Loading...
City Council Packet - 08/17/1981 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17 , 1981 - 7 : 15 P.M. 1 . ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilmen Tom Brian, John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla ; Councilwoman Nancie Stimler , Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel , Helen Terry Council met in executive session under the provisions of ORS 192 . 660 (1) (a) to discuss the City Administrator selection. Council discussed with Helen Terry the qualifications of the finalist and details of making a selection for the position of C=ty Administrator. After consideration it was the unanimous decision of Council to offer the position to Robert W. Jean. Helen Terry was to request Mr. Jean attend the executive session to discuss conditions of employment and contract . Meeting recessed 8 : 10 P.M. Mayor Bishop called the regular meeting session to order at 3 : 20 P .M. 1 . ROLL CALL: City Council Present : Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilmen Tom Brian, John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla ; Councilwoman Nancie Stimler; Frank Currie , Acting City Administrator/ Public Works Director; Doris Hartig, Finance Director/ City Recorder; Aldie Howard, Planning Director; Clifford Speaker substituting for Administrative Secretary ; Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel . Planning Commission present: President Frank Tepedino ; Commissioners Roy Bonn, Mark Christen, Richard Helmer , Bonnie Owens , Clifford Speaker. Absent: Commissioners Susan Herron, Geraldine Kolleas , Donald Moen. 2 . DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON CONSULTANT APPOINT- MENT. (a) The Planning Director recommended the selection of the firm of Danielson, Driscoll and Hess as consultants for downtown revital- ization study. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook for selection of the firm of Danielson Driscoll and Hess , subject to approval of the contract by Legal Counsel ; seconded by Councilwoman Stimler. Councilman Scheckla inquired whether there would be additional costs for other studies . The Planning Director stated this study was a plan, on which future plans and the need for pos- sible additional studies could be assessed and authorized by the Council in the future . Approved by unanimous vote of the Cour 1 . 3 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION REGARDING GOAL #10 - Joint meeting with Planning COn:mission. (a) Legal Counsel Sullivan discussed at length the issues raised in ' his memo of July 4th on "Housing element of Tigard Comprehensive Plan" which had been circulated to both the Council and the Commission members . Tigard has the option of choosing a complementary plan or an active plan. The population estimates and the inventory of buildable lands are not real problems . Sullivan expects LCDC fairly soon to reduce a policy they stated in a memo dated June 6 , 1980, to rule form as a result of recent legislative action. At present it is unlikely that Tigard ' s Comprehensive Plan would be approved because of failure to meet the objectives of Goal #10 on housing. The other problems have been pretty well worked out in preliminary reviews and discussions . Tigard very likely would be granted a continuance of 120 days to cor- rect Goal #10 problems . With this would go a maintenance and update grant to provide funds for staff help. At present it appears Tigard ' s plan will be reviewed in the October - January, 1982 time period. NPO plans may present obstacles to meeting Goal #10 objectives . (b) The meeting was opened to public discussion participated in by: John Block, whose concern was CPR 1-81 , Willowbrook/Canterbury Heights , a hearing on which will be held at the next regular Council meeting. John Gibbon, 15280 S .W. 100th, who asked about the provisions of SB 419, passed by the legislature . Counsel Sullivan reviewed the provisions of this bill . Richard Brown, 10805 S.W. Highland Drive , called attention to the apparent conflict between Goal #1 calling for citizen par- ticipation and involvement, and Goal #10 , which appears to mandate densities , for instance, not agreeable to the grass- roots citizen bodies such as NPOs . Counsel Sullivan pointed out Goal #1 is a process goal which specifies a process for citizen input to be received. Commissioner Speaker stated Goal #1 properly calls for citizen participation and input, but nowhere in our constitution or political process is it incumbent upon a governmental body to follow the wishes of the majority expressing opinions before the body. Only the right to be heard is guaranteed. Mayor Bishop expressed the opinion citizens may have been some- what misled by Goal #1 in that while it defined the process for citizen input, it does not mandate adoption of this input by the bodies to whom the input is directed. Page 2 - SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES - August 17 , 1981 LaVelle Allen, Chairman of NPO #4, took strong exception to Commissioner Speaker ' s statement , calling attention to specific sections of Goal #1 . Anita Anderson representing Cherry Hill Park Assn expressed concern about affordable housing for low income families and families with several children . She reported on her efforts to find apartments in the area for those with several children , as a result of the Cherry Park Apartments problem. (c) There followed a rather lengthy, wide-ranging discussion of aspects of meeting the requirements of Goal #10. Among the topics discussed and views expressed were the following: LCDC Policv vs . Rules : SB 2225 mandates policies of LCDC shall 'Be reduce,, to rules within one year. (This has particular re- ference to the memo of June 6 , 1980 requiring a build-out of 10 units per acre (UNA) in the Urban Growth Boundary. ) These agency, have the status of law rules , as for any other state and would be so upheld in the courts . There is question on the Council as to whether the "magic figure" should be 10 UNA or some figure lower or higher. Relation of Comprehensive Plan and LCDC Goals : Once the city ' s Plan is a opted, there is no need or showing compliance with the several Goals of LCDC. This compliance is assumed al hearadop- . n indi�� deal hear- tion of the Plan, ana thereasLer no ,LLVW1LL6 y Ings need be made concerning Goal compliance--only with the Comprehensive Plan . Com lementar Plan/Active Plan: A complementary comprehensive plan is a city-limits-only plan . The county has jurisdiction An over lands that will be annexed in the future . ry active plan embraces all Land within the urban growth boundary. In order for Tigard to have assurance that lands annexed in the future have been developed to Tigard standards , it must have an active plan. Timin of LCDC Hearin s : Sullivan stated Tigard' s Plan probably will e heard in the October to January , 1982 period, while z__ to Coun Plan will not be heard until April , 1983 . At [N'ctSitiug�v« v�t1li.> i the county present, city plans must wait for implementation until plan is approved. This policy will be reviewed and possibly reversed by LCDC so proper planning may take place in the munici- palities with active plans . In the meantime , Howard suggests awaiting specifics on the deficiencies of Tigard ' s Plan. The money situation prevents any substantial development taking place very soon. If the Plan is continued for 120 days as anticipated , there is an expectation of a grant from LCDC to defray costs of getting the plan into compliance . Zones of Adjustment: Howard advocated the "zone of adjustment" concept, a rea y reduced to ordinance form, which provides that PAGE 3 - SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES - August 17 , 1981 parcels of five (5) acres or more in the urban growth boundary may be subject to a variety of densities . Sullivan foresaw some difficulties with the concept, and Council members in general were unenthusiastic, feeling there are other ways to achieve the purpose. NPO Plans : Sullivan recognized some NPO plans may inhibit meeting Goal #10 . Generally they should be modified to permit Goal #10 compliance . Options are to abandon them completely, which he does not advise ; to go back and have the NPOs rework their plans in the light of new criteria , which would be time consuming; hold hearings on a city-wide basis , possibly in conjunction with a ruling that the city plan would override the NPO plan if there is a conflict; and Councilman Scheckla suggested having a few larger NPOs . Sullivan pointed out it is city policy to review NPO plans every two years , and that this might be a good time to start this review process . Howard reviewed the status of the seven (7) NPOs , some of which are fully developed or fully planned. Three or four need to be brought into active status . Possible Interim A roach: Councilman Brian advocated looking at each parcel with the view of determining whether higher density is practical , pointing to the Council action on a par- cel in the northwest corner of the city where higher density than asked was granted. His opinion, shared by others , was that bv- lookinv at individual parcels in this manner and increasing densities where possible , the Goal #10 requirement could be meL . The city would then be in a good position to state that a figure different from the ten (10) UNA prescribed by LCDC for this area is reasonable and proper. Safe ug ardin Single Family Residential Neighborhoods : Mayor Bishop and others tet an overriding concern is the safeguarding of the residential character of present single-family neighbor- hoods . In response to a question of definition, Sullivan stated there should be written standards drawn, in quite specific rather than vague language. It was pointed out that Beaverton by ordinance states that 5 ,000 square foot lots do not constitute impairment of the residential character of a neighborhood . Guidance through Written Standards : At the outset President Tepedino as a or gui ance from the Council to the Commission. In the ensuing discussion the need for written standards became apparent. With them, applicants would know the specific require- ments to be met, and neither the Commission nor the Council (on appeal) could be charged with arbitrary and capricious decisions . Sullivan stated there are no standards at present for conditional use permits , and very few for the other types of cases heard by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Helmer requested the city ' s half-street improvement policy be reduced to writing for the benefit of the Commission. PAGE 4 - SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES - August 17 , 1981 Summary and Conclusions : Sullivan stated the Council can give the Commissionirection to identify properties that can be up-zoned for higher densities . Howard stated he will inventory the city by quarter sections and work on a set of criteria for increasing densities . Sullivan will shortly present proposed administrative procedures for the city which will. cover at least some areas discussed at this meeting. RECESS OF REGULAR SESSION 10 : 22 P.M. MEETING RECONVENED AT 10 : 30 P.M.- EXECUTIVE SESSION Also attending meeting were members of the press ; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig, and applicant Robert W. Jean . Mayor Bishop offered the position to Mr. Jean subject to conditions of employment and agreement on a contract. Mr. Jean stated he was honored and was available as soon as he had completed his committment with the Lee Engineer firm. Conditions of employment and items to be included in the employment contract were discussed. Council tentative agreed to pay for moving expenses from Pratt, Kansas , not to exceed $3 ,000.00 . st rttin,,$ s i• y to be the low advertised salary which was reported` to be•$33,500 (later it/el tyyeAetr�rney a R directed to prepare employment contract ror Mr. Jean and Council- woG' (D review at the August 24, 1981 Council meeting. s nuc Co M o EXECUTIVE SESSION RECESS 11 :35 P.M. v� £C$a w rn a_ COUNCIL RECONVENED INTO REGULAR SESSION AT 11:36 P.M. mr- 1s Motion by Councilman Brain to appoint Robert W. Jean, as City Adminis-" trator, subject to mutual agreement of employment contract as of Septembers. 1 , 1981 ; motion seconded by Councilman Cook. Approved by unanimous vote of Council . 4. CIVIC CENTER STATUS REPORT �intll di' s ctljJed Civic Center Committee meeting at the la) Voli .. the �- Crow Building August 27 , 1981 . Administrator Jean was request- ed to attend. (b) Councilman Brian reported on meeting with Mr . Crow and repre- sentatives of the City regarding appraisals of the building . City appraisal was $1 , 175 ,000 with figure received by Mr. Crow considerable lower. (c) The group concensus was that the asking price was $1 , 125 ,000 and agreed to have 13 months (9/15/82) to work out financial details for bond sale. With 9 .6% interest, to include the inflation rate for the 13 months, the total net cost is $1 ,250 .000 . A $5,000 deposit was proposed. If the bond issue should fail the PAGE 5 - SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES - August 17 , 1981 city would lose the $5 ,000, if it passes there would be a credit . (d) Brian suggested Council consider an extension beyond the 13 month term and conditions of extension be stated, also consideration should be given if closed before the 13th month time frame should occur. (e) Mayor Bishop requested Councilman Brian, City Administrator Jean and Attorney Mark O 'Donnell to be more involved. (f) Council discussed the August 20?i-annexation meeting with the 72nd Avenue island citizens . Concensus was staff to present slide show, distribute brochures and answer any questions from the audience. 5. MEETING ADJOURNED 11 :55 P.M. City Recorder ATTEST: Mayor y r" f(' � y PAGE 6 — SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES — August 17 , 1981 tv 4�_ e ~l, August 13, 1981 MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Planning Director Subj; Recommendation of the Downtown Committee relative to selection of a consultant being hired to perform the necessary work culminating, in a Downtown Ram tan i za+inn Plan. At a Special Meeting of the City Council and the Downtown Committee held at Fowler Junior High School on the evening of August 11th, the Committee recommended that the contract for a Downtown Revitalization Study be awarded to Danielson, Driscoll and Hess of Eugene. The second recommendation was that the firm of Richard Braiaed being considered as an alternate. Staff has asked Danielson, Driscoll and Hess to provide a contract document for review by the City Attorney, City A. Administrator and Planning Director and Downtown Committee. This document would then be referred to the Council for final signatures following review at a. Regular Meeting later this month. On Monday, August 17th we would like the Council to award the work to Danielson, Driscoll and Hess. F M E M O R A N D U M To: Tigard Planning Commissioners Date: August 10, 1981 From: Clifford Speaker, Planning Commissioner Re: Comments of City Counsel Ed Sullivan on Tigard's Goal 10 Pro bl ems The following is summarized from discussion following the Public Hearings of the Planning Commission on August 4. At present, Tigard's Comprehensive Plan probably would fail at LCDC because it does not show that it meets "the housing needs of the citizens of the State." Question: Row much housing is needed in Tigard, by income groups? And how is the showing of need going to affect the zoning designations and other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan? The inventory of buildable land is deficient, but fairly easily rv�:�i _ 'T•nai nri n�i ral l arlr af' -----nt is a policy ct:tcment from the _ r-�----r^- v v Commission and Council as to hove Tigard intends to fulfill its share of the "regional burden of housing." How are we going to take care of the more than 50 per cent of the people of Tigard who cannot afford single family residences? Possible methods of handling this include: Upzoning. Vague criteria are unacceptable to LCDC. What kind of housing is allowed? Mobile homes, condos, apartments? We have discretion under the law as to how we will meet them, but meet them we must. Zone of Adjustment: All large parcels are PDs, and a bonus is gslven for a well planned development. These are matters of policy to be determined by the Commission and the Council. Question raised on mobile homes in other than parks: The munici- pality has wide discretion in this. However, it must be shown that the need met by this type of housing is met in other ways--condos, apartments, etc. Problem per Planning Director: The undeveloped land outside the City but within our Urban Growth Boundary is presently zoned by the NPOs at about four units per acre (vs. 10 per acre required by LCDC and ` Metro). "Its going to be an agonizing battle. It's not going to be pretty around here for the next two years,"--Aldie Howard. ,r� Cliff,speaker o•DONNELL. DATE- July 20, 1981 SULLIVAN Sc R.AMIS • - TTORNEYS AT LAW TO Honorable P•layor and City Council, City of 1-727 N.tN- HOYT STREET Ticard PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 Ed Sullivan City Attorney 15031 222-4402 FROM RE, Goal 10 review of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Attached please find a review of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, regarding Goal 10, undertaken by my associate, Corinne C. Sherton. I would ask you to read the document carefully and to note a number of comments I would make regarding this document : 1. Tigard' s Plan seeks to be "active" , i .e. it seeks to regulate and plan for land outside the present city limits. Because of that, the Plan must meet the Goals not only within the present city limits, but also for '-hose areas outside the city for which the city intends to plan. 1 am told that the city is a lot closer to compliance with Goal 10 for the lands within the city, but if the city seeks to plan outside its limits, it probably must increase the density or use other devices to assure complaince with the Goal for those lands outside the city. 2. The first step in undertaking compliance with Goal 10 is through a "buildable lands inventory" , i.e. a listing of those lands "suitable, available and necessary for urban -residential develop- ment. There are minor flaws in the inventories used in the Plan which were undertaken Soule years agO. Th crc arc also inco_•sistcncics in the updates of the inventory. These need to be updated and refined. I understand from speaking with the Planning Director that this is not a major problem. 3. All lands- within both the present city limits and the area for which the Plan is applicable are "serviceable" , ire. sewer and water are available to those lands. A statement to that effect should be included in the Plan. Additionally, when the street and sewer plan is adopted later this year, it should be part of the final copy of the Comprehensive Plan and reviewed by LCDC. 4. We make a point in the memo to tell you that the present policy of LCDC . to require that at least half of the buildable lands be used for higher density or multi-family construction is not an adopted rule. However, it has been used as precedent in a number of cases before both LUBA and LCDC and, if that policy were successfully challenged, it would be a fairly simple process to adopt the policy by rule. Thus, the benefits of challenging that policy at this time are minimal. 5. As the memo indicates, there are a number of ways to achieve compliance with Goal 10, including the Planning Director's proposal of a "zone adjustment".. I would like to discuss these matters with you at the next City Council meeting. 6 . The city will, in all likelihood, receive a maintenance grant to update the Plan and, if necessary, to bring it into compli- ance with the Goals . This should help the city in fixing up the Plan sufficiently to pass muster with LCDC. EJS :mch A 7/20/81 - Page 1 o•DONNELL. RHOADES. GERBER DATE: July 20, 1981 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of 173,7 N.W. HOYT STREET Tigard PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15091 222-4402 FROM: Ed Sullivan:, City Attorney RE: Goal 10 review of Tigard Comprehensive Plan 7. Finally, we noted in the report that there are inconsis- tencies between the neighborhood plans and the overall city Comprehensive Plan. In fact, a nu-.ber of the neighborhood plans, especially in the housing area, conflict with the general Housing policies in the overall city Plan. It will be necessary to review and, in some cases, revise these plans for compliance with Goals. The above are the highlights of the issues which we should discuss next week. I hope the above is of assistance to you. EJS :mch 7/20/81 - Page 2 SULLIVAN & RAMIS r • ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO: Edward J. Sullivan � 1727 N.W. HC1YT S-.REET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM: Corinne C . Sherton f i RE: Housing Element of Tigard Comprehensive Plan I have reviewed the elements of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan relating to housing for compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 10. There are serious deficiencies in the present Plan. In this memo I have attempted to identify these deficiencies and to outline alternative courses which the City could take to comply with Goal 10. A basic problem underlying most of the deficiencies is that the process used by the City for its housing planning was apparently to allocate residential development densities as it considered de- sirable , and then on that basis to determine how many dwellings and people would be accomodated within its planning area; rather than first determining the housing needs of the planning area (in- cluding its share of regional needs) , and on the basis of those identified needs designating and zoning sufficient buildable lands. I. Buildable Lands Inventory Goal 10 requires the City to inventory land within its plan- ning area that is suitable , available and necessary for residen- tial use. In its acknowledgment reviews , the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC ) requires that such inventories be broken down by plan designation and/or zone district as well. See , e.g. City of Independence , Staff Report of Jan. 17 , 1980 , p. 1 5 City of Salem , Staff Report of March 10, 1980 , pp. 44 ,The "Survey of Buildable Lards in the Tigard Plan Area - WHOM Aiethodology" documerit found in Chapter 10 of the Plan indicates MORthe criteria used for the original survey in 1977 , and a subsequent update in 1978. The City' s consideration of "suitability" included deletion of Viand with slopes greater than 25/, in 100-year flood- NNW plains , with poor drainage , with unsuitable configurations and "residential parcels unlikely to be. subdivided or further developed due to the character of the neighborhood , size of the house com- pared with -the lot , scattered outbuildings , closeness of the lot to the minimum size required by current zoning, etc . " (this last , quoted category really is an aspect of"availability" , rather than "suitability" , since it does not reflect inherent capabilities of the land itself) . One essential criterion which appears to have been omitted from the City' s consideration of "suitability" is the "serviceability" (especially with regard to sewers and water) of the lard. See , e.g. , City of Newberg, Staff Report of Aug. 26 , 1980 , pp. 5 ,7 . The Citys__Foul review its identified buildable lands for "serviceability" , and include only those lands which will be serviceable during the planning period. - The City' s consideration of "availability" included deletion of land owned by government agencies , churches and fraternal org- anizations and land already built-upon (generally the area required v ✓✓.w..r�._. ....�..--.�. _ _.. /r.•Lam' V 1..116 . Z , SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW To: EJS 1727 N.VJ. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: page 2 to support the existing structures) under current zoning) „LCDC has generally required city buildable lands inventories to include consideration of potential for infill and redevelopment in already developed areas. See , e . g. , City of Newberg, Staff Report of Sept. 27 , 1979, pp. 16=17 , and Aug.-26, 19 O,pp 5 , 8 ; City of Redmond, Staff Report of March 27 , 1980 , pp. 24-25 , 28-29. It is unclear whether Tigard' s inventory has adequately addressed these possibil- ities. Note that a footnote to the inventory availability worksheet found in Chapter 10 (a) of the Plan indicates that infill potential (i. e. ,"excess"buildable land) was identified only for developed parcels larger than one acre. "Necessity" , or the amount of buildable land needed for addi- tional residences during the planning period , will be discussed in Sections II and III below. The City has properly broken down its buildable land totals by plan designation. Some confus c•n is caused by the City's apparently having up- dated its buildable lands inventory several times since the 1977 update e tAhe "N^t,^odolcgy" aper. to ev- - inventory. The City should upua.�� �,�� 4 1: �, paper. plain fully how the latest buildable lands figures were obtained. Also , there seems to be some confusion over what the latest fig- ures are. The last chart attached to the "Methodology" paper ap- pears to be updated to August, 1979, with additional penciled changes reflecting a plan adjustment in 1980. This amended chart indicates a total of 2067.8 buildable acres . On the other hand, a large map accompanying the Plan indicates there are 1428.8 build- able acres outside of city limits# Are these two figures consis- tent? If so , that must mean there are 639 buildable acres within city limits. Is this correct? Finally, there are conflicts between the updated inventory data and the information in App. R of the "Tigard Housing Plan" (which was based upon the 1977 inventory data) . II. Assessment of Housing Needs Goal 10 requires plans to "encourage the availability of ade- quate numbers of housing units at price ranges and rent levels - - which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households" , In general , LCDC has interpreted this provision of Goal 10 to require local governments to project how many additional residences , and of what types , will be needed during the planning period. Such needs assessments are usually based upon the city's pcpulation projections , recent housing trends ( e. g. , single family This includes 24.56 acres shown on this large map as "mobile homes" . What this means is unclear, as Tigard has no designation or zone district exclusively for mobile homes. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are conditional uses in the R-7 and R-5 zones , and mobile home parks are conditional uses in the A-2 zone. O'DONNELL. RHOADES. GERBER DATE: July 4 , 1981 _ SULLIVAN & RAMS • ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO: EJS 17.27 N.W. HC>YT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: page 3 i. residence : multi-family residence ratios , persons : dv:elling unit r - , ratios, costs a1 ' ai--<.ierent housing tees , etc. ) and recent income trends. cf. City of Redmond , Staff Report of Earth 27 , 1980 , PP• 26 , 2$-29: City of JunctionCity, Staff Report of June 26 , 1930 , pp, 15, 1?-18. However, LCDC has stated in one acknowledgment re- view that a housing needs projection may be based on any reasonable method, so long as there is no indication that the analytic method used was chosen or. manipulated to distort the projectedhousing 7. needs. City of Cottage Grove , Staff Report of Sept. 5, 9 The situation with regard to projecting housing needs becomes more complicated in a metropolitan area. Goal 10 speaks of neet- ing the housing needs of "citizens of the state- arzd "Oregon house- holds" . LCDC has always interpreted the goal to require jurisdic- tions in a metropolitan area to do their share to meet regional housing needs. Seaman v. City of Durham, LCDC No. 77-025, April 18 , pp. 8-9; City of Jur_ction City, Staff Report of June 26 , 1980, pp. 17-18. The Portland metropolitan area, of which Tigard is a part, - is unique in the state in that it has a regional planning agency (Metro) and an adopted regional urban growth boundary (UGB) . Netro has authority to adopt metropolitan land-use planning goals and objectives (consistent with the statewide planning goals) , to adopt functional plans for areas or activities having signi-icant impact on the orderly development of the metropolitan area, to re- view local governments ' comprehensive plans and recommend or require changes necessary to make them comply with the goals and/or func- tional plans adopted by Metro , to coordinate the land-use penning activities of local governments and state and federal agencies within its jurisdiction, and to adopt a regional UGB. Chap. 665 Oregon Laws 1977, Sec. 17 and 18. On January 16 , 1980 : LCDC acknowledged the Metro UGB as com- plying with Goal 14 (Urbanization) . The size of the UGB was based in part on certain assuptions by Metro with regard to future - over- all housing densities and single family/multi-family housing mix within the UGB. Specifically, Metro assumed local jurisdictions would provide for a new construction single family/multi-family (SF/VF) ratio of 50/50 or a SF/ITF "build out" ratio of 65/35• Metro Acknowledgment , Staff Report of June 28 , 1979, p. 21 . Mletro also assumed that average densities for new development within the UGB would be 4. 04 Units per Net Acre for new single family dwel- lings and 13. 26 UNA for new multi-family dwellings , and therefore 6. 23 UNA overall. id. , p. 22. However, while LCDC found these density and mix assumptions to satisfy Goal 14 requirements , they also stated that : ". . .merely zoning for these minimal regional densities and mix assumptions does not necessarily guarantee O'DONNELL. RHUAi.);:-5- v=KrstK DATE: July 4, 1y01 SULLWAN & RAM)5 ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO: EJS 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 (503) 222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: page 4 compliance with Goal 10. Generally speaking to comply with Goal 10 local zoning must provide for densities considerably in excess of UGB density assumptions. Each planning jurisdiction must demonstrate that it has provided for its long-range housing needs at affordable prices in a regional context. ". (emphasis added) Metro Acknowledgment, Staff Report of Dec. 10, 1979, P. 14. On June 6 , 1980 , the meaning of "densities considerably in excess was addressed by a memo jointly published by DLCD staff and subcommittees of LCDC and Metro. This memo was never formally approved or adopted by LCDC or the Metro Council. The memo set out requirements for acknowledgment of Goal 10 compliance for local governrsents --. within Metro' s jurisdiction. It provided that larger jurisdictions (with projected build-out populations of 50, 000 or more) , including Tigard, must plan for overallnew construction densities of about 10 UNA or more. Furthermore , a jurisdiction such as Tigard would have to: "provide a 50/50 SF,/MF new construction housing ratio and, additionally, provide other cost-moderating oppor- tunities which together with the 50/50 ratio , meet the housing requirements (need) identified in the plan as is appropriate to the circumstances of each jurisdic- tion. "* The memo also provided a list of examples of such "cost-moderating" opportunities , including increased density. Apparently only two of the 27 jurisdictions within the Metro UGB have objected to the standards set out in the June 6, 1980 memo (Tigard and Happy Valley) . LCDC has relied on the standards in the memo in several Metro-area acknowledgment reviews since June , 1980. Thus , the City has two possible choices -- -(1 )--.ta=make independent housing need projections demonstrating that the City can meet its local and regional housing obligations at densities lower than 10 UNA and a new construction SF/T*,F housing mix ratio greater than 50/50; or (2) to make housing need projections based on the assumption that the City will have to provide for new cons- truction at at least 10 UNA and a 50/50 SF/Kr ratio. The require- ments for each course of action are discussed below. Note that,as the City has currently made no housing need projections whatsoever, its Plan presently does not satisfy either alternative. A. Independent Housing Need Projection CA second option which would allow provision of a SF/ids' new con- struction ratio greater than 50/50 but not more than 60/40 was included in the memo for jurisdictions with a current SF/br1F ratio of at least. 65/35 and peripheral location. Tigard would not be in this category. %.!Ur.-JrQ L, t-C" JHL.Jr- ♦aGrtoGn DATE: .JU1y '14 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.N. HOYT STREET TO: EJS PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: page 5 Under this option Tigard would have to project housing needs based on population projections , recent housing trends , income trends , etc. -- just as was described at the beginning of this sec- tion for cities outside the metropolitan area. The city should also determine what its fair share of the regional housing need is -- probably based on historic Tigard/fv;etro population ratios. In any case, I believe -the City will find it difficult to demon- strate that it can meet its housing needs by providing new con- struction of less than 50% multi-family units , unless it can corpe up with some extraordinary cost-moderating measures for single family units. App. C of the Tigard Housing Plan demonstrates that even in 1976 less than half of Tigard households could afford to purchase an average cost conventional new home. Since then the cost of houses and interest rates have risen much more than in- comes. If this option is pursued, and a.density less than 10 UNA and mix ratio of greater than 50/50 justified, the City can expect to be challenged by the DLCD staff, Metro, 2000 Friends of Oregon, Metropolitan Area Homebuilders, etc. Furthermore , I would have to predict that LCDC would not acknowledge such a plan, since such an acknowledgment would open up the door to 25 other jurisdic- tions to challenge the requirements of the June 6 , 1980 memo. Thus, if the City pursues such a course it will have to be willing to take an appeal of an LCDC denial order to the Court of Appeals. It is impossible to predict the outcome of such an appeal with any certainty. In part, it would depend on the finoings made by LCDC in support of its denial order. I believe it might be pos- sible to overturn such a denial if the order merely incorporated the June 6, 1980 memo as the basis for denial. Although the Court of Appeals would be willing to defer to LCDC ' s interpretation of the statewide PlIlia anning Goals in many instances ( See , Flury v. Land Use Board of Appeals 50 Or App 263, P2d 1981) ; Nor- vell v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Com- mission, 43 Or App 849, 6 4 P2d 896 1979 , it would still re- quire LCDC to follow basicprinciples of administrative law. This should include requiring LCDC properly to adopt standards to gov- ern its decision-making prior to or during the acknowledgn;ent- pro- ceeding. (cf, Marbet v. Portland General Electric Company 277 Or 447, 561 P2d -1-5-4--(-1977) ) . Even the memo itself provides no real findings to support its conclusions that some local governments should be required to develop new residences at 10 UNA, and others at only 6 or 8 17A14-A. However, in any case , should the Court of Appeals overturn an LCDC denial of Tigard' s plan on such a basis , it would be extremely unlikely that the Court would order LCDC to acknowledge the plan. , It would most likely remand the case to LCDC for further proceed- ings. In the meantime, if Metro should adopt the density and mix requirements as metropolitan "goals" or adopt a housing allocation t .DATE: Juiy 4, .I.yol SULLIVAN & RAMIS • ATTOR14EYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET To: EJS PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: page 6 -functional plan" containing the density and mix requirements , or if LCDC adopted the density and mix requirements as an administra- tive rule , it would be very likely that even the Courts would hold the City to meeting these standards. B. Housin"- Need Projection Accepting Metro/DL.CD Assum-Dtions Even if the City accepts that it must provide new housing at 10 UNA and a 50/50 mix, it must still examine local housing cost and income data to determine whether these densities ane mix are sufficient to meet its housing needs , whether additional- cost-mod- erating measures are required, etc. The City should project the number of additional housing units it will need during the planning period by type. It should also demonstrate how the Plan will meet regional housing goals. See , City of Cornelius , Staff Report of March 11 , 1980, 'pp. 11 ; "13-IZl . III. Designating and Zoning Sufficient Buildable Lands to Mieet Identified Housing Needs r Goal 10 requires the City to designate and zone , by housing type , sufficient buildable lands to meet its identified housing needs for ,the planning period. There are several ways the City might meet this requirement. A. Change to "Complementary" Plan Tigard currently has an "active" comprehensive plan. This means that the city' s plan adopts specific land use designations for un- incorporated land within its planning area, and , upon annexation, will rezone the land in question to correspond to its own zone dis- � - Is ! � n+,, designations and zones for the unincorporated area Lr1c ,. -- must be identical to or consistent with those of the City. When such a plan. is submitted for acknowledgment , both city and county apply for acknowledgment of the entire UGB area (within the Metro UGB, urban planning area) . Note that all comprehensive plans out.- side of the Metro area are active plans. Since an active plan can- not be acknowledged until the county submits its plan for the area as well , in any case Tigard' s plan cannot be acknowledged before Washington'County' s , which is expected to be not before 1983. Within the Metro UGB, it is also possible to adopt a "comple- mentary" plan. In such plans a city only adopts designations for land within its city limits. An acknowledgment request from the city would be for the city limits only, and the Urban Planning Area Agreement would identify a site-specific urban planning boundary within which the City maintains a planning interest. The City and county would work 'together in a cooperative process designed to achieve consistent land use designations and policies by the county's compliance date. t O'DONNELL. RHOADES. GERBER DATE: July 4, 1981 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO: EJS 1727 NAV. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 (503) 222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: page 7 Unless Tigard is planning to annex large portions of the unin- corporated land within its planning area prior to acknowledgment , there would be advantages to charging to a complementary plan. The City would then only have to meet the 10 UNA and 50/50 standards only within its city limits. I have been told by Tr. Howard, City Planning Director, that this would not be a problem. Additionally, the unincorporated areas within the urban planning area would then be held to Washington County' s required 8 UNA, rather than Tigard' s 10 UNA. Compliance date would not change since . in either case . Washington County' s Plan would have to be submitted as well. A possible drawback to this option is that the county, rather than the City would there take the lead with regard to planning for the unincorporated area. The city would have to agree to maintain the county' s designations and- zoning after annexation of land, until at least the City can go through its plan amendment process. B. Designate and Zone Land Outright for Needed Housing There are several ways that Tigard could move toward meeting the Metro/DLCD density and mix standards for its entire planning ' area. Probably the most obvious contribution would be to redesig- nate and rezone land within the urban planning area for higher densities and more multi-family housing, as well as more use of mobile homes , more cost-moderating opportunities , etc. Another contribution could be made by increas nr�,:-the allowed densities in the established multi-family designations, (iFote there is some con- fusion here , as the city' s buildable lands inventory shows an A-20 and A-40 designation, but there is no such district in the Zoning Ordinance. ) Another contribution could be made by placing more of the re- quired multi-family housing into commercial zones. In one instance LCDC has found that a need for multi-family housing could be met by providing excess commercially designated land where multi-fam- ily was a permitted use. City of Hines , Staff Report of Nov. 22, 1979, and Feb. 20, 1980, pp. -5. Higher densities could be ob- tained without changing the current zones for buildable lands if workable density bonus and/or transfer provisions were added to the Zoning Ordinance. However, such techniques would not count towards an increased base density they are reasonably implemented by clear and objective standards in city and county ordinances. C. Provision of Needed Housing Through a PUD Process LCDC has found that needed housing can be provided through a PUD approval process , if a policy is adopted cormitL. the jur- isdiction to providing adequate land for the needed housing type. City of Cottage Grove , Staff Report of Sept. 5, 1980, pp. 8-10. Mr. Howard has proposed use of such a method in his "Zones of Ad- justment" ordinance. Briefly, that would designate every parcel r b "r �_.. ►J _uA1t: sJU1y 4', 17JV SULLIVAN & RAMIS • ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO: EJS 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: page 8 outside city limits but within the city' s planning area that is -5 acres or more for development only as a PUD. The develon-nental density of these parcels would "approximate" a density of 10 UNA. I believe this system could be acceptable to LCDC if a firm pol- icy commitment to develop these parcels at increased densities is made and if the PUD zone district is altered so that its approval criteria are clear and objective , as per the St. Helen' s Housing Policy. (See , in particular Sec. 18.56. 040(a) (3)and(5) . ) Further- more; although I am not aware of the exact acreage of buildable land in parcels of 5 acres or more , it would appear that the dens- ity at which those parcels would have to be developed to have over- all new construction occur at 10 UNA, would have to be signifi- cantly greater than 10 UNA in order to compensate for lower dens- ity development on parcels of less than 5 acres. Finally, one might doubt that this proposal made the best sense from a planning _ point of view, as it is not clear that it will always be the par- cels of 5 acres or more that are best suited to higher density development. D. Upzoning Upon Annexation ► LCDC has stated that a jurisdiction may zone land at a lower density than its plan designation for reasons such as preventing premature conversion of urbanizable land, precluding more intensive use than current facilities can support, etc. ; but that when it be- comes a potentially restrictive growth management strategy, its regional effects must be determined. Also , it cannot be used to discourage the provision of needed housing types at the densities contemplated by the plan, because of neighborhood pressure. A valid rezoning process must include (1 ) justification (in the plan) for its use; (2) Policy in the plan explaining the intent of the re- zoning process and establishing a permissible purpose; and (3) ob- jective standards in the zoning ordinance to govern rezoning. City Of IYillwauxi8 , .71.c11_t I[CplJri, of i•Irai..h 27 , 17V0 , pp. 1V-1y, and Aug. 27, 1980, pp. 6-7 , .14. IV. Housing Policies The policies in the 1977 Tigard Housing Plan are basically adequate -- particularly Policies 2, 15 and 16. However, Policy 7 states that multi-family housing shall be located according to appropriate standards indicated in Neighborhood Planning Organiza- tion Plans. Most, if not all of those NPO' plans contain policies that are severely restrictive of multi-family housing. The relat- ionship between the NPO plans and the comprehensive plan is not clear in any case. It is difficult to believe that some of the policies found in the NPO plans regarding muti-family dwellings could ever be acceptable if applied 'to a needed housing type. J6 . . O'DONNELL. RHOADES. GERBER 9 SULLIVAN & RAMIS DATE: c.uly 4. 1981 ATTORAIEYS AT LAW T r 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO: EcJ S PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM:CCS RE: page 9 V. Implementing T,ieasures In addition to the section of the Pud zone district already noted there are several other provisions Of the Zoning Ordinance which impose subjective or discretionary conditions on approval of housing developments. These provisions cannot be applied to a needed housing type (unless sufficient buildable land is provided for that type without discretionary . Suchrovis conditions elsewhere) consistent_. with Goal 10pions are found in the Design Review _ laxly Sec. 18.59, 060(d) (1)and(2) (A.) (B) ) and Conditional Use 18. 72. 010) chapters. .Withou6 an analysis of needed housing types it is impossible to tell at present exactly when application of these standards is impermissible. v METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT 5275W.HALL ST.,PORTLAND.OR. 97201, ,03,221-1646 METRA Rick Gustafson August 10, 1981 EXECUTIVE OFFICER Metro Council Jack Defines PRESIDING OFFICER DISTRICT 5 Betty Schedeen The Honorable Wilbur Bishop DEPUTYPRESIDINGMayor of Tigard DISTRICT P.O. Box 23397 Bob Oieson Tigard, Oregon 97223 DISTRICT I Charlie Williamson Dear Wilbur: DISTRICT 2 Craig Berkman As you probably know, the Legislature passed and the DISTRICT Governor signed SB 852 which extends our authority to Corky Kirkpatrick collect a 51� per capita assessment from each city and DISTRICT county in the region- The Legislature also has required Jane Rhodes us to notify you of the assessment 120 days in advance of DISTRICT6 the fiscal year beginning next year . It is our intention Ill Bonner to continue collecting the current 50(� per capita. An DISTRICT invoice is attached which outlines the exact amount due Cindy Banzer along with the population estimate used in the DISTRICT calculations. Please forward this invoice to your Finance Bruce Etlinger Officer . DISTRICT 10 Marge Kafoury A review of the Legislature' s action this year shows no DISTRICTII significant change in Metro' s statutes , other than a Mike Burton revision of our LID procedure to allow for a positive DISTRICT 12 mail-back response rather than a remonstrance procedure . Additionally, the Legislature granted us authority to refer our own legislation, to allow Metro to issue G.O. improvement warrants such as cities now do, and to allow our Councilors to be candidates for other elected office . The Legislative Assembly also prohibited us from assessing mandatory dues to special districts and removed our rule-making authority. Other legislative action cleared the way for us to proceed with the resource recovery project in Oregon City. All in all , we had a very successful session. I hope you did as well . The issue of the dues assessment gave us an opportunity to discuss our plans , budget and needs with you and I want to express my appreciation for your careful consideration of our finance issue . r t August 10, 1981 Page 2 It is my sincere intention to continue a close working relationship with your Council. It is the Metro Council° s desire to work toward a strong assistance role rather than an enforcement and regulation role with local governments . The continuation of dues will allow us to pursue that course. In addition, I would like to continue my working relationship with each Mayor and will be calling soon to schedule a time with you . �.nc rely, /, p 1 Rick Gustafson Executive Officer RG:MH:sr b 3912B/D2 Attachment i� August 13, 1981 I,EMORAN DUM To: City Council From: Planning Director Subject: Ordinance for David Schalaht Appeal The following are the conditions as they will appear in the ordinance approving the David Schalah t/Electro-Sports Conditional Use approval. The ordinance will be presented for action on August 24th, however, please advise me if you have some concerns regarding the wordage of the conditions. 1. Applicant obtain a sign permit. 2. If a "Nuisance" is created as defined in Code Section 7.40, and the Tigal Police Department finds that the applicant is in part in violation of the Code, the applicant shall be brought before the City Council and may be subject to revoation of this Conditional Use. 3. No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate City department and changes are approved by that department. Application for changes will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings. 4. Between Monday and Friday, during the school year, persons ander the age of 18 years must be accompanied by an adult prior to 3:00 P.M. and after the hour of 9:00 P.M. S. Some form of bike rack must be provided. 6. Patrol will be provided by Electro-Sport of a litter barrel outside the building. 7. Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District Fire Marshall shall review this proposal for fire life safety and the applicant shall correct deficiencies if they are found to exist prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 8. There will be a mandatory review of this permit at the end of 6 months. f" 6 5 - 1. IUD "LOITE BlrUG°: �. ALL cm- i ® L1 � mneG � U5T BE DOME OFF THE SHOPPIMG CENTEIA PREalSE59 . 3. NO FOOD , OB 18EVEIRAGE5 ALLOUED . �. ILIO sauyllrus. S. NO 13BUG5, OB ALCOHOL. Fes. 514 ® E5, Ardil 514IRiT5 BEELUIRE ®. 7. NO B E F U M15 ® IU T O 16 E RI S. SIDILIMS . FUM, A <U ® LAUGHTER 15 AIU OPTIOIU. TH4IUb4 YOU FOR YOU " CO-OPE R4TIOM .