HaTHAwAY LARSON Koback . Connors « Heth November 13, 2017 VIA HAND-DELIVERY Melvin Oden-Orr Hearings Officer City of Portland — Hearings Office 1900 SW 4" Avenue, Room 3100 Portland, OR 97201 Re: LU 16-213734 ‘Dear Mr. Oden-Orr: ‘The purpose of this letter is to provide you with (1) Applicant's rebuttal to the new evidence and varitten testimony submitted by staff and opponents on November 6, 2017, (2) Applicant’s final argument, and (3) Applicant’s proposed conditions of approval. On November 6, 2017, staff submitted to the hearings officer revised responses from BDS (Land Use Services), BES, PBOT and Site Development. In its November 6, 2017 submission, Land Use Services noted new evidence the Applicant submitted on October 30, 2017, and indicated a number of issues from its earlier October 6, 2017 report that the Applicant satisfactorily addressed. However, Land Use Services noted some continued concerns on limited issues and, in one area, noted a new issue that was never presented to the Applicant previously. We will address each of staff's remaining concems individually, but itis worth noting that none of staff's concems identified in the November 6, 2017 revised response account for the Applicant's new evidence submitted on November 68, With both parties submitting on the same day, neither party was able to account for the new evidence of the other. This is more important as it relates to staff's revised comments, because, the Applicant's new evidence directly addressed issues that staff continued to use as basis for recommending denial. November 6, 2017 Staff Memo Lot Area Modification: Staff supports including Lot 23 in the lot modification request to reduce its size. Staff questions whether that modification can be approved in this decision. The Applicant believes it can and should be. The Notice of Hearing alluded to lot modifications generally, with respect to the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. It was not specific to any lots. All participants were aware of the request as it applied to Lots 9 through 22. There was no comment on the modification. No participant opposed the modification request on the other lots. There is no reason to conclude that any party would have opposed the same request to Lot 23, had it been included in the original application. Moreover, this issue was raised on October 26". Opponents had an Christopher P. Koback 1331 NW Lovejoy Street, Suite 950 Portland, OR 97209 chris@hathawaylarson.com (503) 303-3107 direct (503) 303-3101 main (Bureau Case # 16-213734105Page 2 November 13, 2017 opportunity to voice any concems with adding Lot 23 during the open record period and they did not do so. Tract C: This is an issue on which staff would have benefitted had it had the Applicant’s November 6, 2017 material before issuing its Memorandum. Staff expressed concern that the narrative for Altemnative 4A in the Applicant's alternative analysis did not address how impacts to resources could be avoided or minimized with regard to Tract C. In its November 6, 2017 letter to the hearings officer, the Applicant explained: On the first issue, there is no way to avoid the grading in the area of Tract C (former Lots 1 and 2), whether or not they are developed as lots. As the Applicant's alternatives demonstrate, over the past four years, different layouts were developed and some had access into the proposed project at different locations than that in Altemative 4A. For the past 2 to 3 years, staff has supported, if not encouraged, the use of the current location. That location also addresses neighbors’ concerns with having the primary access come through their neighborhood. Due to the existing topography and the City’s street standards, the only way the access street can be constructed is to complete significant grading. ‘With more time to review the revised alternative, the Applicant feels that staff will recognize that Altemative 4A is the best altemative that will achieve the greatest preservation of resources. The Applicant included rock retaining walls to minimize the grading to the extent possible. Grading will impact most of the trees in the southeast 2/3 of the tract, but will allow for preservation of the trees in the westem. 1/3. This will allow for preservation of a grove of 19 mature trees on Tract C and the adjacent, unimproved Front Street right-of-way. Equally important, and a point the Applicant hopes staff will recognize as significant is that other than the property necessary for the retaining walls, the entire area will go from permanent disturbance area (two Lots) to temporary disturbance area. There is a critical difference. Permanent disturbance area will never again be protected resource land, whereas temporary disturbance area will be returned to resource land. The purpose behind mitigation is to restore the resource values in the temporary disturbance area, Thus, while grading and tree removal in Tract C cannot be avoided given the preferred access point and City standards, it will be restored. The Applicant submitted a memorandum that details the 55 new trees that will be planted in the area, which is an. area with south exposure and good sunlight for tree growth. Of that total, 30 trees are Douglas Fir trees which are the preferred trees for mitigation on the site. The environmental review code sections allow for temporary disturbance and proper mitigation.Page 3 November 13, 2017 Inits November 6,2017 memorandum, staff did not raise any additional issues to which the Applicant has not already responded. Resouroe Easement Staff's only comment on this issue is that an easement does not afford the same protection as a tract, First, the Applicant is proposing a restrictive covenant essentially the same as the City recently approved in a similar situation, It is hard to understand how that mechanism can be adequate in one application, but not in a similar application. In LU 16-273162 LDS, there were native trees within the rear 20 feet of ots, which are considered permanent disturbance area. ‘The City did not require a ‘tact and allowed the resources to remain in lots. It required a restrictive covenant assuring that the Jot owners will maintain the trees and an HOA to enforce that restriction, We enclosed the relevant pages from that decision. Here, the applicant had its environmental consultant identify the 34 trees within the rear portion of Lots 3 through 8 that have resource value, and which are also the trees that the neighbors want preserved. A restrictive covenant over the rear portion of those lots between the final disturbance limit as depicted on the enclosed tree protection plan and the western boundary of those lots, specifically requiring the owners to maintain the identified trees, will be as effective at preserving those resources as any other mechanism, Additional Mitigation. Staff acknowledged that the updated memorandum from Schott & Associates that the Applicant submitted prior to November 6, 2017 (October 26, 2017) described the additional plantings that were proposed, but commented that it could not whether the mitigation was adequate of appropriate without asite plan showing the plantings. The Applicant disagrees with staf? that such a determination cannot bemade. In ts July 2017 mitigation plan, Schott depicted the general areas where mitigation planting was proposed and used representative planting plots to illustrate the type of plantings that it proposed inthose areas. Staff accepted that methodology for the main mitigation plan, with comments directing the Applicant to explore a slightly different mix of native trees and plantings. ‘The additional mitigation is in three areas discussed in Schott’s October 26, 2017 Response Memorandum. In that memorandum, Schott detailed each plant proposed for additional mitigation in the three areas in question and included a representative planting plots just as it did for the main mitigation plan in July 2017. ‘That approach is the commonly accepted approach and far exceeds what the City approved in LU 09-116765-LDS ENM (A copy of that decision was previously submitted into the record). The Mitigation plan that the applicant prepared and the hearings officer attached to the Decision is significantly less detailed and had no representative planting diagram. Final Disturbance Area/Public Improvements, Land Use Planning raised an issue over whether the final disturbance area has been established. It has. Staff identifies two area where it feel that the disturbance area may change. The first is where the Applicant is reconstructing one, and constructing another, outfall at Ruby Creek. There are two components to this issue. Initially, the Applicant showed a 15-foot easement/disturbance area for the ‘work to reconstruct the existing outfall at Ruby Terrace and a 30-foot wide easement/disturbance area for the new outfall itis constructing, in part to remove a section of the failing sanitary line in RubyPage 4 November 13, 2017 Creek. The Applicant's construction consultant expressed that it required an additional 15 feet on either side of the initially shown easement as a temporary work area. That translates into a 60-foot wide disturbance area for the new outfall and a 45-foot wide area for the reconstructed outfall. ‘The Applicant has prepared new drawings that illustrate the expanded disturbance areas for that work. To correspond with those drawings and to ensure that the final disturbance area is determined and mitigated, the Applicant's consultants prepared a revised drawing that depicts the final disturbance area limit and tree protection plan. We have enclosed copies of those drawings. The Applicant's environmental consultant Schott and Associates prepared a revised memorandum that includes the new disturbance area. The Applicant has fully addressed this issue staff raised. Staff commented that the final public works drawing must match alternative 4A. Land Use planning staff was vague in explaining exactly what it means by that comment, but when read with BES’s revised comments, it appears that Land Use planning staff is referring to the latest redline comments BES provided to the Applicant's public works conceptual drawings. It appears to the Applicant that Land Use Planning and BES waited until the final moments and tried to present another new issue to stop the proposal. On October 26, 2017, BES finally provided its comments to the Applicant's September 16, 2017 revised drawings. It is important to understand the timing of the relevant events before evaluating the Applicant's response on this issue. On March _, 2017, the Applicant’s engineer submitted the Applicant's conceptual plans. BES delayed the 30% meeting until June 2017. On July 7, 2017, BES provided its redline comments. We have included a copy of those comments. As the hearings officer will see, the comments were not significant. There ‘was nothing to indicate that the concept for the public works improvements that the Applicant proposed had problems. Inits October 6, 2017 staff report, Land Use Planning staff argued that without final concept approval, it could not determine the final disturbance area and thus, could not state whether the Applicant met the environmental review criteria. After the initial October 16, 2017 hearing that was continued, Public Works staff indicated that the second set of redline comments would be issued that week. They were not. In our written material prepared for the October 30, 2017 hearing, we explained that the Applicant’s revised plans demonstrate that the public improvement could be constructed as designed and thus, the final disturbance area was established. We illustrated that a failure to review is not a basis to conclude that the standards cannot be met. tappears that just prior to the October 30, 2017 continued hearing, staff decided to take a completely different approach on stormwater and then tried to use that changed approach to create a situation where the Applicant could not determine the final disturbance area. BES staff now, for the first time, and months after its first comments, decided that it wants changes to the stormwater planter boxes within the proposed development. Some of those planters will be smaller. BES staff indicated that this change “may” require that the Applicant construct an additional planter near the end of the proposed cul de sac. A new planter in that area could require more permanent disturbance, but it will be insignificant. It would add 1,385 square feet of disturbance area. ‘The total disturbance area will still be under 30% for the full 14 acre site. We enclosed a set of BES new redline comments to ‘compare them with its initial comments. ‘The new comments certainly could have been made in July, 2017.Page 5 November 13,2017 Notwithstanding the timing of BES making its new comments, the Applicant has been able to address them within Alternative 4A. The project engineer prepared a revised drawing depicting the reduced planters within the right-of-way of the proposed cul de sac street. He was able to calculate the approximate additional stormwater capacity the project may need to accommodate that change and has included in his drawings a proposed new planter north of Lot 11. We enclosed a copy of the Technical Memorandum from Emerio Design that contains the appropriate calculations and concludes that the revised plan satisfies the requirements of the 2016 Stormwater Manual In addition, the Applicant's disturbance limit and tree protection drawings we alluded to previously were updated to reflect the possibility of the new planter. The Schott and Associates’ Revised November 8, 2017 memorandum also addresses the revised BES comments. Thus, despite staff throwing another issue at the Applicant last minute, the Applicant has been able to demonstrate with substantial evidence that it will satisfy the relevant approval criteria. On the second issue, with the additional time allowed by keeping the record open, the Applicant was able to revise drawings to show the temporary disturbance area needed to construct both outfalls consistent with the City’s requirements and the contractor’s preferred construction methods. I have included those drawings with this letter. The Applicant also had its environmental consultant prepare a revised memorandum describing the resources that will be impacted and how the new temporary disturbance area will be mitigated. The Applicant has also included a revised tree protection plan that reflects the added temporary disturbance area for the outfall construction. ‘S4-Inch Tree. Staff did not specifically mention the inability to preserve the 54-inch tree in its October 30, 2017 memorandum. Nonetheless, the Applicant addressed that issue as follows: ‘The applicant is submitting with this letter, 2 memorandum from its arborist explaining why itis not possible to preserve this tree that is within the public right-of- way. To achieve connectivity as required by PCC 33.654 and provide enhanced emergency vehicle access, the Applicant is required to improve the existing right-of- way. The project arborists concluded that a 27-foot root protection zone on all sides of the tree is required to preserve it. The 54-inch tree cannot be saved because it is entirely within the rightof-way. The Applicant is quite certain that, if the improvements to the SW Hume right-of way were part of a city-initiated project to provide connectivity, preserving that tree would not be a requirement. Staff's only continued comment is that the Applicant has not conferred with the City Forester regarding options to preserve the tree. This issue would have been easier to address had staff provided the Applicant with the Forester’s July 12, 2017 comment before October 6, 2017. The Applicant has attempted to contact the Forester to discuss the tree, but he has not responded. We enclosed a letter the Applicant sent to the Forester after attempts to talk were not successful.Page 6 November 13, 2017 Fire Bureau. ‘The Fire Bureau’s response was that as a condition of final plat approval, the Applicant had to obtain approval for the proposed tumarounds through an appeal process. The Applicant submitted proof that is has already submitted an appeal. Showing that the appeal will be granted is not a requirement at this phase and obtaining the appeal is feasible before the final plat is approved. Nevertheless, on November 9, 2017, the Fire Bureau granted the Applicant’s appeal with the condition that it install “No Parking” signs in the approved tumaround. The Applicant is submitting a copy of the Fire Bureau’s decision with this letter Portland Bureau of Transportation. Land Use Planning Staff noted that PBOT continues to assert that the criteria related to traffic impacts has not been met. It included PBOT’s revised response as an addendum to its November 6, 2017 memorandum, It is important to note that PBOT’s concems have been greatly reduced. The only remaining issue it noted was the lack of a safe way for pedestrians to cross SW Taylors Ferry Road to get to the bus stop on the south side of Taylors Ferry Road near 2" Avenue. Presumably, in light of TriMet’s information that it does not see any need for sidewalks all the way to SW 2 Avenue, PBOT is no longer raising that issue. Nor is it raising bicycle facilities as concerns. PBOT incorrectly states that to satisfy PCC 33.641.020, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with every factor listed in that section. According to PBOT, if any one factor that must be considered is not satisfied in PBOT’s opinion, itis a basis for denial. The plain text of PCC 3.641.020 does not support PBOT’s view. The only standard is that the transportation system must safely support the proposed development considering several factors. Plainly, all that text requires is a consideration of the factors, PBOT reads the text to say that the transportation system must be capable of safely supporting the proposed development and the system cannot be deemed to be capable unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the following factors are met to PBOT's satisfaction. That is not the text used and the hearings officer is not to insert text that was not included PGE v, BOLI, 298 OR 606 (1994); ORS 174.010, ‘The fact remains that the Applicant does not have to address existing impacts unrelated to its proposal. ‘The Applicant has provided a safe altemative for residents in its development to get to transit and the commercial areas at SW Taylors Ferry and SW Terwilliger via low traffic residential streets. From there residents can get to downtown and other areas via TriMet without having to walk or bike on the already unsafe SW Taylors Ferry Road PBOT did not identify any specific improvements any applicant could make to address its concem. That is likely because there are no feasible means to address this issue, absent a large City project to change the traffic pattern and design of SW Taylors Ferry. It is not feasible to construct an underground tunnel or pedestrian bridge. According to TriMet, the bus stop PBOT identifies is used minimally. Those improvements would exceed $500,000 and there is not likely sufficient right-of way for any private party to complete them.Page 7 November 13, 2017 The Applicant submits that, to the extent anyone feels the need to cross SW Taylors Ferry Road, it has made the current conditions safer by providing a cross walk area at the intersection of SW Hume and SW Taylors Ferry that has much improved sight distance over the area near SW 2™ Avenue. Currently, that is the only location where pedestrian and bicyclists would cross. It has poor sight distance due to the curve of the road. In contrast, the sight distance is significantly improved where the Applicant proposes to improve SW Hume at SW Taylors Ferry Road. PBOT included recommended conditions of approval apparently anticipating that the Applicant can address the remaining issue with PCC 33.641.020. The Applicant accepts those conditions with one clarification. The Applicant understands that Condition 1 requiring dedication and public improvements is limited to the frontage of its property since it cannot dedicate property owned by third parties. That condition should be so clarified. BES Comments. ‘The Applicant addressed the BES comments above. It appears from BES's comments that the only issues that caused it to recommend approval relate to the new disturbance area for the Ruby Creek outfalls and the potential new stormwater planter facility. This disturbance area is now clearly defined. The Applicant has demonstrated how it will meet those issues and thus, gain approval of its public works plans, BES included recommended conditions in the event that Applicant is able to address the last issue it identified. The Applicant has done so and accepts the recommended conditions. Site Development Comments, Site Development noted a need for a no rise analysis before construction in Ruby Creek. The Applicant submitted one such analysis already related to the new outfall it proposes. It can and will submit one for the reconstructed outfall prior to any construction permitting. Site Development’s only other issue related to the disturbance required for the outfulls and the Applicant has addressed those concems. Neighborhood New Evidence Opponents to the Application did not submit any new substantive evidence. Rather, they submitted a letter claiming that they were prejudiced because the Applicant submitted 209 pages of new material and they were not afforded the time necessary to respond to it First, 96 pages of the material the Applicant submitted were two prior land use decisions that ‘demonstrate that this proposal is significantly better from an environmental protection standpoint that ‘what the City has approved in similar applications. The Applicant provided copies of those decisions to the Neighborhood Association in 2015. ‘The Opponents did not explain why they have not had time to evaluate that material.Page 8 November 13, 2017 Second, all ofthe remaining material relates to the Applicant's decision to remove two lots and reduce the size of another lot. Those were the revisions reflected in Alternative 4A. The applicant did not propose any changes to the proposed street layout, the connection of SW Hume to Ruby Terrace, how it plans to transition its development from the existing development by keeping Lots 3 through 8 larger than the others, or how construction on the site will be completed safely. All of the opponents’ testimony, except for the testimony on the irrelevant adverse possession issue, related to traffic, need for the transition area, and slope hazards. (On the issues that the opponents identified as areas of concer, there was litle or new material. The Applicant submitted a supplemental slope stability analysis on October 16, 2017, and a technical ‘memorandum related to the grading in Tract C. The opponents were not able to articulate at the October 30, 2017 heating what specific actions they would need to take to respond to any new material. All parties are working within the same time constraints. The opponent submitted two letters from its consultant on prior to and at the October 30, 2017 hearing. The Applicant had limited time to respond to that. Staff has been raising new issues and submitting new material throughout the hearing process. The Applicant has had to work within the same time constraints to address that material. For ease of reference, below is a list of the Applicant's rebuttal evidence being submitted with this letter. Plan Sheet 14 depicting final disturbance limits; Final Tree Protection plan; Schott memo dated November 8, 2017; Emerio Technical Memorandum with Plan Sheet responding to BES redlines and depicting new stormwater facilities; BES redline comments from July 7, 2017; BES redline comments from October 26, 2017; GEO Consultants NW Technical Memorandum dated November 5, 2017; Letter to City Forester dated November 9, 2017; Letter from Applicant regarding communications with Neighborhood Association referring to prior City decisions dated November 12, 2017; 10, Relevant pages from LU 16-273162-LDS; and 11, November 9, 2017 approved fire code appeal. aepe ee ay Applicant's Final Argument Overview. As an overview, the purpose behind the environmental regulations is the protect the most important resources in the designated resource area, while allowing responsible urban development. The Applicant is proposing develop a site consisting of 14.17 acres and in doing so, is permanently protecting 10 acres. ‘The three most important resources within the site are Stephens Creek, Ruby Creek and the forested area in the northern portion of the site. The Applicant is completely protecting Stephen Creek and the northern forest and not impacting those resources at all. The Applicant is proposing an outfall in Ruby Creek that will be permanent disturbance, but in the long term, providesPage 9 November 13, 2017 significant benefit to the resource, ‘The outfall wall be used in part to relocate a significant segment ofa failing sanitary sewer line that is in Ruby Creek. In addition, as part of its proposal, the Applicant is enhaneing the Ruby Creek basin by removing invasive plants and replanting all native plants. Alternative Analysi As this Application has progressed, and even in the years that preceded a formal application, staff has continued to identify issues and concerns with the proposal and some of the Applicant's information. Staff has pressed the Applicant to continue to explain and clarify certain aspects of the proposal. As it is in some cases, this exchange of information has continued late into the hearing process. ‘The important point from the Applicant's perspective is that it has consistently met staff's concems. The hearings officer has received a significant amount of material since the October 6, 2017 staff report. ‘The Applicant submits that the material and explanation it has supplied demonstrates that the current application is responsible urban development that satisfies the relevant approval eriteria better than prior proposals that the City has approved. On October 25, 2017, the Applicant has placed in the record the 12 different alternatives for the site that considered a variety of housing types and development options. In its November 6, 2017 ‘memorandum, Land Use Planning staff did not submit any new evidence on the issue of whether Alternative 4A, the Applicant's preferred alternative was the practicable alternative that had the least disturbance and provided the best protection of resources. Any evidence by staff attempting to establish that Altemative 4A is the practicable altemative with the least disturbance and most protection is not appropriate in rebuttal. ‘Thus, it appears that staff agrees now that Altemative 4A is the best alternative from a resource protection stand point, but has raised minor points about details that it feels needs to be addressed. For example, staff had questions about the plantings in Tract C, how the trees on Lots 3 through 8 are best protected, how the BES comments can be addressed and the final disturbance area determined, how much area is needed for the outfall construction and what the mitigation will be. Since the parties November 6, 2017 material was submitted at the same time, staff did not account for it in its November 6, 2017 memorandum. ‘That material from the Applicant answered most of staff's questions and reinforced that Alternative 4A is altemative that conforms to the environmental review regulations. In its rebuttal that is part ofthis letter, the Applicant addressed the rest of staffs questions and concerns, ‘The hearings officer has been given two decisions where the City approved land division on sites within the R10 zone and with an EC overlay. The approvals define what development meet purpose of protecting the most important resources while allowing responsible urban development. The raw information is compelling. One approval had 76% permanent disturbance area. The other approval had 47% permanent disturbance area. They had lot sizes that averaged 8,900 square feet. In contrast, the Applicant's Alternative 4A, even with the new planting facility that BES raised late in the hearing process, will result in slightly over 29.5% permanent disturbance area and over 70% of the resource area being permanently protected. The average lot size is less than 6,000 square feet. Only 28.5% of the proposed lots will be over the minimum lot size allowed. The only lots that are larger than the minimum are the lots that provide a valuable transition area between existingPage 10 November 13, 2017 development on larger lots and the smaller lots proposed. That is a significant desire of the neighbors. Moreover, the Applicant has identified and is protecting the valuable resources (native trees) in that area, Specific Issues. Tract C. ‘As noted above, the Applicant has demonstrated that the scenic resources are protected to the degree possible and it is adequately mitigating the temporary disturbance required to construct SW Hume Street. Lot 3-8. The Applicant demonstrated how it can protect the resourees in the rear of those lots that is outside the disturbance line using a legally enforceable mechanism that the City has used before, Public Works/Disturbance. Even with a late comment from BES, the Applicant demonstrated how it can construct the public improvements to meet the City’s requirements and adequately protect the resources. The Applicant demonstrated that it is feasible to construct an additional stormwater facility with an imperceptible increase in the permanent disturbance. Ruby Creek Ourfalls. ‘The Applicant demonstrated the new disturbance area needed to construct both outfalls with the suggested design changes from BES and then revised its disturbance limits and tree protection accordingly. The Applicant demonstrated how the new disturbance area will be restored. Public Works Concept Approval, In light of the late new information from BES suggesting changes to the stormwater facilities design, the Applicant has not been able to complete the process of obtaining approval for its conceptual plans, However, the hearings officer need only find that iti feasible for the Applicant to do so. The technical memorandum from a licensed engineer is substantial evidence that the Applicant can construct stormwater facilities consistent with BES late comments and within the new disturbance area the ‘Applicant has identified. Transportation Impacts, In its rebuttal, the Applicant demonstrated how it will provide safe transportation in all modes to its development. It addressed TriMet’s concerns. Notably, TriMet agrees with the Applicant that sidewalks form the development to SW 2® Avenue are not necessary. ‘The Applicant explained how itis addressing PBOT last concern about how pedestrians and bikes can get across SW Taylor's Ferry. ‘The Applicant has in fact, improved the safety with a better crossing that has significantly better sight distance. Any other approach requires an expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars to providePage 11 November 13, 2017 a facility to the south side of Taylors Ferry where there is no destination. ‘The only reason anyone ‘would cross is for a single bus stop that is rarely used according to TriMet. Site Development. The Applicant addressed the one comment about the final disturbance area for the new outfalls, Land Division criteria. It appears that staff now agrees that if the environmental review is approved, all of the land division criteria and all of the technical requirements related to providing utilities and service have been, or can be met with reasonable conditions. Conditions of Approval ORS 197.552 instructs that if a proposal can satisfy the relevant approval criteria with conditions, the decision maker is supposed to approve the application with conditions. The decisions that the Applicant placed in the record evidence that there are common conditions the City imposes with approval of land divisions that have environmental review. Some of the City bureaus have suggested conditions of approvals for this proposal. Below, the Applicant lists a set of proposed conditions that it prepared using the bureau conditions and conditions it created using prior approvals. A. BDS 1, Ifa lot area modification to Lot 23 cannot be approved in this decision, Applicant shall prior to final plat approval obtain that approval, which staff support and is thus feasible. 2. With recording of the final plat, the Applicant shall record a restrictive covenant against Lots 4 through 8 obligating the lot owners to maintain the native trees on Lots 3 through 8 between the disturbance line depicted on the plans and the western boundary line of each lot. The HOA shall have the responsibility of enforeing said restriction. 3. Environmental Resource Tracts A and C shall be noted on the plat as “Resource Tract A” and “Resource Tract C.” A note must also be provided on the plat indicating that the tract will be commonly owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 3 through 23 or a Homeowner's Association or the City or a Non-profit Organization, 4. A recording block for each of the legal documents such as Maintenance Agreement(s), acknowledgement of special land use conditions, or Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) as required by Conditions E below. The recording block(s) shall, at a minimum, include language substantially similar to the following example: “A Declaration of Maintenance Agreement for (name of feature) has been recorded as document no. Multnomah County Deed Records.”Page 12 November 13, 2017 B. BES 1. The final plat must include easements over new City of Portland sanitary and stormwater infrastructure that is located on private property. The easements will need to be granted to the City of Portland over the relevant improvements with appropriate width and to the satisfaction of BES; 2. The final plat must include existing City of Portland easements; 3. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must complete the following related to the construction of public sewers and stormwater facilities to the satisfaction of BES: Approved engineering plans through the Public Works Permit process, provide a financial guarantee, provide a signed permit document and pay all outstanding fees, 4. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must confirm the impact that the proposed improvements will have on the sanitary sewer connections for existing development addressed as 11 and 17 SW Taylors Ferry Rd. Depending on the impacts, the applicant may be required to make improvements to the connections to maintain sufficient sewer service to those residences to the satisfaction of BES, up to and including constructing new public sewers and sewer connections, prior to final plat approval. Cc. PBOT 1, Asa condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall dedicate the necessary rights-of- way within its ownership and construct street improvements to the current City standards per the requirements of the City Engineer. 2. Asacondition of final plat approval, a bond and contract ensuring the street improvements will be completed. 3. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall trim down the understory and branches over the ROW at the west side of the intersection of SW 2 Avenue and SW Taylors Ferry Road for improved sight distance. 4. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall construct a flat concrete pad per Tri-Met standards at the bus stop at SW 2" Avenue and SW Taylors Ferry Road, or relocate the bus stop to a new intersection of SW Hume and SW Taylors Ferry Road with approval from TriMet. Ifthe new bus stop is located at the intersection of SW Hume and SW Taylors Ferry, it may be constructed at the same time as the applicant's required sidewalk improvements. D. Site Development 1. Prior to obtaining a construction permit for development in the floodway, the applicant shall submit a “no rise” analysisTEGENDTREE =PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO: SW TAYLORS FERRY RD - STREET A MACADAM RIDGE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY LAND DIVISION SUBMITTAL PORTLAND, OREGON PROJECT ‘STE VICINITY MAP NES. APPLICANT/DEVELOPER BROWSTINE REAL ESTATE GRUP, LS conn oowess: 4 y Femara, ot 28 (2 or-srs coer oes ‘TRAFFIC ENGINEER an oe wa aoe , MOREL ne cemeteries See a A oo, fost aN Ae ae / 91g F [$2 PL - 11d Gore) (GEV OF PORTLAND HEARINGS OFFICE. Exhibit 44-105 \case # 4170027 [Bureau Case # 16-213734.05 BUREAU OF BUREAU ‘TRANSPORTATION &X ] PRELIMINARY AND DMISION SUBMITTAL oven aT ornare rare wreVAY ac d Hy TILYTEE | TR fr wilt SLELEE LEE LESS i aut I an uh ss Lh bit saa BUREAU OF BUREAU OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES| TRANSPORTATION LAND DMSION SUBMITTAL common |x on comm EXSTNG CONDON EE oloatRDst axovmH re eu rua) sme Toman P8,OnY BNR sWeane ov rreace raise 3 #26‘aa onewry wt). FO Bern 4 Sie rere. lee yy na OPEN SPACE BUILDING ‘SETBACKS EGEND FOOTPRINTS sew a smaroces een gers roca) Al JA PRELIMINARY LAND DIVISION SUBMITTAL,sree s wae aay mane 1 ae ae STREET CROSS SECTIONS STREET_CROWS, SECTIONS one ean mea [APPROVALS PRELIMINARY 7 BUREAU OF BUREAU OF — ll ENVRONMENTACSERVICES| TRANSPORTATION G™® LAND DMSION SUBMITTAL im ——— eee ea “5 |staEer cross szcTIONS| = mr Ee ct coma |rorma eam Ros = a = - roar Maun rot Pur pene] oe re, RE ame ee oraeemme —| 5 «26PRELIMINARY Fs 401 (0) nu. 0m BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES| TRANSPORTATION. 5 LAND DIVISION SUBMITTAL Un Fas PEPRELIMINARY LAND DIVISION SUBMITTAL ‘GRADNG PLAN wooo RDes coe SANE Sow TENCE en ALOR eD \ SN LSS aa BUREAU OF ‘TRANSPORTATION conor Sronen| ST TOME = ey SS BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES| ar rs uy i SW HER TOTES BW TAT BON US OTLEGEND cme Cm Cero Or cocontO mE cm EP Noo mo BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES BUREAU OF ‘TRANSPORTATIONi acd PRELIMINARY LAND DIVISION SUBMITTAL, PLANTING PLAK snchOnu bo SUSOVEOK MME, SW RY TRICE Be YoRs emTWOSOFE LD i i I i 1 i i q i * 3 \ © 4 PB 0 0G ooal Qo a O @ i i i I i 00 FO / Pen tn pena) 3 Lor OME GUE / Noose nee roe vac momar is re ca 1 YR / Yar oot 5 so Aggee anaee/ to oe, = ae 108 oo ran a tm roe. ‘ron te era! ‘as paste «ton a «ma ne ons fa da SE Oa er Sau 28) rms 6 900 a oR oo a (GROUNDOOVERS ‘SYS WE 7 Wl vanes ae 8 eh 19 pa cases orm vee 5 een te mess 08, 2 gag ee ee wot PRELIMINARY {LAND DIVISION SUBMITTAL = vee SOS Reaa 7 7 Bier | Hee.) le === =f 8 200 e Sora ex ee B= Bits mer Nf E : Ema el suet KEY CONSTRUCTION NOTES Ter00 150015420 soe pe om ma RR PRELIMINARY BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ex noe commssoe | se nor uur Fm RE cer SAGER] STE TORE, ME LAND DIVISION SUBMITTAL,Oneariesr asa? T1900 . meee] JprProvaus: BUREAU OF [BUREAU OF PRELIMINARY cone "a = ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | ‘TRANSPORTATION LAND DIVISION SUBMITTAL coe = eee a seve cow HME une meee ler mo comssene | ve nove oss A000 TOSTA 8160 ra a ee MLAs 7 aK RE ar EE) SRE TOMEEK PY BERETA ‘She ont re aoe BR] — tornvaarewrP yates a — noo i 457-21 G1 HE EDN 21) are 5 me ar| [aPPROvAts BUREAU OF BUREAU OF EMERIO &&® a RELIMINARY se co. 4 j¢| FAVRONMENTAL SERVICES| TRANSPORTATION 5 = VISION SUBNITT i a er comscn | sve vo cousin = van SrA pes Toa ee parm fas fmowsem carom weet oy om 9 | Sa Tornoe eu Pee 21-26PRELIMINARY LAND DIVISION SUBMITTAL, PLAN AND PROFILE BSLNE A AND 9 LNE OI SUHIMEST, aU Te ESTOS ERD7 at At — 00 KEY_CONSTRUCTION ‘NOTES ema oa On, nt ee EWA PRELIMINARY LAND DIVISION SUBMITTAL fe poe ohoo eS Sie eae PRELIMINARY BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES e SAAN AND PROPLE, SSLNE A AND 60 LEO cao RE cD Snir sur Teme [ASTATORO RETO.PRELIMINARY LAND DIVISION SUBMITTAL,EMERIO Design CIVIL ENGINEERS & PLANNERS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: November 2, 2017 To: City of Portland Engineering Staff From: Eric Evans, PE ~ Emerio Design Subject: Macadam Ridge Subdivision ~ Onsite Supplemental This letter and its attachments serve to address the BES comments regarding stormwater drainage along Street A toward the cul-de-sac, Corrections from Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Bureau of Transportation on October 31 require that there be 2’ clearance between the driveway wings and street planters, ‘and that the light pole locations have sufficient 4’ clearance between the curb and sidewalk. ‘Therefore, the proposed stormwater facility design will result in the reduction in area of stormwater planters along Street Aj per the request of these comments, these equivalent treatment areas will be replaced adjacent to the cul-de-sac in Tract A. Note that while the sketched size of the facility in Tract A by the reviewers is roughly 3,000 SF, the proposed facility size is calculated below. Analysis: ‘The identified areas of planter reduction are in front of lots 3 through 20, and one proposed light pole in front of Lot 16. The combination of the driveway wings from Lot 16 and 17 and the light pole location require thet the street planter at this location be removed entirely. See analysis below. 24 driveway wings X 2’ X 6.5" planter width = 311 SF One planter in front of Lot 16 = 164 SF Total planter area reduced along Street A= 11 SF + 164 SF = 475 SF Additionally, 4,551 SF of impervious area in the cul-de-sac currently flows to a catch basin Untreated. Since the PAC results from previous calculations along Street A have resulted in a ‘maximum stormwater facility area ratio of 20%, the proposed facility in Tract A will be sized to Include all the area reduced from the street planters in this revision, and include additional planter area sized conservatively at 20% to treat the cul-de-sac, Planter area needed for cul-de-sac = 20% X 4,551 SF = 910 SF Total stormwater planter facility area proposed in Tract A = 475 SF + 910 St 1,385 SF Engineering Conclusion: ‘The proposed design satisfies the requirements set forth by the 2016 City of Portland Stormwater Management Manual. List of Attachment Attachment 1: Stormwater Tract A exhibit W706 TELS BOS. THE. BBI2 Fans 8.698, [cary oF PORTLAND HEARINGS OFFICE hie #41050 (case # 4170027 [Bureau Case # 16-213734.05 HAS GH FaTiarooK PV, Suite TOT Beaverton, Ore‘wo? weer SETBACKS erm en OPEN SPACE BUILDING EOOTPRINTS. — VL \ y THIS EXHIBIT IS TO Jy] ADDRESS BES PWP =. \| STAFF COMMENTS ‘\ | REQUESTING », \ 3 | ADDITIONAL WATER 3\| QUALITY AND DETENTION AREAS. sie ® tot torts, ie VSS ® | | BUREAU OF BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES| TRANSPORTATION PRELIMINARYMACADAM RIDGE SUBDIVISION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SW TAYLORS FERRY ROAD, SW HUME STREET & SW RUBY TERRACE CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON > LLL F ee [iB TH PPK aa SP SCOGL J ie ro Tater 7 ek dens dhihers Lacle | mmenis i e k Lact seed sy BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESALLELE tu Ausf Ramat fates siezzc ‘BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES|ae) SS oe icc | A we STREET CROSS SECTIONS fim 5 of ewe am ee mee REAL EMERIO PREUMINARY === rn meno ma | nee ~ | ==. Seem, nies came = a eee le eee oe oe S| see |,tsiaa8e sa |BE va oe cS NY HERR cae a Awe 2 NEES PT ee Oe te fff ATHY PILLS TE ERS &. Wii MOIS. Aig nN ve a foe awe oe ‘BUREAU OF ‘TRANSPORTATIONa yup et = nen dhag-of £1 al princot ¥ —F hve emng 20 be placed dl. Gn fate 330 | é fhe. - po fo c — a 4K f Mex es 8 . Hee Pp fe aa aoe eee Lh Fe = F KEY_CONSTRUCTION more Bite, [SS ono NOTES Be S|" ger a a — — [eemalae Opzrmerenrm seen \ a tte ./ FEE! oon — oboe wbafice s|-l-|.14].]-[-].]_[8 E ss 7 eas soe = = = = Gof s Bp eed = SSS iO rch GL DE SAC = PROFLE wrt Sas ¢— wf sa sou Fo at oe se im ze t= ie = 7 /, 7 = | ES =a = “ee amea 6. fren wpe xs pele pone vans » fefnning nell Ihab PRELIMINARYito yee suet a ' 4 Blea FSS om Pe Ca ftm egpaite! Tow ] peal eae OM bige ebnigle Ualealy Ae So's eae coxa BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES_ FR aRiew Seca ae” Beene Sri 96) eae on i 0 > Soe ab eae ee et ie = Varo Fever i memeo ; BRR a ae ee /cohpnr. ae u - vm . faeodl prPnovaise: BUR we oe Co ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | TRANSPORTATION =e eee lemme aera Acme ne ee = 7 =a TE acmrs Gromn|euctmr oy ootWhe a ih Va oe yest Sue cole o S- LE face + doen. ane ym he, Aye489 is Fb cheery. 0 a 7 = MAIS OF. 2" 5306 suerany e108 8 108 a FES : i | rR i : | eae x0 i | Be = ae = 7 === 7 ee [errovats BUREAU OF BUREAU OF PRELIMINARY ons. G = ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES| TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. — Hea [roe ee $e rar pa a| PLAN AND PROFILE: . "se ae] oe as: cousssoter | ow sara comusnonen ‘SS LNE CAND PATH — me a seen teeter faery | alee eae re] er aoe) ee omen pe smi eeomr Teme aa Fa EEA [rey none re ra S| BSW TAPLORS FERRYBUREAU OF BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES| TRANSPORTATION17 0228 ru — meso4 SREESUE UD FRUTES: WHOA PONTO PLM ~ 4216 SF car) Hin ht * ‘SASF SON Wa 7 Baal aes ae Sad SE es oul i 5 MOR OL ser vos wes / See ee ea aia OE Eira «gpm eree meen pete semen ee oe esas $5 wo omens — — SSS Sareea SS —— = ee a. oS o> Tie cone ae meet a Se mete, rm OF BRR ee wee, oe tae SR areaae prac cea eae te * gocemeey — Q © mL ee ue Sen ee i Matin ol Se RSL pa eeu fans © me om eno er SS ee Os seme. ce un ry ne © sy ames comm / toe As sho aoe Anes gear Passa meas ames tee eae ® cetera 1 Stam be me SSS IMA! ar ap remo a no pos eee ee ‘es sn Po ot te oe a RSE See eee Bey fo Te « Brepampeirese ecm mcnnasameamenreces 8 mem i oe NOES MEW sBUEDT Panel ae SYMBOL GY COMMON WANE 7 Botanical nome "7. suEADS on MeN woo he we Renens 9 Ne segment * 2 crn oe rane we ERE CEE as acca os ese = Se re) pe 9 + te ————— pee FA) EEyaet use eae ats Fee eect sera eee | Ss = at ga eee sem Sp gmp ey, = ye em Fa Seesyeiee if @ + mptemesmmeey, 3a MENT / Canfd comets roe . . ral fH Sees 2 2 ESS on pot i ee oe wre = Be Bey coe conserve ger FD ULERY / Wari penton | OAL "SM@OL SIV COMMON TOME 7 Botanical none Sin Gear ee of sen r= wvettt BY s msongy te on tZZ om a 1s eumowe r= Teno eel we [sea Farrar eae er wae om ares as as EMERIO | nse TES mao] peor tae ———"ervera re| Snes1 BR RIUTIEE St meee wn cron ve ms na * EER RTS Mae SOL Re "RE ar GELS so re tea me eS i oe aac |— SPRERLAE BSS gi © eno me aRRS BARRA Os mmr, ae fa omegeresmmees vr sem os RE seowncovers SN 7 a we GE] ann cum / nm we 2 nn te ares aw “mm. Jonew » [eee] oo feed r= FREE EMERIO fA PRELIMINARY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE namin bere see | (ay SEESS Z agement sae “ASH TATLORS FERRY RD£ sues as au F (Boo “hyGEO seusway TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: November 5, 2017 FROM: Britton W. Gentry, PE, GE -Principal Engineer Brad L. Hupy - Principal To: Stephen Griffith RE: Revised Grading Plan ‘Macadam Ridge Subdivision Case File: LU 16-213734 GCN Project 1161-03 RENEWS 06-30-2019 We have reviewed the revised grading plan that eliminates Lot 1 and Lot 2 and creates Tract C. ‘The new plan shows an 8 foot tall boulder rockery with a 2.SH:1V backslope that extends parallel to the SW Hume Street extension from SW Taylors Ferry Road. The original grade ‘change was accomplished with several retaining walls as shown in the August 23, 2017 grading Plan. ‘The changes to the grading plan do not impact our original conclusion in our January 30, 2017 Landslide Hazard Study. The development including the most recent changes to the grading plan satisfies the approval criteria of PCC 33.632 and 33.730.060,D. Lf. as originally discussed in our LHS. LUMITATIONS This technical memorandum provides additional recommendations for design and construction of the Macadam Ridge Subdivision. It is an extension of a single instrument of professional service for the project with limitations as previously stated. 824 SE 12" Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97214- 503-616-9425 - www.gcnweb.com (bureau Case # 16-213734 105 [City OF PORTLAND HEARINGS OFFICE lecivi #H-1059 |case # 4170027SCHOTT & ASSOCIATES ; . Ecologists & Wetlands Specialists 9 ~'. (,; 21018 NE Hwy 99E + RO. Box 589 * Aurora, OR 97002 * (503) 678-6007 + FAX: (503) 678-6011 November 8, 2017 MEMO Re: LU 16-213734 ‘This Memo is intended to address comments in the Nov. 6, 2017 letter from Kate Green and Sean ‘Williams as well as the Addendum #3 from BES dated Nov. 3, 2017 that may not have been previously addressed. ‘BES Comment A:1.b.— Disturbance Area — Public Stormwater Facilities Response: Per PWP redline comments a larger stormwater facility has been added to the site, although the facility may not be needed if the engineers determine that the existing design has sufficient capacity. The facility is shown at the end of the cul-de-sac and. adjacent to Lot 11 resulting in an approximately 1,385sf of additional disturbance within the resource. This area will be considered permanent disturbance, however it will not be converted to impervious surface and will be planted with native vegetation such as clustered rose, Douglas spiraea, red flowering currant, soft rush, slough sedge and bulrush. These species will aid in the functions of the stormwater facility and the overall resource including detaining water, retaining nutrients and providing interception of precipitation. Creation of this facility also results in the loss of 1,385sf of mitigation area within Tract A as well as the loss of 8 additional native trees. Additional mitigation has already been proposed in the newly created Tract C including 55 trees to be planted in 11,787sf of protected area. As previously des proposed mitigation has been designed to retain and enhance the existing upland and riparian forest community especially along Ruby Creek, Stephens Creek and throughout the northern 2/3rds of the subject property. Functions provided by the forest including precipitation interception and nutrient and sediment retention will continue to be provided in both upland and riparian communities. Proposed removal of invasive understory species and planting of a higher diversity of native trees, shrubs and forbs will improve habitat functions such as access to food, nesting, and cover while ‘maintaining a large undeveloped area within the City as well as the significant habitat corridor provided along Stephens Creek. od, BES Comment B.1 Plantings Response: This comment does not appear to take into account the revised planting plan reflecting the concems with proposed planting of Douglas firs and other species. The revisions were provided in a Memo from Schott and Associates dated 10-26-17 and in all subsequent memos. In response to Staff’ suggestion the number of Douglas firs was reduced from the Tract A Mitigation Planting Plan and the majority of the Douglas firs are proposed in areas which will have greater sun exposure such as the proposed buffer adjacent to development, Tract B and Tract C. Douglas firs were replaced with (Cty OF PORTLAND HEARINGS OFFICE. [exhib 8H-105h Case # 4170027 [Bureau Case # 16-233734 105species such as grand fir, western red cedar and yew which are more shade tolerant. An additional species which could be included in this palette is western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). The applicant has made every attempt to provide adequate tree replacement to meet City approval with respect to existing high canopy conditions on the site and is open to a condition of approval with regards to required tree diversity if the City deems it appropriate. November 6 Letter — Tract C and Additional Mitigation ‘As described in the previous 10-26-17 Memo, creation of Tract C (Scenic Tract) reduces total permanent disturbance area and impervious surface from the development as well as increasing proposed Mitigation area by approximately 0.27 acres. The planting table and associated Representative Planting Plan for Tract C were provided in that Memo. As explained previously, due to the existing slope and the requirements for the road, significant «grading will still be required in this area however, creation of the Tract will allow for the preservation of grove of 19 trees within the Tract and the existing Front St. ROW. The majority of these trees is native maples and will preserve existing scenic and environmental functions in this Scenic area to the extent possible. The entire 11,787sf temporarily disturbed area will be replanted with a mix of native ‘tees (predominantly Douglas fir), shrubs and groundcover plants. Because the proposed Tract will already be significant disturbed from grading it is proposed that some of the trees be larger in size than required 4” minimum (up to 2” caliper and/or 8-10” in height). This will expedite the restoration of native scenic resource but require special attention in planting and maintenance to ensure survival of the larger trees. Preserved and restored functions will include precipitation interception, stormwater, ‘nutrient and sediment absorption, as well as habitat and scenic values. As much as possible existing native trees have been retained in the resource area and will retain their current environmental and scenic functions and values in this area. Non-native and invasive understory shall be removed and replaced with native shrub and groundcover species as shown in the Table below and Representative Planting Detail Final Conclusions and the Alternatives Analysis After reviewing the 12 development alternatives formulated over the last 4 years, including Alternative 4 and the new Preferred Alternative 4 and upon review of the revised Environmental Review Construction Management Plan (including the revised temporary disturbance limits) submitted by the applicant in response to staff comments, we reach the following conclusions: ‘* The boundaries of the disturbance area have been reasonably defined for purposes of environmental review including the outfall areas near Ruby Creek in the environmental protection zone ‘© The preferred alternative (Altemative 4) has fewer detrimental impacts on identified resources and functional values than other practicable alternatives © That effective measures have been provided to protect resources outside the proposed disturbance area from damage © That adequate mitigation has be provided for unavoidable impacts to resources. Schort and Associates ~ Ezologists and Wetland Specialist 2018 NE Hw» 99B, P.O. Box 589, Aurora, OR 97002 503,678,6007- 503.676-6011 (ax Page? ‘Sed Project #2321Table 4. Planting Table Tract C (11,787sf) ‘Scientific Name ‘Common Name | Type # tobe planted Pseudotsuga menziesii | Douglas fir Tree 30 ‘Abies grandis (Grand fir Tree 10 ‘Alnus rubra Red alder Tree 15 Berberis aquifolium (Oregon grape ‘Shrub 1,000 ‘Ribes sanguineum ‘Red flowering currant | Shrub 650 ‘Rosa gymnocarpa Baldhip rose ‘Shrub 650 ‘Symphoricarpos albus | Snowberry ‘Shrub 650 Holodiscus discolor ‘Oceanspray ‘Shrub 586 Polystichun munitum* | Swordfern ‘Groundeover | 250 Lupinus macrophyllun | Big leaf lupin Groundeover | 1,789 Eschscholzia californica | California poppy | Groundcover | 1,870 Aquilegia formosa ‘Columbine Groundeover | 1,889 ‘Sidalcea campestris (Checkermallow ‘Groundeover | 1,789 ‘Achillea millefolium ‘Western yarrow: Groundcover | 1,839 Protime 404 or 452 Native Upland grass seed mix or equivalent ‘Total Trees 35 Total Shrubs 3,536, Total Groundeover 9,430 *Swordfem to be planted on north and east side of existing trees to be retained. Schott and Associates —Ecologiss and Welland Specialist 0 Bas S19, Aurora Page 3 12 - 503.67 Sa Project #2321“tore ng Suujuas Aue u pope88 Pe 29 OL san Sux9 Jo saps veo pu quoK wo pew oy of» “so1U99 UO ,| Jo aT BORE UB 1 INOYBNAI Pawo] aq 0} SIME}G 19400 PURI "ee Hep aon ax ans 200 | oimey wommnwo5, WBCTT IO OORT ‘iN SURES | _peatoy Tea Haneig aa (§8009'L) 9 39041 —|!0}9q BuyjuDjq aanojueseidey0319 SW Taylors Ferry Road Case File Portland, OR 97219 LU 16-213734 LDSEN MEV PCH 15-242358 Joel Smith 197 Urban Forestry City of Portland i 1900 SW Fourth Avenue Ste 5000 fy 4 Portland, OR 97201 : Ny Dear Joel, 1 tried to call you this week. Kate Green from BDS suggested that we communicate, If you recall, [have talked with you in the past about tree issues related to our property. My family owns the property near Taylors Ferry Road and Stephens Creek. I have a degree from the School of Forestry at OSU and have been responsible for forestry related issues for the company for a couple decades. Riverview Abbey has always been a good steward of the forest. We were removing invasive species back in the 1970's long before it became a common practice. ‘My family has had a friendly relationship with the City of Portland over the years. In 2006 we coordinated with the City when they cut over 100 trees and built a road along Stephens Creek during the sewer rehab project. I also coordinated with the City during the habitat restoration, The forest is looking very nice now, by the way. I also worked with the Parks Bureau when they ‘were considering buying some of the land along Stephens Creek five or six years ago. received your letter in October this year, one week before our Land Use Hearing related to our development. I am not sure why BDS did not give us the letter earlier as it was dated 7/28/17. ‘We have taken your request to preserve the tree that you identified very seriously. Our professional arborist, Teragan, investigated the tree in question. They concluded that it is in the right-of-way and itis not possible to save it without a complete redesign of the development. The sidewalk and right-of-way plan has been in place for some three years now and was endorsed by BDS. We have been in the application process for four years now. During the October 16, 2017 Heating, my team proposed a modification to our development plan removing two lots near the Douglas fir that you identified. Although this action will not preserve that specific tree, it will allow us to save 19 other trees in the proximity and also provide a resource tract of over 14,000 square feet. This modification came at a cost to my family of some $300,000 in lost land revenue as well as increased costs for retaining walls. The resulting resource tract will be planted with 30 Douglas fir trees and 15 other trees and permanently preserved. Our objective is to have an environmentally responsible development and preserve as many trees as practicable, That is why we have offered the City (BES) approximately 10 acres of our 14.17 acte development site for permanent preservation. We are building on less than 30% of our land. (erry oF PORTIAND HEARINGS OFFICE [Exhibit #41051 \case # 4170027 [Bureau Case # 16-213734 105‘We are preserving 70% of the existing tree cover. We will be planting over a thousand trees in mitigation, One fact that may have been overlooked in this application process relates to the size and quality of trees that will be preserved on the 10 acre tract (Tract A). On this tract you will find large Douglas firs, cedars, big leaf maple, alder and six large sequoias among others. There are some 1,400 mature trees that will be permanently preserved. Joel, please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss our development. I can be reached at 503-690-2598. Respectfully, Atgw ATE ‘Stephen Griffith Riverview Abbey0319 SW Taylors Ferry Road Case File We Portland, OR 97219 LU 16-213734 LDS EN MEV PC# 15242358 Land Use Hearings Officer wi2t7 City of Portland 1900 SW Fourth Avenue Portland, OR 97210 Dear Mr. Melvin Oden-Orr, Esq. Tam a member of the South Burlingame Neighborhood Association (SBNA) due the fact our ‘business is located within the SBNA boundary. My family and I have had multiple interactions with SBNA over the last four years regarding this development. We have shaped our proposal based on comments of the members. Mr. Lennox, who is the current president of SBNA and Jan E. Friedman, have made a claim in their November 5, 2017 letter to you that they have had insufficient time to review some 200 ‘pages of documents submitted by my counsel. On page 2 of their letter they included a list of documents along with the number of pages of each, Nearly half ofthe alleged number of pages related to two land use cases (a total of 96 pages). ‘The allegations of insufficient time are not correct. SBNA has had over two years to review these ‘cases, LU 07-132746 LDS ENM AD (HO 4070071) and LU 09-116765 LDS EN M (HO 4100007). The land use cases in question were originally submitted to Mr. Lennox on October 12, 2015 in their entirety. The attached email documents this fact. In addition, PACE Engineers, Inc. wrote a letter, submitted into evidence by SBNA, dated ‘October 13, 2017. This letter references these exact two land use cases on page 4 paragraph 2. Sincerely: eos Aus +e ‘Stephen W. Griffith SBNA Member (Civ OF PORTLAND HEARINGS OFFICE lent #105}, case # 4170027 [Bureau Case # 16-713734.08.From: Steve Griffith Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 8:04 PM tobert; John and Mary Holderness; Diane Victoria 1m pearson; ‘Robert Grifit’; willardsdream@gmail.com Subject: RE: Macadam Ridge LU 14-235643: Procedure Question Robert, ‘Thanks for setting this up. | have been preparing for the meeting. As I reflect on the situation, | am concerned that there will be disagreement on many of the items discussed in my letter. You were the primary writer of the original SBNA letter to Kate Green. It will be difficult for you to be impartial. | think that we need to find a neutral mediator to run the meeting. Hopefully you can find a neutral mediator on short notice. (have attached a couple of R10C land use cases from the City of Portland that were approved for development. These cases are very important in that they are actual land use decisions by a hearings officer. These cases are important evidence that prove that development in ~ conservation zories is a aczpted practice. | refefericed these cases in my etter. = Le Regards, Steve Griffith From: robertlennox.pdx@gmail.com To: swerlf@hotmall.com; holdern@gmall.com; queen@me.com CC: sfpied @amail.com; rataxman@ix.netcom.com Subject: RE: Macadam Ridge LU 14-235643: Procedure Question Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:32:46 -0700 Hieveryone, Unless someone can come up with a better venue, let's meet at the Safeway dining area next to the ‘Starbucks inside the Safeway at 8145 SW Barbur Blvd, This is the Safeway on Barbur at the intersection ‘of SW Capitol Hill Road. We'll meet from 7:00 to 8:30 pm on Wednesday 10/4. John or Diane, if either of you have a conflict, of for some reason cannot make the meeting, please let ‘myself or Sam know. Sam has volunteered to be an alternate. Robert [GiTY OF PORTLAND HEARINGS OFFICE bie #¥-105k \case # 4170027 Bureau Case # 16-213734 LDSsarotr sana 2 @ Search results aii oc YY serttens om sieve cis soiteinaeen Ontons om ewe lane simeeor Mal swgrif@hotmal.com @newiv 9 Repiyiv Wl Oeete WE Archive sunklY Swoop Movoto ¥ Categories Ye RE: Macadam Ridge LU 14-235643; Procedure Question Steve Grifith abe jbertenexpn@1ralort hn a May HldomeshdersgmicamneVia quente com an outer mage 0 21/11/2057 835M RNC 47 percent wea PROC 76 prcentena.. 2esbbmesi M6) owas soe ate nese Rober, Thanks forseting this up. thave been preparing for the meeting. ‘As refect on the stuaton, 'am concemed that there wil be disagreement on many of the items discussed in my slficult for you tobe impartial. think that we reed to find a neutral mediator to run the meeting. Hopefully yo "have atached 2 couple of RIOC land use cases from the Ciy of Portland that were approved for development. fice. These eases ae important evidence that prove that development in conservation zones is an accupted pre Regards, Steve Grifth From: roberennoxpdx@gmailcom To: swgrif@hatmalLcomy holdem@gmaiicom: queen@me.com CC. spa @gmaltcom egeman@ik.etcom com ‘Subject: RE: Macadam Ridge LU 14-235683: Procedure Question Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:3246 -0700 everyone, Unless someone con come up with Getter ven ets meet atthe fea dnng are xt othe Stavbuks inde the Ste. ‘oad, Well meet rom 7.006 8:30pm on Wednesday 10/8, John or ban, ter f you havea confi, ofr some reason cant mate the meting, platelet myself r Sa know. 5 Robert 503-208-0558, From Stove Grifth[malo-se@hotmalcon) ‘Sent Soturday, October 10,205 5:47 Tos bert ‘Subject: RE: Macadam lige LU 14238643: Procedure Question Hi Robert, ‘Thanks fc the ot. wl ln to meet 7PM on 10/4. | plant bring my we and post my brother Bob Let me know where you would to mee ‘hans, wnCity of Portland, Oregon Chloe Eudaly, Commissioner Rebecca Esau, interim Director Bureau of Development Services Phone: (S03) 823-7300 Land Use Services treme FROM CONCEPT TO CONSTRUCTION —_ wwwportiandoregongov/bds StarF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER CASE FILE: LU 16-273162 LDS PC # 16-121579 REVIEW BY: Hearings Officer WHEN: August 23, 2017 at 9am WHERE: 1900 SW Fourth Ave., Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97201 It is important to submit all evidence to the Hearings Officer. City Council will not accept additional evidence if there is an appeal of this proposal. ‘BUREAU OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF: SHAWN BURGETT / SHAWN BURGETT@PORTLANDOREGON.GOV GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Sarah Radelet | Strata Land Use Planning Po Box 90833 Portland, OR 97290 503-320-0273 Sarah@Stratalanduse,Com Brian Memillan | Tasso Custom Homes 15151 Frye St Valley, OR 97086 971-202-3851 Bm03@Me.Com Owner: Gayle A Reeves, 1414 SW 3rd Ave #2301 Portland, OR 97201 Site Address: 7904 SE 145TH CT Legal Description: LOT 35 TL 100, FOOTHILLS VIEW ‘Tax Account No: R289941080 State ID No. 182E24CB 00100 Quarter Section: 3845 Neighborhood: Pleasant Valley, contact Steve Montgomery at foxtrotlove@hotmail.com. Business District: None District Coalition: East Portland Neighborhood Office, contact Richard Bixby at 503-823- 4550. Plan District: Johnson Creek Basin - South 1900 SW 4th Avenue, Suite # 5000, Portland, OR 97201 Jory oF PORN [HEARINGS OFFICE Exit #1051, case # 4170027 [Bureau Case # 16-213734 LDS‘Staff Report and Recommendation for LU 16-273162 LDS Page 9 10. lL. 12, I it is determined that the lot where the tree removal occurred does not have adequate area to accommodate the required mitigation trees reflected in the table above, the owner will have the option to pay a fee (per inch) into the City Tree fund in lieu of planting new mitigation trees. Payment into the tree find will allow mitigation trees to be planted elsewhere in the City, meeting the intent of condition B.7. ‘Therefore, in order to meet this requirement, conditions of approval have been added to this staff report. Therefore, this condition is satisfied. The land division application must include a detailed stormwater plan, which includes proposed driveway locations and building footprints. Unless otherwise approved by the Bureau of Environmental Services, stormwater runoff from rooftops and driveway surfaces must drain into flow-through planters or swales lined with an impervious liner per the ‘most current edition of the BES Stormwater Management Manual. These planters and/or ‘swales must drain to the public storm in SE 145% Place. That connection may be made via a private storm system constructed in an easement, Findings: ‘The applicant provided this information (exhibits A.20, C.3) which is addressed later in the report under the relevant approval criteria. This condition is met, ‘The land division application must be accompanied by a geotechnical report to assess slope stability, any impacts on slope stability from any proposed utilities or stormwater systems, and recommendations for building foundation design and grading specifications. Site Development permits for mass grading of lot preparation shall not be issued prior to approval of the land division final plat. Any clearing and grading plans issued prior to building permit approval of the individual homes must comply with the standards of the Johnson Creek Basin Plan District, unless otherwise adjusted, Findings: The applicant provided this information (Exhibit A.19) which is addressed later in the report under the relevant approval criteria. This condition is met. ‘The land division application must include an emergency access management plan addressing the requirements of the Fire Bureau. Or, alternatively, the applicant must apply for an exception to the access standards, and accept a requirement that all homes within the land division be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems to the Fire Bureau’s satisfaction. Findings: The applicant provided this information which is addressed later in the report under the technical requirements. This condition is met. Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) must be established and referenced by the final plat. The CC&Rs must incorporate provisions ensuring that native landscaping planted the rear 20 feet of each lot is maintained, and provisions referencing the final tree reservation plan. The homeowners association must be empowered to enforce the provisions of the final tree preservation plan. Findings: A condition of approval has been added to this staff report in order to satisfy this condition of approval. Therefore, this condition is met. ‘The final plat shall include the statement: "This plat is subject to the conditions imposed by the City of Portland Land Use Review File No. LU 07-160750"a Seva, Conpahionr ‘hike bers Fie Ch Nate Taka Fre Nora Precitn Dion 1s00 SE Gideon St orland, OR IT? 1H) aD3778 Et) INS PORTLAND FIRE & RESCUE November 9, 2017 Stephen Griffith Riverview Abbey Mausoleum Co / 0319 SW Taylors Ferry Road ‘ Portland, OR a RE: SW Taylors Ferry Road ‘ APPEAL ID #16067 Case #17-128 Dear Stephen Griffith: ‘The Administrative staff has reviewed your appeal regarding fire department access road requirements and the appeal is approved as proposed with one condition: No Parking Signs are required in the turnaround. Please note: ‘© The Portland Fire Marshal has determined that the fire department access road on SW Taylors Ferry Road is inadequate. + Based on that determination, the building offical, in consultation with the Portland Fire Marshal on November 9, 2017, herby notifies the applicant that the Building Official intends to allow a NFPA 13D automatic sprinkler system in lieu of meeting the fire department access requirements. If you have any question regarding the appeal outcome or the Board of Appeal process, please call me at 823-3724. Sincerely, Nate Takara, Fire Marshal Appeal Board Coordinator NTs (CrTY OF PORTLAND HEARINGS OFFICE [Exhibit #H-105m \case # 4170027 [Bureau Case # 16-213734 LDS