Loading...
08/12/2009 - Packet City of Tigard City Center Advisory Commission — Agenda MEETING DATE: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 —6:30-8:55 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard City Hall- Red Rock Creek Conference Room 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. Welcome and Introductions ....................................................................................................6:30— 6:35 2. Downtown Circulation Plan Presentation and Discussion .................................................6:35 — 7:35 (Matthew Arnold of SERA Architects) 3. Tigard Transit Center Feasibility Report................................................................................7:35—8:10 (Brendan Buckley of Johnson Reid) 4. Review / Approve Minutes.....................................................................................................8:10— 8:15 5. Committee Check-in /Downtown Open House Debrief..................................................8:15— 8:25 6. Storefront Improvement Program Status..............................................................................8:25— 8:35 7. Briefing on Construction Projects and 99W Land Use Grant Update..............................8:35— 8:40 8. New Member Orientation........................................................................................................8:40— 8:45 9. Discuss September Meeting Schedule /Training Preview...................................................8:45— 8:50 1.0. Other Business...........................................................................................................................8:50— 8:55 11. Adjourn ......................................................................................................................................8:55 p.m. CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA—August 12, 2009 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page I ofl City Center Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes Date of Meeting: August 12, 2009 Location: Red Rock Creek Conference Room Called to order by: Chair Thomas Murphy Time Started: 6:30 p.m. Time Ended: 9:23 p.m. Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Vice Chair Alexander Craghead;Alice Ellis Gaut; Kevin Kutcher; Peter Louw; Chair Thomas Murphy; Elise Shearer; Martha Wong; Linli Pao (alternate) Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Hughes Others Present: Mike Marr, Matthew Arnold, Brendan Buckley Staff Present: Sean Farrelly, Senior Planner;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions Important Discussion and/or Comments: Introductions were made. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #2: Downtown Circulation Plan Presentation and Discussion Important Discussion and/or Comments: Matthew Arnold of SERA Architects reported that his group last met with the CCAC in June. At that time, they discussed general issues and a general approach for the circulation plan. Since then, they have taken comments from the CCAC and drafted 2 alternative circulation plans. The plans were taken to a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review. Revisions were made after that review. Following that, the plans were taken to a public open house for additional input. The goal tonight is to review the material with the CCAC and get clear direction on some of the decision points. Mr. Arnold reviewed Exhibit A with the Commissioners. The approach the consultants took was to consider where the streets should go and the character of the streets. There had been previous discussion about a sort of regional center at the intersection of Hall and 99W, the Main Street CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 12,2009 Page 1 of 10 Village, the "heart" (Festival Street and plaza), the civic core along Burnham Street, and the residential area along Fanno Creek. Mr. Arnold went over the specifics of the two alternatives. The bike/pedestrian connections shown are approximate; the exact locations would depend on redevelopment. The different street types were identified on the map. In addition to laying out where the streets are, the consultants are trying to determine the street character and therefore their cross sections (how wide the lanes and sidewalks are, how many lanes there are, do they have bike lanes or not). At the CCAC request, the consultants analyzed the property impacts. It doesn't fully measure dollars, but shows which properties and buildings are impacted. One of the primary issues being faced is balancing a 50-year policy and vision for development in the Downtown in terms of transportation infrastructure and existing properties. The consultants have tried to balance out the impacts to existing properties versus where the ideal location might be for a street. Mr. Arnold discussed the differences between the two alternatives. One of the items discussed was connecting Greenburg to Hunziker. Having a straight line from Greenburg to Hunziker doesn't necessarily make sense because of the angle at Hunziker and because we would wipe out some properties and leave some sliver properties. The consultants' approach was to connect Greenburg to Scoffins and create a new connection at the Scoffins/Hunziker intersection. The Ash Street connection is shown on both alternatives. The Ash Street connection to the neighborhood south of the Downtown is on the current Transportation System Plan. It was the consultants' assumption that this will stay. The Ash Street connection provides a decent connection from Greenburg Road into the neighborhood. The character of Ash Street could be modified to allow for higher traffic volumes to Scoffins and Hunziker, but then narrowing the street down in the neighborhood. Alternative #2 has Main Street closed on the block from Greenburg to Scoffins. With the way that intersections work, especially intersections with large traffic volumes, the consultants couldn't find a way to get another intersection so close to the Greenburg/99W intersection. There's not enough queuing/stacking distance to function the way it's designed to do. With this section of Main Street closed, we could keep a bike/pedestrian connection there and some of the adjoining property could be ceded back to the property owners. As far as access into the Main Street area, people would go along the new street extension from Greenburg and turn on Scoffins to Main Street. This alternative may make Main Street more of a destination and may eliminate some of the through traffic. If the Greenburg/Hunziker connection is necessary, this alternative would be a solid way to achieve that. Commissioner Shearer asked why there still couldn't be a right turn only coming down into Main Street, but maybe not exit that direction. Mr. Arnold said that this may be possible, although it would complicate that intersection. This scenario has not been traffic modeled. He will research the question. He noted that the improvements that are already planned for Greenburg and 99W would still happen, because the Greenburg/Hunziker connection wouldn't occur for a long time. CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 12,2009 Page 2 of 10 Mike Marr agreed with Commissioner Shearer. For the sake of businesses, he believes we need the access into the Downtown from that location. Commissioner Shearer noted that this alternative would also affect TriMet service to Washington Square down Greenburg Road. Mr. Arnold advised that from an engineering perspective, the decision would fall to ODOT, and to some degree the City of Tigard, because ODOT will need to consider how that leg of Main Street affects the intersection at 99W. He also advised that TriMet was asked about the bus service. The TriMet representative will do some research and hopefully this issue will be discussed at the next TAC meeting to get some better clarity. Mr. Arnold asked if the Commissioners feel that the Greenburg/Hunziker connection is necessary. Commissioner Louw believes that in the long term interest of a viable Downtown, we should look at it. Main Street is in an awkward place because of the position of the highway; the City would need to decide if we abandon Main Street and a central retail area for the long term and adopt a place parallel to, but further from, Hwy 99W to make it more accessible. Mr. Arnold noted that the intent of this plan, the intent of previous planning efforts, and the code being drafted is to meet the goal for this whole section as a mixed-use urban neighborhood. With this plan, Main Street could still serve as a viable piece of an overall district. He suggests thinking of Main Street as a supporting piece of Scoffins and Commercial. Commissioner Shearer believes the Hunziker/Scoffins connection is important for people who want to access I-5 from Hwy. 99W. Commissioner Craghead thinks that Alternative #2 is more elegant and more equally distributes the roads through the triangle. Alternative #2 also has an additional stretch of road which could be developable storefront property. This additional road doesn't exist in the other model. Mr. Arnold said that this area is a prominent intersection. The extra road may not have storefronts that are built right up to the street; it may be the primary access point for parking as the block redevelops. Commissioner Louw remarked that with traffic on Hall and 99W, it can make access virtually impossible at certain times during the day. Mr. Arnold noted that whatever street connects from Commercial to Scoffins could be carried through and connected to Garden. Connecting to Knoll could also be possible. Chair Murphy asked if the limited access on Main Street shown on Alternative #2 would reduce the amount of vehicular traffic on Main Street. Mr. Arnold said that if Main Street is being used as an alternative route, it would reduce the overall traffic. If Main Street is redeveloped with new restaurants, shops, and housing, the Downtown will be a destination spot and the traffic will be there because it wants to be. Mr. Arnold talked about the proposed road between Scoffins and Commercial. Alternative #1 has smaller blocks between Scoffins and Commercial and has more ways to get to Main Street. Alternative #2 shows much larger redevelopable blocks with pedestrian connections. He asked if the connection between Scoffins and Commercial should be for bikes and pedestrians or should it be a full roadway. As a roadway, it would be a Downtown residential street. It's not meant to carry large volumes — commercial activity should be along Commercial and Scoffins Streets. The CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 12,2009 Page 3 of 10 proposed street wouldn't connect to Hall Blvd. Access would be via Commercial Street. He asked the Commissioners if the blocks should be smaller blocks or should they be larger to give developers more flexibility. Mike Marr said that one idea of the Task Force was to move the post office. One of the proposed streets goes through the post office site. Mr. Arnold said that this plan is predicated by redevelopment; it tells property owners that when they redevelop, they'll be responsible for providing the connection. With regard to the post office, it might be a long time before that property is redeveloped. The consultants will look at the economic implications of full streets versus bike/pedestrian paths in the coming weeks. With development of a "super block," having internal access would be positive. Chair Murphy said he's hesitant to make a choice between the two until he has information on the economic implications. Mr. Arnold commented that larger properties give developers more flexibility. Smaller blocks give the City a better sense of how things are going to develop. We may not necessarily want smaller properties to redevelop in their current configurations. Some degree of property assemblage should be encouraged to get the kind of development we want (mixed use, ground floor commercial, residential above, office space). With regard to the creekside residential area, the exact locations of the roadways may not be as important because they'll serve primarily as an internal function. There's a connection to the Festival Street and a connection to Hall Blvd. There will be pedestrian connections to the creek. The residential area connection to Hall (currently the City Hall driveway) isn't absolutely necessary, but it makes sense, either as a public or a private street. The consultants will talk to ODOT and Kittleson about this at the next TAC meeting. It was suggested that the street have a cul-de-sac at the elbow at City Hall and not connect to Hall Blvd. Chair Murphy noted that if there's going to be as much residential area in Downtown as envisioned, there need to be roads to service it. The choice is whether we dump that new commuter traffic onto existing roads or if we route it another way. He likes the access from the creekside residential area into the Downtown. Commissioner Craghead remarked that as a pedestrian, he doesn't like offset intersections. He does not like the two proposed intersections on Burnham Street being so close together but not meeting. He wonders if it's necessary to nail down the alignment of some of the streets now if they're going to be master planned. Mr. Arnold said that putting the lines in now is a safety net. If a property owner doesn't assemble property and do a master plan, the City could require a master plan of the entire area. That could essentially stunt all development until the master plan is agreed to by property owners. The first property owner can only affect so much land and that's why the City should have a master plan or a fallback position. By having the fallback position now, people can revisit it later if there's a better solution. CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 12,2009 Page 4 of 10 As far as the overall functioning of all of the Downtown planning efforts, getting the Ash Street connection is crucial. The consultants recommend an at-grade railroad crossing on Ash Street. This would allow adjoining parcels to redevelop in a better fashion. They recommended that the City start working with the railroad early. The Commissioners would like to discuss the Greenburg to Hunziker connection more before making a recommendation. They would also like to know the economic impacts before making a final recommendation on the Scoffins to Commercial connection (full road or bike/pedestrian path). Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The consultants will have a TAC meeting in September and will come back to the CCAC at a later date. AGENDA ITEM #3: Tigard Transit Center Feasibility Report Important Discussion and/or Comments: To provide history, Sean Farrelly advised that TriMet had indicated previously that they didn't need the Tigard Transit Center facility anymore. They would have on-street bus stops instead. The City partnered with TriMet and Metro to hire a consultant to look at the possibility of redeveloping the Transit Center into a transit oriented, mixed use, high density project. The adjacent site (Nicoli property) was also included in the study. Brendan Buckley of Johnson Reid reviewed the Tigard Transit Center Feasibility Report (Exhibits B and C) with the Commissioners. He noted that a major assumption in the project was some market stability in commercial real estate. The study looked at 3 different scenarios — 2 development scenarios for the Tigard Transit Center site and 1 for the Nicoli site. [Details, findings, and conclusions for the scenarios are provided in Exhibit C.] Mr. Buckley advised that there were not any live/work spaces in Scenario #2. The live/work spaces tend to assume ground floor access. In Scenario #2, the first and second floors are purely for office/commercial use. If anything happens on the Transit Center site, it's important to TriMet that it involves quite a bit of residential growth. They didn't impose minimums, but they are interested in structured parking solutions as opposed to garden apartments with surface parking. Mr. Buckley said that the proximity to the railroad was factored into the rent assumptions. The recommendations include focusing on smaller sites and projects in the near term, looking at solutions to parking, going ahead with public projects that are already planned, and developing some public incentive programs. [Recommended strategies, policy tools, and incentives are detailed in Exhibit C.] Mr. Buckley said the reason for the 8 bike parking spaces in Scenario #3 has more to do with the Transit Center site. TriMet has goals for the amount of bike parking they want to see. There's no reason more bike parking could not be added. CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 12,2009 Page 5 of 10 If the City would like to partner and participate in a residential catalyst project, Mr. Buckley recommends to not necessarily start with the Transit site because of TriMet's requirement for high density. If we look at smaller sites, talking to non-profits or anyone interested in affordable housing would be a good idea. Mr. Buckley noted that they did not consider retail on ground floor in any of the scenarios for the Transit site because they were concerned about ability of retail to thrive on Commercial Street as opposed to Main Street in the current environment. Mike Marr said that in planning for the future, he envisions Tigard Downtown retail being more than just Main Street, growing the retail out into the middle of the community. Sean Farrelly advised that the Development Code amendments will allow retail anywhere in the Downtown. Staff advised that consideration was given to combining the Transit Center and the Nicoli site; however, Mr. Nicoli wasn't able to fully participate. The original intention was to have one scenario looking at both sites together. We didn't want to spend extra time doing the scenario and then find out that Mr. Nicoli may not be interested. Mr. Nicoli will be provided with the results of the scenario for his site. Mr. Buckley noted that the restrictions on Main Street to keep the Main Street character dictated a different type of building for the Nicoli site. The consultant was asked if there are any statistics on a city spending money for infrastructure development versus reduced fees or tax abatement. In terms of dollar for dollar, what returns the most to the city? Mr. Buckley isn't aware of any available information. Commissioner Louw thinks that if the City is spending a lot of money to develop Main Street and Burnham Street, maybe we would be better off to give the builders some incentive and get a tax base built up. The consultant will research the question. Commissioner Shearer said she would like to get Sheila Greenlaw-Fink's (CPAH) opinion on how the Transit Center might develop with a public/private partnership. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff advised that the Feasibility Report would be presented to Council in 2 weeks. AGENDA ITEM #4: Review / Approve Minutes Important Discussion and/or Comment: Commissioner Pao brought up the following points with regard to the July 8, 2009 minutes: On page 4, bullet #2—when we talked about landscaping in the original document from the last meeting,we hadn't said anything about 15%, we only discussed it in the context of 10%. In this document, the original one from the last meeting,we had talked about 20% in the Fanno/Burnham subarea, but that's not here. When we reviewed it the first time around and picking which CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 12,2009 Page 6 of 10 alternative to endorse, that had been one of the criteria. The minutes don't reflect what the exception of the Fanno/Burnham area is. The recording confirmed the 10-15% landscaping comment; however, there was no mention of what the exception percentage would be for the Fanno/Burnham area. The minutes were not changed. On page 5, bullet #3 — for minimum rear setback requirement, Commissioner Barkley had talked about the checkerboard situation of properties. It isn't noted, but it had taken up quite a bit of time and there was a lot of discussion, so it should be noted somewhere in the notes to reflect that. The minutes were amended to add the sentences: Given the uneven property lines, having a 20' setback could create a checkerboard situation, and seems to be unworkable. We really_ didn't want the setback,we wanted the alley. If we want the alley, then why are we asking for a setback? It was also noted that Commissioner Wong abstained instead of voting no. That change was also made. On page 6, bullet #5 — Ralph had opposed that, the note was that the motion passed unanimously, but he had made a point to say that he opposed it and hopes the record could reflect his opposition. There were no recorded comments from Commissioner Hughes for this item; however, he did vote no on the motion. The minutes were amended to reflect his vote. On page 6, bullet #6 — Beginning with the sentence, Sean believes .... During the previous working session, we had said we would really like to see the parking study and then we said we'd look at the emergency funds that we might be able to shift around and get that to happen. Last meeting, we had said that it wasn't going to happen anytime soon, because those funds don't exist. It's not so much that the issue isn't a pressing issue, it's that we don't have the funding for it. It was suggested that perhaps the entire sentence could be taken out. There were no recorded comments about funding. The minutes were amended to add the sentence: At the last working session, the Commissioners had stated that they wanted to have the parking study done sooner. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): As noted above. AGENDA ITEM #5: Committee Check-in /Downtown Open House Debrief Important Discussion and/or Comments: There was discussion about the open house. Commissioners Shearer and Wong were at the facade table. They had about 6 people stop by. One of the people works at the stationery store and seemed pretty interested in the facade program. Sean Farrelly advised that post cards about the open house were sent to all Downtown business and CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 12,2009 Page 7 of 10 property owners and people on the interested parties list. Also, there was a story in the Times newspaper. Commissioner Craghead advised that he was at the design guidelines station. For the most part, the Downtown people who showed up seemed to be interested in the guidelines. It was noted that the circulation plan seemed to receive the most interest. The bicyclists were out in force and wanted to know about the circulation plan and what's being planned for Main Street, Hall & 99W, and Greenburg & 99W. Chair Murphy believes they will be a very vocal contingent on anything we do on transportation. One person expressed interest in looking at bike lanes on Main Street. Chair Murphy asked the Commissioners if they saw the letter of support that he emailed to the group. Commissioner Barkley advised that it's 14.7 miles of commuter rail instead of 16 miles. In the second to last paragraph, the word should be contribute rather than contribution. It was suggested to re-word the sentence about the Fanno Creek Trail meeting Main Street in 2 locations (north & south sides of the streets). It was noted that this is an off-set intersection; the two sides of the trail don't meet at Main Street in the same location. Staff advised that this is 2 different projects —one is the Rail to Trail project, the other is the Fanno Creek Trail project. It was decided that as long as the project description in the letter is accurate, it would be alright to authorize the Chair to sign the letter. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #6: Storefront Improvement Program Status Important Discussion and/or Comments: Sean Farrelly advised that the consultant has been chosen for this project. LRS Architects will be on retainer to do up to 4 designs for interested property owners. The subcommittee will be meeting with them in September and the CCAC will most likely meet with them in October. One project will be chosen to receive a grant for half the cost of the project. Information about the program will be sent to property owners. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #7: Briefing on Construction Projects and 99W Land Use Grant Update Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chair Murphy asked if the Commissioners had seen the memo from Sean Farrelly on the update for Downtown projects. With regard to the comment about there being room for an entryway feature at the Hwy 99W/Greenburg and Hall intersections, Commissioner Shearer thinks we should be planning now for access to the utilities for future gateway construction. CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 12,2009 Page 8 of 10 It was advised that the public hearing with the Planning Commission on the design code will be held on October 19th. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff was asked to check with Kim McMillan to make sure that appropriate arrangements have been made to stub out any utilities we would need for the gateway feature. AGENDA ITEM #8: New Member Orientation Important Discussion and/or Comments: Commissioner Shearer was designated to be in charge of this project. She provided a list of suggested orientation packet materials (Exhibit D). Chair Murphy suggested that the Commissioners review it and direct any feedback to Commissioner Shearer. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The Commissioners were asked to give Commissioner Shearer a list of 1-3 things that they would have liked to have received as a new Commissioner. AGENDA ITEM #9: Discuss September Meeting Schedule /Training Preview Important Discussion and/or Comments: There is a training session scheduled for September 9th with Elaine Cogan, from 6:00-9:00 p.m. Sean Farrelly handed out a questionnaire for the Commissioners to fill out and return to him within a week. The responses to the questionnaire will help the consultant to plan the training session. The Commissioners decided they would like Sean to attend the training session. There will be a business meeting on September 16th. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #10: Other Business Important Discussion and/or Comments: There will be a University of Oregon presentation on Hwy. 99W, on Thursday, August 13th, at 5:00 p.m., at the old White Stag building in Portland. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #9: Adjournment Important Discussion and/or Comments: None Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 12,2009 Page 9 of 10 jerree Lewis, CCAC Secretary ATTEST: Chair Thomas Murphy CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 12,2009 Page 10 of 10 1 Memo Date: August 5, 2009 Project Name: Downtown Tigard Circulation Study Project Number: 091381 Attention: Sean Farrelly Subject: CCAC Discussion Points Remarks: The project team would like to present and discuss the following items with the CCAC at their August 12, 2009 meeting.We understand that we have approximately one hour of the committee's time. • A recap of the study's process-to-date • Review the connectivity concept alternatives o Connectivity Plan o Character Classifications o Property Impacts Potential questions for the CCAC will include: • Greenburg to Hunziker connection(Alternative 2) o What are the impacts to Main Street? o How does the character of Ash Street change with this connection? o Does the proposed connection in Alternative 1 sufficiently meet the latent demand for this community-wide connection? • New connection between Scoffins and Commercial(traveling left-right between Main Street and roughly Hall Boulevard) o Should this connection be a road or a bicycle/pedestrian connection? o How should access for emergency vehicles be addressed for this area? • Location of"Garden Extension" - the north-south street between Scoff ins and Commerical that directly connects to Garden Street in Alternative 1 o What are the benefits/drawbacks of each potential alignment? • Creekside Residential Area(south of Burnham between Ash Street and Hall Boulevard) o Should streets and pathways be more or less defined in this area? • Green Streets o Does the CCAC want to establish "green streets"as a stormwater management policy and require all new streets to have green stormwater features? o What are the benefits/drawbacks of green streets? 338 NW 5TH AVENUE PORTLAND OR 97209 T 503.445.7372 F 503.445.7395 SERAPDX.COM 1 2 • Pedestrian Connections o How should pedestrian connections be addressed as part of the connectivity plan? ■ Development code? ■ Specific alignments? ■ Specific designs for sub-districts and/or adjacent land uses? From: Allison Wildman and Matthew Arnold Cc: 338 NW 5TH AVENUE PORTLAND OR 97209 T 503.445.7372 F 503.445.7395 SERAPDX CONI 2 3 ..c... G4fFy9L4 r IOMi'A 0 9 IoNAL M I x E D VSE A ti uIz6AN RESIDENTIAL „ N E I r H Ba ,H Qop i „ THE � tHEA AT „ % � 3 � r ` C- OLEEK sI ve f RE S 1 1> 0;"JT IAL pe Sud p1�9 -r >Lir. BASE MAP -160 600 .. 11 0 .. Fees 3 a CONCEPTUAL DRAFT �q FF C yy�► s DFJ+ 0Z t ♦ E, . I�q'g0♦♦♦ •C �j A sff'/ � ♦♦ :b .n � `� sc+ `♦* _ t ' � 's. - KNOLL r k.. J As adopted in the correnl Tigard T•ansprxlatrnn ;gs:em Plan tTSP) r LEGEND 7 fpr t>_ Existing street Ipublic righl-obway Proposed street — Proposed alley Existing bicycle and pedestrian connection r r __—• Proposed bitycle and pedestrian connection-fixed alignment ......• Proposed bicycle and pedesbian connection-exact location to be determined upon redevelopment Exislin public transd center and WES I mmuter Rail station / �• MaTOM-Mmuz2graw—jim,MIT r s CONCEPTUAL DRAFT I a . .. ....... ... .+ :L A i ec' r H r 4�. Fr ,� ' T > As4ftted+t dte`, current Tigard Transpotation System Plan(TSP)y LEGEND ¢ } Character Classification Main Street Green Street - '� Downtown Mixed Use 1 "` - Downtown Mixed Use 2 Downtown Collednr Urban Residential r_ Festival Street 10 a� Upper Hall Boulevard Alley _ ":• •••_,•• BikelPedesUlanConnection Multi-Uso trail O Existing public transit center and WES Commuter Rail station _ CONCEPTUAL Street Character Classification -Alternative 1 Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan Project 7.29.09 e xrmale Area Approximate 'Impact 10 Number OwApprO ner oflx—heAMPKI Percentage of Existing Yrapetly Affmled me(s)2 1 Prudence Miler Trust _ 17.600 33%_ Yes 2 Michael and Kay Sievenson 17.900 9`L No 3 16 Oak Hill Umited Panneiship 19,100 55% Yes 4 P.�gt.Sleve•s i.400 26% No 5 Charles BNler6eld.M. 5,000 29% Yes 6 Wilha-a^d�ierc DzvnP,Orn 1,400 44% No 'pr 7 Wiliam and Dixie Davidson 16,800 22% Yes i N S;oO.ns SUeel lnveslmenl Co. 1,300 7A% k4ayha .p6, ;� 9 BSM Really 13.310 12% Yes ` . - 1C Jawe LLC&Nathan Jeffrey I I.0 lAlOertsonsl 23,000 20% ves - 11 DRL LLC 800 216 ves 12 [)and and Kathleen Leary 3J00 14% N0 13 Gary and krdy Craghead 6.900 35% Yes 14 The Amen can Le3on 20,91^0 47% ves V, D39d SKkles .._ _. -_ _ 17,300 477, Yes 7r Jr.' lt ITneresa D he RPV Lv Toil 4,400 8% Yes « -.•� a 17 Magno I LC 75,600 33% Yes 18 Carl H Johnson f amrly I P II 71,SIr0 3S% No 14 Cay of Tigard 11,_000 10% No 2C. Ctp Ol ligaC -- IGI�____ = 1% Yes \ t0 i 21 _ Barham Business and Storage 25,600 1 11% Yes . \ 22 Veizon A 400 (r� yes ► - ' 23 CityOf Tiafd -- -- 24,200 1% Yes--_ �-' A il.gmo r1ata LLC 18.'.00 tis ye. �f_ 1 B Wells GargO Bank 14,000 33% Yes \\ \ T �L rh \ Td/' 21 �M 400 'ilk :M 4 .y LEGEND — � Impacted Taxbts r s 'f, �,,,,• :R. ProposedD. Property Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan 8.5.09 7 CONCEPTUAL DRAFT 00 f,. E Oa09 ♦` �'•� sc�F✓ a fi l♦ y \y • As adopted,in Ihz" curreim Tigard Transpo talion pg System Plan(TSP)" LEGEND Exi•;tmq street I public righbof-way Proposedstreel Proposed alley Exisling bicycle and pedesldan Proposed big.}cle ana pedestrian _ COnnr_11011 %_d alignme"I ......• Prora,,ed b,'yclr,arc pedestnaa +- • a�a` connection-exact location to be deteri mined iipoi redevelopment 0 Existing public lranSlt center and - �! WES Comnniler Rail station CONCEPTUAL Downtown Connectivity 8 CONCEPTUAL DRAFT x. 4. Lb �/ �i cq - �y6 G,p - / sc , s r_ / r A 'lap ^� . As adopted in Ow T Transporra.on Srem Plan ASFI LEGEND Character Classification Y n, Main Street Green Street aaar• Downtown Mixed Use t Downtown Mixed Use 7 Duwmown Collector Urban Rcsidenoal 10 r_ Festival Street Upper Hall Bailevard Aky ••.•... Bike/PedesbianConnection Mulb-Use!rail OExisting public transit center and WES Commuter Rail station CONCEPTUAL Street Character Classification Plan-Alternative 2 DowntownTigard Connectivity Plan Project 7.29.09 9 (12 Owner P ' -j�" r.Approximate Area of pproximato hqWteImpact fSFI ercenlProperly Affected StmKlure(s)9Pnldence M&,Twist 17600 33% YesIdK11,1 and Kay Stevenson 17900 9°rc No1B Oak Hill Lnd Panner - 19 700 55% YesPage S!evcr 1400 26f: NoWhamarrJ D-.ie Davidson 4.500 26f Ma3UM HWdir�ys 2,00 No USPS _ 10.200 13% NaUSPS 1n 000 46% NoBSM Really 13,300 12% YesJasue LLC 8 Nathan-Jeffrey LLC(AJ6ensons) 44.100 38f Yes G'Gary L 8 Cadae C Haagen TRS -�DR'_LLC 9.100 22% 1'es '. . (22 The American Legion 20.900 O-t. Yes - Daniel Sickles _ _ 12 300 42�: Yes Theresa Drbb Rev Lry Trust 4.400 18% Yes Magno LLC 25800 33% Yes Cad H JoM.n FamilyLP II 11.600 35% No Qty of[,gard 1/000 107, No _ ofTgard 16.200 11% Yes Burtkim& ness and Star.,ge 25600 115E Yes 12Venzon 28.400 10% Yes LOQty of Tiga,d 24200 7% Yes Tigard Plaza LC 18,100 6% Yes e B JWeU,Farga Ba,* 14000 33% Yes lies '13 � c, # ,♦ Y 41 e� 4 _ \ \ 15 No `b tN df "' LEGEND Impaoted Taxlots r 10' 10' setback 98' ROW setback Hall :om• Y t � lllllRll i mixed use residential 10' - 12' 8' 11' : l I 10' - 12' mixed use residential 58' - 62' ROW Downtown Mixed Use 1 78' - 82' ROW Mixed Use 2 - Downtown Collector M1 "�,;,•� '�` mow., ,. n, residential 12' 8' 12' 8' 12' residential 52' ROW mow— UrbanResidential i i Green Alley 14 a i 'i • •e • �Y a'C , .Tf' tet• r.. '.M♦. 'i�y�"'.f� i r. •. 1. "d -� ( �1 18' 7' 18• 7' 18' ROW 30' ROW : doCorridor 2 C�Y11 V � Development Opportunity Study Downtown Tigard Johnson Reid, LLC SERA Architects PORTLAND The Spalding Build 319 SW Washingling Sude 1020 Portland,07 97206 503 295-7832 Development Opportunity Study • Is development feasible? • What land uses? • What building forms? • Preliminary pre-development analysis • Site planning and design • Pro forma financial analysis • Assumption of stable market Study Sites •♦ 5 ♦ s. WES Rail cod Station ♦ i ♦ �0r Feel ♦ Development Scenario 1 Tigard Transit Center Site SERA Architects 2 Development Scenario 1 • Residential use • 67 Units • 60,700 s.f. • Podium parking SERA Architects Development Scenario 2 Tigard Transit Center Site "W ill 111111LEMMI 9 SERA Architects :3 Development Scenario 2 • Residential/ Office Uses • 35 Units • 49,700 s.f. • Tuck under parking Findings: Scenario 1 & 2 • Low feasibility in near- to mid-term Challenges • Structured Parking • Five-story wood design • Current rent levels 4 Development Scenario 3 Nicoli Site ■ SERA Architects Development Scenario 3 • Mixed uses • 18,000 s.f. office • 5,500 s.f. retail IL• Surface parking + I --i- iimb SERA Archit 5 Findings: Scenario 3 • Feasible, with below optimal return Advantages • Surface Parking • Three-story wood design • Commercial rent levels Implications of Findings • Likely development forms: next 10 years • "Low-rise" development lr, i, # sne 111 as; t 6 Implications of Finding • Three to four stories possible • Surface parking • Mixed uses " ! K • Density = Recommendations • Focus on smaller sites/projects (near term) - Transit Center Site • Parking solutions - Reduced parking ratios - Public parking lot, street parking - Shared parking • Consider "phased development" 7 Recommendations (Cont.) • Move forward with public projects • Design public incentive programs Policy Tools and Incentives • Range from indirect to direct measures • Varying public and private costs • Regulatory measures - Zoning changes (permissive/restrictive) - Design standards - SDC, fee waivers • Property tax abatement Policy Tools and Incentives (Cont.) • Land assembly • New market, and Low Income Housing tax cred its • Direct public participation - Grants - Loans - Urban Renewal, improvement district Development Opportunity Study Downtown Tigard Johnson Reid, LLC SERA Architects PORTLAND The Spalding Building 319 SW Washington,Suite 1020 Portland,OR 97204 503 295-7832 9 JOHNSON REI D LAND USE ECONOMICS REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY DOWNTOWN TIGARD PREPARED FOR: THE CITY OF TIGARD TRIMET METRO BY: JOHNSON REID LLC SERA ARCHITECTS H&A CONSTRUCTION 319 SW WASHINGTON SUITE 1020 PORTLAND,OR 97204 503/295-7832 503/295-1107(FAx) JOHNSON REID LAND USE ECONOMICS CONTENTS I. Introduction........................................................................... i II. Summary of Study Findings................................................... 3 A. Study Sites.........................................................................................3 B. Location ............................................................................................4 C. Current Development Forms............................................................4 D. General Findings...............................................................................5 E. Cost Considerations..........................................................................7 F. Revenue Considerations...................................................................8 G. Conclusions.......................................................................................9 III. Urban Development and Redevelopment (Overview) ...........1.i. A. Overview of the Development Process...........................................11 B. Financial Feasibility.......................................................................11 C. Parking............................................................................................12 D. Construction Types.........................................................................13 E. Return on Risk.................................................................................13 F. Scale................................................................................................14 G. Timing.............................................................................................14 H. Redevelopment Considerations......................................................14 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................i7 A. What Development Types are Feasible in Downtown Tigard?.....17 B. Recommended Strategies...............................................................19 C. Policy Tools for Achieving "Town Center"Development Types....21 319 SW WASHINGTON SUITE 1020 PORTLAND,OR 97204 503/295-7832 503/295-1107(FAX) Adrlbk I. INTRODUCTION JOHNSON REID was retained to prepare analysis of three Development Opportunity scenarios in Downtown Tigard,with accompanying design work from SERA Architects,and construction costing provided by H&A Construction. A Development Opportunity Study (DOS) is an analysis of one or more specific sites which are judged potential candidates for development. The DOS is designed to determine if development is feasible on the site, and if so what type of development. To this end, some of the steps of a typical pre-development due-diligence are carried out, including analysis of the real estate market, preliminary design and site planning,and modeling of the financial performance of the hypothetical development. The primary objectives of the assignment were as follows: ■ Design and test development scenarios which would provide examples of the type of building form and design envisioned for Downtown Tigard, as the revitalized heart of the community. Planning efforts in the Downtown call for increased density, mixed-uses and transit-oriented design. Projects like those modeled here would serve as catalysts for greater private development in the future. ■ Based on the development models, provide analysis of existing market conditions, opportunities and constraints that will impact these development types in the study area. ■ Provide recommendations for regulatory and financial incentives which will improve the feasibility of dense, transit-oriented development on the site. This memorandum presents a summary and explanation of the study's findings, followed by a discussion of the implications of the study for development in Downtown Tigard over the coming years,and strategies and recommendations for moving forward with the Downtown vision. In collaboration with representatives from the City of Tigard, TriMet and Metro, Johnson Reid LLC and SERA Architects designed and modeled three separate development Scenarios — two for the Tigard Transit Center Site,and one for the adjacent Nicoli Site. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 2 11. SUMMARY OF STUDY FINDINGS This section summarizes the major findings of this Development Opportunities Study. See Appendix A for detailed presentation of each individual case study, as well as the assumptions and methodology used. A. Study Sites The subjects of this Development Opportunity Study are two adjacent parcels located in Downtown Tigard. The Downtown area has been the subject of intensive visioning and planning efforts in recent years,aimed at revitalizing the area and re-establishing it as the heart of the community. In 2006,voters adopted a Central City Urban Renewal Area to help make the vision a reality. The location of these sites in the center of the Downtown planning area, combined with potential owner interest in redevelopment, make them compelling redevelopment studies. From the public perspective, the goal of redevelopment would be to encourage more density and mixed-uses in keeping with the long-term vision for the district, both to set an example of building form and catalyze future development. The sites examined here are the Tigard Transit Center site, located on SW Commercial Street and the adjacent "Nicoli" site located to the northwest, on the corner of SW Commercial and Main Streets. The sites are located adjacent to the new Westside Express Service commuter rail stop, which runs from Wilsonville to the south,to Beaverton to the north. FIGURE 2.1:STUDY SITES,AERIAL VIEW ♦ INc '4r WES c Rail Station ♦` IVY ♦ f^ ♦ N. FMI ` 0 37 S 75 150 725 J00 ` Source: Metro RLIS, Johnson Reid LLC DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 3 B. Location As noted above, the Downtown Tigard area is the focus of concerted planning efforts and community interest in creating a denser, more vital, mixed-use heart for the community. Downtown Tigard is located to the south of Highway 99 West, near the confluence of Highway 217 and I-5. In addition, it has the benefit of a WES commuter rail stop and multiple bus lines. Accordingly,the sites are well situated to enjoy ready access from the rest of Tigard and beyond. FIGURE 2.2:STUDY SITES,LOCATION CONTEXT 217 Beaverton I P 99 ITnilg8 = Study Sites Lake Dswego King C' A Durhi Source: Metro RLIS, Johnson Reid LLC The study sites are located 500 feet south of Highway 99W and enjoy some visibility from the highway overpass (where it passes over the commuter and freight rail line). The sites are accessible from Main Street which connects to the highway at signalized intersections to the east and west. SW Hall Blvd.brings traffic from Tualatin and Durham to the south. C. Current Development Forms Currently,the downtown area is characterized by older, low-rise development of a wide mixture of uses. Retail and commercial services dominate Main Street, including auto-oriented shopping centers on the north end,and more traditional storefront buildings on the street itself. Legacy industrial uses are prevalent to the southeast and near the rail line. The City owns significant land in the south end of the Downtown where the City Hall and public works departments are located. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 4 Some multi-family residential uses exist in the form of smaller apartment complexes and a mobile home park near the center of the district, but the addition of residential density remains a key goal of the long term vision for the district. There has been little recent redevelopment in Downtown Tigard, and no clear examples of the type of dense, transit-oriented and/or mixed-use form envisioned for the district's future. The development prototypes presented in this Development Opportunity Study would represent a new model and hopeful catalyst for denser transit-oriented development. D. General Findings The scenarios evaluated varied in their viability,with the provision of structured parking generally being the biggest stumbling block. In general,Scenarios 1 &2 on the Transit Center Site were found to face significant barriers to feasibility as modeled, due to their overall size and need for structured parking. Scenario 3 addressing the Nicoli Site was much closer to feasibility. The basic proposed development programs for the three Scenarios: ■ Scenario 1 on the Tigard Transit Center site is a large multi-family residential building. The development modeled is five stories in total, consisting of four stories of rental apartments, over a ground floor of parking with additional housing units fronting Commercial Avenue. The ground floor parking is beneath a concrete podium, which supports the wood-framed construction above. ■ Scenario 2 is also on the Tigard Transit Center site. This scenario models the development of a multi-use office and residential project on the site. The building is roughly 22%smaller than the Scenario 1 development. This allows for the structured ground-floor parking of Scenario 1 to be replaced with a less expensive combination of uncovered surface parking, and"tuck-under"parking. ■ Scenario 3 models the development of a three story mixed-use structure on the Nicoli Site, featuring retail use on the ground floor,and office use above. The renderings on the following page depict the three scenarios. While there are material differences between Scenarios 1 and 2, they both feature large, five-story buildings with parking underneath. Scenario three is a smaller three-story mixed-use structure with surface parking. These characteristics give an indication of what type of development is currently feasible in the area,and what might be feasible in the future. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 5 FIGURE 2.3:SCENARIO 1,TIGARD TRANSIT CENTER SITE tan! i 11 !I 11H Sera Architects FIGURE 2.4:SCENARIO 2,TIGARD TRANSIT CENTER SITE Sera Architects FIGURE 2.5:SCENARIO 3,NICOLI SITE P f f I 1 ■I Sera Architects DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY lerlhL FIGURE 2.6:DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY SCENARIOS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Building Size: 95,200 74,500 25,500 # of Floors: 5 5 3 Parking Spaces: 62 62 12 Bike Parking Spaces: 80 60 8 Residential Units: 67 35 0 Residential Square Footage: 60,650 33,120 0 Office Square Footage: 0 16,500 18,000 Retail Square Footage: 0 0 5,500 E. Cost Considerations The findings indicate that the challenge to feasibility represents a basic imbalance between high cost factors of the larger building type, and currently achievable rents in the market area. The analysis identified the most significant cost challenges: ■ Structured Parking: The parking design used in Scenario 1, placing most parking under the building, on the ground floor, is a more expensive form of parking than simple surface parking. This type of structured parking requires a concrete podium above, and various measures to separate the parking space from the occupied space, for safety reasons. Using Scenario 2 as a comparison,which uses a simpler"tuck under" parking design, Scenario 1's parking design adds an estimated 10%to 15%to the building hard costs. The increase over surface parking is even more significant. While "tuck-under" parking as used in Scenario 2 does offer some cost savings over a concrete podium design, there are still additional costs associated with it relative to basic uncovered surface parking. ■ Five Stories: Scenarios 1 & 2 propose wood-framed structures that are five stories in height. The construction contractor reports that three floors over a podium is much more common than four stories. The additional floor adds some additional costs both in design, to support the extra weight and adjust for settling, and logistically, in the type of crane and other equipment needed to complete the final floor. ■ Site Configuration: The Tigard Transit Center site is long and narrow,which leads to a long and narrow building design. This basic form of building increases the exterior surface area relative to the amount of leasable space it contains, and therefore exterior costs are more expensive relative to revenue generating area. In this regard, the Scenario 2 design is less "efficient"than the Scenario 1 design. ■ Current Use: While the current use on the Nicoli Site is aging, and perhaps functionally obsolete, it does have current tenants and has residual economic value. The "land cost" DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 7 factored into this pro forma analysis must reflect the opportunity cost of eliminating this current use and its residual value. ■ Demolition and Site Preparation: While the overall cost of demolition and site preparation is lower for the Nicoli Site than the Tigard Transit Center site, it is more expensive relative to the amount of leasable space produced as a result. Therefore, these expenses make up a relatively larger portion of the overall construction cost. ■ Elevator. Similarly, Scenario 3 calls for one elevator, which is relatively expensive considering the smaller size of the building. ■ Green Features: Without a greater level of design specificity than was possible in this type of study, it is difficult to estimate the cost of specific green features in a building's design. The cost estimates used here include the landscaped common deck areas in Scenario's 1 & 2. However, to further estimate the cost of green features in these developments, H&A Construction points to a general industry standard of 5% additional hard cost in seeking LEED Silver rating. This 5% premium was not included in the base cost estimates used here. [Note on Cost Estimates: Cost estimates for this project were supplied by a third-party construction contractor with experience in building these types of projects. The accuracy of such estimates varies depending on the specificity of the design plans the contractor has to work from. The scope of this project allowed for the development of two-dimensional site plans and basic "three dimensional" building elevations. Plans at this level of specificity require significant assumptions on the part of the construction contractor to estimate cost. In JOHNSON REID's experience, this sometimes leads to estimates which depict the costs as somewhat higher than could actually be achieved. It is prudent for the cost estimator to assume costs might be higher than anticipated rather than lower,faced with a lack of specificity. Therefore there is some reason to believe that the cost estimates presented here may be high. Unfortunately, even if this were true in this case, the costs would have to be significantly lower(on the order of 40% to 50% lower) to make change the basic conditions of infeasibility found here for Scenarios 1 and 2. Therefore, even if we assume that cost estimates are somewhat elevated, reducing them even 20%would not change the material findings. However, lower cost assumptions would have a positive effect on other potential Downtown development forms,as discussed in a following section.] F. Revenue Considerations Currently the Downtown Tigard market area features moderate achievable rent levels compared to other parts of the Metro area. While achievable revenues are lower than in some markets,they are not among the lowest. The following table presents a summary of rent assumptions used in this analysis. Income and sales assumptions were based upon the professional opinion of JOHNSON REID, reflecting surveys of properties in the market area. These assumptions necessarily assume a fairly generic product. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 8 As with most assumptions used in this analysis, the estimated achievable rents assume a return to more stable real estate market conditions in the Metro area, as opposed to the current highly- stressed market conditions. FIGURE 2.7: RENT ASSUMPTIONS ProductType Income Assumption Rental Apartments Live/Work $0.99/s.f./mo. One Bedroom $1.07/s.f./mo. Two Bedroom $1.03/s.f./mo. Three Bedroom $0.95/s.f./mo. Average: $1.04/s.f./mo Office Lease Rates(NNN,Annual): $15/s.f. Retail Lease Rates(NNN,Annual): $16/s.f NNN: Refers to a "triple net' lease in which the tenant is responsible for building expenses in addition to rent,such as utilities and property tax. ■ In general, rent levels are not sufficient to support the type of large developments modeled in Scenarios 1 & 2, particularly with the need for more expensive parking solutions. However, rent assumptions were sufficient to support the smaller mixed-use/storefront development in Scenario 3. ■ Based on the cost estimates used in this study, achievable rents would have to be substantially higher to support the type of development modeled in the first two scenarios. ■ The currently achievable rent levels in Tigard suggest that some type of public investment would most likely be necessary to achieve these development types. As with many Metro locations,density will become more feasible in the long term,as achievable rents rise. G. Conclusions The analysis prepared for this Development Opportunity Study suggests that one of the three case studies examined produced a feasible result. Both scenarios proposed for the Tigard Transit Center site were too expensive to provide positive value at the achievable rent levels. While this study presupposed that some feasibility gap would exist, which might require public partnership to fill, the size of the gap identified is very sizeable and points to the difficulties that dense transit- oriented development of this scale will face at the site for the foreseeable future. However,the results of this analysis do help establish the parameters of what types of development are likely to be viable in Downtown Tigard in a five-to-ten year period. While they may not be quite DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 9 Aerlikk on the scale of the developments modeled in the first two scenarios of this analysis, smaller mixed- use development,such as the project modeled in Scenario 3 on the Nicoli Site,will be more feasible and can help Tigard move towards its goals of density and form. The following sections discuss some of the implications of the study for development in Downtown Tigard over the coming years, and strategies and recommendations for moving forward with the Downtown vision. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 10 III. URBAN DEVELOPMENTAND REDEVELOPMENT(OVERVIEW) This section provides an overview of the considerations and challenges which face development projects in an established town center environment vs.a low-density or "green field" development. Some of these factors impact the feasibility of the specific development models studied, but they also provide important background on the issues which will affect development in Downtown Tigard in general. An understanding of these issues helps the community make strategic planning and development decisions. A. Overview of the Development Process B. Financial Feasibility C. Parking D. Construction Types E. Return on Risk F. Scale G. Timing H. Redevelopment Considerations A. Overview of the Development Process The private sector development process is a largely rational and, therefore, largely predictable response to market and regulatory conditions. Developers serve as the primary drivers of the development process, typically initiating land development. The developer makes a living through managing risk, evaluating the probable financial return on a project in light of assumed risk. Developers cannot be expected to initiate a development in which the risk-to-return ratio is not compelling. Both lenders and equity contributors will also evaluate any development opportunity proposed by a developer using similar criteria. The"market" is the customer or end-user in the development process,and will largely dictate to the developer what is marketable and what will be paid for the end product (either through purchase price or lease rate). Governmental agencies typically define the legal and bureaucratic process under which entitlements are granted (or purchased), and can influence the marketplace by incentives or restrictions. B. Financial Feasibility Private sector development activity reflects the management of perceived risks and returns. Anticipated return rates are typically generated using pro forma financial analyses, which forecast costs and revenues associated with specific developments. Developers use a broad range of approaches in preparing their financial analyses, with a number of financial return measures commonly used to evaluate the viability of projects. Financial feasibility represents the most reliable predictor of developer activity, but by no means a perfect one. As a result, financial viability was a principal focus of our analysis, which includes the use of prototypical pro forma analysis applied to specific examples to evaluate financial feasibility of certain densities and land uses. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY Z 1 C. Parking The cost of structured parking is the most significant limitation cited with respect to achieving higher densities.The cost of this type of parking usually substantially exceeds what can be justified on a financial basis by any associated revenue gain in most locations. Development in the Downtown Tigard area has relied on surface parking. The cost of structured parking ranges from approximately $25,000 per space for above-ground structures to over$35,000 for subterranean spaces.These costs can be recovered in areas in which substantial parking fees can be collected, such as downtown Portland, but cannot be justified (without subsidy) in most situations elsewhere in the Metro area. Where land values are low, surface parking is substantially less expensive to provide. As land values climb, use of the land for surface parking becomes more expensive, and structured solutions become more competitive. Land values in suburban locations are typically well below what would be necessary for structured parking to represent the highest and best use of a site. As a result, surface parking generally represents the most cost effective way to provide parking, assuming the site allows for a surface parking solution. Based on previous analysis completed by Johnson Reid, structured parking does not become competitive with surface parking until land values approach$65 per square foot. ■ There are some specialized situations in which structured parking becomes more viable in suburban locations. o The first of these is when there is no other plausible option for providing parking, and the parking is required for a high-value land use. For example, structured parking is often viable near regional shopping malls or hospitals, which generate a substantial area- specific premium. o There are also situations in which site slope conditions and other factors allow for a limited level of structured parking spaces. One example would be if grading or foundation requirements leave unused space suitable for tuck-under parking.As another example, one level of underground parking can be achieved at a lower cost ($10,000 per space) if a multi-story building has to dig a hole anyway to provide an adequate foundation. ■ Structured parking lots can offer covered and secured spaces, as well as direct entry to buildings. These characteristics often can yield a premium in achievable lease rates, allowing for partial cost recovery. In residential townhouse developments, secure, direct access parking can yield a substantial premium. ■ Parking is viewed as a necessary asset to lease space, and developers will pay what is necessary to provide adequate parking, in order to support an existing or proposed development. ■ The allocation of costs to parking is difficult, as the garage often contains structural improvements necessary for the remainder of the project. The allocation of land costs between parking and other improvements can also vary. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 12 From a revenue perspective, the degree to which a developer can recapture the cost of parking through direct parking charges is limited in suburban locations. Suburban office space does not typically charge directly for parking, although the number of required parking spaces is often included in lease negotiations. From a market perspective, structured parking is unlikely to represent a viable development form in Downtown Tigard at this time without public participation. D. Construction Types Higher-density development typically requires changes in construction types, which can yield higher costs per unit. In the case of both office and residential development, wood-frame construction represents the lowest cost per square foot for new space. Construction costs per square foot tend to increase as densities increase, with higher costs associated with shifts to concrete and steel construction. In general, the increase in either sales price or achievable lease rates associated with alternative construction type is insufficient to offset the higher costs. The key benefit from a financial perspective of changing densities through construction type is a higher yield, in terms of leasable square footage or units, associated with a particular land parcel. As a result, higher underlying land values (indicating higher achievable rents) can change the financial equation to favor higher density development forms. The development of mid-rise apartments under current land prices can be difficult to attain in suburban markets. This analysis finds that currently rent levels in Downtown Tigard are insufficient to support mid-rise construction,even if it maintains wood framing. While a regulatory action setting minimum densities that precluded low-rise apartments makes mid-rise construction the (only viable) highest and best use of the property, no development activity would be expected to occur without substantive subsidy. Rising achievable lease rates will cause mid-rise development to make financial sense over the long run,but precluding development until rent levels rise will not support the current development and vitality necessary to increase the neighborhood amenity level to where the higher rents are viable. A possible solution to this fundamental problem is potentially a requirement for"shadow platting", in which a development proposal must show a viable phasing solution to a higher density form over time. This allows for an interim development consistent with current market conditions while not precluding a more intensive development if supported at a later time period. E. Return on Risk Urban and redevelopment projects are often perceived to have a greater level of risk, necessitating a higher level of return for some developers. Particular problems can include difficulty in construction (staging, conflict with existing uses) and the relatively high soft costs associated with complex projects with limited scale. In addition, developers cite interaction with jurisdictional planning efforts as sometimes representing an additional layer of entitlement risk and bureaucracy. There are developers willing to accept lower initial rates of return for urban projects, on the anticipation that barriers to entry in these areas will allow for better long-term returns. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 13 The primary impact of a relatively high perceived level of risk is that developers demand a higher rate of return. The demand for a higher return puts downward pressure on the acceptable cost of the project. As costs rise,the return diminishes and the project may become unattractive. F. Scale The scale of most infill and redevelopment opportunities is limited, while the complexity can be substantially higher.This increases soft costs relative to the overall level of investment, decreasing yield. Soft costs include the following basic categories: ■ Architectural and Engineering ■ Developer Fee ■ Construction Interest ■ Legal ■ Market Analysis ■ Bank Fees/Appraisal ■ Permits&Fees ■ Pre-Development Costs ■ Community Outreach G. Timing While our analysis supports a contention that the ability of the area to support higher densities is limited, it should be noted that these limitations reflect projected market conditions over the next few years. Over a longer planning horizon, shifts in usage patterns and land values may substantively alter the development environment. If achievable rent levels increase substantively within the metropolitan area and Tigard over time, many of the higher density development forms would become more viable. In other words, the higher-density product may in fact be in demand by consumers today,but today's rent levels do not support the higher-density products. There have been some efforts to allow for current development that does not preclude development at higher densities at a later time.This is an important consideration,as development under current market conditions is not expected to yield targeted densities but can limit redevelopment opportunities. As mentioned, shadow platting is an approach being used by some jurisdictions. This process requires developers to design their developments to achieve targeted densities over time, while still allowing for a viable project under current market conditions. H. Redevelopment Considerations A large proportion of the land in Tigard's Downtown has been developed (including the subject properties), and a key source for additional capacity in the area is therefore the redevelopment of existing properties. But while current uses may not represent what would be considered the highest and best use of a site from a public policy perspective, redevelopment may not be viable from a market perspective. Redevelopment requires several definable conditions to be viable, which are outlined in this section. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 14 A ratio of improvement to land value is typically used to identify parcels with development or redevelopment potential. This ratio attempts to identify parcels in which the value of the improvement is relatively low relative to the value of the land. The following are some limitations of this type of analysis: ■ Not all of the vacant parcels are being actively marketed, and a property owner's decision to sell is not always predictable and can be based on personal as well as economic factors. ■ The data used to quantify the value of improvements is derived from County Assessor records and is not always reliable. ■ Many properties identified as re-developable have a significant economic value in their current configuration, which is likely to be greater than the value of the land for redevelopment. Under these conditions, it would not be reasonable to assume redevelopment of the property from market forces. One of the key variables to track in determining the viability of redevelopment is residual land value, or the value of land under alternative development programs. The following are conditions under which redevelopment is likely. • The land value for the proposed development isgreater than the sum of the land value and improvements under the current use; ■ The return associated with improving a propertyyields rent premiums capable of amortizing the associated costs;or ■ Depreciation of the improvements on a property has reached a point to which the improvement has no effective value. The factors impacting the viability and/or probability of redevelopment any individual site are numerous: ■ Owner disposition. This factor includes a broad range of variables, including the property owner's level of capitalization, investment objectives, risk sensitivity, availability and terms of credit,perception of return,etc. • Current lease structure. The property's current lease structure and term may either preclude major improvements or reduce the potential for realizing a return on enhancements or improvements. An example of this is often found in retail leases, which have relatively long terms with extension options. ■ Leaseholder disposition. The leaseholder's disposition is also a contributing factor to improvements, as the leaseholder's willingness to bear the burden of increased rents associated with improvements is critical. In addition to the current leaseholder, the general market for space and the disposition of potential lessees is also an important factor impacting the viability of improving a property. ■ Regulatory environment - The ability to successfully complete an improvement also relies upon the local regulatory environment,including building and zoning code applications. Urban development forms represent an organic and iterative development process, in which development activity increases densities and demand,triggering redevelopment and higher densities over time. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 15 One of the most prevalent errors made in encouraging more intensive development in an area is to require densities and development forms that are not viable. This precludes any unsubsidized development in the area. To the extent that development does not occur, densities and land values will not increase to the threshold necessary to eventually trigger the desired development forms. The opposite risk is in rapid development of low intense development forms which can lock in lower density,even if market conditions justify higher density development later in the planning horizon. An approach which encourages development at the edges of parcels, rather than the center allows for future development around low-density uses. In the town center environment, this can mean street-orientation and the discouragement of new drive-in uses. (See discussion of phased development below.) DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 16 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section discusses some of the lessons we can draw regarding the feasibility of these types of projects now and into the future. It also provides recommendations on the types of steps a jurisdiction can take to make these projects more feasible. A. What Development Types are Feasible in Downtown Tigard? As the findings of this Development Opportunity Study, and the market considerations discussed above indicate,private-sector development of high-density Transit-Oriented Development may be a challenge in the short-to mid-term-on the scale modeled in Scenarios 1 and 2. Even with significant public subsidy, these larger buildings are likely to remain infeasible for some time, due to the cost of providing structured parking and the level of current achievable rents to support development on that scale. Parking presents a challenge, because reliance on surface parking limits the amount of the site available to accommodate buildings, and thus naturally limits the achievable density. The switch to structured parking allows greater density on site, but requires higher rents/sales prices to support the additional development costs. The first two scenarios modeled demonstrated that due to the cost of structured parking these large five-story,high-density,development types are currently infeasible. However, Scenario 3 of the study does indicate that mixed-use commercial development of three to four stories is likely feasible. This type of project is capable of providing smaller-scale catalyst development in Downtown Tigard, demonstrating new investment and still providing greater densities than are currently being achieved. This development might take the following form: ■ Three story,wood frame construction ■ Mixed uses: Residential or office uses over active ground floor space. ■ Surface parking,perhaps with reduced requirements to maximize leasable area The following page presents some basic examples of new three-story mixed-use development to provide a visualization of what is possible with this form. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 17 RENDERING OF SCENARIO 3 I Ir OR am Sera Architects EXAMPLE: RESIDENTIAL OVER GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL Lake Norman,NC EXAMPLE: MIXED USE MAIN STREET l .i CB Richard Ellis DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 18 Advantages: ■ Development of three to four stories can still add significant density to Downtown Tigard over the long term. If this type of development occurs, denser forms are likely to become more feasible. ■ These structures can meet design goals and serve as catalysts just as any larger"showcase" project can. • This type of development is more easily accommodated on smaller and unusually- configured sites. ■ This type of development is much closer to feasibility and may represent an interim step between current development types and the types of high-density projects that the community seeks in the future. B. Recommended Strategies Based on the findings of this study, and the implications for development in Downtown Tigard, Johnson Reid recommends the following basic strategies moving forward. 1) Focus on smaller sites/catalyst projects in the beginning This study suggests that it might be most effective to focus on smaller development sites initially, before attempting to move forward on a large catalyst project such as the Tigard Transit Center. This approach could make initial projects smaller, easier, and faster, giving the city and local property owners a chance to learn lessons on implementing public/private development projects. Furthermore, new development, even on a smaller scale, should make larger more ambitious developments more feasible over time,as neighborhood investment and vitality become evident. As mentioned above, smaller sites with three story development can still add substantial density in an environment where smaller single-story structures are prevalent. These structures can meet the community's goals for design and land uses. 2) Reduce parking ratios where possible In real estate development, parking needs can be a powerful influence on what built forms can fit on a site, and the developments modeled in this study were no different. With structured parking difficult to achieve in the short- to mid-term, the City should consider their parking requirements and solutions which will allow creative building designs and more density on the margin. The City is currently undergoing a review of the Downtown development code which does propose to reduce parking requirements for some land use types,and in some locations. This is an important step. The City might also consider other parking solutions such as a public lot in the vicinity of Main Street, shared parking between mixed uses, and creating ample street parking, so that less off-street parking becomes more manageable. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 19 3) Consider a"phased development"approach The City might consider a "phased development" approach, which is a policy tool that encourages the lower-density that is feasible now, while ensuring that sites allow for additional density in the future. The most common example would be a low-rise structure with surface parking, platted to allow a larger structure to be built on the surface parking lot once the development climate evolves to make it feasible. Generally, this is achieved through requiring a "planned development" type design process on larger parcels. Smaller parcels are generally exempt. This is a long term approach that sees development of a district as an iterative process. The future vision is protected while not precluding current development. (Policy tools are discussed more below.) 4) Put preferred public incentives programs in place Now that the City is considering these types of development projects through inter- agency or public/private partnerships, Tigard should consider what polices and incentive programs should be in place to participate in these projects in the future. In business and in real estate development in particular, time spent is money spent, and therefore thinking now about how the City and/or Urban Renewal agency might participate in these projects will poise the City for action when opportunities arise. The following section includes an overview of some policy tools and incentive for encouraging development. The City is already considering some of these programs through its Downtown Tigard Implementation Plan. We recommend that the City move forward to adopt policies and formulate programs, even if the immediate application is not apparent. 5) Move forward on those public projects with identified funding This strategy simply supports moving forward on the extensive list of public improvements that Tigard currently has planned or underway. All public investment to transportation and other infrastructure adds to property values in the area, and increases the functionality and sense of investment in the district. This will increase the feasibility of larger development and catalyst projects in the future. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 20 C. Policy Tools for Achieving"Town Center"Development Types Over the long term Downtown Tigard is expected to realize development densities significantly higher than currently viable in the area. Financial viability under current market conditions is the primary obstacle to achieving more urban development forms in the next five- to ten-year time frame. While these densities may prove viable over the longer planning period, in the short- to mid-term there will likely be market intervention required to direct development activity. The following section provides an overview of policy tools and strategies to improve feasibility in Downtown Tigard. The table is organized from the least direct to the most direct incentives and regulatory measures. They range from tools which simply allow the targeted development to occur, to those which require certain development types, or provide financial incentives or direct assistance to developers. Some of these policy tools have already been adopted by Tigard,while others could be considered to facilitate the development environment. FIGURE 4.2:POLICY TOOLS AND INCENTIVES Policy Mechanism;Comments Effect on Density Cost Increased permitted density Allows densities at higher These types of approaches Small:requires change to Density bonus level than previously only work if density limits zoning code allowed are below what the market Development rights transfer determines in the highest and best use. Mixed-Use zoning Allows flexibility to mix Weak:May or may not Small:requires change to uses.This policy can be increase density. zoning code either an incentive("allow") or a regulation("require") Regulatory relief:permit Streamline permitting. Moderate: direct effect on Small:requires process Make all permits available the cost of development,but reorganization of internal in one location,provide not for specific processes clear accessible information development types. on requirements,and allow flexibility to consider innovative development Regulatory relief:fee Wide range:reduces SDCs, Strong:direct effect on the Moderate to high:loss in reduction building fees,exactions,etc. cost of development revenue to local government Regulatory relief:design Wide range:allows Strong:increases density Small:requires change to standards narrower streets,less directly and can decrease zoning code parking,smaller setbacks, developer costs by less landscaping increasing revenue- generating space DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 21 FIGURE 4.2:POLICY TOOLS AND INCENTIVES(CONTINUED) Policy Mechanism;Comments Effect on Density Cost Land assembly Acquisition,by voluntary Strong:increases Moderate negotiation or eminent marketability of downtown domain,of contiguous for development parcels to create large community developable tracts Property Tax Abatements Tax abatement for qualified Increased net operating Modest;Short term loss in residential and mixed-use income or achievable sales property taxes can be offset development which meets prices,enhancing return by long term gain in value. certain community goals and allowing for higher density. Low Income Housing Tax Tax credit program Can improve the viability of Low:federally funded Credits administered by OHCS; rental housing projects Requires provision of special needs housing Phased Development Allows placement of Strong:prevents preclusion Small:additional planning, buildings to allow future of higher future densities some higher development infill but allows development to costs occur. Minimum-density zoning Requires that development Strong: Requires fundamental meet some minimum ensures minimum change to zoning code and requirement for density expectations are met comprehensive plan Uniform application But can preclude any Reduces the value of land throughout jurisdiction or development if market is when it precludes region ensures not ready for higher-density development of the development doesn't shift development property under its highest to a less restrictive zone Already done in downtown and best use Beaverton Direct subsidy for Direct grants or loans for Strong: direct intervention High: Direct participation development;public or low-interest loans for land to fill feasibility gaps,or in financing development public/private investment infrastructure,parking,etc. ensure that projects include Loans have potential for publically-desired features repayment,but are typically Often requires Urban low-interest and may not reflect the real risk of an Renewal or a Local or unusual urban or Business Improvement redevelopment project District The following is an overview of the implications of the potential actions listed above on the general financial viability of projects. Allowing Dense Development The impact on viability of allowing density is relatively limited in an area in which higher densities are not currently viable. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 22 Reduce Planning and Information Costs The reduction of planning and information costs improves viability in a number of ways. Increased certainty regarding what will be approved and abbreviated approval timelines lowers the level of uncertainty associated with entitlement, which lowers holding costs and may lower the required return parameters. This can have a substantial financial impact on the development, as well as lowering the required yield to induce new development. Readily available and current information lowers predevelopment costs. More importantly, it can broaden interest in the area by lowering the"learning costs"associated with understanding the local market. Land Assembly By assisting in land assembly, the City can reduce the developer's carrying costs (i.e. cost of financing land during predevelopment phase) as well as uncertainty. Tax Abatement Measures to reduce ongoing property taxes have a significant impact on viability. Tax abatement programs are the most commonly used of these types of measures, typically with a term of ten years on qualifying projects. PDC has examples of this program type. One approach is to maintain the tax on the underlying land, but exempt some or all of the built structure for the specified time period. The savings on tax costs changes the operating pro forma and makes more costly development feasible. The trade-off is that for the abatement period, the site is not generating new tax increment other than appreciation on the land. Low Income Housing Tax Credits HUD, through the State of Oregon, provides tax credits for affordable housing projects. Qualified Cost $90,000 These credits significantly improve the viability of many rental projects,despite limits Credit Percentage 4.00% on rents that can be charged. As shown in the Credit Period/Years 10 table to the right, the present value of a 4% Total Value $36,000 tax credit can be equal to a quarter of Assumed Discount Rate 12% qualified cost. While qualifying projects Present Value(Discounted) $22,782 typically must demonstrate a significant rent LPresent Value/Qualified Cost 25.3% advantage relative to what is achievable in the market,the program still provides for a net boost in viability. This program has lost some effectiveness in the current economic climate as the tax credits are less attractive to investors who do not currently have gains to offset. Economic improvement may be necessary for this tool to again achieve its full effectiveness. Phased Development Phased development, or shadow platting, is an aggressive tool to ensure that current development does not preclude future development at greater densities. It is generally applied to larger sites that have the land area to accommodate multiple phases. A common approach is to allow for future development on surface parking lots of earlier development phases. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 23 Depending on how this is handled the cost to the developer can be low to high. If the phasing does not significantly disrupt what was planned for the current development, then costs will be low. If the phasing plan does change the current plan in significant ways, requiring redesign, the costs to the developer could be large. Phased development should be carefully designed and well-promoted to ensure property owners and developers understand it is in place and the types of requirements it brings with it. Direct Grants)Parking Subsidy These types of actions have a direct impact on the bottom line, delivering a large impact but at a large cost. The present value of grants is fairly straightforward to calculate,as is removing the cost of structured parking from a project. Low interest loans provide a number of benefits. First of all, they typically reduce the equity requirement for the project, with equity carrying a relatively high cost for the development. This can be through a better debt coverage ratio associated with lower- cost funds,and/or a lower equity requirement per the terms of the debt. Subordinated debt. A commonly used tool for providing subsidy is subordinated or second position debt, which is a loan to the developer which is subordinate to senior lenders. This type of debt is not typically available in the market, as it is not adequately secured by real property. Nevertheless, senior lenders often accept it as a form of equity, and therefore it doesn't reduce senior loan amounts. Subordinated debt is often provided with favorable terms and lower-than-market interest rates. It is used to reduce equity requirements for the developer, and directly impact the feasibility gap in the project. If the project is successful, the loan provides a return of principal with modest interest gains. Due to the investment and favorable terms, subordinated debt should be used on projects meeting key public goals, such as provision of affordable housing, public amenities, or a catalyst project. The administration of a direct grant or loan program often requires access to a program such as Urban Renewal or an Improvement District to provide a large-enough dedicated source of funding. DOWNTOWN TIGARD,DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY 24 C7�41��2�"1 SAMPLE CCAC ORIENTATION PACKET 1. Chairperson welcome letter 2. List of current commissioners and contact info 3. Brief bios of current commissioners? 4. CCAC Statement of Purpose/Mission Statement 5. Copy of Bylaws 6. List of commonly used acronyms(with definitions please?) 7. Copy of CCAC budget and proposed expenditures 8. Current year meeting dates and locations 9. Current year goals 10. Current year timeline 11. Downtown Action Plan—3 year 12. Past meeting minutes available online 13. Chronology of Downtown actions 14. Key stakeholder list in URD 15. Map of Tigard URD 16. Tour of Tigard URD 17. Who's Who List of Planning staff working with CCAC and contact info 18. List of cross-activity boards,commissions, sub—committees with contact info 19. List of specific websites with pertinent information to Tigard Long-Range Planning, i.e.: City, Metro, Regional,State, Federal, Main St. Program, etc... 20. Hard copies of key long-range planning documents over last five years; some are available on specific Tigard website locations rI City of Tigard .ate Memoran. �dum >, ...,.,.,,.._ To: Tom Murphy, Chair City Center Advisory Commission From: Sean Farrelly, Senior Planner Re: Downtown Projects Update Date: August 3, 2009 The following are brief updates from the Engineering Department on Downtown related construction projects. Burnham Street The bid documents, specifications and plan modifications for phased bidding will be ready in late August. The expected bid date is September 2009 and construction is expected to start October 2009. The project will be packaged as a Base Bid with two alternate bid items. The Base Bid includes complete construction of Burnham Street from Ash Avenue to Main Street plus the construction of the Ash Avenue extension to the WES Park and Ride lot. The Base Bid also includes a major pavement overlay of Burnham Street from Ash Avenue to Hall Boulevard. Construction of the Base Bid will take approximately one year. Alternate 1 is for the undergrounding of utilities along Burnham Street from Ash Avenue to Hall Boulevard. Alternate 2 is for the completion of all construction items on Burnham Street from Ash Avenue to Hall Boulevard. Due to the budget amount approved by the LCRB, it is likely that the Base Bid and Alternate 1 will be done, leaving Alternate 2 for another budget cycle. Highway 99W/Greenburg and Hall Intersections It is intended that these two projects will be bid and constructed as one project. The expected bid date is February 2010 and expected construction start is late spring 2010. There is room for an entryway feature at this location, although it is not funded with this project. Main Street Green Street Staff is in negotiations with the selected Consultant, Harper Houf Peterson Righellis. We expect to have the consultant on board in September. The public involvement specialist who is part of the team could be meeting with the CCAC as early as October. Fanno Creek Re-meander and Park Clean Water Services has begun to do basic maintenance work to reinforce a section of the creek bank and protect an existing creak meander. This work should be completed by the end of August. The re-meander project work involving both the City and CWS will start in summer 2010. This work includes replacement of trails and bridges. Tigard City Center Advisory Commission Training in Effective Communication EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Length of time (years) on Commission: What do you like most about being on the Commission? What do you like the least? Check one: Generally, Commission discussions are productive and courteous: ❑ yes ❑ no Explain your answer: Check one: Generally, Commission meetings are ❑ about the right length ❑ too long ❑ too short Explain: COGAN ©Elaine Cogan OWENS COGAN MUM Tigard City Center Advisory Commission ji Training in Effective Communication MI"I n Check one: Generally, Commissioners show ❑ the right amount of respect for staff ❑ too little respect for staff Explain: Check one: Generally, Commissioners show ❑ the right amount of respect for each other ❑ too Kittle respect for each other Explain: Check one: Generally, Commissioners show ❑ the right amount of respect to the public ❑ too little respect to the public Explain: The three things I would most like to change about the way we communicate are (explain): 1. 2. 3• Anything you would like to add? Thank you! CO'AN ©Elaine Cogan OWENS COGAN