Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/11/2017 1111 • ' City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL &LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 11,2017 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session;7:30 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 (IDD -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 (I'DD -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. .11441 City of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL&LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 11,2017 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session;7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 6:30 PM •STUDY SESSION 1. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 6:30 p.m. estimated time •EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss property negotiations,under ORS 192.660(2) (e).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. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 6:45 p.m. estimated time •RECEPTION FOR POLICE CHIEF McALPINE:There will be a brief reception in the Town Hall Lobby in honor of Police Chief McAlpine who will be sworn in by Judge O'Brien at the beginning of the City Council Business Meeting. Refreshments will be served. 7:00 p.m. estimated time 7:30 PM 2. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 3. ADMINISTER OATH TO TIGARD POLICE CHIEF McALPINE 4. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less,Please) A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication C. Citizen Communication—Sign Up Sheet 5. 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. AUTHORIZE HUNZIKER INFRASTRUCTURE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION •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. 6. LOCAL CON TRACT REVIEW BOARD: CONSIDER AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY SERVICES 7:45 p.m. estimated time 7. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD: CONSIDER AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LABOR ATTORNEY SERVICES 7:50 p.m. estimated time 8. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: MARIJUANA PLACE REGULATIONS (DCA2016-00004) 7:55 p.m. estimated time 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute.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. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 11. ADJOURNMENT 8:55 p.m. estimated time City of Tigard = Tigard City Council Meeting Agenda TIG D April 11, 2017 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 1. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 6:30 p.m. • EXECUTIVE SESSION Moved to Business Meeting . ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: o Schedule Council Summer Outreach at Tigard High Cafeteria,May 24 or 31 RECEPTION FOR POLICE CHIEF McALPINE,City Hall Lobby. 7:00 p.m. estimated time Council Meeting Calendar April 4* Tuesday Council Business Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 11* Tuesday Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 18* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 19 Wednesday Budget Committee Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Public Works Auditorium 24 Monday Budget Committee Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Public Works Auditorium 25* Tuesday Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall May 1 Monday Budget Committee Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Public Works Auditorium 2* Tuesday Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 8 Monday Budget Committee Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Public Works Auditorium(if needed) 9* Tuesday Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 16* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 23* Tuesday Council Business Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall June , 6* Tuesday Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 20* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting- 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting-6:30 p.m.,Town Hall Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk (*) A* AGENDA ITEM NO. 4C - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 11, 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 ofpersons 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: er Ki //v ( . st,..) or 7t4 Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will .1,1) ecr help the presiding officer pronounce: b u/44P s Address /I :S S hi l j a tT(1 (*- City State a Zip '.7 2 2 5 • Phone No. 5-3 0 5 2 5 2 , S 2- Name: i L —)Gt.-1 11 t 0 ' I Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address (( _ City b,z:.C`,Li J.. C" ,,. `l State (0 iZZip `-/ t 'C ..�:.... Phone No. Name: /' i I ../0 A ,l /Also,please sp: your name as it sounds,if it will b help the pr:si• g officer pronounce: N, \Os).1 Address City / 6 gL State ( Zip____7_ 2 Z Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION I:\ADM\CITY RECORDERS\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSignup\citizen communication 170411.doc w AGENDA ITEM NO. 4C - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 11, 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 I Name: - Yr-t r 5 ti A S6 i / Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will (--7t�. 0 V help the presiding officer pronounce: 0/1 C±ver\ �. ,rr J Address �] C:2 L//nC , / City 'J C cifil.rim State Zip Phone No. rr n 1 I n Name: Ll Uf R /�OM/CFS" Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the pre_siding officer pronounce: r"1 / YO / Sys r ii1 �JF_� /PC 1T- L 0:- , Address / /7/G% SU/ llAJAJ Sr. S /u�iU►�2 / c ,{iLiL KRB x'12 City Ti cr I RL) State b 7Zipp 3 PhoneNo`, SSi)3 ' gIc ' 35)j Name: y:,e4t9 .(r� i i i- F At: Also,please spell your name !it sounds,if it will L- /p ='3 �Q. 1 Gr help the presiding officer pronounce: e.:i-t- C l f 1 // IA (-4-:-1"-.' Address 0. 60E, 93 ( t' 5-1 (--", -�t lCL,r City ! GU( el . T. .2 & C- State » iP 97 V _ Phone No. (,tri (12 (y'�3 J .2 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION I:\ADM\CITY RECORDERS\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSignup\citizen communication 170411.doc iggir AGENDA ITEM NO. 4C - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 11, 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: 1tikc. Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: 1.,( C±10— r Address `1 tAY eL City i �L State v a_ Zip (i 1 Zz3 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. 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 170411.doc AGENDA ITEM NO. 4C - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 11, 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: -' 4)(.1.• l 4 0 No.,v C Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will V U c y help the presiding officer pronounce: 4- / COOl ,i ) \ Address City k l al Di ' State Zip Phone No. Name: Zfld11-11--{ p,A.ae_y Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it willSzYMe-71-11Wey V�- help the presiding officer pronounce: Address IOC) 5w 014 City bra CL1 Lt State b Zip q 722 Phone No. 50 3 Z-6 7 3 -K Name: e ir1 k �1 F I e} c, er2 - t16-4 6:y fr12 L i Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it willj '1" / help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City �(9 +r9 State Zip Phone No. e CITIZEN COMMUNICATION I:\ADM\CITY RECORDERS\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSignup\citizen communication 170411.doc Showo AGENDA ITEM NO. 4C - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 11, 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: Yt Ckkf 111 Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: 301 C.66 Address City Mal 4i State Zip TN) Phone No. Name: C ,A,4\ik\k. 4 LL I i Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address (741241.-- , (t)40-174'1, City ,�/Gtt1�� �� State 017-- Zip i0"4% Phone No. Name: i\ILti Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will � r help the presiding officer pronounce: /11 ruai,I Address i{ lc 5 5 AVE. GI V T)~ City i' AL61-0 \ State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION 1:\ADM\CITY RECORDERS\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSignup\citizen communication 170411.doc 1111, AGENDA ITEM NO. 4C - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 11, 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: C�c_ `/CA h� Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: )CML CYa Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: r/vhz,Ye,C 7 c r` Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: 5 Ail e_1-UCY - Address City State Zip Phone No. ,� Name: !(s)CAI " 1 (-)6i r 111 (C1 Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address (hilt l City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION I:\ADM\CITY RECORDERS\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSigoup\citizen communication 170411.doc SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET Ah d 44 .Y. FOR Y — / / - �a / 7 °� (DATE OF MEETING) Resolution to declare Tigard Oregon a Sanctuary City WHEREAS,America has been founded on systemic oppression, on November 8, 2016, an erratic, racist, misogynistic fascist was elected to become the 45th President of the United States; WHEREAS, in 1987 Oregon passed ORS 181.850, prohibiting law enforcement officers at the state, county, or municipal level from enforcing federal immigration laws, declaring itself a sanctuary to undocumented immigrants; WHEREAS, 160,000 of Oregon's residents, or 4.3%of Oregon's population, live without representation; WHEREAS, immigrants are essential to Oregon's economy and taxpayers. Immigrants consisted of 13.3%of the workforce and 12%of economic output for the state. WHEREAS,those fleeing to America from Central and South America should be given asylum given the unsafe environments created by the cartels and governments. Therefore, be it: RESOLVED,That no matter the threat,The City of Tigard will reaffirm Oregon's declaration of Sanctuary. We will not turn our back on the residents of Tigard from other countries who are the backbone of the workforce and economy, and who represent a large portion of our population.This is Tigard—we build bridges, not walls; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED,That we will never back down on women's rights,whether in healthcare, the workplace, or in our community. Including, but not limited to access to reproductive care and equal pay and equity in the workplace; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, To all the LGBTQIA-f people in our community who feel scared, bullied, or alone:You matter.You are seen;you are loved; and Tigard will never stop fighting for you. The city upholds the state ban on conversion therapy; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED,That we uphold the first amendments founding principle of religious freedom. We will not ban people for their faith, nor will the city participate in any registry or data collection of data based on religious practice or affiliation. Tigard will not allow xenophobia cast upon our Muslim brothers and sisters and will have zero tolerance for discrimination by law enforcement because they deserve the same respect to their religion as any other; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED,That Black Lives Matter in Tigard. We will reform our police department by ensuring hiring is representative of the communities they serve and by implementing an independent review board to ensure equitable policies, procedures, and conduct by officers.To rebuild trust between police and communities of color, Tigard will no longer allow officers to serve if they have tattoos of known white supremacist symbolism or are known to be affiliated, present or past,with known white supremacist organizations, so all citizens feel safe in their neighborhoods; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, all officers found to have worked with ICE will be terminated immediately; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, Tigard Police Department will not participate in the 1033 program for the purchase of military equipment, weapons, and vehicles for the use against the residents of Tigard; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED,That climate change is here and now. Sanctuary is all encompassing, and Tigard acknowledges that this includes clean air, water and soil; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED,the city acknowledges the technology exists and is economically feasible to transition all government property,the council will increase its efforts to move toward a government that runs entirely on renewable energy, has zero waste, and rebuilds its riparian zones to protect future generations; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED,That the City of Tigard will have zero tolerance on racism, discrimination, and raids conducted by Immigration Customs Enforcement. We will NOT have any kind of cooperation between our Tigard Police Department and Immigration Customs Enforcement, ICE. We will assure all those affected by discrimination due to their immigration status, race, nation of origin, gender expression, sexual orientation or their religious beliefs will have full access to our City Services.Tigard stands in solidarity with the diverse communities that are the bedrock of our society and assures all residents will be treated equitably under the law. AIS-3043 5.A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/11/2017 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: AUTHORIZE HUNZIKER INFRASTRUCTURE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Submitted By: Lloyd Purdy, Community Development Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Negotiations for right-of-way for the Hunziker Infrastructure Project have successfully concluded. The City may now make an official offer to property owners to acquire ROW for the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to purchase right-of-way for the Hunziker Infrastructure Project. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Last year, the City of Tigard retained EPIC Land Solutions as right-of-way agent for the Hunziker Infrastructure Project. EPIC was tasked with making formal appraisals of the ROW needed for the Hunziker Infrastructure Project and assisting staff in negotiations. The city's legal counsel has been included in this process. Negotiations are complete and a final offer is ready. Offers are within the appraised value range. Total right-of-way expense will be $395,000. The City must have title to these properties/ROW before the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Agency will reimburse the city for eligible project expenses and before the city begins construction. The city's ROW acquisition costs can be reimbursed through the$1.5 million appropriation from the State of Oregon's Capital Construction Fund. Consistent with the Resolution of Necessity council adopted on September 27,2016, staff and legal council negotiated with property owners to acquire right-of-way on four separate tax lots. Pursuant to guidance from the EDA, the City is pursuing voluntary agreement with property owners and is not threatening condemnation. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Direct staff to continue negotiations or cancel the project. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Investment in infrastructure in the Hunziker Industrial Core supports economic development consistent with the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Goal 9, the City's 2011 Economic Opportunity Analysis and the City's strategic vision for a more interconnected and economically healthy community. Specifically, Goal#2 - ensuring development supports the strategic vision. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION January 23,2017 ROW Acquisition Memo January 10, 2017 Project Discussion (LID) September 27,2016 Resolution of Necessity for Hunziker Infrastructure ROW May 11,2016 ROW Executive Session Discussion Fiscal Impact Cost: $395,000 Budgeted (yes or no): yes Where Budgeted (department/program): CIP 95047 Additional Fiscal Notes: Right of way for the Hunziker Infrastructure Project is a capital expense and eligible for reimbursement from the State of Oregon's Capital Construction Fund after the state issues lottery backed bonds in spring 2017. Attachments Map I IKERTIOAD _ — \ !,' \ LEGEND I! �� TL 2S101DC04500(SUMMIT PROPERTIES,INC.-SEE !t( "` EXHIBIT A2)ROW DEDICATION AREA.TOTAL I{' 20'ROW DEDICATION • AREA=13,488 SQ.FT. 777---(EXISTING FLAG LOT) X " CHARTER 1' / • �G A . TL 2S101CA00200(WALL STREET INDUSTRIAL,LLC- MECHANICAL rI / c SEE EXHIBIT C2)ROW DEDICATION AREA. ypI \ ;x4" '. ;k• TOTAL AREA=32,239 SQ.FT. 1; „,.....,.04._ i C 9•' TL 2S101CA00800,25101CA00100,251010001100 II_ _ _ \ - (FIELDS TRUST PROPERTY-SEE EXHIBIT D2)ROW it-- DEDICATION AREA. TOTAL AREA=107,829 SQ.FT. Vv., 70'PROPOSED ROWI v 251010001600(FIELDS TRUST PROPERTY-SEE EXHIBIT I 10( E2) BC RN �i AREAPU=21LI,822WATESQ.FTLI.E EASEMENT. TOTAL 30'ROW --7 M---DEDICATION 20'ROW• DICATION (EXISTW e FLAG LOT) •4'b NOTE: MAP SHOWS RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC / ' IQ' \ WATERLINE EASEMENTS ONLY. PUBLIC r' I UTILITY EASEMENTS AND TEMPORARY / POTS() 1'3 \ CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ARE NOT DOG PARK 'I p FIELDS TRUST1PROPERTY \ \ SHOWN. { \li. / 1 I'm / ,, 1_,H I fi WALL STREET 1I / INDUSTRIAL,LLC I Ii A , I;i , \----------- - \0'ROW DEDICATION `.,: 20'PUBLIC WATERLINE \� EASEMENT \ \� \ SUMMIT \ --____ \ PROPERTIES,LLC \ .,\ p:_ SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 PUUC ai°"rA HUNZIKER INFRASTRUCTURE F1O” Na nleuc•orocs°OARTMOIf ROW—1 VOICE.S 9 w RIGHT-OF-WAY EXHIBIT 11 I VOICE.503-639-4171-075 FAX: AR-871-0752 EXHIBIT ROW-1 FLE NO 250 125 0 250 TIGARD www.nc+Ro-oR.cov 95047 AIS-3060 6. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/11/2017 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider Award of Contract for Real Estate Attorney Services Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Local Contract Review Board Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for real estate attorney services to Jordan Ramis PC? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for real estate attorney services to Jordan Ramis PC and authorize the City Manager to take the necessary steps to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard has contracted for legal services since the City was incorporated in the early 1960s. The City's current contract for legal services expired at the end of 2016. In response, formal Request for Proposals (RFPs) were developed for the solicitation of specific areas of legal expertise.These areas included general city attorney city prosecutor,real estate,labor/employment law and franchise services. The contract associated with this agenda item deals with real estate legal services. These services are required for property negotiations, land acquisition, street vacations,easements,etc. The RFP's were released to the public on late 2016 with advertising in The Daily Journal of Commerce. The City received twor responses for the real estate services portion of the RFP: Jordan Ramis PC and Tomasi Salyer Martin. A selection committee consisting of City staff members and a City Councilor reviewed the proposals and interviewed the firms. The committee determined the Jordan Ramis PC was best able to meet the City's legal real estate needs based on the criteria in the RFP. The contract will be for an initial term of one year and may be renewed for four additional one-year terms. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board may reject the contract award and direct staff to resolicit for the needed service. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board is seeing this potential agreement. Fiscal Impact Cost: As Needed Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted (department/program): Public Works Additional Fiscal Notes: Real estate legal services are provided on an "as needed" basis. Most real estate legal fees will be billed to projects.Jordan Ramis PC rates are as follows: Attorney - $230-$275/hour Paralegals - $190/hour Attachments No file(s)attached. AIS-2975 7. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/11/2017 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: CONSIDER AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LABOR ATTORNEY SERVICES Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Local Contract Review Board Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for labor attorney services to Bullard Law? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for labor attorney services to Bullard Law and authorize the City Manager to take the neccesary steps to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has contracted for labor relations services including labor negotiations,grievance processing, etc. for more than 25 years. The City's current contract is with law firm of Bullard Law in Portland, Oregon, and they provide both labor relations and employment law assistance. The City pays for these legal services on an as-needed basis according to the hourly rates stipulated in the contract. The current contract has expired and a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) for specialized attorney services was released pursuant to the city's purchasing rules.The RFP's were released to the public on late 2016 with advertising in The Daily Journal of Commerce. The City received four responses for the labor attorney/employment law portion of the RFP. Proposals were received from : •Bullard Law •Beery Elsner&Hammond,LLP •Barran Liebman,LLP •Peck Rubanoff&Haffield,PC A selection team reviewed the submittals and scored them in accordance with the criteria detailed in the RFP. They determined that Bullard Law was the most qualified proposer and demonstrated a wide range of expertise not only in the labor relations area but also in general employment law. The team met with the firm's representatives to discuss the city's future needs and interests and is comfortable with a recommendation that a contract be awarded for labor attorney services to Bullard Law. The rates for Bullard will be provided under the contract at$75 below their standard billing rates. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board may reject the contract award and direct staff to resolicit for the services. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board has seen this contract award item. Fiscal Impact Cost: $30,000/annual Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted (department/program): City Management Budget Additional Fiscal Notes: In FY 2015-2016 the city spent roughly $27,000 each of the last two years with Bullard Law on labor attorney services. This should serve as a reasonable estimate of what the city anticipates spending annually under this contract rounding to $30,000. The total cost under this contract if the full five years could approach$150,000. The hourly rates under this contract will be $75 less than Bullard's standard rates. Attachments No file(s)attached. AIS-2941 8. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/11/2017 Length (in minutes):60 Minutes Agenda Title: LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: MARIJUANA PLACE REGULATIONS (DCA2016-00004) Submitted By: Agnes Kowacz,Community Development Item Type: Public Hearing-Legislative Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE • Last fall,City Council directed staff to revisit the place regulations for marijuana facilities with input from the downtown business community and developers. Tonight,City Council will hold a public hearing on the Marijuana Place Regulations (DCA2016-00004). STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff supports and recommends approval of Planning Commission's recommendation of keeping the existing regulations for Marijuana Facilitates, as provided in Chapter 18.735. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In November 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the spacing requirements between sales-oriented retail and wholesale facilities,reducing it from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet to comply with state law. The City Council also extended the hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,consistent with state law. City Council further directed staff to explore options for relaxing the location regulations for marijuana facilities,particularly in the downtown area and outside of the Pacific Highway corridor. City Council instructed staff to seek input from the downtown business community and developers on whether downtown Tigard is a suitable location for marijuana related businesses. The Council also instructed staff to contact developers and find out if marijuana businesses are a deterrent when considering a project. Staff attended the November City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) meeting to seek direction on whether the City should allow marijuana related business in downtown Tigard. An invitation to this meeting was extended to downtown business owners as well as parties of record from previous marijuana related ordinances. Several members of the public and business community attended the meeting and provided written and oral comments,which are discussed under the Public Comments section of the staff report. The CCAC met again to discuss the issue on January 18,2017 but did not reach consensus on the topic, though a slight majority were open to changing the regulations for downtown. The CCAC had the following concerns/thoughts: •Proximity to Tigard Street Heritage Trail and plaza •Making sure that downtown has a good mix of businesses,not just one type. Need of an anchor store. •Concentration of"over 21"businesses in one location •Need for City to treat all retail uses fairly (note that other uses including the liquor store and gun shop are not singled out for restriction) •Design/facade appearance of some marijuana businesses (tacky painted windows,bright colors that don't fit in downtown) •Inability to point to any specific policy or code intention to support restricting this specific type of retail use Staff contacted three developers and heard back from one who reported that they would be reluctant to lease to a marijuana business due to uncertainty about federal policy and bank financing.They also stated that the perception of marijuana business is worse than reality and that the presence of a marijuana business in the area would not deter them from pursuing a good project. Lastly,based on City Council's discussion, staff explored the idea of a buffer from active parks in place of a buffer from the parks and recreation zone in general. A definition of"active park"would need to be provided to clearly identify those parks. Staff believes that this option is too subjective and may be too difficult to implement. If Council wanted to pursue this option, staff would suggest naming the specific parks from which the buffer would apply. Staff presented Planning Commission with four options for amending the place regulations for marijuana facilitates. The four options included: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the Mixed Use- Central Business District (MU-CBD) zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public,allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone,and remove the 500-foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone within the MU-CBD zone. Planning Commission considered the options and conducted a lively discussion. Ultimately, two motions were made, one for Option #1 and one for Option #2. The Planning Commission decided to vote on both motions because they wanted to show that some commissioners did support Option #2. The first vote was for Option #2 and two commissioners voted for,while six voted against. The Planning Commission then unanimously voted on Option #1,keeping the City's existing regulations as is. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The City Council may: 1.Continue the public hearing to a later date. 2.Revise the recommendation and approve. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Policy 2.1.6: The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. Policy 2.1.11:The City shall adopt regulations and standards to protect public safety and welfare from hazardous conditions related to land use activities. Comprehensive Plan Goal 9: Economic Development. Policy 9.1.3 The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities,provided that required infrastructure is made available. Policy 9.1.12 The City shall assure economic development promotes other community qualities, such as livability and environmental quality that are necessary for a sustainable economic future. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION City Council reviewed changes to marijuana facilities on September 27,2016,October 18,2016 and November 1,2016. Attachments Staff Report 1.PC Recommendation 2.Amendment Options 3.Maps 4.CCAC Minutes 5.Public Comments 6.PC Draft Minutes PowerPoint AgendaQuick©2005-2017 Destiny Software Inc.,All Rights Reserved Agenda Item: #1 Hearing Date: April 11,2017 Time: 7:30 PM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE p CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD SECTION I. SUMMARY CASE NAME: MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS CASE NO.: Development Code Amendment(DCA) DCA2016-00004 PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (IDC) to amend Chapter 18.735, Marijuana Facilities. The purpose of this amendment is to revisit place regulations and propose additional locations where marijuana facilities may occur. APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 ZONES: Citywide LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); ME IRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.23, 9.1.3 and 9.1.12; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390 SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends Option#1 as presented by staff,which is to keep the existing regulations for Marijuana Facilitates,as provided in Chapter 18.735. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the issue of making changes to the city's existing marijuana regulations on March 20, 2017. After listening to public testimony and conducting a spirited discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend no changes be made to the city's existing marijuana regulations (Option #1). A number of issues came out in the Commission's discussion. Some issues that Commissioners wanted the Council to consider include the following. • that the potential tax dollars that would result from expanding the area for marijuana businesses should not even be a considering factor because it sends the wrong message MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 10 • that marijuana businesses may conflict with the goal of having downtown be family friendly and may have an aesthetic impact, (bars on widows, dark doors and windows) especially downtown • there may be no need for additional marijuana shops since the City only has one liquor store to serve the City,and • it is too early to revisit the marijuana regulations, as they were adopted just one year ago and there has not been enough time to know whether the regulations are adequate SECTION III, BACKGROUND INFORMATION & PROJECT SUMMARY In November 2014, Oregon became the fourth state in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana. Prior to this, legal marijuana activity was limited to the state medical marijuana program. Below is a brief summary of legislative history on marijuana followed by the proposed changes to the City's marijuana regulations. August 14, 2013 - Governor signs HB3460, which requires the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana dispensaries so that patients could legally purchase medical marijuana. Under this bill, dispensaries cannot be within 1,000 feet of a school, 1,000 feet of another dispensary, and must be located within an industrial,commercial,or mixed-use zone. March 19,2014— Governor signs SB1531 which authorizes local governments to adopt reasonable regulations regarding the hours of operation; location; and manner in which medical marijuana dispensaries are operated. SB1531 also states that a local jurisdiction may enact an ordinance declaring a one-year moratorium on dispensaries. November 4,2014 - Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 91 to legalize the use and possession of recreational marijuana on July 1, 2015. The law also directs the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to tax, license, and regulate recreational marijuana through a licensing system to be established by January 2016. The measure did not make any changes to the existing medical marijuana system. April 21,2015- City of Tigard Ordinance No 15-07 was adopted, which established time, place and manner restrictions on Marijuana Facilities through the creation of new chapter in the TDC titled Marijuana Facilities (TDC 17.735), which applied to both medical and recreational marijuana. June 30,2015 - Governor signs HB3400A which authorizes local government to regulate commercial recreation marijuana regulations; establishes the requirement of a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS); recognizes marijuana as a farm crop; requires OLCC to create a seed-to-sale tracking system; and establishes provisions for state and local taxation. HB3400A also prohibits local jurisdictions from requiring a distance buffer of greater than 1,000 feet between stated-licensed retail marijuana facilities. In November 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the spacing requirements between sales- oriented retail and wholesale facilities, reducing it from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet to comply with state law. The City Council also extended the hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., consistent with state law. City Council further directed staff to explore options for relaxing the location regulations for marijuana facilities, particularly in the downtown area and outside of the Pacific Highway corridor. City Council instructed staff to seek input from the downtown business community and developers on whether downtown Tigard is a suitable location for marijuana related businesses. The Council also instructed staff to contact developers and find out if marijuana businesses are a deterrent when considering a project. Staff attended the November City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) meeting to seek direction on whether the City should allow marijuana related business in downtown Tigard. An invitation to this meeting was extended to downtown business owners as well as parties of record from previous marijuana related MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 OF 10 ordinances. Several members of the public and business community attended the meeting and provided written and oral comments, which are discussed under the Public Comments section of this staff report. The CCAC continued the discussion to the next scheduled meeting in December. The December meeting, and the following early January meeting were cancelled due to inclement weather. The CCAC finally met again on January 18, 2017 but did not reach consensus on the topic, though a slight majority were open to changing the regulations for downtown. The CCAC had the following concerns/thoughts: o Proximity to Tigard Street Heritage Trail and plaza o Making sure that downtown has a good mix of businesses, not just one type. Need of an anchor store. o Concentration of"over 21"businesses in one location o Need for City to treat all retail uses fairly(note that other "adult" uses including the liquor store and gun shop are not singled out for restriction) o Design/facade appearance of some marijuana businesses (tacky painted windows,bright colors that don't fit in downtown) o Inability to point to any specific policy or code intention to support restricting this specific type of retail use Staff contacted three developers and heard back from one that reported that they would be reluctant to lease to a marijuana business due to uncertainty about federal policy and bank financing. They also stated that the perception of marijuana business is worse than reality and that the presence of a marijuana business in the area would not deter them from pursuing a good project. Lastly, based on City Council's discussion, staff explored the idea of a buffer from active parks in place of a buffer from the parks and recreation zone in generaL A definition of"active park" would need to be provided to clearly identify those parks. Staff believes that this option is too subjective and problematic for applicability purposes. If Council wanted to pursue this option, staff would suggest naming the specific parks from which the buffer would apply. Code Amendment Options Staff presented Planning Commission with four options for amending the place regulations for marijuana facilitates. The four options included: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the Mixed Use-Central Business District (MU-CBD) zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public,allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone, and remove the 500-foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone within the MU-CBD zone. The four options considered by Planning Commission are discussed in detail below. Maps depicting the areas affected by Options 2 through 4 are provided as attachments to this staff report. Option 1 Option 1 is no change to the City's current place regulations,which include the following restrictions: excerpt from TDC 18.735.040 B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 10 this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions.All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD Zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attendedprimarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits;and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation Zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following Zones or facilities: a. Residential Zone; b. Parks and recreation Zone; c. Public library. Option 2 Option 2 would eliminate the restriction limiting marijuana sales-oriented retail businesses to properties with frontage onto Pacific Highway and keep all other existing restrictions. Marijuana sales-oriented retail business could occur where sales-oriented retail is a permitted use, provided that all other buffer requirements are met. Sales-oriented retail is permitted outright in Neighborhood Commercial (C-N), General Commercial (C-G), and Mixed Use Commercial (MUC). Retail-oriented sales uses are restricted to size limitations in Community- Commercial (C-C), Professional Commercial (C-P), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) and Mixed Use Employment 1 and 2 (IME-1 and 2), Mixed Use Residential 1 and 2 (MUR-1 and 2) and Industrial-Park (I-P). The map for Option 2 shows all the areas where a marijuana sales-oriented retail business would be permitted along with all other buffer restrictions. Option 3 Option 3 includes the same modifications as provided in Option 2 but also would allow marijuana businesses in the MU-CBD zone. Allowing marijuana businesses in the MU-CBD zone does not make too much of a change. Due to the buffer from the parks and recreation zone,it only opens up areas southeast of Main Street and Burnham Avenue due. Option 4 This option would remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement, include the MU-CBD zone and only remove the parks and recreation zone buffer within the MU-CBD zone. The removal of the parks and recreation zone buffer would allow marijuana business downtown, specifically on Main Street and Burnham Avenue. However, since Main Street is also restricted due to a school buffer south of Burnham Avenue, only one marijuana business would be permitted on Main Street. Other Jurisdictional Responses To provide a framework for what is considered "reasonable" by other jurisdictions, staff is including a summary of how other cities have chosen to regulate retail marijuana facilities within their cities. Washington County Limited to hours between 8am and 10pm. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF 10 ➢ Allowed in specified commercial and industrial districts, with square footage limited to 3,000 square feet within the Industrial (IND), General Commercial (GC), and Rural Commercial (R-COM) Land Use Districts. • Minimum 2,000 feet between dispensaries. ➢ Minimum 1,000 feet from a youth-oriented recreation facility owned and operated by Tualatin Hills and Parks Recreations District. City of Beaverton: ➢ Limited to hours between 7am and 10pm. • Limited to three zones: GC (General Commercial), CS (Community Service), and CC (Corridor Commercial). City of Hillsboro: ➢ Limited to hours between 10am and 8pm Monday through Thursday and 10am and 10pm Friday through Sunday. ➢ Limited to three zones: General Industrial (I-G), Station Community Commercial- Station Commercial (SCC-SC) and Station Community Commercial-Multi-Modal (SCC-MM). • Minimum 1,000 feet from another retail facility. • Minimum 2,000 feet between medical dispensaries. • Minimum 1,000 feet from a public plaza or active use park. As used in this paragraph, an active use park includes a public park, which includes features such as playground equipment, athletic courts or fields, active use water features, or skating, or skateboard features. City of McMinnville ➢ Limited to hours between 9am and 9pm. • Limited to two zones: Neighborhood Business (C-1) and General Commercial (C-3). ➢ Minimum 1,000 feet from another retail facility. ➢ Minimum 1,000-foot buffer from a school,public library,aquatic center,and community center. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Section 18.390.060.G establishes standard decision-making procedures for reviewing Type IV applications. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1) The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2) Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3) Any applicable METRO regulations; 4) Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5)Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. FINDING: Findings and conclusions are provided in this section for the applicable listed factors on which the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based. This standard is met STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Statewide Planning Goals, only applicable Statewide Goals are addressed below. Statewide Planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type N Procedures). Notices were sent byUS Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the Citinterested parties list. A copy of the same notice was emailed to a list of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 5 OF 10 information and documents were posted to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided.This goal is met. Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. FLNDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and standards to review changes to the Tigard Development Code in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable state requirements. As discussed within this report, the applicable Development Code process and standards have been applied to the proposed amendment. This goal is met. Statewide Planning Goal 9—Economic Development: This goal seeks to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,welfare,and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan Economic Development goals and policies is discussed later in this report under Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 9.1 and associated policies. This goal is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above and the related findings below, staff finds the proposed amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OREGON CANNABIS REGULATIONS ORS 475B.340(2): Notwithstanding ORS 633.738, the governing body of a city or county may adopt ordinances that impose reasonable regulations on the operation of businesses located at premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.070, 475B.090, 475B.100 or 475B.110 if the premises are located in the area subject to the jurisdiction of the city or county, except that the governing body of a city or county may not adopt an ordinance that prohibits a premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.110 from being located within a distance that is greater than 1,000 feet of another premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.110 FINDING: As detailed in Attachment 1, the proposed amendments establish reasonable restrictions on allowed locations to prevent or mitigate potential off-site community impacts. Because SB1531 does not define the word "reasonable", the amendments are based in part on pre-existing development code restrictions already adopted and enforced within the City of Tigard, or elsewhere across the state and Pacific Northwest. The attached maps showing the geographic extent of the proposed location restrictions indicate that the City can comply with the buffer restrictions, and provide more opportunities to businesses trying to find a location to operate. This requirement is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Oregon Cannabis Regulations (ORS 475B). METRO'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,only applicable Titles are addressed below. Tide 8—Compliance Procedures: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This title has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the City's interested parties list.A copy of the MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARLNG,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 6 OF 10 same notice was emailed to a list of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This title is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals and consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Because the Development Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, only applicable comprehensive plan goals and associated policies are addressed below. Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policy 1.1.2: The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the City's interested parties list. A copy of the same notice was emailed to a list of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This policy is met Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Policy 2.1.2: The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: As demonstrated in this staff report, the proposed amendments to the Tigard Development Code are consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.3: The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. FINDING: Copies of the proposed amendments were sent to affected agencies and were invited to comment on the proposal, as required by Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures) and discussed in Section V of this report. Comments submitted by affected agencies have been incorporated into this report and the proposed amendments. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.6: The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. FINDING: The proposed amendments will enable greater location flexibility for taxable economic activity to occur within the city. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.11: The City shall ado t regulations and standards to protect public safety and welfare from hazardous conditions related to land use activities. FINDING: The proposed amendments are intended to protect the public welfare by providing for appropriate distance buffer from residential areas and parks in order to prevent or reduce hazards associated with a cash MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 7 OF 10 only business,a product with a strong black market value, and the exposure of a controlled product to minors. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.23 The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. FINDING: The proposed amendments include use regulations and development standards to ensure compatibility between marijuana facilities subject to state licensing or registration, and adjacent development and public facilities. This policy is met. Comprehensive Plan Goal 9: Economic Development Policy 9.1.3 The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities,provided that required infrastructure is made available. FINDING: The proposed text amendments are intended to be flexible and adaptive to the marijuana economy in Oregon, as investors try new and unknown business models and the state adopts new regulatory requirements. This flexibility and adaptability is grounded in the regulation of the license or regulation requirement, not the underlying land use classification, and a focus on minimum compliance standards rather than proscribed locations.This policy is met. Policy 9.1.12 The City shall assure economic development promotes other community qualities, such as livability and environmental quality that are necessary for a sustainable economic future. FINDING: As detailed in Attachment 1, the proposed amendments are intended to create minimum compliance standards to prevent or mitigate potential community impacts that could result from marijuana related business activity. This policy is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE Tigard Development Code Section 18.380.020, Legislative Amendments to this Tide and Map, states that legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure,as governed by Section 18.390.060G. FINDING: The proposed amendments are legislative in nature. Therefore, the amendment will be reviewed under the Type IV le lativerocedure as set forth in the Chapter 18.390. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. This standard is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code . SUMMARY CONCLUSION: As shown in the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed code text and map amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide-Planning Goals; the Oregon Cannabis Regulation (475B); Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and the applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS City of Portland, City of Beaverton City of Durham, City of Lake Oswego, City of Tualatin, City of King City, Washington County, METRO, ODOT, DLCD, DEQ, ODFW, CWS, OLCC, OHA, Beaverton School District, Tigard/Tualatin School District,Tri-Met, , Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Tigard Public Works, Tigard Police Department and Tigard Building Division were notified of the proposed code text amendment but provided no comment. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 8 OF 10 SECTION VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff received written comments that were submitted and oral comments that were provided at the CCAC meeting on November 9, 2016. The matrix below summarizes the oral comments presented at the CCAC meeting CCAC Meeting Comments Name Comment Darbie Mayberry Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Not good for Tigard's new image downtown o Marijuana businesses are not family friendly o Brings problems/drugs Donald Meyer Pro marijuana just not downtown: o Has seen the negativity of the pipe/smoke shop o Marijuana businesses are not family friendly /place for kids John Widmer Runs a marijuana business and has a rented spaced downtown: (Kaleafa) o Other locations successful and part of community o Would like to be part of downtown Tigard and work with downtown to bring a desirable business o Focus on facts, not perceptions o This businesses doesn't bring the same clientele as the pipe shop Gus Goulet 0 Works on the IT end for Kaleafa and shop has great security (Kaleafa) o Downtown needs business to draw people in Donna Erdman Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Echo others comments-not family friendly Connie Ramaekers Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Works at TTSD as prevention specialist for youth o OK on Pacific Highway but not a on Main Street o Not family friendly and a place where kids are hanging out o The earlier kids can access a drug the more likely chance for addiction Egor (Kaleafa) o Floor Manager at Kaleafa o Very secure,everyone is TDed o Never sees young kids downtown Tigard o Could bring a younger,more progressive clientele downtown o Clientele is more for medicinal purposes than recreation Chad Cooper Neither for or against regarding Main Street o Is having a difficult time finding space for processing with existing regulations o Providing retail makes it so people don't purchase it illegally Steve DeAngelo o Provided a report for surrounding cities-most reported no adverse impacts of marijuana businesses o Tigard Downtown Alliance meeting-no opposition to marijuana businesses Kaile Aanes o Kaleafa is a family owned business (Kaleafa) o Shouldn't be treated differently than a liquor store o Educate kids that these are for when you are 21+ Myran Bioninger Customer at Kaleafa: o Typical customer is 50-70 years' old o Most people are there for medical purposes o Has seen the neighborhood grow due to a marijuana business MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 9 OF 10 The City received an email from Chad Cooper on October 31, 2016 inquiring about a location for processing marijuana and the lack of areas for this use. Staff suggested Mr. Cooper attend the upcoming CCAC meeting in November to provide input. Emails were received from Bill McMonagle on November 1St, from Dann Black on November 2rd, and from Harvey Elser on November 8th all expressing opposition to changing the existing regulations and allowing marijuana in downtown. Letters were received from Betsy Chick on November 7th and from Darbie Mayberry and Marie Watkins on November 9,all expressing opposition to allowing marijuana downtown. The main concern expressed was that marijuana businesses are not family friendly and can result in an increase in crime, tacky signage, and advertising that does not fit into downtown. Lastly, Steve DeAngelo submitted written comments reporting on regulations from other cities and any reported impacts associated with marijuana business. Mr. DeAngelo stated that the Tigard Downtown Alliance's (IDA) position is neutral. The Planning Commission heard testimony from 15 citizens and one written comment was provided at the public hearing on March 20, 2017. Five citizens spoke in favor of changing the regulations and ten were against changing the place regulations for marijuana facilities. Two additional written comments were submitted from Mr. Marvin and Judith Gerr and Ms. Connie Osbon both expressing opposition to changing the regulations for marijuana facilitates. An email was also received from Mr. Dave Sanders requesting additional information on the discussion and background for this amendment. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 2. Draft Text Amendments. a. Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. b. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. c. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. d. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500-foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. 3. Preliminary Location Maps 4. CCAC Meeting Minutes- 11/9/16 and 1/18/2017 5. Public Comments 6. Draft Planning Commission Minutes—3/20/2017 r gag- March 27.2017 PREPARED BY: • v•es Kowacz DATE A ociate Planner March 27.2017 APPROVED tY: Tom McGuire DA lE Assistant Community Development Director MARIJUANA FACILI'11LS DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 10 OF 10 Attachment#1 III i i(. AitI) City of Tigard March 27, 2017 Council Members: On Monday,March 20, 2017 the Planning Commission considered the proposed legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code ([DC), specifically Chapter 18.735,Marijuana Facilities. The following four options were considered: Option 1: Keep the current,existing regulations Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale uses open to the public and allow facilities within the MU-CBD zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. Commission's original recommendation on February 9, 2015,was made after significant public testimony and deliberation among commission members. At that time deliberations where lengthy and contentious but ultimately found a solution that all the commissioners were agreeable to. Council made revisions to the adopted legislation November 1,2016 to bring Chapter 18.735 in alignment with state guidelines: specifically related to distance from schools and operating hours. At the time of that decision Council decided to return the legislation to Commission to consider opening up locations within Tigard to Marijuana Facilities. Commission heard public testimony and had additional deliberations discussing the four options on Monday March 20th. Meeting minutes and audio are available that document that discussion. There were two motions presented at the end of the hearing. Votes were taken on the following options: Motion 1: Keep the current, existing regulations [option 1] Motion 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail • and wholesale sales uses open to the public [option 2] Motion 1 is unanimously recommended by eight commissioners. Motion 2 did not pass with a vote of 6 to 2. Sincerely, 614;444" (71./C7-1-4-eg( Calista Fitzgerald President Tigard Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov Attachment#2a Proposed Amendments-Option#1 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety,property,and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#2a Proposed Amendments- Option#1 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school,or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#2a Proposed Amendments- Option#1 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants,or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3)■ 3 Attachment#2b Proposed Amendments- Option#2 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety, property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law,with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#2b Proposed Amendments-Option#2 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school,or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits;and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#2b Proposed Amendments- Option#2 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from . ' -• . ! -. ' :. - '• a public right- of-AN 11\ F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants,or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ 3 Attachment#2c Proposed Amendments- Option#3 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety,property,and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#2c Proposed Amendments-Option#3 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. ! ! . 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school,or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#2c Proposed Amendments-Option #3 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from a public right-of-way.'. - • . e ' :. - 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3)■ 3 Attachment#2d Proposed Amendments- Option#4 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#2d Proposed Amendments-Option#4 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. I. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone, except within the MU-CBD zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone. except within the MU-CBD zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#2d Proposed Amendments- Option #4 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from ': -• - •:• : ! :•. ' :. • •• a public right- of-way.. F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants,or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3)■ 3 Option 2: I s 0C.K•MAN_S.T , id,"•< boa/�� tachment#3 al i @ �� Ti--- L-O.RS-BER•R-1'—R•D Retail Marijuana Facilities: J / �,�o o" ,--,_./" I Potential Locations j / e i I r mu Potential Locations as y ���, r-` I 01 1,000 Ft From School Site > ` � ���.,-V; _ 111111 500 Ft From Park Zones&Library / � _ I ' • __ 9 Existing Marijuana Facility CO / -�" l ��� y gAQ'0� 8 1,000 Ft From Other Marijuana Retailer d /�// �' —_ •--01..-. I '� P N.W.Y. ®MU-CBD Zone DATA SOURCES I�ftt �O /� `• -- --- �� R t. _ Q Tigard City Boundary "" 000 f S F't. ,.• , ,. �/ DISCLAIMER v.- ‘,.........c--, IkAV� j if I/ �� .E.,. , _ �.Ik O. ake ' 1- 503 `, - f I 14 014111. Alk, S,. 4i*711* cc ci at lk _ a 1, p .T S v 41411.44,. _ e) CHOLL S-F E,RRY RA.r� +ice "ter, .y \`_ *141 r 1 1 L G; __ 'Z \ ci 1,,;, 3 I 1 9. ��G� m r - ��� a co _ _____ 1— ' Si- ''; ''}. MC DONALD�.ST = �� fl j --I ,, 1%4. , KRUSE_WAY t • I - E /,/ .. .,.. , ME•A•DOW.S.-RD f, BULL MOU•N7AIN RD ou<7.t 5 " / BONITA—R:D 'y0 / O _,...,_^'��? y E BO.N.ITA_RD • II .1 l',111111 co 1 40 ofifr.. re t LI- ti 0 . _. r n O . _ �_ C Fsw � r u--`_ _ !4� \ /65 BEE_BEND�RD6toBE.N,D�.RD : / — MIS DNRAM—ROi„�/ 4 `yS / Ol LO J O' Ova I difil W LL PSA- bO 4) LA JEAN—Ra- 0 Jr/ I aa �" Attachment#3 Option 3: [ jocicMAw...s.T / 9�<� SO' -_ tip -,„ O"� a•- -, T,AXI.:O.RS_FER•RY RD. Retail Marijuana Facilities: m / � ' 1 ' Potential Locations / / II - ,J < l; I Potential Locations a _I ._i Schools -RD C + -, �� =.r 1.000 Ft From School Site 1 n ..47:.::� 500 Ft From Park Zones&Library rYx`,- ../ �'� ! `�� Existing Marijuana Facilityr. ,/ j .. tif'' I / ► / _ pISO'L•--M.W.Y. 8 1,000 Ft From Other Marijuana Retailer < ' inpw///� _ ( ~� QMU-CBD Zone Qyg ii T --1- ��.'� j Tigard City Boundary a 014.0fsSI �Vg ES FSR/! 4/ 7/ t7 dr / oi /,' x et*, A;UT S,T7 S - I 7 4►-g' cc ii . 4•017 .le , `, rSCHOLLS,.FE.R.RY LS-PERRY-RD +�. Tr.,� O I 1, , _.. 4f x W - #4,, „ A iii I 1 rj 7:_v__r-,. Sr s `-—-- I G R•UE--ST—�- MCDONAbD-ST y 1 I •R•U.SE�WA,y ll II I I I Sy` - r r 1 I t -- //!.' *�, / ` ',?,, E•ADOW,Sr-RDS. BULL MO.U.NTAIN RD , BULr' `�•.� - �Q�6 II , to 1 1<M� P• BONdTA�R•D..-.:....-..BONJ•T.A. y e BON.ITA-RD e, , 4 fro, re 2 4s1 4bco 3 C` li 0 1. $1 J r' wwus r rc v--�-- ENp� BEEF-B• DAMMAM_RD ,74. ;, y ' B(`O EEF,,.9 END..-_RD ' -/ MIL / D BEEF B.END�Rp9 / Q• 47 0 40 G (G z 4N r7 !G' \ii ,. C •g 4 �Pft EAN-.RD_. C ? n AI rc r it O i� C 1 U) / �:,; �Q� Attachment#3 Option 4: I BO6KMAN—ST / g0a, lachment _FERRY R,p Retail Marijuana Facilities: 0_111 / °' \���^ __4 Potential Locations / / `� I=Potential Locations - 'i ,Ito��. 11111100".�_ r J I j Schools I RD 0 _ rT]I,000 Ft From School Site 0 ': J 4 I �` ON 500 Fl From Park Zones&Library s • iv I •§ J Existing Marijuana Facility m / I y Bp�g• 0 Ft From Other Marijuana Retailer I , _� �`°•� ,p110'L-'-- —.. B 1,00 I t �' //1I� C,P Q MU-CBD ZoneDATA ? R0 ,i' , Q Tigard City Boundary by-MMS Vg FE _ DISCLAIMER U� It! o / '`, F 9.xJa ' R F /RI �N4.0 U.T1 i I it rc ^ r, ,f //� , + y GNp,L-L-S-SERRY R,DT� �i.��'�- 0 / S;r ,� _ �-,_y "Yi fd W 1 - 5 / • t/I-:‘ • alp '-1-> , * . ei 410 _f 1 a/VA 'T M.CD.ONA•L-D�Sd 1 KR.U.SE_..wAY !L-PD t r� :: I ' / � ME•A•pUW,Sr-R0 RD I BULL-MO-U.NTAIN 8(/tr' �`. • t- ' IPI. 0 ' M717-111,'..7'7, W , �_--I a 1 1 '�,c olei / t. G 4 +x 2 Ae 1BEEBENDR1ø*8 �� ; ;; w ,p.: L / c 0 ke V m _ /. • �P'1 JEAN - if O C f ___ a I j , Attachment#4 CITY OF TIGARD CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 9,2016 Members Present: Cameron Anderly,Carine Arendes (Chair),Joyce Casey,Tim Myshak (Alternate), Linli Pao (Vice Chair),Richard Shavey,and Mark Skorupa. Members Absent: Sherrie Devaney, Sarah Villanueva (Ex Officio),and David Walsh. Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly,Economic Development Manager Lloyd Purdy;Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz, and Administrative Specialist Joe Patton. Others Present: Councilor Marland Henderson,Council Liaison to the CCAC and TDA President Steve DeAngelo. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Arendes called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Town Hall,at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.Joe recorded the roll call. 2. CONSIDER MINUTES The October 12,2016 CCAC Minutes were approved. 3. MARIJUANA IN THE DOWNTOWN Commissioners discussed whether to allow the sale of marijuana downtown.The TDA has no official recommendation. Before CCAC can make a recommendation, additional information is needed. The topic was unanimously tabled. • 4. TIGARD DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE UPDATE/DISCUSSION Steve DeAngelo gave a brief overview of the activities the TDA is involved in and talked about their goals for 2017.Their meetings are taking place on a quarterly basis,which works better than trying to meet monthly. He agreed to meet quarterly with the CCAC. 5. REVIEW DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT Commissioners reviewed the draft Annual Report distributed via email. There were a couple of additional items noted for inclusion. Sean will make the changes and redistribute for review. 6. TOPICS OF INTEREST: RECOMENDATIONS The draft recommendations for CCAC and CCDA consideration were reviewed. Carine noted the suggested changes and thanked Commissioners for their participation. 7. LIAISON REPORTS A. TTAC made their recommendations for discretionary projects for city gas tax CIP funding.Joe will email their one page project prioritization. B. Council made changes to the marijuana regulations to be compliant with the state regulations. Development code amendments were made regarding dog and animal boarding facilities, downtown height limits and affordable housing. The state has committed some lottery funding to the Hunziker industrial core for Wall Street. The TTAC discussed with Council the need for Page 1 of 2 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Attachment#4 November 9,2016 more transportation funding. Since the gas tax increase did not pass, the previously approved street maintenance fee increase will become effective January 1, 2017. The increase will allow additional funding to address the transportation projects backlog. C. Sean noted that CCAC applications are due November 15,2016. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 pm. Joe Patton,CCAC Meeting Secretary A 1"1'hST: Carine Arendes, Chair Page 2 of 2 Attachment#4 CITY OF TIGARD CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Meeting Minutes January 18,2017 Members Present: Carine Arendes (Chair),Joyce Casey,Josh Kearney,Tim Myshak, Gloria Pinzon Marin,Kate Rogers,and Sarah Villanueva (Ex Officio). Members Absent: Cameron Anderly,and Richard Shavey. Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly,Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz, and Administrative Specialist Joe Patton. Others Present: Councilor John Goodhouse,Council Liaison to the CCAC,and resident Gus Guelet. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Arendes called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.The meeting was held in the Tigard Town Hall Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.Joe recorded the roll call. 2. CONSIDER MINUTES Approval of the November 9,2016 CCAC Minutes was postponed as a quorum of members from that meeting were not present. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Gus Guelet expressed his support for allowing the sale of marijuana in downtown Tigard. 4. PROJECT UPDATES Sean gave a brief update on ongoing projects,included with the Agenda. 5. SW CORRIDOR NEXT STEPS Sean noted the appointment of a Citizen Advisory Committee to the Southwest Corridor project. It includes Chair Arendes and six other Tigard residents. They will be looking at a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which will take approximately two years. In 2018, a bond measure will be on the ballot to help fund the project. Historically this type of project has been funded 50 percent by the federal government,though with the recent election the potential federal contribution is unclear.The final route through Tigard is pending. If everything goes according to schedule light rail will reach Tigard in 2025. A kickoff event will take place on February 2 in the Library Community Room. 6. HOMELESS TASK FORCE AND DOWNTOWN This topic was postponed until the February meeting. 7. MARIJUANA IN THE DOWNTOWN Agnes briefly discussed the information contained in the Agenda regarding the issue of allowing marijuana facilities in the downtown area. It contained follow-up information requested during the November CCAC meeting. After discussion,Commissioners agreed to convey a list of concerns about downtown siting to the Planning Commission: the retail mix,a concentration of adult businesses in the proposed area,proximity to the Tigard Street Heritage Trail and the park zone buffer,and facade/potential design issues. Page 1 of 2 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Attachment#4 January 18, 2017 8. DOWNTOWN STORY MAP Sean shared the City Center Urban Renewal: Past,Present, Future webpage (https://goo.gl/9TPgYY), which will be publicized on Tigard's website and social media accounts soon. 9. CCDA/CCAC JOINT MEETING PLANNING A brief overview of the joint meeting format was given and the Recommendations for CCDA Consideration were reviewed. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 pm. Joe Patton,CCAC Meeting Secretary A 1"1'LST: Carine Arendes,Chair Page 2 of 2 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: Brian Bergmann <bergmannbrian@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 1:31 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Dear council members, thank you for taking the time to read my letter. My name is Brian Bergmann and I've been to every meeting regarding dispensaries. I'm a life long Tigard resident and I've helped setup 2 dispensaries, 1 in Newberg and 1 in Seaside. Both are well visited by the local residents. I meet and talk to these people all the time and they're just regular people like you and me. Some use cannabis for medication and some use it to relax. Its becoming main stream as a better alternative to opiates and alcohol. I've lost 3 family members to cancer and some of them tried cannabis to help their fight against cancer. Whatever the reason people choose to use it they should have access to it. I'm glad that the city has allowed dispensaries to open and I'm glad you changed the 2000ft barrier down to the 1000ft distance. Now as for the zoning and where they are allowed, only on 99W I feel has been to restrictive. If you decide to allow it on Main st then you should allow it in any mixed use commercial or retail area. For instance, Greenburgh Rd, Hall Blvd, 72nd, Durham, Barros rd. If you decide to not allow it on Main st then you definitely should allow it in other MUC or retail zones. Confining it to 99W makes it inconvenient for other residents to get to a cannabis store. It also restricts someone like myself a Tigard resident and cannabis user opportunity to open a store. Finding a location is extremely hard if not impossible and if you open the zoning to other areas where any business can operate then someone like myself can bring a well run cannabis shop to a area of Tigard that currently has none. There has been very little if any crime associated with dispensaries in Oregon. Our stores have strict security measures and we check every persons ID before we allow then to view merchandise. The OHA and the OLCC have done a good job regulating this new and widely popular industry. We've already brought in millions of dollars in tax revenue. Cannabis is a booming industry and our own Earl Blumenauer sees a future where we export our products to the rest of the country like craft beer and Oregon wine. All I ask is a fair opportunity to open a business that clearly people want and enjoy. Please allow dispensaries in any mixed use commercial or retail zone. Thank you for your time, Brian Bergmann. From:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 10:35 AM To: 'Brian Bergmann' Subject: RE: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Ok, you can submit the letter to me and I can pass it along or you can send it directly to the City manager. Thanks, Agnes From: Brian Bergmann [mailto:bergmannbrian@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 10:23 AM 1 Attachment#5 To: Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Hi I can't attend the meeting but would like to write a letter to the city council about marijuana dispensaries. Thanks From:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:45:00 PM To: 'Brian Bergmann' Subject: RE: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Brian- There is a CCAC meeting tomorrow night. The City Council meeting has not been scheduled. Please see attached for tomorrow's meeting. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: AgnesK@tigard-or.gov From: Brian Bergmann [mailto:bergmannbrian@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:44 PM To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order When is the marijuana on main st city council meeting? From: Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:15:28 PM To: Bill Benz; Bob Wilson; Brian Bergmann; Dorothy Cofield; Gus Goulet;Jill Warren;Joel Vermillion; Keith Ashcraft; Paul Jackson; Rick Anderson;Tom Rogers Subject: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Hello- Please see attached final order for case DCA2016-00002 Marijuana Facilities.Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov 2 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: Chad Cooper <chad@chadcooper.info> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 1:51 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST - Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Thank you for your quick reply. I will attend the meeting and will provide some input. Regarding MRX Labs,I see that they are in the restricted zone. Is the restricted zones different from the what is provided in the Marijuana locations map? The building at 7225 SW Bonita Rd (HomeMasters building on the corner) is in the IP zone, but the Marijuana location map lists it in the restricted areas. Is this building allowed for Processing? T� L . - MARK LN ` n1, CL r • :"1::4 >"- X -Al/ Y tl. is 1 Attachment#5 N 111:,:s,feA, lik ! . I •e' -N.,... . 4'441 N. \\ 1 k. 1' f howst I-H 1 , i2 el l' 1 • - -. . , , )D) .,..,,, IA., . cit H I-L , 1 R-12 ihiL 1 1 ftikt ..000'- . - n I 1 i , to. R-7 , r:,':'. , :::,,,, , 2 Attachment#5 — ..,`�.•d:T "a "n` r.4� 1.77 . li�i11•T1MVi'oiM yamr, 400.00/ SW Bonita Rd41( Ammw From: Agnes Kowacz [mailto:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 7:14 AM To: Chad Cooper<chad@chadcooper.info> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST- Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Chad- Thanks for your email.The City is in the process of looking into the time, place and manner regulations for marijuana facilities and I would invite you to participate.There will be a meeting on November 9, 2016 at 6:30 at Town Hall regarding marijuana facilities specifically in downtown. In January,there will be a larger discussion pertaining to marijuana facilitates and the whole City. Please see attached. The labs are classified as office I believe and are permitted in the I-P zone, which is the one that you mentioned below. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 3 Attachment#5 Email: AgnesK@tigard-or.gov From: Chad Cooper [mailto:chad@chadcooper.info] Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 9:54 AM To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Thanks for you quick response. This does seem to be extreme for some forms of processing. For example, it seems overkill for a processor who wants to bake cookies. Is there no middle ground? I am also curious about MRX Labs, which has applied to be a licensed Rec.Test lab.Their address is 14775 SW 74th Avenue, which appears to be in the prohibited zone. Va3 Y yYr / f `._ *Am, Illr 6 t it ., e ie r� ,, V ho „, //1 ,, Lastly, I have contacted every property manager who has industrial space available. Not a single one will lease to a marijuana related business.This accounts for every property in the allowed IH or IL zones that are not in prohibited zones. Frankly, after spending upwards of 60+ hours seeking a location, I am now convinced that there are no potential properties that 4 Attachment#5 can be leased (or purchased). It may be prudent to modify the Marijuana Facilities map to exclude all of the excluded zones as well. This would have saved me a great deal of time and effort. I have found a number of properties (including a number along 72nd ave, and a few in the CBD region), where the owners would approve a lease, but they were in the prohibited zones. I had hoped that I could setup a small kitchen in the MUE property mentioned, but this is also not allowed. As a Tigard resident, I was optimistic that I could find a good location, but I am now modifying my business plan to use a location in Hillsboro, which has much more available industrial space. It's my opinion,that the concern over diversion and safety has been exaggerated. It seems a bit hypocritical that Max brew pub can brew beer in the CBD, and allows minors into his establishment,yet there are heavy restrictions for a processor,who has to have a highly secured building, with cloud based video surveillance, high tech alarm systems, panic buttons, badge access with audit logs, and restriction of anyone who is not a state certified Marijuana worker, regular inspections by state inspectors from OLCC, and state managed electronic tracking of every single gram of produce. Its silly to think that a business would make this investment, then divert product, when anyone can go to a local retailer and buy what they like. More importantly, "diverting" product to a retail store would be far more profitable, legal, and sane. Thanks, Chad Cooper From: Agnes Kowacz [mailto:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:42 PM To: Chad Cooper<chad@chadcooper.info> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Hi Chad- Marijuana processing is considered a general industrial use, which is permitted only in the I-L and I-H zone.Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: AgnesK@tigard-or.gov From: Chad Cooper [mailto:chad@chadcooper.info] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:56 AM To:#CD PoD<CDPoD@tigard-or.gov> Subject: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Hi, I am inquiring about the suitability of this property, which is a residential home being sold as a commercial property in the Tigard Triangle. Is a marijuana processing company allowed at this location? I cannot find any info on this this zone type both for county (2210) and Tigard (MUE). It is outside the prohibited areas for non-retail marijuana businesses allowed by Tigard. 5 Attachment#5 Thanks, Chad Cooper 503-332-4223 2S101AB00601 General Property Information Site Address: 7130 SW ELMHURST ST. TIGARD OR, 97223 Tax Lot ID: 25101AB00601 Property Account ID: R457044, Property Classification: 2210 - - See full list of Codes Neighborhood Code: ZTGL Latitude/ Longitude: 45.4313510/ 122.750233 Overlay Information 2S101AB00601 Jurisdiction: City Zoning (updated 9/2016): MUE (confirm with Tigard City Planning department) Within Urban Growth Boundary: Yes Within Metro's Urban Service Area (*Updated June Yes 30th each calendar year): In Urban Road Maintenance District (*Updated June No 30th each calendar year): In Urban Road Maintenance District (*Updated June No 30th each calendar year): In ESPD (*Updated June 30th each calendar year): No Ground Water Resouce Area: Not located within a Ground Water Resource Area SDL Assement Area/zone: Not in an Assesment Area. Sanitation District (*Updated June 30th each calendar CWS year): Water District (*Updated June 30th each calendar TVW year): Fire District (*Updated June 30th each calendar TVFR year): Fire Management Zone: 6090 Park District: Not In Park District North Bethany Plan Area: Not in North Bethany Sub Area School District (*Updated 06/30/2012): TIGARD-TUALATIN Election Precinct: 406 Commissioner District: 3- Roy Rogers Assessor Area: 0 Citizen Participation Org: CPO4M Community Plan Map: COUNTY Historic & Cultural Resource Inventory: Not located within a Historic and Cultural Resource Inventory Area POD Date Zoned: POD:1-9/9/59 ODOT District: 2B Plat: Property is not part of a subdivision Census Tract: 030700 Census Block: 1022 Census Blockgroup: 1 Census Geoid: 410670307001022 Zipcode: 97223 Garbage Hauler: Pride Disposal (503) 625-6177 Garbage Dropbox: Pride Disposal (503) 625-6177 Thomas Brothers Guide: Page: 655 - Grid: G4 6 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: Sean Farrelly Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:45 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: FW: Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations Here's a public comment Sean Farrelly Redevelopment Project Manager City of Tigard/City Center Development Agency 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503-718-2420 From: Bill McMonagle [mailto:bill@h-mc.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:04 PM To:Sean Farrelly Subject: RE: Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations THE ONLY REASON THE STATE IS IN THE "MARY JANE" BUSINESS IS FOR THE MONEY AND IF THAT IS TIGARDS PURPOSE THEN THE LEADERS OF TIGARD SHOULD BE PUT IN A PILLARY ON MAIN STREET. BILL MC From: Downtownupdates [mailto:downtownupdates-bounces@lists.tigard-or.gov] On Behalf Of Sean Farrelly Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:54 PM To: 'downtownupdates@lists.tigard-or.gov' Subject: [Downtownupdates] Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations Hello- Downtown stakeholders are invited to comment on potential changes to marijuana regulations in Downtown Tigard.The meeting will be held prior to a meeting of the City Center Advisory Commission on: Wednesday, November 9 6:30-7:00 PM Tigard Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Sean Farrelly Redevelopment Project Manager City of Tigard/City Center Development Agency 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503-718-2420 1 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: Dann Black <dblack@fsconsults.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:59 PM To: Lloyd Purdy Cc: Agnes Kowacz Subject: RE: Pot Shop on Main Thanks Lloyd. To: Tigard City Council I am a local business owner who specifically moved my Software Technology Recruiting Company to Main Street in 2013 because of the Main Street revitalization efforts and family friendly street frontage. We have world class software engineers from all over the West Coast visit our office on Main Street to see our office and we often take them for a cup of coffee or microbrew after they see our office. A huge part of our business that separates us from our competition is the "community feel" that embrace from being on Main Street which has helped us become the#12 Fastest Growing Private Company in Oregon last year. My entire office staff is against having any Marijuana sales happen on Main Street. There are already plenty of Marijuana sales locations up and down 99. Having paid people dressed as clowns at either end of Main Street spinning those signs advertising "$5k weed just down Main Street" would completely ruin the experience that has been created on Main Street. (THIS WILL HAPPEN IF THE WEED SHOP OPENS ON MAIN just like it happens now at the top of 99 near 1-5) Dann Black CEO Future State Consulting *I TT `ci ae FUTURE STATE CONSULTING IDENTIFY • CONNECT • UNITE Dann Black Principal t n.oa a. dblack '1 consults con) wwwJsconsuks.com wwwJxebook,comjfscanuhs From: Lloyd Purdy [mailto:LloydP@tigard-or.gov] Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:25 AM To: Dann Black<dblack@fsconsults.com> Cc:Agnes Kowacz <AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: Pot Shop on Main Dann, 1 Attachment#5 You can provide written testimony to Agnes Kowacz, she's cc'd on this email. She is the city planner managing this project. She will share any written comments with City Council. Lloyd Purdy Economic Development Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 503.718.2442 lloydp@tigard-or.qov From: Dann Black [mailto:dblack@fsconsulls.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 9:29 AM To: Lloyd Purdy Subject: Pot Shop on Main Lloyd, Nice seeing you this morning. Did that information card about the Wednesday Pot Shop meeting next week include any of the committee members? I have a client meeting and will not be able to attend next week but would like to give an opinion to the committee or person in charge of making the decision about Marijuana on Main. Do you know who that is? -Dann FUTURE STATE CONSULTING HELPING ORGANIZATIONS IDENTIFY AND ACQUIRE TALENT Dann Black 12525 SW Main SI. Principal Tigard, OR 97223 USA dblackOfsconsults.com www.fsconsults.com Office:503.567.8283 www.facebook.com/fsconsuIts Mobile:503.502.6813 The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential,privileged and protected from disclosure. This email is intended solely for the addressee(s)and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you think that you have received this email in error,please notify the sender by reply email or by telephone, and immediately delete all copies of the email and any attachments from your system. DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail - may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 Attachment#5 _�������� � ^�^ ��d�x� � ----~~----�--�---- ----'�~--r-----�-^~~-- --~"*:�� ��. WA/ - � ���� '��� / , �mmm � '-_- '-_ -___ fri_C4n? .eziyx Administr _ '-__07__-- . _____� __ __-_n ---- -ns+-' - �---�- -- ---' -_-____ -_ _zd_______'__�-_'_____ ---__-_'__-'__- __' _9 Ynce.,4:y,c, y2h;e_h .7. -I Y4,.n.kilasia521.,_. ,/,:. pc .1_,/ .. pezt_pp_, ,:e.e.._dy. cii..;. ?..1 ..C.12aiy2. )._1/... .. ?o -ih;i/..,44 Df_hg.11123,_,t cal___ IleijidemY__ ,.5.1wp ,e2e) ilai.o.„5.i.ce:=L., ___Afkit ....Y13afrA pizz291>o i)n........ YnNuele.4- dPd-ZS k___21.Yki Y.)..o. -______-__-7C011'_--_i&--2_-_---20-2- _'---5 '_--5- '_or._.7)--__5. ---- '----------- effork`y2g we.4).„eci.iii.te ... fe_r if)e- ___.-~___- -_____-___---___-_- -- --------fa---- y'---T---'----- i_tc, _.4.1aw.-z-24).04_ eAo_v:iisioY2 -ci __-??-___'-___-_'____- ----''__p-_- for___Y*2114tizzia fr__..,sr2_ '-__--_-____~~~k-_ __.____ - --__-_ ___ ---__'_ ,rtleq k.i_.Jb;1 ./46_ . heZ,Sit-5_ Ali ,sit-o4 ,,y ----_-~__-__ -___4169..-_-__--.__���--_Zifie...--~ _'_-�__ ' ��--_'� - r ' r ` le- f-Yr «�§��u��_��������__,�����~ ` _611'scrc.i • ____ _ ___ ___ _������������`�� --,'~-_6�-_--- - Q --_44,46 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: jhelser1@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 3:05 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Marijuana sales on Main Street Dann Black suggested that you could read the following at the advisory commission meeting. Thanks From: Harvey Elser, owner of the former CARQUEST building at 12175 Main Street, Home: 23900 SW Mountain Creek Rd, Sherwood, OR To: City Center Advisory Commission, City of Tigard I would like to have been present at your meeting this evening but due to health problems I could not attend. First of all I am 100% against making any changes to the current regulations forbidding marijuana facilities on Main Street. Keep in mind that prior to marijuana being legalized for recreational use, the City was on track with it's attitude to make downtown Tigard a friendly family experience for a trip to Main Street without our young children's parents being questioned about controversial societal influence. I am the owner of the former CARQUEST building, just across from the Post Office. I see traffic congestion and an accident prone area with cars coming and going from the post office parking. I ask you why would we want to import any more traffic to downtown Tigard's Main Street? MARIJUANA ON MAIN STREET it Public Comment Name: , rt mie I ntjap 0r5 Email / Phone: 503 - 3/0 - o 6/51 Comment: fh r,�lL a m b n y fl IL{ 1 l 571.?`o 0-1 1-1( PDQ o f h'1 Gt-r i 6/4� a , l S� -, • J 451 Wccf,,� 4\4J 34t.a. eis • Would you like a response? Date: 11/9/2016 Yes No Event: Marijuana on Main scot • 2 -L lin fts OS TIGARD Attachment#5 . IiL TIGARD CLEANERS 12519 SW Main • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.2000 r e0 \); t\\( c\orne. \sfoafbC- tiP1 ecc LA PCOM -mac ,��� C (\e 00--t\ MC)\\ S�c ��'� , ,oe, C�\\ uoC�(N\CC) y � <.3Q r--.0,cy, 0 cee l \C h6caP\ ' t C , zA-C, . p\CA ?' '0 ac'ou.) cr\ \ ) - r L ChNc� r, - `s\c� � . R � � � �s done, c��- c� cY, c �3Ac-,c- N\so ��c � \0s o ate\ 03c- 'ou L. ec , 'r- (A)g u;cy..)1/4\G \\ - wac-d, ; e_ C�pec r- -,Nocy)c. C> c-Dc c.) Com' i a�ayACk oc S\Ok \ \(-)NO --t-(-7 C)U C NL:t; \aCNvQ rnaR s\-ee , dace-- 1\k-'K \A-- C-ANr^,\ er\v\octJ ^Ne.E\'CC.knc) euesi MCAc c<�iG (;-- cAc O 'y S .UC> 3c'vw +N)��S v\)e_, cx\t e✓ olL 0c- sujecvN Mcnr- \ \ACk Gam;' \-cm.‘\) �� ►J(7� O` P.- (�� (Jl'dtA c-c1 c, -4r-�f' c4(X)Oc_ 1,CO S tic�� es\ c,�c�o fie s�c � _ ikcr ,U �� 0 ti e C fie\' e\ge \- 0\ c\ c-. a e„ s sc \ok , J \\e fie, d e. s r �, v\� CCAC upcls c)yktp _c\Oc�e3 4\C\ fWc\: p\eoce do 6 d�uc�s W �v CA n-N- CNN --o \e a A c'c€ ,e\ ,^(-.‘ n d Ec. .01 N sly , MARIJUANA , ON MAIN STREET i% Public Comment Name: -Th l int-r21'b t i.)Pr i 1r Email / Phone: rn„,c,4-\ .V-17....or.us Comment: cam,d WA tc , „o ay_ zb _ 4�,�.� m0J� .r- '‘s sa \ eivin ir1� co,. �`cl ,�1 a.,no\s. �>cctc�k/ ,rot -�vann 1 GLIA-Moe-d- i r\ b " A),.c cps bl c..` rt 114 be" \ov y, b i-� �� rv. a- �,t 4 L.0*.g_ ;-k aArn c, of ,owi N3 a /75-C_. kids 40 h a,cc e sa -6 )4 , frit n _ lam' 3‘163.4, art_ nbi- -E-0:4.,. 5 -ri.;CrAfft(Al2 - aok-vcykizIc. 4 i.va. -4v 41.,.-L_ Would you like a response? WOO 0.�"" -c Would Yes No 1)2- p \.z....\.z....\-zDate: 11/9/2016 INNTi t‘Li-e-. Event: Marijuana on Main . .<<-ca Routed to: ,Ipir, --, -,_ AI& ebb -Lr.r` � !t A r ow 1i-1 n, TIGA I ow ji k ." -7x••• alli1i7 � 1 1-CA/ PeCtin -CU Attachment-#5 Marijuana on Main report from the TDA What we have done thus far as outreach: 1. Reached out to the OMS network and asked what impacts these types of businesses had in downtowns- Review comments 2. Sent an e blast to our stakeholder group (weeds & treats)- 39% open rate of data base of 425 3.Hosted a recent Downtown Dialogue where this issue was discussed- No opposition noted Asked attendees to join in the discussion tonight 4.Joint Chamber statewide meeting recap (Debi's report) Legislative panel report (who were part of the Joint Committee that wrote the OLCC regulations) discussed - customer make up — look like the general populace, you and me, high traffic counts, high level of professionalism of operators/owners — running it like a business, due to the complexities of the regulations with the OLCC and state and what is at stake, they must be on top of their game as business owners, very entrepreneurial. Also, noted these individuals want to be part of the business community. Their biggest challenge is at a Federal level they can't bank making it a cash business. This could make them a target of crime. OLCC has worked very hard from a taxing and regulation perspective to enable price points that would eliminate the black market. Side Note: I Spoke with Pd in regards to increased crime with these types of businesses- No issues to report at present. Bottom Line- it is difficult to connect with EVERY business Owner& Property owner on this and other important topics. So - at this point neutrality is our position. HOWEVER: The expectations of the TDA will be an information conduit to our stakeholder groups through the communication tools mentioned above will be continued. �J� � Attach hm�t#5 /" J lc/d /99 ���i� City/ District Comment 5 a S l l-rr✓ 4f 4r/- die° J r - p 541) StaytonThere is one medical dispensary here on Third Ave (our "Main St"). It is one of the few '\ successful retail establishments in the downtown. There have been no adverse impacts. Kfalls Klamath Falls voted down the effort to allow recreational sales last May. We are taking the wait 1 , and see approach. Dallas Commercial marijuana sales are against our zoning codes here in Dallas as our codes specify that \b., such uses can not violate Federal law. Thus, we have no commercial sales operations here, either medical or recreational. That is our current stance on the situation but obviously this is still an evolving story all over Oregon. Brian The Mayor 1 Albany ()/Y-)5 Although it is legal in Oregon, it is not legal in our city/county(Albany) yet. Onlymedical l J- !,, g g g g tY/ Y _ _� Q r�,11� �01(/' marijuana is available. We will see come November election as recreational sales are up for a vote. r-- nn '' I too will be interested then. CO � 1 & S JD 1�� Roseburg Yes we have one and it is very welcomed as the security keeps all mischief from happening. We have not had any negativity in the area, it is across the street from our historic district. iIfcMinville Pretty much our entire downtown is located within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare so 3 we do not have this issue to be concerned about. L'' Port Orford We have one in our district in Port Orford - responsible business and filled an empty building. ti.0 / J6 Y , / tilig#UtPAUtt/ - q (4).Si:.it yr. /,,,,2- t ,, c, 1-v air,s-ih t , A Attachment#5 Dayton Thanks everyone, this has been enlightening and great info. Dayton hasn't come across this, as everywhere in our downtown is within 1000 feet of a school. However, if the outskirts ever experience this type of business,there won't be a fear about it. La Grande La Grande has 2 medical dispensaries and no negative impact what so ever. One of them is a great member and supporter for our Main Street program. 1/L) The vast majority of worries/complaints come from people who don't take the time to talk to these businesses and get to know them and what they do in my opinion. Cottage Grove Cottage Grove has 4 dispensaries. In the beginning there were concerns raised by the surrounding business owners, I think it was mainly out of fear. We have had no problems or complaints 1 9 since and none based on consumers actions. We have no dispensaries, medicinal or recreational, on our Historic Main Street. Only because they have not rented space, if they did it would be a retail facility only. We also have a seed grower and a processor in Cottage Grove and medicinal growing is allowed through the city. Let me know if you have any questions. Attachment#5 Option 4:Remove the Pacific Highway(99V) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public,allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. LOCATION: Citywide.APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement),2 (Land Use Planning),and 9 (Economic Development);ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8;Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2,2.1.2, 2.1.3,2.1.6,2.1.11,2.1.23,9.1.3 and 9.1.12;and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. 7. BRIEFING—TIGARD TRIANGLE CODE&REZONE 8:45 p.m. 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9:45 p.m. C c- . 1/ .b�C?," OJ,A, _\_0 (M/ yirtcYtr\k1 9. ADJOURNMENT 9•sop•m p�,1— got Ct >✓'��� - as r t L0cc.. �I `S :11 .% 1^ -1 � krvVc � ' ..- 4.x.% '?ii ` cit '; 1 y +- ce,0_ i �o�� vvr-�i/k.& ,` Of" t J-(- "" G'..,r c.-tfv ' A6 '— pw�4ti-vt A."1/4;t6 �, .=rt e,�, '— u'-t c1,o_A - Duor \t5 A:ct1 . , ' ag PAL- V- eep c k Qy =, -- I 'A- 'c'cp � �.e.- � R Y\ ?'L^-•tr6k.*\0Ari,'5 c t, l ti ofz ` r PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— March 2017 City of Tigard { • SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 2 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:07 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: FW: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed (see below) Council is receiving letters -- ok to acknowledge their receipt and mention April 11 -Joanne From:Carol Krager Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:06 PM To:Joanne Bengtson<joanne@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Check with Agnes; she is probably collecting testimony. Carol From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:03 PM To: Carol Krager Subject: RE: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits So should I reply that it's been added to the public record for discussion on April 11? From: Carol Krager Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:02 PM To:Joanne Bengtson<joanne@tigard-or.gov> Cc: Kelly Burgoyne<KellyB a@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Yes, it is on for April 11. Just went to Planning Commission. Carol From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:02 PM To: Carol Krager; Kelly Burgoyne Subject: FW: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Is this on an upcoming council agenda? Attachment#5 From:Connie o [mailto:oconnieo@frontier.coml Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:08 PM To:John Cook<MayorCook@tigard-or.gov> Cc:oconnieo<oconnieo@frontier.com> Subject: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Mr. Mayor and City Council/Committee Members: I urge the City of Tigard to maintain the prohibition of marijuana sales/stores once again. There are plenty of these stores in the Portland metro boundaries at present and most likely just up Barbur Blvd. Into the city limits from downtown Tigard. . Statistics recently aired on local news stated vehicular incidences. including deaths have increased substantially over Year over year since states have approved sales both medicinal and pleasure. . That annual stat was already bad enough with DUII's. I am not naive to think marijuana is only used by itself, though sometimes it is. I also cite a deadly vehicle impact in Vancouver 5 days after Washington State approved mj purchasing there. Naturally the mj driver had been using all day; strangely he was not the one to die from the impact. Washington State didn't even have driving while impaired guidelines yet to charge the negligent driver. As past coordinator for Parent In Crisis in Beaverton, I speak from a position no parent wants to have to deal with In the death of my son, who was killed in such a deadly auto impact at age 17. He was a passenger in a car where the driver, also 17, was on marijuana and cocaine. Of 5 kids in 2 cars, he was the only one killed. But 1 is enough. Adolescents get ahold of marijuana just like alcohol. Why make it easier for them? It is bad enough with more Rampant adult usage. s/Connie Osbon 503 431-6994 9655 SW N Dakota St. 97223 DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: marvin.gerr18@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 8:22 AM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Re:Marijuana Hello Agnes Thanks for getting back to me. As I said in my voicemail,as residents of the City of Tigard, my wife and both feel that all future retail sales outlets for marijuana in the City of Tigard must be limited to the 99W corridor. There should be no change to the current rules regarding the placement of retail marijuana locations. Marvin&Judith Gerr 15432 SW 114th Court Unit 84 TIGARD Oregon 97224 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 23,2017, at 6:37 AM,Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov>wrote: Hi Marvin- Thanks for your voicemail and comments. I just wanted to reach out to you and let you know that I got your voicemail. If you would like to reply back to this email and provide written comments that would be helpful. I will be sure to pass these onto our City Council.Thanks again and look forward to hearing back from you! Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: Agnesk@tigard-or.gov DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 1 Attachment#5 Carol Krager From: Agnes Kowacz Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 6:33 AM To: Carol Krager Subject: FW: city council meeting Tigard Attachments: Tigard city council meet.docx Hi Carol- Can this be passed on to CC for my marijuana hearing?Thanks! Agnes From: Bill Widmer [mailto:bill@kaleafa.coml Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 5:31 PM To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: Fw: city council meeting Tigard Hi Agnes, Can you forward this out to the individual City Council Members to read in anticipation of the upcoming meeting? My brother wrote it and I know he is out this week meeting with some of these folks. Thanks so much Agnes for all of your help! Sincerely Bill Widmer From:John Widmer Sent:Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:09 PM To: Bill Widmer Subject: city council meeting Tigard Bill, amend as needed but send off tomorrow if you can. john DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 1 Tigard City Council, I wanted to write this letter in anticipation of next week's upcoming council meeting and the discussion centered around Cannabis Zoning Changes. I sat through the last few months of CCAC and City Planning meetings and came away with a mixed perception. Although it appears that the TDA and CCAC favor(although slight) allowing zoning changes, more specific allowing Cannabis on Main Street,the Planning Department had a stark opinion in difference (although as recent as 2015 had included Main Street on their approved zoning). It appears that specific group is concerned about the "fear" of cannabis on the downtown area as well as the impact on local youth. We tried to remind them that the OLCC mandates age and hours of operation, plus we are regulated to a level rarely seen in capitalism. If you recall, we have addressed every concern including impact on youth, impact on downtown development, and impact on the local business' in the Main Street area. I was personally shocked that there was a "careless" lack of appreciation for the amount of tax revenue potentially collected. We have adjusted our forecasts at the 8%level to$400,000 just for our one shop. With a few additional retailers in town,that number exceeds 1mm annual. Moreover, our traffic counts will increase flow to downtown by 400 cars a day and employee another 15-20 Tigard citizens with well paying jobs. We have proven that our look for Main street will enhance the North Side of the area to better match that of the South. All we are asking for is that the City of Tigard follows the guidelines set forth by the State of Oregon and it voters. Tigard citizens not only supported the first initiative to legalize cannabis, they then overwhelmingly voted to increase the percentage of tax the city can charge. The original zoning appeared to show upwards to eight retail shops but that number sits at roughly two along hwy 99 if you include King city. The citizens deserve more options and I personally promise that if we are allowed to do business on Main Street, we will exceed expectations for not only the city managers but our local business partners. Sincerely, John P.Widmer Kaleafa Cannabis Company Carol Krager From: Agnes Kowacz Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 6:43 AM To: Carol Krager Subject: FW: LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: MARIJUANA PLACE REGULATIONS (DCA2016-00004) Hi Carol- PleasePACKET Please see the comment received regarding marijuana.Thanks, FOR / AC) i' Agnes (DATE OF MEETING) //►► From:John Boren (mailto:borenidC�gmail.comj k/C/A 1 -, AA 2 Sent:Wednesday,April 5, 2017 1:46 PM ✓✓ To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: MARIJUANA PLACE REGULATIONS (DCA2016-00004) Hi Agnes, I am a resident of Tigard at 12974 SW Ascension Drive and wanted to testify regarding this item going before the Council on April 11. • I am disappointed to see that Option 1 is what was advanced. • I believe that the least restrictive option should be exercised because as it was noted in your staff report, the perception is much worse than the reality. If there are code problems, then those can be corrected at that time. • As also noted in the staff report,buffers are extremely tricky to use as there will be a number of sites that are partially inside or outside the buffer,plus everybody would need to then agree on what is a park (e.g., public park, or HOA open space). I am glad that this wasn't advanced and hope that the Council does not consider pursuing this. • Allowing them into the downtown doesn't necessarily mean that the downtown will become "taken over" by marijuana businesses. Like any other business, there's only so much of a market for a good or service before it hits a saturation point. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input, John Boren cell: 503-505-1069 DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 1 Carol Krager From: Agnes Kowacz Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 8:33 AM To: Carol Krager Subject: FW: Letter for City Council Marijuana Facilities Hearing Attachments: Letter to City Council on marijuana regulations-4-8-17.docx Hi carol- SUPPLE ENTAL,PACKET One more letter for Council. SUP j ) 7 Thanks, Agnes (DATA OF MEETING) From: Connie Ramaekers [mailto:cmr483@hotmail.com} Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 6:38 PM To: Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: Letter for City Council Marijuana Facilities Hearing Dear Agnes Kowacz, I am unable to attend the City Council Marijuana Facilities Hearing on Tuesday, April 11th. I am in Utah taking care of my daughter who was in a serious car accident. I have attached a letter for the Council. Are you able to provide copies for them or do I need to contact them individually? Also I will have a colleague who is going to read it for me at the Hearing. Hopefully this is sufficient. Please let me know if there is something more I need to do. Thank You, Connie Ramaekers DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 1 April 8, 2017 Hello, My name is Connie Ramaekers. I have lived at 9655 SW Murdock St in Tigard for 38 years. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts about regulations that have been put in place concerning retail marijuana shops. I worked for the Tigard Tualatin School District for 29 years as a Prevention Specialist. Over the past 35 years, it has been my passion to help our youth right here in Tigard by addressing issues concerning the drug and alcohol use among our teens. Since 1988 Tigard's two middle schools and Tigard High school has had programs in place to help empower youth in making healthy decisions. Our Club STUDD, at Tigard High has close to 100 members. These students work together to help their peers be drug and alcohol free. There are several reasons why I would like to see the City of Tigard keep the current, existing regulations 'as is'. The ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIDTA Report (HIGH INTENSITYDRUG TRAFFICKING REPORT) in January 2016 states that Evidence and research demonstrates that marijuana - which has skyrocketed in average potency over the past decades - is addictive and harmful to the human brain, especially when used by adolescents. In states that have already legalized the drug, there has been an increase in drugged driving crashes and youth marijuana use. This is very true for Oregon. My big concern is the increase in marijuana use among our teens at Tigard High since Measure 91. Locally in our own School District— marijuana use among our 11th graders at Tigard High has increased substantially. Our Oregon Wellness Survey data shows a 20 % increase from 2014 to 2016 2014 — 30 day use was at 3.6% 2015 it lumped to 17.2% and in 2016 it jumped to 23.5%. Our youth report that Marijuana is very easy to get and their number one resource are friends who get it from their parents or older siblings. The more access adults have to marijuana, the more access our youth have also. We are already allowing more marijuana shops than liquor stores Tigard. I strongly feel we need to keep regulations as they are. With more marijuana retail shops opening and especially allowing them downtown Tigard where many families go for recreation, makes marijuana more readily available to adults and youth. Thank You - Connie Ramaekers SI.IrENT'AI. ��- FORUFP �! c l —a e --� (DATE OF i EETING) Attachment#6 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Meeting Minutes March 20, 2017 CALL TO ORDER President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Fitzgerald Vice President Feeney Commissioner Hu Commissioner Jackson Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner McDowell Commissioner Middaugh Commissioner Schmidt Absent: Alt. Commissioner Mooney; Commissioner Fahr Staff Present: Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Monica Bilodeau, Associate Planner; Principal Engineer Khoi Le;Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz; Sr. Planner, Susan Shanks COMMUNICATIONS —None. CONSIDER MINUTES February 27, 2017 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the February 27 minutes. RIVER TERRACE PARK- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR)2016-00015 SUBDIVISION REVIEW SUB2016-00012;SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR2016-00010 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP2016-00010;TEMPORARY USE PERMITS TUP2016-00024 THRU 00028;MISCELLANEOUS MIS2017-00001 REQUEST:The applicant requests a 158-unit single family residential planned development with concurrent concept and detailed plan review, subdivision review,sensitive lands adopted by the City.The site is 28.5 acres and located south of Bull Mountain Road and east of Roy Rogers.LOCATION: Directly south of Arbor Pointe and Meyers Farm subdivision;west of SW 161st Avenue. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING President Fitzgerald opened the public hearing. March 20,2017 Page 1 of 16 Attachment#6 QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Fitzgerald read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions or conflicts of interest. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Lieuallen and Feeney. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Staff reports are available on-line on the City website one week prior to public hearings. Associate Planner Monica Bilodeau introduced herself and advised the commissioners that the department is recommending approval of the project. She went over a slide that showed the concept plan and detailed plan maps next to each other. The project is located west of SW 161st Ave. and directly east of the approved River Terrace Edge development. She summarized the project—"The applicant proposes 158 units, single-family detached development located on approximately 28 1/2 acres. The project is proposing amenities including almost a 1/2 acre of public park and trails that will connect to the neighborhood park located on River Terrace Edge. There are also about 2 acres of significant tree grove that will be preserved and 1.67 acres of stormwater detention facility. No formal comments were received from the public although we were informed later this evening that the applicant would like to submit some additional conditions into the record. Staff has reviewed those and we would like to discuss those and make some potential changes after the applicant has a chance to speak to those. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ann Verdadero with Polygon Homes, noted that River Terrace Park is Polygon's tenth neighborhood at the River Terrace master plan. River Terrace Park will be host to the seventh neighborhood park to complete the community plan. Development will occur following the construction of their neighborhood to the west—known as the Baggenstos site, expected in 2018. Jim Lange, Pacific Community Design, walked the commissioners through the plan. He said that they'll build up from the community plan—the different layers and end up with the site plan. He spoke about the water mains and the interest on the city's part of connecting a loop all the way over to 150th so they will be running those through to the east side. There is a significant tree grove on the inventory. They are preserving that—it's a wetland and it is connected to the stream corridor and through this project and River Terrace Edge they are strengthening that connection and preserving trees. He said the play area in the park would have "nature play"i.e. using teeter totters, logs, having a natural looking play area —not using neon colored play structures. He spoke about a trail on the south side that loops back up to the road so that people can walk all around the area. The nature trail path coming up from the lower elevation will tie into that—giving a really nice walking path. The zoning map is R-7 & R-12. As in previous applications, they are seeking to achieve that through a planned development and have a hierarchy of product rather than two. On the flattest March 20,2017 Page 2 of 16 Attachment#6 part of the site there's a block of alley loaded single family detached homes and the remainder of the site is a mixture of standard front loaded homes characterized as medium, standards, and larges —having to do with how wide the lots are. There's a range of architectural styles, elevations, etc. It will not be monotonous and the goal is that the architectural integrity of the house style is met. Mr. Lange distributed a memo dated March 20 (Exhibit B) requesting some Conditions of Approval to address concerns of the Stanley family who will be retaining parcel 2 of the partition application: 1. Have an easement over Tract H (already noted on the application, and they asked us to make that very clear.) 2. The final tree canopy planting plan shall remove tree #9208. (We got a little happy with our "tree stamp" and put a tree in the middle of the driveway that they will be accessing their lot from. 3. No PUE shall be required on Parcel 2 of the partition plat. (On the partition plat, but no other drawing, we had a dashed line that makes it look like we were requesting a PUE — that was in error. Parcel 2 of the partition is not part of the subdivision and it doesn't need to make its PUE dedications now—if they ever develop, they could do it then. 4. Was our attempt to provide a mechanism so that they get a chance to review our retaining wall designs before they're built—and we're perfectly happy with that. 5. To clarify what type of fencing we would put on top of those retaining walls and so we've stipulated a 5' high minimum chain link fence. 6. Was to address their desire to be able to mow their lower property with an access to the south. This came up today and we didn't have a chance to get to staff and we weren't sure if they would be allowed a gate off the east end of Yukon Dr. so we wrote a condition that either access it through tract G which is a remnant future development parcel or from the end of Yukon Drive. QUESTIONS Mr. Lange addressed the question of the elevation of Potomic Road—it's 370. The elevation of Potomic Road in the middle of the block (above that) is 400. So there is 30 feet of fall from one street to the other. We can't run a road that steep. The only other solution would be to completely cut the top of the hill down by about 20'. We had that constraint in two different directions - E/W and N/W. We had to get this street lined up for an extension further north so we took advantage of that grade and are doing split level homes so the bottom of those would be one story below the road to help eat nine feet of that grade —the rest of it is a combination of retaining walls and slopes and then it left this block standard being too long. The answer to that is to add some pedestrian mid-block crossings. We proposed one coming out of the knuckle and staff asked us to do a second one lined up with another street so that people don't have to walk all the way around but they will be climbing up a significant stairway. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—Farrand Livingston, 7739 SW Summerton St.,Wilsonville - attorney representing the Stanley family—the owners of 19 acres tax lot 2900. They want him to March 20,2017 Page 3 of 16 Attachment#6 support the request for the approval of the subdivision with the conditions that are set forth in the staff report as well as the additional conditions in the memo Mr. Lange distributed. He spoke about the retaining wall—concern is there because the residents foundation is about 50 feet from that and that's a fairly serious wall. The family wants an opportunity to see what kind of plans are being presented for the installation of that wall. He went on to explain the reasons for requesting access across Tract G to Parcel 2. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION —None. STAFF COMMENTS Associate Planner Monica addressed the memo that they'd received: For clarification, Conditions 1& 6 —we would write it as a "prior to final plat." Condition 2 would be "prior to commencing site work." Condition 3 we would like to strike out—we believe the plans already clearly show that no PUE is on the plans and no PUE is required of this final land partition. So we do not recommend adding a condition in this case. Condition 4 we would like to replace with "prior to commencing site improvements the applicant shall submit a site work permit for all retaining walls to be constructed adjacent to the southern boundary of parcel two. The reason we have these changes to this condition—we feel the city can't necessarily enforce what has been written here as a proposed condition. It is a separate matter that the applicant and the owner of that parcel should work out ahead of time before submitting building plans for that well and make sure they are in agreement with what that wall should like. It's not in the procedure to have any type of public review process during the building permit stage—and that's how that proposed condition is written. Condition 5 we'd add "Prior to conditions of occupancy." So our only changes are to Conditions 3 & 4. QUESTIONS Regarding striking Condition 3 about no PUE and wanting it stricken from it —if we actually look at 6.2 on Preliminary Subdivision plat, there is a line on there showing. I think we either need to have a condition that asks them to revise it—to pull that PUE off. Because it's staff's interpretation that no PUE is shown but it's showing on there. So that's what I think the discrepancy is with the Property Owner. So either we can submit an updated plat to show that if that's the way we want to revise the condition. Yes, we can request a revision to the plan to make it clear that no PUE is shown on Parcel 2. There was a question regarding Condition 4 and the retaining wall. Assistant Community Development Director, Tom McGuire added background information. "The applicant and the owner's representative of the other parcel are working out a private agreement. They didn't have time to have that completed so the other party would like to be on the record as part of the record—if they don't get that agreement worked out then they would be on the record and they could appeal the decision to council if necessary. They're both in agreement that Polygon will work with them and provide plans to them for them to review if they can get their own geotech or their own engineer to review that. They're putting together an agreement where they would mutually agree on what the design of the retaining walls would be before they submit for a building permit. The other aspect of this is if some point in the future that parcel 2 develops, March 20,2017 Page 4 of 16 Attachment#6 those retaining walls will be taken out and the whole area has to be regarded to match. So those lots to the south of the retaining wall will not be developed until that future extension of the street and all the other things happen on the adjacent parcel. Our biggest objection is the way that condition is worded. The intent is for them to work out an agreement with each other over the design of the retaining wall and then they would submit those plans to us for review at the building permit phase." My concern is the maintenance of the property surrounding for fire protection. I assume there are rules that exist on maintaining property prior to its development? "Tualatin Valley Fire has the authority that if weeds get a certain height, and we also have a section in our code, that regulates height of weeds and making sure they're kept down." APPLICANT REBUTTAL We are in the process of making an agreement, and are okay with the modifications staff has made. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION • It's a very well put together application. Consistent with the other plans we've seen in River Terrace. Appreciate the additional parks and trails being added - on top of what the city requires in their overall master plan. The site is steep. The developer and engineers went with the topography that was there. Adding those steep stairs does add stairs and they do add connectivity to able bodied people. There's still connectivity in other ways. • I understand the grading constraint but I wonder if more walkways could be added to alleviate the lack of connectivity concern. So I'm a bit torn. • Thoughtful, comprehensive. • Appreciate that it's consistent with the other developments in the master plan. • I'm in agreement. I'm comfortable with it. • Can find no objection to it. • Would like to see a switchback with those steep stairs that is wheelchair accessible, but I understand that would be a lot of valuable property to give up so we're making do with the best we can in the situation we have. • Want to give a shout out to the Stanley family and the developer (for the give and take) regarding the retaining wall. • No concerns with this. MOTION FOR CONCEPT PLAN Commissioner McDowell made the following motion: "I make a motion to approve the Concept Plan for the River Terrace Park Plan Development to include PDR2016-00015; SUB2016-00012; SLR2016-00010; MLP2016-00007; TUP2016-00024—00028, and MIS2017- March 20, 2017 Page 5 of 16 Attachment#6 00001 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval in the staff report and based on the testimony received today. Commissioner Feeney seconded the motion. VOTE — Seven in favor - Commissioner Hu abstained. RESULT — CONCEPT PLAN MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR WITH ONE ABSTENTION MOTION FOR DETAILED PLAN Commissioner McDowell made the following motion: "I move for approval of the Detailed Plan for River Terrace Park Plan Development that would include PDR2016-00015; SUB2016- 00012; SLR2016-00010; MLP2016-00007; TUP2016-00024—00028; MIS2017-00001, granting the applicant early grading authorization, and findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report including the addition of memorandum dated March 20 with the following conditions. 1. Prior to final plat approval the final subdivision shall contain an express grant of an easement over the entire Tract H, for the benefit of Parcel 2, for access and all underground utilities installed in subdivision. 2. Prior to commencing site work the final Tree Canopy Planting Plan shall remove Tree #9208. 3. Stricken as written and then revised to say "Revise final plans to show "No PUE on Parcel 2 of the partition plat." 4. Replace with "Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant shall submit a site work permit for all retaining walls to be constructed adjacent to the southern boundary of Parcel 2. 5. Prior to issuance of occupancy, Polygon will install a 5-foot-high minimum chain link fence at the top of all retaining walls adjacent to the southern boundary of Parcel 2. 6. Prior to final plat, Polygon shall grant an access easement across Tract G to Parcel 2 of the partition, in the event that access cannot be obtained from the east end of SW Yukon Street, for purposes of accessing Parcel 2 with mowing equipment. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Feeney. VOTE— Seven in favor- Commissioner Hu abstained. RESULT —DETAILED PLAN MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR WITH ONE ABSTENTION OPENED PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS -DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2016-00004 March 20,2017 Page 6 of 16 Attachment#6 REQUEST:The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The proposal includes amending the Tigard Development Code (MC), specifically Chapter 18.735,Marijuana Facilities. The following four options are being proposed for Planning Commission to consider: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. LOCATION: Citywide STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz went over a PowerPoint (Exhibit C?) that explained why staff is before the Planning Commission with this topic at this time. She noted that staff is not making a recommendation on the project but that they've come up with some options for the commission to evaluate (noted above). After her presentation, she invited questions and comments. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS What are the current, existing regulations? The regulations for retail facilities limit it to properties that are only fronting Pacific Hwy. So that would be the big regulation that could potentially be affected, as well as the fact that currently Marijuana facilities are not permitted in the MU-CBD zone—which is the downtown. Did City Council have a consensus that this needed to be reviewed? Yes. Is the distance still 2,000 feet? It's 1000 feet based on state legislature that went through that we can't require more than 1000 feet— so we made it consistent with city law. The other change that council made was the hours of operation being recommended 10:00 am— 8:00 pm and the state came back with 7:00 am— 10:00 pm. So council agreed to match the state. That lines up with the county as well. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR — John Widmer 12215 SW Main Street,Tigard—said he's in favor of Option 4. He's one of the principals of Kaleafa Cannabis. He said they have had a lease on Main Street for a couple of years now. They employ roughly 100 people now; three shops. With the rules of the OLCC in place and the rules from the state of Oregon, he believes a lot of this is fear based. He said he does not use marijuana himself. He has three children—9, 11 & 15. He said the people who March 20, 2017 Page 7 of 16 Attachment#6 shop in these places are your neighbors—in his case - his parents. He said for the most part all the arguments are fear based. No one can quantify why they don't want marijuana. There are a lot of positive elements especially from a medical standpoint. As for possible crime— there's very little in his shop. He noted an 8% tax will eventually generate money for the City. QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS There were some questions about security and banking problems such as having to use cash. He said they deal with checks with all of their vendors so they don't have to have cash. They just make some bank runs a couple of times a day. There was concern about the facade of a Marijuana shop in the downtown area. The City of Tigard is trying to be a showcase of walkability—the aim is to make downtown Tigard walkable. Regarding the Portland store, with bars on the windows and all the windows and doors blacked out and several big signs outside, the concern is if that kind of facade fits into downtown Tigard where we want people to walk. Michael Bonham—10150 SW Murdock St. 97224—is an employee of John Widmer at Kaleafa Cannabis as of November. He hopes to be a manager at the store on Main Street. He said he grew up in Tigard,went to Templeton Elementary,Tualatin Middle School and is a graduate of Tigard High and Portland State. He testified to his personal experience with cannabis. At one point a while back he became sick and researched cannabis on the internet. He believes he was deceived his entire life about the actual effects of cannabis and the whole notion that it's a gateway drug, bad for your health, dangerous, promotes crime and immorality. He finds those to all be fear mongering tactics with no quantifiable data to support it. Speaking to family concerns on Main Street, he said there are already three places to buy alcohol there where you can go into those places,get blitzed, walk and stumble down the street in front of kids. Whereas in the dispensary you buy your product and take it home to be consumed privately as the law allows. Chad Cooper— 10334 SW Picks Way, Tigard 97224 said he was looking for the non retail locations—looking for a location to start up a processing facility in Tigard. He's been unable to find one. The biggest restriction is related to the fact that the residential boundaries overlap almost half of the industrial. The other half is typically owned by larger property management development groups and they have no interest in leasing to marijuana related business. He said this would be different from a retail store —it would not attract crowds. Processing is a broad range of things—people making extracts to people baking cookies. Industrial doesn't seem to fit as well as things like labs—it's difficult to find locations. There's zoning restrictions. Anything that isn't retail has to be in industrial. The requirements need to be changed. It's not part of the four... the residential boundary should be removed to open up more space again. There's little risk to children. Mary Alexander 10150 SW Murdock St. 97224—has lived in the city for 44 years. She is in favor of Option 4—She is 78 years old and has a rare glaucoma issue. She has researched for two years before she decided to use medical marijuana. It's either she uses the drops or she goes blind. There is a lot of misinformation out there. She said alcohol is every bit as bad and people leave liquor stores and drink. There are people that need medical marijuana. Her eye pressure before taking marijuana was 15 in one eye and 14 in the other. It is down now to 10.5 in one and 11 in the other. A huge benefit that she can't get from medication. March 20,2017 Page 8 of 16 Attachment#6 Gordon Goulet—8075 SW Thorn Street—has lived in Tigard for 2 years. He's been working for Kaleafa Cannabis for almost four years right out of college. He's the IT director for the conglomerate. He told the commission that marijuana should be treated the same as micro brewing. It's another way for people to enjoy their lives and surroundings. He wanted to talk about the technical aspect—he spoke about testing, security, and so forth. He designs everything and helps make sure compliance is achieved at every transaction level. Every transaction is tracked down to each person and who purchases it. He can break it down to how old they were and make sure that they only receive so much marijuana per day. Unlike alcohol— you can go back in there and buy the whole store eventually if you wanted to. With marijuana you couldn't. You'd have to go to multiple stores and really work at it to try and buy a lot. He reminded them that Measure 91 was passed by a majority vote in Oregon.75% of the voting population in Tigard passed the initiative to raise taxes on marijuana. He noted that two of the businesses that do the most sales by volume is just north and south of Tigard —King City in Chalis Farms and Nectar up by the beautiful old strip club and other joint up there receive more tax money there than some of the biggest shops in Portland. He thinks this would be a great opportunity to bring this tax revenue into the City of Tigard. He's for Option 4. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION — Marsden Smith 12332 SW Hollow Lane Tigard 97223 He thinks alcohol is very popular and very well accepted and there's only one liquor store in Tigard. He doesn't think we need additional stores along those lines. He wonders if Tigard wants to be known as a ... whatever? Do we want to be known by a Fred Meyer complex? Is that our goal in life? What would we like to be known for? There is research that says that if you smoke a lot of Marijuana you tend to accomplish less in life. You earn slightly less than those who don't and you're fine with accumulating less in life. The tax revenue $400,000 you're going to get is nothing. He's in favor of Option 1 —no change. Ed Whitehead—9230 SW River View Terrace 97224 appreciates the Planning Commission and asks them to retain and not expand the current regulations concerning the locations of marijuana stores. He believes the current regulations are sufficient to meet whatever need there may be for those who choose to engage in the use of the drug. He and his wife are involved in a program through their church which works with children from low income families by providing a meal and activities for them. He noted most of these children come from homes where alcohol and drug use—largely marijuana—create situations that contribute to learning and behavioral issues on their part in school, as well as in the general community. One of the areas indicated as a possible location along Bonita is near the apartment complex where many of these children and their dysfunctional families reside. He said his own son who, while in high school many years ago used marijuana. He did so for several years and he acknowledges now that it was not a good thing. It adversely affected his behavior, memory, conduct towards his parents, and others. And now, as a father—he is against it. He does not want to see a marijuana store in downtown Tigard and continually speaks to his children about his desire that they abstain. There is much information on the effects of marijuana on the body that should cause concern and it is a confusing science. It affects the nervous system, internal organs,immune systems, etc. All of these are things we should be concerned about. He believes Tigard has March 20, 2017 Page 9 of 16 Attachment#6 provided what the law has required. There is no need to alter or change any regulations allowing additional areas for sale and distribution of marijuana. Aliza Boyce—15378 SW 82nd Place,Tigard—is a Tigard High School student who is on the leadership council for the club at Tigard HS called STUDD (Stop Tigard Underage Drinking& Drug use). She said she believes marijuana has an effect on both her and her fellow classmates. She is a Junior, and she has sadly seen the effects of marijuana on her classmates. She noticed a pattern with students who use and those who don't. The ones who use tend to slack in responsibilities. She said the effects of marijuana have been scientifically proven to be negative on the brain and especially harmful for young people whose brains don't fully develop until the age of 25. She said, "Allowing more shops in downtown will allow more adults to have access to marijuana and would be on the student's radar, and when something is on your radar, you're more likely to wonder if you should try it. That can be very dangerous to kids my age. Thank you for listening and thank you for all the work you do. Connie Ramaekers 9655 SW Murdock St. Tigard 97224 has lived there since 1979. Her job as the prevention specialist over the past 35 years has been to help the youth in Tigard by addressing the drug and alcohol use and abuse that happens among them. They have a club called STUDD (Stop Tigard Underage Drinking and Drug use) at Tigard High. There are close to 100 members. The student members are peer models to help other students make good choices in their lives. Ms. Ramaekers would like to see Tigard keep the current existing regulations in relation to marijuana facilities —meaning Option 1. The Rocky Mountain HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) report in January 2016 states: "Evidence and research demonstrates that marijuana, which has skyrocketed in average potency over the past decades,is addictive and harmful to the human brain—especially when used by adolescents. In states that have already legalized the drug, there has been an increase in drugged driving crashes and youth marijuana use. This is very true in Oregon. Her big concern is the increase of marijuana use among teens —since Measure 91 passed. Every spring they give a survey to their student. In our own school district marijuana use among eleventh graders at Tigard High has increased substantially. The data shows a 20%increase from 2014 to 2016. In 2014 it was 3.6% - in 2015 it jumped to 17.2% and in the spring of 2016 it has jumped to 23.5%. Our youth report it's very easy to get. The number one resource is from their friends — and these friends are getting it from their parents or older siblings. The more access adults have to marijuana, the more access our youth has to it. We need to keep regulations as they are. With more marijuana retail shops opening and especially allowing them downtown in Tigard where many families go for recreation makes it more readily available to adults and youth. Marie Watkins lives in Wilsonville but works at the Tigard Tualatin School District at 6960 SW Sandberg St., Tigard, 97223 - For the School District she is a certified Prevention Specialist and the Prevention Coordinator and Director for a coalition called "Tigard Turns the Tide" and also works for the STUDD club at Tigard High. She advocates that the current regulations be kept the same - Option 1. She believes Tigard is a beautiful place and believes that the city wants to make it as family friendly as possible. Parks and schools are nearby. Many activities occur downtown such as the Saturday and Sunday markets. Families with small children attend those. Allowing dispensaries to be in plain sight to our young children allows a social norm to be created that marijuana use is okay. She believes it's prohibiting to our youth's March 20, 2017 Page 10 of 16 Attachment#6 growth and development. The more the students see these shops, the more there are social norms created that it's an okay thing. It becomes the regularity—and is that really what we want for the community of Tigard? She quoted the Rocky Mountain HIDTA Report that says "Despite the medical and recreational marijuana businesses being banned in 68% of local jurisdictions in Colorado, there are still a total of 940 marijuana businesses in Colorado—more than the 322 Starbucks locations, and more than the 202 McDonald's locations combined." She requests that Tigard not be in the percentage for Oregon that allows marijuana dispensaries to overwhelm our streets too. Bruce Krieg—12055 SW Burlheights St., 97223 stated that other communities near us have high standards in their downtown communities. The city of Tualatin has a larger linear feet restriction and other surrounding communities don't have any in their downtown at all. He believes it makes sense for us to be a leader in that regard as well. He would like Option 1 — keep it as is. And seeing the youth here to testify—he believes if teenagers are trying to stand up for advocating for themselves, he strongly believes we should honor that. Leslie Boyce 15378 SW 82nd Place,Tigard 97224 advocated for keeping Option 1. Because she could not stay to give her oral testimony, she submitted a handwritten statement. (Exhibit ») Gale Vorhis —12455 SW 128th Ave.,Tigard 97224—just moved here 2 months ago. He's never seen so many marijuana stores in his life. Not even in California. The marijuana facilities are right next to restaurants. Children see it and it's bad for children. He's not against it for medicinal purposes—but recreational—he doesn't see that. He's with Option 1 He doesn't want to see any more facilities here. He's seen these shops have guys outside on the street spinning signs advertising marijuana. He said you don't even see that with liquor stores because they're not permitted to do that. He is with option 1 —no more facilities. Elizabeth Olson—12214 SW Lansdowne Lane 97223—I support retaining Option 1. She doesn't think they would even be talking about this if it wasn't for the tax revenue. She spoke about the short and long term bad side effects. It harms unborn children from mothers who used cannabis during pregnancy. Onset of effects is within minutes when smoked and 30 to 60 minutes when cooked and eaten. They last between 2 and 6 hours. She said the question is do we want Tigard to be "A place to call home"? The question is do we want it for children, teens, families and seniors—or for drug users. She personally, and her friends, will not be patronizing areas with pot businesses and that includes downtown Tigard. She doesn't believe a family- friendly place should include this type of business. Emily Wallace —8900 SW Sweek Drive Tualatin 97062 lives in Tualatin but goes to school in Tigard. She said she is the daughter of a counselor who works with mental illness. In her experience at school, she has seen a lot of changes in social norms in favor of marijuana usage. Kids at school have been joking about it more in ways that you don't really know if they're joking. They might be talking about it bluntly in class and the teachers won't be sure so they won't say anything about it. It's just becoming something that's "okay"in our high schools and that's something we really need to put a halt to. And also just one way to keep that from getting March 20,2017 Page 11 of 16 Attachment#6 any worse is keeping the limits on accessibility by not letting the adults that are providing the students with marijuana have as much accessibility to get it. At this point John Widmer, Principal at Kaleafa Cannabis came back up and reminded everyone that this is OLCC - you can sell to 21 and older. I understand that you're concerned about the impact on the kids, but this is a parent issue as much as accessibility issue. I think that that can't be lost. You can't sell to anyone under 21. Keep that in mind. I have 3 kids, my brother has 2 —and we're co-owners of the company— so I completely understand it—but I wanted to mention that one more time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION President Fitzgerald asked each commissioner to voice an opinion on this topic and let them know which option(s) they support. At this point Agnes Kowacz reminded the commission that they're not limited to the four options —they can make up their own. Each commissioner commented: • Commissioner McDowell: I'm for option 1 —leave it as is. I've done some surveying of friends and family and organizations I'm a part of, and there's an overlying cultural element that a lot of people are just not comfortable with. It goes against what they want to represent- and I fall in that category as well. Some key areas for me outside of culture is the fact that it puts the Federal government and the state and citizens in an adversarial position—we don't know that outcome yet, so that's another factor I don't like. As long as it's tied together with medical and recreation, it's going to be a big problem. I don't support recreational use in any form and I know a lot of people don't either. Medical... maybe...? But if we're talking about together - co-locating—then absolutely not. In my opinion, I think we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if there weren't a level of potential tax dollars here with this issue. It sends a message that money's more important than morality, and I think that's the wrong message—especially for youth and for our community. So I definitely am not supportive of it. I would retain Option 1. • Commissioner Lieuallen: You hit the nail on the head so far as the tax dollars. That's offensive to me that the question is based on tax dollars. This is a moral question with many, many people—it's a question of the environment they want to raise their families in. But this $400,000 tax question seems like... I can't even fathom what the mayor would look at... but on the flipside we're not here to discuss the legality of the usage of marijuana. It's legal—the people in Oregon decided that by a majority. The people in Tigard decided that. That said, I have friends who have smoked marijuana and I've never heard one of them say they're having any problems finding it. So I don't think we have an access issue. I see no reason to make areas in Tigard less family friendly. I heard at least one of the people here say that they wouldn't be willing to take their family down there with this. I have to respect that and I don't think they'd be alone in that decision. I think there'd be other people who would agree and not want to take their family near this marijuana thing. That said, I think attitudes may change and it might be revisited 20 March 20,2017 Page 12 of 16 Attachment#6 years from now. I think those opinions may change and 20 years from now attitudes may change and people will be about as afraid of that as people are today of liquor stores and bars on every street corner. But today, that's not the reality. There's a large percentage of the population that looks at marijuana as a very scary thing— something to keep the family and kids a long ways away from. It's a small thing to give them Main Street Tigard walkability and a family atmosphere - and stick with Option 1. • Commissioner Middaugh: I'm torn. I came here thinking why not just allow it anywhere, but at the same time,we have one liquor store and that seems to serve us well. So I'm leaning towards keeping the regulations we have and not expanding it any. I really appreciate the testimony we received tonight - especially with the mental health and prevention. I also appreciate our high school students coming out to testify. It's a tough subject. The legality of it isn't in question, so I'm in favor of keeping the regulations we have. • Vice President Feeney: I too came in a little torn. I'm one for a fair business but I also too have young children—not to say that they can get it, but it is a little more prevalent now in our community. I was on the Planning Commission when we set this code in only a couple of years ago. We haven't even had a chance to really vet it. The City of Tigard Planning Code on other developments go 10 years or 5 years or a little bit longer —we haven't proven yet, at least in my mind, that what we approved a couple years ago is not correct. We went through the effort -we made that decision for reasons. We've had a couple dispensaries open and yes I understand it's not maxed out and there's a couple more that could fit in there, or there might be other opportunities - but we just haven't had the chance to see it. That's why I'm leaning towards keeping it the same - just on the basis of we haven't had a chance to prove it wrong. • Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with all the testimony of my fellow commissioners and I respect the opinions of the people that have come tonight and I feel like it would be in our best interests to represent them in supporting Option 1. • Commissioner Hu: I might be the most liberal of all, but I could support Option 1 or Option 2. But I think in opening up downtown, my biggest concern - that I mentioned earlier- is the façade issue. Our city wants to be a showcase of how walkable we are— and I just don't know how opening up a facility that has heavy bars with windows and doors taped up would achieve that purpose. So I'm okay with either Option 1 or 2. I don't feel comfortable opening up downtown Tigard at this point - so I will vote for 1 or 2. • Commissioner Jackson: I'm also of the conflicted camp. I came here tonight after doing all the reading and research related to this, leaning toward Option 2. I came tonight waiting to hear testimony and anything else that would move me in one direction or the other. I tend to remain more or less where I started—I would support either 2 or 1. I appreciate and expected the public opposition to loosening those restrictions, and from a subjective sensibility I'm against widespread marijuana use as well. On the other hand, as a Planning Commissioner there are other responsibilities at play. One thing I kept going back to in rereading and thinking about what is in Comprehensive Plan Goal No. 9.1.3 "The City's land use and regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development," etc. I feel like Option 1 is just bordering on too restrictive for me when I consider that. I could go on but in summary I would support either 1 or 2—leaning a little more toward Option 2. March 20,2017 Page 13 of 16 Attachment#6 • President Fitzgerald: We've been working on the Tigard Triangle—we've been working exhaustively on that code to put the right code language in there to get some development in that area. Some of the blue areas include Hall Blvd and whatnot. If you listened to the 45 minute audio that was sent to us from council, there was no specific talk of tax dollars, but I feel that this is a tax dollar grab. We had a very robust and thorough and sometimes heated conversation while we made these recommendations to council. There was disagreement within the council that was seated. Then we found the happy medium. Our proposal was conservative in the fact that—this is new to all of us. We went through this prohibition and alcohol—we've been through this historically through society in the United States. This is a new thing—yes our proposal to council was conservative, but because we are a city that can come back and ask to have changes made later—after we've kind of lived with it for a little bit... at this point, Federal Guidelines could say you can't do this at all—so who knows what's going to happen? I know Mr. Widmer leased the property before we even did the original zoning, so there's a little bit of concern there for him. I have no issue with someone trying to run a business; but I have an issue with maintaining the reputation and integrity of Tigard. We do not have a good reputation outside of the City of Tigard. People see Hwy 99, they don't' see what else is here. People work really hard for downtown Tigard to kind of make it something- and the things are starting to coalesce there and happen. Things are going to start coalescing and happening in the Tigard Triangle as well. I can strongly support Option 1. I will not support any of the other options, nor will I put forward any other options beyond ones that are on the table. I want to send a loud and clear message back to council—we were clear in what we said the first time and we're stating and standing firm with it again this time. Commissioner Hu recommended that they make two motions, one for Option 1 and one for Option 2—just to have a record that some people actually can support Option 2. He was advised by VP Feeney that he could go ahead and make a motion for Option 2 and then they could do one for Option 1. MOTION Commissioner Hu made the following motion: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council in the matter of Marijuana Facilities Place Regulations No. DCA2016-00004 to change the current marijuana regulation as stated in Option No. 2. Commissioner Jackson seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE FOR: Commissioners Jackson and Hu AGAINST: Commissioners Schmidt, Fitzgerald, Feeney, McDowell, Middaugh, and Lieuallen VOTE TO SUPPORT OPTION 2 FAILS 6 - 2 March 20,2017 Page 14 of 16 Attachment#6 MOTION Vice President Feeney made the following motion: I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation that Option 1—to keep the current, existing regulations in place for application DCA2016-00004. Commissioner McDowell seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE FOR: Commissioners Jackson, Hu, Schmidt, Fitzgerald, Feeney, McDowell, Middaugh, and Lieuallen RESULTS: MOTION FOR SUPPORT OF OPTION 1 — REMAIN AS IS - PASSES UNANIMOUSLY CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON THIS ITEM WILL TAKE PLACE APRIL 11. President Fitzgerald urged those who'd testified to follow it to Council or email so they have additional record of their opinions on this particular issue. BRIEFING—TIGARD TRIANGLE CODE & REZONE Assistant Community Development Director Tom McGuire introduced Sr. Planner Susan Shanks. He informed the commissioners that Planner Cheryl Caines is no longer with the City of Tigard; she took a position with another city - and so Susan is taking over as project manager for the Triangle Lean Code and all things Triangle. Susan told the commissioners that she wished she had more graphics to give to them but that the timing of Cheryl's departure was such that Cheryl actually prepared the memo that they received in their packets. She said she picked it up and is running with it. Her understanding is that the commission was expecting a form based code primer of sorts. So she gave a kind of broad brush understanding of what a form based code is. Due to the lateness of the evening she told them she would keep it short and would leave it open to let them ask questions,which she did. Afterwards, she noted that they would continue this conversation as they have another scheduled update in approximately a month. Additionally there is a Tigard Triangle Tour scheduled for April 3. They will have an opportunity to talk about things in the field which will really be helpful with the form based code discussion. Susan distributed a handout (Exhibit ??) After the briefing Susan told the commissioners that staff will be working with Angelo Planning Group to have some help with graphics. OTHER BUSINESS —None. March 20, 2017 Page 15 of 16 Attachment#6 ADJOURNMENT President Fitzgerald adjourned the meeting at 10:57 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Commission Secretary Al'1'EST: President Calista Fitzgerald March 20,2017 Page 16 of 16 CITY OF TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done TIGARD MARIJUANA PLACE REGULATIONS Public Hearing Tigard City Council I April 11,2017 CITY OF T I G A R 1) BACKGROUND • City Council directed staff to revisit the place regulations for marijuana in October of 2016. A- City Council asked staff to specifically seek input from: r City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC); ➢ Tigard Downtown Alliance (TDA); ➢ The downtown business community; and ➢ Development community. CITY OF TIGARD BACKGROUND Staff attended the CCAC and invited the downtown community to attend to provide input. Several members of the downtown business community attended to voice their input. The CCAC did not reach a consensus, though a slight majority were open to changing the regulations to allow marijuana businesses downtown. CITY OF TIGARD BACKGROUND The CCAC had the following concerns: .� Proximity to Tigard Street Heritage Trail and plaza ➢ Making sure that downtown has a good mix of businesses and need of an anchor store. ➢ Concentration of "over 21" businesses in one location ➢ Need for City to treat all retail uses fairly ➢ Design/facade appearance of some marijuana businesses (that don't fit in downtown) > Inability to point to any specific policy or code intention to support restricting this specific type of retail use CITY OF TIGARD BACKGROUND Staff contacted three developers and heard back from one who reported: They would be reluctant to lease to a marijuana business due to uncertainty about federal policy and bank financing; They stated that the perception of marijuana business is worse than reality; and that The presence of a marijuana business in the area would not deter them from pursuing a good project CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission evaluated four options: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement and allow marijuana businesses downtown. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement, allow marijuana businesses downtown, remove parks buffer downtown only. CITY OF TIG A RD OPTION 2: • . .. .0 Option 2: .„,0<ssimi u 1 Retail Marijuana Facilities: -4 ' , ..,, 4 .,. ... ons..sissu,—. Potential Locations 1/04 / i i in.10*Law. =.-. I 40••• Lzlitreer...sausis. A07/ =NO FtInam F.bar 4 Wow. / '• .. -,-7-4fi r.L.. .--= ••••••/.1......../ .d '10, - • .0 110ilrueso.... re-- • I 1=1",11./../•••••••• 7.1_,-7 4........I ...= r ....._ — — 11110111111 AIL„A__ , *.....,...,,,_ , - •. ...... !„„„),:,..,,- - ,....-;ir • le ., t Pr ,4,,,. . - -_. - /" • L /de / . 41 !=i11•111111- . , „late,' A> _ ..... il ..". ,.... ...A. r„,,, _ ,...._ • ,_, -r ,,,,, .„.__,, 1, i ,.,._ ,== .,,, J , ii r-4 r I TY OF TIC \ R D . . OPTION 3: • Option 3: CRINLS11--.1.. / Retail Marijuana Facilittes: i—/"•' I : : Potential Locations : 111 S Aki. EZ:11/0//thmw...Mr I illi ir=faa i ..............,-, ---;ff„,7-_,-T_ •,-. - r -• •err,.......INM, i 1...'. OM Mill hop Ckko Mira II* r :OA 2.#- ..-- -:-4—?7(,..ift,".•—••••• Orucarou. i •0.,1e1 .. -- apv.0.......„ a-...:s z..--,... ....... 1111 I • , n Ni#1° OP # . 41 L ,...m- L _1,-- ., 4-010 4r#0"411 51 1•0 . _._ ,... ..a 7 ,. yi1i\ or .__. 410 7' .... re,' /40 t -..-.„--.-----_ J . .. f, :. CITY OF TIGARD OPTION 4: Option 4 ( /hoc.... ... �� ` Retail Marijuana Facilities: t-74° --7 4 L� / rf' °A`+••+�+. Potential Locations / IIUI i 4rpP�h.lar.Lawry Allb- 3 � - _ .J� •m..,....,.,,,,,, I17-1--1---1-= 77--.---a7 ...t. iiik api ? 6,,,,L7.-_ -.±,� -= My cp........- z:_-.4,11 ore lepr I 1. ire,,, ---T>i, ' L . ,,ritet--/,f 7 ,.. . t4/ / L R 1MO glw. j / frt. ( d V al t r %/ iii/ _I C I T Y OF T I G \ 1Z l) PLANNING COMMISSION .- Key points discussed: potential tax dollars from marijuana businesses should not even be a considering factor conflict with the goal of family friendly downtown may have an aesthetic impact, (bars on widows, dark doors and windows), especially downtown no need for additional marijuana shops since the City only has one liquor store to serve the City too early to know whether existing regulations are in any way deficient CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION r 15 citizens came to testify r 5 in favor of expanding the regulations ➢ 10 in favor of keeping the regulations as they are today Planning Commission made two motions Option #1- passed unanimously Option#2- 2 in favor, 6 opposed CITY OF TIGARD Questions and Discussion CITY OF TIGARD Links Tigard Maps http://www.tigardmaps.com/mox6/publicinteractive.cfm ?action=mox6 view interface&CFID=69287&CFTOKEN=9 6373799 Marijuana Storybook http://www.tigard- or.gov/city hall/marijuana facilities.php CITY OF TIG ARD MARIJUANA .- Arterials: Hall Blvd, McDonald St, Greenburg Rd, Beef Bend Rd, Scholls Ferry Rd, Roy Rogers Rd, Durham Rd, Walnut St, 72nd Ave, Bonita Rd Collectors: Bull Mountain Rod, 135th Ave, 121st Ave, Tiedeman Ave, Main St, Burham Ave, Ash Ave, Scoffins, Hunziker Rd, Wall St, Dartmouth St, 68th Parkway, Hampton St, Pfaffle St, 78th Ave, Locust Street, Cascase Ave, AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: April 11, 2017 , TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: Legislative Public Hearing — CONSIDER PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OF KEEPING THE EXISTING REGULATIONS FOR MARIJUANA FACILITIES, AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 18.735 (DCA2O16-00004) 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 become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: April 11, 2017 PLEASE PRINT 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 become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. 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. Proponent—(S.eaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. fb 11 t (/) .(Inncl '1i'A+k121fC kA)+ -nc111S r2w V-1(4 w t 3 y 5AY V -T, ►-d X17-P131- 1'1191 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. • Chalice Farms — 16735 SW Pacific Hwy, Portland, OR 97224 o .9 miles from Hazelbrook Middle o 1.8 miles from THS, Durham Elementary & Durham Center o 2.0 miles from Templeton Elementary & Twality Middle o 2.4 miles from Alberta Rider Elementary & CFT Elementary o 2.7 miles from Fowler Middle o 3.3 miles from Mary Woodward SUPPLEMENT/ PACKET FOR o 3.5 miles from Westside Christian High Arra OF MEETING) o 4.1 miles from Metzger Elementary • Chalice Farms to Cascadia Labs = 4.0 miles • Cascadia Labs — 7405 SW Tech Center Dr A160, Tigard, OR 97223 o 1.7 miles from Westside Christian High o 1.8 miles from THS, Durham Elementary & Durham Center o 2.3 miles from Templeton Elementary & Twality Middle o 2.5 miles from Metzger & CFT Elementary o 2.9 miles from Fowler Middle o 3.9 miles from Mary Woodward Elementary • Cascadia Labs to The Herbary = 1.6 miles • The Herbary — 11642 SW Pacific Hwy#100, Tigard, OR 97223 o .4 mile from Westside Christian High o 1.3 miles from Metzger Elementary o 1.6 miles from CFT Elementaray o 2.0 miles from Fowler Middle o 2.5 miles from Templeton Elementary & Twality Middle o 2.9 miles from THS & Durham Elementary & Durham Center o 3.0 miles from Mary Woodward Elementary o 3.9 miles from Alberta Rider Elementary • The Herbary to The CDC Dispensary = 1.3 miles • The CDC Dispensary — 10015 SW Hall Blvd B, Portland, OR 97223 o .4 mile from Metzger Elementary o 0.9 mile from Westside Christian High o 2.0 miles from Fowler Middle & CFT Elementary a 2.8 miles from Mary Woodward Elementary o 3.0 miles from Templeton Elementary & Twality Middle o 3.2 miles from THS, Durham Elementary & Durham Center o 4.2 miles from Alberta Rider Elementary • The CDC Dispensary to Purple Organics Marijuana = 1.5 miles • Purple Organics Marijuana— 11321 SW 64th Ave, Portland, OR 97219 • Purple Organics Marijuana to Nectar Marijuana Dispensary = 0. 7 mile • Nectar Marijuana Dispensary — 10931 SW 53rd Ave, Portland, OR 97219 • Nectar Marijuana Dispensary to Green Goddess Remedies Dispensary = 1.6 miles • Green Goddess Remedies Dispensary — 5435 SW Taylors Ferry Rd, Portland, OR 97219 Google Maps marijuana dispensary -}c —t-Vsk) SeL,00kS ; YYIDlah�ticW10._0 spetasa,n is t Fs ®- —Go Course . alyxes Oaks Amusement Park seuwooD Allis TradM -BwbLx n1' MORELANO r 1 SW RosaenN� e Ci;� Diapensary-Barbur j HOeZNdele n SW anrry•Rd ... .w arnGardM R0 SW Garden �1ULTNOMAM Gr..n OaUs D1._ RKO 6= Hip/� er5�it iy Dispense' yz E Hon Whitford atsaal Remedies ''kmn°tl r / €¢9 Swh ewer Rd a Pe 4H nCollective -` p 3 0`a Green Goddess �'±" B DMeriluena Paradise 8 Remedies Dispensary� ' . a C n ,.SW Kert+np,, COLLINS VIEW r. mingron so o "" r-3 $ ,,,i; s,+••r.,r., _ —, yyy y CDC Dispensary P Pere Milwaukie'\ sw Ti. e J it Rrverwood N _ Tryon 1 r i:S armor sr creek State Portland Community Natural Area _ SF \'' The Harbor/ �Cohege Sylvania Englewood "} 10,,,::.f,,,,, N. 'a Ra 'Is y q 'fS ., Jwy 7� Tigard - © a '. _:,, y ,� q ® `Portland Oregon Temple ' Vii,„,,,,, Kirton 1 ry''LI \\ sea �.Lseadia Labs Ob lake Oswego In CED 1 ' _,I.N arpEwc Oak Grove euu.etcuN-aIN a '� 't 4" 1 ' _ _ * 6 Wim' LAKE GROVE $ } I. Vt Sa;t t Or o-:. JSP v AID °�kxn, S hops 'y1 OPS sro eeb amore sna ® d :� S Wham rd. 6•yr d.e ?b t! W c.!_d giant King City * `) I �g Gree. db Tear tmy ,. ._ SW soar eendaR IC' haaee Farms //�� % P' ' k,V. i '� g. g - 'Tigard I Dispensary Cook bark .lane Rd i, O,sM ¢ swena,Re naPn� ( t s° ^ / Tnaar+n Pro, £ ig Q BndgePOO Village qr. 4 ` > k z 1. _ > a Tualatin River J T SW Tri Avid idRdtry Club© Durham m.,,•...... _ a " a �ur'"'L""o MaryihuM 04' •.. , SW sena:+sne.w,oa ad € li i _ ., �,ona° j - Cabela's Rhrore,Trna . ...�..4,44''''''G,b s q a SW CnAds R Nntons as r Tualatin >~,..�.�, C swLeber.Rd SW wildlife N ys GR..R' MaryS. , T. Refuge - g ^+..5hadowood _ ee young Pile. R7 - 4 + _ ridden So �`y� s a.la•,nRa i a R (--) ,:r•aC a " WasYniRaGs o rn ry G• tat no '"'"-.4. C cwt.... _ V F"Y `, ,< # as western Oregon e $w rdy Rd swter'c � Dispensary � D Q3?cc.`' L O gle ,,a ;.m `',n, no"tar p, s f GF ,g'''.9.,g5 T .. Y NGtwOOd _ sa T a 4\ Map data®2017 Google 5000 ft i Rating ***** SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET The Herbary FORq /1� 49„,21.--7------- Vi-,, 4.0 **** ���� of ���T�N�� - i' ''.- Pharmacy 11642 SW Pacific Hwy#100 ••' Open until 9:50 PM ' April 8, 2017 Hello, My name is Connie Ramaekers. I have lived at 9655 SW Murdock St in Tigard for 38 years. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts about regulations that have been put in place concerning retail marijuana shops. I worked for the Tigard Tualatin School District for 29 years as a Prevention Specialist. Over the past 35 years, it has been my passion to help our youth right here in Tigard by addressing issues concerning the drug and alcohol use among our teens. Since 1988 Tigard's two middle schools and Tigard High school has had programs in place to help empower youth in making healthy decisions. Our Club STUDD, at Tigard High has close to 100 members. These students work together to help their peers be drug and alcohol free. There are several reasons why I would like to see the City of Tigard keep the current, existing regulations 'as is'. The ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIDTA Report (HIGH INTENSITYDRUG TRAFFICKING REPORT) in January 2016 states that Evidence and research demonstrates that marijuana - which has skyrocketed in average potency over the past decades - is addictive and harmful to the human brain, especially when used by adolescents. In states that have already legalized the drug, there has been an increase in drugged driving crashes and youth marijuana use. This is very true for Oregon. My big concern is the increase in marijuana use among our teens at Tigard High since Measure 91. Locally in our own School District — marijuana use among our 11th graders at Tigard High has increased substantially. Our Oregon Wellness Survey data shows a 20 % increase from 2014 to 2016 2014 — 30 day use was at 3.6% 2015 it jumped to 17.2% and in 2016 it jumped to 23.5%. Our youth report that Marijuana is very easy to get and their number one resource are friends who get it from their parents or older siblings. The more access adults have to marijuana, the more access our youth have also. We are already allowing more marijuana shops than liquor stores Tigard. I strongly feel we need to keep regulations as they are. With more marijuana retail shops opening and especially allowing them downtown Tigard where many families go for recreation, makes marijuana more readily available to adults and youth. Thank You - Connie Ramaekers 5 `` � ��'� ���" �c mG� rt��" wad 1L� ns SFORUPPLEMENTAL. PACKET (DATE OF MEETING)