The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 11/07/2017 1111 Cit'of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD m TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: November 7, 2017 - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated;it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-718-2419, (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers,it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-718-2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http://live.tigard-or.gov CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. II '1 City-of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: November 7,2017 - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM •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. 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less,Please) A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Citizen Communication—Sign Up Sheet 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and Local Contract Review Board) 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. PROCLAIM NOVEMBER 25, 2017 SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY •ConsentAgenda-Items Removed for Separate Discussion:Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council/City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. CONSIDER CONTRACT AWARD FOR COMMERCIAL STREET PERVIOUS SIDEWALK PROJECT 6:35 p.m. estimated time 5. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD: CONSIDERATION OF TASK ORDER AWARD -WATER MASTER PLAN (WATER SYSTEM MODELING OF RECORD CONTRACT) 6:40 p.m. estimated time 6. CONTINUED QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: REMAND OF BASE CAMP LLC LAND USE APPLICATION 6:50 p.m. estimated time 7. JOINT MEETING WITH BUDGET COMMITTEE: FORECAST AND FY 2018-19 PROPOSED BUDGET APPROACH 7:00 p.m. estimated time 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS 9. 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. 10. ADJOURNMENT 7:45 p.m. estimated time AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 B - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: November 7, 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: M AreM:- N c (_l fuz. t i C i(Ut i Also please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: rvtA (kr 1 y C;4 Q s %L `k.C.otti (LAhL- (62-4,.-1 Address bi S 1/4.-1 5(1,-; .TA say Q T City 1 Ca I 5 State Q(2_ Zip '1 2-2f Phone No. !S\--)3 `(0'0 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 170822.doc SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR ((I-Tl►7, iYI aC3 ( TE OF MEETING) COALITION FOR SW MAX The Coalition for SW MAX Railroad Options(C /C4)represents 12 established businesses and property owners in Tigard that are at risk RAILROAD OPTIONS of displacement in four of the six proposed alternatives outlined in the Preserving Can &Jobs Light Rail Plan. Coalition Members While we realize the need to enhance the transit opportunities in the area to prepare for living Ascend Holdings and working conditions expected in the future,it's also vital to recognize the needs of those Atiyeh Bros. already committed to the community. We acknowledge that the SW Corridor plan supports the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan and the Tigard Downtown Vision by anticipating transportation Bonita Pioneer Packaging demands from the projected growth in population and employment. Specifically,the current Burgerville transit project will: Curtiss-Wright • Offer communities such as Tigard the ability to bring high quality transit to already Gerber congested corridors,an effort that would otherwise be difficult to achieve with limited Holiday Inn Express city resources. Landmark LLC • Enhance existing jobs, housing and educational prospects and create new opportunities Paul Schatz Furniture for commercial,housing and recreational development adjacent to transit. Portland Clinic The Coalition supports public transportation that benefits our community partners,employees Umpqua Bank and the customers we serve. Unfortunately,light rail options Cl,C3,C5 and C6 will require United Rentals coalition members to permanently close or relocate,causing a serious disruption to both business activities and our employees livelihood. More about the coalition: Alternatively,the Coalition supports Railroad options C2 and C4 as they will reduce the impact (Preliminary Survey Results— to the businesses and properties located along 1-5. Therefore, we recommend that the data from 10 of 12 businesses) jurisdictions in the affected area, along with the SW Corridor Steering Committee, the SW Corridor Community Advisory Committee, the TriMet Board and the Metro Council,join us in 70% supporting Railroad options C2 and C4 in the Initial Route Proposal(IRP), Environmental Impact 30%have been in Study and, ultimately, the Local Preferred Alternative(LPA). business 10+years- 40%for 25+years The Coalition supports these Railroad Options for the following reasons: 90% • Reduces Project Costs. Right-of-way already exists and is used by the railroad to move providesumcfreight and as a commuter line for WES(Westside Express Service),serving Beaverton, commercialial services or retail goods Tigard,Tualatin and Wilsonville. Plus, it mitigates the significant costs involved with 60'Yo acquiring property along I-5. serve 15,000 or more • Shorter Travel Time. PSU to Bridgeport is one minute less than the 1-5 alignment. customers each year • Ridership. Railroad alignment(C2/C4)and 1-5 alignment offer comparable ridership. • Access to Transit dependent people. Railroad alignment offers the best placement for 90% most lower income residents,who represent the largest portion of rail transit users. employ emplo a or more • Economic Development.A Railroad alignment would offer increased economic employees;3096 p g employ 50 or more development from Hwy 217 to Bridgeport through private sector investments,creating �� more local jobs using the light rail line.An 1-5 alignment would end businesses and jobs in existing fully developed areas through planned 56 acres or more eminent domain reported annual revenue of 52.5 property acquisitions. million or more • Jobs Impact.Some businesses will elect to leave Tigard if the 1-5 alignments are selected,impacting existing customers and employees leading to the loss of quality, well-paying jobs provided by businesses located in the 1-5 alignment options. Coalition Contact Debra Dunn The Coalition supports Railroad options C2 and C4 as outlined in the current Light Rail Plan.We Synergy Resources Group look forward to working with stakeholders and being part of the solution as the plan moves 971-202-7262 or forward. debra_@svnergyresourcesgroup.com g;c) • SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET iKE T FOR .211,212i, i4e n (JAr . OF AEETTAG)EST. 1900 ORIENTAL RUGS • CARPETING www a tiyehbros.com November 7, 2017 Our 117th Year Members of the Tigard City Council Hello, I am Mark McGirr, President of Atiyeh Bros., Inc. Rugs and Carpeting. Mayor Cook, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before the City Council tonight and bring forward information pertinent to the SW Corridor Light Rail Project that has been in the making since 2011. I am Co-Chair of a coalition of Tigard businesses, named "Coalition for SW MAX Railroad Option?. Tonight I am joined by Tony Bailey of Umpqua Bank who is part of the Coalition. After over 4 months of "objective" research and study of the 2 basic alignment areas south of Tigard, "Along the Railroad" and "Along I-5" we have adopted a position and have been exchanging information with as many constituents, decision making committees and individuals as we can. We have issued a Coalition Position Statement that I believe has been included in your materials tonight While the decision regarding the final proposed route rests with the project Steering Committee, whom Mayor Cook is a part of, new Federal funding guidelines require ONE Initial Route Proposal be determined by Project Staff in early 2018 before any public comment period. The "Staff" recommendation should and will include input from the City of Tigard, as well as other surrounding communities Key to the success of this project is the FTA rating achieved and meeting the original purpose and objectives for serving the communities along the route. The FTA rating is based upon the annualized capital costs, annual operating costs and estimated ridership We support; and ask for your support in choosing the Railroad alignments (C2 or C4) in the project routes south of Tigard for the following reasons / criteria: 1. Lower project capital costs: • Using existing railroad right of way - will require fewer property acquisitions. Negotiating with the Railroads is hard, but certainly has been accomplished in prior MAX line expansions 2. Ridership is virtually the same 3. The Route is faster 4. Better access to the underserved population: • The demographics studied and presented in Community Advisory Committee meetings clearly conclude that the Railroad options better serve the lower income and more transit dependent populations, matching the original intent of this project WA BUS ID 409 015740 EXPERIENCE THE ATIyEH DIFFERENCE OR CCB Lie#3590 C RETAIL STORE EUGENE CLEANING FACILITY 6750 SW Bonita Road • Tigard Oregon 97224 PORTLAND CLEANING FACILITY 564 East 13th•Eugene,Oregon 97401 1516 SE Division Street•Portland,Oregon 97202 Phone:(541)342-3678 Phone: (504) 639-8642 Phone:(503)234-5495 Fax:(541)342-1038 Fax:(503) 639-�1 o i7 Tig City Council SW MAX-M McGrr"A lt7 f lf17 4:41 PM 5. Less traffic impacts immediately adjacent to Bonita Rd. and Upper Boones Ferry I-5 overpasses: • The Railroad route avoids the Park and Ride structures that would dump 800 cars in and onto Upper Boones and Sequoia Parkway/Bonita • Can you imagine at 5PM or 7AM the planned 650 cars entering or exiting from the existing driveway by Burgerville? 6. Economic development opportunities and Jobs impact: • The Railroad route is quite undeveloped as compared to the I-5 route. Additional Transit Oriented Development adds to the Tigard and surrounding community's tax base and provides more jobs. This is a win - win for everyone. • Tigard is essentially land locked for additional property relocations. An I-5 alignment would cause several established companies to move out of the Tigard community from Eminent Domain actions. An established string of developed companies would be lost along with the tax base and jobs, and the Railroad area would most likely remain the same Of our present 12 Coalition members: o Nine (9) would be Closed or relocated out of the area through Eminent Domain: • Bonita Pioneer Packaging • Landmark LLC. • United Rentals • Ascend Holdings • Curtiss-Wright (Williams Controls) ■ Paul Shatz Furniture (and tenants Bed Smart / Mattress Firm) • The Portland Clinic ■ Burgerville • Holiday Inn Express o Three (3) would be seriously impacted and / or be rendered alternate use: • Gerber Legendary Blades • Atiyeh Bros., Inc. • Umpqua Bank As a contrast, along the Railroad route there are approximately 2 business properties that would be closed or relocated through the Eminent Domain process. We also wish to help the City of Tigard in any way during the duration of this decision making project. We are in it for the long haul, as we all made very specific and conscious choices to develop the areas along the I-5 proposed route, several years ago. We want any future decision for the City of Tigard to be the best one for the City and its surrounding communities. The Railroad route is that best option. Thank you. Mark McGirr 503-639-8642 mark@atiyehbros.com 2 110717 Tig City Council SW MAX-M McGirr ATB 2 11/7/2017 4:41 PM AIS-3265 3. A. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 11/07/2017 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Proclaim Nov. 25 Small Business Saturday Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Item Type: Receive and File Meeting Type: Proclamation Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should Mayor Cook proclaim November 25, 2017 as Small Business Saturday? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST n/a KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Women Impacting Public Policy (WIPP) and the Small Business Saturday Coalition asked Mayor Cook to issue a proclamation for Small Business Saturday, the national effort to drive consumers to shop at local independently owned businesses on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, November 25, 2017. They noted that this effort between Black Friday and Cyber Monday is essential to the preservation of the neighborhoods that compose the landscape of Tigard's local economy. Additional information about Small Business Saturday and the initiative to shop small and local is available at www.shopsmall.com. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Not issue the proclamation. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS n/a DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Mayor Cook issued this proclamation for the first time in 2016. Attachments Small Business Saturday Proclamation 1 \F 'x" a-. " .x; `, 4.w.. 4 #.'.'-.-,,, t$✓ -1r?`,.2 X ` :,,..„... _A. Iii: ac ti *, 9^", _ , :,...„ , r „.4:: ,c. a 0on !_. -3! .. City of Tigard SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY rd ,1. 4F. a le U. Whereas,Tigard celebrates its local small businesses and the contributions they make to our local economy and community;and Whereas,the Small Business Administration notes that small businesses are ,i I= responsible for 63 percent of net new jobs created over the past 20 years; and ie t:p it f Whereas,small businesses contribute positively to the local community by supplying ,'I jobs and generating tax revenue;and j 3' F Whereas,small businesses are critical to the overall economic health of the city; and . 1-* Whereas,small businesses rely on local residents and visitors to support the services i*'...4-. and goods that small business owners provide to the community; and ..- . f t: Whereas, the city supports local businesses that create jobs, boost the local j economy and preserve neighborhood character and livability; and ., :j Whereas, advocacy groups as well as public and private organizations across the country endorse the Saturday after Thanksgiving as Small Business Saturday. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that I,John L.Cook, Mayor of the City of y Tigard,Oregon,do hereby proclaim Saturday, November 25,2017 as, 4.1 4 SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY in Tigard,Oregon and encourage people throughout the city to support Small Business Saturday and celebrate the role these entrepreneurs play in the growth of our - community. p;;;111 Ir, Dated this day of , 2017 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the -r City of Tigard to be affixed. •�« I • ti '=' John L. Cook, Mayor City of Tigard ii Attest: il Carol Krager, City Recorder Ji , C •.• .,, ,..... ....................... AIS-3243 4. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 11/07/2017 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider Contract Award for Commercial Street Pervious Sidewalk Project 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 the City's Commercial Street Pervious Sidewalk project to GT Excavating? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for the City's Commercial Street Pervious Sidewalk project to GT Excavating in the amount of$178,172 and authorize the City Manager to take the necessary steps to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city's Commercial Street Pervious Sidewalk project will construct a pervious sidewalk along the north side of Commercial Street from 95th Avenue to Lincoln Street. Commercial Street currently lacks sidewalk west of Main Street where it connects a large residential neighborhood to downtown Tigard and the Tigard Transit Center. The pavement on this portion of Commercial is substandard in width, requiring pedestrians to either walk in the vehicular travel lanes or potentially across private property. The new sidewalk for this project will connect with the existing sidewalk west of 95th Avenue and will connect to the east with a cooperative project with ODOT and TriMet that will add sidewalk from Lincoln Street to Main Street in 2019. The project will also include ADA ramp construction, curbs and storm drainage work. The city applied for a Community Development Block Grant with Washington County in 2015 and received an award of $170,000 for this project. The city issued an Invitation to Bid for the project at the beginning of June of this year. The city received only one bid at closing, in an amount 108% over the project's estimated. Staff rejected the bid due to the cost with the plan to re-solicit the bid later in the summer to take advantage of more favorable schedules and pricing. The Invitation to Bid was re-published in early September and the city received responses from four contractors with the later solicitation: • GT Excavating - $178,172 •R&R General Contractors, Inc. - $229,000 •Brown Contracting- $237,340 •MJ Hughes Construction - $369,300 •Engineer's Estimate - $123,620 While the lowest bid, from GT Excavating, is still 44% over the engineer's estimate, it much more favorable than the early single bid and pricing is not showing signs of dropping. Staff has reviewed the bids and found that GT Excavating has submitted a responsible bid and there is nothing on file with BOLI or the State's Construction Contractors Board to prevent them from being awarded a contract. Staff has contacted Washington County regarding the CDBG program covering half of the $54,000 construction overage. A vote by Washington County is scheduled for mid-October, before the Council presentation of this item but after this AIS is submitted. The city's portion ($27,000) will be in from Gas Tax Fund contingency. This is requested in the FY18 1st Quarter Supplemental Budget. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board may reject the contract award and direct staff to re-solict the project a third time, likely in the late winter, in attempt to lower the cost. The Local Contract Review Board may reject the contract award and direct staff to re-scope the project for alternatives. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Tigard Strategic Plan - The most walkable community in the Pacific Northwest where people of all ages and abilities enjoy healthy and interconnected lives. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board has been presented this contract. Fiscal Impact Cost: $178,172 Budgeted (yes or no): Partial Where Budgeted (department/program):Transportation CIP Fund Additional Fiscal Notes: The project has an external construction budget of$124,000 with a potential contract award of$178,172. The overage of just over $54,000 is proposed to be split 50/50 by the city and Washington County's CDBG program. The county will vote on their portion in mid-October and the city has a FY 18 1st Quarter Supplemental Budget request to move Gas Tax contingency to cover the city's portion. Attachments No file(s) attached AIS-3245 5. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 11/07/2017 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider Task Order Award - Water Master Plan (Water System Modeling of Record Contract) Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Update, Discussion, Direct Business Staff Meeting - Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a task order against the City's Water System Modeling and Analysis Engineering contract with Murray, Smith & Associates for the Water Master Plan project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board approve this task against the City's existing contract with Murray, Smith & Associates for $341,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the task order. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Proiect Overview - The city conducts water master planning every five to ten years. The current Water Master Plan was adopted in May 2010, with a minor addendum in 2014 to include River Terrace development. The Water System Master Plan is a comprehensive study of the city's water source, storage and delivery systems and will be used to guide future water utility decisions. The master plan has a 30-year planning horizon and is predicated on the city's anticipated population growth during that time. Contracting Process - In February 2017, the Local Contract Review Board awarded an Engineer-of-Record contract for Water System Modeling& Analysis. This contract was let by a formal Qualification-based Request for Proposal (QBS) and is for a possible life of 5 years. An Of-Record contract allows the city to contract with a professional consultant, in this case a Hydro Engineering firm, over a set time frame for various projects without the need to formally, or possibly informally solicit for the specific project. This saves time and money, and allows for the development of a more complete understanding by the consultant of the city's system and needs. This contract covers various water system analysis, studies, cost estimating, design services, operational technical support, construction-related services, and modeling. One of the tasks that is specifically mentioned in the scope of services is the development of a Water System Master Plan. An action by the Local Contract Review Board tonight would allow the city to enact this task in the contract. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board may reject this request for a task order and direct staff to fully solicit for the Water Master Plan. Given the market, there is a strong likelihood that the same vendor would be selected while the City may experience increased internal costs related to a full Qualification-based Request for Proposal (QBS). COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The Local Contract Review Board awarded the Water System Modeling& Analysis Engineer of Record contract on February 14, 2017. This was a typical project detailed in the scope of work for this contract. Fiscal Impact Cost: $340,632 Budgeted (yes or no): Partial Where budgeted?: Water CIP Fund Additional Fiscal Notes: The FY 2018 budget includes $225,000 in the Water CIP Fund. This is comprised of $200,000 from the Water Fund and $25,000 from the Water SDC Fund. The 6-year Capital Improvement Plan also shows $90,000 in FY 19 appropriations to be requested during the budget process. The additional funding that is required will come from appropriations for the Well Abandonment project at Tigard High School. This project wrapped up under budget and the funds are no longer required making them available to complete the funding for the Water Master Plan. The contract will contain language that funding in future years shall be dependent upon budget approval. Attachments No file(s) attached. AIS-3304 6. Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 11/07/2017 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Continued Quasi-judicial Public Hearing - Remand of Base Camp LLC Land Use Application Submitted By: Tom McGuire, Community Development Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Public Hearing - Quasi Judicial Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE Shall the Council review and adopt the revised findings for the Base Camp LLC land use decision for the proposed Triangle Medical Office Building, as amended by staff based on Council direction at the October 24 Council hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends Council adopt the revised Base Camp LLC findings for PDR2016-00011/SDR2016-00007. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff has further revised the findings for the Base Camp LLC land use decision as directed by City Council in their last hearing on October 24, 2017. At the October 24 public hearing, Council deliberated and directed staff to amend the findings to address a set of limited issues described in the record, which staff would bring back to Council for final review and approval. Staff has provided the amended findings as an attachment for Council review and approval. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council could choose not to change the findings. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Council originally approved this land use application after a public hearing on February 7, 2017. Hearings were held to discuss revised findings for the decision on October 17, 2017 and October 24, 2017. Attachments Revised Base Camp Findings Hearing notice and affidavit of mailing Proposed Remand Findings for Triangle Medical Office(Final Order No. 2016-11, PDR2016-00011/SDR2016-00007),LUBA No.2017-020 The City approved concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan review for an approximately 36,000 square foot medical oncology facility(the"Project")on a 3.76 acre vacant parcel known as tax lot 300 (the "Property") located southwest of SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue (the "Original Approval"). The Original Approval was appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"). LUBA No. 2017-020. LUBA remanded the Original Approval due to inadequate findings addressing how the proposal complies with CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020 ("LUBA's Decision"). For the reasons explained below,the City finds that CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020 do not require a street connection west of SW 72nd Avenue in the vicinity of the Property. I. Procedure on Remand On September 26, 2017, the City provided a mailed notice of the October 17, 2017 public hearing to consider new findings to address LUBA's Decision. See Attachment 1. The notice followed the procedure stated in CDC 18.390.050.C. for mailed notices. The notice included draft findings addressing LUBA's Decision, and specified that public testimony and argument would be accepted regarding CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020 and the draft findings, but the record would not be opened for new evidence. At the outset of the October 17, 2017 public hearing, the City explained to those in attendance that"This is a quasi-judicial land use proceeding limited to the remanded findings regarding the applicability of CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020. Public testimony will be allowed for argument, but the record will not be opened for new evidence." The City Council then heard staff's report, and verbal testimony was offered by representatives for Base Camp I, LLC ("Applicant") and Gordon R. Martin, Trustee of the Tri-County Center Trust ("Martin") (the party that appealed the Original Approval to LUBA). Martin's representative also submitted twenty-seven pages of written testimony at the October 17, 2017 public hearing. Following Applicant's rebuttal,the City closed the record and continued the hearing to October 24, 2017 for Council deliberation. The continuance was provided so that the Council could have adequate time to review Martin's October 17, 2017 testimony prior to reaching a decision on the remand proceeding. At the October 24, 2017 public hearing, Council deliberated and directed staff to amend the findings to address a set of limited issues described in the record which staff would bring back to Council for final review and approval of the amended findings at the November 7, 2017 Council meeting. At their November 7 hearing, Council unanimously affirmatively voted to adopt these findings. A. Public Notice of October 17,2017 Hearing was Adequate Martin noted in verbal and written testimony that he did not receive notice of the public hearing and draft findings in time to "review the new documents, formulate a response and submit written comments to make the packet deadline,"which is why Martin's testimony was provided at the October 17th hearing instead of in advance of that hearing. Martin did not request a 136852358.7 continuance or for the record to be held open so that he could provide additional testimony. Martin did not allege or explain with specificity that his substantial rights to prepare or submit its case was prejudiced by the timing of when he received notice of the October 17th hearing. Council finds that no procedural error occurred with the notice of the October 17th hearing. Notice and the 8 pages of proposed findings were mailed to all property owners of record within 500 feet of the site(and to those required by CDC 18.390.050.C)twenty-one days in advance of the October 17, 2017 hearing, in compliance with CDC 18.390.050.C.1. In the alternative, in the event the City committed a procedural error, we find that Martin's substantial rights were not prejudiced. No objection identifying a procedural error was raised,no additional time(a continuance or open record period) was requested, and no prejudice of rights was asserted. Martin was able to present a case at the hearing and in robust and lengthy written testimony. Council did not render a decision on October 17th because it had not yet had time to consider Martin's written testimony. Instead, the public hearing was continued by one week so that Council could fully analyze Martin's written testimony prior to voting on the remand proceedings on October 24, 2017. II. Scope of Remand Findings LUBA's decision remanded the City's approval due to inadequate findings addressing how the Project complies with CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020. Those criteria are the only standards under review on remand, and these findings are limited to those criteria. Approval criteria and findings that were not challenged at LUBA, such as CDC 18.810.030.H.2, are not addressed as part of this proceeding, and the findings in the Original Approval remain intact. As detailed below, parties are precluded from raising issues in this remand proceeding related to approval criteria and findings that could have been,but were not, challenged at LUBA. As explained in LUBA's Decision, "nothing in this opinion is intended to preclude the city from revisiting its express and implied interpretations of CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020 to attempt to more clearly articulate what the city believes those standards require of the proposal, in circumstances presented in this application." Slip opinion, 8. Accordingly, all express and implied findings addressing CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020 in the Original Approval are hereby repealed and replaced by these remand findings. III. Applicable Criteria CDC 18.810.030.H.1 are generally applicable "street alignment and connections" standards, and CDC 18.620.020.A.1 are "street connectivity" standards that apply to the Property because it is within the Tigard Triangle Plan District. The City finds that as applied to this Project, the two standards conflict, so pursuant to CDC 18.620.010.C, only the Tigard Triangle Plan District Standard (CDC 18.620.020.A.1) is applicable to the Project. Both standards establish maximum distances between street connections, with some exceptions. However, the maximum distances differ, so a street connection could comply with the 660 foot maximum established by CDC 18.620.020.A.1,but exceed the 530 foot maximum established by CDC 18.810.030.H.1. No party has disputed that if a street connection west of SW 72nd were -2 - required as part of the Project, due to intersection access spacing standards, that connection would align with the eastward extension of SW Elmhurst Street. The eastward SW Elmhurst Street connection is 560 feet from the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth, which meets the Tigard Triangle maximum spacing(660 feet) but is in excess of the general spacing standard (530 feet). While it is possible that the standards may be applied harmoniously in a scenario with different facts, as applied to this Project, the standards conflict. Because of the directive in 18.620.010.0 that the more specific Tigard Triangle provisions govern when in conflict with the generally applicable provisions in the development code, the applicable spacing standard here is 660 feet. The Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan ("TTSP") is a planning document that outlined potential redevelopment visions for the Tigard Triangle area. It was not adopted as part of the City's comprehensive plan. The conceptual scenarios in the TTSP were intended to guide future legislative actions, such as the recently adopted of the Lean Code (Ordinance No. 17-19) and the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan. Nothing in the TTSP is binding upon quasi-judicial applications, including the Project. Any arguments based upon the TTSP are not directed at any approval criterion and therefore do not provide a basis to approve, deny or condition the application. The Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan("TTURP") includes projects, goals and objectives to guide tax increment financing investments within the Tigard Triangle. Nothing in the TTURP is binding upon quasi-judicial applications, including the Project. Any arguments based upon the TTURP are not directed at any approval criterion and therefore do not provide a basis to approve, deny or condition the application. The Lean Code was adopted in August 2017 but will not become effective until adoption of new zoning for the Tigard Triangle. The new zoning for the Tigard Triangle is not expected to be approved until December or January 2017., Regardless, the Lean Code was adopted a year after the application was submitted. Therefore, the Lean Code is not applicable to this application. Any arguments based upon the Lean Code are not directed at any approval criterion and therefore do not provide a basis to approve, deny or condition the application. The Transportation System Plan("TSP") has been adopted as part of the City's comprehensive plan. The TSP is intended to guide future transportation projects, and expressly addressed connectivity. For example, the TSP provides: "The TSP ensures the vision for the transportation system meets community needs, communicates the city's aspirations, and conforms to state and regional policies. "The document meets the state requirements for a TSP and acts as a resource for staff, decision makers and the public. It identifies the preferred multi-modal transportation system, consisting of a network of facilities adequate to serve local,regional and state transportation needs. It is the principal document used for identifying the function, capacity and location of future facilities, directing resources to transportation projects, and providing the - 3 - community with the level of investment that will be needed to support anticipated development within the community. [Section 1.11 * * * "One of the priorities of the 2035 TSP is to identify and preserve potential opportunities for future connectivity improvements in order to protect and maximize the function of the existing transportation network." Section 1.3. The Project application was submitted on August 25, 2016, and was deemed complete within 180 days. Therefore, all references to applicable standards are those that were in effect on August 25, 2016. ORS 227.178(3). Martin's October 17, 2017 testimony alleges that the City has ignored CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020. Council rejects the claim that any applicable criteria have been ignored. These findings explain the criteria that are applicable to the application and then provide a detailed interpretation of those criteria. While we understand that Martin disagrees with the City's interpretation and desires a different outcome, for the reasons explained below, the City finds that CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020 do not require a street connection west of SW 7211d Avenue in the vicinity of the Property. IV. Clarification of Facts SW Dartmouth Street to the north of the Property and SW Hermoso Way to the south of the Property are approximately 930 feet apart on the west side of 72nd Avenue. On the east side of SW 72nd Avenue, an eastward extension of SW Elmhurst is approximately 560 feet south of SW Dartmouth. When the Project was initially considered, significant testimony was offered regarding a potential future extension of SW 74th Avenue and a potential westward extension of SW Elmhurst Street to connect with that extension of SW 74th Avenue. The testimony assumed that SW 74th Avenue would be extended through what is currently developed as a Walmart parking lot, and would connect to Hermosa Way. There are several problems with this assumption. The suggested extensions of SW 74th Avenue or SW Elmhurst Street are not consistent with the TSP. See TSP Figure 5-12. SW 74th Avenue does not currently exist as a north-south street in the vicinity of the Property. There is a short segment of SW 74th Avenue some distance north of the Property, which extends south from SW Pacific Highway and terminates at Regal Cinemas. The TSP does not include a southward extension of SW 74th Avenue as a street. SW Elmhurst Street does not exist west of SW 72nd Avenue. The TSP does not include a westward extension of SW Elmhurst as a street. Walmart was approved in 2009, and constructed thereafter. A segment of SW 74th Avenue south of SW Dartmouth Street was not extended, and no public right-of-way, public street connections or public access easements were required as part of the Walmart development. -4 - V. CDC 18.810.030.H.1 CDC 18.810.030.H.1 relates to street alignment and connections, and provides: 1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography,railroads, freeways,pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. A. LUBA did not conclude that CDC 18.810.030.11.1 requires a street between SW 72" and Hermoso Council rejects Martin's assertion that LUBA concluded that CDC 18.810.030.H.1 requires a street connection between SW 72nd and Hermosa. In support of this allegation, Martin quotes a portion of LUBA's decision at slip op 9-10 out of context. The entire quote is: The above findings do a poor job of explaining what the city believes CDC 18.810.030.H.1 requires of the applicant in the circumstances presented with SW 72nd Avenue—SW Dartmouth Street to the north of the property and SW Hermoso Way to the south of the property—are over 900 feet apart on the west side of 72nd Avenue. That 900-foot separation between street connections does not comply with the CDC 18.810.030.H.1 requirement that the street connections not be spaced more than 530 feet apart. Slip op, 9-10, emphasis in original. LUBA is authorized to make its own interpretation of a local standard in limited circumstances that are not present here. ORS 197.829(2) and ORS 197.835(11)(b). When the purpose of the local provision is unclear and subject to numerous interpretations, as in this proceeding, LUBA will decline to exercise its authority and will remand the decision to the local government for the requisite interpretation. Thomas v. Wasco County, LUBA No. 95-098, 30 Or LUBA 302, 313 (1996). That is precisely what happened in this case. LUBA determined that "the meaning of CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020, and what those standards require in the particular circumstances presented here, is not very clear" (Slip op 8), and that the City's findings were inadequate to explain the conclusion that a street extension across the Property was not required, so LUBA remanded the decision to that the City can"more clearly articulate what the city believes those standards [CDC 18.810.030.H1 and 18.620.020] require of the proposal, in circumstances presented in this application." Id. Council finds that LUBA's only binding conclusions related to CDC 18.810.030.H.1 were that (1)the City's findings in the Original Approval were inadequate to demonstrate that the proposal complies with CDC 18.810.030.H.1 (slip op 15); and (2)that nothing in LUBA's opinion precludes the City from making findings that differ from the express and implied interpretation - 5 - of CDC 18.810.030.H.1 (slip op 8). LUBA did not find or otherwise require a street between 72nd and Hermoso across the Property. For the reasons detailed in these findings adopted in response to LUBA's Decision, the City expressly finds that CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020 do not require a street connection west of SW 72nd Avenue in the vicinity of the Property. B. CDC 18.810.030.H.1 is not applicable to the Project because, as applied, it conflicts with CDC 18.620.020.A.1 As explained in the findings related to the applicable approval criteria, which are incorporated herein, CDC 18.620.010.0 requires that when standards within the Tigard Triangle Plan District, such as CDC 18.620.020.A.1, conflict with another standard in the Code, such as CDC 18.810.030.H.1, then the Tigard Triangle Plan District standard governs. The City finds that the generally applicable "street alignment and connections" standards in CDC 18.810.030.H.1, and specific Tigard Triangle Plan District"street connectivity" standards in CDC 18.620.020.A.1 conflict when applied to this Project, so only the latter apply to the Project. Because CDC 18.810.030.H.1 does not apply to the Project, findings of compliance with that standard are not required. C. Alternative Findings— CDC 18.810.030.H.1 does not require a street to connect SW 72"d Avenue on the east with a north-south street on the west. Even if CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020.A.1 were interpreted to not conflict and both are applicable to the Project, CDC 18.810.030.H.1 does not require a street to connect SW 72nd Avenue on the east with a north-south street on the west for two alternative reasons: (1) there is no street west of SW 72n1 Avenue to which a full street could be connected; and(2) pre-existing development is a barrier which precludes a street connection. (1) There is no street west of SW 72"d Avenue to which a full street could be connected CDC 18.810.030.14.1 requires "full street connections" "between connections,"which the city interprets to mean that there must be two existing streets that can be connected. CDC 18.810.030.H.1 only requires a full street connection if one street can actually be connected with another street. CDC 18.810.030.H.1 does not require a full east-west street connection if there is not a street, public right-of-way or public access easement that can accommodate the street connection. In this case, it is impossible for the Project Applicant to dedicate a street right of way and construct a street to connect SW 72nd Avenue on the east with a north-south street on the west because the Property borders a Walmart store parking lot on the west, which is not a street and does not include public right-of-way or a public access easement. For the same reason, tax lots 400, 401 and 402 would not be required to dedicate a full street right of way and construct a street extension west of SW 72"d Avenue at the time those properties develop. Therefore, the Project need not show how a future east-west connection, such as SW Elmhurst, may align, and whether such alignment is required to cross a portion of the Property because it is not possible to provide such a connection at this time. - 6 - Because CDC 18.810.030.H.1 relates to connectivity"between connections" and the City interprets that to mean existing street connections, the criterion does not require consideration of future street connections. Additionally, the City notes that neither a north-south street west of SW 72nd Street nor an east-west extension of SW Elmhurst is planned in the TSP. TSP Map 5- 12. Therefore, even if it were appropriate to consider future or planned street connections, CDC 18.810.030.H.1 does not require a full east-west street connection extending west from SW 72nd Avenue because there are no streets planned across or abutting the Property. (2) Pre-existing development is a barrier which precludes street connections As an alternative to the findings in IV.B.(1), the existing Walmart development and home on tax lot 401, neither of which grants the public access rights, are pre-existing developments that preclude a street connection. Whether or not those developments existed prior to May 1, 1995 is immaterial to whether the exception in CDC 18.810.030.H.1 is applicable. The City finds that CDC 18.810.030.11.1 is ambiguous, and bases its conclusion upon two alternative interpretations of CDC 18.810.030.H.1 —(a) the doctrine of last antecedent; and (b) the qualifying date modifies only"lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions," which are legal instruments that can restrict property without government approval. Not only are both of the City's interpretations plausible, the conclusion is the only practical outcome. If an approved pre-existing development prevents a full street connection, it does not matter if that development existed prior to May 1, 1995. Regardless of the date constructed, the Walmart is clearly a pre-existing development that is a barrier to street connectivity. If SW Elmhurst were extended west from SW 72nd Avenue, regardless of the alignment,that street would not serve to connect two streets because the intervening pre-existing development is a barrier that would "preclude street connections." (a) The doctrine of last antecedent requires that development need not be "existing prior to May 1, 1995" in order to constitute a "barrier" that would "preclude street connections." The City expressly interprets the phrase "existing prior to May 1, 1995" in CDC 18.810.030.11.1 to modify only "other restrictions" and it does not apply to the earlier phrase "pre-existing developments." The City Council acknowledges that in dicta LUBA noted that relying upon the doctrine of last antecedent"seems highly suspect," but LUBA did not decide this issue because the findings in the Original Approval did not include an express finding on the issue. LUBA's dicta is not binding, and these findings are intended to explain the City's interpretation and application of its own code, which is entitled to deference. The City Council's interpretation is plausible because it is consistent with the doctrine of last antecedent, a well-settled rule of statutory construction. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (reviewing body will consider rules of construction in determining legislative intent). This doctrine provides that, absent evidence of other intent, qualifying words apply only to the immediately preceding antecedent. As applied to CDC 18.810.030.H.1, the doctrine of last antecedent requires that the clause "existing prior to May 1, 1995," only applies to the last item in the list of"barriers,"to wit, "other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995." As a result, the clause does not apply to earlier items in the list of - 7 - "barriers," such as "pre-existing developments." Therefore, neither that the Walmart nor tax lot 401 home had to be "existing prior to May 1, 1995" in order to constitute a"barrier"that would "preclude street connections." (b) In the alternative, the qualifying date of"existed prior to May 1, 1995" in CDC 18.810.030.11.1 modifies only "lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions,"which are legal instruments that can restrict property without government approval In the alternative to the interpreting CDC 18.810.030.H.1 based upon the doctrine of last antecedent,the City interprets the exception's prerequisite date(May 1, 1995)to distinguish between barriers that are exclusively within the control of the property owner, and those that are not. The policy and requirement to provide street connections would be thwarted if a property owner could unilaterally, without regulatory approval, and at any time impose a binding restriction that precludes street connectivity. For example, a property owner that desires to avoid the cost and disrupting effect of a full street connection through their property could be motivated to preemptively preclude that street connection by burdening their own property with a restrictive covenant that restricts access. The Code's requirement that a barrier created by legal instrument that can restrict property without government approval, such as "lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions,"must have existed prior to May 1, 1995, avoids this outcome. In contrast, the other bases for the exception are either naturally occurring, such as topography, or become a barrier only upon regulatory approval, including railroads, freeways,pre-existing developments, and regulated water feature restrictions. Because the barriers are subject to regulatory review and approval prior to when they are created, connectivity requirements are considered and applied, so this regulatory oversight need not have occurred prior to May 1, 1995. The existing Walmart development, which was approved and constructed after May 1, 1995, is an example of why the development date is irrelevant. The Walmart development was subject to City regulations related to connectivity, and was allowed without providing a full street connection west of SW 72nd Avenue. The consequence of that approved development and the lack of a north-south street west of SW 72nd Avenue is that the Walmart is a pre-existing development that is a barrier to a street connection west of SW 72nd For these reasons, the City finds that the qualifying date of"existed prior to May 1, 1995"in CDC 18.810.030.H.1 modifies only"lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions." The City's interpretation of its own code is plausible, and is not unique. We note that the City of Lake Oswego has a similar connectivity standard, which provides that an exception to connectivity is, "[w]here requiring streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which preclude required street or accessway connections." Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.06.003.c.vi (5). By comparison, "[t]he presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions" is not qualified by a particular date. Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.06.003.c.vi (3). While Lake Oswego's standards are not identical to CDC 18.810.030.H.1,the City finds that neighboring city's application of a prerequisite date to only legal instruments that can restrict property without government approval and not to - 8 - existing development is influential in how Tigard's ambiguous connectivity standard should be interpreted. VI. CDC 18.620.020 CDC 18.620.020.A.1 includes "street connectivity" standards that apply to the Property because it is within the Tigard Triangle Plan District, and provides: 18.620.020 Street Connectivity Demonstration of standards. All development must demonstrate how one of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Section 18.370.010 where topography,barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. A. Design option. 1. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet. A. CDC 18.620.020.A.1 requires public street connections only when one existing street can connect with another street CDC 18.620.020.A.1 requires "public street connections,"which the City interprets to mean that there must be two existing streets that can be connected. This interpretation is consistent with the City's interpretation of CDC 18.010.030.H.1 in Section IV.B(1), which is incorporated herein. Both street connectivity standards require public street connections only when one existing street can connect with another street. CDC 18.620.020.A.1 does not require an east-west public street connection because it is impossible for the Applicant to dedicate a street right of way and construct a street to connect SW 72nd Avenue on the east with a north-south street on the west because the Property borders a Walmart store parking lot on the west, not a street. For the same reason, tax lots 400, 401 and 402 would not be required to dedicate a public street right of way and construct a street extension west of SW 72nd Avenue at the time those properties develop. Therefore,the Applicant need not show how a future SW Elmhurst extension may align, and whether such alignment is required to cross a portion of the Property. A variance to CDC 18.620.020.A.1 is not required. The City has applied CDC 18.620.020.A.1 to the proposed Project, and finds that because there is no street west of the Property, an east- west public street connection between two streets is not required by the standard. Because CDC 18.620.020.A.1 relates to connectivity of public streets, the City interprets that to mean existing streets, so the criterion does not require consideration of future street connections. Nevertheless, the City notes that neither a north-south street west of SW 72nd Street nor an east- west extension of SW Elmhurst is planned in the TSP. TSP Map 5-12. Therefore, even if it - 9 - were appropriate to consider future or planned street connections, CDC 18.810.030.H.1 does not require a full east-west street connection extending west from SW 72nd Avenue because there are none planned across or abutting the Property. B. Alternative Findings—the existing eastern extension of SW Elmhurst complies with CDC 18.620.020.A.1's requirement for only "street spacing" and not a "full street" In the alternative,because SW Elmhurst on the east side of SW 72nd Avenue is located 560 feet from SW Dartmouth and 370 feet from SW Hermosa Way, the existing street network complies with CDC 18.620.020 because local streets are spaced at intervals of no more than 660 feet. In contrast to CDC 18.810.030.H.1, CDC 18.620.020 does not require that the street that satisfies spacing standards be a"full street," so the applicable Tigard Triangle Standard does not require a through street that is extended within the subject site. Therefore, CDC 18.620.020.A.1 does not require the existing segment of SW Elmhurst that is east of SW 72nd Avenue to be extended west across SW 72nd Avenue. VII. Nexus and Rough Proportionality A requirement to dedicate right of way and construct street improvements would require the Project Applicant to dedicate real property and to spend money to complete street improvements. In this case, a street connection would be to a parking lot that does not have a public access easement, so the street would not provide street connectivity. The traffic impact study in support of the Project analyzes traffic in the surrounding area and the Project's projected traffic impacts. Due to the nature of the Project as a cancer treatment center and medical office building, the Project is projected to have low impacts on the existing transportation system. Findings and conditions in the Original Approval, which were not challenged, concluded that due to the minimal traffic impact of the project, no traffic mitigation measures are required. There is no nexus between the Project's nominal transportation system demands and a street connection across the Property that would not serve a connectivity functional purpose. Moreover, the cost of a full public street is not proportional to the Project's marginal impact on the transportation system. Therefore, as an alternative finding for why CDC 18.810.030 and CDC 18.620.020.A.1 do not require the dedication and construction of an east-west street connection fully or partially across the Property, the City finds that such an exaction is not related or proportional to the impact of the Project, so it cannot be required pursuant to TDC 18.620.010.B, and the US and Oregon Constitutions. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825, 107 SCt 3141, 97 LEd2d 677 (1987);Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374, 114 SCt 2309, 129 LEd2d 304 (1994) and Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 US 2588, 133 SCt 2586, 186 LEd2d 697 (2013). Martin's testimony alleges that the issue of nexus and proportionality were not previously raised. Council rejects that claim because the Applicant raised nexus and proportionality issues in February 13, 2017 testimony. - 10 - VIII. Issues that Do Not Provide a Basis to Approve, Deny or Condition the Application Martin's testimony raised many issues and questions that are not specific, are irrelevant, are not directed at any applicable approval criterion or are precluded pursuant to law of the case. Findings must address and respond to specific issues that are relevant to the approval criteria. Specific issues that are relevant to the remand proceeding have been responded to in these findings. To the extent that other issues were raised but are not specifically responded to in these findings, Council finds that those issues do not provide a basis to approve,deny or condition the application because they exceed the limited scope of the remand proceeding, which is limited to the applicability of CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020 to the Project. These remand proceedings are limited to the unresolved issue of findings regarding the Project's compliance with CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020. On remand,pursuant to "law of the case,"the City cannot consider(1) issues presented in the first appeal and rejected by LUBA; and (2) issues which could have been,but were not,raised in the appeal of the Original Decision to LUBA. Specifically, under the doctrine of the "law of the case,"the City Council is not permitted on remand to reconsider issues that have already been addressed and are thus resolved: "The logical corollary is that parties may not raise old, resolved issues again. When the record is reopened at LUBA's direction on remand, the 'new issues' by definition include the remanded issues, but not the issues LUBA affirmed or reversed on their merits, which are old,resolved issues." Beck v. City of Tillamook, 313 Or 148, 153, 831 P2d 678 (1992). LUBA has further held that "resolved issues" include: "(1) [I]ssues presented in the first appeal and rejected by LUBA; and (2) issues which could have been, but were not, raised in the first appeal." Louisiana Pacific v. Umatilla County, 28 Or LUBA 32, 35 (1994). Thus, under these cases, the remand is properly limited to unresolved issues and does not include issues denied by LUBA or issues that could have been but were not raised in the first appeal. The mailed notice advised the public that the City would limit the scope of the remand hearing to the "unresolved" issues of the Project's compliance with CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020. Martin's testimony raises a number of issues that are precluded under law of the case, including: traffic impacts at Dartmouth and SW 72nd and need for additional traffic analysis; arguments related to TTSP, TTURP, Lean Code, CDC 18.810.030.D, F, H.2 and 3 or criteria other than CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020; written and verbal statements and alleged misstatements made before the Planning Commission or City Council prior to the Original Approval; the "best interest" of the Tigard Triangle; alleged damages to the Tigard Triangle or particular properties due to the lack of a street connection; opinions of Tigard staff or consultants; and details or preferences for the alignment of a street extension west of SW 72nd Avenue. These arguments are also irrelevant because they are not directed at the applicability of CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020 to the Project, so they do not provide a basis to approve, deny or condition the application. For example,because the City finds that CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020 do not require a street connection west of SW 72nd Avenue in the vicinity - 11 - of the Property, and that interpretation is not based upon topography or the feasibility of an extension, arguments related to the topography or feasibility of a street connection and preferred routes of the street are irrelevant. - 12 - AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING TIGARD I,Tom McGuire,being first duly sworn/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am an Assistant Community Development Director for the City of Tigard,Washington County,Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropriate Box(es)Bclow} ® NOTICE OF Public Hearing FOR: Review of Revised Findings for the Triangle Medical Office PDR2016-00011 O AMENDED NOTICE— ❑ City of Tigard Community Development Director/Designee ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ® Tigard City Council A copy of the said notice being hereto attached,marked Exhibit "A", and by reference made a part hereof,was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", and by reference made a part hereof, September 26,2017 and deposited in the United States Mail on September 26,2017,postage prepaid. Tom McGuire STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 2 to day of J'f '? r" ,2017. OFFICIAL STAMP SETSY GALICIA h'a !lcTr'IY PUBLIC-OREGON MMiSSjON N0.925741 MY COMM1SSVI C(PIRES MARCH 09,2018 e(q-2/ 2-4 NOTARY 40±41 U LIC OF OREGON d My Commission Expires: 3 )9!1 0 Date of Notice: Tuesday,September 26,2017 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD Notice of City Council Public Hearing Review of Revised Findings for the Triangle Medical Office HEARING TIME AND PLACE: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 6:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. '1'0: Interested Persons Staff Contact: Tom McGuire 503-718-2490 Tomm@Tigard-or.gov Case Number: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR2016-00011, SDR 2016-00007; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.17-07 Case Name: TRIANGLE MEDICAL OFFICE Applicant's Name/Address: Base Camp I, LLC, Brian Bennett, 29080 SW Pete's Mountain Rd, West Linn, OR 97068 Owner's Name/Address: Base Camp I,LLC, 1399 Franklin Blvd,Eugene, OR,97403 kddress of Property: Southwest of the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street; Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington County Tax Map 2S101BA,Tax Lot 00300 At Issue: The City Council approved a Planned Development Review request for the subject site on February 9, 2017. Council's decision was appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA's decision remanded the City's approval back to the city due to inadequate findings addressing how the proposed project complies with Community Development Code (CDC) 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020. Those criteria are the only standards under review by City Council on remand, and the Council's discussion of revised findings at the hearing will be limited to just those criteria. City Council will discuss proposed revisions to the findings and will consider adopting the revised findings. Approval criteria and findings that were not challenged at LUBA are not addressed as part of this proceeding,and the findings in the original decision remain intact. Original Request:The applicant requests concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan review for a 36,000 square foot medical office building on a 3.76 acre vacant parcel located southwest of SW Daitmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue. Proposed site improvements include a single- story building with surface parking taking access indirectly from SW Dartmouth through the adjacent Walmart development. A pedestrian path is proposed through the site from SW 72nd to the Walmart parking lot. A vegetated corridor along the northern property line is partially protected, mitigated, and improved. The entire record, including the original application and previous decisions, are available for inspection at no cost and copies can be made available a reasonable cost. Zone: C-G:general commercial district. Review Criteria Under Consideration on Remand: Community Development Code Sections 18.810.030.H.1 and 18.620.020. City of Tigard,Community Development•13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223 pg. 1 The staff report including the revised findings of fact to be discussed at Council can be obtained at least seven days before the hearing from the Community Development Department, at no cost,at the City of Tigard Permit Center at City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, or by contacting Tom McGuire at the number listed above. Anyone wishing to present written testimony on this action may do so by sending it in writing to Tom McGuire. We need to receive your written comments by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 12,2017, although written comments will be accepted up until the hearing. Please mail or deliver your comments to 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 97223. Include the Case ID Number: PDR2016-00011. Please address your comments to the appropriate staff person: Tom McGuire.Anyone wishing to present oral testimony may do so at the hearing. Appeal Information Should the City Council decide to revise the findings of their previous approval decision as they pertain to Community Development Code (CDC) 18.810.030.H.1 and CDC 18.620.020,that action may be appealed by filing a notice of intent to appeal with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals,according to their procedures,within 21 days from the date of City Council's final decision. Failure to raise any issue regarding this proposal, either in person or in writing prior to the close of the public hearing, or failure to provide testimony or sufficient evidence to allow the City Council to respond to the issue,precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude subsequent appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals or Circuit Court on that issue. Comments directed at the relevant approval criteria (Tigard Development Code) are what constitute relevant evidence. Details regarding the appeal process and requirements are contained within Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.390. Notice to Mortgagee, Lienholder,Vendor, or Seller The Tigard Development Code requires that if you receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser. Assistive Listening Devices and Interpreters: Assistive listening devices are available by request. The city will also endeavor to arrange for a qualified sign language and bilingual interpreters upon request. Please call 503-639-4171, extension 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD — Telecommunications Device for the Deaf). Please make these arrangements at least one week prior to the public hearing. City of Tigard,Community Development 43125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223 pg.2 l' 11` ? '44,01 7110 f 3VICINITY MAP l PDR2016-00011 SDR2016-00007 _ 1193j� Triangle Medical Office y�} I 1935 " Building ::. 1111' 7255 1" - 11945 ,f m ®li, 11915 0 Pte _ • +r 1445945 f 1 1� 1 1441' r ;Y, -17l 915 >, till ni 11945 11945 1 5 �_ 4 w. . 7500 7500 ` ____ 7500 7500 + 500 75007500 - - t r_:, 136 "� 2025 Subject Site �,ki � /ia? > 1?023 , �� x /f ..i;---;i',.1+ ' ,,a 1 716ft7 1 ;a _ orpoi.:41i , L ...... --3-___ 1 .Y. u._,_-: 1 tit 1, � ,'� s �:5 ` , 121 54 1r .� . ■ 1 . " ` •;r. c -"'lrt-1 .,.. tx, __.-�..�_... lam".=j..:7 :r - 1 - ` eLM 3URST ST -1 , '' C- ' '---: 't,„," ' '41/11{•'''••• fr _ . l?;j ff ha Too" . i 7070 < "no°=sw. x000-iw=1e7n .21." i` ■W33 Mian D/ 6 l't 435 w -3-;5:, ,.. tr ' 7315 i� �.: } low Ury gra 1_ yr�. !;:r. 73).5: � '*sik 4D. s _.yl't 13725 SWaOR 9,7227,Baa ;R ltst �ilt _+ �1'- T13oa03W ¢ -• - w,�Y ... • i P�.: e _ lr. : ' wwwsprG'or_9w ilD 4 City of Tigard,Community Development•13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223 pg.3 .0 Mini,l 4.RRRI4.0,4110R4 V ------- ,\ \ t- ) . < —I �g `, 411 ' 5 1 .‘i g* 1. kIlt ,,,? 1i / `4�' r r-i_ ! {t ,jf ~ � . , ....,._ fi 1 , kt 1 0 it ti i ti t I 4--1 ..--) :-----1 J, 01i 2 i I i Fr 1$ Te- r Ili i 11 x . - in a 1 1 1 1 1 ' 'yousitilliimmlissiftlictt — ' ! i! ,a "I 1 Isi_.,._ _,,._ .€.�11_.y._ 4 eI I ____C — i j i 1 1 its,,,,,,;„ _ ' e 1 • • i 1 --• 1 e ; T _____, . , , , ,,, IPI — ci.,f.,. f ✓. . 1 1 Vr 1 fit . • , - :_ 4' i i t .. I 1 i , ii • I j r' ___ .4._. 4 I i _- :- _ ,-- Ili i ---"r-\\\'' 1 I Y I 'f I 1 jf I ... iii to9 �C: 1 i t�� SW T2(�AVENtIE -- � � V TRIANGLE MEDICAL 1.4',..4:.•""44"" ,, .., 8 _<gi + PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN OFFICE BUILDING i %, ♦ i• __ —--_.__ _.—--- TIGA RDOREGON '�" 11'nw"r.wa�a.� wara.:ac� m zw 'aness rrrvsrwrssw II City of Tigard,Community Development•13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223 pg.4 EXHIBIT B 2S101AB90111 2S101AB01607 3 MONKEY PROPERTIES LLC 7540 HERMOSO LLC BY THANIK,SUNIL MGR 7540 SW HERMOSO WAY 12025 SW 70TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 ALBERTSON,BARRY 1S136DCO2504 15445 SW 150TH AVE AMERICAN INDUSTRIES INC TIGARD,OR 97224 1750 NW FRONT AVE STE#106 PORTLAND,OR 97209 2S101AB01100 multiple:2S101BA00300 to 2S101BA00402 BARBARA G BAUER BASE CAMP I LLC 12335 SW 72ND AVE 1399 FRANKLIN BLVD TIGARD,OR 97223 EUGENE,OR 97403 BEACH,DAYLE D.&EVELYN O. BEILKE,SUSAN 11530 SW 72ND AVENUE 11755 SW 114TH PLACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 BEILS 1'LIN,ELLEN 2S101AB02000 14630 SW 139TH AVE BERMAN,JOHN M& TIGARD,OR 97224 SUMMERS,MICHAEL L 7175 SW BEVELAND RD#210 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB01800 BONILLA,NACIA/STASNY,JAMIE BOEHM,GENE G BEATRICE G METROPOLITAN LAND GROUP,LLC 7380 SW HERMOSA WAY 17933 NW EVERGREEN PARKWAY,SUI1L 300 TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97006 BRENNEMAN,HEIDI BUEHNER,GRETCHEN 11680 SW TIGARD DRIVE PO BOX 230268 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97281 CAFFALL,REX CAROL RENAUD 13205 SW VILLAGE GLENN WACO CPO NEWSLE 1"I'LR COORD. TIGARD,OR 97223 OSU EXT.SVC-CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FACULTY 155 NORTH 1ST AVENUE SUI1'L 200 MS48 HILLSBORO,OR 97124 CITY OF TIGARD 2S101AB01403 ATTN: GARY PAGENS LECHER COLWELL,GREGGORY W 13125 SW HALL BLVD. 7435 SW HERMOSO WAY TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DC04600 CONNERY,STACY COMMERCIAL NET LEASE REALTY,INC 12564 SW MAIN STREET 450 S ORANGE AVE,S 1'L 900 TIGARD,OR 97223 ORLANDO,FL 32801 CRAGHEAD,ALEXANDER DEFILIPPIS,VICTOR 12205 SW HALL BOULEVARD 13892 SW BRAYDON CT TIGARD,OR 97223-6210 TIGARD,OR 97224 ENGVALL,ANN 2S101AB00601 15461 SW 82 PL FALL FUN PROPERTIES LLC TIGARD,OR 97224 BY JOHN KUHLMAN 117 RIVER GLEN TER KALAMA,WA 98625 1S136DC03900 FROUDE,BEVERLY FARZA,JAVAD&MAFAR 12200 SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD 7110 SW CLINTON ST TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB00500 2S101AB01602 GARRETT,MEGAN E GIBSON FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 7100 SW ELMHURST ST BY GIBSON,CORNELIA/KLAUS PETER TRS TIGARD,OR 97223 10904 SW PARKWOOD CT WILSONVILLE,OR 97070 2S101AB00600 HADLEY,BONNIE CHAIR CPO 4B GUILLEUX,FEMY 16200 SW PACIFIC HWY SUI 1'E H BOX 242 11424 SE ORIENT DR TIGARD,OR 97224 BORING,OR 97009 HAMILTON,LISA CPO 4B VICE CHAIR multiple:2S101AB00800 to 2S101AB01000 13565 SW BEEF BEND ROAD HAMPTON PARK APARTMENTS LLC TIGARD,OR 97224 BY COOPER'S CHASE LLC 17952 SW PARRISH LN SHERWOOD,OR 97140 2S101AB01603 2S101AB00700 HARLAN,BRIAN&MAI HERAS,MIGUEL RAMON REV LIV TRUS 7270 SW HERMOSO WAY HERAS,ELAINE CLARE REV LIV TRUST TIGARD,OR 97223 12280 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 HERING,J.BLAKE. HOGAN,KEVIN NORRIS BEGGS&SIMPSON 14357 SW 133RD AVENUE 121 SW MORRISON,SUITE 200 TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97204 HOWLAND,HAROLD AND RUTH 2S101AB01401 13145 SW BENISH . INDEPENDENCE GROUP LLC TIGARD,OR 97223 30 INDEPENDENCE AVE LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 KEERINS,PATRICIA KIMMEL,DAVID 15677 SW OREGON ST.APT 209 1335 SW 66TH SUITE 201 TIGARD,OR 97140 PORTLAND,OR 97225 KNAPP,MONA 2S101AB01200 9600 SW FREWING STREET KRANK CONSULTING INC TIGARD,OR 97223 7275 SW HERMOSO WAY TIGARD,OR 97223 LISA HAMILTON CPO 4B VICE-CHAIR LONG,JIM CHAIR,CPO 4M 16200 SW PACIFIC HWY SUIIE H BOX 242 10730 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1 S 136DCO2503 2S 101 AB01402 LURIA,MARK T LYMAN,KYLE M WHEELES,DOYLE E 7395 SW HERMOSO WAY BY PETSMART INC,PROPERTY MGMT TIGARD,OR 97223 19601 N 27TH AVE,4TH FLOOR PHOENIX,AZ 85027 2S101AB01601 1S136DC04000 LYMAN,KYLE M MBG LLC PO BOX 231026 2338 SW MADISON ST TIGARD,OR 97281 PORTLAND,OR 97205 2S101AB01700 2S101AB01606 MICHELS,FRANK S&PATRICIA MIF LLC 7420 SW HERMOSO WAY 7357 SW BEVELAND RD#200 PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 MILDREN,GENE 2S101AB00400 MILDREN DESIGN GROUP MILLER,PRISCILLA 7650 SW BEVELAND ST,STE 120 DIF1'ER,CODY TIGARD,OR 97223 7070 SW ELMHURST ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB01604 2S101AB01300 MISSION INCREASE FOUNDATION INC MM SHINMEN LLC 7357 SW BEVELAND ST#200 24600 SW MOUNTAIN RD TIGARD,OR 97223 WEST LINN,OR 97068 MURDOCK,NATHAN AND ANN NEAL BROWN.GRI 7415 SW SPRUCE STREET MEADOWS INC REALTORS TIGARD,OR 97223 12655 SW NORTH DAKOTA STREET TIGARD,OR 97223 NEWTH,PATTY 2S101AB01900 12180 SW MERESTONE COURT NGUYEN,HOANG TIGARD,OR 97223 TRAN,TAI V&TRINH N 3272 NW 118TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97229 2S101AB00302 2S101AB90121 NORDLING,GEORGE DALE&JOANNE T P S PROPERTIES LLC 6695 SW HYLAND WAY 12017 SW 70TH AVE BEAVERTON,OR 97008 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB00301 2S101AB03200 POOYA LLC RED ROCK BUSINESS ASSOCIATES LLC 1510 6TH ST 23077 SW NEWLAND RD WEST LINN,OR 97068 WILSONVILLE,OR 97070 2S101AB03000 RORMAN,SUE RETAIL SPECIALTY VENTURES LLC 11250 SW 82ND AVE 61067 DESERT ROSE DR TIGARD,OR 97223 LA QUINTA,CA 92253 2S101AB01605 RUEDY,ROBERT ROVIG,CAROLE A 14185 SW 100TH AVENUE 7460 SW HERMOSO WAY TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB01600 SPRING,BRAD SPAAN,HARLOW TWIGHT 7555 SW SPRUCE STREET SORG,N JEFFREY TIGARD,OR 97223 24 AQUINAS LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 STALZER,CHARLIE AND LAME SUNDBERG,ROSS 14781 SW JULIET TERRACE 16382 SW 104TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S101AB00101 multiple:2S101AB00300 to 2S101AB03100 TCCT CAMPBELL LLC TIGARD TRIANGLE PARTNERS LLC BY ADAMS&S 1'EWART CPA 18187 SIERA DR 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 PORTLAND,OR 97219 multiple: 1S136DC04100 to 1S136DC04402 multiple: 2S101AB00200 to 2S101BA00401 TLB LLC TM-COUNTY CENTER TRUST PO BOX 25716 MARTIN,GORDON R TR PORTLAND,OR 97298 BY ADAMS&S 1'EWART 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97219 1 S 136DC04400 2S 101 AB02100 TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE UNITED PACIFIC PROPERTIES LLC 11945 SW 70TH AVE 7157 SW BEVELAND RD,S I 200 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB01404 multiple: 2S101BA00101 to 2S101BA00500 VONRENCHLER,MARVIN J&MARY E WAL-MART REAL ESTA 1'E BUSINESS TR 7475 SW HERMOSO WAY BY PROPERTY TAX DEPT STORE 5935-00 TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 8050 ATTN MS 0555 BENTONVILLE,AR 72716 WEGENER,BRIAN multiple: 1S136CD04300 to 1S136DC04500 9830 SW KIMBERLY DRIVE WINCO FOOD LLC TIGARD,OR 97224 ATTN:TAX DEPARTMENT PO BOX 5756 BOISE,ID 83705 AIS-3296 7• Business Meeting One Meeting Date: 11/07/2017 Length (in minutes): 45 Minutes Agenda Title: Joint meeting with Budget Committee: Forecast and FY 2018-19 Proposed Budget Approach Prepared For: Marty Wine, City Management Submitted By: Marty Wine, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Hear a preview presentation about the future of the City's General Fund. Seek guidance from the Budget Committee about potential approaches for the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Proposed Budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Receive a presentation and briefing about 2018-19 budget assumptions, and give guidance to the City Manager/Budget Officer about approaches to the FY 2018-19 budget for the City's General Fund. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY As with all Oregon local governments, Tigard has to work within a structural limitation in Oregon property tax law that prevents the city's existing revenues from growing with the demands of the community we serve. Regardless of growth, expenditures grow faster than existing revenues in the city's General Fund. This sets up the situation that the level of city services that we provide continues to decline each year. The city has several options to address this situation. One is to seek a local option levy, which is a voter-approved increase in the property tax to fund city operations (such as police, library, parks and recreation, community development services). A Levy and Bond Task Force made up of community members is currently developing a recommendation about this option for the City Council, which will be presented in December. This discussion is an initial conversation for the budget committee to consider assumptions for what future budgets in 2018-19 and future years, and the resulting service levels, will look like if a local option levy is approved. The purpose of this presentation is to also describe the alternative solution, without a local option levy, and the potential impact on city services without an operational levy. Tigard is on a path that results in service levels decreasing by one-third in 10 years. OTHER ALTERNATIVES This is a discussion item designed to gain guidance from the Budget Committee members. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard's Strategic Plan Goal 4 is to fund the vision while maintaining core services, and an objective is to stabilize finances to provide a foundation to build toward the vision. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments No file(s) attached. CITY O F TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done li i " TIGARDN P p,--1 W w '` Fund Forecast and CityGeneral ,.., _ is) a - < Service Level Discussion ® vl w City of Tigard Budget Committee I November 7, 2017 11 OF TIG A R D Goal What is the city's goal for service provision? ► Provide a consistent level of service for the next decade. Polls show that people love living in Tigard. How does this affect building an annual budget with an eye toward the next decade? CITY OF T I G \ R D Impact on Service Levels — Current State Change in Service Level 0.0% 2 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 -5.0% -10.0% -15.0% -20.0% -25.0% -30.0% 35.0% •Service Level-Current Trajectory ► Dollars are a proxy for services. ► The gap between expenses and revenues grows annually. ► In 10 years, that gap represents a 30% decline in service levels. ► If we continue with past practice, this is Tigard's future. CITY 0 F TIG l RI ) I Impact on Service Levels -- Local Option Levy Change in Service Level 0.0% 2 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 -5.0% -10.0% -15.0% -20.0% -25.0% -30.0% -35.0% ��Service Level-Current Trajectory amommoService Level-$1/$1,000 Local Option Levy / With a levy, services can be maintained for 10 years. / A larger levy would be required to add services or enhance existing services. CITY OF TIGARD Impact on Service Levels — Alternative Service Level Trajectory w/o Local Option Levy Change in Service Level 0.0°io :. 5.00/ 20 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 -10.0% -15.0% -20.0% -25.0% -30.0% -35.0% -Service Level-Current Trajectory Service Level-Alternate Trajectory Service Level-$1/$1,000 Local Option Levy What if the loss in services could be reduced? CITY OF TIG ARD Impact on Service Levels — Alternative Service Level Trajectory w/o Local Option Levy Change in Service Level 2 2019 2020 ;21 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 -10.0% -15.0% • -20.0% 25.0% 30.0% -35.0% Service Level-Current Trajectory -Service Level-Alternate Trajectory zeretersService Level-$11$1,000 Local Option Levy / What if the loss in services could be reduced? / A significant reduction in the near future in the number of services provided by Tigard would allow Tigard to maintain remaining service levels as the city grows. t I 1 1 1 ) I A G A R I) Key Concepts Cost growth vs Service growth ► Due to various inflationary factors, Tigard's costs increase approximately 4% per year. The cost increases even when the number of personnel and systems that provide services are unchanged . ► Due to infill and River Terrace, Tigard is growing. ► Based on state forecasts for Washington County through 2025, Tigard will grow by about 1.7% annually. A R D Key Concepts Cost growth vs Service growth ► When the city grows, but the people and systems that provide services do not, service levels will decline. This is our current state. ► When the city can afford to increase costs with inflation plus population, service levels will be constant. ► When the city has sufficient revenue to increase costs faster than inflation plus population, service levels can increase. CITY OF TIG ARD GF Forecast based on FY18 — Current State Costs Grow w/ Inflation only General Fund Forecast Based on FY18 Adopted 60.000.000 - - 50.000.000 - 40.000.000 ... _. 30.000.000 20.000.000 10.000.000 -.. . . . ■ 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 461e (10.000.000) - - m Cash Requirement Reserve as as Emergency Reserve IMMIal Undesignated Reserve Amu.1 Expenditures -Annual Revenues Required EFB for Next Year Expenditures $34M $50M Revenues $34M $47M CITY OF T I G -\ R D GF Forecast based on FY18 — Current State Costs Grow w/ Inflation only General Fund Forecast Based on FY18 Adopted 60,000,000 50.000.000 40.000.000 --- _ 30.000.000 20.000.000 10.000.000 0 • is 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 (10.000.000 Cash Requirement Reserve a-Em ergency Reserve Undesignated Reserve Animal Expenditures � Animal Revenues Required EFB Con Next fear / People and systems that provide services are held constant. / Revenues recognize projected growth in the community. / Expenses grow faster than revenue by about 0.5% ($300K/yr.) / Service levels decline steadily every year. C 1 T Y 0 F T 1 G A R ID GF Forecast based on FY18 — Steady Srvc Level Costs Grow WI Inflation + Population General Fund Forecast Based on FY18 Adopted with Service Growth to Meet Annual _. Population Growth of 1.7% 80.000.000 60,000 000 40,000.000 .._..__. ._ ,..W,. ...-,-..,w..,.�... 20,000,000 _.. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 (20.000.000] (40.000.000) (60.000,000) smassi-Cash Requirement Reserve MIMI Emergency Resenx Undesignated Reserve tea'n 1 Expenditures -Annual Revenues Required EFB for Ne&Year Expenditures $34M $60M Revenues $34M $47M CITY OF TIG GF Forecast based on FY18 — Steady Srvc Level Costs Grow w/ Inflation + Population General Fund Forecast Based on FY18 Adopted with Service Growth to Meet Annual Population Growth of 1.7% 80.000.000 — 60.000.000 40.000.000 20.000.000 0 �....�....�.:..� ...�... _ i• 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2027 2028 ,20.000.000 -_ I {40.000.000 ._.._.. (60,000.000 Ca.6 Req.wmunt Resenro Emngencc Rexn•< l'�ute+�giated Re.e.w .imu�:J Egx�utinue+ —An�u�ul Revenue. Regpu.ed RED Eos Next Yea / People and systems that provide services grow with population. / Revenues recognize projected growth in the community. / Expenses grow faster than revenue by about 2.3% ($1.4M/yr.) / Tigard is unable to afford to maintain service levels. CITY 0 1 T I G \ l: 1 ) Summary of Issues What is the problem we are trying to solve? There is a structural issue in Oregon tax law that prevents existing revenues from growing with the demands of those we serve. Regardless of growth, expenditures will grow faster than existing revenues. Tigard is growing, which allows revenue growth to approach expenditure growth if we do not add personnel or systems to meet that growth. In our current state, services will continue to decline annually. CIT Y OF TIG 1 R 1D One Solution : Local Option Levy Fix the problem with a significant new revenue source ► While Oregon tax law creates the structural problem, it also provides a tool — the Local Option Levy. ► The Local Option Levy is a voter approved increase in property tax rate. ► The Levy needs to return for a vote every 5 years or it will expire. ► Tigard's current rate is $2.5131/$1,000 of assessed value and provides 44% of General Fund revenue. C I T Y OF TIG ARD GF Forecast based on FY18 — Steady Srvc Level Including $1.00/$1,000 Local Option Levy General Fund Forecast Based on FY18 Adopted with Local Option Levy to Meet Service Growth to Meet Annual Population Growth of 1.7% '0.000.000 _ 60.000.000 -- 50.000.000 _...._..... 40.000.000 30,E1ii1iTttIitt 00 20, 00 •2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Cash Regio,mem Res<rve Enstsgency Resen•e Undesignated Reserve Annual Expenditures Annual Resrnues Regsueed EFB foe Next Veal Expenditures $34M $60M Revenues $34M $56M C I T 1' OF T I G 1 R D GF Forecast based on FY18 — Steady Srvc Level Including $1.00/$1,000 Local Option Levy General Fund Forecast Based on FY18 Adopted with Local Option Levy to Meet Service Growth to Meet Annual Population Growth of 1.7% 60.000.000 50.000.000 --- -- - - --- - 40.000.000 --- ----------"-----_... _.__------------ 30.000.000 • 20.000.000 - 10.000.000 o • )015 2016 2017 201$ 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 7024 2075 7076 7027 7025 vrr- t ,-'.:I:,•ru.emel:r I: -nve Enu.gency Reserve a 1'.xlesig.utrd Reserve :\nnu4 Expcsulinin- ..A.uu..1 Revenues Req.u.e.l 1 114 to.Next Yeas / People and systems that provide services grow with population. / Expenses still grow faster than revenue by about 2.3% ($1.4M/yr.) / Reserves built in the first 5 years pay for services in the next 5 yrs. / Budget Committee and Council will need to be fiscally disciplined. CITY OFTIGARD Alternate Solution : Size Service Level to Revenue Fix the problem with a significant reduction in current services Current state results in a 30% erosion in services over the next 10 years. If no significant revenue source is added, is there an alternative that affords a higher service level in 10 years? CITY O h TIG NRD GF Forecast based on FY18 — Steady Srvc Level Based on 2 Year Service Contraction General Fund Forecast Based on FY18 Adopted with Reduced Services That Meet Annual Population Growth of 1.7% 60000,000 50.000.000 _- -- - 40,000.000 - 30.000.000 - -- 20,000.000 - :,000,000 ---- o 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Cash Requirement Reserve ei Emergency Reun-e Undesignated Reserve Expenditures Annual Revenues Required EPB for Neu Year Expenditures $34M $51M Revenues $34M $47M CITY OF TIGARD GF Forecast based on FY18 — Steady Srvc Level Based on 2 Year Service Contraction General Fund Forecast Based on FY18 Adopted with Reduced Services That Meet Annual Population Growth of 1.7% ,000.000 50.000.000 +0000000 _. 10.000.000 20.000.000 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2011 2014 T 2015 2026 2027 2028 .a..n...Cn h Re:;uu e:nen:Reu:.a ��En,nvene,Rr+en r a I'n<le+irnn<ed Re,e,se �.---Ai:n::.d F.lx,utin:,e. :\nnn:,!Revr:u.es Re.nu:ed FEB tn,Next Vex / Remaining people that provide services grow with population. / Expenses still grow faster than revenue by about 2.3% ($1.0M/yr.) / Reserves built in the first 5 years pay for services in the next 5 yrs. / Budget Committee and Council will need to be fiscally disciplined. t i I Y n F TTGARD GF Forecast based on FY18 — Steady Srvc Level Based on 2 Year Service Contraction General Fund Forecast Based on FY18 Adopted with Reduced Services That Meet Annual Population Growth of 1.7% 60.000.000 50.000.000 40.000.000 30.000.000 I— 20.000.000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 T 2077 2028 t •.!:Req:utenum Re.rt,a MOM Enutgencv Resets ti Cn devgnxed Re.n, St:tat d I-.q'et.Ltn te. Annual Revenues e.1 I-PR to Nest Yeas / Service Contraction will need to total 13% - 19%. / This will result in removal of entire lines of business. / Without significant new revenues, the lines of business will not be restored. CITY OTT T I G ,\ R I Summary of Solutions What are our options? Ideally, the community will vote to maintain their quality of life by approving a local option levy. Without a local option levy, Tigard is on a path that results in service levels decreasing by 30% in 10 years. Responsible action now can reduce the service level decrease in future years. t ? I I' I c; A R ID Outcome What is staff recommending for the upcoming budget process? Tigard will prepare a Proposed FY 19 Budget that does not assume the passage of the levy. ► The budget will start significant service reductions. Departments are working on initial cuts of up to 9.5% of current budget. Overall proposed cuts will be less. The budget calendar will be altered so that the Budget Committee will know the outcome of the election prior to budget approval . CITY OF TIG ARD Outcome What is staff recommending for the upcoming budget process? A multi-year timeframe will permit the cuts to be phased in . Tigard will start implementing now using available administrative tools. Administrative tools will be intended to minimize the number of skilled and dedicated public servants who lose their job due to service cuts. I R I) Outcome How does the election impact the budget calendar? Receive your Proposed Budget document by 4/13. 2 Budget Meetings prior to election Election May 15 ► 1-2 Budget Meetings after the election ► Budget Adoption by end of June. t 1 i , t > ! 'F I G ,A R I) Feedback What is the Budget Committee's direction? Are there any questions regarding the problem? Do you agree that finding a service level that can be maintained over 10 years is better than a continually eroding service level that results in worse service in the future? Do you agree with staff's recommendation to start sizing services to available revenues over a multi-year period?