Loading...
City Council Packet - 07/20/1981 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL t. STUDY SESSION AGENDA JULY 20, 1981, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 1. ROLL CALL 2. TUALITY SPECIAL TRA14SPORTATION - Discussion with M. V. Walker 3. 14EI40 FROM CITY ATTORNEY - on Comprehensive Plan LCDC Goal #10 - for distribution only. Discussion scheduled for July 27, 1981. 4 . DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE - 8:00 P.M. - Planning Staff 5. DESIGNATE AUGUST 3, 1981 ANNEXATION MEETING LOCATION - Recommendation of Mayor. 6. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE/CITY BROCHURE - Status Report by Finance Director. 7. UPDATE APPLICATIONS FOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR VACANCY - Report on status by Finance.Director and Council discussijn. 8. COUNCIL REVIEW - TENANT'S UNION CHERRY PARK APARTMENTS - 14680 SW 76th Avenue - Request of the Mayor. 9. DISCUSSION OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ISSUES - Planning Director & Public Works Director. 10. OTHER 11. ADJOURNMENT i r X T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L STUDY SESSION MINUTES, JULY 20, 1981, 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Biship; Councilmen John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla; Chief of Police, Robert Adams; Acting City Administrator/Director of Public Works, Frank Currie; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig; Planning Director, Aldie Howard; Legal Counsel, Ed Sullivan; Administrative Secretary, Loreen Wilson. 2. TUALITY SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION (a) Mr. M.V. Walker, President of Tuality Special Transportation, discussed with the Council the newly formed non-profit corporation which was organized by senior citizens in Washington County. He stated their task was to provide transportation in Washington County for the elderly, disabled and rural disadvantaged persons. Currently they are in the process of going out for competative bidding to help reduce the cost of special transportation in the County. Special Mobility Services have proposed $4.07 as a cost per ride. Mr. Walker felt the Tuality Special Transportation could supply this service for much less cost. He requested Council write a letter of endorsement and support for Tuality Special Transportation noting the letter will be used to qualify the corporation to become a bidder. (b) Councilman Cook wished to support the bid process, but did not want Council to support one bidder over another. (c) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to have staff draft a letter in support of the bidding process for the transportation in the County. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 3. COUNCIL REVIEW - TENANT'S UNION CHERRY PARK APARTMENTS - 14680 SW 76th Avenue (a) Ms. Mauvanie Scalf, member of the union, advised Council that 13 families have been given eviction notices due to having too many children. She noted that new owners took over the property in April, 1981 and expressed concern that there are no other places for large families (3 & 4 children) to move in the Tigard area. She requested Council possibility take some action to allow the tenants to continue living in the Cherry Park Apartments. (b) Anitra Anderson, member of the union, spoke to the rights the children have as residents in the apartment complex and expressed concern that many families have no place to relocate. (c) Marilyn Lindgren, Oregon Legal Services Hillsboro office, stated that Oregon does riot have any anti-descrimination law that deals with the age of the person or their marital status. She reported that Seattle, Washington and Santa Clara, California, have legislation on a city level to deal with this type of issue and suggested that Council could adopt an ordinance which could possibly speak to the concerns of the tenant's union. . p Irene Maurice and Mrs. Gardner, workers with the Indochinese refugees, expressed concern that the refugees are also being evicted and noted that there was no other place for these people to live which would be close to their work. (d) At Councilman Scheckla's request, Legal Counsel discussed how a policy decision in this matter could affect LCDC Goal No. 10 and the City's compliance with that rule. Legal Counsel noted that this is a policy decision for Council and he would work with the Council in preparing any paperwork which might be needed in this issue. (e) Dayton Page, CDBG coordinator, stated that Tigard has been approved for 22 low income housing units under the Housing Assistance Plan. He also stated that any person living at the apartments under a section 8 permit would have protection through his office. (f) Mayor Bishop expressed his concern in the matter and stated that Council will review the issue especially in light of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. MEMO FROM CITY .ATTORNEY - on Comprehensive Plan LCDC Goal 410 - for distribution only. Discussion scheduled for July 27, 1981. (a) Legal Counsel distributed the memo to Council noting that he had concerns that Tigard's Comprehensive Plan is lacking in several areas especially regarding LCDC Goal #10 compliance. He requested Council review the memo and discuss it at the July 27, 1981 meeting. Council agreed to hold comprehensive plan discussion at the July 27, 1981 meeting. 5. DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE (a) Allan Paterson, 11605 SW Manzanita, Chairman of the Downtown Committee, requested Council set a meeting date to formalize the selection criteria for the interviews of the consultants and hold the interviews. (b) Consensus of Council was to hold the meeting on August 5, 1981 at Fowler Junior High School at 7:30 P.M. If Fowler is not available, it would be scheduled for the Durham Treatment Plant. . 6. DESIGNATE AUGUST 3, 1981 ANNEXATION MEETING LOCATION (a) Mayor Bishop stated that over 820 people were notified of the August 3rd Council meeting since discussion will be held regarding large island annexations. He suggested that Council hold their meeting in the Fowler Commons area since it will hold more people. Mayor Bishop also requested staff prepare a slide show and presentation, similar to the one presented to the Budget Committee, to be shown that evening. Consensus of Council was to hold the meeting in the Commons area. 7. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE/CITY BROCHURE (a) Finance Director stated that the brochure for annexation, which the Chamber of Commerce helped staff prepare, will be ready on July 29th for distribution. She asked Council if this brochure should be mailed to the people (820 +) that were notified of the August 3rd meeting or if Council would prefer distributing it at the meeting. PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 20, 1981 Consensus of Council was to distribute the brochure at the meeting of August 3rd and to make it available for citizens at City Hall before the meeting date. 8. ISLAND ANNEXATION MEETING (a) Planning Director and Mayor Bishop agreed that until the Boundary Commission would hold hearin gain, that the initiation of the Walnut Street annexation inappropriate since the Bechtold Annexation has not been heard by the Commission. (b) Planning Director advised Council that staff is in the process of pre- paring an annexation status memo to keep Council informed of the total annexation picture. 9. UPDATE APPLICATIONS POR CITY ADMINISTRATOR VACANCY (a) Finance Director stated that the City received 57 letters of interest and two late inquiries regarding the position and that 19 applications have been returned for consideration. (b) Helen Terry, Assessment Center Coordinator, requested the Mayor set a date to meet with her and go through the applications before the processing begins. Mayor Bishop stated he would be available this week and would set a date shortly. 10. DISCUSSION OF LOCAL IMiROVEMENT DISTRICT ISSUES (a) Director of Public Works stated that a meeting was held with the property owners in the Tigardville Heights LID area before the public hearing of July 13, 1981. He requested Council consider at future LID public hearings the method of assessment and the number of remonstrances received. (b) Discussion followed regarding Council policy on the use of the LID process by developers in the City. Council requested their current policy remain in effect which is: The City Council does not encourage LID's for commercial development but will look at each application/development on its own merits. (c) Council requested Director of Public Works to meet again with the Tigardville Heights property owners to answer any questions they might have and bring it back to Council for action at the August 10, 1981 meeting. 11. OTHER (a) Legal Counsel stated that legislation is being developed now in the House Revenue Committee and the Senate Revenue Committee to deal with the A/B ballot questions. He stated that this would answer the questions regarding the Loaves and Fishes and TCYS levies for the City of Tigard upon passage. PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 20, 1981 Councilman Scheckla requested that an ordinance be prepared to send the levies to the County for the September election in case the legislation is not passed to allow the levies to be funded. (b) Chief of Police gave a brief report on his schooling in Alaska. (c) Director of Public Works stated that Washington County Commissioners have set August 25th as the election date for the Tigard Triangle annexation election. Legal Counsel and Finance Director discussed the publishing and posting requirements which the City must do for the election. (d) Mayor Bishop requested an update on the 72nd Avenue LID process. Director of Public Works reported that the engineer is doing surveying now and that bids will be advertised in about two months. Discussion followed regarding the $4,000. from Washington County and $200,000. from Mt. Hood Freeway Funds which are new monies to be used on 72nd Avenue. (e) Mayor Bishop read a letter from Debbie Martell regarding the dunk tank at Town and Country Days and encouraged Council and staff members to participate since funds will be going to Loaves and Fishes. (f) Mayor Bishop discussed some areas of concern with the Director of Public Works with the grass and berry vine growth in and around park areas. Director of Public Works stated that new park crews were hired last week and these problems would re contained (g) Mayor Bishop drew Council's attention to correspondence from Mr. Dayton Page, Community Development Block Grant Program, stating that the City has been granted 22 low income homes. (h) Mayor Bishop discussed with Legal Counsel and Planning Director his desire for a policy to determine when a Comprehensive Plan Revision and when a Zone Change should be applied for in Planning. Legal Counsel stated that this is one area to be discussed at the July 27th meeting and noted that also there would be some revisions of the administrative portion of the code also. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:08 P.M. �coo Doris Hartig - City Re co r ATTEST: jrjX Mayor - City of Tigard l PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 202 1981 TUALITY SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 701 HILLSBORO, OREGON 97123 June 17, 1981 Mayor Wilbur Bishop City Hall, Tigard P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Bishop: Tuality Special Transportation is a newly formed non-profit corporation organized by senior citizens in Washington County. It plans to qualify as a bidder for designation as the provider of special needs trans- portation for Washington County. You may recall that the Forest Grove Senior Center performed such a service from 1976 to 1979 under a Federal Rural Transportation Demonstration Grant. On termination of that grant the service contract was awarded to a private non-profit corporation in Portland who continues as the service provider. Washington County seniors, through the Washington County Council on Aging, recommended the formation of Tuality Special Transportation, believing that a service pro- vider composed of residents of Washington County and representing all the areas of the county would be more responsive to the needs of our elderly, handicapped and rural disadvantaged residents. Tuality Special Transportation applies to the City of Tigard, as it is doing to the other cities and com- munities in the county, to assist with the start-up costs and thereby indicate support and approval of this effort to provide this needed special transportation, particularly where no public transportation exists. If George Fourier, a member of our board from your community, could explain more fully before your City Council by exhibiting projected revenues, sources of funding, etc. he would gladly do so. Sincerely, M. V. Walker, Pres ent C Telephone: 285-2476 Tuality Special T sportation Enclosure: Board Profile CC George. Fourier TUALITY SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION WHO WE ARE We are the Board of Directors of Tuality Special Transportation, a non-profit, tax exempt corporation organized to provide the essential special reeds transportation to the handicapped, the rural disadvantaged and the elderly persons of Washington County. Members of the Board represent each of the Senior Center service areas and we have one Member-at-large representing the handlcapped and one Member-at-large rapres,:nting the rural disadvantaged of our county. Most of the members of our Board are long-time concerned residents of Washington County who have contributed countless hours of volunteer service to our county, communities, schools, youth, elderly and handicapped programs and many other social needs. We know our County. WA knnw and fro �gc�nngi_rg to i hcs�narice nom` i �yCw, ..o.4 rural and elderly persons. We know we have the ability to manage, deliver and coordinate a successful transportation system. We know we can substantially reduce the drain on public funds by reaching for supportive funding from private, religious, civic and corporate sources. Donald C. Austin Ray Hickam Thorsten herggren Harold Horning Florita S. Devine Jacob Strauss Leola Duyck M. V. Walker George Fourier may, 1981 Address: P. 0. Box 761 Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Telephone: 285-2476 v TUALITY SPECIAL TRANSPORTATIOiv BOARD OF DIRECTORS Donald C. Austin 10405 S. W. Denney Rd, Space 37, Beaverton 97005 Owner, Aqul -Data Corp, Portland; Past President, Beaverton Rotary Club; President, Digicon Corp, Beaverton; Formerly Chief Engineer, Sacramento Peak Observatory, Sunspot,N. M. ; Formerly Exed. Vice-Pres,. , Geophysics Corp, Alamogordo, N. M. Vice-President ors en Berggren, Ed.D. 3435-17th Place, Forest Grove 9 Prof. Emeritus, Pacific University, Education Dept. ; Board Member R.S.V.P. ; Affirmative Action Coordinator, Pacific University; Board Member, Forest Grove Senior Center Secreta- ii a . Devine 335 S. E. 39th, Hillsboro 97123 Project Coordinator, Petra Perez Memorial Senior Center, Hillsboro Treasurer Leola yck Route 1, Box 176, Banks 97106 Employee, School Bus Contractor to Banks School District; Public Relations Coordinator, 5-147 Transportation Demonstration Grant, 19ashington County George Fourier 11720 S. W. Bull Mountain Road, Tigard 97223 Retired, Former Owner and Operator of Tualatin Valley Stages, Intercity Buses, Portland Stages and Contractor for Various School Bus Services Charter Member, Tigard Rotary Club Ray H:Lckam Route 1, Box 244A, Old Pumpkin Ridge Road, Cornelius 97113 Retired, 'Former Maintenance Engineer, Nabisco Corp; Former Greyhound Ticket Agent; Former Owner and Operator, Photographic Studio Harold Horning 7^0 �i__LGl1-W- rev �t 'DOQ Drive, Hillsboro 97123 Retired, Former Operations Person, Hillsboro, Oregon, School Bus System Jacob Strauss 5320 S. W. 149th, Beaverton 97005 Retired, Former Electrical Contractor, Business Man President M. er, LLB, J.D. 936 N. Jantzen, Portland 97217 Retircad, Former Traffic Manager, State of Oregon, U. S. Army Transportation Corps; Asst. to Pres. of 18 Lumber Yards; Hospital Administrator ; Trustee and Former Board Chairman, Pacific University; Former Commissioner, Housing Authority of Washington County-6 years May, 1981 � s r TUALITY SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION STATEMENT OF POLICY Tuality Special Transportation is a broad-based community organization bringing together all Aging and Handicapped social service agencies interested in special transportation serui.ces In Washington County. This organization is aimed at developing a county-wide special transportation system, capable of serving the elderly and handicapped persons, and rural needs within Washington County. This coordinated system will maximize individual program efficiency through: 1. Centralized, representative Board of Directors. 2. Seeking system- support from cities, cozmnunities, public and private corporations, retail trades, and citizens to minimize the use of tax-supported funds. 3. Signed interagency cooperative agreements. 4. Consistency of service among localized operations. 5. Integrated local and regional service. 6. provision for appropriate service agencies to sub- contract for service. 7. Centralized dispatching and service routing. 8. Consolidated purchasing, such as maintenance, insurance, and capital acquisitions. 9. Coordinated responsive routing and demand service, and group trip service for medical, social and recreational purposes. TUALITY SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION WHO WE ARE We are the Board of Directors of Tuality Special Transportation, a non-profit, tax exempt corporation organized to provide the essential special needs transportation to the handicapped, the rural disadvantaged and the elderly persons of Washington County. Members of the Board represent each of the Senior Center service areas and we have one Member-at-large representing the handicapped and one Member-at-large representing the rural disadvantaged of our county. Most of the members of our Board are long-time concerned residents of Washington County who have contributed countless hours of volunteer service to our county, communities, schools, youth, elderly and handicapped programs and many other social needs. We know our County. We know and are responsive to the needs of handicapped, Non rural and elderly persons. We know we have the ability to manage, deliver and coordinate a successful transportation system. We know we can substantially reduce the drain on public funds by reaching for supportive fundinb from private, religious, civic and corporate sources. Donald C. Austin Ray Hickam Thorsten Berggren Harold Horning Florita S. Devine Jacob Strauss Leola Duyck M. V. Walker George Fourier 81 Addressa May 1gP. 0. Box 761 Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Telephones 285-2476 IL TUALITY SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS i Donald C. Austin 10405 S. W. Denney Rd, Space 37, Beaverton 97005 Owner, Aqui-Data Corp, Portland; Past President, Beaverton Rotary Club; President, Digicon Corp, Beaverton; Formerly Chief Engineer, Sacramento Peak Observatory, Sunset, N. M. ; Formerly Exec. Vice-Pres. , Geophysics Corp, Alamogordo, N. M. Vice-President orsten Berggren, Ed. D. 3435-17th Place, Forest Grove 97116 Prof. Emeritus, Pacific University, Education Dept. ; Board Member R.S. V. P. ; Affirmative Action Coordinator, Pacific University; Board Member, Forest Grove Senior Center Secretary Flo . Devine 335 S. E. 39th, Hillsboro 97123 Project Coordinator, Petra Perez Memorial Senior Center, Hillsboro Treasurer Leola Duyck Route 1, Box 176, Banks 97106 Employee, School Bus Contractor to Banks School District; Public Relations Coordinator, 5-147 `transportation Demonstration Grant, Washington County George Fourier 11720 S. W. Bull Mountain Road, Tigard 97223 Retired, Former Owner and Operator of Tualatin Valley Stages, Intercity Buses, Portland Stages and Contractor for Various School Bus Services Ray Hickam Route 1, Box 244A, Old Pumpkin Ridge Road, Cornelius 97113 Retired, Former Maintenance Engineer, Nabisco Corp; Former Greyhound Ticket Agent; Former Owner and Operator, Photographic Studio -Harold Morning 708 Birchwood Drive, Hillsboro 97123 Retired, Former Operations Person, Hillsboro, Oregon, School Bus System Jacob Strauss 5320 S. W. 149th, Beaverton 97005 Retired, Former Electrical Contractor, Business Man President M�a'Iker, LLB, J.D. 936 N. Jantzen, Portland 97217 Retired, Former Traffic Manager, State of Oregon, U. S. Army Transportation Corps; Asst. to Pres. of 18 Lumber Yards; Hospital Administrator ; Trustee and Former Board Chairman, Pacific University; Former Commissioner, Housing Authority of Washington County-6 years May, 1981 TUALITY SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION STATEKZ T Or POLICY Twality Special Transportation is a broad-based community organization bringing together all Aging and Handicapped social service agencies interested in special transportation services In Washington County. This organization is aimed at developing a county-gide special transportation system, capable of serving the elderly and handicapped persons, and rural needs within Washington County. Thin coordinated system will maximize individual program efficiency through: I. Centralized, representative Board of DIrectcrs. 2. Seeking system support from cities, cowunities, public and private corporatione, retail trades, and citizens to minimize the use of tax-supported funds. �• Signed interagency cooperative agreements. 4. Consistency of service among localized operations. S. Integrated local and regional service. 6. Provision for appropriate service agencies to sub- contract for service. 7. Centralized dispatching and service routing. is. Consolidated purchasing, such as maaintenance, insurance, and capital acquisitions. 9• Coordinated resp®nsive routing and demand service, and group trip service for medical, social and recreational purposes. i O'DONNELL. R}iX�i ?f3�2?: I DATE July 20, 1981 SULLIVAN & RAMIS p -,ATTORNEYS AT LAW t777 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of 7 NN W :-IOY. STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 Tigard 15031 222-4402 FROM Ed Sullivan, City Attorney RE. Goal 10 review of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Attached please find a review of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, regarding Goal 10, undertaken by my associate, Corinne C. Sherton. I would ask you to read the document carefully and to note a number of comments I would make regarding this document : 1. Tigard' s Plan seeks to be "active" , i .e. it seeks to regulate and plan for land outside the present city limits. Because of that, the Plan must meet the Goals not only within the present city limits, but also for those areas outside the city for which the city intehds to plan. I am told that the city is a lot closer to compliance with Goal 10 for the lands within the city, but if the city seeks to plan outside its limits, it probably must increase the density or use other devices to assure complaince with the Goal for those lands outside the city. 2. The first step in undertaking compliance with Goal 10 is through a "buildable lands inventory" , i.e. a listing of those lands "suitable, available and necessary" for urban residential develop- ment. There are minor flaws in the inventories used in the Plan which were undertaken some years ago. There are also inconsistencies in the updates of the inventory. These need to be updated and refined. I understand from speaking with the Planning Director that this is not a major problem. 3. All lands- within both the present city limits and the area for which the Plan is applicable are "serviceable" , i.e. sewer and water are available to those lands. A statement to that effect should be included in the Plan. Additionally, when the street and sewer plan is adopted later this year, it should be part of the final copy of the Comprehensive Plan and reviewed by LCDC. 4. We make a point in the memo to tell you that the present Policy Of LCDC to require that at least half of the buildable lands be used for higher density or multi-family construction is not an adopted rule. However, it has been used as precedent in a number of cases before both LUBA and LCDC and, if that policy were successfully challenged, it would be a fairly simple process to adopt the policy by rule. Thus, the benefits of challenging that policy at this time are minimal. 5. As the memo indicates, there are a number of ways to achieve compliance with Goal 10, including the Planning Director' s proposal of a "zone adjustment" . I would like to discuss these matters with you at the next City Council meeting. 6 . The city will, in all likelihood, receive a maintenance grant to update the Plan and, if necessary, to bring it into compli- ance with the Goals. This should help the city in fixing up the Plan sufficiently to pass muster with LCDC. EJS :mch 7/20/81 - Page 1 L)'DUNNtLL. KrsVAUtS, l.atKtltK DATE: July 1U, 1981 SULLIVAN 8& RAMIS 27 N.W. HOEYS T LAW TO: Honorable Mayor and Cit Council, Cit of 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET y � �• PORTLAND. vREGO`: ^7209 Tigard 15031222-4402 ( FROM: Ed Sullivan, City Attorney r RE: Goal 10 review of Tigard Comprehensive Plan 7. Finally, we noted in the report that there are inconsis- tencies between the neighborhood plans and the overall city Comprehensive Plan. In fact, a nu-.ber of the neighborhood plans, especially in the housing area, conflict with the general Housing policies in the overall city Plan. It will be necessary to review and, in some cases, revise these plans for compliance with Goals. The above are the highlights of the issues which we should discuss next week. I hope the above is of assistance to you. C EJS :mch 7/20/81 - Page 2 O'DONNELL. RHOADES. GERBERI DATE: July 4. 1`j0 1 SULLIVAN a- RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW _ _ 4727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO: Edward j. Sullivan PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 (5031 222-4402 FROM: Corinne C . Sherton IWIIIII RE: Housing Element of Tigard Comprehensive Plan I have reviewed the elements of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan relating to housing for compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 10. There are serious deficiencies in the present Plan. In this memo I have attempted to identify these deficiencies and to outline alternative courses which the City could take to comply with Goal 10. A basic problem underlying most of the deficiencies is that the process used by the City for its housing planning was apparently to allocate residential development densities as it considered de- sirable , and then on that basis to determine how many dwellings and people would be accomodated within its planning area; rather than first determining the housing needs of the planning area (in- cluding its share of regional needs) , and on the basis of those identified needs designating and zoning sufficient buildable lands. I. Buildable Lands Inventory Goal 10 requires the City to inventory land within its plan- ning area that is suitable , available and necessary for residen- tial use. In its acknowledgment reviews , the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC ) requires that such inventories be broken down by plan designation and/or zone district as well . See , e.g. City of Independence , Staff Report of Jan. 17 , 1980 , p. 15; low City of Salem, Staff Report of Larch 10 , 1980 , pp. 44 , 66. SEEM The "Survey of Buildable Lands in the Tigard Plan Area - Methodology" document found in Chapter 10 of the Plan indicates the criteria used for the original survey in 1977 , and a subsequent update in 1978. The City' s consideration of "suitability" included deletion of land with slopes greater than 25/, in 100-year flood- plains , with poor drainage , with unsuitable configurations and "residential parcels unlikely to be subdivided or further developed due to the character of the neighborhood , size of the house com- pared with -the lot , scattered outbuildings , closeness of the lot to the minimum size required by current zoning, etc . " (this last , quoted category really is an aspect of"availability rather than "suitability" , since it does not reflect inherent capabilities of the land itself) . One essential criterion which appears to have been omitted from the City' s consideration of "suitability" is the "serviceability" (especially with regard to sewers and water) of the land. See , e.g. , City of Newberg, Staff Report of Aug. 26 , 1980 , PP. 5 , 7. The City s ou review its identified buildable lands for "serviceability" , and include only those lands which will be serviceable during the planning period. - The City' s consideration of "availability" included deletion of land owned by government agencies , churches and fraternal org- anizations and land already built-upon (generally the area required SULLIVAN 8c RAMIS r�i ORNLYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET I TO: r c1'S PORTLAND. ORE ON 97209 15031 222-4402 I FROM: CCS RE: page 2 to support the existing structure (s) under current zoning) „LCDC has generally required city buildable lands inventories to include consideration of potential for infill and redevelopment in already developed areas. See , e. g. , CitZr of Newberg, Staff Report of Sept. 27, 1979, pp. 16-17 , and Aug. 26 , 19 0 , pp. 5, 8 ; City of Redmond, Staff Report of March 27 , 1980, pp. 24-25 , 28-29. It is unclear whether Tigard ' s inventory has adequately addressed these possibil- ities. Note that a footnote to the inventory availability worksheet found in Chapter 10 (a) of the Plan indicates that infill potential (i. e. , "excess"buildable land) was identified only for developed parcels larger than one acre. "Necessity" , or the amount of buildable land needed for addi- tional residences during the planning period , will be discussed in Sections II and III below. The City has properly broken down its buildable land totals by plan designation. Some confusion is caused by the City' s apparently having up- dated its buildable lands inventory several times since the 1977 inventory. The City should update the "Methodology" paper to ex- plain fully how the latest buildable lands figures were obtained. Also , there seems to be some confusion over what the latest fig- ures are, The last chart attached to the "Methodologv" paper ap- pears to be updated to August , 1979, with additional penciled changes reflecting a plan adjustment in 1980. This amended chart indicates a total of 2067.8 buildable acres . On the other hand, a large neap accompanying the Plan indicates there are 1428.8 build- able acres outside of city limits# Are these two figures consis- tent? If so , that must mean there are 639 buildable acres within city limits. Is this correct? Finally, there are conflicts between the updated inventory data and the information in App. R of the "Tigard Housing Plan" (which was based upon the 1977 inventory data) . II. Assessment of Housing Needs Goal 10 requires plans to "encourage the availability of ade- quate numbers of housing units at price ranges and rent levels - which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households" . In general, LCDC has interpreted this provision of Goal 10 to require local governments to project how many additional residences , and of what types , will be needed during the planning period. Such needs assessments are usually based upon the city' s population projections , recent housing trends ( e . g. , single family This includes 24.56 acres shown on this large map as "mobile homes" . What this means is unclear, as Tigard has no designation or zone district exclusively for mobile homes. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are conditional uses in the R-7 and R-5 zones , and mobile home parks are conditional uses in the A-2 zone. O'DONNELL. RHOADES. GERBER I DATE: ,July 4 , 1961 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTnPNEYS AT LAA' 3727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO! EJS PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 (503) 222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: page 3 residence : multi-family residence ratios , persons: dwelling unit ratios, costs o`different housing types , etc. ) and recent income trends, cf. City of Redmond , Staff Report of March 27 , 1980, pp. 26 , 28-29; City of Junction City, Staff Report of gene 26 , 1980, PP. 15, 17-ib. However, LCDC has stated in one acknowledgment re- view that a housing needs projection may be based on any reasonable method, so long as there is no indication that the analytic method used was chosen or, manipulated to distort the projected housing needs. City of Cottage Grove , Staff Report of Sept. 5 , 1980 , P. 7. The situation with regard to projecting housing needs becomes more complicated in a metropolitan area. Goal 10 speaks of meet- ing the housing needs of "citizens of the state" and "Oregon house- holds" . LCDC has always interpreted the goal to require jurisdic- tions in a metropolitan area to do their share to meet regional housing needs. Seaman v. City of Durham, LCDC No. 77-025 , April 18 , pp. 8-9; City of Junction City, Staff Report of June 26 , 1980, pp. 17-18. The Portland metropolitan area, of which Tigard is a part, is unique in the state in that it has a regional planning agency (Metro) and an adopted regional urban growth boundary (UGB) . Retro has authority to adopt metropolitan land-use planning goals and objectives (consistent with the statewide planning goals) , to adopt functional plans for areas or activities having significant impact on the orderly development of the metropolitan area , to re- view local governments ' comprehensive plans and recommend or require changes necessary to make them comply with the goals and/or func- tional plans adopted by Metro , to coordinate the land-use planning activities of local governments and state and federal agencies within its jurisdiction, and to adopt a regional UGB. Chap. 665 Oregon Laws 1977, Sec. 17 and 18. On January 1.6, 1980, LCDC acknowledged the Metro UGB as com- plying with Goal 14 (Urbanization) . The size of the UGB was based in part on certain assuptions by Metro with regard to future over- all housing densities and single family/multi-family housing mix within the UGB. Specifically, Metro assumed local jurisdictions would provide for a new construction single family/multi-family (SF/MF) ratio of 50/50 or a SF/AT' "build out" ratio of 65/35- Metro Acknowledgment, Staff Report of June 28 , 1979, p. 21 . Metro also assumed that average densities for new development within the UGB would be 4. 04 Units per Net Acre for new single family dwel lings and 13. 26 UNA for new multi-family dwellings , and therefore 6. 23 UNA overall. id. , p. 22. However, while LCDC found these density and mix assumptions to satisfy Goal 14 requirements , they also stated that: " . . .merely zoning for these minimal regional densities and mix assumptions does not necessarily guarantee O'DONNELL. RHOADES. GERBERI DATE: July 4, 1981 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET T� EJS rvRTLA1ID. OREGON 97209 (503) 222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: page 4 compliance with Goal 10. Generally speaking to comply with Goal 10 local zoning must provide for densities considerably in excess of UGB density assumptions. Each planning jurisdiction must demonstrate that it has provided for its long-range housing needs at affordable prices in a regional context. " (emphasis added) Metro Acknowledgment , Staff Report of Dec . 10, 1979, P. 14.� On June 6 , 1980 , the meaning of "densities considerably in excess" was addressed by a memo jointly published by DLCD staff and subcommittees of LCDC and Metro. This memo was never formally approved or adopted by LCDC or the Metro Council. The memo set out requirements for acknowledgment of Goal 10 compliance for local governments.. within Metro' s jurisdiction. It provided that larger jurisdictions (with projected build-out populations of 50, 000 or more) , including Tigard, must plan for overall new construction densities of about 10 UNA or more. Furthermore , a jurisdiction such as Tigard would have to ; "provide a 50/50 SF/MF new construction housing ratio and, additionally, provide other cost-moderating oppor- tunities which together with the 50/50 ratio , meet the t housing req>>irements (need) identified in the plan as is appropriate to the circumstances of each jurisdic- tion. "* The memo also provided a list of examples of such "cost-moderating" opportunities , including increased density. Apparently only two of the 27 jurisdictions within the Metro UGB have objected to the standards set out in the June 6, 1980 memo (Tigard and Happy Valley) . LCDC has relied on the standards in the memo in several Metro-area acknowledgment reviews since June , 1980. Thus , the City has two possible choices -- t1 )_. td=make independent housing need projections demonstrating that the City can meet its local and regional housing obligations at densities lower than 10 UNA and a new construction SF/MY housing mix ratio greater than 50/50; or (2) to make housing need projections based on the assumption that the City will have to provide for new cons- truction at at least 10 UNA and a 50/50 SF/MF ratio. The require- ments for each course of action are discussed below. Note that ,as the City has currently made no housing need projections whatsoever, its Plan presently does not satisfy either alternative. A. Independent Housing; Need Projection r` # A. second option which would allow provision of a SF/MF new con- struction ratio greater than 50/50 but not more than 6040 was included in the memo for jurisdictions with a current SF/TVTF ratio of at least. 65/35 and peripheral location. Tigard would not be in this category. O'DONNELL. RHOADES. GERBER � DATE. July 4, 1981 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEY S AT 1 pW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO: .'.c1.7 PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 (5031 222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: page 5 Under this option Tigard would have to project housing needs based on population projections , recent housing trends , income trends , etc. -- just as was described at the beginning of this sec- tion for cities outside the metropolitan area. The city should also determine what its fair share of the regional housing need is -- probably based on historic Tigard/Metro population ratios. In any case, I believe the City will find it difficult to demon- strate that it can meet its housing needs by providing new con- struction of less than 50% multi-family units , unless it can corr)e up with some extraordinary cost-moderating measures for single family units. App. C of the Tigard Housing Plan demonstrates that even in 1976 less than half of Tigard 'households could afford to purchase an average cost conventional new home . Since then the cost of houses and interest rates have risen much more than in- comes. If this option is pursued, and a.density less than 10 UNA and mix ratio of greater than 50/50 justified , the City can expect to be challenged by the DLCD staff, Pietro , 1000 Friends of Oregon, Metropolitan Area Homebuilders , etc. Furthermore , I would have to predict that LCDC would not acknowledge such a plan, since such an acknowledgment -wool rd open up the door to 25 oother Jur-5 --dic- F tions to challenge the requirements of the June 6 , 1980 memo. Thus , if the City pursues such a course it will have to be willing to take an appeal of an LCDC denial order to the Court of Appeals. It is impossible to predict the outcome of such an appeal with any certainty. In part, it would depend on the findings made by LCDC in support of its denial order. I believe it might be pos- sible to overturn such a denial if the order merely incorporated the June 6, 1980 memo as the basis for denial. Although the Court of Appeals would be willing to defer to LCDC ' s interpretation of the statewide Planning Goals in many instances ( See , Flu'ry v. Land Use Board of Appeals 50 Or App 263, " P2d 1981 ) : Nor- veil v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Com- mission, 43 Or App 849, 604 P2d 8961979 , it would still re- quire LCDC to follow basic principles of administrative law. This should include requiring LCDC properly to adopt standards to gov- ern its decision-making prior to or during the acknowledgment pro- ceeding. (cf, Marbet v. Portland General Electric Com any 277 Or 447, 561 P2d 15 1977) . Even the memo itself provides no real findings to support its conclusions that some local governments should be required to develop new residences at 10 UNA, and others at only 6 or 8 UNA. However, in any case , should the Court of Appeals overturn an LCDC denial of Tigard' s plan on such a basis , it would be extremely unlikely that the Court would order LCDC to acknowledge the plan. , It would most likely remand the case to LCDC for further proceed- ings. In the meantime , if Metro should adopt the density and mix requirements as metropolitan "goals" or adopt a housing allocation DA I t: OU-Ly 1-1'1 1`JOI SULLIVAN - RAMIS • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO: EJS PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: page 6 "functional plan" containing the density and mix requirements , or if LCDC adopted the density and mix requirements as an administra- tive rule , it would be very -likely that even the Courts would hold the City to meeting these standards. B. Housing Need Projection Accepting Metro/DLCD Assumptions Even if the City accepts that it must provide new housing at 10 UNA and a 50/50 mix, it must still examine local housing cost and income data to determine whether these densities and min: are sufficient to meet its housing needs , whether additional- cost-mod- erating measures are required, etc. The City should project the number of additional housing units it will need during the planning period by type . It should also demonstrate how the Plan will meet regional housing goals.. See , City of Cornelius , Staff Report of March 11 , 1980 , pp. 11 ; ' 13-i4. III. Designating and Zoning Sufficient Buildable Lands to Meet Identified Housing Needs Goal 10 requires the City to diGiA-rate and z.p,-,P _ r,y hn>>cinQ type , sufficient buildable lands to meet its identified housing needs for the planning period. There are several ways the City might meet this requirement. A. Change to "Complementary" Plan Tigard currently has an "active" comprehensive plan. This means that the city' s plan adopts specific land use designations for un- incorporated land within its planning area, and , upon annexation, will rezone the land in question to correspond to its own zone dis- tricts. County designations and zones for the unincorporated area must be identical to or consistent with those of the City. When such a plan. is submitted for acknowledgment , both c-5ty and county apply for acknowledgment of the entire UGB area (within the Metro UGB, urban planning area) . Note that all comprehensive plans out- side of the Metro area are active plans. Since an active plan can- not be acknowledged until the county submits its plan for the area as well , in any case Tigard' s plan cannot be acknowledged before Washington -County' s , which is expected to be not before 1983• Within the Metro UGB, it is also possible to adopt a "comple- mentary" plan. In such plans a city only adopts designations for land within its city limits. An acknowledgment request from the city would be for the city limits only, and the Urban Planning Area Agreement would identify a site-specific urban planning boundary within which the City maintains a planning interest. The City and county would work together in a cooperative process designed to achieve consistent land use designations and policies by the county' s compliance date. O'DONNELL. RHOADES. GEP.SER DATE: July 4, 1981 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS HT LA*.',' 1727 N_W_ HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM: CCS ' RE: page 7 Unless Tigard is planning to annex large portions of the unin- corporated land within its planning area prior to acknowledgment , there would be a.dvantages to changing to a complementary plan. The City would then only have to meet the 10 UNA and 50/50 standards only within its city limits. I have been told by Mr. Howard, City Planning Director, that this would not be a problem. Additionally, the unincorporated areas within the urban planning area would then be held to Washington County' s required 8 UNA, rather than Tigard ' s 10 UNA. Compliance date would not change since , in either case , Washington County' s Plan would have to be submitted as well. A possible drawback to this option is that the county, rather than the City would then take the lead with regard to planning for the unincorporated area. The city would have to agree to maintain the county' s designations and zoning after annexation of land, until at least the City can go through its plan amendment process. B. Designate and Zone Land Outright for Needed Housing There are several ways that Tigard could move toward meeting the Metro/DLCD density and mix standards for its entire planning area. Probably the most obvious contribution would be to redesig- nate and rezone land withi.n the urban planning area for higher densities and more multi-family housing, as well as more use of mobile homes , more cost-moderating opportunities , etc. Another contribution could be made by increasln` -the allowed densities in the established multi-family designations. (mote there is some con- fusion here , as the city' s buildable lands inventory shows an A-20 and A-40 designation, but there is no such district in the Zoning Ordinance. ) Another contribution could be made by placing more of the re- quired multi-family housing into commercial zones. In one instance mom LCDC has found that a need for multi-family housing could be met by providing excess commercially designated land where multi-fam- ily was a permitted use. Cit of Hines , Staff Report of Nov. 22, 1979, and Feb. 20 , 1980, pp. -5. Higher densities could be ob- tained without changing the current zones for buildable lands if workable density bonus and/or transfer provisions were added to the Zoning Ordinance. However, such techniques would not count towards an increased base density they are reasonably implemented by clear and objective standards in city and county ordinances. C . Provision of Needed Housing Through a PUD Process LCDC has found that needed housing can be provided through a PUD approval process , if a policy is adopted committing the jur- isdiction to providing adequate land for the needed housing type. `. City of Cottage Grove, Staff Report of Sept. 5, 1980, pp. 8-10. Mr. Howard has proposed use of such a method in his "Zones of Ad- justment" ordinance. Briefly, that would designate every parcel V Ul•.IVIVGIt, nnv.. +�..,. ...�....�-.. DATE: July L+, 1`f'OV SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO: EJS PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM: CCS RE: -page 8 outside city limits but within the city' s planning area that is 5 acres or more for development only as a PUD. The developmental density of these parcels would "approximate" a density of 10 UNA. I believe this system could be acceptable to LCDC if a firm pol- icy commitment to develop these parcels at increased densities is made and if the PUD zone district is altered so that its approval criteria are clear and objective , as per the St. Helen' s Housing Policy. (See , in particular Sec. 18.56. 040(a) (3)and(5) . ) Further- more , although I am not aware of the exact acreage of buildable land in parcels of 5 acres or more , it would appear that the dens- ity at which those parcels would have to be developed to have over- all new construction occur at 10 UNA, would have to be signifi- cantly greater than 10 UNA in order to compensate for lower dens- ity development on parcels of less than 5 acres. Finally, one might doubt that this proposal made the best sense from a planning point of view, as it is not clear that it will always be the par- cels of 5 acres or more that are best suited to higher density development. D. Upzoning Upon Annexation LCDC has stated that a jurisdiction may zone land at a lower r density than its p7-an designation for reasons such as preventing premature conversion of urbanizable land, precluding more intensive use than current facilities can support, etc. ; but that when it be- comes a potentially restrictive growth management strategy, its regional effects must be determined. Also , it cannot be used to discourage the provision of needed housing types at the densities contemplated by the plan, because of neighborhood pressure. A valid rezoning process must include (1 ) justification (in the plan) for its use ; (2) Policy in the plan explaining the intent of the re- zoning process and establishing a permissible purpose ; and (3) ob- jective standards in the zoning ordinance to govern rezoning. City of Milwaukie , Staff Report of March 27, 1980 , pp. 16-19, and Aug. 27 1980, pp. 6-7 , 14., v IV. Housing Policies The policies in the 1977 Tigard Housing Plan are basically adequate -- particularly Policies 2, 15 and 16. However, Policy 7 states that multi-family housing shall be located according to appropriate standards indicated in Neighborhood Planning Organiza- tion Plans. Most, if not all of those NPO plans contain policies that are severely restrictive of multi-family housing. The relat- ionship between the NPO plans and the comprehensive plan is not clear in any case. It is difficult to believe that some of the policies found in the NPO plans regarding muti-family dwellings could ever be acceptable if applied 'to a needed 'housing type, O'DONNELL. RHOADES. GERBER DATE. July 4, 1981 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO: EJS 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET Folio PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 MMI 1503) 222-4402 FROM:CCS RE: page 9 V. Implementing Measures In addition to the section of the Pud zone district already noted there are .s,-•veral other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which impose subjective or discretionary conditions on approval of housing developments. These provisions cannot be applied to a needed housing type (unless sufficient buildable land is provided for that type without discretionary conditions elsewhere) consistent with Goal 10. Such provisions are found in the Design Review (particu- larly Sec. 18.59. 060(d) (1)and(2) (A) (B) ) and Conditional Use(Sec. 18. 72. 010) chapters. .Without an analysis of needed housing types it is impossible to tell at present exactly when application of these standards is impermissible. L A"— Durhail.,, IslarlO --JtLr*" t1n-t. L'h:-.. Ti y trrl Ci r., C of August 3, 1981 action � b- Lit LUa �L :3. J AU t1i i! Ros�-)TUL i 0:1 the I)UIIA.I.0 'n", on tu Is pr0;I-'--;S;;I C MOM CO'- i.]_.. iU!I iz-i POULI,nd in Ui.,,o rioar apt-.,ro%,es tlp- -,"M 71-i-11 is- a the Ci.ty. StafU 11 t1l,:M all C--d-:,n--n,-x2 Prr�)-)CI-Lly to the "Ticard P'L-i This OrcHji--un--(-- to tij�� C ii3, you 1.%-iIT on at:,L;a. Y()'-! wj ll the OrMzianr-•: a--c-'ptj v )t1j. CiL.y' is to tFi<' to tel-Lyou the Fli-)Lzij, ary Co, ir clate if n, x ; D-21 '1it Ett 639-A 71 - El, -J-)_'tip N -,%-- I als t('V to a 1, "_�k7 any' q!."-�sLion.s you I-I.ty ha"-O C(-)L-1 ce,r I n, 01-- er- OE ti--Is a(�tio:i relntcd to you Or ;our A brochure , ,describing City services will be mailed to You at the end of this morith - yo�lrs 1;'un L 11 nn-" T.) to Cou"Ic-.11 August 10, 1981 PO 0 Cotc,-,iiF;sIon Dl-ate Sept . 24 , 3.981 CiLy axe h,.DIA at I-'O;,Z.'I('!- ,�' } i�= _ f S T. t+� J � �--- .� :•.,_.=r.�__.i'^--•-�'.'jj.:r'r j„i'_f ,.__•_ �--- s P-i"? "` �.;f' ` _ + _� , c •, r^� �^`_ ty r'1 ci�J� )t Y cq �� f •� 1 R�y' L,t �� \--'. }t_ � � ST Li C!- ? -c f L:.•): S Ci� �� �r.0•E` I t :�,y 7 :;41 1;t` Ji'• ST. PS A At Ll it limp ', � j' •� �� �_J '-y-t �t: � a ; } -.� � ��•- ifs} — � � � �!.-�� ; tit �~`-`=- f�}�i _.•`_.-���� IjI { j r r t N1.7L i Ot :1` �iilil7\ r.Iil'L.L' j'iczl l :i: 1-5I i'16 Dear Prop�--r-ly 0.-, t'. T"nis is your formal notice that tine 1' .U; rcl City Council V.ill co_isid— The an.1=-_:1-t._ion of your properLy at a Study Ses_ion on _ P_Izc•L;st 3 , i981 and take fom-al action by Resolution at a Re^ia.� S 5Si0I2 ' 1 �--!7b-' a On [_L' If the Cou_?cil approves this Resolution,, the pLibli.c hear.i.n ' on this will be held before the Portland 3.e tro Area .Local Gov=e rn _,; Com iss�ion in Portland in the near future. If Lhe Boundary Comllission approves the a_nnoxation, th a �y vv-ill is, � Final Orcier to the City- Staff �tiill th-'r 'reptare anp--d-I nance accen c is your property and zoning yourProperty t< . .e "Tigard C,:-,-L hcnsiti Plan Desion-ation". This Ordinance will be prc ;,ted to the Cirz Council for adoptio.I. You Ivil1 not be notified individually of the BounC1-Lr-y C-07- fission Hearing. Notices will be =x;sted on tel PDles in your area- you C';:I T be notified before tilc OrdinLulc:' acne ptin- your p%'i7jiG:i iC% ii:;C tj City is Presented to the Cotuici.l_ +e will be glad to tell you the Boundary Camnission xlo rin- date if yIDu call the Planning -De artmiant at 63� P 171 - Elizabeth `;es;:on. P;e W.iii also try to an:�,ver any gllesti011s You 1my h---,,re concerning the process or he of fec is o f this action re lated to you or your property- YO roperty_You tt L y> Adie ,_..-� �. sz Pim .1 Lot. . P�U c LanrliTl Director Sit:J c -' ami--'Y ResidE'_n ial AFI:a enc Resolution to Council August 10, 1981 Proposed Boundary Commission Date Septeml%ec 24_, 1.9t;1 City Council meting- are held at Fct:lcr Jllrlinr IIzg:i, 1C'3_�� SW CI:, �T 7. ILI 4 .�-s`a� �� =- - �----x�•�-- :;�_�1�'"�y1� �.`�'-,��=- -� L. ' - -- >��?fes-: � '' �' � `� - Er VR�a _� - -- -- /f. �. - - ----- -'- ---- ��— - � -'-{ `tel •cif 1f�~ � '�'�+"l•`.•y" �• •�'!�. .L___n_.._r-r-.�r is �• t .r r �.J'1,,,��.4�`fC...a.s,�.:,. _9 � ' '_J_—�-�-�.�.>���//�-G,�,1' 1�^-�-�✓%r��..--- �e ---� —�� a z-'l� --' : ' mss_-_�..�.,�-•/• _ ..�.-,rte-.:�F-//,1/�.�—-�I ---�r— —_ IL �.• � _.._.__-___--_ Li -._� ___ N ter:''i 12420 T-jcjard Aldc-rbroclr Leer RrupeDr-t.v O.vner: 'I"nis is for(ml notice that the Ti�,,.-dl City COLUK-LI iTI-LI-I co- the anfi�..xaciori of you_j. property at a Studd Session on AugLISt 198j , and taR�-, forffi-Ll action by ReSOTUL-Lon at aa-Reo-i-Lj�tr Sc-.s 10, 1.981 ��,Un 0-1 A If the Comlcil appr-ovcF; thisF�•_:�_�lution, the puT)-1 is hearing on this P:-Oi,--)i, .1 will be h;>ld b---,fore the Portland M-rro Asea Local 60vernummt Boun-CIL-Li— Coram::;sion in Portland in If the P,--.,LU-,.da-rV Commission appro-,,es the they v-.111 is Sete a Final Ord-:r to'the City. Staff will then pre-_,zire ar, O-L-c your Property and zon-1'n- your property to the "Tigard Coxaprel-lonsiv- Pizn De,signation". 'This - I - 0-rd-ina-rice will be presented to 'the City Col.,alcil for adop t ion. You evil 1 no t bnot i f ied individual y of the Bo "-,-v Ccrr, fission N-Otices will be rrxD)osb-�d on telephrinin - IC-S in vl)ur area. YOU b-,-_> notified before the Ord-inanc-C. Citv Is presented to the Cour.cil. yo,-Lc property into t12.�--, :'•e will be r.-Tad to tell you the Co-,-1111 SsiOn Hearins date if vou call the Planning Depart,-,-.ent at 639-11-171 - Elizabeth Xe%-vto-n. 1','e Nvill al.--.(:) try to ans. o_ is any questios You may have coj-.cecnin- the process or the effects or this action related to YOU or your Property- yot C7-- tri 76n,-.:� Al-i FLr� I tmnin.- Director All:a,- enc Resolution to Council August lo, 1981 Proposed lRound-ary. Cor-nd ssion Date Sept - 24 , -1981 City Cc!Uncil ri-,�etings- are held at FOVle- JLI-li-( VW & 7:30 A 1 v I C) 141- Ll '. Lf C-1 4L> CL: jj -Id Du? h� to CP (07". CO L I 14 t t 0 �A vi tr. ..A ,jF-: o �= Z,3 < wt-: I tij [t^m C. > Ld 43 t7o I 0 11 > "D Lj 3E L 73 AV h\IS Cc' C5 P\ s:so_z2t _ ci 91. j-3 7, 17 ,tpi -�................... 14J�l I 4e AV t4 I I l�� 1p�g!ljl OP TTGAIZD 1242() Tiqarcl CY- A�, Thnotice th..,.L the Ti,--,2cl- 1-1City C01,11,ci, the OE your P-rCTerty at a Study Session on and ta"-'-. action by T"�SO'Utior, at a Rc-,-,ttlav 0"Auq Au=j 10, If the COUncil approves tris Rc,3017 Ion, the. Public hear.inri on, this p will be LfE-�ld b--Drcjr.:j� the Portland jm�;tro Area -1 Loc,) -rc),;,, c-'-q U-77"Ssion in Portland in the near fLItLLr(--. If the Bounenary CO3Mlission approves the annexation, Final C--O-,--,r to the City. Staff iv ill then Prepa-re --ri 0-,.-c1linance acc:-::r)�, Your property and zoning yoLLr p- _rty t I- - 'i rl-r .Opc C) the "Ti-a-rd Cbmi-,,rehensj�.-�:-: pl[, s L On a t J 0 ri this Ordinzarice will be presented to tile City Cr)L1,1cjj 11 �Ldo!-' YOU vii.11 not be notified individually of the Eo f or will be Posted oil teleph,:)rii� r,.:Dlf-s in unr-L-1 1 Y CbMnuission _�,-cjur arca. YOU Wil-1 be notified--fied befoi-e the Ordinajla�e-ptirt- yo,ir Pto--*=erLy into the City is Presented to the Cour ';"III be glad to tell you the Bojj_ndary Co::nrussic-;il Hoa-cin- date. if yc�a call the Planning rk--pavtm-�nt at 639-1171 - Elizabeth try= to arisiver any- questions YOU rm-y ha,��o concernin We iviii _-ISO ef-Lre-c;ts of this action related to you Or Your proporL:y_ Yolly- Pia-n Direcb-)r tion A.11:ag eric ReSOILI'Ljon to COUjl(-iI August 10, 1.981 Proposed BOUndary Corlynission DaILF-- _Sept. 24 , 1.9 81 City CO!,ricil troctings- arc hold at Fo;----Icr Junior. Fii_„Ei 103.;5 Si'. 1,alr 'I U t' 7:3a q 7. ;4 G F C, 3P, C -A Nv C? r 10 5 AVE Cl) 71 =1 c lird =7 �> h S Pc 97th �z 1—J. .0�, 413, F- r\ CP- Ij EDn 7 k Jcs vi.—93 S.Vt. Band N vi cr )Ta 17 , Sv Beth -L zg r\3 4c-- N j.k_1 JI 01. LIS I VL L'_Ll'toreC 1';tt"r1Y Zlbc)'," tll�-' of -...0 L ireetchtjr,_�, jjj-_,;t of Stre .I.S Cour-ty cloc-s uroz. • _t z:IS t 0 rakt.! it 7,�)r C)V j.' S t-0 S Z: A2:L'0L. the major-- ty or r7,,c Tro-zinct V U L C-0. 'E' bailot kooa�.! Levy lrtst: Sprin-, V()tr-. j_:n cl P Tigard has a street prc­i:a�:i ao�j w.:! do C)-,r L !; )� -1 h-j-S 0.r TZ ye,7ir -7c, co.-erlayc:-d tV.) L� les c)17 street �It a COSL of_�, 1;5.11 three rliloL; at a cost G S1E0,00C1. he Pro"ID11c": iE:Ilat- 5-,- -.:-a e.0 'not h^-;, jur1seliction of a st=reet, vc Ca:irto-, W yc"'t is if You alinc-__-, to the CiLy ;,;c Can O1)tt;r1 tiles jurisCT-7.ct-10, of-_ t7l, za repa"r thc-nr.. Parts of Valnut, F .nilo 121stP,: kO'z this Lype of 1_,_r_:_:_S_ Till--2 City of Tigard cha-_-Z�_-S a Systems fro-, t� Lf 7 On_0_Cr__._ -1 C' itY Par' systc.-o2s w"hich presently enjO,"s a repuzatioct in the Etrea cj:. its 1:1:!a IL if not for its quantity.. A ric-, park at Sur-_nerlake between Scholls 'Ferry Road art-d SIJ wal-cil.1t: n.o,.,- ju,, er ancl e::pans3' Loa. ACE COLLECTION: Rates in your area are currently ntly $6.0 F"r E.101'lth- Your neighbors in the city pay $5.38.5 p---lr month. S E ,[ :as: Septic tank systems_fail! Health hazards exist! -Install a l Vlow an'd C'hnncos are t -1--t withinthe next five years you -.7i, b z- j, local improv^r­.e-Tll­ for the i'ns-LallaLion Of a pltblic systc-,a e,veiopm2nts in your area. ITO �.;l ,j,jC do you h�:o.1-!?­$4,500. inyour i)z�c7- yard arp.1.1 an lisscssmerlt Of $3,500. for the rc-,- service line i11 fro T your house P01-ICE PROITCTION: Our officers are in or ne-ii: your area r101a, but ha%, rLO juri."diction to respond to your calls or enforce: traffic ' laws. It seem lozical tha,'l we should be the ones to ansurer your recluests for assistance. Cbviousl-., 012r response time is less than that of Wash inc-toil County --nd Our ar trained f0_r and sensitive to njeeting the needs of Tigarcj. rc.sidcuts ny. Annexation will Z-110-.7 YOU to help Su ppC)rt a Very f;_ne libra-c -,,i lictl F'..OvIc'es that little e:�,.tra bcyonrd -WID'at is reqLlirca. y PLAN-NING SERVICES: A neighborhood Planning area was c� 'ap2d an-3 a Plan approved in 1975- NPO IP3 has not met for at: least t,::o years a T-1d nally Vhin_--s have ch_nnZ;E!d dramatically in the last several months- Thc'!'Se are important to you, but without a neighbor, oo,-! nTzaLion it is 'Very diZfjC,_j1, t the City to communicate t7itb you. In the case of dcvclOpLnj? for - ,It i,3. you ti';c, City of Tigard is more readily accessible and c.-enerally -will PrOccss requests faster than WashinZ;ton County. What is happening in Tigarcl is happcil-71-- E: the 1.1 hou _tro -area. Tigard uncd to be Zi nUiCt litl-Ict t:O-.,7i-I *'(,,L t:"ir-- vay tO tbE! CC"-LSL." Ilill caxrivs 35,000 cars a day Look aro-nd you. T11c, Koll Eusiiicss C^nt:cti c,,-k SCttOT Is Ferry Road, 217 on H;-ll BcGCLlcvard, wintcrlz,.Ice, and riew ---anior center onba-ve 30 Site L)csiE;n Review applicatiois i-rt thcp-�st yc-ars for V'a hzric zppro:,:iDatc1.v 800 platted lots rcaly to build on iii Cit_ y c-;:pC!CL more. Tigard s population will inccear-c- L110 C:D-T-'—' T,'E YEED YOUTTI, IrSLI, 'CC) U-',TlFy TIG.-'-.PD FOL- I-LIA.';Y RFZ%SONIS. UNLESS IT jj, TO 1'L:-PR0,TZ 0712, COLLECTIVE POSITIO;:T WE V.1ii'll ALT. STY1,-.­,'� T, THE CONS-EQUFN . -L:S y FRUSTRATING Fol"', ALL BUT TPI:' q s ji-i- J-'S%r-'IE:D RESOLVED TOGETHER. Ci,0S5A1­Y C)7 L-IZ-FETS: The act ?ua surroLinls ti:L`. C-;t-y of arca CP0`1_fF- BOUNNEDA I Y; Tie actli<tl ziu_ LSt_" by j. 'Let t 7. this City wi I I develop it L•cthc-, ye:-_ 21- T K 0 T 0 11 1 S E MIT E P I R ICT - 7-E T R 0 A --'ally' create LAND CONSEM"ATJ10"T AND C _ssA s t C cr 0 the Plannill- in the F027LAN'D 2 'TR0P07.'_T,rAN1 AREA LOCAL C IJ S S -1 created by tile State it by to revs(local jurisdictions-;..- • tLErj Lo LI-F -B H .0R1100D PLANNING ORGANJ_ZA_-. 10!L',1- A Courric, 0, C tizens z!llpointcc! by C;ty 11 to develoP POlicies to guide develop7 -L j. .eat in each of seven nn-; yeas in the Tigard Urban Growth tLre.-I. The 1;P0 for this area is I�Tpo ISLAND: An area created throw�b annex-ation 1-;-hi.ch is Surr0unZed bt but is still under Washin-ton Co, jurisdiction. y he C-Ity of Ti" VNIFIED SEQFRAGE AGEtICYOF V!ASHINTGTO1,11 Con-TY - (USA) : a3p uy respon-sib-10 for ti, CountV. Th. 04ty to r trea L CIE Or- CO.L_LeCrS clard is P-V ­ccLlt .rLaits to CO=1 tile PC tric Service char as, inspects t1l, lz!cr- to the System. conn. Zlac-,L issues The City is resporls-lble for the --an-Stary lines, 24" in diameter or less thrOUghout the City. ma ir_tcnance o` TRIPLE 3-1-AJORM In accordance v.Titb the "state --E—hrce things before it can b presented to t1le City coun-il mus t have a maT _e for action. 51% of the property in acres, 51Z of th�' the slZratures of. the -ners of 51% Of the prop-z!rt e assessed 'Value OF the Y_ FORCED This term mainly applies where city Council, b nnae­ S an y Cou 1sland"' In the Cases Where "jsJ,,ndsf? exist or are crcat thz! majoritycau pass a resolution Co anac>- the "island'. without usilIg t1le nc" annexation method. At tile Present t triple Within ti=e Urban Growth Boundary. ime there are more than Len "islaad_-` 0 f LOCA-' 3--fPROVEMENT DISTRICT - (LID): This refers to all assessm�llt dist fart:ed by P e:F L 10 n lines, sidewall streets, Property O��ners to construct public service district etc. The Cit accepts y en-1-neers the project the Petit'oasl conducts a fcasil;i1iLy. h Lkley, : ear3.rtg, forms the district:, cztimates t1le costs to notify the persons in the district What the holds puworlc denyblic 7. and assesses the costs will be Usually property O,�rners in a district h3.--.-CS t:T LID arc! Lie thc. improvements �`L'-2d to tal:c advantritZe Of the City' -vements for up S ability to Bancroft Bo.- to thirty years at a reasoriable property owners in rat:e,. alld ma!1�`^provem_r.ts which e the district request. GLOSSARY Or TF.B?:S � 4• ;,,Y ^•.S_E- A dollar amount recently approved by the voters of Tig;a_r< ($562,n48) . ir:es--- funds actually represe-nr- only 13Zof total city £u:trl 1:i.tn 877. co[Anz froom cou-n, y tax and federal funds tinct local fees and perr*mS.ts. V"K F.-�,TE. Ile expect the rate per $1,007 dollars of as_:es_s d clue to be thi next year. If your property is assessed- at: $60,000 your tr:.�•es pazcl to.the Oit'y of ] 1i a:d rwou d be $62.40 per year. (0;-m. Cr occupied resld`_ncc's CI.1171- 13t:ly .y<< cl.i.Qible for a 30 tax relief from the State' thusyour �_•_tual � r City of Tigard 47ould be $x,.. .63). i - July 16, 1981 `.'.�f W:81-i'NviGV COUNTY.OREGON Ms. Anitra Anderson & Ms. Mauvanie Scalf Tenants' Union Cherry Park Apts 14630 SW 76th, 1#95 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ms. Scalf and Ms. Anderson: I have- received your correspondence regarding your Tenants' Union in the Cherry Park Apartments. I am aware of the publicity on the television and in the newspapers and have submitted your letter for the City Council agenda of July 20th. Council will comment to this issue at the meeting. If you wish to appear at the July 20th meeting, please let us know. Sincerely, Wilbur Bishop Mayor WB:lw 12-420 S.W. N'AIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OPEGON 97223 P.H. 839-44171 A - - J ci-l2.t- 1"+e encs n^e( laid :ast - _r_ s G11"ffceo 11 InO it 1 c2n be el %C` -e ,e` Oryi �� .c�_c� a either ^esc_nd_r_ 7-17cez, to live. a -ress O?' .l OL: s -.elk t o _.G'.:.Va_T'_i O SCalCn ^.7` Vr.r�7) - -'d ers CP_ 'I cSS ee t1 1iS z e r— Yours , i1T a.3va i e -S'O a lf X711�'�•'S -? "•S LTi C 7:7 C' 212 �D'Js t 102 nd CrX722:-, 7a=is '.r. T'I-is lette-r -i --- the rroduct of a :,ee- i 77 0= t'C, I. S, t Far!: trts. All of us have lcnc- enou=h to '-a%,e seen the chann-ez .-.?.de since --'I.,.e apa-rt--.-.e71,t-s ts,11-en over If*i St Of f 1 of tTi= ch-3n7-6-s have been welcc­e? . S e 1 of tle tattered- hall ca-=ez's cic c--.c 1�-­n�s t-- -,ass n.,:, (,.,e --islic ab—1 t tl­i a -' ands c an i -r if all ...-ere 11 `o.- in o -11 fc- a tenE-nts -eeti= ce--tairly not for n e;-:s- r-71 e r CO'-C T' --is le-ter -ro­==YS airjC-i---j Cf 17 fe—I - es wit-, to til of 50 c--Jl�ren. We reco:--nize t-hat there ha-ve Child-rel-s-led -proble:::s a" this t---nsh a 4n tre halls anapc--l-ing lot. r-.,e -nrotuestu the action you --!-=:-ue ta-z:ein Inds : on C, 7' cf J-s c r i m-i na t e s d i r e c t 1�y a 5,:a i n s t c i 1 r e =f-ter all , -Deo-ple. "Tot -r,e-U S G. 14.- a-" i U 5c-1-1m1n3tes a7ai-InSt fa-ilies with &I-ildren. 11— c'11 -2-en evicted =-!e-e not the ones cau-In- the zr- o bl c-.S: , but ,.:ere well ic ok,edd-:.iter b;- the ir Several 1­1 -1 e n t S . of the families d-;d not- even allow their c-nil--'ren out to play. 4. T:-;e fa-,,_flies evicted ­ere in all r`Q'­er- w =7s 700:i ie n an, S rr'h e i r rents ,-:e r e laic ap-artment-s cle`n, anA-- lifest---les au.i e t, 5. These evicti-Ors 1%,ere 7 r E,C i-p i tu a t e"I b.-, 0 con :L -io-n create:3 in part by ;he fact U-- a-U you hcid fe� le`, to .nI 1. r.---ovi--Ae a vacuum cleaner for -he co--le.-.1, 5,eszite to J D-f f Q� S•^'- �_r`f"_...L�-•- � -�'?. _ T'.- _.. -.�� ::e h^ve Sc'..a ou may do here but =irs t ::_.r� �o e �luo your _ G f aiS' Ula; ana Commas-ion for r_O� is C' l of se ;'i! at will Voll do t-o Llalp - n r0_� 10`..-iTCC! C COOlC t0 f-; L�1 CZS to li'L"2 nG that ��J _ _ Oi have-'i� homes froo, t'r.e�? :::o :rill e�c� = t eir l.Jr _ �E _ e— ti•r_11 the fo r-irco 7e fa ; l; — f cud- mss? ice. y e� t~� ` cE.: ,,fc. e' �_� " e Will l exr-='Ct s T`e'al`- �o t_':�C l ey e - . r 'l�-n aa. S tc=srt n r 3.t. Psa17 127 J`5 Behold , children are a Fi?t of the Lord ; The fruit of the ;•romb is a Li-.e err•o rs in the hand of a or, So are t'r.e children of one 's How blessed is the mnn =.•:_io-se Cuiver` is full o7 h s'r_._.11 notbe _ _ it - when -,^e� Spe'- k ync-1; -s 1r_ tf i_ Cv V Si nC erely; i Ir -YJ, "//,7, 157 D ._ r'.O i' t rl Ste. -tri 'Fob July 16, 1981 r , ,777 :N CO'�NTY.CREGON Ms. Anitra Anderson & PIs. Mauvanie Scalf Tenants ' Union Cherry Park Apts 14680 SW 76th, #95 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ms. Scalf and Ms. Anderson: I have- received your correspondence regarding your Tenants' Union in the Cherry Park Apartments. I am aware of the publicity on the television and in the ncc.rcp`pers and ha.z sup ittcd your letter for Lite City Council agenda of July 20th. Council will co=ent to this issu=- at r_hc meeting. If you wish to appear at the July 20th meeting, please le.- L---. know. Sincerely, Wilbur Bishop Mayor WB:1�. 12420 S.W. NA1N P.O. BOX 23297 TIGARD, ORFGON 97223 PH: 639.4171 Tr—:- :7 . • Vit' - 1 _ .j ?^u �C11:"O"e'. i•G e c orf=Ce Jun,e av rr • - v ••-•1S 1: 1 T_ ti L�-� -*� Tune :C _.f�..�=' in 2`. .-_+-. .-n t-1.1., y -- _r'_'=S Can bc. p..._ S'�SCc t� e-.. , , ". t ^e- �../Y - �t_e.-, :. ._, a �C._ ,1+ ei��'-=T ��s ^�..-'-=" -•-_ etr= i _^_^_ C" -2� ii_- T c� e "eC"�e -rC _ : cz �•C �.:-e cL ° t 4- t 4--1 -7 `:O 1C. - --- C•-_ �-'- �"e-Ci- T t�" � 11-i:_ �J�� CI--_ ...L CSM• t--is -iss--,e, email _ e�.ch us �- he above a!a ejS , or jou 5-. ea'--= LO ..au-%ran e S c a 1 f C `n'r C,_ 1�" --' 'fie=^SCP_ �^�C'-'L ^oj} • rlease let US ?'e __^C. -vo-j. "'Ours . r1 '.4'auvaTie Scalf C"- C. J IS 0? 0 r I S -i S is the -roduct Of t Fv,.-e aon- to a arl: Ents . Ali Gf us hn- . I 'I -, e the ch�?n.-ec �naae S, j ----c ar.art-7e-1-t-S r i A c.f Cb ebeen �-.-elcc—e? - -z:z t C.L 177nh ts ts -a -, ssinn- of thL- e at'Ller&a hall an no c -,c,- ! 4 n- =, te -' anrlsca�f rrr�- 'I l- o- r i were in the---z- i c.,i!-,I wee' fc- ea-"! c=-`a`nl-,,T not- --f'O n�-.Ts- z .7S Ic v po 4-- S t-n e%rl C Cf�f 1 f I -f 57 c-. r c-n the-t- have , an-i -cT-cble-s at t`is t—S b-alls and -r-7--1-J-nc- 10 �- `:'er-rotest t1fl-e- a--tlo-n :---ju a: - ,�re g:rcunds : �isc-iaij"ME;yes directl-_,r a=-ninst- c1nlildren- , w- all , -oeo--)le . Yot T-'ets . nr ainsu -Pa—. jeS th c' 4 1 ildre . - n o- evicte-- nct the ones the U ..!ere .,rell icol-ed-afte--r- b-; their VE 'al Of th e famiI1es d i d -Ti 0 t- c v c n ao,.- Out to play. 4. Tr.e a..: Ijcs e-v'icte'd .--erz-- in. all r her wo---s =00-" t=n-an`-S - M."'eir 'rntscle--n , ar�� lifest.-les cv. Let. 5. Tn e s e e c-IU s ,.:ere r r e C i ta t e, b-,, a c On' it; 0-- -z CrE.*aued in +-r-arby the fa--��-' ,Pat, you ln��d ct c r-:Ovide a V�' cic=er for the co--Ic-x S-L'i t c l�i is moire w e h .ire sO c- In-,-a_ l recc, .: C 7r roi Ou da here but : e f� r , ::a to -701:1- o-,•n s_n se 0- r?1r p1 alid com-,)^x._10^ for t^OS=' nU-. a l p;- _ - ti'i< �'1� :'i! ^.t V'il -'O�: GO to � , n; l - _ _t is=..'1 . r oole to fia' til ?Ce5 4C li:'c P_c - - t -_i_' Ro-,es from tC'i cm, ^e r i _i ne^e 4;__11 the 10 :--Income- fa.-; lies f'i a OC_ �: �- - Ccs C•^� 'Ie v1i 11 e n-.,--. a re-ly t0 days T'ecei-lot o �sa1 127: J-� Ble:'old, children are a `ift of tee Lord; h-e fruit of the rromb is re,•:erd. 1:1ke or-rows in the hared of a i;•grri OT , So are the ch_J dren of on_- Ps Y� uth . '1-_o.: blessed is the man .:hose c_uiver is full of the:--; i'he sh_--l.- tr l not be asb�...� :^en ek Sre—_ k .:i l b their enemi cs in _ Since el,; ; ` C f- r _l J � � �� �:� %�� J ,`..:�� '`J I - t �''�n�. �-�✓t• c-,.yam_/ of /✓/-. r' i �l �J�(J, /..�:��1. � _... / - ��/ r / �`7,L. L %ta �t j1- 4 %:!L L�i•' L__�.�•= Lr���=•_�-�.:.��.., cr 'i.n - 1 _ 'EE__�tcz 'Fob z�c r-ov rnor Victor -. C Z.CUr ishr•P \T-i .,:rC: rarr o. �� g` DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT >>t I'MO-01 4 i PORTLAND AREA OFFICE m �o CASCADE BUILDING,520 S.W.SIXTH AVENUE "T+Rx a� PORTLAND,OREGON 97204 REGION X ., [9 Jtlp; f C IN REPLY REFER TO: 10.2HDH Mr. Dayton Page Executive Director Housing Authority of Washington County 560 SE Third Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Dear Mr. Page: Subject: OR16-PO22-018, Low Rent Public Housing We are pleased to inform you that your application for the Cid of Tigard to rovide 22 units of new construction under the Low Rent Public H_ o` using program has been appro_v_�, This is not a legs o ligation but a statement o�_ determination by HUD, subject to fulfillment of all legal and administrative requirements to enter into an Annual Contributions Contract. Location: City of Tigard, Oregon Housine Type and Production Mcthod; *;cW COnstr;;ction-Conventional Dwelling Unit Characteristics: Building Elderly Family Total Type 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Units Row 11 6 17 Detached 5 5 22 Reserved: Contract Authority: $ lit 477 Budget Authority: $ 3,344,310 ,344,310 Loan Authority: $ 1,436,936 Our office will prepare the Annual Contributions Contract and forward it to you under separate cover along with the proposed utility combination for the project. The Annual Contributions Contract and related documents are to be returned with your proposal. A project planning conference is scheduled for August 5, 1981, at 10:00 a.m. in our office. Your architect and all Housing Authority staff directly responsible for the development Of the project are expected to attend. E _ t ,ge 2. .Y The Housing Authority has ninety (30) days from the scheduled project planning conference date to submit a proposal. If the proposal is not received by the deadline date, the project may be terminated unless the PHA submits documentation justifying a thirty (30) day extension. If you have any questions, please contact our Multifamily Housing Representative, Betty Kelly, at (503) 221-2686. Gere � 1 e aul Actin Area Manager cc: The Honorable Wilbur Bishop Mayor of the City of Tigard Washington County Clearinghouse r C ' . WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON July 16, 1931 The Honorable Victor G. Atiyeh 254 State Capitol Building Salem, Oregon 97310 Dear Governor Atiyeh: The City of Tigard wishes to request a veto of House Bill 2483 which has been presented to you for signing. The City opposes the proposed law which would amend the collective bargaining law by removing the July 1 timeline for the initiation of binding arbitration. This bill could seriously jeopardize the local government budget process and would leave cities with substantial uncertainty as to the timing and the cost of binding arbitration settlements. Without the provisions of the current statute which allows deferral of the wage settlement to the next fiscal year, if binding arbitration is not requested by July 1, a mid-year budget crisis of severe magnitude could occur. Thank you for your assistance and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Wilbur A. Bishop, Mayor WAB:lw CC: Tigard City Council 12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171 t, i Juty 15, 1981 Ma yon W Ubun Bishop T..ga&d City Na.ZZ 12420 S.W. Main St. T-i,gacd, Oregon 97223 yeah. Silt, Our votunteeh NeAwo tk .c.a cu vLewte.y t&Ying to &a i.6 e money bo& T,i gacd Loave6 and Fi.6he6. One ob, ou& pro j ec t6 to &aa e the money we have p.Zedged .cis to aponae& a Dunk-Tank duxing the Tdgacd Town and CountAy Dayd. We ace cwrhen tZy .ZooFiing bon vot wztee&'6 to both. alit ,in the tank and help nun the booth. We a&e hoping to get some vo.Zuwtee&'6 b&om you, you& d.ta.bb on pozztb.Zy eounetZ membeAz. AtZ pnoeeed6 W ZZ go to T.iga&d Loave,6 and F.i.6h" and a t help wZtt be appnectated. May T ptea6e have your. netih. 6ponae by JuZy 27 . Z can be -s=hed at wohl- (639-8181; on at home (538-9082) . Thank you bon you& time. Vebb.ie Man tett Chai&pvzzon - Dunk Tank C;LACKAIVVAS MULTNX)&4AJ-i 16 A- Si-iINGTON • i ; 1 • A i ii i 1 ' i A ��: 320 S.W. STARK STREET(SUITE 530) PORTLAND. OREGON 97284 PHONE: 229-5M7 July 7, 1981 To: INTERESTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND PROPERTY OWNERS From: Donald E. Carlson, Executive Officer Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Booundary Commission Re: Cancellation of Public Hearings This is to inform you that the Boundary Commission has temporarily cancelled its public hearings for consideration of an-uexations and other boundary change proposals. This action is necessitated because of a lack of operating finds for the current fiscal year. The enactment of H.B. 2754 requires the Coimhission to obtain its funds through the use of filing fees and assessments against local governments rather than from an appropriation from the state's General Fund as it has in the past. To obtain such monies will take time since certain procedures must be followed. In the meantime all proposals submitted will be put in a pending file and will be scheduled for public hearing as soon as possible. The Commission will schedule proposals for hearing in the order in which they are received. We regret any inconvenience this action may cause, but we have no alternative. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the office. DEC/j k STAFF: COMMISSIONERS: DONALD E CARLSON. Executive Officer JAMES L (Jamie)MATER, Chairman ERIC JORGENSEN KENNETH S. MARTIN, Executive Assistant PETER McDONALD.Vice-Chairman FAMJIA PARTLOW DENIECE WON.Asst. Admin.Anatyst WAYNE ATTESERRY JEAN KRETZER.Administrative Assistant FRANK EISEMAN CARO-STEELS GENE GINTHER MARIE WILLIAMS 'Wp 7 July 16 , 19 81 C�J �1 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON TO: MEMBERS OF DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE Monday, July 20, 1981, the Tigard City Council will meet with members of the Downtown Committee at the regularly scheduled Council Meeting: Fowler Jr. High, 7 :30 p.m. , Lecture Room. Council will discuss with the Committee the processes to interviewing Downtown consultant applicants. 12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171 UWU of Come and have your "Coffee Break" with us at our Tlryaz� SL-tfety Town "CO::.AUMTY DAY" on ednecsaay& July 229 1981. from 10s15 to 1100 am ZMd ISIS to 2S30 Pm,, Taia clay is our a-aQial lay for you, a member of our Bu-31noss C o-=uni tv s 40 would like to 3:aow you 19yoLW1 .CjG_,:,D BAFETY TM.Na, we lh®pe to see you Viere Mae 1981 Tlrard Safety Tim-in Dorrad Located at Charles •Fe TI School LJ . � _ A WEEKLY NEWSLETTER VOLUME III Issue 14 July 16 , 198I CLERK DISPATCHER RESIGNS Stephanie Robinette will be leaving her position as Clerk Dispatcher in the Police Department July 17th to join the City of Salem Police Department . Good luck, Stephanie. Carol Guarnero will be assuming the position of Clerk Dispatcher July 18th . Carol has an Associate of Art degree in Criminal Justice and is currently a Reserve Officer. Welcome aboard, Carol . BUSINESS LICENSES PROCESSED ON C01-1IPUTER Approximately 800 business licenses were mailed out last week on new computerized form. Processing business the licenses on the computer saves staff time in the initial preparation of the license and in expediting retrieval of a license . STAFF' ATTENDS SEMINAR Mary Strickland, Senior Accountant, and Doris Hartig, Finance Director/ City Recorder, attended a Business Seminar snonsored by Coopers and Lybrand at the Marriott Hotel July 15th. Topics discussed included preparing Official Statements , Legislation, Election Problems , Work- Compensation,Compensation, Cash Management, Budgeting and Grant Controls . POLICE- DEPARTMENT CONTINUES SCHOOL CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM ------------ Police Officer Joe Grisham attended a School Crime Prevention Workshop sponsored by Multnomah County last week. The workshop addresses stranger danger and bicycle safety for children in grades one through six by using puppets . Sergeant Chuck Martin will be contacting non- profit civic groups to raise funds for the puppet program. ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN JOINS STAFF George Anne Clingan will be joining the library staff as the Assistant Librarian-Reference July 20th. George Anne was previously employed with the :lultnomah County Library System in Gresham and has a Master ' s degree in Library Science. Welcome, George Anne . PLANNING DIRECTOR MEETS WITH MACC Aldie Howard, Planning Director, will be meeting with the Metropolitin Area Cable Commission July 22nd to discuss the cable television franchise proposals submitted by STORER/�HETRO and Liberty Cable Television. MACC will evaluate both proposals and forward a recommendation for Council action. A franchise may then be granted to construct and operate cable television in Washington County. OVER