The URL can be used to link to this page

DCA2016-00004 DCA2O16 - 00004 MARIJUANA PLACE REGULATIONS 120 DAYS = N/A III DATE MAILED: 4/19/2017 CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION BY THE CITY COUNCIL Case Numbers: Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2016-00004 Case Name: MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS I Applicant's Name/Address: City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard,OR 97223 Owner's Names/Addresses: N/A I Address of Property: Citywide Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Citywide A Final Decision affirming the Planning Commission's recommendation to keep the current existing regulations pertaining to marijuana facilities,Chapter 18.735 and making no changes to the Development Code. The City of Tigard Planning Commission and City Council reviewed all applicable plans,maps, findings,materials, public comments, and recommendations for the amendments described in further detail in the staff report. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony on March 20. 2017 for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the amendments. The City Council held a public hearing to receive testimony on April 11. 2017 prior to making a decision on the amendments. This decision was based on the facts, findings,and conclusions contained within the record. Subject: A Community Development Code text amendment to consider expansion of the place regulations for marijuana facilities within the City of Tigard. At the April 11, 2017 Tigard City Council public hearing, Council unanimously voted to support the Planning Commission recommendation to keep the current,existing regulations pertaining to marijuana facilitates as provided in Chapter 18.735(DCA2016-00004), and make no changes to the Development Code. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRI FERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement),2 (Land Use Planning), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11,2.1.23,9.1.3 and 9.1.12;and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. Action: ® Approval as Requested ❑ Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper,posted at City Hall and mailed to: ® Affected Government Agencies /1 Interested Parties Final Decision: This is the final decision by the city and is effective on April 11,2017 The record of decision can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) within 21 days according to their procedures. Questions: Call the City of Tigard Community Planning Department at (503) 718-2421 or the City Recorder at (503) 718-2419. MEETING RECORDS Agenda Item: #1 Hearing Date: April 11,2017 Time: 7:30 PM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD SECTION I. SUMMARY CASE NAME: MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS CASE NO.: Development Code Amendment(DCA) DCA2016-00004 PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC) to amend Chapter 18.735, Marijuana Facilities. The purpose of this amendment is to revisit place regulations and propose additional locations where marijuana facilities may occur. APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 ZONES: Citywide LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.23, 9.1.3 and 9.1.12; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390 SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends Option#1 as presented by staff,which is to keep the existing regulations for Marijuana Facilitates,as provided in Chapter 18.735. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the issue of making changes to the city's existing marijuana regulations on March 20, 2017. After listening to public testimony and conducting a spirited discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend no changes be made to the city's existing marijuana regulations (Option #1). A number of issues came out in the Commission's discussion. Some issues that Commissioners wanted the Council to consider include the following: • that the potential tax dollars that would result from expanding the area for marijuana businesses should not even be a considering factor because it sends the wrong message MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 10 • that marijuana businesses may conflict with the goal of having downtown be family friendly and may have an aesthetic impact, (bars on widows, dark doors and windows) especially downtown • there may be no need for additional marijuana shops since the City only has one liquor store to serve the City,and • it is too early to revisit the marijuana regulations, as they were adopted just one year ago and there has not been enough time to know whether the regulations are adequate SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION & PROJECT SUMMARY In November 2014, Oregon became the fourth state in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana. Prior to this, legal marijuana activity was limited to the state medical marijuana program. Below is a brief summary of legislative history on marijuana followed by the proposed changes to the City's marijuana regulations. August 14, 2013 - Governor signs HB3460, which requires the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana dispensaries so that patients could legally purchase medical marijuana. Under this bill, dispensaries cannot be within 1,000 feet of a school, 1,000 feet of another dispensary, and must be located within an industrial, commercial, or mixed-use zone. March 19, 2014— Governor signs SB1531 which authorizes local governments to adopt reasonable regulations regarding the hours of operation; location; and manner in which medical marijuana dispensaries are operated. SB1531 also states that a local jurisdiction may enact an ordinance declaring a one-year moratorium on dispensaries. November 4, 2014 - Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 91 to legalize the use and possession of recreational marijuana on July 1, 2015. The law also directs the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to tax, license, and regulate recreational marijuana through a licensing system to be established by January 2016. The measure did not make any changes to the existing medical marijuana system. April 21,2015- City of Tigard Ordinance No 15-07 was adopted, which established time, place and manner restrictions on Marijuana Facilities through the creation of new chapter in the TDC titled Marijuana Facilities (TDC 17.735), which applied to both medical and recreational marijuana. June 30, 2015 - Governor signs HB3400A which authorizes local government to regulate commercial recreation marijuana regulations; establishes the requirement of a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUGS); recognizes marijuana as a farm crop; requires OLCC to create a seed-to-sale tracking system; and establishes provisions for state and local taxation. HB3400A also prohibits local jurisdictions from requiring a distance buffer of greater than 1,000 feet between stated-licensed retail marijuana facilities. In November 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the spacing requirements between sales- oriented retail and wholesale facilities, reducing it from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet to comply with state law. The City Council also extended the hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., consistent with state law. City Council further directed staff to explore options for relaxing the location regulations for marijuana facilities, particularly in the downtown area and outside of the Pacific Highway corridor. City Council instructed staff to seek input from the downtown business community and developers on whether downtown Tigard is a suitable location for marijuana related businesses. The Council also instructed staff to contact developers and find out if marijuana businesses are a deterrent when considering a project. Staff attended the November City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) meeting to seek direction on whether the City should allow marijuana related business in downtown Tigard. An invitation to this meeting was extended to downtown business owners as well as parties of record from previous marijuana related MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 OF 10 ordinances. Several members of the public and business community attended the meeting and provided written and oral comments, which are discussed under the Public Comments section of this staff report. The CCAC continued the discussion to the next scheduled meeting in December. The December meeting, and the following early January meeting were cancelled due to inclement weather. The CCAC finally met again on January 18, 2017 but did not reach consensus on the topic, though a slight majority were open to changing the regulations for downtown. The CCAC had the following concerns/thoughts: o Proximity to Tigard Street Heritage Trail and plaza o Making sure that downtown has a good mix of businesses, not just one type. Need of an anchor store. o Concentration of"over 21"businesses in one location o Need for City to treat all retail uses fairly (note that other "adult" uses including the liquor store and gun shop are not singled out for restriction) o Design/facade appearance of some marijuana businesses (tacky painted windows,bright colors that don't fit in downtown) o Inability to point to any specific policy or code intention to support restricting this specific type of retail use Staff contacted three developers and heard back from one that reported that they would be reluctant to lease to a marijuana business due to uncertainty about federal policy and bank financing. They also stated that the perception of marijuana business is worse than reality and that the presence of a marijuana business in the area would not deter them from pursuing a good project. Lastly, based on City Council's discussion, staff explored the idea of a buffer from active parks in place of a buffer from the parks and recreation zone in general. A definition of"active park" would need to be provided to clearly identify those parks. Staff believes that this option is too subjective and problematic for applicability purposes. If Council wanted to pursue this option, staff would suggest naming the specific parks from which the buffer would apply. Code Amendment Options Staff presented Planning Commission with four options for amending the place regulations for marijuana facilitates. The four options included: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the Mixed Use-Central Business Distract (MU-CBD) zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public,allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone, and remove the 500-foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone within the MU-CBD zone. The four options considered by Planning Commission are discussed in detail below. Maps depicting the areas affected by Options 2 through 4 are provided as attachments to this staff report. Option 1 Option 1 is no change to the City's current place regulations,which include the following restrictions: Excerpt from TDC 18.735.040 B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying_zone and complies with all applicable requirements of MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 10 this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions.All distances shall be measured at the closest propery lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside ofcity limits;and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. Option 2 Option 2 would eliminate the restriction limiting marijuana sales-oriented retail businesses to properties with frontage onto Pacific Highway and keep all other existing restrictions. Marijuana sales-oriented retail business could occur where sales-oriented retail is a permitted use, provided that all other buffer requirements are met. Sales-oriented retail is permitted outright in Neighborhood Commercial (C-N), General Commercial (C-G), and Mixed Use Commercial (MUC). Retail-oriented sales uses are restricted to size limitations in Community- Commercial (C-C), Professional Commercial (C-P), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) and Mixed Use Employment 1 and 2 (MUE-1 and 2), Mixed Use Residential 1 and 2 (MUR-1 and 2) and Industrial-Park (I-P). The map for Option 2 shows all the areas where a marijuana sales-oriented retail business would be permitted along with all other buffer restrictions. Option 3 Option 3 includes the same modifications as provided in Option 2 but also would allow marijuana businesses in the MU-CBD zone. Allowing marijuana businesses in the MU-CBD zone does not make too much of a change. Due to the buffer from the parks and recreation zone, it only opens up areas southeast of Main Street and Burnham Avenue due. Option 4 This option would remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement, include the MU-CBD zone and only remove the parks and recreation zone buffer within the MU-CBD zone. The removal of the parks and recreation zone buffer would allow marijuana business downtown, specifically on Main Street and Burnham Avenue. However, since Main Street is also restricted due to a school buffer south of Burnham Avenue, only one marijuana business would be permitted on Main Street. Other Jurisdictional Responses To provide a framework for what is considered "reasonable" by other jurisdictions, staff is including a summary of how other cities have chosen to regulate retail marijuana facilities within their cities. Washington County ➢ Limited to hours between 8am and 10pm. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF 10 > Allowed in specified commercial and industrial districts, with square footage limited to 3,000 square feet within the Industrial (IND), General Commercial (GC), and Rural Commercial (R-COM) Land Use Districts. > Minimum 2,000 feet between dispensaries. > Minimum 1,000 feet from a youth-oriented recreation facility owned and operated by Tualatin Hills and Parks Recreations District. City of Beaverton: > Limited to hours between 7am and 10pm. > Limited to three zones: GC (General Commercial), CS (Community Service), and CC (Corridor Commercial). City of Hillsboro: ➢ Limited to hours between 10am and 8pm Monday through Thursday and 10am and 10pm Friday through Sunday. ➢ Limited to three zones: General Industrial (I-G), Station Community Commercial- Station Commercial (SCC-SC) and Station Community Commercial-Multi-Modal (SCC-MM). > Minimum 1,000 feet from another retail facility. ➢ Minimum 2,000 feet between medical dispensaries. ➢ Minimum 1,000 feet from a public plaza or active use park. As used in this paragraph, an active use park includes a public park, which includes features such as playground equipment, athletic courts or fields, active use water features, or skating, or skateboard features. City of McMinnville > Limited to hours between 9am and 9pm. > Limited to two zones: Neighborhood Business (C-1) and General Commercial (C-3). > Minimum 1,000 feet from another retail facility. > Minimum 1,000-foot buffer from a school,public library,aquatic center,and community center. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Section 18.390.060.G establishes standard decision-making procedures for reviewing Type IV applications. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1) The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2) Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3) Any applicable METRO regulations; 4) Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5)Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. FINDING: Findings and conclusions are provided in this section for the applicable listed factors on which the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based. This standard is met. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Statewide Planning Goals, only applicable Statewide Goals are addressed below. Statewide Planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the City's interested parties list.A copy of the same notice was emailed to a list of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 5 OF 10 information and documents were posted to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This goal is met. Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and standards to review changes to the Tigard Development Code in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable state requirements. As discussed within this report, the applicable Development Code process and standards have been applied to the proposed amendment. This goal is met. Statewide Planning Goal 9—Economic Development: This goal seeks to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan Economic Development goals and policies is discussed later in this report under Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 9.1 and associated policies. This goal is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above and the related findings below, staff finds the proposed amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OREGON CANNABIS REGULATIONS ORS 475B.340(2): Notwithstanding ORS 633.738, the governing body of a city or county may adopt ordinances that impose reasonable regulations on the operation of businesses located at premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.070, 475B.090, 475B.100 or 475B.110 if the premises are located in the area subject to the jurisdiction of the city or county, except that the govermng body of a city or county may not adopt an ordinance that prohibits a premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.110 from being located within a distance that is greater than 1,000 feet of another premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.110 FINDING: As detailed in Attachment 1, the proposed amendments establish reasonable restrictions on allowed locations to prevent or mitigate potential off-site community impacts. Because SB1531 does not define the word"reasonable", the amendments are based in part on pre-existing development code restrictions already adopted and enforced within the City of Tigard, or elsewhere across the state and Pacific Northwest. The attached maps showing the geographic extent of the proposed location restrictions indicate that the City can comply with the buffer restrictions, and provide more opportunities to businesses trying to find a location to operate. This requirement is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Oregon Cannabis Regulations (ORS 475B). METRO'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, only applicable Tides are addressed below. Title 8—Compliance Procedures: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This tide has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the City's interested parties list.A copy of the MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 6 OF 10 same notice was emailed to a list of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This title is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff fords that the proposed amendment is consistent with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals and consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Because the Development Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, only applicable comprehensive plan goals and associated policies are addressed below. Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policy 1.1.2: The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the City's interested parties list. A copy of the same notice was emailed to a hst of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing.A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This policy is met. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Policy 2.1.2: The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: As demonstrated in this staff report, the proposed amendments to the Tigard Development Code are consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.3: The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. FINDING: Copies of the proposed amendments were sent to affected agencies and were invited to comment on the proposal, as required by Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures) and discussed in Section V of this report. Comments submitted by affected agencies have been incorporated into this report and the proposed amendments. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.6: The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. FINDING: The proposed amendments will enable greater location flexibility for taxable economic activity to occur within the city. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.11: The City shall adopt regulations and standards to protect public safety and welfare from hazardous conditions related to land use activities. FINDING: The proposed amendments are intended to protect the public welfare by providing for appropriate distance buffer from residential areas and parks in order to prevent or reduce hazards associated with a cash MARIJUANA FACILrIm.S DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 7 OF 10 only business, a product with a strong black market value, and the exposure of a controlled product to minors. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.23 The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. FINDING: The proposed amendments include use regulations and development standards to ensure compatibility between marijuana facilities subject to state licensing or registration, and adjacent development and public facilities. This policy is met. Comprehensive Plan Goal 9: Economic Development Policy 9.1.3 The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities,provided that required infrastructure is made available. FINDING: The proposed text amendments are intended to be flexible and adaptive to the marijuana economy in Oregon, as mvestors try new and unknown business models and the state adopts new regulatory requirements. This flexibility and adaptability is grounded in the regulation of the license or regulation requirement, not the underlying land use classification, and a focus on minimum compliance standards rather than proscribed locations. This policy is met. Policy 9.1.12 The City shall assure economic development promotes other community qualities, such as livability and environmental quality that are necessary for a sustainable economic future. FINDING: As detailed in Attachment 1, the proposed amendments are intended to create minimum compliance standards to prevent or mitigate potential community impacts that could result from marijuana related business activity. This policy is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE Tigard Development Code Section 18.380.020, Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map, states that legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. FINDING: The proposed amendments are legislative in nature. Therefore, the amendment will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the Chapter 18.390. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. This standard is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code. SUMMARY CONCLUSION: As shown in the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed code text and map amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals; the Oregon Cannabis Regulation (475B); Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and the applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS City of Portland, City of Beaverton Cityof Durham, Cityof Lake Oswego, City of Tualatin, City of King City, Washington County, MERO,ODOT, DLCD, DEQ, ODFW, CWS, OLCC, OHA, Beaverton School District, Tigard/Tualatin School District, Tri-Met, , Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Tigard Public Works, Tigard Police Department and Tigard Building Division were notified of the proposed code text amendment but provided no comment. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 8 OF 10 SECTION VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff received written comments that were submitted and oral comments that were provided at the CCAC meeting on November 9, 2016. The matrix below summarizes the oral comments presented at the CCAC meeting: CCAC Meeting Comments Name Comment Darbie Mayberry Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Not good for Tigard's new image downtown o Marijuana businesses are not family friendly o Brings problems/drugs Donald Meyer Pro marijuana just not downtown: o Has seen the negativity of the pipe/smoke shop o Marijuana businesses are not family friendly /place for kids John Widmer Runs a marijuana business and has a rented spaced downtown: (Kaleafa) o Other locations successful and part of community o Would like to be part of downtown Tigard and work with downtown to bring a desirable business o Focus on facts, not perceptions o This businesses doesn't bring the same clientele as the pipe shop Gus Goulet o Works on the IT end for Kaleafa and shop has great security (Kaleafa) o Downtown needs business to draw people in Donna Erdman Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Echo others comments-not family friendly Connie Ramaekers Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Works at TTSD as prevention specialist for youth o OK on Pacific Highway but not a on Main Street o Not family friendly and a place where kids are hanging out o The earlier kids can access a drug the more likely chance for addiction Egor (Kaleafa) o Floor Manager at Kaleafa o Very secure,everyone is TDed o Never sees young kids downtown Tigard o Could bring a younger,more progressive clientele downtown o Clientele is more for medicinal purposes than recreation Chad Cooper Neither for or against regarding Main Street o Is having a difficult time finding space for processing with existing regulations o Providing retail makes it so people don't purchase it illegally Steve DeAngelo o Provided a report for surrounding cities-most reported no adverse impacts of marijuana businesses o Tigard Downtown Affiance meeting-no opposition to marijuana businesses Kaile Aanes o Kaleafa is a family owned business (Kaleafa) o Shouldn't be treated differently than a liquor store o Educate kids that these are for when you are 21+ Myran Bioninger Customer at Kaleafa: o Typical customer is 50-70 years' old o Most people are there for medical purposes o Has seen the neighborhood grow due to a marijuana business MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 9 OF 10 The City received an email from Chad Cooper on October 31, 2016 inquiring about a location for processing marijuana and the lack of areas for this use. Staff suggested Mr. Cooper attend the upcoming CCAC meeting in November to provide input. Emails were received from Bill McMonagle on November 1St, from Dann Black on November 2nd, and from Harvey Elser on November 8th all expressing opposition to changing the existing regulations and allowing marijuana in downtown. Letters were received from Betsy Chick on November 7th and from Darbie Mayberry and Marie Watkins on November 9, all expressing opposition to allowing marijuana downtown. The main concern expressed was that marijuana businesses are not family friendly and can result in an increase in crime, tacky signage, and advertising that does not fit into downtown. Lastly, Steve DeAngelo submitted written comments reporting on regulations from other cities and any reported impacts associated with marijuana business. Mr. DeAngelo stated that the Tigard Downtown Alliance's (IDA) position is neutral. The Planning Commission heard testimony from 15 citizens and one written comment was provided at the public hearing on March 20, 2017. Five citizens spoke in favor of changing the regulations and ten were against changing the place regulations for marijuana facilities. Two additional written comments were submitted from Mr. Marvin and Judith Gerr and Ms. Connie Osbon both expressing opposition to changing the regulations for marijuana facilitates. An email was also received from Mr. Dave Sanders requesting additional information on the discussion and background for this amendment. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 2. Draft Text Amendments. a. Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. b. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. c. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. d. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500-foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. 3. Preliminary Location Maps 4. CCAC Meeting Minutes- 11/9/16 and 1/18/2017 5. Public Comments 6. Draft Planning Commission Minutes—3/20/2017 64 kJ ha+ March 27, 2017 PREPARED BY: /41.4 es Kowacz DATE A' ociate Planner iir March 27, 2017 APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire DATE Assistant Community Development Director MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 04/11/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 10 OF 10 Attachment#1 v City of Tigard March 27, 2017 Council Members: On Monday,March 20, 2017 the Planning Commission considered the proposed legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (IDC), specifically Chapter 18.735,Marijuana Facilities. The following four options were considered: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway(99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale uses open to the public and allow facilities within the MU-CBD zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. Commission's original recommendation on February 9, 2015,was made after significant public testimony and deliberation among commission members. At that time deliberations where lengthy and contentious but ultimately found a solution that all the commissioners were agreeable to. Council made revisions to the adopted legislation November 1,2016 to bring Chapter 18.735 in alignment with state guidelines: specifically related to distance from schools and operating hours. At the time of that decision Council decided to return the legislation to Commission to consider opening up locations within Tigard to Marijuana Facilities. Commission heard public testimony and had additional deliberations discussing the four options on Monday March 20th. Meeting minutes and audio are available that document that discussion. There were two motions presented at the end of the hearing. Votes were taken on the following options: Motion 1: Keep the current, existing regulations [option 1] • Motion 2: Remove the Pacific Highway(99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public [option 2] Motion 1 is unanimously recommended by eight commissioners. Motion 2 did not pass with a vote of 6 to 2. Sincerely, f7:11..„{ Calista Fitzgerald President Tigard Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov Attachment#2a Proposed Amendments- Option#1 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law,with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#2a Proposed Amendments- Option#1 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#2a Proposed Amendments- Option#1 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise,plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ 3 Attachment#2b Proposed Amendments- Option#2 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law,with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#2b Proposed Amendments- Option#2 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#2b Proposed Amendments- Option#2 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W)a public right- of-way. F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise,plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ 3 Attachment#2c Proposed Amendments- Option#3 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law,with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#2c Proposed Amendments- Option#3 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#2c Proposed Amendments- Option#3 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from a public right-of-way.Pacific Highway (Oregon Route °off F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise,plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ 3 Attachment#2d Proposed Amendments- Option#4 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law,with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#2d Proposed Amendments- Option#4 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone, except within the MU-CBD zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone, except within the MU-CBD zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#2d Proposed Amendments- Option#4 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W) a public right- of-way.. F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise,plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ 3 w / Option 2: I RO'G,KM-AN_ST / 'tyq� /�P/ Attachment#3 B / < O Retail Marijuana Facilities: , e<V� o' TA.Y.LO.RS_FER,RY R,D, J / Potential Locations m / J a = Potential Locations a /1( (g _fit : Schools -RD Q- Q :7 1,000 Ft From School Site oI /'Q�cx2 ril � W N, /� 500 Ft From Park Zones& Library J D m Q J Existing Marijuana Facility .40 m I I eJ4- 8 1,000 Ft From Other Marijuana Retailer / Ad164/�`�. / = I —__ `O �"O'L ®MU-CBD Zone �/ �O w 41 - J �.� i GP' HWY. DATA SOURCES: eifio `� _ `� �FE�0 Q U�—––__A–—–� G/�Y- Q Tigard City Boundary Gtyo(T�gard G DISCLAIMER: Washng.County TIGA an I Ow� I C' �� This map wasd ed( everal databazes The City cannot 13115 Southwest Hall Boulevard SGN N QP /' accept respo 'b I'y( y mors.Therefore.there are no Tigard,Oregon 97113 __� 'a(or this product However,any noufcauon o(errors is 503.63 9.4 1 71 N ^ V . appreaated. www.tigard-or.gov Q" _.r R 2 �� I A►. FF,iy, D� in c., *,•- 1 , ,,,.._ — N. -4, GNU. 1 ,,,i ii-÷ , ..,,, .\, ,,,,,i ., RD �5 T. G� I W,A►-N`U T A S / 40. v� �{ • — W NU'� s� A01 ‘<10�� ,#. i m yv z a CNOLL-S_FERRY RD moi.- �. I AL.� S� �� Q �Z� F C1 fJ-' co Tijr 1 LI 0._ ® w j 4,,,s„,:...„ : /.,<1.0 dh' \ j 17 IP 730 v(7 -Lti La I An' %T Q J.1 z I ,J rJ i_11--r,--- si. Ap - 4 N. GAAR.DE SST 'IR' 1 A. M,G.D.O.NA,LD—ST y 1' KRUSE...W,AY� 111114 1 �N I`�—\ j tr t 1, I MEA�DOWS�..R,D 1 BAIL L MO.U.1411 RD 8�, .., lip `V ,fr �!' ,�'d0 , G 0 DOa I TA 'OD r �O N,LT.A—R D B. , 1 lwr UNTQRD QP G ► ONI.T.A_R,D 0 r p, 1 1 Ce L_________J IL re in O �� V _ ^ I. ,OAF` BEEF BSN' DURHAM—RD 1: ,�/ I ce \� rD U,R.M,q./y O, �F�B,E N,D� . / ,c==_, L/ �4p, `O !BEEFBENDRDfRD / I— �� Q i .....e'' v^O ..e":" O 0 <v / ik i Wiii 4t. ► , �,P 0 w jFJ 1 //� cci W I/ r . iii Option 3: RO'C,KM-AN_ST / '�yq� /��/ Attachment#3 B / < Retail Marijuana Facilities: , e<V� o' TA.Y.LO.RS_FER,RY R,D, J / Potential Locations m / J a T Potential Locations a 1( (g _fit Schools -RD in A Q'- Q 1,000 Ft From School Site o �,Q=cx2 ril � :7 500 Ft From Park Zones& Library S o Existing Marijuana Facility m I 3%>� ' I Al, , a. _ 10.#3•>.(4- PR 8 1,000 Ft From Other Marijuana Retailer = co , Q �� _,� pATOL.H,WY. Q MU-CBD Zone Ce 0 ` w *A. I —_J „14 __ Col) DATA SOURCES:- ♦FE�R� Q u,———_�_——, -. G/��1- <i�� Q Tigard City Boundary Citoy,rrgard ?C ` Al G DISCLAIMER: Washngton County TIGA an I Ow� I C,' - 'ed( everal databazes The City cannot 13115 Southwest Hall Boulevard SC'''' CO) Qf ,... 1:77:/..F ' accept respo 'b I'y( y mors.Therefore.there are no la Tigard,Oregon 97113 � 'a(or this product However,any noufcation o(errors is 503.639.4 1 71 N ^ V appreaated. www.tigard-or.gov tt. ,I. l' Q" _.r 2 � V /1/ 1 ,5 , Ad IA 41,0 '.0 Cur \'‘'''**1111140: i ___ <( , A• g5 ' T. � vv* iStT p ,Ori <1° / .. ....-cii L �v / / CC t�O `� o p ,_, I WALN' �—7 � 4%., .6 Y OLLS_FERRY R.D �� '" I I1 ' tr S,T� `i 2� rSCN 1 L / = FR R y iii • 0 -- 443 a it 4,-4 :14F'I olit .23 CO co ,Li.J' \ _I rn Q Z . -- 9-/:IGAAR.DE SST 21 1 �A M,G.D.O.NA,LD—ST y 1'I KRUSE...W,AY� 1 �N I`�— j e. r � I MEADOWS�..R,D 1 B,U,LL.MO.U.N.,A RD 8� * IP dip`V , �!' �Q / 03 r ,�'d0 , c' G DC 5I TA 'OD BOW:IA—RD B. , 1 lwr LINrg RD QP G ► ONI.T.A_R,D .../.. �. r Ce L_________J liJ 4 1 O �� V ^ 44 i ,OAF` BEEF BSN' DURHAM—RD il r - �4 7 / ,c=7._, �� if:, P QEF B,E,N,D�R,D _ BEEF BEND_R,D 6 a I i 1_ ../,f 911 41 , / O c7 ki ►• , �,P 0 k!v Jr I //� Cr I/ r . u; �y r Option 4: RO'GKM-AN_ST / �<< O•4/�� Attachment#3 er ' Retail Marijuana Facilities: , NI, 4-9 p�%�9 TA.Y.LO:RS_FER,RY R,D: J / Potential Locations m / J a Abo........ __ = Potential Locations a 1( o : Schools -RD I- Q- )�� Ak 7::: 1,000 Ft From School Site '", t� _03 Q w7 m a / 500 Ft From Park Zones & Library S J Existing Marijuana Facility m A (V 611 J eiCa' I 9� 8 1,000 Ft From Other Marijuana Retailer I -�-,k _ �P,� Q MU-CBD Zone t R f > IX7-- ,0:._ Col) L�H,WY. ELI DATA SOURCES: Ill .. ..,. L Tigard City Boundary City rngerd T� Ill= C?C F,E R 4 Q G Meir 19 G I =I.i DISCLAIMER: Metro gtoa Cowry ncnen I OV\s I G`*`. Th's map was der ved from several database The C'ry cannot 13135 Southwest Hall Boulevard SGN / W y ' Qf� /' accept responi b'1'ty for any errors Therefore.there are no Tigard,Oregon 97333 / r ■ 'e for thls product.However,any noti0cation of errors Is 503.639.4 1 71 / CI appreoated. www.[ig and-or.go / Q WIPP dr •7 7 r *_ T Z <ieWN, '# - v S. i f eVAl� re O g o _ A/ — ^ wQ�e 474ar Pi o ✓SCN.OLLS_FERRY R,D +�.- • U �S'T//,, Q �� FR Cil Z vi ,u, r_- _.iN, 0 0',..\ ce I II ii Nala Q CO J Z , ___ a N L'h 1 GAARDE N. SST '� M,G.D.O.NA•L-D—ST 9KRUSE 1' --WAYS 1 I`�—\I 4 j it- di IA r tillS, MEA`DOWS�..R`D 1 BULL MDU.N1 tN RD Ufa , .t 0 0 �� , �!'rI ��OVNTQ, RD QP [MITA ' - u BON,LT.A—RD—B.O.N.IT.A_RD �' tti1:1 L____ ,_ Pr* !‘ >7. 1 r .N. ci > > u) < .k. _0 < ix I � H , m G �,9 re IS-2 N° a % irD �� a Big 7 -SP DURHAM—RD ' .�q.Nj � `��L/ / �� F�g,E N:D,R.D 6 BEEF BEND_R.D 6�' �, 4 �� w a I / I �� Q wJO, 4 . 1 ..V co �/ co t2;, iv a J. ik / W 2 2 i-t; JEAN_0Z1 //, rij ../ a I : Az__ Attachment#4 CITY OF TIGARD CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 9, 2016 Members Present: Cameron Anderly, Carine Arendes (Chair),Joyce Casey,Tim Myshak (Alternate), Linli Pao (Vice Chair), Richard Shavey, and Mark Skorupa. Members Absent: Sherrie Devaney, Sarah Villanueva (Ex Officio), and David Walsh. Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly,Economic Development Manager Lloyd Purdy;Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz, and Administrative Specialist Joe Patton. Others Present: Councilor Marland Henderson, Council Liaison to the CCAC and TDA President Steve DeAngelo. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Arendes called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.Joe recorded the roll call. 2. CONSIDER MINUTES The October 12, 2016 CCAC Minutes were approved. 3. MARIJUANA IN THE DOWNTOWN Commissioners discussed whether to allow the sale of marijuana downtown. The TDA has no official recommendation. Before CCAC can make a recommendation, additional information is needed. The topic was unanimously tabled. 4. TIGARD DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE UPDATE/DISCUSSION Steve DeAngelo gave a brief overview of the activities the TDA is involved in and talked about their goals for 2017. Their meetings are taking place on a quarterly basis,which works better than trying to meet monthly. He agreed to meet quarterly with the CCAC. 5. REVIEW DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT Commissioners reviewed the draft Annual Report distributed via email. There were a couple of additional items noted for inclusion. Sean will make the changes and redistribute for review. 6. TOPICS OF INTEREST: RECOMENDATIONS The draft recommendations for CCAC and CCDA consideration were reviewed. Carine noted the suggested changes and thanked Commissioners for their participation. 7. LIAISON REPORTS A. TTAC made their recommendations for discretionary projects for city gas tax CIP funding.Joe will email their one page project prioritization. B. Council made changes to the marijuana regulations to be compliant with the state regulations. Development code amendments were made regarding dog and animal boarding facilities, downtown height limits and affordable housing. The state has committed some lottery funding to the Hunziker industrial core for Wall Street. The TTAC discussed with Council the need for Page 1 of 2 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Attachment#4 November 9, 2016 more transportation funding. Since the gas tax increase did not pass,the previously approved street maintenance fee increase will become effective January 1,2017. The increase will allow additional funding to address the transportation projects backlog. C. Sean noted that CCAC applications are due November 15, 2016. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 pm. Joe Patton, CCAC Meeting Secretary ATTEST: Carine Arendes, Chair Page 2 of 2 Attachment#4 CITY OF TIGARD CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Meeting Minutes January 18, 2017 Members Present: Carine Arendes (Chair),Joyce Casey,Josh Kearney,Tim Myshak, Gloria Pinzon Marin, Kate Rogers, and Sarah Villanueva (Ex Officio). Members Absent: Cameron Anderly, and Richard Shavey. Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly,Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz, and Administrative Specialist Joe Patton. Others Present: Councilor John Goodhouse, Council Liaison to the CCAC, and resident Gus Guelet. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Arendes called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Town Hall Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.Joe recorded the roll call. 2. CONSIDER MINUTES Approval of the November 9, 2016 CCAC Minutes was postponed as a quorum of members from that meeting were not present. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Gus Guelet expressed his support for allowing the sale of marijuana in downtown Tigard. 4. PROJECT UPDATES Sean gave a brief update on ongoing projects,included with the Agenda. 5. SW CORRIDOR NEXT STEPS Sean noted the appointment of a Citizen Advisory Committee to the Southwest Corridor project. It includes Chair Arendes and six other Tigard residents. They will be looking at a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which will take approximately two years. In 2018, a bond measure will be on the ballot to help fund the project. Historically this type of project has been funded 50 percent by the federal government, though with the recent election the potential federal contribution is unclear. The final route through Tigard is pending. If everything goes according to schedule light rail will reach Tigard in 2025. A kickoff event will take place on February 2 in the Library Community Room. 6. HOMELESS TASK FORCE AND DOWNTOWN This topic was postponed until the February meeting. 7. MARIJUANA IN THE DOWNTOWN Agnes briefly discussed the information contained in the Agenda regarding the issue of allowing marijuana facilities in the downtown area. It contained follow-up information requested during the November CCAC meeting. After discussion, Commissioners agreed to convey a list of concerns about downtown siting to the Planning Commission: the retail mix, a concentration of adult businesses in the proposed area,proximity to the Tigard Street Heritage Trail and the park zone buffer, and facade/potential design issues. Page 1 of 2 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Attachment#4 January 18,2017 8. DOWNTOWN STORY MAP Sean shared the City Center Urban Renewal: Past,Present, Future webpage (https://goo.gl/9TPgYY), which will be publicized on Tigard's website and social media accounts soon. 9. CCDA/CCAC JOINT MEETING PLANNING A brief overview of the joint meeting format was given and the Recommendations for CCDA Consideration were reviewed. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 pm. Joe Patton, CCAC Meeting Secretary ATTEST: Carine Arendes, Chair Page 2 of 2 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: Brian Bergmann <bergmannbrian@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 1:31 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Dear council members, thank you for taking the time to read my letter. My name is Brian Bergmann and I've been to every meeting regarding dispensaries. I'm a life long Tigard resident and I've helped setup 2 dispensaries, 1 in Newberg and 1 in Seaside. Both are well visited by the local residents. I meet and talk to these people all the time and they're just regular people like you and me. Some use cannabis for medication and some use it to relax. Its becoming main stream as a better alternative to opiates and alcohol. I've lost 3 family members to cancer and some of them tried cannabis to help their fight against cancer. Whatever the reason people choose to use it they should have access to it. I'm glad that the city has allowed dispensaries to open and I'm glad you changed the 2000ft barrier down to the 1000ft distance. Now as for the zoning and where they are allowed, only on 99W I feel has been to restrictive. If you decide to allow it on Main st then you should allow it in any mixed use commercial or retail area. For instance, Greenburgh Rd, Hall Blvd, 72nd, Durham, Barros rd. If you decide to not allow it on Main st then you definitely should allow it in other MUC or retail zones. Confining it to 99W makes it inconvenient for other residents to get to a cannabis store. It also restricts someone like myself a Tigard resident and cannabis user opportunity to open a store. Finding a location is extremely hard if not impossible and if you open the zoning to other areas where any business can operate then someone like myself can bring a well run cannabis shop to a area of Tigard that currently has none. There has been very little if any crime associated with dispensaries in Oregon. Our stores have strict security measures and we check every persons ID before we allow then to view merchandise. The OHA and the OLCC have done a good job regulating this new and widely popular industry. We've already brought in millions of dollars in tax revenue. Cannabis is a booming industry and our own Earl Blumenauer sees a future where we export our products to the rest of the country like craft beer and Oregon wine. All I ask is a fair opportunity to open a business that clearly people want and enjoy. Please allow dispensaries in any mixed use commercial or retail zone. Thank you for your time, Brian Bergmann. From:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 10:35 AM To: 'Brian Bergmann' Subject: RE: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Ok,you can submit the letter to me and I can pass it along or you can send it directly to the City manager. Thanks, Agnes From: Brian Bergmann [mailto:bergmannbrian@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 10:23 AM 1 To: Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Attachment#5 Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Hi I can't attend the meeting but would like to write a letter to the city council about marijuana dispensaries. Thanks From:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:45:00 PM To: 'Brian Bergmann' Subject: RE: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Brian- There is a CCAC meeting tomorrow night.The City Council meeting has not been scheduled. Please see attached for tomorrow's meeting. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov From: Brian Bergmann [mailto:bergmannbrian@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:44 PM To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK(c>7tigard-or.gov> Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order When is the marijuana on main st city council meeting? From:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:15:28 PM To: Bill Benz; Bob Wilson; Brian Bergmann; Dorothy Cofield; Gus Goulet;Jill Warren;Joel Vermillion; Keith Ashcraft; Paul Jackson; Rick Anderson;Tom Rogers Subject: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Hello- Please see attached final order for case DCA2016-00002 Marijuana Facilities.Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov 2 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: Chad Cooper <chad@chadcooper.info> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 1:51 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST - Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Thank you for your quick reply. I will attend the meeting and will provide some input. Regarding MRX Labs, I see that they are in the restricted zone. Is the restricted zones different from the what is provided in the Marijuana locations map? The building at 7225 SW Bonita Rd (HomeMasters building on the corner) is in the IP zone, but the Marijuana location map lists it in the restricted areas. Is this building allowed for Processing? D < 4.," ' MARK LN v) ilir w ///0 0, 4Q • , ,.. 'ff. A* ,10/• >-- Y Y Cl.. }' S wit Li- 0 +n D s 1 Attachment#5 , — IWO -• ogroti 1 , 71210" )D) eitil j I-L _ ..... R-12 _...., R-7 11 2 Attachment#5 4114h111M k M1.S1♦•T1ee 14104101114 leo A • • F SW Bonita Rd • From: Agnes Kowacz [mailto:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 7:14 AM To: Chad Cooper<chad@chadcooper.info> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Chad- Thanks for your email.The City is in the process of looking into the time, place and manner regulations for marijuana facilities and I would invite you to participate.There will be a meeting on November 9, 2016 at 6:30 at Town Hall regarding marijuana facilities specifically in downtown. In January, there will be a larger discussion pertaining to marijuana facilitates and the whole City. Please see attached. The labs are classified as office I believe and are permitted in the I-P zone, which is the one that you mentioned below. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 3 Attachment#5 Email:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov From: Chad Cooper [mailto:chad@chadcooper.info] Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 9:54 AM To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Thanks for you quick response. This does seem to be extreme for some forms of processing. For example, it seems overkill for a processor who wants to bake cookies. Is there no middle ground? I am also curious about MRX Labs,which has applied to be a licensed Rec.Test lab.Their address is 14775 SW 74th Avenue,which appears to be in the prohibited zone. //, ,.., fis:/*/ L f 0 le 0 //e, . 10 Lastly, I have contacted every property manager who has industrial space available. Not a single one will lease to a marijuana related business.This accounts for every property in the allowed IH or IL zones that are not in prohibited zones. Frankly, after spending upwards of 60+hours seeking a location, I am now convinced that there are no potential properties that 4 Attachment#5 can be leased (or purchased). It may be prudent to modify the Marijuana Facilities map to exclude all of the excluded zones as well.This would have saved me a great deal of time and effort. I have found a number of properties(including a number along 72' ave, and a few in the CBD region), where the owners would approve a lease, but they were in the prohibited zones. I had hoped that I could setup a small kitchen in the MUE property mentioned, but this is also not allowed.As a Tigard resident, I was optimistic that I could find a good location, but I am now modifying my business plan to use a location in Hillsboro, which has much more available industrial space. It's my opinion,that the concern over diversion and safety has been exaggerated. It seems a bit hypocritical that Max brew pub can brew beer in the CBD, and allows minors into his establishment,yet there are heavy restrictions for a processor,who has to have a highly secured building, with cloud based video surveillance, high tech alarm systems, panic buttons, badge access with audit logs, and restriction of anyone who is not a state certified Marijuana worker, regular inspections by state inspectors from OLCC, and state managed electronic tracking of every single gram of produce. Its silly to think that a business would make this investment,then divert product, when anyone can go to a local retailer and buy what they like. More importantly, "diverting" product to a retail store would be far more profitable, legal, and sane. Thanks, Chad Cooper From:Agnes Kowacz [mailto:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:42 PM To: Chad Cooper<chad@chadcooper.info> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Hi Chad- Marijuana processing is considered a general industrial use,which is permitted only in the I-L and I-H zone.Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: AgnesK@tigard-or.gov From: Chad Cooper [mailto:chad@chadcooper.info] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:56 AM To:#CD PoD <CDPoD@tigard-or.gov> Subject: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Hi, I am inquiring about the suitability of this property, which is a residential home being sold as a commercial property in the Tigard Triangle. Is a marijuana processing company allowed at this location? I cannot find any info on this this zone type both for county (2210) and Tigard (MUE). It is outside the prohibited areas for non-retail marijuana businesses allowed by Tigard. 5 Attachment#5 Thanks, Chad Cooper 503-332-4223 2S101AB00601 General Property Information Site Address: 7130 SW ELMHURST ST. TIGARD OR, 97223 Tax Lot ID: 2S101AB00601 Property Account ID: R457044, Property Classification: 2210 - - See full list of Codes Neighborhood Code: ZTGL Latitude/ Longitude: 45.4313510 / 122.750233 Overlay Information 2S101AB00601 Jurisdiction: Tigard City Zoning (updated 9/2016): MUE (confirm with Tigard City Planning department) Within Urban Growth Boundary: Yes Within Metro's Urban Service Area (*Updated June Yes 30th each calendar year): In Urban Road Maintenance District (*Updated June No 30th each calendar year): In Urban Road Maintenance District (*Updated June No 30th each calendar year): In ESPD (*Updated June 30th each calendar year): No Ground Water Resouce Area: Not located within a Ground Water Resource Area SDL Assement Area/zone: Not in an Assesment Area. Sanitation District (*Updated June 30th each calendar CWS year): Water District (*Updated June 30th each calendar TVW year): Fire District (*Updated June 30th each calendar TVFR year): Fire Management Zone: 6090 Park District: Not In Park District North Bethany Plan Area: Not in North Bethany Sub Area School District (*Updated 06/30/2012): TIGARD-TUALATIN Election Precinct: 406 Commissioner District: 3- Roy Rogers Assessor Area: 0 Citizen Participation Org: CPO4M Community Plan Map: COUNTY Historic & Cultural Resource Inventory: Not located within a Historic and Cultural Resource Inventory Area POD Date Zoned: POD:1-9/9/59 ODOT District: 2B Plat: Property is not part of a subdivision Census Tract: 030700 Census Block: 1022 Census Blockgroup: 1 Census Geoid: 410670307001022 Zipcode: 97223 Garbage Hauler: Pride Disposal (503) 625-6177 Garbage Dropbox: Pride Disposal (503) 625-6177 Thomas Brothers Guide: Page: 655 - Grid: G4 6 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: Sean Farrelly Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:45 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: FW: Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations Here's a public comment Sean Farrelly Redevelopment Project Manager City of Tigard/City Center Development Agency 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503'7I8'2420 From: Bill McMonagle [mai|to:biU@h'mczom] Sent:Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:04 PM To: Sean Farrelly Subject: RE: Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations THE ONLY REASON THE STATE IS IN THE "MARY JANE" BUSINESS IS FOR THE MONEY AND IF THAT IS TIGARDS PURPOSE THEN THE LEADERS OF TIGARD SHOULD BE PUT IN A PILLARY ON MAIN STREET. BILL MC From: Dnwntnwnupdates [mail1o:dcwnUow |ists.hgd!d'or.gov] OmBahalf Of Sean Farrelly Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:54 PM To: 'downtuwnuodotes@|ists.tigand'ur.gov' Subject: [Downtownupdates] Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations Hello- Downtown stakeholders are invited to comment on potential changes to marijuana regulations in Downtown Tigard.The meeting will be held prior to a meeting of the City Center Advisory Commission on: Wednesday, November 9 6:30-7:00 PM Tigard Town Hall, 13125SVVHall Blvd. Sean Farrelly Redevelopment Project Manager City of Tigard/City Center Development Agency 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503'718-2420 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: Dann Black <dblack@fsconsults.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:59 PM To: Lloyd Purdy Cc: Agnes Kowacz Subject: RE: Pot Shop on Main Thanks Lloyd. To:Tigard City Council I am a local business owner who specifically moved my Software Technology Recruiting Company to Main Street in 2013 because of the Main Street revitalization efforts and family friendly street frontage. We have world class software engineers from all over the West Coast visit our office on Main Street to see our office and we often take them for a cup of coffee or microbrew after they see our office. A huge part of our business that separates us from our competition is the "community feel"that embrace from being on Main Street which has helped us become the#12 Fastest Growing Private Company in Oregon last year. My entire office staff is against having any Marijuana sales happen on Main Street. There are already plenty of Marijuana sales locations up and down 99. Having paid people dressed as clowns at either end of Main Street spinning those signs advertising"$5k weed just down Main Street" would completely ruin the experience that has been created on Main Street. (THIS WILL HAPPEN IF THE WEED SHOP OPENS ON MAIN just like it happens now at the top of 99 near 1-5) Dann Black CEO Future State Consulting 154 to\> FUTURE STATE CONSULTING IDENTIFY • CONNECT • UNITE Dann Black 12c2=sAi.mow s, Principal Tg OF 97223 J A dblack a'fsconsults.com www.fsconwks.com www.f atebook.com/fsconsults From: Lloyd Purdy [mailto:LloydP@tigard-or.gov] Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:25 AM To: Dann Black<dblack@fsconsults.com> Cc:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: Pot Shop on Main Dann, 1 Attachment#5 You can provide written testimony to Agnes Kowacz, she's cc'd on this email. She is the city planner managing this project. She will share any written comments with City Council. Lloyd Purdy Economic Development Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 503.718.2442 Ilovdp@tigard-or.gov From: Dann Black [mailto:dblack@fsconsults.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 9:29 AM To: Lloyd Purdy Subject: Pot Shop on Main Lloyd, Nice seeing you this morning. Did that information card about the Wednesday Pot Shop meeting next week include any of the committee members? I have a client meeting and will not be able to attend next week but would like to give an opinion to the committee or person in charge of making the decision about Marijuana on Main. Do you know who that is? -Dann FUTURE STATE CONSULTING HELPING ORGANIZATIONS IDENTIFY AND ACQUIRE TALENT Dann Black 12525 SW Main St. Principal Tigard, OR 97223 USA dblack a(�fsconsults.com www.fsconsults.com Office:503.567.8283 www.facebook.com/fsconsults Mobile:503.502.6813 The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential,privileged and protected from disclosure. This email is intended solely for the addressee(s)and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you think that you have received this email in error,please notify the sender by reply email or by telephone, and immediately delete all copies of the email and any attachments from your system. DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 Attachment#5 -cli Le: .;---�fauDfi-2., '_-__6.- 0/6- 13 -_ - __ - - - _____. -- - - - /�u ~ � �� / / � �m� -eitr0ulaard - - - Administr , ~' __-_----__-_�-___ ..._...__________Z:595_ZZ)___Cri;c1/ -------------' -�a�- -- - -- - - ----__'.___'__-_' - � � - - - - �� _.�' -_222ii/ - �^�� ..Yre,e-42.,?. 2S/'e_,h ,__-.1 Y-e-y-tkp,.5Zrza4 /:.. pt. Lii. . ---5----' -------'---- of h_l_v_in4 el__YI9gal&taAcY_La&p, . _f2f). /?.<1; 2 („5-1,e ,Zi_ -- - — — gfic-r_ Ynaerw-A. p,,L722 /4/. .,_ .m:v.v4 cie.p/&:ts_).. _4:::y4d_ 590 (Woe2._atl _ile24,L,...sleflaork _W. --..ezdiesj.bi--,.. ... ' _c_nti.C-6 Cik22>V1-1--n.:ZA1- ) b4;:lr_ci .1-S eva*. ikecz,y)..21752,? fvaii21,-__Feie-272div: - � ' - -av2---c:- fpg.,40.._104. -� k --- --~~--�J------ - - - ' -_____- - -- -- - - _-- -- -- __ _ ----' „ _ - ---- ilyIllae.. .,_ 44-/..5i _. _hai •-5ii-vvAl 4aefaer2 a'~i ,,bc. fyr wy2t,e.__,..yftrapiLlle- elkyy2„ ".61;y2 6i_J- ..,,Z . ____ _ - __ _ - - - _- -- - ---- � -_ _ �� (3414, 31) x' �� _� r~--~-="� ~~~�~~- ^^�' - - -- --'- Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: jhelser1@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 3:05 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Marijuana sales on Main Street Dann Black suggested that you could read the following at the advisory commission meeting. Thanks From: Harvey Elser, owner of the former CARQUEST building at 12175 Main Street, Home: 23900 SW Mountain Creek Rd, Sherwood, OR To: City Center Advisory Commission, City of Tigard I would like to have been present at your meeting this evening but due to health problems I could not attend. First of all I am 100% against making any changes to the current regulations forbidding marijuana facilities on Main Street. Keep in mind that prior to marijuana being legalized for recreational use, the City was on track with it's attitude to make downtown Tigard a friendly family experience for a trip to Main Street without our young children's parents being questioned about controversial societal influence. I am the owner of the former CARQUEST building, just across from the Post Office. I see traffic congestion and an accident prone area with cars coming and going from the post office parking. I ask you why would we want to import any more traffic to downtown Tigard's Main Street? 1 Attachment#5 MARIJUANA 9, ON MAIN STREET Public Comment Name:aitpie aQ -0r5 Email / Phone: 503 - 31a - O ? 5/ Comment: Z- -71)i x.k I a vri ( `/v .71-0 k VIo1 (-�! e oc h1614- ( z , • J 451 A-w.vt.& , Malik et, 0 GI Would you like a response? Date: 11/9/2016 Yes No Event: Marijuana on Main w, -L_ ■ALB. F•1 J- TIGARD NMISII N OW E,■ _ II.m la Attachment#5 ,64, From TIGARD CLEANERS 12519 SW Main • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.2000 eco ry c\aes-,e. • +=b: “Nk Pco II C ' c c \ 't"s- c vJ kma o N c'` c-A\r.) mac- t' (-0 `\ )/.? L�� uce_, O,\\ uocA<N C� � \Oti a p\cA.Le. to & o u ‘,N )-\U -R`so ne, \ate oc- k;A c s— y ,r, 11 oC4 \ac \�' C7\\i “\a' R svee\- c-,ec,c.)t(A ec\v\of t,3 ^Nez\t- , ox,c) CAV C© s €, McAc kArc CvcA -K-LAXea0 g\i a cNO l,OCA A-VN) C SCAN/- moo`,. S .vU wes,„ `S..00 `4 Ccve ems,rime' Nrc-vCo..1 . vo e a\\ \ "k-, u e, c3\c)\-- 0 swear- 0-Na oyoa F�� P�'�b\e�c_�\\\ cvc.e.. G\o .J-\\�\ Via - we� 0 e\\e\- - o\ cue, � fl, , u)`'n`\.e- e a te„)e ��,� �� ccAc eA '�r av u.YA c\, P p�.�cyk ,e � \�� es, s o c�-eO UNC; c\eo s do ‘N-J-6- <,<-.6 i-e.- dc--LA.c�\s W-2 �v G t1� c� S-�e � -o \tee o• sckc'€ LA)s\ c-c-,v (\, eA\i) Or v cv t'c1 evOr Victc-\O'•e_ c'cict ci ,CJ eL'"c-s/ Attachment#5 MARIJUANA 9 ON MAIN STREET it Public Comment Name: - 1n-YZ 1 Email / Phone: rv,,3c,--14A n5CaE-t t , or.us Comment: R.,e_yr-dam c`' 21)`�"� \O-NA CAS. X�cel rt cOors(-1 tel.ods b� tee rtioi- ou-V c ow-v cx)& a_5-c3 \ - ctct� -4-v i4 a � --"D6wryw r—\':5arKi 5 s Would you like a response? 1N005 ��" p '4- ` Yes No p-o-\ .e—N" Date: 11/9/2016 \3 \ p , Event: Marijuana on Main *OVACCV Routed to: TIGARD gem ® . fff■ B,® Wags • S-�C,v Beal Attachment 5 Marijuana on Main report from the TDA What we have done thus far as outreach: 1. Reached out to the OMS network and asked what impacts these types of businesses had in downtowns- Review comments 2. Sent an e blast to our stakeholder group (weeds & treats)- 39% open rate of data base of 425 3.Hosted a recent Downtown Dialogue where this issue was discussed- No opposition noted Asked attendees to join in the discussion tonight 4.Joint Chamber statewide meeting recap (Debi's report) Legislative panel report (who were part of the Joint Committee that wrote the OLCC regulations) discussed - customer make up — look like the general populace, you and me, high traffic counts, high level of professionalism of operators/owners —running it like a business, due to the complexities of the regulations with the OLCC and state and what is at stake, they must be on top of their game as business owners, very entrepreneurial. Also, noted these individuals want to be part of the business community. Their biggest challenge is at a Federal level they can't bank making it a cash business. This could make them a target of crime. OLCC has worked very hard from a taxing and regulation perspective to enable price points that would eliminate the black market. Side Note: I Spoke with Pd in regards to increased crime with these types of businesses- No issues to report at present. Bottom Line- it is difficult to connect with EVERY business Owner& Property owner on this and other important topics. So - at this point neutrality is our position. HOWEVER: The expectations of the TDA will be an information conduit to our stakeholder groups through the communication tools mentioned above will be continued. Attach t#5 J , t J PQ s`J Lc�1% City/District Comment , 4 I - p,vssgP StaytonThere is one medical dispensary here on Third Ave (our"Main St"). It is one of the few f\ successful retail establishments in the downtown. There have been no adverse impacts. 1Cfalls )Klamath Falls voted down the effort to allow recreational sales last May. We are taking the wait 2\ d-see approach. /Dallas,Commercial marijuana sales are against our zoning codes here in Dallas as our codes specify that `� h uses can not violate Federal law. Thus,we have no commercial sales operations here, either \\\ ,,`� \ medical or recreational. That is our current stance on the situation but obviously this is still an evolving story all over Oregon. Brian The Mayor 1.)-- ()Ak2V cii,/ Albany Although it is legal in Oregon, it is not legal in our city/county(Albany)yet. Only_ymmedical Q fevi Ai>"" marijuana is available. We will see come November election as recreational sales are up for a vote. 14U ),) I too will be interested then. jv ' <fil ,/" Roseburg Yes we have one and it is very welcomed as the security keeps all mischief from iv l happening. We have not had any negative yth area, it is across the street from our historic district. McMinvIle Pretty much our entire downtown is located within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare so 3 we do not have this issue to be concerned about. Port Orford We have one in our district in Port Orford -responsible business and filled an empty \ ' building. _ �� 06. t ,--,, .v1 ilk, `° . . ... ( 3.5, ,_c_ e ,.- _ „,,,, 2 , , of0 . • /I l',.. . 7 • - ,t// N 5 , t ,'1 t, ; ti,_ i�f �` v A 1 'G ` Attachment#5 Dayton Thanks everyone,this has been enlightening and great info. Dayton hasn't come across this, as everywhere in our downtown is within 1000 feet of a school. However, if the outskirts ever experience this type of business,there won't be a fear about it. La Grande La Grande has 2 medical dispensaries and no negative impact what so ever. One of them f is a great member and supporter for our Main Street program. \ID The vast majority of worries/complaints come from people who don't take the time to talk to these businesses and get to know them and what they do in my opinion. Cottage Grove Cottage Grove has 4 dispensaries. In the beginning there were concerns raised by the 1c_ surrounding business owners, I think it was mainly out of fear.We have had no problems or complaints since and none based on consumers actions. We have no dispensaries, medicinal or recreational, on our Historic Main Street. Only because they have not rented space, if they did it would be a retail facility only. We also have a seed grower and a processor in Cottage Grove and medicinal growing is allowed through the city. Let me know if you have any questions. Attachment#5 Option 4:Remove the Pacific Highway(99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public,allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone, LOCATION: Citywide.APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement),2 (Land Use Planning),and 9 (Economic Development);ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRC)'s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2,2.1.2, 2.1.3,2.1.6,2.1.11,2.1.23,9.1.3 and 9.1.12; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. '7. BRIEFING—TIGARD TRIANGLE CODE&REZONE 8:45 p.m. 8. OTHER BUSINESS 945 P.m. 'XL ef.-6:k.z.C.A... -CL I C-CA---.1/1.VA C.)-1t." -.5' i--o—A,,dA *0 9. ADJOURNMENT 9:5°P- - vre, mC..i I i • , ., , i „ , ,...i. rY1 4 .,,,,,)V-I-Vit--CAl. -,<,:..-reA-74.-*•<';'r("1-e-tr-`,. I, -i—D b,,....,-_, _. D‘ \ ,I ui,... ,Ark,\'V .tf,CA CX_erh c;:._...i in.5+-- (.2_,7-15.4. ,,s-ctivagA *CA-9-- , ) .--1 nn.6":•-•-•ir"' 1 /1.4::%--,1(\.,C-,_ Ir---.-e .6,,,cLA.A,1%...-1-1c--;--vv-5, 1,, (,) 4;-- („tic-, 416 6ct (-_. ,i +1, z:-;100--1- Ioc::utrl- 't-- a.dv.v_(-k •ShicrIlitIci 1/....)0ii V- Si-Ottiee61 , \, , ' rik 64 Ai-AZ_ el-CYr UX(..t/tri---• vA CriA7j1", ---) 3r0 ei-ir I Vt.0301/4/C.E.;(/ uo'l j' • ,:' ,-;:' . I -, , 1 1 I A 4-.)itArLAA,-.) :'2 v Lekdkfc.: (A, --(:1 v-yllA, -2_evo .7t-)0V. c-v , ( -11, , -,d,- i .i• 1 e•-3;,e.iLk. tiack_i,--i 1 1/47A-iv\,(A., Lk) t 1-1(1.Oil i k ' "1011 (1 101,"'")+,1,Af 1, ..tj'A''1Vmc e' 4:)'I"' c1 ? / ;t 6;rtilt ? f-l‘; 014,,,. iDA'reP/VV,h-. 1 ---Ezei --16-t--it---) e',30/1-46. l'A' VW \i''./i-e()it OLIAA Crilelciii 4,1:jr FA1.1-4:- P IA ,-, Lj . ,'- 1,_ l) COL ('--- LAUSLALl" V? * ..,-,i 0,...... ef- e. 2.... c'v,:ive... 2\-0 ekclix._,14--.4) 1-Aj)kLii) ,,d/iir) \te -H- ov o f 1 \ c-N__ 1; _ .,111, 1 D\ 2- .-\-14.ad- 101A.- (2-- p ( *1. C) ' I :rt-- *°A- V•flic• i,:::p -i1/LP___ 4,-- (..44,-(-1..'f'.4`A.::.t.—t i.Z.,,,,;•4'‘c-,-;-11 V\,, 1 ri.tf,t-1,A-4.44......)‘ ‘oyi,< - li \i'Ls.-,,,s_A .-. 1,,y),-.).-,,ik._ --t--0-1,,,••• tp,i3,14 37_, 4( 1 (... („--f.s\ ‘ C., I-I D'Ul Ce..-;") • I ,..- --, — r ok- f i C-D-- ?) -7 'E.0 --r Lk) 5'..-)- 2_, ‘ (-) t , —n LA c,-(.. .)._,,v-6-it 1 c-)ra 61-1 ,7„-„'() r......, 1, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA-March 2017 City of Tigard I . SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 2 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:07 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: FW: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed (see below) Council is receiving letters -- ok to acknowledge their receipt and mention April 11? -Joanne From:Carol Krager Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:06 PM To:Joanne Bengtson<joanne@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Check with Agnes; she is probably collecting testimony. Carol From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:03 PM To: Carol Krager Subject: RE: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits So should I reply that it's been added to the public record for discussion on April 11? From: Carol Krager Sent:Tuesday, March 21,2017 1:02 PM To:Joanne Bengtson<joanne@tigard-or.gov> Cc: Kelly Burgoyne<KellvB@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Yes, it is on for April 11. Just went to Planning Commission. Carol From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:02 PM To: Carol Krager; Kelly Burgoyne Subject: FW: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits 1_s this on an upcoming council agenda? i Attachment#5 From:Connie o [mailto:oconnieo@frontier.com] Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:08 PM To:John Cook<MayorCook@tigard-or.gov> Cc:oconnieo<oconnieo@frontier.com> Subject: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Mr. Mayor and City Council/Committee Members: I urge the City of Tigard to maintain the prohibition of marijuana sales/stores once again. There are plenty of these stores in the Portland metro boundaries at present and most likely just up Barbur Blvd. Into the city limits from downtown Tigard. . Statistics recently aired on local news stated vehicular incidences. including deaths have increased substantially over Year over year since states have approved sales both medicinal and pleasure. . That annual stat was already bad enough with DUll's. I am not naive to think marijuana is only used by itself, though sometimes it is. I also cite a deadly vehicle impact in Vancouver 5 days after Washington State approved mj purchasing there. Naturally the mj driver had been using all day; strangely he was not the one to die from the impact. Washington State didn't even have driving while impaired guidelines yet to charge the negligent driver. As past coordinator for Parent In Crisis in Beaverton, I speak from a position no parent wants to have to deal with In the death of my son, who was killed in such a deadly auto impact at age 17. He was a passenger in a car where the driver, also 17, was on marijuana and cocaine. Of 5 kids in 2 cars, he was the only one killed. But 1 is enough. Adolescents get ahold of marijuana just like alcohol. Why make it easier for them? It is bad enough with more Rampant adult usage. s/Connie Osbon 503 431-6994 9655 SW N Dakota St. 97223 DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 Attachment#5 Agnes Kowacz From: marvin.gerr18@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 8:22 AM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Re: Marijuana Hello Agnes Thanks for getting back to me. As I said in my voicemail,as residents of the City of Tigard, my wife and both feel that all future retail sales outlets for marijuana in the City of Tigard must be limited to the 99W corridor. There should be no change to the current rules regarding the placement of retail marijuana locations. Marvin &Judith Gerr 15432 SW 114th Court Unit 84 TIGARD Oregon 97224 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 23, 2017, at 6:37 AM,Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov>wrote: Hi Marvin- Thanks for your voicemail and comments. I just wanted to reach out to you and let you know that I got your voicemail. If you would like to reply back to this email and provide written comments that would be helpful. I will be sure to pass these onto our City Council.Thanks again and look forward to hearing back from you! Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 1 Attachment#6 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Meeting Minutes March 20, 2017 CALL TO ORDER President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Fitzgerald Vice President Feeney Commissioner Hu Commissioner Jackson Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner McDowell Commissioner Middaugh Commissioner Schmidt Absent: Alt. Commissioner Mooney; Commissioner Fahr Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Monica Bilodeau,Associate Planner; Principal Engineer Khoi Le;Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz; Sr. Planner, Susan Shanks COMMUNICATIONS —None. CONSIDER MINUTES February 27, 2017 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the February 27 minutes. RIVER TERRACE PARK-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00015 SUBDIVISION REVIEW SUB2016-00012; SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR2016-00010 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP2016-00010;TEMPORARY USE PERMITS TUP2016-00024 THRU 00028;MISCELLANEOUS MIS2017-00001 REQUEST:The applicant requests a 158-unit single family residential planned development with concurrent concept and detailed plan review, subdivision review, sensitive lands adopted by the City.The site is 28.5 acres and located south of Bull Mountain Road and east of Roy Rogers. LOCATION: Directly south of Arbor Pointe and Meyers Farm subdivision;west of SW 161st Avenue. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING President Fitzgerald opened the public hearing. March 20, 2017 Page 1 of 16 Attachment#6 QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Fitzgerald read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions or conflicts of interest. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Lieuallen and Feeney. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Staff reports are available on-line on the City website one week prior to public hearings. Associate Planner Monica Bilodeau introduced herself and advised the commissioners that the department is recommending approval of the project. She went over a slide that showed the concept plan and detailed plan maps next to each other. The project is located west of SW 161st Ave. and directly east of the approved River Terrace Edge development. She summarized the project— "The applicant proposes 158 units, single-family detached development located on approximately 28 1/2 acres. The project is proposing amenities including almost a 1/2 acre of public park and trails that will connect to the neighborhood park located on River Terrace Edge. There are also about 2 acres of significant tree grove that will be preserved and 1.67 acres of stormwater detention facility. No formal comments were received from the public although we were informed later this evening that the applicant would like to submit some additional conditions into the record. Staff has reviewed those and we would like to discuss those and make some potential changes after the applicant has a chance to speak to those. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ann Verdadero with Polygon Homes, noted that River Terrace Park is Polygon's tenth neighborhood at the River Terrace master plan. River Terrace Park will be host to the seventh neighborhood park to complete the community plan. Development will occur following the construction of their neighborhood to the west— known as the Baggenstos site, expected in 2018. Jim Lange, Pacific Community Design, walked the commissioners through the plan. He said that they'll build up from the community plan —the different layers and end up with the site plan. He spoke about the water mains and the interest on the city's part of connecting a loop all the way over to 150th so they will be running those through to the east side. There is a significant tree grove on the inventory. They are preserving that—it's a wetland and it is connected to the stream corridor and through this project and River Terrace Edge they are strengthening that connection and preserving trees. He said the play area in the park would have "nature play" i.e. using teeter totters, logs, having a natural looking play area—not using neon colored play structures. He spoke about a trail on the south side that loops back up to the road so that people can walk all around the area. The nature trail path coming up from the lower elevation will tie into that—giving a really nice walking path. The zoning map is R-7 & R-12. As in previous applications, they are seeking to achieve that through a planned development and have a hierarchy of product rather than two. On the flattest March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 16 Attachment#6 part of the site there's a block of alley loaded single family detached homes and the remainder of the site is a mixture of standard front loaded homes characterized as medium, standards, and larges —having to do with how wide the lots are. There's a range of architectural styles, elevations, etc. It will not be monotonous and the goal is that the architectural integrity of the house style is met. Mr. Lange distributed a memo dated March 20 (Exhibit B) requesting some Conditions of Approval to address concerns of the Stanley family who will be retaining parcel 2 of the partition application: 1. Have an easement over Tract H (already noted on the application, and they asked us to make that very clear.) 2. The final tree canopy planting plan shall remove tree #9208. (We got a little happy with our "tree stamp" and put a tree in the middle of the driveway that they will be accessing their lot from. 3. No PUE shall be required on Parcel 2 of the partition plat. (On the partition plat, but no other drawing, we had a dashed line that makes it look like we were requesting a PUE — that was in error. Parcel 2 of the partition is not part of the subdivision and it doesn't need to make its PUE dedications now—if they ever develop, they could do it then. 4. Was our attempt to provide a mechanism so that they get a chance to review our retaining wall designs before they're built— and we're perfectly happy with that. 5. To clarify what type of fencing we would put on top of those retaining walls and so we've stipulated a 5' high minimum chain link fence. 6. Was to address their desire to be able to mow their lower property with an access to the south. This came up today and we didn't have a chance to get to staff and we weren't sure if they would be allowed a gate off the east end of Yukon Dr. so we wrote a condition that either access it through tract G which is a remnant future development parcel or from the end of Yukon Drive. QUESTIONS Mr. Lange addressed the question of the elevation of Potomic Road—it's 370. The elevation of Potomic Road in the middle of the block (above that) is 400. So there is 30 feet of fall from one street to the other. We can't run a road that steep. The only other solution would be to completely cut the top of the hill down by about 20'. We had that constraint in two different directions - E/W and N/W. We had to get this street lined up for an extension further north so we took advantage of that grade and are doing split level homes so the bottom of those would be one story below the road to help eat nine feet of that grade — the rest of it is a combination of retaining walls and slopes and then it left this block standard being too long. The answer to that is to add some pedestrian mid-block crossings. We proposed one coming out of the knuckle and staff asked us to do a second one lined up with another street so that people don't have to walk all the way around but they will be climbing up a significant stairway. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR— Farrand Livingston, 7739 SW Summerton St., Wilsonville - attorney representing the Stanley family— the owners of 19 acres tax lot 2900. They want him to March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 16 Attachment#6 support the request for the approval of the subdivision with the conditions that are set forth in the staff report as well as the additional conditions in the memo Mr. Lange distributed. He spoke about the retaining wall— concern is there because the residents foundation is about 50 feet from that and that's a fairly serious wall. The family wants an opportunity to see what kind of plans are being presented for the installation of that wall. He went on to explain the reasons for requesting access across Tract G to Parcel 2. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION —None. STAFF COMMENTS Associate Planner Monica addressed the memo that they'd received: For clarification, Conditions 1 & 6 —we would write it as a "prior to final plat." Condition 2 would be "prior to commencing site work." Condition 3 we would like to strike out—we believe the plans already clearly show that no PUE is on the plans and no PUE is required of this final land partition. So we do not recommend adding a condition in this case. Condition 4 we would like to replace with "prior to commencing site improvements the applicant shall submit a site work permit for all retaining walls to be constructed adjacent to the southern boundary of parcel two. The reason we have these changes to this condition —we feel the city can't necessarily enforce what has been written here as a proposed condition. It is a separate matter that the applicant and the owner of that parcel should work out ahead of time before submitting building plans for that well and make sure they are in agreement with what that wall should like. It's not in the procedure to have any type of public review process during the building permit stage— and that's how that proposed condition is written. Condition 5 we'd add "Prior to conditions of occupancy." So our only changes are to Conditions 3 & 4. QUESTIONS Regarding striking Condition 3 about no PUE and wanting it stricken from it —if we actually look at 6.2 on Preliminary Subdivision plat, there is a line on there showing. I think we either need to have a condition that asks them to revise it— to pull that PUE off. Because it's staff's interpretation that no PUE is shown but it's showing on there. So that's what I think the discrepancy is with the Property Owner. So either we can submit an updated plat to show that if that's the way we want to revise the condition. Yes,we can request a revision to the plan to make it clear that no PUE is shown on Parcel 2. There was a question regarding Condition 4 and the retaining wall. Assistant Community Development Director, Tom McGuire added background information. "The applicant and the owner's representative of the other parcel are working out a private agreement. They didn't have time to have that completed so the other party would like to be on the record as part of the record—if they don't get that agreement worked out then they would be on the record and they could appeal the decision to council if necessary. They're both in agreement that Polygon will work with them and provide plans to them for them to review if they can get their own geotech or their own engineer to review that. They're putting together an agreement where they would mutually agree on what the design of the retaining walls would be before they submit for a building permit. The other aspect of this is if some point in the future that parcel 2 develops, March 20, 2017 Page 4 of 16 Attachment#6 those retaining walls will be taken out and the whole area has to be regarded to match. So those lots to the south of the retaining wall will not be developed until that future extension of the street and all the other things happen on the adjacent parcel. Our biggest objection is the way that condition is worded. The intent is for them to work out an agreement with each other over the design of the retaining wall and then they would submit those plans to us for review at the building permit phase." My concern is the maintenance of the property surrounding for fire protection. I assume there are rules that exist on maintaining property prior to its development? "Tualatin Valley Fire has the authority that if weeds get a certain height, and we also have a section in our code, that regulates height of weeds and making sure they're kept down." APPLICANT REBUTTAL We are in the process of making an agreement, and are okay with the modifications staff has made. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION • It's a very well put together application. Consistent with the other plans we've seen in River Terrace. Appreciate the additional parks and trails being added - on top of what the city requires in their overall master plan. The site is steep. The developer and engineers went with the topography that was there. Adding those steep stairs does add stairs and they do add connectivity to able bodied people. There's still connectivity in other ways. • I understand the grading constraint but I wonder if more walkways could be added to alleviate the lack of connectivity concern. So I'm a bit torn. • Thoughtful, comprehensive. • Appreciate that it's consistent with the other developments in the master plan. • I'm in agreement. I'm comfortable with it. • Can find no objection to it. • Would like to see a switchback with those steep stairs that is wheelchair accessible, but I understand that would be a lot of valuable property to give up so we're making do with the best we can in the situation we have. • Want to give a shout out to the Stanley family and the developer (for the give and take) regarding the retaining wall. • No concerns with this. MOTION FOR CONCEPT PLAN Commissioner McDowell made the following motion: "I make a motion to approve the Concept Plan for the River Terrace Park Plan Development to include PDR2016-00015; SUB2016-00012; SLR2016-00010; MLP2016-00007; TUP2016-00024—00028, and MIS2017- March 20, 2017 Page 5 of 16 Attachment#6 00001 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval in the staff report and based on the testimony received today. Commissioner Feeney seconded the motion. VOTE — Seven in favor - Commissioner Hu abstained. RESULT — CONCEPT PLAN MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR WITH ONE ABSTENTION MOTION FOR DETAILED PLAN Commissioner McDowell made the following motion: "I move for approval of the Detailed Plan for River Terrace Park Plan Development that would include PDR2016-00015; SUB2016- 00012; SLR2016-00010; MLP2016-00007; TUP2016-00024— 00028; MIS2017-00001, granting the applicant early grading authorization, and findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report including the addition of memorandum dated March 20 with the following conditions. 1. Prior to final plat approval the final subdivision shall contain an express grant of an easement over the entire Tract H, for the benefit of Parcel 2, for access and all underground utilities installed in subdivision. 2. Prior to commencing site work the final Tree Canopy Planting Plan shall remove Tree #9208. 3. Stricken as written and then revised to say "Revise final plans to show "No PUE on Parcel 2 of the partition plat." 4. Replace with "Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant shall submit a site work permit for all retaining walls to be constructed adjacent to the southern boundary of Parcel 2. 5. Prior to issuance of occupancy, Polygon will install a 5-foot-high minimum chain link fence at the top of all retaining walls adjacent to the southern boundary of Parcel 2. 6. Prior to final plat, Polygon shall grant an access easement across Tract G to Parcel 2 of the partition,in the event that access cannot be obtained from the east end of SW Yukon Street, for purposes of accessing Parcel 2 with mowing equipment. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Feeney. VOTE — Seven in favor - Commissioner Hu abstained. RESULT —DETAILED PLAN MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR WITH ONE ABSTENTION OPENED PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS -DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2016-00004 March 20, 2017 Page 6 of 16 Attachment#6 REQUEST:The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The proposal includes amending the Tigard Development Code (TDC), specifically Chapter 18.735,Marijuana Facilities. The following four options are being proposed for Planning Commission to consider: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. LOCATION: Citywide STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz went over a PowerPoint (Exhibit C?) that explained why staff is before the Planning Commission with this topic at this time. She noted that staff is not making a recommendation on the project but that they've come up with some options for the commission to evaluate (noted above). After her presentation, she invited questions and comments. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS What are the current, existing regulations? The regulations for retail facilities limit it to properties that are only fronting Pacific Hwy. So that would be the big regulation that could potentially be affected, as well as the fact that currently Marijuana facilities are not permitted in the MU-CBD zone—which is the downtown. Did City Council have a consensus that this needed to be reviewed? Yes. Is the distance still 2,000 feet? It's 1000 feet based on state legislature that went through that we can't require more than 1000 feet— so we made it consistent with city law. The other change that council made was the hours of operation being recommended 10:00 am — 8:00 pm and the state came back with 7:00 am— 10:00 pm. So council agreed to match the state. That lines up with the county as well. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR— John Widmer 12215 SW Main Street, Tigard— said he's in favor of Option 4. He's one of the principals of Kaleafa Cannabis. He said they have had a lease on Main Street for a couple of years now. They employ roughly 100 people now; three shops. With the rules of the OLCC in place and the rules from the state of Oregon, he believes a lot of this is fear based. He said he does not use marijuana himself. He has three children— 9, 11 & 15. He said the people who March 20, 2017 Page 7 of 16 Attachment#6 shop in these places are your neighbors —in his case - his parents. He said for the most part all the arguments are fear based. No one can quantify why they don't want marijuana. There are a lot of positive elements especially from a medical standpoint. As for possible crime— there's very little in his shop. He noted an 8% tax will eventually generate money for the City. QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS There were some questions about security and banking problems such as having to use cash. He said they deal with checks with all of their vendors so they don't have to have cash. They just make some bank runs a couple of times a day. There was concern about the facade of a Marijuana shop in the downtown area. The City of Tigard is trying to be a showcase of walkability—the aim is to make downtown Tigard walkable. Regarding the Portland store,with bars on the windows and all the windows and doors blacked out and several big signs outside, the concern is if that kind of facade fits into downtown Tigard where we want people to walk. Michael Bonham—10150 SW Murdock St. 97224—is an employee of John Widmer at Kaleafa Cannabis as of November. He hopes to be a manager at the store on Main Street. He said he grew up in Tigard, went to Templeton Elementary,Tualatin Middle School and is a graduate of Tigard High and Portland State. He testified to his personal experience with cannabis. At one point a while back he became sick and researched cannabis on the internet. He believes he was deceived his entire life about the actual effects of cannabis and the whole notion that it's a gateway drug, bad for your health, dangerous, promotes crime and immorality. He finds those to all be fear mongering tactics with no quantifiable data to support it. Speaking to family concerns on Main Street, he said there are already three places to buy alcohol there where you can go into those places, get blitzed,walk and stumble down the street in front of kids. Whereas in the dispensary you buy your product and take it home to be consumed privately as the law allows. Chad Cooper— 10334 SW Picks Way, Tigard 97224 said he was looking for the non retail locations —looking for a location to start up a processing facility in Tigard. He's been unable to find one. The biggest restriction is related to the fact that the residential boundaries overlap almost half of the industrial. The other half is typically owned by larger property management development groups and they have no interest in leasing to marijuana related business. He said this would be different from a retail store —it would not attract crowds. Processing is a broad range of things —people making extracts to people baking cookies. Industrial doesn't seem to fit as well as things like labs —it's difficult to find locations. There's zoning restrictions. Anything that isn't retail has to be in industrial. The requirements need to be changed. It's not part of the four... the residential boundary should be removed to open up more space again. There's little risk to children. Mary Alexander 10150 SW Murdock St. 97224 —has lived in the city for 44 years. She is in favor of Option 4—She is 78 years old and has a rare glaucoma issue. She has researched for two years before she decided to use medical marijuana. It's either she uses the drops or she goes blind. There is a lot of misinformation out there. She said alcohol is every bit as bad and people leave liquor stores and drink. There are people that need medical marijuana. Her eye pressure before taking marijuana was 15 in one eye and 14 in the other. It is down now to 10.5 in one and 11 in the other. A huge benefit that she can't get from medication. March 20, 2017 Page 8 of 16 Attachment#6 Gordon Goulet— 8075 SW Thorn Street—has lived in Tigard for 2 years. He's been working for Kaleafa Cannabis for almost four years right out of college. He's the IT director for the conglomerate. He told the commission that marijuana should be treated the same as micro brewing. It's another way for people to enjoy their lives and surroundings. He wanted to talk about the technical aspect—he spoke about testing, security, and so forth. He designs everything and helps make sure compliance is achieved at every transaction level. Every transaction is tracked down to each person and who purchases it. He can break it down to how old they were and make sure that they only receive so much marijuana per day. Unlike alcohol— you can go back in there and buy the whole store eventually if you wanted to. With marijuana you couldn't. You'd have to go to multiple stores and really work at it to try and buy a lot. He reminded them that Measure 91 was passed by a majority vote in Oregon.75% of the voting population in Tigard passed the initiative to raise taxes on marijuana. He noted that two of the businesses that do the most sales by volume is just north and south of Tigard — King City in Chalis Farms and Nectar up by the beautiful old strip club and other joint up there receive more tax money there than some of the biggest shops in Portland. He thinks this would be a great opportunity to bring this tax revenue into the City of Tigard. He's for Option 4. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION — Marsden Smith 12332 SW Hollow Lane Tigard 97223 He thinks alcohol is very popular and very well accepted and there's only one liquor store in Tigard. He doesn't think we need additional stores along those lines. He wonders if Tigard wants to be known as a ... whatever? Do we want to be known by a Fred Meyer complex? Is that our goal in life?What would we like to be known for? There is research that says that if you smoke a lot of Marijuana you tend to accomplish less in life. You earn slightly less than those who don't and you're fine with accumulating less in life. The tax revenue $400,000 you're going to get is nothing. He's in favor of Option 1 —no change. Ed Whitehead— 9230 SW River View Terrace 97224 appreciates the Planning Commission and asks them to retain and not expand the current regulations concerning the locations of marijuana stores. He believes the current regulations are sufficient to meet whatever need there may be for those who choose to engage in the use of the drug. He and his wife are involved in a program through their church which works with children from low income families by providing a meal and activities for them. He noted most of these children come from homes where alcohol and drug use—largely marijuana— create situations that contribute to learning and behavioral issues on their part in school, as well as in the general community. One of the areas indicated as a possible location along Bonita is near the apartment complex where many of these children and their dysfunctional families reside. He said his own son who,while in high school many years ago used marijuana. He did so for several years and he acknowledges now that it was not a good thing. It adversely affected his behavior, memory, conduct towards his parents, and others. And now, as a father—he is against it. He does not want to see a marijuana store in downtown Tigard and continually speaks to his children about his desire that they abstain. There is much information on the effects of marijuana on the body that should cause concern and it is a confusing science. It affects the nervous system, internal organs, immune systems, etc. All of these are things we should be concerned about. He believes Tigard has March 20, 2017 Page 9 of 16 Attachment#6 provided what the law has required. There is no need to alter or change any regulations allowing additional areas for sale and distribution of marijuana. Aliza Boyce — 15378 SW 82nd Place, Tigard—is a Tigard High School student who is on the leadership council for the club at Tigard HS called STUDD (Stop Tigard Underage Drinking& Drug use). She said she believes marijuana has an effect on both her and her fellow classmates. She is a Junior, and she has sadly seen the effects of marijuana on her classmates. She noticed a pattern with students who use and those who don't. The ones who use tend to slack in responsibilities. She said the effects of marijuana have been scientifically proven to be negative on the brain and especially harmful for young people whose brains don't fully develop until the age of 25. She said, "Allowing more shops in downtown will allow more adults to have access to marijuana and would be on the student's radar, and when something is on your radar, you're more likely to wonder if you should try it. That can be very dangerous to kids my age. Thank you for listening and thank you for all the work you do. Connie Ramaekers 9655 SW Murdock St. Tigard 97224 has lived there since 1979. Her job as the prevention specialist over the past 35 years has been to help the youth in Tigard by addressing the drug and alcohol use and abuse that happens among them. They have a club called STUDD (Stop Tigard Underage Drinking and Drug use) at Tigard High. There are close to 100 members. The student members are peer models to help other students make good choices in their lives. Ms. Ramaekers would like to see Tigard keep the current existing regulations in relation to marijuana facilities —meaning Option 1. The Rocky Mountain HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) report in January 2016 states: "Evidence and research demonstrates that marijuana,which has skyrocketed in average potency over the past decades,is addictive and harmful to the human brain— especially when used by adolescents. In states that have already legalized the drug, there has been an increase in drugged driving crashes and youth marijuana use. This is very true in Oregon. Her big concern is the increase of marijuana use among teens — since Measure 91 passed. Every spring they give a survey to their student. In our own school district marijuana use among eleventh graders at Tigard High has increased substantially. The data shows a 20% increase from 2014 to 2016. In 2014 it was 3.6% - in 2015 it jumped to 17.2% and in the spring of 2016 it has jumped to 23.5%. Our youth report it's very easy to get. The number one resource is from their friends — and these friends are getting it from their parents or older siblings. The more access adults have to marijuana, the more access our youth has to it. We need to keep regulations as they are. With more marijuana retail shops opening and especially allowing them downtown in Tigard where many families go for recreation makes it more readily available to adults and youth. Marie Watkins lives in Wilsonville but works at the Tigard Tualatin School District at 6960 SW Sandberg St., Tigard, 97223 - For the School District she is a certified Prevention Specialist and the Prevention Coordinator and Director for a coalition called "Tigard Turns the Tide" and also works for the STUDD club at Tigard High. She advocates that the current regulations be kept the same - Option 1. She believes Tigard is a beautiful place and believes that the city wants to make it as family friendly as possible. Parks and schools are nearby. Many activities occur downtown such as the Saturday and Sunday markets. Families with small children attend those. Allowing dispensaries to be in plain sight to our young children allows a social norm to be created that marijuana use is okay. She believes it's prohibiting to our youth's March 20, 2017 Page 10 of 16 Attachment#6 growth and development. The more the students see these shops, the more there are social norms created that it's an okay thing. It becomes the regularity—and is that really what we want for the community of Tigard? She quoted the Rocky Mountain HIDTA Report that says "Despite the medical and recreational marijuana businesses being banned in 68% of local jurisdictions in Colorado, there are still a total of 940 marijuana businesses in Colorado —more than the 322 Starbucks locations, and more than the 202 McDonald's locations combined." She requests that Tigard not be in the percentage for Oregon that allows marijuana dispensaries to overwhelm our streets too. Bruce Krieg—12055 SW Burlheights St., 97223 stated that other communities near us have high standards in their downtown communities. The city of Tualatin has a larger linear feet restriction and other surrounding communities don't have any in their downtown at all. He believes it makes sense for us to be a leader in that regard as well. He would like Option 1 — keep it as is. And seeing the youth here to testify—he believes if teenagers are trying to stand up for advocating for themselves, he strongly believes we should honor that. Leslie Boyce 15378 SW 82nd Place, Tigard 97224 advocated for keeping Option 1. Because she could not stay to give her oral testimony, she submitted a handwritten statement. (Exhibit ») Gale Vorhis —12455 SW 128th Ave., Tigard 97224—just moved here 2 months ago. He's never seen so many marijuana stores in his life. Not even in California. The marijuana facilities are right next to restaurants. Children see it and it's bad for children. He's not against it for medicinal purposes —but recreational—he doesn't see that. He's with Option 1 He doesn't want to see any more facilities here. He's seen these shops have guys outside on the street spinning signs advertising marijuana. He said you don't even see that with liquor stores because they're not permitted to do that. He is with option 1 — no more facilities. Elizabeth Olson—12214 SW Lansdowne Lane 97223 —I support retaining Option 1. She doesn't think they would even be talking about this if it wasn't for the tax revenue. She spoke about the short and long term bad side effects. It harms unborn children from mothers who used cannabis during pregnancy. Onset of effects is within minutes when smoked and 30 to 60 minutes when cooked and eaten. They last between 2 and 6 hours. She said the question is do we want Tigard to be "A place to call home"? The question is do we want it for children, teens, families and seniors — or for drug users. She personally, and her friends, will not be patronizing areas with pot businesses and that includes downtown Tigard. She doesn't believe a family- friendly place should include this type of business. Emily Wallace — 8900 SW Sweek Drive Tualatin 97062 lives in Tualatin but goes to school in Tigard. She said she is the daughter of a counselor who works with mental illness. In her experience at school, she has seen a lot of changes in social norms in favor of marijuana usage. Kids at school have been joking about it more in ways that you don't really know if they're joking. They might be talking about it bluntly in class and the teachers won't be sure so they won't say anything about it. It's just becoming something that's "okay" in our high schools and that's something we really need to put a halt to. And also just one way to keep that from getting March 20, 2017 Page 11 of 16 Attachment#6 any worse is keeping the limits on accessibility by not letting the adults that are providing the students with marijuana have as much accessibility to get it. At this point John Widmer, Principal at Kaleafa Cannabis came back up and reminded everyone that this is OLCC - you can sell to 21 and older. I understand that you're concerned about the impact on the kids, but this is a parent issue as much as accessibility issue. I think that that can't be lost. You can't sell to anyone under 21. Keep that in mind. I have 3 kids, my brother has 2 —and we're co-owners of the company— so I completely understand it—but I wanted to mention that one more time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION President Fitzgerald asked each commissioner to voice an opinion on this topic and let them know which option(s) they support. At this point Agnes Kowacz reminded the commission that they're not limited to the four options — they can make up their own. Each commissioner commented: • Commissioner McDowell: I'm for option 1 —leave it as is. I've done some surveying of friends and family and organizations I'm a part of, and there's an overlying cultural element that a lot of people are just not comfortable with. It goes against what they want to represent - and I fall in that category as well. Some key areas for me outside of culture is the fact that it puts the Federal government and the state and citizens in an adversarial position—we don't know that outcome yet, so that's another factor I don't like. As long as it's tied together with medical and recreation, it's going to be a big problem. I don't support recreational use in any form and I know a lot of people don't either. Medical... maybe...? But if we're talking about together - co-locating— then absolutely not. In my opinion, I think we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if there weren't a level of potential tax dollars here with this issue. It sends a message that money's more important than morality, and I think that's the wrong message— especially for youth and for our community. So I definitely am not supportive of it. I would retain Option 1. • Commissioner Lieuallen: You hit the nail on the head so far as the tax dollars. That's offensive to me that the question is based on tax dollars. This is a moral question with many, many people —it's a question of the environment they want to raise their families in. But this $400,000 tax question seems like... I can't even fathom what the mayor would look at... but on the flipside we're not here to discuss the legality of the usage of marijuana. It's legal— the people in Oregon decided that by a majority. The people in Tigard decided that. That said, I have friends who have smoked marijuana and I've never heard one of them say they're having any problems finding it. So I don't think we have an access issue. I see no reason to make areas in Tigard less family friendly. I heard at least one of the people here say that they wouldn't be willing to take their family down there with this. I have to respect that and I don't think they'd be alone in that decision. I think there'd be other people who would agree and not want to take their family near this marijuana thing. That said, I think attitudes may change and it might be revisited 20 March 20, 2017 Page 12 of 16 Attachment#6 years from now. I think those opinions may change and 20 years from now attitudes may change and people will be about as afraid of that as people are today of liquor stores and bars on every street corner. But today, that's not the reality. There's a large percentage of the population that looks at marijuana as a very scary thing— something to keep the family and kids a long ways away from. It's a small thing to give them Main Street Tigard walkability and a family atmosphere - and stick with Option 1. • Commissioner Middaugh: I'm torn. I came here thinking why not just allow it anywhere, but at the same time,we have one liquor store and that seems to serve us well. So I'm leaning towards keeping the regulations we have and not expanding it any. I really appreciate the testimony we received tonight - especially with the mental health and prevention. I also appreciate our high school students coming out to testify. It's a tough subject. The legality of it isn't in question, so I'm in favor of keeping the regulations we have. • Vice President Feeney: I too came in a little torn. I'm one for a fair business but I also too have young children—not to say that they can get it, but it is a little more prevalent now in our community. I was on the Planning Commission when we set this code in only a couple of years ago. We haven't even had a chance to really vet it. The City of Tigard Planning Code on other developments go 10 years or 5 years or a little bit longer —we haven't proven yet, at least in my mind, that what we approved a couple years ago is not correct. We went through the effort -we made that decision for reasons. We've had a couple dispensaries open and yes I understand it's not maxed out and there's a couple more that could fit in there, or there might be other opportunities - but we just haven't had the chance to see it. That's why I'm leaning towards keeping it the same - just on the basis of we haven't had a chance to prove it wrong. • Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with all the testimony of my fellow commissioners and I respect the opinions of the people that have come tonight and I feel like it would be in our best interests to represent them in supporting Option 1. • Commissioner Hu: I might be the most liberal of all, but I could support Option 1 or Option 2. But I think in opening up downtown, my biggest concern - that I mentioned earlier - is the façade issue. Our city wants to be a showcase of how walkable we are— and I just don't know how opening up a facility that has heavy bars with windows and doors taped up would achieve that purpose. So I'm okay with either Option 1 or 2. I don't feel comfortable opening up downtown Tigard at this point - so I will vote for 1 or 2. • Commissioner Jackson: I'm also of the conflicted camp. I came here tonight after doing all the reading and research related to this, leaning toward Option 2. I came tonight waiting to hear testimony and anything else that would move me in one direction or the other. I tend to remain more or less where I started—I would support either 2 or 1. I appreciate and expected the public opposition to loosening those restrictions, and from a subjective sensibility I'm against widespread marijuana use as well. On the other hand, as a Planning Commissioner there are other responsibilities at play. One thing I kept going back to in rereading and thinking about what is in Comprehensive Plan Goal No. 9.1.3 "The City's land use and regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development," etc. I feel like Option 1 is just bordering on too restrictive for me when I consider that. I could go on but in summary I would support either 1 or 2 —leaning a little more toward Option 2. March 20, 2017 Page 13 of 16 Attachment#6 • President Fitzgerald: We've been working on the Tigard Triangle—we've been working exhaustively on that code to put the right code language in there to get some development in that area. Some of the blue areas include Hall Blvd and whatnot. If you listened to the 45 minute audio that was sent to us from council, there was no specific talk of tax dollars, but I feel that this is a tax dollar grab. We had a very robust and thorough and sometimes heated conversation while we made these recommendations to council. There was disagreement within the council that was seated. Then we found the happy medium. Our proposal was conservative in the fact that— this is new to all of us. We went through this prohibition and alcohol—we've been through this historically through society in the United States. This is a new thing—yes our proposal to council was conservative, but because we are a city that can come back and ask to have changes made later— after we've kind of lived with it for a little bit... at this point, Federal Guidelines could say you can't do this at all—so who knows what's going to happen? I know Mr. Widmer leased the property before we even did the original zoning, so there's a little bit of concern there for him. I have no issue with someone trying to run a business; but I have an issue with maintaining the reputation and integrity of Tigard. We do not have a good reputation outside of the City of Tigard. People see Hwy 99, they don't' see what else is here. People work really hard for downtown Tigard to kind of make it something- and the things are starting to coalesce there and happen. Things are going to start coalescing and happening in the Tigard Triangle as well. I can strongly support Option 1. I will not support any of the other options, nor will I put forward any other options beyond ones that are on the table. I want to send a loud and clear message back to council—we were clear in what we said the first time and we're stating and standing firm with it again this time. Commissioner Hu recommended that they make two motions, one for Option 1 and one for Option 2 —just to have a record that some people actually can support Option 2. He was advised by VP Feeney that he could go ahead and make a motion for Option 2 and then they could do one for Option 1. MOTION Commissioner Hu made the following motion: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council in the matter of Marijuana Facilities Place Regulations No. DCA2016-00004 to change the current marijuana regulation as stated in Option No. 2. Commissioner Jackson seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE FOR: Commissioners Jackson and Hu AGAINST: Commissioners Schmidt, Fitzgerald, Feeney, McDowell, Middaugh, and Lieuallen VOTE TO SUPPORT OPTION 2 FAILS 6 - 2 March 20, 2017 Page 14 of 16 Attachment#6 MOTION Vice President Feeney made the following motion: I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation that Option 1 — to keep the current, existing regulations in place for application DCA2016-00004. Commissioner McDowell seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE FOR: Commissioners Jackson, Hu, Schmidt, Fitzgerald, Feeney, McDowell, Middaugh, and Lieuallen RESULTS: MOTION FOR SUPPORT OF OPTION 1 — REMAIN AS IS - PASSES UNANIMOUSLY CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON THIS ITEM WILL TAKE PLACE APRIL 11. President Fitzgerald urged those who'd testified to follow it to Council or email so they have additional record of their opinions on this particular issue. BRIEFING—TIGARD TRIANGLE CODE & REZONE Assistant Community Development Director Tom McGuire introduced Sr. Planner Susan Shanks. He informed the commissioners that Planner Cheryl Caines is no longer with the City of Tigard; she took a position with another city - and so Susan is taking over as project manager for the Triangle Lean Code and all things Triangle. Susan told the commissioners that she wished she had more graphics to give to them but that the timing of Cheryl's departure was such that Cheryl actually prepared the memo that they received in their packets. She said she picked it up and is running with it. Her understanding is that the commission was expecting a form based code primer of sorts. So she gave a kind of broad brush understanding of what a form based code is. Due to the lateness of the evening she told them she would keep it short and would leave it open to let them ask questions, which she did. Afterwards, she noted that they would continue this conversation as they have another scheduled update in approximately a month. Additionally there is a Tigard Triangle Tour scheduled for April 3. They will have an opportunity to talk about things in the field which will really be helpful with the form based code discussion. Susan distributed a handout (Exhibit ??) After the briefing Susan told the commissioners that staff will be working with Angelo Planning Group to have some help with graphics. OTHER BUSINESS — None. March 20, 2017 Page 15 of 16 Attachment#6 ADJOURNMENT President Fitzgerald adjourned the meeting at 10:57 p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Calista Fitzgerald March 20, 2017 Page 16 of 16 Agenda Item: #5 Hearing Date: March 20.2017 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE UI mi PLANNING COMMISSION 's FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD SECTION I. SUMMARY CASE NAME: MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS CASE NO.: Development Code Amendment(DCA) DCA2016-00004 PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC) to amend Chapter 18.735, Marijuana Facilities. The purpose of this amendment is to revisit place regulations and propose additional locations where marijuana facilities may occur. Staff has prepared four code language options for the Planning Commission's review, which are included in Attachment 1. APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 ZONES: Citywide LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.23, 9.1.3 and 9.1.12; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390 SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no staff recommendation for this project. City Council has asked the Planning Commission to evaluate options for possibly expanding the locations available within Tigard that would allow recreational marijuana facilities and to provide a recommendation(s) on these options to the Council. Staff has provided an expanding range of options, with analysis, for the Commission to consider. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 1 OF 10 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION & PROJECT SUMMARY In November 2014, Oregon became the fourth state in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana. Prior to this, legal marijuana activity was limited to the state medical marijuana program. Below is a brief summary of legislative history on marijuana followed by the proposed changes to the City's marijuana regulations. August 14,2013 - Governor signs HB3460, which requires the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana dispensaries so that patients could legally purchase medical marijuana. Under this bill, dispensaries cannot be within 1,000 feet of a school, 1,000 feet of another dispensary, and must be located within an industrial, commercial, or mixed-use zone. March 19, 2014— Governor signs SB1531 which authorizes local governments to adopt reasonable regulations regarding the hours of operation; location; and manner in which medical marijuana dispensaries are operated. SB1531 also states that a local jurisdiction may enact an ordinance declaring a one-year moratorium on dispensaries. November 4, 2014 - Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 91 to legalize the use and possession of recreational marijuana on July 1, 2015. The law also directs the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to tax, license, and regulate recreational marijuana through a licensing system to be established by January 2016. The measure did not make any changes to the existing medical marijuana system. April 21, 2015- City of Tigard Ordinance No 15-07 was adopted, which established time, place and manner restrictions on Marijuana Facilities through the creation of new chapter in the TDC titled Marijuana Facilities ([DC 17.735), which applied to both medical and recreational marijuana. June 30,2015 - Governor signs HB3400A which authorizes local government to regulate commercial recreation marijuana regulations; establishes the requirement of a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS); recognizes marijuana as a farm crop; requires OLCC to create a seed-to-sale tracking system; and establishes provisions for state and local taxation. HB3400A also prohibits local jurisdictions from requiring a distance buffer of greater than 1,000 feet between stated-licensed retail marijuana facilities. In November 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the spacing requirements between sales- oriented retail and wholesale facilities from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet to comply with state law. The City Council also extended the hours of operation from the current 10:00am to 8:00pm to 7:00am to 10:00pm, consistent with state law. City Council further directed staff to explore relaxing the location regulations for marijuana facilities in the downtown area and outside of the Pacific highway corridor. City Council instructed staff to seek input from the downtown business community and developers on whether downtown Tigard is a suitable location for marijuana related businesses.The Council also instructed staff to contact developers and find out if marijuana businesses are a deterrent when considering a project. Staff attended the November City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) meeting to seek direction on whether the City should allow marijuana related business in downtown Tigard. An invitation to this meeting was extended to downtown business owners as well as parties of record from previous marijuana related ordinances. Several members of the public and business community attended the meeting and provided written and oral comments, which are discussed under the Public Comments section of this staff report. The CCAC continued the discussion to the next scheduled meeting in December. The December meeting, and the following early January meeting were cancelled due to inclement weather. The CCAC finally met again on January 18, 2017 but did not reach consensus on the topic, though a slight majority were open to changing the regulations for downtown. The CCAC had the following concerns/thoughts: o Proximity to Tigard Street Heritage Trail and plaza MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 10 o Making sure that downtown has a good mix of businesses,not just one type. Need of an anchor store. o Concentration of"over 21"businesses in one location o Need for City to treat all retail uses fairly (note that other "adult" uses including the liquor store and gun shop are not singled out for restriction) o Design/facade appearance of some marijuana businesses (tacky painted windows, bright colors that don't fit in downtown) o Inability to point to any specific policy or code intention to support restricting this specific type of retail use Staff contacted three developers and heard back from one that reported that they would be reluctant to lease to a marijuana business due to uncertainty about federal policy and bank financing. They also stated that the perception of marijuana business is worse than reality and that the presence of a marijuana business in the area would not deter them from pursuing a good project. Lastly, based on City Council's discussion, staff explored the idea of a buffer from active parks in place of a buffer from the parks and recreation zone in general. A definition of"active park" would need to be provided to clearly identify those parks. Staff believes that this option is too subjective and problematic for applicability purposes. If Council wanted to pursue this option, staff would suggest naming the specific parks from which the buffer would apply. Code Amendment Options Staff is presenting Planning Commission with four options for amending the place regulations for marijuana facilitates. The four options include: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the Mixed Use- Central Business District (MU-CBD) zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone, and remove the 500-foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone within the MU-CBD zone. The four options for Planning Commission consideration are discussed below. Maps depicting the areas affected by Options 2 through 4 are provided as attachments to this staff report. Option 1 Option 1 is the City's current place regulations,which include the following restrictions: Excerpt from TDC 18.735.040 B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions.All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 OF 10 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attendedprimarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits;and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation Zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following Zones orfacilities: a. Residential Zone; b. Parks and recreation Zone; c. Public library. Option 2 Option 2 would eliminate the restriction limiting marijuana sales-oriented retail businesses to properties with frontage onto Pacific Highway and keep all other existing restrictions. Marijuana sales-oriented retail business could occur where sales-oriented retail is a permitted use, provided that all other buffer requirements are met. Sales-oriented retail is permitted outright in Neighborhood Commercial (C-N), General Commercial (C-G), and Mixed Use Commercial (MUC). Retail-oriented sales uses are restricted to size limitations in Community- Commercial (C-C), Professional Commercial (C-P), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) and Mixed Use Employment 1 and 2 (MUE-1 and 2), Mixed Use Residential 1 and 2 (MUR-1 and 2) and Industrial-Park (I-P). The map for Option 2 shows all the areas where a marijuana sales-oriented retail business would be permitted along with all other buffer restrictions. Option 3 Option 3 includes the same modifications as provided in Option 2 but also would allow marijuana businesses in the MU-CBD zone. Allowing marijuana businesses in the MU-CBD zone does not make too much of a change. Due to the buffer from the parks and recreation zone,it only opens up areas southeast of Main Street and Burnham Avenue due. Option 4 This option would remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement, include the MU-CBD zone and only remove the parks and recreation zone buffer within the MU-CBD zone. The removal of the parks and recreation zone buffer would allow marijuana business downtown, specifically on Main Street and Burnham Avenue. However, since Main Street is also restricted due to a school buffer south of Burnham Avenue, only one marijuana business would be permitted on Main Street. Other Jurisdictional Responses To provide a framework for what is considered "reasonable" by other jurisdictions, staff is including a summary of how other cities have chosen to regulate retail marijuana facilities within their cities. Washington County ➢ Limited to hours between 8am and 10pm. > Allowed in specified commercial and industrial districts, with square footage limited to 3,000 square feet within the Industrial (IND), General Commercial (GC), and Rural Commercial (R-COM) Land Use Districts. > Minimum 2,000 feet between dispensaries. > Minimum 1,000 feet from a youth-oriented recreation facility owned and operated by Tualatin Hills and Parks Recreations District. City of Beaverton: MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 OF 10 ➢ Limited to hours between 7am and 10pm. ➢ Limited to three zones: GC (General Commercial), CS (Community Service), and CC (Corridor Commercial). City of Hillsboro: ➢ Limited to hours between 10am and 8pm Monday through Thursday and 10am and 10pm Friday through Sunday. ➢ Limited to three zones: General Industrial (I-G), Station Community Commercial- Station Commercial (SCC-SC) and Station Community Commercial- Multi-Modal (SCC-MM). ➢ Minimum 1,000 foot between another retail facility. ➢ Minimum 2,000 feet between medical dispensaries. ➢ Minimum 1,000 feet from a public plaza or active use park. As used in this paragraph, an active use park includes a public park which includes features such as playground equipment, athletic courts or fields, active use water features, or skating or skateboard features. City of McMinnville ➢ Limited to hours between 9am and 9pm. ➢ Limited to two zones: Neighborhood Business (C-1) and General Commercial (C-3). ➢ Minimum 1,000 feet from another retail facility. ➢ Minimum 1,000 foot buffer from a school,public library, aquatic center,and community center. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Section 18.390.060.G establishes standard decision-making procedures for reviewing Type IV applications. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1) The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2) Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3) Any applicable METRO regulations; 4) Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5) Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. FINDING: Findings and conclusions are provided in this section for the applicable listed factors on which the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based. This standard is met. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Statewide Planning Goals, only applicable Statewide Goals are addressed below. Statewide Planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the City's interested parties list. A copy of the same notice was emailed to a list of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were posted to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This goal is met. Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO TI IE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 OF 10 FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and standards to review changes to the Tigard Development Code in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable state requirements. As discussed within this report, the applicable Development Code process and standards have been applied to the proposed amendment. This goal is met. Statewide Planning Goal 9—Economic Development: This goal seeks to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan Economic Development goals and policies is discussed later in this report under Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 9.1 and associated policies. This goal is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above and the related findings below, staff finds the proposed amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OREGON CANNABIS REGULATIONS ORS 475B.340(2): Notwithstanding ORS 633.738, the governing body of a city or county may adopt ordinances that impose reasonable regulations on the operation of businesses located at premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.070, 475B.090, 475B.100 or 475B.110 if the premises are located in the area subject to the jurisdiction of the city or county, except that the governing body of a city or county may not adopt an ordinance that prohibits a premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.110 from being located within a distance that is greater than 1,000 feet of another premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.110 FINDING: As detailed in Attachment 1, the proposed amendments establish reasonable restrictions on allowed locations to prevent or mitigate potential off-site community impacts. Because SB1531 does not define the word "reasonable", the amendments are based in part on pre-existing development code restrictions already adopted and enforced within the City of Tigard, or elsewhere across the state and Pacific Northwest. The attached maps showing the geographic extent of the proposed location restrictions indicate that the City can comply with the buffer restrictions, and provide more opportunities to businesses trying to find a location to operate. This requirement is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Oregon Cannabis Regulations (ORS 475B). METRO'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, only applicable Titles are addressed below. Title 8—Compliance Procedures: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This tide has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the City's interested parties list. A copy of the same notice was emailed to a list of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This tide is satisfied. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 OF 10 CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals and consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Because the Development Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, only applicable comprehensive plan goals and associated policies are addressed below. Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policy 1.1.2: The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the City's interested parties list. A copy of the same notice was emailed to a list of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the'Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This policy is met. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Policy 2.1.2: The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: As demonstrated in this staff report, the proposed amendments to the Tigard Development Code are consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.3: The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. FINDING: Copies of the proposed amendments were sent to affected agencies and were invited to comment on the proposal, as required by Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures) and discussed in Section V of this report. Comments submitted by affected agencies have been incorporated into this report and the proposed amendments. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.6: The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. FINDING: The proposed amendments will enable greater location flexibility for taxable economic activity to occur within the city. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.11: The City shall adopt regulations and standards to protect public safety and welfare from hazardous conditions related to land use activities. FINDING: The proposed amendments are intended to protect the public welfare by providing for appropriate distance buffer from residential areas and parks in order to prevent or reduce hazards associated with a cash only business, a product with a strong black market value, and the exposure of a controlled product to minors. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.23 The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 OF 10 FINDING: The proposed amendments include use regulations and development standards to ensure compatibility between marijuana facilities subject to state licensing or registration, and adjacent development and public facilities. This policy is met. Comprehensive Plan Goal 9: Economic Development Policy 9.1.3 The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities,provided that required infrastructure is made available. FINDING: The proposed text amendments are intended to be flexible and adaptive to the marijuana economy in Oregon, as investors try new and unknown business models and the state adopts new regulatory requirements. This flexibility and adaptability is grounded in the regulation of the license or regulation requirement, not the underlying land use classification, and a focus on minimum compliance standards rather than proscribed locations. This policy is met. Policy 9.1.12 The City shall assure economic development promotes other community qualities, such as livability and environmental quality that are necessary for a sustainable economic future. FINDING: As detailed in Attachment 1, the proposed amendments are intended to create minimum compliance standards to prevent or mitigate potential community impacts that could result from marijuana related business activity. This policy is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE Tigard Development Code Section 18.380.020, Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map, states that legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. FINDING: The proposed amendments are legislative in nature. Therefore, the amendment will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the Chapter 18.390. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. This standard is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code. SUMMARY CONCLUSION: As shown in the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed code text and map amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals; the Oregon Cannabis Regulation (475B); Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and the applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS City of Portland, City of Durham, City of Lake Oswego, City of Tualatin, City of King City, Washington County, METRO, ODOT, DLCD, DEQ, ODFW, CWS, OLCC, OHA, Beaverton School District, Tigard/Tualatin School District, Tri-Met, , Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Tigard Public Works, and Tigard Building Division were notified of the proposed code text amendment but provided no comment. The City of Beaverton was notified of the proposal and had no objections. The City of Tigard Police Department reviewed the proposal and suggested text changes to increase the distance buffer to 1,000 feet from schools for regulatory consistency, and inclusion of career schools as a point of buffering. Suggested changes have been incorporated into the proposed text amendments in Attachment 1. MARIJUANA FACILTTIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 OF 10 f ` SECTION VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff received written comments that were submitted and oral comments that were provided at the CCAC meeting on November 9, 2016. The matrix below summarizes the oral comments presented at the CCAC meeting: Name Comment Darbie Mayberry Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Not good for Tigard's new image downtown o Marijuana businesses are not family friendly o Brings problems/drugs Donald Meyer Pro marijuana just not downtown: o Has seen the negativity of the pipe/smoke shop o Marijuana businesses are not family friendly /place for kids John Widmer Runs a marijuana business and has a rented spaced downtown: (Kaleafa) o Other locations successful and part of community o Would like to be part of downtown Tigard and work with downtown to bring a desirable business o Focus on facts,not perceptions o This businesses doesn't bring the same clientele as the pipe shop Gus Goulet o Works on the IT end for Kaleafa and shop has great security (Kaleafa) o Downtown needs business to draw people in Donna Erdman Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Echo others comments-not family friendly Connie Ramaekers Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Works at TTSD as prevention specialist for youth o OK on Pacific Highway but not a on Main Street o Not family friendly and a place where kids are hanging out o The earlier kids can access a drug the more likely chance for addiction Egor (Kaleafa) 0 Floor Manager at Kaleafa o Very secure,everyone is IDed o Never sees young kids downtown Tigard o Could bring a younger,more progressive clientele downtown o Clientele is more for medicinal purposes than recreation Chad Cooper Neither for or against regarding Main Street o Is having a difficult time finding space for processing with existing regulations o Providing retail makes it so people don't purchase it illegally Steve DeAngelo o Provided a report for surrounding cities-most reported no adverse impacts of marijuana businesses o Tigard Downtown Alliance meeting- no opposition to marijuana businesses Kaile Aanes o Kaleafa is a family owned business (Kaleafa) o Shouldn't be treated differently than a liquor store o Educate kids that these are for when you are 21+ Myran Bioninger Customer at Kaleafa: o Typical customer is 50-70 years' old o Most people are there for medical purposes o Has seen the neighborhood grow due to a marijuana business MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 OF 10 The City received an email from Chad Cooper on October 31, 2016 inquiring about a location for processing marijuana and the lack of areas for this use. Staff suggested Mr. Cooper attend the upcoming CCAC meeting in November to provide input. An email was received from Bill McMonagle on November Pt, from Dann Black on November 2"d, and from Harvey Elser on November 8th all expressing opposition to changing the existing regulations and allowing marijuana in downtown. A letter was received from Betsy Chick on November 7th, from Darbie Mayberry and Marie Watkins on November 9, all also expressing opposition to allowing marijuana downtown. The main concern expressed was that marijuana businesses are not family friendly and can result in an increase in crime, tacky signage, and advertising that doesn't fit into downtown. Lastly, Steve DeAngelo submitted written comments reporting on regulations from other cities and any reported impacts associated with marijuana business. Mr. DeAngelo stated that the Tigard Downtown Alliance's (FDA) position is neutral. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments: 1. Draft Text Amendments. a. Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. b. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. c. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. d. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500-foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. 2. Preliminary Location Maps 3. CCAC Meeting Minutes- 11/9/16 and 11/18/2017 4. Public Comments !/ I 46gthote March 13,2017 PREPARED BY: AA,es Kowacz DATE Associate Planner March 13. 2017 APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire DATE Assistant Community Development Director MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 OF 10 Attachment#la Proposed Amendments- Option#1 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#la Proposed Amendments- Option#1 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school,or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#la Proposed Amendments- Option#1 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ 3 Attachment#1 b Proposed Amendments-Option#2 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#1 b Proposed Amendments-Option#2 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school,or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W): b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#1 b Proposed Amendments-Option#2 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W)a public right- of-way. F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise,plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3)■ 3 Attachment#1c Proposed Amendments- Option#3 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety, property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria.Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#1c Proposed Amendments-Option#3 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. I. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school,or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#1 c Proposed Amendments-Option#3 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from a public right-of-way.Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99,W) F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise,plants,or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3)■ 3 Attachment#1 d Proposed Amendments- Option#4 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1 Attachment#1d Proposed Amendments-Option#4 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school,or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: . • . . . . -. - - . - • . b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone, except vv ithin the MU-CBD zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone. except within the MU-CBD zone; c. Public library. 2 Attachment#1 d Proposed Amendments-Option#4 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W)a public right- of-w ave.. F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise,plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3)■ 3 ui Option 2: pCK•MAN—ST >yq` 1��°� Attachment#2 .. . . o BRr � e:Nal/ X50Retail Marihuana Facilities. Off% r ----� TAYLORS•EER•RY RDPotential Locations mII 1 1 �' _ 1 Potential Locations " y n a 1 1 I Schools .R•Dre H Q� �� ' r-� j DIn O ' 1 1,000 Ft From School Site �l- ,.. UcNsF� —=---��m a m500 Ft From Park Zones & Library JOLL9 Existing Marijuana Facilitym S' „ t ' g® j' 1 J8 1,000 Ft From Other Marijuana Retailer >- B! a� I Pco % — ,®MU-CBD Zone O-' ui I .:�, PpITO�.—HWY.DATA SOURCES .• 12 , i!.., -_,.._ .I.� , � ��Tigard City Boundary CtynfTg rd TFMAS n ��S,FEft /--DISCLAIMER: �It.`uO F Ry�A1312$SouthWert Nall Boulevard CN. / y '* �f 1TIgord.Oregon 97223 " Wr .1503.639 d171 �/ QNG IT7 \, / Rr > 1= s ► .Q 10 ce) / 1 01 ..,... ci t `' . r �e ti '0 gm imira In 1 a ; r kel":// 5 / UST leu 4R ► j v�. f SST rR . , a 40: ' GAO `,, O ,.C`s +,0 o I _ rre'2 W �q re' �,, W I i ?' N3�. �!/ Oe �'' n Y ✓Sto co01,L-S_EERRY RD r. --- -L r Thr—r`"'' l _ I I 7,49. it r f- min 1 i r 1 "4 44\ q•••• ••••••••,.. $ 11141/4 12 1 - H? p l I ) �r J r I" ; RDE Si'' _ NMI IIIIIIIIIIIIMMINIMMI �I _1 M.CD.O.NAL-D_ST- 1 KR,U.SE...,WAY , ., I I '` I ' LAMIN RD 1'-'�►. 1 3 ' {r ., OW.S,..-R`D BULO.U,NT-p` ..�"'....""Ir B11�r,—I� 4G 'to/it/1)- � MEAD .e.�.... I 4.QG BONITA .RD ' BON1TA RD B.O.NdTA-RDPei C `IQ /UNTrN— RD h.--s' ." I 1 _._ ....,, / " to Q __Jr:, 1 '�` > m _1 1 3 J Q i w = I = m' 0 ► ©ii L L11 111 4. J N t �,c. 3 BEEF-BO DURHAM—RD HAM_R D4'7/7/7/ 1#P: ,<A D U R,H,q.M a C` BErN'D--RD ., A. / Rr 'Co L�-v BEEF B�EN,D—R•D pEE ` r a► co CI ' > gyp, w 4' �re i � f/ C Z � . O 41 o A01 0 Q 1 I m /,' J,EAN�.RD . 12 1 (.4*-Cfi L ' LJ a µ fI`O 'wty �O tion 3: fir pCKMAN. ST r iq<s 11 1@Ao0� ' TAYLORS.FERRY RD- 1j ORetail Marijuana Facilities: Potential Locations m rla RNPotential Locations I Ir42- ddr ,............=.......m... Q: Schools -RD F g N �A `. m " te^ I 1,000 Ft From School Site I •- i Eµ :, N U —- _ wre 500 Ft From Park Zones& Library OLL I �� S' W s I Q �) Existing Marijuana Facility °� _ -- �SGN .��— � I elk- ft 8 000 Ft From Other Retailer } Q �� B MarijuanaQ s --..tea x "•� r'pL._.HWY. Q MU-CBD Zone µ0'J W " , `� GC.. �2 y' 1 DATA SOURCES: = R\� .`r � `:a. `} LI -_...J ~ / ICJ Tigard City Boundary CkrofTigardPI C GF: / a r Allir y Moa, i t_ss`� .rh,d.'` _ DISCIAtMER: `VashIngron Councr '^ t' + O� / I. j r*",., �� .......11111111,' 1312$Southwest Holl Boulevard N• co �" s � � TMs map was dwwed tram several dsahafat.Tim chs<enratcissn� // a.r,rrerpan,airrr.ranY.rr«,rn.reroredmrear..m Tigard,Oregon 97223 5 / ; �"w` � _ ' Warr ms Rn Nis produce However any nooaauon N errcrs u 383.639.41 21 i N 7\ 0 :., ", oppre<laeed www.tljard-ar.aor \„4:‘,,,, / Q e. ,/Q �'' y. d �t��1 D .. ? � "k- A, r ',�" __ 14 Q' 0 I At V6 el ri ' 141. 4 /d# !! 4NUT_.e,S�T 1 `Q g R fig. 1 i '1,°*�� 1..��, ,y w r� WA04, ' '44s ,.../ b Z/ a p,L-L-S-FERRY--RD .-- --'' " i l T a Q kFR SCS I L I r a m a to �� m H .�. QT z 4 64 I ; r— 6_11_6_U ri.. i _ 9741ir Iid I —� —1 \%!-7.-- ., .GAARDE .-ST.. m �.,' M.CD,O.NALD�.ST /CAMS E---WAY . J.. r z 4 M. EADOWS,--. to RDRD — 1r . a , c�° 14 BULLM.OUN-. AIN _ rwU�zI�� * r� NTV P BONITA ,RD mBDN17A RD BONITA .RDwA.IN—RD..e-- j-� , lII '" 0I I ti ad) Q v_ 1a l z mw x i --.--s ow— ill Ct C7L_ i1, t o f 1f'y.(c • , s I � '\4 1 BEBEND,RDµ E'B,E F ND...RD BEEF-Z. //fie:// — � lDURHAM—RD c._----- , _ _._ - 's '. TO//Lt. la p 04 JO' — V CC i - tet. I.l— — — „, -/ o J� tll I 0 _._ I� v JEAN—RD-- 0 , 2 Q \ I m + } ivy a I ,,-.., I l�' l o I ' I a I ! a z W I . 9 �O/ Option 4: BROC�KMAN-� ..ST '' i TA.Y.LORS_FERRY RD. Retail Marijuana Facilities: J e<;�o o�� ,,�, -----� Potential Locations w D j l car- I I Potential Locations S Q f ., .�. I j Schools -RD Q1� j -� Ce x r`- I A in rd J o N F� may.' j 1L- 3 I > �. 1,000 Ft From School Site Ft a N . p _ 500 Ft From Park Zones & Library J m 9 Existing Marijuana Facility a ce m ✓:4":" C Ea 1,000 Ft From Other Marijuana Retailer >- a'� "'"'�" ` _ co MU-CBD Zone �palev . �� GPP�"O'L,.-HWY. EE „�DATA SOURCES: -rI:I ' •—--- 7 Tigard City Boundary City of1.1 d I. �K ,/t rletra ”'—'MA�'� CJrF' ',: �_ if/ TI(.Ak fl `' rr DISCLAIMER: WasHngmn Cm my I�O�V 13125 Southwest Holl Boulevard Se'-' P ••� this map was derlvad ham several datxbasu TM City cannot Ti d.Oregon 97113 — accept responslbllity kr any erzors 7herc(ore,there are no R ar go a ma az for this prodvrt However,any no:ifirauon of errors:, 503 639.4971 0.1) 4 �� sppreaaced www.tig and-or.gov / � -� ,/ z ......., .r. FFNerli r.--/ ipilljr.1,NN,,*%. ., _H ,., 4 5, ii, 4,6 R vsz, IJT SST r O�' 5GIti'n:: ',.';'''' Yd ,0 T S T .�ii, `�. q ERRYlot" 0.4. /40041P' • 4 . n ' IC rs 1 2 R to W 1 1 1 ft• rrrr.w�� J fry! \� ''.(41 d CO 4 ,fir M.CD,ONALD.-x-ST ....4. n� I- I r KRtt/.SE.--WAY--..-- ,' BULL-MO.UrNi. t„RD I„-.._-8III 0,4 •� MEAtDOW,S.-RD--•�� y I I �-; OUIllr ' 1p G BONITA .RD -El,0 MU 'AD BONITA—RD 1� ,D dO r � o .,,,,,,,,, t MI CC u.I i !To, 4 , /PA W _ -J> : <LI _ = m o."-- 1 F; 0 '9,j. 0 0 '-I--, * z cv F �( its aQ S• u- -� ANO BE.E,F"B' DURHAM—RD D�RIH.Ar�y� I �0 �/BEEFBENDRD13 ,� A. ek Ot y o 3 � W z .'r jaw ' �v Ce o O ?� Q j m ^ ,I' vQ 'EAN�.RD o '' I a Attachment#3 CITY OF TIGARD CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 9, 2016 Members Present: Cameron Anderly, Carine Arendes (Chair),Joyce Casey,Tim Myshak (Alternate), Linli Pao (Vice Chair),Richard Shavey,and Mark Skorupa. Members Absent: Sherrie Devaney, Sarah Villanueva (Ex Officio),and David Walsh. Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly, Economic Development Manager Lloyd Purdy;Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz, and Administrative Specialist Joe Patton. Others Present: Councilor Marland Henderson,Council Liaison to the CCAC and IDA President Steve DeAngelo. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Arendes called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Town Hall,at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.Joe recorded the roll call. 2. CONSIDER MINUTES The October 12,2016 CCAC Minutes were approved. 3. MARIJUANA IN THE DOWNTOWN Commissioners discussed whether to allow the sale of marijuana downtown. The'IDA has no official recommendation. Before CCAC can make a recommendation, additional information is needed. The topic was unanimously tabled. 4. TIGARD DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE UPDATE/DISCUSSION Steve DeAngelo gave a brief overview of the activities the IDA is involved in and talked about their goals for 2017. Their meetings are taking place on a quarterly basis,which works better than trying to meet monthly. He agreed to meet quarterly with the CCAC. 5. REVIEW DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT Commissioners reviewed the draft Annual Report distributed via email. There were a couple of additional items noted for inclusion. Sean will make the changes and redistribute for review. 6. TOPICS OF INTEREST: RECOMENDATIONS The draft recommendations for CCAC and CCDA consideration were reviewed. Carine noted the suggested changes and thanked Commissioners for their participation. 7. LIAISON REPORTS A. TTAC made their recommendations for discretionary projects for city gas tax CIP funding.Joe will email their one page project prioritization. B. Council made changes to the marijuana regulations to be compliant with the state regulations. Development code amendments were made regarding dog and animal boarding facilities, downtown height limits and affordable housing. The state has committed some lottery funding to the Hunziker industrial core for Wall Street. The TTAC discussed with Council the need for Page 1 of 2 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Attachment#3 November 9,2016 more transportation funding. Since the gas tax increase did not pass, the previously approved street maintenance fee increase will become effective January 1, 2017. The increase will allow additional funding to address the transportation projects backlog. C. Sean noted that CCAC applications are due November 15,2016. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 pm. Joe Patton,CCAC Meeting Secretary ATTEST: Carine Arendes, Chair Page 2 of 2 • Attachment#3 CITY OF TIGARD CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Meeting Minutes January 18,2017 Members Present: Carine Arendes (Chair),Joyce Casey,Josh Kearney,Tim Myshak, Gloria Pinzon Marin,Kate Rogers,and Sarah Villanueva (Ex Officio). Members Absent: Cameron Anderly, and Richard Shavey. Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly,Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz, and Administrative Specialist Joe Patton. Others Present: Councilor John Goodhouse, Council Liaison to the CCAC,and resident Gus Guelet. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Arendes called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Town Hall Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.Joe recorded the roll call. 2. CONSIDER MINUTES Approval of the November 9,2016 CCAC Minutes was postponed as a quorum of members from that meeting were not present. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Gus Guelet expressed his support for allowing the sale of marijuana in downtown Tigard. 4. PROJECT UPDATES Sean gave a brief update on ongoing projects,included with the Agenda. 5. SW CORRIDOR NEXT STEPS Sean noted the appointment of a Citizen Advisory Committee to the Southwest Corridor project. It includes Chair Arendes and six other Tigard residents.They will be looking at a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which will take approximately two years. In 2018,a bond measure will be on the ballot to help fund the project. Historically this type of project has been funded 50 percent by the federal government,though with the recent election the potential federal contribution is unclear. The final route through Tigard is pending. If everything goes according to schedule light rail will reach Tigard in 2025. A kickoff event will take place on February 2 in the Library Community Room. 6. HOMELESS TASK FORCE AND DOWNTOWN This topic was postponed until the February meeting. 7. MARIJUANA IN THE DOWNTOWN Agnes briefly discussed the information contained in the Agenda regarding the issue of allowing marijuana facilities in the downtown area. It contained follow-up information requested during the November CCAC meeting. After discussion,Commissioners agreed to convey a list of concerns about downtown siting to the Planning Commission: the retail mix, a concentration of adult businesses in the proposed area,proximity to the Tigard Street Heritage Trail and the park zone buffer, and facade/potential design issues. Page 1 of 2 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Attachment#3 January 18,2017 8. DOWNTOWN STORY MAP Sean shared the City Center Urban Renewal: Past,Present,Future webpage (haps]/goo.g1/9TPqYY), which will be publicized on Tigard's website and social media accounts soon. 9. CCDA/CCAC JOINT MEETING PLANNING A brief overview of the joint meeting format was given and the Recommendations for CCDA Consideration were reviewed. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 pm. Joe Patton, CCAC Meeting Secretary A'TEST: Carine Arendes, Chair Page 2 of 2 Attachment#4 Agnes Kowacz From: Brian Bergmann <bergmannbrian@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 1:31 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Dear council members, thank you for taking the time to read my letter. My name is Brian Bergmann and I've been to every meeting regarding dispensaries. I'm a life long Tigard resident and I've helped setup 2 dispensaries, 1 in Newberg and 1 in Seaside. Both are well visited by the local residents. I meet and talk to these people all the time and they're just regular people like you and me. Some use cannabis for medication and some use it to relax. Its becoming main stream as a better alternative to opiates and alcohol. I've lost 3 family members to cancer and some of them tried cannabis to help their fight against cancer. Whatever the reason people choose to use it they should have access to it. I'm glad that the city has allowed dispensaries to open and I'm glad you changed the 2000ft barrier down to the 1000ft distance. Now as for the zoning and where they are allowed, only on 99W I feel has been to restrictive. If you decide to allow it on Main st then you should allow it in any mixed use commercial or retail area. For instance, Greenburgh Rd, Hall Blvd, 72nd, Durham, Barros rd. If you decide to not allow it on Main st then you definitely should allow it in other MUC or retail zones. Confining it to 99W makes it inconvenient for other residents to get to a cannabis store. It also restricts someone like myself a Tigard resident and cannabis user opportunity to open a store. Finding a location is extremely hard if not impossible and if you open the zoning to other areas where any business can operate then someone like myself can bring a well run cannabis shop to a area of Tigard that currently has none. There has been very little if any crime associated with dispensaries in Oregon. Our stores have strict security measures and we check every persons ID before we allow then to view merchandise. The OHA and the OLCC have done a good job regulating this new and widely popular industry. We've already brought in millions of dollars in tax revenue. Cannabis is a booming industry and our own Earl Blumenauer sees a future where we export our products to the rest of the country like craft beer and Oregon wine. All I ask is a fair opportunity to open a business that clearly people want and enjoy. Please allow dispensaries in any mixed use commercial or retail zone. Thank you for your time, Brian Bergmann. From:Agnes Kowacz <AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 10:35 AM To: 'Brian Bergmann' Subject: RE: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Ok,you can submit the letter to me and I can pass it along or you can send it directly to the City manager. Thanks, Agnes From: Brian Bergmann [mailto:bergmannbrian@hotmaii.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 10:23 AM 1 To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Attachment#4 Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Hi I can't attend the meeting but would like to write a letter to the city council about marijuana dispensaries. Thanks From:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:45:00 PM To: 'Brian Bergmann' Subject: RE: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Brian- There is a CCAC meeting tomorrow night. The City Council meeting has not been scheduled. Please see attached for tomorrow's meeting. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone:503.718.2429 Email: AgnesKPtigard-or.gov From: Brian Bergmann [mailto:bergmannbrian@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 8,2016 12:44 PM To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK.tigard-or.gov> Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order When is the marijuana on main st city council meeting? From:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:15:28 PM To: Bill Benz; Bob Wilson; Brian Bergmann; Dorothy Cofield; Gus Goulet;Jill Warren;Joel Vermillion; Keith Ashcraft; Paul Jackson; Rick Anderson;Tom Rogers Subject: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Hello- Please see attached final order for case DCA2016-00002 Marijuana Facilities.Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesK(a)tigard-or.gov 2 Attachment#4 Agnes Kowacz From: Chad Cooper <chad@chadcooper.info> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 1:51 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST - Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Thank you for your quick reply. I will attend the meeting and will provide some input. Regarding MRX Labs, I see that they are in the restricted zone. Is the restricted zones different from the what is provided in the Marijuana locations map? The building at 7225 SW Bonita Rd (HomeMasters building on the corner) is in the IP zone, but the Marijuana location map lists it in the restricted areas. Is this building allowed for Processing? "13 '-t1 W LANDMARK L_t < ,6;), -..-, - '''' ,- " LL; it4::1‘i . >- a a r L .. Li r-. 'l 71 1 Attachment#4 i - II x t, c t 1.\\,:‘,\.,\ , 1 - II )i 1 ' ' .., I 1 AI Ili , .... 47.4- )D .., - . I-L ,., R-12 - N. i R-7 11 2 Attachment#4 th411M ,, imiAsTERs , 1111641 1111101H11011444110 ',.1 t - , .. 4 SW BonitaR 1 1 From:Agnes Kowacz [mailto:AgnesK@tigard-or.govj Sent: Monday,October 31, 2016 7:14 AM To: Chad Cooper<chad@chadcooper.info> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Chad- Thanks for your email.The City is in the process of looking into the time, place and manner regulations for marijuana facilities and I would invite you to participate. There will be a meeting on November 9, 2016 at 6:30 at Town Hall regarding marijuana facilities specifically in downtown. In January, there will be a larger discussion pertaining to marijuana facilitates and the whole City. Please see attached. The labs are classified as office I believe and are permitted in the I-P zone, which is the one that you mentioned below. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 3 Attachment#4 Email:AgnesK( tigard-or.gov From:Chad Cooper[mailto:chad@chadcooper.infoj Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 9:54 AM To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK(a tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Thanks for you quick response. This does seem to be extreme for some forms of processing. For example, it seems overkill for a processor who wants to bake cookies. Is there no middle ground? I am also curious about MRX Labs,which has applied to be a licensed Rec.Test lab.Their address is 14775 SW 74th Avenue, which appears to be in the prohibited zone. 3 r ,,, ,A>Lastly, I have contacted every property manager who has industrial space available. Not a single one will lease to a marijuana related business.This accounts for every property in the allowed IH or IL zones that are not in prohibited zones. Frankly, after spending upwards of 60+ hours seeking a location, I am now convinced that there are no potential properties that 4 Attachment#4 can be leased (or purchased). It may be prudent to modify the Marijuana Facilities map to exclude all of the excluded zones as well.This would have saved me a great deal of time and effort. I have found a number of properties(including a number along 72"`'ave, and a few in the CBD region), where the owners would approve a lease, but they were in the prohibited zones. I had hoped that I could setup a small kitchen in the MUE property mentioned, but this is also not allowed. As a Tigard resident, I was optimistic that I could find a good location, but I am now modifying my business plan to use a location in Hillsboro, which has much more available industrial space. It's my opinion,that the concern over diversion and safety has been exaggerated. It seems a bit hypocritical that Max brew pub can brew beer in the CBD, and allows minors into his establishment,yet there are heavy restrictions for a processor,who has to have a highly secured building, with cloud based video surveillance, high tech alarm systems, panic buttons, badge access with audit logs,and restriction of anyone who is not a state certified Marijuana worker, regular inspections by state inspectors from OLCC, and state managed electronic tracking of every single gram of produce. Its silly to think that a business would make this investment, then divert product, when anyone can go to a local retailer and buy what they like. More importantly, "diverting" product to a retail store would be far more profitable, legal, and sane. Thanks, Chad Cooper From:Agnes Kowacz [mailto:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:42 PM To:Chad Cooper<chad@chadcooper.info> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Hi Chad- Marijuana processing is considered a general industrial use, which is permitted only in the I-L and I-H zone. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: AgnesK@tigard-or.gov From: Chad Cooper [mailto:chad@chadcooper.info] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:56 AM To:#CD PoD<CDPoD@tigard-or.gov> Subject: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Hi, I am inquiring about the suitability of this property, which is a residential home being sold as a commercial property in the Tigard Triangle. Is a marijuana processing company allowed at this location? I cannot find any info on this this zone type both for county (2210) and Tigard (MUE). It is outside the prohibited areas for non-retail marijuana businesses allowed by Tigard. 5 Attachment#4 Thanks, Chad Cooper 503-332-4223 2S101AB00601 General Property Information Site Address: 7130 SW ELMHURST ST. TIGARD OR, 97223 Tax Lot ID: 2S101AB00601 Property Account ID: R457044, Property Classification: 2210 - - See full list of Codes Neighborhood Code: ZTGL Latitude/ Longitude: 45.4313510 / 122.750233 Overlay Information 2S101AB00601 Jurisdiction: Tigard City Zoning (updated 9/2016): MUE (confirm with Tigard City Planning department) Within Urban Growth Boundary: Yes Within Metro's Urban Service Area (*Updated June Yes 30th each calendar year): In Urban Road Maintenance District (*Updated June No 30th each calendar year): In Urban Road Maintenance District (*Updated June No 30th each calendar year): In ESPD (`Updated June 30th each calendar year): No Ground Water Resouce Area: Not located within a Ground Water Resource Area SDL Assement Area/zone: Not in an Assesment Area. Sanitation District (*Updated June 30th each calendar CWS year): Water District (*Updated June 30th each calendar TVW year): Fire District (*Updated June 30th each calendar TVFR year): Fire Management Zone: 6090 Park District: Not In Park District North Bethany Plan Area: Not in North Bethany Sub Area School District (*Updated 06/30/2012): TIGARD-TUALATIN Election Precinct: 406 Commissioner District: 3- Rov Rogers Assessor Area: 0 Citizen Participation Org: CPO4M Community Plan Map: COUNTY Historic& Cultural Resource Inventory: Not located within a Historic and Cultural Resource Inventory Area POD Date Zoned: POD:1-9/9/59 ODOT District: 2B Plat: Property is not part of a subdivision Census Tract: 030700 Census Block: 1022 Census Blockgroup: 1 Census Geoid: 410670307001022 Zipcode: 97223 Garbage Hauler: Pride Disposal (503) 625-6177 Garbage Dropbox: Pride Disposal (503) 625-6177 Thomas Brothers Guide: Page: 655 - Grid: G4 6 Attachment#4 Agnes Kowacz From: Sean Farrelly Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:45 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: FW: Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations Here's a public comment Sean Farrelly Redevelopment Project Manager City of Tigard/City Center Development Agency 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503-718-2420 From: Bill McMonagle [mailto:bill@h-mc.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:04 PM To:Sean Farrelly Subject: RE: Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations THE ONLY REASON THE STATE IS IN THE "MARY JANE" BUSINESS IS FOR THE MONEY AND IF THAT IS TIGARDS PURPOSE THEN THE LEADERS OF TIGARD SHOULD BE PUT IN A PILLARY ON MAIN STREET. BILL MC From: Downtownupdates [mailto:downtownupdates-bounces©lists.tigard-or.gov] On Behalf Of Sean Farrelly Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:54 PM To: 'downtownupdates@lists.tigard-or.gov' Subject: [Downtownupdates] Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations Hello- Downtown stakeholders are invited to comment on potential changes to marijuana regulations in Downtown Tigard.The meeting will be held prior to a meeting of the City Center Advisory Commission on: Wednesday, November 9 6:30-7:00 PM Tigard Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Sean Farrelly Redevelopment Project Manager City of Tigard/City Center Development Agency 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503-718-2420 1 Attachment#4 Agnes Kowacz From: Dann Black <dblack@fsconsults.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:59 PM To: Lloyd Purdy Cc: Agnes Kowacz Subject: RE: Pot Shop on Main Thanks Lloyd. To:Tigard City Council I am a local business owner who specifically moved my Software Technology Recruiting Company to Main Street in 2013 because of the Main Street revitalization efforts and family friendly street frontage. We have world class software engineers from all over the West Coast visit our office on Main Street to see our office and we often take them for a cup of coffee or microbrew after they see our office. A huge part of our business that separates us from our competition is the "community feel" that embrace from being on Main Street which has helped us become the#12 Fastest Growing Private Company in Oregon last year. My entire office staff is against having any Marijuana sales happen on Main Street. There are already plenty of Marijuana sales locations up and down 99. Having paid people dressed as clowns at either end of Main Street spinning those signs advertising "$5k weed just down Main Street" would completely ruin the experience that has been created on Main Street. (THIS WILL HAPPEN IF THE WEED SHOP OPENS ON MAIN just like it happens now at the top of 99 near 1-5) Dann Black CEO Future State Consulting FUTURE STATE CONSULTING IDENTIFY • CONNECT • UNITE Dann Black • cart„„ n Principal t iJ OF% a72 asA dblacku'tsconsultscon, wwwlscomults,com www acebook conVfscorovlts From: Lloyd Purdy [mailto:LloydP@tigard-or.gov] Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:25 AM To: Dann Black<dblack@fsconsults.com> Cc: Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: Pot Shop on Main 1 Attachment#4 You can provide written testimony to Agnes Kowacz, she's cc'd on this email.She is the city planner managing this project.She will share any written comments with City Council. Lloyd Purdy Economic Development Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 503.718.2442 llovdp@ tigard-or.qov From: Dann Black [mailto_dblackOfsconsults.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 9:29 AM To: Lloyd Purdy Subject: Pot Shop on Main Lloyd, Nice seeing you this morning. Did that information card about the Wednesday Pot Shop meeting next week include any of the committee members? I have a client meeting and will not be able to attend next week but would like to give an opinion to the committee or person in charge of making the decision about Marijuana on Main. Do you know who that is? -Dann frO —Int ir • FUTURE STATE CONSULTING HELPING ORGANIZATIONS IDENTIFY AND ACQUIRE TALENT Dann Black 12525 SW Main St. Principal Tigard, OR 97223 USA dblackr fsconsults.corn www fsconsults.com Office 503 567 8283 www.facebook com/fsconsults Mobile:503 502.6813 The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential,privileged and protected from disclosure. This email is intended solely for the addressee(s)and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you think that you have received this email in error,please notify the sender by reply email or by telephone, and immediately delete all copies of the email and any attachments from your system. DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 . . Attachment#4 ---'--'- -• Lean_-~-�- -,rEcenet ---------- WA/ '� �0�� =�r Administr _- �_--__ ____- _-_- ' _'__�___ ___ ~ 7691 5. ALZ. 64 .� , ' - 9Yoe,e4y2c- rdik-A Yi,:xfc.k.askrai,.. of .__- -_-__'_,9_-__--_-_-_Z___._ ___.__' A4211-06_ Y.xa2 i — --------- ---------------- ---- -----``----------'- . � _-��'�i��e2�� , fax011,y . . _Zhe -'' ,dsir4a4 ,y • . . feIr__�-�w�� =��'"=�w��--_�Z°w`��y2__:--�,°�, .^x " v ----- - -- --'------------'----' -- - - - , - - -`7---'-- --,----`°------ --�-- ---~~-6 - - - Attachment#4 Agnes Kowacz From: jhelser1@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 3:05 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Marijuana sales on Main Street Dann Black suggested that you could read the following at the advisory commission meeting. Thanks From: Harvey Elser, owner of the former CARQUEST building at 12175 Main Street, Home: 23900 SW Mountain Creek Rd, Sherwood, OR To: City Center Advisory Commission, City of Tigard I would like to have been present at your meeting this evening but due to health problems I could not attend. First of all I am 100% against making any changes to the current regulations forbidding marijuana facilities on Main Street. Keep in mind that prior to marijuana being legalized for recreational use, the City was on track with it's attitude to make downtown Tigard a friendly family experience for a trip to Main Street without our young children's parents being questioned about controversial societal influence. I am the owner of the former CARQUEST building, just across from the Post Office. I see traffic congestion and an accident prone area with cars coming and going from the post office parking. I ask you why would we want to import any more traffic to downtown Tigard's Main Street? k C ,_, C fi`' 1 'i C Q11 (6 g 04 ` • In lici›.. 2 ' t0il) 41 e f0 . .11.- W >,, ow Z I" 114 Pm" E ' ' , Mal M CA 0 .' o gs ,k i L ; Dm" Z m a I ad < fit) ri �� } �, I. Y ICC , , - o Za .......... 'a z ' s hi E •c E O J z u, u �s. 3 } Attachment#4 __ _ TIGARD CLEANERS 12519 SW Main • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.2000 1- e0 Ng so cy 1`I\ C\04 -c�e. tac` e- mPybec-c Pcom TiOrc c\P_0 ecS acT\ �,s Cb c- N o Vis-\Jvtaksl a 0 ) cA‘ s��e e� , LO ky? `� . c�.,�c �� tdoe, a\\ uOot<�cc) ok•D W-Q-LAD 5cdc:L.uA\Y.- re e-t', \o� Na SCa�� Act- (� G . l� Pcke �1 &c�a UJ ‘,N �Grx\ fir. \ Ch\ r Nk\ ��S C�Oc,e,, a �Pe"C.e So 'A nCr' \oSS OUB ‘CU L.t )eSS. \-j\ -N\t", 11 V)€, (.,00( \C \\Y--e- -o c`r'Nc c'Ch , s pa-war w 'fie. c r C�cec t M .� A NL c c) ,rNao , O c c - c - `tee\:eve ac csk.vc4 c oa Nre.\.CANCA- t1.7 Oc*c� c\Ieu \CCr.\-v mck R do 1�CX Vf ��- �. -‘\ c�,eNc)t e �1e�-�' . 0kt c) E'UC'-ciki \`G� co Mt, '� 1 s<-reeY`� w\octp 0 s s\\ \e, a\t) .S0`'``e. O e, , a MCG AkAc(c c% "��Xeao e-\ U)01/4v �-, • •-‘10 \\Nc o\•/-s 'Sc,`, s ) 3r'ot Nies S-00 klc'\- WC, c k\\ hr, oe, ckc t c oy r)\\,Aa Q a O ti� cn uc - Q UUa e c-,bbNe c vJ fJM e `c.�v c.�1 arc sse to c'CksQ 0 6c:Ae N-,c„ c„kJ -\ -e. cp`)cr vOo S NOcNeWit- cAc.co 5 - e Srcee -. `SiAc-� a we 0Ne, Dc- enc- e\\ec o'c- C\ .k"--N ce, S se o� , \NA-e- e d{‘oee sit c\) vacs cr)<- .tJcG‘t\ �._ as.k\ c ocxW ) f) eac 90 td\- u1/4e < Ot e. a�uc we_ �� G cv M s ee' \.e a s-ac (Nc e cw orN tU co(-\--‘e wo, I Cb\e C\CNOL \me\N Y 4 4 .11 2 of d f"-) 4 g % 14g3 r> i • �/ VI, d. o sem , ,- a J A fi- 5C ai 4 4'4' W -�- d o w in 4.+ ° .- d W c • ICCCg E 41 i J ...V 61,.-b d 0 •1_, -1, ?.- ,\, .1.,R1 1.- E 0, 4 cp M to u° vi .' jwil,,41 (1' '2, Z :a = ) " D E g tc) E .- Vi '' r� o. a I i 8 V T . 1 4 3 s cu-mal .rill ad s..< rill ga,_ ii _1:, , i c - 114 . 4 0 ,C a c o .� E o g 2pf-a; m E 0 ai 1pi. 00 131 z w u 4,0..• . ,,_ 3 >. Attachment Marijuana on Main report from the TDA What we have done thus far as outreach: 1. Reached out to the OMS network and asked what impacts these types of businesses had in downtowns- Review comments 2. Sent an e blast to our stakeholder group (weeds & treats)- 39% open rate of data base of 425 3.Hosted a recent Downtown Dialogue where this issue was discussed- No opposition noted Asked attendees to join in the discussion tonight 4.Joint Chamber statewide meeting recap (Debi's report) Legislative panel report (who were part of the Joint Committee that wrote the OLCC regulations) discussed - customer make up —look like the general populace, you and me, high traffic counts, high level of professionalism of operators/owners —running it like a business, due to the complexities of the regulations with the OLCC and state and what is at stake, they must be on top of their game as business owners, very entrepreneurial. Also, noted these individuals want to be part of the business community. Their biggest challenge is at a Federal level they can't bank making it a cash business. This could make them a target of crime. OLCC has worked very hard from a taxing and regulation perspective to enable price points that would eliminate the black market. Side Note: I Spoke with Pd in regards to increased crime with these types of businesses- No issues to report at present. Bottom Line- it is difficult to connect with EVERY business Owner& Property owner on this and other important topics. So -at this point neutrality is our position. HOWEVER: The expectations of the TDA will be an information conduit to our stakeholder groups through the communication tools mentioned above will be continued. Atta h t#4 /0 Aa 199 II City/District Comment S a -5��"'' 4 5,` ,Ilio I - NS'1‘i) StaytonThere is one medical dispensary here on Third Ave (our"Main St"). It is one of the few f\ successful retail establishments in the downtown. There have been no adverse impacts. falls ?Klamath Falls voted down the effort to allow recreational sales last May. We are taking the wait 2 e approach. (Dallas Commercial marijuana sales are against our zoning codes here in Dallas as our codes specify that \� .suc-f rises can not violate Federal law. Thus,we have no commercial sales operations here,either \k medical or recreational. That is our current stance on the situation but obviously this is still an evolving story all over Oregon. Brian The Mayor k1 4Albany Although it is legal in Oregon, it is not legal in our city/county(Albany)yet. Only medical U°� 17 /"' marijuana is available. We will see come November election as recreational sales are up for avote. ica,-1- P-4,17 I too will be interested then. Co,) ' tjt �n l,/- Roseburg Yes we have one and it is very welcomed as the security keeps all mischief from /) \ happening. We have not had any negativity in the area, it is across the street from our historic district. OcMdin9lle Pretty much our entire downtown is located within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare so 3 d we do not have this issue to be concerned about. l'" Port Orford We have one in our district in Port Orford -responsible business and filled an empty 1 building. __-- ti0 / CJ 6 r^,�, v t v . i�. , ,�..c- L.L......: 1 ' i 4, WIAteliJ l 1 i / / ,/ -,,, i L I Attachment#4 Dayton Thanks everyone,this has been enlightening and great info. Dayton hasn't come across this, as everywhere in our downtown is within 1000 feet of a school. However, if the outskirts ever experience this type of business,there won't be a fear about it. La Grande La Grande has 2 medical dispensaries and no negative impact what so ever.One of them \ID is a great member and supporter for our Main Street program. _.. The vast majority of worries/complaints come from people who don't take the time to talk to these businesses and get to know them and what they do in my opinion. Cottage Grove Cottage Grove has 4 dispensaries. In the beginning there were concerns raised by the surrounding business owners, I think it was mainly out of fear.We have had no problems or complaints V.—\ ", since and none based on consumers actions. We have no dispensaries, medicinal or recreational,on our Historic Main Street. Only because they have not rented space, if they did it would be a retail facility only. We also have a seed grower and a processor in Cottage Grove and medicinal growing is allowed through the city. Let me know if you have any questions. 3/20/2017 iii !III t Ti `JAR L_J KALEAFA ,,,:: WHO WE ARE 7 , \ ..,,,. The Woodstock store opened 1,; summer of 2014 to medical i, Three stores now open (All Medical Et Recreational) t Portland,Oregon ri`. -1 KALAA:.::, � : t Beaverton,Oregon Oak Harbor,Washington \ , ... -'------ -: ''i._ - - 74,34#1444!t,'.;,.,,, *:.i, ,t. '. Portland,Oregon Opened June 180 201 c Pr lora": ,. - 1 3/20/2017 Kii,,A r WHERE WE ARE GOING ► Stores in the works • ► Oregon City, Oregon (2-4 month ► Gresham, Oregon (2-6 months) r'. ► Des Moines, Washington (3-8 months) 3 24- - ._ -11111101111111111.11.11W', P Tigard, Oregon (Unknown) Beaverton, Opened Feb.10th •regon 2017 i ^ " KA HOW WE GOT TO TIGARD A ILeased our space based on preliminary zoning spring 2015s''` Fell in love with potential of Downtown Main Street Hosted gallery for Tigard Art Walk 2016 Participated in the Tigard Street Fair 2016 4 - C -='?"411,,I, 1 ..aligirlirpl. , 1 -;: F.', q 1 i ,- - ,, I a , f f *x ''11' A. ;' 1 k i ;z iik - 'Elise Shearer-Tigard Art Walk Coordinator 2 3/20/2017 INITIAL TOPICS OF CONCERN _ Impact on MBU Development & Exposure Crime in MBU . PGI g''' le! ; A Park buffer -, i Tax revenue Community support 71 i --" •„..„-,-.-....10t: MBU Development & _ :,,,, ,, :.,,,,,,-, c , r' r' 2 \ i 1 I \ \i ij[ U' J 1 1 ` FOR LEASE IN PORTLAND,011001 4"4:... .---',1;', '. "- , : Ft' i_''' 1 " '''''''I' ''''' R . -.- „�. Excellent location in hof Woodstock neighborhood"—CRA NW tLC ss, Opened Fall Project Delivery:Summer SI 2016 ` ¢ r Seen no negative impact on property development around our ] glitl business '"'. „:, Deal with exposure to families &youth with rationale ax= State required security creates limited access area to minors ' p Pharmacy like service and product security controls ,tt74,fen; it e # 1 Committed to providing a low profile store front - t „ '" " 3 3/20/2017 KA CRIME IN MBUA ► Our existing shops have had no major crimes occur near or around cannabis. ► State required security system is equal to bank industry standards. Kaleafa stands to increase public safety surrounding store. ► Our security standards by embracing technology to prevent crime. ';''°-.4,1 t :;) '19,1*,„1 1 I i P * , 11 --''.-Ir..*,j'. v .. (yy a'�! ( ) •- ,fl o pis, '7 * r '4 3 ISA Park Buffer A Park Buffer code does not exist at State I.4.. r level , 4 Y, , Cities have added park buffer at their - s/ A discretion 4 ' No quantifiable data suggests that x +w>NI variance provides value to public safety \. -_ t .. f. / • Allitikkii 4 3/20/2017 KA, Tax Revenue Tax Revenue (17% State, 3% Local (Rising to 8% Local)) We openly support the potential raise of local taxation on cannabis. "If added (tax) revenue provides additional police or community resources and development, then why hold back" - Kaleafa Managing Member We openly support and embrace the votes of local community equally as state. KA Tax Revenue & Community Support Tax Revenue (17% State, 3% Local (Rising to 8% Local)) We openly support the potential raise of local taxation on cannabis. "If added (tax) revenue provides additional police or - community resources and development, then why hold back" - Kaleafa Managing Member We openly support and embrace the votes of local community equally as state. 5 3/20/2617 HA WHY KALEAFA CANNABIS? A Participation with local government and community We pride our selves with community involvement and the opportunity to give back We want to facilitate the further development of Main St. Will make excellent improvements to store front property Goal of purchasing property in near future Ir We see expect near 500 customers a day Generating large number of unique visitors to the Downtown corridor No negative impact on surrounding business development r We have seen no impact on property development around cannabis stores I Northwest industry leader in retail cannabis business operations GANNABis HA KALEAFA COMPANY EST. 2014 tt 11111 , T I GARD 6 PLEASE SIGN74 , it Tigard Planning CommissionA .4 5 Agenda Item # (0 Page _1__ of Date of Hearing 3'' -2o- 1 Case Number(s) OC ((„ - OODOLi Case Namecc' - ,),-,1 - azcA 7k^c: Q S P\ChcVL. `2-C L&\OAS'iN,i‘,S Location C. -t (,,j ,e,,e_ If you would like to speak on this item, please !CLEARLY PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Prop.nent (FOR the proposal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): Na .e: ---.--",....,..41r1 ' rName14) : ame: 1f b - tit Som Address: ritprzt.N. 1 a'�15 slek Addr- .- 1'2_, ti S 5d0 msn h �j •, r -2--33 City, State, Zip: 'Tts City, State, Zip: 40. °� ame: /0.1 lei C' ' I')/i a f k/ Name: 'i ii) U' .ea, ddress: /L fS"D <Gt) ffg,tv c;/ t Address: 9,gly S / Vl �-ey\ f/6( City, State, Zip: • rj, ex q 7_2 211 City, State, Zip: "Ft 5a...sc.)- 0/k d 7 � Name: ',• '.1cr,`1.111 �.''pe,',t..7_ C --- ..;:.V,„ . ;,:.'” � CO.� �� Name: '.- --_= --.a Address: V.'6,,;;kii,.1,;,:% 11/i1M!,eat) l 0.3,3 Sw PSL 11"-)t) Address:. City, State, Zip: 4-1 wri 1 9 baa City, State, Zi lp:,3� t54.'2'3' Name: 'Augo N TGH 0 LA g ame: Address: 14 704—S /h.,- /ki-U L ddress: tc,s3.tS W City, State 'p: Tyrtn 01,0 eye co 22(f City, State, Zip: Name: 4k,,. peS ` co, G " I Name: 00 ti tn U;x4 .) Addre s: ,VNb ti s y) ‘,)(p(il 411/4A0Address: `7(�g 5 S w irylki,rde City, tate, Zip: Ya\A Tyy.� City, State, Zip: GLYA i 1 ��f �✓li J 14121€,, 1,00-1-14-ms (scl.uo sw saiwbvree-A. avaL,4)kuu..4 ) --71010.4-a, srz erl223 PLEASE SIGN IN ''° E 4`° Tigard Plannin • ti Cimmission , &CA R Agenda Item # (0 Page 2, of 3 Date of Hearing 3' 20- 17 Case Number(s) OC fA. Z.0((,) - 007)0L{ Case Name c(', ' ,-,.v c:.k.vc: Q 5 P\ Location C -{) w;e,,e__ If you would like to speak on this item, please /CLEARLY PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (FOR the proposal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): Name: Name: ?tat)ce p Address: Address: 1loS c 5 w 2,0 Rititaittlj 5r esv......mE.,,,,,,,„ City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip:]IC-ArD i 7223 Name: Name: \....._el.si.'� �l/�� Address: ddress: I S.-S-7 T c'tA..) rel el(A.C•e_, . . ri City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip:—Tiqc�-� e._i � 91 p� ii Name: Name: / ccJJ 4 Address: &a de Vorhi5 Ad ress: 1-?..4,s-s- 5.w I ZS City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: �/ Name: g` i 9 "I Z Z3 Nam � �� C ,` Address: ��vUl�.t GOOj A ess: t O 3 3 4 Sw City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: fi , oz. ' °( 7244 Name: N me: ai 0/ 071 Address: ddress: • /2-2/q G0+ti4.4- , Lades City,State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Ti •, rn7i )71-eri CTou�lr�f Mi,y cSwTi44444sf 10/ _s7) Sid illt/p-o(e-k g7zN f��l2NJ� l y w & Flo° siverii- fu4-074-‘, 1 -7ZoG RI PLEASE SIGN IN HERE Tigard Planning Commission hs Agenda Item # (p Page of3 Date of Hearing 3"-.20- (7 Case Number(s) QC . - O OCi Case Name 1'''\.0kC: �s�vw c�zc A1./r: Q �� ` 5 ctic� �� eft S Location C If you would like to speak on this item, please CLEARLY PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (FOR the proposal): Opponent. (AGAINST/ the proposal): Name: Name: GA/IG �l0)� s Address: Address: /A21 55 Su,i `ArA n tz- City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: 7'q��.�� ©R q7223 Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 20,2017 CALL TO ORDER President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting took place in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Fitzgerald Vice President Feeney Commissioner Hu Commissioner Jackson Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner McDowell Commissioner Middaugh Commissioner Schmidt Absent: Alt. Commissioner Mooney; Commissioner Fahr Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Monica Bilodeau, Associate Planner; Kim McMillan, Principal Engineer Khoi Le; Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz; Sr. Planner Susan Shanks COMMUNICATIONS—None. CONSIDER MINUTES February 27, 2017 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the February 27 minutes; there were none, and the minutes were approved as submitted. RIVER TERRACE PARK- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PDR) 2016-00015 SUBDIVISION REVIEW SUB2016-00012;SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR2016-00010 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP2016-00010;TEMPORARY USE PERMITS TUP2016-00024 THRU 00028;MISCELLANEOUS MIS2017-00001 REQUEST:The applicant requests a 158-unit single family residential planned development with concurrent concept and detailed plan review, subdivision review, sensitive lands adopted by the City.The site is 28.5 acres and located south of Bull Mountain Road and east of Roy Rogers. LOCATION: Directly south of Arbor Pointe and Meyers Farm subdivision;west of SW 161st Avenue. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING President Fitzgerald opened the public hearing. March 20, 2017 Page 1 of 16 QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Fitzgerald read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions. Conflicts of interest - none. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Lieuallen and Feeney. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Monica Bilodeau introduced herself and told the commissioners that the department is recommending approval of the project. She went over a slide that showed the concept plan and detailed plan maps next to each other. The project is located west of SW 161st Ave. and directly east of the approved River Terrace Edge development. She summarized the project, "The applicant proposes 158 units, single-family detached development located on approximately 281/2 acres. The project is proposing amenities including almost a 1/2 acre of public park and trails that will connect to the neighborhood park located on River Terrace Edge. There are also about 2 acres of significant tree grove that will be preserved and 1.67 acres of stormwater detention facility. No formal comments were received from the public, although we were informed later this evening that the applicant would like to submit some additional conditions into the record. Staff has reviewed those conditions and we would like to discuss them, and make some potential changes after the applicant has a chance to speak to those. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ann Verdadero with Polygon Homes noted that River Terrace Park is Polygon's tenth neighborhood at the River Terrace master plan. River Terrace Park will be host to the seventh neighborhood park to complete the community plan. Development will occur following the construction of their neighborhood to the west—known as the Baggenstos site, expected in 2018. Jim Lange, Pacific Community Design, walked the commissioners through the plan. He said that they would build up from the community plan—the different layers and end up with the site plan. He spoke about the water mains and the interest on the city's part to connecting a loop all the way over to 150th. They will be running those through to the east side. There is a significant tree grove on the inventory; they are preserving that. It's a wetland connected to the stream corridor, and through this project and River Terrace Edge, they are strengthening that connection and preserving trees. He said the play area in the park would have "nature play" i.e. using teeter-totters, logs, a natural looking play area—not using neon colored play structures. He spoke about a trail on the south side that loops back up to the road so people can walk all around the area. The nature trail path coming up from the lower elevation will tie into that — giving a nice walking path. The zoning map is R-7 & R-12. As in previous applications, they are seeking to achieve that through a planned development and have a hierarchy of product rather than two. On the flattest March 20,2017 Page 2 of 16 part of the site, there is a block of alley loaded single-family detached homes and the remainder of the site is a mixture of standard front loaded homes characterized as medium, standard, and large —having to do with how wide the lots are. There is a range of architectural styles, elevations, etc. It will not be monotonous and the goal is to meet the architectural integrity of the house style. Mr. Lange distributed and commented on a memo dated March 20 (Exhibit A) requesting some Conditions of Approval to address concerns of the Stanley family who will be retaining parcel 2 of the partition application: 1. Have an easement over Tract H (already noted on the application, and they asked us to make that very clear.) 2. The final tree canopy planting plan shall remove tree #9208. (We got a little happy with our "tree stamp" and put a tree in the middle of the driveway that they will be accessing their lot from.) 3. No PUE shall be required on Parcel 2 of the partition plat. (On the partition plat, but no other drawing, we had a dashed line that makes it look like we were requesting a PUE — that was in error. Parcel 2 of the partition is not part of the subdivision, and it does not need to make its PUE dedications now—if they ever develop, they could do it then.) 4. Was our attempt to provide a mechanism so that they get a chance to review our retaining wall designs before they are built—and we are perfectly happy with that. 5. To clarify what type of fencing we would put on top of those retaining walls and so we have stipulated a 5' high minimum chain link fence. 6. Was to address their desire to be able to mow their lower property with an access to the south. This came up today and we did not have a chance to speak to staff on this. We weren't sure if they would be allowed a gate off the east end of Yukon Dr., so we wrote a condition that either accesses it through tract G which is a remnant future development parcel or from the end of Yukon Drive. Mr. Lange addressed the question of the elevation of Potomac Road; it's 370. The elevation of Potomac Road in the middle of the block (above that) is 400. So there is 30 feet of fall from one street to the other. We cannot run a road that steep. The only other solution would be to completely cut the top of the hill down by about 20'. We had that constraint in two different directions—E/W and N/W. We had to get this street lined up for an extension further north, so we took advantage of that grade and are doing split level homes. The bottom of those would be one story below the road to help take up nine feet of that grade —the rest of it is a combination of retaining walls and slopes and then it left this block standard being too long. The answer to that is to add some pedestrian mid-block crossings. We proposed one coming out of the knuckle, and staff asked us to do a second one lined up with another street so that people do not have to walk all the way around - but they will be climbing up a significant stairway. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—Farrand Livingston, 7739 SW Summerton St., Wilsonville — is an attorney representing the Stanley family— the owners of 19 acres tax lot 2900. He noted they want him to support the request for the approval of the subdivision with the conditions set March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 16 forth in the staff report, as well as the additional conditions in the memo Mr. Lange had distributed. He spoke about the retaining wall— there is concern because the resident's foundation is about 50 feet from that- and that is a serious wall. The family wants an opportunity to see what kind of plans are being presented for the installation of that wall. He went on to explain the reasons for requesting access across Tract G to Parcel 2. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION —None. STAFF COMMENTS Associate Planner Monica addressed the memo they had received from Pacific Community Design: As clarification to Conditions 1 & 6 —we would add "prior to final plat." Condition 2 we would add "prior to commencing site work." Condition 3 we would like to strike out. We believe the plans already clearly show that no PUE is on the plans and no PUE is required of this final land partition. So, we do not recommend adding a condition in this case. Condition 4 we would like to replace with "Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant shall submit a site work permit for all retaining walls to be constructed adjacent to the southern boundary of parcel two. The reason we have these changes to this condition? We feel the city cannot necessarily enforce what was written here as a proposed condition. It's a separate matter that the applicant and the owner of that parcel should work out ahead of time before submitting building plans for that wall and make sure they are in agreement with what that wall should like. It's not in the procedure to have any type of public review process during the building permit stage—and that's how that proposed condition is written. To Condition 5 - we would add "Prior to conditions of occupancy." Our only significant changes are to Conditions 3 & 4. QUESTIONS Regarding striking Condition 3 about no PUE and wanting it stricken —if we actually look at 6.2 on the Preliminary Subdivision plat, there is a line showing a PUE. I think we need to have a condition that asks them to revise it to pull that PUE off. It's staff's interpretation that no PUE is shown - but it's showing on there; I think that's the discrepancy that concerns the property owner. So either we can submit an updated plat to show that if that's the way we want to revise the condition. Yes,we can request a revision to the plan to make it clear that no PUE is showing on Parcel 2. There was a question regarding Condition 4 and the retaining wall. Assistant Community Development Director, Tom McGuire added background information: "The applicant and the owner's representative of the other parcel are working out a private agreement. They didn't have time to have that completed so the other party would like to be on the record—if they don't get that agreement worked out then they would be on the record and they could appeal the decision to council if necessary. They're both in agreement that Polygon will work with them and provide plans to them for them to review if they can get their own Geotech or their own engineer to review that. They're putting together an agreement where they would mutually agree on what the design of the retaining walls would be before they submit a building permit. The other aspect of this is if some point in the future that parcel 2 develops, those retaining walls will be March 20, 2017 Page 4 of 16 taken out, and the whole area has to match. So those lots to the south of the retaining wall will not be developed until that future extension of the street and all the other things happen on the adjacent parcel. Our biggest objection is the wording of that condition. The intent is for them to work out an agreement with each other over the design of the retaining wall, and then they would submit those plans to us for review at the building permit phase." My concern is the maintenance of the property surrounding for fire protection. I assume there are rules that exist on maintaining property prior to its development? "Tualatin Valley Fire has the authority if weeds get to a certain height, and we also have a section in our code that regulates the height of weeds - making sure they're kept down." APPLICANT REBUTTAL We are in the process of making an agreement, and are okay with the modifications staff has made. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION • This is a very well put-together application, consistent with the other plans we have seen in River Terrace. I appreciate the additional parks and trails being added - on top of what the city requires in their overall master plan. The site is steep; the developer and engineers went with the topography that was there. Adding those steep stairs does add stairs and they do add connectivity to able- bodied people. Other ways achieve connectivity as well. • I understand the grading constraint but I wonder if more walkways could be added to alleviate the lack of connectivity concern. I'm a bit torn. • The application is thoughtful and comprehensive. • I appreciate that it's consistent with the other developments in the master plan. • I'm in agreement with the previous commissioners and am comfortable with this. • I have no objections to this. • I would like to see a switchback with those steep stairs that is wheelchair accessible, but I understand that would be a lot of valuable property to give up, so we're making do with the best we can in the situation we have. • I want to give a shout out to the Stanley family and the developer regarding the retaining wall—with their give and take attitude. • I have no concerns with this. MOTION FOR CONCEPT PLAN Commissioner McDowell made the following motion: "I make a motion to approve the Concept Plan for the River Terrace Park Plan Development to include PDR2016-00015; SUB2016-00012; SLR2016-00010; MLP2016-00007; TUP2016-00024—00028, and MIS2017- March 20, 2017 Page 5 of 16 00001 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval in the staff report and based on the testimony received today. Commissioner Feeney seconded the motion. VOTE — Seven in favor - Commissioner Hu abstained. RESULT —CONCEPT PLAN MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR WITH ONE ABSTENTION MOTION FOR DETAILED PLAN Commissioner McDowell made the following motion: "I move for approval of the Detailed Plan for River Terrace Park Plan Development that would include PDR2016-00015; SUB2016- 00012; SLR2016-00010; MLP2016-00007; TUP2016-00024—00028; MIS2017-00001 and early grading authorization, and findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report including the addition of memorandum dated March 20 with the following conditions. 1. Prior to final plat approval the final subdivision shall contain an express grant of an easement over the entire Tract H, for the benefit of Parcel 2, for access and all underground utilities installed in subdivision. 2. Prior to commencing site work the final Tree Canopy Planting Plan shall remove Tree #9208. 3. Stricken as written and then revised to say "Revise final plans to show "No PUE on Parcel 2 of the partition plat." 4. Replace with "Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant shall submit a site work permit for all retaining walls to be constructed adjacent to the southern boundary of Parcel 2. 5. Prior to issuance of occupancy, Polygon will install a 5-foot-high minimum chain link fence at the top of all retaining walls adjacent to the southern boundary of Parcel 2. 6. Prior to final plat, Polygon shall grant an access easement across Tract G to Parcel 2 of the partition, in the event that access cannot be obtained from the east end of SW Yukon Street, for purposes of accessing Parcel 2 with mowing equipment. Commissioner Feeney seconded the motion. VOTE — Seven in favor - Commissioner Hu abstained. RESULT —DETAILED PLAN MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR WITH ONE ABSTENTION PUBLIC HEARING - OPENED MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS -DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2016-00004 REQUEST:The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The proposal includes amending the Tigard Development Code (TDC), specifically Chapter March 20,2017 Page 6 of 16 18.735, Marijuana Facilities. The following four options are being proposed for Planning Commission to consider: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. LOCATION: Citywide STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz went over a PowerPoint (Exhibit B) that explained why staff is before the Planning Commission with this topic at this time. She noted that staff is not making a recommendation on the project but that they've come up with some options for the commission to evaluate (noted above). After her presentation, she invited questions and comments. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS What are the current, existing regulations? The regulations for retail facilities limit it to properties that are only fronting Pacific Hwy. So that would be the big regulation that could potentially be affected, as well as the fact that currently Marijuana facilities are not permitted in the MU-CBD zone —which is the downtown area. Did City Council have a consensus that this needed to be reviewed? Yes. Is the distance still 2,000 feet? It's now 1000 feet, based on state legislature that went through that we can't require more than 1000 feet— so we made it consistent with city law. The other change that council made was the hours of operation recommended were 10:00 am— 8:00 pm; the state came back with 7:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. Council agreed to match the state; that lines up with the county as well. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR— John Widmer 12215 SW Main Street, Tigard— said he's in favor of Option 4. He's one of the principals of Kaleafa Cannabis. He said they have had a lease on Main Street for a couple of years now. They employ roughly 100 people now - with three shops. With the rules of the OLCC in place and the rules from the state of Oregon, he believes a lot of this is fear based. He said he does not use marijuana himself. He has three children— 9, 11 & 15. He said the people who shop in these places are your neighbors —in his case - his parents. He said for the most part all the arguments are fear based. No one can quantify why they don't want marijuana. There are March 20, 2017 Page 7 of 16 a lot of positive elements especially from a medical standpoint. As for possible crime— there's very little in his shop. He noted an 8% tax will eventually generate money for the City. QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS FROM COMMISSIONERS There were some questions about security and banking problems such as having to use cash. Mr. Widmer said they deal with checks with all of their vendors so they don't have to have cash. They just make some bank runs a couple of times a day. One commissioner expressed concern about the facade of a Marijuana shop in the downtown area. The City of Tigard is trying to be a showcase of walkability —the aim is to make downtown Tigard walkable. Regarding the Portland store, with bars on the windows and all the windows and doors blacked out and several big signs outside, the concern is how does that kind of facade fit into downtown Tigard where we want people to walk. Michael Bonham —10150 SW Murdock St. 97224—is an employee of John Widmer at Kaleafa Cannabis as of November. He hopes to be a manager at the store on Main Street. He said he grew up in Tigard, went to Templeton Elementary, Tualatin Middle School and is a graduate of Tigard High and Portland State. He testified to his personal experience with cannabis. At one point a while back, he became sick and researched cannabis on the internet. He believes he was deceived his entire life about the actual effects of cannabis and the whole notion that it is a gateway drug, bad for your health, dangerous,promotes crime and immorality, etc. He finds those to all be fear-mongering tactics with no quantifiable data to support it. Speaking to family concerns on Main Street, he said there are already three places to buy alcohol there where you can go into those places, get blitzed, walk out and stumble down the street in front of kids. Whereas in the dispensary you buy your product and take it home to consume privately, as the law allows. Chad Cooper—10334 SW Picks Way, Tigard 97224 said he was looking for the non-retail locations—looking for a location to start up a processing facility in Tigard. He's been unable to find one. The biggest restriction relates to the fact that the residential boundaries overlap almost half of the industrial; the other half is typically owned by larger property management development groups that have no interest in leasing to marijuana related businesses. He said this would be different from a retail store —it would not attract crowds. Processing is a broad range of things —people making extracts - to people baking cookies. Industrial zoning doesn't seem to fit as well as things like labs —it's difficult to find locations with these zoning restrictions. Anything that isn't retail has to be in industrial. The requirements need to be changed. The residential boundary should be removed to open up more space again; there's little risk to children. Mary Alexander 10150 SW Murdock St. 97224—has lived in the city for 44 years. She is in favor of Option 4—She is 78 years old and has a rare glaucoma issue. She researched for two years before she decided to use medical marijuana. It's either she uses the drops or she goes blind. There is a lot of misinformation out there. She said alcohol is every bit as bad and people leave liquor stores and drink. There are people that need medical marijuana. Her eye pressure March 20,2017 Page 8 of 16 before taking marijuana was 15 in one eye and 14 in the other. It is down now to 10.5 in one and 11 in the other. This is a huge benefit that she can't get from regular medication. Gordon Goulet—8075 SW Thorn Street—has lived in Tigard for 2 years. He's been working for Kaleafa Cannabis for almost four years - right out of college. He is the IT director for the conglomerate. He told the commission that marijuana should be treated the same as micro brewing. It's another way for people to enjoy their lives and surroundings. He wanted to talk about the technical aspect—he spoke about testing, security, and so forth. He designs everything and helps make sure compliance is achieved at every transaction level. Every transaction is tracked down to each person and who purchases it. He can break it down to how old they are and make sure that they only receive so much marijuana per day. Unlike alcohol— you can go back in there and buy the whole store eventually if you wanted to. With marijuana, you couldn't; you'd have to go to multiple stores and really work at it to try and buy a lot. He li reminded them that Measure 91 was passed by a majority vote in Oregon. 75 percent of the voting population in Tigard passed the initiative to raise taxes on marijuana. He said, "Two of the businesses that do the most sales by volume is just north and south of Tigard —King City in Challis Farms; and Nectar, up by the beautiful old strip club and other joint up there receive more tax money there than some of the biggest shops in Portland. I think this would be a great opportunity to bring this tax revenue into the City of Tigard. I'm for Option 4." TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION — Marsden Smith 12332 SW Hollow Lane Tigard 97223 thinks alcohol is very popular and very well accepted and there's only one liquor store in Tigard. He doesn't think Tigard needs additional stores along those lines. He wonders what Tigard wants to be known as. "Do we want to be known by a Fred Meyer complex? Is that our goal in life?What would we like to be known for? There is research that says that ifyou smoke a lot of you tend to Y Marijuana accomplish less in life. You earn slightly less than those who don't and you're fine with p g Y accumulatingless in life. The tax revenue 400 000 you're goingtoget is nothing. I'm in favor of $ � Y g Option 1 —no change." Ed Whitehead—9230 SW River View Terrace 97224 appreciates the Planning Commission and asks them to retain and not expand the current regulations concerning the locations of marijuana stores. He believes the current regulations are sufficient to meet whatever need there may be for those who choose to engage in the use of the drug. He and his wife are involved in a program through their church,which works with children from low-income families by providing meals and activities for them. He noted most of these children come from homes where alcohol and drug use—largely marijuana—create situations that contribute to learning and behavioral issues on their part in school, as well as in the general community. One of the areas indicated as a possible location along Bonita is near the apartment complex where many of these children and their dysfunctional families reside. He said his own son who,while in high school many years ago, used marijuana. He did so for several years and he acknowledges now that it was not a good thing. It adversely affected his behavior, memory, conduct towards his parents, and others. Now, as a father—he is against it. He does not want to see a marijuana store in downtown Tigard and continually speaks to his children about his desire that they abstain. There is much information on the effects of marijuana on the body that should cause March 20,2017 Page 9 of 16 concern and it is a confusing science. It affects the nervous system, internal organs,immune systems, etc. All of these are things that should concern us. He believes Tigard has provided what the law has required. There is no need to alter or change any regulations allowing additional areas for sale and distribution of marijuana. Aliza Boyce —15378 SW 82nd Place,Tigard—is a Tigard High School student who is on the leadership council for the club at Tigard HS called STUDD (Stop Tigard Underage Drinking& Drug use). She said she believes marijuana has an effect on both her and her fellow classmates. She is a junior, and is sad to have seen the effects of marijuana on her classmates. She noticed a pattern with students who use and those who don't. The ones who use tend to slack in their responsibilities. She said the effects of marijuana have been scientifically proven to be negative on the brain and especially harmful for young people whose brains don't fully develop until the age of 25. She said, "Allowing more shops in downtown will allow more adults to have access to marijuana and would be on the student's radar, and when something is on your radar, you're more likely to wonder if you should try it. That can be very dangerous to kids my age. Thank you for listening and thank you for all the work you do." Connie Ramaekers 9655 SW Murdock St. Tigard 97224 has lived there since 1979. Her job as the Prevention Specialist over the past 35 years has been to help the youth in Tigard by addressing the drug and alcohol use and abuse that happens among them. They have a club called STUDD (Stop Tigard Underage Drinking and Drug use) at Tigard High. There are close to 100 members. The student members are peer models to help other students make good choices in their lives. Ms. Ramaekers would like to see Tigard keep the current existing regulations in relation to marijuana facilities —meaning Option 1. The Rocky Mountain HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) report in January 2016 states: "Evidence and research demonstrates that marijuana,which has skyrocketed in average potency over the past decades,is addictive and harmful to the human brain—especially when used by adolescents. In states that have already legalized the drug, there has been an increase in drugged driving crashes and youth marijuana use. This is very true in Oregon. Her big concern is the increase of marijuana use among teens since Measure 91 passed. Every spring they give a survey to their students. In our own school district, marijuana use among eleventh graders at Tigard High has increased substantially. The data shows a 20% increase from 2014 to 2016. In 2014,it was 3.6% -in 2015, it jumped to 17.2% and in the spring of 2016, it has jumped to 23.5%. Our youth report that marijuana is very easy to get. The number one resource is from their friends —and these friends are getting it from their parents or older siblings. The more access adults have to marijuana, the more access our youth has to it. We need to keep regulations as they are. With more marijuana retail shops opening, and especially allowing them into downtown Tigard where many families go for recreation, make it more readily available to adults and youth. Marie Watkins lives in Wilsonville but works at the Tigard Tualatin School District at 6960 SW Sandberg St., Tigard, 97223 - For the School District she is a certified Prevention Specialist and the Prevention Coordinator and Director for a coalition called "Tigard Turns the Tide" and also works for the STUDD club at Tigard High. She advocates that the current regulations be kept the same - Option 1. She believes Tigard is a beautiful place and believes that the city wants to make it as family friendly as possible. Parks and schools are nearby. Many activities occur downtown such as the Saturday and Sunday markets. Families with small March 20, 2017 Page 10 of 16 children attend those. Allowing dispensaries to be in plain sight of our young children allows a social norm to be created that marijuana use is okay. She believes it's prohibiting to our youth's growth and development. The more the students see these shops - the more there are social norms created that it's an okay thing. It becomes the norm—and is that really what we want for the community of Tigard? She quoted the Rocky Mountain HIDTA Report that says "Despite the medical and recreational marijuana businesses being banned in 68% of local jurisdictions in Colorado, there are still a total of 940 marijuana businesses in Colorado —more than the 322 Starbucks locations, and more than the 202 McDonald's locations combined." She requests that Tigard not be in the percentage for Oregon that allows marijuana dispensaries to overwhelm our streets as well. Bruce Krieg—12055 SW Burlheights St., 97223 stated that other communities near us have high standards in their downtown communities. The city of Tualatin has a larger linear feet restriction - and other surrounding communities don't have any in their downtown at all. He believes it makes sense for us to be a leader in that regard as well. He would like Option 1 — keep it as is. He noted that seeing the youth here to testify should make us take notice. He strongly believes that if teenagers are here trying to stand up against this, and advocate for themselves,we should honor that. Leslie Boyce 15378 SW 82nd Place,Tigard 97224 advocated for keeping Option 1. Because she could not stay to give her oral testimony, she submitted a handwritten statement (Exhibit C). Gale Vorhis —12455 SW 128th Ave., Tigard 97224—just moved here two months ago. He's never seen so many marijuana stores in his life; not even in California. The marijuana facilities are right next to restaurants. Children see them - and it's bad for children. He's not against it for medicinal purposes—but is against recreational. He backs Option 1 He doesn't want to see any more facilities here. He's seen these shops with guys outside on the street spinning signs advertising marijuana. "You don't even see that with liquor stores - because they're not permitted to do it." He is with option 1 —no more facilities. Elizabeth Olson—12214 SW Lansdowne Lane 97223 — supports retaining Option 1. She doesn't think theywould even be talkingabout this if it weren't for the tax revenue. She spoke p about the short and long term bad side effects. It harms unborn children from mothers who used cannabis during pregnancy. Onset of effects is within minutes when smoked and 30 to 60 minutes when cooked and eaten. The effects last between two and six hours. She said the question is - do we want Tigard to be "A place to call home"? Do we want it to be home for children, teens, families and seniors—or for drug users? She, personally and her friends,will not be patronizing areas with pot businesses - and that includes downtown Tigard. She does not believe a family-friendly place should include this type of business. Emily Wallace —8900 SW Sweek Drive Tualatin 97062 lives in Tualatin but goes to school in Tigard. She said she is the daughter of a counselor who works with mental illness. In her experience at school, she has seen a lot of changes in social norms in favor of marijuana usage. Kids at school have been joking about it more in ways that you don't really know if they're joking. They might be talking about it bluntly in class and the teachers won't be sure, so they March 20,2017 Page 11 of 16 won't say anything about it. It's just becoming something that's "okay" in our high schools and that's something we really need to put a halt to. One way to keep that from getting any worse is keeping the limits on accessibility by not letting the adults that are providing the students with marijuana to have as much access to it. John Widmer, Principal at Kaleafa Cannabis came back up and reminded everyone that this is OLCC - you can sell to 21 and older. I understand that you're concerned about the impact on the kids, but this is a parent issue as much as accessibility issue. I think that that can't be lost. You can't sell to anyone under 21. Keep that in mind. I have 3 kids, my brother has 2— and we're co-owners of the company— so I completely understand it—but I wanted to mention that one more time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION President Fitzgerald asked each commissioner to voice an opinion on this topic and let the rest of the group know which option(s) they support. At this point, Planner Agnes Kowacz reminded the commission that they are not limited to the four options; they can make up their own. Each commissioner commented: • Commissioner McDowell: I am for option 1 —leave it as is. I have done some surveying of friends, family, and organizations I'm a part of, and there's an overlying cultural element that many people are just not comfortable with. It goes against what they want to represent- and I fall in that category as well. Some key areas for me outside of culture is the fact that it puts the federal government and the state and citizens in an adversarial position—we don't know that outcome yet, so that's another factor I don't like. As long as it's tied together with medical and recreation, it's going to be a big problem. I don't support recreational use in any form and I know a lot of people don't either. Medical... maybe...? However, if we're talking about together - co-locating—then absolutely not. In my opinion,we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if there weren't a level of potential tax dollars here with the issue. It sends a message that money is more important than morality, and I think that's the wrong message —especially for the youth and for our community. I definitely am not supportive of it, and I would choose to retain Option 1. • Commissioner Lieuallen: You hit the nail on the head so far as the tax dollars. It's offensive to me that the question is based on tax dollars. This is a moral question with many, many people. It's a question of the environment they want to raise their families in. But this $400,000 tax question seems like... I can't even fathom this... but on the flipside we're not here to discuss the legality of the usage of marijuana. It is legal— the people in Oregon decided that by a majority - the people in Tigard decided that. That said, I have friends who have smoked marijuana and I've never heard even one of them say they're having any problems finding it. I don't think we have an access issue. I see no reason to make areas in Tigard less family friendly. I heard at least one of the people here March 20,2017 Page 12 of 16 e a tonight say they wouldn't be willing to take their family down there with this. I have to respect that, and I don't think they would be alone in that decision. I think there'd be other people who would agree and not want to take their family near this marijuana thing. That said, I think attitudes may change and it might be revisited 20 years from now. I think those opinions may change and 20 years from now attitudes may change and people will be about as afraid of that as people are today of liquor stores and bars on every street corner. However, today, that is not the reality. There is a large percentage of the population that looks at marijuana as a very scary thing— something to keep the family and kids a long ways away from. It's a small thing to give them a Main Street Tigard with walkability and a family atmosphere - by sticking with Option 1. • Commissioner Middaugh: I'm torn. I came here thinking, "Why not just allow it anywhere?" but at the same time,we have one liquor store and that seems to serve us well. So I am leaning towards keeping the regulations we have and not expanding it any. I really appreciate the testimony we received tonight- especially regarding mental health and prevention. I also appreciate our high school students coming out to testify. It's a tough subject. The legality of it isn't in question, so I'm in favor of keeping the regulations we have. • Vice President Feeney: I too came in a little torn. I'm one for a fair business but I also have young children—not to say that they can get it directly, but it is a little more prevalent now in our community. I was on the Planning Commission when we set this code in only a couple of years ago. We haven't even had a chance to really vet it. The City of Tigard Planning Code on other developments go 5 years or 10 years, or a little bit longer. We haven't proven yet, at least in my mind, that what we approved a couple of years ago is not correct. We went through the effort -we made that decision for reasons. We've had a couple dispensaries open, and yes I understand it's not maxed out, and there's a couple more that could fit in there, or there might be other opportunities - but we just haven't had the chance to see it. That's why I'm leaning towards keeping it the same - just on the basis that we haven't had a chance to prove it wrong. • Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with all the testimony of my fellow commissioners and I respect the opinions of the many people that have come tonight to testify for Option 1. I feel that it would be in our best interests to represent them in supporting Option 1. • Commissioner Hu: I might be the most liberal here of all, but I could support Option 1 or Option 2. Regarding opening up downtown, my biggest concern that I mentioned earlier- is the façade issue. Our city wants to be a showcase of how walkable we are— and I just don't know how opening up a facility that has heavy bars with windows and doors taped up would achieve that purpose. So I'm okay with either Option 1 or 2. I don't feel comfortable opening up downtown Tigard at this point - so I will vote for 1 or 2. • Commissioner Jackson: I'm also of the conflicted camp. I came here tonight after doing all the reading and research related to this, leaning toward Option 2. I came tonight waiting to hear testimony and anything else that would move me in one direction or the other. I tend to remain more or less where I started—I would support either 2 or 1. I appreciate and expected the public opposition to loosening those restrictions, and from a subjective sensibility, I'm against widespread marijuana use as well. On the other hand, as a Planning Commissioner there are other responsibilities at play. One thing I kept going back to in rereading and thinking about what is in Comprehensive Plan Goal March 20, 2017 Page 13 of 16 No. 9.1.3 "The City's land use and regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development," etc. I feel like Option 1 is just bordering on too restrictive for me when I consider that. I could go on, but in summary, I would support either 1 or 2—leaning a little more toward Option 2. • President Fitzgerald: We've been working on the Tigard Triangle—we've been working exhaustively on that code to put the right code language in there to get some development in that area. Some of the blue areas include Hall Blvd and whatnot. If you listened to the 45 minute audio that was sent to us from council, there was no specific talk of tax dollars, but I feel that this is a tax dollar grab. We had a very robust and thorough and sometimes heated conversation while we made these recommendations to council. There was disagreement within the seated council at that time; then we found a happy medium. Our proposal was conservative in the fact that—this is new to all of us. We went through this prohibition and alcohol—we've been through this historically through society in the United States. This is a new thing—yes our proposal to council was conservative, but because we are a city that can come back and ask to have changes made later—after we've kind of lived with it for a little bit... at this point, federal guidelines could say you can't do this at all—so who knows what's going to happen? I know Mr. Widmer leased the property before we even did the original zoning, so there is a little bit of concern there for him. I have no issue with someone trying to run a business; but I have an issue with maintaining the reputation and integrity of Tigard. We do not have a good reputation outside of the City of Tigard. People see Hwy 99 and they don't see what else is here. People work hard for downtown Tigard to kind of make it something- and things are starting to coalesce there and happen. Things are going to start coalescing and happening in the Tigard Triangle as well. I can strongly support Option 1. I will not support any of the other options, nor will I put forward any other options beyond ones that are on the table. I want to send a loud and clear message back to council—we were clear in what we said the first time and we are stating and standing firm with it again this time. Commissioner Hu recommended that they make two motions, one for Option 1 and one for Option 2—just to have a record that some people actually can support Option 2. Vice President Feeney advised him that he could go ahead and make a motion for Option 2; then, if that did not pass, they could do another motion for Option 1. MOTION Commissioner Hu made the following motion: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council in the matter of Marijuana Facilities Place Regulations No. DCA2016-00004 to change the current marijuana regulation as stated in Option No. 2. Commissioner Jackson seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE FOR: Commissioners Jackson and Hu March 20, 2017 Page 14 of 16 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: April 11, 2017 PLEASE PRINT This is a city of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent—(Speakm:In Favor Opponent—(Speaking A:ainst Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. I Name,Address&Phone No iSut (Ad .CIANt r It 5 T ')P1C uct t.9( r).4). ScoickVon V-tittik ei °.) --brt, V vek tV)— tine,Address& Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name, \ddtt,,& Phone No None, ddress&Phone \o. Name, \cldress&Phone No. Name,Address& Phone N Name,Address&Phone No. Name, \ddress&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address& Phone No. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS IIPI City of Tigard T I G A R D REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February 7,2017 TO: Affected Agency FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Agnes Kowacz,Associate Planner Phone: (503) 718-2429 Fax: (503) 718-2748 Email:agnesk@tigard-or.gov DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2016-00004 - MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS - REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (MC). The proposal includes amending the Tigard Development Code (TDC), specifically Chapter 18.735,Marijuana Facilities. The following four options are being proposed for Planning Commission to consider: 1. Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. 2. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. 3. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. 4. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. LOCATION: Citywide.APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2,2.1.3, 2.1.6,2.1.11, 2.1.23, 9.1.3 and 9.1.12; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. Attached are Draft Amendments to be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on MARCH 20, 2017. If you wish your comments to be incorporated into the staff report, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY 5PM, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2017. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date,please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions,contact Agnes Kowacz at 503-718-2429 or agnesk(a,tigard-or.gov. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: — Name&Number of Person(s) Commenting: Development Services/Development Eng. Building Division/Mark VanDomelen (Copy on all Notices of Decision) Building Official Police Department/Jim Wolf Public Works/John Goodrich Crime Prevention Officer (Copy on all Notices of Decision) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) City of Beaverton Recreational Marijuana Program Planning Manager Attn:Amanda Borup POB 4755 PO Box 22297 Beaverton,OR 97076 Milwaukie,OR 97269-2297 City of Beaverton City of Durham City Manager Steven Sparks,Dev Svcs Mgr 17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd POB 4755 Durham,OR 97224 Beaverton,OR 97076 City of King City City Manager City of Lake Oswego 15300 SW 116th Ave Planning Director King City,OR 97224 PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 City of Portland City of Tualatin Planning Manager Planning Bureau Director 18880 SW Martinazzi Ave 1900 SW 4th Ave,Suite 4100 Tualatin,OR 97062 Portland,OR 97201 Brian Harper OR Dept of Environmental Quality(DEQ) Metro-Land Use and Planning Regional Administrator 600 NE Grand Ave 700 NE Multnomah St#600 Portland,OR 97232-2736 Portland,OR 97232 OR Dept of Geo.&Mineral Ind. WA Co.Dept of Land Use&Trans 800 NE Oregon Street,Suite 965 Naomi Vogel-Beattie Portland,OR 97232 1400 SW Walnut St MS 51 Hillsboro,OR 97123-5625 Clean Water Services Development Svcs Dept Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue David Schweitzer/SWM Program John Wolff,DeputyFire Marshall 2550 SWHillsboro Hwy 11945 SW 70th Ave Hillsboro,OR 97123 Tigard,OR 97223-9196 Tri-Met Transit Development Oregon Health Authority(OHA) Ben Baldwin Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Project Planner PO Box 14450 1800 SW 1st Ave#300 Portland,OR 97293-0450 Portland,OR 97201 DLCD FORM 1 NOTICE OF A PROPOSED CHANGE FOR DLCD USE TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR File No.: wows LAND USE REGULATION Received: Local governments are required to send notice of a proposed change to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation at least 35 days before the first evidentiary hearing. (See()Ak 000-01 X 002U for a post-acknowledgment plan amendment and ()A R 060 U2 7 OM) for a periodic review task). The rules require that the notice include a completed copy of this form. Jurisdiction: City of Tigard Local file no.: DCA2016-00004 Please check the type of change that best describes the proposal: ❑ Urban growth boundary (UGB) amendment including more than 50 acres,by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB ❑ UGB amendment over 100 acres by a metropolitan service district ❑ Urban reserve designation,or amendment including over 50 acres,by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB ❑ Periodic review task—Task no.: ® Any other change to a comp plan or land use regulation(e.g., a post-acknowledgement plan amendment) Local contact person(name and title): Agnes Kowacz,Associate Planner Phone: 503-718-2429 E-mail: agnesk@tigard-or.gov Street address: Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd City: Tigard Zip: 97223- Briefly summarize the proposal in plain language. Please identify all chapters of the plan or code proposed for amendment(maximum 500 characters): Development Code Amendment to amend the Tigard Development Code(TDC)Chapter 18.735 Marijuana Facilities, relating to place regulations for marijuana facilities. The proosal includes four options for Planning Commission to consider and recommend to City Council. Date of first evidentiary hearing: 03/20/2017 Date of final hearing: 04/11/2017 ❑ This is a revision to a previously submitted notice. Date of previous submittal: Check all that apply: ❑ Comprehensive Plan text amendment(s) ❑ Comprehensive Plan map amendment(s)— Change from to Change from to ® New or amended land use regulation ❑ Zoning map amendment(s)— Change from to Change from to ❑ An exception to a statewide planning goal is proposed—goal(s) subject to exception: ❑ Acres affected by map amendment: Location of property, if applicable(site address and T, R, Sec.,TL): citywide List affected state or federal agencies, local governments and special districts: Tigard, OHA, ODOT,TVF&R, OLCC http://www.oregorf.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -1- Form updated November 1, 2013 NOTICE OF A PROPOSED CHANGE - SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. Except under certain circumstances,' proposed Include this Form 1 as the first pages of a combined amendments must be submitted to DLCD's Salem file or as a separate file. office at least 35 days before the first evidentiary 5. File format: When submitting a Notice of a hearing on the proposal. The 35 days begins the day of Proposed Change via e-mail or FTP, or on a digital the postmark if mailed, or, if submitted by means other disc, attach all materials in one of the following than US Postal Service, on the day DLCD receives the formats: Adobe .pdf(preferred); Microsoft Office (for proposal in its Salem office. DLCD will not confirm example, Word .doc or docx or Excel .xls or xlsx); or receipt of a Notice of a Proposed Change unless ESRI .mxd, .gdb, or.mpk. For other file formats, requested. please contact the plan amendment specialist at 503- 2. A Notice of a Proposed Change must be submitted 934-0017 or plan.amendmentsru;state.on.us. by a local government(city, county, or metropolitan 6. Text: Submittal of a Notice of a Proposed Change service district). DLCD will not accept a Notice of a for a comprehensive plan or land use regulation text Proposed Change submitted by an individual or private amendment must include the text of the amendment firm or organization. and any other information necessary to advise DLCD 3. Hard-copy submittal: When submitting a Notice of the effect of the proposal. "Text"means the specific of a Proposed Change on paper, via the US Postal language proposed to be amended, added to, or deleted Service or hand-delivery, print a completed copy of from the currently acknowledged plan or land use this Form 1 on light green paper if available. Submit regulation. A general description of the proposal is not one copy of the proposed change, including this form adequate. The notice may be deemed incomplete and other required materials to: without this documentation. Attention: Plan Amendment Specialist 7. Staff report: Attach any staff report on the Dept. of Land Conservation and Development proposed change or information that describes when 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 the staff report will be available and how a copy may Salem, OR 97301-2540 be obtained. This form is available here: 8. Local hearing notice: Attach the notice or a draft http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/forms.shtml of the notice required under ORS 197.763 regarding a 4. Electronic submittals of up to 20MB may be sent quasi-judicial land use hearing, if applicable. via e-mail. Address e-mails to plan.amendmentseu 9. Maps: Submittal of a proposed map amendment stcitc.ur.ris with the subject line"Notice of Proposed must include a map of the affected area showing Amendment." existing and proposed plan and zone designations. A Submittals may also be uploaded to DLCD's FTP site paper map must be legible if printed on 8'/s"x 11" at paper. Include text regarding background,justification http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/papa submittal.asp for the change, and the application if there was one accepted by the local government. A map by itself is not a complete notice. E-mails with attachments that exceed 20MB will not be 10. Goal exceptions: Submittal of proposed received, and therefore FTP must be used for these amendments that involve a goal exception must include electronic submittals. The FTP site must be used for the proposed language of the exception. all .zip files regardless of size. The maximum file size for uploading via FTP is 150MB. '660-018-0022 provides: (1)When a local government determines that no goals,commission rules,or land use statutes apply to a particular proposed change, the notice of a proposed change is not required[a notice of adoption is still required,however];and (2)If a local government determines that emergency circumstances beyond the control of the local government require expedited review such that the local government cannot submit the proposed change consistent with the 35-day deadline,the local government may submit the proposed change to the department as soon as practicable.The submittal must include a description of the emergency circumstances. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -2- Form updated November 1,2013 If you have any questions or would like assistance,please contact your DLCD regional representative or the DLCD Salem office at 503-934-0017 or e-mail plan.amendments@state.or.us. Notice checklist. Include all that apply: ® Completed Form 1 ® The text of the amendment(e.g., plan or code text changes, exception findings,justification for change) ® Any staff report on the proposed change or information that describes when the staff report will be available and how a copy may be obtained ❑ A map of the affected area showing existing and proposed plan and zone designations ❑ A copy of the notice or a draft of the notice regarding a quasi-judicial land use hearing, if applicable ❑ Any other information necessary to advise DLCD of the effect of the proposal http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forrns.aspx -3- Form updated November 1, 2013 City of Tigard MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS DCA2016-00004 Introduction The purpose of the code amendment is modify the place regulations for marijuana facilities. The proposal includes four options for Planning Commission to consider and make a recommendation to City Council. The four options are: 1. Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. 2. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. 3. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. 4. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. The first public hearing with the Planning Commission is scheduled for March 20, 2017 at 7pm and City Council on April 11,2017 at 7:30pm. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2429 or agnesk@tigard-or.gov. Proposed Amendments to Community Development Code (Title 18) OPTION 1: Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment,processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ OPTION 2: Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose B. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 6. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 7. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 8. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 9. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 10. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment,processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ OPTION 3: Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose C. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 11. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 12. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 13. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 14. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 15. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment,processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ OPTION 4: Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose D. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 16. Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public; 17. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 18. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 19. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 20. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment,processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: .. " .- . . . - - - - ..' • . . 6. - ! ' .. -. •• b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ site TIGARD CLEANERS 12519 SW Main • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.2000 Ge- -eC \ so Cy t$\ c\aef,e, • s bocb:e, mPy �ec-c Pco - `�Oj2ec� CA 2 <e cs co-(\ \-ce,c e. acc71/4` j ( c- N O c�..yAan O o N\\ Mcg\ �c � �'. o� � uo o\\\ u ( ed \0t ry v_c;"p , A�'� �t C� . pace, t"O a c-d+ u3 V- cis e.,oe c s , F v\1 e'"eA`a\u) '&`"'e---e. '6) R c S Lok.‘ C7(@ems Ce- \soo � \off, L\ our 'pus-\ f we, u�ocA\6 \\k P• 's--o rNOtrcPoc1cA)ac-8 n►�z be\neve. AN c<ac--cA,,yuo�G sok be.\Dse) s Ou< t\C%c. \aec�\r 0 rnGil1/4 ` �e, ct'N c',eNd' e,�V roc t �2 � . exc c) Gk come, c c s\-fie \' 9 o s s\\\ 01 Lk)\ ,some, Oc.)e, MGc'\ Nc}% ` u ao a �� wow \ t. s 'aha soy S Oer �'l S .UCS ' 'C`0(A) N SsU e%7 l/)Q co\\ hr.ve, ox\Cc 4c- sWea-c- iNV-u `\--\km" �c-�eC- , cc\O\c- �kn ct�a\ O cc\t�.�} ‘\ Oy0a E J pcsa`o\ec�-,s`,,fie\\ coM \On 0 �� . * cOJec t do 5 c7��hc.Jes�C- macro fie kc-cre2K \ate- Loe_ oN� e�� ec.� o\ o, r\ Vie, •\--0his o'�e ` 'O A" se f u o0`r\\e 'fie d c-.o e. ��,�- c$ v\\s ce-A'c i.pa5 0,0pP:.,Cyky) `sem a_s.k\4\0 G.c, deal do �c - `cQ �� .�.o e ac-uo W c v G n� M +J ,s�cT`e `r O pe O� S.G\ LA.)•e\ N• 1 (1 v e;C\1),OC c A-0 W m e --o c-NY cb` n\/-1 LA h10\,-rV Sjcv e, Dea►va-f o Marijuana on Main report from the TDA What we have done thus far as outreach: 1. Reached out to the OMS network and asked what impacts these types of businesses had in downtowns- Review comments 2. Sent an e blast to our stakeholder group (weeds & treats)- 39% open rate of data base of 425 3.Hosted a recent Downtown Dialogue where this issue was discussed- No opposition noted Asked attendees to join in the discussion tonight 4.Joint Chamber statewide meeting recap (Debi's report) Legislative panel report (who were part of the Joint Committee that wrote the OLCC regulations) discussed - customer make up— look like the general populace, you and me, high traffic counts, high level of professionalism of operators/owners — running it like a business, due to the complexities of the regulations with the OLCC and state and what is at stake, they must be on top of their game as business owners, very entrepreneurial. Also, noted these individuals want to be part of the business community. Their biggest challenge is at a Federal level they can't bank making it a cash business. This could make them a target of crime. OLCC has worked very hard from a taxing and regulation perspective to enable price points that would eliminate the black market. Side Note: I Spoke with Pd in regards to increased crime with these types of businesses- No issues to report at present. Bottom Line- it is difficult to connect with EVERY business Owner& Property owner on this and other important topics. So - at this point neutrality is our position. HOWEVER: The expectations of the TDA will be an information conduit to our stakeholder groups through the communication tools mentioned above will be continued. City/District Comment 4( 4 r "fro ...) ( . psi,° StaytonThere is one medical dispensary here on Third Ave(our"Main St"). It is one of the few f\ successful retail establishments in the downtown. There have been no adverse impacts. falls Klamath Falls voted down the effort to allow recreational sales last May. We are taking the wait 2\ ee approach. atlas ommercial marijuana sales are against our zoning codes here in Dallas as our codes specify that \\ 1 `( uses can not violate Federal law. Thus, we have no commercial sales operations here,either "\ ` medical or recreational. That is our current stance on the situation but obviously this is still an evolving story all over Oregon. Brian The Mayor n ()Al 5ty" Albany Although it is legal in Oregon, it is not legal in our city/county(Albany)yet. Only medical Q � C,�'�� , 1/' marijuana is available. We will see come November election as recreational sales are up for a vote. 1 r 4 pri-A-9 (Lc/ I too will be interested then.----C—jP Cjv .'l,tik`. <JAVA/- Roseburg A V ARoseburg Yes we have one and it is very welcomed as the security keeps all mischief from ivl happening.We have not had any negativity in the area, it is across the street from our historic district. cMinv Ile Pretty much our entire downtown is located within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare so 3 a we o not have this issue to be concerned about. G Port Orford We have one in our district in Port Orford -responsible business and filled an empty \ ' building. --� MI 4'444 - 1441111 _ C, r, e l i fl' 4 (,050 ki v f I(J RV, r;,, rt / 4411} , 7 °qL. Helis, S l /t-- ,,,,,,* t L.• CA---)19-1 ---__--._.__ __ - _-� Leri V S0-'e- 'D , f * )A) Dayton Thanks everyone,this has been enlightening and great info. Dayton hasn't come across this, as everywhere in our downtown is within 1000 feet of a school. However, if the outskirts ever experience this type of business,there won't be a fear about it. La Grande La Grande has 2 medical dispensaries and no negative impact what so ever. One of them is a great member and supporter for our Main Street program. \11) The vast majority of worries/complaints come from people who don't take the time to talk to these businesses and get to know them and what they do in my opinion. Cottage Grove Cottage Grove has 4 dispensaries. In the beginning there were concerns raised by the surrounding business owners, I think it was mainly out of fear.We have had no problems or complaints J z-^ since and none based on consumers actions. We have no dispensaries, medicinal or recreational, on our Historic Main Street. Only because they have not rented space, if they did it would be a retail facility only. We also have a seed grower and a processor in Cottage Grove and medicinal growing is allowed through the city. Let me know if you have any questions. MARIJUANA 9, ON MAIN STREET 11--; Public Comment Name: //� L�vLnie l' ap r5 Email / Phone: 503 - 3/0 - O q 5/ Comment: K) ,e nol rrl ed o r�Glp-/ uQ , J l�\I brsi Wake- 1 eon Would you like a response? Date: 11/9/2016 Yes No Event: Marijuana on Main ,iP1 ' Iu --1- azt ,n_u_ TIGARD w .111maw EZ7 ID , MARI JUANA ON MAiN STREET fit Public Comment Name: •• a._ - In_ •• Email / Phone: .. _ . elkutdr, abr. Comment: (Z2 `,-d— c` -' (A-LrexeL \S �a81v .xctc4 , �� -Cvpnr� JJI�o1S p-kthwe c ►11 , bit -erc,m -1).e. \J- &-} ax-e_ ale -4.1)\ be, \o v l 'CUv c m 4. bti in 1 Y«l A' \.DYM0 UP-0-43I our\d. a bwly-.a a a5ts Y---ick.) ha`)(, tt,cc e, -1v )4 -CIA:tx\A-St. rvi) V, cure- nbi- _ ckAwyk;4,1t, 4 M-0.-' -l' `R-k--_ Would you like a response? Date: 11/9/2016 �� Yes No - Event: Marijuana on Main bQ- `�1L� Routed to: -'robaco)• 0ao�Q L7 1 �• >\ J. Agnes Kowacz From: Chad Cooper <chad@chadcooper.info> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 1:51 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST - Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Thank you for your quick reply. I will attend the meeting and will provide some input. Regarding MRX Labs, I see that they are in the restricted zone. Is the restricted zones different from the what is provided in the Marijuana locations map? The building at 7225 SW Bonita Rd (HomeMasters building on the corner) is in the IP zone, but the Marijuana location map lists it in the restricted areas. Is this building allowed for Processing? /111 i. Y A R K L air LAJ feii:). /if), g_ ._ i e 1 e -.N. \\ Via'. _12ui 441C 1 ,...). D) ..„...,...„kr kr ..,_,..„:,,, . _ :. . . ,:,:i_... . , ._,..„ *..,. I- L R=f12 IN '.i,-. 1***.c R-7 1 2 1UII4 ' Miloolial•riree vorpachi4it n / 41 / toowa-4.1--b,itt W Bonita Rd 4 From:Agnes Kowacz [mailto:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 7:14 AM To: Chad Cooper<chad@chadcooper.info> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Chad- Thanks for your email.The City is in the process of looking into the time, place and manner regulations for marijuana facilities and I would invite you to participate. There will be a meeting on November 9, 2016 at 6:30 at Town Hall regarding marijuana facilities specifically in downtown. In January, there will be a larger discussion pertaining to marijuana facilitates and the whole City. Please see attached. The labs are classified as office I believe and are permitted in the I-P zone, which is the one that you mentioned below. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 3 Email:AgnesK(a tigard-or.gov From: Chad Cooper [mailto:chad@chadcooper.info] Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 9:54 AM To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Thanks for you quick response. This does seem to be extreme for some forms of processing. For example, it seems overkill for a processor who wants to bake cookies. Is there no middle ground? I am also curious about MRX Labs, which has applied to be a licensed Rec. Test lab.Their address is 14775 SW 74th Avenue, which appears to be in the prohibited zone. // -77-.., r _ 111 iir IIIP Lastly, I have contacted every property manager who has industrial space available. Not a single one will lease to a marijuana related business. This accounts for every property in the allowed IH or IL zones that are not in prohibited zones. Frankly, after spending upwards of 60+ hours seeking a location, I am now convinced that there are no potential properties that 4 can be leased (or purchased). It may be prudent to modify the Marijuana Facilities map to exclude all of the excluded zones as well.This would have saved me a great deal of time and effort. I have found a number of properties (including a number along 72nd ave,and a few in the CBD region), where the owners would approve a lease, but they were in the prohibited zones. I had hoped that I could setup a small kitchen in the MUE property mentioned, but this is also not allowed.As a Tigard resident, I was optimistic that I could find a good location, but I am now modifying my business plan to use a location in Hillsboro,which has much more available industrial space. It's my opinion,that the concern over diversion and safety has been exaggerated. It seems a bit hypocritical that Max brew pub can brew beer in the CBD, and allows minors into his establishment,yet there are heavy restrictions for a processor,who has to have a highly secured building, with cloud based video surveillance, high tech alarm systems, panic buttons, badge access with audit logs,and restriction of anyone who is not a state certified Marijuana worker, regular inspections by state inspectors from OLCC,and state managed electronic tracking of every single gram of produce. Its silly to think that a business would make this investment,then divert product,when anyone can go to a local retailer and buy what they like. More importantly, "diverting" product to a retail store would be far more profitable, legal, and sane. Thanks, Chad Cooper From:Agnes Kowacz [mailto:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:42 PM To: Chad Cooper<chad@chadcooper.info> Subject: RE: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Hi Chad- Marijuana processing is considered a general industrial use, which is permitted only in the I-L and I-H zone.Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov From:Chad Cooper[mailto:chad@chadcooper.info] Sent: Monday,October 24, 2016 9:56 AM To:#CD PoD<CDPoD@tigard-or.gov> Subject: property at 7130 SW ELMHURST ST-Allowed uses for Marijuana processing Hi, I am inquiring about the suitability of this property, which is a residential home being sold as a commercial property in the Tigard Triangle. Is a marijuana processing company allowed at this location? I cannot find any info on this this zone type both for county (2210) and Tigard (MUE). It is outside the prohibited areas for non-retail marijuana businesses allowed by Tigard. 5 IMO Thanks, 1 Chad Cooper 503-332-4223 2S101AB00601 General Property Information Site Address: 7130 SW ELMHURST ST. TIGARD OR, 97223 Tax Lot ID: 2S101AB00601 Property Account ID: R457044, Property Classification: 2210 - - See full list of Codes Neighborhood Code: ZTGL Latitude/ Longitude: 45.4313510/ 122.750233 Overlay Information 2S101AB00601 Jurisdiction: Tigard City Zoning (updated 9/2016): MUE (confirm with Tigard City Planning department) Within Urban Growth Boundary: Yes Within Metro's Urban Service Area (*Updated June Yes 30th each calendar year): In Urban Road Maintenance District (*Updated June No 30th each calendar year): In Urban Road Maintenance District (*Updated June No 30th each calendar year): In ESPD (*Updated June 30th each calendar year): No Ground Water Resouce Area: Not located within a Ground Water Resource Area SDL Assement Area/zone: Not in an Assesment Area. Sanitation District (*Updated June 30th each calendar CWS year): Water District (*Updated June 30th each calendar TVW year): Fire District (*Updated June 30th each calendar TVFR year): Fire Management Zone: 6090 Park District: Not In Park District North Bethany Plan Area: Not in North Bethany Sub Area School District (*Updated 06/30/2012): TIGARD-TUALATIN Election Precinct: 406 Commissioner District: 3- Rov Rogers Assessor Area: 0 Citizen Participation Org: CPO4M Community Plan Map: COUNTY Historic &Cultural Resource Inventory: Not located within a Historic and Cultural Resource Inventory Area POD Date Zoned: POD:1-9/9/59 ODOT District: 2B Plat: Property is not part of a subdivision Census Tract: 030700 Census Block: 1022 Census Blockgroup: 1 Census Geoid: 410670307001022 Zipcode: 97223 Garbage Hauler: Pride Disposal (503) 625-6177 Garbage Dropbox: Pride Disposal (503) 625-6177 Thomas Brothers Guide: ;Page: 655 - Grid: G4 6 1 111110 DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 7 *iso, Noe Agnes Kowacz From: Sean Farrelly Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:45 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: FW: Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations Here's a public comment Sean Farrelly Redevelopment Project Manager City of Tigard/City Center Development Agency 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503-718-2420 From: Bill McMonagle [mailto:bill@h-mc.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:04 PM To:Sean Farrelly Subject: RE: Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations THE ONLY REASON THE STATE IS IN THE "MARY JANE" BUSINESS IS FOR THE MONEY AND IF THAT IS TIGARDS PURPOSE THEN THE LEADERS OF TIGARD SHOULD BE PUT IN A PILLARY ON MAIN STREET. BILL MC From: Downtown updates [mailto:downtownupdates-bounces@ Iists.tigard-or.gov] On Behalf Of Sean Farrelly Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:54 PM To: 'downtownupdates@lists.tigard-or.gov' Subject: [Downtownupdates] Public comment on Downtown marijuana regulations Hello- Downtown stakeholders are invited to comment on potential changes to marijuana regulations in Downtown Tigard.The meeting will be held prior to a meeting of the City Center Advisory Commission on: Wednesday, November 9 6:30-7:00 PM Tigard Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Sean Farrelly Redevelopment Project Manager City of Tigard/City Center Development Agency 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503-718-2420 1 Agnes Kowacz From: Dann Black <dblack@fsconsults.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:59 PM To: Lloyd Purdy Cc: Agnes Kowacz Subject: RE: Pot Shop on Main Thanks Lloyd. To:Tigard City Council I am a local business owner who specifically moved my Software Technology Recruiting Company to Main Street in 2013 because of the Main Street revitalization efforts and family friendly street frontage. We have world class software engineers from all over the West Coast visit our office on Main Street to see our office and we often take them for a cup of coffee or microbrew after they see our office. A huge part of our business that separates us from our competition is the "community feel"that embrace from being on Main Street which has helped us become the#12 Fastest Growing Private Company in Oregon last year. My entire office staff is against having any Marijuana sales happen on Main Street. There are already plenty of Marijuana sales locations up and down 99. Having paid people dressed as clowns at either end of Main Street spinning those signs advertising"$5k weed just down Main Street"would completely ruin the experience that has been created on Main Street. (THIS WILL HAPPEN IF THE WEED SHOP OPENS ON MAIN just like it happens now at the top of 99 near 1-5) Dann Black CEO Future State Consulting 2 Ott . tt 1, FUTURE STATE CONSULTING IDENTIFY • CONNECT • UNITE Dann Black 12525 SW Main Si Principal Tigard OR 97223 USA dblack" f<,cansults con, wwwhconsuhs.com wowlaccbook.comMsconsults Mattxte SW 502 681,1 From: Lloyd Purdy [mailto:LloydP@tigard-or.govj Sent:Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:25 AM To: Dann Black<dblack@fsconsults.com> Cc: Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: Pot Shop on Main Dann, 1 You can provide written testinnon\74110%gnes Kowacz, she's cc'd on this email. Shoot the city planner managing this project. She will share any written comments with City Council. Lloyd Purdy Economic Development Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 503.718.2442 Iloydp(a'tigard-or.gov From: Dann Black [mailto:dblack@fsconsults.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 9:29 AM To: Lloyd Purdy Subject: Pot Shop on Main Lloyd, Nice seeing you this morning. Did that information card about the Wednesday Pot Shop meeting next week include any of the committee members? I have a client meeting and will not be able to attend next week but would like to give an opinion to the committee or person in charge of making the decision about Marijuana on Main. Do you know who that is? -Dann "Si Mwf rVe" FUTURE STATE CONSULTING HELPING ORGANIZATIONS IDENTIFY AND ACQUIRE TALENT Dann Black 12525 SW Main St. Principal Tigard, OR 97223 USA dblack©fsconsults.com www.fsconsults.com Office:503.567.8283 www.facebook.com/fsconsults Mobile:503.502.6813 The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential,privileged and protected from disclosure. This email is intended solely for the addressee(s)and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you think that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email or by telephone, and immediately delete all copies of the email and any attachments from your system. DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 _-___ �� ^ � �� / , �mm� te Acimini - '_~-- =°°o«*� ^ n Alstin '~$2. ' ! -- -5' -- &jvxkix.*~-° ^='--- y29- _ -_- _-� -_'----.__-- _= _-___~_.��_-~_.-i~2__.~.'~ 59'-~_=iPc."_°=~�� ~ ^ " _ -� , __________- ----___--- �- �,� z�r ��»�o�,m�~� - 4.403, Agnes Kowacz From: jhelser1@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 3:05 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Marijuana sales on Main Street Dann Black suggested that you could read the following at the advisory commission meeting. Thanks From: Harvey Elser, owner of the former CARQUEST building at 12175 Main Street, Home: 23900 SW Mountain Creek Rd, Sherwood, OR To: City Center Advisory Commission, City of Tigard I would like to have been present at your meeting this evening but due to health problems I could not attend. First of all I am 100% against making any changes to the current regulations forbidding marijuana facilities on Main Street. Keep in mind that prior to marijuana being legalized for recreational use, the City was on track with it's attitude to make downtown Tigard a friendly family experience for a trip to Main Street without our young children's parents being questioned about controversial societal influence. I am the owner of the former CARQUEST building, just across from the Post Office. I see traffic congestion and an accident prone area with cars coming and going from the post office parking. I ask you why would we want to import any more traffic to downtown Tigard's Main Street? Agnes Kowacz From: Brian Bergmann <bergmannbrian@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 1:31 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Dear council members, thank you for taking the time to read my letter. My name is Brian Bergmann and I've been to every meeting regarding dispensaries. I'm a life long Tigard resident and I've helped setup 2 dispensaries, 1 in Newberg and 1 in Seaside. Both are well visited by the local residents. I meet and talk to these people all the time and they're just regular people like you and me. Some use cannabis for medication and some use it to relax. Its becoming main stream as a better alternative to opiates and alcohol. I've lost 3 family members to cancer and some of them tried cannabis to help their fight against cancer. Whatever the reason people choose to use it they should have access to it. I'm glad that the city has allowed dispensaries to open and I'm glad you changed the 2000ft barrier down to the 1000ft distance. Now as for the zoning and where they are allowed, only on 99W I feel has been to restrictive. If you decide to allow it on Main st then you should allow it in any mixed use commercial or retail area. For instance, Greenburgh Rd, Hall Blvd, 72nd, Durham, Barros rd. If you decide to not allow it on Main st then you definitely should allow it in other MUC or retail zones. Confining it to 99W makes it inconvenient for other residents to get to a cannabis store. It also restricts someone like myself a Tigard resident and cannabis user opportunity to open a store. Finding a location is extremely hard if not impossible and if you open the zoning to other areas where any business can operate then someone like myself can bring a well run cannabis shop to a area of Tigard that currently has none. There has been very little if any crime associated with dispensaries in Oregon. Our stores have strict security measures and we check every persons ID before we allow then to view merchandise. The OHA and the OLCC have done a good job regulating this new and widely popular industry. We've already brought in millions of dollars in tax revenue. Cannabis is a booming industry and our own Earl Blumenauer sees a future where we export our products to the rest of the country like craft beer and Oregon wine. All I ask is a fair opportunity to open a business that clearly people want and enjoy. Please allow dispensaries in any mixed use commercial or retail zone. Thank you for your time, Brian Bergmann. From: Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 10:35 AM To: 'Brian Bergmann' Subject: RE: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Ok,you can submit the letter to me and I can pass it along or you can send it directly to the City manager.Thanks, Agnes From: Brian Bergmann [mailto:bergmannbrian@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 10:23 AM 1 Ise vire To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Hi I can't attend the meeting but would like to write a letter to the city council about marijuana dispensaries. Thanks From:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:45:00 PM To: 'Brian Bergmann' Subject: RE: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Brian- There is a CCAC meeting tomorrow night.The City Council meeting has not been scheduled. Please see attached for tomorrow's meeting. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: AgnesK@tigard-or.gov From: Brian Bergmann [mailto:bergmannbrian@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:44 PM To: Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: Re: DCA2016-00002 Final Order When is the marijuana on main st city council meeting? From:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:15:28 PM To: Bill Benz; Bob Wilson; Brian Bergmann; Dorothy Cofield; Gus Goulet;Jill Warren;Joel Vermillion; Keith Ashcraft; Paul Jackson; Rick Anderson;Tom Rogers Subject: DCA2016-00002 Final Order Hello- Please see attached final order for case DCA2016-00002 Marijuana Facilities.Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: AgnesK@tigard-or.gov 2 I NOV 16 2016 Notes for COT Planning Commission Regarding Marijuana sales in Tigard &Main Street ,.ANCNlTY lNGO;�F�`NTGKINEE RlNG The following comments are being offered by business, property owner& resident of Tigard; Steve DeAngelo. (I note this because of my alignment and board leadership position with the Tigard Downtown Alliance who in fact is not endorsing these comments). I am the Owner of DeAngelo's Catering& Events located in Tigard, because of my culinary background and years of business experience- I am interested in possible pursuance of building an edibles line for the emerging Cannabis industry. I have vast knowledge of building commercial kitchens and believe my expertise could be valuable for my financial wellbeing as well as others.One consideration would be a shared used culinary production environment. - City Codes adds restrictions that make every available property nearly impossible to qualify for proper permitting o Parks& Rec overlays that include pathways that are not used as recreation or park like facilities (no playgrounds, restrooms, picnic shelters or even blanket friendly landscapes. Many are merely walkways for pedestrian convenience. o Processing facilities are only allowed in Industrial zones however are not allowed in Industrial Parks. o We have lack of available industrial land in our boundaries. ION 18735_1.pdf - These restrictions could be viewed as Tigard not being"business friendly". - I do not believe the COT has additional restrictions on strip clubs, liquor stores, liquor licenses, methadone clinics, drug&alcohol rehab facilities,vape shops, lottery establishments or other "controversial businesses"all which are"legal" in the state of Oregon and COT. - Restricting these types of business is leaving needed revenue"on the table". - Not allowing these types of business could arguably be adding to traffic and congestion by not making these goods available to those who choose to purchase (medicinally& recreationally) and requiring them to travel where the availability is allowed. - These businesses pay living wage jobs and many offer benefit packages as well. My business model would hopefully offer both. - State law was built with the very same intention of"protecting the public"—Is there a need to further the code with the following: "Protect the general health, safety,property, and welfare of the public" https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills laws/ors/ors475B.html as that is already in place? - Concentration of cannabis related businesses vs. allowing city wide could be argued as creating a district that invite these types of business where allowing city wide potential blends in with other commercial type establishments of all nature and commerce. Respectively submitted, Steve DeAngelo VMarr \I\101,-VV4Y6 Google Maps marijuana dispensary .ik .....„ Mcull-uckna Drark eSGoli Course it ::"11. 1) cicMft.ZA ) Oaks Amusement, 8 _.-„.. 11 a - 1111Calyxes grAttiS Trading ComparTAgPAO:ELAM; Dispensary-Barbi, 1 c, 4.. S',/genry No 1- NIULTNOMAH Hazeldole ..i. •,, VV U Garden Green Oasis:litj.:nserylkr.i , *KO Dispense! .z. , 0 % ,, •-•,' mural Remedies 4 Horn..v,,,fu,c3 aF!man Collective ,a. :". 4 •P '.', SwGawrer Pd C.:1 ,., I g .:.,, . Green GoddessIzr A Marijuana Paradise - - ' Remedies Dispensary SW Ver,q, .., COLLINS VIEW '' .. ',:2 rrengton @ , IF,7.) y*The CDC Dispensary , Milwaukte- -i4 X. ir IV Rtverwood ' - L i \ (,.f., lrei ' SW 1-4, .1. Tryon Creek State V , TheHerbary "College Syana Portland COMMunity Natural Area co, :lit V'..( 4 "' lvi • Englewood ' ' „o'''' '' S"''' % Tigard , 0 - nS,S. T 1 . ,4' ,,, 'i. .., ..,...,,, -',', Portland Oregon Temple -1,' % % 43D 0 £ N' ^ .4 ,,,,„,'-. - .` ,t,o+ 'a v alD ,. IlAcadia Labs 4.''' Lake Oswego Kinton ,, - gw KruWa, ", a , ,,,,,,,,,i. ., „top Oak Grove 8 BULL MOUNBoni,Rd jle SW BoRd Bon lo Rd 'd 4 I0. ,..‘`''''''. g LAKE GROVE A•"'-' ' :'''- el a ,., '.;I ... .t• ,,,,,,e, spc. , .., ^r,A h suo55 .' ,"klhli*oP „„,.....--'`, 'i. _, ., Soull ' g .,' 4 ,..Y.1,, , l', Kmq Cry . PC SW NoWtr,P.1 Ilf W''111;`''''r fr ''''''" , or ee,A SW Beef BOO° r qkfi - ' 4%alt:rdc1FDtpa-hrms say coo, w 2 ,<,,,,,, SW Dew,R3 ,t8. •,.. (T;); T.- '", e v , -; . ,, , talatin Country 6ubPlilL7k'"'"L Durham°B11:1"P*"Village;j"'" N c'''' 454.. Ita, n ' C) I sw 1 Whillth SKI 1 old Merylh:drit ''.... 40' *6 V *,,, sw cum A, 6 i N,tional Tualeti t$Cebel8Va - ---- '•'. „......,,i •:': ..,., , , 1 Mary S. 1 Young Park k‘ t . thadowood G .`-' i , .. . ykso&gland AI WavVerree, ....... -,...-4„,,,... ,... 8 Western Oregon s'014` ' ".s6,5u, ' ....#' •5w -,. ..„_,°°- ,,, ",, g !;.; SK'E'L 1, ,•2.- Google 7 . ' 4., ',. ....%., ..., ‘,, t t- „ f sw,b7,,h,.,-, :34 - .. Norwood z,! a i-- i. ,,,,,,,,„,„,0 I Map data©2017 Google 5000 ft I 4 Rating ***** The Herbary ..._, . 4.0 **** ( . Pharmacy. 11642 SW Pacific Hwy#100 7-1'i:,''• i .-,: Open until 9:50 PM Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway(99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public,allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. LOCATION: Citywide.APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement),2 (Land Use Planning),and 9 (Economic Development);ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8;Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2,2.1.2, 2.1.3,2.1.6,2.1.11,2.1.23,9.1.3 and 9.1.12;and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. 7. BRIEFING—TIGARD TRIANGLE CODE&REZONE 8'45 p.m. 8. OTHER BUSINESS "5 P.m. c3e_C— VA.C7A— 6k--k. 4-0 61 We, fV1A 0\17C,O, \rn,Dy-\\,1 9. ADJOURNMENT 9:50p.m. trikk-e4A . t -‘5..::e.Ay\-e_ArN t co tin ovv (icie. lA.)6QA 'SKtryLA "i 1/2{ 6-rtZYL,\+- VACTI/difVj t---vtak, AvAre.„, (A,6 viLe se-s --OrvA.4 io.)-(A.AA_JAA/1 o-C 6)t-hr7 ' 'uf ()L. \AA-eA acitAA c0141A-9-i: rvLe_- (2,(q-e. toir vo-k_kkti orloc,47•1 6(}413-64,---ve Adre, ,J 6t01-1X-1,+- U3kLetD kte k41A-)\\I 611 j A‘te) -klAPdr \fOlvu IZ-eep Otph cry\ 4F. -7-weq y\11 •,-14 WA< - It k,k,,cpulvoe____ tif15A_. C kit-1 , cazA-v-A 1 OR 6 .40 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA-March 20., 2017 City of Tigard I I31 SW 97223 503-639-4171 Urk'v3vv.tig-a7;d'io-r.gv-- Agnes Kowacz From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:07 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: FW: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed (see below) Council is receiving letters — ok to acknowledge their receipt and mention April 11? -Joanne From: Carol Krager Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:06 PM To:Joanne Bengtson<joanne@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Check with Agnes; she is probably collecting testimony. Carol From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:03 PM To: Carol Krager Subject: RE: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits So should I reply that it's been added to the public record for discussion on April 11? From: Carol Krager Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:02 PM To:Joanne Bengtson<ioanne@tigard-or.gov> Cc: Kelly Burgoyne<KellyB@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Yes, it is on for April 11. Just went to Planning Commission. Carol From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:02 PM To: Carol Krager; Kelly Burgoyne Subject: FW: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Is this on an upcoming council agenda? i From: Connie o [mailto:oconnieo@frontier.com] Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:08 PM To:John Cook<MayorCook@tigard-or.gov> Cc:oconnieo<oconnieo@frontier.com> Subject: Proposed Revised Marijuana within the city limits Mr. Mayor and City Council/Committee Members: I urge the City of Tigard to maintain the prohibition of marijuana sales/stores once again. There are plenty of these stores in the Portland metro boundaries at present and most likely just up Barbur Blvd. Into the city limits from downtown Tigard. . Statistics recently aired on local news stated vehicular incidences. including deaths have increased substantially over Year over year since states have approved sales both medicinal and pleasure. . That annual stat was already bad enough with DUll's. I am not naïve to think marijuana is only used by itself, though sometimes it is. I also cite a deadly vehicle impact in Vancouver 5 days after Washington State approved mj purchasing there. Naturally the mj driver had been using all day; strangely he was not the one to die from the impact. Washington State didn't even have driving while impaired guidelines yet to charge the negligent driver. As past coordinator for Parent In Crisis in Beaverton, I speak from a position no parent wants to have to deal with In the death of my son, who was killed in such a deadly auto impact at age 17. He was a passenger in a car where the driver, also 17, was on marijuana and cocaine. Of 5 kids in 2 cars, he was the only one killed. But 1 is enough. Adolescents get ahold of marijuana just like alcohol. Why make it easier for them? It is bad enough with more Rampant adult usage. s/Connie Osbon 503 431-6994 9655 SW N Dakota St. 97223 DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 Agnes Kowacz From: marvin.gerr18@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 8:22 AM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Re: Marijuana Hello Agnes Thanks for getting back to me. As I said in my voicemail, as residents of the City of Tigard, my wife and both feel that all future retail sales outlets for marijuana in the City of Tigard must be limited to the 99W corridor. There should be no change to the current rules regarding the placement of retail marijuana locations. Marvin &Judith Gerr 15432 SW 114th Court Unit 84 TIGARD Oregon 97224 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 23, 2017, at 6:37 AM,Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov>wrote: Hi Marvin- Thanks for your voicemail and comments. I just wanted to reach out to you and let you know that I got your voicemail. If you would like to reply back to this email and provide written comments that would be helpful. I will be sure to pass these onto our City Council.Thanks again and look forward to hearing back from you! Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: AgnesK@tigard-or.gov ti DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." } 1 Agnes Kowacz From: John Cook Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 12:36 PM To: 'msmith2525@aol.com' Cc: #Councilmail;Agnes Kowacz; Carol Krager Subject: RE: Marijuana, don't make changes to zoning and don't advance a further degrading of our city. Dear Mr. Smith, Thank you for writing about marijuana facilities in Tigard. On Monday night (March 20), the Tigard Planning Commission received a staff report from the city planner and received both oral and written testimony in order to make a recommendation to the City Council about allowable locations for these facilities. The Council will hold a public hearing on this item on April 11 during the business meeting which begins at 7:30 p.m. in the Tigard Town Hall (13125 SW Hall Blvd.). I'm sharing the email (below) with the city planner so that it's added to the public testimony record for April 11. In the meantime, if you have questions about this item please contact City Planner Agnes Kowacz at 503-718-2429 or agnesk@tigard-or.gov. Best regards, John L. Cook, Mayor City of Tigard Original Message From: Marsden Smith [mailto:msmith2525@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 10:07 AM To: #Councilmail <#councilmail@tigard-or.gov> Subject: Marijuana, don't make changes to zoning and don't advance a further degrading of our city. If people make the case that we need additional outlets for marijuana for medical or recreation purposes, that is not supported by the facts. We have one on Pacific Highway and three just outside the City on Pacific Avenue (2 to the North and 1 to the South). One liquor store seems to be fine. The Image of Tigard is what people form as they pass through on Pacific Ave.. The first image upon exiting I-5 for Tigard, is an adult video store on the left and a sign spinner advertising i marijuana on the right. Most people don't even realize they aren't in Tigard, but still in Portland. We need to enhance our reputation, not degrade it. Mass transit, light rail changes are in the works. We need to attempt to understand how this additional traffic will impact our City. Additional tax revenue will be offset by additional direct costs and in addition we have a potential of decreased property values and property taxes. I see no advantage to easing restrictions on marijuana sales. All the web-sites supporting marijuana say there are no long-term or short-term effects. All web-sites of a more "mainstream" bent come to a different conclusion. Until more is understood let's not make any changes Marsden Smith 12332 SW Hollow Lane Tigard 97223 DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 Tigard City Council, I wanted to write this letter in anticipation of next week's upcoming council meeting and the discussion centered around Cannabis Zoning Changes. I sat through the last few months of CCAC and City Planning meetings and came away with a mixed perception. Although it appears that the TDA and CCAC favor(although slight) allowing zoning changes, more specific allowing Cannabis on Main Street, the Planning Department had a stark opinion in difference (although as recent as 2015 had included Main Street on their approved zoning). It appears that specific group is concerned about the "fear" of cannabis on the downtown area as well as the impact on local youth. We tried to remind them that the OLCC mandates age and hours of operation, plus we are regulated to a level rarely seen in capitalism. If you recall, we have addressed every concern including impact on youth, impact on downtown development, and impact on the local business' in the Main Street area. I was personally shocked that there was a "careless" lack of appreciation for the amount of tax revenue potentially collected. We have adjusted our forecasts at the 8% level to $400,000 just for our one shop. With a few additional retailers in town,that number exceeds 1mm annual. Moreover, our traffic counts will increase flow to downtown by 400 cars a day and employee another 15-20 Tigard citizens with well paying jobs. We have proven that our look for Main street will enhance the North Side of the area to better match that of the South. All we are asking for is that the City of Tigard follows the guidelines set forth by the State of Oregon and it voters. Tigard citizens not only supported the first initiative to legalize cannabis,they then overwhelmingly voted to increase the percentage of tax the city can charge. The original zoning appeared to show upwards to eight retail shops but that number sits at roughly two along hwy 99 if you include King city. The citizens deserve more options and I personally promise that if we are allowed to do business on Main Street, we will exceed expectations for not only the city managers but our local business partners. Sincerely, John P. Widmer Kaleafa Cannabis Company Agnes Kowacz From: Bill Widmer <bill@kaleafa.com> Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 5:31 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Fw: city council meeting Tigard Attachments: Tigard city council meet.docx Hi Agnes, Can you forward this out to the individual City Council Members to read in anticipation of the upcoming meeting? My brother wrote it and I know he is out this week meeting with some of these folks. Thanks so much Agnes for all of your help! Sincerely Bill Widmer From:John Widmer Sent:Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:09 PM To: Bill Widmer Subject: city council meeting Tigard Bill, amend as needed but send off tomorrow if you can. john 1 Agnes Kowacz From: John Boren <borenjd@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,April 5, 2017 1:46 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: MARIJUANA PLACE REGULATIONS (DCA2016-00004) Hi Agnes, I am a resident of Tigard at 12974 SW Ascension Drive and wanted to testify regarding this item going before the Council on April 11. • I am disappointed to see that Option 1 is what was advanced. • I believe that the least restrictive option should be exercised because as it was noted in your staff report, the perception is much worse than the reality. If there are code problems, then those can be corrected at that time. • As also noted in the staff report, buffers are extremely tricky to use as there will be a number of sites that are partially inside or outside the buffer, plus everybody would need to then agree on what is a park (e.g.,public park, or HOA open space). I am glad that this wasn't advanced and hope that the Council does not consider pursuing this. • Allowing them into the downtown doesn't necessarily mean that the downtown will become "taken over" by marijuana businesses. Like any other business, there's only so much of a market for a good or service before it hits a saturation point. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input, John Boren cell: 503-505-1069 1 April 8, 2017 Hello, My name is Connie Ramaekers. I have lived at 9655 SW Murdock St in Tigard for 38 years. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts about regulations that have been put in place concerning retail marijuana shops. I worked for the Tigard Tualatin School District for 29 years as a Prevention Specialist. Over the past 35 years, it has been my passion to help our youth right here in Tigard by addressing issues concerning the drug and alcohol use among our teens. Since 1988 Tigard's two middle schools and Tigard High school has had programs in place to help empower youth in making healthy decisions. Our Club STUDD, at Tigard High has close to 100 members. These students work together to help their peers be drug and alcohol free. There are several reasons why I would like to see the City of Tigard keep the current, existing regulations 'as is'. The ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIDTA Report (HIGH INTENSITYDRUG TRAFFICKING REPORT) in January 2016 states that Evidence and research demonstrates that marijuana - which has skyrocketed in average potency over the past decades - is addictive and harmful to the human brain, especially when used by adolescents. In states that have already legalized the drug, there has been an increase in drugged driving crashes and youth marijuana use. This is very true for Oregon. My big concern is the increase in marijuana use among our teens at Tigard High since Measure 91. Locally in our own School District — marijuana use among our 11th graders at Tigard High has increased substantially. Our Oregon Wellness Survey data shows a 20 % increase from 2014 to 2016 2014 — 30 day use was at 3.6% 2015 it jumped to 17.2% and in 2016 it jumped to 23.5%. Our youth report that Marijuana is very easy to get and their number one resource are friends who get it from their parents or older siblings. The more access adults have to marijuana, the more access our youth have also. We are already allowing more marijuana shops than liquor stores Tigard. I strongly feel we need to keep regulations as they are. With more marijuana retail shops opening and especially allowing them downtown Tigard where many families go for recreation, makes marijuana more readily available to adults and youth. Thank You - Connie Ramaekers Agnes Kowacz From: Connie Ramaekers <cmr483@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 6:38 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Letter for City Council Marijuana Facilities Hearing Attachments: Letter to City Council on marijuana regulations-4-8-17.docx Dear Agnes Kowacz, I am unable to attend the City Council Marijuana Facilities Hearing on Tuesday, April 11th. I am in Utah taking care of my daughter who was in a serious car accident. I have attached a letter for the Council. Are you able to provide copies for them or do I need to contact them individually? Also I will have a colleague who is going to read it for me at the Hearing. Hopefully this is sufficient. Please let me know if there is something more I need to do. Thank You, Connie Ramaekers 1 MAILING / NOTIFICATION RECORDS 111 N AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING • TIGARD I, Agnes Kowacz, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Associate Planner for the City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: {Check Appropriate Box(s)Below) ® NOTICE OF Public Hearing FOR: Marijuana Facilities Place Regulations DCA2016-00004 ❑ AMENDED NOTICE- ❑ City of Tigard Community Development Director/Designee ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ® Tigard Planning Commission on March 20, 2017 Tigard City Council on April 11, 2017 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, February 28,2017 and deposited in the United States Mail on February 28,2017 ,postage prepaid. -411)(11 OA* Agnes Kowacz STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the . - S day of 4-elocirct.,, ,3 ,2017. 4,.. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL STAMP 0 BETSY GALICIA j2)j271 -- NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.925741 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 09,2018 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: 3 ) o! I I % EXHIBIT A NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SEE!ER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, q IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2017, AT 7:00 PM and TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2017 AT 7:30PM. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. THIS HEARING IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC. FILE TITLE: MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS FILE NO.: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2016-00004 APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code ([DC). The proposal includes amending the Tigard Development Code (TDC), specifically Chapter 18.735, Marijuana Facilities. The following four options are being proposed for Planning Commission to consider: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. LOCATION: Citywide ZONES: All Zones APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement),2 (Land Use Planning), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation);METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.23, 9.1.3 and 9.1.12; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.390.060.e of the Community Development Code and rules of procedure adopted by the Tigard Planning Commission and City Council and available at City Hall. Assistive listening devices are available for persons with impaired hearing. The city will also endeavor to arrange for qualified sign language interpreters and qualified bilingual interpreters upon request. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD—telecommunications devices for the deaf) no less than one week prior to the hearing to make arrangements. Public oral or written testimony is invited.Anyone wishing to present written testimony on this proposed action may do so in writing prior to or at the public hearing. Oral testimony may be presented at the public hearing.At the public hearing, the Planning Commission will receive a staff report presentation from the city planner,open the public hearing,and invite both oral and written testimony.The Planning Commission may continue the public hearing to another meeting to obtain additional information or close the public hearing and take action on the application. The purpose of the Planning Commission's review is to make a recommendation to the City Council. The council will then hold a public hearing on the item at a later date. All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for inspection at no cost, or copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (250) per page,or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. At least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost, or a copy can be obtained for twenty-five cents (250) per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. For further information please contact the project manager Agnes Kowacz at 503-718-2429 (Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 97223) or by email to agnesk@tigard-or.gov. EXHIBIT B Shanna Bernard Connie Ramaekers 11640 SW Pacific Highway 9655 SW Murdock Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97224 Torn Cook Reid Iford 13835 SW Hillshire Drive 11547 SW Lomita Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Shanna Spahan Dmitri Yovko 8405 SW Mapleleaf Street 17222 SW Arkenstone Drive Tigard,OR 97223 Portland,OR 97224 Nick Albano Kathy Fedrand,Counselor P.O.Box 69033 St.Anthony's School Portland,RO 97239 9835 SW McKenzie Tigard,OR 97223 Lee Engvall Mike Stevenson 15461 SW 82nd 9040 SW Burnham Tigard,OR 97224 Tigard,OR 97223 Linda Cook Carter Kruse 13835 SW Hillshire Drive 13290 SW Genesis Loop Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Adam LaFountain Lola Erickson 11207 SW North Dakota 12095 SW Sweeney Place Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Morgan Chamberlain Brian Bergmann 9360 SW Martha Street 11180 SW Hall Tigard,OR 97224 Tigard,OR 97223 Sherry Baton Shawn Keren 11020 SW Wilsonville Road,#111 14150 SW Barrows Road Wilsonville,OR 97070 Tigard,OR 97223 Zack Dean Julie Russell 7814 SW Cedarcrest 11740 SW Warner Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Connie Jolley Dann Black 12275 SW Plantation Terrace 12525 SW Main St. Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Harvey Elser John Widmer 23900 SW Mountain Creek Rd 12215 SW Main Street Sherwood,OR 97140 Tigard,OR 97223 Brian Bergmann Betsy Chick 11180 SW Hall 7595 SW Cherry Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Darbie Mayberry Connie Ramaekers 12519 SW Main Street 9655 SW Murdock Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97224 Gus Goulet Bill McMonagle 8075 SW Thorn Street 12555 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Donald Myers Donna Erdman 12255 SW Main Street 12405 SW Main Street Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Steve Deangelo Myran Bioninger 9037 SW Burnham Street 6908 SW Ogden Tigard,OR 97223 Portland,OR 97206 ALBERTSON,BARRY BEACH,DAYLE D.&EVELYN O. 15445 SW 150TH AVE 11530 SW 72ND AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 BEILKE,SUSAN BEILSTEIN,ELLEN 11755 SW 114TH PLACE 14630 SW 139TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 BONILLA,NACIA/STASNY,JAMIE BRENNEMAN,HEIDI METROPOLITAN LAND GROUP,LLC 11680 SW TIGARD DRIVE 17933 NW EVERGREEN PARKWAY,SUITE 300 TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97006 BUEHNER,GRETCHEN CAFFALL,REX PO BOX 230268 13205 SW VILLAGE GLENN TIGARD,OR 97281 TIGARD,OR 97223 CAROL RENAUD CITY OF TIGARD WACO CPO NEWSLE ITER COORD. ATTN:AGNES KOWACZ OSU EXT.SVC-CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FACULTY 13125 SW HALL BLVD. 155 NORTH 1ST AVENUE SUITE 200 MS48 TIGARD,OR 97223 CONNERY,STACY CRAGHEAD,ALEXANDER 12564 SW MAIN STREET 12205 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223-6210 DEFILIPPIS,VICTOR ENGVALL,ANN 13892 SW BRAYDON CT 15461 SW 82 PL TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 ERDT,DON&DOROTHY FROUDE,BEVERLY 13760 SW 121ST AVENUE 12200 SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 GOODHOUSE,JOHN HAMILTON,LISA CPO 4B VICE CHAIR 9345 SW MOUNTAIN VIEW LANE 13565 SW BEEF BEND ROAD TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 HARDING,TODD&HERING JR,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 KEERINS,PATRICIA 13145 SW BENISH 15677 SW OREGON ST.APT 209 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97140 KIMMEL,DAVID KNAPP,MONA 1335 SW 66TH SUITE 201 9600 SW FREWING STREET PORTLAND,OR 97225 TIGARD,OR 97223 LISA HAMILTON CHAIR CPO 4B VICE-CHAIR LONG,JIM CHAIR,CPO 4M 16200 SW PACIFIC HWY SUITE H BOX 242 10730 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97223 MILDREN,GENE MURDOCK,NATHAN AND ANN MILDREN DESIGN GROUP 7415 SW SPRUCE STREET 7650 SW BEVELAND ST,ST E,120 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 NEAL BROWN.GRI NEWTH,PATTY MEADOWS INC REALTORS 12180 SW MERESTONE COURT 12655 SW NORTH DAKOTA STREET TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 RORMAN,SUE RUEDY,ROBERT 11250 SW 82ND AVE 14185 SW 100TH AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 SPRING,BRAD STALZER,CHARLIE AND LARIE 7555 SW SPRUCE STREET 14781 SW JULIET TERRACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 SUNDBERG,ROSS THOMPSON,GLENNA 16382 SW 104TH AVE 13676 SW HALL BLVD UNIT 2 TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 WEGENER,BRIAN 9830 SW KIMBERLY DRIVE TIGARD,OR 97224 City of Beaverton City of Beaverton Planning Manager Steven Sparks,Dev Svcs Mgr POB 4755 POB 4755 Beaverton,OR 97076 Beaverton,OR 97076 City of Durham City Manager City of King City City Manager 17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd 15300 SW 116th Ave Durham,OR 97224 King City,OR 97224 City of Lake Oswego City of Portland Planning Director Planning Bureau Director PO Box 369 1900 SW 4th Ave,Suite 4100 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Portland,OR 97201 City of Tualatin Planning Manager Brian Harper 18880 SW Martinazzi Ave Metro-Land Use and Planning Tualatin,OR 97062 600 NE Grand Ave Portland,OR 97232-2736 i i OR Dept of Environmental Quality(DEQ) OR Dept of Geo.&Mineral Ind. Regional Administrator 800 NE Oregon Street,Suite 965 700 NE Multnomah St#600 Portland,OR 97232 Portland,OR 97232 WA Co.Dept of Land Use&Trans Beaverton School District#48 Naomi Vogel-Beattie Jennifer Garland,Demographics 1400 SW Walnut St MS 51 16550 SW Merlo Rd Hillsboro,OR 97123-5625 Beaverton,OR 97006-5152 Clean Water Services Development Svcs Dept Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue David Schweitzer/SWM Program John Wolff,DeputyFire Marshall 2550 SWHillsboro Hwy 11945 SW 70th Ave Hillsboro,OR 97123 Tigard,OR 97223-9196 Oregon Health Authority(OHA) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Recreational Marijuana Program PO Box 14450 Attn:Amanda Borup Portland,OR 97293-0450 PO Box 22297 Milwaukie,OR 97269-2297 • , COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER_S : tlF 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 TOMO PO Box 22109 Portland OR 97269-2109 Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 E-mail: legals@commnewspapers.com PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Commission at a Public Hearing on Monday March 20.2017 at 7:00 PM and by the Tigard City Council at a Public Hear- State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS ing on Tuesday. April 11. 2017 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, Civic Center- Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Ore- depose and say that I am the Accounting gob. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of proce- Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of dure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the general circulation, published at Tigard, in the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E.The Plan-, aforesaid county and state, as defined by ping Commission's review is for the purpose of making a rec- ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that ommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council' will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a, decision. City of Tigard Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard. Notice of Public Hearing — DCA2016-00004 Planning Division (Staff contact: Agnes Kowacz) at 13125' Marijuana Facilities Place Regulations SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling TT84393 503-718-2429 or by e-mail to Agnesk(aitigard-or.gov. A copy of which is hereto annexed, was DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT -00004 published in the entire issue of said (DCA)2 -MARIJUANA FACILITIESS PLACE REGULATIONS- newspaper for REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amend- 1 ments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The proposal week in the following issue: includes amending the Tigard Development Code (TDC), February 23,2017 specifically Chapter 18.735, Marijuana Facilities. The follow- ing four options are being proposed for Planning Commission to consider: Cktu'L.41 O �4��3 Option 1:Keep the current,existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage re- Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) quirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. and sworn to before me this Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage re- Subscribedquirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses February 23, 2017. open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. ,g1/41.-------- Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage re- NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON quirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. ��ti— �� Acct#10093001 ( LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITE- ,r:� OFFICIAL STAMP -------<--?)Joe Patton { l RIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 SHAWN M SROUFE ) j (-.4.1.). (Land Use Planning), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS City of Tigard NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ( ,13125 SW Hall Blvd ' 1 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO's Urban Growth Man- COMMISSION 603 )) agement Functional Plan Title MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOVEMBER 17,2020 ( g 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals Tigard, OR 97223 (.�ti----ti-� �=---; �� 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.23, 9.1.3 and 9.1.12; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. Size: 2 x 8.52" Publish 02/23/2017. TT15884393 Amount Due: $142.27* 'Please remit to address above. • COMMUNITY "' NEWSPAPER$ „:;,,,b. 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 ., PO Box 22109 Portland OR 97269-2109 Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: E-mail: legals@commnewspapers.com The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission at a Public Hearing on Monday March 20.2017 at 7:00 PM and by the Tigard City Council at a Public Hear- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ing on Tuesday. April 11. 2017 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Ore- I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, gon. c hearing depose and say that I am the Accounting on this testimony matter will beheld under sinvited. erT tle18 and rules tof proce- Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, dure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E.The Plan general circulation, published at Tigard, in the ping Commission's review is for the purpose of making a rec- aforesaid county and state, as defined by ommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council' ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a, decision. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard, City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Agnes Kowacz) at 13125 Notice of Public Hearing —DCA2016-00004 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling Marijuana Facilities Place Regulations 503-718-2429 or by e-mail to Agnesk(7a,tigard-or.gov. TT84393 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT • (DCA)2016-00004 A copy of which is hereto annexed, was -MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS- published in the entire issue of said REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amend- newspaper for ments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The proposal 1 includes amending the Tigard Development Code (TDC), week in the following issue: specifically Chapter 18.735, Marijuana Facilities. The follow- February 23,2017 ing four options are being proposed for Planning Commission to consider: Option 1:Keep the current,existing regulations. C IV f LAI( W'd ' ') Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage re- quirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage re Subscribed and sworn to before me this quirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the February, 2017. MU-CBD zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage re- quirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITE- ��`-`” ``�2` ��-1`��= RIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 Acct#10093001 �•.... OFFICIAL STAMP r '- J and 9 (Economic Development); ORS Attn: Joe Patton 1 a, SHAWN M SROUFE (% (Land Use Planning), p ), of Tigard 1 '� NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ( 47513 (Cannabis Regulation); METRO's Urban Growth Man- City13125 SW Hall Blvd . ' 1 agement Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals COMMISSION NO.956603 ) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOVEMBER 17,2020 / 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.23, 9.1.3 and 9.1.12; and Tigard, OR 97223 k�"--��—ti�.------ _---�_.,_`- , Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. Publish 02/23/2017. TT15884393 Size: 2 x 8.52" Amount Due: $142.27* *Please remit to address above. NOhce of P. I-1 s ..,�w.rrn�n.ron .,,..s,.r..nY...;.sw.s.'.'^w"•'• IIICZO N t/�q o NO O pS 4p m Nt N N 2III N N w O co t, w O Co CNI R, 't s� r N _., � rr, N- E. to U.1 I Ea C: I -•..• w '1 49. .- i C, 1 0 i C) � i ... N (O r' tF4�- �� N (O M'Pi Ll{ O co co tl N- ) t, rn O l" tim �+"' If. n1 4,41.44 a rnvo C; d :: fl" o) rO ua Ig� u) °-No 4; ulr..5� :-.7.141-•(-NE 0' rt:CI 19 _.4.7 1 'T co r .• • u.i 4 0 MGV T u•t V• ..I • r.i. UeLjil:cILI, 41 --:::.*: m ►�+ e d Z U ltd s:4,ltd mrw= IX:F'1--41 ra u: IYC;G .d r, F LLtl+;, N }: ?-',t' ri , CDr :v1 rn. rg._.r.^:a rn (/) ti 1 M Z NIM N-'. N rl N N r\I c_ N�- .6 I) Clihl G% t +� CI. to CI al.� �\ (24 t• C-12 .,. 0 ›g: u �� is ra ( m Li, � 0 1•+I --i, g,..y t•TTy�y;' ,0 OP iIll !91 '• J ;lit (74 i (:4/.• ;.fir.. Cir pr 04 (14 ill (i' r ) M ' 0, 4 b.!) o bbA o N xH x 0 3 0 0 0 N_ ccd N_ VI U `r' C:21 U H o" P4 Q! n: ;4 H Er H NK Q 1 - - - . . ..-i --- , n n c - Air t7i 0 " II ,-.• )--i (..0 '-' (") -• u..) cm ,•-••, ,y....?• , I-.• N 1-t P." „Art Lri -----, ,--i Lil x 0-1 1-1 ,...• cic? 0 1e- Cfg...• O P • ,-- AI ed 1"t N • N N • L.,..) III t.i.) I\) i••:. K) 16 1::‘ 1 • Ilt) t,h) trt.) •r• Y M. Ill tio c: 11;).71 ' 0 • 1-i n 1-i a. :-/ F3 2 Ili n .../ 3:kr4*11 tt vs H t-4 ..1" pl pi-05'1 n 1 i cri'11',43 = e'-' c• - r" fli -4 (._,J . -7....- xi r- -vi -ni-Ai ) (ID -1.4 =0 ni Z En -..-.-,-.1 13 rn R., , ,,, ......, -ii---i r' ' MN • --Nri - ;..), or-;* - 0110 • -V.ii •i 'Sr' _ •r •PFt' - ... -.IV, 1..., Ai:: iii•ill' 4,-'• --, .- f-4' • . - :-.-- ii 10 - 111— F H •-'I•'A-01 •-• 7' — * C3 vi mAlity.74.11 P A: Ti..7 1erij ri GE M -.... .. i i',./ II:.1,..:Eg •"*".„1 ZE.>'''' V .5. trw"-lit -.7.:::At " 0 rol )0 a ::. to 713,.....M w 00Nr C AI 0 0 N.3-T3 ...lb• 0 .*:::: Z) iii 0 4 CD 4,.•(0 ' 1) :=:61 0 rn VI 10 1 (c.D3 NIC lif 1,A,P co co > I 1'4 co (.0 > •,-. in ••,,,,, I), -..0. ..„„,„ --1 0 0 4 .4' *A 1 m iiim 1 1! z_... t m ° CD lyt 2 m m - c>...., cn .-.1 0 co H --- C, 9 ....... pt . II i (.) I ,.• '-' • c.ri rD I—I Cm O P Cig' • = :1) •0 tri 1.-t N.) • f...,.) I i) ...I IN,) gill NIT! 011::' '1r-A co . , ATITI I Cft *.• -I- Ln Z " 0 11/ f-I SL n c.to rri 1 -,---.., ---I i-4 .... 1 -, 54 t•) in L.,* u) ::-01 z,,in to 7:1 — :01 (t4 A' z ---: .4 t....—I tii : A • • ...r-: .* :--- 0rn I ,.1 7 :1-• • '-'• - • • ••i " ,...._ P -- * ,4• --7.7]001, — tZt in rn kil 1144.■: -....:r,,) X:;r*9 f„.S .•..'1 ....I'M i:..)I n . ""."...LP A *"4 OoN ir C ... ,,' — 1 ,,,,13„, 0•P•(C) 71 01 —7”cAl ° - at 1 41 Co co co > --0 ill 1 0. ..... 03 .... -- ‘,..• -4 Ig 0 III m :,..—. .r. .4 fq N • b -..., c. 0., ........,—.......— 1111 MI IR AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGI le T I GARD I, Agnes Kowacz, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Associate Planner for the City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropriate Box(s)Below} ® NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: Marijuana Facilities Place Regulations DCA2O16-00004 ❑ 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, April 19,2017 and deposited in the United States Mail on April 19,2017 ,postage prepaid. Arid 04b* Agnes Kowacz STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the /"I day of Apr--; / ,2017. `�' OFFICIAL STAMP TFq '.` BETSY GALICIA �. • NOTAL Y PU LIC-O CON "-4 COMMISSION NO.925141 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 09,2015 < NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: 31 q / /0 EXHIBIT A 120 DAYS = N/A DATE MAILED: 4/19/2017 I . CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION BY THE CITY COUNCIL Case Numbers: Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2016-00004 Case Name: MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS Applicant's Name/Address: City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard,OR 97223 Owner's Names/Addresses: N/A Address of Property: Citywide Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Citywide A Final Decision affirming the Planning Commission's recommendation to keep the current existing regulations pertaining to marijuana facilities,Chapter 18.735 and making no changes to the Development Code. The City of Tigard Planning Commission and City Council reviewed all applicable plans, maps, findings, materials, public comments, and recommendations for the amendments described in further detail in the staff report. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony on March 20. 2017 for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the amendments. The City Council held a public hearing to receive testimony on April 11, 2017 prior to making a decision on the amendments. This decision was based on the facts, findings,and conclusions contained within the record. Subject: A Community Development Code text amendment to consider expansion of the place regulations for marijuana facilities within the City of Tigard. At the April 11, 2017 Tigard City Council public hearing, Council unanimously voted to support the Planning Commission recommendation to keep the current,existing regulations pertaining to marijuana facilitates as provided in Chapter 18.735 (DCA2016-00004),and make no changes to the Development Code. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRrthRIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement),2 (Land Use Planning), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11,2.1.23,9.1.3 and 9.1.12;and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. Action: Approval as Requested Approval with Conditions El Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper,posted at City Hall and mailed to: Affected Government Agencies Interested Parties Final Decision: This is the final decision by the city and is effective on April 11,2017 The record of decision can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)within 21 days according to their procedures. Questions: Call the City of Tigard Community Planning Department at (503) 718-2421 or the City Recorder at (503) 718-2419. EXHIBIT B Dann Black Betsy Chick Bill McMonagle 12525 SW Main St. 7595 SW Cherry 12555 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Harvey Elser Darbie Mayberry Donald Myers 23900 SW Mountain Creek Rd 12519 SW Main Street 12255 SW Main Street Sherwood, OR 97140 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 John Widmer Connie Ramaekers Donna Erdman 12215 SW Main Street 9655 SW Murdock 12405 SW Main Street Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 Brian Bergmann Gus Goulet Steve Deangelo 11180 SW Hall 8075 SW Thorn Street 9037 SW Burnham Street Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Anna Billings Myran Bioninger 12020 SW Buriheights Street 6908 SW Ogden Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97206 Katrina Lilly 6770 SW Taylors Ferry Road Tigard, OR 97223 0uLe of PCOC fiIt' d aAllar d a 2,11 A) P N p., Ul `C ¢, UN-, `C CD N • N • W W tD 1 } NCS ''"i7t I ,C. �t t iirt 02 ,Iii ri N (n is� i ►-+ :z , Cly in 03 C a XI :' .,dy ort ; 'if) 4{a 1Y1 hi '.. .1 ...• 7.:h7 h1 m N n - " s 4 Pt' r4..: wue �.: _W „ ,,may rD -.,j C -03 -2 r rn for _D) : G;rn i,q P x--r--i :0:- F, )."r —I J 01 pori C ,9 0' 1 C IS) P r p•Xf to u 'V ti) rdt , I On ;s CJ,,O - ' , ' "!1 LA t{ 71 VI ti ilk. A. ,,,3'rn _ + y rn J • •_ . G 4r! 7,J ,✓' O O N_ C e m td? p4 rt. O O_N c �? 07 0N- v Cn V 0N- Cn � ) �J � V ca�NuL.) -4 as Ili t Cv - EAIT' v AEA rn w v a p :: t" t.O1IuO lit! M r z -,m t I (0 --'(C) z u) N .p WO tl� O 11 m o a) m j -.I Co (p �I O (n t , i 0 ' ft st.t.'' . ,..- 2:,...,_--,--,---,-k. r 1'' xd. y "- - - - moi., A IA. A ;�° zs in Z o A. = o CD n 0 o O �{ N K f6 f] 't"?i C an 51 tit '. 0 3 < ft ro -, pPq v ii d � O * a & 5. 0 _ '0 * c. g. a• g a m d y to a 70 2 �.. n = - Nf o V o 0 rho <' 0 3 p � d 3 ry U. '. IQ. -e•I 209 aj co 3 “taOm 0 --t = You are invited to attend '/r MARIJUANA 11!” '": ON MAIN STREET? � f, City Center Advisory ,, , t,.r f Commission Meeting: ito ' ; ; Open for Public Comment _ -,, I. I = City of Tigard I Town Hall ► 13125 SW Hall Blvd. . slimi.._ Y i � Tigard, OR 97223 Sillr.7 ' Wednesday, Nov.9th r , a . 6:30 p.m. r ,i I.) 5 713 :32 C] 2 n .� it Q•a, i7 ' C XIII 3v IgN O 3 l'.l t{-' 6' O - t-.3 n il a. � so = � � C O 0 v C n = C Ov C O 4 tna � x � y �- � Oxy H vi 1..4 iii,11 O KffC7 �(k. O N zv +� C p„,�,v�� Q v s Rep, ,d';°J . I li at ^* m • 0 . -i t(. Evil , op —. -% i,a . '''''' :iZ CI tt"4 2,_' ' , 7E; AV ._, .. ...e»iT3 0I 1.41 ) m ,3-f r11 Cil = Cn ia$ -...:.f;,,tee0 •"" yr ,` " ' UD;9: IY6:. `4r: d 41C. 81.7 _ F Ott xi; g i 0 z f 1 n --+ CA .---1.4 C.›';rte" le I g „, ._ iTit flat N d I I t$9 r.. r:- p tiaa: ypi'' �� Ir r@i X 11q � _ i - add$.. id, cn ••47. , O o O 1 aae 1i ,may IP�" ,zc,t,,, ,,.,,,, „°> f,, .._ 111 n. -. =" .,„_ ,, „_. >01,y o a r1 ..... c n1 a 7y rO� o o nl F Yll„, tv O Z o ..nn '4 pi N, H z o�m 0 ftp:-' w w Q� II: Al w y W QU ;"�"..1.. V) W N l a. CA .:..i 3'h'I C"'� H N �y 1 CA m N H tD -t'' 40 m = ,,,, a; 0 04'' 41' It! 1,11 to H}--� C) 0 I/ v: ,,,,) p liti r.,.- N W h O) O w City of Tigard 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ”11 13125 SW Hall Blvd. TIGARD Tigard,OR 97223 MARIJUANA ON MAIN STREET Please join us to discuss whether current regulations forbidding marijuana facilities in downtown Tigard should be changed. n9o"„la 1~ 1 11 G 11 IE.".L Ili ; �t'T�F • i IV l' '. . - , y ' d' --- sR Y1• 1 a� . . 4r• �, ..„-:-,..c,,, is '' 4 f' ■ .g„ Illt s' dYt: '746'1141k n oN � n 0. c1a m w o �, w - 3 ."- 3 ' d1 3 IN 8 3 f'1 30 X2 �. Oq N 'i' r' �- pq N �, �+ § 2 to °=1 _, t..1 s 0. --I `c m — 3 y Q- -a � xi i n' 0 y 0 Q ,oC Nao * = iiN. Itial 30 to E. oI5. zi � 0 •30 - - o 0toc o W C 3 0 M g 5 Na W eR N 2-3 la as yam, s iliiiillif You are invited to attend You are invited to attend MARIJUANA II' _ MARIJUANA 1. ON MAIN STREET? ,i! i N MAIN STREET? r' City Center Advisory .11t' ' City Center Advisory J w. 9 '.-----.1..� 4 +� ` Commission Meeting: `' _ , Commission Meeting: I3 O,en for Public Comment ' `-. " . '' - ` 1 -, , r Open for Public Comment r` la City of Tigard Town Hall a •' + r 1 I,if i Cityof Tigard TownHall �, g I 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ' ;• A► .} 13125 SW Hall Blvd. f �-" Tigard, OR 97223 ? , Tigard, OR 97223 �x w • -7----- ,-- rte.,_ f Wednesday, Nov.9th ' Wednesday, Nov 9th — 1 W i ., ••• - in DO CD INI CL Crg ai(T) C 7* 28 7> 0 C FA 2C 71 16 Ea.r. Lo. ...7 210 0 'A • -' , • 0 5.9 "'IL' Aga. ' in - * °...T. m ):11/ Es ,,_ 0 0 * 0. -..1 5' Ill 0 0 = •, icr, )DA X2 1-1 '-' (-) n 01-07-. i'-11) 0 0,• c. IT I -I „o.. L" 4 ---, in oil C3--s 0+ = Lo Cr. c CD . -I -, .-t• p.. Ll' K -r.' TI i-] -I -, er• --1i14; a. 2, col C , . .- 0 = c cf, , 0 7 J — 0- 0 2C 1• a) 5_ co_ 0 Z 1 ,_c_,_. Z S 'A' Cin C a a: 7' p) a - •0 H t'i (-4 ar) F1 "I itia, rg4;1 t/ - -MI cro al o 9 Le, '14. 1 H a cu X2 1 . gail I-1 -- -- ca arm ... • • - 0 a) (,.1:2, 43211 , 111 , rn "`".7`tr . 1., .- ---- ,..- ;::! 0 ni CD Da) c- I•/ j)200 - -4 g- oo (3,) = 0) c _ 0313 C:, n aa - -, rt. = (.1, ,,.+14) ;:ww, III 1111 • M ,+ FL g.1* = "L' • rD , :`,'"Ot 2!Hill 0 v, ' -7.-el' Dr cz rrIr _ '-'-`: r';0;10 ---- 74,I-;xi 7-LC, ---- 2 1`.•J id CO n Z 1 =.s.11 ....... - -- „I r.wl fli v) t) t L ' • ' --..,7 --:- a pi 0 _ i-.4 L131\' •••;ek: . ' . ...::: — 0, c) ...._ o c . , . _ ::::-co r_ IL'" :=3' P ...,.. • • . • e ***,..„."'" 1 1,tit ii6 ..1 • . ,-.1-1 l!rA714414-1..71:ki.-: =.. „. ilcul _:-.--t, chit, -orp: 11 7_7;F 7-... to"``0 vi Ir.," •" tli -",'"_'-,F` 1 Ca Z 1,::71.1e..-A:4 : 0 z 33 4. IP - ' '"' • rri H C) — tg..., ?„co,c,Irri 0 13 0 0 0 N i 0 N.)- +a o m Wit„A ct A i" 0 00 Z 040 ' 13 -m 1 0 13 ...... -- - K.i F7-13 . ....:: a co 0_r.co ' -o r•CI Xi 1/40 171 03 -4 0 (-.) C..3 --.1 --.:-* . m to tt (8)) 1') it C4 4.1 "A n ...-7-ts M p '---or 0 P 1-d 16i) ii)) i' H2 , `s) N I ti 6 =- 0 tri 41 03 03 > ": N.I P CD t-I 03 03 > 7::::- t14 PA tri til --1 77i up h 0 111 r_Ti -,_ 1 f'''' P at P , ..,. co ,,,, n 0 0 N0)_ :t.) Ili 2 Pa. < Ci) a cn ca c. g3 a, % (} _ City of Tf! .. - vmv COMMUNITY U0: EVT „ -it. .:,-.1.- -..*-41.i.: us.POSTAGE 0 PITNEY BOWES 4,40. ' 14':_;S: US POSTAGE>>PITNEY BOWES 3 • a ,;•,1 ch_," - , 0 . , .16 4 .:1!"...:•,,,4.: .... I City of Titr' ''''TLAND ...- . f Tr: . v.. ,,,. ir,,, ,,,,,,,L=0........ 13125 SW FIIT701VC..,",:....' - - ...au" 4,, ..., . .. . ....... 4.,,,,, ,...: . ...--................. 4 COMMUNITY13125sWHall gzrKITIE N,1T6 ri'',11ii•,..Nrir (0744;„ ---...iiirAM=NrAmr 111 T I GARD Tigard,OR 970Y'14. 4,- .......... TIGARD Tigard,OR 9742k -11 I e -. .0.t.' Z/P 97223 $ 000 340 • E-•• •i 4, t ZIP 97223 $ 000 340 m. _•-•11;4 . .,••- .- 02 4VY , .. . '..,16• . 02 4VY 0000336894 OCT 27. 201( 4, e " 0000336894 OCT 27 2016 MARIJUANA 4, MAR1JUANiti 9 ON MAIN STREET 01); KATHY FEDRAND 1 ON MAIN STREET li NICK ALBANO 9835 SW MCKFNZIE PO BOX 69033 Please join us to discuss whether current Please join us to discuss whether current PORTLAND,OR 97239 regulations forbidding marijuana facilities TIGARD,OR 97223 regulations forbidding marijuana facilities in downtown Tigard should be changed. in downtown Tigard should be changed. -1- , r-1.1-7Pff, - ..,.. a._., il ......__,, A acoun _ t4 I XI E 9 72 0 S 1-3 /fraiZerlG lig ' l'.. I 1 71,- / RETURN TO SENDER I RETURN TO SENDER I NOT DELIVERABLE AS Auutxtsizu ' UNDELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED NO SUCH NUM3,7R 4 UNABLE TO FORWARD i SORT IN MANUA, aNil Y N'7O AUTOMATI.ON SC: 56998999955 " ‘LS17S-ital -3‘ Z 4?S'e-t.112-1.96-3-‘,-16 11 t idiltilluiliiiiiii1itillii1t1lititi1illii11111111 1 i 1 I. 3 i ill la 110111/131111111111110111111111 11 ill'11111111 131 111. APPLICANT MATERIALS 1111 City of Tigard COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T Use Application TIGARD Master Land lJ se a LAND USE APPLICATION TYPE ❑ Adjustment/Variance (II) ❑ Minor Land Partition (II) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment(IV) ❑ Planned Development (III) ❑ Conditional Use (III) ❑ Sensitive Land Review(II or III) lir Development Code Amendment (IV) ❑ Site Development Review(II) O Downtown Design Review(II,III) ❑ Subdivision (II or III) ❑ Historic Overlay (II or III) ❑ Zone Change (III) ❑ Home Occupation (II) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV) NOTE: For required submittal elements,please refer to your pre-application conference notes. PROPOSAL SUMMARY (Brief description) p\--mend 1'3,135 I\ it Jv>.ftng tifi-cs yela-ivlJ -v plc c v, 1 nnav)aer VQy1cL1-un - PROPERTY INFORMATION (where proposed activity will occur) Location (address if available): Ci 41 W teire, Tax maps and tax lot #s: Total site size: Zoning classification: FOR STAFF USE ONLY APPLICANT INFORMATION ail o4 T� rel Case No.: Name: Related Case No.(s): Mailing address: 1312. SvV MIA 1?)1Vd Application Fee: City/state: lila VA 0 12. Zip: On 223 Phone number: a'3 . 1 18 • VIZI Application accepted: By: Date: Primary contact name: I(1Cc KDW/ECZ 50-3Phone number: 5� . 2 . 242C1 Application determined complete: Email: AnI(1a lG eft-lAV Of' or-.�/1/ By: Date: `J I:\CURPLN\Masters\land Use Applications Rev.11/25/2014 City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • wwwtigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 2 w • PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER INFORMATION (Attach list if more than one) Name: Mailing address: City/state: Zip: Phone: Email: *When the owner and the applicant are different people,the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner.The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • If the application is granted,the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,attachments,and exhibits transmitted herewith,are true;and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued,based on this application,map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application,including the policies and criteria,and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s). 'YM 1 Intl V OWZc z l l� 3 111.P Applican ATM Print dame Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's signature Print name Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's signature Print name Date SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property required Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • www.tigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 2 of 2 PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES „,,„...- ,.....- City of Tigard ■ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1, r TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Request PROJECT DESCRIPTION D Project name/title: Mit r J�/a i lA,Cf REQUELEMEN TS MITTAL Please write a brief description of proposed project: (Note: applications will not be accepted without the required submittal elements) C gd-t v plaa rev f ' !Ur P (�/t��Q _ 5 COPIES OF EACH OF THE /.01-6‘.1r V FOLLOWING:ta ❑ Brief description of the proposal and — any site-specific questions/issues that you would like to have staff research PROPERTY INFORMATION `I prior to the meeting. P ty / ( ) � ��U`-t' ❑ Site Plan.The site plan must show the Pro er address locations (Nproposed lots and/or building layouts drawn to scale. Also,show the location of the subject property in relation to the nearest streets;and the Tax map and tax lot #(s): Ai locations of driveways on the subject Zoning: AU, ( Y 1 h1property and across the street. ❑ Vicinity Map. PROPERTY'' OWNER/HOLDER INFORMATION E) The Proposed Uses. ( Name(s): L '/ U 7 `54 l'OL ❑ Topographic Information. Include Contour Lines if Possible. Address: I3k 2-S CW l la , 131v4 Phone: ❑ Filing Fee. City/state: Til h tux-- Zip: "7,73 APPLICANT N / INFORMATION�'^ �I /nr”R s r" I 1 sl "N'.' Name: n wi r✓V vim" L Case No.: Address: 1 6t 19/1A-4"/ Phone: Related Case No.(s): City/state: Zip: Application fee: Contact person: , /_ Phone: 1L i<'7-A42,1 Email: AC)44.1 `� ' 1if i r0r'at'v Application accepted: IIJJ By: Date: Pre-application Conference Information Date of pre-app: I D`20`1b All of the information identified on this form is required and must be Time of pre-app: Ji.-AA submitted to the Planning Division a minimum of ten(10)days priorL! to officially scheduling a pre-application conference.Pre-application Planner assigned to pre-app: —04 conferences are one(1)hour long and are typically held between the L•\CURPIN\Masters\Land Use Applications Rev.01/06/2015 hours of 9-11 a.m.on either Tuesday or Thursday mornings. Pre-application conferences must be scheduled in person at the Community Development counter from 8-4:30 p.m. Monday—Thursday. If more than four(4)people are expected to attend the pre-application conference in your group, please inform the city in advance so that alternate room arrangements can be made to accommodate the group. City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • www.tigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 1 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CCAC- Marijuana Discussion November 9, 2016 Name r Comment Darbie Mayberry Opposed to marijuana downtown: o No good for Tigard's new image downtown o Marijuana businesses are not family friendly o Brings problems/drugs Donald Meyer Pro marijuana just not downtown: o Has seen the negativity of the pipe/smoke shop o Marijuana businesses are not family friendly/place for kids John Widmer Runs a marijuana business and has a rented spaced downtown: (Kaleafa) o Other locations successful and part of community o Would like to be part of downtown Tigard and work with downtown to bring a desirable businesses o Focus on facts, not perceptions o This businesses doesn't bring the same clientele as the pipe shop Gus Goulet o Works on the IT end for Kaleafa and shop has great security (Kaleafa) o Downtown needs business to draw people in Donna Erdman Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Echo others comments-not family friendly Connie Ramaekers Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Works at TTSD as prevention specialist for youth o OK on 99W but not a on Main Street o Not family friendly and a place where kids are hanging out o The earlier kids can access a drug the more likely chance for addiction Egor(Kaleafa) o Floor Manager at Kaleafa o Very secure, everyone is IDed o Never sees young kids downtown Tigard o Could bring a younger, more progressive clientele downtown o Clientele is more for medicinal purposes than recreations Chad Cooper Neither for or against regarding Main Street o Is having a difficult time finding space for processing with existing regulations o Providing retail makes it so people don't purchase it illegally Steve DeAngela o Provided a report for surrounding cities- most reported no adverse impacts of marijuana businesses o Tigard Downtown Alliance meeting- no opposition to marijuana businesses Kaile Aanes o Kaleafa is a family owned business (Kaleafa) o Shouldn't be treated differently than a liquor store o Educate kids that these are for when you are 21+ Myran Bioninger Customer at Kaleafa: o Typical customer is 50-70 years old o Most people are there for medical purposes o Has seen the neighborhood grow due to a marijuana business CCAC- Marijuana Discussion 441111 November 9, 2016 CCAC Meeting: Most members had mixed feelings about marijuana: 1. Grew up in an environment/time when marijuana was bad and a gateway drug 2. Maybe more suitable locations other than Main Street,before we open it up to Main Street 3. Consideration of other 21+businesses downtown: bars/liquor store and some of these places people consume on-site 4. Very positive for taxation(Colorado) and bringing good paying jobs/wages 5. Concerned about the negative perception and whether that will deter people from going downtown No strong opposition was expressed. Tabled to 12/14 meeting and asked staff to provide additional information. Staff Deliverables: 1. Talk to Merchants Association in Woodstock of impacts/benefits of marijuana business to either community 2. Police reports from other jurisdictions 3. Any research on how perceptions of marijuana businesses create fear and keep people from coming downtown 4. Standards for design? Tacky, stereotypical appearance(big great cross)? 5. Other suitable locations than Main Street? 6. Similar communities to Tigard who have allowed marijuana businesses in downtown and have been successful or what they encountered CCAC / Downtown Marijuana Discussion Testimony Sign-in Sheet Date: 11/9/16 Due to time constraints, a 3 minute time limit may be imposed on public testimony. Name and Email Purpose of attendance? Address and City/Zip (please print) ❑ Resident/ roper' ty owner_ 1 - �� --- 2Business owner/representative (``) ❑ Other(Specify): 1 \(c+v<c-} ©.-ecS+:2,67 -1 ❑ Resident/Property ownerM A(,h 2 -s`J ham` % S /2 ZS5' SW `�� 043usiness owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): J� r1 A ❑ Resident/Property owner 3 —v��J+ � Business owner/representative . K(L . tk{- ❑ Other(Specify): \, 1 S 5\14 ('ccw— 5T. . 4 k 5 60-dI- Resident/Property owner � O Business owner/representative S ❑ Other(Specify): T��„"we 772 2 3 (.Resident/Property owner /� 5 _. (11144 pm ,_ Business owner/representative •-J --15 -%db , ❑ Other(Specify): & S ‘97c ".23 723 gi Resident/Property owner 6 —2-4 fl/ vmG f, G s“-#1 ,' t ❑Business owner/representative - W / lok 'Other(Specify): ( -rt, 10Q, 6Lt„ (01 0.1? Resident/Property owner •� � �] mess owner/representative • l�-' "her(Specify): I7 2 Z J 0 Resident/Property owner 8 0 Business owner/representative kCkkeCAIRk VO Ip C c 0711 p Other(Specify): Gjbw Resident/Property owner 'b 0 9 Cld e �'vi &r (AA,9 Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): Note: This is a public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. lono New CCAC / Downtown Marijuana Discussion Testimony Sign-in Sheet Date: 11/9/16 Due to time constraints, a 3 minute time limit may be imposed on public testimony. Name and Email Purpose of attendance? Address and City/Zip (please print) ❑ Resident/Property owner 1 0 Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 2 ❑Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 3 ❑ Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 4 0 Business owner/representative O Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 5 ❑Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 6 ❑ Business owner/representative • O Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 7 0 Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 8 ❑Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 9 ❑Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): Note: This is a public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. ter'' CCAC / Downtown Marijuana Discussion Testimony Sign-in Sheet Date: 11/9/16 Due to time constraints, a 3 minute time limit may be imposed on public testimony. Name and Email Purpose of attendance? Address and City/Zip (please print) ❑ R:: : :z;:taüve 1 ❑B - - CIT i Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 2 ❑ Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Speczfy): ❑ Resident/Property owner 3 ❑Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 4 ❑ Business owner/representative • El Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 5 0 Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑Resident/Property owner 6 ❑Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 7 ❑Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Speczfy): ❑ Resident/Property owner 8 0 Business owner/representative El Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 9 0 Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): Note: This is a public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. Now Noe CCAC / Downtown Marijuana Discussion Testimony Sign-in Sheet Date: 11/9/16 Due to time constraints, a 3 minute time limit may be imposed on public testimony. Name and Email Purpose of attendance? Address and City/Zip (please print) ❑ Resident/Property owner 1 ❑Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 2 ❑Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 3 El Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 4 ❑ Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): El Resident/Property owner 5 ❑ Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑Resident/Property owner 6 ❑Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 7 ❑Business owner/representative • El Other(Sped): ❑ Resident/Property owner 8 ❑ Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 9 ❑ Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): Note: This is a public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. CCAC / Downtown Marijuana Discussion Testimony Sign-in Sheet Date: 11/9/16 Due to time constraints, a 3 minute time limit may be imposed on public testimony. Name and Email Purpose of attendance? Address and City/Zip (please print) -,A 11 11/740...), t mkt� � sident/Property owner Business owner/representative •--L2l�� `' 6") ,�C Other(Specify): 1 0 0,1 -1 ❑ Resident/Property owner 2 0 Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 3 ❑ Business owner/representative O Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 4 0 Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 5 ❑Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): 0 Resident/Property owner 6 ❑Business owner/representative • O Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 7 0 Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 8 ❑ Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Sped): ❑ Resident/Property owner 9 ❑ Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): Note: This is a public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. CCAC / Downtown Marijuana Discussion Testimony Sign-in Sheet Date: 11/9/16 Due to time constraints, a 3 minute time limit may be imposed on public testimony. Name and Email Purpose of attendance? Address and City/Zip (please print) ❑Resident/Property owner 1 ❑Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 2 ❑ Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): p Resident/Property owner 3 ❑ Business owner/representative ❑ Other(Specify): ❑Resident/Property owner 4 ❑Business owner/representative • O Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 5 ❑ Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): O Resident/Property owner 6 ❑ Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 7 0 Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 8 ❑ Business owner/representative O Other(Specify): ❑ Resident/Property owner 9 ❑ Business owner/representative • ❑ Other(Specify): Note: This is a public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record. _ u ;n gip,. m , r •• • • • � . W.r ..i *'� „`4, r ,,,,.„1„,o." .3��¢ `,� ¢t�'�r e �! tr-Retail Marijuana Facilities.• �";, . , , i :gyp :. aQ } ,► -i- , F. , a s : g v Potential Locations v _u 41i,-‘4- ' '11 .wpm ,, / T.i:' ', •. , ,. „,,,, ,,,,, 41:1,1:r '.. / t-itilltP Q Downtown Core %'TANGEL�A�CT� „ t� r r ' . ExistingMarijuana Facility ,. t AZ '�'C 1 � `. x.. J ., x�, �; j � ,'.,` ' :, �` �� ' l Schools rY r „ . 'Pr ,, : �� ; _ , *.a 4F. . �rn r,- O r � x �. - G\ FSG � O;' r � , w r ® I,000 Ft From Other Retailer �.. .. _ P.P <` r a.. r. ,s .*. ^r.,tiro.. .. ,• ' _ `�, S 000 Ft From School Site ' `» > � r v A. ,,> 500 Ft From Park Zones& Library Q' (, ' r i d I e i Tigard City Boundary FNT 7- Ii..a '1.c,' ,,,„„:75- u • QIP DATA SOURCES: ,T ..>•., - tE"T. mi-+. a.r• +," §,. »y.. Q ..:s .... •ice �r ! .,, - $� t„ W" y 4 City of Tigard ', •': _ ; 1¢ %; neo-o .-.,. m. y, J; , ' ,♦^ •,.,, ,.;1 fey,. ,^' '' .rt s _ ;$e'^. D gg DISCLAIMER: waahngmn county TI<;anta , .:,:� `3.. `q'4. g °, : Qf gu 4i a CQ 5 13125 Southwest H°11 Boulevard rn:mapwasde.edrrom:e.eraldataba.ea.Tnectycannot Tigard,Ore 97223 r '.. `4 } ,�y,1 � *' � � ` J`hf accept responi b rty ror any errors.Therefore,there are no C°r 1:°u M ,N�Vj, G� ,„ ,s✓" J{ A.„,"'..." $',w` warrant es for th s product.Howe.er any norrnuon or error:�z 503.639.41 7 1 MF •\ \.�+ " +r` d �, eppre<ated www.ti�•rd-or.�ov VV__ �. `' yy , } 4 } Xyp J' tt tE 1 ti ` t'G q?'Y "`+r +fi 4,�r•�t4�-,(jfiy4q'''.n E • f' Orr e , } j,iti,F ski T} ySi .may. G ( y 87 . I' \LU \ >a __ 4 -a dorit .rt�so � �' '"„� � tilt Ots � , + -"" r.., ti! CO r ka,.., .z...,.,L, oi, ,'o .. 2 t ,rrr..r' t fir! & , +� e , . ti _ . � s r.. " r ,: : .. A . ,,,I,,,, '-'"'--_, _, .,,,,..,,,'41. ,„i:::.. .... , t..,, ,. G '\,. , ,,.. :dam , , , 0 r y � / ,� ti� Q �; a T h t R 0 �� ST 1 �9A It -4,.. *n " n / +1"`` yy ,/ F� 4. , g , .,. ��. SQL .. �. . ,ex !\g„ ,r 4. r a T � r �• ida -7,,i, . , .C� * � / ,. „i asx��`ii.p0 rd P..:'"Ye ♦. i✓ � r _ ;,< w .. mow, A a Map BL•EWI N :� SIr LN , ., 4 .a4 � . y , rl < a, k Retail Marijuana Facilities: y .1 y, �w.. — � 0 '' QP 0 Potential Locations _. . � Vit,. :.,,,#'�.. w RA �. yaw x *� z2--Fp.'", `� . ,: f 0 r . r ' ''' d Ci��z � t J " � °' , •�'-, r 0. -, r.,„" w "' S' �� ,,�,� : :�1 I� � 4. �"P a, Cd �n. 11 T Q Downtown CoreVII TANGELgA CT Lu-" •> . , -'" kr # ' :, ‘ J Existing Marijuana Facility . g . �,' .. Q` r4. G "57/._ ` ! 4 a • 0 �- .:, NDN Schools :,x a ' '!1 `.,y, fn :. :Q .,_ r ,>. !'a s> ® 1,000 Ft From Other Retailer - � z } ;. QPG�F.. ' g - r.*'I T+gyp %,.,,,,,,, , °;ti r v- y- r arr ,000 Ft From School Site w „,,,,$),-;' �� - '; 1-1 Tigard CityBoundary DarasoLJRCES '`'.7.. + ' r +� G. Gam'' �` `^ aty orrgard ..'r t t_ ` rd NT` '' :Q,A a f, DISCLAIMER: euo ., wasmngton co„nry t i,,,va' ',' , «r, .FR SI?',.y.. ,”' t* .,..e', ' .,,,` . ,.. ^ 11t a'• , • ' y° This map was derived from several databases The City nnnot 1312$Southwest Holl Boulevard ms` s" r S�s r ` r F .d'.. it j � a"a _ �p acceptreapont,bityraramerrora rnererore.d,er:creno .. °' -::,:'. v ..� St` .. • ,.Y,,.. •., al, warranties Misproduct.Howeverany noofrat on of errors is Trgnrd,Oregon 97323 ,..,.. ,If •' y .z . � ,r Q,�•• I' A"tWC4- ltxyro, o• a reoared. 503.639.4171 . . .. '11 PP www.ti ord r, ov."t7. d `• ,�' ' g g l:O •.t !" ,j .. rF ,p•r V r .l'I.rredY411 1 ' -' '- 4 '` ,`1 +fes • ., 'u, r� 'd ''' ' ,,,./..- + ,. p..y.:°' 4. w: . ,^p. ._,., DI' r M r " '''it ''''k‘\\_ g v, #' 3f �S' �� iitio,), . - dxt v,... , it, AN O j,, * # `' , ‘ „�' _.. ,s°t ..rv:- �� S r•. ; .. 4 �e r 740,„ ,.. i,. y t a '_ ,yy 4 r ..� , a' a, ♦ � ✓� .a,.'„` >.. .. •3' "' \6 (• "k ofv r' ,<. ., g f Y.' s ,; Q m: _. :: ,/7. X._ llr� •. :>'^ `° +., .+n.: fT• r' , .;, . ..••• r.. r, tk!,` r :.. ; •< 4vr • „ �' ,. 'y Y""t *a .(1 X y �1�4/ co • ,. p "-A' .k \ i�+ "yr i. F 7 ��` e,. >4_ ., [r �:, ,x. •Xt S" t s fit. • Fr> - .. ' ,+4` a .pp. : .:. -,.• ar .:' M” e”' "�` "! t � t:-.f.p, Oaa , d`i * of t/ ..: '�x, ,� _.,ss.t .40 � �.i: y.. � 4; u -; „.n.,,. .. � �• Y•, b,.Y'r� .� ,y, f yw, •.� ; 1 ..F'. !Ir tx . ei-y r '• w r ,, l'''.1 Y. 'C,:',.' - , ti! ' R / .1' av $ <l / , gr ,. by s' � ;' ` G + } y, 46 r tr; r f/ x t .:'. i x_ yn, a*. _ C 1 isio 4, Y IA k. �; . 10 P- D � X� y� �" �*: aF! F t' ! ' J .. •" � r 1 • ,,. ; `.. ` orf W,*r4 „ : w , 16 ^ ,rr `o" y(„ _,, t Jaz esr. ,0 r' J P rs4" V �� . Q •r N 14 t S• \G ,• A r• re +." / 411 I;) ': +sem* ..ft J&,_ x , / '''''': z �. P f q t , A a ri rr •a ... i,c� a; - . ,..Q „efyr r"' kr'; • 14, '�• .- , ..."-(111.5.t ^`7 t t, ,.f Q' ,.,1:;1 '.. 1: 4, �t y� ...1: t - "s,: ��::, s- * 'F`.. r ,j` m' y� '" ''' r,n,�.;$ �f A` i`. m t x St'*:" V : t ^ fr �' '�` ,,: G s7 .. +;..� w 1 a f Akiik+ e..:: xi " - 'k J ' *:44,,,,,, e . w , 1 A' 4' t` 4 ': . 5 ,r'-r.,00" µ Q fit+ . • r'.r , ,<•' iiiti) r ..: µ.. ` ,.. 1 �.:: , fr ? •.r.>v LL_0,— 'Alit „s*: ,.• F � r ik Q/ 6 Q •;.,, . •�' *try...el' - �? > e,`':- ,v 4 , s'- . t .r�.. .a'. `' ^r .,. -• ,,. ^�" ~'M-..+ a. �b f r '� 're .....k , s {F, , ,..� ltrt..., v Rf k x '.+.r.:.. ..4: .. . wo,ow. !":V.J ✓Wx X," � ".,� Yrc ..,. o-.eM'�. .., 1• y�.: i„ ;^ ,.�: pr fi.�",eti.. � it i:�� ..s 5 1' City of Tigard I I GARD. Memorandum To: City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) From: Agnes Kowacz,Associate Planner Re: Marijuana in Downtown Date: December 7,2016 At the November 9, 2016 City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) meeting, the Commission instructed staff to provide additional information on the time and place regulations for marijuana facilitates. Specifically,the Commission asked staff to research the following: 1. Reach out to the Woodstock Merchants Association (or similar) to talk about any impacts to downtown. 2. Contact other cities, similar to Tigard,and discuss whether allowing marijuana has been successful or not. 3. Police reports/activity from other jurisdictions. 4. Explore other suitable location for marijuana outside of the downtown/Main Street. 5. Any research on perceptions of marijuana businesses and whether they create fear (keeping people from coming downtown). 1. Woodstock Community Business Association (WCBA) I spoke with Ann Sanderson,who is the WCBA President, about the experiences that the Woodstock neighborhood has had with marijuana businesses. Ms. Sanderson stated that the approach the WCBA has taken is to embrace marijuana businesses as part of their community rather than alienate which could cause other problems. From her perspective,there hasn't been any increase in crime and the neighborhood doesn't look or feel any different because of the marijuana business. 2. Similar Communities Staff contacted the communities of Milwaukie,Beaverton and Oregon City to talk about whether they allow marijuana in their downtown and what impacts,if any, have resulted. The City of Beaverton does not allow marijuana businesses in the downtown. The City of Oregon City has adopted regulations that will go into effect January 2017. Marijuana business will be allowed in the downtown,however, the school buffer will cover a majority of the downtown. The City of Milwaukie allows marijuana business downtown,but there currently aren't any located in downtown. 3. Police Reports Staff contacted the City of Beaverton, City of Hillsboro, City of Portland,City of Keizer and City of Salem. Staff has not heard back from Portland and City of Salem reported that they are currently not tracking the dispensaries in town. The City of Beaverton stated that there are three retail facilities located in the City.Just using their specific addresses, two of the locations haven't generated any calls of note since they opened (Growing Releaf and Stone Age Farmacy). The other facility,Blooming Deals, has generated additional calls,but nothing serious or that can specifically be pin pointed to the business. They had an internal theft (employee stealing from business) and then a customer theft but the other stuff has been nuisance calls from the neighboring businesses (dispensary customers parking in the other businesses parking spots, being loud,leaving dogs in the car,etc.). There has been an increase in suspicious person/vehicle/circumstances (SSP/SSV/SSC) calls,usually homeless/transient folks but nothing that can be specifically pin to the dispensary. There's a Fred Meyer and larger strip mall across the street from this location which tends to draw its own fair share of transient type folks as well. The City of Hillsboro provided information for the two marijuana dispensaries located in the City between 11/1/2015-10/31/2016.There were 0 arrests and 0 person crimes. One police report was taken last month for vandalism to a dumpster. Seven police calls for service that did not result in a police report. Specifically: 1 call from a dispensary requesting phone contact from an officer to answer questions about marijuana laws. 1 call from a dispensary regarding a pan-handler in front of the business. 1 alarm (cancelled by alarm company prior to police arrival). 2 traffic crashes in the parking lot of a dispensary. 1 call for a child left in a vehicle in the parking lot. (Vehicle not located. It is unknown if the adults were customers at the dispensary or at another business in the plaza.) 1 call from a dispensary regarding an unruly customer. The City of Keizer reported that the City currently has three medical marijuana facilities located in Keizer. Since January 1,2016, there have been 16 separate calls for service amongst the three. Of those calls, ten are likely unrelated to the business(es),and another three are possibly unrelated to the business(es). 4. Maps Two citywide maps have been provided with this memo identifying all the commercial and industrial areas (blue areas)where marijuana facilitates could occur if they were not limited to parcels with frontage on Pacific Highway (99W). On Map A, the areas identified in blue exclude the 1,000 foot buffer from schools and marijuana retail facilities,500 foot buffer from parks zones and library and the downtown core (Mixed Use Central Business District). On Map B, the areas identified in blue exclude the 1,000 foot buffer from schools and marijuana retail facilities and the downtown core (Mixed Use Central Business District). 5. Perception Researchl was unable to find research concerning perception issues with marijuana and how these affect people's behaviors. W o Map A BROC•K•MAN_Sr y�<< 0��, Retail Marijuana Facilities: 1 t 'Ja<V� p�%�'� r� f' ----� TAYL- RD. FERRY R•D. Potential Locations w o 1 } ° 1-1-_,I Tigard City Boundary '� q ° I 1 Schools -RD ,.. -, t..r I ®Downtown Core o r E��y W. tL ~,o - , ° QW.7 i MEI Potential Locations J O LS ":mom I j Q 9 Existing Marijuana Facility m r SCS " � 0 ! 4' ��`` J� 11 ___n...,, O. 8 1,000 Ft From Other Retailer I --- _, '""" `4 �?'\ a T BPS 1,000 Ft From School Site gO-' W .r GP' _ •� H WY �g ' 1T O 'ti...a .r V _ DATA SOURCES: re i\� 4 L1 -.- �_ , V 500 Ft From Park Zones& Library Or Tga d T►"�' III .�,�µl- / Q ��. .� DISCLAIMER: washmgton Coanry tit^f1-' LovVS j F' ��, -_mom �13125 Southwest Hall Boulevard / Tigord,Oregon 97773S / W �= j warant es for Nn odutt However an fica[on of Y x / appre<ateds' y yerrors gar gov d V(� '"' _, AMR w pr ynot errors is 503 639 4171 r www. d-or. I �� _ i J�,a' Neo _ \4. F it. I r o- 4767t �, �$ g co- 6 I _ �I !LY:r—ST �.Q� I ! q i{! �;* my Y ,4\0 `�__ ° 11 N,O,LLS_FE•RRY RD. ,.►. P" -77-t17-r--------,r-"T'''''' - t_ r~J`" �' + r� ri - I! %�� S�, �� 2��f IgG I LI /Pr ,/� �Q FR y ii r--' x RO" w j 4:00‘ I 1 i IJ I ti�j�I C eikv-riliOr ufi I �-I o �y l / _ CO c T. 07. AmEr J1 �I �) �� ` � i Sg ' M.CD.O.NAL-D_.ST KR,(�.SE ...WAY.._...... ri I - I /w 1S4ih 03 I BULL MO,U.NTp►.y�RD r--B,, r,� >G 1 MEADOW,S,...RtD—�, ° ° -7�OVNTQG 74aroBONITA--RDTA—RD...-L.---B 'fD BONITA...RD, ° ji/ J4II1_RD_Tl re UJ 1 W p +' yQ `� I r J �""�- G ICI Idi , _ 1 m i. In l,9 Iyr ,<� 16 Ai rk I.1 --�_� BEEF-WOO' Q. 1. BEEF DURHAM—RD DURHAM,` �0 F�g,E.N�D....R•D BC ,� R D BEEF B,BND. R.DOE$ �� r, tit� Ry D !� )n _ r y ce 1 rj, i Ma B I Al VP 0. t, 4.4 04 Retail Marijuana Facilities: o, • G 041, o��` Potential Locations m `I ~ � MII Potential Location Q j Q / I I z a 1 `' C9 I N j Schools ,o /E•I,R R•D m Q-0 L - J Existing Marijuana Facility g N A go _I 0 ® 1,000 Ft From Other Retailer j rf,,FY- W `Im Oar �� raw J u‘:7 o �s I 1- a Downtown Core CN f yx �a' . 1,000 Ft From School Site m FtD 5 T"'°° e. -J I 0. 0 �_ r W.rreuN' i E ED Tigard City Boundary DATA SOURCES: ! �� 1�� _� 40,/ >- F S' Cm),o(TgardTOW IN j + DISCLAIMER: Wash ngwn County rlcvun S E, L m r—--- � =�� ♦/i Thsmap was dewed(om several databases TheCrycaniwt 13115 Southwest Hall Boulevard n Q _�~ .... d / acceptresponsib ybr any errors.Therefore there are sw Tigard.Oregon 97113 2 1 �_�'/+/ appre<ate br thn produce Hcwever.any not ficanon of errors rs 503.639.4 1 7 1 F �' A �� www.tigard-or.gov / W co I w _ N 1l a AFF awn0,C. /1 �� Ne�R QP. l k' illk 4� I If � 4NUgo co T_..S�TI CIO . . ,` v �. SRO ► Ow o A. g yG�� /fr � WALNUT:STj ` P�� m o f—i � �ttyq�, � �!t w Q im � � c I ��S N,G r �� L� I j VIIAtLNV• ,�' SGN,O.kL-S-FERRY RD ►. -- "- --<-0"...."--°-'11: I r tl �� 2� R I 1 I H-1 11 �' /� =mow m a j 11 �I74 7 I J I \ Sh..,D I "' Q� a 64n. ' I f ' r' GAARD.EST �� _ k 1 1 r ! :...1 ` --'� �•; MCDO.NAL-D--ST..�� RUSE--WAY 1 BULMU.NTA=N RD Ti MEADOWS.--RD--. cor � �VN'TArIN RD QPG o--BON�ITA...RD.. -B.0NITQ .RD B0N,IaTA--R•D al P : L : Q \-,.I I 1 J _ a w x 1 1 1r m 0 It, >:0 0 �-�O J / .0+0 BE'E'F B ,s, � O Ste. DURHAM—RD \O �1' D,U+HA.M� ` P. - 'Q0 O BEEF B EN,D-..R.DBe0 — j 0 re co te .—ate' a w �i �� _ 1111 -'""-� --''�- � t.� o *� OP �` //A JEAN..a.RD C) f r el 1 /'d 1 r Agnes Kowacz From: Agnes Kowacz Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:44 AM To: 'Regionl_DEVREV_Applications@odot.state.or.us'; 'Paulette Copperstone' Subject: Notice of Decision-DCA2016-00004 Attachments: Notice of Final Decision.pdf; FORM_2_Notice_of_Adoption.doc Good morning- Please see attached Notice of Decision. Case Numbers: Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2016- 00004 Case Name: MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS Applicant's City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard, Name/Address: OR 97223 Owner's N/A Names/Addresses: Address of Property: Citywide Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Citywide Subject: A Community Development Code text amendment to consider expansion of the place regulations for marijuana facilities within the City of Tigard. At the April 11, 2017 Tigard City Council public hearing, Council unanimously voted to support the Planning Commission recommendation to keep the current, existing regulations pertaining to marijuana facilitates as provided in Chapter 18.735 (DCA2016-00004), and make no changes to the Development Code. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz ( Associate Planner City of Tigard l Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov 1 Agnes Kowacz From: plan.amendments@state.or.us Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:34 AM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: Confirmation of PAPA Online submittal to DLCD Tigard Your notice of adoption of a change to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation has been received by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Local File #: DCA2016-00004 DLCD File #: 001-17 Original Proposal Received: 2/8/2017 Adoption Notice Received: 4/11/2017 Submitted by: akowacz If you have any questions about this notice, please reply or send an email to plan.amendments@state.or.us. 1 1' ' go ii .4 Department of Land Conservation and Development V635 Capitol Street NE Suite 150 '• '` Salem,Oregon 97301-2540 • --§„,--- KatEBrasvn,Gna:►ca Phone:503-373-0050 Fax:503-378-5518 www.oregon.gov/LCD MI NOTICE OF ADOPTED CHANGE TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR LAND USE REGULATION + Date: April 21, 2017 Jurisdiction: City of Tigard Local file no.: DCA2016-00004 DLCD file no.: 001-17 The Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD) received the attached notice of adopted amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation on 04/20/2017. A copy of the adopted amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government office. This amendment was submitted without a signed ordinance. Notice of the proposed amendment was submitted to DLCD 39 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. Appeal Procedures Eligibility to appeal this amendment is governed by ORS 197.612, ORS 197.620, and ORS 197.830. Under ORS 197.830(9), a notice of intent to appeal a land use decision to LUBA must be filed no later than 21 days after the date the decision sought to be reviewed became final. If you have questions about the date the decision became final, please contact the jurisdiction that adopted the amendment. A notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR chapter 661, division 10). If the amendment is not appealed, it will be deemed acknowledged as set forth in ORS 197.625(1)(a). Please call LUBA at 503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures. DLCD Contact If you have questions about this notice, please contact DLCD's Plan Amendment Specialist at plan.amendments@state.or.us i 1 120 DAYS = N/A DATE MAILED: 4/19/2017 CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION BY THE CITY COUNCIL Case Numbers: Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2016-00004 Case Name: MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS Applicant's Name/Address: City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard,OR 97223 Owner's Names/Addresses: N/A Address of Property: Citywide Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Citywide A Final Decision affirming the Planning Commission's recommendation to keep the current existing regulations pertaining to marijuana facilities, Chapter 18.735 and making no changes to the Development Code. The City of Tigard Planning Commission and City Council reviewed all applicable plans, maps, findings, materials, public comments, and recommendations for the amendments described in further detail in the staff report. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony on March 20, 2017 for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the amendments. The City Council held a public hearing to receive testimony on April 11, 2017 prior to making a decision on the amendments. This decision was based on the facts, findings,and conclusions contained within the record. Subject: A Community Development Code text amendment to consider expansion of the place regulations for marijuana facilities within the City of Tigard. At the April 11, 2017 Tigard City Council public hearing, Council unanimously voted to support the Planning Commission recommendation to keep the current,existing regulations pertaining to marijuana facilitates as provided in Chapter 18.735 (DCA2016-00004), and make no changes to the Development Code. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRI FERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement),2 (Land Use Planning), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11,2.1.23,9.1.3 and 9.1.12;and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. Action: ® Approval as Requested ❑ Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper,posted at City Hall and mailed to: ® Affected Government Agencies ® Interested Parties Final Decision: This is the final decision by the city and is effective on April 11,2017 The record of decision can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) within 21 days according to their procedures. Questions: Call the City of Tigard Community Planning Department at (503) 718-2421 or the City Recorder at (503) 718-2419. i 4 l illig 1 11 . g 0 FIGA O Legislative Process Checklist ( Prior to Planning Commission DCA2016-00004 Marijuana Facilities i i Date Date Due Completed N IA 1012 111.9 Fill out Pre-Application Conference Notes 0/pc it 3 Iii Fill out Land Use Permit Application and create paper file IJIl'r i'k3 )iks Create case(s)in Accela (relate all cases) SIA 2- 1 Fill out and submit Proposal Description for Council Thursday Newsletter N) Schedule Public Hearingwith PC IA t 11,S 1� secretary 3I2D11-7 L.I i_L DIl-7 — Add hearing dates in Accela Submit proposed amendment to Metro. Metro must receive the notice 45 days in advance of the first Planning Commission hearing(Metro Code 3.07.820.A)sent to 2 �J 11 131 11-1 Paulette.copperstone@oregonmetro.gov. (Paulette Copperstone; 503-797-1562) Fill out and submit DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment.DLCD must receive the notice 35 days in advance of the first Planning Commission hearing and it must be sent via email to plan.amendments@state.or.us or uploaded to the FTP site at Aoir 2-I1 f 1 Http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/papa_submittal.aspx 1\i /A olyk If Measure 56 notice is required,send to affected property owner at least 20 days but not more than 40, prior to the first hearing. (http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/227.186) Date ent Submit Public Hearing Ad to print in The Times 10 business days(CDC I8.390.060.D)in �1 6 L'( advance of the hearing. The ad runs on Thursdays,this means that the submission needs to be made the Thursday before the ad is supposed to be printed(approximately 25 days prior to the hearing). Published: The Times will send an Affidavit of Publication for the record. (Alternatively, a notice could be )-\„ii h2412' I,, placed in the Oregonian if necessary.) Notice may be combined with City Council notice. Send out Request for Comments and proposed amendments to affected agencies. Submit in time 2/117 \ 2i to allow em 4 days for comments and staff to incorporate comments into staff report. Comments \ii due: Mail Notice of Public Hearing to affected government agencies, interested parties, and anyone that I requests notice 10 days(CDC18.390.060.D)in advance of hearing.An Affidavit of Mailing must 712 n be submitted for the record. Notice may be combined with City Council notice. Email Notice of Public Hearing and proposed amendments to webteam to place on website. (To 20%2%i 1 be done same day as task above.) Submit staff report and presentation to supervisor for review and approval at least two weeks 3 q fl before hearing. Submit staff report and proposed amendments to admin staff at least one week before hearing. p)I1^ Admin staff will send packet to webteam and Planning Commission. Staff report shall be made l available to the public 7 days prior to the hearing. zJ 21A(1 Update Accela with the results of hearing.Hearing Date:3 I2O I(-7 ,� PC Secretary forwards minutes with recommendation to CD Director within 10 business days after 3' � the hearing. 3111 11 Commissiends transmittal letter to Council with recorindation. (optional) 1 y l41tI I7 Obtain signed Planning Commission minutes from PC secretary and place in the file Prior to City Council Date Date Due Completed 123 11 Schedule council hearing through Agenda Quick Date Sent Submit Public Hearing Ad to print in The Times 10 business days(CDC 18.390.060.D)in advance of the hearing. The ad runs on Thursdays,this means that the submission needs to be Publi ed: made the Thursday before the ad is supposed to be printed(approximately 25 days prior to the hearing). The Times will send an Affidavit of Publication for the record. (Alternatively, a notice could be placed in the Oregonian if necessary.) g:\ Submit proposed amendments and ordinance to City Attorney for review. (( ll ' Mail Notice of Public Hearing to affected government agencies,interested parties, and anyone w � that requests notice 10 days(CDC 18.390.060.D)in advance of hearing. An Affidavit of Mailing '� must be submitted for the record. Send Notice of Public Hearing and proposed amendments to webteam to update on website. (To be done same day as task above.) Submit staff report,amendments and presentation to supervisor for review and approval at least 3 L'I 3\17 weeks prior to hearing. Complete and route AIS in Agenda Quick, including all attachments at least 2 weeks prior to the 1 I l 17 hearing. 1 I Send PowerPoint presentation to Liz Newton for approval, at least one week prior to the hearing. l Once approval forward to City Recorder. After City Council Public Hearing Date Date Due Completed Send one copy of DLCD Notice of Adoption and signed and certified ordinance prepared by 11/1 (16111 recorder(original copy),proposed amendments,staff report,PC minutes and applicable memos to Council to DLCD within 20 business days after the decision is filed by certified mail. 7�I1^ Send a copy of the same materials listed above to ODOT Region 1 and Metro by regular mail 11 same day as task above(per an IGA). Send Notice of Final Order with signed ordinance and proposed amendments to all parties of I I record within 5 business days after the decision is filed. An Affidavit of Mailing must be Io t I . prepared for the file. I Prepare and send Notice of Final Order with all relevant materials to webteam to post on website. 1-t tit0 Id (0 `1 (To be done same day as task above.) I'`' I9 17 Update Accela with the results of hearing.Hearing Date: '4\kt\V1 `o t,11 Place copy of Notice of Final Order and signed ordinance in the file for the record. 912-1 V l LUBA Appeal: 21 days from DLCD Notice of Adoption 02-117-App-roti 0104(