Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/04/2017 IIIi 4 City of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda • y_,, , _,.,, ___ ..—. ...a s— TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 4,2017 - 6:30 p.m.Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated;it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be beard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-718-2419, (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request,the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers,it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-718-2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA ►� — VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http://live.tigard-or.gov CABLE VIEWERS:The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. INCity of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 4,2017 - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 6:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less,Please) A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Citizen Communication—Sign Up Sheet 3. CONSENT AGENDA (Tigard City Council):These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion.Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: A. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ERIN KIRKWOOD AND EMILY OBERDORFER AS TIGARD MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES PRO TEMPORE •Consent Agenda-Items Removed for Separate Discussion:Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council!City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. CONSIDER FEE WAIVER REQUESTS FOR NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 6:40 p.m. estimated time 5. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING:APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION FOR MADRONA RECOVERY CENTER- CONTINUE TO A DATE CERTAIN 7:10 p.m. estimated time 6. CONSIDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR THE DIRKSEN NATURE PARK INTERPRETIVE SHELTER/RESTROOM 8:10 p.m. estimated time 7. DISCUSS ISLAND ANNEXATION WORK PLAN 8:15 p.m. estimated time 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss records that are exempt from public inspection,under ORS 192.660(2) (f). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. 8:30 p.m.estimated time 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m. estimated time AGENDA ITEM NO. 2B - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 4, 2017 (Limited to 2 minutes or less,please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda and items on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME,ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: RAYS - 140((d . Doi Top 644— Also,please spell your name as it sounds 4it `will e4tc-hJ7% help the presiding officer pronounce: O/L2 - G a -d- Scecrr i ov -r e2 �'l Address X3970 cS Ar/ow 9 Actives-1- buSI('L .S City ,&01✓1(ly, State 4 2 Zip ?0-669 7 Phone No. CO 3 -S/C0 -3/%y Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION I:\ADM\CITY RECORDERS\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSignup\citizen communication 170404.doc AIS-3059 3. A. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/04/2017 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Consider a resolution appointing Erin Kirkwood and Emily Oberdorfer as Tigard Municipal Court judges pro tempore Prepared For: Anna Mae Gliebe Submitted By: Nadine Robinson, Central Services Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the City Council appoint Erin Kirkwood and Emily Oberdorfer as judges pro tempore for the Tigard Municipal Court? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve the recommended appointments. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY At the request of Judge O'Brien, staff began the process of recruiting for two pro tempore judges in the late Fall. To identify interested parties, the city followed the court's previous recruitment practice and placed an ad in the Oregon State Bar bulletin. 11 resumes were received in response to the ad. Judge O'Brien,Nadine Robinson, and Anna Mae Gliebe chose six candidates to participate in the interview process. The interview focused on prior legal experience,judicial approach and attitudes and understanding of current issues facing the court. In addition to the interview each candidate provided a written response to two questions posed by Judge O'Brien. The responses were used to evaluate the candidates'writing skills as well as get their views on equal justice and due process. Two candidates were chosen for follow-up phone interviews. The follow-up primarily focused on court rules and post-adjudication practices.The intent was to verify the candidates'philosophies are in alignment with the court's current practices. After completing the process,Judge O'Brien and staff are recommending the City Council appoint Erin Kirkwood and Emily Oberdorfer as judges pro tempore for the municipal court. If the candidates are appointed, they will share judicial responsibilities with the current judge pro tempore,Bruce Liebowitz,to serve when the municipal judge is unable to perform his duties by reason of absence from the city,illness, vacation, disqualification as provided by ORS 221.347 or as specifically determined by the court operations supervisor. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council may direct staff to use a different recruitment process. This would require reopening the recruitment. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS,POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION The last time the City Council appointed new judges pro tempore was in 1996. Fiscal Impact Cost: $3,000 Budgeted (yes or no): yes Where Budgeted (department/program): Central Services/Municipal Court Additional Fiscal Notes: $3,000 was approved in the FY 16/17 budget for pro tern judicial services. The funds will only be expended if the regular judge is unavailable to hold court. Attachments Resolution appointing judges pro tern Kirkwood Resume Oberdorfer resume CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ERIN KIRKWOOD AND EMILY OBERDORFER AS TIGARD MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES PRO TEMPORE. WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Tigard City charter provides for the office of municipal judge and Chapter 2.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides for the office of judge pro tempore;and WHEREAS,there is a need for a judge pro tempore to serve when the municipal judge is unable to perform his duties by reason of absence from the city,illness,vacation, disqualification as provided by ORS 221.347 or as specifically determined by the court operations supervisor,and WHEREAS,Erin Kirkwood and Emily Oberdorfer applied for the position of judge pro tempore;and WHEREAS,the interview panel found their experience, skills, abilities and judicial philosophy to be in line with the court's needs and WHERAS,it has been verified that both persons are in good standing to practice law in the State of Oregon as required by code. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Erin Kirkwood and Emily Oberdorfer are appointed as judges pro tempore for the Tigard Municipal Court SECTION : This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2017. Mayor-City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 17- Page 1 Erin E. Kirkwood 4805 SW Sweeney St. Portland, Oregon 97221 503-701-3301 Prefessionai Experience Pro Tem Judge (February 2016 -present) o contracted with Beaverton to preside over traffic and criminal cases in Municipal Court Office of Administrative Hearings(August 2013--May 2015) o conducted administrative hearings for Dept. Motor Vehicles, Employment Dept., and Oregon Health Plan o wrote accompanying orders and peer-reviewed other ALJ's orders Indigent Defense Attorney(December 2012-August 2013) o appointed by Multnomah County Circuit Court to represent an indigent defendant on a complex embezzlement case Office of Administrative Hearings(June 2012- October 2012) ° conducted unemployment insurance benefit hearings and wrote orders Urban Farm Store(August 2009 -June 2012) - clerk Calhoun& Fishback, PC(June 2005 -- March 2010) --attorney o defended minor & major felonies including Measure 11s and murders • directed own cases-hired and supervised Investigators, psychologists and other experts Metropolitan Public Defender(Sept 2003-June 2005) • misdemeanor attorney Multnomah County Circuit Court, Hon. Janice Wilson's Clerk (Sept 2002- Sept 2003) o summarized civil motions o observed civil and criminal trials Education University of Oregon School of Law-JD May 2002 University of Guelph (Ontario, Canada) -- BA with Honors in Women's Studies, Minor in History 1999 Memberships/General Interests Oregon State Bar Oregon Brittany Club Pacific Northwest Search & Rescue Beaverton PEER Court EMILY OBERDDRF1R 210 SW MURRISION STREET SUITE 600 PORTLAND OREGON 97204 PIiON'E503-223-23)3•E-MAIL EMILYRODERLAW.COM•OREGON STATE BAR 101114 EXPERIENCE Oberdorfer LAW firm Trial Attorney April 2011-Present e Criminal defense trial attorney specializing in motor vehicle offenses from violations through felonies. • Work with prosecutors and law enforcement officers to negotiate outcomes. • Draft and file motions and memoranda of law. O Maintain communication with clients and their families. Oregon Judicial Department,Honorable Nan G.Waller June 2010-April 2011 Judicial Clerk • Assisted the judge in conducting hearings. o Completed court orders,judgments,and other documents. o Prepared file for Judge's pre-trial review including highlighting potential issues. • Assisted attorneys,litigants,and the general public in navigating the court system and locating procedures and policies. Steenson, Schumann,Tewksbury,Creighton,and Rose.PC,Portland Oregon May 2008-June 2010 Law Clerk Certified Law Student,Attorney e Conducted intake interviews of potential clients to identify legal issues. e Prepared administrative complaints,discovery documents,and court pleadings. • Interviewed witnesses and helped prepare them for testimony. o Argued before the Court,including jury trials,and the Oregon Court of Appeals. Lewis and Clark Legal Clinic,Portland Oregon January 2009-May 2009 Legal Intern, Certified Law Student e Interviewed and counseled low income clients on a variety of civil matters. • Prepared divorce petitions and negotiated child custody and support. • Prepared and filed bankruptcy petitions. EDUCATION Lewis&Clark Law School,Portland,Oregon May 2009 Juris Doctor, Certificate in Public Interest Law o Secretary,Public Interest Law Project • Legal Observer Coordinator,National Lawyers Guild • Pro Bono Honors Award 0 Portland State University,Portland,Oregon June 2006 Bachelor of Arts. Summa Cum Laude,Political Science AIS-3053 4. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/04/2017 Length (in minutes): • 30 Minutes Agenda Title: CONSIDER FEE WAIVER REQUESTS FOR NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Prepared For: Mark VanDomelen Submitted By: Mark VanDomelen, Community Development Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Resolution Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Consideration of four resolutions to approve City of Tigard fee and charge waiver requests for non-profit organizations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends Council consider and approve the four separate City of Tigard fee and charge waiver requests. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has received four requests in writing to waive the City fees and charges in relation to permits and land use applications. The consideration of exemption from fees comes from the Tigard Municipal Code section 3.32.070 and is copied below for reference: Exemptions: The city council is authorized to waive or exempt the fee or charge imposed upon an application or for the use of city facilities and services if a nonprofit organization requests such a waiver in writing and the council determines that community benefit from the proposed activity outweighs the financial burden on the city. The waiver or exemption shall not excuse the nonprofit organization from compliance with other requirements of this code (Ord. 16-09 51;Ord. 82-72 57, 1982). Council is asked to consider each of the four requests and resolutions separately. The amount of fees and charges vary but are in the submitted resolutions for consideration,and summarized in the fiscal impact section below. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council may choose to deny the request or waive all or any portion of the fees and charges listed in the resolutions. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS N/.A DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION None - Fiscal Impact Cost: $27,879.51 Budgeted (yes or no): N/A Where Budgeted (department/program): N/A Additional Fiscal Notes: The total fees and charges waivers requested would forgo revenue including$7,977.51 to the Building Fund, $990 to the General Fund for planning land use fees,$5,488.00 to the Tigard Transportation SDC Fund,$1,615 to Tigard Parks SDC Fund and$11,809.00 to the Water SDC Fund and Water Fund. The breakdown for each of the four requests are as follows: Gary Sinise Foundation (New single-family home): Permit/Plan Review fees $ 4,672.53 Tigard transportation SDC $ 5,488.00 Tigard parks SDC $ 1,615.00 Planning DC review$ 90.00 Water SDC and meter fee$11,809.00 Total$23,674.53 The Good Neighbor Center (Addition to Existing Structure): Permit/Plan Review fees $ 2,276.29 Type I Land Use fee $ 300.00 Total$ 2,576.29 The Caring Closet (Addition to Existing Structure): Permit/Plan Review fees $ 402.98 Type I Land Use fee$ 300.00 Total$ 702.98 Mary Woodward Elementary School (Bike shelter) : Permit/Plan Review fees $ 625.71 Type I Land Use fee $ 300.00 Total$ 925.71 Attachments Resolution-Gary Sinise Foundation Gary Sinise Request Letter Resolution-Good Neighbor Good Neighbor Request Letter Resolution-Carina Closet Carina Closet Request Letter Resolution-Mary Woodward Mary Woodward Request Letter CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION WAIVING CITY OF TIGARD FEES AND CHARGES, INCLUDING SYS 1'EM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME BY THE GARY SINISE NON-PROFIT FOUNDATION FOR A LOCAL DISABLED VETERAN. WHEREAS,Tigard Municipal Code 3.32.070 authorized City Council to waive fees for nonprofits when the request is made in writing and council determines that the community benefit outweighs the financial burden to the city;and WHEREAS, The Gary Sinise Foundation has requested in writing the waiver of fees associated with building a new single-family home;and WHEREAS,the Master Fees and Charges Schedule states that the City of Tigard fees associated with building the proposed new single-family home are as follows: Permit/Plan Review fees $ 4,672.53 Tigard transportation SDC $ 5,488.00 Tigard parks SDC $ 1,615.00 Planning DC review $ 90.00 Water SDC and meter fee $11,809.00 Total $23,674.53;and WHEREAS, council determines that the community benefit outweighs the $23,674.53 financial burden to the city. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Gary Sinise Foundation receives a waiver of$23,674.53 in permit and system development charges. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2017. Mayor-City of Tigard A IrEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 17- Page 1 February 14,2017 Tigard City Council f ,1. 1?.ti' ' d I ' 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 Dear Tigard City Council: In 2012,the Gary Sinise Foundation began building specially adapted smart homes for America's severely wounded veterans through its partner program. Each home reassures automated amenities to ease the daily challenges these heroes face. In 2013,the Gary Sinise Foundation expanded these efforts by establishing its RI.S.E. program(Restoring Independence Supporting Empowerment).Currently,we have completed 33 specially adapted smart homes for deserving veterans with another 18 in various phases of planning,construction,and completion.These homes are more than just a place to live. They are a sanctuary of support and a daily reminder of America's gratitude. Most of all,they mark a new beginning for those who have endured unimaginable hardships to ensure our safety and freedom. It was our honor to host a groundbreaking ceremony on January 11,2017 in your city.This event was the first step in building a specially adapted smart home for a local Tigard resident, US Army SFC Wade Mitcheltree. In 2012 Wade was injured by an IED blast while touring in Afghanistan. He lost his right leg above the knee,right arm below the elbow,and sustained additional severe injuries. In 2016, Wade's left leg was eventually amputated below the knee,causing him now to live as a triple amputee. Through our RI.S.E. program,and with the help of our partners and donors, we will welcome Wade, his wife, Katie,and their two sons,Joseph and Ethan in their new forever home, mortgage free. At the groundbreaking ceremony,I had the opportunity to meet with one of your city councilors and city officials. It gave us great pleasure to hear their interest in the work we are doing in Tigard. Through the contact of our local builder,David DeHarpport of 4D Construction,and with the local City of Tigard officials we were put in contact with Mr. Kenny Asher. After speaking with Mr.Asher, it was indicated that there may be an opportunity for a reimbursement back to the Gary Sinise Foundation of various fees our builder had paid on our behalf to the City of Tigard through the course of obtaining permits for this specific property. Therefore,at Mr. Asher's recommended direction, we humbly request your consideration of reimbursement for the system development fees,building permit fees,and any other related expenses. All reimbursed funds will go directly to support our continued efforts on behalf of our service members, first responders,and their loved ones all across the nation. Our Founder, Gary Sinise, continues to remind us that it is our duty as citizens to support our nation's heroes before, during and after the battle. It is because of folks like you these life-changing homes are made possible. Again, my sincere thanks for your consideration of this request. God bless you. Pete Fr Ju • Otter . Senior Pr . nager,RI.S.E. ecutive Director Gary Sinise Foundation Gary Sinise Foundation pfranzen@garysinisefoundation.org j_otter(a,garysinisefoundation.org CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION WAIVING CITY OF TIGARD FEES AND CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING AN ADDITION TO THE GOOD NEIGHBOR CENTER EXISTING FACILITY. WHEREAS,Tigard Municipal Code 3.32.070 authorized City Council to waive fees for nonprofits when the request is made in writing and council determines that the community benefit outweighs the financial burden to the city;and WHEREAS, The Good Neighbor Center has requested in writing the waiver of fees associated with building an addition to their existing facility;and WHEREAS,the Master Fees and Charges Schedule states that the City of Tigard fees associated with building an addition to their existing facility are as follows: Permit/Plan Review fees $ 2,276.29 Type I Land Use fee $ 300.00 Total $ 2,576.29;and WHEREAS,council determines that the community benefit outweighs the $2,576.29 financial burden to the city. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Good Neighbor receives a waiver of$2,576.29 in permit and land use fees. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2017. Mayor-City of Tigard A'MST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 17- Page 1 Hi Albert, I appreciate that city staff is currently discussing with the Council whether non-profits such as the Good Neighbor Center should be exempt from the imposition of System Development Charges. I applaud that effort and would like to weigh in with my thoughts. In general, building proposals like the one we have submitted for approval are supported by a wide network of designers, builders, subcontractors, suppliers and manufacturers who donate or heavily discount labor and material costs for a project which is seen as adding value to the community. Sponsors, such as the Home Builders Foundation, and private and business donors also put their time, treasure and talent into these projects. Local jurisdictions are necessarily part of the partnership that develops these projects and, frankly, need to do their part. It takes a village... including the village itself. A project that adds space for services to homeless children (who already live here) is far removed from building a new subdivision or business park, especially when what we are doing will not impact the use of capital improvements or contribute to the need for additional or enlarged capital facilities. In fact, I believe the GNC building project currently under review is exempt pursuant to the existing language of the Tigard Municipal Code, regardless of any social benefit arguments. Pursuant to TMC section 3.24.110.C, an alteration, addition, replacement or change in use that does not increase the parcel's or structure's use of a capital improvement are exempt from all portions of the SDC. Our expansion will increase the square footage of the existing building by 375 square feet. The space will be used exclusively to enhance the services we offer to shelter residents. It will not increase the number of people who work here or shelter here. It will not increase street traffic or our need for parking. The space will have no plumbed fixtures or result in any increase in wastewater or sewage. It will not result in any changes in off-site drainage or flood control. And it will not increase our shelter's use of parks and recreation programs. So, both in terms of the social benefit of projects such as ours, and the specifics of our current request, I believe an exemption from SDCs and all other City of Tigard fees and charges is appropriate. Sincerely, Jack Schwab Executive Director Good Neighbor Center 11130 SW Greenburg Rd. Tigard,OR 97223 www.goodneighborcenter.org (503)443-6084 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION WAIVING CITY OF TIGARD FEES AND CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING AN ADDITION TO THE CARING CLOSET EXISTING FACILITY. WHEREAS,Tigard Municipal Code 3.32.070 authorized City Council to waive fees for nonprofits when the request is made in writing and council determines that the community benefit outweighs the financial burden to the city;and WHEREAS, The Caring Closet has requested in writing the waiver of fees associated with building an addition to their existing facility;and WHEREAS,the Master Fees and Charges Schedule states that the City of Tigard fees associated with the proposed addition to the existing facility are as follows: Permit/Plan Review fees $ 402.98 Type I Land Use fee $ 300.00 Total $ 702.98;and WHEREAS, council determines that the community benefit outweighs the $702.98 financial burden to the city. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Caring Closet receives a waiver of$702.98 in permit and land use fees. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2017. Mayor-City of Tigard A 1'FEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 17- Page 1 From: Rose Money [mailto:rmoney@ttsd.k12.or.us] Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 8:02 AM To:Joanne Bengtson <joanne@tigard-or.gov> Subject: The Caring Closet's proposed waiver of building permit and system development fees To: Joanne Bengston City of Tigard From: Rose Money Tigard-Tualatin School District, The Caring Closet Re: proposed waiver of building permit and system development fees Hello, Joanne: Tigard-Tualatin school district's, The Caring Closet, has just filed a minor modification permit application to add onto our existing permitted building. Our proposal is to add a 140 sq.ft addition that will enclose a bathroom and laundry facility. The Caring Closet is a program of the school district but the program is entirely funded by public financial support. Due to our small budget, the entirety of this project is being donated by local businesses and craftspeople. The complete permit costs look to be around $5000 for our small project. I've approached the city planners to see if there was any possibility these fees might be reduced. They have referred me to you and suggested that I might need to appear in front of city council to discuss this. I have recently submitted two social services and community events grant requests (one for The Caring Closet and one for Family Promise Tualatin Valley) and currently have two back-to-back time slots to appear before council on March 2. Would this be a good time to talk about the proposed fee reduction? Thank you very much for help! Rose Money Director, The Caring Closet 503-603-1576 www.thecaringcloset.org CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION WAIVING CITY OF TIGARD FEES AND CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING A NEW BIKE SHELTER AT MARY WOODWARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. WHEREAS,Tigard Municipal Code 3.32.070 authorized City Council to waive fees for nonprofits when the request is made in writing and council determines that the community benefit outweighs the financial burden to the city;and WHEREAS, The Mary Woodward Elementary Parent Student Organization has requested in writing the waiver of fees associated with building a bike shelter at their existing facility;and WHEREAS,the Master Fees and Charges Schedule states that the City of Tigard fees associated with building the proposed new bike shelter are as follows: Permit/Plan Review fees $ 625.71 Type I Land Use fee $ 300.00 Total $ 925.71; and WHEREAS, council determines that the community benefit outweighs the $925.71 financial burden to the city. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Mary Woodward Elementary Parent Student Organization receives a waiver of$925.71 in permit and land use fees. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2017. Mayor-City of Tigard A'i'l QST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 17- Page 1 11010 SW Eschman Way Tigard, OR 97223 03/01/2017 Tigard City Council Attn: Mark VanDomelen 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Councilors, The Mary Woodward Elementary Parent Student Organization is currently in the planning phase to design and construct a bike rack shelter at the school.This shelter would protect existing racks and students' bikes from rainy Pacific Northwest weather. We estimate the bike shelter will cost approximately$3,000, not including the estimated $933 that will be required in building and land use permit fees. We are requesting a waiver of the building and land use permit. The entire cost of the structure will come from grant funding, and we would be grateful for the Council's support in lowering the total project cost. This project is a partnership with Tigard's Safe Routes to School program and aligns well with the City's vision to become a "community where people of all ages and abilities enjoy healthy and interconnected lives." Thank you for considering this request for a waiver of permit fees. Please call if any additional information is needed. You can reach me at 503-451-0536. Sincerely, :YAW a416?fr(--"/ Jennifer Vasicek c.efCnteer Parent Coordinator Safe Routes to School AIS-3058 5. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/04/2017 Length (in minutes):60 Minutes Agenda Title: Appeal of Quasi-Judicial Hearings Officer Decision for Madrona Recovery Center Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services- Item ervicesItem Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE Shall City Council approve, deny, or approve with conditions the appeal of the Hearings Officer decision to approve conditionally the Madrona Recovery Center's request for a medical center use in the Commercial Professional zone? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends Council make a determination that the medical center use is permitted in the C-P zone, address the substantive traffic issue raised on appeal, and deny the appeal. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On October 13,2016, Madrona Recovery Center applied for a conditional use permit to change the use of existing office buildings from "office" to "medical center",both permitted uses in the Professional Commercial (C-P) zone.At the hearing, the appellant,Mr. Bowersox, challenged the staff determination that the proposed use falls within the "medical center" use category. On February 13,2017, the Hearings Officer issued a Final Order (attached). The medical center use is discussed in-depth on pages 11-16 of the Hearings Officer's report,referencing relevant sections of the Development Code and concluding that the proposed inpatient mental health,drug and alcohol treatment facility does not fall within ax of the use categories listed in TDC 18.130. The Hearing's Officer approved the conditional use request, but conditioned his approval on a future Director's Interpretation that the proposed use is permitted in the C-P zone. Mr. Bowersox appealed the Hearings Officer Final Order (attached) with three assignments of error: 1.Hearings Officer was required to deny the application when concluding the use did not qualify as a conditional use. 2.Hearings Officer cannot defer the use issue to a Director's Interpretation. 3.Hearings Officer erred in concluding that Madrona demonstrated compliance with requirements for adequate public facilities. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Deny the appeal and approve the Madrona application with conditions. Uphold the appeal and deny the Madrona application. Remand the appeal to the Hearings Officer,pending a Director's Interpretation on the use question. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS NA DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION None Attachments Memo from City_lttornev HO Final Order CUP2016-04 Notice of Appeal Applicant's Testimony Staff Use Memo Staff Public Facilities Memo Resolution Madrona Site Map JORDAN RAMIS PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW Two Centerpointe Dr 6th Fl Phone: (503) 598-7070 Lake Oswego OR 97035 Toll Free: (888) 598-7070 www jordanramis.com Fax: (503) 598-7373 LEGAL MEMORANDUM TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Shelby Rihala, City Attorney DATE: March 17, 2017 RE: Madrona Appeal to Council This memo provides a summary to Council of the decision points at issue in the Madrona appeal and the order in which the City Attorney suggests making those decisions. Below is a suggested outline for the process: 1. Is the proposed use a "medical center" pursuant to TDC 18.130.050.G? The Code defines the characteristics of medical centers as, "facilities providing inpatient, outpatient, and emergency and related ancillary services to the sick and infirm, and are usually developed in a campus setting or on multiple blocks." TDC 18.130.050.G.1. The full text of this subsection and the hearings officer's analysis are found beginning on page 9 of the Hearings Officer Final Order. In applying the characteristics of a use to a specific proposal, the Code instructs that "uses are assigned to the category whose description most closely describes the nature of the primary use." TDC 18.130.015.A.1. Council has discretion in determining the use "most closely" describing the proposed development, within the parameters of the Code's definition of a medical center. Council should consider whether the proposed development is most closely described as "providing inpatient, outpatient, and emergency and related services...." JORDAN RAM I S PC ATTONNtYI AT LAW March 17, 2017 Page 2 Because the hearings officer conditionally approved the application using the criteria applicable to medical centers, should Council conclude that the proposed use is a medical center, Council's decision will satisfy the condition to obtain a use determination and Council may then proceed to hear the remainder of the appeal on the merits, as described in #2 below. Should Council not agree that the proposed development is most closely described as a medical center, the City Attorney recommends requesting a Director's Interpretation, as described in #3 below. 2. If the proposed use is a medical center, were traffic impacts adequately addressed in the proposal? The appellant asserts that the applicant was required to perform a traffic impact analysis. Council must review this claim on the merits. City staff found that because the site was fully developed, there did not appear to be a need to require a full transportation impact analysis and the thresholds to require one were not likely met under TDC 18.810.030.CC, which establishes parameters for when a traffic study is required. The applicant did provide an Impact Statement showing that trip generation would be reduced under the proposed use. The applicant also provided a Traffic Impact Statement showing the ITE Manual trip generation would be half of what was permitted under the existing office use. Additionally, the appellant points to TDC 18.810.020.A. City staff responds that this general provision addresses application of standards in 18.810. Because the site does not have frontage on a public street (Varns St. terminates into a private drive), there would be no affected public facilities. Council must weigh the evidence and make a decision to either affirm or deny the appeal based on the applicable standards and criteria. 3. If the proposed use is not a medical center, Council may wish to stay the current appeal pending a Director's Interpretation as an omitted use, pursuant to TDC 18.130.030. Because the hearings officer conditionally approved the proposed development pursuant to criteria applicable to a medical center, if Council determines that the use is not a medical center, the City Attorney recommends obtaining a Director's Interpretation (DI), as provided for in TDC JORDAN RAM I S PC ATTONNIYI AT LAW March 17, 2017 Page 3 18.130.030. This section is intended for circumstances in which "unintentional omissions occur and unanticipated uses may not be clearly assignable to a use category." TDC 18.130.030.A. The Code includes approval standards and provides that the Director "shall render an interpretation, as governed by Chapter 18.340." Under Chapter 18.340, the Director has 14 days to issue a decision. That decision is appealable to the City Council within 14 days after the interpretation is mailed to the applicant and Council would hear the appeal as a Type III, quasi-judicial appeal action. If it becomes necessary to obtain a DI, the City Attorney has conferred with the applicant's counsel and the recommendation is to stay the Council appeal of the hearings officer's decision to allow the DI to become final. Either the DI is appealed to Council, in which case the two proceedings may be joined and considered on appeal together, or the DI is not appealed and therefore binding on Council in the appeal of the hearings officer's decision. BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Madrona Recovery for a ) F I N A L O R D E R conditional use permit and variance to convert an ) CUP2016-00004 & existing law office to a medical center at 6996- ) VAR2016-0004 7000 SW Varns Street in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Madrona Recovery Center) A. SUMMARY 1. Madrona Recovery(the "applicant") requests approval of a conditional use permit to change the use of an existing law office to what the applicant describes as a "medical center;" a secure 23-bed inpatient mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment facility serving adolescentsl3-17 years of age. Patients at the facility will receive treatment for 14-21 days, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The use is proposed in two existing buildings located on a 1.04-acre site at 6996-7000 SW Varns Street; also known as Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101 DA, Tax Lot 01900 (the "site").' The site and surrounding properties are zoned C-P (Professional Commercial). 2. The applicant also requests approval of a variance to the 25-foot rear yard setback required for medical centers; the existing south building on the site is setback approximately 14 feet from the rear boundary of the site. 3. Additional basic facts about the site and surrounding land and applicable approval standards are provided in the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated January 2, 2017 (the "Staff Report"), incorporated herein by reference. 4. Tigard Hearings Officer Joe Turner(the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive testimony and evidence in this matter. At the public hearing, City staff recommended approval of the application, subject to conditions of approval in the Staff Report. Representatives of the applicant testified in support of the application. One person testified with questions and concerns about the application. Disputed issues in this case include: a. Whether the City provided adequate notice of the proposed development; b. Whether the applicant is required to resolve the ownership of Tax Lot 2100 prior to approval of this application; c. Whether traffic impacts on the private road serving the site are relevant to the applicable approval criteria; 1 The application originally included Tax Lots 01900 and 02100.However the applicant modified the application to remove Tax Lot 02100 prior to the hearing. d. Whether the proposed facility will have an adverse impact on the nearby daycare facility; e. Whether the proposed secure inpatient mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment facility is permitted in the C-P zone; and f. Whether a variance to the rear yard setback is required. 5. Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the proposed inpatient mental health, drug and alcohol treatment facility does not fall within any of the use categories listed in TDC 18.130. Therefore this application can only be approved if the applicant obtains a final planning director interpretation that the proposed use is permitted in the C-P zone, pursuant to the approval criteria in TDC 18.130.030. B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on January 9, 2017. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex pane contacts,bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony offered at the public hearing in this matter. 2. City planner Gary Pagenstecher summarized the Staff Report and the proposed development. a. He noted that the applicant proposes to change the use of the site from a law office to a medical center, specifically an adolescent mental health and addiction residential treatment facility. The applicant proposed to remodel the inside of the building to accommodate the proposed residential treatment facility. Exterior changes are limited to the replacement or elimination of certain doors and windows and the installation of eight-foot high privacy fencing around portions of the site. b. There are potential issues regarding the ownership of Tax Lot 2100 and whether the application included required signatures from the correct owner(s)of this parcel. Therefore the applicant modified the application to remove Tax Lot 2100 from the application. The applicant submitted a revised site plan with development limited to Tax Lot 1900. See the January 9, 2017 email to Mr. Pagenstecher from Gretchen Stone. c. The City received a comment letter from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue ("TVFR") requesting the applicant, among other things, install clearly visible address numbers on the site for emergency responders. He requested the hearings officer add a condition of approval to that effect. CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 2 d. He testified that Mr. Bowersox is not an owner of Tax Lot 2100. 3. Architect Gretchen Stone and John Thornton, president of Madrona Recovery, testified for the applicant. a. Ms. Stone summarized the proposed change in use. The proposed use will meet all applicable standards for a medical center, with the exception of the rear yard setback requirement for the south building. The applicant requested a variance to the 25- foot rear yard setback required for medical center uses to accommodate the existing south building on the site, which is setback between 13 feet 8 inches and 14 feet 9 inches from the rear(west) property line. The buildings on the site were originally developed as office buildings, which do not require a rear yard setback. The applicant will install an eight- foot high privacy fence along the west and south boundaries of the site to provide additional screening and privacy between the site and abutting commercial properties. The applicant was unable to find any suitable alternative sites for the proposed facility. The buildings on the site have been vacant for the past three years. b. Mr. Thornton summarized the proposed treatment clinic use. The facility is not a methadone treatment facility. The facility will provide short-term mental health treatment for adolescent patients ages 13 to 17. It will not generate significant traffic. Patients will reside at the secure facility for seven to twenty-one days while receiving treatment. Patients will be provided ongoing post-discharge therapy by videoconference. Patients will not travel back and forth to the site on a daily basis. The facility and its patients will not pose a safety risk to the public. The facility will not accept sex offenders or patients with a history of violence or running away. The facility will be locked at all times and surrounded by fencing. He agreed to conditions of approval to that effect. i. Representatives of the applicant met with representatives of the Touchstone Preschool prior to purchasing the site and explained the proposed use. The Preschool did not raise any objections to the proposed use. He submitted an email summary of the proposed use that he sent to the Preschool. 4. Jeff Bowersox testified on behalf of Autonome ASR, LLC. ("Autonome"). a. He testified that Autonome owns nearby property but did not receive notice of the application or of the September 26, 2016 neighborhood meeting. Autonome may have an ownership interest in Tax Lot 2100. The applicant should be required to resolve the ownership of Tax Lot 2100 prior to final approval of this application. b. The buildings on the site have always been used for law and accounting offices. The proposed use will increase impacts on surrounding uses. There is a daycare facility serving 300 children located three buildings away. CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 3 c. He argued that the proposed use is not a medical center but is actually an involuntary detention center(a jail). d. He requested that, if the facility is approved, the hearings officer include conditions of approval limiting the use of the facility consistent with the applicant's summary, prohibiting sex offenders or patients with a history of violence or running away. e. The proposed use will substantially increase the volume of traffic, which will increase wear and tear and the need for maintenance on the existing private road serving the site. The applicant failed to propose any mitigation for this impact. f. He requested the hearings officer hold the record open or continue the hearing to allow additional time to respond to the application. 5. Pursuant to Mr. Bowersox's request, the hearings officer held the record open for eight days, until 5:00 p.m. January 17, 2017, to allow the public to submit additional testimony and evidence regarding the application. The hearings officer held the record open for a second week, until January 24, 2017, for the applicant to submit a final argument, without any new evidence. No new evidence was received from the public during the first open record period. Therefore the applicant waived its right to submit a final argument and requested the hearings officer close the record. Pursuant to the applicant's request, the record in this case initially closed at 5:00 p.m. January 18, 2017. 6. On January 23, 2017 the hearings officer issued an "Order Re-Opening the Record"extending the open record period to allow the parties an opportunity to submit additional testimony and evidence regarding whether the proposed use falls within one of the"Use Categories" listed in TDC 18.130. The hearings officer re-opened the record subject to the following revised schedule: a. Until 5 P.M. on January 31, 2017, for all parties to introduce new evidence and testimony regarding the apparent Code conflict noted in the Continuance Order. b. Until 5 P.M. on February 7, 2017 for all parties to respond in writing to the new evidence submitted during the first open record period; and c. Until 5 P.M. on February 14, 2017, for the applicant to submit a final argument, without any new evidence. 7. The following evidence was submitted in response to the Order Re-Opening the Record: a. A letter dated January 26, 2017 from Mr. Thornton; CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 4 b. A letter dated January 30, 2017 from Ms. Stone; c. A letter dated January 30, 2017 from the applicant's attorney, Joshua S. DeCristo; d. A letter dated January 31, 2017 from Mr. Bowersox; e. A memorandum dated January 31, 2017 from Mr. Pagenstecher; f. A letter dated February 7, 2017 from Ms. Stone; g. A letter dated February 7, 2017 from Mr. Bowersox; h. A memorandum dated February 7, 2017 from Mr. Pagenstecher; and i. An email dated February 8, 2017 from Ms. Stone waiving the applicant's final argument and requesting the hearings officer close the record. 8. Pursuant to the applicant's request the record in this case closed at 5:00 p.m. on February 8, 2017. C. DISCUSSION 1. City staff recommended that the hearings officer approve the application, based on the affirmative findings and subject to conditions of approval in the Staff Report. The applicant accepted those findings and conditions without exceptions. The hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report as his own except to the extent they are inconsistent with the findings and discussion in this final order. 2. The hearings officer finds that the public had an adequate opportunity to review and respond to the proposed development, consistent with the limitations of the Code. TDC 1 8.390.050.0 requires the City to mail notice of public hearings to owners of property within 500 feet of the site and other specified persons at least twenty calendar days prior to the hearing, and publish notice in the newspaper and post notice on the site at least ten calendar days before a hearing. The City did these things in this case. The City mailed notice of the hearing to the to the persons listed in TDC 18.390.050.C(1)(a) on December 13, 2016. (See the January 18, 2017 Affidavit of Mailing). Autonome ASR, LLC was included in the notice mailing list. (See Exhibit B of the January 18, 2017 Affidavit of Mailing). The City posted a sign on the site and published notice in the Tigard Times newspaper on December 13, 2016. (See the January 18, 2017 Affidavit of Posting Notice and the December 15, 2016 Affidavit of Publication). This is sufficient to comply with the Code. The Code does not require that mailed notice be received by the owners; such a requirement would be impossible to enforce. Multiple forms of notice are required, in part, to provide a measure of overlap, so that if notice in one form is not effective(e.g., when a mailed notice is not received), another form of notice will be CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 5 effective (e.g., published or posted on the site). In addition, Autonome received actual notice of the hearing, as Mr. Bowersox appeared at the hearing on behalf of Autonome. a. It is the City's policy to require applicants schedule and attend a neighborhood meeting to summarize a proposed development prior to submitting an application. However this is not a requirement of the Code. The applicant mailed notice of a neighborhood meeting to the owners of properties within 500 feet of the site on August 12, 2016. The applicant held the neighborhood meeting on September 15, 2016. The applicant mailed notice of the meeting to Autonome ASR, LLC. See the "Evidence of Neighborhood Meeting" tab in the application packet submitted on November 22, 2016. As noted above, failure to receive properly mailed notice is irrelevant. 3. The applicant modified the proposed development to exclude Tax Lot 2100 from this application. (See the site plan attached to the January 9, 2017 email from Ms. Stone to Mr. Pagenstecher). Therefore there is no need to resolve the ownership of this property prior to approval of this application, because that property is no longer part of the proposed development. 4. Mr. Bowersox argued that traffic generated by the proposed facility will increase wear and tear and the need for maintenance on the existing private road serving the site. Assuming that assertion is correct,' it is not relevant to the applicable approval criteria for this development. Use and maintenance of private roads is regulated by private easement agreements. The hearings officer and the City have no authority to interpret or enforce such private agreements. If there is no recorded agreement for maintenance of the easement, than the parties to the easement are required to share the costs of maintenance based on their proportionate use. ORS 105.175(3). 5. There is no evidence that the proposed treatment facility will have any adverse impact on the nearby daycare facility. Patients will be confined to the secure facility and will not be allowed to leave the site during their treatment. The facility will not treat patients with a history of violence or sex offenses. The applicant met with the operators of the daycare facility and they did not express any concerns with the proposed use. 6. There is a dispute about whether the proposed use is allowed in the C-P zone. The applicant and the City argue that the proposed use is a"medical center"use described in TDC 18.130.050.G. Mr. Bowersox argued that proposed use is a"detention facility" described in TDC 18.130.080.C. The hearings officer finds that the proposed use does not fall into any of the Use Categories listed in TDC 18.130,based on the plain language of the Code. 7. TDC 18.130.040.A provides: 2 There is no evidence in the record regarding the volume of traffic generated by the prior law office use or the proposed treatment facility use. CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 6 Group Living. 1. Characteristics: Group Living is a living facility for groups of unrelated individuals which includes at least one person residing on the site who is responsible for supervising, managing, monitoring, and/or providing care, training, or treatment of residents. Large group living facilities may also be characterized by shared facilities for eating, hygiene, and/or recreation. 2. Accessory uses: Accessory uses commonly found are recreational facilities and parking. 3. Examples: Examples include dormitories; communes; fraternities and sororities; monasteries and convents; nursing and convalescent homes; some group homes for the physically and mentally disabled; and some residential programs for drug and alcohol treatment. 4. Exceptions: a. Does not include lodging meeting the definition of Transitional Housing, Detention Facilities, and/or Commercial Lodging. b. Does not include lodging where the residents meet the definition of Household, and where tenancy is arranged on a month-to-month basis, or for a longer period, which is classified as Household Living. a. The facility will house a group of unrelated individuals and provide staff who are responsible for supervising, managing, monitoring, and/or providing care, training, or treatment of residents. The facility will also provide shared facilities for eating, hygiene, and/or recreation. In addition, the facility will provide, in part, "residential programs for drug and alcohol treatment," which is one of the examples of "Group Living" listed in TDC 18.130.040.A(3). However staff that provide care and treatment of the residents will not reside on the site. Therefore the facility does not fall within the definition of"Group Living" in TDC 18.130.040.A. In addition, the primary purpose of the proposed facility is to provide mental health and addiction treatment, not a "living facility." i. The hearings officer notes that TDC 18.130.040.A(3) includes, "nursing and convalescent homes"as examples of"Group Living" uses. In the hearings officer's experience, staff at such facilities generally do not reside on the site. Therefore the requirement for resident staff included in Section A.1 may be an error. However, this requirement is clearly part of the Code and cannot be ignored. 8. TDC 18.130.040.B provides: Household Living. 1. Characteristics: Household Living is characterized by the residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a household. Tenancy is arranged on a month-to-month basis, or for a longer period. Uses CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 7 where tenancy may be arranged for a shorter period are not considered residential. They are considered to be a form of commercial lodging or transitional housing. Apartment complexes that have accessory services such as food service, dining rooms, and housekeeping are included as Household Living if tenancy meets length of stay requirements and residents have access to facilities for individual meal preparation. The maximum number of people who may reside in any given dwelling unit shall be determined by the state building code. 2. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses commonly found are recreational activities, keeping of normal household pets, hobbies, and parking of the occupants' vehicles. Home occupation and accessory dwelling units are examples of accessory uses that are subject to additional regulations. 3. Examples: Uses include living in houses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, retirement center apartments, manufactured housing, and other structures with self-contained dwelling units. Includes most types of senior housing, e.g., congregate care, assisted living, if residents live in self-contained units. 4. Exceptions: a. Does not include for-profit lodging, where tenancy may be arranged for periods less than one month. Such uses are considered a hotel or motel use and are classified as commercial lodging. b. Does not include lodging meeting the definition of Transitional Housing. a. The facility will not provide month-to-month or longer tenancy and residents will not have access to facilities for individual meal preparation. Patients will reside at the facility for two to three weeks and all food service will be provided in the common dining area. (See plan sheet A3). Therefore the facility does not fall within the definition of"Household Living" in TDC 18.130.040.B. 9. TDC 18.130.040.0 provides: Transitional Housing. 1. Characteristics: Transitional housing is characterized as public or non-profit living facilities possessing the same characteristics as Household or Group Living, but with tenancy less than 45 days. 2. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses commonly found are recreational facilities, parking of autos for the occupants and staff, and parking of vehicles for the facility. 3. Examples: Examples include homeless shelters, women's/children's shelters, drug/alcohol treatment facilities. 4. Exceptions: CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 8 a. Does not include for-profit lodging where tenancy may be arranged for periods less than one month, which is considered a hotel or motel use and is classified as Commercial Lodging. b. Does not include residential uses meeting the definition of Group Living. c. Does not include residential uses where the residents meet the definition of Household Living. d. Does not include residential uses meeting the definition of Detention Facilities. a. The proposed facility does not meet the standard for Transitional Housing. Transitional housing is defined, in part, as "[hiving facilities possessing the same characteristics as Household or Group Living,but with tenancy less than 45 days." As discussed above, the facility possesses characteristics of Group Living, i.e., staff who are responsible for supervising, managing, monitoring, and/or providing care, training, or treatment of residents and shared facilities for eating, hygiene, and/or recreation. The facility will provide residential drug and alcohol treatment, which is an explicit example of"Transitional Housing"as well as "Group Living." Patients will reside at the facility for less than 45 days. However Transitional Housing is further defined as, "[p]ublic or non-profit living facilities..." The applicant is not a public or non-profit entity. The applicant will operate the facility on a "for-profit" basis. Therefore the facility does not fall within the definition of"Transitional Housing" in TDC 18.130.040.C(1), which provides, "Transitional housing is characterized as public or non-profit living facilities..." 10. TDC 18.130. 050.G provides: Medical Centers: 1. Characteristics: Medical Centers are facilities providing inpatient, outpatient, and emergency and related ancillary services to the sick and infirm, and are usually developed in a campus setting or on multiple blocks. 2. Accessory uses: Accessory uses may include diagnostic and treatment facilities, laboratories, surgical suites, kitchen/food service facilities; laundry, housekeeping and maintenance facilities; administrative offices and parking. 3. Examples: Examples include hospitals and medical complexes that include hospitals. 4. Exceptions: a. Medical Centers may also include freestanding offices for hospital-based and/or private practice physicians and other allied health care professionals; these medical office buildings are regulated as Offices. b. Does not include uses meeting the definition of Emergency Services. CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 9 a. The facility will provide inpatient services to the sick and infirm, i.e., mental health treatment that the applicant describes as "medically necessary health care treatment"to patients residing at the facility. b. The facility is arguably "[d]eveloped in a campus setting or on multiple blocks." The facility will be housed in two separate buildings on the site. In addition, a campus setting or multi-block facility is not an explicit requirement for a Medical Center. The Code expressly provides that Medical Centers are "usually" designed to this standard. Use of the term "usually"clearly indicates that a campus setting or multi-block facility is not a requirement. c. However the facility does not qualify as a Medical Center,because it will not provide outpatient or emergency services. To qualify as a"Medical Center"the facility must provide, "[i]npatient, outpatient, and emergency ... services to the sick and infirm..." The hearings officer finds that the term "and" as used in TDC 18.130.050.G(1) has its plain, natural, and ordinary conjunctive meaning so as to require that Medical Centers include all of the listed services. As the Oregon Supreme Court held: Generally, the words 'and' and 'or', as used in statutes, are not interchangeable,being strictly of a conjunctive or disjunctive nature, and their ordinary meaning will be followed if it does not render the sense of the statute dubious or circumvent the legislative intent, or unless the act itself furnishes cogent proof of the legislative error." Lommasson v. School Dist No 1, 201 Or. 71, 79, 261 P2d 860, adh'd to in part on rehearing, 201 Or. 90, 267 p2d, 1105 (1954). In this case the term "and"was clearly used in the conjunctive sense. In order to qualify as a medical facility under TDC 18.130.050.G, the facility must provide inpatient, outpatient and emergency services. The proposed facility will not provide outpatient or emergency care. Therefore it cannot qualify as a medical facility based on the plain meaning of the words in TDC 18.130.050.G. Reading TDC 18.130 as a whole, this interpretation does not appear to render the sense of the statute dubious or circumvent the legislative intent. As discussed below, the Code appears to provide for the majority of individual medical service uses that are gathered together in the "Medical Centers" definition in other use categories in the Code. Limiting the term "and"to its usual conjunctive meaning to limit"Medical Centers"to those facilities that provide all three types of medical services does not render the Code meaningless or absurd. d. Arguments that the term "and" should be interpreted to mean the disjunctive "or" in this provision might be more persuasive if the Code did not expressly include other types of inpatient, outpatient, and related ancillary services in other use categories elsewhere in the Code. Outpatient medical facilities and other types of medical services CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 10 such as laboratories and blood collection centers are clearly included in the "Office"use described in TDC 18.130.060.L. Drug and alcohol treatment facilities are expressly included in the examples of"Group Living,""Transitional Housing." and the exception for"Transient Housing."Nursing and convalescent homes, which may provide a type of residential inpatient treatment, are included in the "Group Living" use. Medical centers as defined by TDC 18.130.050.G combine all of these uses in a single facility, hence the use of the conjunctive term "and." In addition, ORS 174.020(2)provides that a specific provision must prevail over a general provision addressing the same issue. The examples of"Group Living," "Transitional Housing," and the exception for"Transient Housing" specifically mention residential drug, alcohol and mental health treatment facilities whereas the "Medical Centers"definition includes a wide variety of medical services with no specific mention of drug, alcohol or mental health treatment facilities. e. The only examples of"Medical Centers" listed in TDC 1 8.130. 050.G(3) are "[h]ospitals and medical complexes that include hospitals." The facility is not a"hospital"as that term is commonly used. f. The applicant argues that the"drug and alcohol treatment facilities" described in the Code are different from the mental health and drug and alcohol treatment facility proposed in this case; the facilities permitted as transitional housing are limited to facilities serving the homeless or previously incarcerated persons. The proposed facility is a for-profit facility serving patients from the general population. Therefore this facility can only qualify as a Medical Center. However the language of the Code does not support such a distinction. The Code lists drug and alcohol treatment facilities in two different use categories and facilities for treatment of"[p]sychiatric, alcohol, or drug problems...," as an example of a third use category. The Code clearly anticipates a variety of drug, alcohol and mental health treatment facilities, not just facilities for persons "in transition." The hearings officer must interpret the Code in context and cannot consider individual provisions in isolation. 11. TDC 18.130. 060.D provides: Commercial Lodging. 1. Characteristics: Commercial Lodging includes for-profit residential facilities where tenancy is typically less than one month. 2. Accessory uses: Accessory uses commonly found are parking, restaurants and bars, meeting and convention facilities, and recreational facilities for guests such as pools and gym. 3. Examples: Examples include hotels, motels, rooming houses, and bed-and-breakfast establishments. 4. Exceptions: a. Does not include uses meeting the definition of Group Living or Transitional Housing. CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 11 a. This is the only use category that does not expressly exclude the proposed facility. The proposed facility is a for-profit residential facility where tenancy is typically less than one month. However the primary purpose of the proposed facility is to provide mental health treatment, not residential housing. In addition, the facility is clearly inconsistent with the"Commercial Lodging" examples listed in TDC 1 8.130.060.D(3), "hotels, motels, rooming houses, and bed-and-breakfast establishments."Therefore the facility does not fall within the definition of"Commercial Lodging" in TDC 18.130.060.D. 12. TDC 18.130.060.L provides: Office. 1. Characteristics: Office uses are characterized by activities conducted in an office setting that focus on the provision of goods and services, usually by professionals. Traditional Office uses are characterized by activities that generally focus on business, government, professional, medical, or financial services. Office uses may include activities that, while conducted in an office-like setting, are less consumer-oriented and focus on the support of off- site service personnel or in the development, testing, production, processing, packaging, or assembly of goods and products. Medical, dental, veterinary offices are out-patient clinics which provide healthcare to humans or animals, characterized by a professional or group of professionals assisted by support staff. 2. Accessory uses: Accessory uses commonly found are parking and storage facilities. 3. Examples: Examples include government offices; medical, dental, and veterinary clinics and laboratories; blood collection centers; professional offices for attorneys, architects, engineers, stockbrokers, insurance brokers, and other consultants; headquarters offices; sales offices; radio and television studios; administrative offices for painting, building, and landscaping contractors; and software development firms. 4. Exceptions: a. Offices that are part of and are located within a firm in another use category are considered accessory to the firm's primary activity. a. The facility will provide medical care to humans by a professional or group of professionals assisted by support staff. But such care is provided on an in-patient basis. Medical office uses included in TDC 18.130.060.L are limited to out-patient facilities. Therefore the facility does not fall within the definition of"Office" in TDC 18.130.060.L. 13. TDC 18.130. 080.0 provides: CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 12 Detention Facilities. I. Characteristics: Detention facilities are uses devoted to the judicially required detention, incarceration, or supervision of people. 2. Accessory uses: Accessory uses include offices, recreational and health facilities, therapy facilities, maintenance facilities, and hobby and manufacturing facilities. 3. Examples include prisons,jails, probation centers,juvenile detention homes, and related post incarceration and half-way houses. 4. Exceptions: a. Programs that provide care and training or treatment for psychiatric, alcohol, or drug problems, where patients are residents of the program, but where patients are not supervised by police officers, are classified as transient housing. a. The applicant proposed to operate a secure facility where patients are supervised by staff and precluded from leaving prior to the end of treatment. However residence at the facility is not judicially required. Therefore the facility does not fall within the definition of"Detention Facilities" in TDC 18.130.080.C. b. TDC 18.130.080.C(4)(a)provides the following exception: Programs that provide care and training or treatment for psychiatric, alcohol, or drug problems, where patients are residents of the program,but where patients are not supervised by police officers, are classified as transient housing. i. As discussed in the January 23, 2017 "Order Re-Opening the Record,"the proposed use clearly qualifies as "transient housing"as described in this exception. The express purpose of the proposed facility is to provide, "[t]reatment for psychiatric, alcohol, or drug problems, where patients are residents of the program..." Patients in the facility will be supervised by private medical staff, not police officers. Therefore, according to TDC 18.130.080.C(4)(a), the proposed use should be classified as "transient housing." However TDC 18.130.080.C(4)(a) is not a use category. It is merely an exception to the "Detention Facilities" use category. The Code does not include a "Transient Housing" use category. (A) The applicant argues that this exception is limited to, "facilities that provide judicially required treatment for psychiatric, alcohol, or drug problems, where patients are residents of the program, but where patients are not supervised by police officers..." p 4 of Mr. DeCristo's January 30, 3017 letter(italics in original). The hearings officer disagrees with this reading. This section provides an exception to facilities for judicially required detention. The exception makes no mention of the "judicially required" provision. In addition, this exception refers to "patients,"not CUP2016-00004& VAR20I6-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 13 "detainees," `inmates,"or"prisoners."The hearings officer finds, based on the plain meaning of the words in the Code, that the "judicially required"provision is inapplicable to this exception. (B)The applicant further argues that this exception is intended to apply to facilities operating under Oregon's Behavioral Rehabilitation Services (BRS) rules. However the applicant failed to provide any evidence demonstrating how facilities operating under the BRS rules fall into this exception and the proposed facility does not. Presumably patients of facilities operating under the BRS are there pursuant to a judicial order. However, as discussed above,judicial confinement is not required for this exception. The proposed facility is intended to provide, "[t]reatment for psychiatric, alcohol, or drug problems, where patients are residents of the program..."and patients in the facility will not be supervised by police officers. The exception does not require adjudication or any other requirements. Therefore the proposed facility appears to fall squarely within the scope of this exception. ii. Unfortunately the term "transient housing" is not used anywhere else in the Code. It appears that the term "transient housing"is a typographical error and this section was intended to use the term, "transitional housing." Such an interpretation would be consistent with the example of"transitional housing" in TDC 18.130.040.C(3), which includes, "[d]rug/alcohol treatment facilities." However the examiner has no authority to rewrite the code and correct this apparent typographical error. Weston Kia v. City of Gresham, LUBA 2014-085. Consequently the Hearings Officer cannot find that the proposed use constitutes"transitional housing"definition in TDC 18.130.040.C(3), based on the example of"transient housing" used in 18.130.080.C(4)(a). Therefore the hearings officer cannot find,based on this exception, that the proposed use qualifies as either transient or transitional housing. The use clearly qualifies as"Transient Housing" as defined in this exception. However the Code does not include a"Transient Housing" use category. 14. In order to approve this CUP application the hearings officer must find that the use complies with the CUP approval criteria in TDC I8.330.030.A. The hearings officer finds that the application complies with TDC 18.330.030.A(1), (2), (3), (5) and (6),based on the affirmative findings in the Staff Report. The hearings officer adopts those findings as his own. 15. The hearings officer cannot find that the application complies with TDC 18.330.030.A(4), "The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter."The site is zoned C-P. TDC Table 18.520-1 lists the uses that are permitted, restricted, conditional, or prohibited in the C-P zoning district. Uses are listed in the table based on the use categories set out in TDC 18.130. As discussed above, the proposed inpatient mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment facility does not fall into any of the listed use categories. Therefore the hearings officer cannot find that the proposed use complies with the requirements of the C-P zone and that the requirements of the C-P zone are met. CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 14 16. TDC 18.130.030 gives the director exclusive authority to interpret the Code to determine whether an omitted or unanticipated use would have been permitted in a zoning district if the use had been contemplated, based on the approval criteria in TDC 18.130.030.0 and the procedures in TDC 18.340. If the applicant obtains a final planning director determination that the proposed use is permitted in the C-P zone, this CUP can be approved. Therefore the hearings officer can approve this CUP application subject to a condition of approval requiring a final planning director interpretation that the proposed use is allowed in the C-P zone. a. TDC 18.340.020.D requires the director mail notice of an interpretation decision, "[t]o the person requesting the interpretation and any other person that has specifically requested a copy of such interpretation."Appeals of the director's interpretation are limited to the applicant and any party who received notice or participated in the interpretation process. TDC 18.340.020.E. The question subject to interpretation, whether the proposed inpatient mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment facility is allowed in the C-P zone, was the primary issue in this case. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the director should be required to mail notice of the interpretation to all persons who testified orally or in writing regarding this CUP application. 17. The City argued that denial of this application may constitute a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act (the "FHA"). The City cites to a prior case where Cascadia Behavioral HealthCare Inc. ("Cascadia")proposed a transitional housing use in the R-4.5 zone. Transitional housing was not allowed in the R-4.5 zone. The FHA required the City to grant a reasonable accommodation to allow the use in the R-4.5 zone. The hearings officer understands the City's concerns. However the hearings officer has no authority to implement or interpret the FHA. The hearings officer's authority is limited to implementation and interpretation of the Tigard Development Code. In addition, this case appears significantly different from the Cascadia decision cited by the City. The Cascadia decision involved a residential treatment facility proposed in a residential zone(R-4.5) where housing is a permitted use. This case involves a residential treatment facility proposed in a commercial zone where housing is generally prohibited.;Therefore the FHA may be inapplicable in this case. 18. The applicant testified that the facility will not provide treatment of patients with a history of sex offense, violence, or running away. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. 19. The applicant requested a variance to the rear yard setback requirements for medical centers. As discussed above, the proposed use does not constitute a"medical Residential development at a minimum density of 32 units/acre is permitted in conjunction with commercial development on C-P zone land in the Tigard Triangle and Bull Mountain Road Districts.TDC 18.520.020.D. CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 15 center" as defined by TDC 18.130..050.G. The proposed use complies with the standard setbacks for permitted uses in the C-P zone. Therefore the variance request may be moot. However the director could presumably interpret the proposed use to be similar to the medical center use and therefore subject to the medical center setbacks. The hearings officer finds that, to the extent this facility is subject to the medical center setbacks it complies with the approval criteria for a variance from those setbacks,based on the findings in the Staff Report. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the proposed inpatient mental health, drug and alcohol treatment facility does not fall within any of the use categories listed in TDC 18.130. Therefore this application can only be approved if the applicant obtains a final planning director interpretation that the proposed use is permitted in the C-P zone, pursuant to the approval criteria in TDC 18.130.030. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves CUP2016-00004 & VAR2016-0004 (Madrona Recovery Center) subject to the following conditions of approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORK, INCLUDING GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES: 1. The applicant shall apply for and obtain final approval of a director interpretation that the proposed inpatient mental health, drug and alcohol treatment facility is permitted in the C-P zone, based on the approval criteria in TDC 18.130.030.C. a. The director shall mail notice of the interpretation to all persons who testified orally or in writing regarding this CUP application. 2. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address each of the following requirements to the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: a. Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide a fee in the amount of$518 for the city's cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan of 14 existing retained trees, $154.00 first tree+ $364.00 ($28 each additional x 13) _ $518. CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 16 b. The applicant shall submit a service provider letter from Pride Disposal verifying the existing enclosure is adequate for the proposed medical center use and accessible for service. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: 2. The applicant shall contact the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-718-2434. a. The applicant shall call for a final planning inspection to ensure the project was completed as shown on the approved plan. b. The applicant shall install clearly visible address numbers on the site for emergency responders. THE APPLICANT SHALL OPERATE THE FACILITY CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 3. The facility shall not provide treatment of patients with a history of sex offense, violence, or running away. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18)MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION. DATED this 13 day of February 2017. Joe Turner, Esq., AICP City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer CUP2016-00004& VAR2016-0004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Madrona Recovery Center) Page 17 IB0wERs0x LAW FIRM F.C. RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2017 Jeffrey A.Bowersox Jeffrey{abowersoxlaw.com CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING February 27, 2017 Via Hand Delivery Director City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Appeal CUP 2016-00004 and VAR 2016-00004 Madrona Recovery Center Greetings: On behalf of property owner Autonome ASR, LLC, I enclose: 1. Notice of Appeal, with its four page"Exhibit 1" to be filed in this matter; and 2. The required filing fee in the amount of$3,372.00. Sin a - , OWERS• L 'i• ,P.C. y: Je ; �'/:o ersox JAB:ms Enclosures Phone:(503)452-5858 6960 SW Varna Street,Suite 200 Website:www.BowersoxLaw.com Fax:(503)345-6893 Portland,OR 97223 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2017 City of Tigard COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF TIGARD s PLANNING/ENGINEERING T►C„A k t, Land Use Decision Appeal Filing Form The City of Tigard supports a citizen's right to participate in local REQUIRED SUBMITTAL government.The Tigard Community Development Code,therefore, ELEMENTS sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. EX Filing Fee Narrative (address criteria 1_)3...320.O40.( a, i) Property address/location(s): 6996 - 7000 SW Varns Street, Tigard, OR 97223 Case No.(s): Deadline of appeal: February 7 7, 7n 1 7 nei hborin Case Names) Interest in proposal (applicant, neighbor, etc.): g g property owner at 6960 SW Varns Street, Related Case Nn(s):C.UQZpIW— =0'4 Appeal fee: 3 312 Tigard, OR 97223 Date decision final: Autonome ASR, LLC Notice of final decision Appellant's name: by: Jeffrey Bowersox, Member Business: Commercial-Professional Office Leasing 0 Type llDirector's Decisionto Address: 6960 SW Varns Street HO/PC: 0 Tigard, OR 9 7 2 2 3 Expedited Review(Deposit): City/state: Zip: 1IO/PC to city Council: Ph#: 503-452-5858Emaii: -Jeffrey@bowersoxlaw.com Application accepted: Specific reasons for appeal or review: By. f- Date:2/2-4 7 Appellant ' s specific reasons for appeal cw,nvww.r.,.w.eur Applications Roc IDA nosy or review are contain in the attached Exhibit 1, which by this reference is incorporated herein. 411. Autonome, ASR, LLC ` )11' By: Jeffrey A. Bowersox, Member 02-27-2017 Ap ants s',";_ ature Print name and title Date City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • www.tigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page I of 1 EXHIBIT 1 -NOTICE OF APPEAL Autonome ASR, LLC ("Autonome") appeals the City land use hearings officer's Final Order, dated February 13, 2017, approving Madrona Recovery Center's ("Marone") conditional use permit and variance applications, CUP2016-00004 &VAR2016-0004, for a 23-bed inpatient mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment facility(the"Application") on the following grounds set forth below. This notice of appeal provides the notice of appeal contents required by Tigard Development Code ("TDC") 18.390.040.G.2.a.ii. A. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision. As noted above, the decision being appealed is a decision by the City land use hearings officer, dated February 13, 2017, approving the Application. Madrona's conditional use permit and variance applications, CUP2016-00004 & VAR2016-0004. B. A statement demonstrating the party filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal. Autonome has standing to file the notice of appeal because it owns the property adjacent to Madrona's proposed development and appeared orally and in writing before the hearings officer. C. A detailed statement of the specific issues raised on appeal. 1. The hearings officer was required to deny the Application since he specifically concluded that the proposed use does not qualify as a conditional use in the zoning district. The most fundamental and important issue when reviewing a conditional use permit application is determining if the proposed use qualifies as a conditional use in the applicable zoning district. It was the central issue before the hearings officer in this case. The subject property is zoned Professional Commercial (C-P). Madrona requested conditional use permit approval based on its assertion that the proposed use qualifies as a"medical center," which is allowed as a conditional use in the C-P zone. TDC Table 18.520.1. Although other potential use categories were discussed during the hearing process, Madrona was adamant that the only use category it qualified for is a medical center. The hearings officer rejected this characterization of the proposed use and concluded that it does not qualify as a medical center, or any other type of use allowed in the C-P zone. He explained that it cannot qualify as a"medical center"because it is exclusively an inpatient facility and lacks the"outpatient and emergency ... services to the sick and inform," which are a necessary components under the definition. TDC 18.130.050.G(1). The hearings officer evaluated a number of other potential uses and concluded that the proposed use does not qualify as any of the permitted,restricted or conditional uses allowed in the C-P zone. Once the hearings officer concluded that the proposed use does not qualify as a medical center or any other use allowed in the C-P zone, he had no choice but to deny the Application. Madrona requested approval as a medical center and did not even ask the hearings officer to consider other 1 use categories, so determining that it does not qualify as a medical center alone is grounds for denial. Since the hearings officer evaluated other uses and concluded that the proposed use does not qualify as any of the uses allowed in the C-P zone, there is simply no legal basis for approving it as a conditional use. If the proposed use does not qualify as any of the conditional uses allowed in the C-P zone, it cannot be approved as a conditional use and the Application must be denied. 2. The hearings officer cannot defer the use issue to a subsequent director's interpretation determination. Notwithstanding the hearings officer's determination that the proposed use does not qualify as a medical center or any other conditional use allowed in the C-P zone, the hearings officer approved the Application subject to Madrona obtaining a subsequent planning director interpretation that the proposed use is a permitted use in the C-P zone. There are multiple reasons why the hearings officer did not have the authority to defer the use issue to a separate director's interpretation process. The hearings officer has exclusive jurisdiction to determine in the first instance if the proposed use complies with the conditional use permit criteria. TDC Table 18.390.1. It was his responsibility, and his alone,to determine whether or not the proposed use qualifies as a conditional use. The hearings officer did not have the authority to transfer that responsibility to the director, especially when he already concluded that the proposed use does not qualify as an allowed conditional use in the C-P zone. Once had made that determination, the only decision he had the authority to make was to deny the Application. The hearings officer cannot defer the use issue because different uses have different approval standards under the conditional use criteria in TDC 18.330.050. It is not possible to determine compliance with the size, dimensional, setback, offstreet parking and related approval standards until the City determines the appropriate use classification. The hearings officer erroneously reviewed the Application for compliance with the standards applicable to medical centers even though he concluded the proposed use cannot qualify as a medical center. The hearings officer cannot defer the use issue to a subsequent director's interpretation process because that process does not provide the same procedural rights. In order to defer an issue of compliance to a subsequent process, that later process must provide for the same public notice and opportunity to participate as the underlying process. Moreland v. City of Depoe Bay, 48 Or LUBA 136, 153 (2004); Sisters Forest Planning Committee v. Deschutes County, 45 Or LUBA 145, 154-55 (2003);Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442, 447 (1992). The director's interpretation process clearly does not provide the same opportunity to participate as the Type III conditional use process. The director's interpretation is a considered a"Special kind of decision" that is a Type I process unless the applicant appeals: "Type I if not appealed, Type II if appealed by applicant." TDC Table 18.30.1. Unless Madrona appeals, Autonome will have no local appeal rights because a Type I decision"is not appealable locally, and is the final decision of the city."TDC 18.390.030.D.. Neither the Type I procedures nor the director's interpretation procedures even provide an opportunity for non-applicant parties to comment. The director's interpretation process is clearly not equivalent because it does not provide an opportunity to comment, a public hearing or any appeal rights. 2 Even if Madrona could rely on a director's interpretation to address the use issue, it was required to do so before or concurrently with the conditional use permit application. TDC 18.340.010 defines the director's interpretation as a process for"resolving these ambiguities in advance of or concurrent with applying for a particular permit or other action." (Emphasis added). That way the use issue will have already been addressed by the director and can be properly factored into the conditional use permit criteria. It is not a process intended to address the use issue after the underlying land use permits have already been approved. 3. The hearings officer erred in concluding that Madrona demonstrated compliance with TDC 18.330.030.A.3 given the lack of any traffic impact analysis. Madrona was required to provide a traffic impact study and demonstrate that the surrounding transportation system has adequate capacity to serve the proposed use. TDC 18.330.030.A.3 requires all conditional uses to demonstrate that "all required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal. In order to address this requirement, TDC 18.390.050.B.2.e requires all Type III applicants to provide an impact study that quantifies the effect of the development on public facilities and services, and must address "at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways,the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development." (Emphasis added). Additionally, TDC 18.810.020.A provides: "No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section and adequate public facilities are available." The transportation system is one of the public facilities that Madrona must demonstrate has adequate capacity to serve the proposed use. Madrona cannot demonstrate compliance with these approval criteria because they never provided the City a traffic impact study. Without some evidence identifying the current capacity of the surrounding transportation system and analyzing the additional traffic impact this facility will create, there is no evidentiary basis for concluding that the proposed development satisfies TDC 18.330.030.A.3. The hearings officer erred in addressing this approval criterion. The hearings officer erroneously concluded that traffic impacts are not relevant because the road providing direct access to the property is private. Regardless of whether or not the access road is private, TDC 18.330.030.A.3, 18.390.050.B.2.e and TDC 18.810.020 all require the applicant to demonstrate that the surrounding public transportation system has capacity to accommodate the proposed use. The private access road connects to the public transportation system, so Madrona is still required to provide a traffic impact study to address the impacts on the public transportation system. D. A statement demonstrating that the specific issues raised on appeal were raised during the comment period. As noted in the hearings officer's decision, Autonome raised the specific issues on appeal during the hearings officer's process. Autonome argued that the proposed use was not an allowed use in the C-P zone and therefore the hearings officer was required to deny the application. Autonome 3 also argued that Madrona failed to demonstrate that the surrounding transportation system has adequate capacity to serve the proposed use. E. Filing Fee. The notice of appeal includes a filing fee for the appeal in the amount of$3,372, the appeal filing fee provided by the City. 4 a J J W Z Zoee Lynn Powers zpowers@radlerwhite.com W 971-634-0215 Q March 21, 2017 Tigard City Council CL 13125 SW Hall Blvd. W Tigard, OR 97223 I- 2 RE: Madrona Recovery Center (CUP2016-00004&VAR2016-0004) OC ILI Mayor and Councilors: Madrona Recovery("Madrona") seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit changing the use of CY an existing commercial office complex to a medical center—specifically an adolescent mental health and substance use disorder treatment facility—at 6996-7000 SW Varns Street.The proposal is for an adaptive reuse and interior remodeling of properties that have been vacant for three years, under application numbers CUP2016-00004&VAR2016-0004.The facility is designed to provide high-quality, short-term,trauma-informed care to stabilize youth in crisis and work with the youth and their families to bridge care from an emergency,to inpatient care at the property, and finally to ongoing outpatient support.The Hearings Officer approved the Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") application in a Final Order dated February 13, 2017, subject to conditions. I. Madrona is a Medical Center Type Use The CUP process is designed to analyze the site suitability and impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood and public facilities.TDC 18330.030.A. In this case,the Hearings Officer did that analysis,followed the CUP process, meticulously examined this proposed use and its minimal off-site impacts, and, after consideration of those factors, approved the CUP. The reason we are in front of City Council now is that the Hearings Officer had questions about classifying Madrona as a "Medical Center" use and, because of his uncertainty, he requested another review to make that classification decision. We ask that City Council agree with the planning staff's interpretation of the code that this is a "Medical Center" type use for the following reasons. Under the code, a "Medical Center" use has the "characteristics" of"providing inpatient, outpatient, and emergency and related ancillary services to the sick and infirm[.]"TDC 18.130.050.G.1. The listed "characteristics" of a use in the code, of course, cannot cover every possible use. Rather, "[u]ses are assigned to the category whose description most closely describes the nature of the primary use."TDC 18.130.015.A.1. The Hearings Officer felt uncomfortable being the final decision-maker that classified Madrona Recovery as a Medical Center use.The Hearings Officer conditioned the approved CUP on Madrona seeking a Director's Interpretation to place the proposed use in the "Medical Center"category. That {00650107;3} Tigard City Council March 21, 2017 W Page 2 G Z ' X Director's Interpretation process, however, is for "omitted" uses that were "unanticipated" or LLI "unintentional[ly] omi[ted]." For example, if the code had been written before the internet, an internet café use would have been unintentionally omitted because that category of uses simply had not existed before. In this case,there is an existing use category with characteristics that "most closely describe[] the nature of the primary use": Medical Center. As noted, a "Medical Center" use has the n- "characteristics" of"providing inpatient, outpatient, and emergency and related ancillary services to the tL sick and infirm[.]" Madrona Recovery will do all these things for its patients. = First, as with any medical center, most patients and their families will come to Madrona in an emergency situation stemming from a mental health or substance abuse emergency.See"Emergency" OC Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, Web: 19 Mar 2017 ("an unforeseen W combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action"). Madrona's written 4 admission criteria clearly articulates the emergent nature of the conditions it treats. For example, a child Cg would be a candidate for admission if they presented with suicidal ideation, self-endangering behavior, substance abuse, or an inability to maintain adequate nutrition or self-care. Madrona triages and addresses immediate safety needs of these patients, such as by medicating for detoxification, monitoring for signs of withdrawal, and providing emergency counseling services and constant monitoring. Second, Madrona will provide short-term inpatient treatment to stabilize patients.Therapists, counselors, a nursing team, and a psychiatrist will provide care 24 hours a day, seven days a week, generally for 14 to 21 days depending on the patient's needs. Patients undergo a psychiatric evaluation, a thorough history and physical, a nursing assessment and laboratory tests, a chemical dependency assessment, a nutritional assessment, and other evaluations. As problems are identified,their treatment needs are prioritized, and strategic interventions are implemented. Third, Madrona helps its patients to successfully transition from its structured inpatient program to outpatient supports and services in their home communities.This outpatient service provides the continuity of care that patients critically need to maintain the gains they have achieved during their inpatient stay. Utilizing advanced telemedicine technologies, patients and their families are provided ongoing therapy from their counselor at Madrona via secure video-conferencing, an approach which increases patient chances of continued treatment success and reduces traffic to and from the site. Finally, Madrona will provide "ancillary services," including administrative services, kitchen and dining services, housekeeping and maintenance, as well as fitness and activity programing. Madrona frequently describes their services as a "bridge"that allows patients and their families to move from crisis situations,through an intensive impatient program, into a supported outpatient treatment, and ultimately back to leading healthy full lives.Just as a patient with a broken leg may initially go to urgent care for emergency services and then have a period of inpatient treatment for surgery with outpatient follow up, these mental health and substance abuse disorder patients follow a similar path to recovery through Madrona. {00650107;3} Tigard City Council March 21, 2017 Cd W < Page 3 ,- Z ' Q _ )( The Tigard Planning Staff came to the same conclusion: "The City believes that the proposed UJ recovery center is characterized as Medical Center . . . ." Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner, City of Tigard Memorandum:Request from the Hearings Officer for a Use Category Interpretation for the Madrona Recovery Center Conditional Use(January 31, 2017). If City Council cannot conclude today that this is a Medical Center within the meaning of the code, Madrona can obtain a Director's Interpretation formalizing the opinion of the Planning Staff. Q 0— UJ II. Autonome ASR, LLC's Appeal = Autonome ASR, LLC("Autonome") is the property holding entity on the site next to the proposed use, and the only neighbor who has objected to Madrona's proposed medical center. LU The majority of Autonome's arguments—that the Hearings Officer needed to decide this was a Q Medical Center use and that he could not defer the issue to a Director's Interpretation—are not correct because the City Council has the authority to make the use interpretation in this appeal.TDC ce 18.930.050. City Council will take testimony and evidence on the issue of the correct use, possibly including evidence not presented to the Hearings Officer, and will make a decision on the CUP application. In fact, rather than the code conferring on the Hearings Officer"exclusive jurisdiction"to decide on a conditional use, as Autonome asserts,the definition of"conditional use" provides for an "approval authority" to make the decision following a public hearing, and an "approval authority" can be "either the director, the initial hearing body, or the council, depending on the context . . . ."TDC 18.120.030.22. The context here is the appeal of a Type III procedure, and City Council is empowered to decide that this is a Medical Center use and finalize the approval of the CUP. Although irrelevant at the City Council level, it merits mentioning that Autonome seems to have missed important code sections when it states that a Director's Interpretation would mean "Autonome will have no local appeal rights." Chapter 18.340, titled "Director's Interpretations," provides that"[t]he applicant and any party who received such notice or who participated in the proceedings through the submission of written or verbal evidence of an interpretation may appeal the director's Interpretation to the city council within 14 days. . . ."TDC 18.340.020.The notice of appeal is pursuant to TDC 18.390.040.G.2, exactly the same as the procedure to appeal that Autonome used to file the present appeal to council. Finally, it is unclear why Autonome believes Madrona did not provide the required impact analysis for the CUP application. As part of the Type III procedure for initial CUP applications under TDC 18.330.020.A, Madrona submitted the required impact study "quantify[ing] the effect of the development on public facilities and services."TDC 18.390.050.B.2.e. If Madrona had not submitted this paperwork,the application would not have been accepted as complete.The Impact Study and Traffic Impact Statement are attached as Exhibit A for convenience. Autonome states that Madrona never analyzed "the additional traffic impact this facility will create"—when, in fact, the attached Traffic Impact Statement concluded that the current general office use would produce 120 trips per day and the new, proposed use would produce only 62 trips per day.The Staff Report, dated January 2, 2017, shows that"the City's Engineering review did not identify any outstanding public facility capacity issues {00650107;3} Tigard City Council March 21, 2017 W a Page 4 CI ZQ Xz with the fully developed site [and that] there is adequate capacity in the public facilities that serve the QLLI site." Staff Report, p.5. Ill. Conclusion Madrona asks that City Council classify its proposed use as a Medical Center and finalize the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for 6996-7000 SW Varns Street. a- W Sincerely, W ce Zoee Powers {00650107;3} EXHIBIT A Impact Study and Traffic Impact Statement Traffic Impact Statement 6996 & 7000 Varns Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 The existing buildings total approximately 10,296 square feet of usable office space. One of the buildings has an unfinished basement that was used for storage. Based on ITE manuals, a general office produces 11 .7 daily trips per 1,000 gross square feet. In its existing use this would produce 120 trips per day. The proposed use will be a total of 23 beds of inpatient medical rehab. The ITE classifies this as a Nursing Home with a land use code of 620. The average daily trips is 2.7 trips per bed. This would put the average daily traffic at 62 trips per day. All use classifications are based on the ITE manual and are not meant to match the City of Tigard's land use classifications. The closest use was selected from the ITE list of uses. As you can see this is a reduction in traffic over the existing use of the buildings. {00650107;3} EXHIBIT A CONT. Madrona Recovery Center Impact Study 6996 & 7000 SW Va rn s Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 This document will address the impact that this project will have on the public and private infrastructure within the City of Tigard, Washington County and Clean Water Services. The project is a conversion of two existing office buildings. The North building is a two story building with a basement. The two above grade floors have a total of 6,899 square feet with the basement being 2,459 square feet. The Southern building is two stories with no basement. The total square footage of the South building is 3,397. The previous use of the building was office space and more specifically they were law offices for a single tenant. The new use will be an inpatient adolescent mental health and substance use disorder treatment center. The nature of the proposed use is much less taxing on public infrastructure in many ways and will be discussed in more detail in the following statement. Transportation System: As offices, the existing buildings could employ approximately 40 workers that mainly work 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday. The treatment center will have 32-35 employees. There will be approximately 10 employees per shift and the center will be open 24 hours a day. The overload on the street system will be less than the previous use at peak hours. This use should have approximately 20-30 peak trips in the AM and PM hours. Bikeways: New bike racks will be installed on the property to meet the City requirements. The nearest bike lanes and bus lanes are located on SW 72 Avenue, which is less than 0.5 miles from the site. No patients of the facility will have access to public transportation during their time at the center. {00650107;3} EXHIBIT A CONT. Drainage System: The site currently has a public storm sewer conveyance system on the north side of the private access easement that is against the Southern ramp to Highway 217. The site also has a storm water quality and detention area that was built when the second building was constructed about 8 years ago. There will be a small amount of impervious surface added to the site for a single basketball hoop. This small addition can have the storm water treated and managed by the existing facility. Parks: The closest park to the site is Potso Dog Park. It is about a 0.6 mile walk from the site. The nature of this business does not negatively affect the park system. The buildings are secured for safety and all outdoor activity are secured to the site for the patients. Water and Sewer System: The two buildings are currently served by the public water system. This use will, by nature, use more water. The following usage per day is based on the industry averages for the specific fixtures. The use may be more or less than approximated based on the building patient load and time of day. The North building will add three wash sinks, three toilets, one clothes washer and one shower. The South building will add one wash sink and one toilet. Based on industry averages these added fixtures could add between 300 - 400 gallons of water per day to the existing use of the site. {00650107;3} ' City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Joe Turner, City of Tigard Hearings Officer From: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner Re: Request from the Hearings Officer for a Use Category Interpretation for the Madrona Recovery Center Conditional Use (CUP2016-00004/VAR2016-00004) Date: January 31, 2017 Description of the proposed use, as described by the applicant: "The proposed Madrona Recovery Center will be a licensed adolescent mental health and substance use disorder treatment facility. This facility is designed to provide short term inpatient treatment that will prevent patients from entering higher levels of care. The program goal is to provide short-term, high-quality, trauma-informed care that will stabilize youth, educate their families, and assist them to bridge their care from an inpatient to an outpatient setting. Adolescents 13-17 years of age with mental health and substance use disorders will receive care for 14-21 days in a secure and stabilized environment. The facility will be staffed by therapists, milieu counselors (mental health techs), a nursing team and a psychiatrist who specializes in working with adolescents and their families. With an overall staff of 32-35 people providing 24/7 care, the average number of staff per shift is about 10." City's comment on whether the use category Medical Center or Transitional Housing is more consistent with the proposed use: The following is the process described in the code for determining which use category is assigned to a particular land use. 18.130.015:A Considerations 1. The "Characteristics" subsection of each use category describes the characteristics of each use category. Uses are assigned to the category whose description most closely describes the nature of the primary use. . . . 2. The following items are considered to determine what use category the use is in, . . . a. The description of the activity(ies) in relationship to the characteristics of each use category; Section 18.130.015.D discusses the use of examples and states that "the names of uses on the lists are generic. They are based on the common meaning of the terms and not on what a specific use may call itself." Thus, when seeking to determine the appropriate use category, the "Characteristics" section takes precedence and controls over the generic and non-binding "Examples" section. This method of interpretation is consistent with the City's practice. For this specific case, the following is a description of staff's evaluation of the proposed use compared with each use category identified in the Hearings Officer's Continuance Order: 18.130.050.G Medical Centers 1. Characteristics: Medical Centers are facilities providing inpatient, outpatient, and emergency and related ancillary services to the sick and infirm, and are usually developed in a campus setting or on multiple blocks. The City believes that the proposed recovery center is characterized as Medical Center because it provides inpatient and related ancillary services to the sick (mentally and/or substance abuse) and because the two-building facility provides a campus-like setting. The proposed activity, "to provide short term inpatient treatment that will prevent patients from entering higher levels of care" best matches the characteristics of the Medical Center Use Category, "facilities providing inpatient, outpatient, and emergency and related ancillary services to the sick and infirm." 18.130.040.0 Transitional Housing 1. Characteristics: Transitional housing is characterized as public or non-profit living facilities possessing the same characteristics as Household or Group Living, but with tenancy less than 45 days. The City believes that this category is not applicable because the proposed use is 1) for profit and 2) not as clear a fit with the characteristics description. Medical Centers specifically describes inpatient treatment,whereas Transitional Housing does not. 18.130.080.0 Detention Facilities 1. Characteristics: Detention facilities are uses devoted to the judicially required detention, incarceration, or supervision of people. The City believes that this category is not applicable because the proposed use is not judicially required and is therefore not consistent with the characteristics for Detention Facilities, and does not warrant any further reading of the category. e " City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Mayor Cook, and City Councilors From: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner Re: Public Hearing for Appeal of Hearing's Officer Decision to Approve Madrona Recovery Center CUP2016-00004/VAR2016-00004 Date: March 21, 2017 The following is a revised finding to address the Appellant's third assignment of error: 3. The hearings officer erred in concluding that Madrona demonstrated compliance with TDC 18.330.030.A.3 given the lack of any traffic impact analysis. TDC 18.330.030.A.3 states: All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; Pursuant to 18.390.050.B.2.e, the applicant provided an Impact Statement summarizing that trip generation would be reduced under the proposed medical center use from the prior office use of the site. The applicant also provided a Traffic Impact Statement showing the ITE Manual trip generation for the proposed medical center use would be approximately half of what was permitted under the existing office use. Pursuant to 18.810.020.A, proposed development must address the applicable standards in 18.810 for potential impacts to Streets and Utilities. Since the site does not have frontage on a public street (Varns terminates into a private drive), public streets improvements are not applicable. The City's Engineering review did not identify any outstanding public facility capacity issues with the fully developed site. Therefore, there is adequate capacity in the existing public facilities that serve the site. This criterion is met. CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON TIGARD CITYCOUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE MEDICAL CENTER USE IN THE PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL (C-P) ZONE, ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION, AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S FINAL ORDER NO.CUP2016-00004/VAR2016-00004. WHEREAS, The Hearings Officer initially reviewed this case at a public hearing January 9, 2017 and kept the record open for additional testimony by the applicant and the City on the question of the "medical center"use classification;and WHEREAS, The Hearings Officer issued a Final Order No. CUP2016-00004/VAR2016-00004 approving the application with a condition requiring the applicant to obtain a Director's Interpretation approving the proposed use as permitted in the C-P zone;and WHEREAS, Staff mailed notice of Final Order CUP2016-00004/VAR2016-0004 to interested parties on February 13,2017. WHEREAS, the Appellant,Autonome ASR, LLC,by Jeffrey Bowersox, having standing to appeal, timely filed a Notice of Appeal on February 27,2017;and WHEREAS, City Council held a public hearing on the appeal on March 28, 2017, which was continued at the request of the Appellant to April 4,2017;and WHEREAS, City Council concluded at the April 4, 2017 hearing that the proposed "medical center" use is permitted in the C-P zone,addressed the substantive traffic issue on appeal,and denied the appeal. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council denies the Autonome appeal of Madrona Recovery Center, CUP2016-00004/VAR2016-00004. SECTION 2: The City Council adopts the Hearings Officer's Final Order, except insofar as the Hearings Officer concluded the proposed facility was not a medical center. Council finds the proposed facility is most closely described in Code as a medical center and is a permitted use in the C-P zone. Council further adopts the supplemental findings attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2017. Mayor-City of Tigard A I EST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 17- Page 1 s 711 i p q 6 . 711 • r .. a 10 • fs 71 i -au• r 7 10 71 r i rr. / I • • �`''� ''` ht 710 , ;f. 7110 ' 7110 t • •`�' I J. \ Varns Street Termination ,;,..„.4.....,,,i4,1,--. .I I - ,,ice ! i1yy� ;11r tif}. - • - r .....` Shared Private Drive r with properties to the south • ,, .,,,:, ,,,,,- •. lc , N - 1' 4 t. I 0 • ;y �. • 7130 ,;_ • , •,4-,i = .1101 Madrona Recovery Center •� a S 7000 ." Site f .' y , ,, r - 40 # r . ' r r'- f } ` 7140 , :' F _.. i. '_; .0:...:. 4 s� r,_ ' .� 1 7160 .4E 6981 7160 '- a •rt• ,.L r . ie • rt L a :k . p+ 7160 - . J r 7160 ,ff { •' £ , } � , ff0trik. 7160 k r7150 s l l.... -< , 7160 s e ,s - \7A. I 17160 E 1 .• �c '' e i;;• -;t 71`,71 71.50 , - ' ' 7150 r 7 i0 ' : — , _ , _ , , r r ' AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: April 4, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on: APPEAL OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S FINAL ORDER NO. CUP2016-00004/VAR2016-00004, APPROVING THE MEDICAL CENTER USE IN THE PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL (C-P) ZONE PROPOSAL: Request for a conditional use permit and variance to convert an existing law office to a medical center at 6996-7000 SW Varns Street in the City of Tigard,Oregon. APELLANT: Jeffrey A Bowersox Representing: Autonome ASR,LLC 6960 SW Varns Street Tigard,OR 97223 APPLICANT: Madrona Recovery 500 Liberty Street SW, Suite 100 Salem, OR 97301 OWNER: Nelson Vial,LLC 17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.,Suite A Lake Oswego,OR 97035 LOCATION: 6996-7000 SW Yarns Street,Tigard, OR 97224 Tax map#: 2S101DA,Tax Lot #: 01900 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Due to time Constraints City Council May Impose a Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: April 4, 2017 PLEASE PRINT Proponent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. N e,A dress&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. 41-e. Con o! 4e t =\/, Sa Su) 1Phvi haridec Q -+: a 93 -aoS-- ciC Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Due to time Constraints City Council May Impose a Time Limit on Testimony SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR `t/4�i7 ( ems HathawayKoback 520 SW Yamhill 35 (DATE OF MEETING) Suite 235 Connors up Portland,OR 97204 E.Michael Connors 503-205-8400 main 503-205-8401 direct mikeconnors a(�hkcllp.com April 4, 2017 HAND DELIVERY Mayor John Cook Council President Jason Snider Councilor Marc Woodard Councilor John Goodhouse Councilor Tom Anderson Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Madrona Recovery Center—CUP2016-00004 &VAR2016-00004 Autonome ASR, LLC—Appeal of Hearings Officer Decision Dear Mayor and Councilors: This firm represents Autonome ASR, LLC ("Autonome") with respect to the above-referenced appeal of the hearings officer's decision, dated February 13, 2017, approving Madrona Recovery's ("Madrona") conditional use permit and variance applications for a 23-bed inpatient mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment facility (the "Application"). We are submitting these comments in response to written comments submitted by Madrona, the City attorney and the City staff in response to the appeal. A. The scope of appeal is limited to the specific issues raised in Autonome's notice of appeal and therefore the City Council lacks jurisdiction to consider the Medical Center issue. Madrona erroneously argues that the City Council should reverse the hearings officer's determination that the proposed use does not qualify as a Medical Center and approve the Application as a Medical Center. That issue is beyond the scope of this appeal because Autonome did not raise it in the notice of appeal and Madrona did not file its own appeal. The City Council's review on appeal is limited to the specific issues raised in Autonome's notice of appeal. Tigard Development Code ("TDC") 18.390.050.G.2, which sets forth the requirements for appealing a Type III hearings officer decision, provides: "[t]he notice of appeal shall be in the form specified in 18.390.040.G.2.a.ii. The procedures of subsections C through F of this section shall be forwarded in the appeal." TDC 18.390.040.G.2.a.ii.0 requires the notice of appeal to include: "[a] detailed statement of the specific issues raised on appeal." When the Page 2 April 4, 2017 local code requires a notice of appeal to include the specific issues being raised on appeal, the scope of appeal is limited to the specific issues set forth in the notice of appeal. Miles v. City of Florence, 190 Or App 500, 510, 79 P3d 382 (2003); Smith v. Douglas County, 93 Or App 503, 506-07, 763 P2d 169 (1988), affd 308 Or 191, 777 P2d 1377 (1989). Otherwise, there would be no reason to require an appellant to list the specific issues raised on appeal if any issue can be raised at any point during the appeal process. Id. Autonome's notice of appeal did not challenge the hearings officer's conclusion that the proposed use does not qualify as a Medical Center or any of the other specific uses raised by the parties. Rather, Autonome's notice of appeal was limited to the following issues: (1) the hearings officer erred by approving the Application since he concluded the proposed use does not qualify as an allowed use in the C-P zone; (2) the hearings officer erred in deferring the use issue to a subsequent director's interpretation process; and (3)the hearings officer erred by failing to require a traffic impact analysis. Since Autonome's notice of appeal did not challenge the hearings officer's determination that the proposed use cannot qualify as a medical use, that issue cannot be considered on appeal. Moreover, Madrona did not appeal the hearings officer's decision itself and therefore cannot challenge the decision after the appeal deadline. Madrona could have filed its own appeal challenging the hearings officer's decision, but it chose not to do so. Autonome filed its notice of appeal early, so Madrona certainly knew that there would be an appeal before the City Council and could have filed its own appeal if it wanted to preserve this issue. Madrona cannot challenge the hearings officer's decision after-the-fact by attempting to bootstrap onto Autonome's appeal. B. TDC 18.130.015.A.1 does not allow the City Council to approve the proposed use as a Medical Center in this appeal. The City attorney erroneously suggests that the City Council has the discretion to approve the proposed use as a Medical Center under TDC 18.130.015.A.1 if it determines that the Medical Center use category"most closely" describes the proposed use. TDC 18.130.015.A.1 does not grant the City Council this discretion or allow any decision-making body to approve a use that does not meet the definition under the TDC simply because it is comes close to satisfying the definition. TDC 18.130.015.A.1 merely explains how the various use categories are characterized and notes that: "[u]ses are assigned to the category whose description most closely describes the nature of the primary use." (Emphasis added). TDC 18.130.015.A.1 describes how the use categories recognized in the TDC were determined and does not provide an independent process or basis for approving a use that does not satisfy the definition. To the extent a proposed use does not meet the definition of a use recognized in the TDC, TDC 18.130.030 provides the exclusive process and criteria for addressing these types of uses. TDC 18.130.030.A provides that the purpose of this process is to address unanticipated uses that do not clearly fall within a use category and "establish a procedure for determining whether certain specific uses would have been permitted in a zoning district had they been contemplated and whether such omitted and/or unanticipated uses are compatible with the listed uses." The Director has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide these cases in the first instance subject to the Director's Interpretation process set forth in TDC Chapter 18.340. TDC 18.130.030.B. TDC Page 3 • April 4, 2017 18.130.030.0 provides specific approval standards that must be satisfied to approve a use under this process. Since the Director has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide this issue pursuant to the approval criteria set forth in TDC I8.130.030.C, the City Council does not have the authority to approve the proposed use within the context of this appeal. C. Madrona mischaracterized the hearings officer's decision and its position before the hearings officer. In an apparent attempt to obscure the issues, Madrona's new attorney significantly mischaracterized the hearings officer's decision and Madrona's position below. Madrona claims that the hearings officer did not approve the proposed use as a Medical Center because he "had questions about classifying Madrona as a `Medical Center' use," had"uncertainty" about the issue and "felt uncomfortable being the final decision-maker that classified Madrona Recovery as a Medical Center use." Madrona's letter, dated March 21, 2017,p.1. This characterization of the hearings officer's decision is simply not true. The hearings officer was not confused or uncomfortable about this issue—he very clearly and definitively concluded that he cannot approve the proposed use as a Medical Center based on the plain language in the City's code. The hearings officer concluded that"the facility does not qualify as a Medical Center" and "it cannot qualify as a medical facility based on the plain meaning of the words in TDC 18.130.050.G." Hearings officer's decision, p.10. That is why the hearings officer concluded that the only way the proposed use could potentially qualify is if Madrona obtained a director's interpretation pursuant to TDC 18.130.030. Madrona's new attorney also mischaracterized its position below. Before the hearings officer, Madrona acknowledged that the proposed facility would not include outpatient and emergency services but argued that it still qualified as a Medical Center since it included inpatient services. Because the definition of a Medical Center is limited to facilities with"inpatient, outpatient, and emergency and related ancillary services,"the hearings officer concluded that it could not qualify because it lacks these essential features. Hearings officer's decision, p.10. In its response to Autonome's appeal, Madrona's new attorney claims for the first time that the proposed facility will provide outpatient and emergency services. Madrona did not preserve this argument and Madrona's attorney cannot re-write the evidentiary record below. The City Council must base its decision on the evidence Madrona presented to the hearings officer, not new arguments Madrona's attorney is attempting to raise on appeal. D. The proposed facility does not qualify as a Medical Center. Even if the City Council had jurisdiction to consider if the proposed facility qualifies as a Medical Center, it clearly does not meet the plain language definition of this term. As the hearings officer explained, Madrona's proposed facility cannot qualify as a Medical Center because it does not satisfy the definition of this use category as set forth in TDC 18.130.050.G.1. TDC 18.130.050.G.1 defines "Medical Centers" as "facilities providing inpatient, outpatient, and emergency and related ancillary services to the sick and infirm * * *." The plain language use and meaning of the term "and" in this definition requires that these facilities include all of these components. Lommasson v. School Dist. No. 1, 201 Or App 71, 79, 261 P2d 860, adh'd to in part on rehearing, 201 Or 90, 267 P2d 1105 (1954). These individual components are addressed Page 4 April 4, 2017 separately in the code. For example, Emergency Services are a separate category of use, and outpatient medical facilities and other types of medical services are included in the Office definition. TDC 18.130.050.F & 18.130.060.L.3. To qualify as a Medical Center, TDC 18.130.050.G.1 expressly requires the facility to include all of these components. As the hearings officer concluded in his decision, the proposed facility does not meet this definition because it only contains one of the three components required to constitute a Medical Center. The proposed facility will provide inpatient facilities,but it clearly will not include outpatient or emergency services. Therefore, it cannot qualify as a Medical Center. E. The proposed facility is closer to a Transitional Housing or Detention Facilities. To the extent the City Council believes the proposed facility can qualify as one of the use categories set forth in TDC 18.130 even if it does not meet all of the requirements of that definition, the proposed facility is more similar to other types of uses, namely Transitional Housing or Detention Facilities. The only reason the hearings officer ruled out these use categories was because the proposed facility did not meet all of the components in the definition. If the City Council concludes it is not necessary to satisfy all of the components of the definition, these other use categories more closely describe the proposed facility. The proposed facility most closely matches a Transitional Housing use. "Transitional Housing" is defined as "public or non-profit living facilities possessing the same characteristics as Household or Group Living,but with tenancy less than 45 days." TDC 18.130.040.C.1. The hearings officer agreed that the proposed facility possesses characteristics of Group Living and the residents will reside at the facility less than 45 days. Hearings officer's decision,p.9. The examples of Transitional Housing include one that matches the proposed use—"drug/alcohol treatment facilities." TDC 18.130.040.C.3. The only reason the hearings officer ruled out this use category was that the proposed facility will not be a public or non-profit facility. However, if the proposed facility is not required to satisfy all components of the definition, the proposed facility most closely matches the definition of a Transitional Housing use because it specifically describes the proposed facility. TDC 18.130.080.C.4.a provides further support for classifying the proposed facility as Transitional Housing. TDC 18.130.080 defines Detention Facilities. TDC 18.130.080.C.4.a lists exceptions to this definition and provides: "Programs that provide care and training or treatment for psychiatric, alcohol, or drug problems, where patients are residents of the program,but where patients are not supervised by police officers, are classified as transient housing." As the hearings officer noted,the City does not have a"transient housing" category. Clearly this section was intended to refer to Transitional Housing, not transient housing. Transitional Housing is the closest term to "transient housing" and Transitional Housing expressly includes facilities provide psychiatric, alcohol, or drug treatment. The proposed facility also qualifies as a Detention Facility. "Detention Facilities" are defined as facilities "devoted to the judicially required detention, incarceration, or supervision of people," and expressly includes "half-way houses". TDC 18.130.080.C.1 & 3. The only reason the hearings officer ruled out this use category was that patients will not be judicially required to reside there and will not be supervised by police. However, if the proposed facility is not Page 5 April 4, 2017 required to satisfy all components of the definition, it still qualifies under this use category because it satisfies all of the other terms. To the extent the City Council believes the proposed facility need not meet all of the requirements under the definition and can be reviewed as the closest use category available, the proposed facility is closest to a Transitional Housing or Detention Facility use. Since neither of these uses is allowed in the C-P zone, the Application must be denied. F. The Director's Interpretation process does not give Autonome the same procedural rights as the Type III conditional use permit process. Madrona erroneously claims that the Director's Interpretation process will provide Autonome the same procedural rights as the Type III conditional use process. Madrona bases this claim on its assertion that TDC 18.340.020 provides Autonome the same opportunity to appeal to the City Council. Madrona is wrong in two respects. First, the Director's Interpretation process does not give Autonome the same appeal rights. TDC Table 18.310.1, which establishes the procedures for each type of application, expressly provides that the director's interpretation is a"Special kind of decision"that is a Type I process unless the applicant appeals: "Type I if not appealed, Type II if appealed by applicant." TDC Table 18.30.1, footnote 1. So unless Madrona appeals, Autonome will have no local appeal rights because a Type I decision "is not appealable locally, and is the final decision of the city." TDC 18.390.030.D.. Second, even if Autonome had an appeal right the process is still not the same. The Type III conditional use permit process provides for a public hearing as part of the initial process. The Director's Interpretation clearly does not provide for a hearing. Nor do the Director's Interpretation procedures state who is entitled to notice of the application and who is entitled to submit written comments. The bottom-line is that in order to defer an issue of compliance to a subsequent process, that later process must provide for the same public notice and opportunity to participate as the underlying process. Moreland v. City of Depoe Bay, 48 Or LUBA 136, 153 (2004); Sisters Forest Planning Committee v. Deschutes County, 45 Or LUBA 145, 154-55 (2003); Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442, 447 (1992). The Director's Interpretation process clearly does not provide the same public notice and opportunity to participate as the Type III conditional use permit process. For the reasons set forth in Autonome's appeal and this letter, we request that the City Council grant the appeal and deny the Application. Very truly yours, HATHAWAY KOBACK62--11A-Ctif CONNORS LLP F., n/44U) E. Michael Connors cc: Autonome ASR, LLC AIS-3041 6. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/04/2017 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: CONSIDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR THE DIRKSEN NATURE PARK INTERPRETIVE SHELTER/RESTROOM Submitted By: Carla Staedter, Public Works Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Update,Discussion, Direct Staff Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Council authorize Tigard City Manager to sign the Local Government Grant Program Agreement which provides $452,125.00 of state funding for construction of the Interpretive Shelter/Restroom at Dirksen Nature Park? STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST Authorize City Manager signature of the Local Government Grant Program Agreement. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On March 22,2016 the Tigard City Council approved a resolution in support of the pursuit of a Oregon State Parks Local Government Grant to construct the Interpretive Shelter/Restroom at Dirksen Nature Park. Staff prepared and submitted a grant application in April of 2016. Tigard was officially awarded a Local Government Grant of$452,125.00 toward construction of the Interpretive Shelter/Restroom in September of 2016. The grant required a local agency match which was fulfilled by the$5,300,000.00 purchase of the property. The grant will provide funding toward construction of a 1600 square foot stone and timber framed shelter with undercover picnicking and men's,women's, and family restrooms. The nature park is located far from existing utilities so the project will install new electric,water,and sanitary sewer to support the shelter. The shelter will be located adjacent to the Fanno Greenway Regional Trail which serves 460,000 users per year and will be adjacent to the park's sole playfield. The shelter will be the future location of interpretive and wayfinding elements for the park. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council could choose to not sign the Local Government Grant Program Agreement. However, this would leave a significant funding deficit for the$736,000 project. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Parks System Master Plan Adopted July 14, 2009 Project supports walkability in Tigard by providing restrooms,watering, and picnicking adjacent to the Fanno Greenway Trail,Tigard's primary non-motorized transportation corridor. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION March 22,2016,Resolution in Support of the Pursuit of a Local Government Grant for the Interpretive Shelter/Restroom at Dirksen Nature Park. Fiscal Impact Cost: $736,000 Budgeted (yes or no): yes Where Budgeted (department/program): CIP Additional Fiscal Notes: This project is in the current CIP budget document (FY2017-22) as unfunded,pending receipt of the grant funding. It is presented in the Requested FY 2018-23 Capital Improvement Plan with funding as follows: 421-Parks Bond Fund $215,000 425-Parks SDC Fund $ 68,875 State Parks Grant $452,125 The project will begin in FY 2017 and will be completed per the IGA by October 31,2018 (FY 2019). Attachments Local Government Grant Program Agreement Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Local Government Grant Program Agreement THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the State of Oregon, acting by and through its Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, hereinafter referred to as "OPRD"or the "State" and the City of Tigard, hereinafter referred to as the"Grantee". OPRD Grant Number: LG16-010 Project Title: Interpretive Shelter/Restroom Project Type (purpose): Development Project Description: The project will construct a new interpretive shelter / restroom at Dirksen Nature Park in Tigard, Oregon. The Project is further described in the Application included as Attachment B. Grant Funds/ Maximum Reimbursement: $ 452,125 (7.86%) Grantee Match Participation: $5,300,000 (92.14%) Total Project Cost: $5,752,125 Grant Payments: Grant funds are awarded by the State and paid on a reimbursement basis, and only for the Project described in the Agreement, and the original Application included as Attachment B. To request reimbursement, Grantee shall submit a State supplied Request for Reimbursement form, copies of project invoices, and documentation confirming project invoices have been paid. In addition to the final reimbursement requested upon completion of the Project, Grantee may request mid-Project reimbursement, as often as quarterly, for costs accrued to date. Advance payments may be provided under hardship conditions. Reimbursement Procedures: Based on the estimated Project Cost of $5,752,125, and the Grantee's Match participation rate of 92.14%, the reimbursement rate will be 7.86%. Upon successful completion of the Project and receipt of the final reimbursement request, the State will pay Grantee the remaining Grant Funds balance, or 7.86% of the total cost of the Project, whichever is less. Matching Funds: The Grantee shall contribute matching funds or the equivalent in labor, materials, or services, which are shown as eligible match in the rules, policies and guidelines for the Local Government Grant Program. Volunteer labor used as a match requires a log with the name of volunteer, dates volunteered, hours worked, work location and the rate used for match, to be eligible. Retention: OPRD shall disburse up to 90 percent of the Grant Funds to Grantee on a cost reimbursement basis upon approval of invoices submitted to OPRD. OPRD will disburse the final 10 percent of the Grant Funds upon approval by OPRD of the completed Project and the Final Report substantially in the form of Attachment C. Progress Reports: Grantee shall submit written Progress Reports on forms provided by the State with each reimbursement request, or at a minimum, Progress Reports shall be submitted at six month intervals, starting from the effective date of the Agreement. Agreement Period: The effective date of this Agreement is the date on which it is fully executed by both parties. Unless otherwise terminated or extended, the Project shall be completed by October 31, 2018. This Agreement shall expire on the date final reimbursement payment is made by OPRD to Grantee. Project Sign: When project is completed, Grantee shall post an acknowledgement sign of their own design, or one supplied by the State, in a conspicuous location at the project site, consistent with the Grantee's requirements, acknowledging grant funding and the State's participation in the Project. Page 1 of 2 Agreement Documents: Included as part of this Agreement are: Attachment A: Standard Terms and Conditions Attachment B: Project Application including Description and Budget Attachment C: Sample Progress Report form Attachment D: Sample Request for Reimbursement form including guidelines In the event of a conflict between two or more of the documents comprising this Agreement, the language in the document with the highest precedence shall control. The precedence of each of the documents is as follows, listed from highest precedence to lowest precedence: this Agreement without Attachments; Attachment A; Attachment B; Attachment C; Attachment D. Contact Information: A change in the contact information for either party is effective upon providing notice to the other party: Grantee Administrator Grantee Billing Contact OPRD Contact Carla Staedter Laura Barrie Mark Cowan, Coordinator City of Tigard City of Tigard Oregon Parks & Rec. Dept. 13125 SW Hall Blvd 13125 SW Hall Blvd 725 Summer ST NE STE C Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Salem, OR 97301 503-718-2788 503-718-2465 503-986-0591 carla@tigard-or.gov laurab@tigard-or.gov mark.cowan@oregon.gov Signatures: In witness thereof, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be properly executed by their authorized representatives as of the last date hereinafter written. GRANTEE STATE OF OREGON Acting By and Through Its OREGON PARKS AND RECREATION DEPT. By: By: Signature Tracy Louden, Business and Tech.Solutions Administrator Printed Name Date Title By: Date Jan Hunt, Grants Section Manager Oregon Department of Justice (000J) approved for legal sufficiency for grants exceeding $150,000: Date By: AAG Marvin D. Fiordbeck ODOJ Signature or Authorization By: Printed Name/Title Mark Cowan, Grant Program Coordinator by e-mail on August 29, 2016 Date Date Page 2 of 2 Attachment A — Standard Terms and Conditions Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Local Government Grant Program Agreement 1. Compliance with Law: Grantee shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the Agreement or to implementation of the Project, including without limitation, OAR chapter 736, Division 6 (the Local Government Grant Program administrative rules). 2. Compliance with Workers Compensation Laws: All employers, including Grantee, that employ subject workers who provide services in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS.656.017 and provide the required Worker's Compensation coverage, unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. Employer's liability insurance with coverage limits of not less than $500,000 must be included. 3. Amendments: This Agreement may be amended only by a written amendment to the Agreement, executed by the parties. 4. Expenditure Records: Grantee shall document, maintain and submit records to OPRD for all Project expenses in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and in sufficient detail to permit OPRD to verify how Grant Funds were expended. These records shall be retained by the Grantee for at least six years after the Agreement terminates, or until all audits initiated within four years have been completed, whichever is later. The Grantee agrees to allow Oregon Secretary of State auditors, and State agency staff, access to all records related to this Agreement, for audit and inspection, and monitoring of services. Such access will be during normal business hours, or by appointment. 5. Equipment: Equipment purchased with Local Government Grant Program funds must be used as described in the Project Agreement and Application throughout the equipment's useful life. The Grantee will notify the State prior to the disposal of equipment and will coordinate with the State on the disposal to maximize the equipment's ongoing use for the benefit of the Local Government Grant Program. 6. Use of Project Property: Grantee warrants that the land within the Project boundary described in the Application (Attachment B) shall be dedicated and used for a period of no less than 25 years from the completion of the Project. Grantee agrees to not change the use of, sell, or otherwise dispose of the land within the Project boundary, except upon written approval by OPRD. Leases for projects placed on federally owned property must be at least 25 years. Land acquired using Local Government Grant funds shall be dedicated, by an instrument recorded in the county records, for recreational use in perpetuity, unless OPRD or a successor agency, consents to removal of the dedication. 7. Conversion of Property: Grantee further warrants that if the Grantee converts lands within the Project boundary to a use other than as described in the grant application or disposes of such land by sale or any other means, the Grantee must provide replacement property acceptable to OPRD within 24 months of either the conversion or the discovery of the conversion. If replacement property cannot be obtained within the 24 months, the Grantee will provide payment of the grant program's prorated share of the current fair market value to the State. The prorated share is that percentage of the original grant (plus any amendments) as compared to the original project cost(s). The replacement property must be equal to the current fair market value of the converted Page 1 of 3 property, as determined by an appraisal. The recreation utility of the replacement property must also be equal to that of the lands converted or disposed. If conversion should occur through processes outside of the Grantee's control such as condemnation or road replacement or realignment, the Grantee will be required to pass through to the State that prorated share of whatever consideration is provided to the Grantee by the entity that caused the conversion. The monetary value of whatever consideration provided by the taking will normally consist of the fair market value of the property established by an appraisal. The warranties set forth above are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other warranties set forth in this Agreement or implied by law. 8. Contribution: If any third party makes any claim or brings any action, suit or proceeding alleging a tort as now or hereafter defined in ORS 30.260 ("Third Party Claim") against a party (the "Notified Party") with respect to which the other party ("Other Party") may have liability, the Notified Party must promptly notify the Other Party in writing of the Third Party Claim and deliver to the Other Party a copy of the claim, process, and all legal pleadings with respect to the Third Party Claim. Either party is entitled to participate in the defense of a Third Party Claim, and to defend a Third Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing. Receipt by the Other Party of the notice and copies required in this paragraph and meaningful opportunity for the Other Party to participate in the investigation, defense and settlement of the Third Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing are conditions precedent to the Other Party's liability with respect to the Third Party Claim. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which the State is jointly liable with the Grantee (or would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), the State shall contribute to the amount of expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by the Grantee in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of the State on the one hand and of the Grantee on the other hand in connection with the events which resulted in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant equitable considerations. The relative fault of the State on the one hand and of the Grantee on the other hand shall be determined by reference to, among other things, the parties' relative intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts. The State's contribution amount in any instance is capped to the same extent it would have been capped under Oregon law if the State had sole liability in the proceeding. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which the Grantee is jointly liable with the State (or would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), the Grantee shall contribute to the amount of expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by the State in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of the Grantee on the one hand and of the State on the other hand in connection with the events which resulted in such expenses,judgments, fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant equitable considerations. The relative fault of the Grantee on the one hand and of the State on the other hand shall be determined by reference to, among other things, the parties' relative intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts. The Grantee's contribution amount in any instance is capped to the same extent it would have been capped under Oregon law if it had sole liability in the proceeding. Grantee shall take all reasonable steps to cause its contractor(s) that are not units of local government as defined in ORS 190.003, if any, to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the State of Oregon and its officers, employees and agents ("Indemnitee") from and against any and all claims, actions, liabilities, damages, losses, or expenses (including attorneys' fees) arising from a tort (as now or hereafter defined in ORS 30.260) caused, or alleged to be caused, in whole or in part, by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of Grantee's contractor or any of the officers, agents, employees or subcontractors of the contractor ("Claims"). It is the specific intention of the parties that Page 2 of 3 the Indemnitee shall, in all instances, except for Claims arising solely from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of the Indemnitee, be indemnified by the contractor from and against any and all Claims. 9. Condition for Disbursement: Disbursement of grant funds by OPRD is contingent upon OPRD having received sufficient funding, appropriations, limitations, allotments, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow OPRD, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to make the disbursement. 10. No Third Party Beneficiaries. OPRD and Grantee are the only parties to this Agreement and are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Agreement gives, is intended to give, or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit or right, whether directly or indirectly, to a third person unless such a third person is individually identified by name herein and expressly described as intended beneficiary of the terms of this Agreement. 11. Repayment: In the event that the Grantee spends Grant Funds in any way prohibited by state or federal law, or for any purpose other than the completion of the Project, the Grantee shall reimburse the State for all such unlawfully or improperly expended funds. Such payment shall be made within 15 days of demand by the State. 12. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties, or by either party upon a 30-day notice in writing, delivered by certified mail or in person to the other party's contact identified in the Agreement. On termination of this Agreement, all accounts and payments will be processed according to the financial arrangements set forth herein for approved services rendered to date of termination. Full credit shall be allowed for reimbursable expenses and the non- cancelable obligations properly incurred up to the effective date of the termination. 13. Governing Law: The laws of the State of Oregon (without giving effect to its conflicts of law principles) govern all matters arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including, without limitation, its validity, interpretation, construction, performance, and enforcement. Any party bringing a legal action or proceeding against any other party arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall bring the legal action or proceeding in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Marion County. Each party hereby consents to the exclusive jurisdiction of such court, waives any objection to venue, and waives any claim that such forum is an inconvenient forum. 14. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. There are no understandings, Agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. The Grantee, by signature of its authorized representative on the Agreement, acknowledges that the Grantee has read this Agreement, understands it, and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. Revised 8/29/16 MC Page 3 of 3 Grant Application for Interpretive Shelter/Restroom Contact Application Type: DEVELOPMENT: Applicant Agency: City of Tigard First Name: Carla Last Name: Staedter Title: Engineering Project Coordinator Address 1: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Address 2: City: Tigard State: OR Zip Code: 97223 Contact Phone: 503-718-2788 Contact Fax: 503-624-0752 Contact Email: carla@tigard-or.gov Federal Tax ID: 93-0503940 Project Project Name: Interpretive Shelter/Restroom Site Name: Dirksen Nature Park Site City /Town /Area: Tigard Site County: Washington Funds Requested: $452,125.00 Matching Funds: $5,300,000.00 Total Cost: $5,752,125.00 Percent of Grant: 0.080000000000000 Percent of Match: 0.920000000000000 Brief Project Description (40 word limit): The project constructs an interpretive shelter/restroom at Tigard's Dirksen Nature Park. The facility will support approximately 500,000 visitors per year enjoying nature, picnicking, using Fanno Greenway Regional Trail, experiencing nature play, using a sportsfield, and attending nature tours and camps. Projected Start Date: February 1, 2017 Projected End Date: February 1, 2018 Site Description: Dirksen Nature Park is 48-acres. A conservation easement protects 36 acres of wetlands and woodlands. An historic playfield is located in the southeast corner. Fanno Greenway Regional Trail runs along the east side of the site and serves 460,000 users a year. A portable classroom, located in the far northwest corner currently serves as a nature center but does not have publicly accessible restrooms. Fanno Creek creates the eastern boundary, Summer Creek and Fowler Middle School the south. Tigard Street is to the north and a residential neighborhood lies to the west. See Attachment"Vicinity Map" and "Project Area Map". Latitude: 45.434362011907027 Longitude: -122.788149118423460 Township, Range & Section: 1S1W34D Site Acreage: 48.00 Land Control: Other Supplemental A. PROJECT NARRATIVE (Please limit all answers to 400 words or less.): 1. Describe all elements of the project, project objectives, and the need for assistance. Describe who will do the work and who will provide supervision. : Tigard's project is a 1600 square foot shelter with restrooms sited between two future nature play areas and serving as the central hub for the nature park. It will be constructed on the Fanno Greenway Regional Trail which supports 460,000 users per year. The shelter will be adjacent to the park's sole formal grass playfield, the primary practice area for Tigard Lacrosse and numerous youth sports teams. All this activity is currently being served by a single plastic port-a-potty. The story behind this park is amazing. It is about the people of Tigard who fell in love with their hometown's natural area, faced losing it to development, but came together to protect the area for future generations. The site contains 7 distinct Northwest ecosystems nestled in the middle of a bustling city of 50,444 residents. Purchased by the local school district 42 years ago, a middle school was built on the south half of the property and the school's teachers used the natural area to the north for outdoor education. However, growing population and shrinking municipal budgets, forced the school district to sell the natural space in order to build new schools. Residents rallied and in 2010, during one of our nation's most severe recessions, passed a park's bond to purchase the property. The bond focused on acquisition with limited development funding. Tigard has been leveraging these development funds to match grants, to date securing money for soft trails, an exercise course, 2 wetland boardwalks, nature play areas, an oak savanna restoration, an oak savanna overlook, and renovation of a portable classroom into a small nature center. Two critical site elements remain, the shelter/restrooms and required parking and street improvements. In the past 4.5 years the park has been visited by over 4000 low income children on tours and has an estimated visitor count of 50,000 per year, not counting regional trail users. Residents desire this project so visitors have access to nature without causing damage to natural resources. It is also vitally important that recreation programs held at the site have covered meeting and sanitary facilities. The project will be constructed by a contractor supervised by city engineers, inspectors, and consulting landscape architects. Construction plans including both the shelter and applicable site development are available in two attachments under"Construction Drawing/Design Plans". THIS IS THE LAST YEAR THAT TIGARD CAN LEVERAGE THE 5.3 MILLION DOLLAR SITE PURCHASE AS MATCH FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT. TIGARD RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS OREGON PARKS AND RECREATION SUPPORT TO PROTECT OUR BELOVED NATURE PARK AND CONTINUE TO SERVE OVER 510,000 VISITORS PER YEAR. 2. Describe any new facilities to be constructed, existing facilities which are to be renovated, removed or demolished. Describe present development on the site and how the proposed project fits in with future development. : The project constructs a stone and timber framed shelter with undercover picnicking and men's, women's, and family restrooms. The nature park is far from existing utilities so the project will install new electric, water and sanitary sewer to support the shelter. The shelter and restrooms will be completely accessible and designed to meet all current ADA (Americans with Disabilities) requirements. Accessible parking is available along Tiedeman Avenue. These spaces are connected to the shelter by a paved trail that meets ADA slope requirements. No renovation of existing facilities is proposed as part of this project. Existing site facilities include a portable classroom located in the northwest corner of the site which was renovated in 2015 and 16. It houses environmental education programs run by Tigard's non-profit partner, Tualatin Riverkeepers, and is planned to support recreation classes by Tigard's new recreation program. Along the eastern edge of the nature park is Fanno Greenway Regional Trail, a 15-mile paved and accessible trail; one of the most heavily used trails in the Portland Metro area. A grass playfield is located in the southeast corner of the site. Park construction will be done in phases to allow Tigard to work within budget and to pursue grant funding. At the writing of this grant, Tigard expects to develop the park in five phases. Additional park features to be built include paved and soft paths, two nature play areas next to the interpretive shelter/restrooms, one tot nature play area at the parking lot on Tigard Street, two wetland boardwalks, an accessible parking lot, improvements to playfield turf/drainage, half-street improvements and construction of the Summer Creek Community Trail along Tigard Street. See Attachment"Other" Project Area Map Showing Existing Site Conditions and Future Development. B. CONSISTENCY With STATEWIDE PRIORITIES -SCORP Criteria (0-20 points) : To what extend does the project address ONE OR MORE of the following FOUR(1-4) priorities identified in the 2013-2017 SCORP? : 1. MAJOR REHABILITATION projects involve the restoration or partial reconstruction of eligible recreation areas and facilities. If the project includes major rehabilitation, please check all that apply: : a) Please list the specific facilities that are in need of rehabilitation. Upload photos in the Attachments tab showing the facilities in need of rehabilitation. : Not Applicable. b) If only part of the project is rehabilitation, approximately what percentage of the project is rehabilitation? : Not Applicable 2. NON-MOTORIZED TRAIL CONNECTIVITY. Trail connectivity involves linking urban trails to outlying Federal trail systems; linking neighborhood, community and regional trails; connecting community parks and other recreational public facilities; connecting parks to supporting services and facilities; connecting neighboring communities; and providing alternative transportation routes. To what extent does the project address non-motorized trail connectivity? : The Interpretive Shelter/Restroom, although not a trail project, provides important support facilities to the Fanno Greenway Regional Trail that hosts 460,000 users per year. Tigard also intends to link our local Summer Creek Trail to the regional trail through Dirksen Nature Park. The Interpretive Shelter/Restroom will provide a significant destination for both trails, public restroom facilities that are currently lacking along this stretch of trail, and a water stop. The Interpretive Shelter/Restroom will also provide future way-finding elements so regional and local trail users will have an opportunity to experience a quiet nature loop away from the hustle and bustle of the busy multi-use trails. The shelter and restrooms will also provide much needed facilities to support recreation programs at the site. Two attachments listed under"Other" illustrate how the project serves both paved multi-use regional and local trails, and connects people to soft paths at the nature park. 3. ACTIVE PARTICIPATION projects support or provide a base for individual active participation. 'Active' means those forms of recreation that rely predominantly on human muscles and includes walking, sports of all kinds, bicycling, running, and other activities that help people achieve currently accepted recommendations for physical activity. To what extent does the project support or improve access to individual active participation? : The Interpretive Shelter/Restroom is centrally located to provide critical support to many"ACTIVE" recreation opportunities. It specifically provides restrooms, drinking water, gathering and picnicking sites to all of the following recreation activities; future nature play areas for climbing, digging,jumping, and playing; an existing exercise course for training, weight lifting, sit ups, pull ups, and stair climbing; an existing grass playfield for lacrosse, softball, youth baseball, soccer, and Frisbee; an existing nature trail loop for strolling and nature interpretation; an existing paved regional trail for walking, cycling, running, skateboarding, and in-line skating. 4. SUSTAINABILITY. To what extent does the project address sustainability recommendations for OPRD-administered grant programs? Please see Chapter Seven (pages 115-117) of the SCORP for sustainability recommendations for land acquisition, new facility development, major rehabilitation, and trail projects. : The project addresses many sustainability recommendations for OPRD administered grant programs. They include • Siting of the Interpretive Shelter/Restroom specifically designed to limit impact to natural resources. The shelter is located in areas already cleared as a grass playfield and is purposely located away from the most sensitive natural resources. • Water efficient landscaping is planned near the shelter and includes the use of native plants and trees including pacific willows that will be used as nature play features. • All site irrigation is centrally controlled, uses low water use heads, and is linked to soil moisture monitors. • The Interpretive Shelter/Restroom uses passive solar concepts through skylights that provide lighting during daylight hours. • Active solar energy is employed in security lighting at night that will be fed by solar cells. • All lighting is low energy LED and all switches are on timers •Trash containers include recycling compartments • Toilets are stainless steel, low water use and have proven not only to save water but to hold up to the demands of the public. This saves resources by choosing building fixtures that are not constantly having to be replaced. •Water fixtures are demand only and cannot be left running. As with all park restroom fixtures, they are chosen for their durability and low maintenance needs. Dirksen Nature Park is undergoing extensive riparian habitat restoration, oak savanna restoration, wetland restoration, and forest restoration. These restored ecosystems will contribute increased stormwater treatment, superior groundwater re-charge, and a cleaner environment for the community. C. LOCAL NEEDS AND BENEFITS -SCORP Criteria (0-30 points): 1. A map clearly identifying the project location and UGB or unincorporated community boundary or Tribal community boundary drawn on it must be uploaded in the attachments section of this application. Is your project in a CLOSE-TO-HOME area (located within an urban growth boundary (UGB), unincorporated community boundary, or a Tribal Community) or in a DISPERSED AREA (located outside of these boundaries)? : CLOSE-TO-HOME 2. Please identify how the project satisfies county-level needs by using priorities identified in one of the following local public planning processes. See SCORP Chapter 5, Pgs 86-102 for specific county priorities. : a) Public Recreation Provider Identified Need - Does the project satisfy county-level needs identified by the Public Recreation Provider Survey beginning on page 86 in the SCORP? If so, enter which priority or priorities are identified for the project county. Please use either the Close-to-Home Priorities or Dispersed Area Priorities, not both. : The project supports two of the three priority areas identified in the Public Recreation Provider Survey for Washington County. These include,"Trails Connecting Communities/Parks", and "Community Trail Systems". As mentioned above, the project will provide restrooms and a rest stop for the regional Fanno Creek Trail. The shelter will also provide way-finding signage leading regional trail users to a soft surface interpretive trail loop through Dirksen Nature Park. b) Oregon Resident Identified Need - Does the priority project satisfy county-level need identified by the Oregon Resident Survey beginning on page 86 in the SCORP? If so, enter which priority or priorities are identified for the project county. : There are 10 Washington County priority needs identified by residents. THE PROJECT SUPPORTS 7 OF THE 10 NEEDS. The shelter satisfies the following resident identified needs: "Picnic Areas and Shelters for Large Visitor Groups"- "Picnic Areas and Shelters for Small Visitor Groups"- "Nature and Other Wildlife Viewing Areas ". The project supports the following resident identified needs: "Dirt/Other Soft Surface Walking Trails and Paths", "Off Street Bicycle Trail and Pathways", "Children's Playgrounds and Play Areas Made of Natural Materials (Nature Play Areas)", and "Paved/Hard Surface Walking Trails and Paths". c) Local Planning -To what extent does the project satisfy priority needs, as identified in a current local planning document (park and recreation master plan, city or county comprehensive plan, trails master plan, transportation system plan or bicycle and pedestrian plan)? : Dirksen Nature Park, which will be home to the Interpretive Shelter/Restroom, is identified as a community park in the Tigard Park System Master Plan. The plan can be viewed at: www.tigard-orgov/document_center/Parks/park_master_plan.pdf(See page 15 of the parks system master plan). A separate document, The Summer Creek Property Master Plan is attached and describes the public input process used to design the master plan for Dirksen Nature Park known at the time as Summer Creek Property. See "Other"Summer Creek Property Master Plan in the attachments to review the master planning process. d) Public Involvement Effort- If the project is not included in a current local planning document, describe the public involvement effort that led to the identification of the priority project including citizen involvement through public workshops, public meetings, surveys, and local citizen advisory committees during the project's planning process.: The park was master planned using an extensive public input process. See "Other" Summer Creek Property Master Plan" in attachments for a detailed description of the public input process completed as part of site master planning. D. LONG TERM COMMITMENT TO MAINTENANCE—SCORP Criteria (0-15 points): 1. How will the project's future maintenance be funded? Please include specific maintenance funding sources such as tax levies, fee increases, and other funding sources which will be used.A Resolution to Apply submitted with this application should address funding for on-going operation and maintenance for this project. : The project's future maintenance will be managed by Tigard's Park Maintenance Division with funding from both the General Fund and our recently approved Parks Maintenance Fee which was enacted by City Council in February of 2016. This new parks fee shows our community's strong commitment to funding parks maintenance ensuring the project will last for generations to come. A Tigard City Council Resolution stating the city's intent to provide adequate funding for ongoing maintenance is provided in the attachments under"Resolution to Apply for a Grant". 2. How much do you expect to spend annually or how many staff hours will be needed to maintain the completed project?: The Tigard Parks Division has several facilities in other parks that have very similar maintenance needs. Our maintenance records for those facilities indicate that a minimum of 233 hours of labor per year will be required to clean and maintain the facility. We expect to spend $7,900 annually for labor and materials. It breaks down as follows; MATERIAL COSTS including paint, plumbing supplies, cleaning supplies, hardware, etc. $500 per year average- CLEANING AND MONITORING COSTS - Busy Season (March through October 31-restrooms cleaned daily) Labor costs for seasonal parks worker @ 245 daily cleanings for 36 minutes per day average 147 hours and equal $3916 yearly. Slower Season (November through February 2nd-restrooms cleaned daily minus Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and New Year's Day) Labor costs for a utility worker @ 83 weekday cleanings for 24 minutes per day will average 34 hours and equal $1457 per year. Labor costs for a seasonal/temporary parks worker @ 34 weekend day cleanings for 24 minute per day average 14 hours equals $319 per year. BUILDING/STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE - Labor costs for a utility worker II (graffiti, minor plumbing repair, pressure washing, etc.) for 24 hours per year average equals $1028 per year. Labor costs for a building maintenance worker II (locks, doors, painting, plumbing/fixtures, electrical, etc.) for 16 hours per year average equals $685 per year. 3. Do you have partnerships with other agencies or volunteer maintenance? Provide documentation such as letters of support from volunteer organizations, cooperative agreements, donations, or signed memoranda of understanding to demonstrate commitment to maintenance. : Facility Maintenance Partners: This project will be maintained by City of Tigard's parks staff. We have many partnerships for work across the park. However, Interpretive Shelter/Restroom maintenance will be the responsibility of our staff. See Attachment"Photos"for a picture of two of our dedicated parks crew. E. OVERALL SITE SUITABILITY(0-10 points): 1. To what extent is the site suitable for the proposed development? : Dirksen Nature Park is extremely suitable for an Interpretive Shelter/Restroom. The 48-acre site contains 7 distinct Northwest Ecosystems. Photos of each are available in Attachment"Photos". Each of these distinct ecosystems can be viewed from a single loop trail that connects to the Interpretive Shelter/Restroom. The site is a short walk from Fowler Middle School where science students utilize the area as an outdoor classroom. (See Attachment"Letters of Support"for a description of how Fowler Middle School Science staff is utilizing the Nature Park for education.) The site is located at the confluence of Fanno and Summer Creeks which provides a rich riparian setting for the nature park. The site is traversed by a regional trail along its eastern edge and is accessible from public transit. The site provides access to nature for many people who have economic barriers to travel. (Eight of the ten public elementary schools in Tigard are Title 1.) The site is walkable from Tigard's downtown district by off street trails. Dirksen Nature Park is also located at the intersection of two regionally recognized wildlife corridors. The site plan is designed to allow unrestricted movement of wildlife along these corridors and to limit wildlife viewing from designated trails and elevated boardwalks/overlooks. 2. Also describe the extent to which the site or project design minimizes negative impacts on the environment and surrounding neighborhood and integrates sustainable elements. : Approximately 36 acres of the 48-acre Dirksen Nature Park are protected in a natural resource easement granted to METRO. This easement controls the activities that can take place on the site and protects the site's most sensitive natural resources. The infrastructure planned for the park is sited to keep active play located in the existing grass playfield area or near the Nature Center Building. Activities in the sensitive areas of the site are limited to walking and interpretation on a single designated soft surface loop trail and on elevated boardwalks and defined overlooks. See the Master Plan in Attachment"Site Plan". The site has thick forested buffers along its east, west, and south borders which buffer the neighbors from park users and provide valuable wildlife habitat. See the "Vicinity Map/Air Photo" in attachments to view surrounding neighborhoods and their relationship to the park. The site will be open from dawn to dusk and night lighting will be limited to low level security lighting at the Interpretive Shelter/Restroom and the Nature Center. Lighting is not expected to be noticeable from surrounding neighborhoods and is not expected to disturb wildlife using the site. The grass playfield will be unlit. The northern border of the site runs along Tigard Street. The oak savanna restoration, planned for this side of the site, will include a dense native rose and snowberry hedge. This will not only protect the savanna from influxes of non-native grass seed but will buffer the adjacent neighborhood from park activity. All parking for the site occurs along Tigard Street or on weekends, in the adjacent school parking lot at Fowler Middle School. There are no roads located within the site. The parking lot of the Nature Center will be constructed of pervious pavement and will be used as a demonstration project for the community. A partnered project is planned with Clean Water Services our regional storm and sewer provider to implement the pervious parking area. The Nature Center proper will use an existing portable classroom that will be improved to save resources. All trail surfaces will be materials suited to the traffic levels. They are expected to carry and be designed to prevent erosion while protecting soil. Specific sustainable features to be included at the interpretive shelter/restroom are described earlier in the grant application. F. COMMUNITY SUPPORT (0-5 points): 1. To what degree can you demonstrate community support for the project? Can you provide letters of support and/or survey analysis? If yes, please include supporting documentation with this application. : This project is supported regionally and at the local level by a diverse array of citizens. Our Letters of Support will show county commissioners, school district leaders, the local business community, sport organizations, environmental educators, and non-profits. COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS- The City of Tigard implements biennial surveys of residents to assist our council in developing goals and to focus city resources. The last survey, completed in 2014 showed that 74% of Tigard residents found that the development and maintenance of newly purchased parks was either somewhat or very important to them. Margin of error for the survey was +/- 5.8%. DIRKSEN NATURE PARK SITE HISTORY AND BOND MEASURE SUPPORT-The story of the purchase of Dirksen Nature Park shows how wide spread support is for this nature park and the infrastructure to enjoy the park. In 1974, the Tigard/Tualatin School District acquired a 100-acre site to develop Fowler Middle School. The district used the open areas of the site as playfields for physical education. They used the creeks, wetlands, and wooded areas for outdoor learning. In 2006, the school district declared the openspace portion of the property "surplus" and prepared to sell the property. In 2007, with urging from community leaders, past/present school staff and students, and with regional concerns about losing the site to development, the Trust for Public Land negotiated an exclusive option-to-purchase agreement with the School District. This protected the property until it could be placed in public ownership. In 2010, during the height of economic recession, the City of Tigard, with the direction of its Park and Recreation Citizen's Advisory Committee, took a parks bond to the voters. It passed and the city purchased the first 42-acres of Dirksen Nature Park with bond funds, grant awards from METRO, and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), and public agency contributions from Clean Water Services (CWS) and Washington County. In April 2011, the City acquired three adjacent parcels located along Tigard Street, totaling 5 acres. In August 2011, a draft Environmental Education Plan was submitted to OWEB. In June of 2012, a master plan was completed and adopted for the park. Throughout the process, there was unwavering support across the community. Three generations of Tigard children played and learned at the site and were the driving force behind its preservation. See Attachment"Letters of Support" for input from some of our closest project partners, the local visitors association, and our regional leaders. G. FINANCIAL COMMITMENT (0-10 points): 1. What is the source of local matching funds for the project?A Resolution to Apply must be submitted with this application to indicate a commitment of local match funding for the project. : Tigard intends to match State Park Local Government Grant funds with $5.3 million dollars used to purchase Dirksen Nature Park in December of 2010 and April of 2011. This financial match is secured. (See "Dirksen Nature Park Site Deed" in Attachments.) 2. Project applicants are encouraged to develop project applications involving partnerships between the project applicant, other agencies, or non-profit organizations. Project applicants are also encouraged to demonstrate solid financial commitment to providing necessary project maintenance and upkeep. To what extent does the project involve partnerships with other agencies or groups? Are donations and/or funding from other agencies or groups secured? : Matching funding for the site purchase of Dirksen Nature Park where the Interpretive Shelter/Restroom will be built, involved a number of partners. They include • City of Tigard residents who voted to approve a parks bond in 2010 to purchase Dirksen Nature Park • Clean Water Services, our regional sewer and stormwater provider • Washington County - METRO • Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board • The Trust for Public Land. All funding for site purchase has been secured. Other important partners at Dirksen Nature Park include: Tualatin Riverkeepers (TRK)who manages nature education programs at the site. Last year TRK brought over 1200 children to the park for tours and camps. Because recruitment targets low income schools, all but one school tour, during last year's school year, came from Title 1 schools. When bus funding was stopping schools from being able to visit the site, Tualatin Partners for Clean Water provided needed bus funding. TRK works with Community Partners for Affordable Housing a local non-profit housing group, to bring children from their nearby housing to tour the site. They also provide site tours to The Good Neighbor Center, our local family homeless shelter, bringing both kids and parents to the park which is walkable from the shelter. Tigard and TRK work with corporate groups on trail building, and non-native vegetation removal projects. Tigard then partners with Clean Water Services to provide native plants for restoration of the park. That native plant material is installed by Fowler Middle School Students who are taught by Cascade Education Corps kids from Tigard High School. The park is well supported by partners throughout the community. See Attachment under"Other" the rest of the story for pictures of partners and how they are contributing at the park. 3. To what extent has funding been secured to complete the project?: Matching funding, which is the property purchase funding has been secured. H. ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE: 1. Does your agency have a board or city council adopted/approved ADA Transition Plan and/or Self Certification? : Yes, ADA Transition Plan 2. How will your proposed project meet current accessibility standards?: The City of Tigard maintains an approved ADA Transition Plan. The plan was first established in 1992, updated in 1998 and again in 1999. There is currently an update being prepared to address streets and transportation facilities. Program and service evaluations are being completed in 2016. All components of the interpretive shelter and restroom have been designed to meet current ADA standards. This includes accessible restrooms, building fixtures that meet current standards, accessible picnic tables, and site grades that meet all federal requirements. I. READINESS TO PROCEED: 1. Have you submitted a signed Land Use Compatibility Statement with this application? : Yes, See Attachment"Land Use Compatibility Statement" 2. Have you submitted construction or concept plans with this application?: YES 3. List required permits and status of permit applications for the project(i.e. Corps of Engineers, Division of State Land, Building Permits, etc.). Describe any possible delays or challenges that could occur in receiving permits. : Land use review has been completed for the project. The following permits are.... City of Tigard Building Permit- submitted and approved June 2015. City of Tigard Plumbing Permit- submitted and approved June 2015. City of Tigard Site Utility Permit- submitted and approved June 2015. City of Tigard Site Works Permit- submitted and approved June 2015. City of Tigard Electrical Permit- submitted and approved June 2015. Clean Water Services Stormwater Connection Authorization Letter 1200 CN or 1200 C in process. Clean Water Services, Service Provider Letter- in process expected to be approved by May of 2016. There will be no U.S. Army Corp of Engineers or Department of State Lands permits required for the project. At the writing of this grant, all permits are on schedule for an expected 2018 construction schedule. J. ACTIVE AND PAST GRANTS PERFORMANCE: 1. Describe your performance and compliance with all active and past OPRD grant awards. : The City of Tigard has been awarded 10 OPRD grants between 1968 and 2006 totaling $438,830. The most recent grants included funding for Tigard's skate park, Fanno Creek and Tualatin River trail segments, and the Woodard Park Picnic Shelter. All were completed and compliant. History of grant performance prior to 2002 was unavailable. Tigard also administered 20 separate federal grants in FY 2013 and 2014 totaling $694,060. All were compliant. The City has finance staff very experienced in reimbursement grants. Our City employs an engineering staff of 16 people who have completed several parks and building projects over the past 3 years and have access to consulting landscape architects involved in the preparation of the construction plans for the project. This will ensure that the Interpretive Shelter/Restroom will be constructed soundly and per public standards. Source Description Qty Unit $/Unit Cost Match Request of Funding Project/Construction 1 Lump $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 $40,000.00 Managment Sum Mobilization & Bonding 1 Sump $18,900.00 $18,900.00 $0.00 $18,900.00 Clear/Grub/Erosion1 Lump $13,600.00 $13,600.00 $0.00 $13,600.00 Control/Traffic Sum Survey/Stake/Construction1 Lump $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 Testing Sum Interpretive Shelter1 Lump $232,500.00 $232,500.00 $0.00 $232,500.00 w/Restroom Sum Lum Sewer Utilities 1 Sum $36,300.00 $36,300.00 $0.00 $36,300.00 Water Utilities 1 Sump $35,900.00 $35,900.00 $0.00 $35,900.00 Electric Utilities 1 Sump $39,250.00 $39,250.00 $0.00 $39,250.00 Lum Site Furnishings 1 Sump $26,675.00 $26,675.00 $0.00 $26,675.00 Property Purchase Lump Parks Dirksen Nature Park 1 Sum $5,300,000.00$5,300,000.00 $5,300,000.00 $0.00 Bond & SDC's Totals $5,752,125.00$5,300,000.00$452,125.00 Total Project Cost: $5,752,125.00 Total Match for Sponsor: $5,300,000.00 Grant Funds Requested: $452,125.00 AIS-3051 7. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 04/04/2017 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Discuss Island Annexation Work Plan Prepared For: Liz Newton Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Presentation of the Island Annexation Work Plan to city council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Provide feedback/comments to staff on the work plan for annexing the unincorporated islands to the city. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY One of the adopted City Council Goals for 2017 -2019 is to "Annex Territory into the City." The first component to that goal is to "Prioritize annexation of islands including a strategy and incentives." Sixteen islands have been identified ranging in size from one property tax lot to a subdivision of 53 lots. (Maps attached.) On March 22, a letter was mailed to each property owner advising them of council's intent to annex and inviting property owners to an informational meeting on April 5 hosted by members of the city council.A copy of the letter is attached. The meeting will provide an opportunity for property owners to ask questions and learn how services and property taxes may be affected by annexation. The meeting will also provide an opportunity for council to consider possible options to address property owners' concerns. City management staff has contracted to have legal descriptions prepared for each area. We will compile the application materials for each area and them to submit to planning staff for review by May 1. A separate public hearing will be required for each island. The public hearings are tentatively scheduled to be held on June 27,2017. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council could revise the tentative schedule. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES,MASTER PLANS 2017 - 2019 Tigard City Council Goals -Annex Territory into the City DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments Island area maps Sample property owner letter AgendaQuick©2005-2017 Destiny Software Inc.,All Rights Reserved -4 Lti 41 M:42 • , 0 Pi -'' ' '=r. + O v r* cr4 x m .n 0 0 -1..n y n - y w 0 y o n GREENFIELD DR - :3 o a w 1., n V w 0.. On O o ‘7,. c d 7a o a 0 O O TI Ell a LvuKuU I DR 1 W C i r O60\S1 d %41STI` ooo OOy10d0 \0065 0ad605 o 2S109gp05300y �0-D7p >o 2S109AD04500 Z 2`S109AD04400DZ p6pl St 0 \5o \p0t10d - 2S109AD04600 25109AD04300dp6p1St 6p15t 1 ( 25109DA01 100 0 '00p0g0Qd009S�pdbo 0) \90Odt 6j/ S I 2S 109AD04700 _ - �s 25109AD0420 09AD0510� p0 o9 ti N 00 q 160 /77 2S 109DA01000 C S � \ s Ip6p15L g00d1. ' S6 �° �� 2S109AD05000 2S109AD04800 2S109AD04100 70� 00 L10d \001 j b°� / n Lo o I le 2S109DA00900 m ti d o bO�S �a°� �`' TERRAVIEW DR Zi tg A _ ,_ 09pg0p8p0 °p�� /o9O��i o°v°j� d60�S( 0 2S109AD06900 2S109AD04000 v 0o o r-_ ,„,09,,....,07, _ / , ,, \,..„„0O 009o A N2S109AD07000 O i--,, 900 „,, _ o e - c D`o �D OO O D 2S 109AD07200 o a > Do o N 2S 109AD07100 o c c c L 2S109AD0380. o i AUGUSTA TER �. C C m N w STANDREWS LN _fir y ,3 Existing Unincorporated Taxlot Islands Zone 2 City of .1..g=aril. Oregon } Q x FriExisting Islands I HW- F -i O w I ZCC El Tigard City Boundary M `— NW SUMMIT RIDGE ST 3 I d 1 2S 109DB01801 " s• Scale 0 25 50 Feet City of Tigard Rp 13125 SW Hall Blvdlig .. Tigard. OR 97223 S._ TiGa MAP 503 639-4171 KOSTEL LN 'Igard-or.gov "'i \RD File Location:0192.168.109.215\GIS_Projectec DMIN_projects120171Annexation Island Maps\Map_mxd\annexation_islands_zone2.mxd rill Existing Unincorporated 3 Taxlot Islands Zone 3 W U OpWv LL,of I •gsu-d, Oregon Existing Islands 1 I 0 ID Tigard City Boundary o m Q rn o_ o , N O N .O O co o Q O O• _ O 1 0 m N 1 Q I Os nn O Ln 494, N 44 Mp v NTq/N o RO 0— o3 Q O• 0 Sp,RLETON CT 'l O O M O U I Os N 1 2S I 09AC00400 c 0 2S109AC00300 rn rn NICOL (A Scale 0 50 100 Feet city of Tigard 13125 SW Nall Blvd 1jGAR FJ 5 TII Nga5rdC,3 061;99_7212731 63R 99-d 72I2731 f '_ --r w.tigard-or.gov rK ,AR) Existing Unincorporated Taxlot Islands Zone 4 C:•tv of Tigard, Oregon 1-71 Existing Islands •h ETigard City Boundary .., .._,_ .. �n m 3 o o 0 0 ST JAMES LN I Q 0, O' W • � N w ! 2 ! a- G� /n,,onalr,TON LN Scale 0 50 100 Feet City of Tigard 13125 SW Nall Blvd III IGARD PS Tigard, OR 97223 f��er7 ww 503 www.tigard-or.gov 1� w.tiga rd-or.gov I'' 'ri land Maps\Map_mxdlannexation_Ialends_zone4.mxd Existing Unincorporated Taxlot Islands Zone 5 Citi- of Tigard, Oregon — j Existing Islands ElTigard City Boundary 0 rn O 0 0 O o O N O O a N V> N SUNRISE LN Sc.Ie _ u 0 25 50 Feet CIL), of Tigard - 13125 SW Nall Blvd • TiGARD APS Tigard, OR 97223 M 539-4171 d-or.gov "to }� 3 3c' © 0 D ._ . ,r �W '. ,rod N O n D' ¢1 aw0, V w `G y O c. 7 Cn a ,N<, _ 2S104BC01300 z I _ N G W N I m O PI x .O a _ _.r.� - C. rf, `SCFNcIny nn e 2S104BC01500 r- r Z C N.F T PR A 2S104BC01800 I 2S104BC00200 1 2S 104BD09300 251046D09400 2S104BD09200 2S104BD01600 j Existing Unincorporated Taxlot Islands Zone 7 of Tigard, Oregon UU Existing Islands v� ElTigard City Boundary SPRUCE ST co2 Scale 0 25 50 Feet JnE-LI_E CT City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Ili In TJGA MAw5 www r d, OR 9722 f� �7 sr do 639-41731 w.tigard-or.gov H Existing Unincorporated Taxlot Islands Zone 8 ( n r,1 Tigard, Orcgon Existing Islands RED CEDAR WAY ElTigard City Boundary N 0 N � a pOO 0 .7(c1' , p N 3 1 LANDAU ST Scale Q 0 25 50 Feet w w F- City of Tigar an 13125 SW Nall Blvd 11GARMAP, Tigard, OR 97223 111 , ' 503 63 -=171 w w w.tiga .!S_Projects\ADMIN_prolects\2017\Annexation Island Maps Map_mxdtannexation_islnnds_z ne8rod Existing Unincorporated Taxlot Islands Zone 9 C.ty of TIgard, ()regoti Fr— Existing Islands El Tigard City Boundary Unincorporated , ,., , , ... • ,. .. 00010110000' , . ,...... .„., , — • .‘ ''' IP 11F WM" ;' ,. . , , ., ' '41t _ . . , .., ,.... , I i > 1 ....,.........._ ,....................._________ < .^..^..-m.........m..............1 •-- 2S115AB00300 11.1 <I 2 0 Scale 0 50 100 Feet \..„ City of Tigard 13123 SW Pall Blvd v1AP5 Tigard. OR 97223 : I TIGAR 303 639-4171 -/gard-or.goy TIGARD March 16, 2017 Owner Name Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear , '' Over the next two years, the Tigard City Council plans to annex th. .:. ai ; `` `"•::. se es of unincorporated islands to the city. These are properties . at are not c ':�; y within th .ity limits but are bordered on all sides by property or roads th. ; •: e in the city lim ''<„' e annexa > will not be effective until three years from the date the •i ; uncil approves t ;'nexa.:;: . There are several properties along Fern Street that ar < k?-ntly s ` ide the city 't.. • p is attached for your reference. The City Council considers these resi• is an. oper • ners a m , sets of the Tigard community and over the last few yea as ma. e :> 'ents to imp services to you including a new drinking water source and the p.\ ;;;.se of la ar you for e parks. Before the city proceeds exation s. S.`'`-erty, the`'• 4. suncil would welcome an opportunity to meet with you • :r an ,ue !: s or a !. ess any concerns you may have about the impacts of annexation-`,_. y`”><'<:..o s: rty ' ' ; • changes in services you receive. We have scheduled .rmational :-eting . Wednesday, April 5 from 6:30 p.m. — 8 p.m. in the Town Hall at C ' 125 S ' ::,all Blvd. Pleas-; ontac Liz Newt.`;: Assists;':;:€'x.; : . ' anager, at 503-718-2412 or liz@tigard-or.gov if you have •' stions in advance the mee ;I . We look forward to the opportunity to meet with you. Regards, John L. Cook Jason Snider Mayor Council President Marc Woodard John Goodhouse Tom Anderson City Councilor City Councilor City Councilor