59'241W 56'13'27" C3 25.00 24.09 13.07 23.17 N88°12'32"E 55°12'46" C4 30.00 22.57 11.85 22.04 N871512"E 43°06'02" C5 8.00 8.21 4.51 7.86 N37°4024"E 58°48'40" SCALE: 1" =60' LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING UNE LENGTH BEARING Li 17.09 NO2°22'331W L14 19.74 571°11'56"E L2 104.45 NO2°22'33"W L15 21.80 N65°42'01"E L3 21.54 S89'39'291W L16_ 19.88 S82°25'58"E .� L4 88.62 S63°46'39"W L17 14.82 S3212'13" TEREk3 L5 41.69 S77°33'101N L18 11.79 S60°44'1,"E O F E S)O.t A L6 5.47 S39°04'32"W L19 111.62 N82°12'281 I LA 0 SL,R ' l L7 28,33 N841212"W L20 5.78 N08°16'04 18 6.86 N63°27'29°W L21 , 22.81 N67°04'44°4 MP L9 24.38 N8713'364W i ;+1s �' ` L10 19.55 S68°53'52"W 1 OREGON L11 64.10 931°31'57"E 4uts 12. 1968 L12 41.79 S64°11'05"E BRUCE 85GOLDSON L13 6.94 N60°36'09"E EXPIRES: 06/30/2017 $ //S-/l 7 s RP AREA: DELINIATION BY TERRA SCIENCE,INC. TOPOGRAPHIC BY CENTERLINE CONCEPTS EXHIBIT B s 28,186 SF RP DISTRICT BOUNDARY 2014-126 LAKE OSWEGO FILE LU 16-0043 ri - 1107 bates Street SE 1/4 Section 10,T.2S.0 F .1 E.,WM 1 E- NGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING Clackamas County PO Box 1345 503/481-6 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 email:theteeng®comcagt•ret Lake Oswego, Oregon f C-014-Dclirle Cd FFP Di': r - LL H k I , Z ' 1, CD mi C of ? 300.8' PED N 83°52'45"E b• ACCESS 30'0 9,570 S.F: p r 30R oz STREET PER 51-01 300.T 55 3 M 553' No }YIN ' I- n,z 54.3' I MD ,. I ce. g ,-,1• E Q ! A _� ,--k=.-- f/ak 5'-'(`''N r--——'-1 r— 5'�y l s 1 a l I - ,c 6,154 9:F..(' / I' 2 l/10,14 n 9�a1 I ! WITH .V I 3 'co I 4 N 'r- TL 1400 4 1 al 5) 1 FLAG N I 8so5s.F. ' o0 o N I I f475 S.F. ;F L 6,808 S F .I I r -- 1 I 1 8,824 S.F. 1 1 I I '" ' r 18,246 S.F. I L——.J ` L-— :J L——4{J J o __J 25, �` 1— M f EASE rr I x a¢ a< a< ?. 1 �w o,w �.,w i 80.0' ¢ 55.0' stix 55.0' stx L _I °' 1 cc TL 1500 STORMbVATER �--- I 1_% �—30 /�� a¢ ... / FACILITY% —_ FRONT. 65 I REA,F ' 56.0' ,-' —� V i `�` 9,575 S.F. I TL 1600 1s50� i •''\• OPEN SPACE Z L AREEAAC • / TRACT' ' 1 \•*/•> �•. /•• ... •�• \•_. �. ' - • RP BOUNDARIEl7 yVETLFiND•\ WETLAND• PER LU 46-0043 AREA B ,-A • , j AREA A TL 1700 - N B3054,41' TL 1203 I- -- z 1 w TL 1800 w --- w cn c 1 W 1 U m ZONE: 7.5 SCALE: 1" -+ 60' ¢ 1 pri , 201 t C I AREA: 2.08 AC DELINIATION BY TERRA SCIENCE, INC. ALTERNATE (2) yr 3 2014-126 TOPOGRAPHIC BY CENTERLINE CONCEPTS PRE-APPLICATION LAYOUT 0 ■ �Z - 1 1 4/ 1107 Yates Street a ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING T.2S., R.1E., Section 10DD, TL 1300 til PO Box 1345 503/481-8822 Lake Oswego, Oregon Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 email: thetaeng@comcast.net I v s E-01 5 Pre- Application Development Alternatives LL ....:1- (.0 ,,. • ' 1 Z i-: \,',---E'L'J-‘‘, co 1' PI' --- < 300. '›- ! .•--_, 7 4'S.F. 2— 7J11 - _,.I \FR3— ONT 7,527 S.F.I cc6 \ , 3991 S.F. ,.. c.n , 4? , ',., - '/ ". '--- -, ) • 1 ' -- -, ‘ _i I\ ckCOC -2 's ' 'JO - 'I-'C — 5' /1' (\* 15 VAS.--,,,-,--- .-", f L--_-_-: i TL 1400 -i-' ,•=2 .;.-. \ i I `I -t s , ' \ 1 \ . ' I I- • , 3,149 S.F. r.: b : , -89.2 _\ - '-----' 0 I, ./ \.• T.'---• - ' )-,, .\ -,' ' - ' 1-- I 1 .771 I.- -, . ' I-87 I- 48 4' r, 59.e. 7''''' 4 ' ,--:_=:- .. 30 / ----- ' I ' - z • cr,Z ' 25'. I . 1-- O c., - I ....,1 8,246 S.F. ,- i, 1 -, _.FRoNT A ' 1 :-REAR '., •f r- '4 I '• II"°' , -I 8 821 S.F. \ ill - 1 7,206 S.F. 1 1 '7-tiov- - I ' 15'EASE. ,i' A' l'10',/-1 ' 1 rf? 1, i',-.. I '--, . 52 CV oriruC 6 1 k •:,-- ir -1 1 , , /1 5' 1_ N. ,.. L.--.."-__..„.., E1)1 80.7' -- ; /1), la g 6 TL I ED i : 5 ...... : ..„-- ----- , - - --- ,, _---- ' .r- ....,,,..,,, t--,:•:' 1 . - b " - • -x ,,, =-1, ,- -- 'i:t ------:: -_7-:--- --',',:- x,__---' z : I i WETLAND es-<.. AREA c . -'477171.,_. . ..____, - .5 . -- ::-:„„--.,•,, _„,:_ -- „.„---:--:=,i-—_-_-:_-_.--,----. '-*-._-___I-:;..,, I -, r,...,,- 1,. .., 1- -, -: *t.7-aL---",=7:-...:__,2- ''" .'",-' •--- ......':--„,--_11- =7--__!_: -. .. ' 'i i' ',., ---' , „--. ,„..._,:, ,., _!..-7-7. , 7-- . -,>"7-. ,..17-_--,. \ -- •)'' 1‘ 1;,' /. '7',, -\ \ ',‘.,-:—.--- --=-• -',,,,_ ,I i ___,; ',4 ")*',fi-7 (--!---iiiiEtLiiND '-- ',.... 4-''''':- ''-'-N -- '. RP-BOUNDAR1ER__.:vvAckAPtpl:.‘Th4z.4. . -.17,. -_-.--- . , .... ,_. N 83°54'41"E TL 1700 1 (Pk TL 1203 1- . „„„.... z LU __--- i LU TL 1800 0 LU --- U) U) LU CD 0 ZONE: 7.5 SCALE: 1" t 60' a 1 1 b 1 1 co 1 Ma-rch,-2017 I esi AREA: 2.08 AC DELINIATION BY TERRA SCIENCE, INC. ALTERNATE E- 2014-126 TOPOGRAPHIC BY CENTERLINE CONCEPTS PRE-APPLICATION LAYOUT 'D. o. _. _ , 1107 Yates Street ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING T.2S., R.1E., Section 10DD, TL 1300 PO Box 1345 503/481-8822 Lake Oswego, Oregon Lake Oswego Oregon 97035 email: thetaeng@comcast neE_O 1 5 >- Pre- Application Development Alternative v s 5. LI. TL 5200 r ' 2S 1 E 10DA •• I EXISTING OR REPLACEMENT OF / I / WETLAND AND PROTECTED RIPARIAN AREA 6' FENCE AND HEDGE / �� BUFFER PLANTING SPECIES,TYPE AND QUANTITY ::::� PLANTINGS ON LOTS 1, 2, 3&7 / �������� I X� Common Name Scientific Name Plant Size Quantity 1 r r rr / Trees •..•...''.r . - l�_I r r r rr1:1�1��1r1L1-2 gal. 5 lr1 1�rL1�r4r° Ix / / WeslerBigleaf MRed eCedar Thujaplicata Acer hyllum 1-2 gal. 10 •^ .•. a.,,;.!:•�� 1 O b I Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia 1-2 gal. 14 ��•'!;!. +r: + r r rr rL.rijL-r�ry L•r y� r�� �� / Western Hemlock Tsuga heterphylla 1-2 gal. 2 It' :•i:...a.4• ? : rj•• "6 .•F[.1 L 1 1i L 1 ®b x / Buffer Area(8595 sf.) rWWW ,W. / / Pro-Time PT460 Native Upland Shade Mb( seed 8lbs. 'W'W" .4;1 6' LANDSCAPE 1 YW`WW i WWW� BUFFER 1 / Buckthorn Cascara Frangula purshiana 1 gal. 35 l'W W I Douglas Hawthorn Crataegus douglasi 1 gal. 35 V"W"W I Osoberry Oemleria ceriformis 1 gal. 40 L"W"W Z �w"'t X / Snowberry Symphoricarposalbus 1 gal. 50 IX L`WWW Ct °....1 / Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 1 gal. 50 l°W"W Q MITIGATION TREES / Sword-fern Polystichum munilum 1 gal. 40 (W TENTATIVE 1 (W`WW' N DRIVEWAY 1 TENTATIVE Ix Wetland Area(3588 st.) X (****, (n 1 I (�W�W, w I LOCATION I I Pro-TimePT440 Native BioflterMoc seed 41bs. r.**.:. vDRIVEWAY I I / Slough Sedge Carex obnupta plug 300 r�WWW 0 � / Spreading Rush Juncus patens plug 50 r..W..., < - wWWWIy LOCATION b e0 X / Small-Fruited Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus plug 50 r,WWW, p WW"d Woods Rose Rosa woodsi 1 gal. 9 X r.* W W W. 1 / Douglas Spirea Spiraea douglasi 1 gal. 9 a� �_W�WWWWW 1 FWW O I I �\J. WWw `W / / Red-Twig Dogwood Cornus sericea 1 gal. 9 L"."+ W W W W W W W W / NOTE: Plantings only proposed for buffer area and Wetlands B and C. Plantings already installed in Wetland A(creek IX LWWWW CL I ;�PROPOSED ACCESS PARKING / and riparian species). No plantings proposed or invasive species removal area. (WtWWW� / WWW o o lx I IWWWW -- -� -- -� --- --�--- --�--- IX (W W. • I PLANTING NOTES I (*.v., -- 1 , - _ X I 1) The preferred plant size is at least 0.5-inch caliper material,which often translates to one-gallon container stock.All Ix TENTATIVE 1t00 xW W'W W W W W W W W W W W W W J.W W W WW.WWW.W 1 species are subject to availability and substitutions must first be approved by a qualified biologist or restoration r —"� �� zzz ,J professional. Any substitutions shall be with native plants listed on the Lake Oswego Plant List. DRIVEWAY i/' TENTATIVE TENTATIVE 1 LOCATION wWW� TENTATIVE lx 2) Buffer container stock should be planted between November 01 and Apri115. 1 DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY b O i \ If bareroot stock is used,it should be installed between December 1 and February15. Ix ^T w�W1 LOCATION LOCATION DRIVEWAY ° I 1.`WWW I• wWWj LOCATION x I I 3) Appropriate plant selection,along with adequate site preparation and maintenance,reduces the need for irrigation.To (WWW� I wWW1 aid plant survival,irrigation be necessary for a two-year plant establishment period.Watering should be a base rate of one r,..""' w"W1 I I lx 1 WWW� I Way 1 1 inch per week from June 01 through October 30. Extra irrigation dosage may be needed during periods of extended heat f..*. 4WWy b \ \ in July,August and September. I, __ (W'WW �i O Ix —— `W'— - I I 4) The use of mulch is not recommended as it often provides a medium for non-native weeds to grow and may smother x i \ \ I desirable native groundcover.Instead,weed matting is appropriate around the stem of woody stock.Should mulching be o I required per the City,the mulch layer shall be a minimum of three inches deep and 18 inches in diameter around newly I I x installed plant material. Mulch material shall be shredded bark and tree material that has not been chemically treated(no mI R P BOUNDARY garden compost). Refrain from using mulch in seasonally inundated or flowing water areas to avoid possible water O IX i 1 quality degradation due to leaching of tannins and nutrients,and the migration of mulch into waterways. (3) I PROPOSED ( 1 C % 1 Ix 5) Plant browsing is not anticipated to be problematic on this site. Should browse guards be required per the City,plant �^ I sleeves shall be install around the stems of trees and shrubs to discourage wildlife browsing and damage to foliage. Q X X 1 I I i . ��p ,. ci) r 1 1 1 1 �Q x CD ___ __ _ __ _ _ ____ _ _ _-_ 1 ♦ ♦ w1k0 .1) Q. 4 1.�_ I A P‘01 # 0 a - --_ - -- �� CD 41Ik ��� ♦ \ 4IV. _ pie ' +lop / it. `� ♦ ♦ -- c± d 0 d X / BUFFER PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE ETL'' N� I �4,10._ � � Year Timing Activity �O� r 0 Early Summer Cut and/or hand removal of invasives in riparian and buffer areas. A EA �, ♦��-�_•� ������� ' ( 0 Late Summer Spot spray or hand weed emerging invasives in subject areas. k �� �jJ a d /�.•r I I 1 Early Summer Spot tspray cti or hand weed emergingg invasives system and subject areas. CO J� • �• 1 Summer Construction stormwater treatment s stem and install outfall culvert. E •—• 1 Late Summer Spot spray or hand weed emerging invasives in subject areas. V rt / -� •_��• 0 I 1 Early Fall Hand seed or hydroseed native grasses,herbs,and forbs across wetland and riparian areas. 0 a 0 :�.> �. 1 Fall Plant native trees and shrubs across wetland and riparian areas. �_ x O° - a O° ,f •0- I,: 0 a �� t 2 Late Spring Spot spray or hand weed emerging invasives in subject areas. — Q 111111h0 a ® D • I A m �A A __ 2 Early Summer Conduct first-year annual monitoring and stem count of buffer area. x ° A : I 1 — 2 Late Summer Spot spray or hand weed emerging invasives in subject areas. = 0 • . -- X 2 Mid-Fall Supplemental seeding and replace dead plantings,as necessary. O° 0-a a 0A Oo I i 3 Early Summer Spot spray or hand weed emerging invasives in subject areas. rI a 0 • Q I 3 Spring Conduct second-year annual monitoring and stem count of buffer area. C • . rr I 3 Late Summer Spot spray or hand weed emerging invasives in subject areas. 0 a! Q �V I 3 Fall Late Spring Supplemental seeding and replace dead plantings,as necessary. O C r % 4 Spot spray or hand weed emerging invasives in subject areas. AAl4 Early Summer Conduct third-year annual monitoring and stem count of buffer area. / 4 Late Summer Spot spray or hand weed emerging invasives in subject areas. O C :) 0, C Q %' 4 Fall emove irrigation and chew guards(if used). Remove any remaining construction and/or 0 sediment fencing and trash. r ii - \ / / BUFFER PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE NOTES - r r r r I. r 1) Native vegetation within the resource protection area shall be retained to the greatest extent practicable.Preserved trees and x i large shrubs shall be marked in the field prior to cutting and/or hand-removal of invasive species(Year 0).No-herbicide spray TL 1203 RP BOUNDARY / and/or no earthwork areas should be marked with orange flexible fencing prior to construction.Contractor shall review I preservation and invasive removal tactics with qualified professional prior to implementation. 2) Invasive species removes applies to both buffer planting area and remaining open space.Initial treatments(Year 0 and 1)of invasive species via cutting or hand-removed shall be be completed prior to any planting or seeding of the site.Cut woody LEGEND material may be chipped and mulched onsite;however,herbaceous material(such as English ivy)shall be hauled to an appropriate composting facility. Sprayed vegetation that has expired shall be trimmed down and/or chipped onsite or hauled Delineated Wetland Boundary and Ordinary High Water(OHW) Protected Riparian Area(PRA) offsite to an appropriate composting facility. ��� 3) Follow-up treatments(Year 2,3,and 4)of invasive species should require less effortthan the initial year.The herbicide applicator shall exercise caution to avoid spraying planted and volunteer native species,including groundcover. Existing Trees 4) Hand seeding or hydroseeding should occur at least six weeks before plantings are installed to allow germination to occur and groundcover to begin to establish. During installation of plantings,field crews shall minimize ground disturbance,avoid leaving small dirt piles,and broadcast specified seed mixture where disturbance occurred. PROTECTED RIPARIAN AREA SUMMARY 0 40 80 Invasive Species Removal Area,19,063 sf. —�—�� -< SCALE: 1" = 40' �.S I Buffer Planting Area,8595 sf. CD Nhilli Wetland Enhancement Planting Area,3588 sf. 71 -I CD °op BUFFER PLANTING PLAN I— Buffer Area Trees,151.5-inch Bigleaf Maple and Western Red Cedar C 2014-126 O 0 DESIGNED: BDG SHEET: 03 41, DRAWN: BJS �� 1—z c� �_ 11 c 1107 Yates Street =m SCALE: 1" = 40' n�+ ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING T•2S•, R•1 E•, Section 10DD, TL 1300 1 /1 DATE: September, 2017 PO Box 1345 503/481-8822 CO DATE NO. REVISION Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 email: thetaeng@comcast.net Lake Oswego, Oregon FILE: Yates PreApp13 9 m 0 rn s■■u or ■ Pr - • r�� i Fr� ♦►=i ■ n allle Inlln:IIIlnIllrrA:lil�al l��i'L=.�� i ,��Nii��� i r ■ ■ / F111,1 r.•r a •■• �'a�,f�119tlirk�rr����� /1�'r ■� ,■■ �� rPlanning Cornmssion Reeommend�d DRAFT-October 12,2fl15 y I �l:r';'��'r N; ii ,rA1Ri�"„� _ _ �7�rw�. w 1: � ir.a■ `'rl'--';� f■rtiw��^:!��.!- �annul ■+!!f■ ram■�� �� - ��i��,� � - - 1: ..il.1" 2c r ■m ■ ■j ''+�■ r+!*.g% I ■w rlE it+/ r ■N■.1- ■ ■ Revised CYpfron RP,RC, and NBA Districts 1 r'■ ■ ► a i p>,t.rs....H ■ �I�■»!i7 liisyi-.� ► �� � I IA 'u 'gym rh-r!: •_ +■ ■. r: r, ul■■+��� �! � �� n . ► ♦ ♦ ��� !! Remover!Existing RP and RC Resources 'r114 �aza,■r , rl w ! t,.` J iir ■ � N !�i! .!; i .t% Rr � � ■ • ".. �/r: • 1l II �1��11 ■ nw■r 11 � t�l�Ir4►7~- �r■ � �. i r Lnl■ .• a rrue'.A� + a '<r'`f+{* LF1I 1 ��* ■rf i+Ri `ir: ■:6.:,„ r'4..L. +a" I ri i! 4 ■ tl• •... nni � .�, - 'i' i �;��■r i r 4III fii1 1fi-t I�74: 1114 �■ a a,,.. r ._glyr.■..�''~� ILA § ri • ri : 11 t a it i -:1 , t • Jur "� �': 1`r Ill'miff - ----�-�- rl i1■t a ■�µrr.` llik. f' " r -� �� . Nair' • pis ■; =�R1a or �� Unclassified Stream Wetland �ii. 1 L• • . -._-r1,•�• •: .:'rs�,�■raf 14r.+ $e. I • 'f! �. -- -- =■ �: IIf11l 11 1=-i-_- F j..._• __� ligi fr [� l ,: I�ri'r.-r3 r1^7 ::-.!`.�_ ■1 mums , t r. �- r.. .r, _y'� k- .. h• ^� _ f - ,.� 1 i r �� W option 2 Protection INN al. fT I - �� l::l�_2� �.�ne17 a �_ Tin;r C r' �! \ • `..-. ';: �� ►y n f�.a a 1��- N. r F 1. -. !J�C1`�Fij■■ Pamir- Il ■. i:!rr rriiu' % 9nr l+ R w �� ���1` •r■ ® �� t + _ gp tCJ _irll!■�®■ � uran C' Al.•.+ .i U All;it i, 9irii��► .ri lir: 7Pnt t�-r 1 iJ1 �ilri qi'rllil!�l`!�■llM1e! +ei'•1,4►•�� 9®,rr rfeY ;. .��� �_� 1 ��- t 'RP �.>A"■ 1� irr. r■■'r�na h =�iNrw{ t�_'A 1 ,,rf`leu i .s r .i ■llrlrift ■ '�.� an_ �` . ���� Adjacent RC added to RP ,y, a RM ■�1 _�.■r n ilia ag.■ q �_ ■►+ + a a ■i. / 11i il!■�■AfRRiii�Tr Ir1P{ 4■ �, rnil R■rrR■ a�■, -:i+ -, .r _ ar ea.r..�`,� ! y_- L �a- ■�ar �' E_�. L_a 4,E111�a tiseito ■A N "r :40. 010„• SRC {7 a � � �� • ii, .+'• •■wry ir ''r:::�.;.:'=_;:` - ■g `'a`A�! - ■ *ar i ` ■ ■ :iIf:la>r .Aria "+►r► �:' . /- a. FHB° a tu5- t= 0f Iie "nriit - ll eti. .,- ✓� ■ram 04.-�' R Gfl.. i:... =t a. it _�= . ,9 ■,.. �111� ■►'r■f�lri._� 1 1►1111=.,� �; i...81 ,� t I Y, �► Far, !noun �;. • ram•■ 1 1 rair •� ,t�id&�`��y 1,% y �i 1 eerr ai `BP iuu 1+rri E]:`YYY• w■■ i _ �� a` �,�►Ctl?] rri` � Existing Delineations re ►ur+ r R ; � _ ��..rr.���r t '�'T4 {'1 ' ■_1 f 1 ■ r rr.-`� . "/►./ _ a L• ■qi•+, i �' r o`I■a ••rl t u. w mar % '* ^ t� Y - .� �d ! j .fie ri} 400,••rn to i:-■01al■Ya�ar:a ,� __..,i:r l 44 ■ ` �wag■ b I 1 ,il �II ' 4►• '� y ��xr f ���Stream Corridor Delineated 1 'ir■{ •riA iltr■a�iinq :YR� .1Rltna�F• d ■P` i. ► i!■r w� ! ��■ R ( r,x lL+ti Wiz; ► ■ 171 a r ►•R: !.2.1:x ■ ► IV:: y l } _ Wetland Delineated r`. 1M �j ►11111L �► �� I 1i11 . . oaf tr wilikc ' fr 11 ar- 1 a I r 0r. ■w- r • • dJC ■ ll11 1N� a _ r a■ .�i _ af' 3■Ir. :� • .r.n. ! ns t,,, ► ll■ t`a�'4+:a ti rr Additional Protection 5 .. .. :,�. Sad r� yle;r7'. •7 , �i $*+ rr .. i ••V. *r1 .� ti >=, z=r' e i� .mirResource Designation Rerriovesl�f f,. r■.''1!. J 1�Lr 'Srldz■1 .{�` ► i Tit �4 r 4 z. r g.. Tryon Creek Stale Natural Area - ■*; 1►.t w / rut■ l■ .�■>t ■l ARM rr !.: rl. rW MI RP ��►+ gl* '� f .` r rw ';~id t �, r i max_; City of Portland[anservatian Overlay y►►i ry■ � 0 FI _ r. ■ w� I� .*frf� ►ia;� .�w r.ter � Ogg ■ ALP' ri Oil[ w■m■ ► y� - !ri#•►a. "d'j' ril 'ram 1 *ITS ti. p--� 1 -- - F.•► %i■..r■ i■■ul Ii �. ■ i +ir`'r�m�a�,� rrrrZf fi ��i 1l� `�: _ I - '- '. / j ►! �� --�1��� •`►�► _ ►*■�■K1��s y-yx Rx the 1 INA ��:Firl City of Portland Pmtec[ion Oreriay i 'I �i*11■ 1.11 r� y1,1 ■ .�` x��w J _�_i iiI■ilM rt '� rrr.ray tiJ4 �/�1�i.� " { =+✓��:� .r y��1+ �� r r�� %1 -west um wRR _ 'Alin ►' :' ii1 "r• ,,/r� lllt�►.� ■� .1�� rut ..„.. 1 x alarm El ME r .1 Illl y I���r �� � �� fair irrlri q`` Il r ._ `,:] ��� Surface Water Management Agency M. �� }�� �� ���■ ■ •w ! ���1E1l1 ;<r11� 1►llrr _ �.' '�' 4. ,,,IiSBIR Outer Limit r�1r » of Clackamas County tY _ ��� Z ♦ ■l1 �E■. .rut �Tti? � �f� ';r �tEE� = ry r lip ■: ,"!r, ►. 4/1 1F' ram►' 4+"'!r-1Il� ... ra" wr •r r~ MC Mom ,lllf...... '. wr ■:�n11'>' r'0 !�'� _ .. ♦ �ti■l,.4 ,,,,„ a } �Y'r^ � ■r.��■� -Clackamas Caunry YB,c l.al �:i "lire Edith ■ I 01 / •ice a'.•shard 1rF �- *• ■�iY��• , fit► >,��IlaRr.fryr.r;tr..r F.-tot s a : 1- ! I_ la■■`it�r !r iir■�■ . ►' �� tiring' I�iiRRaft 11�rr--- •. .`-':. ■r� �#,�H� iRlf - I �' ■ !i !■■r ' �tr ■i�� 1... cull I:•w 1■aa.1 .��� ��4 f .� r iiP:.��.:: F ■:q.f 11 -��, .•.1.1 n_rll1 un n r -fntrtlut. - ■iyr •'.w i!i 1 ��1 ■ 111t� r + ifM 1111I+� f■ �r�a� 11!_ ?L e t 1.'" rl w• re ► 1' j; !I' ll ►'+ *,a�. .�nllll�i .�Ilrl�l r.•- r . 1 ►�11r! - + S qi�r.�� �►■■si.mg: [ e 7w.r U:Ln,•a►wi rrEd_. i�■r i r;rll-.■��I!Li 111111� - +an, , s. '.:.,■.Y1�."Ir`- ! �• ,� � f �I. I '` 1 ,/f 0 U.25 0.5 ❑.75 1 MI _.�. iI r•17� ■ a -r 1� • --y�'� �Illillllllltll r / 'a [l r,r>1-� a.:- -s \.a ... y r f� ��� Evil j '� �Ri.1s=::::11r#flrratl�� ■i'•ram �" 1 F •� ■. Ra.r _` -_ -rC,r. ^ �,_ 1 ^Hor - '►yam r .-4- ar,,y6c�. .A.RR Ellin Miles .■. +�■+ i M irri■Yr ✓4 i■ii `� ' If- 1t11< �t toll ti!■rw�r •�R�a- ■plur aruT'ra nv * '�.% YI.1♦l11 ■■1■r ■r ■ ral �1 r '� 'i lake ► * rii' 1 il•..rra+ �� 1 ra fit►► ';7E r':r _ 1 ral■�a���lw. 411� 4 �" 1 [ 'The RP de adon Consists of areas that the C currenll des Hates RP,based on exislin slream classillcatlons,.II il Iliffl r , . f 1;- ' . lieaf:.1■ 11 r. le■ n ■' a++ ■ ;'iu .ter■■ �v Y g 6` ■rllfrr■. r 1'I.ee�y,�{�. r✓++ f';- ,,. '-� 1•'i+`� �■'ri■J► ♦ ���► �J1 1�/ i*r�rn, i,Hny ejyji, 1 available correcAed stream centerlines ove. and sleep ravines mapped The map uses the mast concur and accurate data = "■! -f - �i iii 1'Z'M j �r;+ . y �I{• •� ► available 2074 Udall; required. K _ Y �rv�,►.[■�i lit. ,i ��'lrrYei wY rR ■�1*►. I� f arl.��, �a�. 1r 1 -• + ~ ,11■1■i I ].however.field venicanon is wired. 1:w� .tip `I■■-l rs ■ +� 1` ti' Wl ere an RC distr ct cunenUy abuts an RP dst ct.up l0 504h o!the RC distric(po lion closest to the dream or ' - • rAr A■- ■al_ r►4_ . /fr II -�11 l -�1 r- a �,.. } ��� t ��► �`•. vreElandl is oonsdideted with the RP disirice to create a standard streamhvetland 6uA'ero150[eet,opnsistenl vrth • ■71.■-•s= rr- -�it�lllUr ���ii■1 • '� ��1'l:►;�1Fi: t�Cs �,,,m.=■R= ■■■alalll �'a ■ �w'�-►Sll yl > �' ■� ■{r' r r �' !�i f�`•i�r r` Metro TNe 3.Tha area of consolidation is represented 6y the dark 6fue adgirg al the perimeter of soma ftP districts. I %_■ .�ifi II■■a 111R:i■ ■ , •►■' �a ' t�T f r,.-�,Sf rr �>l�l*1Ar �1 'the ftC designation includes ail currend deli oared RC dislnGs on 61ic land and ovate o I ► ai y g pu p pen spaces.The �• =^:e`er r r■ 4 1111 ■y■■a ■ '.. ■ l ■►� - 1.in tar Ar_a • 1. I `r Y **Orb, `r f -��l!!•2•1i RM� • I7■1 t■- . �, ■►'�� iy# }Iti urea r� ■r� ■s r rl ■ �� �►. 1��� �w� required level of protection[Rssnurca Conservafim Protection Areal is p►oposed to increase from 50%to RS%under I�?►r��;TTTlj1 j %r �• _ Mill ' !�"r •/ ►► 1 to■■t► rl r yl;r• M ii la In .crd:*nor ri aa_,. t the proposed code revision. ipl _ !■l a. ■ ► r► ■'�1�. r+► !/1i11I11 �� t�� '� „ ut ■r_ut, I,..kll�!!� ► Pr Y 9 x Per �li�,L�r`I r�� f t.■ 1 �� . • ■ {f air ■a R► 'Habitat Benefit Areas are eviousl deli oared RC disVicis on dividable residential o lea and non dividable { ■ri:rt■r. E N 1l q l!► r# •A� ';f:: 'rrr r*��w r� �r■y +rrr firm■i lIr o lea Ihs,Metro deli Hates Trlle 13 Ri Han areas.The HBA deli nation mdica'tes pr ►� +sl llllll �® rr n■r.wtr ■■.r W Pen 9 Pa 9 openies eligible for habitat � I' �••i r � w f .�r'11 •`►►► ■a �►►� _ .■r air.. e ' .r.r■rr ■a!■.L �rotecu a i■i it■1 t 7 _ ����-_-' ►■►►t• ,•, l■ylll � rn r.1 _ 1 on Incentives,Other propanies meeting the NBA coda criteda may opt-into Ibis incentives program as werl rr! 71!!I. ,. - 1.. . .zs j1 ° ' ... ► - ►1 � �:��:::r.II.r ,r.�.-__ I !! ■1i / 6r� ■.r1 ■r r ar :rrr ■ry'on ■it a r �-- -- r- Removed designations consist of areas Mal the City cumemly designates RP ar RC Ion the Comprehensive Plan■ rer_`- .rog�i-- 1:; '1 1■.■�III■ ■. ■ � � � ■ ■ a ■r■.r .�.,■■■rrrrt.ti.a.al alS" �� nil`. Map or Zoning h4apl that are trot proposed as RP,RC,or HBA In Ihose areas.as vreN as for Coy as a whole,d+e ■� �.r■Il■'y #■t■� /�M14110144 . .. •■► �'Ia�4�� ' • �Y■■■R, ,,ffr4 'V I■nrt-I. a-w-t� ►�■ _ ' �r ■.r■:L 'R■ 1 /�II 1 y� r� ■■4`I; !r l�� ■r4.... � r-i= ■ It to Mier r• r f ;� 1,0 1Addili existing code requirements support habit!conservation:Planned Developments.Tres Code.Hillside pie. i ■+ di II ► + f7 Ro T Z • p -1a1'► r+ L. - i r It` 1M na ' Protecilons,Clean 5[reamsfSuAace Water h}ana em Standards.Erosion ConVd,etc.�, . � � R7 ■■al+��:��!i it.1r �.#� ►,\•�'=- ��.��� �a�■�' +Il�� r+r���i�.ri F" f �"�' 1.�ui.rw r■mm�l:'r Arun- a.l it� ►r'4a7 Additienal rIXeraion rrwn other urisdlctions are s�ro far reference. I■■ 1/ T ■ ■.: � �art �.i■.t nr n Hum won- * P I�. �1 11 1L Lulu■ ►ll ` ► _•\ ♦ ■,1n/' J .► ■'1r211 ara� . -. !H �.. matt■:, rclli m, M •/ ` 'Wetlands on City owned outside LI56 are included. 1 ■ii■tier ■�wl y - .ews y.+ �l li 0■ 1 to if 4 iLr ! ■R■M ' ty property r, 1 rp *:eil■��� I■ �� 11` ,✓ �• �1� 1IIiIll1� • * ill ■� Ira r .r In.Ia nnre Pi r 1915R075 1I1� rrr ftL �e _ ,�y rIIlllllll t"� sir ■■3■ ■ i. ■.r.n.� ,�,■I ,u r?T,1�-I-.,: --- .t�1 ' ' - �:`:':��qr.�1/1TRi■i�-� t!�•t r !ilr ,<lliifl .■1 % ! r� a ■P•-a Ittr¢ft� ,: � _ 1 ■ \,,' av s °."Irf r� r' +4► ■ r ■ +,++ ■.#■#/}a1 ri■r. it r+ a r-r '•■ ■>• a ■ ■e. *`iE.,r l r■r 11,Itllitt. r .10.21��_ era gniHIMNg irr■r aa.,..L. w ll■ial)•,J' I::.'a. "� _ mi.- r�� .iC.-„•,7 r�- ._ - '� i+f'�.. ** .�• ►r%O - AlIVV:14 tt.i Ill ri ..ate • •r ' 1#1■ ■ .� i 1 n• •• _L e:� v *y 1rE111111E1lI 111■�ae.-ar � v*►•n y t:�' - nr.. ;� �. � +� r - � •' U�� 1�1 " A rella!US Ium z 111 1J . .� • r , . ■• ., - ► * `T �' ♦i .,i `'� 11 1, N,F �. r �''■ :.'►► :. . . ■■r111f1..i'�1 : '�;3uri■ b�,. ■ �^ 1� ■ . ,!"��► sIA ,. •■�- ,;,• 1. `. 1 ��\ •.'A'.rsetrriviii0;:i..47;40:;;:iimw,,,m"6,*•r ,i .....4 ■ ) : 0'� ■ f ! ■ • ■ ■ Ej■ + A rl� uurru= \r► ► rur�uu7 J +. �. J r:. • ■,} ►4:■ �t ..♦,,■�■� '. dit� �a� �� nlrllll- +llrl■r► �rri� !1 1i11111171401:1,1147kaiigiiiitAil. "l ■s►r m� + ,- 3 .T 1:ti r�I 1■lr� llnrl:' . ,f ' c e.: .. *► App ■ i�� ��� sf.. ►-dice?a'_■i.S'-'=_:■■� 1■r��!! a� i • r 1 f µ■ ► ♦ 'S. 1 ih ¢-r..p-u�r�l�-r _ •►�Ir ri 11llillllll.� - ■ A'3'gl �• i ■r... •"-aril,...4,..,„ I t,1 fat-• latii veg... - a-�.� 1 ► 1• �ti li,r at ON +* 1111i1 111� • •.■ a1! ~► ! ■ ero ► + mil■ 7 : EPA zily� rifrAitsp#404-111.4141240I.,„010'. kit"" Y j�rll■Y7i� it ■ ��1 �� �I;rT�G' r i A ••l- Vddk ).% '' # �, Ili ��mA� ,111. '.':".`-Eii a°e Il;:ir : _ 1 ■ ■■■ r ■ + ■raga, t �.r, ■ ~■it'.►:+►►�:. � .'�+l►�rm:r` - - I•r ., WI +aa ra r i.'i.! !:E� Rrit :-•t,■ y ' r►:t5_:as _'�,■���,1 � 1 ��r� � 1: ■■ 4. �. +►�■ J �III � ■ 1 *' II ,"•r l =awl Lit r: i�=�r�i W S �N.•. ." y i�►■'s`1 '1�i1''� �'"■'J ■■A��f a� .-� ��+ ► li ► �� tr' rl>er■ �! �.� Pre4,114L+ i* ii •�,■ r 11�*1 i■�r _ t. b .4%it�.. did ,l prllli:.`ri- � �y] r►I4� ■alfltlY�� .►J:�` ''� ❑ Ill li wjk'7fi . ■r ■ +�i f � � ■• Illi Q all I�.'-. a 40 TPA i r � MIMI .•fl. a�'+ 1r • t !V �.,1 ■'u rrr .S 7r 1 1 i • �• it ■ 1 C rr.aa�� r■riilYe'e +w: 'F Yam` ■s ► ■7'tit" t■l ■ � a . ► F w ' :1 a•ttirf�R+l►■i��y.■r r,�� `, a■rr ■■r ■►s■ �1..�3i■■ / al x ► ►■►■• �■�■} �- , L'■■rr R al • rq� #■Ra r � 1 rfr■ , a Aa.►. j . DW r i a ,r ►►�� , } I. ■ K�4r ■ �a ti■4.ar.iii■�tY'}w • ■ �1!Jir wit �� r y r �'r fi rw ■ �R. ;F' L ■u 1.!■ r ur■.relit. an tom!, ■ i ir.■if' r4>: s rra.■ �i ■ Imo . '. Vl.6y►1 r te a. iL ,^r� i ■ M' ti a ►. . ■yr la \1 �` nil ►1�! ■�a ■'a � rc •► . iiii • ►►t► „■--1LL-.w:tr '.�{ :EMI:w �L.L■ ,a, 4■.- ► -aw.. . y ,. s�f y� •i rif ■ . w `� ►.. 3 l .ae+ t� r`■ ■■ , re r \ _ • rt ■'If M■r ■+rr~ y■/ ,■ ,,/� _i. y I r r wit►►R� ` • �__ ef �.�/ Ilr,ll............. .:r.•.iFie,■.. r~al' :l a�: rlrl� !.� w .+►7►■i1■ ►.fllllElEl r postitt4stsv'tz,:***%*:;iis-tp..k.141:4„i7.-- p. ��u!' ■ram rnlili + t .n or�a 1■.S'✓f,.f rl ■ X� / , i ■■ ��• 9111 gElNmii7klirl■ K� 1 I • . ■ i '_�■�' "cliff Aa■■■ lr.lr. � `,�. 1:� i.Aw yYP- ram^ .... „ .: 1 ■ . ■ vr'■i r- 111 } ■ 1ilrw i •"O igir■ �,�■ ■� ■■a z i ■rrfy nl '+�r ■•■ 1 ' ► �Si; + ■ • f' yam ►► l t$■F err. :a:..�1�.i _ f�Rl� • \ 1 ►1v. O ,■# tiff+rir .i k r Sal illllf`�ii�f�r■11?r`i : , - Wag . J ► ■■ ■■ s r ►■ f t Op rr►>•. 1•r*■ I fr ijQ _,,_,■■.■.rr ■ Illlr: ■A�[ t - ■ r •" MR �' w� �..'��,� irk �i a `�Y'`+�} %' ��il�I��f��`ai '' r 111.E in a�I�iL'...r---_ =J ' �mb ����� ����iiR�ill • ► � ■ _ ' -- .`Ir■ aR ■ IIiIii1 4 .~�, r AIR ►. ~ � � ►:� II .p. Ill 11 �rltal. ! :i iti ��� ar■:SIC. ��i • 1 1iii11r1111 ;r ■ +f1"lr a , ■■• ■ `fr -� ■��� �n..s '� f 1111i�ra r w_ . �11111mr r1.' f r 0 d e r. ! ��.-. r i ►•+ 1" lir - .!=__---- ` 'r tual: w'a■i �� I!! .: i 1N11" l4■# � '�rx■ ��1 ■IllIlkia ►■ raging Cr �� f r ae ���L +�1 r N Rom. ��� ` r1.l1i11 f j w i E: I,ilr. {�, � r3 I . • i _ . . .�i �1,.►1�. -a�...�.�1■::rrl�lilnr ■ { art!I ►.r11R ��,*�.� i ■.r . I■.Q �` / 01 ■.r-�",•ter t tt . �ij�Rr iYry A t�l ll��liaw�q �r�^. � ,,11 a■ Ali►�. ■ r'� ■■■rr��-l. ..: � 1 ►1►a■� 13 1111 1lMl��rni- ri.�'ir' ■ ����1■ ► rill .e1r11■I ■lift K■. ti •�■!! - - Mil/ •.2i..7, ifk a ■I ��� � - �ql��� ■ a-- - ,.0l Gl r � 1` . sIi ' tl� r tll !- + • R! _ flf�Rrallll�l. _; f� � �� Rr::=4A_- as.mai ■ ►• "*r = tl 1.■1 ■ ■. W ,��. u� ! •:!-pm ■ • = �1�`■ -.,�1� �+. M■I.. Silly i�, ■ rl■l .Ilf■i rli R if tl 1i f �, i 11 i■i t Yr *YnilrllYa r , • . �Il �. ��11a • .. -4'411:::.ciir��►y��� • • - Y[ tar.as.--,wla$L+R .IlnaYy. i�i1 ��� �`r-. r e1 1. ► � r ■ � 11_,T1111.". ����lia: • t,��.�.r9rll■■Lr1at2t E-017 Map with Ordinance 268: .fair r.--:- ...■■ta��■�� ������ � ��I1�1 • '. 11E11111111 �v 11�� rrr■r. ■:Ia4• • • t r. rl.nri:. Safi•tr i`►+►1nrr • L.X Rah eras 'It'll" ■tel:�a► ■r•. r!i i. ,a.: r rota f �.nu .leCa.u+�r•+��rl �- ♦ �.. ill Fos tta�l=G . . i _ --'-r 'l'1.n.t■ • E■ 1ante-_ ` ` R�■�►■-. 1F �a\ r■ .41111116' _ tit tgrrq�irn.n•0•�f ■EIR��1 ■� ` *■►F ` k SS'ai i Sr■tali ti 4 t•,-i��.'i l 1 • ,+�+ i ►i�: :ir{.rr1 A+Hoar--t.rr..e ►. R i`li'�-t �� ■ I =M :G to , ■tv-eit leti1:► aY`irie �t_i v � i�, ■ ���� 1♦wl�r �� rrr. . M. ` 1 . �.. lbanwt Pme P..c144.0."- --Wiwi 211,E tin a ,Pe .MIT mid Proposed 6-lot Subdivision 1107 Yates Street T2S-R1 E-Section IODD, Tax Lot 1300 Summary: The proposed property is located at 1107 Yates Street in Lake Oswego within the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association. The subject property is 2.08 acres in size and is zoned R7.5. The property contains a resource on the City's Sensitive Lands Map (class 1 resource protection) which was previously identified and delineated under land rise action LU 16-0043, and based on the lot layout needs to be adjusted slightly. This area will be left as an open space tract under HOA ownership or possibly under agreements with the Parks and Recreation Department. The property is heavily treed and was identified to have potential weak foundation soils. A tree survey/arborist report has been prepared with many of the trees found in poor condition. The geotechnical report have been prepared and included with this application and addressed the weak soils. Sanitary services will be provided with an 8"public sewer main extension to the currently existing system in Yates Street. Water will be provided by the currently existing 4"line in Yates Street. The waterline will be upsized through the project and connected to the dead end line on O'Brian. The proposed individual homes will be sprinkled to provide fire protection due to the water line being undersized for an additional hydrant. Storm water from the private road run-off and future houses will be collected in a private on-site water facility as shown on the plans. Water quality requirements for the individual roof areas and access driveways will he managed on site with the use of rain gardens. or planter boxes. The only vehicle access to the new site will be provided by a private street connecting to Yates Street. A pedestrian path will be provided past the end of the access with connection to the pathway on the east side of the property. Chapter 38 - Utility Code RESPONSE: To be addressed at time of building permit review Chapter 39 - System Development Charges RESPONSE: SDC's will be due at time of issuance of individual building permits. Chapter 42 -Streets and Sidewalks RESPONSE: The proposed homes will access Yates Street fronr a proposed private street that will be 28-feet wide and by a hammerhead configuration. There are no existing sidewalks in the area, but a new 6-foot wide asphalt pathway is proposed to connect Yates Street with the existing asphalt pathway that extends south from the end of O'Brien Street. Site distance for the private street is not an issue since the private access is a straight extension of Yates Street. Chapter 50 Community Development Chapter 50.01 -Zoning F-001 Application Narrative RESPONSE: The subject property is in the R-7.5 zone which is consistent with the comprehensive Plan. This zone is considered low density residential and single family use is proposed Chapter 50.02 - Residential Districts RESPONSE: The subject property is zoned R-7.5 which is residential low density. Chapter 50.04 Dimensional Standards RESPONSE: Maximum density= (total site area—access easements)/7500 = (90,115 SF— 9768 SF)17500 = 10.7 units (Maximum) (10.72) (.80) = 8.6 units (Minimum) However: Exceptions to the minimum density requirements 50.05.010.4.c states that lot density MAY transferred. RP district=31247 SF= 34.7% of site, and on site storm water track= 3713 SF. it is not required to transfer density from the RP area, therefore the total buildable area is 58868-9768 = 4910017500 = 6.55 units maximum and 5.23 units minimum. 6-units are proposed. R7.5 r Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot Area 7,500 SQ. 11028 9838 10368 8806 7501 7653 Gross FT. I Area Less RD N/A 7824 10009 8555 6634 6343 (net)' 1 width 50 Feet 75 120 104 97 62 65.5 Front 25 Feet 25 20 10 10 10 10 Setback Side 5 feet 10,15 15, 10 15, 15 10, 15 10, 10 10, 10 Setback min./total. 15 feet combined Rear 130 feet 30 15 15 20 25 25 Setback Note: Lots 2-6 are flag lots and the setback requirements are different than non-flag lots. Lot 2 has only 24-feet of frontage on Yates. • Lot area is reduced per LOC 50.05.010.4b Individual homes designs have not been selected at this time; therefore actual floor area, height and lot coverage will be addressed in detail at time of building permit review. The lots are of adequate size and shape to meet these standards. The setbacks for the lots located adjacent to the open space tract have taken into account the required additional setback for lots next to sensitive lands. 2 F-001 Application Narrative 3600 +[(actual lot size— 5800)0.19] with garage =max floor area 50.05.010.4.b.ii states that floor area may be transferred from the RP area to the non-resource area. ' R7.5 Lott Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 , Lot 6 Lot Area 7,500 SQ. 11028 7824 10009 8555 6634 6343 FT min Floor code 4593 3985 4399 4123 3758 3703 Floor proposed 5000 4800 5300 5000 -4600 4500 Maximum lot coverage is dependent on the height of the proposed structure and since all are flag lots the average height of adjacent houses. The calculations for average existing house height is addressed in 50.07.007.2.e.iii, and found to be 23.46 feet with the maximum lot coverage based on height of primary structure 23.46 yields 30%maximum. Maximum lot coverage summary: R7.5 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot Area 11028 19838 10368 . 8,806 7,501 7653 Max lot @ 2757 13247 3421 2905 2475 2525 30°I%125% The setbacks for proposed flag lots are subject to the flag lot requirements. Lot 1 is not a flag lot. Chapter 50.05.010 -Sensitive Lands Overlay District RESPONSE: The subject property contains a resource on the City's Sensitive Lands map. The RP district was previously identified and delineated in prior land use action LU 16-0043. With the proposed layout adjustments to the RP boundary are proposed to consolidate the district and provide a uniform definable line at the boundary to the lots. Isolated portions of the property not subject to the RP District are now included in the buffer. These new areas have the same characteristics as the existing buffer in slope and vegetation. The actual wetland and stream corridor have not changed but the protected area has increased from 28,186 SF to 31,261 SF or more than a 10% increase in the protected area. The RP adjustment drawing illustrates the old and new limits and provides shows the buffer distances. The average buffer distance with the original shape was 41.6-feet and increased to 46.1-feet, based on 105 measurements, with the new buffer. The minimum buffer distance required is 15-feet and the actual minimum is 19.0 feet adjacent to the storm water facility and 20.4 adjacent to lot 6. The environmental consultant, Terra Science has prepared a separate memo with supporting reasoning for the change in the RP District buffer. 50.05.010.4.d Construction standards. 3 F-001 Application Narrative Storm water from the development currently flows towards the RP area. With development the storm water will be processed for water quality and quantity before discharging into the RP area. The outfall from the storm water facility cannot avoid being in the RP buffer and will be constructed to reduce the velocity prior to entering the wetlands and stream corridor. Topographically the site slopes towards Flallinan Creek and there isn't any opportunity to direct the storm around the RP District and it impractical to tunnel under without additional disturbance. This is an unavoidable storm water element and the location and design avoids detrimental impacts to the wetland and stream corridor with discharges at the pre-development rates. No trees will be removed with this outfall and the vegetation will be restored with native plants. Chapter 50.05.010.4.b - Modification to Setbacks of the Underlying Zone RESPONSE: 1) The allowable density from the RP district was not used to increase the dumber of units in the unrestricted area of the property. 2) This is not a planned development application. Chapter 50.05.010.4.d -Construction Standards RESPONSE: The owner will submit a narrative and construction plan to the City prior to any grading, clearing or construction activity on the site. Chapter 50.05.010.6.b - RP District and Construction Setback RESPONSE: The existing and proposed delineated RP district has been shown on the plans, with a 10 foot construction setback as per the code section. The proposed RP line is now set at the back of the proposed lots 4.5.&6 in a uniform line to ensure compliance with the 10-foor construction setback within the building setback. This location sets a definable line and allows for standard fencing that residents can easily see. Chapter 50.06 Development Standards Chapter 50.06.001 - Building Design RESPONSE: Building design will be addressed at time of building permit review, as individual home styles have not been selected at this time. Chapter 50.06.002 - Parking RESPONSE: Although specific homes have not been selected for the lots at this time, all lots will have garages that will accommodate the required off street parking. At least two-car garages with two additional parking spaces in from of the garages will be provided. Additionally the private street is 28-feet wide and per the Oregon Fire Code Application Guide is allowed to have parking on 4 F-001 Application Narrative one side. At this time parking would be allowed along lot I in the north/south portion and lot 2 in the east/west portion of the private road. No parking would be allowed on the opposite sides of the street. Chapter 50.06.003.2 &4 Circulation and Connectivity 2. ON-SITE CIRCULATION— DRIVEWAYS AND FIRE ACCESS ROADS a. Applicability This section is applicable to all development proposing a new use or an increased use on a site when the development will result in the construction of or the increased use of private streets, driveways, or parking lot aisles. Increased use shall be defined as an increase in trip generation or parking requirement. b. Standards for Approval 1) i. Driveway Approaches —Locational Limitations and Restrictions (1) On corner lots where the adjacent streets are fully improved to their anticipated ultimate width, the nearest edge of a proposed driveway to the intersection shall be no closer than 30 ft. when measured from the projected curb of the street that is the most parallel to the alignment of the proposed driveway. (2) On corner lots where the adjacent streets are not fully improved to their anticipated ultimate width, the nearest edge of a proposed driveway to the intersection shall be no closer than 30 ft. when measured from the lot corner. or if the corner is a radius, from the point of intersection of the tangents. if right-of-way dedication is required as a condition of approval, the lot lines after dedication shall be used as the basis for determining compliance with this standard. (3) On lots with less than 75 ft. of continuous frontage on a single public street, only one driveway shall be permitted along that frontage. (4) All driveway approaches shall be located and designed so that the driver entering or exiting the driveway can see approaching traffic for a sufficient distance to make a safe entrance and exit. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards shall be used in determining compliance with this standard. (5) The maximum width of a driveway approach, measured where the edges of the driveway meet the right-of-way, shall be governed as follows: (a) Single-family residential with garage door(s)facing the street 12 ft. per garage or carport stall. or surface parking space, but not to exceed 30 ft. S F-001 Application Narrative (b) Single-family residential with side-loading garage: 24 ft. (c) All other uses: 24 ft. unless otherwise justified by the recommendations of a traffic study. 2) ii. Driveway Widths Driveways shall conform to the minimum width requirements of LOC 15.06.610 (Oregon Fire Code Adopted) and LOC 50.06.002, Parking. RESPONSE. no proposed dwelling will take access onto a public right-of-way. No driveway locations or widths are identified at this time. Access from the from the future driveways and connection to the public streets will meet the AASHTO griidlines 3) iii. Driveway Grades (1) The maximum grade of a driveway serving one single-family structure shall be 20%. if the grade exceeds 15%, then the residence must be provided with alternative methods for fire suppression, i.e., sprinkiering. (2) The maximum grade of a driveway for ail other uses shall be 15% (3) For all uses except residential structures of four units or less, there shall be a landing area where a driveway used by multiple drivers meets the public street. The landing area shall be a minimum of 25 ft. long and shall have a maximum grade of 5% The length and grade of the landing area described in this subsection presupposes that the abutting street has been fully improved to its ultimate anticipated width. if a driveway is proposed on a street that is not fully improved, and the development proposal is anticipated to proceed prior to the improvement of the street. the City Engineer shall determine the location and grade of the future street improvement and the applicant shall design the driveway and site grading so that this standard will not be compromised when the street is improved in the future. (4) Along the traveled way, grade breaks shall not exceed an algebraic difference of 9°/o unless accomplished by the construction of a vertical curve complying with the City's Standard Details. (5) The maximum cross-slope of a driveway shall be 5%, except for that portion of a driveway which must blend with an adjacent street grade that exceeds 5%. When blending is necessary, the length of the blended section shall be limited to 30 ft. 6 F-001 Application Narrative RESPONSE The access way is less than 15%and the cross is less than 5%. No driveways are proposed at this time but the topography will permit driveways to meet the grade and cross slope requirements. 4) iv. Fire Access Lanes (1) All developments shall comply with the minimum requirements for fire access roads as stipulated by the Fire Code and LOC Chapter 5. (2) The paved improvement of fire lanes, their associated turnarounds and right-of- way dimensions shall comply with the City's Standard ❑etails. (3) When a fire access road is required to be used as a primary or alternate access route for the provision of emergency services to or through an abutting property, the fire lane shall be declared as such on a legal instrument to be recorded against the title of the affected property(ies). A declaration on a plat or on a recorded development plan may also be used to satisfy this standard. RESPONSE: The access lane has a hammerhead emergency turn around to meet the City and Fire Marshall standards. No parking will be permitted within the emergency turn around. 5) v. Turnarounds (1) If a dead-end driveway exceeds 150 ft. in length, it shall provide a fire department turnaround in compliance with the City's Standard Details. Exception. The Fire Marshal may approve driveways greater than 150 ft. in length if the structures greater than 150 ft. from the public road are provided with alternative methods of fire suppression, i.e., sprinklering. (2) Except where a continuous forward exit can be made out of the site, all developments with on-site loading and delivery areas shall provide a turnaround for delivery vehicles in compliance with the City's Standard ❑etails. (3) Required turnarounds shall not overlap a required parking space. RESPONSE: An emergency turnaround but the new dwellings will be sprinkled because of the undersized public water line. 6) vi, Schools—Special Provisions Schools and similar institutional or instructional uses with a total enrollment of 25 or more students on any given day shall provide an on-site driveway that allows a continuous forward flow of vehicles through the site for the loading and unloading of children. 7 F-001 Application Narrative RESPONSE.' NIA 7) vii. Easements Required (1) Driveways and their associated parking areas and turnarounds shall be located on the site or, if located off site, in an easement. (2) A copy of the easement shall be submitted to the City as part of the development application. If the easement has not yet been obtained at the time of application, the applicant shall supply a letter of commitment from the party who has the authority to grant the easement indicating that the easement will be granted contingent upon the development's approval by the City. (3) Easements shall state the purpose of the easement. identify the benefiting and burdened properties, state the duration of the easement rights granted, and stipulate the maintenance responsibilities of the parties. RESPONSE.' An access easement is on the property and has been identified on the preliminary plat with associated maintenance responsibilities. This easement will be on the final plat for review and approval by the planning staff. c. Standards for Construction 8) i. All driveways that serve as fire lanes or fire access roads shall be paved, unless modified below. and shall be designed to support fire fighting vehicle loads. The City may require an engineered pavement section and a soil test to ensure compliance with this standard 9) ii. Driveway approaches in the right-of-way shall be constructed according to the City's Standard Details. 10) iii. In locations where there is a slope adjacent to a driveway edge, there shall be a minimum two ft. shoulder or other means of protecting the driveway and the adjacent land from the adverse effects of erosion. 11) iv. Stormwater running off a driveway shall be managed and disposed of in compliance with the applicable drainage standards for minor or major development, and the Uniform Plumbing Code. 12) v. Where a driveway approach needs to cross a roadside ditch, a culvert of ten in minimum diameter shall be used. The City may require a larger culvert if warranted by the hydrology of the upstream drainage basin. 8 F-001 Application Narrative 13) vi. All driveways shall be paved with a material that does not generate dust. Hard pavement is required except in the following circumstances: (1) Low-use driveways, such as one serving a parking area for recreational vehicles, boat trailers, or access to a storage building or storage area. {2) Where a driveway grade changes less than 10% from the street to the parking area serving a single-family residence. (3) Existing unpaved driveways, when there is an existing use on the site that is rated at ten or less average daily trips per weekday pursuant to the applicable ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) category. and the rating will not be increased with the proposed development. (4) When the requirement for a paved driveway is waived, a paved approach shall be constructed to prevent the tracking of loose gravel onto the public street. (5) Temporary construction access driveways. (6) Combustible materials, erodable materials, or floatable materials shall not be approved as acceptable driveway surfaces (i.e., wood chips, bark dust, shredded tire rubber). RESPONSE: The access lane will be constructed to City standards. Driveways have not been identified with this application and will be constructed to City standards with the individual building permits. b. Purpose and Intent 14) The purpose of the connectivity standard is to ensure that: i, The layout of the street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. This will be accomplished through an interconnected street system to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes of travel, provide for efficient provision of utility and emergency services, provide for more even dispersal of traffic, and reduce air pollution and energy consumption, RESPONSE. There is only one connection to a public right of way possible for this site. Yates Street is dead ended at the property line. ii. Streets, alleys and residential accessways shall be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and encourage walking, bicycling and transit as transportation modes; 9 F-001 Application Narrative RESPONSE: The proposed private access will be available for public pedestrian and cyclist use with a pathway connection to the existing AC path at the extension of O'Brien Street. iii. Street and pedestrian and bicycle accessway design is responsive to topography and other natural features and avoids or minimizes impacts to LOC 50.05.010, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts: LOC 50.05.01 1, Flood Management Area; and steep slopes pursuant to LOC 50.06.006.2, Hillside Protection; RESPONSE: The proposed pedestrian and bicycle connection will be a 6-foot wide AC path with minimal slope from the end of the vehicle access to the existing path. iv. Circulation systems and land development patterns do not detract from the efficiency of the adjacent collector or arterial streets; RESPONSE: There no impact to collector or arterial streets v. The street and accessway circulation pattern contributes to connectivity to and from activity centers, such as schools. commercial areas, parks, employment centers and other major trip generators; RESPONSE: The pedestrian access will provide a shortcut from Yates Street to the existing access path to the Hallman school site vi. The Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 11, street connectivity requirements are met: RESPONSE: The proposed access meets the functional Plan by providing access to the extent possible vii. Proposed development will be designed in a manner which will not preclude properties within the vicinity that meet the definition of further developable, from meeting the requirements of this standard; and RESPONSE. No future development of adjacent property is possible. viii. Transportation connections improve access to schools, transit, shopping, and employment areas. RESPONSE: The proposed access path provides better access to residents on Yates Street to the Hallinan school site. c. Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street 10 F-001 Application Narrative i. Local and neighborhood collector streets, access lanes, and residential accessways shall be designed to connect to the existing transportation system to meet the requirements of this standard as determined by the reviewing authority. RESPONSE: The proposed access way connects to the existing Yates Street and provides for an emergency turn around. ii. Local and neighborhood collector street design shall provide for full street connections between through streets with spacing of no more than 530 ft., measured between the center of the intersection of two through streets that provide for vehicle traffic movement in generally the same direction ('through street pairs")with the cross street. This requirement shall be applied to all through street pairs which surround the site. If the nearest boundary of the site (or boundaries extended to the street) is more than 100 ft. from the intersection of a through street nearest to the site and the cross street, the provisions of this standard shall be met, except when the provisions of subsection 4.c.vi of this section are met. See Figure 50.06.003-A: Street Connectivity. RESPONSE: No street connections are possible. 11 F-001 Application Narrative Figure 50.06.003-A: Street Connectivity Streets Feasible i 1_ _ 34.—E-r-.- a,--7. -c .- 411111010. PIN iiU.1 Slicer LOlt'1fAHln L � I r'.�.. • •• '.,. lis,Iwifti h71T TIH i cede sr Han c w-ret iwn Street Not Feasible7 in One Direction _I L_ I I 30 Sret a more 7treei oaf allowed wfPon co 109 le.'oriole...I wl a -- JAP . . . IN _ Eial*itt ea-rlii.ei concmci On 1 1- iii. Streets shall be designed to connect to all existing or approved stub streets which abut the development site. RESPONSE: The access connects to the end of Yates Street. There are no other stub street that abut this property. iv. Cul-de-sacs and permanent closed-end streets shall be prohibited except where(a) the requirements of this standard for street and residential accessway spacing are met and (b) construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or closed-end streets are allowed under subsection 4.c.vi of this section, they shall be limited to 200 ft. and shall serve no more than 25 dwellings, except where the reviewing authority has determined that this standard is impracticable due to the criteria listed in subsection 4.c.vi of this section. RESPONSE: There isn't any possibility to extend Yates Street and connect with another right-of-way. 12 F-001 Application Narrative v. Access lanes may be used to serve up to eight dwellings. They shall be designed to provide connections between properties that develop through the partition process. RESPONSE: The proposed access lane will serve six dwellings and cannot be expanded in the future to include additional dwellings. vi. The reviewing authority may allow an exception to the review standards of subsections 4.c.i through 4.c.v of this section based on findings that the modification is the minimum necessary to address the constraint and the application of the standards is impracticable due to the following: (1) Extreme topography (over 15% slope) in the longitudinal direction of a projected automobile route; RESPONSE.' n/a (2) The presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC 50.05.010, or LOC 50.05.011, Flood Management Area, or other lands protected by City ordinances, where regulations discourage construction of or prescribe different standards for street facilities, unless the nearest through street pairs (see Figure 50.06.003-A: Street Connectivity) surrounding the subject site are more than one-quarter mile apart. The reviewing authority may determine that connectivity is not required under this circumstance, if a benefit/cost analysis shows that the traffic impacts from development are low and do not provide reasonable justification for the estimated costs of a full or limited access street connection: RESPONSE. Connectivity is not possible for this site. There is a significant RP area on an adjacent to the site. (3) The presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions; RESPONSE; NIA (4) Where requiring a particular location of a road would result in violation of other City standards, or state or county laws or standards, or a traffic safety issue that cannot be resolved; (5) Where requiring streets(full or limited access) or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which preclude required street or accessway connections; or (6) Where there is minimal public benefit of improved vehicular access and circulation, a limited access street connection (in lieu of a full street connection) may 13 F-001 Application Narrative be approved provided it does not preclude development of adjacent property and is consistent with the purpose and intent in LOC 50.06.003.4.13. For determining public benefit, the travel needs of existing, proposed and potential future development and emergency vehicle access needs shall be considered. Limited access streets shall conform to the spacing standards in subsection 4.c.vii of this section. RESPONSE: No future development of this and adjacent property is not possible. The proposed access is the only option for development of this property. The pedestrian connection is a benefit to the public and provides a connection from Yates Street to the pedestrian path. vii. If the reviewing authority allows an exception to subsection 4.c.ii of this section for full street connections, it shall require residential accessway connections on public easements or rights-of-way so that spacing between bicycle and pedestrian connections shall be no more than 330 ft. measured from the centerline of the nearest bicycle and pedestrian connection intersection with the cross street. RESPONSE.' The proposed pedestrian access connects Yates Street with the pathway extension of O'Brien at is located at the only possible connection point. viii. The reviewing authority may allow a reduction in the number of residential accessway connections required by subsection 4.c.vii of this section based on findings that demonstrate: (1) That reducing the number or location of connections would not significantly add to travel time or distance from the proposed development to bus lines or activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, or parks; or (2) That existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of residential accessways; or (3) That the traffic impacts from development, redevelopment or both are low and do not provide reasonable justification for the estimated costs of such accessway. RESPONSE: No other corrections are available [Cross-Reference: Subsection 4.c.iv—see also LOC 42.03.085.] d. Standards for Approval for a Land Division or Development That Does Not Require Construction of a Street 'l5) The review authority shall require: i. A future connectivity plan to be filed with the City and recorded in the applicable County Clerk records. The future connectivity plan shall show how the location of future streets, access lanes, and accessways will provide for full development of the subject parcel as 14 F-001 Application Narrative well as any abutting properties in order to meet the standards of LOC 50.06.003.4.c.ii through viii; and ii. Placement of structures in a manner that allows for the future street(s), access lanes, or accessways to be constructed, as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. RESPONSE. This project will completes the development in this area. No future streets and or development of this or adjacent property is possible. e. Standards for Construction i. Standards for construction of full street and limited access street connections shall be those included in LOC Chapter Where emergency vehicle access is required on limited access streets, the limited access street shall be 16 ft, in width, contain removable bollards where it adjoins other streets, and consist of a driving surface that accommodates emergency vehicle apparatus as approved by the City Engineer, RESPONSE The proposed access way is to be 28 feet wide and a hammerhead turn around for emergency and residential vehicles. This is a dead end access way with no possible extension. ii. Standards for construction of access lanes shall be those included in LOC 50_06.003.i.d, Standards for Access Lanes. RESPONSE This access way to meet the standards for access lanes with asphalt paving and curbs direct the storm water. iii. Standards for construction of residential accessways shall be those included in LOC 50.06.003.3.c. RESPONSE: final construction plans will specify construction per the standards. iv. Where a temporary street-end is created, it shall be stubbed to the property line with posted notification identifying it as temporary and planned for future extension. RESPONSE. NIA RESPONSE; Yates Street is a dead end public street with no possibility to be connected to other pubic right- of-ways due to prior development, right-of-way location and existing wetlands and stream corridors. Keeping the impervious area to a minimum, minimizing the disturbance area, provide for design compatibility, and allowing for development to achieve a reasonable design density a private street is proposed. Proposed lot 1 would front on the public street, but take access off the private access with a paved width of 28 feet. Lots 2-6 and are considered flag lots. The private street will be connected to Yates Street with a hammerhead design to allow for fire 15 F-001 Application Narrative department turn around. Additionally, the individual homes will be sprinkled due to the undersized water line. Due to prior development configuration and the presence of the RP district on the site, an exception to the full street connection requirement is being sought. There are no existing sidewalks in the area, but a new 6-foot wide asphalt pathway is proposed to connect Yates Street with the existing asphalt pathway that extends south from the end of O'Brien Street and its existing path. 50.04.003.10. EXCEPTIONS TO THE MINIMUM ❑ENSITY REQUIREMENT FOR ALL ZONES c. The number of lots required by the minimum density provisions may be reduced as necessary in any of the following circumstances i. Where the most appropriate design and location for a stormwater detention or water quality facility is above ground and outside a required open space: or ii. Where in order to comply with the minimum density requirement it would be necessary to develop in a floodplain; or iii. Where topographic, natural resources and/or soil constraints exist on site, to the extent that an applicant can demonstrate that compliance with LOC 50.06.006.2, Hillside Protection, LOC 50.05.010, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts, or other soil constraints regulated by the City's Codes or the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code, would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be developed; or iv. Where an application is for land division approval using the HBA incentives in LOC 50.05.010; or v. Where the total number of residential dwelling units resulting from the development will be at least 80% of the maximum number permitted in the zone. For the R-0, R-2 zones, the minimum lots per acre and methodology specified in LOC 50.04.001.3.a, Residential High ❑ensity Zones, shall be used for calculating minimum density. For the R-DD zone, the minimum lots per acre and methodology specified in LOC 50.04.001.2.a, Residential Medium Density Zones, shall be used for calculating minimum density; vi. Where the location of an existing dwelling is such that the applicant can demonstrate that other requirements of this Community ❑evelopment Code cannot be met if the minimum required number of lots is developed. Response: Maximum density = (total site area — access easements)77500 (90,115 SF— 9768 SF) 7500 = 10.7 units (Maximum) (10.72) (.80) = 8.6 units (Minimum) lea F-001 Application Narrative The number of lots otherwise allowable pursuant to the underlying zoning designation but for the RP district) may be transferred from RP district lands to adjacent no resource zoned lands in the same ownership at a 1:1 ratio. However Exceptions to the minimum density requirements 50.05.010.4.c states that lot density MAY transferred. RP district = 31247 SF = 34.7% of site, and on site storm water track = 3713 SF. It is not required to transfer density from the RP area, therefore the total buildable area is 58868- 9768 = 49100/750❑ = 6.55 units maximum and 5.23 units minimum. 6-units am proposed. Chapter 50.06.004 - Site Design 50.06.404.2.b.viii. Fence Located on Top of or Near Retaining Walls (1) The combined height of a retaining wall and fence, where the fence is located either on top of or within five ft. of the face of the retaining wall on the upslope side, shall be less than eight ft., as measured from the lower side of the retaining wall. (2) No fence shall be located either on top of or within five ft. of the face of the retaining wall on the upslope side when either the retaining wall or the fence is located within ten ft. of a public or private street or an access easement which serves more than tw❑ lots. (3) When a fence is located on the top of a retaining wall, the fence shall be of a different class of material than the retaining wall, i.e., if the retaining wall is masonry, the fence must be wood or metal. RESPONSE: A 36-inch high gravity concrete retaining wall is proposed within the storm water facility to limit grading. This wall will be 5.5 feet from the property line of lot t, (rear yard) The fence will be a good neighbor wood fence and used to prevent falls into the storm water facility. LOC 50.06.003.5 TRANSIT SYSTEM a. Applicability This standard is applicable to all new subdivisions, planned developments, residential developments of four units or more, and new commercial, institutional and industrial developments, and major public facility structures located on a transit street or within one-quarter mile of a transit street. b. Standards for Approval All applicable development as defined above shall be required to provide transit facilities and transit- oriented features. 17 F-001 Application Narrative i. The extent of the transit-oriented features and transit facilities required for a particular site on a transit street shall be determined by the City, in coordination with Tri-Met, based upon an analysis of: (1) Level of existing and projected adjacent transit facilities; (2) Proximity of other ridership attractors, such as bus routes; (3) Size and trip generation potential of proposed development adjacent to transit street(within one-fourth mile of a transit street); and (4) Expected transit ridership generated by a development. ii, Transit-oriented features for a site within one-fourth mile of a transit street shall be provided to connect the development with: (1) The nearest adjacent transit street or (2) Adjacent paths which lead to the nearest transit street. iii. Where a proposed development creates or contributes to a need for transit stops, pullouts, or other transit facilities, as identified by the City in coordination with Tri-Met, easements or right-of-way dedication may be required. RESPONSE. There are two bus lines in the genera!area: Bus 35 is on Pacific Highway and is approximately 2000 feet from the project, Bus 36 on McVey and is approximately 2500 feet from the project. Do to the distance little or no increase in trip generation is anticipated 3. LIGHTING STANDARDS a. Applicability I. This section is applicable to all minor or major development which results in increased use of public and private streets, public pathways and accessways, or parking lots, and lots in the PF and PNA zones. Temporary lighting for theatrical, television, and performance areas, and lights associated with special events are not subject to this section if no "development" occurs. b. Standards for Approval i. Public Pathways and Accessways 18 F-001 Application Narrative Low level lighting of less than 0.3 average foot-candles and with a maximum uniformity of illuminating ratio not to exceed 20:1 shall be required in all zones, except the PF and PNA zones, unless the applicant can show that no night use of such facilities is planned. RESPONSE: 50.06.004.3.b,i public pathway requires low-level lighting. The pedestrian path from the end of the private street to the existing pathway to the east will be lighted with bollard type lighting. S BLED5-18Y RAB Lighting bollard fixtures are proposed spaced at 20 feet. These fixtures have an average 0.27 foot-candles and a ratio of 20:1. This product meets ADA requirements. Will a bonze finish and 42-inches high. Cut sheets have been provided by Northstar Electrical Contractors. Chapter 50.06.005 - Park and Open Space Contributions RESPONSE: The proposed RP District area is 34.7% of the site. The City Parks and Recreation has expressed interest in requesting a public access easement over the property in exchange for maintenance responsibilities. This easement is subject to agreement between Parks and Recreation and the owner. Chapter 50.06.006 Geologic Hazards and Stormwater Management RESPONSE: The Lake Oswego GIS identified a portion of the property to have weak foundation soils. A geotechnical report has been prepared and included in the application submittal. It was found that development is feasible under the report and provided guidelines for development. A slope analysis is included with application submittal. All the lands outside the RP district are less than 20% with the majority less than 10%. A tentative grading plan and street profiles illustrate the proposed cuts and fills. This project under the Lake Oswego Stormwater Management Manual is considered to be a 'Large Project"and must provide for water quality and quantity. The geotechnical report finds a very poor infiltration rate making on-site disposal of storm water not possible. A preliminary storm water report has been prepared and is included with the land use application. Run-off from the private street will be directed to an on-site water facility for water quality and quantity control. Individual planters for each house will be sized for water quality and combined with the flow controls from the private street for discharge to the wetlands and stream corridor. A preliminary storm report has been prepared to demonstrate compliance with the Lake Oswego Stormwater Management Manual. Chapter 50.06.007 - Solar Access RESPONSE: 80% of the lot are to meet the solar standards, therefore 6-lots (.80) = 4.8 lots. Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, & 6 have north south dimensions greater than 90-feet and front lines oriented east/west and meet the basic standard. 19 F-001 Application Narrative Chapter 50.06.008 - Utilities RESPONSE: Sanitary services will be provided with an 8"public sewer main extension to the currently existing system in Yates Street. Water will be provided by the currently existing 4"line in Yates Street. The public water line through the development will be 6-inch and continue to the extension of O'Brien Street. The proposed individual homes will be sprinkled to provide fire protection due to the water line being undersized for an additional hydrant, unless after construction it can be demonstrated that adequate fire flow exists, Storm water from the private road run-off will be collected in a private on-site water facility as shown on the plans. Run-off from individual roof areas and access driveways will be managed on site with the use of rain gardens, planter boxes. The proposed homes will access Yates Street from a proposed private street that will be 28-feet wide and by a hammerhead configuration. All proposed lots will have access to the private street. There are no existing sidewalks in the area, but a new 6-foot wide asphalt pathway is proposed to connect Yates Street with the existing asphalt pathway that extends south from the end of O'Brien Street. Adequate lighting currently exists on Yates Street and no additional lighting is proposed at this time except for along the public access walk. (c) Utilities Pacement/New Construction. Public or private utilities shall not be placed within an RP district unless tunneling under a resource will not cause any adverse effect upon the resource and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained, or there is no other practicable alternative. If a public or private utility is allowed within an RP district, mitigation shall be required pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.4.e through 50.05.010.4.q. When applying the mitigation process to this section: (I) Step#1 Avoidance. Sanitary sewer, water, power, gas, cable, telecommunications and storm drain lines shall be maintained in public rights-of- way and routed around significant resources rather than through a resource wherever possible, except that tunneling under a resource shall be permitted where tunneling will not cause any adverse effect upon the resource or tree roots. and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained. (it) Step#2 Minimization. Sanitary sewer, water, storm drain line and other subsurface crossings shall be made within 30'of perpendicular to the stream where practicable or feasible. Response:Avoidance is not possible at this site, any development would require storm access to Hallinan Creek. The Lake Oswego Storm Management Manual requires on-site infiltration to the extent practical and overflow discharge to an acceptable area. The poor infiltration rates found on the site preclude complete infiltration of storm water from impervious areas. There is a limited storm system in Yates that stops well short of the property and due to topography could not serve the property if extended. Discharging storm water to Yates Street would also direct the storm water to a different drainage basin. The proposed storm water facility for the private street has been located topographically to allow storm 20 F-001 Application Narrative water to flow by gravity to the facility. This storm water facility is located completely outside the RP District and only the overflow line is with the buffer and the only possible discharge point is Hallinan creek. The proposed outfall avoids the wetlands and is directed as near to perpendicular to Hallinan creek as possible. This proposed pipe line is shallow and disturbance will be kept to a minimum Other routes to Hallinan creek were investigated and found that the topographically were steeper and required removal of additional trees and/or damage to tree roots. e. Mitigation; Purpose Mitigation is a way of repairing or compensating for adverse impacts to the functions and values of a natural resource caused by a development. Mitigation may consist of resource area creation, restoration, or enhancement. Some examples of mitigation actions are construction of new wetlands to replace an existing wetland that has been filled, replanting trees, and restoring stream side vegetation where it is disturbed. This subsection 4.e through LOC 50.05.010.4.q recognize that true replacement of mature or complex natural resource systems is difficult and can take many years. Mitigation is discouraged by first requiring that avoidance of development siting within the resource be explored. Then, if that is not possible, actions should be taken to minimize damage to the resource. Mitigation ratios are established according to the type of mitigation proposed and the value of the resource. Maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation measures are also required. g. Mitigation Requirements i. Mitigation Plan When mitigation is proposed or required as part of a development application, or when required or imposed as a result of a violation of this Code, the applicant shall provide a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional that: (1) For proposed development, demonstrates compliance with LOC 50.05.010.4.E and this subsection 4.g. For mitigation of violations of this Code, demonstrates compliance with LOG 50.05.010.4.f.ii{2}. (2) Includes a maintenance and monitoring plan. The maintenance and monitoring plan shall include task timelines and quantitative goals to ensure the viability of the mitigation over time. As part of the monitoring plan, the applicant or other legally responsible agent shall provide an annual report to the City Manager for a one- to three-year period, as determined by the reviewing authority. The report shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall document site conditions with narrative and pictures. 7i F-001 Application Narrative Response:A mitigation plan has been prepared for the project by Terra Science including a maintenance and monitoring schedule. The tree and buffer plan outlines removal of evasive species. planting trees and shrubs. 4. GENERALLY APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR LANDS WITH RP DISTRICTS, RC DISTRICTS, AND HBA PROTECTION AREAS a. Rebuilding Nonconforming Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling Located in RP District or RP Construction Setback Excluding single-family or duplex dwellings subject to the flood management area, if a portion of a nonconforming single-family or duplex dwelling is damaged or destroyed by causes not under the control of the owner(including but not limited to fire, earthquake, flood, landslide, and wind or tree damage, but not including destruction due to lack of structural maintenance by the owner, remodeling, or new construction), and the dwelling was nonconforming due to its location within a resource district or construction setback, the rebuilding or reconstruction of the nonconforming dwelling shall be exempt from the development standards of this section and LOG 50.01.006, Nonconforming Uses, Structures. Lots and Site Features; and to the other requirements of the Code not within this section, to the extent that the damaged or destroyed portions of the dwelling failed to conform to the referenced sections, above, and to other requirements of this Code not within this section. In order to utilize the rights granted by this subsection a building permit for the reconstruction must be submitted within one year of the date of the damage and construction completed within two years of such date. b. Modifications to Dimensional Standards, Setbacks, and Floor Area of the Underlying Zone i. Except as provided in subsections 4.b.iii and iv of this section, an applicant for development subject to environmental review may vary from the lot dimensional standards (building setbacks, lot size, lot width, and lot depth) otherwise applicable without a variance pursuant to LOC Article 50.08, Variances, if the applicant demonstrates that (1) Varying from the applicable dimensional standard or standards does not increase the transfer of allowable density from an RP district, or HBA protection area, to non RP or HBA protection area; (2) The proposed development with the dimensional modification does not have a greater negative impact on natural resources than would occur without the dimensional modification; and (3) In the case of a planned development. the criteria of LOC 50.07.007,4.d, Authorization, have been met. RESPONSE:Adjustment to the buffer on the RP lands is proposed on the northerly side of the sensitive lands is proposed. The proposed adjustment will change the irregular boundary to defined straight lines F-001 Application Narrative that will avoid future invasion by residents into the buffer. The proposed mitigation area is very similar or has the same character as the propose mitigation area and consolidates the open space with the Ha!linen open space_ This adjustment does not affect the density of the project but does provide for avoidance of this resource. Terra Science has provided a report for this adjustment in the buffer with a planting and maintenance schedule. (Attached) 50.05.010.4.f. Progressive Mitigation Steps Required The approving authority shall permit development allowable within an RC protection area or RP district only if it finds that the following progressive steps have been met: i. Step #1 Avoidance The applicant shall endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource altogether by providing alternative site plans along with the development proposal demonstrating that alternative designs have been explored. If disturbance of a resource district resource is proposed, the applicant shall first demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the property. ii. Step#2 Minimization If the applicant has endeavored to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource according to subsection 4.f.i of this section, and the reviewing authority finds that detrimental impacts cannot be avoided, then the applicant shall minimize impacts by demonstrating that: (1) Alternative and significantly different site plans and development locations on the subject site have been considered, and that the alternative chosen is the least environmentally damaging; and (2) When mitigation is proposed, there will be no net loss of resource area, functions, or values as a result of development actions pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.4.g.v, Stream Corridors and Tree Groves, or LOC 50.05.010,4.q.vi, Wetlands, whichever is applicable. Response:Avoidance of this proposed adjustment in the RP buffer was analyzed and it was determined that this minor change in the buffer limit would promote avoidance of adverse effects of an irregular buffer boundary in the backyards of adjacent lots. By setting the buffer boundary as a straight line at the property line future intrusion into the buffer is significantly reduced or eliminated. This adjustment does not change the density of the project and maintains more than a 30-foot average buffer and also exceeds the minimum 15-feet at all points. This adjustment adds area and consolidates adjacent property owned by the City and School District. (See attached Buffer analysis drawing) 23 F-001 Application Narrative Minimization: on proposed lot 4 the original RP buffer varies from approximately 65 to 74 feet, with a proposed from approximately 15 to 56 feet. On Lot 5 the original buffer is approximately 30 to 49 feet and the proposed varies from 30 to 35 feet. For proposed lot 6 the original buffer ranges from approximately 30 feet to 35 feet, with the proposed being 20 to 28 feet. Setting the new buffer line in straight lines at the back of the proposed lots will result in the feast environmental impact to the wetlands and creek corridor and provide for a readily defined line to avoid intrusion. A clear boundary line would be established and allow for separation from the residential lands and easily fenced. There is an overall increase in protected land as a result of this adjustment and consolidation of protected lands with adjacent City and School owned environmental protected areas. 50.05.010.6.iii. Reduction of RP District The reviewing authority may allow the protected riparian area to be reduced when the applicant shows that: (1) The proposed development complies with LOC 50.05.010.4.f, Progressive Mitigation Steps Required; and (2) The reduction in protected riparian area is not solely for the purpose of maximizing development of the site; and (3) Development abuts a Class I or II resource: (a) The reviewing authority may allow portions of the protected riparian area abutting a Class I resource to be reduced to a minimum of 15 ft. if: 1) (i) A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource as a whole; and 2) (ii) The width is increased in other areas to maintain a 30-ft. average width. (b) The reviewing authority may allow portions of the protected riparian area abutting a Class IL resource to be reduced to a minimum of ten ft. if: 3) (i) A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource as a whole; and 4) (ii) The width is increased in other areas to maintain a 25-ft average width; and 74 F-001 Application Narrative (4) The reviewing authority may permit a protected riparian area that is less than the average minimums required in the subsections above, when a qualified professional shows that such an adjustment will not damage the system as a whole. and one of the following conditions exists: (a) The presence ❑f an existing topographic feature or human-made development physically precludes establishment of the minimum protected riparian area required; or (b) The size or configuration of the subject parcel is insufficient to provide the minimum protected riparian area required. Response: Terri Science has provided justification that the adjustment will not reduce functions or values of the protected lands by this adjustment. As shown on the exhibit drawing the minimum buffer is larger than 1 5-feet and the overall average is greater than 30-feet 50.05.010.6.c.ii.1.c Utilities Placement/New Construction: Public or private utilities shall not be placed within an RP district unless tunneling under a resource will not cause any adverse effect upon the resource and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained, or there is no other practicable alternative. If a public or private utility is allowed within an RP district, mitigation shall be required pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.4.e through 50.05.010.44 When applying the mitigation process to this section (i) Step#1 Avoidance. Sanitary sewer, water, power, gas, cable. telecommunications and storm drain lines shall be maintained in public rights-of-way and routed around significant resources rather than through a resource wherever possible, except that tunneling under a resource shall be permitted where tunneling will not cause any adverse effect upon the resource or tree roots, and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained. (ii) Step#2 Minimization. Sanitary sewer. water, storm drain line and other subsurface crossings shall be made within 30° of perpendicular to the stream where practicable or feasible. Response: The natural topography of the site slopes towards Hallinen Creek. Storm water generated on site must be directed towards the natural drainage. There are no practical alternatives. Avoidance is not possible since routing around cannot be achieved. Additionally tunneling is not an option because if would require equipment and disturbance in the RP District. The proposed storm facility is located outside the RP District at a location that could receive the storm water from the imperious areas by gravity. The storm F-001 Application Narrative water facility site was chosen to keep the impervious area at a minimum, provide maintenance access to the facility and allow for gravity discharge to Hallinan Creek. Leaving the detention/water quality facility requires a gravity discharge line to be directed into the RP District. The location of this pipe line does not require removal of trees and discharges at more or less right angles to the creek. Alternative locations of the storm facility would require additional impervious area to provide maintenance access. Chapter 50.07.007.2 Flag lots 50.07.007.2.e.iii - maximum Structure Height ADDRESS LEGAL PEAK : GRO HEIGHT UND 1052 Yates 2S1E 1 ODA 5200 17973 259.0 16.1 1061 Yates 251E 100A 5901 i 281.8 256.2 27.6 1044 O'Brien 2S1 E 10DA 6100 269.2 254.1 15.1 1103 O'Brien 2S 1 E 10DD 1202 1 N/A N/A 28.0 1195 Hallinan 2S1 E 10D❑ 1400 ' 281.7 262.0 19,7 1225 Hallinan 2S1 E 10DD 1500 284.3 1262.5 21.8 1245 Hallinan 251E 1 ODD 1600 293.1 262.3 30.8 1265 Hallinan 2S1 E 10DD 1200 1286.6 ' 264.9 21.7 AVERAGE HEIGHT 22.6 50.07.007.2.e.iii - setback requirements Sum of side and back setbacks to equal 45-feet for flag lots 2-6 All propose flag lots have the total of sides and rear to equal 45 feet. The setback lines are shown on the preliminary plat. 50.07.007.2.f—screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation 1. A five (5) foot landscape strip will be provided adjacent to the private street curb along the frontage of the flag lots except at the driveway locations. 2. A 6-foot fence will be provided along the rear of lots 2 and 3 including a hedge 26 F-001 Application Narrative 3. A 4-foot high split rail fence will be constructed along the rear of lot 4, 5 & 6 (adjacent to the RP open space. 50.07.007.2.f.v—tree removal mitigation Mitigation deciduous trees will have a minimum 2-inch caliper and evergreen trees a minimum height of 8-feet to be planted in tract A or tract B or within the setback limits of lots 3 and 4. Chapter 55 -Tree Code 55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required. 1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the City Manager shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to, clearing. grading, excavation, trenching or tunneling, or demolition work on a property or site, that requires a development permit pursuant to LOC Chapter 5Q, and to any activity related to stormwater structures, water and sewer lines/laterals, or irrigation that requires a plumbing permit, pursuant to LOC Chapter 2. in order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan, an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be protected on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 ft. of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, stormwater structures, water and sewer lines/laterals, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements. d. Location of stormwater facilities; e. Location of proposed and existing structures, f Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and I. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per LOC 55.08.030. 3. For minor or major development, the Tree Preservation Plan shall be prepared by an arborist and shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. Response: Tree Care Unlimited LLC completed and inventor of all the trees on site and complied a summary of health and hazard conditions. Many of the trees were found to be of poor quality and rot and 27 F-001 Application Narrative other general health and hazard conditions present. This summary is provided as an attachment and the trees are illustrated on a tree plan. 55.02.080 Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Cutting Permits. An applicant for a Type 11 tree cutting permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The City Manager may require an arborist's report to address the criteria for a permit. 1. The tree is proposed for removal because it has outgrown its landscape area or the removal is part of a landscape plan, or in order to construct development approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable development regulations. The City Manager may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; a. For the purposes of this section, a tree that has outgrown its landscape area may include, but is not limited to, a tree that has grown such that damage to a structure or facility cannot be avoided by pruning or other maintenance, a tree that has grown too large within a constrained space such as a deck or other built feature that was constructed around the tree, or thinning to improve the health of other trees. b. For purposes of this section, a "landscape plan"shall consist of plantings but may also include walkways, patios and other landscape features: the plan must include more than removing the tree for which the Type Ii permit is requested and planting required mitigation trees; Response: this code criteria does not apply to the trees being removed. 2. Removal of the tree, considering proposed mitigation measures, will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and Response: the proposed trees to be removed will not have an impact of erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, of affect protection of adjacent trees. The proposed trees are not at the edge of a grove and will not change any windbreaks. Tree removal is for underground utilities and access roads and paths which will aid in soil stability. Adjacent trees to be retained are not is close proximity to the trees to be removed. 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood. This standard is met when removal of the tree(s) does not involve: a. A significant tree; Response: Significant Tree means a healthy, noninvasive tree over 15 in. DISH that is considered significant to the neighborhood due to size, species, or distinctive character, or the only remaining tree an a properly. There are three trees that are healthy and meet the size ?5 F-001 Application Narrative requirements hut only one is visible from the neighborhood. This tree in within the 3 cotes right of way and blocks the only access to the property. The arborist,found that the dripline has been previously compromised with paging and compaction and impervious sin:faces within the right of way and an adjacent property. b. Alterations to the distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline, as viewed from all public streets and properties within 300 ft. of the property; Response: The trees to be removed are generally interior to the property and cannot be viewed from properties or streets. They are surrounded by existing vegetation and trees. Yates Street is dead end at the property making it not possible to view the property from other than the 50-foot right-of-way stub. c. A tree that serves as a visual screen between a residential zone and an abutting non- residential zone, or between a low density residential zone and a medium or high density residential zone, or between a medium and high density residential zone, Response: the trees to be removed do no provide a visual screen since they are interior to the property. Zoning to the North, east and west is the same as the subject property and the adjacent residential properties are either side or back yards. The pathway extension of O'Brian can view the property but the proposed access stopes short of the path. d A street tree; or Response. none are street trees. One tree is in the right-of-way of Yates near the end of the existing street and in line with any extension of the Street, There is no alternative access to the property e. Greater than 50% of a stand of trees. Response: The total 27 trees to be removed for this partition is only approximately 10% of the trees on site. 50%of the trees proposed to be removed were found by the arborist to have health or hazard problems. Exceptions: This subsection (3) is not applicable when a. A tree is likely to or will continue to cause damage to a permanent, viable existing structure, or to infrastructure, such as utilities or paved iandscape features, that cannot ne remedied through reasonable tree maintenance or pruning; or b. Alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to aiiow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. in making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures (development purpose) or alternate landscaping designs (outgrown landscape area; F-001 Application Narrative landscape plan)that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. Response: There is only one access to the property through the extension of Yates_ Alternate public and private access routes were investigated. Placing the access road at the northerly boundary would result in approximately the same number of trees removed with the undesirable location of the access adjacent to residential lots. The route that was selected uses some of the existing driveway and previous yard of the existing house and existing shed. A circular turnaround has dimensions what would remove additional trees and require longer driveways resulting in additional impervious areas. 4. Removal of the tree is not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views Response: none of the trees are being removed to enhance views. The sole purpose is to provide a direct route for access and utilities. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree pursuant to LOC 55 02.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Response:summary of individual trees to be removed. The quality of the trees is outlined per the arborist report. Many are in poor health. # Species Dia. Significant Arborist Comments Comments (reason for removal) 296 White Oak 34" Yes Good/Fair Tip die-back Within the right-of-way with and soil compaction paving within dripline(street) 294 White Oak 36" No Poor, 20% dead (Street) 285 Ash 17' No Fair, 40%dead,lean (Street) 295 Ash 12" No Poor, 50% dead, Basel rot (Street) 283 White Oak 39.5' No Fair, tip die-back, 10% Not visible from Yates or deadwood neighbors(Street) 300 White Oak 24" No Poor, leans, tip die-back, (Street) Codominant rot 64 Douglas Fire 23" No Poor, insect damage, 40% (Street) dead and leans 90 Douglas Fir 14' No Basel rot, 60% dead (Street) 79 Douglas Fir 25" No Poor, Basel rot, 60% dead (Street) 30 F-001 Application Narrative _ T 54 Douglas Fir 27" No Poor, leans, 60% dead (Street) 57 Big Leaf Maple 7" No Very Poor (Street) 58 Douglas Fir 18' No Dead (Street) 369 Douglas Fir 30" No Poor, rot, hazardous (Street) 85 Douglas Fir 12" No Poor, Basel rot, 40% dead (Street) 55 Douglas Fir 34" No Fair, with secondary top, (Street) Basal rot, 40%dead 582 Big Leaf Maple 12" No Very Poor, Ivy covered, (Street) 60%dead 587 Douglas Fir 24" No Poor, 40% dead, Basal rot (Street) 561 Big Leaf Maple 15" No Poor, Basel rot (Street) 29 Big Leaf Maple 7.5" No Poor, Hazardous (Street) 47 Big Leaf Maple 9.5" No Poor, leans, rot (Storm facility) 42 White Oak 12" No Poor, 20%dead, Basel rot (Storm facility) 45 White Oak 15.5" No Poor, 30%dead, Basel rot (Storm facility) 43 Big Leaf Maple 7" No Poor, 20% dead, leans, rot (Storm facility) 290 Ash 14.5" No Poor, 25% dead, leans, (Street) exposed rot 93 Big Leaf Maple 10" No Fair, Basel rot (Street) 4 White Oak 14° No Very poor, cavity, Basel rot (Storm facility) 44 Plum 8.5" No Hazardous, 60%dead (Storm facility) A total of 27 trees are proposed to be removed with one being judged as significant, thus requiring a total of 28 mitigation trees to be replaced. The replacement trees are show on the tree plan. 31 F-001 Application Narrative PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT 1107 Yates Street Lake Oswego Date: July 5, 2018 .46.) JUL II S 2019 theta. NARRATIVE: The purpose of this report is to demonstrate feasibility of a storm system for the proposed 6-lot subdivision at this site. Final engineering will incorporate the design elements. The site is a wooded parcel with an existing house than will be removed with the redevelopment. On the parcel is a wetland and a stream corridor that will be protected with a tract. The property is located at the end of Yates street and generally slopes to the southeasterly direction, towards the drainage way. There are no public storm systems in the area and the only discharge of storm water is towards the wetlands and stream corridor. The tested infiltration rate was found to be 0.16 & 0.17 inches per hour respectfully in the two test locations. These rates are less than all the design criteria found in the Lake Oswego Storm Water Manual- "site assessment, feasibility analysis, and storm water tacillty selection" Tor on-site infiltration. Since the infiltration rate is less 0.25 inches per hour a flow/through planter is proposed that will provide water quality for the Private street and individual planters for the residential lots REFERENCE: Lake Oswego Storm water Management Manual The King County Department of Public Works, Hydrographic Program, ver 4.21E GeoPacific geotechnical report (September 8, 2017) F-002 Preliminary Drainage Report ASSUMPTION: 2-year 2.38 inches 5-year 2.85 inches 10-year 3.20 inches 25-year 3.73 inches Preliminary impervious areas: Private Road & path 7362 SF =0.17 acres 6 houses @ 2500 SF = 0.06 acres ASSUMPTIONS: Based on the infiltration test result the soils are Hydrologic Group D and assuming an undisturbed wood or forest land the curve number per the SCS Western Runoff Curve Numbers is 81 for the undeveloped condition, but the design manual for unexplained reasons requires a CN of 70. CALCULATIONS WATER QUANTiTY ROAD V=3630'0.17'(3.2-o.2 f 1000l9s 10])2 =1831 CF (3.2 +0.08[1000/98- 10]) Assume lined planter 20 x50 12"of storage=1000 CF 1.5' medium = 375.00 CF 1.5'drain rock=600 CF Total = 1975 CF WATER QUANTITY INDIVIDUAL LOTS V=3530*0.06*(3.2-0.2[1000/98—101)' =646 CF (3.2+0.08[1000/98- 10]) Assume lined planter 10X34 12"of storage=340 CF 1.5' medium = 127 CF 1.5'drain rock=204 CF Total =671 CF WATER QUALITY ROAD V=3630*0.17"(1.0-0.2[1ooG/9s—10fl =488 CF (1 +0.08[1000/98-10)) WATER QUALITY ROOFS V=3630*0.46''(1.0-0.2(1000/98—10])' = 172 CF (1+0.08 f 1000/98-10]) F-002 Preliminary Drainage Report STORM OPTIONS: 1—S.C.S.TYPE-1A 2-7-DAY DESIGN STPRM 3—STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S.C.S.TYPE 1-A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: STORM OPTIONS: 1—S.C.S.TYPE-1A 2-7-DAY DESIGN STPRM 3—STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S.C.S. TYPE 1-A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES 10,24,3.2 Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx S.C.S.TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx XXXHXXXXXXXx 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM xxxx 3.20"TOTAL PRECIP, Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ENTER:A(PERV),CN(PERV),A{IMPERV),CN{IMPERV),TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 Runoff to Culvert with development assume 38%impervious 14.0,86,6.0,98,17 DATA PRINT OUT: AREA{ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 20.0 14.0 81 5.0 92 17.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(FIRS) VOL(CU-FT) 8.06 7.83 138889 ENTER [d:][path]filename[.ext) FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: C:culy SPECIFY: C-CONTINUE, N-NEWSTORM, P- PRINT, S—STOP C 0.0,86,0.51,98,5 DATA PRINT OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .5 .0 86.0 .5 98.0 5.0 P EAK-Q(CFS) T-P EAIC(H RS) VO L(C U-FT) .50 7.67 6473. ENTER Id:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: C:25Y P SPECIFY: C-CONTINUE, N -NEWSTORM, P-PRINT, 5—STOP F-002 Preliminary Drainage Report DOWN STREAM CAPACITY: The culvert at Hallinan Creek, is a 24-inch concrete culvert with a capacity of approximately 8.84 CFS.There is no evidence that this pipe has a conveyance problem. Upstream there is approximately 20 acres of both developed and undeveloped and and includes extensive open ground around the Hallinan school.Counting the residential houses,and lineal feet of street when compared with the total acreage the result is less than one dwelling unit per acre_ Using 15%as impervious,calculations indicate approximately 8.06 rfs required. CONCLUSION: A lined planter 20-feet by 50-feet is adequate far both water quality and quantity for the road. Individual residential planter will be sized with the actual impervious areas. At this time 10x34 lined planters are anticipated with a separate collectior►s system for both quantity and quality. The discharge will be to the wetlands and stream corridor.Storm water from the residential planter boxes will be discharged to a conveyance pipe with rip-rap at the outflow point for discharge into Hallinan creek.The calculated flow from this facility is less than 1 cfs and with the natural slope at the discharge point less than 10% little erosion is anticipated. Prepared by: Bruce D. Goldson, PE 1 1,1 Theta, LLC 0,40, t,atnie lititi �jPO Box 1345 7120 �Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 1► �uwi,fIri►011 CCa, Q0' EXPIRES: Ofir30,'2019�f SIGNATUREE DATE; DATE; 4 F-002 Preliminary Drainage Report L 0 I ! 4 . FLS7N5Y.9 • f ELL 243.M Y67 F.[N]N1Si,B- - _ SmIG OW 9FIFEW� CL FW�]I A,16_O ZIMi • --,- - DOW PLAN ID/ ' I aw �„ o,mzra iv r RS • • • • Et-GRYO STY 1:0 1lYc SA/® E SFR Y4'151C ^ tall T51,7r • u. ;tu1.2.i.L' __Ire Ft=y ME <-lam • 25J ahf wan tl 8'a SY dsgsa ulemr.�--zz 1 r uolps� S.S111 slu OH at ' OMIT i.-=:E:1•a_r 'I Radsrom 29 s51 11 1I nJl xa=.9,sn1•x IEA,N6.W 6r,siu 5 AL J �c t Ost Nt4 MUIR).YIF!-2 �-2 •~ A f"- _ �•- a 15)117.20.s' SIR 1.7144 3RF-2 STORM N E PROFILE 0 ,onf,i2 LN . I 1 yA •I I R2Ar LHe F22"2 PM r.1.'L S NFI DRAiNAG _P13.+./f•[.E ` 2C L�lKY S1L15,6 iY 212.4.22 f; 'S`-;a SCALE: 1"= i0'1iVRIIdN±RI C[E)253.1k 8' � ` a @ ry/Txg,g 1•• - s•VERTICAL T rs• 1Tc5u m mom Tousling wool k112g �, 1 1}p I1iZOSAff TO Sh-WC S t 41 '' L I tl ' , F f W _ rC2 p*TER Ett5140 IPAR2N NEllcRAR7 Z�-- � - 1 r 14,r0611111111111 r _ 2 ' '1Y NW nr.l un WA W11 5911 WIS + Ir NW i'�•.=+� 1 }52.0 Ede sv osyss -I sr.L wrso0.Se tEg sr x.oxc9,Sul I rAr u LJT7 i.Eti STu1Ftt-2 J��I SSG 5.4`,.. OS•Ox yg223194 yeti} E. t. ■ /.I MST StYui1-I EG1i SI75 57u -5 IT5.0 1r 5_5111 'A'W-"'-"-: ---- i 4T,5,555o.Ste•} sT41r4R�W. STA.i!YAsx STY-, 1 ' l 25EI1 RR L'YS RRr 2N 01 .T ..'k —y�___ F.MZS731 ' lit _ -- if c:u pm r a:rr srt v c 6 'i 4 .1 I� STORM DRAINAGE PROFILE0 illep 1 .2.11417.515 , -�aup u ma SCALE- 1'_ +0' HORIZONTAL ��AE.cx 1n'f11' _--` i T"= 3'VERTICAL 1 �7 i �F. I i T RP BOIJNOARY ^ — - --- F x1 aw of cvlmu._ _: k pFtOPdSEG�`1_ i-�'-!gig -�^ 4 ffiR P7m,,,, .tlF�cp• � • _�� -1w. -- _—- OPEN SPACE F III / ' TRACT s f_ .._- ___�_— ' - r lY1917 `�- - — .� _ 1 ._ -'f • Fla'' 1AITL fGa,W F1:EH;Y dl9.aTAPy ' r Lin N1 f• I II 9E04 EnSFNL WEELAN9 I __ I • RP BOUNDARY WETLAND ` `f 7 J--1 ViFA- __ '.. .5a ?-- • PER LU IGG049 1' r t manic ll- €(Ht;1yj5,!- 5RL.39 5L4 O Sd.;%L5W}p11 L-_Y ___^ ^_ ^, E fix:A+.,W EAT 3.ii°.,u1 ��L z.o7,W.sAv • "l `! 011 sloe mu n 24E6" Cairawsz DAM/ELEV Ii.1H}2ETT r • '`4`� • . ;. ixw. " 245.CO "Ia 9E REIrr,E� 0-!.CO t+ao 2+00 • exnu 3 1 AP BOEJNDFINY srtsRo. AHITARY PROFILE PROPOSE¢ •41c.," 1- SCALE 1"_ •-o' HORIIONFAL # 2014-126 = 5 VERIIC?L UTILITY PLAN DESIGNED: BDG r I f.=N_R- _ DRAWN: FI1S I 'T 1- �-et_. /_,. 1 1 1107 Yates StreetscALE 1 =ao E10cIXEBBlHG - 9UF1Vk11NU - FLAMM/a T.25.,R.1E.,Section 14QQ,TL 13O0 4/6 DATE' saW2*2241%2,04T oaaa.lxs ,w3s+e • �Ie r I�Lr�wnrla DATE uo, REVISION 4.a_ -: Y•-r. ..„1=ix Lake Oswego,Oregon . . . .. _._,,,:._‘\_,,... i' t, Ore 1 , • • 'r t,-,.171) 0 P ,, • . .h . • t + , t., _.,,,, ,,,. : At__)__. , __ _ _ . .. . . .._ _ 4.6.2 Planters - _ . . Definition Planters are vegetated reservoirs with structural walls that treat and, where soils are suitable, infiltrate stormwater through a biofiltration soil medium. introduction Applicability fat ie Planters treat stormwater through sedimentation - of particles in ponded water; filtration and phytoremediation through contact with vegetation; F3MP Parameters and biodegradation and adsorption of pollutants Appropriate for • through contact with soil organisms and chemical soilApp pretreatment processes. Planters are essentially rain gardens with stormwaterropriate for management walls The following considerations may management help you select the best facility for your site: Provides flow control (when designed for V Planters require less space than rain gardens to infiltration) treat the same contributing area Provides water quality Planters are more costly than typical rain gardens treatment e to construct because they have structural walls. Appropriate for residential Planters typically require _ ypicali a structural engineer to tJ1C permit required design (because of their structural walls). Planters ` receiving stormwater from downspouts need Engineer may be required energy dissipation at outlet and planters receiving water from the street need a sumped pollution control catch basin at inlets. • Flow-through (lined) planters have no setback requirements, so they can be constructed adjacent to buildings (for example, to treat roof runoff). • Planters can help fulfill a site's landscaping requirements • Planter should be designed to consider safety issues (including placing planters above grade may be necessary. pedestrian safety). Curbing fencing, or Figure 4.3 Planter Section (Typ.y. Planter width Alternate inlet/building downspout Overflow Oe$4gn pending `WalkwaySurface Inlet depth\ I-- Waterproofing/liner - Mulch I i- Planter Bioflltratiort soil mix - • - Choker course To approved outlet location ' Drain rock v�Y Underdrain to run length of planter wliare required Native soil I ` -- N_ Optional bcF402dPrieetilrn$fla li s Drainage Report Lake Oswego Stormwater Manual Section 4.6 75 Yates Street Subdivision Proiect No. 17-4683 Soil Undocumented Fits-Undocumented fill was encountered in test pit TP-1 and extended to a depth of 8 inches. The fill generally consisted of very stiff, silt (ML)with fine roots throughout. The fill contained varying amounts of organic and inorganic debris(boards and concrete). Other areas of undocumented fill may be present outside our explorations- especially in the vicinity of the existing structures and driveway. Topsoil -The ground surface in test pits TP-2 and TP-3 was directly underlain by a topsoil horizon. Underlying the undocumented fill in test pit TP-1 was a buried topsoil horizon. The topsoil and buried topsoil horizons generally consisted of loose, brown, moderately organic silt(1VML-0L). The topsoil contained fine to large roots throughout and extended to a depth of about 12 to 18 inches below the ground surface. 'iNillflannette Formation-Underlying the buried topsoil horizon in test pit TP-1, and the topsoil horizon in test pits TP-2 and TP-3 was clayey silt(ML)and silty clay (CL) belonging to the Willamette Formation. These soils were typically medium stiff to very stiff and light brown in color with abundant orange and gray mottling. In explorations, the Willamette Formation extended beyond the maximum depth of exploration (10 feet). Groundwater On August 28, 2017, neither static groundwater nor groundwater seepage was encountered in test pits to a depth of 10 feet below the ground surface. Regional geologic mapping indicates static groundwater is between 95 and 105 feet below ground surface (Snyder, 2008). Experience has shown that temporary perched groundwater conditions often occur over fine-grained native deposits such as those beneath the site, particularly during the wet season. It is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on the season, local subsurface conditions, changes in site utilization, and other factors_ V�9i�IlLTRA p 6�t 6�1 TE.T11\I Soil infiltration testing was performed using the open hole infiltration method in test pit TP-1 at depths of 4 and 8 feet. The soil was pre-saturated for a period of over 3 hours. The water level was measured to the nearest tenth of an inch every fifteen minutes to half hour with reference to the ground surface. The reported rates do not incorporate a factor of safety. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied by the system designer. Table 1 presents the results of our falling head infiltration testing. Takrle li. Summary of Infiltration Test Results Depth Infiltration Hydraulic Test Pit (feet) Soil Type Rate stead Range irrelitrr (inches) 4 Clayey SILT (ML) 0.16 8-9 TP-1 - - - — — — — — 8 Silty CLAY(CL) 0.17 38-40 4683-Yates Street subdivision GR GEOPACtFtC ENGINE RlRG,lric. F-002 Preliminary Drainage Report Tree Care Unlimited LLC Location:1107 Yates St.Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Date: TREE# COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME 17131i CONDITION Noi1=S #1 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 7' Fair 40%dead #10 Fruit Cherry Prunus avium 6.5" Poor/Fair 20%dead/20 degrees lean #100 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 27' Poor Asymmetrical canopy/Basal rot/Included bark/20%dead #11 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 30" Poor/Fair Codominant/Asymmetrical/40%dead/Dead leader/Basal rot #12 White Oak Quercus alba 11.5" Poor Poor wound recovery/Basal rot/Failed top #13 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 6.5" Poor Poor taper/60%dead/Included bark #14 White Oak Quercus alba 9" Fair Basal rot/30%dead #15 White Oak Quercus alba 14" Poor Basal rot/Fruiting/30%dead #16 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7' Hazardous 30 degrees lean/Cavity/Basal rot/Sucker growth #17 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 27" Fair 30%Dead/Included/15 degree lean/Asymmetrical canopy #18 Not a tree #19 Not a tree #2 Dead Dead #20 Fruit Cherry Prunus avium 19" Poor 30 degrees lean/Basal rot/20%dead/Included bark #21 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 8" Fair 15 degree lean/Codonnant #22 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 15' Poor 40%dead/Incuded bark #23 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 13" Dead Split trunk #24 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 12.5" Poor/Fair Basal rot/Included bark/30%dead/15 degrees lean #25 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 15' Poor/Fair 40%dead/Basal rot/Ivy/10 degree lean #26 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 23" Very Poor Codominant/Ball rot/40%dead/Included bark #260 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 24" Poor/Fair Basal rot/Sparse canopy/20%dead/Tip die back/Gummosis #261 NAT #262 Dead On the ground dead #263 Laurel Laurus nobilis Dead On the ground dead #264 NAT #265 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7" Poor/Fair Girdle scar/Burls #266 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 14" Poor/Fair 10 degree lean/Sparse canopy/25%dead #267 NAT #268 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 8" Poor/Fair Burls/Basal Rot/20%dead #269 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Merziesii 35" Poor/Fair Basal rot/20%dead/Failed top #27 Fruit Cherry Prunus avium 14" Poor 20 degrees lean/Basal rot/Poor taper/40%dead #270 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 21" Poor/Fair 40%dead/Sparse canopy #271 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesri 26" Poor/Fair 30%dead/10 degree lean/Basal rot/Asymmetrical canopy/Failed top/Codominant #272 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 8" Poor/Fair Basal rot/Burls/15 degree lean/Poor healing wounds #273 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 33" Fair Sparse canopy/30%dead #274 NAT #275 Balsam Fir Abies Balsamea 15" Fair Sparce canopy/40%dead/Tip die back -, #276 Douglas Fir Fseudotsuga Menziesii 23" Poor/Fair Asymmetrical/Failed top/30%dead O r #28 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 10" Poor/Fair Basal rot/40%dead O #283 White Oak Quercus alba 39.5" Fair Tip Die-Back/10% Deadwood/Included bark W #284 Not existing #285 Ash Fraxinus latifoha 17" Good/Fair 40%dead/15"lean/Epicormic CD #285 White Oak Quercus alba 29" Poor Basal rot/50%deadwood/Ivy/Included bark CD #287 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 9.5" Poor 30 degree lean/Ivy/Basal rot C #288 White Oak Quercus alba 31" Fair Included bark/Asymmetrical canopy/10 degrees lean #289 Not a tree CD l< Tree Care Unlimited LLC #29 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7.5" Hazardous Cavity/Stubs/30%dead #290 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 14.5" Poor 25%Deadwood/20%lean/Epicormic growth/Basal rot/Exposed rot #291 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 32.5" Poor/Fair 30%dead/included bark/Codominant rot #292 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 26" Good/Fair Included bark/Tip Die-back/20%dead epicomuc #293 White Oak Quercus alba 13" Fair 30%dead #294 White Oak Quercus alba 36" Poor Included bark/Tip Die-Back/20%deadwood/Fpicormic growth/Stubs wound #295 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 12" Poor 50%dead/Poor taper/Sparse canopy/Basal rot #296 White Oak Quercus alba 34" Good/Fair Tip Die-back/Galls/Soil Compaction #298 , Not a tree #299 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 9" Dead/Dying Dead #3 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 10" Very Poor Blown top/Basal rot #30 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 6.5" Very Poor #300 White Oak Quercus alba 24" Poor/Fair 10%lean/Tip Die-Back/Seaffold Decay/Codominant #31 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 26" Good/Fair 30%dead/Basal rot #32 Not a tree #33 Oak Quercus 6" Dead Dead #34 Not a tree #35 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 9" Good/Fair 40%dead/Asymmetrical/Basal rot #36 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 10" Poor/Fair 20 degree lean/Basal rot/Asymmetrical canopy #364 White Oak Quercus alba 12" Poor Basal rot/40%dead/Fruiting bodies #365 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 30" Very Poor Burls/Gummosis/Basal rot/Codominant included bark #369 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 30" Hazardous 40%dead/Bracket #37 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 19" Fair 30%dead/Included bark-upper canopy #371 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 17" Poor Sparse canopy/Included bark/Basal rot/15 degree lean #373 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 7" Poor Included bark/30%dead/Basal rot #375 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 11" Poor/Fair Burls/Asymmetrical/70%dead/Basal rot #376 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 32" Fair 40%dead/Asymmetrical/Basal rot #377 Alder Alnus 8" Good Small basal rot #379 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 22" Poor 50%dead/Asymmetrical/Codominant/Secondary leader/Included bark/Basal rot #38 White Oak Quercus alba 32" Fair Twig die back/Included bark/Basal rot light/Codominant #381 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 20" Hazardous Bracket #382 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7' Poor 10 degree lean/40%dead/Epicormic #383 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 24" Poor Thin canopy/50%dead/Basal rot #384 Alder Alnus 8" Good Small basal rot/Suckers #385 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 10" Dead Dead #388 NAT #389 Does not exist #39 Plum Genus prunus 8" Hazardous Basal rot/60%dead #390 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 11' Poor/Fair 20%dead/Basal rot/Epicormic #392 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7" Fair Burls/Small wounds/20 degree lean/Codominant #393 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 19" Very Poor Sparse canopy/60%dead/Basal rot/10 degree lean #396 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7" Dead Dead -, #397 NAT O 6 #398 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 20" Poor 10 degree lean/Sparse canopy/Basal rot/Asymmetrical O #399 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 15" Poor 40%dead/Asymmetrical/Basal rot/Top failure W #4 White Oak Quercus alba 14' Very Poor Basal rot/20%dead/Cavity —i #40 White Oak Quercus alba 9" Poor Gall/Basal rot/Epicornuc/Dead leader/30%dead #400 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 29" Poor/Fair 10 degree lean/20%dead/Basal rot et #41 Not a tree N #42 White Oak Quercus alba 12" Poor/Fair 20%dead/Asymmetrical/Basal rot/Poor taper #43 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7" Poor/Fair 20 degree lean/20%dead/Basal rot/Burls CD • Tree Care UnIilnited LLC #44 Plum Genus prunus 8.5" Hazardous Cavity/40 degrees Iean/Rot/60%dead #45 White Oak Quercus alba 15.5" Poor/Fair Included bark/30%dead/Basal rot #46 White Oak Quercus alba 15.5 Fair 10 degrees lean/Basal rot/40%dead/Asymmetrical #47 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 9.5" Poor Basal rot/Burls/10 degrees lean #48 Westem Hemlock Tsuga Heterophylla 6.5' Fair Basal rot #49 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 25" Good/Fair Basal rat/50%dead/Ivy #5 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 25.5" Fair Codominant/lncluded/30%dead #50 Fruit Cherry Prunus avium 15" Poor 30 degrees lean/Included bark/Basal rot/25%dead #501 Not a tree #502 Cherry Prunus cerasus 15" Hazardous Basal rot/95%dead/30 degree lean #503 Douglas Fir Pseudatsuga Menziesii 18" Poor Basal rot/Failed top/Asymmetrical/5%dead #504 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 41" Poor 50%dead/Included bark/Codominant/Poor taper/Basal rot #505 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 31" Poor/Fair Cadominant/Included bark/40%dead/Basal rot #506 English Holly Llex 8" Fair Invasive species #507 Dead Failed at 15" #508 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 30" Fair Basal rot/Sparse canopy/30%deadwood #509 Ash Fraxinus latifoli.a 19' Poor/Fair Asymmetical/50%dead/Girdling root/Basal rot #51 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 9" Poor 25%dead/Poor taper/Basal rot #510 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 6" Hazardous Weak scaffold/80%dead/Sparse canopy/30 degree lean #511 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 11" Poor 40 degree lean/10%dead/Asymmetrical canopy #512 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 30" Poor Included bark/Codominant/30%dead/Asymmetrical #513 NA1' #514 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesif 38" Fair Basel rot/25%dead/10 degree lean/Wood pecker damage #515 Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata 43" Poor Asymmetrical canopy/Basal rot/Included bark/Cavity #516(526 on map) Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 10" Poor/Fair Sparse canopy/Basal rot/10 degree lean/30%dead/Poor taper #517 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 28" Poor/Fair 40%dead/Secondary leader/Asymmetrical #518 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 11" Poor/Fair Codominant/Included bark/40%dead #519 Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata 14" Good Asymmetrical #52 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 18' Very Poor Failed top/Basal rot/40%dead #520 Not a tree #521 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 15' Hazardous Cavity at base #522 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 8' Hazardous Weak scaffold/80%dead/Sparse canopy #523(542 on map) Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 8" Poor/Fair Basal cavity/15%dead/Basal rot #524 On the ground English Laurel #525 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophylium 10" Poor 40 degree lean/Failed top #526 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 10' Hazardous Rot/Cavity #527 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 39" Good Codominant/20%dead/Girdling root/Basal rot #528 NAT #529 Hawthorn Crataegus 9" Poor/Fair 30 degree lean/10%dead/Basal rot #53 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7' Fair 20%dead/Basal rot #530 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 38" Good/Fair Asynunetrical/Poor taper/60%dead/Basal rot #531 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 27" Poor/Fair Asymmetrical/30%dead/Codominant/Included bark Ti #532 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 8" Dead Dead C #533 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 27'' Hazardous Bracket C #534 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 12" Poor Burls/40%dead/Top failure/Basal rot W #535 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 27" Poor Basal rot/Secondary leader/Failed top/40%dead #536 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 10" Dead Dead CD #537 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 27" Good/Fair Basalrot/Poor taper (D #538 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 7" Hazardous Weak scaffold/80%dead/Sparse canopy C #539 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 37' Poor/Fair Codominant/Asymmetrical/lncludedbark/Basal rot/40%dead #54 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 27" Poor 15 degree lean/Codominant/Secondary/60%dead CD Tree Care Unlimited LLC #540 Chem Pnmus cerasus 11" Poor/Fair 20%dead/Asymmetrical canopy/Basal rot #541 White Oak Quercus alba 19" Poor/Fair Asymmetrical/20 degree lean/ivy/Tip die back/Basal rot #542 White Oak Quercus alba 9' Dead Dead #543 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7" Poor/Fair 20%dead/Basal rot #544 10" Dead On ground #545 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 29" Poor/Fair Basal rot/30%dead/Sparse/Asymmetrical canopy/Poor taper #546 Douglas Fix Pseudotsuga Menziesii 13" Very Poor Bark rot/Insect damage/30 degree lean failed top/Sparse canopy/Basal rot/Decay #547 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 14" Poor/Fair Basal rot/40%dead/20 degree lean/Failed top #548 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 45" Good Asymmetrical/Poor taper/40%dead/Basal rot #549 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllurn 9" Fair 25 degree lean/Asyuunetrical canopy/Basal rot #55 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 34' Good/Fair Basal rot/40%dead/Poor taper/Secondary top #550 Not a tree #551 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 14' Dead Failed at 10" #552 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 36' Fair Basal rot/20%dead/Hangers #553 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 11" Poor 40 degree lean/Basal rot/Cavity/Asymmetrical canopy #554 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 11" Hazardous 40 degree lean/50%dead/Sparse canopy/Failed top/Poor taper/Condominant included bark #555 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7' Poor/Fair 20 degree lean/30%dead/Asymmetrical canopy/Basal rot #556 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7" Poor/Fair 30 degree lean/30%dead/Basal rot/Asymmetrical canopy #557 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 20" Fair Codominant/Included bark/Basal rot/40%dead #558 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 24" Poor/Fair 60%dead/10 degree lean/Basal rot #559 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 19" Very Poor Weak condition/60%dead/Basal rot #56 Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata 25" Good/Fair Codominant/Included bark/Poor taper/60%dead/Failed top #560 NAT #561 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 15" Poor Basal rot/Blown top #563 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 31" Fair 40%dead/Basal rot #564 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 39" Good/Fair Basal rot/40%dead/Poison oak #565 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7" Poor/Fair Burls/10%dead/Basal rot #566 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 12" Hazardous Failed top/Basal rot/Suckers #567 Balsam Fir Abies Balsamea 16" Poor 70%dead/Sparse canopy/Basal rot #568 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 7" Poor/Fair Basal rot/20 degree lean/Epicormic #569 Alder Alnus 7" Poor 40 degree lean/30%dead/Basalrot #57 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 7" Very Poor Basal rat/Blown top/50%dead #570 NAT #571 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 46" Fair Asymmetrical/50%dead #572 562{Same) Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 41" Very Poor Codominant included bark/Basal rot/Asymmetrical/Large leader 40%dead/Small leader 80%dead #573 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 28" Hazardous Included bark/Codominant/Dead leader/80%dead/Basal rot #574 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 13" Hazardous Top failure #575 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 9" Poor 20 degree lean/40%dead/Weak leader attachment/Basal rot #575 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 8" Poor/Fair 20%dead/Basal rot/20 degree lean #576 Dead Dead #577 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 14" Hazardous Basal rot/Sparse canopy/Burls/Bracket #578,598(Same) Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 35" Poor Failed top/Sparse canopy/50%dead/Basal rot/Included barl TI #58 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 18" Dead Dead r p #580 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 14" Fair Asymuretrical/30°k dead/10 degree lean/Basal rot C #581 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 12" Fair 10%dead/Basal rot/Epicormic W #582 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 12" Very Poor Basal rot/ivy/60%dead/Ivy/Poor taper #583 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 13" Dead Dead (to #584 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 14" Poor/Fair Sparse canopy/30%dead/Basal rot N #585 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 24" Poor Basal rot/Asymmetrical/Poor taper/Poor root system C #586 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 30" Poor/Fair Basal rot/Asymmetrical/30%dead #587 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 24" Poor Secondary/40%dead/Sparse/Basal rot CD Tree Care 'Unlimited LLC #588 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 21' Poor/Fair Codominant/Included bark/40%dead/Basal rot #589 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 37" Fair 50%dead/Poor taper/Thin canopy/Basal rot #59 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 17" Poor 50%dead/Secondary/Sparse/Codonunant/Basal rot #590 Laurel Laurus nobilis 7' Good 40 degree lean #591 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 16" Poor/Fair 20 degree lean/Basal rat/50%dead #592 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesu 10" Hazardous 80%dead/Blown top #593(Not on map) Alder Alnus 9" Good/Fair 25 degree lean/Suckers #594 Balsam Fir Abies Balsamea 14" Very Poor 80%dead/Sparse canopy #595 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 16" Hazardous Large cavity/Rot #596 Alder Alnus 10° Poor 30 degree lean/30%dead/Basal rot #597 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 26" Poor/Fair Asymmetrical/40%dead/Basal rot #599 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 17" Poor Epicormic/80%dead/Basal rot #6 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 6.5" Fair 20 degrees lean/10%dead/Asymntetircal canopy #6 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 12° Hazardous Failed top #600 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 12' Hazardous Basal rot/Trunk rot #61 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 32" Fair Secondary/Codorninant/Basal rot/40%dead #62 NAT #63 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 17' Poor Basal rot/60%dead/Epicormic/20 degree lean/secondary leader #64 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 23" Poor/Fair Insect damage/40%dead/10 degree lean #65 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 22" Poor Basal rot/Asymmetrical/Blown top/50%dead/Sparse canopy #66 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 22° Fair 40%dead/Basal rot/16 degree lean #67 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 30" Poor/Fair 2 secondary leaders/50%dead/Basal rot #68 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesu 11" Good/Fair Basal rot/30%dead/Sparse canopy/Poor taper #69 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 19" Poor/Fair Asymmetrical/40%dead/25 degree lean/Basal rot #7 Hawthorn Crataegus 7" Poor 60%deadwood/Basal rot/Included bark #70 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 19" Poor/Fair Secondary/40%dead/Poor taper/Basal rot #71 19" Hazardous Brackets #72 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 11" Good Basal rot #73 Not a tree #74 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 24" Fair Asymmetrical/Basal rot/40%dead #76 NAT #77 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 22" Poor 25%dead/Basal rot/30 degree lean/Burls #78 Ash Fraxinus latifotia 14' Good/Fair Basal rot/Scondary top/10 degree lean/40%dead/Asymmetrical #79 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 25" Poor/Fair Poor taper/Basal rot/60%dead #8 NAT #80 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 25" Good/Fair Asymmetrical/Basal rot/40%dead #81 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 10" Good Basal rot/10%dead #82 White Oak Quercus alba 32" Good/Fair 10%dead/10 degree lean/Asymmetreical #83 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 28' Fait 30%dead/Codominant/Included bark/Asymmetrical #84(190 on map) NAT #85 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesu 12" Poor/Fair 40%dead/Asymmetrical/Basal rot #86 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 21.5' Fair Failed top/Asymmetrical/Basal rot #87 NAT C #88 NAT p #89 Ash Fraxinus latifolia 25" Hazardous Deep cavity/Sparse top/50%dead W #90 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesu 14° Fair Basal rot/60%dead/Codominant —I #91 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 32.5" Poor Asymmetrical canopy/Basal rot/Included bark/10%lean (p #92 NAT alo #93 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 10" Fair Basal rot CO #94 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 23" Poor/Fair Asymmetrical/40%dead/Top failure C #95 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 29" Poor Basal rot/Secondary top/40%dead <D Tree Care Unlimited I.LC #96 Ash Fraxinus latifoiia 8" Poor 50%dead/15 degree lean/Basal rot #98 Balsam Fir Abies Baisamea T' Poor 40%dead/Asymmelrical/Stress/Sparse canopy #99 Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum 10" Fair 10%dead/Basal rot/Epicornnic No# Douglas Fir Pseudo tsuga Menxiesii 26" Poor Codonvnant/Basal rot/Blown top Not Inventory Hoy Llex 6.5" _N/A Invasive O W CD CD CD Youngblood, Bill From: Kerklaan, Katy Sent: Friday,July 27, 2018 11:39 AM To: Lentz, Ryan;Youngblood, Bill Cc: Amsberry, Rob; Bateman,Jim; Sarah Ferguson; Nick McMurtrey (Nicholas.McMurtrey@murraysmith.us); Smith-Bouwer, Diana Subject: Erosion control and noise - private development near 618 2nd Street Hi Ryan and Bill, I just spoke with a resident,Andy Lewis,who lives at 618 2"d Street. His number is 503-930-1579. I told him I would pass on his concerns to both of you. He initially called about the D Avenue improvement project, concerned about dust in the alley and reporting that the contractor"frequently starts work before 7 a.m." After discussing this at length, and asking him several questions, it seems as though the early start time and use of the alleys/dust issue is mainly a result of the neighboring properties that are either being redeveloped or renovated, not our D Avenue project crews. What he reported is: - Construction trucks are starting at 6:30 a.m.in the alley - Garbage trucks are coming in at 5:15 (I explained to him that this is a temporary approval to help maintain garbage collection services while D Avenue project is underway, but they will go back to their normal start time once the project is finished). - Workers are hammering nails for his neighbor's remodel as early as 6:15 a.m. - They are going back and forth up and down the alley and creating a lot of dust. He wanted to put down some gravel. I did tell him that Jim/PW plans to regrave and regravel the alleys once the D Ave project is done. 1 mentioned that the D Ave contractor is watering down the streets they have been using/in their direct work area, but I don't even know if it would fit down the alleys, nor would they typically water an area they are not responsible for if they haven't been using it. FYI: I told him I would still check in with our D Ave project crews on start times, but I was pretty confident that they haven't started equipment before 7,and in fact,on Fridays they start at 8 to give Republic extra time. I said that workers can arrive to site before 7, but not start machinery etc. until 7. I also said I would check with them to see if they have been using the alleys, but I thought they have been trying to avoid this for the most part because of earlier complaints from 7th Street storm line. Plus,the large dump trucks hauling dirt/gravel can't make it down the alleys anyway,they need to use the side streets. Bill—could you look into the start time/noise issue? Ryan—could you look into the erosion control measures for these neighboring properties/developments? Any questions, please let me know.Thank you both. K Katy Kerklaan, Citizen Information Specialist Engineering Department v.* 'F D City of Lake Oswego r' PO BOX 369, Lake Oswego OR 97034 C 503.697.6514 F-003 Tree Survey Youngblood, Bill From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnection@unityvm.ci.oswego.or.us> Sent: Friday,July 27, 2018 7:24 AM To: byoungblood@unityvm.ci.oswego.or.us Subject: Message Jim Levi - Boards on back of Fence - ready to inspected (707-483-0097)on Lake Haven Rd Attachments: VoiceMessage.wav Categories: ViewMail 1 F-003 Tree Survey TERRA SCIENCE, INC . Soil, Water & Wetland Consultants PROTECTED RIPARIAN AREA PLANTING PLAN FOR 1107 YATES STREET SUBDIVISION, LAKE OSWEGO, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON Prepared for RAGHU AND SANGEETA KAMINENI c/o Post Office Box 1345 Lake Oswego,OR 97035 and RECEIVED THETA LLC Post Office Box 1345 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 PLANNisgu BUILDING SERill�;�_•. Prepared by TERRA SCIENCE, INC. 4710 S.W. Kelly Avenue, Suite 100 Portland,Oregon 97239 TSI-2016-0331 JUNE 2018 4710 S.W.Kelp Avenue,Suite 100 I Post Office Box 2100 I Portland,OR 97208-2100 I503-274-2100/Fax: 503-274-2101 F-004 RP District Planting Plan TERRA SCIENCE, INC , Soil, Water is Welland Consultants PROTECTED RIPARIAN AREA PLANTING PLAN FOR 1107 YATES STREET SUBDIVISION, LAKE OSWEGO, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON Introduction On behalf of Raghu and Sangeeta Kamineni (Applicant/Property Owner)and Theta LLC(Bruce Goldson), Terra Science, Inc. (TSI) has prepared the following Protected Riparian Area (PRA) planting plan to offset permanent and temporary buffer intrusion associated with new subdivision at 1107 Yates Street. This site is located at the south terminus of Yates Street, east of Wells Street, west of Hallinan Street,in the southeast part of Lake Oswego. The PRA consists of a formerly logged terrace, swale and intermittent creek. The upper portion (westernmost) of the PRA area is the most disturbed and contains more non-native plants (cherry laurel, English ivy and Himalayan blackberry) under a canopy of native trees (such as bigleaf maple, Oregon ash and Douglas-fir). The PRA is approximately 103 feet along the east boundary, 120 feet along the west boundary, 305 feet along the south boundary and 301 feet along the north side. Residential development borders the west and north sides, while the east and south border undeveloped land (or rural residential). Hallinan Elementary School is situated further south. A pedestrian and bike pathway wraps around the south and east edges of the PRA. Existing Conditions The PRA will be art open space tract that includes a short segment of Hallinan Creek (aka wetland "A"), adjacent riparian lands, two wetlands (labeled B and C), and an easement for storm water discharge. The creek originates south of Hallinan Elementary School and has a watershed composed of mostly contemporary residential development and fragmented sections of forest and/or open space. The creek is downcut 2 to 4 feet, due to increased, upgradient urban runoff. The PRA contains three habitats, namely upland, riparian and wetland. While none of the habitats are near-pristine, they do contain many native species, especially in the tree and shrub strata. Table 1 on the following page summarizes the general composition of each habitat. 1107 Yates Si Buffer Planting Plan 180fil1 Page 1 T5I-2rn6-0331 4710 S.W.Kelly Avenue,Suite 100 I Post Office Box 2700/Portland,OR 97208-2700/503-274-2700/Pax: 503-27 4-2107 F-004 RP District Planting Plan TERRA SCIENCE, INC. Soil, Water & Wetland Consultants Table 1. Protected Riparian Area Vegetation Composition and Habitat Conditions at 1107 Yates Street Subdivision,Lake Oswego,Oregon. Existing Habitats Prevalent Species Comments Upland Douglas-fir,western red cedar,bigleaf Tree cover is>90%native and<10% maple,wild cherry,hazelnut,vine non-native. Shrub cover is 50% maple, cherry and spurge laurel, native and 50%non-native(mostly osoberry, English holly,Himalayan invasive species). Understory is blackberry,trailing blackberry,salal, <30%native and>70% non-native Oregon grape, thimbleberry, and (mostly invasive ivy). sword-fern Riparian Bigleaf maple,Oregon ash, western red Tree cover is>80%native and<20% cedar, spurge laurel,red hawthorn, non-native. Shrub cover is 60% vine maple,osoberry,salmonberry, native and 40%non-native(mostly wild rose,Himalayan blackberry, invasive species). Understory is trailing blackberry,sword-fern,English <30%native and>70%non-native ivy and waterleaf. (mostly invasive ivy). Wetland Oregon ash, red alder,willow(planted Tree cover is>98%native and<2% in 2016),salmonberry,lady fern, non-native. Shrub cover is 75%, English ivy,soft rush,slough sedge, native and 25y non-native(mostly ❑eweyrs sedge and water parsley. invasive species). Understory is 70%. native and 30%,non-native(mostly invasive ivy). Proposed PRA Intrusion The proposed development would not impact Hallinan Creek nor the two wetlands; hence, there is no need for waters or wetland mitigation. The setbacks for these features range from 30 to 50 feet, depending upon slope, connectivity/adjacency, and related natural resource factors. As proposed, the development would intrude upon 3,087 sf. of the PRA and/or buffer, as calculated by project engineer (Theta, LLC). Such intrusion is itemized in Table 2. The subdivision construction would also include a storm water treatment area to receive runoff from roofs, driveways and streets. When rainfall occurs, the stormwater system would fill up, then overflow (via pipe) to a discharge point north of Wetland B (which drains to Hallinan Creek). The outlet pipe would be constructed within a private utility easement, so it can be maintained by the homeowners. Installation of the discharge pipe and splash apron would constitute a temporary disturbance of about 1100 sq. feet or less within the PRA. 1107 Yates St Buffer Planting Plan 180611 Page 2 T51-2016-0331 4710 S.W.14elly Avenue,Suite 1001 Post Office Box 2100 I Portland,OR 97208-2100/503-274-2100 I Fax: 503-274-21U;1 F-004 RP District Planting Plan TERRA SCIENCE, INC . Soil, Water & Wetland Cansultauts Table 2. Protected Riparian Area Buffer Intrusion Characteristics at 1107 Yates Street Subdivision,Lake Oswego,Oregon. Development PRA Characteristics(Plant Intrusion ' Intrusion Rationale Feature Community) (sf.) Lot 4 Mostly forested, dominated by 757 Irregular PRA boundary (southeast) bigleaf maple, osoberry, and English difficult to avoid intrusion. ivy,with lesser amounts of Douglas- fir, vine maple, hazelnut snowberry, and sword-fern. Lot 5 (south- Mostly forested, dominated by 396 Irregular PRA boundary center) bigleaf maple, spurge laurel, English difficult to avoid intrusion; holly,and English ivy, with lesser __ amounts of Douglas-fir, vine maple, sword-fern, Oregon grape and waterleaf Lot 6 Mostly forested, dominated by 467 Irregular PRA boundary (southwest) bigleaf maple,salal, and English ivy, difficult to avoid intrusion; with lesser amounts of Douglas-fir, Oregon ash, hawthorn, hazelnut, ' ' sword-fern, and English holly. _ Stormwater Mostly forested, dominated by 328 Irregular PRA boundary Treatment bigleaf maple, osoberry, and English difficult to avoid intrusion. Area ivy,with lesser amounts of Douglas- fir, vine maple,snowberry, sword- fern and I-limalayan blackberry. Stormwater Same as Lots 5 and 6 1139 Unavoidable intrusion into Outfall PRA to install stormwater discharge pipe and apron. Total Buffer Intrusion 3,087 Pre-Develojment Protected Riparian Area 28,186 Proposed Protected Riparian Area 31,261 4352 sf. added in SW corner to offset 3,087 sf.intrusion (north edge). NOTE: Stormwater outfall pipe area excludes portion of intrusion already tabulated for Lot 6. Planting Concepts: Invasive Plant Removal and Native Species Installation The planting objectives and success criteria are itemized in Table 3, while planting tasks are summarized on Buffer Planting Sheet (attached). Some of the native herbaceous and shrub plants in the PRA has been displaced by English ivy, English holly, cherry laurel, and Himalayan blackberry. These invasives are usually the dominant ground cover and sometimes growing on the tree trunks. The first part of the buffer planting plan is to 1) remove English ivy and other invasives, 2) conduct follow-up spot spraying of herbicides to further eliminate invasive plants, and 3) continue to spot spraying during the monitoring period to assure such plants do not recolonize the ground cover (while new native plants get established). A restoration specialist would 1107 Yates St Buffer Planting Plan 180611 Page 3 TS1-2016-0331 4710 S.W.Kelly Avenue,Suite 100 I Post Office Box 21001 Portland,OR 97208 21001503-274-2100 I Fex: 503-274-2101 F-004 RP District Planting Plan TERRA SCIENCE, INC. Sat!, Water & Wetland Consultants mark non-native trees and shrubs with colored ribbon to facilitate initial removal. After initial invasive plant removal, the restoration specialist would mark areas with ribbon or wire flagging that require follow-up spot-spraying. The proposed buffer plantings would entail a densely planted area immediately south of Lots 4, 5, 6 and storrnwater treatment area. Such areas would first have the English ivy, holly, hawthorn and Himalayan blackberry removed. Then the buffer plantings would be installed after one season of spot-spray herbicide applications to assure these invasive plants have been decimated. Implementation The invasive plant removal should occur in winter or spring, then continue through summer with spot-spraying of the herbicide. The buffer planting effort would include native grass seeding and container stock installation. The seeding rates should be approximately 1 lbs. per 1000 sq. feet (for entire seed mix, not individual species — see Tables 4A and 4B). The anticipated implementation schedule is itemized in Table 5. Installation of the plantings should occur during late fall to late winter when plants are normally dormant. The non-woody, herbaceous species (see Tables 4A and 48) should only be planted in late winter-early spring when overnight freezing is absent. All woody plantings may include a plastic "chew guard" to reduce mortality by wildlife browsing. Tree and shrub plantings should be arranged to create a diverse environment that perpetuates natural colonization of native species and matures in a naturalistic pattern. On average, trees should be positioned on 25-foot centers, while shrubs on 9-foot centers. It is often desirable that some shrubs be planted in pairs. A qualified landscaper or equivalent professional should install all plantings. According to nursery specifications, careful planting and fertilization procedures should be employed to promote healthy root growth and plant survival. For example, all container stock should be installed by digging oversized holes, then adding organic fertilizer (according to nursery specifications to promote good plant establishment). Either a weed mat or a 12- to 18-inch mulch collar should be added around each woody planting. A qualified restoration specialist should provide guidance during the planting effort. Additionally, the planted buffer area should be irrigated as specified by code. The irrigation should either use sprinklers on risers or drip irrigation. An irrigation rate of one inch water per week between June 15 and October 15 is recommended; however, the shady condition of the buffer planting area may allow for less frequent irrigation, such as one inch per 12 or 14 days. The irrigation layout would be designed and installed by a licensed contractor. 1107 Yates St Butter Planting Plan 180611 Page 4 TSI-2015-0331 4710 S.W.Kelly Avenue,Suite I001 Past Office Box 21001 Portland,OR 97208-21.001503-274-2100 l Fax: 503-274-2101 F-004 RP District Planting Plan TERRA SCIENCE, INC. Sail, Water & Wetland Consultants Table 3. Planting Objectives and Success Criteria for the Invasive Plant Removal and Buffer Planting at 1107 Yates Street Subdivision,Lake Oswego,Oregon. Objective: To remove invasive plant species, then plant north edge of PRA with native trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs to increase species diversity,structural diversity, and ground cover. Specifically: 1) Remove the following invasive plant species from the 31,246 sq. feet PRA: English ivy (Hedera helix), English holly (Ilex aquifoliurn), Cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), spurge laurel (Daphne laureolu),red hawthorn(Crntaegus inonogynn),Himalayan blackberry (Rub-us iirrnen.iacus), and similarly designated plants. 2) To densely plant 8,595 sq. feet buffer area, and 3,588 sq. feet wetland. Buffer planting area would have container stock arranged to provide shade, habitat, ground cover, food source, and native plant diversity. Success Criteria: A) Measured as ground cover,greater than 95 percent of invasive species, as itemized in the buffer planting objectives, would be removed by the end of the monitoring period. B) Trees and shrubs planted would have 90 percent survival by year 1 and 80 percent survival by the end of the monitoring period. B) Measured as ground cover, land surface would have greater than 80 percent herbaceous plants or natural duff(leaves, twigs,mulch.) cover by the end of the monitoring period. C) The buffer and wetland planting areas would have at least 3 different native species per stratum (trees,shrubs, herbaceous layers)present by the end of the monitoring period. 1107 Yates St Buffer Planting Plan MEd 1 Page 5 151-2016-0331 4710 5.W. Katy Avenue,Suite 7001 Post Office Box 21001 Portland,OR 97208-2100/503-274-21001 Fax: 503-274 2101 F-004 RP District Planting Plan TERRA SCIENCE, INC . Soil, Water & Wetland Consultants Table 4A. Upland/Riparian plantings and quantities for the PRA Buffer(8,595 sf.) at 1107 Yates Sheet Subdivision,Lake Oswego, Oregon. Common Name / Scientific Name 7 Plant Size 2/ Quantity Bigleaf maple(ricer macraphyllum,FACU) 1-2 gallon 8 Western red cedar(Mufti plicata,FAC) 1-2 gallon 7 Buckthorn cascara(Fraugula purshiaua,FAC) 1 gallon 40 Douglas hawthorn(Crataegus dol.tglasii,FAC) 1 gallon 40 Osoberry(Oenrleria cerasiformis,FACU) 1 gallon 50 Thimbleberry(Ruhus prn-u ferns,FACU) 1 gallon 60 Snowberry(Syinphoricarpos albus.,FACU) 1 gallon 60 Sword-fern(Polysticum a l:mitum,FACU) 1 gallon 40 Pro-Time 460(Native Upland Shade Mix) Seed 8 lbs. Weed Mats and/or Wood mulch n/a install as needed NOTE I: Availability of specific species may necessitate substitution of a different native species. Substitutions should be prescribed by restoration specialist and indigenous to the Tualatin and/or Willamette River valleys. NOTE 2: Tree stock must be at least"l.5-inch stem diameter,as per City code. Shrub stock should be at one-gallon size and about 12 inches tall. Table 4B. Wetland plantings and quantities within the PRA (3,588 sf.) at 1107 Yates Street Subdivision, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Common Name / Scientific Name 3 Plant Size 4/ Quantity Slough sedge(Carex obnupta, OBL) Plug 300 Spreading rush(Juncus patens, FACW) Plug 50 Small-fruited bulrush(Scirpus micracarpus,OBL) Plug 50 Wood's rose(Rosa woodsii,FAC) 1 gallon 9 Douglas spirea (Spiraea dong&rsii,FACW) 1 gallon 9 Red-twig dogwood (Corpus sericea,FACW) 1 gallon 9 Pro-Time 440(Native Biofi.Iter Mix) Seed 4 lbs. Weed Mats and/or Wood mulch n/a Install as needed NOTE 3: Availability of specific species may necessitate substitution of a different native species. Substitutions should be prescribed by restoration specialist and indigenous to the Tualatin and/or Willamette River valleys. NOTE 4: Wetland plantings only for Wetlands B and C. Shrub stock should be at one-gallon size and about 12 inches tall. 1107 Yates St Buffer Planting Plan 180611 Page 6 '1 Si-2016-033i 4710 S.W,Kelly Avenue,Suite 100 l Post Office Box 2100/Portland,OR 97208-2100/503-274-2100 I Fax: 503-274-2101 F-004 RP District Planting Plan TERRA SCIENCE, INC . Soil, Water & Wetland Consultants Maintenance Site Visits and Dead Plant Replacement Regularly scheduled visits are necessary to address maintenance needs. In particular, litter should be removed during each maintenance visit, as well as monitoring visits. Given the shaded condition of the buffer planting areas, grass and weed growth is expected to be slow and less robust than areas of open sunlight. Consequently, annual string trimming may be sufficient where grass growth crowds the native plantings. As previously indicated, the use of herbicides is anticipated for ongoing invasive weed removal. No herbicide application should occur within 50 feet of Hallinan Creek(when flowing water is present). Repairs should be instituted to obtain planting success criteria. Specific repairs might become apparent during regular monitoring visits, and should be coordinated with the applicant and/or new resident. Typical repairs are likely to include replacement plantings for dead plants or for plants damaged by wildlife browsing, replenishing mulch, and/or invasive weeds spot spraying. Repairs should be completed before the onset of the following wet season. A qualified restoration specialist should specify the appropriate corrective actions, such as itemized replacement plantings. Any replacement plantings should be installed during the dormant season or beginning of the growing season. Table 5. Buffer Planting and Maintenance Schedule for PRA Buffer PIanting Plan at 1107 Yates Street,Lake Oswego,Oregon. Year Timing Activity 0 Early Summer _Cut and/or hand removal of invasives in riparian and buffer areas. 0 Late Summer Spot spray or hand weeding emerging invasives in subject areas. 1 Early Summer Spot spray or hand weeding emerging invasives in subject areas. 1 Summer Construction stormwater treatment system and install outfall culvert. 1 Late Summer Spot spray or hand weeding emerging invasives in subject areas. _ 1 Early Fall Hand seed or hydroseed native grasses and forbs across wetland and riparian areas. 1 Fall Plant native trees and shrubs across wetland and riparian areas. 2 Late Spring Spot spray or hand weeding emerging invasives in subject areas. 2 Early Summer Conduct first annual monitoring and stem count of areas. 2 Late Summer Spot spray or hand weeding emerging invasives in subject areas. 2 Mid-Fall Supplemental seeding and replace dead plantings, as necessary. 3 Early Summer Spot spray or hand weeding emerging invasives in subject areas. 3 Spring Conduct second annual monitoring and stem count of areas. 3 Late Summer Spot spray or hand weeding emerging invasives in subject areas. 3 Fall Supplemental seeding and replace deadplantings,as necessary. 4 Late Spring Spot sprayor hand weeding emerging invasives in subject areas. 4 - Early Summer Conduct ird annual monitoring and stem count of areas. 4 Late Summer Supplemental seeding and replace dead plantings,as necessary. 4 Fall Remove irrigation and chew guards (if used). Remove any remaining construction and/or sediment fencing and trash. 1107 Votes St Buffer Planting Plan 180611 Page 7 TSi-2015-0331 4710 S.W.Kelly Avenue,Suite 7001 Post Office Box 2700 I Portland,OR 97208-2100 1503-274-2100/Fax: 503-274-2101 F-004 RP District Planting Plan TERRA SCIENCE, INC . sail, Water & Wetland Consultants Annual Monitoring and Reporting Annual monitoring should be conducted by a qualified restoration specialist during spring months to evaluate native planting success and identify corrective measures necessary to meet success criteria. Six monitoring plots should be established within the PRA, including one each in Wetland B and C (no need for plots in/adj. to Hallinan Creek—previously planted circa 2016). Vegetative cover should be measured at each sample plot by visually estimating percent aerial cover for each plant species observed within a 5-foot radius for herbaceous ground cover and a 30-foot radius for trees and shrubs. A modified plot configuration may be appropriate in certain areas to avoid overlap with non-planted areas. The field analysis should be followed with a technical report that includes all data necessary to document compliance with permit conditions in addition to the degree of success obtained in meeting the buffer planting success criteria. Such report should include maintenance recommendations and recommendations related to corrective actions needed to address dead plantings, removal of undesirable species and related matters. Photographs should also be taken from three designated photo points to document project conditions. Should the planting and maintenance effort fail to achieve the success criteria established herein, the monitoring and maintenance period may be extended at the discretion of City of Lake Oswego. Responsible Party (applicant, may be transferred to future builder or homeowners association), Raghu and 5angeeta Kamineni (Applicant/Property Owner) c/o Post Office Box 1345 Lake Oswego,OR 97035 Email: sangeeta7@hotlnail.com Other Contacts Theta LLC(Project Engineers) Attn: Bruce Goldson, P.E. Post Office Box 1345 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Phone(503)481-8822;Email: thetaeng@comcast.net Terra Science,Inc. (Natural Resource Consultants) Attn: Phil Stoles, Soil and Water Scientist 4710 S.W. Kelly Avenue, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone(503)274-2100;Email: pscoles@terrascience.com 1107 Yates 5t Buffer Planting Plan 180611 Page 8 TSI-201&-0331 4710 S.W.Kelly Avenue,Suite 100 I fast Office Box 21001 Portland,OR 97208-2100 I503-274-21001 Fax, 503-274-2101 F-004 RP District Planting Plan al ua ...11 1 [01`1i3.4H i4.il 3 EMCNr W 1 I f4 ! [Ina w ®Y01411 fr - I{ I I rr=dNGE hN6rrt0AF 1 TM^"1°""""^ eaa 1 1+PLANMHGFOHIRi57 9 36' - r.Ij.f *. o... ..,,.,,,,...., ,,'+' I /7. -NM?" _„„...,_,..„, I ;F f.i.L..[-L r- �.ti a l,;r;r :+,rf 1I' �,L,..`°b» i�7�, =,<ia 17 r �['1lY�x Al:.l r:. /dtilWilbHTEES // .yE[,.f ' .0.0 bn - - .ilflEh I •ri;',V.Y irn i•ATIVE r / 5.0.ry�r, 1 ,mw. Ys K' '% • j �11�r;iA1v DN./PO/AY r I . *I r I 'sy I 7 J ra Er.ap.a.. 1.0 sap. C. Am.....h.rw.1,e. ,f rySy • •• -- _�_�.�W- I w1Aw,..W..w0.p.cyr.ra.w.mF.r.e..sr r4 .s��E 51I f -E ErlEhl or /� _- _�----- —_� I __ E i 0 .,EyE,.r l[i'!'TiSM1wIfIMf fl a Tr.w.1...N..W./.W 4s+puW an.,...to erx.v+ye�aa.tr•voa.Ai "rr TENIA iff " f� Y _ ..: z — I I • fir[h a•�lm,.mn. m irpu«w-v.+x tl }y, PSIRTNAY I i RNUI1NE iEN1A1ryE drI IRGATMH ' I pRlyE.VAI flll('feNAYY ••TERNELYAY Q Ii x�.neh#4e..wdba m 4r.*arr+�.w rreway II. T'rq LfEC61R10 L4Chill](yi �R�.TICX �d.....wmyeEnr/nN '«.-w4u.t"-..•...w w...1 we.w+omhr Pram N h.1 R•n l..pp l ..A w ..Wa,..1 Ai•••V.Ae.M.Lfl Maw Ita.wA'MwfkbMV+yn 4.ngd•Y _� o 11 I, . . . I 1 �;: ...r.-4...1 .ard:-.� �.. I-, es••e...,,.r..rxb..slaw ac..v..d w..wear m uww4rw.wwm5 If +mwv q.rwxwL W....1.w wow on..aK.e�rx�.rs.ie•MPte..lr RP BCUFJDARY ..r.00...w./..ma.w,e..weo-mwew-a,r,WI4.fl.1.s..w. 1 1 I PROPOSED .n4waa lx.['.q.w, nif...�«w.v r a anre..rq, —.—._ -� -- -I-� 1 '+ a I 4,*,,,,a..smwwxreu.. Ifln.Brwenn.vAaw..aw•.fir.a., It r _i� 07 _ I mnar.rau+••wr........,.m..�. ...w e..aawew„a.wro. 40 PAA Pliir4*-44pNelQ iki it75 i i.4.A5 or __L. _ ii-i 41 oh ilhia � �•4�;�/'1 � -T�y 1 Lax."... SM iFly.1.001•11•1.rylp 1.mMN Ow wS .0 .-7,...maNglitillirAarair /1 I .0PWire: WiluilitreJrar•rii- '— . ell:0 . i 1 1 L.w.90. E41;en,1,...1..r3.1,4 imnfis kp osped pram ,,if Jr. j 1 1A1,11 SmIs.w.way.1 etP,Ko OW fle.s.mo.i. yy va. $..NM.Y.Swkalnal .nand one..w C. •.•. fora.w.Ad.rn„dr�.hrlt and on NreN.M�.0 I ! 4.RF.11 U.wrewma,.a....M..R h MO.. I ■ 9ttlbW.w.bl 1.ROW OW w.nrmwn. LAWN 5a.IpN 144.k..r ql W.ch.AF.4= ' fshd Wks. o.01.19 m R....atl hare, 1 r r 4l•ro .wax rse.re w.y ko...h xWes ! V N ry�w vra R m.�e L1.1.. wvN.p w s.aps,.. I / j ,' MITI PLANING AND MAINININGE NONA . \ ! /I i:psm.ocimDi,a lmIaewN ..'wr+ra ewan°"w. r.wo 1.5-nrsda G RP BOUNDARY / :�O'.,:w"ux,+ wwroi°wapei'a=�'� Gib,.d"� T ' X r...,Wore e•.•NmY.4 C..OA.OWN./.e.uff49..AS SIflSW..Fwf..ai4 nM..aN..Y NY.1 w N.4.wN.ea a..eu..Wm h..aNAe a.dq 3......pp.,*ISM • PeENnea..^.b...a4...a.nn.[avwn.Y Pa a..4N:./a+.aan. T1 ▪ .am*v a0+U.***ww*w�.e..m[a er*1 a....cm...A...-c.. MI - udlraxe VY.Oatl NednfE'A W Rim I S MI,II,AV1 v.iY..i w.w*.a...9�.... /ti+ �'i7W ACaaA1An5,PRAi s.ev[+.w.....^a"a.n.xx.rev.am.w..aR ewe rsJ.wrn.*R.ap.rN*.+.w.r 13 n yamarn.'. ww«.:arN. sw�n+a.w.e.a...=.e.:, ...wa.Q 0rmy lra • ❑ 1) ew:.,.oAed sto ofirr.w...a I"I. METE REASWW NO SAME n• 0 40 ao - h..-he5, Ies Remn.I YU.mow a r•F MII V SCALE 1•.my BE@.f..y.p Az.RYL.[ /� iY ® rr15.1 L.-n.n.,•M.r4'4x'••256B V. oa R:1,4,ron 11.5iU1105'491 dac.niRed C.emp BUFFER PLANTING PLAN 289-125 DEsfcr�: ObG SHEET DRAWNR OJS ' - - >R=—cam y 1 1 1107 Yates Street E.4GIP4EERI NO - SURVEYIN sOALL� 1•=44' G - PLANNINGT.LS., R.1 E.,Section 10t]C1,TL i 3Q� 111 DATED September.2017 PO EI.445. 508N61 Lake Oswego,Oregon FILE: Yates Prepppl3 DATE NO REVISION IJa.Ils..p„a.a 9m3a coR�ene I 1 TERRA SCIENCE, INC . Soil, Water & Wetland Consultants July 02,2018 R =a / Debra Andreades, Senior Planner Planning&Building Svs., City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Street / P.O.Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 L' = ntl 121 Re: Response to Additional Information Request(June 26,2018) 1107 Yates Street—City of Lake Oswego File no. LU-17-0084 Greetings Ms.Andreades, At the request of the applicant (Raghu and Sangeeta Kamineni) and Bruce Goldson (Theta LLC), I have prepared the following responses and additional information/analysis needed to achieve completeness for the above-referenced land use application. The following paragraphs are arranged in the same order /numbered as the information needs itemized in your June 26, 2018 letter to Theta LLC. Additional topics in your June 26 letter that do not pertain to sensitive lands/natural resources are address in separate correspondence from Theta LLC. Sensitive Lands 1 a. Storm water treatment area placement. Soil conditions in the vicinity of the stormwater treatment area, as well as the PRA, consist of silt loams to silty clay loams. These conditions were observed during the wetland delineation, by Phil Scoles, Consulting Soil Scientist. In particular, the soils have 0.5- to 1-foot thick topsoil that contains decayed organics, nutrients and more permeable soil structure. Below 1 foot, the soils become more clayey and dense, and the soil structure is more angular (hence, slower permeability). Since the soils formed under forested conditions, they have sufficient permeability for conditions where rainfall is partially intercepted by tree canopy and distributed in a diffuse manner. The outfall of the stormwater is not diffuse -- it is a more concentrated amount of water than that soil type can tolerate. This is evident along the banks of Hallinan Creek,where it enters the property. The creek has downcut into the soil due to more concentrated stormwater from upgradient parts of the watershed. A similar effect would happen, to a lesser degree initially, if the stormwater from the proposed subdivision were to discharge at the top of the slope (north edge of the PRA),or excavate a channel down the slope and connect directly to the creek. The proposed discharge pipe would convey stormwater to lower elevation and in closer proximity to Hallinan Creek. The pipe would discharge to a rock dissipation pad, so the energy of the stormwater is reduced and the water can flow slowly toward the wetlands. In turn, the wetlands overflow to the creek. This approach is consistent with watershed planning that seeks to avoid transferring stormwater from one watershed to another (some development site drain to two adjacent watersheds), as well as reducing the gradient (elevation difference) between the discharge pipe and receiving waters. Such planning also stresses stormwater management that reduces peak flows, use of energy dissipaters, localized infiltration systems, and related BMPs. Andreades_D Yates St Response ltr 180702 TSI-2016-0331 4710 S.W.Kelly Avenue,Ste.100 I Post Office Box 2100/Portland,OR 97208-2100 1740150Aldderitiutit27Selultitive Lands S e TERRA SCIENCE, INC . Soil, Water & Wetland Consultants Page 2—Letter to Debra Andreades,City of Lake Oswego,July,02,2018 1107 Yates Street Subdivsion,City Application no.LU 17-0084. The proposed discharge pipe would be 12-inch diameter and utilize a 15-foot wide work corridor to install the pipe. The work area would be restored to pre-disturbance condition and any excess soil hauled outside of the PRA for disposal. Post construction, a 10-foot permanent storm drainage easement would remain along the stormwater pipe for future inspection and maintenance. The stormwater treatment area was situated in the proposed location for several reasons: 1. Such location was readily accessible with the future extension of Yates Street; 2. Such location was adjacent to the PRA, where the stormwater needs to be discharged(rather than to the north—different watershed). 3. Such location was closest to the portion of the PRA having more historical disturbance. Placement within the PRA would create additional impacts to natural resources and increase buffer planting requirements. Overall, the project aims to minimize impacts to the PRA, including no impacts to the wetlands and creek. 4. Such location allowed for stormwater (after pre-treatment) to be discharged to wetland, then Hallinan Creek(rather than direct discharge to creek). This allows for additional infiltration. The proposed stormwater discharge pipe is consistent with LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii to maintain the natural function and character of the natural area, as follows: A. All of the proposed plantings are native to the Portland-Metro area; they are listed on City's plant list; and they are shade-tolerant species, since the PRA is partial to closed canopy growing conditions. These species are typically found growing naturally in silty to clayey soils—same as the project site. As native plants, they are adapted to wet winters and dry summers, so no irrigation is needed for long-term survival. Irrigation or hand-watering may be done for the initial years to achieve plant survival goals(this is common when planting nursery stock). B. Invasive species removal is proposed for the entire PRA, not just the buffer planting area. Removal of English ivy, holly, spurge laurel, Himalayan blackberry and similar species will allow native species to thrive without the invasive plant competition. All invasive materials would be either shredded onsite, or removed from the project site. C. To the degree possible without significant disturbance to existing conditions, non- conforming landscaping would be removed from the PRA. D. Tree removal in the PRA would be conducted with other City Code, where hazard trees would be the primary reason for tree removal. No trees would also be removed for the alignment of the stormwater discharge pipe and energy dissipation pad. The city desires the easement for the stormwater pipe avoid having trees within and close to those boundaries. E. The stormwater pipe would be the only utility placed within the PRA. As discussed above, it would be installed within a narrow corridor that has minimal intrusion on the PRA. The stormwater pipe would avoid direct discharge to Hallinan Creek. No roads or structures would be built in the PRA. Furthermore, no footpaths, bridges or recreational facilities are proposed. Andreades_D Yates St Response ltr 180702 TSI-2016-0331 4710 S.W.Kelly Avenue,Ste.100l Post Office Box 2100/Portland,OR 97208-2100 pf 54A tid oddM2Se 9Sitive Lands TERRA SCIENCE,, INC . Soil, Water & Wetland Consultants Page 3—Letter to Debra Andreades,City of Lake Oswego,July, 02, 2018 1107 Yates Street Subdivsion, City Application no.LU 17-0084. F. The project proposes planting 3,588 sf. of wetland with native forbs, grasses and shrubs. Such wetlands already have shade from upland trees, so the planting focus would strive to have better forage and nesting habitat for animals using the ground and lower canopy areas. That is, the project is expected to improve wildlife habitat and wetland plant diversity. NOTE: The creek area was cleared of invasive species and re-planted with native trees, willows and shrubs in 2016 (conducted by watershed—interest group/public). G. No hazardous materials would be stored within the PRA. Herbicide spot-spraying of blackberry, re-sprouted English ivy and similar plants would occur when no surface water is-present in the wetlands and when no rain forecast for several days. H. Lastly, no alteration to Hallinan Creek is proposed. Wetland alteration would be limited to native plantings and discharge of treated stormwater. lb. Buffer reduction and additions. While the proposed buffer reductions on the north edge of the PRA are "motivated" by having squared off lots, this approach lends itself to better long-term management of the PRA. In particular, contemporary homeowners are accustomed to square-shaped property lines and have less encroachment (into the PRA) compared to situations where the demarcation is irregular or curvilinear. Fencing is more likely accurately installed with square-shaped lots, rather than curved lot lines. Also, the area proposed for encroachment includes areas previously cleared and/or partially landscaped by previous owners. The center and south parts of the PRA have less disturbance history, greater plant diversity, and more mature habitat conditions. The proposed buffer reduction on the north side allows for higher value habitat to be included in the PRA. Specifically, the southwest corner was considered for a development area, but access was difficult and offsetting measures less beneficial (compared to using that corner for PRA replacement land). A-s proposed, the buffer planting would provide increased screening between the development area and the PRA, plus create a larger, unbroken zone of protected habitat with city/school district land to the south and east). Such screening includes filtering of light during evening hours, reducing visibility of the developed areas, and noise reduction. That approach preserves habitat values within the PRA and the buffer plantings create a natural barrier that redirects wildlife to stay within and near Hallinan Creek. The proposed buffer reduction (and replacement) is consistent with LOC 50.05.010.6.b.ii, as follows: A. The purpose of the reduction is not only for development, but also for PRA improvement. When the southwest corner is added, the PRA is larger as a result of the buffer reduction and replacement requirements. Several habitat elements of the PRA are substantially improved. B. The buffer setbacks would not have an adverse effect on the remaining buffer and PRA, provided the buffer plantings are installed, maintained and monitored in accordance with city requirements. C. The functions of the wetland and Hallinan Creek are improved by the removal of invasive species throughout the entire PRA. D. The buffer reduction on the north side, with the addition of the southwest corner replacement land, is sufficiently large and connected to other natural resource areas that it has viable wildlife habitat. Andreades_D Yates St Response ltr 180702 TSI-2016-0331 4710 S.W.Kelly Avenue,Ste.100/Post Office Box 2100 1 Portland,OR 97208-2100,Fi OO54Add, dUi2> Sitive Lands . TERRA SCIENCE , INC . Soil, Water & Wetland Consultants Page 4—Letter to Debra Andreades, City of Lake Oswego,July, 02,2018 1107 Yates Street Subdivsion, City Application no. LU 17-0084. 1c. Corrected tree and shrub quantities. The following table (from the Buffer Plan) is amended for compliance with city code. Both thimbleberry and sword-fern were excluded from the shrub requirements, since they are not commonly group with shrubs. Nonetheless, these species add to the diversity and habitat value of the buffer planting area. Table 4A. Upland/Riparian plantings and quantities for the PRA Buffer (8,595 sf.) at 1107 Yates Street Subdivision,Lake Oswego, Oregon. Common Name Betific Name 1', Plant Size 2/ Quatti Bigleaf maple(Acer macrophyllum,FACU) 1-2 gallon 5 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata,FAC) 1-2 gallon 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia,FACW) 1-2 gallon 14 Western hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla, FACU) 1-2 gallon 2 Buckthorn cascara (Frangula purshiana,FAC) 1 gallon 30 Douglas hawthorn(Crataegus douglasii, FAC) 1 gallon 30 Osoberry(Oemleria cerasiformis,FACU) 1 gallon 50 Snowberry(Symphoricarpos albus., FACU) 1 gallon 50 Thimbleberry(Rubus parviflorus, FACU) 1 gallon 40 Sword-fern(Polysticum munitum,FACU) 1 gallon 40 Pro-Time 460 (Native Upland Shade Mix) Seed 8 lbs. Weed Mats and/or Wood mulch n/a Install as needed NOTE 1: Availability of specific species may necessitate substitution of a different native species. Substitutions should be prescribed by restoration specialist and indigenous to the Tualatin and/or Willamette River valleys. NOTE 2: Tree stock must be at least 1.5-inch stem diameter, as per City code. Shrub stock should be at one- gallon size and about 12 inches tall. Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional information to achieve application completeness. The contents of this letter should also be considered amendments to the Buffer Planting Plan, dated June 2018. Please let me know if you need any clarification or discussion,to assist your review of this matter. Cordially yours, TERRA SCIENCE,INC. Phil Scoles Soil and Water Scientist Cc: Bruce Goldson,Theta,LLC (thetaeng@comcast.net) Sangeeta Kamineni (sangeeta7@hotmail.com) Andreades_D Yates St Response ltr 180702 TSI-2016-0331 4710-S.W.Kelly,Avenue,.Ste.1.00/Post Office B-ox2100IPortland,OR 972.08-2100 051AldelentlUT 27 l Sitive Lands GeoPacific EngineennJ.Inc Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation ■ Design •Construction Support September 8, 2017 Project No. 17-4683 Raghu & Sangeeta Kamineni 2500 Glen Eagles Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 CC: Bruce Goldson, Theta, LLC. Via email: thetaeng@comcast.net SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT AND RESULTS OF INFILTRATION TESTING YATES STREET SUBDIVISION 1107 YATES STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study conducted by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. (GeoPacific)for the above-referenced project. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for site development. This geotechnical study was performed in accordance with GeoPacific Proposal No. P-6173, dated July 31, 2017, and your subsequent authorization of our proposal and General Conditions for Geotechnical Services. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The subject site is located at the southern terminus of Yates Street in the City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon. The property is approximately 2.1 acres in size. A wetland area has been delineated by others in the southern portion of the site. Topography is predominantly gently sloping to the southeast with grades of less than 10 percent. Steeper slopes exceeding 40 percent grades are present immediately adjacent to the wetland. The site is currently occupied by one single family home and vegetation consists primarily of dense trees. Preliminary site plans indicate that the proposed development will consist of a six lot subdivision for the construction of single family homes, approximately 300 lineal feet of new streets, driveways, storm water disposal facilities, and associated underground utilities. The steeply sloping southern portion of the site will remain as an Open Space Tract. A grading plan has not been provided for our review; however, we anticipate maximum cuts and fills will be on the order of about 5 feet or less. 14835 SW 72rtd Avenue _ Tel (503) 598-8445 Portland, Oregon 97224 F-006 Geotechnical Report Fax (503)941-9281 Yates Street Subdivision Protect No. 17-4683 REGIONAL AND LOCAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The project site is located on the southwestern margin of the Portland West Hills, in the northwest portion of the Tualatin Basin. The Tualatin Basin is an east/west trending structural feature produced by broad regional down warping of the area. Regionally, the subject site lies within the Willamette Valley/Puget Sound lowland, a broad structural depression situated between the Coast Range on the west and the Cascade Range on the east. A series of discontinuous faults subdivide the Willamette Valley into a mosaic of fault-bounded, structural blocks (Yeats et al., 1996). Uplifted structural blocks form bedrock highlands, while down-warped structural blocks form sedimentary basins. The site is underlain by the Quaternary age (last 1.6 million years) Willamette Formation, a catastrophic flood deposit associated with repeated glacial outburst flooding of the Willamette Valley (Yeats et al., 1996). The last of these outburst floods occurred about 10,000 years ago. These deposits typically consist of horizontally layered, micaceous, silt to coarse sand forming poorly-defined to distinct beds less than 3 feet thick. The Willamette Formation is underlain by a Pliocene to Pleistocene-aged (10,000 to 5.3 million years ago) unnamed conglomerate that was likely deposited by Cascadian streams or an ancestral Clackamas River(Beeson et al., 1989). The conglomerate contains well rounded cobbles in a matrix of sandstone to siltstone. Madin (1990) maps this conglomerate as the Tertiary-aged (2-65 million years ago)Troutdale Formation. The unnamed conglomerate is underlain by the Columbia River Basalt Formation (Madin, 1990). The Miocene aged (about 14.5 to 16.5 million years ago) Columbia River Basalts are a thick sequence of lava flows which form the crystalline basement of the Tualatin Valley. The basalts are composed of dense, finely crystalline rock that is commonly fractured along blocky and columnar vertical joints. Individual basalt flow units typically range from 25 to 125 feet thick and interfow zones are typically vesicular, scoriaceous, brecciated, and sometimes include sedimentary rocks. REGIONAL SEISMIC SETTING At least three major fault zones capable of generating damaging earthquakes are thought to exist in the vicinity of the subject site. These include the Portland Hills Fault Zone, the Gales Creek- Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone, and the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Portland Flails Fault Zone The Portland Hills Fault Zone is a series of NW-trending faults that include the central Portland Hills Fault, the western Oatfield Fault, and the eastern East Bank Fault. These faults occur in a northwest-trending zone that varies in width between 3.5 and 5.0 miles. The combined three faults vertically displace the Columbia River Basalt by 1,130 feet and appear to control thickness changes in late Pleistocene (approx. 780,000 years) sediment (Madin, 1990). The Portland Hills Fault occurs along the Willamette River at the base of the Portland Hills, and is about 2.9 miles east of the site. The Oatfield Fault occurs along the western side of the Portland Hills, and is about 1.6 miles east of the site. The accuracy of the fault mapping is stated to be within 500 meters (Wong, et al., 2000). No historical seismicity is correlated with the mapped portion of the Portland Hills Fault Zone, but in 1991 a M3.5 earthquake occurred on a NW-trending shear plane located 1.3 miles east of the fault (Yelin, 1992). Although there is no definitive evidence of recent activity, the Portland Hills Fault Zone is assumed to be potentially active (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). 4683-Yates Street subdivision GR F-006 Geotecbnical Report GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Yates Street Subdivision Project No. 17-4683 Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone The Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone is a 50-mile-long zone of discontinuous, NW- trending faults that lies about 20.7 miles southwest of the subject site. These faults are recognized in the subsurface by vertical separation of the Columbia River Basalt and offset seismic reflectors in the overlying basin sediment (Yeats et al., 1996; Werner et al,, 1992). A geologic reconnaissance and photogeologic analysis study conducted for the Scoggins Dam site in the Tualatin Basin revealed no evidence of deformed geomorphic surfaces along the structural zone (Unruh et al., 1994). No seismicity has been recorded on the Gales Creek Fault or Newberg Fault (the fault closest to the subject site); however, these faults are considered to be potentially active because they may connect with the seismically active Mount Angel Fault and the rupture plane of the 1993 M5.6 Scotts Mills earthquake (Werner et al. 1992; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). Cascadia Subduction Zone The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a 680-mile-long zone of active tectonic convergence where oceanic crust of the Juan de Fuca Plate is subductiog beneath the North American continent at a rate of 4 cm per year(Goldfinger et al., 1996). A growing body of geologic evidence suggests that prehistoric subduction zone earthquakes have occurred (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992; Peterson et al., 1993; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). This evidence includes: (1) buried tidal marshes recording episodic, sudden subsidence along the coast of northern California, Oregon, and Washington, (2) burial of subsided tidal marshes by tsunami wave deposits, (3) paleoliquefaction features, and (4)geodetic uplift patterns on the Oregon coast. Radiocarbon dates on buried tidal marshes indicate a recurrence interval for major subduction zone earthquakes of 250 to 650 years with the last event occurring 300 years ago (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992; Peterson et al., 1993; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). The inferred seismogenic portion of the plate interface lies roughly along the Oregon Coast at depths of 20 and 40 kilometers below the ocean surface. FIELD EXPLORATION Our site-specific exploration for this report was conducted on August 28, 2017. A total of 3 exploratory test pits were excavated with a small trackhoe to depths of 10 feet at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. Test pit locations were located in the field by pacing or taping distances from apparent property corners and other site features shown on the plans provided. As such, the locations of the explorations should be considered approximate. A GeoPacific geotechnical staff member continuously monitored the field exploration program and logged the test pits. Soils observed in the explorations were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. During exploration, our staff member also noted geotechnical conditions such as soil consistency, moisture and groundwater conditions. Logs of test pits are attached to this report. The following report sections are based on the exploration program and summarize subsurface conditions encountered at the site. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Results of the field exploration program indicate the site is underlain by undocumented fill, topsoil horizon, and soils belonging to the Willamette Formation. The observed soil and groundwater conditions are summarized below. 4683-Yates Street Subdivision GR F-006 Geotectanical Report GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Yates Street Subdivision Project No. 17-4683 Soil Undocumented Fill — Undocumented fill was encountered in test pit TP-1 and extended to a depth of 8 inches, The fill generally consisted of very stiff, silt (ML)with fine roots throughout. The fill contained varying amounts of organic and inorganic debris (boards and concrete). Other areas of undocumented fill may be present outside our explorations— especially in the vicinity of the existing structures and driveway. Topsoil —The ground surface in test pits TP-2 and TP-3 was directly underlain by a topsoil horizon, Underlying the undocumented fill in test pit TP-1 was a buried topsoil horizon. The topsoil and buried topsoil horizons generally consisted of loose, brown, moderately organic silt(ML-OL). The topsoil contained fine to large roots throughout and extended to a depth of about 12 to 18 inches below the ground surface. Willamette Formation —Underlying the buried topsoil horizon in test pit TP-1, and the topsoil horizon in test pits TP-2 and TP-3 was clayey silt(ML)and silty clay (CL) belonging to the Willamette Formation. These soils were typically medium stiff to very stiff and light brown in color with abundant orange and gray mottling. In explorations, the Willamette Formation extended beyond the maximum depth of exploration (10 feet). Groundwater On August 28, 2017, neither static groundwater nor groundwater seepage was encountered in test pits to a depth of 10 feet below the ground surface. Regional geologic mapping indicates static groundwater is between 95 and 105 feet below ground surface (Snyder, 2008). Experience has shown that temporary perched groundwater conditions often occur over fine-grained native deposits such as those beneath the site, particularly during the wet season. It is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on the season, local subsurface conditions, changes in site utilization, and other factors. INFILTRATION TESTING Soil infiltration testing was performed using the open hole infiltration method in test pit TP-1 at depths of 4 and 8 feet. The soil was pre-saturated for a period of over 3 hours. The water level was measured to the nearest tenth of an inch every fifteen minutes to half hour with reference to the ground surface. The reported rates do not incorporate a factor of safety. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied by the system designer. Table 1 presents the results of our falling head infiltration testing. Table 1. Summary of Infiltration Test Results Depth Infiltration Hydraulic Test Pit 'feet) Soil Type Rate Head Range —__ (inlhr) inches 4 Clayey SILT (ML) 0.16 8-9 TP-1 S r� Silty CLAY(CO 0.17 38-40 _ 4683-Yates Street subdivision OR F-006 Geotecllnical Report GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Yates Street Subdivision Project No. 17-4683 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results of this study indicate that the proposed development is geotechnically feasible, provided that the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. Our explorations indicate the soils on site are stiff to very stiff and are suitable for development utilizing conventional spread footing foundations. Site Preparation Areas of proposed buildings, streets, and areas to receive fill should be cleared of vegetation and any organic and inorganic debris. Existing fill should be completely removed. Explorations indicate 8 inches of fill is present in the vicinity of test pit TP-1. Existing buried structures such as septic tanks, should be demolished and any cavities structurally backfilled. Inorganic debris should be removed from the site. Organic-rich topsoil should then be stripped from native soil areas of the site. The estimated depth range necessary for removal of topsoil in cut and fill areas is approximately 9 to 12 inches, respectively. Deeper removals may be necessary in highly treed areas of the site. The final depth of soil removal will be determined on the basis of a site inspection after the stripping/excavation has been performed. Stripped topsoil should preferably be removed from the site due to the high density of the proposed development. Any remaining topsoil should be stockpiled only in designated areas and stripping operations should be observed and documented by the geotechnical engineer or his representative. Once topsoil stripping and removal of organic and inorganic debris is approved in a particular area, the area must be ripped or tilled to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, root-picked, and compacted in-place prior to the placement of engineered fill or crushed aggregate base for pavement. Exposed subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. For large areas, this evaluation is normally performed by proof-rolling the exposed subgrade with a fully loaded scraper or dump truck_ For smaller areas where access is restricted, the subgrade should be evaluated by probing the soil with a steel probe. Soft/loose soils identified during subgrade preparation should be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition, over-excavated and replaced with engineered fill (as described below), or stabilized with rock prior to placement of engineered fill, The depth of overexcavation, if required, should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. Engineered Fill In general, we anticipate that soils from planned cuts and utility trench excavations will be suitable for use as engineered fill provided they are adequately moisture conditioned prior to compacting. Imported fill material should be reviewed by GeoPacific prior to being imported to the site. Oversize material greater than 6 inches in size should not be used within 3 feet of foundation footings, and material greater than 12 inches in diameter should not be used in engineered fill. Engineered fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches using standard compaction equipment. We recommend that engineered fill be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). On-site soils may be wet or dry of optimum; therefore, we anticipate that moisture conditioning of native soil will be necessary for compaction operations. 4683-Yates Street Subdivision GR F-006 Geotecheical Report GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Yates Street Subdivision Project No, 17-4683 Proper test frequency and earthwork documentation usually requires daily observation and testing during stripping, rough grading, and placement of engineered fill. Field density testing should generally conform to ASTM D2922 and D3017, or D1556. Engineered fill should be periodically observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer or his representative. Typically, one density test is performed for at least every 2 vertical feet of fill placed or every 500 cubic yards, whichever requires more testing. Because testing is performed on an on-call basis, we recommend that the earthwork contractor be held contractually responsible for test scheduling and frequency. Spread Foundations The proposed residential structures may be supported on shallow foundations bearing on competent undisturbed, native soils and/or engineered fill, appropriately designed and constructed as recommended in this report. Foundation design, construction, and setback requirements should conform to the applicable building code at the time of construction. For maximization of bearing strength and protection against frost heave, spread footings should be embedded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below exterior grade, The recommended minimum widths for continuous footings supporting wood-framed walls without masonry are 12 inches for single-story, 15 inches for two-story, and 18 inches for three-story homes. Minimum foundation reinforcement should consist of one No. 4 bar at the top of stem wall, and one No. 4 bar at the bottom of the footing. Concrete slab-on-grade reinforcement should consist of No. 4 bars placed on 24-inch centers in a grid pattern. The anticipated allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 lbs/ft2 for footings bearing on competent, native soil and/or engineered fill. A maximum chimney and column load of 50 kips is recommended for the site. The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 for short-term transient conditions such as wind and seismic loading. For heavier loads, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted. The coefficient of friction between on-site soil and poured-in-place concrete may be taken as 0.42, which includes no factor of safety. The maximum anticipated total and differential footing movements (generally from soil expansion and/or settlement) are 1 inch and % inch over a span of 20 feet, respectively. We anticipate that the majority of the estimated settlement will occur during construction, as loads are applied. Excavations near structural footings should not extend within a 1 H:1 V plane projected downward from the bottom edge of footings. Footing excavations should penetrate through topsoil and any loose soil to competent subgrade that is suitable for bearing support. All footing excavations should be trimmed neat, and all loose or softened soil should be removed from the excavation bottom prior to placing reinforcing steel bars. Due to the moisture sensitivity of on-site native soils, foundations constructed during the wet weather season may require overexcavation of footings and backfill with compacted, crushed aggregate. Our recommendations are for house construction incorporating raised wood floors and conventional spread footing foundations, if living space of the structures will incorporate basements or slab-on-grade foundations, a geotechnical engineer should be consulted to make additional recommendations for retaining walls, water-proofing, underslab drainage and wall subdrains. After site development, a Final Soil Engineer's Report should either confirm or modify the above recommendations. 4683-Yates Street Subdivision OR F-006 Geotechnical Report GEOPACII=IC ENGINEERING,INC. Yates Street Subdivision Project No. 17-4683 Footing and Roof Drains Construction should include typical measures for controlling subsurface water beneath the homes, including positive crawlspace drainage to an adequate low-point drain exiting the foundation, visqueen covering the expose ground in the crawlspace, and crawlspace ventilation (foundation vents). The homebuyers should be informed and educated that some slow flowing water in the crawlspaces is considered normal and not necessarily detrimental to the home given these other design elements incorporated into its construction. Appropriate design professionals should be consulting regarding crawlspace ventilation, building material selection and mold prevention issues, which are outside GeoPacific`s area of expertise. Down spouts and roof drains should collect roof water in a system separate from the footing drains to reduce the potential for clogging. Roof drain water should be directed to an appropriate discharge point and storm system well away from structural foundations. Grades should be sloped downward and away from buildings to reduce the potential for ponded water near structures. If the proposed structures will have a raised floor, and no concrete slab-on-grade floors in living spaces are used, perimeter footing drains would not be required based on soil conditions encountered at the site and experience with standard local construction practices. Where it is desired to reduce the potential for moist crawl spaces, footing drains may be installed. if concrete slab-on-grade floors are used, perimeter footing drains should be installed as recommended below. Where necessary, perimeter footing drains should consist of 3 or 4-inch diameter, perforated plastic pipe embedded in a minimum of 1 ft3 per lineal foot of clean, free-draining drain rock. The drain pipe and surrounding drain rock should be wrapped in non-woven geotextile (Mirafi 140N, or approved equivalent)to minimize the potential for clogging and/or ground loss due to piping. A minimum 0.5 percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and non-perforated pipe outlet. In our opinion, footing drains may outlet at the curb, or on the back sides of lots where sufficient fall is not available to allow drainage to meet the street. Excavating Conditions and Utility Trenches Subsurface test pit exploration indicates that, in general, utility trenches can be excavated using conventional heavy equipment such as dozers and trackhoes to a depth of 10 feet. All temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height should be sloped in accordance with U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations (29 CFR Part 1926), or be shored. The existing, near surface, native soils classify as Type 8 Soil and shallow, temporary excavation side slope inclinations as steep as 1 H:1 V may be assumed for planning purposes. This cut slope inclination is applicable to excavations above the water table only. Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. Actual slope inclinations at the time of construction should be determined based on safety requirements and actual soil and groundwater conditions. Saturated soils and groundwater may be encountered in utility trenches, particularly during the wet season. We anticipate that dewatering systems consisting of ditches, sumps and pumps would be adequate for control of perched groundwater. Regardless of the dewatering system used, it should be installed and operated such that in-place soils are prevented from being removed along with the groundwater. 4683-Yates Street Subdivision GR F-006 Geotecliinical Report GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Yates Street Subdivision Project No, 17-4683 Vibrations created by traffic and construction equipment may cause some caving and raveling of excavation walls. In such an event, lateral support for the excavation walls should be provided by the contractor to prevent loss of ground support and possible distress to existing or previously constructed structural improvements. PVC pipe should be installed in accordance with the procedures specified in ASTM D2321. We recommend that trench backfill be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtained by Modified Proctor ASTM D1557 or equivalent, Initial backfill lift thickness for a 3/"-0 crushed aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the risk of flattening underlying flexible pipe. Subsequent lift thickness should not exceed 1 foot. If imported granular fill material is used, then the lifts for large vibrating plate-compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor attachments) may be up to 2 feet, provided that proper compaction is being achieved and each lift is tested. Use of large vibrating compaction equipment should be carefully monitored near existing structures and improvements due to the potential for vibration-induced damage. Adequate density testing should be performed during construction to verify that the recommended relative compaction is achieved. Typically, one density test is taken for every 4 vertical feet of backfill on each 200-lineal-foot section of trench. Erosion Control Considerations During our field exploration program, we did not observe soil types that would be considered highly susceptible to erosion except in moderately to steeply sloping areas. In our opinion, the primary concern regarding erosion potential will occur during construction, in areas that have been stripped of vegetation. Erosion at the site during construction can be minimized by implementing the project erosion control plan, which should include judicious use of straw wattles and silt fences. if used, these erosion control devices should be in place and remain in place throughout site preparation and construction. Erosion and sedimentation of exposed soils can also be minimized by quickly re-vegetating exposed areas of soil, and by staging construction such that large areas of the project site are not denuded and exposed at the same time. Areas of exposed soil requiring immediate and/or temporary protection against exposure should be covered with either mulch or erosion control netting/blankets. Areas of exposed soil requiring permanent stabilization should be seeded with an approved grass seed mixture, or hydroseeded with an approved seed-mulch-fertilizer mixture. Wet Weather Earthwork Soils underlying the site are likely to be moisture sensitive and may be difficult to handle or traverse with construction equipment during periods of wet weather. Earthwork is typically most economical when performed under dry weather conditions. Earthwork performed during the wet- weather season will probably require expensive measures such as cement treatment or imported granular material to compact fill to the recommended engineering specifications. If earthwork is to be performed or fill is to be placed in wet weather or under wet conditions when soil moisture content is difficult to control, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the contract specifications, 4683-Yates Street Subdivision GR F-006 Geotechnical Report GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Yates Street Subdivision Proiec[ No. 17-4683 Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soils should be followed promptly by the placement and compaction of clean engineered fill. The size and type of construction equipment used may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. Under some circumstances, it may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe to minimize subgrade disturbance caused by equipment traffic; a The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote run-off of surface water and to prevent the ponding of water; Material used as engineered fill should consist of clean, granular soil containing fess than 5 percent fines. The fines should be non-plastic. Alternatively, cement treatment of on-site soils may be performed to facilitate wet weather placement; The ground surface within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, and under no circumstances should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Soils which become too wet for compaction should be removed and replaced with clean granular materials; Excavation and placement of fill should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to verify that all unsuitable materials are removed and suitable compaction and site drainage is achieved; and Geotextile silt fences, straw wattles, and fiber rolls should be strategically located to control erosion. If cement or lime treatment is used to facilitate wet weather construction, GeoPacific should be contacted to provide additional recommendations and field monitoring. Pavement Design For design purposes, we used an estimated resilient modulus of 9,000 for compacted native soil. Table 2 presents our recommended minimum pavement section for dry weather construction. Table 2. Recommended Minimum Dry-Weather Pavement Section Light-duty Access Material Layer Compaction Standard Streets and Parking Lots �.__ - Y Asphaltic Concrete(AC) 3 in. 92%of Rice Density AASHTO T-209 Crushed Aggregate Base'/"-0 2 in 95%of Modified Proctor (leveling course) AASHTO T-180 Crushed Aggregate Base 114"-0 gin_ 95%of Modified Proctor AASHTO T-180 95°I0 of Standard Proctor Subgrade 12 in. AASHTO T-99 or equivalent 4683-Yates Street Subdivision GR F-006 Geotechnical Report GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Yates Street Subdivision Project No. 17-4683 Any pockets of organic debris or loose fill encountered during ripping or tilling should be removed and replaced with engineered fill (see Site Preparation Section). in order to verify subgrade strength, we recommend proof-rolling directly on subgrade with a loaded dump truck during dry weather and on top of base course in wet weather. Soft areas that pump, rut, or weave should be stabilized prior to paving. If pavement areas are to be constructed during wet weather, the subgrade and construction plan should be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer at the time of construction so that condition specific recommendations can be provided. The moisture sensitive subgrade soils make the site a difficult wet weather construction project. During placement of pavement section materials, density testing should be performed to verify compliance with project specifications. Generally, one subgrade, one base course, and one asphalt compaction test is performed for every 100 to 200 linear feet of paving. Seismic Design The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (Dogami), Oregon HazVu: 2017 Statewide GeoHazards Viewer indicates that the site is in an area where very strong to severe ground shaking is anticipated during an earthquake (Dogami HazVu, 2017), Structures should be designed to resist earthquake loading in accordance with the methodology described in the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) with applicable Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) revisions (current 2014). We recommend Site Class D be used for design per the OSSC, Table 1613.5.2 and as defined in ASCE 7, Chapter 20, Table 20.3-1. Design values determined for the site using the USGS (United States Geological Survey) 2017 Seismic Design Maps Summary Report are summarized in Table 3, and are based upon existing soil conditions. Table 3. Recommended Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters (2010 ASCE-7) --- � Parameter y�---- Value Location (Lat, Long), degrees { 45.407, -122.665 Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values MCE Peak Ground Acceleration PGAM 0.456 Short Period, Ss 0.978 g 1.0 Sec Period, Si 0.419 g Soil Factors for Site Class D: Fa 1.109 F„ 1.581 Residential Site Value 2/3 x Fa x Ss 0.723 g Residential Seismic Design Category _ v D Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein saturated soil deposits temporarily lose strength and behave as a liquid in response to earthquake shaking. Soil liquefaction is generally limited to loose, granular soils located below the water table. According to the Oregon l-tazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer, the subject site is regionally characterized as having a low risk of soil liquefaction (DOGAMI:HazVu, 2017), 44383-Yates Street Subdivision GR F-006 Geotectifical Report GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Yates Street Subdivision Project No. 17-4683 UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the owner and their consultants for use in design of this project only. This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for bidding and estimating purposes; however, the conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and groundwater conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations that may not be detected by a geotechnical study. lf, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, GeoPacific should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by explorations. Recommendations for design changes will be provided should conditions revealed during construction differ from those anticipated, and to verify that the geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, GeoPacific attempted to execute these services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, 4'fiDF�1 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. try G1NF ��D� 14743P • r OREGON Wc\cn / SD7.‘M�3 EXPIRES:06130/20/ Staci R. Shub James D. Imbrie, G.E., G.E.G. Geotechnical Staff Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: References Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2—Site Plan and Exploration Locations Figure 3 —Typical Perimeter Footing and Drain Detail Test Pit Logs (TP-1 —TP-3) 4683-Yates Street Subdivision GR F-006 Geotec'1nical Report GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Yates Street Subdivision Project No_ 17-4683 REFERENCES Atwater, B.F.. 1992, Geologic evidence for earthquakes during the past 2,000 years along the Copalis River, southern coastal Washington:Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 97, p. 1901-1919. Beeson, M.H„ToIan.T.L., and IVIadin, 1.P., 1989,Geologic map of the Lake Oswego Quadrangle, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Geological Map Series GMS-59, scale 1:24,000. Carver, G.A., 1992, Late Cenozoic tectonics of coastal northern California:American Association of Petroleum Geologists-SEPM Field Trip Guidebook, May, 1992. Geomatrix Consultants, 1995, Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: unpublished report prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation,Personal Services Contract 11688,January 1995. Goldfinger. C., Kulm, L.D., Yeats, R.S.,Appelgate, B, MacKay, M.E., and Cochrane, G.R., 1996,Active strike-slip faulting and folding of the Cascadia Subduction-Zone plate boundary and forearc in central and northern Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest, V. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P.223-256. Madin, l.P., 1990, Earthquake hazard geology maps of the Portland metropolitan area, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report 0-90-2,scale 1:24,000, 22 p. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 2017, Oregon l-lazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (FlazVu): http:/fwww,oregongeology.org/hazvu/ Peterson, C.D_, Darioenzo, M.E., Burns, S.F., and Burris, W.K., 1993, Field trip guide to Cascadia paleoseismic evidence along the northern California coast: evidence of subduction zone seismicity in the central Cascadia margin: Oregon Geology,v. 55,p. 99-144. Snyder, D.T., 2008, Estimated Depth to Ground Water and Configuration of the Water Table in the Portland, Oregon Area: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5059, 41 p., 3 plates. United States Geologic Survey, 2017, U.S. Seismic Design Maps Online Tool, http:/learthquake.usgs.gov/designma psfusla ppiication.php Unruh; J.R.,Wong, 1.G., Bott, J.D.,Silva,W.J.,and Lettis,W.R., 1994, Seismotectonic evaluation: Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Northwest Oregon: unpublished report by William Lettis and Associates and Woodward Clyde Federal Services, Oakland, CA, for U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver CO(in Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). Werner, K.S., Nabelek, J., Yeats, R.S., Malone, S., 1992, The Mount Angel fault: implications of seismic-reflection data and the Woodburn, Oregon, earthquake sequence of August, 1990: Oregon Geology,v. 54,p. 112- 117. Wang, I. Silva, W., Bott, J.,Wright, ❑., Thomas, P.,Gregor, N., Li., S., Mabey, M., Sojourner,A.,and Wang,Y., 2000, Earthquake Scenario and Probabilistic Ground Shaking Maps for the Portland, Oregon, Metropolitan Area; State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries: Interpretative Map Series IMS-16. Yeats, R.S., Graven, E.P., Werner, K_S., Goldfinger, C., and Popowski, T., 1996,Tectonics of the Willamette Valley. Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest, v. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 183-222, 5 plates, scale 1:100,000, Yelin,T.S., 1992, An earthquake swarm in the north Portland Hills(Oregon): More speculations on the seismotectonics of the Portland Basin: Geological Society of America, Programs with Abstracts, v. 24, no 5, p.92. 4683-Yates Street Subdivision GR F-006 Geotectthical Report GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING,INC. —/ l.a... 14835 SW 72nd Avenue GeoPacific Portland,Oregon 97224 VICINITY MAP Enguiaering.tnc• Tel: (503)598.8445 Fax: (503)941-9281 �• l' '. . 'rube fine • • A• :SNIP �-- - `A 5 ^..•.. �. a ritia r I r r `- `� Im'i- " rAve_ • a i I A ater i i :co if; ii •r,e - / 9�1 'he l f:.. •• �. [7 a rrtry Cfus�f�rl� .�.. 7 w �� git� j' l` ib�spn : � �� 4 f N� '� e a to j. y/ ^■• .. _ SE Courtnrer, fkt —r,":4.7 it $ r 1 '� 1 . •e �i`" t 1r i s� i l „ ;^ rif �• .:�i R;''! ' ; �� ' .,'� ' `tom ' • �� #' ; •�'�y��^ 4 r,• f ��� 'W spit't `�a twn i & >_ l- - �.r�w�: ^' '''I '4 y+ . � Isi R; - i.i:�� Cat Y f J y L7 ,a, `•_;'/(4 ice 4. .,,, ... , _ : „. ,, ..... ,..., , , _ , ir„, ....i... ..... ,...;,:,r,o, ._ , , • .„ . ..k = ,_ w Twin Points f'A I ^� - -- ` .'• 1 1� `ARE 99 , l>1' Mt.^ _ , ;,x '- -`� • SUBJECT SITE 'Y, >> }_ ksSt S It ��'- 5 5 sf-Si---- y -,, • '+ • .��.-.� �� � • � � •� , .. ,ter. ,"0'11,.i5.-St. Walt T - 6:'l-iiv•'• Tc40 nre;/....-4.m � N •s.., - ,r ! r(..-._... 'A.•a.._,ere..i:.a•.f.a; ,...•.&..,•..,.l it, ,-,..,j,oR7.!j,7 r,•../e•''-•'/ 77 . .•'10_,,....10..,. i 4 l �ne r y .�. Larch 5 '[ „ ,, . , ,• .i0 [r+, x fir' •'51, Ste .. Jam \# Y 1 •' ,� ' r"•! fgiii' t Pyk fs���'•` ' l " MU. • ,i sty.• Etii* ¢iI • _ .•, r 31 . F! [l Dr'I , 1 1 '{ :>> G' %_mow■^;•1 ` .`. g ....2 k •r • CA:"1 ).,, 4....r. , '•' 4 L' :': , i -, 1•Yo .,_f .`. . , . 1,44,cf..• tillilito:',... . . ...4ii I rie---- ,_ • . • Y/anh 0.,-.),_Nh.,..v , 111\._, • LL,, T ,--z.._ 1 i [Jnnanialr [ r Street s .A• 1•�'i ' '14 1.-.,P • • 4 $ a. - .. 114. \i� :J Air NORTH • y + 1' ��51 t11, '.1 * 1 tiLl i ,-'--.%----1- '...\' f f'..4Y1M1‘41' 't21'. • Liilne Ln R r.. c ••S••.l� li1�iflerPcr.nr ".....• . _ ^. . Date:8/30/2017 Legend Approximate Scale 1 in=2,000 ft Drawn by: SRS Base map: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute Topographic Map Series, Lake Oswego,Oregon Quadrangle, 1961 (Photorevised 1984) Project: Yates Street Subdivision Project No. 17-4683 FIGURE 1 Lake Oswego, Oregon F-006 Geotechnical Report 14835 SW 72nd Avenue SITE PLAN AND GeoPaeifie Portland,Oregon 97224 [nclnlen no.Inc. Tel:(503)598-8445 Fax:(503)941-9281 EXPLORATION LOCATIONS i i— ! (r) 1 z 1 W Fr I W I 0 I— Q i 5^ 300. N 3° 2145"E a i 00.5' i13.7 -- -- a — 115'- ir $1.4' w w —25' 15'7415'4 3 25'RIGHT CF WAY-- :Le 2 I ,n 10051 S.F. SEE LO STD DETAIL = — in 8,588.S.F. I i 8 bl bl 51-01 &f 103 1U t ! a l ` a i its c� `o. _TP-3 _FRONT —98.4' L—=� _ei "L 1400 { 11 5,371 S.F. btri —100.0'— Y-- cv l 9,198S.F. - . Era— a- sa L_:— +,� 38 I I -59.8'—� —ole,7- — 4— ---�1�� 550 § co r 4176,863 S.F. ¢ 8,000 S.F. I b 25.4'�1a s 4ra� io.�T I 8 r� I r1¢r L1�o0 80.7' J i2.5:,1a� &6 b • 5 b — �~L STOP _ ER l z gv. 7,190 S.F. - — - 1`L e. — 100.a` -�� o.a" 1�-..0 — — r-- 1 w s A17EN SPACE t. 1600 7 TP-2 TRACT b 1— �.` 60-0 60.v N z WETLAND • , �•� AREA C ^.� �• �■ �. tt .—�+ •—•—•_•_•_• ��—'r •�•� RP BOUNDARIED• A BQ ■1 -�J rr�i ARfAAF PER LU 16-0043 ■1 • • 1 `. � • �.1 .�1illig , •L 1700 IN 83.54'41n E 303.6' TL 1203 North Legend Date: 08/29/2017 0 80' Drawn by: SRS TP-1 Test Pit Designation and Depth of Fill Encountered lii Approximate Location 0.8 in Exploration APPROXIMATE SCALE 1"=80' Project: Yates Street Subdivision Project No. 17-4683 FIGURE 2 Lake Oswego, Oregon 7-006 eoleclnllcal Repurl 14835 SW 72nd Avenue �8�p � Portland,Oregon 97224 TYPICAL PERIMETER FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Tel: (503)598.8445 Fax:(583)941-9281 FOOTING BACKFILL ZONE NATIVE SOIL O c FOOTING GI N --•••••:-/-:-/•:*•:-.:'•!...:.:.:.::::-.::-:.:-::-.:---::::::-.::::;:::!::-.::- o �_ ice:e+a. �+C��lw CD 0• iii �I.It■ g • . edir45/1,. NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PERFORATED OR SLOTTED 3-INCH, FREE DRAINING OPEN GRADED MIRAFI 140N or EQUIVALENT FLEXIBLE PLASTIC PIPE 1 112 -314 DRAIN ROCK Notes_ 1)Drain rock should contain no more than 5 percent fines passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve. Date: 4/29/2016 2)Trench bottom and drain pipe should be sloped to drain to approved discharge location. Drawn by: BLC Project: Yates Street Subdivision Project No. 17-4683 FIGURE 3 Lake Oswego, Oregon 14835 SW 72nd Avenue GeoP citic Portland,Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG ta•nler�nb Inc Tel:(503)598-8445 Fax: (503)941-9281 Project: Yates Street Subdivision Project No. 17-4683 Test Pit No. TP-1 Lake Oswego, Oregon F- a o . �dn 1° g a- �� o Material Description Very stiff, SILT(ML), brown,fine roots throughout, inorganic debris, dry (Undocumented Fill) 1 — 4.5 Moderately organic SILT(OL-ML), brown,fine to large roots throughout, micaceous, loose, dry(Buried Topsoil) 2— 4.5 Very stiff, clayey SILT(ML), light brown, abundant orange and gray mottling, trace black staining, micaceous, trace roots to 3 feet below ground surface, dry to damp (Willamette Formation) 3— 4.5 4— 4.5 Trace gray, subrounded to subangular gravel up to 6 inches 4.5 feet below 5— ground surface 6— Very stiff, silty CLAY(CL), brown,abundant orange and gray mottling, trace black staining, micaceous, damp to moist(Willamette Formation) 7- 8- 9-- 10— Test Pit Terminated at 10 Feet. 11— Note: No seepage or groundwater encountered. 12- LEGEND _ Date Excavated: 8/29/2017 aQal � TOO to Buckel Logged By: S.Shub 1,000 y -. `--' Surface Elevation: Bag Semple Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Searing Zone Water Level at Abandonment F 006�Ccotcchnical Roport 14835 SW 72nd Avenue Geu ac,1ic Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG to nunn Jim. Tel:(503)598-8445 Fax:(503)941-9281 Project: Yates Street Subdivision Lake Oswego, Oregon Project No. 17-4683 Test Pit No, TP-2 S 3 C.. i2 = 4 - Material Description o. � E _ �,-- go m g N G fJ Moderately organic SILT(OL-ML), brown,fine to large roots throughout, micaceous, loose, dry(Topsoil) 1 - 4.5 Very stiff,clayey SILT(ML), light brown, abundant orange and gray mottling, 2- 4.5 trace black staining, micaceous, trace roots to 2 feet below ground surface, dry to damp(Willamette Formation) 3- 4.5 4- 4.5 5- 6- 7- 8 Medium stiff to stiff, silty CLAY(CL), brown, abundant orange and gray mottling, trace black staining, micaceous, damp(Willamette Formation) 9- 10— Test Pit Terminated at 10 Feet. 11 Note: No seepage or groundwater encountered. 12- LEGEND o Date Excavated: 8/29/2017 Ioa to sal B �'""" Logged By: S. Shub Beg Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Wafer Bearing Zane Water Level at Abandonment two, `Surface Elevation: F-006 Geotechnlual Repurt 0 14835 SW 72nd Avenue GeoPacific Portland,Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG tnameerinn.lnc, Tel:(503)598-8445 Fax:(503)941-9281 Project: Yates Street Subdivision Project No. 17-4683 Test Pit No. TP-3 Lake Oswego, Oregon m E y ey^' w L1 2 ID a) Er) a. Material Description al a a U o v m Moderately organic SILT (CL-ML), brown, abundant fine to large roots throughout, micaceous, loose, dry(Topsoil) 1 — 4.5 Very stiff, clayey SILT(ML), reddish brown, abundant orange and gray mottling, trace black staining, micaceous, trace roots to 3 feet below ground surface, dry 2— 4.5 to damp (Willamette Formation) 3— 4.5 4— 4.5 5— Medium stiff to very stiff, silty CLAY(CL), brown, abundant orange and gray mottling, trace black staining, micaceous, damp to moist(Willamette Formation) 6- 7-- 8- 9- 10— Test Pit Terminated at 10 Feet. 11— Note: No seepage or groundwater encountered. 12— , i L LEGEND Date Excavated: 8/29/2017 Gal ODD Logged By: S. Shub • 100to •ucei i,000, f Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucker Sample Shelby Tube Semple Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Mem:1 nmen! PRELIMINARY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR Sir Properties, Lake Oswego, Oregon STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM RECEIVED PLAN!' ;-... . .� BUILDING S :_': P' ` Prepared by: Theta Engineering P❑ Box 1345 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 503-481-8822 ell,°47120 Q17'1� .4110.11 June2018 ti �G 4'I 0 , 7 6 � 1 D. G 0\2 EXPIRES: O6 Oi2O1 SIGNATURE DATE �� 1 F-007 Preliminary Operation and Maintenance Plan TABLE OFCONTENTS I. Description of storm facility II. Inspection program III. Sediment Management/Pollution Control & Genera! Maintenance FIGURES I. Site Map and Storm Drainage System Plan SECTION I The purpose of this 0&M is to document the storm water facilities that serve this property.The facility is a Detention pond with catch basins,piping system to convey storm water from impervious surfaces to a facility for water quality and detention with discharge to Hallinan Creek. This storm water facility was designed to control the storm water quantity and provide quality as provided in the storm water report. The design employees the best management practices of the Lake Oswego Storm Water Manual for storm water quality control, removing sediments,suspended solids, heavy metals,and phosphorus. The design uses a storm pond process the 10-year event,per the Lake Oswego Storm Water Manual. Flow greater that the 10-year event(3.2 in/hr)would be allowed to overflow and be directed to Hallinan Creek.. SECTION II A. Site; 1. Conduct inspections with the as-built plans in hand; inspect all facilities each fall and spring. Additional inspections may be necessary after large storms,or spills. Immediate repair and appropriate safe disposal of materials is required. 2. Keep inspection records to track and submit as needed to City of Lake Oswego,and the DEQ. B. Street Collection System; 1, Inspections to include: a. Unscheduled Maintenance needs b. Observation of disposal area of any evidence of flooding or surface water. c. Evidence of broken or damaged facilities d. Catch Basin I.check for sediment accumulations Ii. Check connections in and out of basins for obstructions iii. Broken or missing grates. C. Detention Pond/outfali 1. Inspections to include: a. Check sediment accumulations b. Plant health and weed control c. Orif{ce serviceability d. Outfall erosion control SECTION III A. A cleaning schedule based on the observations of the first winter season should be established.. Monitor sediment accumulation. B. Remove accumulated organic materials from catch basin sump and dispose per DEQ requirements. C. Clean and flush piping as needed D. Check piping for breaks,cracks,and repair as needed. E. The maintenance activities will be documented each year and send records as required. 2 F-007 Preliminary Operation and Maintenance Plan F. Replace dead plants in kind G. Check outfall for erosion and make corrections as needed H. F. F-007 Preliminary Operation and Maintenance Plan { d - - - •• -. P E1IIK SDI G9 ¢pISE�2+,.x,c { I RADE �"� _ 1No ve,ln6 spie[u1:i - 12 FAKING SIv C8 COW SW ce� ,slN�SW CB E DO 2a2.7S I< last 751.77 WL�Ly etn2+P,et,r c{y2sans s ‘ 0 rl so , •� 3 6'A f� 3O18tFi 1i.Y.821F 84 S7EI■S.O,eg� 1 w aratweFr s.us4s ■s=uwz s Y 11H x-1 WILE., SCALE 1•.47 # EtIsrlls&IN W ..�� rm..t4 1M'11 S1LFI 6TA ir+SN,s,IFx T {-_ e. rer-Z36-ss _� ; E amsaw I .s x E6)24945,6• - _ __ - -----_— ` .y.E� 1 ` DO x+ 6• ` oulsrrlawl IC xrap 5 _2. .t+nD a+no 3s r CON qX R4 2-2 0 01 — ,'� 1WAC sTu i.:aet.rnl-x STORM DRAINAGE PROEM. V ,"�.� ry KM Ar u c ig61 IH 4 rc EA.-2-A., 61 eI 9 SCALE: s'= w'NORM:VIAL E(L}73119•a ��. C^0 I I r sE LW 2i9-0e t" 5 x :•;;,•• y - Eri31616 54X OG P 1 I„ P1C l7 !/I �.. Y [ � E25L36 1, '' } k�; 7F m$FID I 1-- E05n"O WENS OHMIC CpaECT mfl>b'Iq¢rumE rAml— E•r. 6216610.SSE T6 a-NCIES .S.Jf - f I - 2�r_Y` FlM91 CRAZE 1: 53 ' • I f EVENT:on 0 • 2 I !I 3 an I` t' ,5,.5,1i 7P 501 O s-O•u 1 ry spla SW SM • " r, 616_94316Y,S.S. sm.PN+o2Aa LAN iir m.ac a*.OSTur s u w 1-2 _ VG rse • _ / INLET s14 w 1.1 SE OUT 25719 • i 1 116.31 IF S•SIM a !�I' ".• •` f n.. IE 252 70.57LF1 STA.1 MEL�i�eGW.O -1 s1A 97 ei 51W-1 . ....- - • trATEA I kE 25A52 E II 25yfi E owt'S1.5 I a I I CATER GIME m •Ii- i / F ® 8IS U0 1+E1GM1 rCr.] 3.OP6 d STORM DRANAGE PROFILE III SCALE: 1" = a0.5' VERRILONL4� { 1" 5' VEftRGAL j 1 ° d 1 RP BOUNDARY --- _ __ - `C• -- _ - IPFtgPgSEP I- 1 I MAX•wn mn-uc 1 -- 1 s1Ncc6A �rr[ m•� .'"1,, --- - 1 OPEN SPACE f _ _ _ TRACT B r , '"-- -•.r-- . �- • AREAL j a J i' -.--- 1 kl ATE/AS M • EXSTING " � I-• WETLAND F 1 _� f RP agL71VC7RAY AREAB AAFj,A- �--'- • cps,NcyMw }al If r -- . PER OLLLI 1 DARY 259.1,,_�-- . - .. - - . - • - - e L{4)LIa1q 8' �` 1265T V E'SNL!O S�.PiL 1 SAN 1W1 • ./ ESO 24a35 Er 1a6.69 V C SA IIb% S .6% SM IV I 1 T1A A%sPal Dnsmc sm c0 STA 0-771 .SAX ��-_ Li .Sll olo0.00.SAX 1 E III 17 EWT man omii OA7Y1Y ELE'1` Iri1:7512'dR 8' 1 E.OY131B.16 50.2 E. { 23 uron -Tp GYdA:O � 1a 00 2+G0 RP BOUNDARY /4,494,- I ,ANITARY PROFILE el ,� PROPOSED 44, F SrJ,F t`= d %5'VERTICAL ���,26 .w '`mow,,,,`' r , I - - UTILITY PLAN - DESIGNED: BOG SI•@ET: DRzwrx e,s "--1---.lz.-i y 11 1iO7 Yates Street t =� RI I EIAENlVIN6 PAANIpNG T.2S.,R.1 E.,Section 1 ODD,IL 1300 4/6 DATE: Slrymmhor,2017 Pne�,ow Noa,6,�vz Lake Oswego,Oregon FILE: rams PreALots DATE NO. REVISION L 141 C4rga•C9ep..BTox. em,ll 1ntl.mpgmreeeuu August 14, 2017 - 6:00pm Yates Street Subdivision - Neighborhood Meetin otes Summary: The neighborhood meeting was held at the subject property on Monday, August 14, 2017 from 6:00-6:45pm. The project engineer, Bruce Goldson, began the meeting by summarizing the tentative plan for the subject property. He discussed that this was a tentative six (6) lot subdivision in the R-7.5 zone. He pointed out the lot sizes, the proposed private access and where the utilities would come from to serve the lots. He further explained that the wetlands and buffers have been delineated and approved by the City of Lake Oswego under land use #LU 16-0043. Then he opened the meeting to questions and comments from the neighbors. Highlights of Questions and Comments by Attendees at the Meeting: Are the lines on the lots the house sizes or yard sizes? • The dashed lines within each lot represent buildable area. These are not house sizes, as individual home styles and sizes have not been selected at this time. What is a private road? Can neighbors and the public drive/park on it? Will it be gated? • A private road means that it is maintained by the homes that serve it. It will be accessible to the public. The road can accommodate some on-street parking. It will not be gated. How about fire access? • A hammerhead street is sized and positioned to allow for fire access and vehicle turnaround. The Fire Marshal has tentatively approved of the design. Will there be fencing along the existing trail? • These lots are considered flag lots and fencing will be required. What does flag lot mean? • Since the lots will not be fronting a public street, they are considered flag lots. Flag lots have their own special building height and setback requirements. Will the open space on the plan be fenced? Who decides if it is fenced? 1 F-008 Minbutes of Neighborhood Meeting August 14, 2017 - 6:00pm • The code requires fencing unless the adjacent owner is in agreement that a fence is not required. The City owns property on two sides and could elect to not require fencing along the common line. Is the open space controlled by the HOA? Is the open space required to have a deed restriction? Can the City purchase the open space? • The open space was discussed with the City of Lake Oswego at the Pre-Application meeting. They have not indicated a desire to purchase the property. The HOA will have a deed restriction noting that it is open space and will be owned and maintained by the HOA. The HOA document will be reviewed by the City prior to recording and will be part of the public record. Will the existing overhead power lines be utilized for the new lots? Will existing houses have their power placed underground at the time of construction too? • All new lots in the proposed subdivision will have underground power, any overhead lines outside the development will remain overhead for the homes that currently utilize it. Will there be another pre-application meeting and/or what are the proposed next steps for the owner? • The City indicated that a second pre-application meeting could be held, should the owner desire to do another one. However, the City is not requiring a second pre- application meeting. The owner intends to submit a land use application to the City soon. Why was the private street changed from a cul-de-sac to this new hammerhead design? • After discussions with the City, the hammerhead design seemed like a better option in terms of fire access, parking and use of space. We understand that trees in the open space area are protected, how about on the lots? • It is a two step process - first: with the land use application, the trees that need to be removed because of street and utilities will be addressed with the application. Second: each building permit will address trees on the individual lots with the individual house plans. 2 F-008 Minbutes of Neighborhood Meeting August 14, 2017 - 6:00pm When will construction begin? • Most likely sometime next year. Will there be one builder or will lots be sold to multiple builders? • That has not been determined at this time. The owner is not a builder. How much to buy the entire lot? • The Engineer is not an appraiser or real estate professional and does not know the answer to this question. What are the height requirements for the proposed houses? • The code requires an average height of the surrounding properties to determine height requirements. Specific home designs have not been selected at this time. Where will the sewer/water come from to serve the new lots? • Ideally the sewer and water will utilize gravity to serve the new sites and therefore will come from the existing lines in Yates Street. That will be finalized at time of land use application submittal. Will there be improvements to the neighborhood and Yates Street when this property is developed (i.e. sidewalks)? • No improvements beyond what is needed on site is proposed or typically required. No sidewalks are proposed or required. Will native plants be torn up and can they be harvested and replanted by neighbors if they wish prior to development? • Plants will be removed at time of construction. We will pass the information on to the owner that the neighbors may wish to do this. When is an HOA formed? Can the existing neighbors have input into what goes into the HOA? • This is typically done during platting, reviewed by the City and the County surveyor. We will pass the concerns on to the current owner. Does lot #4 encroach into the open space? • The corner of the lot is allowed to be within the open space as shown and is controlled with deed restriction. 3 F-008 Minbutes of Neighborhood Meeting August 14, 2017 - 6:00pm Will the open space be cleaned up and the concrete pond removed? • It is a standard condition of approval that the open space be cleaned up. 4 F-008 Minbutes of Neighborhood Meeting LU 17-0084,Land Use Review LOC 38.25.120.1.d.i A.Site Assess- [Provide site assessment and feasibility The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report The site assessment information demonstrates ment and information,including maps,soils information, including site maps showing existing and proposed feasibility to meet the guidelines in the LOSWMM, Feasibility E and field testing. development conditions. Section 2.5.1 and Appendix A. The Preliminary Drainage Report documents soil This standard is met. ;conditions,drainage patterns,and proposed storm- water management facilities.The report documents existing and proposed utilities and the presence of a ............ wetland and stream corridor on the site. B.On-Site !Size onsite stormwater management facilities The Preliminary Drainage Report documents infiltra- i Site limitations preclude the use of infiltration. Stormwater 1 to infiltrate the 10-year,24-hour design storm I tion testing at two locations.The results showed tested Onsite stormwater infiltration of the full 10-year, � Management event to the maximum extent practicable(see j infiltration rates of 0.16 and 0.16 inches per hour, 24-hour design storm is not practicable for this site. c LOSWMM Table 2.1). 'respectively.This rate is below the minimum require- 1 The applicant proposes to provide onsite storm- ! co 'ment for use of an infiltration-based stormwater 'water management facilities to address the > management facility,so the applicant is proposing the (maximum extent practicable requirement. usestormwate offlow-throurrunoff gh. stormwater planters to manage ;The applicant must demonstrate feasibility to 0 3 i provide water quality and flow control facilities that j could meet the standards of 38.25.120.1.d.ii, O ;...____.__.._ - -------....._._..._...._...__...--------.._....___...___.....__....__.�._---....__....................___.._._...._............_.._._._._....._....._.._..------..._____—_—__ items(B)an d(C)below. '"1- C.Erosion and Obtain an Erosion Control Permit when ;The preliminary plan sheets,submitted with the land I The proposed development will disturb more than D Sediment Control development disturbs more than 500 square use application,include disturbance areas and natural 1500 square feet.As a condition of approval,the m feet or is within 50 feet of waters of the state. resource protection areas. ap plicant is required to submit an Erosion Control co The Erosion Control Permit is based on an Plan,with the final design report and obtain an O approved Erosion Control Plan,submitted with ! Erosion Control Permit from the City. cc the building application. Cl) _.....__......_..........___. _. __..._. i.. _. As conditioned,this standard is met. .,. D.Underground Demonstrate that proposed UlCs will be rule The applicant does not propose use of UIC facilities. This standard is not applicable. S Injection Control authorized under OAR 340-44-008 or will O. (UIC)Review with obtain a DEQ-issued UIC Permit. z DEQ c� __.__.-._..._.___.._....._........._._._. to z N rt O * Rrown aaao (dweIE t f_iiCD C 1 Use of contents an Ws s,e.et r,su te.: !-t? 1rratatUons specified at the beginning of tbi=,dorumert, ..0 17 84_t.ar.:+!seP.+ie.u_080118_,tttachA.darr: LU 17-0084,Land Use Review Attachment A. Land Use Review F indings,LU 17.0084 LOC Section and t . • Title Summary of Requirements Applicant information Findings — . „anth v _ _ il E.Stormwater rSubmit a stormwater s desin plans and A PreliminaryDrainage Reporthab prepared, The applicant has demonstrated feasibility to meetSystem Design specificationsin accordancethe alongwith a preliminary grading planand Pe rythis standard. 4Y4 I LOSWMM. utility plan,showing conceptual stormwater manage- Certification by the engineer of record shall be ment facility locations and conveyance systems. i required prior to issuance of final occupancy The Preliminary Drainage Report has been prepared by I permits that all facilities were constructed as a licensed professional engineer to address the approved,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. requirements of the LOSWMM. F.Downstream Submit a downstream analysis in accordance The applicant has prepared a downstream capacity The applicant has demonstrated feasibility to meet Analysis Require- with the LOSWMM.The City's policy is to prefer analysis to evaluate the capacity of an existing 24-inch this standard. ment mitigation of downstream project impacts I concrete culvert,located on Hallinan Creek,down- I The applicant's submitted data shows that the through onsite infiltration and flow control i stream of the proposed project.The preliminary existing downstream conveyance features are BMPs over increasing the capacity of the j calculations show that the existing culvert has a 'estimated to have adequate capacityto manage c downstream system(LOSWMM 5.8.2). Ii capacity of approximately 8.84 cfs.The total contrib- uting drainage area is calculated to have a peak runoff from the total proposed drainage area.The y co i design flow of 8.06 cfs. applicant has demonstrated that it is feasible to ,..r 'use flow control to manage runoff from the site to The applicant's conceptual design uses stormwater levels below current conditions. cl i planters to control runoff to pre-development(curve 3 number 70)runoff rates. G.Drainage The Preliminary Drainage Report must ;The Preliminary Drainage Report has been prepared by The applicant has demonstrated feasibilityto meet — Report Required I document the Site Assessment and Feasibility a registered professional engineer.The report includes i this standard. D Analysis,explain how site conditions have all the required elements. A final drainage report,prepared by a registered M i influenced the selection of stormwater ' facilities, professional engineer,in accordance with the S. and present type,size,and location Stormwater Management Code and LOSWMM, of proposed stormwater management facilities : ;shall be submitted for review at the time of building m and discharges,along with supporting N calculations(LOSWMM 2.7.1a). permit submittal. a:'I H.Operations and 'A draft operations and maintenance plan The applicant prepared and provided an Operations& The applicant has demonstrated feasibility to meet . Maintenance Plan (OMP)is required for each proposed storm- Maintenance Plan based on the preliminary storm- this standard. c0 water management facility. 'water facilities,dated June 2018. A recorded OMP is required for all stormwater co facilities,including flow control systems.Proof of the recorded OMP shall be provided prior final N _____.._._..___._.........._. occupancy. O * Brown oCatdwett m 2 Use of cone Ls c,;tiiis sheet is subject to the"i t.,t.cns specified at the beginning of this document. <..L 97008(_LsrdUseRfYtiieo_080118—AttachA.do7.x LU 17-0084,Land Use Review Attachment A. Land Use Review Findings,Li)17.008 Lt1C Section and Summary of Requirements Applicant Information Findings Title I.Responsibility of The applicant's designer shall be responsible The applicant has provided materials to document a This standard is met the designer for all stormwatersystem design,Site stormwatersystem design,the Site Assessment and Assessment and Feasibility Analysis,Drainage Feasibility Analysis,a Preliminary Drainage Report, Report,and OMP,as applicable. and an OMP,as applicable. LOC 38.25.120.1.d.ii A..Requirements All requirements for small projects under LOC See items above. N/A and controls 38.25.120.d.ii apply to large projects. applicable to i small projects i B.Water Quality i,Design stormwaterfacilities to capture and The applicant has provided a preliminary design,using The preliminary drainage report shows that it is treat 80%of the average annual runoff volume. stormwater planters to provide water quality treatment feasible to provide stormwater planters with 71 LOSWMM Section 2.5.3 defines the water 'for each individual lot and the shared roadway areas. capacity to capture and treat runoff from a 10-year c 'quality design event as 1.0 inch in 24 hours. 'For preliminary sizing,the facilities have been sized to storm event,which would exceed the required co , capture runoff from a 10-year storm event-3.2 inches design capacity forwaterqualitytreatment. D of rainfall in 24 hours.The roadway planter(20'x50') As a condition of approval,the final drainage report ori has been sized to manage runoff from 0.17 acres of must demonstrate that stormwater management S impervious surface.The individual lot planters facilities meet the minimum geometry and 2 (10'x34')have each been sized to manage runoff from configuration requirements in LOSWMM,Section O 1,0.06 acres of impervious surface. 4.6. DAs conditioned,this standard is met. m C.Flow Control Design stormwaterfacilities to maintain post- The applicant has provided a preliminary design,using `i The applicant has provided sizing calculations to L0 development peak flow rates at their pre- stormwater planters to provide flow control for each I demonstrate feasibility to fully capture the 10-year, S. development(c. 1850)levels for the 2-year,5- individual lot and the shared roadway areas.The 24-hour storm event.The facilities would have year,and 10-year,24-hour runoff events.Flow planters are sized to fully capture the 10-year,24-hour outlet control structures to manage the discharge N control is not required for projects that storm event. from the site,but the applicant has not yet provided discharge directly to the Willamette River, The preliminary grading plan shows that facilities the control structure calculations for individual =' Tualatin River,or Oswego Lake(LOSWMM, would have outlet pipes that discharge to the natural facilities.Under LOSWMM,Section 4.3,outlet a Section 2.5.4.) system downstream. control structures should be sized to match cQ discharge rates from the pre-development condi- N tion(curve number 70)for the 2-year,5-year,and O 10-year,24-hour storm events. cn Asa condition of approval,the final drainage report S. __ must include updated facility sizing and flow Brown n AND CaL ett m 3 Use of contents on to s sh6et Is subject to the=unmtations specified at the beg+nning of this document. 1.'-0084_1 sn 1EJ., .,4iew_0801_1.8._AttacrA.de=, LU 17-0084, Land Use Review t , Aftache»tA. land Use Review Hndings ILI 17-00$4 t OC Section and Summaty of Requirements Applicant Information Findings Title routing calculations to show post-developed peak flow rates matching pre-development levels for the 2-year,5-year,and 10-year,24-hour runoff events. If the calculated orifice size for a given facility is less than the City's minimum allowable construc- tion standard of 1.0 inch,the required orifice size should be provided in the calculations but may be increased to 1.0 inch in the design drawings. As conditioned,this standard is met. D.NPDES 1200-C Projects over 1 acre of disturbance must The total project site is approximately 2 acres. g The applicant has demonstrated feasibility to meet Permit I obtain a DEQ Construction Stormwater Permit I this standard. (NPDES 1200-C)prior to construction. I I The application must obtain a DEQ Construction 71 Stormwater Permit(NPDES 1200-C Permit)prior to o construction. I -- ...._......_.. — — — — — — — — D .-. r) 3 CD rt m cS2 CD CD t1 c5' � 0 cn 8ronA+oCalde[t_ 4 Use of contents on his sheet is subject to the Umltatians specified at the begnning of this document t d 17 0084_LanddseReview-080118_P.ttachA.docx Lake Oswego Fire Department Case File/Permit No. ,10 300 B AVE - PO. Box 369 LU 17-0084 b -jo!Lake Oswego, OR 97034 6."11° r 503-635-0275 okEGG Date: December 28, 2017 To: Debra Andreades, Senior Planner From: Gert Zoutendijk/Fire Marshal Email: gzoutendijk@ci.oswego.or.us Phone: 503-699-7454 Fire Department - Plan Review Comments I have received the information for the project summarized below and completed a review of the submittal on 12/28/2017. A summary of the review has been provided. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding this information. Case File/Permit No.: LU 17-0084 Project Location: 1107 Yates Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Scope of Project: A request for approval of a 6-lot subdivision and modification of a delineated RP District. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS A-0001 Fire Department Access Approved Fire department access is adequate for emergency vehicles. D103.6 Parking Signs and Requirements D103.6 Signs. Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches (305 mm)wide by 18 inches (457 mm) high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. D103.6.1 Roads 20 to 26 feet in width. Fire apparatus access roads 20 to 26 feet wide (6096 to 7925 mm) shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. D103.6.2 Roads more than 26 feet in width. Fire apparatus access roads more than 26 feet wide (7925 mm)to 32 feet wide (9754 mm) shall be posted on one side of the road as a fire lane. WATER FLOW FOR FIRE PROTECTION WS-0007 Fire Flow Approved Fire flow for fire protection is adequate if a new fire line would be installed down Yates Street. The proposal to sprinkler each house instead of a new hydrant and the required water flow is an approved alternate method. WS-0004 Additional Fire Hydrant Required Hydrant location is not adequate for this project. Distance to the first hydrant or (if needed for fire flow)the second hydrant is to far. One additional fire hydrant will be required in an approved location or an alternate F-010 Fire Marshal Memo Page 1 of 2 Lake Oswego Fire Department - Plan Review Comments Case File/Permit No. LU 17-0084 method could be proposed like fire sprinklers throughout. A new fire line would be installed down Yates Street and one new fire hydrant. The proposal to sprinkler each house instead of a new hydrant and the required water flow is an approved alternate method. GENERAL COMMENTS G-0002 Alternate Method For any deficiencies in access or water supply applicant could propose an alternate method in accordance with the provisions of ORS 455.610(7) in the form of fire sprinklers as approved by the Fire Marshal. F-010 Fire Marshal Memo Page 2 of 2 F-011 Parks and Recreation Director Memo •p4 Eos� MEMORANDUM . W OREGpe. TO: Debra Andreades, Senior Planner CC: Todd Knepper, Program Supervisor Engineering FROM: Ivan Anderholm, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: LU-17-0084 Yates water line DATE: July 19, 2018 The Parks and Recreation Department understands the importance of the looped water line related to the proposed development in LU 17-0084,Yates, and supports the looping of the line through Hallinan Woods Natural Area. The Department requires that all measures be taken in the design and construction of the water line to avoid disturbance of trees in the Natural Area. We further require that areas of disturbance be returned to pre-disturbance condition. If there are any questions, please contact me directly, ianderholm@ci.oswego.or.us (503)675- 2548. 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us July 31, 2018 Hi Debra, I visited the site today to evaluate the potential for windthrow based on the tree removal plan.There are no significant negative impacts to the protection of remaining trees from the proposed removal. The site is heavily treed and in a stand grown forest condition.The proposed removal is limited to interior trees, many of which are in poor condition.The remaining trees will not be affected by exposure from the proposed tree removal. It seems to me that tree removal for the proposed storm water facility will affect more trees around the perimeter of the facility considering required grading.The same is true for trees bordering the proposed new street. Perhaps their arborist has already looked at potential impacts from required grading.They should be required to demonstrate how the adjacent trees can be protected or else plan for their removal at this phase. I think most would fall into the Type II permit category, except for tree 57 which is dead. Tree 296 in the right of way is the most significant tree planned for removal. However,it is in the street alignment and there are no reasonable alternatives that would accommodate its protection. Please let me know if you have questions or need any additional information. Thank you, Morgan Morgan Nolenkiffo rr** Consulting Arborists&Urban Forest Management 971.409.9354 3 Monroe Parkway,Suite P220 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 morgan.holen@comcast.net F-012 Consulting Arborist E-mail Theta ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING Theta,llc 503/481-8822 PO Box 1435 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 e-mail: thetaenci comcast.net Transmittal Mr David Poulson, Chair To: %Debra Andreades City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Date: September 17, 2018 Job #: Yates LU 17-0084 ENCLOSED: Additional remarks to the Planning file: Terra Science, Inc. — Letter September 17, 2018 Theta — Oak tree review and photos Theta — RP boundary review and photos REMARKS Theta, Ilc By: Bruce Goldson F-013 Applicants Responce to Public Testimob y 17-0084 EXHIBIT F-013 L:\Case Files\2017\Land Use Case Files\LU 17-0084 1107 Yates 6-lot Subdivision\G exhibits\9 17 18 LO Transmittal.docx TERRA SCIENCE, INC . Soil, Water & Wetland Consultants September 17, 2018 Mr.David Poulson, Chair Lake Oswego Development Review Commission 380 "A" Street Post Office 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: Response to Public Comments and Testimony for LU 17-0084 Yates Street Subdivision(Sangeeta Kamineni) Greetings Mr. Poulson and Development Review Commissioners, The following letter responds to comments and public testimony provided in the preceding weeks by neighbors and citizens concerned about the proposed 6-lot subdivision (2.08 acres)at the south terminus of Yates Street in the southeast part of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon. Submitted letters mentioned several issues about the potential environmental and planning matters. The public testimony at the DRC hearing resonated these concerns. Development Impacts to Natural Resources. As Metro-Portland accommodates increasing population, it is necessary to add housing by re-developing oversized residential lots to prevent urban sprawl. While some in-fill situations replace all vacant ground with new housing, the proposed 6-lot subdivision leaves about one-third of the property as open space. Within that 0.63-acre open space,there is 0.083-acre of wetland and 0.014-acre of creek. The remaining area is riparian/upland forest that supports several native tree species. Of particular note, the northern part of the PRA lacks a natural distinction between riparian and upland—the plant community and topography are the same in the proposed intrusion area and area north of the natural slope break. The applicant understands the comments/testimony that prefer little or no development. Given the subdivision is potentially two lots smaller than density calculations allow, the applicant is showing great flexibility on this issue. Further, the applicant is carefully following City code that places high value and corresponding protections on the natural resources that are the most sensitive and unique. Protected Riparian Area (PRA)Intrusion. The proposed intrusion of the PRA is allowed by City code,which does not prohibit intrusions,but instead requires appropriate justification when such impacts might occur(must be for reasons other than increasing the number of lots). As mentioned by the City and myself in the public testimony, open space areas are often degraded by adjacent property owners, who take down fences and let their pets roam the open space. Others toss their lawn clippings over the fence ("out of sight, out of mind")or expand their backyard with a supplemental picnic table or chairs. Such situations require the homeowner associations to take action against those owners,which is often slow or unrecognized until after environmental damage is done. Simply put, when the property lines are easily demarcated and predictable, there are fewer open space intrusions. A second rationale for the city to approve the PRA line change—it creates an opportunity to have a larger tract of land surrounding the wetlands and creek. And with that change comes the additional requirement to remove invasive plant species (where not already hand-pulled) and to increase the native plant diversity with new plantings (which supplements recent/future plantings from the local watershed restoration team). The applicant would continue to remove English ivy, English holly, reed canarygrass, and laurel plants within the open space and follow it with several years of maintenance and monitoring. Such measures would assure the PRA intrusion does not have a detrimental effect on the wetlands and creek, plus adjacent slopes. Long-term stewardship Yates St.Subdiv Resp Ltr 180917 Page 1 TSI-2016-0331 F-013 Applicants Responce to Public Testimony 4710 S.W.Kelly Avenue,Suite 100 l Portland,Oregon 97239/Phone:503-274-2100/Fax: 503-274-2101 TERRA SCIENCE, INC . Soil, Water & Wetland Consultants Response to Comments and Testimony for 6-Lot Yates Street Subdivision Lake Oswego Design Review Commissioners, City File no. LU 17-0084 would the responsibility of the homeowners association, and the applicant is open to discussions with the City regarding removal of the chain-link fence. Stormwater Discharge. The proposed 6-lot subdivision would be compliant with Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ)policy that new sources of stormwater are pre-treated before discharge to wetlands and creeks. The development would utilize in-line sediment traps, along with detention basin, to reduce the peak discharge rate for a 10-year,24-hour storm event. Furthermore, treated runoff would be routed to the wetland via a pipe that discharges at the base of the hillside. This is beneficial, since a discharge point at the top of the slope would likely form a small gully and carry eroded sediments to the creek. The applicant acknowledges the backflooding of the culvert near the southeast corner—it is associated with stormwater from the vicinity of Hallinan School, which has facilitated downcutting in the creek. The applicant will cooperate with the City to get the culvert replaced/repaired (it is located on public land associated with the bike/ped path). Illicit Discharges. In response to several written comments, the applicant has identical concern that the wetlands and creek do not become a dumping ground for chemicals, oils/grease, pet waste, etc. The design of the stormwater system has a small capacity to trap oils with the internal baffles and sump configuration. These sumps get periodically cleaned out with a vac- truck. The detention component of the stormwater system does not have that oil trapping ability, since it is intended to hold and release water at a prescribed rate. The detention area does provide sediment retention, and opportunity for some chemical and biological oxidation (waste breakdown)in small amounts (however, it's not like a composting facility). Forest Impacts and Tree Replacement. As indicated in the earlier DRC hearing, the proposed 6- lot subdivision would remove 27 trees located on the north side of the original land parcel. These trees include bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Oregon white oak(Quercus garryana)and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). They are common trees and are part of the natural regeneration that occurred when the land was previously logged (likely early 20th century). Such removal would be in accordance with city code. No development would extend into the heavily treed area surrounding the wetlands and creek. Such areas are typically include moderate slopes between the wetland/creek and back of future lots. In the interest of public safety, diseased or damaged trees may be removed or trimmed to prevent accidental fall that could block the bike/ped path or alter flow in the creek. To offset the tree removals,28 native species trees would be planted as per city development code. Such plantings are supplemental to the PRA intrusion plantings and maintenance. And the tree replacements would add to the already partially restored open space with increased biological diversity,wildlife habitat and forage, wood debris and shade, and passive recreational value. Yates St.Subdiv Resp Ltr 180917 Page 2 TSI-2016-0331 F-013 Applicants Responce to Public Testimony 4710 S.W.Kelly Avenue,Suite 100 l Portland,Oregon 97239/Phone:503-274-2100/Fax: 503-274-2101 TERRA SCIENCE, INC . Soil, Water & Wetland Consultants Response to Comments and Testimony for 6-Lot Yates Street Subdivision Lake Oswego Design Review Commissioners, City File no. LU 17-0084 Mr. Poulson and Design Review Commissioners,I really appreciate the opportunity to provide this response to important concerns from neighboring property owners. Please feel welcome to tap into my expertise on these matters at the continuation of the public testimony. Respectfully submitted, TERRA SCIENCE, INC. 'oz o a/L---/ Phil Scoles Soil and Water Scientist Cc: Mr.Bruce Goldson, Theta LLC, Post Office Box 1345, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Yates St.Subdiv Resp Ltr 180917 Page 3 TSI-2016-0331 F-013 Applicants Responce to Public Testimony 4710 S.W.Kelly Avenue,Suite 100 l Portland,Oregon 97239/Phone:503-274-2100/Fax: 503-274-2101 .._i A ' : J—__ _--.-\\:\> _-.—T_1\>] F > — I o �4i5 5 1y1 LiI - 1 #--•� _man.- I I o FRONT r-%,__ r�- ' rJ -v10 ,r-,51. I I I 6 �1fl' - 4 I I 10'z I -�'105 '� I o /10'y' I B II c.) I L_-5 BACK - --�-' t. 0 z w I ----�- - PHOTO A z-Q W I RP BOUNDARY I _ q 0�'c PROPOSED I- 77 - ---- -- ---k -i- ~`■ PHOTO B _ -- Y I 0 PEN SPA . x Alik -"7- TRACT B - -- - -i -•-•-•_• . ■ ■ _ L�! r4 k EXISTING WETLANI'� —�/_ . gwETLANQ 7- -EXISTING BOUNDARY AREA B �� 7, ! �.AREA,F.-- _ - PER LU 16-00�43 \ 4 j — sr...j. 50.07.004-A CLASS 1 STREAM AND WETLAND MEASUREMENT 15 ONLY DETERMINED BY SLOPE AND NOT BY REPARIAN AND UPLAND CHARACTERISTICS. 50.10.003 DEFINITIONS: RIPARIAN AREAS: "...CONTAIN ELEMENTS OF BOTH AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS." UPLANDS: THE NONRIPARIAN PORTIONS OF TREE GROVES LAYING OUTSIDE OF STREAM CORRIDORS,WETLAND,AND THEIR RESPECTIVE PROTECTED RIPARIAN AREAS: ON THIS SITE THE PLANTS FOUND AT THE UPPER LIMITS OF THE RP BOUNDARY ARE 0 40 80 CHARACTERISTIC OF UPLAND AREAS. _; rI LU 17-0084 SCALE: 1"=40' 2014-126 SECTIONS THROUGH OPEN SPACE PLAN —_17" I—i. f it . , 1 1 8 1107 Yates Street R ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING T•2S., R.1E., Section 10DD, TL 1300 PC BOX 1345 503.4E 8822 Lake Oswego, Oregon Lake Oswego.Oregon 97035 email. thetaeng@concast.net F-U1 5 Applicants Kesponce to Public l estimony 256 y 66.7' 5.47% r 47% 11.9' _J1� 0 z o i ,. Fc 246 5 J o 2 u. _ o ,r an m o_ ' a o lif c.7 6 CC w a 236 0 40 80 SECTION A—A SCALE: 1" = 20' HORIZONTAL 1" = 10' VERTICAL 262 / 58.6' /-15.8'—/ rr 0 a om 8.41% _'- 252 g 13331' - --- a a 2 2 / m m Q. 0- 7 re 7 ci z 7 Wrj w I p 242 o cc -� a / 232 0 40 8O SECTION B—B SCALE 1" = 20' HORIZONTAL 1" = 10' VERTICAL LU 17-0084 2014-126 SECTIONS THROUGH OPEN SPACE P-1-1 ri. 1 . 1 1 iii 1107 Yates Street ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING T.2S., R.1E., Section 10DD, TL 1300 PO Box 1345 503-481- Lake Oswego, Oregon Lake Oswego.Oregon 97035 ema.l: t:hetae'g©co•ncast:let F-013 Applic.drllb Re pure e I. Public, Tublirnuny ■■ i yi. 411111,4!) ' ' 'F. k,{1r 'J"1 _Y'a,� " -- ' Jr rr r' 1` le '4 ' r f Tir W nr /0-"K .....:. C.., ',. 4';An 4:10Pois4 ., .6,4. i.k., . II. i IA 1 V—11 i6 1 r wI H f ll * 1J...." - .14 I. ' f #rr aI j •I, Er- i� f -7y , •,2 i 'tea '' 1 1.1 1,4 s1 Ar. .. /..,. kir. lei- - + 't ,�„.. ... , ,, 1,' r` .,/,(•. —'/ r 4 ,. . • I I Art i'. '.." _ 1 _, , s.... :. -44%).:..1, .4 i ,.._. . .... ..i.. ., , .N.. :TA__ .,-40. , -- v. , .jotiz ... a., ., _ ..i. ....... m •- ,..e.:..;.:::,.._. . . . r ..).411 ? ' t ' • • _y..r { • !I I• •'up-� 1^ _ -..-- t - I ,•' ` -. , ,9r. ' , . : ' -' L e t A / 4'1 / a�'y t J llit :' y 'IT.' r. , 1$ 4--....v . _4. - w" 4,1 . /iit ... ...e , , -.er . IF - 4illNi,"*„. • _ . 1 :Jo ii ili / " / • ' ' ....„:'er A °Ift_VO ' / '• Alor',.--=....; fr , . 44 -1.4, •...---7.--;.,t .... .,,,,N . -i ., , ' Kam. r iot ...4....4-- . *Ir., .s 1. ,t• -II!f. • ps rj 'i ` _�yYI .r` D Ii I 1 • I) •ram •, 1 p y gyp{r 1. Iti r fir_ -A_ .v' j 1 @i) 'i. . i. -.., ... , ....„-....0ii., ` , • ' 3` ` 7' i i_! - \,,"-S,4I.':7 ', ,71 _ i' 7 f Iy 0 1 .. •."..' ',. ,,,.... . N ... __.... „ ........ ,.. / ,...... ., „ „. ..„, , ,, • . . r- ', ... e....;,p.... ..) p,,' of u rr 11 I' ! 1 r .w ea f Applicants R= -po , V; V rojf �• -4, isI'4 4 --1..:( :10,_-*4-,-., , . .,.-, 4.4 E,, ... _ -Ilk ,. ,.: , .• • 6 .1. i . • vidt , •,, it . .1, ...„...4-71 V4it IP"'P.W. I •4 i":4 .ji • .,, 4 1.10.• P ..#4 - '-'4i1 jf• - • ''''--""^2.--7/4" --* 'i.vell‘'97( ",. - 1 1 . . _41114# i • • '' . . ,. L. xi 4Worr 10 1 1 Ir -! • - .L'- fr • -.:`: i - '104,., . a-4 411 df, . 4.41. ..' I -4 NI • %_•' ....._ .. f : i (iiii . - . i Ni.:,i31.0_ ,L-. %. . _ ,... ,_ i /lci - i. 'err il" ' r : �ilif' ~R --... .___ 4i ., t .,:. ,....;... . E. , .0 t'xir am. V-y4, . , ., ` '' w- ,,.. , ...-.7_, , ► fin f • )t-r • n I x�' • / " 4111k'. . \14,11, . _'•. /i•A. , ‘44/ ,. ' . : 4 • .., -14-1:4"I! a,.. • • ,,,,44 ''....1* . ' ilik.4 . . r ,..,.., ,,_,, .. _....„ , _.......____._ - r"/.r. . .• I '' t of .,. :„, .. ' 4 I V i ' _ lilletx.,. ,. , .„44 1 ..- '- fi ti ii.{+ - S,}•+6 }� fits\ 1 a 1' r j F-013 Applicants Responce to Public Testimony r , t 297 6. 1 I . EXISTING 34" DIA. WHITE C] EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT OAK TREE, NO. 296 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH APPROX. DRIPLINE I; J EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY f4 SANITARY LINE TO BE , CONSTRUCTED FROM MANHOLE EXISTING WALL AND i IMPERVIOUS SURFACES / 1 I •I I ' 1`. 1 . 1 1 L ` G44 s I' I PROPOSED - 2u' �' h Y ACCESS y�� WATERLINE TO BE 1 J U 8 p 1 jEXTENDED3 ''r., 295 6 R6 0 40 80 DRIP ZONE --- 262 1,_ 34"WHITE OAKTREE SCALE: 1 =40' 71 all 1 1 APPROX.FINISH GRADE 11 258 IL____,L_/ .__ 4' TRENCH -/ AC I ! y ROCK 254 A ARBORIST REPORT 5 u x I- a an TIP DIE-BACK,GALLS,&SOL COMPACTION It U l W a W 3 a 250 k A' W 4' TRENCH t 0 20 40 0 ! 80 100 L,J ENTRANCE SECTION 60 SCALE: 1" = 20' HORIZONTAL 1" = 4' VERTICAL LU 17-0084 2014-126 SECTIONS THROUGH ENTRANCE "-T, I— . t. i_ , 1 1 , - 1107 Yates Street ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING T.2S., R•1E•, Section IODD, TL 1300 Po Box 1345 S03.481.W2 Lake Oswego, Oregon Lake Oswego.Oregon 97035 email: thetaeng@comcast.net 1-013 Applicont3 Rcapencc t Public Tc3timony '":„.1 .j.t 3 40.1111 i * 1-1 .._ _ _ A�• '' `.1 Q At 'fir 1, . • _.— �1`• . . a� ' 717 -'"'-•-•... i 4.•,,--. --' _ -. • y is y/ ..� or Cal • , • : g$,.. 440t, 1, .lie 4 .. Al N' 1r Pt, L �Y r, 4' f E 1 `r,,r ' ' 7 „if, . b '41'4t t a?Ii • +, ' 1 s a 1 .,44., ;,:140,,0. V. , N .. i 01i • r 4 "F r i k t.. t J 4• i ry 1' ak } ri V� 4 ) r r- 4rS4 :- ,{ rIj %sf r.5 • -'441P---' 7141.4'4'. - - - - ' - . I.- .. *iVe' '''' . "'' •` . - _ �`a ! tr. . ►f.+ �� ..J ,.. ., �~ Y' r.l �iis • r •a 1 �i i' fr.' *_' 'i;> 4?• 1 '..1 I VI ro ' . / ' 1 A 4Ai , •j I •t r I r I .. .IIA t 6 , i ti 7 A. ]� y A jY Ittlii.'T—t,.r • L .. 4 . , , ._ , , 4.. - 4 -- „...,.. i• A. *4 il 11.9,_ I- : ' % r -,c ,i ' i -- .'-. - f-ry R - �' ♦ ,. 'r #�� e� 7� ofh l• id 0 -, �_'tt, `' ) ,, - : ., . --..- . . .,-, ,k;',:-. , . :' J. *, F-013 Applicants Responce to Public Testimony `} ;, " ice i ... �61. ' " ` i, `� � it James Fisher Comments to DRC re LU 17-0084,August 20, 2018 I live at 1023 O'Brien Street, approximately 200 feet from the public entrance to Hallinan Woods. I have reviewed the application and planning staff comments on LU 17-0084 and have three main concerns that I describe below. I appreciate the opportunity to present my concerns to the DRC. 1. The threat to public safety from flooding of an existing culvert Failure to comply with LOC 38.25.120.1.c,Stormwater Management Code, which states that stormwater management shall avoid a net negative impact on nearby streams, wetlands, groundwater and other water bodies. This six-lot subdivision is a large project (>3000 s.f. impervious area) and is required to maintain post-development peak flow rates at their pre-development (c. 1850) levels for the two-year, five-year, and ten-year 24-hour runoff events (LOC 38.25.120.1.d.ii.C). The Preliminary Drainage Report submitted by Theta, LLC in support of the application acknowledges that peak flows will be increased by approximately 1 cfs with respect to the ten-year event. This figure is equivalent to almost 27,000 gallons per hour of increased flow and does not comply with LOC38.25.120.1.d.ii.C. Furthermore,this flow must pass through the 24-inch diameter, approximately 35- foot long concrete culvert at the eastern margin of the Yates property where it passes underneath the asphalt-paved path connecting O'Brien Street to Hallinan Elementary School. This path is heavily used by school children, dog walkers, bicyclists, and neighborhood citizens seeking active recreation. On Page 3, 15t paragraph entitled "DOWN STREAM CAPACITY", the Preliminary Drainage Report states that "There is no evidence that this pipe has a conveyance problem". This pipe does indeed have a conveyance problem and the problem is regularly observed by myself and other users of this path. The culvert is often blocked by woody debris and eroded sediment; currently (August 2018), it appears to be about 1/3 clogged by such debris, as shown on the photographs I submit with my comments.The Preliminary Drainage Report states that culvert capacity is 8.84 cfs and that 8.06 is required. But if the capacity is reduced by 1/3 from sediment and debris, the existing capacity would actually be only 5.9 cfs, not 8.84. LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-1 I should add that it is common for flow at the culvert inlet to back up above the top of the culvert; myself and several neighbors have observed Hallinan Creek overtopping the culvert and flowing over the path with a flow depth of approximately 6 to 8 inches. This overtopping flow, and flow through the gravel fill below the asphalt path, appears to be chiefly responsible for eroding the backfill over the pipe, resulting in the exposure of 8 to 10 feet of pipe. This condition is shown on the attached photos, as well as eroded chunks of asphalt from the path, whose width above the culvert has been significantly narrowed. The conditions I describe constitute an existing threat to public safety that will only be exacerbated by the proposed sub-division and which have not been addressed in the Preliminary Drainage Report. I also show a short video I made in 2015 where the creek is above the culvert inlet and approximately 12-inches below the elevation of the asphalt path.A large eddy can be observed in the video;this latter condition occurs every year and demonstrates that the culvert, under existing conditions, is inadequate to handle routine storm flow volumes. A visit to the culvert today would reveal a large, eroded area just above the culvert, on the Yates property,that reflects the erosive effects of stream flow. Unfortunately,the video won't import to this document and so I am showing it at the DRC hearing and, if I must, leaving a thumb drive with the DRC. The thumb drive also contains a drawing of the Yates property and Hallinan Woods and shows the location of Hallinan Creek crossing the site. The Preliminary Drainage Report submitted by the applicant does not recognize any problem with the culvert or the stream bed crossing the site and hence, does not address maintenance required for private stormwater management facilities as required by LOC38.25.140. Similarly,the applicant's drainage report states that the 1 cfs flow from the riprap outflow to the stream will not cause erosion because of the gentle gradient. I point out that the existing Hallinan Creek channel is incised between 1 and 4 feet in highly erodible clay-rich soils and that the proposed design is inadequate to control erosion as required by LOC38.25.120 and.140. I leave it to engineers to address the deficiencies of the culvert and its ability to accommodate design stream flows, but it appears to me that options to examine would include some combination of: a trash rack at the invert, a larger culvert, and replacing the culvert with a bridge. Some measures to reduce stream velocities and protect stream banks from erosion would also seem warranted. Photo Below:View of eroded culvert outlet from Hallinan path; note eroded asphalt chunk. . .- -:1*I" .14111111117.': II---- . •• • • — • ! 4. , JJ • lJ � � �1 x � . F+ - 1 l,��f art '� doe* . .,, . . :‘,... i.r., ... :rot.,...a.5.„..e , .4 e 4)- . 111.4 r''411114411e Illrir : I- -4'.41101 .: Yz _1f h -., r - _ h _ .,� t' ` w h i ,� r .Allir ._ ry - -ram -. 1 ,. . . r 1 - 4- _fir +t + .• . S r 4 •he _ I Y i . t .. ' .. ��' _ •.ram- IiF,� -, -_ -. • r : Or k f rta ... ii ,,, • . „. r k., . a ...til . P Ilic ." • ii - 47 f . oliiit" Nifii it ll - . . • .4.11ftik .., kr NI t lir • op k #11 .hi '0.# '••• • lit. • .1 114. 4 .4 Ilk • , ,;'' f.l I. '4. • io , 0 14 it t 0 1 11411:74 11114 r 4: 1 ii - P 4 ; . 4,, ) , '-• 4 r I) 11,014, . ' . li. Or ' ir .- \ • , et Or. i '. A ,ii ir, , a. ‘. T. s l t 4114 00, . ;4 y ! ' .. * ik„ IFI k ill \'' • N,„. NO , O" , 1• 1 �. ,+� • kai, dillr t • lilt A. - T • NI, : C r w #...., r . , r.th. ilk -141 IF . . Its ..A .i . li 7_40- .1444. I li,11 ■ i ; k N • , r O 1 ' '" a �' Photo showing eroded culvert outlet and asphalt path. kit 'IVI',).'..% 1 '' a,' i'•,.1 - i . , 4 ..4. li....J..;41r' Ng ar lli. ,lam 0+ c. 1 `fir 11} 4 • 1 it • f +_ ff + `F on' r - • yt r I i m •r W._ t .#. �•:ice. * ..., • N.- _ .ram. r# pi. .... 4 -_ .■ . . • +. r11trivettlir".1.- . •,,..,4 .. . ' 1 ' F.-. . -6 6•;'i '' •-." Vif ' 11;V• ;Pt . - 97' • ••• -9• • .-..- ' : • • . �• rig. `e- f Ail . yr' +• J i ti ,. rh i c t •. f . • o •i TI i - .. r - `'. Ir - k IF• f • 'IT; -1 r r J '#f 11 1 - r ..I., dr. i #. •+• " k : le4. ' �: '\ '..... %.. • : '4....1. ._4 A. . t. • iIl. am .r ti' "a ..• , :' r { _ I — + Y • N I , . . � fi ' I _ � r ,• FLi rD . ailtri"-'I: . , , .. i • 4,. — lifm4 •' ' . :•49011 A, „_,., . • Att.. k . ' ' . -.. '14'A ' . / • qii• , - . J' r #• yl •A r r 1 . N 1 k Nt.4eret i i • N. . . •.,..".1,''''Lli' '1;9 In.' :'..:: ..'. : r 1 1111 li i h *• '.i F• ":.•N••. ...7411IF• -1 .1: . ' .., • - IP•'• . 741".` , . ex i -0... 4 i,. . .• ' . , :iiiii.'• . • i I Q-..- , • ,, • . II. '. , • ..., • • ,—I- ...CJ:'•."' t IL •; . . 1 7 I. ,,. 1,2., Ilk:'Air• (A . , •• t 4 m- :e"r ' I, '1,, y 4' ..• 1.. ". . • - • f._ • ) •. '" 471 • • ,/ .I. . - 0 11 i.,; C • !'ne • • {. _. 1- •, •; II ' ... ' • . . • •'-. •F? .. I, • - ." I, ‘• P =: .1.:1: "' . . ' 4 ., 011 ."• '..' i .. y I, : nil • 4.. ... • 1 . 'Ili 11,.. .- '4.0 crci . •4. / . ‘• - .... •-. . • . -C ..•••'• . f.; ) ‘" .-'-.. '.., " . ,:i . • 10 .1 % ,i.. 4, r) .,. • . . •. ..•"". ..... '... . 4 . 1 .• • Fib.. ,. _ 0 ....n .. . .. . 'ii ••n..• , . '. 1 ..'IP.'Ir • - :1 :10.ift ., ''.. .'41 ' L .•-• 1p- , • . . klige40. •v• -, ... . .K. :. • . - , . .,.,... -- , ,:,;,, ... .L...LiPsikv:t r -. ." . • ' • *11111.41 • 1111 . •;— -0 • I 1 ' • V.4' " . 111. iv k'..t I.. lo, • ir -F, • • - . - •II', V' ''''- .er''.--. % . • ' . • . "'- ' #4'.?., C'' ' m o.• 'i' ' ,':. . , '. , ,- ' . —.4.'•7:- -1 '. ' '''. - . At . : • . • . o_ • . (1) 4 o - c • '' . 5 . ' . . : 5 •)' .1• .. • • , _I, .j• , • •-' : , 0_ . EU .• ...' : 1 r * . " 3 • ...i .. 141 • . •I. .....". • ILI • V, i 110,3117.9frillr• ' , in, -0 it • • ... _ .,. • fr •-• , . ... . ...) • . . .,, , • ,.r. 6 . • . -ig IA---. -0 . . . •' . ..;• ..)•1111.. 1 . 4.1/4:•n- • CU ,--1- • . 1 N •.'' : ' -, . . , . 1).if;_ 29,. 7 10,11:"7 . . -• .- . 1 k t . ... cu itli 14 '1 . -S. li .-1 w'I-14' •. . n ., . • ' 'II V...• t , ' ... . . . .. .,, . . , r -h• ._ • , .1. k ...II. .i • il .. le - ii-• . 0.)• , 1, ii.. : = I. r . '- • •: ...' "-— • • • II • ' . 445 II. Pjli I - - . ..... . - 'Jc M 5 ... ." -• '•'` • .L. , • '..• i. .,.r.. k . 1 '• . . ' • . • • .... , _ . . , . . ' 4 li ...;;?• °'•.... 94 A ' . . .._.. m (-D i• f• . 4 . . -., 1. .;.' . IL Ag'• '; : • "I ,.;4 # . ,' • i' h • . 0 • • • . - I''"" • - " , .* ..7"' . • • . • . . . 'IL ... D .. . %. '.. •1. ''• '. '6 % . • II -" -<. • •. • 1.1. . •• -.4 - cu • •.'• IF•••. ... — r: ...• 1... ... • '.11 (T.1 .-- r of.•', r k r. •.'.'. ',. t : . • • • ' IA .. . r 1,--r . 11 V: ..• -0.. ., .7.II, ...... .10 ... , ...: ....A...= i. . . e ._ .:.II I, . ; ..•••••---... -0 (1) ; . . 4.1",3 ' __J.1 .......... • . 1 . •-• _ ' . y • • ,t .A. . .1 . • , - .4 I, -S e-1- 13, ..4.1,. ., _..... 9.076'.....r . iii . :. . ."1/111, L. . L ..• . 'I , . . L• 1. A -. •' .. . „ .. • . . . it ... _ . .. . ' . . .0 , •• ?..- A .i . .,,., • _ .- . .. . • '," 1 'J 'I 1 . •• d . . -,.k . • . x Al . .. I - . : . ;iI. - ..- e' 5 . : . :' • . . •''. rf I. P, . • ., .4, , -, 4 .• ,r.-.1 . - - -•40 • •-4 • . ' :'-..'• ... •..' il .. 11:'• • . - ' or . .• • ,..., tmb-4". ' I' •. •i'i .4. • '' ' • aL .-J i. .e. . " . K1,..• ill 2. Illicit Discharges This project is proposing development within 50 feet of a stream, perhaps even as close as 19 feet. There is no discussion in the Preliminary Drainage Report about inadvertent illicit discharges from either the private storm facilities or residential back yards. Rather,the report relies on the expectation that the storm detention facility and City setback requirements are sufficient to mitigate the discharge of potentially hazardous substances, including dog waste, petrochemicals, pesticides, and herbicides into the waters of the State of Oregon. Pursuant to LOC 38.125.150 (Illicit Discharges), it is incumbent upon the DRC to remand the Preliminary Drainage Report to the Applicant for further discussion, including scientific evidence of the appropriateness of the storm detention facility to capture and eliminate environmentally harmful substances. The DRC should require that site-specific BMPs be required in HOA documents to address potential illicit discharges on residential lots so that existing stream quality can be preserved. 3. Public and Wildlife Access to the Open Space Tract Nowhere in the application materials is there a discussion about access to the open space tract by either the public,through a legal easement or other device, or for wildlife. The property is regularly visited by black tail deer and young deer have been trapped on the property because of the bordering 6 foot high chain link fence. This fence not only restricts free access to ground dwelling animals, it detracts from the public enjoyment of Hallinan Woods by the numerous visitors. The DRC should require the applicant to address these concerns that, ultimately, are about preserving the environmental values of both the Yates property and Hallinan Woods. From: Kelly Snook To: Andreades,Debra Subject: Testifying for Hallinan Nature Park hearing at DRC Date: Monday,August 20,2018 9:00:44 AM Dear Ms Andreades, My name is Kelly Snook and I am a resident of Hallinan Heights neighborhood at 401 Ash St, Lake Oswego, 97034. I am writing to you about my deep concern about the planned developments that would destroy the Hallinan Woods as they currently exist. I want to make sure I express my fervent plea to support the preservation of the woods and the opposition of the planned developments. I walk in the woods every day and marvel at the tall, old-growth trees, delight in the diversity of birdsong, and enjoy every shade of green and brown that surrounds me. I also try not to let my heart break too much at the sight of the chain link fence rudely disrupting the otherwise perfect woods, cutting off wildlife pathways and asserting its careless promise of erasure. It is our responsibility to speak up for those who cannot defend themselves from this potential devastating loss of habitat. Once this kind of forest is gone, it does not ever come back. When I heard of the planned development, I could scarcely believe that local authorities would allow such an asset, which makes our community balanced and blessed, to be taken away. And for what? More houses? We do not need more houses. Our city, our neighborhood, and our community need the woods more. Many studies have shown the impact of quality of life on the happiness and contentment of populations, and in turn, the impact of those things on crime rates, domestic abuse rates, and other problems such as alcoholism. These woods provide a space where neighbors can encounter each other daily, get to know each other, smile, wave, and pet each others' dogs. Any city—any neighborhood— can have houses. Only a rare city indeed can have woods like this. Please help us protect them. Thank-you, Kelly Snook 401 Ash St Lake Oswego, OR 97034 LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-200 Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board,Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 1 of 5 The Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board has identified two areas of concern regarding the development application LU 17-0084 at 1107 Yates Street. The first is the resulting negative impact on natural resources and the second is the negative impact on park users' experience. We have detailed our concerns below and, where applicable, have referenced the relevant section of LO Municipal Code. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. Negative impact on natural resources a. Failure to comply with LOC 50.05.010.4.E Progressive Mitigation Steps Required. Step#1:Avoidance The criteria laid out in LOC 50.05.010.4.f.i require the applicant to"endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource altogether"and, "if disturbance of a resource district resource is proposed, the applicant shall first demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development." The applicant has not met these criteria. The development plan proposed in the application calls for an intrusion of 3,087 sf on the Protected Riparian Area and/or the PRA buffer(see LU Exhibit 17-0084 Exhibit F-004, "Proposed PRA Intrusion"). The applicant justifies this intrusion by raising the concern that the irregular RP boundary, presented in a tentative plan at a neighborhood meeting on August 14,2017, does not"avoid future invasion by residents into the buffer" (LU 17-0084 Exhibit F-001, pg. 22-23). The HHNA Board agrees that the irregular boundary did not adequately protect the natural resource; however, the modified RP boundary proposed in the application also does not satisfy the LOC 50.05.010.4.f criteria as it appears to be used to justify a larger lot size. A reasonable lot configuration does not require extending the lot dimensions into the resource area. The applicant has not demonstrated that intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size of the proposed development, as specifically required by the criteria. A solution would be a reduction in the overall proposed lot sizes which would avoid intrusion into the resource district and would provide the opportunity for adequate space for a house and garage as intended by the applicant. A lot size of 5,000 sf is appropriate for the character of the neighborhood. For example, existing lots and homes on Yates and O'Brien Streets bordering the proposed development to the north contain lots of 5,000 sf and 7,500 sf. This lot size mix reflects the current zoning of 7,500 sf lots as well as the historic South Oswego plat with 5,000 sf platted lots, with the majority of the lots on Yates Street south of Laurel being 5,000 sf lots. Therefore,reduction of lot sizes would: reduce or avoid any intrusion into the resource area, continue to maintain an adequate lot size for future development, and be compatible with existing lots in the neighborhood. LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-201 Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board,Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 2 of 5 b. Failure to comply with LOC 50.05.010.4.f Progressive Mitigation Steps Required. Step#2:Minimization The criteria laid out in LOC 50.05.010.4.f.ii states that if"detrimental impacts cannot be avoided, then the applicant shall minimize impacts by demonstrating that...when mitigation is proposed,there will be no net loss of resource area, functions,or values as a result of development actions pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.4.g.v, Stream Corridors and Tree Groves, or LOC 50.05.010.4.vi, Wetlands,whichever is applicable." The 3,087 sf proposed for intrusion are within the existing RP Boundary line 1 for the purpose of protecting nearby wetlands and are within the Protected Riparian Area. Applicant proposes to offset the 3,087 sf intrusion on the existing RP Boundary by adding 4,352 sf in the SW corner of the property to the newly proposed RP Boundary. However,the area proposed to be added is not of the same value or function as the 3,087 sf that would be lost. The area proposed for mitigation located in the SW corner of the lot is not currently within the Protected Riparian Area and is not the same caliber land—it is designated as uplands forest. The application proposes protecting 4,352 sf of uplands forest in order to mitigate intrusion on 3,087 sf of Protected Riparian Area. Uplands forest is not as environmentally valuable as the riparian area, nor does it serve the function of the riparian area. The applicant fails to meet the requirement that,when mitigation is proposed, "there will be no net loss of resource area, functions, or values." The value and function of 3,087 sf of Protected Riparian Area will be lost, and not offset in kind by the same land resource. CONCLUSION: We do not support approval of the application with the currently proposed plan or with the pre-application layouts because we do not believe the plans conform with the LOC 50.05.010.4.f criteria. The pre-application layouts featuring an irregular RP boundary does not"avoid future invasion by residents into the buffer"as stated by the applicant,while the currently proposed plan does not meet the criteria for avoidance and minimization. We advocate that the application be denied because the applicant has not met the two key criteria(avoidance and minimization) in LOC 50.05.010.4.f as noted above. If the application is approved,we recommend that a condition of approval be added: that approval be conditioned on the submission of a new development plan that avoids the resource area and provides for any required mitigation with compatible resource lands and therefore meets the criteria in LOC 50.05.010.4.f. II. Negative impact on neighborhood character and on park users' experience a. Failure to meet the standard laid out in LOC 55.02.080.3. The proposed removal of 27 trees will have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood. Per LU 16-0043 Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board,Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 3 of 5 i. The proposed tree removal does not meet the standard laid out in LOC 55.02.080.3.b,which states that the standard will be met when removal of trees does not involve "alterations to the distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline, as viewed from all public streets and properties within 300 ft. of the property." The removal of 27 trees will alter the distinctive features of the neighborhood skyline,particularly as seen from Hallinan Woods, the public property that borders the proposed development on its east and south sides. Many of the 27 trees proposed for removal are visible from Hallinan Woods. Their removal will alter the distinctive natural character of the park. (See attached picture of the proposed development site taken near the SE corner of the site from the public walking path looking north). The houses to be built on the six proposed lots will necessitate additional tree removals, further impacting the distinctive features of the neighborhood skyline in the future. Under the proposed development plan, well over 30% of the approximately 200 trees on the two-acre property are situated within building envelopes, on proposed driveway sites, and on the site of the proposed street and stormwater facility. ii. The proposed tree removal does not meet the standard laid out in LOC 55.02.080.3.b,which states that the standard will be met when removal of trees does not involve a significant tree. Three trees proposed for removal have not been correctly identified as significant trees. Tree numbers 283, 285, and 296 all meet the criteria for significant trees as described in LOC 55.02.080.3.a: each is "a healthy, noninvasive tree over 15 in DBH that is considered significant to the neighborhood due to size, species, or distinctive character."The applicant correctly identifies tree number 296 as a distinctive tree,but incorrectly states that tree numbers 283 and 285 are not visible from the road and therefore do not qualify as significant trees. Both trees are visible from Yates Street. Tree number 55 also meets the criteria for a significant tree;however, its qualifications as a significant tree were not addressed in the application. It is a Douglas fir with a 34"diameter that is visible from the public property bordering the development. It is the largest Douglas fir tree proposed for removal and one of the largest Douglas fir trees located on the site of the proposed development. Its size and distinctive character make it qualify as a significant tree. b. The proposed development does not adequately preserve the natural character of the adjacent park by incorporating a hedge screen along the east side of lots 3 and 4. A hedge screen along the east side of lots 3 and 4 would help preserve the natural character of Hallinan Woods. The only paved walking path through Hallinan Woods runs north-south only a few feet from the eastern edge of the proposed development. Park users' experience will be severely impacted by the proposed Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board,Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 4 of 5 development. The impact would be mitigated by a natural screen such as a hedge. Hedge screens are proposed by the applicant along the north sides of lots 2 and 3, and hedge screens are common in the neighborhood. Therefore, a hedge screen would be an appropriate means of mitigating the proposed development's negative impact on the natural character of the park. The DRC has the authority to impose such a condition under LOC 50.07.003.5.a, which states,"The reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval on a major or minor development permit in one or more of the following circumstances.... iv. The condition is reasonably related to eliminating or mitigating a negative impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood which is created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "natural features or processes" includes tree groves, stream corridors and natural drainage ways, significant trees),wetlands, and other natural areas." CONCLUSION: If the application is approved, we recommend that the following conditions of approval be added: that approval be conditioned on recognition of tree numbers 283, 285, 296, and 55 as significant trees for development purposes, that an independent arborist assess the property for any additional significant trees that may have been missed or mischaracterized in the arborist report submitted by the applicant, that the applicant demonstrate that alternate plans have been considered to avoid the removal of significant trees, and that each significant tree removal be mitigated on a 2:1 ratio as required by LOC 55.02.084.4.a.ii.A. If the application is approved,we also recommend that the following condition of approval be added: that approval be conditioned on the incorporation of a hedge screen along the east side of lots 3 and 4. Finally,we would like to reiterate our recommendation made in Section I of this letter: that approval be conditioned on the submission of a new development plan that avoids the resource area and provides for any required mitigation with compatible resource lands and therefore meets the criteria in LOC 50.05.010.4.E The smaller development footprint necessitated by meeting the criteria in LOC 50.05.010.4.f would have the added benefit of reducing the number of trees removed and would thereby reduce the negative impact on the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood. Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board,Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 5 of 5 '•'• '..• - ' ;4.,.-, 7,..,--,•:-. .-.:,'.(.. •,' .74 "-, ,'' . .- ....-',.;.--1--'•••7* or 40, .4,:.4,.. . x,t.., .. , . -. ..- --€:„.,,,,-ail . ..41. t„.: lh /F.Va.mV-; ,-` -. ,„ Id .• ' . • : ., '. 1..'‘s4,.. ;,... " .' 'r'..qm-nr-• ,2 , it ....,i1•.0-V . . d .04.t. ' •- . : ',..-., . _q ,- , 4,-,t:,.'4.- - - • -,,it .., r. .V. ' Fo sm. . - •• ••'.1-. -•,•• ,:.-.°. , ,-..1 -.11; I.' , e• it %it• I "-..,. '.1' ' : . ;•-....--- ° ' '..; 1 , , ' k...t..- : i Si , I ...''1 r-',., . .. ; 104 . :-.4- - .. • -.1._... • - .- ' -' ., 4-1,1 ;...t idig !.. 'a .; s „A. !'im7;" 4ir ' ‘ . ' .. . Pg4 1 s?I'A r.'.. ',- • t4,1 ' — 4 .4 ,r,,s II • •.•.i,. / . • . .- ,. . si, ...-.. f..,! rki 1,:.-: '. -!. ,4 ..i,-6 '. 1-.: • ' :_- ', iik'''` 4... RA :at- - ' h' ..' 44. V; '• .t ' . f'. •••2 ',,k.... " I:: -... . '''4 d'r • :tr.,- ; > Tr' ,, = ' 'A. ' NI 4-'•, ,P •r t Parrtlr,h.;.., .A:44.,• '''.- i- ,,i1-'t,;'',4,h'r,, -.i.A."-.-.-:-.,'m's''3......,,I,•'" .'7; •, - kr .'.—d-P•.thi.i.., 111:115*ri s r •t.0 e , ''. - 1-4 ' I 0, •'. -1' i, i -,-, , A , o, ..,... ,, i,..7. * : ......,f.• es:.' • . i - _ kt ':il'LatEr'.''' -•- . — • - , m. ••- / ( - -strike' „• /m .W... ./IL.4, --4 , , -,_.•„_/_,_ •' . , -.. •• 1 P. -.0- - , r .11.44, , , i • c Picture of the proposed development site taken near the SE corner of the site from the public walking path looking north it. - v • - 4,f, .. ,• ., , A s-— .;. ' ,.. ''t4 ' .4 '1, •• f'''',.), q ri r •0 r''I', -. - ° -4" '431 r •-• .;"•,', , ' 1,1t. '':•-•.,ti, 4 , . eipi.,,,,..4? - 0 • -* „r , 1 j -:.-• •-'a .71'-'‘ . . , 1, , 1 * „ • '-. .,.._..1. mr..,c.„ Ir.r 4!JF- m-4 ; ;4'11 is: .. ?s. '. •.hi. •Ii.• .1-i ... f. 1. , ,. .. . 4. .; r I ..N.' ,1, '4 .• 1 7.1 i ::'•'''6" .' ' ' . -''...1 ..' ''. 41'.0.4. • ii. . '''i 'k‘' . A --,e ;tr 7 likiii..1 I :*. ''''' r. .t •C.C ...„/Iir ij. ,,d,..kli' ,,7, INF • 4 . ,,_ 7 ,.., .A:4 ii. , • 1 I , ? 74 •-, '..4,-+Th.,..4:. ."- F-15.:i*•., ..c'—. • I _ , '.; ,-.., .' , ••, 4... .44.4' , -., P.• 'P.!I 0 ' 14511 ' , k, ... , , ... , L ,,5, •,•_'.4_ .. , i•`-x',42.-.4.,• ,-.. : r , '' . , , ' . ... .. 7. . ,• • , v • -v-leik„ ... ? .• --.\ • - --„,,,, . i _,. .3- ' ' ' • •"''. - , ,.. - 4' k•:" .. L,,,,,,. .4- '. ,,,,,,tac•"a .4.- ---r•-••• -A 7.:••!;',..„;•• ° • '1 • ' • ' ' l' ,i; . ....0.L... ,..-,t„..• 1_ . .; . ,.0,:c. .,- • _- ,.0 .„J„. ; Ir-d......, ,• ' -....-, A ,.. , . .., ,..•._ . ..„---- . ... .. . . .-• , .. . _.- . . ,.. . -n. 4., -- . 1 I :1 , ,t . , .' ,' .._:_---;•., .. .. , •-II Mao it 1 Oi r I- .;.'``i.:•%!:_' 1 ' .•z, I" _,-A•.___ iN • -0 . . • - •- Picture of the proposed development site taken from Yates Street - 8/18/18 Debra Andreades and Planning Committee: I am writing to express my, and the community's, deep concerns around the proposed development (LU 17-0084) adjacent to Hallinan Woods. I've attended numerous meetings regarding the community's attempt to purchase this parcel to expand the Hallinan Woods Nature Park. In the event that we are collectively unsuccessful in doing so and development proceeds, we need to ensure the following issues are addressed: 1. Tree removal:The proposed development area is heavily wooded with highly valued and mature native trees (e.g. 100-200 year old Douglas Fir and White Oak)...Over 25 trees are slated for removal JUST for the pavement (most will be removed for the houses). a. From the documents posted online, I don't see which existing trees will have guaranteed protection? b. The tree removal plan shows the majority of the trees as "very poor, hazardous, or dead". Can we require a second arborist opinion and one not influenced by the developer? 2. Riparian and wetland area: The over-encroachment into the Protected Riparian area should be addressed to ensure protection of our watershed and natural area. What can be done to expand protection of this area? 3. The proposed development is almost directly adjacent to the Hallinan Nature walking path and will have an extremely adverse impact upon the natural state of the area and the experience for all residents within the neighborhood. What can be done to mitigate the impact (evergreen screening)? Given that our community has seen a significant loss of natural area due to the increase in the density of development, the particular natural value of this lot and riparian area, and the adjacency of an existing park, we should take the effort to ensure all steps are done (and err on the side of overcompensation when in doubt). I've included pictures my wife and I took from a walk today and wanted to convey the natural beauty of this property as well as vicinity to walking path. The development would be a huge loss for the park and community so if in fact it must proceed, we should be vigilant in protecting our native Doug Fir and White Oaks along with protection for the riparian area. Thank you, Richard Rich &Tianna Tuatagaloa 16830 Chapin Way LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-202 • ,7� Ie r .a•-,:r G fA?`- ,r.:r. o+-. - ., a�1 f 1:1, ir t, 'f 6. i • 20 i r, • , A. 1. '! .11.46.A.th ,L.-, ...tAirt ii*:41.,,,„ p , -not ...,4%-. '1. .t, . - ' - 11, • 4r Nit - • y T ° r• .7.:i i6 �r,r � is�....I-, '� j g. gt { i� �a ,1 , �iy��►r1f 'ai • Tlh J�. . l,� R r ; • • Amy n-1 a till v,,. i. . 1, irr.. } "5, ,,,rrIp• �' - r '- ., + ° ' }' g ' A ` L'R r / ' ,,+fc .p I ;ji l,y F- '-4'+A. P S P,��'1, ., A :r • t L, * �_f d � - ,t _w," � �` x f -!, •� f�'�� �'yr �!.� � I.�' �. .i y;, �,s 7 /� �' „s�IrYiIWK...�jf+i� b 1 %• f -„/•, v, ,, 1 1 Syr .4, 'fi•r i 7 b• ' - t'. SsC 1. . - t. { ' r 1 ;, • I `•, F - - lili • • r" j4 i lY. r` ,6r f' f,, C. W ' S? jaR .J� n r^ ,/' �r y ,�/' + r i f 91 � 'r5ri M , ;i'1 4007,... '41 ii / I / i b>� "iRf ,' ape �L 9 , � k P r rS g,5 3�L .?S,1( `•�' h r AA. �F .?�,.� _ Y - ..,V ... '.+ 4 A. i •''..x.''.to'.� (_rr P t�� - \ '• AsJ 1` , ,sra •i �y i *N�P sr �' ice 1e -; -: �yy; ! [ y rr, g \ F »_ �._ . ,r ti � � , dNisi I 4 tiliip.• � r• /' i" ' ' r dr , r'4e � 4' . it/7 , a �,�r1 l � 'L 1 _Yn 4` Tti:,'' .'7 yY l t"nif ' 0. _ i F Y ,��.�� �. �61. a ?,� ;' r ,S x .-:. �tk'� � u�._ � .r .t kr �. _ \ S - �. '} ar- 4. ! R ur r� �. ! .cs+ •, '" ,d-!,+_. • „ tax. . $ t 3•.,y a ik! .t A44, • ,fi r F y, '. fir+{- a Y1. 1 Lam' ^„rd!•' ' .', s'tiY; �,-'„ \'4011‘ 1111 _ �'3 f _ \ _ �1 } sT _ ' �1"'T? `4 -`` " f. , -,y,,-,:itt-- -=-' littlirik.11 :,,r, ;44', -,- -t.i It ., .,r, f fill .1 t -.,it- R \ j e' .r .,,��ryA�,-* ''ti' 't \ i ,\ 4 `��. c ` \ _. Ate ,• ?Tff:��d115�1i i _. .1'r 4 A 4 1TY -1., „A. �. , ♦. S. r *v{ - t' yr 0• M1 N y: ,t4 •ik \ .« S1`y „=.ram . _'t,i I. I . { .. 't r f Q` v,i -1 e. , titA f v. � na�ai<'.4ry :.� . � .� i �•� ram'-l--tY - r...' _!'"\ l '�a� ♦ �•.fi ¢"3 - 4�' 9 s . S r d - g.• ,�Y. ��•� - 11 '� `fib 'i .4,,,*"...� '' 1. Qom►°- it ,K' -n • .\ _ J1 � ` • 0. N 1 k • : S k. r4. �-;,.�qiF �.y r i* air * 'h i .[e ,SS ,. r l ..-. � `` tll 'yr wv.1 •1 tl r+ �R'n�1 ',47 ,"r {r r;Y,.F - ' f,q�7� 1 4/ r?� k''VI, F' i • :; y8 sli -4,IN tX*.: �+r,. ' A i. M �4 �. <4 716' V-�Q?' g. .: ..., .,,a T `Y1! err r II YI F .'- ?' b.- - :s3• k A i Li .'- • �F., ,'F. :k, l:.t .r>a 1'r* b• -l1' "..1.. 1 . .l.k '.Z !4 1W a - From: Donald Mattersdorff[mailto:donald.mattersdorff@mattersdorff.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 4:16 PM To: Dillinger, Barbara <bdillinger@ci.oswego.or.us> Cc:Sarah Ellison <scgellison@gmail.com>;Jim & Barbara Fisher<lanefisher@comcast.net> Subject: LU 17-0084, 1107 Yates St. Dear Planning Dept. and the DRC, I'm writing to comment on LU 17-0084, the application for a sub-division at 1107 Yates Street. This subdivision has been submitted as a flag lot development,but it does not meet the definition of a flag lot as described in Lake Oswego's code. 50.10.003 DEFINITIONS Flag Lot A lot that was created after September 6, 1998, and: a. Has the actual building site located behind another lot; and b. Takes access from the street via: i. A driveway or access lane that is part of the lot and the width narrows to less than the minimum lot width for the zone; or ii. An access easement. The lots described in this application are not behind another lot. Perhaps they sit besides neighboring lots,relative to Yates Street. But they can access Yates Street without going around another lot,because the property already has adequate access. To describe these lots as sitting behind anything does violence to the English language and to the plain meaning of our development code. This lot should be developed according to the code which covers non-flag lot developments. The developer should install a code compliant turnaround at the end of Yates and follow all of the LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-203 other requirements of a standard subdivision. We look to the planning department and to the DRC to interpret and enforce our code correctly. Thank you. Yours, Donald Mattersdorff Donald Mattersdorff D.Mattersdorff LLC (510) 842-6060 donald.mattersdorff(a,mattersdorff.com www.mattersdorff.com (i- - ' ,.( 1\1 .,\,,ila. ILtS . V''' .---- )4// • • "ff it ri(P— R7.5 • • sus '�^ i S.P. *-"17' Ili 2 . - fo,aeB r� ai 89s.F.• I Iat 4 PHA • i jj� _ ,Tar J ...... .. 1T9$.F 1 17-m1.9 i -- ----W--- '---' - R 7.5 ' I 6 4 I P 40 86 . I i '/.968 B.F. 1 5 11 9.506 s�F. g 1,1: ' I I 1 4...mew SCHE:rn4R yr j 1.i4 .�. I 7,971 B.F. RM E1q • STORM WA;ER q;q 1 RP BOUNDARY_-17 TRACTA `i8 '^ @ PROPOSED1 ' arraa,aff IE FORM' sco II s{_ 1 OPEN SPACE --rt ., TRACT B_A ---- a _, -___- s1a47as._ " - --'_`- i fiP BOUNDARY PER LiJ 16-0043 /', -r - F RE V Ei ED AND MODIFIED PER THIS APPLICATION n WN1.E pppe (t.5a�!c Liz [,)� �� ',L 1•:w RP BOUNDARY , /• 1 pl i...}^�y+a t '° —" :_ PROPOSED /, / � ;;g ;;ma�yy ,�^ `f PNA f' i i . /.. . - • j 2014-126 _- PRELIMINARY PLAT I 1107 Yates Street SHE Es OFLAISr, WS I!I`I 'Zl.�7L�� 11 G 2/6 SCALE: r-•NY 1 6NOINHf:HINQ - SVRvEYING - PLANNING T.2S., Lake Oswego,U ��L 1300 OATS Soplamuer,2D17 Pa ax,i.f w].�12l84 FILE: Yates PreApp53 DATE NO. REVISION Ls,.CH D'Q°Pdi 91095 ° L4i°m°'' From: WFNesbit To: Andreades,Debra Subject: Halinan Narture Park Date: Monday,August 20,2018 10:52:25 AM Debra My wife, Gerry, and I live at 16400 Chapin Way adjacent to Hallinan School. We also find little merit for destroying the woods near the school beyond the city's grasping for additional development and property tax income. It seems to us your priorities are way out of balance. Bill & Gerry Nesbit LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-204 8/18/18 Debra Andreades and Planning Committee: I am writing to express my, and the community's, deep concerns around the proposed development (LU 17-0084) adjacent to Hallinan Woods. I've attended numerous meetings regarding the community's attempt to purchase this parcel to expand the Hallinan Woods Nature Park. In the event that we are collectively unsuccessful in doing so and development proceeds, we need to ensure the following issues are addressed: 1. Tree removal: The proposed development area is heavily wooded with highly valued and mature native trees (e.g. 100-200 year old Douglas Fir and White Oak)...Over 25 trees are slated for removal JUST for the pavement (most will be removed for the houses). a. From the documents posted online, I don't see which existing trees will have guaranteed protection? b. The tree removal plan shows the majority of the trees as "very poor, hazardous, or dead". Can we require a second arborist opinion and one not influenced by the developer? 2. Riparian and wetland area: The over-encroachment into the Protected Riparian area should be addressed to ensure protection of our watershed and natural area. What can be done to expand protection of this area? 3. The proposed development is almost directly adjacent to the Hallinan Nature walking path and will have an extremely adverse impact upon the natural state of the area and the experience for all residents within the neighborhood. What can be done to mitigate the impact (evergreen screening)? Given that our community has seen a significant loss of natural area due to the increase in the density of development, the particular natural value of this lot and riparian area, and the adjacency of an existing park, we should take the effort to ensure all steps are done (and err on the side of overcompensation when in doubt). The development would be a huge loss for the park and community so if in fact it must proceed, we should be vigilant in protecting our native Doug Fir and White Oaks along with protection for the riparian area. Thank you, Allison Kim 16461 Chapin Way LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-205 From: Brady Bennon To: Andreades,Debra Subject: Hallinan Woods Date: Monday,August 20,2018 11:37:56 AM Dear Lake Oswego Development Commission, I am emailing to urge you to reject the proposed subdivision and building of six homes in the current Hallinan Woods natural area. My wife and I moved to Hallinan because of the neighborhood's proximity to trees and natural areas. We fell in love with Hallinan Woods and value the fact that our children can walk to school through a beautiful forested area, play along the creek there,and learn to appreciate wildlife that can be found there regularly including deer, salamanders,woodpeckers and other birds. This area is such a gem and it would not only break my heart to see this wetland area destroyed,but it would also make us less likely to stay in the area. I fervently believe that many families in our neighborhood choose to live here because of it is not high density housing like Portland is. Putting three,four,or even six houses destroys the character of what makes our area special and it likely decreases our home values. This is a city that prides itself as being a"Tree City,"and was named Oregon's Tree City of the year last year. Destroying this forested area does not comport with our city's green image and is an abrupt and disgraceful irony. This hypocritical proposal is all about one person' agreed,a person who doesn't even live here in our community. Please protect our neighborhood by rejecting this proposal. Don't let Hallinan Woods be paved over! Sincerely, Brady Bennon 438 Ash Street Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Sent from my iPhone LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-206 August 20, 2018 Barbara Fisher Comments to the DRC re LU 17-0084 I live at 1023 O'Brien Street, a short dead end street, the entrance to Hallinan Woods. My husband, Jim, and I have led the Friends of Hallinan Heights Woods for 15 years. We are members of the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board and the Oswego Lake Watershed Council. And we support the Coalition for Hallinan Woods Nature Park. But I would like to speak to you as a long time Lake Oswego private citizen. I hope that the city will be able to purchase the Yates property and add it to Hallinan Woods. But if the proposed development does move forward, I have three requests that would help mitigate the negative impact of turning a forest into a subdivision next to a city natural area. First, that the Protected Riparian Area actually be protected by a city easement, essentially adding Hallinan Creek and the wetland area to Hallinan Woods. This part of the property has been under restoration for the past three years by the Oswego Lake Watershed Council. The adjacent Hallinan Woods continues to be restored and maintained by our Friends group. With support from the Friends group, this addition to city property should be accepted. Next, the 6 foot tall cyclone fence that runs the length of the east and south boundaries of the Yates property be removed. It has always been an eye sore, strongly disliked by the people who use Hallinan Woods.Woods. •,; 1114 ` '` ' .,"{�a• I �4 ,• 1 Aid _ . . ..,,.°' _ k r " } t I w .-' s - , Y^- �' '• 1, w •'' Unfortunately, in some places the fence is just 2 feet away from the main path. LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-207 e ! ty. • _ �. . rHP e *1 1.444 • • Over time, trees have fallen on it so it is also in disrepair. And, please save as many trees as possible. When our neighborhood was developed, many native trees were left. All of our neighbors have a native tree, some several. We really do live in "Tree City." Dozens of large native trees will be cut down to facilitate the Yates development. What can be done to stop clear cutting? There is one tree in particular that I would like to ask, "Why does it have to go?" It appears to me to be on city property, the Yates Street Right of Way. Yates Street seems to work well with the tree where it is. Our neighborhood appears to have been an oak woodland and this large Oregon White Oak is a beautiful specimen. (Tree#296 in Tree Inventory, it is 36" in diameter and in good health.) . . T: - y 0. . ■0 �. •4;. . . Ate. 'fir,,r • , • ' fo r - �[ x ' M1 +R. . F . ,4 F ail . 4-... . • i•-. .... -; ...!:.- ., .-; p, .iiirs ...,:t. ,...1.7, "..-f. i 'i,ii e. ip . 0 $ c '. .• '''.101 - `124,01.-• ••••••• . -14 • ill E ' ,2yeR t ill ;iig. r........<1:111.”,..6.. r...... 7,... ..,F..4., . .:...; r...!...fpg .. .:.1i... , 4...:. ......-•...._ CRP- =-- iIl Oregon White Oak We would like to be saved. _ :{ g :7-....:A.... 0 :t _ -'------4"-- -1 ... a 41 {' ... de - • s' • This is a significant tree in good health. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. I appreciate your time and attention. Sincerely, Barbara Fisher To: Ms. Debra Andreades / Planning Committee: From: Daniel & Betsy Mae Reis, 16850 Chapin Way, LO Re: Proposed Development (LU 17-0084) Halinan Woods Date: August 20, 2018 Hi Debra, Betsy and I have major concerns with referenced development. This natural barrier and setting has always "defined" our neighborhood. We both feel its important to preserve, not develop. This natural "park" effect should be enjoyed by current and all future homeowners in the Hallinan neighborhood. The tree removal plans appear intense, and would possibly include old growth ?? BIG Concern. Shocked the City would even consider this in their plans. Please consider Betsy and I opposed to any such plan, and truly hope this never reaches approval stage. Really appreciate you taking time to consider our opinion and feelings on this proposed project. Sincerely, Daniel &Betsy Reis LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-208 From: Karen Davitt To: Andreades,Debra Subject: Hallinan Woods Date: Monday,August 20,2018 4:04:17 PM I am writing to ask our city to consider purchasing the Hallinan Woods area rather then let it go to a developer.We are losing so many of our green areas to development, what a shame to see this space destroyed for houses.Now more than ever it's time for our city leaders to think about what they are leaving behind for future citizens. We moved here over 12 years ago for the schools and the amazing green spaces.If our city leaders don't step up and play an active roll in preserving our wooded areas,we will be living in a very different city. Considering the fact that summers are getting hotter and drier,we really need to step back and think about how vital the wooded areas to our quality of life. If we have 14 million to spend on the Parks Maintenance building and 20 million to spend on a new civic center, surely our city leaders can find space in the budget for this parcel of land. Thank you, Karen Davitt Sent from my iPhone LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-209 From: Amy Paldi To: Andreades,Debra Subject: Testimony regarding 1107 Yates Street Date: Monday,August 20,2018 4:08:44 PM Hi Debra, I am not able to attend tonights meeting regarding the development application for 1107 Yates Street property. As a neighbor living 3 properties down from the proposed development, I want to express my concern regarding the plan for the 6 lot development. I am deeply concerned with the impact of the removal of multiple trees and how this will effect the run-off water in the neighborhood along with the impact it has on the creek and the wetlands. The development will also impact the adjacent nature parks natural charter and lack of natural buffer adjacent to the walking path. It could also have a strain on the existing water pipes and protection of the neighborhood if there should be a fire. I understand that development is most likely the outcome for this pristine wooded area. My intent would be to have the county re-think the number of lots and limit the impact of development to the existing wetlands, natural area, and the resources of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Amy Paldi 1021 Yates Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-210 From: Nancy Osborne To: Andreades,Debra Subject: Hallinan Woods Development Date: Monday,August 20,2018 4:27:54 PM I'd like to state my opposition to the proposed development of the Hallinan Woods. I have walked through this lovely area for the 25 years that I've been a resident in the neighborhood. The tall Douglas fir trees are majestic, providing a respite from the hot summer days, is habitat to innumerable wild life, and is a wonderful area to teach elementary school kids about wild, open spaces. This open space should be preserved not destroyed for more homes. Thank you. Nancy Osborne Lake Oswego, OR LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-211 1625 Bedford Court Lake Oswego, OR 97034 August 20, 2018 subject: Proposed development at 1107 Yates street The proposal to build six houses on the property at 1107 Yates street should be denied because the costs to the community are much higher than the benefits. This property thrusts into the heart of the Hallinan woods, a local treasure that is enjoyed by dozens of visitors on any given day. The walking trail abuts this property for several hundred feet to the point where it crosses a small creek. There, the view in every direction is of a mature and peaceful forest. There, one can pause for quiet reflection and hear only the sound of water, wind, and birds. This is truly a civic treasure. It would be a terrible mistake to replace fully one quarter of this rare and splendid area with six houses. Consider the tradeoff: Six families - no more than 20 or 30 people - get new housing at the expense of the many, many more who pass through the Hallinan woods every day, every week, every month, every year. The proposed homes are by no means affordable housing; any qualified buyer would face no hardship to buy elsewhere. This wonderful place should not be lost to development that brings no benefit to the community. The owner's connection to the property is neither long--standing nor nurturing. Contrast that to the volunteers who care for the Hallinan woods so that we might all enjoy it in perpetuity. The owner of the property is entitled to a reasonable profit by selling the property to the City of Lake Oswego for the extension and preservation of Hallinan woods. Please deny the request and work to save this marvelous place. A city with a healthy Hallinan woods is much better than a city with 6 additional houses. The future will thank you for preserving this ground. Sincerely, Bruce McAlister A : n201 LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-212 Leah Puhlman 13120 Thoma Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Debra Andreades Senior Planner City of Lake Oswego Dear Ms. Andreades: I write to express my opposition to the proposed development detailed in LU 17-0084 for the following reasons: 1 . The plans do not conform with LOC 50-05.010.4.f criteria. The currently proposed plan does not meet the criteria for avoidance and minimization of impact on an RP zone. I request that any application approved provide for a development plan that avoids the resource area and provides for any required mitigation with compatible resource lands, meeting the criteria set forth in LOC 50.05.010.4.f. 2.There are significant trees (283, 285, and 55) that have not been identified as such on the application. Tree #283 and #285 are both visible from Yates St., and therefore qualify as significant. Tree #55 has a 34" diameter that is visible from the public property bordering the development. This was not addressed in the application. 3. I am concerned that the staff recommends only a 3 year requirement to report for the approved maintenance and monitoring plan as shown in Exhibits #-6 and F-4. What happens after that? I am also concerned about the maintenance of the storm water system that will be adjacent to a protected wetlands and creek. What is the enforcement procedure to require the HOA maintain the system as it is designed to function? For these reasons, I ask the Planning Department and the Development Review Commission to deny this application until such time as these issues are addressed satisfactorily. Respectfully, Leah Puhlman LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-213 :10: 28' C ' ''t ' L—S ''': : :. 's: ' --- ::' ,"s'ts..4 kt.,.. ., s fr&.-4mAifre a ' ':','1,-. 1 a..vt ia,.:_vt.. A r-e,.....gA.,,, ,, ' L '-' , ..,b: Li i.& 'iLloLL ' — L(.',..a....i.-- . . , . , „ . ,...: :: ',:.. '. , ': ,: .H ' ..: .- : :,,Q A .t;:,,,;'1 ,1':'6Z 1 : : . ' . ':: '''' ' I: 2 : 2; ' : : ' '' : ' - ''':. 's'':-- '''----''' f . . . .... C. M . 5 , ', , :zi, „:, " ' : ; ; .; . ,,_; ;„.„,_ ._,:....._;,_ _: : ,_,,,.:,.. , „ ,,,__.„,,,, ., .,.s. .., . . - ii , A, t :; : ; :,+,,,,-: : ,...," ,„,‘ „ , 1,;,i,,:.,,..,-„,, ; , .:,,,,'ier,',':- : ;\t/t,„,,,4, litieLAt;:, -; - - - ::::-.. ‘. 7. � : F_. .# LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-214 ti '.-- - ' ,2.:..,....,-..- ci.2.-,:.,.%...,-,\.-2,)Je,,,,,,v, v_Lf-,,,,_:!--:-....:.,-..-....___ -_ - -- - „i `S " b — .._,..... �....»,__..,� ..tea.>.�... ..�-I _ ___ —. 1. wm> `^r—Mn,.+?v..., ,•H`r<+ekua+«n 't- A.p r w...,.p...T, t. i l i - i � F I. Iir _ � , _� , [ r 1 , I T II tj____1 ,. ,1 , - I I i 1 i iIi ; c?, tt t c !=i i-- - --H i i I I � � � � I i - I- fk- I t I .I > _ _ �_ ______ -, r IMEZIOMMWAMENH - f ; : ! _,, Tptimiii,„_, _:--imu,,,;,;_t -; 7:74-__-_-r.4-fz,,;,,,; -_- .1f, 't r ■■i�■k. _______:!ilititillIMIM Mil - - - '''' 't I .# , _ �. G ■■ f 1.70 f� �iN■ i m , i j • — r a j a r r- 1r ! i _. , . 1 " _ ...__I 4. • ' ::, II1 i Ti I I � j + Hr . ---•-----L--,- ' I i --'1 !t 'I 'I '_ IN■pI!iL!IIi1IIIUILE. �- iiiiruiiri �I ■ mearoIr/mmumr.'.F:mmimmo _,■ - � ■ ■ ■■ ■■.Paurm1111l gmimmummummommummommm1111101111NIQ'affl'IlmNmff �e■■a.E110 oluIllarallailimmprimmome 11 ololo rlvllidam i ■h.1 :.II■AI■ . ■;� ■ GR.P;■l .1�.1i■C?N ■ro■■■i'! wpm. ■ ■F■ .■ir i■1m■ ■e■vi.mmu■1!■ii■t.' ■[■i!l.iry i _i ■_____ll ImIlmarim:imemplowimmommemmannamag6■ i•rosrla■anromm. . ■■tum ■ maimarsuragismr:NI1i11 �i' 11I111111.■E...■.LIMMIM �. munmi 1R11■I Irmwammommommmtimmummmilmammallt11011100111r"."MIPMP"1011111111511111•1111111116111E;•rull . I■� llig. ►.WEI■.WOMILI-. ■M■■ NM.M�.■U. 1 _ E ME 111P M .c.P.R■E■ �EMMEMra■MM■.W■WMRAM► ■■ OW. ; ■i■mmo■i aimmemmm .■.■L■m.■.R.mmee mu■1■inmpsi.tN ■a■m■■ ■omminiora ■..F9.■. ►�mmitamm amourm■Nii.m.E=.■maz■ ■�■ - ■■..R■■a!L■NIMES ■`.....11UESI9■F IMMINIWIRMENIEa.■.c'■■■C A■■■VAIN RN.■C3■N■. ■NIVI■ IRM1 i01111% will-a i■l ■ 1111 FfI1IIfIL! rflurrw!ciI ■ , .M_. !,roli.NN ■ of s _1 : n A 4 rHOMMMEMnEMMEWIMMNIPAMMMWMEAMMPOMdMOM6M , 1 ?r 'E;i1 _', e TiiiIiliIiii'iiiIIIiiFm! I' , , 1 , 8/24/18 Development Review Committee, After significant additional research, I am writing this second letter regarding the proposed development (LU 17-0084) next to Hallinan Natural Area because it does not meet the code 50.06.005.3.a.i nor does it meet the intent of its land designation. As a starting point, I think it is critical that each of you go to the property and walk the nature path from O'Brien Street to Hallinan Elementary School. There have been significant and successful community efforts to remove invasive species and restore the property in hopes of annexing it into the existing Hallinan Natural Area. With a decision in favor of the current proposal, you are making a permanent decision to negatively impact both the natural habitat and protection of this sensitive piece of land (and Hallinan Woods of which it is a contiguous part). The property in question is Tree Grove 22 (TG-22) listed in Exhibit E-3 of LU 15-0019 (Sep.2015). Ordinance 2687 re-designated this property as a HBA (Habitat Benefit Area) from a RC (Resource Conversation) district (one of 35 in all of Lake Oswego). This analysis was done by Fishman Environmental Services and Winterowd Planning in 1997. As a side note, the significant restoration that has happened since this report would would have likely prevented its removal from RC. Their analysis states "future development potential is limited in the south portion of TG-2. The area has access constraints due to the steep slopes (20%to 50%) within the stream corridor that bisects TG-2. The 2 acre lot to the north of the open space (1107 Yates), upon replacement of the RC district with HBA, could be developed...City Code requires that a minimum of 20% of a subdivision be protected as open space. If a subdivision were proposed at 1107 Yates, the land abutting Hallinan Natural Area would be prioritized for open space protection. In addition, the HBA incentives would encourage habitat protection or restoration and protection with any future development."They also state that, "Furthermore, compared to the RC district the HBA district is more likely to result in needed habitat restoration." In their conclusion, they state that "at the level of the Tree Grove and Resource Area, these impacts are minimal or non-existent, due to the protections afforded by other City regulations." The proposed development will not lead to their desired or expected outcome of a minimal to non-existent impact. A joint letter from the Portland Audubon Society, Tualatin Riverkeepers, and Lake Oswego residents (sent Nov. 2015) clearly highlights how Ordinance 2687 leaves sensitive areas like this property vulnerable to loss, degradation and fragmentation, especially from future development."This is exactly what is happening with this proposed development. LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-216 A key takeaway for me from the last Development Review meeting was your collective passion for the intention of the code and the need for thoughtful consideration of the impact to the surrounding community. For example, with the Mercantile project, you wanted to make sure that everything possible was done to mitigate the impact to not only the neighborhood community, but that there is compliance with the code's intention, not just an interpretation beneficial to the developing party. Key Takeaways: 1. The ESEE analysis, as written above, states that the subdivision, excluding the RP/wetlands area should include 20% open space, prioritized towards the borders with the Hallinan Natural Area. 2. The current proposed development is satisfying the 20% open space requirement by using the area that is already protected from development (RP/wetland area). Open space requirements reference the 20%open space requirement to the net developable area (per 50.06.005.3.a.i) which should exclude the existing protected RP/wetland area from consideration since it's not developable. 3. The intent of moving the land from RC to HBA was to have a positive environmental impact with "minimal to non-existent" negative impacts. This proposed development does not align with the intent of the original reclassifcation. 4. Open space applicable to serial partition sites states (page 6 of 25 of PP 16-0003) that 20% open space is a requirement and "this will affect density (fewer lots created)."This raises the question of whether 6 lots should actually be allowed on this site. 5. As you are aware, in 2015 a staff report revised the sensitive lands code (ordinance 2687) to designate certain sensitive lands to HBA (Habitat Benefit Areas) with the goal of protecting and restoring habitat in exchange for flexible development. This development does not meet their intended goal of protecting or restoring habitat. 6. Almost the entire development in question is in designated HBA with the goal of "protecting and restoring habitat in exchange for flexible development". See map below with area in light green (HBA) and RP protected area in red cross-hash marks). Furthermore, the development in question falls directly within Tree Grove 22 as outlined in their documentation and the entire lot is "an associated tree grove" that is contiguous with an RP and RC district. 7. The plans do not conform with LOC 50-05.010.4.f criteria to avoid and minimize impact on an RP zone. 8. The numerous significant trees that have not been identified including 283,285, and 55 (which is 34" in diameter). The proposed plan, along with the extensive tree removal that will happen for the proposed houses will completely destroy the natural environment of the property. Conclusion: The City of Lake Oswego decision in 2015 (per Ordinance 2687) to remove critical protection from this property is now leaving the decision to your collective vote on whether you believe that the proposed development is meeting the intention of creating a "de minimis" change to the lot and surrounding area. Outside of the code gerrymandering, I implore you to take into account the environmental and social value of the land and the fact that is was previously protected and is still a HBA that is part of a contiguous natural and protected area with significant "healthy" and "old-growth" trees on the property. Based on the city/ESEE analysis in Ordinance 2687 and code 50.06.005.3.a.i the current proposed development does not meet the requirement for 20% open space of the net developable area (open space should not include RP/wetland area since this is not developable under it's own protections). The proposed development should include 20% open space, in addition to the protected RP/wetland area, which will provide more protection for this sensitive area and that open space should border the two sides of Hallinan Natural Area (specifically on the East side that is adjacent to the walking path). At the very least, there should not be leniency given in the development to encroach upon the RP area (in the amount of>3000 sq. ft.). The squared off lots should end at the furthest extent of the RP area which will reduce the development size for the benefit of the community. Lastly, with all of the true flag lots that have been approved (although past property divisions have been approved, this property does not meet the technical flag lot requirements since all development will actually be in-front of the existing structure. For the sake of the community's benefit to enjoy this area and minimize the impact to a sensitive area I implore you to vote against the proposed development and require that 20% of the net developable area (excluding the RP/wetlands) to be open space and that it border the existing Hallinan Natural Area. Sincerely, Richard Rich &Tianna Tuatagaloa 1 -i A Laurel �,St �, I coc PEA. F" a l `n _ -�- G ii�ii, l H ' I I i !• I.�� 00 I ti w 1111Q .1 � i I ;... j 4 143 11022 #021 1 '-a >Y24 . _. 'r 11ii 3 I102 1033 q i i6 C 1t1: I— co J "i». 105.1 ,� 1 � . 1' ,. , 'cif, R-7.5 - w 10.000 _ I rn t�irr>arn 2-0., �� '�1 R-15 tiI, aads ,=_ / F:e, ,116300 Glenrrrorrle _ _ �P.- Overlay 4. J I/ strict . /V L)cck r;, St PF /� 1 I I I Tg 7/7 I //7-g./7"C Y/7;t,:///:/. 3. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL a. Amount of Open Space Required I. All developments, except as otherwise provided by this section, shall provide open space land approved by the City in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20% of the net developable area of the development. r OPEN SPACE APPLICABLE TO SERIAL PARTITION SITES: The 2015 Audit of the Comp Plan found policies that required residential development of four or more units to preserve "open space and natural resources.",[Land Use Policy 13-10]-Executing a serial partition allows a developer to avoid minimum density as well as open space requirements (20%). This amendment would require"serial partition" sites that are large enough to be divided into four or more lots to provide open space if(1)the parent parcel is at least 75,000 sq.ft.or(2)the parent parcel is less than 75,000 sq.ft.and has natural resources on it. This will affect density(fewer lots created). . ,, - •• '''•• ' ''.1'‘'," \,„' -, -. ' " ' •''''-'7- ''— ..ii 4.4 Z-,--- , ‘','' , 1 ' :it* ,i l ii �A y., a r-.r ,•,fr.,r r 1` i i .s"wp' 1.. 4.. ' 1 1 1 4. •✓Vr' #+1 1 ,'( Y4 �{, 1 `!y W" �syN��'' l 1 , 1 s' t ` ? �' 6 "' FFFF"'' '1 'S 1 ''•' 1 _ ter- - y it 4 S i �` i9 6 ti } 5 �. + + sA 3 ,� ',l H11 g''3. tNi •:Gs rr�ii yYi 3! yt7i Ra7 C lfi t, Y4( ....4. •• ; • i J.V•1. J. ' `q r • - r; �,;';, ."c- .w 1L�+ c. ¢ - _�,5;> 'r 11141. �rr`c.'�i �',i�' �'!e 4 'tom'' —. :.-.�. �'.- s: 1 y , . ,.... . :-.,...f.*: .. s,'414+ .--,4.104 ,ii.f. u ' s 'yam i•, r' i• ;. MIL "�^{al rs•,.. . E _, f�L.'yrR' .1! r a f i- ., } . e: j {."" 1.7'114 Ilk tF' ( 1R1''�T 1` .— 11-- yi ) ' i 1� �yYiYYIL..._.{'jra :.aa ! Y !, S 71 1 ! ..f#' s �-M•, 1 � _' try r: •k,` ice. Y ..,� ! A-. 1, sts,I , ' • I r 1 /1 -‘41,:414,,,E 4. s frrt 1. �� j �, { A ,.i a ♦M S. 11. F,e' 1 h s .4 iIR ,- ,x t`. jjr [ r 1 .c ., -I' `� S :iR :.-t 'f . ' �;' rF' 1 ems' s+' , �...r,_ '1r SRC �g; /;`q� , tt. y� ,' -'< ., 'r4'+ 4 '. :c- 'trk.y n L /f. vy i ^ �jr r_ _ f V y����-}j�_. �, ` �v - �1_, . A. i •''..x.''.to'.� (_rr P t�� - \ '• AsJ 1` , ,sra •i �y i *N�P sr �' ice 1e -; -: �yy; ! [ y rr, g \ F »_ �._ . ,r ti � � , dNisi I 4 tiliip.• � r• /' i" ' ' r dr , r'4e � 4' . it/7 , a �,�r1 l � 'L 1 _Yn 4` Tti:,'' .'7 yY l t"nif ' 0. _ i F Y ,��.�� �. �61. a ?,� ;' r ,S x .-:. �tk'� � u�._ � .r .t kr �. _ \ S - �. '} ar- 4. ! R ur r� �. ! .cs+ •, '" ,d-!,+_. • „ tax. . $ t 3•.,y a ik! .t A44, • ,fi r F y, '. fir+{- a Y1. 1 Lam' ^„rd!•' ' .', s'tiY; �,-'„ \'4011‘ 1111 _ �'3 f _ \ _ �1 } sT _ ' �1"'T? `4 -`` " f. , -,y,,-,:itt-- -=-' littlirik.11 :,,r, ;44', -,- -t.i It ., .,r, f fill .1 t -.,it- R \ j e' .r .,,��ryA�,-* ''ti' 't \ i ,\ 4 `��. c ` \ _. Ate ,• ?Tff:��d115�1i i _. .1'r 4 A 4 1TY -1., „A. �. , ♦. S. r *v{ - t' yr 0• M1 N y: ,t4 •ik \ .« S1`y „=.ram . _'t,i I. I . { .. 't r f Q` v,i -1 e. , titA f v. � na�ai<'.4ry :.� . � .� i �•� ram'-l--tY - r...' _!'"\ l '�a� ♦ �•.fi ¢"3 - 4�' 9 s . S r d - g.• ,�Y. ��•� - 11 '� `fib 'i .4,,,*"...� '' 1. Qom►°- it ,K' -n • .\ _ J1 � ` • 0. N 1 k • : S k. r4. �-;,.�qiF �.y r i* air * 'h i .[e ,SS ,. r l ..-. � `` tll 'yr wv.1 •1 tl r+ �R'n�1 ',47 ,"r {r r;Y,.F - ' f,q�7� 1 4/ r?� k''VI, F' i • :; y8 sli -4,IN tX*.: �+r,. ' A i. M �4 �. <4 716' V-�Q?' g. .: ..., .,,a T `Y1! err r II YI F .'- ?' b.- - :s3• k A i Li .'- • �F., ,'F. :k, l:.t .r>a 1'r* b• -l1' "..1.. 1 . .l.k '.Z !4 1W a - Dear DRC Committee, Please consider this testimony regarding Application LU 17-0084 for subdivision of the property at 1107 Yates Street. There are many issues with the application (e.g. not considering vantage points from within Hallinan Woods when assessing the visibility of significant trees), but for brevity I will elaborate only on my two major concerns below. Concern #1: The application violates LOC 50.05.010.4.f.i via unnecessary intrusion into the RP District The staff report asserts that LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii allows for reduction of the protected riparian area. However, they appear to have glossed over the rigorous requirement of LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii.(1) which states that the reduction is only permitted if"the proposed development complies with LOC 50.05.010.4.f". Application LU 17-0084 should be rejected for gross violation of LOC 50.05.010.4.f.i which states "...the applicant shall first demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the property."There is a very simple solution to avoid intrusion into the resource district: smaller lot sizes. However, the application and staff report instead use a report by Terra Science, Inc. to argue for reduction of the RP district by asserting that it will not have an adverse effect on the resource. There are two problems with this justification: 1) it is irrelevant because there is no grammatically coherent interpretation of LOC 50.05.010.4.f.i that would permit intrusion into the resource district when an obvious and reasonable alternative is available; and 2) the assertion by Terra Science is misleading. To establish the appropriateness of smaller lot sizes for the 1107 Yates property, it is important to recognize that there are currently 8 other lots on Yates Street and 6 of these lots are 5,000 square feet each. The lots proposed by the applicant range in size from 7,501 to 11,028 square feet. Even if one subtracts the area of the proposed private road and pedestrian access easement, the lots range in size from approximately 6,143 to 8,263 square feet making them among the largest lots on Yates Street. Smaller lot sizes are permitted in cases such as this per LOC 55.05.010.4.c specifically to avoid the type of intrusion into the RP district that the applicant has proposed. In addition, to establish that intrusion into the RP district will, in fact, have an adverse effect on the resource, I offer the following rebuttals to the Terra Science Report. 1) Considering access and setback requirements, the SW corner of the property is not buildable and thus it is misleading to claim that there are any benefits to incorporating it into the PRA. 2) The "added" PRA land in the SW corner is situated relatively far from the stream and wetlands compared with the reduced area. Thus, it is less effective as a buffer than the area proposed to be intruded on. 3) Most of the invasive species that Terra Science proposes to remove from the site do not exist. They have already been cleared by the efforts of the Watershed Council with help from a Habitat Enhancement Fund (HEF) grant by the City of Lake Oswego. 4) The applicant is proposing an 18-foot reduction of the buffer distance at Lot 4, precisely where the slope of the ground is most significant and therefore in greatest need of a larger buffer setback to prevent erosion and water contamination. LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-217 In summary, smaller lot sizes are permitted by LOC 55.05.010.4.c, required by LOC 50.05.010.4.f.i, and appropriate based on comparison to the other lots on Yates Street. The alternative proposed by the applicant to intrude on the current RP District by changing the RP district boundaries defies the letter of the code and also fails to avoid adverse effects on the resource. Therefore, the DRC should uphold the code and require smaller lot sizes for the 1107 Yates Street property. Concern #2: The DRC should invoke LOC 50.07.003.5.a to require a hedge screen adjacent to the walking path Proposed lots 3 and 4 border the only paved walking trail through Hallinan Woods for a length of 196 feet. This will be greatly detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and the experience of the many adults and schoolchildren who regularly frequent the park. A reasonable mitigation measure that would have little impact on the feasibility of the development would be to require a hedge screen to shield the park users along the eastern edge of these lots. Therefore, the DRC should invoke LOC 50.07.003.5.a which states "The reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval on a major or minor development permit in one or more of the following circumstances... iv. The condition is reasonably related to eliminating or mitigating a negative impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood which is created or contributed to by the proposed development." Conclusion In closing, the 1107 Yates property and the protected riparian zone are an important part of the character of the neighborhood since the wooded property immediately abuts the Hallinan Woods Natural Area: a small park that is one of the only natural areas in the densely populated Hallinan Heights neighborhood. Any development of the property will have a negative impact on the rest of the neighborhood and future generations of Hallinan schoolchildren. Therefore, it is vital that the DRC upholds the standards of the Lake Oswego Municipal Code to minimize the damage to the neighborhood character. Therefore, as discussed above, I implore the DRC to require the applicant to: 1) reduce the proposed lot sizes to avoid intrusion into the RP district and adverse effects on the resource, and 2) provide a hedge screen along the eastern edges of lots 3 and 4. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Regards, Kirk Ellison, PhD PE GE 208 Ash Street LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-217 RE: Development Application LU 17-0084 at 1107 Yates St. I wish to convey my objections to the proposed development plan. In its present form,the proposal greatly impacts the existing Hallinan Woods Nature Area by siting building development next to the existing pathway through Hallinan Woods(lots 3 and 4 from exhibit LU 17-0084/E-009). A four-unit proposal could be made that would avoid these impacts and even allow increasing the size of lots 2, 5 and 6 to be more in-line with the existing neighborhood housing. An additional buffer between these four homes would also allow more effective remediation of the large number of trees being cut down and minimize the impact on the existing public resource. My three grandsons walk this path every weekday to go to school and provides them a unique and special experience, I would like to keep it as intact as possible and respective urge you to work with the owner to revise the proposal that serves both their interests and those of the community. Regards, Mark Callicotte 353 Ash St. Lake Oswego LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-218 8/18/18 Development Review Committee, After significant additional research, I am writing this second letter regarding the proposed development (LU 17-0084) next to Hallinan Natural Area because it does not meet the code 50.06.005.3.a.i nor does it meet the intent of its land designation. As a starting point, I think it is critical that each of you go to the property, walk through path from O'Brien Street to Hallinan Elementary School. There have been significant and successful community efforts to remove invasive species and restore the property in hopes of annexing it into the existing Hallinan Natural Area. With a decision in favor of the current proposal, you are making a permanent decision to negatively impact both the natural habitat and protection of this sensitive piece of land (and Hallinan Woods of which it is a contiguous part). The property in question is Tree Grove 22 (TG-22) listed in Exhibit E-3 of LU 15-0019 (Sep.2015). Ordinance 2687 re-designated this property as a HBA (Habitat Benefit Area) from a RC (Resource Conversation) district (one of 35 in all of Lake Oswego). This analysis was done by Fishman Environmental Services and Winterowd Planning in 1997. As a side note, the significant restoration that has happened since this report would would have likely prevented its removal from RC. Their analysis states "future development potential is limited in the south portion of TG-2. The area has access constraints due to the steep slopes (20%to 50%) within the stream corridor that bisects TG-2. The 2 acre lot to the north of the open space (1107 Yates), upon replacement of the RC district with HBA, could be developed...City Code requires that a minimum of 20% of a subdivision be protected as open space. If a subdivision were proposed at 1107 Yates, the land abutting Hallinan Natural Area would be prioritized for open space protection. In addition, the HBA incentives would encourage habitat protection or restoration and protection with any future development."They also state that, "Furthermore, compared to the RC district the HBA district is more likely to result in needed habitat restoration." In their conclusion, they state that "at the level of the Tree Grove and Resource Area, these impacts are minimal or non-existent, due to the protections afforded by other City regulations." This is will not be the outcome with the current proposed development. A joint letter from the Portland Audubon Society, Tualatin Riverkeepers, and Lake Oswego residents (sent Nov. 2015) clearly highlights how Ordinance 2687 leaves sensitive areas like this property vulnerable to loss, degradation and fragmentation, especially from future development."This is exactly what is happening with this proposed development. A key takeaway for me from the last Development Review meeting was your collective passion for the intention of the code and the need for thoughtful consideration of the impact to the surrounding community. For example, with the Mercantile project, you wanted to make sure LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-219 that everything possible was done to mitigate the impact to not only the neighborhood community, but that there is compliance with the code's intention, not just an interpretation beneficial to the developing party. Key Takeaways: 1. The ESEE analysis, as written above, states that the subdivision, excluding the RP/wetlands area should include 20% open space, prioritized towards the borders with the Hallinan Natural Area. 2. The current proposed development is satisfying the 20% open space requirement by using the area that is already protected from development (RP/wetland area). Open space requirements reference the 20%open space requirement to the net developable area (per 50.06.005.3.a.i) which should exclude the existing protected RP/wetland area from consideration. 3. The intent of moving the land from RC to HBA was to have a positive environmental impact with "minimal to non-existent" negative impacts. This proposed development does not align with the intent of the original move. 4. Open space applicable to serial partition sites states (page 6 of 25 of PP 16-0003) that 20% open space is a requirement and "this will affect density (fewer lots created)."This raises the question of whether 6 lots should actually be allowed on this site. 5. As you are aware, in 2015 a staff report revised the sensitive lands code (ordinance 2687) to designate certain sensitive lands to HBA (Habitat Benefit Areas) with the goal of protecting and restoring habitat in exchange for flexible development. This development does not meet this goal. 6. Almost the entire development in question is in designated HBA with the goal of "protecting and restoring habitat in exchange for flexible development". See map below with area in light green (HBA) and RP protected area in red cross-hash marks). Furthermore, the development in question falls directly within Tree Grove 22 as outlined in their documentation and the entire lot is "an associated tree grove" that is contiguous with an RP and RC district. Conclusion: The City of Lake Oswego decision in 2015 (per Ordinance 2687) to remove critical protection from this property is now leaving the decision to your collective vote on whether you believe that the proposed development is meeting the intention of creating a "de minimis" change to the lot and surrounding area. Outside of the code gerrymandering, I implore you to take into account the environmental and social value of the land and the fact that is was previously LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-219 protected and is still a HBA that is part of a contiguous natural and protected area with significant "healthy" and "old-growth" trees on the property. Based on the city/ESEE analysis in Ordinance 2687 and code 50.06.005.3.a.i the current proposed development does not meet the requirement for 20% open space of the net developable area (open space should not include RP/wetland area since this is not developable under it's own protections). The proposed development should include 20% open space, in addition to the protected RP/wetland area, which will provide more protection for this sensitive area and that open space should border the two sides of Hallinan Natural Area (specifically on the East side that is adjacent to the walking path). Lastly, with all of the true flag lots that have been approved (although past property divisions have been approved, this property does not meet the technical flag lot requirements since all development will actually be in-front of the existing structure. For the sake of the community's benefit to enjoy this area and minimize the impact to a sensitive area I implore you to vote against the proposed development and require that 20% of the net developable area (excluding the RP/wetlands) to be open space and that it border the existing Hallinan Natural Area. Sincerely, Richard Rich &Tianna Tuatagaloa LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-219 1 —i A Laurel �,St �, I coL PEA. F" a l `n _ -�-I JII G iini-I I A on a 1 m I ! I.�� 00 I ti If w II 1111Q .1 � i I ;... j • 4 143 11022 #021 1 '-a >Y24 . _. 'r 11ii 3 I1032 1033 q i i6 C 1t1: I— it J "i». 105.1 ,� 1 � . 1' ,. CP 'S8:Pif, R-7.5 w 10.000.0001__-.— I rn ti I ,=_2-0., � '. R-15 t� ran / 1 F:e, - , Glenrrrorrle _ _ �P.- Overlay 4. J I/ strict: . / L)cck r;, St PF /� 1 I I I Tg 7/7 I //jl/Yg.//:7"C Y/7;t,:///:/. 3. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL a. Amount of Open Space Required I. Ali developments, except as otherwise provided by this section, shall provide open space land approved by the City in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20% of the net developable area of the development. r OPEN SPACE APPLICABLE TO SERIAL PARTITION SITES: The 2015 Audit of the Comp Plan found policies that required residential development of four or more units to preserve "open space and natural resources.",[Land Use Policy 13-10]-Executing a serial partition allows a developer to avoid minimum density as well as open space requirements (20%). This amendment would require"serial partition" sites that are large enough to be divided into four or more lots to provide open space if(1)the parent parcel is at least 75,000 sq.ft.or(2)the parent parcel is less than 75,000 sq.ft.and has natural resources on it. This will affect density(fewer lots created). LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-219 C, e 0 l' !/I I' �1! sr i+"la Ea �i:�sle +1. � y YAlilikek IV I •r / x CO 4 ix e C i a [�lrrf-167 ir ) -',r 1' ri` 4 •' -_ '• O - ' le ` "''1),'P •V•NOrt,14".`-' -,••... :',,, ' 1, ' 1,, . - 4,, . , ,, , , .... . . ,. •,;404"44-'1,,,, "`k v., ..' . Aft '',,t.''' `( .• Yrk'N All:,„Tk? ' for, ainiF, ~ i `: 1 T k r `r i;i *', sAy 3 ,y ,w,�'.,� Y H 3. t y..i, +i+i s e� ♦rrir • • .ice ... _ f '�+p.t ti4 hrS ‘r -fj' S - 'Y k k,5•I,4• AA�! r • . 4Ir , ),r4Y.1 �',i�' .�.,, -' ...k, ? - Sf•tom'' _-. `.,� • �: 1 j •... . ,%...' . -.-.4-...., i,41,4014, .-.'414k, ,it. op, u xx++ s 'yam 1, ,f' r' 9'� ul{-lT f }. F �e' >L` A ..1'.1---,1, , - ,, rf 1 'r 4 h� I ' J4 vim •.! .. f .� ,icy }p6+i .r , r. i. - ;4 « �� '� f f A.K._1-bf • r , _ �M-.. x. .{ / r _ I M11. Y \ r "'l ! • r s 1 1 I L i `` ihr t, 'F r ' - • K t,ilt. a :. N r t . R. ! .f.`° { -'-. µ , ..,t /. ky rF r t' .10 , `' /. ¢'.'v.I. ) -,l 04 r 4 {' ,1 t['j., 4,l - .-irk - h \ � �' 'i}t ,'Jr �r J7 Jt N ,';: ' {,` � l �'� s l r 4 dt� Fr, p tf ��� • i ', ..r5�. _ C J�!r' t. :� rib * f 61F pi i • �fv ram' _ . f V y..;..:< , '�' �, - �i 1. . t=�=.'.'r-. 'r+t r.,., r � .. a) N 0 �f, M i ^♦ 1" a `' �.al ,a " i. CO S�` Y a • az kk.1 . ` W . , t o ti a, r ,. x y11 L f' '1 Q r,, �•; .,r� �a t. y�. Y n {� 4 �;�, j�H�fi'''f ti.;-.. '� 1 , �iy � ' , , /r.pYYdr 1 j.3f � *. - lam` C s w'v ,v' _ y _ :' �r.',� �, 1 ,,i•{ d pk x r� t i'U' 'Y' .. .. lilt r • F _ Y '� ., �S Q r j �, r !. ply •y 4 P 'Y- .T Ai. • x. ,fig Qiu ,k ! Rrt �. ! - � .� \ �„ lore* ,r-!,+_.a F „ c xf>r r� $.` t 3•. y a ! � e` , ?•��fi ; � fir+{-i, a Yti 1 ^„ril�' ' ,.'� :.\ `� • 7-11•4 F ilitli n\ /.mil L Fri ',.�f 'b 1 f /, frt.,,.., • .44..-,,A-f,,,,, - - ' •,, f ''''' ' ....' , ''',1•• -,. 44,itikrif-:''4. Al .-,fx1140.4'''1.-J\N-e,4 ,V-r .. -."',e;.,- , .) . .„ YPS.P" w e. ..r �,�.; 44. . _ r -1i "'ai yA' r M1 N or �` . x_ -Y S4'� ' +e` 't,.. _ • t '9iw y '.''r h y i d.1.E yk xi d: ,y 7c� F,Y -�1.� i ��� 7 , { s-x R'...! I -3 J ""'• k , A,i i3' . l� ..sue �.• } Y 4 + A. 4 �� 1 r_ MM inaT'.arsr.? "p r , ', .t i ,, .LS*-tt"'Y � ,...' _!'"\ t S • r d g.. t.. _f i.. - 1 `fib ', .Y �' s jets„ l., j f. ..,'1.- .. ,�. • \ J� •� ` ,w a W; tq !v', 1 : A1. a .. am`' 1 .{,��` eaA'j �`* k 7 le _Y •[e ,SS'R • •. r 6 "t"Ety6J l ..-. �;`` t�l 'yr wv.1 •1 tl• r+ �-R'=n�1 ; ,"t ,r 71..0v I' ,1,,,, .• r �tgg"'„. F 1 ,l a 1 :; yi r, -a.. M t4 �. <� 716' V-�Q?' g. ` ,-.,ti r i K:r r w'•V vk - - ; - ►.1--- " ?' t� a 1 f- y -�r. ' --,j T a K ! fir r I if. F• . ?' brtN - :,s .'F. :k, l:.t .r rH� 1'r* .�c�c.b.: •-l1'_ _..1.. c . . � .l.k � '.Z !4 1W .—. .- a James Fisher Amended Comments to DRC re LU 17-0084, September 5, 2018 I live at 1023 O'Brien Street, approximately 200 feet from the public entrance to Hallinan Woods and the Yates property. I have a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Geology and am a Certified Engineering Geologist in the State of Oregon. I retired in 2014; from 2003 to 2014, I was employed by Clackamas County Water Environment Services as a Soil Scientist and later, Soils Group Supervisor. I am familiar and experienced with soils in Clackamas County, including the Hallinan Heights neighborhood. During my career with the County, I inspected and described the soil horizons in hundreds of test pits, including numerous sites in Lake Oswego, as a part of site investigations of onsite waste disposal feasibility and design. I have reviewed the application and planning staff comments on LU 17-0084 and have five main concerns that I describe below. I appreciate the opportunity to present my concerns to the DRC. 1. Improper Storm Water Facility Selection The Preliminary Drainage Report (Theta,July 2018) indicates a flow-through planter, as described in the 2016 LO Stormwater Manual,will be used to provide stormwater detention and water quality treatment.The flow-through planter BMP was selected on the basis of the slow soil infiltration testing results, as reported by the geotechnical consultant, GeoPacific Engineering (September, 2017). Although the three soil test pit logs by GeoPacific accurately describe local soils, the consultant failed to properly interpret local soil conditions with respect to shallow groundwater conditions. The geotechnical report did not reference soil mapping by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a branch of the US Department of Agriculture, which maps soils on the site as belonging to the Cascade Soil Series, a widespread and well known soil type in Clackamas County. The geotechnical consultant failed to interpret all three test pits as showing clear evidence of a temporary water table at depths of 12-to 18-inches, although they did note briefly in their written report that depth to groundwater will vary with the season. The soil conditions in test pits 1-3 evidence "redoximorphic features" described in LO Stormwater Manual,Appendix C(see next page insert) and are indicative of a shallow temporary water table that is present at least for several weeks to months annually. Additional details on typical Cascade soil conditions can be referenced on the NRCS website (websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov) and in the publication "Soil Survey of Clackamas County" (1985), published by the US Soil Conservation Service, predecessor agency to the NRCS. Soil Scientists working for Oregon DEQ and Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development in Oregon City 1 LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-220 S4or+r+uid.+( Mao Rment Manual, A ppeod,x C. Reading the Soil Complex chemical interactions occur within soil when it comes in contact with water and air.The color and characteristics of a soil can provide general information about how long it has been saturated or Inundated. This portion of the manual is a guide to recognizing these soil characteristics,but a sell and/or wetland professional should be contacted to verify what has been observed and to obtain more information. ti "• Redoximorphic Features ' J •�1-. Soils with dark backgrounds and rusty and/or yellow splotches could Indicate �' soils were saturated for a temporary period of lime(2 weeks or a month)and '9 •k- ..s' , then dried out allowing air to enter the soil pores.The rust and yellow splotches are referred to as redoximorphic Features.These features Indicate that iron has ,,,t''4' gone into solution and then been exposed to air•oxidizing the iron and creating 'fir rust colors in the soil.If you observe soils with these characteristics,contact a soil ifili AT or wetland professional to get more Information. . Depleted Soils Soils that have a light grey background can be what is referred to as'depleted soils Depleted soils often also contain redoximorphic features(rust and yellow ` .. splotches).Soils exhibiting these characteristics are likely to have been saturated - .-,;_. for a longer period(up to several months)than the soils shown in Photo 11.Much r., .-- of the iron in these soils has been leached oul and down the soil column during the ' R time they are saturated.When soils dry out,air enters the soil's pores and creates - s redoximorphic features(rusty/yellow splotches) Soils with this characteristic may - . indicate shallow groundwater is present and affecting drainage of the stormwaler - . • facility. r. ,,f Gleyed Soils rele7 - �.,ie. , Soils that are saturated or inundated all year round typically have ' - ;'' . ;.,- light grey-greenish or bluish colors.Nearly all or the iron and mange- ti. e f+.''..<; ,- nese in these soils have been leached down the soil column leaving • I i;L'� - ' . w,• the light grey-greenish,bluish color,indicating permanent or long ' E``, }'• term saturation.Soils that have this characteristic could indicate that " ' shallow groundwater is present and may affect the drainage of the §i ti•..h stormwater facility. Saturated Soils '•W+•l'.' •- ' r�y1, f -� • ,r 1 Soils are saturated when 100 percent of the soil pores are filled with a i �, water.It can be difficult to determine whether soils are saturated just by y ;, :,r7 looking at them.Once a hole is excavated,soils may be seen glistening �' -: ' ,.)I or water may be pouring out of the side of the hole.This is an indication ' f that soils are saturated,but closer observation of the soils Is best. If you ?i can squeeze water oul of the soil easily,it is likely saturated even If you ?., l do not see water pouring out of the side of the hole.Contact a soils or '4;: :t.. wetland scientist to assist with verification of soil saturation. c-11 2 LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-220 may also be consulted to confirm my assessment. Moreover, nuisance shallow groundwater is very familiar to residents of the Hallinan Neighborhood, several of whom have crawl space sump pumps. Groundwater in the Cascade soils on my own property is reliably present throughout winter months at a depth of 18-inches, based on several excavations I have made over the years. Using geotechnical data that failed to note redoximorphic features at shallow depth, Theta proceeded to specify a flow-through Planter for storm water treatment in the Preliminary Drainage Report. Theta included the first page of the Planters detail, taken from the LO Stormwater Management Manual section 4.6.2,to illustrate the basic Planter design for a "large" project (greater than 3000 sq.ft. of impervious area). Theta did not include the second page of the Planters detail however,which describes Site Requirements for Large Projects, including the following: "Bottom of planter must be at least 3 feet above seasonal high ground water elevation or other impermeable layer if contributing area is 3,000 square feet or greater of impervious surface." Soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed Planter (GeoPacific,Test Pit 1) demonstrate seasonal high ground water elevation at a depth of 18-inches below existing ground. The proposed Planter for the Yates project does not comply with site requirements of Section 4.6.2 of the LO Stormwater Management Manual and is thus an inappropriate device to treat runoff on the subject property. Rather it appears that a Constructed Wetland device, located in the vicinity of the existing small concrete pond and to the west thereof, may accommodate both runoff from the design storm in terms of available area, and be in conformance with required soil conditions and slope gradients. The DRC should remand the Preliminary Drainage Report on the site to the Applicant's engineer for amendment and further study,to include the feasibility of building a Constructed Wetland or other devices such Green Roofs and Rain Water Harvesting. Rather than put runoff into a pipe and then a channel, a Constructed Wetland would allow for more on-site stormwater infiltration and water quality treatment, while also greatly enhancing the environmental diversity of the site. 3 LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-220 2. The threat to public safety from flooding of an existing culvert Failure to comply with LOC 38.25.120.1.c,Stormwater Management Code, which states that stormwater management shall avoid a net negative impact on nearby streams, wetlands, groundwater and other water bodies. This six-lot subdivision is a large project (>3000 s.f. impervious area) and is required to maintain post-development peak flow rates at their pre-development (c. 1850) levels for the two-year,five-year, and ten-year 24-hour runoff events (LOC 38.25.120.1.d.ii.C). The Preliminary Drainage Report submitted by Theta, LLC in support of the application acknowledges that peak flows will be increased by approximately 1 cfs with respect to the ten-year event. This figure is equivalent to almost 27,000 gallons per hour of increased flow and does not comply with LOC38.25.120.1.d.ii.C. Furthermore,this flow must pass through an unmaintained 24-inch diameter, approximately 35-foot long concrete culvert at the eastern margin of the Yates property where it passes underneath the asphalt-paved path connecting O'Brien Street to Hallinan Elementary School. This path is heavily used by school children, dog walkers, bicyclists, and neighborhood citizens seeking active recreation. On Page 3, 1st paragraph entitled "DOWN STREAM CAPACITY",the Preliminary Drainage Report states that"There is no evidence that this pipe has a conveyance problem". As it exists today, this pipe does indeed have a conveyance problem. It is common for flow at the culvert inlet to back up above the top of the culvert; I and several neighbors have observed Hallinan Creek overtopping the culvert and flowing over the path with a flow depth of approximately 6 to 8 inches. This overtopping flow, and seepage flow through the gravel fill below the asphalt, appears to be chiefly responsible for eroding the backfill over the pipe, resulting in the exposure of 8 to 10 feet of the downstream end of the pipe and 3 feet of the culvert inlet end. This condition is shown on the attached photos. Photos also show eroded chunks of asphalt from the path, whose width above the culvert has been significantly narrowed. The conditions I describe constitute an existing threat to public safety that will only be exacerbated by the proposed sub-division and which have not been addressed in the Preliminary Drainage Report. 4 LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-220 Furthermore,the Preliminary Drainage Report does not discuss Climate Change. As noted in the LO Storm water Management Manual,Section 3.4.5,future storms are likely to be longer, more intense, and more frequent,thus adding to the risk posed by improperly designed and functioning culverts. My testimony before the DRC will include a short video I made in 2015 where the creek flow is above the culvert inlet and approximately 12-inches below the elevation of the asphalt path.A large eddy can be observed in the video;this latter condition occurs every year and demonstrates that the culvert, under existing conditions, is inadequate to handle routine storm flow volumes. A visit to the culvert today would reveal a large, eroded area just above the culvert, on the Yates property, that reflects the erosive effects of stream flow. The Preliminary Drainage Report submitted by the applicant does not recognize any problem with the culvert or the stream bed crossing the site and hence, does not address maintenance required for private stormwater management facilities as required by LOC 38.25.140. Similarly,the applicant's drainage report states that the 1 cfs flow from the riprap outflow to the stream will not cause erosion because of the gentle gradient. The existing Hallinan Creek channel is incised between 1 and 4 feet in erodible, clay-rich soils.The proposed design is inadequate to control erosion in the channel of Hallinan Creek and between the proposed rip-rap apron and the creek as required by LOC 38.25.120 and.140. I leave it to engineers to address the specific deficiencies of existing on-site culverts in terms of design and function, but it appears that options to examine would include some combination of a larger culvert(s) or replacing the downstream culvert with a bridge. Some measures to reduce stream velocities and protect stream banks from erosion are warranted. 5 LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-220 Photo Below: View of eroded culvert outlet from Hallinan path; note eroded asphalt chunk. ", .>r..+ # '�ram' F' .,o7f ti O, II II. '� - •, . .6► ' •'r, -ipie d i P••. 1e� "yam = • - �} , r +` -, a ++5 r `-� _ _ � ' _ y TLC-- f l u - 4 _. -- 0 , __ .._ •. ,,, .,• . . ...... .. , I...a_ ... ,.... „. ._., .„... ... _r _..... ...,. 0 "1 - .e. - pi:1-_ fiptitior. v. ,... -- • _ r 6 LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-220 Photo showing eroded culvert outlet and asphalt path. . 0• ip. ... - . A" ' ..i. l'W Ilk ...• _..4 r.II. . .-r .. 1r .. .. .• •-... 1 t :- ',a 1,, .._., • - - . ..- ,*, .", , . 6 . -mij ':k 4. '7,". : • `'.. ," .. ' '••: .. - , •` Nkm. •'-'..; ,. . P • d_k - Ik- . . kr- ." .• . . V! .• • - %JP • . '...4. • :-..-• ' ' '' *.- -.• ' '''' 20. - 1 fi: • li . ,d, . - .... _jiket,..._:' •,_ _. 4470 1 • - II, t.i. • o •: *Vv..: - - _• ... -. .-1.' . -:. . -- • .-.. - ._-' 4 .1 "'"'• • .... . it .....1 •: .r IN."0 '. •• •.- ..• -.• Cry I *0. -.1' * ••••• 4.• '- ' . - _mini: ...r. r- . '.,•t*' , 4ir - '. ...1'; 16* • - 1. .-.....1*0111111111e'.-- ' - .. - 'li L''''. ,••• - f . -111.'ir• .,....' . ° I 4.'...- ." ''' . • '- til .1. .., •.! .s. 7,::rffillpirst: .-7ttli1;;;, r•-• '-k.''''h•• • ' II.. _. ' • 'Lk,. ' r A&t6ilfrIF°' • • .''.. '. ..- ,-...6,11^ .... ' ... .. • ..• •Ig . , 'v.' Na•'. • A • A -' .;_a ; .....".... -.11. • 1.-Pe-' • '...I • - _-.r. ..,_ ,.. Th ..., .. .31 Nook -,..7,.,,.:7 4. • . r . . . , -.1. . -• .-.‘....... ‘••/...r.2 . i an..'.. . ......-,. . .• .. . ' yr 4141 • Alb ,_ . -rb,.. .! Jr : w. 'n*.& . •.. . Fit, . . . .1.fili i•..-• ..' . • :_-01•''' ' '4_ •• ••• '- 4,sirp. inA..... ••'`'I •••• ':. ..."-. .-doli .::. . -.,_•li.._ - Pr• • • . - t ;IV. •••• _ -Ididltrr • -' • . 11 MME 'l1...•.•.•".e.1-' •2ff--- -'''-.•-•\'W..:.a"4-r M.''..'r." .a...'...-t•..-.§• ' • •. . 4.•'9'.7.X: • i il ••th•, •—r-• _-i f•i •, 'I'.A•10' . ''..-"• .., -R. - . 4' .• . • • • e • :. .ollie • ...- . • . . ..c . r - ,- ••••- ' . . ...- 1/11111Ft--, * ... . •- •:,•_ -40,:. .g''''-rg.. • . qr ''. _. . . • '1, . v. \II, .. ..... ••;;4• ' ' '''' • '* , 0 .g .., '7.-'' • -•-•dig. .,. . . N. . .'it) . • •4... .Ilek' • • 1111. IA". litir lorcer. : " - •••., " ".•-.! .. . • 1.• • . .- • ' ',. ' , ,.,.... .;-,0 e - . . -fl e•' - -Ad.--.. A r- %. i -, • i• ,k a. • filgt I. •'••ip._• ...II • 'de' .7.- .•••• i ..1.11,.. r /A' •'V.. 24 A labrr .i.1/2, r. • . ..... ,. 11, . ' , • 011.2 4. i LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-220 _ - F. w r I •• ii ' ' .. 1,071. . i a. ,, , . v..10 . . 1`F , * • . r r"c .1...... . f P X if LU ' , ice. ,r.. ' w� '' F r ", • i 1 F •,'' } or ._,• �"� Al 1 T III t r "5 ¢ ra t i* f {. ..A r• h • - •III ti „ "` . . - „: .ie I, '' } *..Yik' +, ,l •. r 4 ``' • ail, M z F • r �.. {V,t. �. al- ''Or' r l r v V...?11 - .fi t ti. r 0. .- { . • { r •r?!4.- •••;1- I ti �Y ti 5 t _ ; A' I c I. 1 r 00 > 1 r P ..- { t b. 4 f` M1�L L "t . ill r r11 "4. ..4111- • . . . ....• • ,F-7... ... , . CV. ... . . . Cs•I . V ilt: ' 1 . -I. ' 11, • P' r o •i : -•-- . .'r•. *.'5.1, • ,-? • • q' • 4 CI : .e.i., r, . ... .., 4' . - " 7 •• 1 .?.5....t I ''• 7 6 . ,p), L ir•' •• it, .1.1....,,KI: . .It • I .F4 . •7,.'- . -0.- • . • , :••• •1' T 'SI; • - .-1 , 51 •11, • 1 p- • • S. • . .' i 4,!‘' e • ••• _ • • • -•:.'• '.! 4 r 's •••iirc,•:-7. - . '•r .... • = 7...• . 1,1. • . . -. .e. ;,tr, .. V.i. ri. : 104 i. -.1 . 4,-1P4, . , • ". - .' ". - W ''''..0 r 01.• . .1. '7 ibr.f.•''. 'I• k. •0- . .. ..'-fg ,' , -.44P%I- . ••• LLJ 5.• ,.._ • , -. -- '••••'; '7,4ii - Lt.. L :0;_•••4,- • ' 14- . ••• li.; • '. • ••••,1".. Yr -.` . ''• • ). ,:t +., . '.• ,7.•,..,. . •ii. r••• - .1. ,.. .- • .,.., ... . I'te a• 4.• prx%. 4. , fi),....i.wle vx. co ,_ .;. •-, :t.?.•..i, ••• 5 ., • ...5 IP •`1, P 40 17. • '..4 :IF ...I i''. .4„0. -le 0 ,.. . • *.) 1: . , •. .."1.i. ..44...• ...•.a... . 41.. • - ., ... 0 o • • 7 - ' • • ..'- 4- *E,.... ititt.'l'4 4 14- • , ' •- °.-..- WIEII-t - . iYi:"L'T 14 ih' ' -' '-Jr '''' -. .. '••`. •• ht• ' . : ... 1..- Vi. - ••,.. - . .1.,....i. . • . 1 r,- o_ • et' .' ' 1`, ', le,.i.„,,....y .. I•*.i,..1 • ...-It 1r' 10..1, - , Fp ",‘,..1.. 1ff ,III,'I'i .• • ,..c,''r 1 ..1. 't- v) - - 1- - • 40 .. kit "..vi•'14,1 li_- ....t. .. ..-,.7.•t.' A' i p:. l...1- .4,.*---, !•-.4 .:., -..-„, ".?.....- . . ), . • . ...‹.•#,... i t- n - . +-, co . ,... -I .i. ' , rR6,44:'''' '•Ty ,,..:% . co, .411,11 ; . c • • .• - . t'l....• - 0 -•- -o•4 n• ''.••.•-•- '..... i'tII 1 iA. .:-.•::•.‘'•I'•i••'y :.'r '-r.'...4....•,•:.'. • . . . ...,I,-II.L'*;t!..••i•.,1.It4i.l.'..l'.."-.1.'.,.-.1..1.-'1II.1.`- i,'t:1.ii d..i•i s.r 1.A'-l4..,,PI,4• I,7.„. ; 0ri,•.4.•..i:.o••t4.•i‘T,••.-.e•;•'.••,..,..M•_a..,.,0. .-1,•':1.e..•''..,1'..',.''.:r"'•••.Ii..1. ,......,A•, . ki .i cn p L, x . '• •I 7% •S.- .• '.:L1I'1tL!!i t.1I.7 1•I..3.I,5•-1P!1'•.''1...'',0..•0.:4•1•,?1"i_-1 ..!i•sCr., r ,:,0. ... ir • .P -r r - n:$ • di.1 ' W '''-irK ' '..• '1' • ' '.. P lie ..;/". • . I . r•I • 1 r pr., . , , • .1, ; c 73 r •r,I- .. ....* .• .II. . C •4., -""lle i •• 1 • • 1 cl:3 •,'44.-I -. ..... I • . * .er i.r4,..,.: 4I) '11*16'. 1. : . et.. e .1 . •-.1 '- '''' '''' • . .. ..,. -c L. -`47.o, P ' ;., 1, te ' . .1. •',14: s ... .' 1 •-• '.I.' ••••.1.0...° S.i. , ,V!. • .. , , .JO° ..„, +" I It i 4. '.'r • • .•.. ti'' 't •i• • , • ' "" ,...r. '.. ' P co ,,i.., ..;. 4... ....f.,"-A.....'..5:IA. ';. :. ., _,- .•k.-• • ..:,.,..,,,--., .. L.',I,. ,,Li.44. a .. , -• 1. 1 - 41-4i .. , giL'-.7i:...- L ' . ..• _,, . •• .: ..• ..., ;...„1.1.4,.......t.r4: • ,,•, ,,. ..1 .1y...i., / 4, •1111'. •• -• 41 •i I L'ii: • +-• • • • ii• -,e. • . r - . . .:.tle_• .d.i...r. 1 • .4, -41, . .. : ' .. . ...,.... . P ••• i'• 7. - • •.•P t.;-.- ' • "Li .' ' '' ._, a) (A P.:11- „Litre: •'''• • ', •. ..:..''1 .r' .. ., . 1,. • , W. ,,,,,,,r r , di •"47 .4.•• 4 •Er:. I . i I .' 'in•:.1: le ' ' • '''‘ ' OF •411 "I'llr. ,y....' .",` 'n ' .41 • ' • - ' 4.loi 44 , -a 115. • ' - • 5 1 . ell ., 1 • - : ,-.. .. .'.4-1' r, .. .n • 1.. 1..11 •p 'c'irtrb- j•,...'llkt. , )• . .4 ih-.1.- it 0 L a) -a - • i•- ,r1 Ntl. i '',4 -, •••-,••'S• • :-.4 '... , •.• . f .10:' ' ': : _....k.r_1. u ri,tity.2!.• PC`",.. •:-....,r.. ,.... iir 4/1. 0 ' • 1 1- •1 ••• , '.Al.,. ., '14.:& i . r ., ' . ,.. -, R. : ik •a., ._ . . • , _ - ,. - , . „ . ,• +kr' %.•1,.''..%L. f 4- . •- . 1.1P•x . 7 0 . .14#-`;•' I"L ' . '" •'• • , + , oll• • e • 1 1.- .I •1 4 4., . .• , d .,.. I f5,4.•:,,.4, '41:1.` ''''.'4i ildii'N. •' • -• -. l',.kill - . ' • - • - j,..-_ r •1. .. 1 . ilt LI. i il 1Fii :. V4 .: '10:14 el • ...4 ...-4,,,• IF. et.....,.li D 1011E.e:-' , , • 0 tRop ll i I , r V LTV - , .,..' . •'••IX il. , ' • 1-&.) '41,• .41, •• . 6 le . . ..-! ... 1-' w . .. :11. Y •..'4, 1 4..tr.' ' A_Lit o o . .• . . . .. AI:," . •.. i...1 ,ir. 0 ..,,,mr..", 41 .•I • . r- . . .r.,.., ''•-•-Pt.:.L, '4 ' ' ',.,!!".'....'...l!it• i'ai. .' ji7,-."',....-.K.*.. '-liiillii 41.'; -".•:,:./1;:,-- ; .4' . '1. 7., . i • ,• C • i jr • \, :- • --411v1- erl# ‘ • A-re .',. 'ry''":;31* '. • '... 4 . . . •§ • ,14.• . ....; 4 .0,h',,."'11:1/4C.' ..-, , ‘; ••• ••••./i. =::•71 4. -u•17,11. 1 . Ir . le 14 , . iill,Liri - '.......-1.711.:),kik,... ' ' 0,7•Iri-. . - -:,"„..• .t....,.. ....A.,4...: 0 _. . n ...t,,, .4 ... -" ;'' 'N.1,4..A ',if i 1...- •..,. . -e' ii.C. . VI . ,-`4 • ', ' . .. •-• . ,.. • .•''''• ' 1 0 . N. ....4.4, „, ....p.' Ji,.??:1 i...• • ..k. l'iri*.. . . iator-71" N.... o 1 - •, . I . `to `III• , / lb . 4 . • apv. ' ,,!., fig • 0.7' • ' • ". • "_•214 •i.A 11....Y.ObiC .,..qr.41.41,10,'!c2' 14...k.L, ..'• .1 ,_ _c P a_ . 3. Inadequate Preliminary Operations and Maintenance Plan Per LOC38.25.140.2, the "responsible party" shall maintain stormwater facilities in "good condition". There are two existing, 24-inch diameter concrete culverts on the property that transmit Hallinan Creek flow across the site. Both culverts are necessary and critical storm water facilities on the site and neither are mentioned in the Preliminary Operations and Maintenance Plan submitted by Theta Engineering (June 2018). The inadequate existing design/function of the culverts has been documented herein. The Theta Preliminary O&M Plan also omits any mention of agreements and easements with LO Parks and Recreation Department, who control the adjacent public land, to maintain either culvert, as required by LOC 38.25.140.3.ii. A thorough O&M plan should also reference the necessity of obtaining a Division of State Lands permit in order to work in the stream channel. I note that Hallinan Creek has maintained a surface flow to date throughout this summer. Furthermore,the Preliminary O&M Plan does not provide for reasonable access for City inspection. Currently, both culverts have inverts that are accessed only with difficulty because of a private, 6-foot high chain link fence surrounding the subject property. Per LOC 38.25.140.3.d,the DRC should condition the Applicant to remove the existing 6-foot chain link fence. 4. Illicit Discharges This project is proposing development within 50 feet of a stream, perhaps even as close as 19 feet. While Planters are a suitable water quality improvement device, there is no discussion in the Preliminary Drainage Report about inadvertent illicit discharges from either the private storm facilities or directly from proposed residential back yards (Lots 4-6). Rather,the project stormwater design relies on the expectation that the Planter facility and City setback requirements are sufficient to mitigate the discharge of potentially hazardous substances, including dog waste, petrochemicals, pesticides, and herbicides into the waters of the State of Oregon. Pursuant to LOC38.125.150(Illicit Discharges), it is incumbent upon the DRC to remand the Preliminary Drainage Report to the Applicant for further discussion, including scientific evidence of the appropriateness of whatever stormwater facility is chosen, to capture and eliminate environmentally harmful substances. 10 LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-220 The DRC should require that site-specific BMPs be required in HOA documents to address potential illicit discharges on residential lots so that existing stream quality and environmental conditions can be preserved. 5. Public and Wildlife Access to the Open Space Tract Nowhere in the application materials is there a discussion about access to the open space tract by either the public,through a legal easement or other device, or for wildlife. The property is regularly visited by black tail deer and young deer have been trapped on the property because of the bordering 6 foot high chain link fence. This fence not only restricts free access to ground dwelling animals, it detracts from the public enjoyment of Hallinan Woods by the numerous visitors. The DRC should require the applicant to address these concerns that, ultimately, are about preserving the environmental values of both the Yates property and Hallinan Woods. James Fisher Engineering Geologist E1992 11 LU 17-0084 Exhibit G-220 From: Lisa Brisley [mailto:lsb515@comcast.net] Sent:Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:00 PM To:Andreades, Debra <dandreades@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject:Written Testimony for LU 17-0084- 1107 Yates Street Dear Ms. Andreades, I am emailing my written testimony for File Number LU 17-0084 - Street Address 1107 Yates Street to be submitted before tomorrow's September 5th public hearing in front of the Development Review Commission. I am respectfully requesting that the Development Review Commission deny this proposed 6-lot subdivision development. The proposed development's negative impact on Hallinan creek and wetlands, and encroachment into the Protected Riparian Area, along with extensive tree removal cannot be overstated. Environmental, economic, and aesthetic value of our city's natural resources deserve our protection. Lake Oswego's tree canopy is a character-defining feature of our neighborhoods and a healthy watershed feeding into our lake, rivers, creeks and other waterways is critical for human health, recreation, and wildlife habitat. When we begin to remove forest canopy and replace it with roads, driveways, houses, patios and other impervious surfaces - we negatively and permanently impact our watersheds and receiving lake, rivers, creeks, etc. Therefore, the sensitive location of this extensive 6-lot subdivision development requires careful attention. In fact, the importance of Hallinan Woods and Lake Oswego's other natural parks is clearly expressed on the City of Lake Oswego's website: "In the City of Lake Oswego, there are 460 + acres of natural character parks. These often overlooked parks are vital to our community. They contribute to important habitat for plants, and animals, watershed and storm water management health, as well as a place for the community to connect with nature." In addition, I would ask that the Development Review Commission refer to the Lake Oswego Municipal Code (LOC 50.05.010.4.f.i) that requires that "if a disturbance of a resource district is proposed, the applicant shall first demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development." The applicant has failed to meet this burden of proof as stated in the Lake Oswego Municipal Code, therefore, I am respectfully requesting that this application be denied. Hallinan Woods is perfectly situated to serve a higher purpose - one that meets every quality of life criteria or standard that the City of Lake Oswego is reputed to value: (1) Community (2) Education (3) Sustainability (4) Nature and (5) Beauty Kind regards, Lisa Brisley (resident of Lake Oswego) LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-221 Ecological Engineering, LLC Water Resources and Habitat Restoration Engineering MEMORANDUM To: Sarah Ellison, Chair,Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Debra Andreades, City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services From: David Gorman,PE,Ecological Engineering,LLC Date: September 5, 2018 Subject: Lake Oswego, Oregon Land Use Application LU-17-0084 At the request of the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association,David Gorman,PE of Ecological Engineering,LLC reviewed the Land Use Application LU-17-0084 that is under review by the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon Planning Division. The application is for a 6-lot subdivision with a private street located within the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood. The Neighborhood Association requested the performance of this review to evaluate the reduction in the Resource Protection Area(RPA)proposed by the Applicant,the functions and values of the riparian zone, and the expected performance of the storm drainage system. Mr. Gorman of Ecological Engineering conducted a site visit to evaluate existing site conditions and their ecological context within the Hallinan Creek watershed. Mr. Gorman reviewed relevant portions of the application and City of Lake Oswego Land Use Code (LOC)to assess whether the proposed RPA reduction,riparian valuation, and storm drainage system met the letter and intent of the LOC. His findings and recommendations presented below are based on his evaluation of the subject riparian conditions,lot layout, storm drainage system,and the related materials included in the staff report. Reduction of RP District(LOC 50.05.010.4.f) Step#1 Avoidance When considering a reduction of the RPA,the LOC requires"The applicant shall endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource altogether by providing alternative site plans along with the development proposal demonstrating that alternative designs have been explored. If disturbance of a resource district resource is proposed,the Applicant shall first demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the property." The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed reduction of the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the property. There are alternative lot configurations that would still retain the full development value of the property without impacting the RPA. Ecological Engineering prepared the alternative shown in Figure 1 below in about 5 minutes of time. The red lines indicate the suggested southern property boundaries of Lots 4, 5, 6, and the stormwater facility. Ecological Engineering recommends the use of the boundaries shown because they meet all relevant code requirements without adversely affecting the development and marketability of the MrEcological Engineering,LLC— 2016 SE Henkle Road—Corbett,Oregon 97019-503-704-6013 LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-222 Ecological Engineering, LLC Water Resources and Habitat Restoration Engineering proposed lots. Table 1 provides a quantification of the effect on lot line adjustments to Lots 4, 5,and 6 as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Recommended Lot Line Adjustment To Meet LOC r I 4 1 1 I § 5 �i i 1 t � RP BOUNDARY i _ :�==-. r'? ----- r. -_._I_ PROPOSED� _ ..■' gill .:. .R.x -Alt r►,�r�' - OP E .• "Al . A r ri, _ i•iiiii6-70:::-,;,_ --._"..1,-oil lot . _____. wETLallo - hod d 7 1---- lk// -"ill, I Jr 19 OFFSET i -' //41 ,, ilWC A.•• z Att ; ,: l' ! Is %Ai ! Ij ;qjjj,, 4 itgt 1; //of tt#Iiii, t . / ;111k AREA orwsmrtr�=VI.rans= nnEA9Ir 0FP-71.24z5F IL 1245 RP BOUNDARY s 50. 2S 1E lux.) PROPOSED , cL ooloopii, fv/1474,v4sr4liZvirly4ce- i / , J _.�f e n f r _ff / RP ADJUSTMENT 1107 Yates Street aeorraenwo - eamvxrrnn run.nru T.25„R.1 E.,Section 1 ODD,IL 1300 1\1 nmwr.rs Lake Oswego,Oregon x neve — w�nw.. r Ecological Engineering,LLC— 2016 SE Henkle Road—Corbett,Oregon 97019-503-704-6013 2 Ecological Engineering, LLC Water Resources and Habitat Restoration Engineering Table 1: Recommended Lot Size Adjustments to Lots 4,5, and 6 Lot# Applicant HHNA Lot Size Lot Size Submitted Proposed Change Change Lot Size (FT2) Lot Size (FT2) (FT2) (%) 4 9000 8533 467 5.2 5 7190 6740 450 6.3 6 6863 6318 545 7.9 HHNA= Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association FT2= Square Feet Based on a simple adjustment of the southern lot lines of Lots 4, 5, and 6,it is clear that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed reduction of the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the property, and therefore has not met the requirements of LOC 50.05.010.4.f.i requiring avoidance of impacts to the RPA. Step#2 Minimization Minimization of impacts is an option only available to the Applicant under LOC 50.05.010.4.f if detrimental impacts to the RPA are first avoided through a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid adverse impacts. The Lot layout and design proposed by the Applicant is not the least environmentally damaging development configuration and therefore does not meet the prerequisite for the application of LOC 50.05.010.4.f.ii (Minimization). The Applicant has not shown that that the proposed development qualifies for Minimization of impacts to the RPA. The Applicant's rational for not avoiding impacts to the RPA is that an irregular RPA boundary on the southern property lines of Lots 4, 5, and 6 is that"intrusion"into the RPA would be"significantly reduced or eliminated". The Applicant has provided no evidence that an irregular RPA boundary would lead to increased homeowner intrusion into the protected area.Furthermore,the Applicant's rationale is analogous to believing that burning down your house is the best way to assure that no-one else burns it down. It does not make sense to destroy a resource to protect it. There are better approaches. If we assume that a straight property line does in fact reduce the probability of homeowner intrusion into the protected area, it is still not justification for the location of the southern property lines of Lots 4, 5, and 6 proposed by the Applicant.As demonstrated in Figure 1 above, it is entirely possible and practical to have straight property lines for the lots in question and totally avoid impacts to the RPA. This can be done without significantly reducing the size,viability, and marketability of the lots. The only likely reasons for drawing the property lines as they have been drawn is to increase the size of the lots and/or provide rectangular lots,which does not comply with LOC 50.05.010.6.iii(2). The LOC expressly prohibits increasing development size as a justification for impacting the RPA. Presumably the configuration of rectangular lots as justification for impacting the RPA is also prohibited, although it is not explicitly stated in the LOC. It should be noted that a slight adjustment northward of the proposed internal private street that runs west to east into the subdivision could provide the minimum number of lots required at the minimum lot size of 7500 square feet without intruding into the RPA,which would satisfy all LOC in question. Ecological Engineering,LLC 2016 SE Henkle Road—Corbett,Oregon 97019-503-704-6013 3 Ecological Engineering, LLC Water Resources and Habitat Restoration Engineering Furthermore,the Applicant has not met the requirements necessary under LOC 50.05.010.6.iii(4)to provide the justification necessary to the reviewing authority to permit a protected riparian area that is less than that required. Part(b)of that code requires that"the size or configuration of the subject parcel is insufficient to provide the minimum protected riparian area required"for the reviewing authority to approve a reduction to the RPA. As demonstrated in Figure 1 and Table 1,the size and configuration of the subject parcels is very much sufficient to provide the minimum protected riparian area required by the LOC. Riparian Zone Functions and Values The Applicant's environmental consultant,Terra Science,has evaluated the reduction of the RPA, stating that the reduction will not reduce the functions and values of the resource. Presumably,Terra Science's opinion was based on the condition of the resource at the time that field work was completed in 2017. Based on that field work,Terra Science reported that"the upper portion(westernmost) of the PRA areas is the most disturbed and contains more non-native plants(cherry laurel,English ivy and Himalayan blackberry)under a canopy of native trees (such as bigleaf maple,Oregon ash and Douglas fir). Apparently,much the RPA had a significant plant cover of non-native species at the time of the initial field work. However,the Hallinan Creek Watershed Council has been conducting an invasive plant removal within the RPA of the project site on a biweekly or monthly basis since Terra Science completed its site work, and the ecological value of the PRA has increased proportionally. The Watershed Council has removed English ivy,Himalayan blackberry, laurel,holly,hawthorn, and cherry from within the RPA. The proposed intrusion into the RPA is not consistent with LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii because it will have a detrimental effect on the functions and values of the RPA. When evaluating the importance of the RPA, it is critical to consider all of the functions and values provided by the resource. Riparian functions and values of the Hallinan Heights RPA include the following: • Natural biofilter: Biofilters will protect the water quality of Hallinan Creek from sedimentation and polluted runoff. The effectiveness of a biofilter is a direct function of its width. Reducing the size of the riparian zone for Lots 4, 5, and 6 will result in a reduction of the width of the biofilter and an increase in the transmission of domestic fertilizers,pesticides, and pet waste into the creek. • Food production: The riparian zone is critical in food production for aquatic organisms. Proposed intrusions into the riparian zone will decrease the food production capacity of the RPA. The proposed inclusion of the uplands in the southwest corner of the site is more isolated from the aquatic habitat and will have less value for food production. • Increased biodiversity: Riparian zones play a vital role in supporting a high level of diversity of species. The proposed intrusions into the RPA reduce support of biodiversity thereby degrading habitat quality. Riparian zones have a greater diversity of plant composition than uplands. The proposed inclusion of the uplands in the southwest corner of the site will have a lower level of biodiversity and therefore cannot adequately mitigate for the loss of RPA from the proposed intrusion. • Large Wood Recruitment: Riparian zones provide the large woody debris to stream channels and floodplains that increases aquatic and terrestrial habitat diversity. The proposed intrusions into the RPA will reduce the large wood production potential of the riparian zone and limit future additions of large woody debris to Hallinan Creek and its onsite tributary. The proposed inclusion of the uplands in the southwest corner of the site is more isolated from the aquatic habitat and will have less value for large wood recruitment. Ecological Engineering,LLC 2016 SE Henkle Road—Corbett,Oregon 97019-503-704-6013 4 Ecological Engineering, LLC Water Resources and Habitat Restoration Engineering • Wildlife Corridor: Riparian zones serve as wildlife corridors for aquatic,terrestrial, and avian species of wildlife. The thinner the corridor the more perilous and stressful it is for wildlife to use. The proposed intrusions into the RPA reduce the width of the riparian corridor in the vicinity of Lots 4, 5, and 6 which will have a detrimental effect on its use as a wildlife corridor. The proposed intrusion into the RPA by Lots 4, 5, and 6 will have a detrimental effect on the functions and values of the RPA,most notably biofiltration,food production,biodiversity support, large wood recruitment, and wildlife corridor provision. The detrimental effects on the functions and values of the proposed RPA intrusion are significant enough that it does not meet LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii. Stormwater Management(LOC 38.25.120.1.d.ii.C) The Preliminary Drainage Report submitted by Theta,LLC in support of the application acknowledges that peak flows will be increased by approximately 1 cfs with respect to the ten-year event.Hydrologic analysis conducted by Ecological Engineering,LLC indicates that the discharge from the developed area of the site(lots and road)for the 10-year 24-hour event may exceed the discharge from the same area under the pre-developed condition by a factor of 2.6. The analysis of Theta,LLC and Ecological Engineering,LLC both suggest that the LOC flow requirements that stormwater management facilities shall be designed to maintain post-development peak flow rates at their pre-development(c. 1850)levels for the 10-year, 24-hour runoff event(LOC 38.25.120.1.d.ii.C) cannot be met with the planter design proposed. The stormwater flow design submitted by the applicant will not meet LOC 38.25.120.1.d.ii.C. The Preliminary Drainage Report submitted by the applicant claims there is no evidence that the existing downstream 24-inch diameter culvert has a conveyance problem. However, a field inspection by Ecological Engineering of the culvert and asphalt trail above the culvert revealed evidence that the capacity of the culvert is exceeded on a regular basis. The asphalt trail contained fine grained soil deposits only in the vicinity of the culvert. Those deposits appeared to be alluvial in nature, or having been carried there by water. There was fairly severe erosion of the material between the downstream edge of the asphalt trail and the discharge end of the culvert. The trail is being undermined by the erosion and may ultimately fail. This type and degree of erosion was caused by water flowing over the trail and down to the existing stream channel. The proposed development will increase peak rates of runoff and exacerbate the erosion of the trail,which may lead to the ultimate washout and failure of the trail. The downstream analysis provided by the Preliminary Drainage Report is inadequate to provide a full understanding of the potential impacts of the development on the downstream conveyance system. It is highly likely that the existing culvert will need to be replaced with a larger culvert or bridge to eliminate the downstream impacts of the development. Conclusions and Recommendations The Applicant's rationale for a reduction in the RP District is not supportable by the relevant LOC and therefore should not be approved. The only reasonable explanation for the request to reduce the RP District is to maximize the development of the site and to maximize the lot sizes. Lot's 4, 5,and 6 can very readily be modified to avoid all impacts to the RP District and include straight lot lines without limiting the lots or development in any substantive manner. The functions and values of the RPA will be negatively impacted by the proposed reduction in its width to accommodate Lots 4, 5, 6, and the stormwater facility. The Applicant's proposed storm drainage system will not meet flow control required under LOC 38.25.120.1.d.ii.C. The storm drainage system is also likely to exacerbate the surcharging of the downstream culvert and exacerbate the erosion of the trail that is already an issue. Ecological Engineering,LLC— 2016 SE Henkle Road—Corbett,Oregon 97019-503-704-6013 5 Ecological Engineering, LLC Water Resources and Habitat Restoration Engineering It is recommended that the LU 17-0084 not be approved as is. If the reviewing authority is to approve the application, it should contain the following conditions: 1. Lot lines shall be drawn to avoid all impacts to RP District and meet all provisions of LOC 50.05.010.6. 2. If there is a continuing concern that homeowners will intrude on the RPA,the Applicant shall be required to provide permanent fencing along the southern property lines to clearly delineate the boundary. 3. The storm drainage system shall be redesigned to meet the flow requirements of LOC 38.25.120.1.d.ii.C. 4. The downstream culvert under the trail shall be replaced with a larger culvert or bridge to adequately pass the 25-year event without surcharge. v,0 PR Op p C74, 61 N 1 4,452 , 14111444:fig4 kit)R FXP1RR.S. 6-3f1-14 Ecological Engineering,LLC 2016 SE Henkle Road—Corbett,Oregon 97019-503-704-6013 6 Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 1 of 13 The following testimony represents a substantial expansion upon testimony previously submitted to the DRC by the Acting Chair of the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board. The Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association (HHNA) Board has identified several aspects of application LU 17-0084 that fail to comply with code. The HHNA Board is concerned that the application's failure to comply with code will result in negative impacts on natural resources and on the character of the natural park adjacent to the proposed development. We have detailed our concerns below and have referenced the relevant sections of the Lake Oswego Municipal Code. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. I. Lot placement and stormwater treatment area placement fail to comply with LOC 50.05.010.4.f.i Step #1 Avoidance LOC 50.05.010.4.f Progressive Mitigation Steps Required The approving authority shall permit development allowable within an RC protection area or RP district only if it finds that the following progressive steps have been met: i. Step#1 Avoidance The applicant shall endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource altogether by providing alternative site plans along with the development proposal demonstrating that alternative designs have been explored. If disturbance of a resource district resource is proposed, the applicant shall first demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the property. The development plan proposed in the application calls for an intrusion of 3,087 sf on the Protected Riparian Area and/or the PRA buffer(see LU Exhibit 17-0084 Exhibit F-004,page 2-3). The applicant justifies this intrusion by raising the concern that the irregular RP boundary, presented in a tentative plan at a neighborhood meeting on August 14, 2017, does not"avoid future invasion by residents into the buffer" (LU 17-0084 Exhibit F-001,pg. 22-23). The HHNA Board agrees that the plan presented at the neighborhood meeting did not adequately protect against future intrusions on the natural resource; however, the modified RP boundary proposed in the application also does not satisfy the LOC 50.05.010.4.f criteria. A reasonable lot configuration does not require extending the lot dimensions or the stormwater treatment area into the resource area. The applicant has not demonstrated that intrusion into the resource district by the lots and by the stormwater treatment area cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size of the proposed development. Additionally, the applicant has not demonstrated that a good faith effort has been made to endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource altogether by exploring alternative designs. A solution to meet the above standards would be a reduction in the overall proposed lot sizes which would avoid intrusion into the resource district and would provide the opportunity for adequate space for a house and garage as intended by the applicant. LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-223 Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 2 of 13 A lot size of 5,000 sf is appropriate for the character of the neighborhood. For example, existing lots and homes on Yates and O'Brien Streets bordering the proposed development to the north contain lots of 5,000 sf and 7,500 sf. This lot size mix reflects the current zoning of 7,500 sf lots as well as the historic South Oswego plat with 5,000 sf platted lots, with the majority of the lots on Yates Street south of Laurel being 5,000 sf lots. Three houses on Yates Street, at 1021 Yates, 1033 Yates, and 1053 Yates, were built within the past seven years on 5,000 sf lots. The HHNA Board offers an alternative plan that would entirely avoid intrusions on the PRA by the stormwater treatment area and by lots 4, 5, and 6 (see Figure 1). This plan reduces the proposed area of intrusion on the PRA by 1,948 sf. Under the HHNA Board alternative plan, net lot areas would be reduced by between 183 sf and 1,681 sf, and net lot area would range from 6,143 sf to 10,496 sf. Three of the six net lot areas would be smaller than the 7,500 sf minimum required in the R-7.5 zone; however,the Sensitive Lands provision in LOC 50.05.010.4.b permits this reduction in dimensional standards. This is similar to the applicants' plan, in which two of the six net lot areas are smaller than the 7,500 sf minimum. The alternative plan's smallest lot is only 200 sf smaller than the applicants' smallest proposed lot, and all lots' net areas exceed by over 22% the 5,000 sf lot sizes typical on Yates Street and in the adjacent historic South Oswego plat. Please see Tables 1-3 and Figure 1 for a comparison of the HHNA Board's alternative plan with the applicant's proposed plan. The alternative plan offered by the HHNA is intended to demonstrate that intrusion into the PRA by the lots and the stormwater treatment area is indeed avoidable. Furthermore, the alternative site plans provided by the HHNA and by Ecological Engineering demonstrate that the applicant has not made a good faith effort to endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource altogether as required by LOC 50.05.010.4.f.i. The HHNA Board asks that approval of application LU 17-0084 be conditioned on avoidance of intrusion into the PRA by the lots and the stormwater treatment area in order to comply with LOC 50.05.010.4.f.i. Compliance can be readily met by a reduction of lot sizes, as demonstrated above. Reduction of lot sizes would: reduce or avoid any intrusion into the resource area, continue to maintain an adequate lot size for future development, and be compatible with existing lots in the neighborhood. Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 3 of 13 II. Lot placement and stormwater treatment area placement fail to comply with LOC 50.05.010.4.f.ii Step #2 Minimization ii. Step#2 Minimization If the applicant has endeavored to avoid detrimental impact on the resource according to subsection 4.fi of this section, and the reviewing authority finds that detrimental impacts cannot be avoided, then the applicant shall minimize impacts by demonstrating that: (1) Alternative and significantly different site plans and development locations on the subject site have been considered, and that the alternative chosen is the least environmentally damaging; and (2) When mitigation is proposed, there will be no net loss of resource area,functions, or values as a result of development actions pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.4.g.v, Stream Corridors and Tree Groves, or LOC 50.05.010.4.g.vi, Wetlands, whichever is applicable. As demonstrated by the alternative plan offered by the HHNA (see Figure 1), the applicant has failed to meet the standard set by LOC 50.05.010.4.f.ii.1, which requires the applicant to demonstrate that alternative and significantly different site plans have been considered, and that the alternative chosen is the least environmentally damaging. The HHNA alternate plan demonstrates that generating a significantly different site plan that is less environmentally damaging than the applicants' plan is feasible. LOC 50.05.010.4.f.ii.2 requires the applicant to demonstrate that, when mitigation is proposed, there will be no net loss of resource area, functions, or values as a result of development actions. This requirement is similar to that of LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii.3.a.i., which permits a reduction of an RP district provided that "a qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource as a whole." This requirement will be discussed in Section III.B below. Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 4 of 13 III. Lot placement and stormwater treatment area placement fail to comply with LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii Reduction of RP District The reviewing authority may allow the protected riparian area to be reduced when the applicant shows that: (1) The proposed development complies with LOC 50.05.010.4.f Progressive Mitigation Steps Required; and (2) The reduction in protected riparian area is not solely for the purpose of maximizing development of the site; and (3) Development abuts a Class I or II resource: (a) The reviewing authority may allow portions of the protected riparian area abutting a Class I resource to be reduced to a minimum of 15 ft. if (i) A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource as a whole; and (ii) The width is increased in other areas to maintain a 25 ft. average width A. Failure to comply with subsection 6.b.iii.2 of LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii: The reduction in protected riparian area is not solely for the purpose of maximizing development of the site. The applicant and Terra Science have failed to demonstrate that the purpose of the reduction in PRA for the accommodation of the stormwater management area and lots 4, 5, and 6 is not solely for the purpose of maximizing development of the site. Terra Science states "While the proposed buffer reductions on the north edge of the PRA are `motivated' by having squared off lots, this approach lends itself to better long-term management of the PRA" (Exhibit F-005,pg. 3). The HHNA Board concurs with the opinion expressed by Terra Science and the Staff Report that squared off lots may reduce future encroachment into the PRA by homeowners (Exhibit F-005,pg. 3; Staff Report,pg. 12). However, it possible for the applicant both to have regular or squared-off lot lines and to avoid incursions on the PRA by the lots and by the stormwater management area. The alternative plan submitted by the HHNA Board and described in Section I of this statement demonstrates the feasibility of such a plan. The fact that the applicant has not submitted a plan with smaller lots in order to completely avoid intrusion into the PRA by the lots and the stormwater management area suggests that the proposed intrusions are for the purpose of maximizing lot sizes. Furthermore, the proposed intrusion does not actually"lend itself to better long- term management of the PRA" as claimed by Terra Science. Instead, the reduction in the PRA exchanges possible intrusions in the future along the north side of the PRA with actual, current intrusions along the north side of the PRA. Under the proposed plan, the SE corner of the lot 4 building envelope is approximately eight feet closer to the creek than would be permitted with the existing PRA,while the proposed PRA boundary at the SE corner of lot 4 is approximately 18 feet closer to the creek. The building envelopes on lots 5 and 6 remain approximately the same distance from the resource, while the stormwater treatment area intrudes 328 sf into the PRA. Lots 4, 5, and 6 intrude a total of Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 5 of 13 1,620 sf into the PRA. It is clear from these changes that the proposed buffer reductions on the north side of the PRA are detrimental to the PRA both now and in the long-term. The motives identified by Terra Science to reduce the PRA buffer along the north side of the PRA are to provide squared-off lots and to promote better long-term management of the PRA. Both of these goals can be achieved without incursions into the PRA by the lots or by the stormwater management area, simply by creating smaller lot sizes. The applicant fails to demonstrate that the reduction in the PRA is not solely for the purpose of maximizing development of the site by maximizing lot sizes. B. Failure to comply with subsection 6.b.iii.3.a.i of LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii: A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource as a whole. Ecological Engineering, LLC, has performed an independent review of LU 17- 0084 to evaluate the proposed reduction of the PRA. The memorandum provided by Ecological Engineering, LLC, states, "The proposed intrusion into the RPA by Lots 4, 5, and 6 will have a detrimental effect on the functions and values of the RPA, most notably biofiltration, food production, biodiversity, large wood recruitment and wildlife corridor provision. The detrimental effects on the functions and values of the proposed RPA intrusion are significant enough that it does not meet LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii." This and other excerpts from the Ecological Engineering memorandum contradict the assertions of the applicant's environmental consultant, Terra Science. In addition to the memorandum by Ecological Engineering, the HHNA offers a response to the Terra Science report below. The Staff Report cites the report by Terra Science to assess whether the proposed changes to the protected riparian area (PRA)will "reduce the functions and values of the resource" (Staff Report,pg. 12). However, the Terra Science report (Exhibit F-005) is out-of-date and does not accurately reflect current conditions on the site. According to Phil Scoles of Terra Science (phone conversation 9/4/2018), the conditions described in the report were observed in 2016 and 2017. Mr. Scoles stated that he hasn't"revisited the site in over a year." Site conditions have changed significantly because the PRA continues to undergo a multi-year restoration project by the Oswego Lake Watershed Council. The work has been funded by a Habitat Enhancement Fund(HEF) grant from the City of Lake Oswego and has been supported by volunteers. The scope of work as described in publicly available documents details 200 hours of labor for invasive removal, 100 hours for replanting of native specimens, and at least 1,000 native plants to supplement the diminished native plant population (see attached documents: OLWC: Work Parties 2015 and Oswego Lake Watershed Council Habitat Enhancement Fund Projects: Scope of Work for Hallinan Creek Project at 1107 Yates Road). The work began in the spring of 2015. Maintenance work, Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 6 of 13 including continued removal of invasives, is scheduled to continue through 2019, three years after completion of the initial scope of work in 2016 (see attached document: Hallinan—final report July 1, 2016). Today, the eastern half of the PRA is effectively free of invasives, while the western half has significantly fewer invasives as compared to conditions observed by Terra Science in 2016/2017. Current conditions differ sharply from those described by Terra Science (Exhibit F-004,pg. 2). Terra Science's assessment of the proposed changes to the PRA buffer and of whether the changes will reduce the values and functions of the resource is based on an out-of-date assessment of the PRA that does not reflect current conditions. The most recent observation of the site by Terra Science occurred in 2017, only halfway into the Watershed Council's four-year restoration. The restoration efforts have continued to improve the values and functions of the creek and riparian area since Terra Science was last on site. The Terra Science assessment does not take these improvements into account, and therefore cannot accurately assess whether changes to the PRA will reduce values and functions of the resource. Although the Terra Science report is based on out-of-date observations, the merit of its assertions can still be considered. The Terra Science report offers four arguments to bolster its claim that"The proposed buffer reduction(and replacement) is consistent with LOC 50.05.010.6.b.ii [sic]" (Exhibit F-005,pg. 3). Each argument is quoted and rebutted below. A. "The purpose of the reduction is not only for development, but also for PRA improvement. When the southwest corner is added, the PRA is larger as a result of the buffer reduction and replacement requirements. Several habitat elements of the PRA are substantially improved. " (Exhibit F-005,pg. 3) The claim that the proposed buffer changes improve the north side of the PRA are refuted above in Section III.A. The claim that the addition of the SW corner to the PRA represents a substantial improvement is disingenuous. The SW corner is not under threat of development. None of the multiple plans and alternative plans submitted by the applicant during the pre-application and application process have featured the SW corner as an area to be developed in any way. Nor would the SW corner likely be developed in the future, as the corner is surrounded by private homes and public parkland on two sides, and on its third side it is bordered by the PRA. In addition to its location, its size and shape also make it an unlikely place to attempt development. As the applicant has no current plans to develop the SW corner and as it appears that the SW corner will likely remain wooded and undeveloped for the foreseeable future, it is disingenuous to claim that"several habitat elements of the PRA are substantially improved"by the addition of the SW corner to the PRA. In reality, the applicant is not proposing any significant change or improvement to the habitat in the SW corner. Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 7 of 13 B. "The buffer setbacks would not have an adverse effect on the remaining buffer and PRA,provided the buffer plantings are installed, maintained and monitored in accordance with city requirements." (Exhibit F-005,pg. 3) This claim suggests that a reduction of function resulting from the proposed buffer setbacks could be entirely offset by an increase in function resulting from the proposed buffer plantings. As described above, the Terra Science assessment does not take into account improvements made to the PRA's value and function in the past year. The majority of the buffer setbacks are proposed on the eastern side of the northern boundary of the PRA,where Watershed Council restoration efforts have been most intensive. It is doubtful that additional restoration efforts in these areas, as proposed by Terra Science (Exhibits F-004 and F-005), could add sufficient function and value to this area of the PRA(which has already undergone three years of restoration)to offset the reduction of function resulting from the proposed buffer setbacks. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed buffer reductions precisely in the areas where the buffer is most needed for its function of erosion control and water quality maintenance: near the SE corner of lot 4, near the SE corner of lot 5, and near the SW corner of lot 6. These three areas are steeply sloped and are therefore at higher risk of erosion. These areas are also areas where one may reasonably expect more contaminants (pesticides, biocontaminants, fertilizers, etc.) in the runoff in the near future due to the proposed six-lot subdivision and the houses that will eventually be built there. The PRA buffer in these areas already has significant native vegetation that serves to reduce erosion and to enhance infiltration of surface runoff. While additional plantings may offer marginal enhancement of these functions, they are unlikely to adequately offset the permanent loss of 3,000 sf of riparian buffer in the areas where erosion control and surface runoff infiltration are most needed. C. "The functions of the wetland and Hallinan Creek are improved by the removal of invasive species throughout the entire PRA. " (Exhibit F-005, pg. 3) As described above, restoration efforts have already significantly reduced invasives throughout the entire PRA. While further invasive removal would undoubtedly be beneficial, the bulk of invasive removal has already been achieved. The removal of the remaining invasive species would offer only a marginal improvement of functions and would not offset PRA buffer reductions. D. "The buffer reduction on the north side, with the addition of the southwest corner replacement land, is sufficiently large and connected to other natural resource areas that it has viable wildlife habitat." (Exhibit F-005,pg. 3) As discussed above, the southwest corner"replacement land"is not under imminent or foreseeable threat of development. The proposed buffer changes represent a net loss of effective habitat, regardless of whether the SW corner is included in the PRA, and therefore the proposed buffer changes represent a reduction in the function of the PRA. Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 8 of 13 Additionally, the area proposed for mitigation located in the SW corner of the lot is not the same caliber land as that of the PRA—it is designated as uplands forest. The application proposes protecting 4,352 sf of uplands forest in order to mitigate intrusion on 3,087 sf of Protected Riparian Area. Uplands forest is not as environmentally valuable as the riparian area, nor does it serve the function of the riparian area. The applicant fails to meet the requirement that, when mitigation is proposed, "there will be no net loss of resource area, functions, or values." The value and function of 3,087 sf of Protected Riparian Area will be lost, and not offset in kind by the same land resource. Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 9 of 13 IV. Development of lots 3 and 4 immediately adjacent to paved walking trail will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development does not adequately preserve the natural character of the adjacent park. A hedge screen along the east side of lots 3 and 4 would help preserve the natural character of Hallinan Woods. The paved walking path through Hallinan Woods runs north-south only a few feet from the eastern edge of the proposed development. Park users' experience will be severely impacted by the proposed development. The impact would be mitigated by a natural screen such as a hedge. Hedge screens are proposed by the applicant along the north sides of lots 2 and 3, and hedge screens are common in the neighborhood. Therefore, a hedge screen would be an appropriate means of mitigating the proposed development's negative impact on the natural character of the park. The DRC has the authority to impose such a condition under LOC 50.07.003.5.a, which states: The reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval on a major or minor development permit in one or more of the following circumstances.... iv. The condition is reasonably related to eliminating or mitigating a negative impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood which is created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "natural features or processes" includes tree groves, stream corridors and natural drainage ways, significant tree(s), wetlands, and other natural areas. Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 10 of 13 CONCLUSION: We do not support approval of the application with the currently proposed plan or with the pre-application layouts because we do not believe the plans meet the standards set by LOC 50.05.010.4.f and LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii. The pre-application layouts featuring an irregular RP boundary do not"avoid future invasion by residents into the buffer" as stated by the applicant, while the currently proposed plan does not meet the criteria for avoidance and minimization. Additionally, the applicant fails to meet the standard that development will not reduce the functions or value of the resource. The applicant also fails to demonstrate that reductions in the buffer are not solely for the purpose of maximizing development. We advocate that the application be denied because the applicant has not met the two key criteria (avoidance and minimization) in LOC 50.05.010.4.f as noted above and because the applicant has not met the criteria in LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii. If the application is approved, we recommend that approval be conditioned on the submission of a new development plan in which the lots and stormwater management area are located entirely outside of the resource area and on the provision for any required mitigation in accordance with LOC 50.05.010.4.f and LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii. Additionally, if the application is approved, we recommend that approval be conditioned on the incorporation of a hedge screen along the east side of lots 3 and 4. Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 11 of 13 1;1------7 . i I rI . T15ft i - _.1, HI15 ft H . H__ T : ! . -727 : 18 ft r I.J.IM SPACE I 'ti f -�`_ _ - - Figure 1: HHNA Board Alternative Plan: Map Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board,Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 12 of 13 Table 1: Applicants' Proposed Plan: Lot Sizes R7.5 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot Area Gross 7,500 11028 9838 10368 8806 7501 7653 (SF) Lot Area Net Less area of N/A 7824 10009 8555 6634 6343 (SF) access easement Floor(SF) code 4593 3985 4399 4123 3758 3703 Table 2: HHNA Board Alternative Plan: Lot Sizes R7.5 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Offset of north N/A N/A N/A 15 15 15 lot line(ft) Offset of south 7 15 15 18 18 18 lot line(ft) Total length 7 15 15 3 3 3 reduction of north-south lot lines (ft) Approximate 7,500 10496 8157 8805 8514 7315 7470 Lot Area Gross (SF)* Approximate Less area of N/A 6143 8446 8263 6448 6160 Lot Area Net access (8020) (SF)* easement Approximate code 4492 3665 4103 4068 3723 3668 Floor(SF)* *based on HHNA Board calculations using CAD Table 3: Lot Size Differences between Applicant Plan and HHNA Plan R7.5 _ Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Approximate 7,500 532 1681 1563 292 186 183 Reduction in Lot Area Gross(SF)* Approximate Less area of N/A 1681 1563 292 186 183 Reduction in Lot access Area Net(SF)* easement Approximate code 101 320 296 55 35 35 Reduction in Floor(SF)* *based on HHNA Board calculations using CAD Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board, Sarah Ellison Acting Chair Page 13 of 13 y t;tT4. •g t c r i 1us z "00 c.t • 4 �. OF t • I, x1t , F. PPP '.,.,* Y , '.'7 , . i • . t - , " ' - ? ,...,.. I i -- r ii f i r . Y .�. Y. - - _ >e- j# s 1 i yn t - Figure 2: Photo of proposed development site taken near SE corner looking north - 4,,,, 0 f d« Nam•, Y' • 1 � •q r � r x - Figure 3: Photo of proposed development site taken from Yates Street Scope of Work for Hallinan Creek Project at 1107 Yates Road: , T , .,. It'6- .: ' • .c. , -,re: . ;#1 .. Al.eillt . '410f; ,witi,g ,..' ,. -: ..7 ,. A- .'.. , ' ' . . ;.p.. .,1, . .1, '4 14 A it .. .,r _ • .3:r I , . • _L '' f,. I ,f y;, •1. • , y .d V • s • Pam• F•'.. • { .+ • - .f ' "' - ,1 r ' •vim. `l _ ` . - r • • {ram a► 4 `01°P - t 4 '.` -A . It:.. . i. ,, , . i s■ Y. s a ` y am ..+ 1 �i� �`r` Hallinan Creek drains into Oswego Creek. Over the last three years, City Natural Resources staff has worked intensely to improve the public lands in this riparian area and a picture is attached, at the end of this document, to show the qualitative difference from the above photo depicting residential property. OLWC would like to continue this restoration work on contiguous private property concentrating on the riparian area and the accompanying buffer. It would seem beneficial to concentrate native planting effort on land adjoining the stream corridor and park boundary rather than on potential residential homesite development closer to the access streets especially if redevelopment looms in the near future. Purpose and Benefit: Restoration would greatly improve habitat potential and enhance the aesthetic, natural experience for both residents and park users. It makes sense to continue invasive removal where recent work has gone well, serving as a model for further stewardship efforts. Neighborhood volunteers are more likely to contribute efforts in meaningful, productive projects. The area has a good tree canopy and the stream stability would greatly benefit from more native plants. Methods: Manual invasive removal in the creek with the option of herbicide treatment in outlying areas. Invasive plant material would be composted on site. Native planting commensurate with what Parks and Recreation has planned on the adjacent site would follow invasive eradication. Schedule: This almost half acre site (20,000 sq. ft.) will require 200 hours of labor for invasive removal and 100 hours for replanting of native specimens. At least 1000 plants will be needed to supplement the present but diminished native plant population. Invasive removal will occur in April and May 2015 with further determination of native planting needed for habitat enhancement. Monitoring and Maintenance: OLWC will work with the property owner to help conduct semi-annual evaluations with needed maintenance for a period of three years after completion of the initial scope of work. Work to be Accomplished: Riparian site will have all ivy removed from the trees and invasive specimens from the aquatic and riparian zones. The adjoining natural habitat area will be refurbished with native plant material conducive to enhancing both habitat and hydrological values and reflective of the present upland ecosystem. Deliverables: Quarterly reports. Project Contact: Mike Buck Schedule Summary Location April —June, July— Sept., Oct— Nov., Maintenance 2015 2015 2015 Springbrook Invasive Maintenance Replanting if Continued check Removal. and watering any with property Planting of every two native stock owners over street buffer weeks has future and slope. depending on perished. maintenance weather every six conditions. months. Hallinan Invasive Maintenance Replanting if Continued check removal. and watering any native with property Native planting every two stock has owners over dependent on weeks perished. , future determination depending on maintenance of regeneration weather every six of current conditions. months. stock. This site will Concentration need updating on riparian contingent upon corridor. any development plans. Fairway Invasive Maintenance Replanting if Continued check removal. and watering any native with property Aquatic and every two stock has owners over riparian native weeks perished. future planting depending on maintenance weather every six conditions. months. Hallinan—final report July 1,2016 OLWC hosted 40 volunteers during 7 work parties at the Hallinan Creek site.They cleared the site of invasive species (33,580 square feet) and replanted with 400 native plants, including willow stakes along the eroded banks. OLWC hired Ash Creek to clear several of the invasive tree species (Prunus laurocerasus and Ilex aquifolium). They cut and treated approximately 12 trees in June 2016. ` - -4- . : --.7i. -•_'-:-V.-.--7, •.--. .,., '. •-• •ri...: .y - Jit:Wrr.'..-ice � e � ; 17 41.41. A+ , .41%0;,Alfk,• ' ^4;' ,-.0s, .ftwillps. '--- „ft-,, ,. P f e:x .i t-, -rye 4. sb. . : . 1. - _ `0,. •.., �e T _ 1 s^ ! i - ..- • • , •,, Ate- - of 40 ; i�c v f. .... e. , ..,.,.„,.... '.hp Yrf Y 1. i-f.,. -bo�yy•t y ., 4 i. R �a .- -,., .ri . . 1 f~ fr . , '1. T'cis• ur jw -' 1 .�y_y'F e j *' t . . } ���� * w - ` r , � 'ft r j Volunteers removing ivy at Hallinan Creek •f - I. • I '(,. ' Ifi 1 , . i r } ir a • oti • r i' ' 'i 'mil 1 `{ 0 I ' y. e ' i'r'' i;; ' , 1 r - I.. ,1.: Qk ' le k, .1 AtiL....._....ki: •1'0 '..''.. ',•, .. • '• t• ' . 190 S A, I IV. .o. .• •.,_,-,,?- -' ,•' O '''' • ; ' ti/ . ,r'e ' • • . 4. , .i. .., , , . , , / , ,.. . , ,. , „ , •.. „:,r, ...kJ*, .. .,..0 .0.-,_ --Tr. • Y. ' :' • w.1ill ,,,,41' ar r 7 d. ii r i ..:4'..,,, sr ,,, ,(,.., ,. maw-,,, s 4012 + - 4 "'►+.. + {` ti • ,� I r 4c - �1�` i� (,r;Ivj;i` ��1; ,' ,,'*i r r'�,(„�'.i � • 4 1e lids ,,, ,I c4`. >KS'/e t.� �i -' ail ,,,� I\ e �1' " . r 4.. • d . 4111$ +1: - ' I k f - 4 i. di 1rit 1't �,`.a. 'r`i J ' +, ? f,1 '1�" ++yy '74'• • '`� , 1 yR,k�II \ y(jam/yy}`,t•� �\ ,• -,i i.• • ." •-o .l. t r i Y r • 4 rM 1 } ' :� , '- ', a It. j 1. r ,. 4v # y 2 i, ti' 11. 1L•. :• .R c rt1 1, Yi c• 1 • f —J \�� .r���� t f. i1M6ERLINE OR oc —_ 1 f �' .71,14. L i A -41 Lake , LIi Owsego HS v 9y 20 '� - _ 1150 C —) �N�E.ClU8,R0 947 E {C;� ¢- 1 i a Oswego Lrtke 'L) 92 1 r SPr 1 i Co1~P tanal Club 1. k�l J� f —f 4 - •\C r _•�� A 90 C1$ �^ —— � ...1' . 4 Le' �8pp 1,-' �� ` • ��' �` wry _ IRON MO NTAIN _ F ,�N `,?T ' 0 I U �N 0 a Fairway 0 lro-n lifOolrteatrr tl' a .':Lake Pork \.'" 1 i�, MI Wool p OswegoN ) +4$n Z H1'nt dab � 1 rrrrk 7i + 1 u o hy KE GRDVEts.oAVE +r..{.. ` ' LAKE OSWEGO -- - _L'` d � k. E,I.P it i 5°1M. Md N. 1 ■y0 S40RF Aim i 3 \ ' f 2 r ire, ` -3 �� GREEN1RFf RD `' \ \ 3 S F� 76 74 72 I 3275 1053 0 Springbrook Lake Oswego ..„.0) 1 J Hallman CARMN 3270> eHS y ; �� ESGSRO 1220 1225 1107 i p 1052 1210 0 0 ' r Gus ier 1240 1245 1 ti 3252 1 E 3500 1 H. 1260 1265 1 0 �L Aliji t1 1280 1285 H(i lIL I bQ f `err - -F 16315 Firlowr _ 4 1 '. Open Spore 1305 Creek °Pr 16337 9- 0 I ° 16359 tft 1 00 <C/ J I S� 1355 Space — r C t .. 7 OO 0 1 14790 __I H rFgr�, r 16401 i' Q-• I__. 3 9y;, 655 575 545 r i Rp 16800 ` TWIN FIR v i I 16431 MoRr, . 660 630 1425 �1 1380 letrs �� 1 it Akira -. I k'. IA/P C 7 I 1 II RI ``r From: Liz Martin [mailto:martinliz@me.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 2:34 PM To: Andreades, Debra <dandreades@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject: Testimony for tonight's DRC hearing on LU 17-0084 at 1107 Yates To: DRC Members From: Liz and Jeff Martin 1017 Cedar Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear DRC Members, First of all, thank you so much for the long hours you spend in service for the community. We appreciate you all. To be brief, our desire is for the proposed Yates development to be kept to the minimum impact on the Hallinan Woods area. Having lived with the negative effect of the former Flag Lot Code on the Cedar Street Freepons Village subdivision, we are asking that you please NOT APPROVE any new development that isn't under the NEW and current Flag Lot Code. The 850 Cedar Street development location was not a flag lot (which is why the code was changed) and neither is the Yates property. Approving anything under the old code when a new code is in place, is still approving faulty projects. Our preference is that the DRC support - however possible - the preservation of the Hallinan Woods Natural area - and parks proposal. With a favorable decision to this proposal, you are making a permanent decision that can never be reversed. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Liz and Jeff Martin LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-224 4 i 0{4 t . t v. I ,. - LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-225 C-Ja(as ar• LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-225 t.. v A ! ii , 1 4 1 N .1I) % f t•V 3 0 . 1 . .14 rh. C Fi. — W • 4t:nia 1F�C► } * I..apt. .* �.,t■ d l'' . p * ;at4-int.-1 laths k Houston • 311 ra zz1y Bear ;. \ f 111._ (1 Current Range oMe u Historic Range City .11 it wnaka LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-225 411,51 I g Lt'n 636Yr-ff- , 3 o tt,ticoc.„k st-cee,b- 0,91,uej,,0 , 0- aLL u) • (MS'S VAA._ Re- Gt 1 I — 00 7 4- 6110 Lcaltsv,_ DOY\ArvYvv_Iscrilgvt 700 current r *fix:GEO-fort ,e_0_11 et to 0- 0 imy uc-)-cce fo <my in,u)icipoLs/. \Ale be,[1:tve /111-017 ivas ctunwirof--,rated propos eck and ti/LQ,Cr AA-6-'1:050Y) Akto (-02--„e,(1-€ afea, /LS tNktkbt_ w hafr" 1.01 Oeos ad Ais e code .reluyre. Tkereore, i0.sk tb (e)4'ci- caz' rren t lib:cotton ,SA7a cef-ct9 tt: /1)tot--T--C Gi-Drft LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-226 • G 4-D-Le LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-227 Reducing size of riparian zone will harm the creek : "The proposed intrusion into the RPA is not consistent with LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii because it will have a detrimental effect on the functions and values of the RPA." — David Gorman, Hcological F:'ngineering Ti ,C • Pollution will T • Bugs will + • Riparian > Uplands • Large wood will do • Wildlife will 40 LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-228 Stormwater and flooding "The stormwater flow design submitted by the applicant will not meet LOC 38.25.120.1 .d.ii.C." "The downstream analysis provided by the Preliminary Drainage Report is inadequate to provide a full understanding of the potential impacts of the development on the downstream conveyance system:" — David Gorman, Hcological Hngineering Ti ,C • Stormwater runoff will T • Flooding will T • The trail is more likely to fail. Who pays for repairs? Taxpayers. •. { - . t' d �. r...- ... �, / `: �► ' f Co m m e nta r on Application LU 17-0084 for .- - ; -. 4- Subdivision of 1107 Yates Stre - --''-. 7, ; J S. / %'.y`-- i /. %- / ij I•%�- / �j . - . i. . • • -- .+ 74 i// f./ /i-; / y !�'� I I 1 I /./ l I�-I'• • . ,.. b the Hallinan Heights Nei h6or�abd Association ?y� /,:/`•r - :Y g g •� / � � -11 ✓1. / 14 . //7\1 ,.// / 7 i .. J / Y f -. Jay •ti Jib 1,eti-• tilt: di„iti 'Ii/G�ifil1 f,fd } " 1 / f J �`/ i J / f c ' J�4..f J.II ,,I_I'�I'/'�J"fri I I-4,q,/Piv �•.� /.0/•t I �� '�('r1„a,d''1.- ,,.. ,„/„.,,,,,,......,., ..„ „ i ........ ..,_ 7 .),. t..„,_:, ./..„ ,,,,.., ip. /- 'n.,.3;, ., b' -.r ,/ • ` ./ / /� / I r -/ , x 7 j '/I 'iv Ire' . �; � - ".::y ,�; / / -✓ " l ./ �:,rl .� ,4. / f; ,�i -j 1,i 4 .. 1} I, i�'':� • S ' J / I / I J I / r .I - �7, ;11 cif-, . _Jr � ��. `fI' l f �47 ".�� ' 1 74.�' /I " , r r' , 1'l ylr�IaJ�a'�. .'. ��.'.i '--- -J/';'" )4' 1.4- • f •p:'• �. ./ r I--/ I I JI J ., r;.I/r xr,- • '/ ` .i r4 iAF �, , •a4 _/ J'f � i S/ f '-I ./ wt' i t r . - lr �y,,�J r r.., ` J ma . J r 7 .r• - _ - , - ,j ---- 1 Vy-414- o'`, • Jr .-°.`e. ki % a 1 4 yr ' t - • 400C.- .4" , . .. ' • 11- `ti!^ e.` `C Yam• A r s . *I js...f' - A-drii y K r = _ y.Y �: 1r!"r�- _ _ err w `A •}+ 40/T-- -f- -mac �` — �.•.t:.",* , -t ".-`'i`^"� ~� �. f r • j. ,. 1 r Lots for Proposed Development .� Lot Sizes for Proposed Development .t 1 1 k. T a ,,,, , `I`f) r Lot Area Net Lot Area ij 1 �I J Lot # z 1 1 git 1021 : ! '1 1 11,028 N/A 1� PAI) 103 - 2 9€838 7,824 1 I_ t i 1144 , lo3 Lj 107 1C 1051 12 10 1 104• , 0 1 J_ 10,368 10,009 = � IUI _ J 4 8,806 8,555 f i - Q 5 7,501 6,634 1 119 1 co 6 7,653 6,343 Oa 12` - 6 5 4 124 1245 1 E Lot Sizes for the rest of Yates Street 126j 1,15 J _ �L- I Lot Area t 126 Yates Address (ft Hallinan 16115 15 Wands 153371 1021 5,000 j_iiiirid = ' 1315 j��i`'`` 10225,000 - --1 ---- — 103 5,000 ji r l 1 1033 5,000 Hallinan 10425,000 t Elementary _61 1 1043 5,000 - 143 School 1052 9,529 b 1 o t '� 16131 1061 7,917 Ongoing Restoration of the Property The city of Lake Oswego has been funding a multi-year restoration project on the property that features the removal of invasive species and planting of native species. BEFORE AFTER yam ` h + - - - • -T 1I - - a .... :N--Ir- .• . am. --# I. _ i y _ ' '+ :T -, f- ` .�P. j:`.fi r'.- / *A--' f, - ! - �• � yam_ , t► - • #SS. _ . . . . - Excerpt from the LOC and Staff Report From Staff Report: "LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii, allows the protected riparian area (PRA) to be reduced in some locations provided the width is increased in other areas, the reduction in the PRA is not solely for the purpose of maximizing development of the site, a qualified professional demonstrates that this adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource, and progressive mitigation is provided per LOC 50.05.010.4.f." From LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii: "The reviewing authority may allow the protected riparian area to be reduced when the applicant shows that: (1) The proposed development complies with LOC 50.05.010.4.f Progressive Mitigation Steps" (2) The reduction in riparian area is not solely for the purpose of maximizing development of the site The HHNA contends that: • The application does not comply with LOC 50. 05. 010.4.f • The only logical explanation for the reduction in riparian area is maximizing the development of the site Progressive Mitigation Step 1 : Avoidance From LOC 50.05.010.4.f: "i. Step #1 Avoidance The applicant shall endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource altogether by providing alternative site plans along with the development proposal demonstrating that alternative designs have been explored. If disturbance of a resource district resource is proposed, the applicant shall first demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the property." The HHNA contends that: • The applicant has not made a good faith effort to explore alternative designs Progressive Mitigation Step 1 : Avoidance From LOC 50.05.010.4.f: "i. Step #1 Avoidance The applicant shall endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource altogether by providing alternative site plans along with the development proposal demonstrating that alternative designs have been explored. If disturbance of a resource district resource is proposed, the applicant shall first demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the property." The HHNA contends that: • A disturbance of the resource district resource is proposed; and • Intrusion into the resource district CAN be avoided Lot Configuration Proposed by Applicant ,:,:1E,1*1111.i.e,, • a- L....1"-.:-'1-4,,, ,,..;..L .. 1., '..i,- I t...:,..r.t.1;,: ;':-.5?i;';',-t. r;,:t I \T __-.. _...,------- --._ :. , r A'.t--ut 1.-scl'Ackt--...s7•----1";'5.; s ..-----..-'' /ji ..1.1 . • ; ' il, .. .,,,t— —1st , • tA ! -: ;,, li I r--7'..---11-1PA-'•••••••.--')-15• is•-,1' i --= %...._.‘t, ; .90-1- ,, , i 1 ---- ;- .4.. .., 1 e ........ ,-, 1 ... 1 1 -- •!, 1 1 7..'.. 2. -11.• i / 1 • '-- I '...•••,.-.....--. 0.1. Tr . r. 1 1 _: , . _.., .. ............. ?..,:i.._. ....,. .r. I -...4 ', .I 1 i. -::1',.,..i' '' ._,.'"--'- ' ! ;-- ''..y. N. .,, ,.:1•,- 1....,----"\ --- --1.,.'-•'- ' rs-,, -., .„:*1 '-.; • ,,i ., lo• L ....,"4 I i I ..:`,1. i : .....•V I, ..-,• -A_L.-...:.__ •- g, R.1 1,0 i '.4 I ;../,......; ......, 1•- -,- - ...---•- -- ..,-4.. ...howar..-',..-•4.'4,---—.=———lilr : • i'1 • • - - : a „follow 1.-1-.• ,,,,, : 1 • ,-• I ;._-14- ' ... I i -. , . .. " . _ *,- ..., g".' i'''''• 1 —7. , -• . .i rir ' '. e .1., - " -e •'' ;1 : ', ‘...,".&. 4c / -• ', ;1 ; e c.•' R01147 ` r ..r.' _ ..•• .._ __ ....,, __.- _I, ,L. 1 1' 1 ' : r- --1 i r;,---,--t, 1 ' r" -7- ..-- -- L..___ _,,, i• •, 1 -:.. IMF- i / c4,_1,-15 ( I iI 6 (lift'r c. I 1.. ',..,./....., 4 ...... 1 •• , , 1 , 1 ,. • i . ..- I; '! 1 10 10' 5 --.. 1 t , •••, „ , .,.......... ..t.,. 1 , „lly 1 •L, ,• •,... 1 - ,3/4.•,4 .._ , fice.or..., f ----,... ...1.1 -• 1 l'P i,---- I i '''-. -t.:' ; ...- --i--,-;" - 1. it-ibi ....'- ., _§.tir.r.-,..,...._.,...„—___.,._.4 ...:- ... vI , . :-,' --"r7"--.---) -.a R.a 1RP BOuNDARYI 1.., _11_,,,--.' r . U Lt -PROPOSED I- .--- ... - 1----00!! ' ,-b c 1 ,, ,.. .. , t- IP.:... 7 • .....--_-:_i... .0- . _ ;4_3.... •_11 , .- ..• 1.1,E.POO 1 ...011111•11.1... - .'" _ i .1...-.....,,:,1• . 11 -.'-'-' • / V.' .5.." :-.- . e -•!_...tia?.. .. ''OPENSFACe—,. .: .'.,•1 .„,,.. ,..-„, „.... ... ...4._ ..... ------ ---- - ,....___TR ,' :.11:::•:.;-,- I-.,,::__--- — _. _. -'.i. i .. 1 • , .. , -- :',- „-- -, - ... •-• — - - • ---....„ ....., ..--.......,,,;... ....., ...• ....-:,--- ----ti t, • AREA C ' \ :7.../.--- "...'.0---.1 %' -•,';:.r . 1. . .. / „„ ,l..„..,.--- ,-- ._ . I r-,•:-4'... '- , ', •-•.";:' ......:- - . -' . ' :' .L-1.- . ---...,-.. 1 'r •:••;:. - 1 1', .... 1. ...... \--- -...,. " ,•-•-i -,....:- --. .:04.1• .- - r '1- ..1 1'.,..',-. 11% '" --- ''' c Ths.'.-., -41 St ir4Di4.\'.1.:::::',--71401Alo '' ...e f-4:- ,-' •. ,21.1Lf5"./415'':-. •- ' -- ''', '--1 , --... . -RP BO.,LIN . ....F---'''A0E4r. :r:..1-. :.... ; :. , 4; ...,,t:s•-•,:!l".,:..- ..:4..'''- • ".'‘ ,. ,,.,-...... puttit11543043::--:>-'- -•.&r•'.,... , -,- •Vi ---- r''''•• -. .1' --_. 's. '-•,`• •'• ,,, I • -.• 1 '.:':'-'- .- -'...-- —. '`. -.....' ...........—.. ----',,..."'•.-,;?, • \-":":-.......- -,',r sty,:, 1 —•••—•.,- ... L''''• • ..----i' ., .r.... i."4-"""'" '.`"--7--..111---z11..-7 t . , --....,..-4' - f 2 \ . • "?'", i 1% • ,• ."-.;"'t- / ':;f: 2, •-.— Alternative Lot Configuration # 1 w, r 1 , -,, Lot :; - nu .- '6: - • I Lot # Area Net Lot Area .., ". i ° 5E 5' I 1 0r 9 N/A #. -, 2 -'8,1 7 ' 6r14 3 1._ ,V ___:_,____N-L__,,,,f,_-__ 15 ff- 8,805 "'8,446 -_ ]Ii5 ft o e . O 4 1,514 "13, i3 ,,__ _ _ 5 "'7, 15 "'5,448 w_'14 5 "v7,470 r"6,1 0 + - 10 5 7 . 1 •ft—fit ,,......... ,''. "--.7.,..17.---4:::[ 4 bi , _ _ . - E PRa r o �r- ll8ft /���r~Y' . J 1. r 7 ft _ -_ -- P SPA7C�E, ,.. - -.- _�l_ - _ - -' , Note: LOC 50.05.010.4.b T+ } J J, � r J.�,' i `°"° r :r� , �� � . permits smaller lot sizes than . . . I i • ,;,AND: , the mapped zoning of 7,500 ft -CIF'BOWNDAR.Y - - Z' , PER: ice-...- ,-.ND~ I �.i,. �y�ti Alternative Lot Configuration #2 . 6 II� 4 "The applicant has provided „----------� no evidence that an irregular ti s1 al RP BOUNDARY,_ _____,,,,:A` L RPA boundary would lead to PROPOSED [ r..i * .ai r ----- --- -4-_ 4 1 - homeowner intrusion into the y --■ •. . '- . :•.._ i_ - " ` Pi! i - • PE Protected area" .txtvirforriii iio- -_1. -Hei 1 41 ill' ,5 "It1 /4,„ is entirely possible and AREA C /111. - ill li practical to have straight .i 1 •,-hIf!! , �a property lines for the lots in 1t ' _uAREA - •� ;. - : - ~ question and totally avoid . 1tiat i 1 .'f ------ impacts to the RPA" ffriAllei VAM031ink.it . „,i. • ...- i / ,,. i.- • yae likely reasons "The only for i f n,r,nen' -6AM? t_ drawing the property lines as % r they have been drawn is to :op Sit, 04cincrease the size of the lots w. Ecological Engineering, LLE and/or provide rectangular DRE +latr Resources and Habtt Retortion Enineering lots which does not comply ke ' with LOC 50.05.010.6.iii" R3iP1RFt- Iri711-19 Progressive Mitigation Step 2 : Minimization From LOC 50.05.010.4.f: "ii. Step #2 Minimization If the applicant has endeavored to avoid detrimental impact on the resource according to subsection 4.1i of this section, and the reviewing authority finds that detrimental impacts cannot be avoided, then the applicant shall minimize impacts by demonstrating that: (1) Alternative and significantly different site plans and development locations on the subject site have been considered, and that the alternative chosen is the least environmentally damaging; and (2) When mitigation is proposed, there will be no net loss of resource area, functions, or values as a result of development actions pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.4.g.v, Stream Corridors and Tree Groves, or LOC 50.05.010.4.g.vi, Wetlands, whichever is applicable. Ecological Engineering: "The Lot layout and design proposed by the Applicant is not the least environmentally damaging development configuration and therefore does not meet the prerequisite for the application of LOC 50. 05. 010.4.f.ii (Minimization)" HHNA: The applicant has not made a good faith effort to explore alternative designs Response to Terra Science Letter 1) The Terra Science reports/letters do not reflect the present condition of the property. 2) The proposed improvements to the RPA have little merit because : • The southwest corner is already protected by setback requirements that make it undevelopable • Most of the invasive species on the property have already been removed with an HEF Grant from the City of LO • Native plantings have already been installed with an HEF Grant from the City of LO 3) Ecological Engineering LLC strongly asserts that the proposed buffer reduction (and replacement) will have a negative impact on functions and values of the RPA. Responses to Terra Science Letter 4) The largest intrusion is nearest to the creek where the slope is steepest ..1.1 µ: 714 t_11 I _ M.4Z..,•!-S1 k' - — „, • : Z.._ Ale:_:—sri.. D.,..,,'-'----. ...Is] .. ::. f I , 1 sl.. f ' 7 1 1 1 __- - - -- r. j 9'C I I 1 .r 4 I {{}S • ;,1 � PROPOSED I—ttreouNDAnyi — OPOS --1118 ft j .7.-' ; .•'.. ti-ip y( -. y� - : �f+ r r F.'r` ^; :/e•*"'S;.7-, -. • s F • , i. AIirA G .: r.�.-. - r _ _�_`::,- l .... .i. { x • ' . J 3 • TL 1;04 RP BOUNDARY s sq p. • +:s le wm.i PROPOSED ; , ay, Findings of Independent Expert "The proposed intrusion into the RPA by Lots 4, 5, and 6 will have a detrimental effect on the functions and values of the RPA, most notably biofiltration, food production, biodiversity support, large wood recruitment, and wildlife corridor provision. The detrimental effects on the functions and values of the proposed RPA intrusion are significant enough that it does not meet LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii." "The Applicant's proposed storm drainage system will not meet flow control required under LOC 38.25.120.1.d.ii.C. The storm drainage system is also likely to exacerbate the surcharging of the downstream culvert and exacerbate the erosion of the trail that is already an issue." 14.452 Ecological Engineering, LLC Water Resources and Habitat Rest-oration fi-16-141 Request for S .. creen aIon Lots 3 and 4 � -. :9 � . ,.,A +' ?.. ..- , •,; .:.,—. t. Q Ay i ce^ {•i � .tj�' „1 • [• ' '-w:.e. r • - .., ,i,`, ,T,, .'■ r. 44 vim.' ., P • 4,... a' ~; • • �.1,!,,J1 , '�: _• •'+*�.: r" :4*' ; tig L...:.�. •,,,• .�" y,?� '+' ry' . ..Y' •..� ��'�F't _ < • � • • ..,..,,,,,• _. .,.•• •i: :.Y�1..'-,-•. .-- � lr {' _ _ • , .., • • )1441". ....f. .... • Icy.:•V .� -R " .lL. _ A gigg;: r .� pl r: i', SSr ti Y, Wy • µ ha.. 1 •4 1 �i 1ss??iiillyy�ii 1.1 II _ i ,�-'-- _ -� - ' J4 .i. y I - • .6. • .•tl'fii • w. • ? 4r,, t w,: ''°y . `t Ca, :---., sue. , ,ram •�. -► .. • ♦.. • 1 , - - • �- • - Request for Screen Lots 3 and 4 along LOC 50.07.003.5.a states: The reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval on a major or minor development permit in one or more of the following circumstances.... iv. The condition is reasonably related to eliminating or mitigating a negative impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood which is created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "natural features or processes" includes tree groves, stream corridors and natural drainage ways, significant tree(s), wetlands, and other natural areas." Summary 1) The application does not meet either the code standards of avoidance or minimization. 2) The proposed changes to the PRA will reduce the functions and values of the resource as a whole. 3) The proposed storm drainage system will not meet required flow control and is likely to exacerbate the surcharging of the downstream culvert. 4) A hedge screen would preserve the natural character of the adjacent park. September 5, 2018 Barbara Fisher Amended Comments to the DRC re LU 17-0084, September 5, 2018 I live at 1023 O'Brien Street, a short dead end street, the entrance to Hallinan Woods. My husband, Jim, and I have led the Friends of Hallinan Heights Woods for 15 years. We are members of the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board and the Oswego Lake Watershed Council. And we support the Coalition for Hallinan Woods Nature Park. But I would like to speak to you as a long time Lake Oswego private citizen. I hope that the city will be able to purchase the Yates property and add it to Hallinan Woods. But if the proposed development does move forward, I have three requests that would help mitigate the negative impact of turning a forest into a subdivision next to a city natural area. First, that the Protected Riparian Area actually be protected by a city easement, essentially adding Hallinan Creek and the wetland area to Hallinan Woods. This part of the property has been under restoration for the past three years by the Oswego Lake Watershed Council. Most of the invasive plants have been removed and some native species have been planted. Their work is continuing. The adjacent Hallinan Woods continues to be restored and maintained by our Friends group. With support from the Friends group, this addition to city property should be accepted. Next, the 6 foot tall cyclone fence that runs the length of the east and south boundaries of the Yates property be removed. It has always been an eye sore, strongly disliked by the people who walk in Hallinan Woods. Unfortunately, in some places the fence is just 2 feet away from the main path through the woods. :4 -. yi, hulr . ,, ,,,kiti., . ( . , i i!pf!.........6. st. y :i 7 T ji, r y` t_ • g : r''''.4 1/4 / •' 7.'c }; " KA . - -r. 4' ..r 1' .:03.4 Y'sI LU 17-0084 EXHIBIT G-231 • ,41%., 4...'•4..; -1.4.'....-r''. . C . . ,' .� �{{� t- 7— ',Itj• . _ J:-• . . .-•'•' --i.•.�.�. a fir' x••' .. : !.' /' �a� .. r !�'- Q • it - - _ - t. : �. ' s& v, 'IV ' x: 4 .....0...„.„, .. ._ . r o lk • I �, �.f'{ -� � �' .. , ',' .r- } t Y .. • 5 pry. - f- ..� * ` T . y 1• 1 • i I The fence also inhibits wildlife foraging and nesting. See the July 2, 2018, letter from Phil Scoles, Terra Science, Inc., to Debra Andreades, Senior Planner, page 3, section F) which states that the project proposes to "strive for better forage and nesting habitat for animals using the ground and lower canapy trees." The existing fence prevents animal access to the property. Recently, a fawn was trapped for days on the Yates property. It was very upsetting to many people who witnessed it repeatedly running along the length of the fence looking for a way out. Please require that the cyclone fence be removed as part of this project. And, please save as many trees as possible. When our neighborhood was developed, many native trees were left. All of us have native trees in our yards . We really do live in "Tree City." Dozens of large native trees will be cut down to facilitate the Yates development. What can be done to stop clear cutting? There is one tree in particular