Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/16/1996wt r t =3 a ft r } ;sy t - k i L~ 3 L r w z 53 a Erw - u 1 I i CITY OF TIGARD T3GARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETiNG APRIL 16, 1995 6:30 p.ni. ~ TIGAgO CITY HALL 13t25 SVJ HALL BLVD TIGARD, OREGON 97243 y PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: i F Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech' or hearing impairments, and i • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it ` is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone - numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA ° COUNCIL AGENDA - PAGE 1 - ,E v r Y AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL C WORKSHOP MEETING OF APRIL 16, 1996 6:30 p.m. 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 - Pled_ - cre of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.8 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. Citizen Involvement Teams (CiT) Communications at Meeting with CIT ~ _=a Facilitators and Staff Resource Teams t 3. Report: Portland State University Study on Youth Center - • Jack Schwab 4. Visioning Project Discussion • Assistant to the City Administrator and Management Analyst/Risk j r S. Update: Metro 2040 • Community Development Director 6. Discuss Wetland Mitigation - Bowen Property • Community Development Director ` _ . 7. Water Rate Study Presentation • Finance Director S. Non-Agenda Items r`= F COUNCIL AGENDA - - PAGE 2 -M T r te} ~ r r ~ 9. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session i _ under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), at (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential, therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. U i~ 10. ADJOURNMENT m096041 6.&c j j s i I COUNCIL AGENDA - - PAGE 3 s E meeung Ot 7t-ru TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 i 6~7 Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoll • 1. Call to Order 1.1 Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob 1 j Kohlr, and Ken Scneckta. _ ~ Staff present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Asst to City Administrator Liz ar Newton; Senior Planner Nadine Smith; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; _ Finance Director Wayne Lowry; and Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff. CIT Facilitators & Resource Staff Team Members present: Mike Mills, Craig Dirksen; Sterling Marsh, South CIT; Mark Mahone, East CIT; Karl Kaufman, Tigard Police - South CIT; and Jerry Koberlien, East CIT. 1.3 Council Communications/Liaison Reports i 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mayor Nicoli said that he wanted to add endorsing ballot measure #1. b* City Administrator Monahan mentioned two items: Greenspaces and the Summercreek Village Apartments. 2. Citizen Involvement Team (CIT) Communications & Meeting with CIT Facilitators _ and Staff Resource Teams i Assistant to the City Administrator Newton introduced the CIT facilitators and staff . resource people. K-, Ms. Newton reviewed changes staff has made in the CIT process, noting in particular f the mailing out of the regular agenda along with action status reports. Ms. Newton reviewed the CIP process. She said that at the joint meeting last month, despite lobbying for individual projects, a general consensus was reached on what kind [ ; of projects the CITs wanted to see funded; these were primarily traffic safety improvements and calming devices. ` She said that staff would help the CITs develop a r recommendation on proposed projects for review by the Council and the Planning. Commission. ~ t ,~J t CITY COi1NCIL MEETING MINUTES _ APRIL 16 1006 _ PAGE 1 ~ x _ g w p . Ms. Newton stated that staff intended to follow up on the projects suggested by the CITs that weren't funded through the CIP; they would help the CITs identify other possible s methods of funding. Ms. Newton reported that the notebooks with the CIT action status reports would be ED available at the May meetings and in the library. Ms. Newton said that they were encouraging the C1Ts to write directly to the Planning Commission and City Council rather than going through staff. Councilor Scheckla asked if there was any information from the County on what was going on at 121st and Walnut. Ms. Newton referred to the packet of information that included CIT correspondence with the County on the issue. She said that no County ' J ! people have attended the meetings to address that particular issue. I Councilor Hunt asked if the CITs would come directly to the Council or go through the Planning Commission. CIT recommendations will go to both the Planning Commission and City Council. Sterling Marsh, South CIT, reported that they would like to see completion of improvements to Commercial Street and the two ends of Main Street in a reasonable period of time. Mark Mahone, East CIT, said that some people were willing to pay partially for traffic calming devices in their areas. He asked that the City develop a procedure to allow this to happen within the appropriate engineering standards. Councilor Moore commented that he remembered a conversation with Randy Wooley that it was all right fora j 1 neighborhood to fund its own improvements as long as they met the city requirements and employed a bonded licensed contractor. Mike Mills, Engineering, pointed out that right now the City did not have a standard for street bumps. He referenced some design criteria proposed by Randy Wooley that r the Engineering Department still hoped the Council would approve. The Council discussed the issue, noting the need to set up the standards prior to allowing t neighborhoods to fund their own improvements. Mr. Mills commented that the cost of a speed bump could be reduced through' less signage and cheaper striping material. t ` Mayor Nicoli suggested setting up matching funds for these types of projects V . - Councilor Scheckla asked Karl Kaufman, Tigard Police, for his opinion on the tgg effectiveness of speed bumps. Mr. Kaufman said that the speed bumps at 78th and k Spruce have eliminated that as an area of concern for the police. He stated that the speed bump on Springwood served as a "launching pad" and generated a lot of complaints. He said that they needed at least two speed bumps on 'a street for real ( effectiveness. ' He noted the need for adequate marking of the speed bumps (with signs t on both sides) for safety reasons. [ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 - PAGE 2 1 I ~ s . ;i : kme.e7 . .te.. ,E . 9,'t+ld- - ' ~ = s~~. _ rn'~74~vu _ 4-•.e ' , C i watching this program to see if something similar might work for Tigard. He said that the benefits included less cost and more flexibility. Ms. Newton said that there was no strong feeling on the CITs that anything should be removed from the CIP but there was concern that more money should be spent on speed control and traffic safety; two other areas mentioned were pedestrian safety and trails. i Ms. Newton noted that speed bumps were "trendy" right now and that they might look into whether or not other alternatives were more appropriate for given streets. Ms. Newton stated that another concern expressed by the CITs was the possibility that any individual could come into the process at any time and lobby for a particular project, thus derailing the CITs' work in getting support for projects. She noted that staff had not provided costs for the CIP projects because the CIT members did not understand what the costs of a project actually were. Jerry Koberlien, East CIT, asked if video ticketing has been discussed. Ms. Newton said that that was not a CIP eligible project. Mr. Kaufman said that he did not know if the police department has looked into photo radar. He said that it wasn't available yet; Beaverton had a two year trial project. Ms. Newton commented that it was good to have a lot of different ideas coming from the CITs for consideration for forwarding to the Council and the Planning Commission. She said that she and Mr. Hendryx have been discussing clarifying the role of the CITs and the Planning Commission. She said that they wanted to be sure that the roles were clearly defined at the beginning of every project; they would forward a memo to Council in May. Ms. Newton said that the next CIT project was involvement in the 2040 process. She said that Central/West was more aware of the issue and was looking forward to the exercise Ms. Smith would be conducting. Ms. Newton noted that Central wanted to keep meeting with West, since more Central people attended when they did so. Mr. Marsh raised the issue of Hall Blvd. ` He said that the City of Tigard needed to be a strong advocate for appropriate repair and scheduled maintenance of Hall Blvd from the city limits at Scholls Ferry Road to Durham. He stated that the primary north-south collector for the City was in deplorable condition and was virtually ignored by the State. He pointed out that Hall Blvd in Beaverton was improved to a`five lane facility. Mayor Nicoli commented that for the past four to five years, the State legislators have not supported putting any more money into the road system. He urged CITs discuss this with candidates in the upcoming election with this issue. He noted that the Council has discussed another major improvement program for roads, and that Hall Blvd would probably be on the list. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 - PAGE 3 Councilor Hunt asked if anyone has considered combining all four CITs into one large CIT, since more people attended joint meetings. Ms. Newton said that the last time staff asked the CITs what they wanted to do, the West and Central CITs wanted to meet together but the East and South CITs wanted to meet separately. Councilor Moore cited his experience on the 99W Task Force and the difficulty they had in getting the State to simply list the highway as a project in their five to ten year cycle. Mayor Nicoli commented that there has been no increase in transportation dollars for e~ five to six years. He added that while at the State level there was no opportunity for funding, on the local level Washington County was doing a good job. He said that the responsibility for the transportation system lay at the State legislature and they would have to deal with it. i ivis. Newton commented that staff would actively monitor the issues of interest to the CITs and get information back to them on what happened with those issues. 3. Report: Portland State University (PSU) Study on Youth Center Russ Joki, Jerry Glover and Jan Cole (YMCA Westside Family Center Executive Director) from the Task Force chaired by Jack Schwab presented the report on the study. Dr. Joki noted that the charge to the Task Force was to examine the possibilities of creating recreational programs for teens, ages 13 to 18. He said that the study proposed that the City start small and do something, rather than wait to try to accomplish a big project. Ms. Cole pointed out the lack of available space within the community to hold teen activities. She noted the key factors they needed to study further before making a final decision on building a teen center: community support, different locations, and { 1 transportation considerations. f Dr. Joki said that they were here to get the Council's approval to take a straw man k . proposal to community leaders for discussion. The proposal was to build a teen center ± at Cook Park, including an enclosed sports area with kickoff funding from the City that ;t would hopefully generate the additional dollars and labor necessary to build the rest of the facility. He said that after the leaders' discussion, they would bring the proposal back to Council, and then begin their fundraising effort. t Councilor Hunt asked where the $100,000 in seed money was coming from. Dr. Joki 4 said that they were presenting this as the best use of the $92,000 gained from the sale of the old city hall, though they understood that others with projects were also interested in that money. Councilor Hunt said that he wanted to be careful that the public did not think that the i Council was endorsing contributing $100,000 to this proposal at this time. Dr. Joki stated that they would not represent the Council as having already agreed to give the money to them. Instead they wanted to present a possibility to generate enough excitement to take them to the next step. c CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 - PAGE 4 x F s_ Councilor Hunt noted the failures of youth centers in other areas of the country and asked how the study addressed that issue. Ms. Cole stated that the success or failure of a youth center depended on how it was operated, presented, and funded; a completely volunteer operation usually failed. She cited the example of a youth center in California that worked because they had paid professional staff who worked closely with the kids and had worked with the gang leaders to make sure that it was a gang free neutral area. She emphasized that the kids wanted a safe place to go. Councilor Hunt said that while he supported more youth activities he was concerned that the location was so close to the high school that the facility would become exclusively used by the high school students, leaving the junior high students out. Dr. Joki said that h h t ey chose t at land because it was available and was a potential location for the center for other community purposes such as receptions, weddings, etc. Councilor Hunt said that he would like more definition of the specifics of the center, such maintenance costs, staffing, how much was the City expected to fund the center in the long run. Mr. Monahan commented that the facility did not have to be tun by the City but could be run by a non-profit group or the school district. He said that the proposal talked about City financing the facility a partnership opportunity would be better. He - suggested that in the straw man proposal, the Task Force lay but various options for _ operating the center as opposed to focusing solely on the City. _ Councilor Scheckla suggested that the location be more centralized to allow easier access by the younger teens who would walk, ride a bike or take the bus. Mayor Nicoli noted that the land costs in a more central downtown location were prohibitive; Cook Park was f more reasonable. s Councilor Scheckla suggested putting the center outside the city limits, such as in the 4 Metzger area off Hall Blvd. Councilor Hunt said that he also favored a more central location; Cook Park or the ~ r - Summerlake area would be too difficult for the kids to get to use the facility. Ms. Cole n d h e 1 ote t at th study identified nine possible locations. Dr. Joki said that they would be happy to modify the straw man proposal if it meant that they could tell the community leaders that they had the blessing of the City. Councilor Moore asked if the straw man proposal couldn't be more general in concept rather than so detailed. Dr. Joki said that they could do that and that they would be happy to work with staff. , - Councilor Hunt asked how this proposal got started. Dr. Joki explained that Interfaith Outreach first questioned what the community could do to help youth; a student survey I was taken, out of which came this idea for a youth center. _ E Mayor Nicoli said that the Council would discuss this and get back to the Task Force. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 - PAGE 5 Y M l ~1 ~T 4. Visioning Project Discussion Ms. Newton presented the information gathered at the request of the Council on how visioning worked in other communities. These communities included Scottsdale, Arizona, and Milwaukie, Oregon. Ms. Newton reviewed how much the cities spent on the visioning process in terms of the percentage of their operating budget. She said that the $131,780 estimated for Tigard was .8% of the operating budget. Ms. Newton stated that the Milwaukie City Manager attributed the receipt of a $100,000 grant from Metro because they established the needed ground work through the visioning process. Ms. Newton reviewed the benefits to the City of Scottsdale, including getting several grants to fund projects identified through the visioning process, establishing partnerships with the Chamber and the chiropractic school, and attracting 26 new industries to their city that fell within the targeted industries category developed through the visioning process. She noted their use of volunteers to save $80,000 staff time, their use of Arizona State University architecture interns on design projects, and the set up of kiosks in popular locations to provide services. i Ms. Newton commented that she understood from her conversations with city officials that they felt more secure in making budgeting decisions, knowing that they and the community agreed on the direction in which to go. 1 Ms. Newton said that the City of Burnsville recommended not allowing citizens to develop performance measures because it had not worked well for them. Councilor Rohlf asked if the focus of the programs had been to get something concrete # out in front of the public or simply to develop a study. Ms. Newton said that this i process developed specific goals with measurable implementation tasks. Ms. Newton noted some other projects Scottsdale has accomplished since they went f through the process in 1992, including working with the business community and Chamber on improving the downtown and developing a program on streetscapes. Mr. Monahan stated that he saw the benefit of the visioning process as establishing the framework within which to make specific decisions regarding the community, such as greenspaces or the downtown renewal plan. He said that another important component as that by doing the exercise, they involved a greater cross section of people interested in the City and available for discussion when issues arose. He noted that the community has changed dramatically since the Comprehensive Plan was developed 14 years ago, and that it was time to revisit the community to find out in which direction they wanted to go. Mayor Nicoli said that while he had no problem with the concept, he was nervous about j the dollar amount. He said that he saw the CIT process as an ongoing visioning process and that he's always felt comfortable that he had a solid view of the direction in which to go. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 - PAGE 6 L~ Ir w Councilor Rohlf said that he saw this as an opportunity to stop reacting to situations that arose and to develop a plan of response. He commented that there was enough diversity in the community that they might find this was money well spent to further define what they wanted for their community and to carve out a "niche" for themselves. Mr. Monahan said that he thought that the CIT process would "work hand in hand with the visioning process. The visioning process might push the CITs to the level of involvement the City wanted from it. Councilor Rohlf commented that the CIT process was reactionary and that it would be better to have a game plan the CIT members could j buy into. He pointed out that the CITs could be the ones who held the City accountable to the measurable goals. a ! Councilor Moore commented that a visioning plan supported by the citizens would probably be kept by the next Council when there was a turnover in membership. ' Councilor Rohlf agreed that if the study sat on a shelf and gathered dust, then it was worthless; however if it had action plans to achieve the identified goals, then it would be a positive thing. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the difference between the $131,000 and the $83,000 lay ! in fixed staff time costs. He said that staff's intent was to spend a significant portion of 1 the estimated funds to generate interest and get people involved. Ms. Newton noted that she, Mr. Monahan and Ms. Mills wuuld spend most of their time initially meeting with groups in the community to get input. She mentioned some ways to spend less money on clerical staffing and still get the quality of product they wanted. d Sh d h hi ld 18 h i i -mont . e ment one t s process wou occur over an per o at t Councilor Hunt expressed concern at spending this much money on this type of program, when several years ago they spent money on a survey that they didn't do anything with. He questioned the $8,000 expenditure for "celebrations" and contended that there was too much fat in the budget. Councilor Moore expressed concern that the process might take too long and lose momentum between one Council and the next, just as the Tigard Triangle project did. He contended that a plan setup by the citizens would survive a change over in Councils. Ms. Newton noted $7,500 was budgeted for a survey which would not be done now. She said that staff has not included many consultants in the visioning process budget because they fclt that most of the work should be done by staff and citizens. She noted p that the celebrations were intended to provide closure for each of the process segments. Councilor Scheckla asked who did the duties of Mr. Monahan, Ms. Newton and Ms. ' Mills when they were out in the community during this process. Mr.: Monahan stated that he intended to pull Ms. Newton back from her duties with the CIT process and cultivate using other staff to take over those duties. He said that he needed to find assistance for Ms. Mills and that some of his other assignments blended in with this " Process. ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 - PAGE 7 f _ -4a f _ I z Mr. Monahan said that they could do this for less, possibly finding business sponsorship of the celebrations. He said that staff needed to know whether or not the Council supported going through the visioning process. If so, staff would try to make it work in terms of the dollars Council wanted to spend on it. Councilor Hunt asked about the addition„! staff yciaun included in the budget. Mr. :?anahan explained that this would be an administrative technician on a contractual basis, employed only during the visioning process. Councilor Scheckla asked what would happen at the end of 18 months. Ms. Newton said that they would have a document outlining the vision with strategies, goals and specific tasks to accomplish over the next year. Then they would work with each department involved to accomplish those goals. Councilor Scheckla noted that the visioning process was "trendy" right now but might not be in the future. Ms. Newton said that they would revisit the vision every year to develop new strategies and goals for the next time period. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that the bottom line was funding for projects to achieve the goals; without funding, none of the goals would go anywhere. Mr. Monahan cited Camas as an example of a town that has successfully used an action oriented plan to address particular issues. He said that once they knew where they were going, they could find ways to come up with the money, just as Milwaukie did in renovating their downtown with Metro money. Councilor Hunt asked staff to come back with a realistic cost estimate to accomplish the goal. Mr. Monahan said that if Council so desired, staff could investigate further options for free or inexpensive labor (e.g. grad students). i Councilor Scheckla stated that he was opposed to this process. i, Noting that four out of the five councilors were interested in doing something, Mayor j Nicoli directed staff to bring back a budget broken down between current inhouse staff and out-of-pocket expense and by budget year. i Councilor Hunt announced that he would be out of State in May, though he could fly 1 back for meetings if necessary. Mr. Monahan said that staff would pull the information together prior to Councilor Hunt's departure so they could get his feedback in case they brought it back to Council when he was out of town. 7. Water Rate Study Presentation i i Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, reviewed the draft report from CH2M Hill on the water rate study. He noted that it was presented to the IWB last week. Mr. Lowry mentioned that the consultants have recommended increasing the SDCs from $845 in a normal pressure zone to $986, and from $1000 in the Bull Mountain zone to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 - PAGE 8 -1 $1507. He pointed out the comparison of Tigard's SDCs with other jurisdictions, noting Fl that everyone was still higher than Tigard. He said that this was indicative of Tigard not having increased its SDCs for five to six years. Mr. Lowry reviewed the current rate structure of a bimonthly charge of $14.30 for 8 CCF of water with $1.32 per 100 CF after that. He noted other charges for living in a booster area and having a larger meter. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the average residential user paid for 20 CCF per month. Mr. Lowry noted that the current rate structure did not differentiate between types of users. M Lo dmtth d h d htm t d to Ef 0 r. wry state a e stu y s owe t a e curren rates par sufficient revenue for the next five years to fund the water operation and to set aside $.5 million a year for the capital reserve fund. He said that he did not believe a study was done for the last rate increase and therefore they might have been a little higher than they needed to be. Mr. Lowry reviewed the two alternate rate structures suggested by the consultants. The first included a fixed base charge of $3.89 charged to all customers with different rates based on category for each 100 CF. He said that the intent was to recover the cost of serving each category from that type of user. He said that this would encourage conservation and benefit low water users because only the water used was paid for. Mr. Lowry said that the second alternate was to establish a new minimum of $14.77 for 8 CCF and then to bill so much a unit based on the category. He said that this hurt the small users because both the minimum rate and the volume rate increased. He said that he thought CH2M Hill would recommend the first alternative. Mr. Lowry noted the comparison of residential bills. Mayor Nicoli commented that he would like to see the USA sewer charge separated out from the water charge to make f people more aware that USA was increasing its fees, not the City. Mr. Lowry said that the two proposed rate structure alternatives were revenue neutral. He said that the consultants would come back with a full report to the IWB in May. Mr. Lowry said that the money embedded in the rates for the capital construction reserve fund could be used for debt service on revenue bonds.` Councilor Scheckla asked what kind enforcement the City had regarding excessive use of water, citing an apartment complex with water running all the time. Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director, said that, as long as the user paid his water bill, the City had noway to prevent excess use of water unless it presented a public health hazard. Councilor Hunt asked if this proposal redistributed the revenue between the different categories of users. Mr. Lowry said that it would do so to some degree. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9 p.m. for a break. 1 Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 - PAGE 9 I t 'K A' i S„ t 5. Update Metro 2040 Nadine Smith, Ran-ier Planner, repoe 1 that Metro has - uslhc lack the -d lack the sGlleUlal y.., w.. that Metro yuauC On - the framework plan, changing from a June hearing date to one in September. She said that this gave the cities more time to prepare comments to Metro and to gather public input. She noted that Metro has stated that the last draft of the plan would come out on April 24. Ms. Smith stated that Metro has given them the second round of numbers for population ~r and employment. Nels Mickaelson, Associate Planner, reviewed the work he has done with the numbers. He said that staff significantly cut down the first round of numbers given to them by Metro based on basic policy guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the guidelines which he said should protect the character and nature of the existing neighborhoods not downzoning areas to implement the 2040 concept. Mr. Mickaelson said that Metro hasn't balked at the second round of numbers Tigard returned to them; right now jurisdictions were simply reporting back on the Metro question of accommodating more density to allow zero expansion of the UGB. In response to Council questions, Mr. Mickaelson said that the City "looked out" for the island (County) areas within Tigard. He reviewed how Metro arrived at the numbers they assigned to the different areas. Councilor Scheckla asked if the other jurisdictions would have to pick up density if any given jurisdiction refused to take its share. Mr. Mickaelson said that they have not reached the point yet of having to deal with this issue. f r 6. Discuss Wetland Mitigation - Bowen Property Dick Bewersdorff, Associate Planner, reviewed the wetlands mitigation request that was scheduled to come before Council on May 14. He explained that the original owners, the Centron Corporation, deeded the wetlands to the City during their a application process for an apartment complex development that was never built. Since i then the wetlands have moved, and there was a .17 acre emergent wetland on the v property which the Bowen Company proposed to fill. " Mr. Bewersdorff explained that the developer proposed to mitigate the wetlands on the E { City's property; this involved a policy decision on whether or not they should allow City property for mitigation. { Mr. Monahan noted that another application was coming up in which the developer, OTAK, wanted to use Fanno Creek for mitigation He said that the staff needed direction on whether they should allow these sorts of requests, and if so, under what circumstances. Councilor Scheckla asked now the mitigation would provide a benefit to the City. Mr. Bewersdorff said that the City wetland would be enhanced. Councilor Hunt expressed concern at setting a precedent. Mr. Bewersdorff said that he thought they could make the decision as an individual case and not set a precedent. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 - PAGE 10 J r- ? =i } E , E< y Councilor Hunt asked for a staff recommendation on this issue. Mr. Monahan said that they could do that, though he noted that he thought the City had some obligation to help - he developer in this instance because the land was given to the City from this property. Mr. Bewersdorff concurred, noting that this development was of a higher qua- it than the previous proposal. _ Mr. Bewersdorff explained that the developer intended to re-create the wetlands back on the other side, and fill in the small emergent wetlands on his property. Councilor j Scheckla asked if moving wetlands around would raise problems elsewhere. Mr. Bewersdorff stated that staff left that determination up to the Division of State Lands, 45 ` which had the necessary expertise. Councilor Rohlf asked if the City was likely to face more requests of a similar nature in j the future. Mr. Bewersdorff said yes. > Summercreek Lake Apartments Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the Summercreek Lake apartments proposal directly to they north of the Bowen property. He said that the quality of the 150 1-2-3 bedroom units would be similar to Fanno Creek Village and Main Street Village. Mayor Nicoli asked if they had any onsite play areas specifically set aside for children. Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the recreation space and greenspaces in the proposal. Mr. Monahan said that staff had wanted the Council to have a chance to look at this before it came before them, though he did not think there was any reason to call it up. for review. _ 8. Non-Agenda Items > Greenspaces Mayor Nicoli noted that last week the Council decided to discuss further the concept of finding ways to leverage the $758,000 they received from Metro to allow them to F acquire all the properties on the list. Suggested methods included partnerships with Metro and Washington County on properties of mutual interest. E - F Duane Roberts reported that the Metro staff has `recommended as Tier 1 partnership , opportunities the same areas Tigard identified as partnership areas. He noted that those attending the Metro Fanno Creek Regional meeting tonight were evenly split between supporters of acquiring headwater areas for fish habitat and water quality and supporters , of acquiring contiguous areas downstream.: He said that there was very strong criticism that Metro had not had enough public involvement in the process. > Ballot Measure 31 Mayor Nicoli reported that the citizens who put forward Ballot Measure 31 (to bring the t Oregon Constitution into compliance with the US Constitution with regards to pornography laws) have asked the City Councils to endorse the measure so that they can ff use the cities' names on brochures. Mr. Monahan suggested that staff review the measure prior to a Council endorsement. 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 - PAGE 11 r~ ~r x > Greenspaces Mr. Roberts presented charts detailing the cost estimates based on tax assessed values. He reviewed the various acquisitions on the list and the problems associated with them. He said that, based on discussions with Metro, staff recommended enlarging the target area all the way down to Durham. In response to a suggestion from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Roberts explained that Metro chose the three parcels of interest to Tigard (Nos. 5, 6, and 8) partly because of the I opportunities to partnership with the local government; they wouldn't necessarily buy the land by themselves. The Council discussed extensively ways to use partnerships and to leverage their money to acquire as much land as they could. Mr. Roberts noted that the current CIP budget included $160,000 for trails. He said that the more money Tigard came up with, the more favorably Metro staff would look on a joint venture using regional corridor money. Mayor Nicoli suggested going to Metro with every one of their projects. The Council discussed the list of proposed properties for purchase that would be sent to Metro to demonstrate how they would spend their local share of the Greenspaces funds. Councilor Hunt spoke against No. 3, stating that he did not want to spend over half the money on one piece of property. Councilor Moore noted the strong community support 't* of that parcel; Mayor Nicoli pointed out that Washington County has expressed interest in partnering with the City on the purchase of that parcel, and that they didn't have to n buy all 12 acres. 1 The Council discussed No. 4 on the list, which had a deed restriction precluding the road extension attached. Councilor Hunt said that he opposed No. 4 because it was too inaccessible. it The Council discussed whether or not they were willing to pay the extra money to make zr the difference. Mayor Nicoli said that he was comfortable with allocating half of the pp park SDCs for the next two to three years to this purpose. He said that he did not think k. ' doing so would restrict City activities in other areas. Mayor Nicoli suggested sending the entire list to Metro with footnotes stating which parcels they wanted to joint venture on and stating that the City was willing to contribute r future capital improvement dollars to fund what was left. r. _ Mr. Monahan asked Council if they wanted to prioritize the list, noting that without r prioritization of the projects, Council was exposed to the whims of one group or another who wanted their project first. Mayor Nicoli noted that the priorities could change when f the opportunities for joint ventures arose. Mr. Roberts stated that they did not have to prioritize the list to send it to Metro but they did have to meet the budget. The Council agreed to remove No. 11. Ms. Newton said that the total cost, including L J joint ventures, came to $835,500. _ J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 - PAGE 12 i i j 9. 15. Councilor Hunt raised the issue of Metro asking the City to put up money on properties that it wanted to buy. Mr. Roberts said that he didn't think that was what Metro was interested in. Councilor Rohlf stated that he wanted to leverage whatever they could out of the Metro fund, including partnering with Metro. He said that he thought that if they did not get the land as soon as possible, it would not be available. Mayor Nicoli concurred, stating that he supported sending the entire list. Councilor Hunt said that he would remove Nos. 3 and 4 from the list. Councilor Moore said that he supported sending the entire list and getting as much as they could from the County and Metro. Councilor Scheckla said that he could not support No. 3 because of its high price. Mayor Nicoli directed staff to prepare a list for a Council vote at the next meeting. The Council agreed by consensus to Mr. Roberts' request that staff identify trails generically rather than specifically. Mr. Roberts noted that No. 10 was not possible now that the development plan for Summercreek Lake Apartments would go through; the structures took up all the existing land up to the 25 foot wetlands buffer. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current & pending litigation issues. ADJOURNMENT: 11:14 p.m. Attest athenne Wheatley, City Recorder f' -J A - i - t I I { QCOMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC.®ga, _ Notice TT 8452 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 APR 17 1996 BEAVEflTON, OREGON 97075 Legai HoUce Ad'ra7iiai.:y^ CITY OF TIGARQ - - - _ OCity of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. *Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit *Accounts Payable-Terry • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ] _.u:: .tee STATE OF OREGON, ) ss z . COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the T, Aa d-T ,al a+; n Times a newspaper of general circulatipn as defined in ORS 193.010 T and 193.020; published at iaar n the afofeseid county bpd state tht the City Councill Works op D4eetina a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire Issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and - consecutive in the following issues: f April 11,1996 { Subscribed and sworn be ore me thisllth da of A ril, 19 rl f NO IC-0 -c-ON - N pky Public for Oregon MI d NO. . j - 1997 . r MY CON"4ISSIC"4 EXPIRES Mr My Commission Expires: F AFFIDAVIT ' t I i , l following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full The . agendas maybe obtsmed from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Ball Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon97223; or bycalhng 639 4171. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING - April 16,1996-6:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL 13125 S. W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON a Workshop Meeting Topics: Citizen involvement Teams (CM Communications & Meeting with CIT Facilitators and Staff Resource Teams Reporti Portland State University Study on Youth Center Visioning Project Discussion ~ U Metro 2040 P 'y s Weiland ?,litigation -Bowen Property D s go into Council ma d Cit Th Ti o j y y gar e Executive Sessi n: Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations; real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. TrR452 - Pnhlish Andl 11. 1996. 1 I AGENDA ITEM k_ For Agenda of February CITY OF TiGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SLJhiNL4RY 14 1 t(ame ISSUE/AGENDATITLE DiSCUSSi -"TiGAR -TMNKINGBEYONDTOMORROW- PREPARED BY: NCwtOn & ivlill DEPT HEAD OK m CITY ADiv[IN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL What process does Council wish to use to detcrmine die fumm of Tigard as a community? Is the visioning process, as outlined in the i attached memo. the proper process? STAFF RECOMMENDATION f ~ i Stiff recommends Council discuss the option of using a survey to update the direction the City is going in die future or use a community hiput process along with a survey to develop this information. Stiff recommends the more interactive process. comrnonl-y f called a "Visioning Process." INFORMATION SUNLVLARY 4 Last Fall. Councilor Rohlf raised the question. what the vision. or future of Tigard w.u. While Metro is moving forward with its I 2040 Platt. Tigard citizens have not been given an opportunity to provide concentrated input on what they want the Tigard conintmtity to be over the next 20 yelm. Each week, decisions are made by the Mayor and Council. Tigard boards and committees. and City s ff that affea the future of our community. If a visioning process is completed, future decisions can be measured against the vision On 1119/95, staff presented some information to Council about what a full-scale visioning process would entail. Council asked surff to return to discuss this issue further after the vacant Council position was filled. The purpose of our discuss on 2/20 will be to determine what type of process the Council would like to use in obtaining direction from Elie communin'. Liz Newton and Loreen i`hlls have contacted several cities nationwide that halve used various methods to understand what the " visieti' of die community is for their future. Attached is a 3-page memorandum hiahlighting holy the prods night work to dcvclcp a iision for Tigard's future: Also. attached is a list of cautions that we should be aware of so that the process to develop our future vision vi on't "wi avel " OTHER AL.TERNATIVTS CONSIDERED 1. Conduct periodic survevs of citizens. as we have in the past with "Tigard Talks.- and share this information with Cir: decision makers. 7. Conduct a broad-based community input process. along with a survey to develop Tigard's plan for the future. Council to give further input FISCAL, NOTES 1 S6.-00:s budgeted this year for dic next Tigard Tails survey. SI I 30 is a rough imnimum of costs and does not count significant involvement of presently funded scuff ether than in Admtmsuanon..Addtoomil staff (1 FI'E for 13 months) will be necessary. t 3. Unlmmv1 i j i f YY i i i 1 "Er10 R'NDUM j CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Loreen Mills, Senior Management Analyst Liz Newton, Assistant,to the City' Administrator DATE: February 5, 1996 SUBJECT: TIGARD - THIN IKING BEYOND TOMORROW At the December 19th City Council meeting, we presented a brief overview of how the process might work to develop a vision for Tigard's future. In order to have more discussion among the Council members, we have prepared this memo which outlines in more detail the benefits of the process, what we will get as an end product, and the estimated cost. TA F. PR0CESS Following is a brief outline of the 12 to 13 month process, as presented to Council in December, i Phase I Introduce concept & process - Meet with schools, CITs, Chamber & civic groups - advertise in Cityscape and newspapers Phase 2 Conduct survev and follow-up meetings - Send out survey, receive input through r information meetings & computer internet connections Phase 3 Do you hear what I hear? - Work with Steering Committee and City staff (approximately 30 people from the community representing different interest groups) to refine the survey results, develop a mission statement and identify issue areas. Phase J Where do we go from here? - Steering Committee and City staff work to develop strategies or ways to achieve the goals. f Phase 5 How will we know when we get there? - City staff develops "benchmarks" or ways to f measure success in achieving the goals. Phase 6 How are we doing'. Steering Committee reviews benchmark report, which is prepared annually by staff. THF'RFNFFITS j I. A blueprint of desired lone-term results that provide a guide for current decisions. If, through l this process, citizens identify (for example) youth and recreation as priorities, the Council and Budget - Committee have some direction from the community for establishing programs and making budget - deCISIOnS. i 2. An opportunity to involve n broad ransle of the community insetting the course for their future. This process would include a variety of interest groups (school students, senior citizens, the business community, etc.) and should re-establish a sense of community. As the "Tigard Talks" survey has I ^1 J k indicated, Tigard citizens believe their opportunities to participate in local government are good but they are skeptical about their ability to influence the decisions made by their local government. This process gives participating citizens the opportunity to influence the direction of the community by affirming values and setting priorities which the Tigard City Council and staff would then implement. j i 3. An o ortunrty for the city. school disirtet, business ca...: t••ni.:.service -•--b- and others to define their roles in providing services to the citizens. This process will encourage all service providers to be involved in discussions with citizens to clarify their roles in providing services and coordinate with other service providers to ensure efficient service delivery to Tigard citizens. For example, the citv.and school district working with citizens in the visioning process may clarify their roles in providing recreation opportunities to the community. 4 Direction from the community for Councii and stafi in setting priorities. Not only does the visioning process clarify the community's' values and priorities it also provides an opportunity for the Council, staff and citizens to define specific goals to be accomplished. For example, if the Tigard community values youth and sets a priority to establish programs aimed at youth, a specific goal might be to construct a youth center within three years. 5. Identification of an acce table level of funding for services desired by the Tigard community. The visioning process can incorporate a component that gives citizens an opportunity to identify specific services and the level of those services supported by tax dollars. In addition, the process could establish services citizens would pay for through fees, special levies, or bond measures. This information would be invaluable to Council and the Budget Committee when allocating resources. TRV COST The cost of a successful full-scale process has run 3100,000 to $300,000 for cities across the nation that have completed this type of process. It is anticipated that this process will cost Tigard 5131,300 for 12 months. TAF PBQDITCT Followinz are the four products or results which would come out of a process to develop Tigard's future vision. See the attached diagram which gives examples of what each of these elements could look like when completed. j 1. A mission statement for Tigard's future that blends the community's values and priorities. 2. Specific goals that provide direction to implement the mission statement. andlor strategies es for achievinc the coals. 3, Plans 4. Tools to measure success with an annual update report to the Tigard community I R ~ y 7 R p O I ~ O . ~ O ~0 C .C ti N O T C a ° m s OL tAy G L o:' O O C.. C C~ ` m O 'C l ° 0, 79 ~Z- N v •C R y 'o T y V d 0' V. z n C v O ° ° = E 2 Vj _ 6 O u R G U 0 O .C: W y y R O U O~~ O R O V V] C a ~ O R y N N- .2 Z S US Z c72 2- T ~ • ~y N R y C 4: L . a G ' R R Z R R C t4 ' •y O . N L tiI N v O N ? W z V y ~ O` u E L T° ~ T T R 7 N J C R N O .n vyi " J ° ~ o V U C T ~ p U y 7> y O y R C > J . C', -t CL - ~ C O y .n T 3 r J 0 _ - L 2 L J J .n s J O L,'_ , J 72 L y 3 r y y y a _ v ~ ~ - p N O - 15 :-Z B Cc: U V ~ l J J.1 J J -N 75~ A J , , 41 i u ^ u. c J O > 4 ! C I ! I ® vmi~ r.:: c`~_ BUDGET DETAILS FOR VISTONING as of 2/5/96 ACCOUNT # DESCRUMON AMOUNT a - 507 T'_-,AG E&-IE Ni SALARIES 548,300 Bill Monahnn -1/Sth time + bellies $13,035 Liz Newton - 1/4 time + bevies S18,440 Loreenmills -1/4time +bevies $16,825 i 1601 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ' 516,500 Design of logo/artwork $2,000 Questionnaire consultant $7,500 Consultant-for process $7,000 ($5,000 facilitate steering comm.) ($2,000 market end product) 602 CONTRAC UAT. SF.RVTCES S33,280 j~ Administrative Tech. $33,280 ($16/hr x 2080 hrs =1 FM 620 OFFICE STTPPT.TFS & F.XPF.NSEN _ 518,800 Office supplies $2,400 ` C Copier costs $2,000 Vision pins (for participants) $1,700 School prizes S 700 Committee maiUngs(50x2xl2) S 500 Postage (2 bulk mailings) $6,500 Report printing $5,000 621 ADVERTISING & PURT.TCPPV $ 4,000 Ads (2 full page & 2-12 page) $4,000 624 TRAVEL, FOOD_ & LODGING S 9,000 Committee goodies (24 mtgsJS30) $1,000 Celebrations (4 x $2,000) 58,000 (to help keep momentum of process going) 704 OFFICE. FMYa'URF. & FU MM= S1,900 i Computer workstation = 586.66 -16 ram TOTAL BUDGET FOR VTSIONTN . -12 MONTHS- c7 a1 aQn { = S48,300 of this total is existing expenditures j $83,480 of this total is new expenditures q d C~ F- - TO: City Council FROM: Will D'Andrea DATE: April 4, 1996 SUBJECT: Wetland Mitigation on City Property Reaues The City has received a request by Bruce Magnuson, on behalf of Bowen Development Company, to use City owned property as a wetland enhancement site. The land in question was dedicated to the City by Burt Grabhorn and Centron of Oregon Corporation in 1988, in conjuction with a Site Development Review (SDR 88-25) approval. While the ! sensitive land area was dedicated, the project was never built. Since 1988, the wetland has moved beyond the boundaries of what was dedicated. Bowen Development received a Subdivision approval (SUB 95-0005 / PDR 95-0006 / VAR 95-0010 / SLR 95-0015) to allow the creation of 52 lots for the construction of townhouses. In order to provide the land area necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision, the applicant has received a Division of State Lands fill/mitigation permit to allow the fill of approximately .17 acres of wetland with offsetting mitigation of approximately .618 acres of wetland area. A large portion of the proposed mitigation area is land that is currently owned by the City of Tigard and is used as a greenway. _ j The Council will have an opportunity to review and discuss the applicant's request at a public hearing on May 14, 1996. The applicant has prepared a resolution for the Council to review and adopt authorizing the use of City property for proposed wetland mitigation. Background In 1988, a wetlands report and delineation was conducted in conjunction with a Site Development Review (SDR 88-25). While the project was never built, the wetland area delineated in that report was dedicated to the City of Tigard. `A second wetlands report was required as part of the 1995 subdivision application to verify the boundary of the wetland area. This 1995 wetlands report determined that the wetland area had changed since 1988 and that the wetland had encroached onto the property to be subdivided. The applicant's subdivision proposal consisted of filling in the wetland area which has encroached onto the property and bring the wetland boundary back to the location delineated in 1988. In order to conduct the fill, the DSL permit requires mitigation for the wetland impacted. The applicant is now requesting that City owned property be used for mitigation. The mitigation area is land that was wetland in 1988, but is no longer wetland area. The applicant proposes to restore this area back to a wetland state. Discussion The proposed townhouses are an alternative form of housing. This project is the first townhouse development since the Community Development Code was amended to allow such housing types. The enhancement of land which was dedicated to the City for greenway preservation appears to provide a benefit to the City. The request to use City property for wetland mitigation associated with private development is a relatively isolated request. Future requests may have to be made in light of a policy decision of whether or f not the City wishes to assist private development mitigate wetland impacts, in effect becoming a mitigation "bank". By allowing private sector mitigation on public property, would it be appropriate or desirable for the City to be compensated for allowing such a use of City property? A potential "rent" type of compensation could be used in conjuction with existing trail and open space funds. Issues / Questions? Does the City want to allow use of City property for mitigation land? 1 Is there a public interest in allowing wetland enhancement on City property? Would the City be informally setting a policy allowing private development to use City property to be used in mitigation? Does the City wish to become a mitigation "bank"? Does the City want to be compensated for allowing City property to be used in this way? Do the benefits of enhancing City greenway outweigh the costs of allowing fill in wetland area for private development? Exhibits Attached is a highlighted map showing where the wetland mitigation would occur on City property as well as the site plan for the proposed townhouse development. { t i ~ E t l x. ~t C' i k` 5 k j J - - _ _ wc~p io v. -G i9 n♦-J .'r_NS S noon -vRly. _ F.O-- - _ N 7 ~ g • ~ 3y0 a l Q y 8 ~ ~ ~ 1 LL ~ Q 3 F~~~~~p99 0° ~ ILL z Z a C J `J s ~ s i 1 `tom, . m S O u N I lea O 5 V I Cam: L-C t Decision Issued Date: 4/12/96 Final Appeal Date: 4122196 i.) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96.0006 ➢ SUMMER CREEK VILLAGE APARTMENTS Q The Tigard Planning Director has APPROVED, subject to conditions (attached), a request for Site ueveiopment meview approval to avow me construction of a 19 building, 150 unit multi-family residential development, with a community building and swimming pool. LOCATION: East of SW 135th Avenue, south of SW Hawk's Beard Street and west of SW 131st Place (WCTM 1 S1 33DB, tax lot 4300)._[]~/~ (vicinity Map below) ~Swp N L ;I-r y~ (Plot Plan/Map attached) s Cr S i 1 7Tff ~r77, ETDIO= ZONE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: 'High Density." ZONING DESIGNATION: R-25 F (Residential, 25 units per acre).. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERL4: Community Development Code Sections 18.56, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102,18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. h:W tWocsW12.96.m2 (Memo Cover Page 111) _1 '19 15tfL 'MB vi~ } r 1 1 e ~Il 01 1 >V. i <i. T3' 1 1 i 3nN311Y N1SU 'MB i CA; PLOT PLAN C® EXHIBIT MAP a North awm. pp.. 9 ;s ' - - (SUMMER CREEK VILLAGE APARTMENTS) (Page 1 of 4) 1 I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED f PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: j UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE STAFF CONTACT SHALL BE BRIAN RAGER OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the frontage of SW Hawk's Beard Street at the easterly edge of the site to increase the centerline tangent between the reversing 200 foot curves to 50 feet. The minimum centerline radius is 167 feet. The legal description shall be tied to the proposed right-of-way centerline as approved by the Engineering Department. 2. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall dedicate additional Right-of-way (ROW) in SW 131st Court to increase the ROW from its present 35-foot width, to a total of 42 I feet. In addition, ROW shall be dedicated to complete the bulb section of the street to provide a i V ROW radius of 52 feet to match the existing dedication. C 3. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that aligns the proposed driveway on SW 135th Avenue with the opposing existing driveway on the west side of the street. 04. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. A striping plan for the left-turn refuge in 135th Avenue shall also be included. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit eight (8) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets leva _ re nt to public improvements). Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard F Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at Tigard City Hall. 5. Building permits will not be issued, and construction of proposed public improvements shall not ' commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public j improvement plans, and a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100-percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer- n e 1 e gine r agreement, the, payment of a permit fee, and a sign installation/streetlight-fee are required. 6. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the ` City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site or within the SW Hawk's r Beard Street right-of-way adjacent to the site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the 1 vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of the site improvements t or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. i x k f' I. n (SUMMER CREEK VILLAGE APARTMENTS) (Page 2 of 4) 7. Washington County has established and the City has agreed to collect Traffic Impact Fees in accordance with Resolution No. 90-65. The applicant shall pay the fee established for the proposed use prior to issuance of the building permit. 8. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre -construction meeting r h the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the public improvement plans, but before starting work on the site. The applicant, the applicant's engineer, and contractor shall be required to attend this meeting prior to receiving the approved plans and permits. 9. The proposed privately operated and maintained sanitary sewer and storm drainage system plan-profile details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. 10. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engie-edIng Depa.U.1ert Ur rc'vleirv and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations. 11. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994". 13. Engineered Grading Permit Required. The applicant shall submit a Soils Engineering Report and Engineered Geology Report. Staff Contact: Jim Funk, Building Division (639-4171). ff 14. Swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code. { The enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wall with a minimum height of 4-feet with a self- ffffl latching door or gate. 12. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 15. The water plan shall provide for the westerly extension of the existing 12-inch water line from SW 131st Place to the existing 16-inch water main in SW 135th Avenue. Staff Contact: Mike Miller, City of Tigard Water Department (639-4171). 16. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, Planning Department (639.4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. Grading plan detailing work to be conducted within the wetfand buffer. B. Detailed buffer area plantings, including number, type, and size at planting. C. Twenty (20) bicycle parking spaces. I (SUMMER CREEK VILLAGE APARTMENTS) I (Page 304) Y D. A plan which shows compliance with Community Development Code Chapter 18.116, ® Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign- t off. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant shall submit a letter from the franchise disposal company related to facility design and compatibility. 17. An exterior lighting plan and kiosk plan shall be submitted to the Police Department for review and approval. Staff Contact: Kelly Jennings, Police Department (639-4171). THE FOLLOV INN CONDriit7NS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 18. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall construct standard half- street improvements along the frontage of SW Hawk's Beard Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. Pavement from curb to centerline equal to 16-feet, plus an additional 8-foot wide lane on f the opposite side of centerline to provide a total pavement width of 24 feet. B. Curb. C. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface run-off. "t D. Five-foot concrete sidewalk. E. Street striping. a F. Streetlights as determined by the City Engineer. G. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay °a fee in-lieu of ; undergrounding existing overhead utilities). U 1. ° S et signs (if appiicabie). - 1. Driveway apron (if applicable). J. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Hawk's Beard Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 19. { Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall construct standard half-street m improvements along the frontage of SW 131st Court. The improvements adjacent to this site f shall include: A. Completion of the bulb section to provide a 45-foot curb radius and 52-foot ROW radius. i I f i . tF r (SUMMER CREEK VIU AGE APARTMENTS) (Page 4 of 4) e f T B. Replacement of the temporary extruded curb with a new full-depth PCC curb per City t standards, plus any pavement replacement necessary to accommodate the curb installation. - I C. Stone drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface run-off. D. Five-foot concrete sidewalk. i E. Street striping. t F. Streetlights as determined by the City Engineer. F G. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in-lieu of i undergrounding existing overhead utilities). I J E H. Street signs (if applicable). r 1. Driveway apron (if applicable). tt J. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 131st Avenue in a c safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 20. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall complete the striping of the left-turn refuge in 135th Avenue for the new driveway. 21. All site improvements shall be installed as approved per the revised site plan. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN 1S MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. - ,M j This is a working drak to be reviewed by MTAC & TPAC, WAC and JPACT, the Metro Growth Management Committee I sod the frill Metro Council ` E - I Phase I of the Regional Framework Plan Metro Staff Draft 2/14 E MTAC/TPAC Draft 3. - 4/4 PAC/JP D f ❑ ra t M ACT Y fir i ❑ Metro Growth Management Draft 21 i t ❑ Metro Council Draft , ❑ Adopted n A version of this document with revisions shown from the last draft is available on request. All discussion and deliberations will be made on this version and line number references. METRO f ti Table of Contents Summary ~j introduction The Meaning of Regional Fuactioual Plan Adoption . Regional Policy Basis ~ Required Regional Framework Plan Phase 1 Elements ~ Title 1. Requirements for Accommodation of Growth Section 1. Local Plan Accommodation of Allocated Growth Targets. Section 2. Growth Targets for Local Governments within the Metro Boundary • • • • • • • • • • • • Section 3. Review of Permitted Capacity of Housing Units and Employment.'...... • • • • Section 4. Capacity Amendments to Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulation i Title 2. Regional Panting Policy Section 1. Intent Section 2. Performanc Standards Title 3. Stream Corridor Conservation . . . Section 1. Intent . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . • • • Section 2. Protection of Stream Corridors Required • • • • . • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . Title 4. Retailin Employment and Industrial Areas. _ J Section 1. Intent . • • . • . 1 Section 2. Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinance Changes Required. . Section 3. Exceptions • E Title S. Neighbor Cities and Rural Reserves EE Section 1. Intent t Section 2. Metro Intent with Regard to Rural Reserves Section 3. Invitations for Intergovernmental Agreements • . • Section 4. Metro Intent with Regard to Green Corridors Title 6. Regional Accessibility - `r Section 1.Intent . . Section 2. Boulevard Design Section 3. Design Standards for Street Connectivity Title 7. Compliance Procedures t Section 1. Compliance Require • • 4 Section 2. Compliance Procedures ' ' • Section 3. Any Comprehensive Plan Change must Comply • • • • • . P1.8. 10 Urban Growth Management Functional Plan A functional plan for early implementation of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept Inlrndvirtinn 1 Metro was created after a vote of the citizens of the region as an elected regional government 2 for addressing issues of regional significance in the metropolitan area, and is enabled by state 3 law, adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 1977. In addition, the voters of the region adopted 4 a Metro ' Charter in 1992, which describes additional responsibilities for the agency. Metro has 5 an elected Executive Officer and a Metro Council which propose and determine region-wide 6 policies. 7 The Metro Policy Advisory Committee, (MPAC), is comprised of local government elected 8 officials and appointed citizens from throughout the region and was created to advise the 9 regionally elected Metro Council on matters of metropolitan significance. It was included in 10 the Metro Charter adopted by a vote of the citizens of the metropolitan area. MPAC has 11 recommended specific policies to be included in a new functional plan to be adopted by the 12 Metro Council as soon as practicable. This recommendation was made by MPAC to begin 13 implementation of the regional policies of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept as adopted by the 14 Metro Council by Ordinance No. 95-625-A. Early implementation is intended to take 15 advantage of opportunities now, and avoid land use inconsistent with the long-term growth 16 policy.' 17 MPAC, as well as the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, (JPACT) and the 18 Water Resource Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC) have made recommendations which 19 are the basis for this functional plan . All of the elements considered by MPAC, JPACT and 20 WRPAC were deemed by the Metro Council to be of metropolitan significance. The follow- 21 ing text states the scope of recommended regional policies which will apply to all 24 cities and 22 3 counties within the Metro region for early implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept. The 23 legal form of this early implementation is a functional plan, not adoption as a "component" of 24 the regional framework plan. The policies in this functional plan will be coordinated with 25 policies to be readopted in official components of the Metro Charter mandated regional 26 framework plan, on or before December 30, 1997. 27 It should also be noted that this functional plan relies on further actions, primarily changes to 28 local government comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances, to effectuate the actions 29 described below. Page 1 Phase I of the Regional Framework Plan MTACIPAC Draft April 4, 1996 I J 30 The Mrznning of Reginnal Minrtionni Plan Adnnp tinn 31 The following regional policies recommend and require changes to city and county plans to 32 implement regional goals and objectives constituting the Urban Growth Management Func- 33 tional Plan under ORS 268.390, RUGGO Goal I, and Resolution No.96-2288. The require- 34 meats for plan changes, including implementing regulations, shall be adopted by all cities and 35 counties in the Metro region within eighteen (18) months from the effective date of this 36 ordinance. 37 Local determination not to incorporate functional plan policies into comprehensive plans shall 38 be subject to the conflict resolution and mediation processes included within the RUGGO, 39 Goal I provisions prior to the final adoption of inconsistent policies or actions. Local actions 40 inconsistent with functional plan requirements are subject to appeal for violation of the 41 functional plan. 42 Regional Pnliry Racic 43 The regional policies described below are formulated from, and consistent with the Regional 44 Urban Growth Goals and Objectives, (RUGGO), including the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. 45 These adopted Metro policies will be incorporated into the Regional Framework Plan. Also, 46. the overall principles of the Greenspaces Master Plan are incorporated. 47 In addition, the 1996 Regional Transportation Plan', when adopted, will serve as the transpor- I 48 tation element of the Framework Plan. It will be the primary transportation policy 49 implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept. However, early implementation land use 50 policies in this functional plan are integrated with early implementation transportation policies 51 derived from preparation of the 1996 Regional Transportation Plan, and consistent with the 52 Metro 2040 Growth Concept. j ! 53 Strrnrtnrn nf Requirement 54 The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is a regional functional plan with 55 "requirements" binding on cities and counties of the region. It is structured so that local 56 jurisdictions may pick from either performance standard requirements or prescriptive require- 57 meats. The intent is to write these regulations so that local jurisdictions have a significant 58 amount of flexibility as to how they meet requirements. Performance standards are included in 59 all titles. If local jurisdictions can show that they meet the performance standard, they have 60 met the requirement of the title. In addition, prescriptive standards are also included. They ' Metro has an adopted Regional Transportation Plan. However, because of changing local and regional conditions as wella state and Federal requirements, anew 1996 edition is being written. - Page 2; Phase 1 of the Regiond Framework Plan MTACrrPAC Draft - - April 4, 1996 - A i 61 are r ilable to show one very specific way that jurisdictions may meet the title requirement, not the only way a city or county may show compliance. 3 63 -Regional lFunrtinnal Plan Regnire-mr-r-_ 64 Title 1 Renui mentc fnr Finttcino and Emnlmanent Amnmmodation 65 Section 1. Intent 66 State law and Metro code require that the Metro UGB have sufficient capacity to accommodate 67 the expected growth for 20 years. It is Metro policy to minimize the amount of urban growth 68 boundary expansion required for the expected population and employment growth by the year 69 2015 consistent with all Statewide Goals. It is beneficial and desirable to increase the density 70 permitted for development within the UGB consistent with the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. 71 Section 2. Local Plan Accommodation of Allocated Housing and Employment - Perfor- 72 mance Standard. 73 Local governments must demonstrate that their regulations will permit the growth allocation 74 contained in Section 3 of this Title to be built. Local governments must permit the expected 75 development at densities likely to be achieved during the planning period by the private market j 76 or assisted housing programs, once all new regulations are effective. 77 Section 3: Growth Allocation for Local Governments within the Metro Boundary 78 The Growth Allocation for Housing Units and Employment are contained in the Appendix and 79 labeled Table 1. These include jurisdiction-wide allocations, as well as seperate allocations for 80 the Central City, Regional Centers, Town Centers, Station Area and Main Streets. 81. Section 4. Review of Permitted Capacity of Housing Units and Employment. 82 A) The purposes of this review are to determine the capacity of existing comprehensive 83 plans and implementing ordinances to accommodate housing and employment and to determine 84 wether amendments to existing plans are necessary to comply with Section 5 of this Title. All 85 cities and counties within the Metro region are hereby required to review the permitted 86 capacity of their current comprehensive plans, and calculate the expected capacity, of housing 87 units and employment by the year 2015. These estimates shall be conducted. using the 88 following method: 89 B) Local governments shall use Metro estimates of vacant land, and land likely to 90 redevelop, unless the local government has data which it believes is more accurate. In this 1. See Title 8, DeSmtiom, 'permitted capacity' "d 'expected capacity% Page 3 Phase I of the Regional Framework Plan - - WAMPAC Drag - April 4, 1996 i i 91 case, the local government may use their data, subject to acceptance by the Metro Council or 92 their designee, and shall include a justification for the data,'including: 93 1) The source of the data; 94 2) The reasons that the locally developed data is a more accurate estimate than 95 the Metro estimate of vacant and redevelopable land;. 96 3) The database that the above were derived from; 97 4) The database of commit}gdevelopment lands. 98 C. In estimating e Ca xpectediltxpac 'ty of existing comprehensive plans and implementing 99 ordinances, local governments shall not estimate expected capacity at more than 7946 of 100 maximum permitted density, unless: 1 01 1) actual expierence in the juristiction since 1990 has shown that development 102 103 has occured at density greater than 79 % of permitted residential density or can be demonstrated or, 104 2) minimum density standards are adopted or proposed for adoption in the 105 zoning code that require residential development at greater than 80% of maxi- 106 mum permitted density. j 107 D. Local governments shall determine the effect of each of the following on its overall 108 development capacity; 109 1) required dedications for public streets, consistent with the regional accessibil- 111 i y title; 112 2) off-street parking, consistent with this plan; 3) landscaping, setback, and maximum lot coverage requirements; 113 4) the effects of tree preservation ordinances, environmental protection ordi- 114 nances, view preservation ordinances, solar access ordinances, or any other 115 regulations that may have the effect of reducing the capacity of the land to 116 develop at'the permitted density. 117 5) the effects of areas dedicated to bio-swales, storm water retention, open 118 space dedications, and other requirements of local codes that may reduce the 119 development density. 120 Section S. Permitted Capacity Amendments to Comprehensive Plans and Development 121 Regulations Required 122 A. If the capacity estimates developed under Section 4 above are less than the 123 jurisdiction's Growth Allocation, then the jurisdiction is hereby required to amend its 124 comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to provide the capacity for the population 125 and employment allocation contained in Section 3, or request an exception according to Title 126 7. The capacity calculation shall be made according to the same methodology the jurisdiction 127 used in Section 4. The jurisdiction shall demonstrate the following in providing capacity for 128 housing and employment: Page 4 Pmw I of the Regiond Framework Plm MTAC/rPAC Draft - - 1 April 4. 1996 - ,9 129 130 131 r 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 1) The permitted densities are atons and densities that the market is likely to C[ 7 7' build:: < ✓ 2) The capacity calculation used only those development types that are a permitted use in the development code. Any discretionary decision must not diminish the permitted .density if it is to be counted as a part of expected capacity; and 3) expected capacity has been determined by accounting for all public requirements which may have the effect of reducing capacity, including those listed in Section 4c) above;and 4) Local governments have adopted minimum permitted densities for housing units, or minimum permitted floor-area aties in all zoning designations that provide more than 10 % of that jurisdiction's expected capacity for housing units or employment; and 5) local governments have reviewed their public facility capacities and plans and have, or can provide, planned public facilities to accommodate growth within the plan period; and 6) Local governments permit flag lots or other means of partitioning in those urban areas of the city or county where existing lot sizes are two or more times that of the minimum lot size. 146 147 148 Title 2 - Regional Parking Policy 149 Section 1 Intent l~ 150 The State's Transportation Planning rule calls for reductions of vehicle miles traveled and per f i 151 capita parking as means of responding to transportation and land use impacts of growth. The f 152 Metro 2040 Growth Concept calls for more compact development as means to encourage more 153 efficient use of land, promote non-auto trips and protect air quality. In addition, the federally 3 154 mandated air quality plan'relies on the 2040 Growth Concept fully achieving it's transportation 155 objectives. This title is provided to address these statutory requirements and preserve the quality { 156 of life of the region. i 157 A compact urban form requires that each use of land is carefully considered and that more 158 efficient forms are favored over less efficient ones. Parking, especially that provided in new 159 developments, can result in a less efficient land usage and lower floor to area ratios. Parking also 160 has implications for transportation. In areas where transit is provided or other non-auto modes 161 (walking, biking) are convenient, less parking can be provided and still allow accessibility and 162 mobility for all modes, including autos. Reductions in auto trips when substituted by non-auto f 163 modes can reduce congestion and increase air quality. Page 5 Phese I of the Regional Fra ork Plan - MTACrrPAC Draft April 4, 1996 r ~a 164 Section 2. Performance Standard 165 A- Local Governments are hereby rerquired to adopt amandments if nessessary to insure 166 that their comprehensive plans and implementing regulations meet the following minimum ti 167 standards: 168 1) Require no more parking than the minimum as shown on Regional Parking Stan- 169 dards Table, attached hereto, and; z, 170 2) Establish parking maximums at ratios no greater than those listed in the Parking Table 171 and as illustrated in the Parking Maximum Map. For all urban areas outside Zone A, 172 . ;*:,s p.A co unties shall establish park ing space maximums no greater than those listed in - ~ 173 Zone B in the Parking Table and as illustrated in the Parking Maximum map. Local 174 governments should designate Zone A parking ratio in areas with good pedestrian access ' 175 to commercial or employment areas (within 113 mile walk) from adjacent residential areas. - r 176 3) Establish an administrative or public hearing process for considering ratios for individ- 177 ual or joint developments which are: (I) in excess of the maximum parking ratios, and (u) I 178 less than the minimum parking ratios. Local governments may grant an adjustment from . I 179 maximum parking ratios or minimum parking ratios through an adjustment or variance 180 process. 181 B. Free surface parking spaces are subject to the regional parldng maximums. Parking 182 spaces in parking structures, fleet parking, parking for vehicles that are for sale, lease, or rent, 183 employee car pool parking spaces, dedicated valet parking spaces, spaces which are user paid, 184 market rate parking or other high-efficiency parking management alternatives maybe 185 exempted from maximum parking standards. Sites which are proposed for redevelopment may 186 be allowed to phase in reductions as a local option. Where mixed land uses are proposed, 187 local governments shall provide for blended parking rates. It is recommended that local 188 governments count adjacent on street parking spaces, nearby public parking and shared parking 189 toward required parking minimum standards. 190 C. Local Governments may use categories or measurement standards other than those ulations will be ffect of the local re th t th di f i E. s7 191 e e ngs a g in de in the Parking Table, but must prov _ , 192 substantially the same as the application of the Regional Parking Ratios. 193 D. Local governments shall monitor and provide the following data to Metro on an 194 195 annual basis: 1) the number and location of actual parking spaces developed, and i ? 196 2) demonstration of compliance with the minimum and maximum parking standards, i 197 including the application of any local adjustments to the regional standards in this title: 198 Coordination with Metro collection of other building data should be encouraged. Page 6 Phah:1 of the Regiooil Framework Plan - MTACn?AC Draft - - AW 4, 1996 ' F i ?i J 201 To protect the beneficial uses and functional values of resources within the Stream Corridor 202 203 Conservation Areas by limiting or mitigating the impact on Conservation Areas from development i act vities. 204 Section 2. Requirement 205 Cities and counties shall insure that their comprehensive plans and implementing regula- 206 bons to protect stream corridor conservation areas pursuant to Section 4 as shown on the 207 adopted Metro Stream Corridor Conservation Area Map, attached hereto. Exceptions to this 208 requirement will be considered under the provisions of Title 7. 209 Section 3. Implementation Process for Local Governments 210 Cities and counties are hereby required to amend, ifnessessary, their local plans and implementing 211 ' ordinances to insure that they comply with this Title in one of the following ways: 212 213 214 A. Adopt the relevant provisions of the Metro Stream Corridor Conservation model ordinance; or I 215 216 B. Demonstrate that the local plans and implementing ordinances substantially complies with the performance standards cont i d i a ne n Section 5; or 217 218 C. Any combination of A and B above which substantially complies with all performance standards in Section 4. 219 Section 4. Performance Standards F 220 221 The following performance standards must be met by the plans and implementing ordinances of i c ties and counties:: . ~ - 222 223 A Flood Mitigation. The purpose of these standards are to protect against flooding, and . 224 prevent or reduce risk to human life and properties, by allowing for the storage and conveyance of r i i stormwate runoff through these natural systems. r f~ 227 1. Either prohibit development within the Stream Corridor Conservation Area or 228 limits development in a manner that requires balanced cut and fill minimum ' 229 , finished floor elevations, and prohibitions or limits on the use and/or storage of 230 hazardous materials for developments in the remaining portion of the Stream 231 Corridor Conservation Area. 232 2. Allow unbalanced cut and fill only if a hydraulic study, prepared by a 233 registered professional engineer shows that the proposed fill will not increase flood 234 elevations. 235 236 B. Water Quality. The purpose of these standards is to protect and allow for enhancement of 237 water quality associated with beneficial uses as defined by the Oregon Water Resources Depart- 238 ment and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 239 Standards: Local jurisdictions shall; 240 1. Require erosion and sediment control for all ground disturbing activities and 241 development within or adjacent to the Stream Corridor Conservation Area 242 243 . Erosion prevention and sediment control measures shall meet the requirements 244 outlined in the Oregon DEQ NPDES Permit No. 12000, but shall apply to all i ' Parcels over 10,000 square feet;or t 245 246 2. Require erosion prevention and sediment control measures which meet the i ` F 247 requ rements outlined in the Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans f technical Guidance Handbook" (City of Portland and United Sewerage Agency 248 , Feb. 1994); and - 249 3. Require water quality protection facilities for all new development and redevelop- 250 251 ment in the Stream Corridor Conservation Area and those adjacent that discharge runoff to the area; and l 1 252 253 4. Prohibit use or storage of hazardous materials in the Stream Corridor Conserva- ' - lion Areas. G 254 5. Insure that for new development, post-development runoff conditions must not 255 exceed pre-development runoff conditions. 256 257 C. Fish and Wildlife Conservation. The purpose of these standards is to protect and allow for f 258 enhancement offish and wildlife'within the Stream Corridor Conservation Areas. r =3 259 Standards: Local jurisdictions shall; 260 1. Restrict the clearing or removal of native vegetation from the Stream Corridor - r 1 261 262 Conservation Area. Limit the removal of non-native, non-invasive vegetation that ' substantially contributes to fish and wildlife habitat. L u, Page S Phase I of the Regional Framework Plan MTACn7AC Draft = . April 4, 1996` ' w4 ' 263 2. Disturbed areas shall be replanted with native plants on the Metro Plant List. 1 264 Planting or propagation of plants listed on the Metro Prohibited Plant List within 265 the Conservation Area shall be prohibited. E 266 3. Require compliance with ODF&W seasonal restrictions for in stream work. Limit 267 development activities that would impair fish and wildlife during key life-cycle 268 events. 269 D. Protect the long term regional continuity and integrity of Stream Conservation Corridors. 270 Standards: L om' Juns u„au,c.uons shah Establish or adopt transfer of density within owner- 271 ship to mitigate the effects of Stream Corridor Conservation, or through Transferable 272 Development Rights (TDB's) which have substantially equivalent effect as the Metro 273 Stream Cooridor Conservation Model Ordinance. 274 275 2. Metro encourages local government to require approvals of applications for minor 276 partitions, subdivisions and design review actions must be conditioned with 277 protecting Stream Corridor Conservation Areas with a conservation easement, 278 platted as a common open space, or through purchase or donation of fee simple 279 ownership where feasable. 280 Section 5. Metro Model Ordinance Required 281 Metro shall adopt a Stream Corridor Conservation Area Model Ordinance for use by local 82 jurisdictions to comply with this section. This title shall not become effective until the Metro 283 Council has adopted a Model Code which addresses all of the provisions of this title. 284 285 Section 6. Variances. City and.County comprehensive plans and implementing regulations ' 286 are hereby required to include procedures to consider claims of map error and hardship '287 variances to reduce or remove stream corridor protection for any property demonstrated to be 288 ' converted to an unbuildable lot by application of stream corridor protections." 289 Title 4. Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas. 290 > Section 1 Intent 291 It is the intent of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept that Employment and Industrial Areas 292 contain very little retail development. Employment and Industrial areas would be expected to 293 include some limited retail commercial uses primarily to serve the needs of people working or { 294 living in the immediate employment areas, not larger market areas outside the employment 295 area. Exceptions to this general policy for Employment and Industrial Areas can be made for 296 certain areas. t Page 9 Phase I of the Regional Framework Plan - UTACn?AC Draft - - Apn7 4, 1996 i i 1 297 298 299 300 301 Section 2. Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinance Changes Required. Cities and counties are hereby required to amend their comprehensive plans and implementing regulations to prohibit retail uses larger than 50,000 feet of gross leasable area per building or business in the Employment and Industrial Areas specifically designated on the 2040 Growth Concept Map. 302 Section 3. Exceptions 303 Exceptions to this standard may be included for. 304 '-'-w --uQaaa~ ~cucratC°- -eneratiu-g- , lauu'-wnsumprive commercial rises with low parking 305 demand which have a community or region wide market, or 306 B. Specific Employment or Industrial Areas which already have developed a substan- 307 tial amount of retailing may allow new or redeveloped retail uses. 308 Title S. Neighbor Cities and Rural Reserves 309 Section 1. Intent 310 The intent of this title is to clearly define Metro policy with regard to areas outside the Metro 311 urban growth boundary. NO PORTION OF THIS TITLE CAN REQUIRE ANY AC- 312 TIONS BY NEIGHBORING CITIES. Metro, if neighboring cities jointly agree, will adopt 313 or sign rural reserve agreements for those areas designated rural reserve in the Metro 2040 314 Growth Concept with Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington County, and Neighbor City 315 Agreements with Sandy, Canby, and North Plains. Metro would welcome discussion about 316 agreements with other cities if they request such agreements. j 317 In addition, counties and cities within the Metro boundary are hereby required to amend their 318 comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances within eighteen months of the adoption of 319 this ordinance to reflect the. rural reserves and green corridors policies described in the Metro 320 2040 Growth Concept. 321 Section 2. Metro intent with Regard to Rural Reserves ' j 322 Metro shall attempt to designate and protect common rural reserves between Metro's urban 323 growth boundary and designated urban reserve areas and each neighbor city's urban growth 324 boundary and designated urban reserves, and designate and protect common locations for 325 green corridors along transportation corridors connecting the Metro region and each neighbor- 326 ing city. For areas within the Metro boundary, counties are hereby required to amend their 327 comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to identify and protect the rural reserves t 328 and green corridors described in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept and shown on the 2040 329 Growth Concept Map. For areas outside the Metro boundary, Metro shall encourage 330 intergovernmental agreements with the cities of Sandy, Canby and North Plains. Page 10 Phase 1 of the Regio W Framework Plan - - MTACrrPAC Draft - - April 4, 1996 J ~9 l 331 Section 3. Invitations for Intergovernmental Agreements 332 Metro shall invite the local governments outside the Metro boundary and named in Section 1 333 of this title to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement, similar to the draft agreements attached 334 hereto. 335 Section 4. Metro Intent with Regard to Green Corridor-. 336 Metro shall attempt to negotiate a Green Corridor Intergovernmental Agreement with ODOT 337 and the three counties (Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington) to designate and protect areas 338 along tr ne^^Ka-*'^n corridor. connecting Metro and neighboring cities. r' 339 Title 6 Regional Accessibility 340 Section 1. Intent 341 Early implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept must acknowledge that focusing develop- 342 ment in the most concentrated activity centers, including the central city, regional centers, and 3 343 station communities, may produce levels of congestion that exceed existing standards, yet 344 signal positive urban development for these locales. Conversely, the continued economic i 345 vitality of industrial areas and intermodal facilities is largely dependent on preserving or 346 improving access to these areas and maintaining reasonable levels of freight mobility on the : 347 region's main throughways. Therefore, regional congestion standards and other regional 348 system performance measures shall be tailored to reinforce the specific development needs of 349 the individual 2040 Growth Concept land use components. 350 These regional standards will be linked to a series of regional street design concepts that fully 351 integrate transportation and land use needs for each of the 2040 land use components. The 352 designs generally form a continuum; a network of throughways (freeway and highmV designs) 353 will emphasize auto and freight mobility and connect major activity centers. Slower-speed 354 boulevard designs within concentrated activity centers will balance the multi-modal travel 355 demands of these areas. Street and road designs will complete the continuum, with 356 multi-modal designs that reflect the land uses they serve, but also serving as moderate-speed 357 vehicle connections between activity centers that complement the throughway system. While 358 these designs are under development, it is important that improvements in the most concen- E ` 359 trated activity centers are designed to lessen the negative effects of motor vehicle traffic on 360 other modes of travel. Therefore, the need to implement amenity-oriented boulevard treatment t 361 that better serves pedestrian and transit travel in the central city, regional centers main street, 362 town centers, and station areas is a key step in the overall implementation of the Metro 2040 F,;, 363 Growth Concept. I Page 11 Phase I of the Regional Framework Plan - - MTACrrPAC Draft - - April 4, 1996 I i k l 365 For regional routes in the central city, regional centers, station communities, main streets and 366 town centers designated on the Boulevard Design Map, all cities and counties within the Metro 367 region are hereby rpquired to implement boulevard design elements as improvements are 368 .made to these facilities. Each ,l' trrisdiction shall ado r, rtu,cndmants, if necessary, to ensure that k 369 their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances require consideration of the following t,11370. boulevard design elements when proceeding with rigWof way improveSegts on re irtn L `x,371; routes designated on the boulevard design map. In general, pedestrian and transit oriented .372 design elements are the priorityin the central city and regional centers, while pedestrian and ,-373 transit features are more balanced with motor vehicle design needs in station communities, ` 374 main streets and town centers: g ` )37S ' A. Wide sidewalks with pedestrian amenities such as benches, awnings and special 3;76 lighting; ~ "377 B. Landscape strips, street trees and other design features that create a pedestrian 378 buffer between curb and sidewalk; 379 C. Marked pedestrian crossings at all intersections, and mid-block crossings where 380 intersection spacing is excessive;. 381 D. The use of medians and curb extensions to enhance pedestrian crossings where 382 wide streets make crossing difficult 383 E. Bikeways; 384 F. On-street parking whenever possible; 385 G. Motor vehicle lane widths that consider the above improvements. 386 H. Use of landscaped medians where appropriate to enhance the visual quality of 387 the streetscape. ~I 388 Section 3. Design Standards for Street Connectivity 389 The design of local street systems, including "local" and "collector" functional classifications, 390 is generally beyond the scope of the Regional Transportation Plan. However, the aggregate 391 effect of local street design impacts the effectiveness of the regional system when local travel 392 is restricted by a lack of connecting routes, and local trips are forced onto the regional 393 network. Tberefore, the RTP will include design standards for connectivity'aimed at improv- 394 ing local circulation in a manner that protects the integrity of the regional system. Page 12 Phxx I of the Regioenl Framework Plan - MTACn?AC Draft - - ( April 4, 1996 1f. ._~,.-,~<.-.Fn...~~..~-.,.-~..-.~.~..~,«.~.k.«,..,a,Ft.,.,~~ da:.~.~..,~~;<'~"w~:~Z... ~.~.r~•; ~;>a~#~,~!51T+~. 0 395 Local jurisdictions within the Metro region are hereby required to amend their comprehensive 396 397 plans and implementing ordinances, if necessary, to comply with one of the following options in the dev l i e opment rev ew process: 398 A. Design Option I 399 Cities and counties shall ensure that their comprehensive plans, implementing ordinances and ~ 400 administrative codes require demonstration of compliance with the following: 401 1) New residential and mixed-use developments must include local street plans that: i 402 a) encourage pedestrian travel by providing short, direct public rigbt-of-way f 403 routes to connect residential uses with nearby existing and planned commercial 404 services, schools, parks and other neighborhood facilities; and i 40 55 b) include no cul-de-sac streets longer than 200 feet, and no more than 25 dwelling a 406 units on a closed-end street system; and 407 c) provide bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way 408 when full:street connections are not possible, with a minimum spacing of no more 409 than 330 feet; and 410 d) consider opportunities to incrementally extend and connect local streets in 411 primarily developed areas; and ` I 44 412 e) serve a mix of land uses on contiguous local streets; and 413 f) support posted speed limits; and 414 g) consider narrow street design alternatives that feature pavement widths of no 415 more than 28 felt, curb-face to curb-face, sidewalk widths of at least 5 feet and 416 landscaped pedestrian buffer strips that include street trees; and f s 417 h) limit the use of cul-de-sac designs and closed street systems to situations where I 418 topography, development patterns or environmental constraints prevent full . stmt { . - ~ 419 ~ extensions. j 420 2 For developments on vacant or primarily undeveloped contiguous parcels of five i 421 acres or larger, also prepare: . 422 a) a map which identifies possible local street connections to adjacent developing 4 423 areas. The map should include connecting streets at intervals of no more than Page 13-. Phase I of the Regional Framework Plan - MTAC/f'PAC Draft - - April 4, 1996 ' 4 is i is t i 424 660 feet, with more frequent connections in areas planned for mixed use or dense f 425 development.. REDD 426 B. Performance Option 427 Cities and counties shall ensure that their comprehensive plans, implementing ordinances and 0) 428 a-&=-.tmtNe codes require demonstration of compliance with performance criteria. Approval 429 o aew eve oilmen s me u e odesrgns wrt~- m rsecnoa spacing to occur 430 at intervals of no less than 8 per mile, the number of street connections coordinated and 431 consistent with increased density and mixed land uses. Local street designs for new develop- ab 432 meats shall satisfy both of the following additional criteria: 433 1) Performance Criterion: minimize local traffic on the regional motor vehicle 434 435 system,by demonstrating that local vehicle trips on a given regional facility do not exceed the 1995 arithmetic median of regional trips for facilities.of the same motor , 436 vehicle system classification by more than 25 ' e tih 437 2) Performance Criterion: everyday local travel needs are served by direct, connected 438 local street systems where: (1) the shortest motor vehicle trip over public streets from a 439 local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line 440. distance; and (2) the shortest-pedestrian trip on public right-of-way is no more than one 441 and one-half the straight-line distance. 442 Title 7 Compliance Procedures i 443 Section 1. Compliance Required I 444 All local governments within the Metro boundary are hereby required to amend their compre- r s i 445 hensive plans and implementing ordinances to comply with the provisions of this functional 446 plan, within eighteen months of the effective date of this ordinance. i 447 Section 2. Compliance Procedures 448 1. On or before the deadline established in. Section 1, local governments shall transmit to 449 Metro the following: 450 a) An evaluation of their local plans, including public facility capacities and the 451 amendments necessary to comply with this functional plan; Page 14 Phue I of the Regional Framework Plan - MTACffPAC Draft - - April 4, 1996 ll ' V I~ E f I'Vew 452 b) Copies of all applicable comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances and 453 public facility plans, as proposed to be amended; t ---.454 c) Findings that explain how the amended local comprehensive plans will achieve the 455 standards required in titles 1 through 6 of this functional plan. 456 2. Exemptions from all or any portion of any of the above titles may be granted by the Metro 457 Council; as provided for in the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives , Section 5:3, 458 after MPAC review, based on city or county submittal of the following: 459 A. General 460 In developing its compliance plan, the local jurisdiction must address the Metro 2040 Growth 461 Concept, and explain how the compliance plan relates to the Growth Concept. 462 B. Population and Employment Allocations l 463 1) A demonstration of substantial evidence of the economic infeasibility to provide 464 sanitary sewer, water, stormwater or transportation facilities to an area or areas; or I 465 2) Bubstantial areas which have prior commitments to development at densities 466 inconsistent with Metro growth targets; or, 467 3) The households and employment growth allocations cannot be accomidated at 468 densities or locations the market or assisted programs will likely build during the 469 planning peroid; and ' r 470 3) The amount of households or employment that cannot be accommodated; and f 471 4) A recommendation for where the unaccommodated growth could be located adjacent 472 to the city or county. 473 C. Parking Measures. Subject to'the provisions of Title 2, local jurisdictions may inquest • 474 relief from the parking measures. Metro may consider a local government request to allow 475 areas from Zone A to be subject to Zone B maximum parking ratio where they can demon- 476 sttate: j E 1 477 1. No foreseeable 20 minute transit service; and 478 2. No adjacent neighborhoods close enough to generate sufficient pedestrian 479 activity; and 480 3. No significant pedestrian activity within the present business district. 481 The burden of proof for adjustments shall increase as the quality and timing of transit service 482 improves. Any adjustment granted must include a demonstration of how future conversion of 483 excess parking is feasible. 484 D. Stream Corridor Conservation. Cities and counties may request areas to be added or deleted I 485 from the Metro Stream Corridor Conservation Area based on a finding that the area identified on Page 15 Phue I of the Regional Fmnm ork Plan - - MTACn?AC Draft - April 4, 1996 l f i 486 the map is not riparian, as defined in this functional plan. Findings shall be supported by evidence 487 , including the results of field investigations. 488 489 E. Regional Accessibility 490 Local jurisdictions may request relief from the requirements of Title 6, Regional Accessibility 491 where they can show that a street system or connection is not fwsib - for rracnnc of rnr 492 graphic constraints or natural or built environment considerations. 493 F. In addition to the above procedures, local determination not to incorporate functional plan 494 policies into comprehensive plans shall be subject to the conflict resolution and mediation 495 processes included within the RUGGO, Goal I provisions prior to the final adoption of 496 inconsistent policies or actions. Local actions inconsistent with functional plan requirements 497 are subject to appeal for violation of the functional plan. 498 499 Section 3. Any Comprehensive Plan Change must Comply 500 After the effective date of this ordinance, any change to a comprehensive plan or implementing 501 ordinance shall be consistent with the functional plan requirements contained in titles I through 502 8. Metro shall assist the local government in achieving compliance with all applicable .503 functional plan requirements. Upon request, Metro will review proposed comprehensive plan 504 and implementing ordinances for functional plan compliance prior to city or county adoption. ' 505 I Section 4. Enforcement 506 City or county actions to amend a comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance in violation 507 of this functional plan shall be subject to appeal or other legal action for violation of a regional 508 functional plan requirement. Prior to a final action to amend a comprehensive plan or 509 ` implementing ordinance, a local determination that a functional plan should not or cannot be 510 implemented shall be subject to the conflict resolution process provided for in the Regional 511 Urban Growth Goals and Objectives, Goal I. 512 Section 5. Compliance Plan Assistance i 513 Any local government may request of Metro a compliance plan which contains the following: 514 A. An analysis of the local government's comprehensive plan and implementing I 515 ordinances, and what sections require change to comply with the performance standards. • 516 B. Specific amendments that would bring the jurisdiction into compliance with the s 517 requirements of Sections I to 8, if necessary. ; . Page 16 Phase I of the Resiorml Fa ork Plan MTACn?AC Daft April 4, 1996 g I T 1 E: Page 17 Phase 1 of the Regional Fram ork Plan - MTACn?AC Draft - - AprU 4, 1996 ~f[ 524 Title S. Definitions (To be developed) 525 Expected Capacity means the 526 527 DEB means the Local Trip means a trip 2 ik miles or less in length. all uw 528 Metro means the 529 t B M d e ro oun ary means the 530 Metro Urban Growth Boundary means the 531 Permitted Capacity means the 532 Perennial Streams means all primary and secondary perennial water ways as mapped by the U.S. 533 Geological Survey. 534 Stream corridor conservation area means an area defined on the Metro Stream Corridor 535 Conservation Area Map, attached hereto. This area has been mapped to generally include the 536 following: stream or river channels, associated wetlands, areas with floodprone soils adjacent J ti 537 to the stream, floodplains, and associated riparian area. -The riparian arras are generally 538 defined as between 50 and 200 feet on each side of the center line of streams, depending on 539 local conditions. 540 Riparian area means the water influenced area adjacent to a river, lake or stream consisting 4 541 of the area of transition from an hydric ecosystem to a terrestrial ecosystem where the presence b 542 of water directly influences the soil-vegetation complex and the soil- vegetation 543 complex directly influences the water body. It can be identified primarily by a combination of . 544 geomorphologic and ecologic characteristics. 1 545 Development means any man made change defined as buildings or other structures, mining, t 1;111 546 dredging, filling, or grading in amounts greater than fifty (50) cubic yards on any lot, , i 547 paving, or excavation. In addition, any other activiy that results in the removal of more than ; 548 50 % of the existing vegetation is defined as development, for the purposes of this Title. t , 549 < 550 Designated Beneficial Water Uses means the same as the term as defined by the Oregon - j 551 Department of Environmental Quality. ' j Page 19 Phase I of the Regional Fnmework Pim MTACITPAC Daft - - April 4, 1996 I t a ~,y 552 Functions and Values of Stream Corridors means stream corridors have the following 553 functions and values: water quality re;ention and enhancement, flood attenuation, fish and 554 wildlife habitat, recreation, erosion control, education, aesthetic, open space and wildlife 555 corridor. 556 557 Floodplain means the 100-year floodplain as defined by FEMA Flood Insurance Studies. b 558 Vacant Land: Land identified in the Metro or local government inventory as undeveloped ' 559 with perrrianamt structures. ~ 11 is i y "sc • . 7 3 r t ` S ~ I f ~ f . ~ t Pate 19 Phase l of the Regional Framework Plan - M1'AC117AC Daft - - ` April 4, 1996 _ I r> a p , i 6 ~ o • A rn $ b U 0 xu b IS ~ ~ LL a V 8$ $Q o ~ o c4 1 O ~ y a ~ EM LZ 3 a F e~ ~ e S~ r Y C7 O ~ c C7 a •q A av C Y 3 q W # y m Y . al 0- 1 v n _ f i 'S F C ~ sr r f ~ t i ~ 6 a `4 1 ~ F Fg '3 Fr _ e R - J ~ aa t f i y ' C i y m c° c 0 l ~ Y 3 Y S C Ii~ 3 ~ M E Y m Eo o E u6 m.Q t; ~ 0. 1 G yC r Qj O G: [ I C1 ~ C O `Y O ~ O G H CGpL H 7 _ - o0 co N en 0o v oo vn oo % oo n = oo o~ ev en rn co oo a a o a , o--- h v~ h h h v~ h v, H 11 ^ h k u FF f . .=€ce . .FB..t; hl.E.`•> ~.+(r -py fu ~ 9^ . xv43.+.~i~i'.`~i.~~id".Fi. _~,,`.~'r'L~2°-{~^'ic~ ~ r..a ~ 595 $96 597 $98 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609- 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 t 617 618 Regional Paridng Ratios' (parking ratios are based on spaces per 1,000 sq It of gross teasawe -8 ulwass otherwise stated) Minimum Maximum Maximum Permit- Land Use Parking Re- Permitted ted Parking Ratios quirements Parking - - Zone B: (See) Zone A: Central City Transportation Management Plan for down- town Portland . stds) Requirements Transit Rest of Region may Not Exceed and Pedes- trian Accessible Areas' General Office'cocludesoffice 2.7 3.4 4.1 Park, -Flea-Space , Govemmeat office & misc. Savims) (gsf) Light Industrial 1.6 None None Industrial Park Manufacturing (gsf) Warehouse (grow square feet . 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ping ratios apply to warehouses 150,000 gsf or greater) Schools: College/ 0.2 0.3 0.3 University& High School (spaeeslaof students sM mail) Tennis Racquetball Court 1.0. 1.3 1.5 Sports Club/Recreation 4.3 5.4 6.5 Facilities Retail/Commercial, including 4.1 .5.1 6.2 shopping centers . Bank with Drive-In 4.3 5.4 6.5 Movie Theater 0.3 0..4 0.5 (spaces/number of seats) i I 595 5 96 $97 i 598 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 1 Regional Parking Ratios' (parking ratios are based on spaces per 1,000 sp ft o/Dross leasable arcs unless otherwise stated) Minimum Maximum Maximum Permit- Land Use Parking Re- Permitted ted Parking Ratios quirements Parking - - Zone B: (See) Zone Ai Central City Transportation Management Plan for down- town Portland ads) ' Requirements Transit Rest of Region v_. may V-ccc s roux =..a P Aoe- _ "i- Accessible Areas' Fast Food with Drive Thru 9.9 12.4 14.9 Other Resw.urants 15.3 19.1 23 Place of Worship 0.5 0.6 0.8 (apaees/reats) MedicallDental Clinic 3.9 4.9 5.9 Residential Uses Hotel/Motel 1 none none Single Family Detached 1 none none Residential unit, less than 500 1 none none square feet per unit, one bedroom Multi-family, townhouse, one 1.25 none none bedroom Multi-family, townhouse, two 1.5 none none bedroom Multi-family, townhouse, three 1.75 none none bedroom 636 Note: Ratios for uses not inchded in this table would be determined by local governments. In the event that a local 637 government proposes a different treasure, for example, spaces per seating area for a reatauram instead of gross leesableam, Page 23 Phase I of the Regional Pranicwori M= - - MTACn?AC Drat - - April 4, 1996 I t x~~> t , r: 638 639 Metro tnsy grant approval upon a demonstration by the local government that the similar to the regional ttaadatd. frig tPar requirement it tubttantially 640 641 1. Ratios for wa not ine ' hrded in tbis table would be determiood by local govemmew In the ev w h d L'r 642 . e proposes a t at a local government _ ifferem measure, for example, spaces Per testing area for a mataurant instead of gross leasable area, Metro may grmt approval upon a demonstration b th l .643. y e ocal government that the regional star.;a,~. making $P- requi+emeat is tubstaatially $imilar to the - - R a 5 rs Y .J Z r~ u ~ { Page 24 Phase I of the Regional Framework pU,, t MTAc/77Ac Draft - - April 4, 1996 51 r i ' METRO TO: Councilor Rod Monroe, Chair, JPACT and members Commissioner Charlie Hates, Chair, MPAC FROM. Mike Burton, Executive Officer DATE: April 4, 1996 SUBJECT: April 4 redraft of Phase I of the Regional Framework Plan Attached please find the latest draft of the Phase I f'_re Regiunai Framework Plam.' This document reflects the latest revisions recommended by TPAC and MTAC members. However, there are three areas within Title ti, Regional Accessibility, with which I have concerns and would like to recommend that you change. While these changes may be supported by your technical committees, they have not be discussed or endorsed by them. In brief; my recommended changes would: 6 remove the hierarchy that emphasizes pedestrian and transit features over automobiles.omy in the central city and regional centers and replace it with a general j direction to incorporate more pedestrian and transit features in station communities, t main streets and town centers as well as the central city and regional centers: (This l would revise lines 371 through 373, see below) f r a require that cities and counties take responsibility for.master street plans to ensure connectivity, rather than have the development community take responsibility for connectivity at the time of development. (This would revise text starting at lines 421 and -428) i 4, set congestion standards by adding a new section. (to be added after line 441) Rod Monroe, Charlie Hales April 4, 1996 page 2 At line 421, revise as follows: 2) larger, also psepam: All'comir3uous areas of vacant antl primarily undeveloped land of fye acres or more should;be identified by cities aiidcouattes and he:fulloy ing tiff be prapared At line 428. revise as follows: 1) Cities ag cousdies shall include -eve 4 a local street designs ---V "Pap with street intersection spacing to occur at intervals of no less than 8 per mile, the number of street connections coordinated and consistent with increased density and mixed land uses. In addition, I believe that there are concerns that current standards for addressing congestion are too high. Continuing to use the current standards would likely have the following consequences: 6 The Est of transportation projects in the Interim ATP would be unattainable even with the most optimistic revenue assumptions. The.20-year "financially constrained" component of the plan (based on a "reasonable' forecast of anticipated revenues) has a road and highway funding shortfall in excess of $2 Billion. The majority of projects are for congestion relief using current congestion standards. d The current congestion standard could conflict with proposed use changes called for in the adopted Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires ! that comprehensive plan amendments to change land uses be balanced with adequate transportation services. The current congestion standard is likely to result in inadequate ! transportation services, thereby prohibiting a change in comprehensive plans to increased densities. - Congestion and mobility is a key component of the public's attitudes about liveability and therefore a major area of concern about growth.' The policy issue to be addressed is should we ensure that the road system simply slows down or is stop-and-go traffic for some period of time to be expected? Should the peak hour be expected to last 30 minutes, 1 hour or 2 hours? (see attached memo to Andy,Cotugno dated April 4 for more discussion and analysis) Accordingly, I would add after line 441 the following: Section d. 11lator VehicleYerformanci Stnndarde Motor vehicle lei el of seavice performance standards are used to identify lit i or cpanded regionai toad needs and.to,calcuiate the vehiclt design capacity for subsequent,projoets. ,Setting regional ' T I Rod Monroe, Charlie Hales April 4, 1996 page 3 &nges Gn standards is important since congestion is a key liv6i6ty measure Congestion standards most be set to easwe that roads provide adequate degrees of accessibdity and rnobility; to ensure the integration of modes; and to.ens= that, the,higbway,system is not overbuilt:; Etsewvher ,regional level.of-service performance standards aro Herded tv ensure an adequate balance bemven transportation service and.local land use desip'49n@ patucutsrly Apse, ar where densities are proposed tn,.in.7eaa' Each.iurisdiction shall adapt amendments if necessary to ensuro that their catnprehtn ive plans and implementing ordinances will include the following motor vebiclo performance standards and methods related to congeston analysis and congestion --,qWg-V when platu tug for new or,e.Ypsnded roadways in areas proposed,for higher densities: A' Congestion Analyse I) Level-of-service. thefouoz~zng tAle'shall bain~rporated imp lor.'sl comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to replate;LtnT=t mefhads of detctminutg congestion on regional factSites' preferred Awe frible Ezceeds Mid-Da 'oii&bour C orbett,, D E or worse Nik trio-hoc EJE or better RE F/F or worse ' Level-tDf--Service is determined by using eitber the latest edition of the 13ighway Capacity Manual (Transportation Researcb Board) or through volume to i capacity ratio equivalencies as `follows: LOS C=1.9 or better, LOS D_= .8 to i ; LOS =,9 to 1.0; and LOS.l..=.greaterthw 1.0. 2} Accessibility. If a congestion standard is ezcceded as identified in 4 A 1, local ovenunents shall evahtato the impact of the congestion on regional accassbitity using the best available methods (quantitative or qualitative). Ifa determirption ns made that the congestion negatively impacts regional accessibility, local knisdictians shall followthe congestion managementproced--identified in 4.13, r below. i. B, Congestion Management Prior to rccas u'endi ng a szgni5cant'capacrty expansron,to a regional facrErty, pr tnclt ding such an expansion in a city or county,catrrprehen5tve, p3an rho inltoxwg actions sl* be • I - Rod Monroe, Charlie Hales April 4, 1996 page 4 C) applied: Transpririation systemmargemem techniques: ' ~'ransit solutions if It2 mode split is `vctvw iisc iuenhi3C~I8rgct for ?bAt _ • , particular corridor or area- - i ,M solutions mast be considered if tho Aveisge sfehiclt Occupancy (AVO) is below the corridor or aredtarget. 4) Crf d and/or parallel facilities if local trips on thq congested rcgronal fac17'13' exceed 25% of the regional pedian for facilities'ofthe sa tic moior;yrlude ' . Uassification; Only ifihe above c n ideJations do not adequately address fhe,.P oW> m,,' ca apty impovements, ma} be g►cluded in tho comprehcasn;e,plan. ti I would be happy to discuss any aspect of these recommendations with you at your meeting or ~ at your conveni6nce. - z. ~ I f 1 ; 1 f J j r i a y 666 -i 'G,-r r~~..91-a aa~i'_" y~ - ..w`~~ f'r~"~.'~"~C~"."`.~`~^_'• ~ ~"r^"T`~'^T^<v --•-'r.7 ..~#,~w~ _ ~fii M E M O R A N D U M 6WF60RnCMTGPAMAVE" I POR ANp.OREOO'N 47= 2M M 5M7Y117oo FMW3n717W METRO Date: April 4,1996 To: Andy Cotugno, Transportation Director From: Michael Hoglund, Transportation Planning Manager M ` Subject: Motor Vehicle Performance Measures This memo provides background for upcoming discussions on motor vehicle performance measures related to congestion on regional roads and highways. Included is information on transportation performance measures in general; the current practice in evaluating congestion; alternative methods for evaluating congestion; and a summary of our preliminary proposal for a new congestion analysis method. Transportation Performance Measures - Background As part of the durrent update to the RTP, new and revised performance measures are being developed. The measures will be the analysis tools used to determine whether { transportation goals and objectives are being met. The proposed measures fall into two f categories: f 1. General system measures for analyzing the overall regional effects of alternative transportation system impacts on mobility, accessibility, air quality, cost effectiveness, and travel; and 2. Specific measures related to individual transportation modes such as motor vehicles, trucks, bicycles, pedestrians, transit, or transportation system and demand management programs and techniques. Together with each measure, a corresponding standard or threshold will also be identified. The standard represents the minimum acceptable and reasonable target of performance relative to each measure. Simply stated, falling below a standard triggers a system deficiency and the need for an improvement to address that deficiency.' Further, performance measures and standards are also used in funding decisions. The measures and standards are refined into specific criteria for use in determining project funding priorities through the Metro Transportation Improvement Program. In sum, developing the performance measures and identifying the corresponding standards will be an extremely important RTP exercise. The exercise will result in the E methods for evaluating RTP sufficiency (particularly related to the 2040 Growth Concept); for identifying system deficiencies and projects; and for setting transportation funding priorities. I 1 i ~J t Andy coru n g o pr A il 4.1996 Page 2 Congestion Analysis - Current Practice The motor vehicle level-of-service (LOS) congestion measure and standard has traditionally been a key transportation l i v p ann ng analysis tool. The measure and corresponding standard is used to identify the perceived level of "intol c bl " era e ongestion on the regional transportation system. When congestion reaches a level where the standard is exceeded a trans , portation project is triggered. r~ pr The LOS congestion measure is based on a simple A-F period, generally the afternoon peak hour. Under this scgradin scale for a ale c di i A t a I on t ons are bes LOS , which generally represents free-flowing traffic with few vehicles on the road. Conditions incrementally deteriorat t h e o t e worst condition, LOS F, characterized by average freeway operating speeds under 30 mph and some stop-and-go traffic wher Z mergers and other bottlene k e ' c s occur. On arterials, LOS F is characterized by speeds of less than one-third to as low as one-fourth free-flow s eeds p . The current adopted congestion standard recognizes a system deficiency when LOS D is exceeded in the afternoon peak. Exceeding D conditi ons represent freeway operating speeds between 30 and 40 mph and arterial speeds down to one-third free-flow conditions. The attached chart c r ompares the current RTP standard with those included in the ODOT Highway Plan and a Metro staff proposal for further discussion(discussed below). For the most part, a project is tri e d gg re when LOS D is exceeded in both the current RTP and ODOT Highway Plan. Some exceptions are allo d f t u we s or lesser service andards under special conditions (e.g•~' availability of light rail in a travel corridor) . This current measure and standard has been the primary planners and en in rh ex r , g eers to identifyrod way pa sion projects for the last 30 to 40 years. As noted above, the standard has resulted in over a $2 billion shortfall in road and highwa rev 3 .s y enue over the next 20 years as reflected in the RTP. I ) ' i - ~ Alternative Measures and Standards of Congestion t Reco I a numbe of alternat vesinherent ar beg eawith mined a current the e national and local level. Th goal of these efforts is to first better understand the true public perception of, and tolerance for, congestion and to dev l e op more thoughtful and financiallr methods of addressing congestion problems. In the Portland metro area congestion as it relates to land use is also b i o f e ng c nsidered. Examples of alternatives include (as . identfffed by an inter-agency work group headed by Washington County staff): 1. Utilize the Existin Standard. But Over a Lon-- Period of Time. This measure would evaluate the duration of r f con estion on that the peak hour is naturally spreading beyond ass gle- our. An example of this concept would be to not tri er a ne d I gg e until a two-hour standard has been exceeded. 2. Consider Different Level of-Service Standards for Different Areas. Typically, this standard would allow for greater congestion in higher ensity areas such as the Central City and Regional Centers. I r r r _ 5n,, 11 . X - - . 77-77 77'"' Andy Cotugno . I April 4, 1996 b page 3 3. Expand the Range of Definitions for Level-of-Service. This option proposes new LOS of G and H to reflect longer and more severe periods of congestion (similar to alternative one, above). - - C Focus on Accessibility. Accessibility is a measure which attempts to measure both the available transporLa:on system in terms of travel time, but also available land uses (work, shopping, etc.) that the transportation sysieui provides access to in terms of density of activity. Accessibility is governed by both land use patterns and the number of travel alternatives provided in the regional transportation system. This is a very promising measure which ties „ h together land use and transportation. However, the quantitative methods are still being developed. It is likely an accessibility measure could be used to supplement other measures. 5. Use Accessibility Measures in Areas and Mobility (Congestion) Measures in { Corridors. This concept concludes that accessibility is most important near and within ity areas such as the Central City, Regional Centers and Town thin high dens Centers, and that mobility is necessary between major activity centers. _ k 'Consequently, two different measures would be used for different locations. j Metro Staff Proposal - Metro staff is proposing for further consideration a congestion analysis methodology . which recognizes the following • Current congestion measures and standards will likely conflict with the goal of - _z increased densities in certain locations. • Current congestion measures and standards are unrealistically high, have kesulted in a list of road and highway projects which are financially unattainable, A even under the most optimistic revenue assumptions, and are likely better than j the public reasonably expects. • Current congestion measures do not address the duration or severity of congestion beyond the afternoon peak hour. To address these issues, Metro staff proposes a two-step process to first determine the . severity and impact of congestion through a congestion analysis phase and then to ?a identify appropriate actions through a congestion management phase. {a t Congestion Analysis t Congestion analysis involves two steps to determine the severity and extent of actual 1 congestion.' The first step is to analyze both a peak two-hour period and an off-peak (mid-day) one-hour period (as shown on the attached chart). Unacceptable congestion k would exist if LOS F extends beyond one hour in the peak or if LOS E is reached in the off-peak. This method assumes some congestion will be tolerated in the peak hour. The off-peak service level, if achieved, recognizes the need to accommodate commercial, business, and personal trips on relatively uncongested facilities throughout the normal work day._ If congestion is present, a second step analysis is conducted to evaluate accessibility. The accessibility measure would be used to determine whether access to various 1 activities is affected by the congestion. As noted, this measure ties the land use 7 activities of places to the ability to travel to these places on the transportation system. - a 1 t -I Andy Cotugno. April 4, 1996 Page 4 When fully developed, this measure will provide better information as to where congestion can be tolerated since good access will be maintained to employment and shopping areas and from households.. Congestion Management If the above analysis results in both unacceptable congestion and diminished access►oWty, a congestion anagement methodology is proposed in order to determine the appropriate congestion solution.' Prior to recommending a road or highway - expansion on a regional facility, the following alternatives must be addressed: 7. Transportation system management techniques. 2. Transit solutions if the mode split is below the identified target for that particular corridor or area. 3. TDM solutions if the Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) is below the corridor or area target. 4. Grid and/or parallel facilities if local trips on the congested iegiorW facility exceed 25% of the regional median for facilities of the same motor vehicle classification. This congestion management process will require a more thoughtful analysis of the causes and potential solutions to congestion. If the above methods do not adequately -address the congestion problem,.new regional road and highway capacity can be pursued. Finally, these requirements would not be used for road and highway improvements that serve other regional objectives; such as safety and economic development. Metro staff recommends forwarding this proposal for discussion through the RTP ✓ I update process and through the public comment and hearings process on the Regional Framework Plan - Phase 1. Attachment I( • I , E 0 0 METRO Comparison of Motor Vehicle Performance Standards for: ODOT Highway Plan; Current RTP; Metro Proposed 0 General Performance Standards. The following table identifies the minimum acceptable level-of-service standards contained in the adopted RTP, the adopted ODOT Highway Plan, and a Metro staff proposal for new standards currently being discussed as part of the RTP update. Exceedences to these standards are generally indicated with red on transportation level-of-service analysis maps. Current RTP ODOT Highway Plan Metro Pro used Peak Hour Only Peak Hour On! Peak Two- Hours' OffPeak' LRT Corridor D D/E F-E Special Districts D E F-E C Urban D D F-E C Urbanizin D C F-E C MH 4/2/% ' Two-hour analysis period. T" level of congestion is acceptable for one-hour. 'E' level of congestion is acceptable for the second hour of the peak. Two hours of F represents an exceedence. = One hour analysis. This measure represents the first attempt to ensure uncongested conditions in the off-peak period to accommodate commercial and other regular personal business. The RTP allows in some instances (policy, impact, cost or other constraints) decisions to accept lower level of service on segments of particular facilities. This has traditionally been applied to facilities which parallel LRT corridors or in areas where their would be significant impact on the built or natural environment. I l~ r i _ 1( 'D MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council /0 FROM: Nadine Smith, Long Range Planning Supervisor DATE: April 15, 1996 SUBJECT. Metro 2040 Update D1 01 1 Following is a summary of recent events with Metro 2040 planning efforts. For more information, or questions, please contact me at 63913174, Ext 388. a New Timelines ' i One of the results of the meeting that was held in Tigard with Washington County officials and Metro, was a lengthening of the time line for consideration of the functional plan. A new schedule is attached that provides the summer months for local review with action to be taken by the Metro Council in September. Draft Functional Plan Revised drafts of the functional plan continue to come out of the Me'cro office. The latest is attached. The current draft contains both prescriptive standards and either a specific or rfonn ce standards. Part of Metro's new generalized ability for a local jurisdiction to meet pe schedule is aprovision that the drafts will stop on April 24th to allow the jurisdictions about a ' month to react and comment. g; Open House 6I Tigard participated in the Metro open house at Tualatin High School on April 2nd. Several Tigard City Councilors also attended. The open house was intended to allow a forum for public comment { on the functional plan. Tigard provided three staff people to respond to the public. We had about twenty people come by. Electronic voting took place at the meeting, but the results have not yet t been made available. CIT Meetings j Planning staff will attend CIT meetings in May to provide information and take the CITs through some exel-Uses in ar. aueiiipt to gain citizen input. 1 1 w to o 4-5 F x k l C1"i bb.D r C, UO 4-J 05 v G 4ti _ st - ~ Y 4 i s e s E wo rte _ { c N O 3 « «X O I - - W E m w w ama I Y` Y w W o.. UVpw : . Q.w? C m U a Q M m E C3 h i - ~ 1 . tl . ¢ 0 Loo 2 ~ t Q U - c- E E a ¢ p E. i d ~ J I U a o00 o nvco omo O wCf M W aO N O m ~ N p C N N 40- V U1 tcL at M CO 1! y (p fA fA V! M V) 69 fA Vl - - Z ¢v~ia 5 0 Q U ~ ~ C C S 0 7 . LL 2 L) C 4 m Mn N o o - } {-Wy o C O_ N - C 7 m N F vQm w d d om v 3 . . o j f y omir aF ~ o 3 c ~.w r c o ~ - -Y y F C7 ~ w _ , c c coL o N E CL N m.. j is ,p f QI y 3 o go0om ac) U CL C, 0 LL 0 CL (L _j Im f i ~Mmm O ~1 1 CTJ P 1 tzt U ~ V V Lr) C/~ U~ C-q Y 0 AA ~ U U U 91 S N d LI~ N O O O O O O - M M M (7 M M fH fA ffJ m - _ O N C 7 M O O O O O O 00 O O Om0 V O cf (q c! O O O O 0000 m mN O O mm m 0 m O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ - U U Kf f tMA N N N M O N - m c N (7 M f9 fH N M V to m N In m to Lo Ln m M M M M M.Q A _ N M v f9 (A f9 fR EA m fA FA 6% 69 W. w fA fR N 6% fA Y 3 O O his'' I ON c~M O o 00000000 omovovmrn O n 000000 000000 c ` L '7 (A C7 (fl o w Nrn m pj r: fA fA Nf9 d! N N m V N OOO OOO M M M M M 'C x y Q ~ fA fA FA fn fn fA to Q% H) FA .t i UJ M N M CV N 1 X.-~Nm V' (O OD X~ ~N C7 R.(D OD ~N CO ~V (O OD U U M Ln m ^ y co m N c ~ t - rn y v i w O L N c m W d U U •U L L ¢ E~ m O : L. - Q W Q ~ W C m O m L U c U lV : M 1 _ :9 f W m Z - t U's U o m> m m co d u- O m t , t a ~ Lr' III F F ~ F 111 r: E L { I 0 0 ~ m Cl) n U~ -T vl o o c _ o 0 0 a m v to v m co i E R co n ~ - t N O M ~ N N s W ¢ m: ti -CI C N lA C O O ~ k _i ~ E x z m m m co k 6 E co m rl ca ~ N cq q O N O N (`M7 V N tOD . y n d 1n V 07 n• f0 _ M N M N - C W O N O Z C rp tri n~ ci fO m V O n M O1 N C s 3 fn ^ fA N M M V G t i ! ¢ O¢ U ' 1 _ 'IT X17. In O tq ON O Ina N _ v Oy (D0 C:N NUrn ONIn nO O F W N j m N r CO:f0 t U N 6%FA MM (A q3 ~ 1 _ - E O N U N r z Z Q ~ En ° ! ` Y L j O i ll E co 0°° _ C 4 a c E m E m - lL ¢ z C U ~ U C ~ N i f: - J ° W p O O O 4'S y - U U) U i I-Cw oo-6 o ~ " tr ' I d m ~ r, n. . r 1 Q3 O bJO V~ 05 ® 4~ CA 4-j V Cn O 0 U .1-► 0-4 O ~ cn o .O O ~ rn o U ct ~ o O cu cn I.J W a~ U a~ u a~ a~ w a~ U a~ o` U 3 U3 Z O LO Q Q O_ D O O H ~ m J O C H Cc F W WO U~cn w Q U a 0 ~ O . U O O n N D co T ^ N A O O N O O O O N m C7 u N 1A am y( N N = N fA N N N (A N (9 co !A m 69 m N C ] N Cl ffY V 69 V fA a ¢ co T H o o 0 O p 0 L co ONi N O `o U p p rn w w 60, N Lm r Q f ll~ m O lNd ^ M c It it ~ o 0 O fA O 6A m ~ U C U U fA fA (A !9 df 1A 69 fp (0 R CE: O) + O } O O N O O O (o O O co N O r 'a an d co of ai E+ Q Q Q Q N t } Q Q Q C .C Z Z Z Z c In c~ m n Z Z Z o U v m of e ca m a c0 ° .n ° n r < d d a a m ° cq L L f~ N to Z Z Z Z Z to w v 'N N Q H d m d i 0 aJ [t Q v l0 1 t9 C . o N A 2 S F ~ . N o w i= '.9 'o ~ o - y H `O U~ O` C Y N N H Q N ; O ~ O O O N y y :E 2 H m 3 O O y `o ca d ti = H U d O. U D] U r~ a r h t - t ~ pM ~ m I moat(gI ( O J c n v rn - - o O M ~ N ( C~ aD ON N ~ E O O V N i ca 2 O N V ~I co ~ > tO N i4 - ~z N t Z cli - d 0 n rn co o 0 V 0 to ( co co v to C ~ m N rn E w N 't - rn V! vi - r ~ ~ fA M W .N.. R M D n T to N t0 U 6 co tm to ~ v cct 0i n l z , O a c x o rn 1 LL c Z ~ ✓ U O . u- 0 Z W t U _ 2 W U3 - O ~ H ¢ F= n' 1 2 N n U o m N C c C - l 0.~ V m o E O U p r - m cn ¢WF LU : i a o N> E 2 a U . N o. o6 p, d E S o 'm o ! 7 O¢ . W.O Z; CJ Q.. E W m o r L } F w d U a s U ll co fI1 W O cn H I ( r 111 i `Y x F 2 Z w pw ¢mop F OwF ~Qa v3v ¢ w°° O o S~ o°° g g $ 25 S o$ o$°° o Y o o g°° o >o s~- °a oyoooo oN oNOOOOO og X00000000000 oN oyooo~ooo 00 ~o c°~ c°v S w S o~oooo ~ ono Qoo 2 5 o~ yoooooo o°o~~oo o _ ro oooo00 o w s 2 S ^ ~ m ~ N w $ h W O U~ W rn y0 0 0 0 0 W w 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0~ p 0 0 0 0 0 G.- ~ r0 0 0 0 0 0 N p p 6 .O- a W H 00000 o~gooo 2S5 o„ooo§ooooooo Q Y ono ooo oo oo Q 25 ~ o~oooo Soooo QQ 22 5 5 ~Qg Qooooo00o 25 E g gQQoo oo 2 5 25 2 Q 2 5 g V i p o w p a 16 w ma' o0oo. omr`T'ognNOO 8888go ~ E m¢ ~ LL wpaL3c~g~~m ' a m s 3 m Um 20 = N ~o i i33v c N N c y 0 N ~ Wm N00 EO 0 ~ ~EC7 c~ »~~~oN _oy h `o .eN~ o~oam aSaaaa en a o n a N°oo~~ _ 2 2ma so c - ~°____===_~aa - 2v 22aa 3 :lD =1 RIH J fF•wr V> - S m as ^ - m „ ~ N N 1 t j,~yl f i s°° s ° as ^ x f Hr ~ a3 s°°. 4 o as x t , mB [ p LL w ~ ~ 8 °o $ v 3g _ 5 Lc D m 3 ;N U~2 v 22 g ¢ 2°. j. r E i ,t s°.`~ $ - ~ s pa o m ~ b ¢N - aka a a ~5 sa ~ ~ ` 4u. »8 E a E:. I y P'. e' 1 . o -i I m "t O oo IIQ O 1- n N C D Q ~ N (2 <D N II cn - - O 0 11 EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 - R O O O O) m II - 0 N ~2 N II d C if I~ ~ W O fD O l`) N 11 O . t ~ ~ N (O I, I: 0) O II W C D N t2 N II N o III II ~ _ I d 0 0 0 0 0 O O II 0 I C D O V 0 O In w O II N - m CO mr: CD V0; I 1 I{ [ n ER N II ~ 0 0 0 0 0 O II 0 N O n C A o . a r C I1 Sq f0 N ^ ~ 0 Q 0 O O m° O 00i ° II O 0 0 0 N O R - W 0 H II n I1 N 0 1 CD C7 CD I _ Q ~ f toll V~ . - ca I m W W U N. C C : p: O Z m ay y v a 0 2 O C C¢ N Q W W 0 t6 ;f O m y 0 ~ ° m (JI.'Q F Q W m . A. m C N U U 0(r<- . c:? Z C a~i ~Cc 1-Q O 0 LN ~.6..ND ~ U~Z ~Oii~l-~U 1°- 1 2 E ` ~ t c f _ 1 OOCD O o Oo o - O O O II O j n N II 0 N co t0 l to m (D II G N N II N Ffl 6% iR 11 N to OOO O i; O OO ;i O - o^ N~ 0 CI °v c jj N O n c O II v I~ n 1 O) O O N O In t N r II ~ 11 H _ O O O O 00 OJ (n O N H H 71 i a ;i (131 11 0 CD O c) N t a -or II ~ to - it I' y O O O O 1 i O O O 11 0 w I• O N vi O O W a0 m 0 C P- m O II to I N N N II N I R 11 2 to II 6H II M . a _ - 00000 O 00.11° co N ~ O C6 m c I~ v IC0 11 m C O O 'o ;I (ND N v ~ Vf C7 11 H 61C6 4 II j - O O O O I I O O O ; O j - R O II o co t°D c00 CD O W ~ _ ! ~ O ~ 0 I cn m v rn I I O O O N 11 I- ¢ rn H v ~ n v y L m 69 (n a sA m - O Im d v. N U- n N rn N 'OC 0 w N V Y N N m w U- c U0- ~ s V) T o E a _o U W 4 2 w ~ Npo 0d y,~ d N H a cr ` c a) Er m a 3 N 1 c~ir ° d ~ c C7F- Q z H~ 0 p N Z Q c m t a 2 m 0 0 0 c m W> c x m > O w¢ o m ) > c K 1>1 .0 S ¢ d m 0 D a p }¢F d co >OccaU 'm o zz Urn F w viz ¢ t°- ~ z ;ra I I 1 -J sTO o o I o 5 ti 0 0 0 0 0 ? o - 0 0 0 0 0 o i0 1 v o - V i N _ 0 0 0 0 0 Z O O 00000 O 7 T N l n - o ~tNnm~t,can o m f v + N - 00000 i O 00000 . O O O Ql In v to G N h O N - f. < cli rn r o O al t I C7 n clr - 0 00 ' rn O O00 ~D m N tl1 n O m O E N 7 0 V - m f ^ O Ln rn r 7 co rn clj 03. 0 0 0 0 o t o 0 0 0 co O 0 0 0 N ~t - R R 1~.Oi Imo ' - O> O ttI O n c_ N ! R Err fR m 'n cD (3 c, o i W O~ m 0 0 u) rn Q C7 m O O ~ t U w n ¢ g m oo z 0 LL d m ¢.2 0 U y - t U ` Q mc Ed c U O U W Q a rn 12, { ~I 8 48 )0-.. i$ ca m of o 1 -7 o ii F Onm Nm i to to jj - M V' M i a N 11 69 cH fA 00000 O O 11 O ~ O O O O O 1 0 O O a0 M N C, m m r vmfOMu m 0) 1 N _ O co to M m v 1 (O O nIco f9 o°O°Oo0 °o o O O lT V m N V' co Q 6a c7i O 1 rn a II m m c0D 0) rl. i co m ii C4 • Ir ii i II It O O O O ; O O II 00 rnm~a to I'ro c 0 0 N O c2 N cq II to - : m co CD 9.- Ln II O ' EA 11 ~i O O O O O 1 O O fl O i,.. co N c°o m cODc i N m II m co In m to it t0 Sri: rn to m f, M v II fA t d 6% l Q> 11 - Z 0 0 0 O i O o II O c > n t- COD, `?co ~ i 0 I (D W m IY <D N co O V N ' co O W m V co r- O 11 t ~ rn cm ' II Q'. ~ 1r r. (f) c m' I u. r.. ul 0 U m m °c •S p (f) O p W v ¢w° p m ¢ d m x r F- ¢ E Oafw U m E d o 0 E ca a) Ufa US_ H Z ¢ i L 2 1 1 2 v 0 0 0 0 O I O O ; O O ~ C6 1 N O O C V It N cl vrON t0 N II 7 in I Fp clf Q O I ~ (p 11 N cli . C\j O O O O O 1 0 I O II p p II p O 0 0 0 0 0 o N s{ O O 1 W O ii O (O u1 O O (D II s n ~ n .mi ~ O I Nn N II N - m V _ - - O F O) (O lt) I (V II n t0 V j - CD C\F 'o 03. ~ OOOOO I O O co I II O I O - 0 O N N, i S O C I O O O V o R o N O I N R m c i (m7 N N I (o m co cm N I R p (o ( V C7 I m - f9 69 I 4 t I O O O o g. i o c:5 O i - - m m N O° m i to - co O I I ID co co I co O o O j I O co cl N O N II co ( cO N f0 I O i co O ' c4 ,F % I~ V - ' II 613. - O O o o O O I O II O O I ~ O co tq n I. (o c' co 00 a) co m N II c' - T i co V w) N N ' V I (7 N 1 m - M 1 I O 1 [7 NfJi ~ v 00 o00 I O 1 O ~I O O O r ff (n 0 0 0 0 0 0 N C1 m con I co O II 0 Ch II o i O o N . z rn ~ Wtu~ IT rn v) II n cm I o n t uj i ' d V to [i3 II vi k.. C LLl W l N Ca _ Q. W o i•. •2 r... N t M - 0 (A H W •m D N C N m v Q W Q ~.aQ ~ 0 U) m Q.- L U > ¢ Q m CD X C O z . = r a U. E C N d C W j OW ¢ IS O y ~ p" E Earn O Q 2 > : N p o 0 ) - ° z ~J I h i i I Q~ r C v C d E d o► c Q J 3 } I I w . . n . Y W O g d 22 h , g~a, gg N ryry ~.~~Qji pm~ app o W U Q 4 7~ a Ix s Sy ' ~ 1 LL99 ~ b ~ b N g ~ 5 ~ n n p a. m w m m ~ ~ ^ a w n N. } q ,~Tb li~ v i -I 1 1 7 C 1~• ICI G~ L-- - 2 m tltltl w . Y - ® O F C cc ~ p p f ® R a A fi A A $ $1 fi t 3 ~ fi R fi S : S A V, CP l~ Po 0 I I C F- G d cc C a I s L- u i < ~ Y V M Y y W N 0 8. 8 8 o. o v .9- ti.- g : j55~ n H i m ] 111 4 3 9 C S g 3 „ y y+ tl (mp 1wr p~ pp pp i f f f j ® 4 l I of k a R - {{t RORTM tAfT GRAMO AVLMYf TORT L A M O. O R L O O R S.. I - - iLL fOR >fi I>00 TAIL SOR lfT I>R> } M E T R O April 10, 1996 APR 1 o 1995 ; Mayor Jim Nicoll City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear M r Nicoli: Several local elected officials and administrators in attendance at a recent meeting in Tigard expressed concern about Metro's distribution of materials regarding Phase I of the Regional Framework Plan. I was reminded that most mayors and city council members are part-time public servants, and we at Metro _ must keep this in mind as it relates to the timely receipt of draft documents for your review. t Document Distribution Routing Request in response to this concern, I have - enclosed a form which requests some direction from you about the distribution of forthcoming Phase 1 Regional Framework Plan documents. 3 Please indicate your preference about how you would like documents - distributed (e.g., send all documents to your Planning Director and have him/her distribute copies to you, or have Metro send you documents directly.) We will customize the distribution of documents in response to your request. Lj MPAC Working Draft The scheduled release of the MPAC working draft of the Phase I Regional Framework Plan is Wednesday, April 24. ' This draft will supersede all other discussion drafts of the Plan, and will be the working document on which the Metro Growth Management Committee, MPAC, and local jurisdictions will comment until June 1996. f J The final draft of the Phase 1 Regional Framework Plan (with comments 2 a I incorporated) is scheduled to be reviewed for final adoption by the Metro Council in June. r 4 Briefings on Phase I by Metro to City CounciWPlanning Commissions. Metro recognizes that some jurisdictions are not directly represented at MPAC and many cannot regularly attend MPAC meetings. This has led to some feelings of disenfranchisement from Metro. • In response to this concern, Metro will have staff available to attend your city council or planning commission meeting(s) and provide a briefing on issues related to Phase 1 of the Regional Framework Plan. • The enclosed form asks that you notify me of your interest in having a Metro staff member provide a briefing and the date(s) of your council/commission meeting(s) when the Regional Framework Plan is on the agenda. I hope that this letter is responsive to your concerns and needs. I am committed to assisting you on local implementation of the 2040 growth concept. Please take a moment to fill out the routin9leauest form/oaestionnaire and return it to Fla my office (fax 797-1799)_ If you have any questions or further thoughts about how we can work together better, contact Karen Blauer directly at 797-1790. s Best Regards, Mike Burton, Executive Officer Enclosure: Routing Request Form/Questionnaire E d . n r. M ETRO MELRO DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION ROUTING REQUEST _ FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS P ~ Name: Elected Position: Jurisdiction: Phone Numbers: (home) (work) Address to which materialsfdocuments for your review should be sent Name of City/County official responsible for planning function: h~ ' ~ ~~ti c ~r1 n rs ~ • . f t Scheduled meeting date to review Phase 1 Regional Framework Plan in your jurisdiction: I Planning Commission: F i. City Council: Would you like Metro staff to present information about Phase 1 at these meetings? t If yes, who should Metro contact with local jurisdiction to make arrangements? 1 Please fax your request form to Mike Burton at Metro (7974799). g j Questions? Contact Karen Blauer @ 797-1790-. f C> r r'r TO: Tigard city Council FROM: Tigard Youth Center Task Force-Jack Schwab. Chair RE: PSU Feasibility Study and Next Steps The Task Force has reviewed the Feasibility Study. and based on its findings believes the Youth Center has promise. The next step would be to further test the concept with community leaders and parents. In order to generate excitement for the discussion. gain feedback, and gauge potential support, the Task Force believes a specific 'straw-man' proposal is needed. The Task Force sees the Citrus leadership as the key to making the Center _a_ reality and requests your approval to take the ollowing action: Cmate a "straw-man" facility proposal that would be presented to a Community Leaders Forum and a series of parent focus groups in May for reaction, ideas, and support ® The 'straw-man" facility proposal would include these elements: -Use the city's $100.000 'seed money" to construct 'Phase 1' of the Center and to attract matching dollars and/or -construction gills' of materials and labor. 'Phase 1" would include the core facility-youth meeting rooms. office. restrooms, and recreation room. Additionally. 'Phase l' would have an outdoor'high play sports court that would be partially enclosed by covered link fencing. -Use Cook Park as the Center's location -Use the YMCA as 'lease management agent to staff the Center. -Use City Recreation budget dollars, user fees. and other fundraising to cover operation costs. -Use the Community Development Block Grant process to advance the Center. i ! With your approval, the Task Force will develop this 'straw=man' proposal within the next three weeks with help from architects and planners for presentation to the community groups. '.a w~ I Agenda hem N9. 3 I ( TIGARD YOUTH CENTER Meeting of ' Ito l it i , FEASIBILITY STUDY by Planning Analysis Students at j - Portland State University report prepared by 4 i Tom Carter • Lisa Nasshahn • Ramona Ruark r 1. PROBLEM STATEMENT i - - The Tigard Community Youth Task Force, an ad hoc community group, perceives the , j need for a recreational youth center in the City of Tigard - "a safe, accessible, and exciting facility n " where all of Tigard's youth can participate in after-school, evening, and weekend programs offering structured social, athletic, and other life-enriching events and experiences." The work of the Task Force arises from concerns that youth in Tigard do not receive adequate services and support from the community. In particular, "latch-key" middle-schoolers after school hours and high-schoolers on weekends appear to have the greatest likelihood of c' engaging in undesirable behavior due to the lack of constructive activities available to them. The T k F as orce decided the best way to serve these interests is to provide after-school and weekend recreational activities at a multi-use facility- The Task Force conducted a survey of about 3,400 middle- and high-school students in ' January, 1995, to measure student interest in the teen center proposal and to determine specific ' activities that would interest the students. Relatively high levels of interest (over 50°/a) were - expressed for virtually all suggested activities. Over 50% of the students also believed they would patronize such a facility regularly. While these results are encouraging with respect to a teen ' center s viability, they are neither sufficiently comprehensive nor reliable to move forward with a teen center plan. - j The Task Force has developed three goals. First, the Task Force wants to plan and develop a project to serve the youth of the Tigard area, a project including a multi-use facility. Second, the Task Force identifies its target audience as middle-school and high-school youth in ' the greater Tigard area. And third, the Task Force intends the project to be developed and f supported by public-private partnerships and to be governed by a non-profit organization. The f { Task Force believes the best approach to meeting these goals is to build a facility to be operated by an established, successful program provider, such as the Boys & Girls Clubs of America or the YMCA Because the Task Force is uncertain about the level of public support, youth interest, and possible programs, it approached Portland State University for assistance in analyzing the J situation and studying the feasibility of its proposed teen center. This feasibility study is being s 1 f Z,r r f r- g , 2 conducted by the students of the Planning Analysis class, who are enrolled in the Masters of Urban and Regional Planning program. The primary goal of this feasibility study is to assess whether the Task Forces teen center - proposal can be successfully implemented given present conditions in Tigard. ® H. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED In order to evaluate the proposal adequately, it is helpfid to consider other possible actions in comparison to the proposed action. This study considers four alternative courses of action, which are: • No action, • Enhance and coordinate existing programs, • Modify teen center according to findings, or j • Build teen center as proposed. j The study also considers what would be needed to make the proposed teen center or the enhanced existing programs viable in Tigard. i III. METHODS OF STUDY AND FINDINGS The investigation focused on the following key information needs: - • Tigard's demographics • Existing services and programs 7~ -7 • Youth and parental attitudes • Community support ' • Characteristics of successful programs elsewhere • Availability of suitable sites in Tigard • Accessibility. _ Task teams formed to tvllwt the necessary information Some teams concentrated on existing data sources, such as literature concerning recreation centers and Census information. Others gathered primary data from expert interviews; middle-school, high-school, and parental 3 focus groups; a land-use survey; and accessibility surveys. Each team's results are presented in { the Appendices. I E i IV. EVALUATION CRITERIA In order to be able to compare among the proposed actions, evaluation criteria are needed. The criteria considered by this project were: A. Community Supnort - • Is there a need or demand for a center? • Do youth and parents think center is a good idea? • Do community and political leaders support project? (city hall, school district, police, civic leaders, church leaders) - . Is the community willing to invest in the center? (time, energy & money) ` B. Financial Feasibility P f • Can center or programs attract individual, corporate, or government funding? ~ Are youth and parents willing to pay for . programs and how much. • What are the costs to implement? • Is program financially sustainable? C. Administrative/PrograMmafic Issues • Can program/center be operated with minimum startup costs and overhead? • Can program attract staff with appropriate skills and experience? 1 y . Can volunteers be used to carry out services? • Will center meet the needs of the youth? Will center programs conflict with existing services? • Can program or center be made adaptable to changing social, cultural and economic W' needs of Tigard's current and future population of youth? j D. Accessibility . Is site location accessible to youth? • Will hours of operation serve youth? ` • Can transportation be made available to youth (bike, walk, bus, car, wheelchair)? E. ui ~ Can services be made available to all youth, including under-served youth? • Can any physical barriers to participate be minimized? ~ • Can any financial barriers to participate be minimized? Can any cultural or social barriers to participate be minimized? r x t- There are a wide variety of activities available for middle-school adn high-school youth. Programs include: art literacy homework club tutoring chess club j cooking computer games reading club sign language trading card club dance team technology club basketball indoor soccer volleyball wrestling mentorships FOCUS & ABLE music classes drama (student-student & :i ...~_.Y~r~....-.:.... ndtdt-youth" j tuacaaanuvc a:uuwuvu 1.»».~ ~ s These activities are provided for free or a minimal fee (i.e. $10 per activity). Some scholarships are also available. Hazelbrook Middle School offers activities Monday-Thursday and provides free transportation to activities. E B. Athletic Program C Only Tigard High School offers a formal sports program during fall, winter, and spring terms. Sports are organized by freshman, junior varsity, and varsity levels. Programs for girls and boys include: basketball, soccer, tennis, swimming, and ski club. Programs for boys only include: 6 Football, wrestling, and water polo. Volleyball is offered to girls only. Youth are charged $100 per sport and must pay for their own shoes and supplies. Waivers are available for hardship or for students who receive a fee or reduced lunch. C. Summer Camps One week of summer activities are organized by Tigard schools. In addition, a one to two a week sports program is available for high school students. r D. ; Existing Recreational and Community Centers Tigard Swim Center 5 1. Bus service between locations in the Tigard-Tualatin area is inconvenient and time- consuming. 2. There are relatively few through streets in the area, which indicates bicyclists and ` pedestrians would travel the heavily used arterials, sharing the road with fast moving automobile and truck traffic. f I / VI. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS ` A. Accessibility is an issue in the choice of alternatives and in the siting of the center, sF.ould this alternative be chosen. o.a.. , Z Tigard-Tualatin is a largo area O a....a6 center .:y1 not u,, ..y... uy ..,v= convenient for all users. - . t i 4. Younger users will not have drivers' licenses, nor will all users have access to automobiles. Provision of a shuttle bus service between schools and the youth center should be studied. ss 6 5. A downtown site is the most accessible location. B. Initial funding will likely be difficult to acquire for the Youth center. 1. Voters have already defeated a previous bond measure for a youth facility. ( III 2. Other funding sources, such as charitable foundations, may be unwilling to fund an unproven program. 3. In Tigard support from private donors for non-structured youth programs and capital campaigns has been limited. 4. The purchase of buildable land and cost of construction of a new youth center will re sire the accumulation of a large sum of money before any work on the center can q begin. Prices for undeveloped land in our survey ranged from $90,000 to S 150,000 per acre. A 9,000 square foot commercial building downtown was assessed at 5610,000. k . E` C. Parents involved in a focus group expressed interest in ayouth center. G 1. Parents would like to see programs for children who may not be interested in or good at sports. 2. There is concern that some families cannot afford to pay for their children to participate in after school sports. 3. Parents insist on adequate supervision of their children. i 1 I uicnr to nang vur wttn tnerr menus, uo nomewont, usten to 1.Ls or watcn viaeos, participate in pick-up sports games. 4. Ye Lh w k ewe au*o.^. o.^..y p .c,-;cal. E. Tigard-Tualatin has main existing W2rts programs and after school classes l 1 i . u 1. Many students now participate in structured sports programs. 2. Gym space in the schools is presently fully utilized by school sports programs. 3. School facilities are heavily used after school hours. F. Experts from other Northwest youth centers recommend starting sall 1. Experts recommend starting small and expanding the program as needs and opportunities arise. 2. Many programs depend on a mixture of public and private support. 3. It is important that the community supports the program both politically and financially. 4. Kids must be involved in designing and adapting the program-they need to feel a sense of responsibility and ownership in the center. 5. Volunteer involvement is important to the success of the program. s -1 2. Implement the youth center as proposed by the Task Force 3. Expand existing programs, and 4. Open a youth center, but in a form modified from that proposed by the Task Force . A. No Action We do not recommend the alternative of no action because we have found there is a need for a youth facility. Parents and students indicate a center would be welcome and that present sports and after school programs, while heavily used by some students, fail to reach a significant population of students. After-school programs are set up by adults and kids are required to participate in very structured ways. For classes and sports programs they are required to arrive at a specific time, participate in previously determined activities, and leave once the activity is done. A further constraint is the ! cost of participating in sports programs. Students have expressed a desire for a place to meet with fiends, hang out and participate in activities which they themselves determine, such as watch videos, listen to CDs, play video games, and games such as foosball and pool. B. Expand Existing Programs We have found that public school facilities are presently fully utilized. Gymnasium space is unavailable for further programs because of the needs of currently existing programs. We have noted that even classroom space is heavily used after school hours. Our conclusion is that it would be difficult to expand existing programs because of a lack of physical space for new programs. C. Build the Youth Center as Proposed Building a new youth center is an attractive idea. It could have new gymnasium space, rooms for clubs, classes and "hanging out," and offices for professional staff. However, given the previous failure of voters to support a bond measure fora youth center and the fact that construction of a new building with full gymnasium facilities will require a large sum of money, we recommend that the Task Force shelve this option, at least for now. To begin with such a l major capital investment without a program, a proven clientele, or performance record risks failure. ; Such a course may lead to the center beginning its life with major indebtedness, which would create financial barriers that it may be unable to overcome. l 1 t E i I 8 D. Open a Modified Youth Center We recommend the Task Force should start small, especially considering the recent failure of voters to pass a measure to fund a youth center. Beginning Ath a --M-!ler pilot project will. allow the program to find its niche, its clientele and a volunteer base. Funding may well be more forthcoming for a program which has demonstrated its viability and found community support. The youth center program should begin by meeting community needs one at a time; rather than trying to meet all youth needs at once. A more modest program gives the center some time to build community investment and involvement and to assemble political and financial support. Beginning with a pilot project allows the Task Force to test the idea of a youth center and do more research to determine if a new youth center facility should be built. Young people should be brought into the planning as early as possible. This sort of beginning will give time to discover what kind of physical amenities the building should contain and what sort of programs draw youth 1 to the center. It will also allow youth to be more involved in its operation and thus encourage greater "buy-m." I We recommend the Task Force find a suitable, already-existing building to lease while the k program is getting on its feet. We suggest the Task Force-consider the alternative of a center with space for kids of different age groups to have rooms to themselves, as well as space open to f everyone. Kids should be involved with painting and famishing their own rooms, as well as forming committees to determine what videos to watch and how the CD player can be shared i - fairly. The center must be operated by professional staff but we suggest rooms be staffed by _ i students trained as peer counselors with additional training in conflict resolution so students will have the opportunity and the tools to resolve conflicts in the use of shared space themselves, rather than having to have adults constantly involved. The facility would ideally also have some { outdoor space for fair-weather recreation (such as basketball). i Teens expressed a desire to have food and drink available. The center should be a safe place for students to meet and hang out with their friends. It could be used for dances on Friday nights as well as a place for students to do their homework. Youth and staff together might propose and implement programs such as classes or field trips. While the center should be closely supervised, with professional staff, middle and high school kids need opportunities for autonomy. The program could be structured to allow the kids i opportunities to construct self-determined programs and to take responsibility for themselves, their peers, their program and their space. Such a center would allow kids to hang out in a safe place and would allow them to gain skills in leadership and negotiation as they take on the work ! of making the facility work for themselves and their peers. E. Recommendations for Further Research I We recommend that while the pilot project is ongoing, the Task Force direct further research to determine whether a new youth center building is needed and can be funded. We strongly suggest using further focus groups to ascertain community needs and interests, but also to generate interest and investment in the idea of a youth center. Discussions should be held with l ` t ! 1 9 i stakeholders such as parents, students, and community service organizations to build interest and ( support for the center. The Task Force should look into potential funding sources, such as _ private corporations and businesses in the area, charitable foundations, a new bond measure. O Research should be done to.determine if Tigard/Tualatin will soon be built-out. This will help the Task Force le---. fil:.a is likely io bean increasing need for a youth center because malty more families with children will be moving to the area, or if the population will be likely to be "aging in place" pointing to a decreasing future need for a youth center. A pilot project will give the Task Force time to build your program as well as building community, political and financial support. The Task Force will be able to complete further research about the feasibility and support for a new youth center building with amenities such as a gymnasium and other sports facilities. The Task Force will also be able to begin a viable funding drive, since you will have a credible program already in place. Because of the pilot project and the research y have done you will be able to inform voters and other funding sources exactly what ovill be done with their money and why the center is needed. While the Task Force pursues the = goal of a new youth center building a pilot project will allow you to begin to address the youth needs with which you are concerned. x m Mil y % ~ it