DIR1991-00001 DATE: 1/8/1991
CODE SECTIONS: 18.120.050
I.TOPIC I School Capacity and Public Facilities - Tigard Code & Comp. Plan Policies
* City Attorney's Office Interpretation
INTERPRETATION: School capacity in the context of decision making criteria requires that there be adequate
public facilities for the different types of approvals, but that requirement is phrased in a
slightly different manner for each type of approval.
For a phased development, the requirement is that public facilities be constructed in
conjunction with or prior to each phase. Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.050, p.
301. The code does not define the scope of the term "Public Facilities ". For conditional
uses, it is necessary that "required" public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the
proposal. The term "required" is not defined. TMC 18.130.040, p. 318. For planned
developments, there is a reference to the approval criteria for land divisions found in TMC
18.162. TMC 18.80.120.A.1, p. 160. TMC 18.162 is in fact the approval criteria for
partitions and it requires that there be adequate public facilities to serve the proposal.
TMC 18.162.040.A.3, p. 402.
The April 25 memo discusses the requirements for subdivisions which are found in TMC
18.160.020 and it specifies that certain enumerated facilities are required, but does not
include school facilities in that list. There is a requirement at TMC 18.160.060 that a
preliminary plat must comply with a comp. plan, zoning ordinance, and other applicable
ordinances and regulations. That requirement is general and does not reference any
specific facilities requirements. The final plat approval criteria adds no additional
requirements for public facilities. TMC 18.160.150.
For annexations, it is required that all services and facilities are available and have
sufficient capacity. TMC 18.136.030, p. 352. There is no specific mention of school
facilities in that section.
In looking at the comp plan requirements, the public facilities section is found at Chapter 7
on p. 11-41. The most directly related policies are found at Policy 7.1.1(b) which requires
the City to work with service districts to provide a coordinated system for providing
services, Policy (c) which requires the City to provide urban services in accordance with
the comp. plan to the extent of the City's financial resources, subsection (d), which
requires the City to use the capital improvements program as a means for providing
orderly growth and efficient use of land, and subsection (e) which requires the
development of the comp. plan with consideration being given to the level of capacity of
existing services.
Policy 7.1.2 states the City shall require as a precondition to development approval that
development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity including water,
sewer, and storm drainage. Schools are omitted from this policy.
In the implementation strategies for these policies, there is nothing that specifically links
school capacity to development approvals.
Policy 7.8 deals specifically with schools and the only requirement on the City is that it shall
"work closely with school districts to assure maximum community use of the school
facilities for Tigard residents through locational criteria and provisions of urban services."
Implementation of Strategy 1 for that policy requires that the City monitor school capacity
by requiring requests for development proposals and permits to be reviewed by the
applicable school district for effects on school capacity. Neither the implementation
strategies nor the policies themselves take the next step of requiring that adequate
capacity be available at the time of the development approval or at the time that the
developments are completed.
These policies make a differentiation between the services directly provided by the City
and services provided by a separate district. It would be difficult to argue that Policy 7.1.1
clearly requires the City to insure that adequate school capacity is a precondition to
approval in the development process.
Reading the comp. plan and policies together, a good argument can be made that there is
no requirement in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan for the actual availability of school
capacity at the time of the development approval. However, if this is the policy position of
the City, it could unquestionably be made more clear. Amendments to the plan could be
drafted to clearly state the apparent policy on school capacity which is a requirement for
coordination between the City and the school districts. The only direct requirement in the
comp. plan related to the provision of public facilities and services at the time of the
development approval, is found at Plan Policy 7.1.2 on p. 11-42, which does not include
school capacity.
Regardless of the school district capacity question, it would probably be advisable to unify
and standardize the approval criteria related to public facilities and services for each of the
different types of developments and actions addressed by the development code. I
suggest that one way of doing this would be to, through definitions in the development
code, identify public facilities and services which are required to be available at the time of
the development approval, and through separate definition, other public facilities and
services. Once those definitions were developed, the approval criteria in the development
code for the various types of decisions could be amended through the use of these new
definitions to clarify what types of public facilities and services need to be considered
within the context of each quasi - judicial application hearing.
The findings which accompany these code changes would need to contain an
interpretation of the plan policies which supported the conclusion that school capacity is
not a precondition to a development approval. That discussion would follow the lead from
DLCD in categorizing some services as necessarily responsive to development pressure.
CEIVED
19b
r O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN 2 2
r - 'MUN TY DEVELOPMENT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JEFF H. BACHRACH BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE
CHARLES E. CORRIGAN 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202
STEPHEN F. CREW Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013
CHARLES M. GREEFF (503) 266 -1149
WILLIAM A. MONAHAN TELEPHONE: (503) 222 -4402
NANCY B. MURRAY FAX: (503) 243 -2944
MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEMAN
DENNIS M. PATERSON III PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE KENNETH M. ELLIOTT
TIMOTHY V. RAMIS GARY M. GEORGEFF*
SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* ROBERT J. McGAUGHEY*
WILLIAM J. STALNAKER January 18, 1991 Special Counsel
*Also Admitted to Practice
in State of Washington
Mr. Ed Murphy, Director
Community Development
City of Tigard
P. O. Box 23397
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Tigard Code and Comp Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity
Dear Ed:
Enclosed please find a copy of Jim Coleman's memorandum on this
issue.
Very truly yours,
T1 y V. Ramis
TVR/ if $ �
Enclosure
tvr'tigatd\murphy.hl --
- rry t ✓ T V2►J -0D [I---
,o
JA
IN—
•
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 8, 1991
TO: TVR
FROM: JMC
RE: Tigard Code and Comp Plan Policies
Relating to School Capacity
As a follow -up to our lunch meeting with Pat Riley on December 14,
1990, you asked that I review the City of Tigard comp plan and
development code provisions relating to schools. The review is a
preliminary step in the formulation of a strategy for dealing with
the necessity for consideration of school capacity as a criteria
in decision making on quasi judicial land use applications in the
City of Tigard.
I had Will review the plan and code and pull out for me all
references to school capacity in the context of decision making
criteria. In the process of that review, he also found an April
25, 1990 memo concerning school service requirements for
subdivision approvals. I have attached a copy of that memo and I
think its conclusions are accurate, but do not provide a complete
answer to the questions which you have raised.
When looking at the approval criteria within the development code,
one finds a requirement that there be adequate public facilities
for the different types of approvals, but that requirement is
phrased in a slightly different manner for each type of approval.
I For a phased development, the requirement is that public facilities
be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase. TMC
18.120.050, p. 301. The code does not define the scope of the term
"'ubli cilities." For conditional uses, it is necessary that
"required' public fa have adequate capacity to serssx®
- - - ;.--7,:..k-f=7 .- -The term required" is not defined. TMC 18.130.040,
318. For planne opments, there is a reference to the
approval criteria for land divisions found in TMC 18.162. TMC
18.80.120 A.1., p. 160. TMC 18.162 is in fact the approval
criteria for partitions and it requires that there be adequate
public facilities to serve the proposal. TMC 18.162.040 A.3.,
p. 402. The April 25 memo discusses the requirements for
subdivisions which are found in TMC 18.1 and it pacifies
that certain enumer.a -facilities are required,__ but—does, not
include school facilities in that list. There is _a requirement at
TMC - 1137r 13 0-0 t�iaa . _a r preliminary plat must comply with a comp
plain, zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and
. ,4 e .
requirement is general and does not referenc
•
Memorandum to TVR
Re Tigard Code and Comp Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity
January 8, 1991
Page 2
any specific facilities requirements. The final plat approval
criteria adds no additional requirements for public facilities.
TMC 18.160.150.
For annexations, it is required that all services and facilities
are available and have sufficient capacity. TMC 18.136.030,
p. 352. There is no specific mention of school facilities in that
section.
In looking at the comp plan requirements, the public facilities
section is found at Chapter 7 on p. II -41. The most directly
related policies are found at Policy 7.1.1(b) which requires the
City to work with service districts to provide a coordinated system
for providing services, Policy (c) which requires the City to
provide urban services in accordance with the comp plan to the
extent of the City's financial resources, subsection (d) which
requires the City to use the capital improvements program as a
means for providing orderly growth and efficient use - o 'land i and
Subsection (e) which requires the development of the comp plan with
consideration being given to the level of capacity of existing
services.
Policy 7.1.2 states the City shall require as a precondition to
development approval that development coincide with the
availability of adequate service capacity including water, sewer,
and storm drainage. Schools are omitted from this policy.
In the implementation strategies for these policies, there is
nothing that specifically links school_ capacity to development
approvals. --"
- - Policy 7.8 deals specifically with schools and the only requirement
on the City is that it shall "work closely with school districts
to assure maximum community use of the school facilities for `'Irigard
- residents` "through Vlocational criteria and provisions of:at
services:" - Ii - strategy 1" for that policy requires that
The City monitor school capacity by requiring requests for
development proposals and permits to be reviewed by the applicable
school district for affects on school capacity. Neither the
implementation strategies nor the policies themselves take the next
step of requiring that adequate capacity be available at the time
of the development approval or at the time that the developments
are completed.
These policies make a differentiation between the services directly
provided by the City and services provided by a separate district.
.
• Memorandum to TVR
Re Tigard Code and Comp Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity
January 8, 1991
Page 3
It would be difficult to argue that Policy 7.1.1 clearly requires
the City to insure that adequate school capacity is a precondition
to approval in the development process.
Reading the comp plan and policies together, a good argument can
be made that there is no requirement in the Tigard Comprehensive
Plan for the actual availability of school capacity at the time of
the development approval. However, if this is the policy position
of the City, it could unquestionably be made more clear.
Amendments to the plan could be drafted to clearly state the
apparent policy on school capacity which is a requirement for
coordination between the City and school districts. The only
direct requirement in the comp plan related to the provision of
public facilities and services at the time of the development
approval, is found at Plan Policy 7.1.2 on p. II -42, which does not
include school capacity.
K-ceilly r t�'
Regardless of the school district capacity question, it would
probably be advisable to unify and standardize the approval
criteria related to public facilities and services for each of the
different types of developments and actions addressed by the
development code. I suggest that one way. of_ doing_ this would be
to, through definitions V elopment code, identify public
facilities services which_ _ are_required to,_ be available at the
time of the development approval, and through separate definition,,
other public'facilitie an services. Once those definitions were
developed, approval criteria in the development code for the
various types of decisions could be amended through the use of
these new definitions to clarify what types of public facilities
and services need to be considered within the context of each quasi
judicial application hearing.
-- The Findings- which accompany these code changes would need to
contain an interpretation of the plan policies which supported the
conclusion that school capacity is not a precondition to a
development approval. That discussion would follow the lead from
DLCD in categorizing some services as necessarily responsive to
development pressure.
JMC:dd
1/8/91
jmAtigaracomplaatvr