City Council Packet - 02/26/2002
Dri na.L
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TIGAD CITY COUNCIL
FETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
COUNCIL MEETING ILL BE TELEVISED
H:4eannie%docskcpM3
131225 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
6111 0:
G,; Ad
IRS"
%
I,.F`,-~pq✓-v Y1.,gy _ SY CITY OF TIGARD
eY3~~-C)',
OREGON!
Yr' (s/'~,.'fi/S~+Z.'.1tt~c ■ppy'y Zt l +^u Set M.nQ'
Ww"WC
7`! f~/rlf-s5 T'/~i7A-~~'nlfI lxq~~2l XF.S h R7
a
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 Manager.
Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present
by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard
in any order after 7:30 mm.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be
scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please
call 503-639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;
and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow
as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the
Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, x309 (voice) or 503-684-
2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 page 'I
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
6:30 PM
• STUDY SESSION
> PREVIEW A REVISION TO CITYWIDE PERSONNEL POLICIES
UPDATING FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go Into Executive Session. If an
Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced
identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may
disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to
attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any
information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any
final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
7:30 PM
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council az Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications 8L Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
7:35 PM
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
7:40 PM
3. PROCLAMATION:
a. Days of Remembrance, April 7 - 14, 2002
7:45 PM
4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted
in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be
removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
4.1 Approve Council Minutes for November 27, December 11, December 18,
2001 and January 8, 2002
COUNCIL AGENDA -FEBRUARY 26, 2002: page 2
4.2 Approve an Updated Lease with Loaves and Fishes for the Use of the Tigard
Senior Center
4.3 Adopt a Resolution Recognizing Transfer of juvenile Caseload to the Municipal
Covet - Resolution No. 02 - lP
4.4 Approve Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency joint Funding Agreement
® Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested
to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered
immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need
discussion.
7:50 PM
S. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING THE WASHINGTON SQUARE
REGIONAL CENTER PLAN, AND AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
b. Staff Recommendation
C. Council Discussion
d. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 02 - 13
e. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 02 - J
8:50 PM
6. UPDATE FROM THE NEW TIGARD LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE
a. Staff Introduction: Library Staff
b. Presentation by the New Tigard Library Construction Committee
C. Council Discussion
9:00 PM
7. UPDATE ON INSURANCE OPTIONS
a. Staff Report: Administration Staff
b. Council Discussion
9:15 PM
8. OVERVIEW OF THE CITY'S ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff
b. Council Discussion
9:30 PM
9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:35 PM
10. NON AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 page 3
9:40 PM
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If
an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be
announced identifying the applicable statute. Ali discussions are confidential and
those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news
media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3),
but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held
for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive
Sessions are closed to the public.
9:50 PM
12. ADJOURNMENT
I: W D WCATHY\CCA\020226.D0C
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 page 4
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS FOR REVIEW
FEBRUARY 26 2002
The Study Session is held in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. Enter at the back of Town Hall. The
Council encourages Interested citizens to attend all or part of the meeting. If the number of attendees exceeds
the capacity of the Conference Room, the Council may move the Study Session to the Town Hall.
a STUDY SESSION
• Preview a Revision to Citywide Personnel Policies Updating Family and Medical Leave
• Washington Square Regional Center Plan
Discuss Public Testimony
Discuss Findings on Statewide Planning Goals
• Minor Change in first paragraph of joint Funding Agreement - Item 4.4
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an
Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced
Identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may
disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to
attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any
Information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any
final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
D Executive Session -
The Public Meetings, Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain
limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" Is defined as "any meeting or part of
a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain
matters."
Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions:
192.660 (1) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents,
If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites.
192.660(l) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests
to have an open hearing).
1192.6600) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital.
192.660 (1) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this Instance.)
192.660 (1) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations.
192.660(l) (0- Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from
public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon
Revised Statutes.
192-660(l) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the
governing body is competing with other governing bodies.
192.660 (1) (h) - Legal counsel - Executive session are appropriate for consultation with
counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or
litigation likely to be filed.
192.660 (1) (1) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy
directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related
performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or
staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The
standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief
executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open
to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment.
192.660 (1) (1) - Public Investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with
private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or
liquidation of public investments.
192.660 (1) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board.
I ADM\C THMOUNCIUCCUSTMOC
Agenda Item No. 14Meeting of
4 • a 3.O
MINUTES
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
February 26, 2002
• STUDY SESSION
Meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.
Council Present: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Patton, and
Scheckla
> PREVIEW A REVISION TO CITYWIDE PERSONNEL POLICIES
UPDATING FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
Human Resources Director Zodrow and Human Resources Senior Analyst
Burbank introduced this agenda item. A copy of the staff report is on file in
the City Recorder's office. Ms. Zodrow and Ms. Burbank previewed revisions
to Resolution No 00-08, Citywide Policies to update the provisions for family
and medical leave.
> WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN
It was noted the public hearing on the Washington Square Regional Plan was
closed. Council decided it would allow testimony from Bill Adams including
allowing him to submit his testimony if he is in attendance at tonight's business
meeting. (The written testimony for Mr. Adams was submitted by attorney
Ross Day and is dated February 26, 2002. This testimony is on file in the
City Recorder's office). No other testimony will be allowed.
Mr. Hendryx advised that the findings include statewide goal information. (See
memorandum dated February 26, 2002, from Community Development
Director Hendryx to the Tigard City Council regarding "Findings on Statewide
Goals" on file in the City Recorder's office.)
> Council reviewed minor wording changes to the Joint Funding Agreement
(Agenda Item 4.4); changes included adding Raleigh and Clackamas water
agencies.
> Council discussed a lunch to be held by Tualatin Valley Fire ex Rescue on
March 5, 2002.
> City Manager Monahan briefly reviewed highlights of his recent USAid trip to
Samarinda, Indonesia, and the memorandum of understanding developed to
assist the City and County (Kutai) with local government services.
COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 page 1
Meeting recessed at 7 p.m.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8t Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.416 Council Communications 8T Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
7:35 PM
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
® Carl Hosticka, Metro Council Presiding Officer, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland,
OR 97232, was present to clarify the intent of a Metro Council resolution
referring a measure to the voters on the May ballot. This proposed measure
would amend the Metro Charter to require the Metro Council to amend the
Regional Framework Plan to support the character of identified inner and outer
neighborhoods. (See February 19, 2002, letter on file in the City Recorder's
office, which was written to the Mayor and City Council from Mr. Hosticka.)
Brenda Bernard, Metro Senior Planner, was also present and described the
difference between inner and outer neighborhoods. Council discussed the difficulty
this type of ballot measure represents for the Council as it considers the
Washington Square Regional Center: Metro states it supports regional centers and
existing density criteria, yet the message of the ballot title is that Metro has strong
concerns about existing neighborhoods.
® lack Polans, SW Queen Victoria, King City, OR 97224, requested that Consent
Agenda Item Nos. 4.3 and 4.4 be removed from the Consent Agenda and
discussed separately. (These items were considered at the end of the meeting.)
Dan Duffy (no address given) advised he was representing his neighborhood, which
would like to be excluded from the Washington Square Regional Center plans.
Mr. Duffy's neighborhood is located in Washington County (not in the City of
Tigard).
Steve Schopp, 10475 SW Helenius Road, Tualatin, OR 97062, said Mr.
Hosticka's comments opened up the record on the Washington Square Regional
Plan. He said that the proposed ballot title from Metro was done to oppose and
defeat a ballot measure from Oregonians in Action.
COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 page 2
3. PROCLAMATION - Mayor Griffith issued the following proclamation:
a. Days of Remembrance, April 7 - 14, 2002
4. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor
Scheckla, to adopt the Consent Agenda (with Item Nos. 4.3 and 4.4 pulled for
consideration at the end of the meeting).
4.1 Approve Council Minutes for November 27, December i i, December 18,
2001 and January 8, 2002
4.2 Approve an Updated Lease with Loaves and Fishes for the Use of the Tigard
Senior Center
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present:
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
4.3 Adopt a Resolution Recognizing Transfer of Juvenile Caseload to the Municipal
Court - Resolution No. 02 - (Considered at end of meeting.)
4.4 Approve Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency Joint Funding Agreement
(Considered at end of meeting.)
5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING THE WASHINGTON SQUARE
REGIONAL CENTER PLAN, AND AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
The public record was opened for the narrow purpose of accepting a letter
from Mr. Ross Day, attorney for Mr. Bill Adams. The February 26, 2002,
letter is on file in the City Recorder's office.
Mr. Bill Adams, 7889 SW Birdshill Court, Portland, OR 97223, outlined his
concerns with the "downzoning" of his property because of the MUI.-2
requirements that both business and residential components must be available
in this zone's developments.
COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 page 3
Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed the issues raised during
previous public testimony. These issues were addressed in a February 1,
2002, memorandum to Council, which is on file In the City Recorder's office.
Community Development Director Hendryx confirmed that Beaverton and
Washington County will hold public hearings for the properties of the
Washington Square Regional Center Plan that are in those jurisdictions.
City Attorney Ramis responded to the earlier comment (Schopp - Visitor's
Agenda) that comments from Metro Councilor Hosticka constituted opening
the public record. Mr. Ramis advised that the comments from the Metro
Hosticka are not part of this record, nor will they be part of the consideration
by Council. The information presented by staff was not new material.
There was further discussion on zoning and the boundaries affected by the
Plan.
b. Staff Recommendation: To Implement the Washington Square Regional Plan,
Comprehensive Plan, and Development Code Amendments (proposed
resolution). To adopt the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments (proposed ordinance).
C. Council Discussion
Council Patton noted issues she had about upzoning in the floodplain and
wetland areas. She noted her concern that mitigation of wetlands does not
have to take place in the same area that has been impacted. She said she was
pleased that the impacts to existing residential area were limited. She said she
was troubled where there were requirements that commercial areas must also
try to find room for residential use. She noted that infrastructure funding
cannot be implemented up front, but there is a blueprint contained in the Plan
outlining what is needed. The Plan makes no assumptions about were funding
should come from and she noted it is difficult to anticipate availability of state
or federal funding. She said the bottom line is that a Plan is needed and she
thinks this is a good Plan. She said areas that needed closer scrutiny included
the upzoning in the flood plain and the changes proposed for requiring
residential uses that were predominantly commercial before.
Councilor Scheckla noted his agreement with Council Patton's remarks.
Councilor Dirksen agreed that this is a blueprint that can be implemented when
a property owner chooses to develop in this area. This won't happen
"tomorrow" - it's a 20-year plan.
COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 page 4
Councilor Moore thanked the Task Force and the Subcommittees for their
work. He agreed with Councilor Dirksen In that this area will redevelop In time
and it's important to have a plan for an organized redevelopment. He referred
to the process that was done to create this plan, Including the recommendation
by the Task Force and the Planning Commission. He said the Plan represents a
"living document" that can be adjusted as needed.
Mayor Griffith also noted agreement with Councilor Dirksen's comments about
the Plan being implemented only as property owners decide to develop. He
also agreed it was important to have a plan in place.
Councilor Scheckla referred to some potential new "vertical zoning"
applications that could be of benefit to the area. He recommended the
Council take a slower approach in order to eliminate any potential hardships.
Community Development Director explained building within wetland areas and
how densities are computed. The Plan offers flexibility to lessen standards if
the development will impact or eliminate wetlands. The zoning meets density
targets and establishing minimum densities is important. In response to
Councilor Patton, Community Development Director advised that, if parts of
the Plan are not workable, then the Council could reevaluate and changes
could be made to the Plan.
Motion by Councilor Dirksen, seconded by Councilor Moore, to forward a
letter to the City of Beaverton and Washington County that when they
consider the Plan they consider excluding areas in which zoning is not affected.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present:
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
d. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Dirksen, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-12, with the revised findings as submitted by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-12 - A RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING THE
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN INCLUDING
ZONING, DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS ADOPTED PREVIOUSLY BY ORDINANCE NO.00-1 B.
COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2E:, 2002 page 5
The motion was approved by a majority (4-1) vote of Council present:
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - No
e. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Dirksen, to adopt
Ordinance No. 02-12, with the revised findings as submitted by staff.
ORDINANCE NO. 02-12 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES FOR
THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER (CPA 2001-
00002/ZOA 2001-00002).
The motion was approved by a majority (4-1) vote of Council present:
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - No
Council meeting recessed: 9:55 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened 10:09 p.m.
6. UPDATE FROM THE NEW TIGARD LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE
Library Director Margaret Barnes presented the staff report, which is on file with the
City Recorder.
7. UPDATE ON INSURANCE OPTIONS
Risk Manager Loreen Mills and ]BL8zK's Public Entity Division Manager Ron Graybeal
presented the update to the City Council. A summary of the information reviewed
with regard to the self-insurance review is on file in the City Recorder's office. The
conclusion of the review was that the City should remain traditionally insured.
COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 page 6
8. OVERVIEW OF THE CITY'S ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (This item was set
over to the March 26, 2002, City Council meeting.)
> CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (Continued from earlier In the meeting - See Page 3)
4.3 Adopt a Resolution Recognizing Transfer of Juvenile Caseload to the Municipal
Court - Resolution No. 02 - 13
City Manager Monahan reviewed previous Council discussions on this matter.
In response to questions from Mr. Jack Polans, Councilor Patton reviewed the
advantages for the City of Tigard to consider some juvenile cases in the
Municipal Court. Costs for this transfer will be absorbed in the current budget.
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt
Resolution No. 02-13.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-13 - A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE
TRANSFER OF LIMITED JUVENILE CASELOAD FROM THE
WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENT TO THE TIGARD
MUNICIPAL COURT.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present:
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
4.4 Approve Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency Joint Funding Agreement
For the benefit of Mr. Jack Polaris who asked for clarification on this agenda
item, Councilor Patton and Public Works Director Wegner reviewed the history
of this agenda item, which had been before the Council several times for
discussion. The purpose of the agreement is to explore the feasibility to form a
regional drinking water agency.
Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve the
joint funding agreement.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present:
COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 page 7
Mayor Griffith - Yes
Councilor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Patton - Yes
Councilor Scheckla - Yes
9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None
10. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled
12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:44 PM
Attest: atherine Wheatley, City corder
yo 'it of gard
ate:
1 AADM\CATHY\CCM\020228. D OC
COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2002 page 8
AR
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
A MAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
STA'L'E OF OREGON }
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, _ 6' A begin first duly sworn, on oath,
depose and say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s) 02- -/Z
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated 2 - Z !o D Z- copy(s)
of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _
o~ B day of rid ru , 20 D L
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Water Department, 5777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon
Al_~
! Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of r1Ct r~1 , 20.
i
Notary Public f egon
OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission Expires: -5/7 /Ct~':?
DIANE M JELDERKS
` NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES S807, 2003
' • Attachment 2
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 02- (Revised)
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHANGES FOR THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER (CPA2001-
00002/ZOA2001-0'
WHEREAS, The City Council adopted the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, Zone change,
Comprehensive Plan text changes and Development Code text- changes in March, 2000 but delayed
implementation until recommendations on several areas of concerns could be developed; and
WHEREAS, The Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Task Force has met to discuss
the recommendations and has prepared a report which includes conclusions and recommendations. for
the successful implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force recommended several changes to the Development Code and
Comprehensive Plan text that was previously adopted; and
WHEREAS, Staff has prepared findings which show that the proposed amendments to the Development
Code and Comprehensive Plan comply with Community Development Code Section, 18.390.060;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 3.4.2.1), 8.1.1, and 8.2.1; Statewide Planning Goals 1,
2, 5, and 12; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 3, 4, and 7 and the Regional Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance with the
City standards, on December 3, 2001 and voted to recommend approval of the requested amendments to
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance with City
standards, on January 22, 2002, and continued to February 26, 2002, and voted to approve the proposed
amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The adopted Comprehensive Plan text amendment and Development Code text
amendments, are shown in Exhibits A and B.
SECTION 2: The requested amendments are approved based on the analysis and findings in the
staff report (Exhibit C) and supplemental findings (Exhibit D).
SECTION 3: The approved amendments shall be effective on the date that the Washington Square
Regional Center Plan and associated amendments become effective, but no less than
30 days after its passage by the City Council.
:j
ORDINANCE NO. 02- t 9t
Pagel of 2
ATTACHMENT 2 t
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and
title only, thiqz~:Q_&%ay of 2002.
~ W
Catherine Wheatley, City ecorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2002.
ALAAAA 10.,g"tgo
es E. Gri M
gAroved as to form:
ty Attorney
Date
ORDINANCE NO.02-Q_ i:\Irpln\julia\cpa\washin/washington square adoption QRD.doc
Page 2 of 2 02113/02/4:20 PM
Exhibit A
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
Proposed Text Amendments to the Tigard Development Code
Amendments to the following sections of the development code are necessary in order to
implement the Washington Square Regional Center Plan:
18.360 - Site Development Review •
18.370 - Variances and Adjustments
18.520 - Commercial Zoning Districts
18.630 - Washington Square Regional Center
18.760 - Non-Conforming Situations
Following is the proposed text which reflects a combination of changes. When the Washington
Square Regional Center Plan was adopted, a new code section, 18.630 was adopted at that time as
well but not implemented and incorporated into the development code since the implementation of the
Plan was delayed. Since that time, changes were made to the code and staff identified the need for
formatting and clerical changes to allow the adopted language to better fit into the existing
development code. In addition, the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan Task
Force identified the need for additional code amendments. In order to visualize the impetus behind
each change, staff has identified each change as follows:
Previously adopted Washington Square standards that have been re-formatted to fit into the existing
development code is highlighted (No changes to the content, just moved around within the
development code).
Text that has been added to cross-reference with the WSRC standards, to clarify existing adopted
standards or to fix clerical errors is double underlined. (New text but no major content changes, just
added language to clarify the original intent and to cross reference for easier usage of the code).
Task Force recommended changes to previously adopted Washington Square text is bold and
italicized (New text and content that was not previously provided for).
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE I
18.360
SITE DEVELOPMENT i2EVIVEW
18.360.030 Approval Process
A. New developments and major modifications. Site development review for a new development or major
modification of an approved plan or existing development, as defined in Section 18.360.030A, shall be
processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria
contained in Section 18.360.090.
B. Minor modifications. Minor modifications of an approved plan or existing developments, as defined in
Section 18.360.060, shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using
approval criteria contained in Section 18.360.060.
C. Approval period. Site development review approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of 1-1/2
years from the date of approval. The site development review approval by the Director shall lapse if:
1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within a one-and-one-half years period; or
2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan.
D. Extension. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant
an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year; provided that:
1. No changes are made on the original site development review plan as approved by the Director;
2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction on the site within the one year extension period;
and
3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions
on which the approval was based.
E. Phased development.
1. The Director shall approve a time schedule for developing a site in phases over a period of time of one
year, but in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than three years without
reapplying for site development review.
2. The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal is that all of the following are
satisfied:
a. The public facilities are constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase;
b. The development and occupancy of any phase is not dependent on the use of temporary public
facilities. A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed to the applicable City or district
standard;
c. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct
public facilities that were required as part of the approved development proposal; and
d. The Director's decision may be appealed as provided by Subsection 18.390.040.G. No notice need
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 2
be given of the Director's decision.
3 The Director may waive or modify the approval period for projects within the lNashi~nc~to_n
Square Regional Center in accordance with 18.630.020.0.
i
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 3
Chapter 18.370
VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS
Sections:
18.370.010 Variances
18.370.020 Adjustments
18.370.010 Variances
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide standards for the granting of variances from the
applicable zoning requirements of this title where it can be shown that, owing to special and unusual
circumstances related to a specific property, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the applicable
zone would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship, except that no use variances shall be granted.
B. Applicability of provisions.
1. The variance standards are intended to apply to individual platted and recorded lots only.
2. An applicant who is proposing to vary a specification standard for lots yet to be created through a
subdivision process may not utilize the variance procedure unless otherwise specified in Section
18.730.030, Zero Lot Line Setback Standards, or Chapter 18.430, Subdivisions.
C. Approval process and standards.
1. Variances shall be processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040,
using standards of approval contained in Subsection 2 below.
2. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on
finding that the following criteria are satisfied:
a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other
applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity;
b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or
other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other
properties in the same zoning district;
c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be
maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic
use of the land;
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land
forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were
developed as specified in the title; and
e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would
alleviate the hardship.
3. The Director shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny an application for a subdivision
variance subject to the criteria set forth in Section 18.160.120.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 4
18.370.020 Adjustments
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish two classes of special variances:
1. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within
proscribed limits. Because such adjustments are granted using "clear and objective standards," these
can be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of
approval and procedure for variances.
2. "Special adjustments" which are variances from development standards which have their own approval
criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for variances contained in Section 18.370.010C.
B. Development adjustments.
1. The following development adjustments will be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as governed
by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection S2 below:
a. Front yard setbacks. Up to a 25% reduction of the dimensional standards for the front yard setback
required in the base zone. Setback of garages may not be reduced by this provision.
b. Interior setbacks. Up to a 20% reduction of the dimensional standards for the side and rear yard
setbacks required in the base zone.
c. Lot coverage. Up to 5% increase of the maximum lot coverage required in the base zone.
2. Approval criteria. A development adjustment shall be granted if there is a demonstration of compliance
with all of the applicable standards:
a. A demonstration that the adjustment requested is the least required to achieve the desired affect;
b. The adjustment will result in the preservation of trees, if trees are present in the development area;
c. The adjustment will not impede adequate emergency access to the site;
d. There is not a reasonable alternative to the adjustment which achieves the desired affect.
C. Special adjustments.
1. Adjustments to development standards within subdivisions (Chapter 18.430). The Director shall
consider the application for adjustment at the same time he/she considers the preliminary plat. An
adjustment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied provided the Director finds:
a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar
to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated;
b. The adjustment is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision;
c. The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or
injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CORE CHANGES PAGE 5
AML
d. The adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations
of this title.
2. Adjustment to minimum residential density requirements (Chapter 18.510). The Director is authorized
to grant an adjustment to the minimum residential density requirements in 18.510.040, by means of a
Type I procedure, as governed by 18.390.030 as follows:
a. For development on an infill site as follows:
(1) In the R-25 zone, sites of .75 acre or smaller.
(2) In the R-40 zone, sites of .75 acre or smaller.
b. For development on sites larger than those contained in 1 above, if the applicant can demonstrate
by means of detailed site plan that the site is so constrained that the proportional share of the
required minimum density cannot be provided and still meet all of the development standards in the
underlying zone.
c. To be granted an adjustment in either Subsections a or b above, the applicant must demonstrate
that the maximum number of residential units are being provided while complying with all applicable
development standards in the underlying zone. There is nothing in this section which precludes an
applicant for applying to a variance to these standards, as governed by Section 18.370.010.
3. For adjustments to density requirements in the Washington Square Regional Center, the standards of
18.630.020.E apply.
4. For Modifications to dimensional and minimum density requirements for developments within the
Washington Square Regional Center that include or abut designated Water Resource overlay areas
the standards of 18.630.020.F apply.
5. Adjustment to access and egress standards (Chapter 18.705).
a. In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to
Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be
considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the
Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type
II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in
Subsection 2b below.
b. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from
the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the following criteria:
(1) It is not possible to share access;
(2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another
street;
(3) The access separation requirements cannot be met;
(4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access;
(5) The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access;
and
(6) The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met.
i
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 6
6. Adjustments to landscaping requirements (Chapter 18.745)
a. Adjustment to use of existing trees as street trees. By means of a Type I procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.030, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a
request for the use of existing trees to meet the street tree requirements in Section 18.745.030
providing there has been no cutting and filling around the tree during construction which may
lead to its loss, unless the following can be demonstrated:
• (1) The ground within the drip-line is altered merely for drainage purposes; and
(2) It can be shown that the cut or fill will not damage the roots and will not cause the tree to
die.
b. Adjustment for street tree requirements. By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by
Section 18.390.030, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for
the adjustments to the street tree requirements in Section 18.745.030, based on the following
approval criteria:
(1) If the location of a proposed tree would cause potential problems with existing utility
lines;
(2) If the tree would cause visual clearance problems; or
(3) If there is not adequate space in which to plant street trees.
7. Adjustments to parking standards (Chapter 18.765).
a. Reduction from minimum parking requirements. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed
by Section 18.390.040, the Director may authorize up to a 20% reduction in the total minimum
vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070H when an applicant for a development
permit can demonstrate in a parking study prepared by a traffic consultant or in parking data
from comparable sites that:
(1) Use of transit, demand management programs, and/or special characteristics of the
customer, client employee or resident population will reduce expected vehicle use and
parking space demand for this development, as compared to standards Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) vehicle trip generation rates and minimum city parking
requirements, and
(2) A reduction in parking will not have an adverse impact on adjacent uses.
b. Reductions in minimum parking requirements in new developments for transit improvements.
The Director may authorize up to a 20% reduction in the total minimum vehicle parking spaces
required in Section 18.765.070H by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.040, when the applicant:
(1) Incorporates transit-related facilities such as bus stops and pull-outs, bus shelters,
transit-oriented developments and other transit-related development; and
(2) Documents operational characteristics indicating the number of transit users, or number
of non-auto users for a particular facility.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL. CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 7
c. Reductions in minimum parking requirements in existing developments for transit improvements.
The Director may authorize up to a 10% reduction in the total minimum vehicle parking spaces
required in Section 18.765.070H at a conversion ratio of one space per 100 square feet of transit
facility by means of a Type I procedure as governed by Section 18.390.030, when the applicant:
(1) Incorporates transit-related facilities such as bus stops and pull-outs, bus shelters, transit-
oriented developments and other transit-related development; and
(2) Meets the following requirements:
(a) A transit facility must be located adjacent to a street with transit service. The facility should
be located between the building and front property line, within 20 feet of an existing transit
stop, or the facility may include a new transit stop if approved by Tri-Met.
(b) A transit facility shall include a covered waiting or sitting area.
d. Increases in the maximum parking requirements. The Director may approve off-street parking in
excess of the maximum allowed parking spaces in Section 18.765.070G by means of a Type II
procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, when the applicant can demonstrate that all of the
following criteria are met:
(1) The individual characteristics of the use at that location requires more parking than is generally
required for a use of this type and intensity;
(2) The need for additional parking cannot be reasonably met through provision of on-street parking
or shared parking with adjacent or nearby uses; and
(3) The site plan shall indicate how the additional parking can be redeveloped to more intensive
transit-supportive use in the future.
e. Reduction in required bicycle parking. The Director may approve a reduction of required bicycle
parking per Section 18.765.050E by means of Type II procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.040, if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use by its nature would be
reasonably anticipated to generate a lesser need for bicycle parking.
f. Use of alternative parking garage layout. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.040, the Director may approve an alternative design of parking garage which differs from the
dimensional standards contained in Figure 18.765.2 when it can be shown that 1) the proposed
structure meets design guidelines of the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Dimension of Parking. Current
Edition (199X); or 2) a similar structure functions efficiently using proposed modified layout,
circulation and dimensions.
g. Reduction in length of stacking lane. By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by 18.390.030,
the Director may allow a reduction in the amount of vehicle stacking area required in 18.765.040 D2
if such a reduction is deemed appropriate after analysis of the size and location of the development,
limited services available and other pertinent factors.
8. Adjustments to sign code (Chapter 18.780).
a. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the sign code based on findings that at least
one of the following criteria are satisfied:
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 8
(1) The proposed adjustment to the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign
visible from the street because of the topography of the site, and/or a conforming building or
sign on an adjacent property would limit the view of a sign erected on the site in conformance
with Chapter 18.780, Signs;
(2) A second freestanding sign is necessary to adequately identify a second entrance to a business
or premises that is oriented towards a different street frontage;
(3) Up to an additional 25% of sign area or height may be permitted when it is determined that the
increase will not deter from the purpose of Chapter 18.780, Signs. This increase should be
judged according to specific needs and circumstances which necessitate additional area to
make the sign sufficiently legible. The increase(s) shall not conflict with any other
non-dimensional standards or restrictions of this chapter;
(4) The proposed sign is consistent with the criteria set forth in Subsection 18.780.130 G;
(5) The proposed exception for a second freestanding sign on an interior lot which is zoned
commercial or industrial is appropriate because all of the following apply:
(a) The combined height of both signs shall not exceed 150% of the sign height normally
allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed
the height normally allowed in the same zoning district;
(b) Neither sign will pose a vision clearance problem or will project into the public right-of-way;
and
(c) Total combined sign area for both signs shall not exceed 150% of what is normally allowed
for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the
height normally allowed in the same zoning district.
b. In addition to the criteria in Subsection a above, the Director shall review all of the existing or
proposed signage for the development and its relationship to the intent and purpose of Chapter
18.780, Signs. As a condition of approval of the adjustment, the Director may require:
(1) Removal or alteration of nonconforming signs to achieve compliance with the standards
contained in Chapter 18.780, Signs;
(2) Removal or alteration of conforming signs to establish a consistent sign design throughout the
development; and
(3) Application for sign permits for signs erected without permits or removal of such illegal signs.
9. Adjustments to setbacks to reduce tree removal (Chapter 18.790). By means of a Type I procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.030, the Director may grant a modification from applicable setback
requirements of this Code for the purpose of preserving a tree or trees on the site of proposed
development. Such modification may reduce the required setback by up to 50%, but shall not be more
than is necessary for the preservation of trees on the site. The setback modification described in this
section shall supersede any special setback requirements or exceptions set out elsewhere in this title,
including but not limited to Chapter 18.730, except Section 18.730.040.
10. Adjustments to wireless communication facilities (Chapter 18.798).
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 9
a. By means of a Type 11 procedure, as governed by 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the requirement that a wireless
communication tower be set back at least the height of the tower from any off-site residence based
on findings that at the following criteria are satisfied:
(1) The proposed location of the tower complies with the setback requirements for the underlying
zone in which the property is located;
(2) A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within itself,
(3) Because of topography, vegetation, building orientation and/or other factor, a site closer to an
off-site residence will equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon
the off-site residence.
b. By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by 18.390.030, the Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the requirement that a wireless
communication tower be located 2,000 feet from another tower in a residential zone or 500 feet
from another tower in a non-residential zone based on findings that the following criteria are
satisfied:
(1) The applicant has fully complied with the collocation protocol as provided in 18.797.080; and
(2) A registered radio engineer certifies that a more distant location is not technically feasible and/or
sites at a more appropriate location are not available; or
(3) A location closer than the required separation will reduce visual or other impacts on surrounding
uses better than sites beyond the required separation.
11. Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type II procedure,
as governed by 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for
an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is
satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing
development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or
existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that
the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 10
Chapter 18.520
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.520.010 Purpose
18.520.020 List of Zoning Districts
18.520.030 Uses
18.520.040 Development Standards
18.520.050 Special Limitations on Uses
18.520.060 Additional Development and Design Guidelines
18.520.010 Purpose
A. Provide range of commercial services for City residents. One of the major purposes of the regulations
governing development in commercial zoning districts is to ensure that a full range of retail and office uses
are available throughout the City so that residents can fulfill all or most of their needs within easy driving
and, ideally within easy walking and/or biking distance of their homes. The location of land within each
commercial district must be carefully selected and design and development standards created to minimize
the potential adverse impacts of commercial activity on established residential areas. At the same time, it
is important to create more opportunities for mixed use, including residential, commercial and institutional
activities, in new and re-developing commercial areas.
B. Facilitate economic goals. Another purpose of these regulations is to ensure that there is a full range of
economic activities and job opportunities within the City limits, in compliance with the economic goals of the
City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
18.520.020 List of Zoning Districts
A. C-N: Neighborhood Commercial District. The C-N zoning district is designed to provide convenience
goods and services within a small cluster of stores adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Convenience
goods and services are those which. are purchased frequently, i.e., at least weekly; for which comparison
buying is not required; and which can be sustained in a limited trade area. Such uses include convenience
markets, personal services and repair shops. A limited number of other uses, including but not limited to
restaurants, gas stations, medical centers, religious institutions, transit-related park-and-ride lots and
facilities with drive-up windows, are permitted conditionally.
B. C-C: Community Commercial District. The C-C zoning district is designed to provide convenience
shopping facilities which meet the regular needs of nearby residential neighborhoods. With a service area
of about 1.5 miles, such commercial centers typically range in size from 30,000 - 100,000 gross square feet
on sites ranging from 2 - 8 acres. Separated from other commercially-zoned areas by at least one-half
mile, community commercial centers are intended to serve several residential neighborhoods, ideally at
the intersection of two or more major collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and collector
street. Housing is permitted on or above the second floor of commercial structures at a density not to
exceed 12 units/net acre, e.g., the maximum density permitted in the R-12 zone. A limited number of other
uses, including but not limited to car washes, gas stations, religious institutions, and transit-related park-
and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and
development standards in the C-C zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-
integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE I I
C. C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of
retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming,
residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted
use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair
and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline
stations, are permitted conditionally.
D. C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The. C-P zoning district is designed to
accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience
retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation
facilities. Within the Tigard Triangle and Bull Mountain Road District, residential uses at a minimum density
of 32 units/net acre, i.e., equivalent to the R-40 zoning district, are permitted in conjunction with a
commercial development. Heliports, medical centers, religious institutions and utilities are permitted
conditionally. Developments in the C-P zoning district are intended to serve as a buffer between residential
areas and more-intensive commercial and industrial areas.
E. CBD: Central Business District. The CBD zoning district is designed to provide a concentrated central
business district, centered on the City's historic downtown, including a mix of civic, retail and office uses.
Single-family attached housing, at a maximum density of 12 units/net acre, equivalent of the R-12 zoning
district, and multi-family housing at a minimum density of 32 units/acre, equivalent to the R-40 zoning
district, are permitted outright. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment,
utilities, facilities with drive-up windows, medical centers, major event entertainment and gasoline stations,
are permitted conditionally.
F. MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land
within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy.
99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods
and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing
at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. A wide range of uses,
including but not limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools,
utilities and transit-related park-and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. Although it is recognized that the
automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to and within the Triangle, it is still important to 1)
support alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible; and 2) encourage a mix of uses
to facilitate intra-district pedestrian and transit trips even for those who drive. The zone may be applied
elsewhere in the City through the legislative process.
G. (MUE-.1 -and MUE-2),Mixed Use Employrrient Districts:,The `MUE;'f and 2 zoning district Is
designed to'apply to areas'where employmentuses such as'caffce; `research ani devel6p~n7erit
and light manufacturing are concentrated.Commercial and retailsupport uses~are allowed but
are limited, and residential uses are.permited which are compatible witfa'employmerl~ character of
. ity mixe7d Ise
the area Lincolri"Cenfer is an example of an area designated,MUE ~1, the~higli dens
employment district The Nimbus area is d example of4a,n area desigriated.MUE 2 regumng
pre," erate "densities.
H. MUG1 °Mixed Use:Commercial•Disfrict ~ The MUC zoning district i;eludes land around e
- t, e , t
Washington Square Mall and land immediately vilest of;Highvfay X17 Frimaryy uses perritt d
include office buildings, retail, and serviceusesr Also p rmitteci,are rtlixed use developmeris and
housing .at densities of.50 unit`s per~acre Larger buildings are encouraged Ihls areawltti
parking'under, behind Pr-to the sides of buQjldipgs.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 12
I. MUCH: Mixed Use Commercial - 1. The MUCH zoning district, which is designed to apply to that portion
of the Durham Quarry site within the City of Tigard, is a mixed-use commercial district bounded by 72"d
Avenue, Findlay Street and the Tigard, Tualatin and Durham city limits. This site is the subject of an
intergovernmental agreement between the cities of Tigard and Tualatin. Pursuant to that agreement the
City of Tualatin shall furnish all planning, building and associated development review/permit services for
the property. This zoning district is intended to mirror the City of Tualatin's Mixed Use Commercial Overlay
District (TDC, Chapter 57). It permits a wide range of uses including commercial lodging, general retail,
offices and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a minimum density of 25 units/acre and a
maximum of 50 units/acre. Additional uses, including but not limited to major event entertainment and
motor vehicle retail fuel sales, are permitted conditionally. In addition to the standards of this chapter,
development within this zone is subject to the standards of 18.640.
al ' ey, -e AM r.t
eii . hl 1S~r
18.530.030 Uses
A. Types of uses. For the purposes of this chapter, there are four kinds of use:
1. A permitted (P) use is a use which is permitted outright, but subject to all of the applicable provisions of
this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the
provisions of Chapter 18.130.030;
2. A restricted (R) use is permitted outright providing it is in compliance with special requirements,
exceptions or restrictions;
3. A conditional use (C) is a use the approval of which is at the discretion of the Hearings Officer. The
approval process and criteria are set forth in Chapters 18.370. If a use is not listed as a conditional
use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.130.030;
4. A prohibited (N) use is one which is not permitted in a zoning district under any circumstances.
B. Use table. A list of permitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in Commercial zones is presented in
Table 18.520.1.
C. Accessory structures.
1. Accessory structures are permitted in all commercial zones providing the site is still in compliance with
all development standards, including but not limited to setbacks, height, lot coverage and landscaping
requirements, of the base zone. All accessory structures shall comply with all requirements of the
Uniform Building Code. All accessory structures except those less than 120 square feet in size require
a building permit.
2. All freestanding and detached towers, antennas, wind-generating devices and TV receiving dishes,
except as otherwise regulated by Wireless Communication Facilities (Chapter 18.798), shall have
setbacks equal to or greater than the height of the proposed structure. Suitable protective anti-climb
fencing and a landscaped planting screen, in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and
Screening, shall be provided and maintained around these structures and accessory attachments.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 13
TABLE 18.520.1
USE TABLE: COMMERCIAL ZONES
C-N C-C C-G C ii" BD MUE MUC-1
k
USE CATEGORY
P
RESIDENTIAL R R P F? P.
R 1 ,JC -7C
Household Living N R R N N C N p N C R°
Grou Livin C N C
N N C N P
Transitional Housing R R R R R R
Home Occu ation;
HOUSING TYPES NIA P
Sin {e Units, Attached N1A NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA NIA
Sin el Units, detached NIA N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA ;d h
Accesso Units NIA N1A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA a
N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA NIA NIA
Du lexes NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A
Multi-famil Units NIA N/A N/A N/A
Manufactured Units NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A
Mobile Home Parks, Subdivisions NIA N/A N/A H
CIVIC INSTITUTIONAL N C C C C
Basic Utilities C N
Colle es N N C C
N N N N P
Communi Recreation P N P N N In P C N
P
P P P P P
Culturallnstitutions P P
Da Care In P P
P p P
Emer enc Services P In P N C C C C C
Medical Centers C P P P In
Postal Service P P P P P P P P.
P P P t
Public Su ort Facilities C C P C P P C
Reli ious Institutions N N N C C
Schools N N P P P
C C P
Social/Fraternal Clubs/Lod es
COMMERCIAL In p A N
N P
Commercial N R I'll I P P Lad in R p P P j
Eatin and Drinkin Establishments C P P
Entertainment-Oriented C N C
- Major Event Entertainment N N C Res P N N
- Outdoor Entertainment N N P In P P
N
- Indoor Entertainment P P P P N N C N C N
Adult Entertainment PAGE 14
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES
General Retail
- Sales-Oriented P P7 P R18 P R22 R25 Ft }2a
- Personal Services P P P P P R22 R25
22
- Repair-Oriented P P P N P Rsz R25 t4
- Bulk Sales N N P N N R22 R25 ~ R22 0
- Outdoor Sales N N P N N N N N
- Animal-Related N N N N N P P Fl
Motor Vehicle Related 4 *F
Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental N N P/C12 N C N N 4 !
- Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair N CB P/C12 N R18 Rzz R25 FUZ7
N
- Vehicle Fuel Sales C C C N C N C N
Office P R P P P P P [ P
Self-Service Storage N N C N N N N N N
Non-Accessory Parkin C C P P P P P d P tq
INDUSTRIAL s
Industrial Services N N N N N N N 14 N
Manufacturing and Production VA x>
- Light Industrial N N N N N R23 N A
- General Industrial N N N N N N N f N
Heavy Industrial N N N N N N N N N
Railroad Yards N N N N N N N
Research and Development N N N N N R R
Warehouse/Frei ht Movement N N N N N R N
Waste-Related N N N N N N N
Wholesale Sales N N N N C N N
OTHER?;
Agriculture/Horticulture N N N N N N N Aft
Cemeteries N N N N N N N
Detention Facilities N N C N C N N He15
liports N N C C C N N;
Minin N N N N N N N
Wireless Communication Facilities P/R P/R P/R P/R P/R P/R P/R
Rail Lines/Utility Corridors P P P P P P P
Other c4 C NA NA c1to NA NA
P=Permitted R=Restricted C=Conditional Use N=Not Permitted
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 15
EXHIBIT A
'All permitted and conditional uses subject to special development standards contained in
18.520.050A.
`Permitted subject to requirements Chapter 18.742.
3See Chapter 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities, requirements for permitted and
restricted facilities.
4Uses operating before 7:00 AM and/or after 10:00 PM are conditional uses.
5AII permitted, limited and conditional uses must meet special development standards in
18.520.050B.
BResidential units permitted by right, as a mixed use in conjunction with a commercial
development, on or above the second floor of the structure, at densities not to exceed 12
units/net acre.
7Limited to 10,000 gross square feet in size, except retail food and beverage outlets, which are
limited to 40,000 gross square feet or less.
81-1mited to motor vehicle cleaning only.
9When combined in single structure, each separate establishment shall not exceed 5,000 gross
square feet.
70Uses operating before 6:00 AM and/or after 11:00 PM; or drive-up windows are conditional
uses.
"A single-family unit providing that it is located on the same site with a permitted or conditional
use in and is occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of the permitted or
conditional use. Multi-family housing is permitted as part of a PD, subject to Chapter 18.350.
12Cleaning, sales and repair of motor vehicles and light equipment is permitted outright; sales
and rental of heavy vehicles and farm equipment and/or storage of recreational vehicles and
boats permitted conditionally.
13Multi-family residential units, developed at R-40 standards, as a mixed-use in conjunction with
commercial development on or above the second floor of the structure, only in the C-P District
within the Tigard Triangle and Bull Mountain Road district.
14 Restaurant permitted with restriction in size in conjunction with and on the same parcel as a
commercial lodging use.
"As accessory to offices or other permitted uses, the total space devoted to a combination of
retail sales and eating/drinking establishments may not exceed more than 20% of the entire
square footage within the development complex.
"'May not exceed 10% of the total square footage within an office complex.
17Single-family attached and multi-family residential units, developed at R-40 standards, except
the area bounded by Fanno Creek, Hall Boulevard, O'Mara, Ash Avenue and Hill Street, within
which property zoned for CBD development which shall be designated R-12 PD and shall be
developed as planned developments in conformance with the R-12 District standards.
"Motor vehicle cleaning only.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 16
19Drive-up windows permi ed conditionally.
20AII permitted and conditional uses subject to special development standards contained in
18.520.050C.
21 Multi-family residential, at 25 units/gross acre, allowed outright. Pre-existing detached single-
family dwellings are permitted outright.
22 New Retail and sales uses may not exceed 60,000 gross leasable area per building within the
Washington Square Regional Center or Tigard Triangle, except for those areas zoned C-G at
the time the MUE zoning district was adopted in the Tigard Triangle.
23AII activities associated with this use, except employee and customer parking, shall be
contained within buildings.
24 Permitted as accessory to a permitted use as long as this use is contained within the same
building as the permitted use, and does not exceed the floor area of the permitted use.
25Permitted provided the use is no larger than 60,000 square feet of gross floor area per building
or business.
26 Household living limited to single units, attached, and multi-family including but not limited to
apartments, attached condominiums, townhouses and rowhouses at a minimum density of 25
dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre.
27Wireless only as attached to structure within height limit - see Chapter 18.798
26AII Permitted and Conditional Uses subject to special development standards contained in
18.630
~Gro~pl~ing~with'~fiV'"~e~b~~ewzr~~~sde f$~~eC).?:g~~,~?Y~9y{~9~o`u[?~i9~~t~s~xG4
fesi`e!?ts,perritte as.,condltiotta1, tse.
30Pre existing tiousmgA dnits`pe~r of v sjo ifp ` isfing hoes bfu ts~o~pmth ruses is
sut~,ect'to t(~e,requi~emenfs;~o~;~Of~~pter~,8;6,~Q
31 w x s s cc a^.,. ^n ~c n¢ r.avt a
{ ermitted_fo_r, pre, existing housing'unjts, st b,~o&t6 regu~t r #s„Cha i t''8 7 .
aZExceptwater;;storrriald santtaiyseer,~e~sichreali'oG3ergfi#
t
331 ';honme tlay care wliicii meets allssfa{ tea gt f nt pe~i ed bY4rigljt` e' `ndi0 tda care
centers,wh[ch .meet aif state; regi[rQer?tserrrsrtte~_ e~it#o~al"Iy
t
34
"thiv+
s use ~s mowed oily ~n tixedusedgJ'Feo~~rrietts n~tfte W~ar~~iington Sq ark loo I
Center Commercial uses st%a[I ~ccupyT~orte an50,, ffh oafloar lea~1e
C b { r : . c t'2'• Y z tar . ,y vt?.f ',A , AL s .
rrlixyetl use_developfnent,and shall;fieper~ited o.r'i,niinirpurp.reside~a ~s~Itfg~,are
35 The maximum building footprii1t size er rtl ed off: yhbi l jg occt pej.13 g]770 l a
corrtme'rciai use or usesYshall Lbey7;at30`egareegt;
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 17
18.520.040 Development Standards
A0k
A. Comoliance required. All development must comply with:
1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district,
except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with
Chapters18.370.
2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title.
B. Develooment standards. 'Development standards in commercial zoning districts are
contained in Table 18.520.2 below:
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 18
EXHIBIT A
TABLE 18.520.2
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CBD MUE
RESIDENTIAL R-25
STANDARD C-N C-011 C-G C-P CBD R-40 R-12 C-G MF DU* MUC -1 NW _ L
U .!1 [
Minimum Lot Size 5,000 sq ft 5,000 sq ft None 6,000 sq ft None None None None - None N-004 NOt o
Detached unit - - - - - - 1,480 sq ft - t
Boarding, lodging, rooming house - - - - - 6,100 sq ft - °
Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft None None None 50 ft None None I~qn &iq N
Minimum Setbacks
d [i a
Front yard 20 ft 0/20 ft [`°1 0 ft [111 0 ft t111 0/30 ft ['21 20 ft 20 ft 0 ft tlq 20 ft Sec U, T boo OR-4 62;1
Side facing street on comer & 20 ft - 0/30 ft [121 20 ft 20 ft - 20 ft 18.640. tD?1 Q~t3 1~ !3U 1p,
through lots 111 050 (B)
Side yard 0/20 ft [°1 0/20 ft [°1 0/20 ft [°1 0/20 ft [°1 0130 ft 10 ft 10 ft [1'1 0/20 ft loft btsa1 0_T
Side or rear yard abutting more - - - - - - 30 ft t 71
restrictive zoning district
Rear yard 0/20 ft 0/20 ft [°1 0/20 ft 111 0/20 ft 0/30 ft 1121 20 ft ["1 20 ft [u1 0/20 ft [°J 20 ft b a D
Distance between front of garage & - - - - - 20 ft 20 ft - 20 ft
property line abutting a public or
private street
Minimum building height N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A a["... _ *9 WiN lion
Maximum height 35 ft 35 ft 45 ft 45 ft 80 ft t"1 60 ft 60 ft 45 ft 45 ft 70 ft 2Q' 00) ¢S'
Maximum Site Coverage [=1 85% 80% 85% 85% 85% 80% 80% 85% 80%[161 40% 8 8 _A $
Minimum Landscape Requirement 15% 20% 15% 15% 15% 20% 20 % [ls1 15% 20% 100/0 1 133~d °6 2Q96 MrA
f•
NIA N/A NZA WA WA NIA N!A WA rN 1:25 ~:6 0:6 63
Ajden! 4ii1 D4dyityc . _ NIA; Nle4 Ist'A N!A <i NIA NIA NIA NlA SO 23 Zi
4iinufaftn
NiSne
N-f ir~riai; RegdditW,, ;Di idrt . NIA N!A N/A N!p RA N/A NtA 1V(A L460 30
{ctit(t~ tmitli
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 19
EXHIBIT A
[1] The provisions of Chapter 18.795 (Vision Clearance) must be satisfied.
[2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces.
3 he o all ikon res> denhtl butldih dev 'ent{ilts~ deve o xSK 2~
'4'4S
F°~' t Yn'rt t t, 1" bY'. ) 4.t` r d.
rest tal p~rnpo lent ~mmtxed^use,¢evelop. ~'es p axes ~ ;u aN
flgo>r a ~a~ratr4 o eter iine confdfnia3ice w"lit in I
C L k la 1 v w. { > rt y 6% a GS.i k q:a: d:'y: MnD Sr Y 'i8 Lt.
t1Y
[4lvoiwrthstandrngte fe~utrements gf~ dtirr uxt ete ed
f r C7.. ~4 i E r a i L ~ ~ ..rrS a4 ~ $ ' .`1,` d,r E" i_3'h~r
for restd~s}tfalronly pr~~ect~using t~e, urr~be~r t`' ($~~(►►0~~01,'1denf` ;~ei^ a ~~vti►u~i '~e~'~~i"e
prov~t~l~r~ot~d~nst;$yarisfer desari~~~~~8', t Q t~fg~, 't,~~i .
t u , r^re L 7 Ir'R43i a:grc > > n:, • ~ 2; a. ~
rho r>i,~:~he'1~'tabie An • ixe`~s~`or e ' dnl'. , tea;, tr
~ii'nimumdetis>It~i':+etit~ttrsehent:
[Sj >opilrpo e;osie~ning t>!QO er't e 's i "fi r e e `r t" 11
be txs~es`tn"~..,% . h flap Yot'firea; de(e a e) ib}~ 2Q : ~ ~ A~ a 1
6 Ad ftysjtme~'ts'ito iiimum`densi + 'i 'the';. a in ' one ri 1t. ce>;1r~rFs'ra'e'c4titfe
stiiridards~set'•foi•ihrdns~l8 `630 020 E
[?j~~ irn~~irrlilfM, ofisi., cequirements o K ek lo erl s that [►~G~ude ""af of ~ i~at te_r
Re c_ ice .Ovbrigy`bdlstncV,J0 2~n,set c ape " -~a79 a ieYserJb $n_ 02 b
[8] No setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a
residential zoning district.
[9] See Section 18.520.050B for site and building design standards.
[10] No front yard setback shall be required, except a 20 foot front yard setback shall apply
within 50 feet of a residential district.
[I I] There shall be no minimum front yard setback requirement; however, conditions in Chapters 18.745
and 18.795 must be met.
[12] There are no setback requirements, except 30 feet where a commercial use within a district
abuts a residential zoning district.
[L3] The maximum height of any building in the CBD zone within 100 feet of any residential
zoning district shall not exceed 40 feet.
14 Where the side or rear yard of attached or multiple-family dwellings abut a more restrictive
zoning district, such setbacks shall not be less than 35 feet.
15 Landscaped areas on existing developed property in the CBD shall be retained. Buffering
and screening requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745 shall be met for existing and new
development.
16 Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces.
X1.71 Mtidificatiolis to diinensional:antl^minimum"densl ~requiiemein`fs'for~ eve"lour e_n'ts"tH5t
Iriclutle or;abut~designated.Water=ResoifcesxOVerlay~District-Rrpar•lan~se'fbatlks~tieraSeetion
,1 797 are'descfibed in'.-Sectibh 18:630J040Zf)
[18j The requirements confalned:in tt-ie Buffer Ma ices n£~t abies 18 7 5 1 and `,18 74`v_W s[, 5[be
used In calculating widths of~b iffertng/~c ~ nt ,0d requsre pr,.ov ~en I el s I Rd
7,ry r+ b r • A u,Lr ky ~ "y '~ut a L F, ~ 5 « T
betv~een proposed uses In ~t~e~[~l~C MU~a,Od,~ tlFo,O„es,,yv l~~th , a~ ~oO,Sc~ -
Reglo'rial(W8RG„t#ingtz6i~1K°dis#rtcts ` o rn~elfigtn e SQZ~a, oZOriii g
dtstncts within the WSRC which aretitit mlxeti us~eFr;~ J UCd z e
regwrements for Commercial Zones, appl`~: `.~F„or}MI~Rzones,?thee` &'Uy~rr~en s for tf~g
Nelgh'borhood Commercial Zone apply
[19] For Comme?~clal and Mlxedlase develo invents, t~eimax(m,_um front d Str6dt-s deW,aitd
se~back;is 10 feet :For Residenfial ,only devg~opmelits;the,r_rZaximurp~ron side yard
Setback is 20 feet
[20] S de.;and rear~yard, setbacks shall, be 20' Vvhen tFie?zone aft is residential cllstr cts~ ki R ari
1 8 5110 020 except R-25 and R 40
[21J The mawmum etback Is 20;febt
[22]x2;iie°.maxiri umsefiback.isl0;1feefi
'`Multiple-family dwelling unit
C-N - Neighborhood Commercial District MUC1 - Mixed Use Commercial
C-C - Community Commercial District MUC - Mixed Use Commercial
C-G - General Commercial District MUE 1 - Mixed Use Employment/high density
C-P - Professional/Administrative Office Commercial MUE 2 - Mixed Use Employment/medium density
CBD - Central Business District MUR 1 - Mixed Use Residential/high density
MUR 2 - Mixed Use Residential/medium density
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 20
98.520.050 Special Limitations on Uses
A. In the C-N zone. Special limitations in the C-N zoning district are as follows:
1. The use shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed structure, except as allowed in
Section 3 below;
2. No use shall have a gross floor area greater than 4,000 square feet;
3. Accessory open-air sales, display and/or storage shall be permitted for horticultural and
food merchandise only and shall constitute no more than 5% of the gross building floor
area of any individual establishment; and
4. Uses operating before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM shall be subject to the conditional
use provisions, as governed in Chapter 18.330.
B. In the C-C zone. Special limitations in the C-C zoning district are as follows:
1. Such centers shall be developed preferably as a single unit and occupy only one
quadrant of the intersection at which it is located;
2. The use shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed structure, except for outside play
areas for children's day care facilities, and as allowed in Sections 3 and 4 below;
3. No use shall have a gross floor area greater than 5,000 square feet except for the retail
sales of food and beverages, when the maximum floor area shall not exceed 40,000
gross square feet, and all other sales-oriented retail, where the maximum floor area shall
not exceed 10,000 gross square feet;
4. Accessory open-air sales, display and/or storage shall be permitted for horticultural and
food merchandising uses only shall constitute no more than 5% of the gross building
floor area of any individual establishment;
5. Accessory open-air dining or drinking areas shall be permitted for approved eating and
drinking establishments or retail food stores only. Outside dining areas are not permitted
within 200 feet of any developed residential area. Public or private sidewalk areas
around dining areas may not be reduced to less than five feet of clear walkway; and
6. Uses operating before 6:00 AM and/or after 11:00 PM and drive-up windows are subject
to conditional use provisions, as governed by Section 18.330.
C. In the MUE zone. Special limitations in the MUE zoning district are as follows:
1. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types and
mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40. Residential use types, including
transient lodging, shall not be subject to this requirement;
2. On lots greater than three acres, general retail sales uses are limited to 30,000 square
feet of gross leasable area plus one additional square foot of gross leasable area of
general retail sales use for each additional four square feet of non-general retail sales
use.
D. In the MUCH zone. In addition to the standards of this Chapter, development in the MUCH
zone is subject to Chapter 18.640 and an Intergovernmental Agreement between the cities
of Tigard and Tualatin.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 21
Agh
E. 10 too MUC MU -1 MUE-2 MU B-1 and MUR-2 zones wit i the Washin t n S ware
n er e s an ar o a er s a a so a
18.520.060 Additional Development and Design Guidelines
C. Washington S uare Regional Center
See Section 18.630 for additional develogment and Design Guidelines
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 22
CHAPTER 18.630
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER DESIGN STANDARDS
18.630.010 Purpose and Applicability
18.630.020 Development Standards
18.630.030 Pre-existing Uses
18.630.040 Street Connectivity
18.630.050 Site Design Standards
18.630.060 Building Design Standards
18.630.070 Signs
18.630.080 rntry Portals
18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening
18.630.100 Street and Accessway Standards
18.630.110 Design Evaluation
18.630.010 Purpose and Applicability
A. Purpose
1. This Chapter will implement the vision, concepts and principles contained in the
Washington Square Regional Center Plan, and the recommendations contained in the
Phase II Implementation Plan Summary Report, prepared by a Task Force appointed by
the City of Tigard.
2. Metro's Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan target growth capacity for
the Washington Square Regional Center will be met by permitting mixed use
development within the Regional Center at densities appropriate for an urban center.
3. A mixed use Regional Center will contain a variety of districts that vary in scale,
predominant use, and character. Distinct districts, connected to each other and to the rest
of the region by a multi-modal transportation system, will provide a range of working,
living and shopping opportunities.
4. Improved multi-modal transportation links, higher densities, variety of land uses, and
enhanced environmental qualities will all contribute to create a desirable, livable
community in the face of dramatic population and employment growth.
5. New mixed-use zoning districts, along with existing residential zoning districts in
established areas, are appropriate for the Regional Center.
B. Design principles. Design standards for public street improvements and for new development
and renovation projects have been prepared for the Washington Square Regional Center. These
design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Washington Square
Regional Center, including creating a high-quality mixed use area, providing a convenient
pedestrian and bikeway system, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the
area.
C. Development conformance. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation
projects resulting in new non single family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the
character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below
and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes,
developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities
such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation
and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 23
e uses
D. Permitted and Conditional Uses. Permitted and Conditional uses are those permitted
outright, with restrictions, or conditionally within the MUC, MUE 1, MUE 2, MUR I or MUR2
zones pursuant to 18.520.030.
E. Conflicting standards. The following design standards apply.to all development located within
the Washington"Square Regional Center within the MUC, MUE and MUR zones. If a standard
found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this
section shall govern.
18.630.020 Development Standards
A. Compliance Required. All development must comply with:
1. All applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except
where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters
18.370, and Sub-Sections C through E of this Section;
2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title.
B. Development Standards. Development standards which apply within mixed-use zones in the
Washington Square Regional Center are contained in Table 18.520.2. Existing developments
which do not meet the standards specified for a particular district may continue in existence and
be altered subject to the provisions of Section 18.630.030.
C. Phasing of Development Standards. Projects may use the Site Development Review process
(Chapter 18.360) to develop a site by phasing compliance with the development standards
established in this Chapter. Such projects must demonstrate how future development of the site,
to the minimum development standards established in this Chapter or greater, can be achieved at
ultimate build out of the site. The Planning Director may waive or modify the approval period
(Section 18.360.030 C) and phased development time schedule (Section 18.360.030 E.1) for
projects approved under this section. If a time period greater than that specified in 18.360.030.C
is necessary, it must be requested at the time of original application with a detailed time line for
completion.
D. Density Requirements for DeveloQments Including or Abutting Riparian Setback.
Notwithstanding the density requirements in Table 18.520.2, the maximum residential density
and mixed-use and non-residential floor area ratio for developments that include or abut Riparian
Setbacks shall be no greater than 110 percent of the minimum residential density and floor area
ratios in all Mixed Use Zones, except when the following are met:
1. Wetlands within the development are expanded or enhanced in conformance with the
Oregon Division of State Lands Wetlands Restoration and Enhancement Program, and if
applicable
2. Fish Habitat within the development is enhanced in conformance with the Oregon
Division of State Lands Fish Habitat Enhancement Program, and if applicable
3. The overall flood storage capacity of the 100-year floodplain within the development is
increased by 10 percent.
If the enhancements described above are approved, or if enhancements are already in existence,
the maximum residential density standards shown in Table 18.520 and no maximum floor area
ratio standards for mixed use and non-residential developments shall apply.
E. Adjustments to Density Requirements in the Washington Sguare•Regional Center. The
density requirements shown in table 18.520.2 are designed to implement the goals and
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 24
policies of the Co rehensive Plan. These requirements AIII
y throughout the
Washington Square Regional Center zoning districts, but the City recognizes that some
sites are difficult to develop or redevelop in compliance with these requirements. The
adiustment process provides a mechanism by which the minimum density requirements
may be reduced by up to twenty five percent (25%) of the original requirement if the
proposed development continues to meet the intended purpose of the requirement and
findings are made that all approval criteria are met. Adjustment reviews provide
flexibility for unusual situations and allow for alternative ways to meet the purpose of the
code.
1. Approval Criteria. Adjustment requests will be approved if the review body finds
that the applicant has shown that approval criteria 1 through 4 below, are met.
a. Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the
regulation to be modified; and
b. The proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area; and
c. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of
the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the
overall purpose of the zone;
d. Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the maximum
extent possible.
2. Procedure. Requests for an adjustment are processed as a Type I application,
along with the development proposal for which the application has been filed.
3. Ineligible regulations. Adjustments are prohibited for the following items:
a. To allow a primary or accessory use that is not allowed by the
regulations;
b. As an exception to any restrictions on uses or development which contain
the words "prohibited" or "not allowed";
C. As an exception to a qualifying situation for a regulation, such as zones
allowed or items being limited to new development.
d. As an exception to a definition or classification
e. As an exception to the procedural steps of a procedure or to change
assigned procedures.
F. ]Modifications to Dimensional and Minimum Density Requirements for Developments That
Include or Abut Designated Water Resources Overlay District Riparian St bucks.
Notwithstanding the dimensional and minimum density requirements its Tble 18.520.2, the
minimum and maximum dimensional requirements and the minimum re.,,idential density and
mixed-use and non-residential floor area ratio for developments that inc ude or abut Riparian
Setbacks shall be subject to modification when modification is necessary to assure that
environmental impacts are minimized Modification reviews provide flexibilityfor unusual
situations and allow for alternative ways to meet the purpose of the code, while assuring
potential environmental impacts are minimized
1. Approval Criteria. Modification requests will be approved if the review body finds that
the applicant has shown that approval criteria a through d below, are met.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 25
a. Evidence is provided that the modification(s) are necessary in order to secure
approval under any of the following applicable regulations: federal
Endangered Species Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit, Section 404 or 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, and Oregon
Removal-Fill Law, and
b. The proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area as
specified in the Plan; and
C. If more than one modification is being requested, the cumulative effect of the
modifications results in a project that is still consistent with the overall purpose
of the zone;
d. The modification(s) proposed are the minimum required to grant the applicable
permit(s) listed in criteria a.
2. Procedure. Requests for a modification are processed as a Type II procedure along
with the development proposal for which the application has been filed.
3. Eligible regulations. Modifications are only available for the dimensional
requirements and minimum density requirements shown on Table 18.520.2 and do not
circumvent or supercede any local, regional, state or federal requirements in regards to
natural resources.
18.630.030 Pre-Existing Uses and Developments within the Washington Square Regional
Center Mixed Use Districts
A. Applicability. Pre-existing housing units in mixed use districts are permitted. Conversion of
pre-existing housing units to other uses is subject to the requirements of this Chapter.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18.760.040, uses prohibited and structures that would
be nonconforming in any of the Regional Center Mixed Use zoning districts that were lawfully in
existence at the time of adoption of the Regional Center Mixed Use districts are considered to be
approved uses and structures. However, future additions, expansions, or enlargements to such
uses or structures, shall be limited to the property area and use lawfully in existence at the time of
adoption of this ordinance (date).
1. An addition, expansion, or enlargement of such lawfully preexisting uses and structures
up to twenty (20%) of the gross floor area lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of
this ordinance will be allowed provided the applicant of such proposed addition,
expansion or enlargement demonstrates substantial compliance with all appropriate
development standards in this Code, or that the applicant demonstrates that the purposes
of applicable development standards are addressed to the extent that the proposed
addition, expansion or enlargement allows.
2. All additions, expansions, or enlargements of existing uses or structures that take place
1 after using the 20 percent addition, expansion, or enlargement exception shall be in
i conformance with the development standards of this Code. Projects may use the Site
Development Review process (Chapter 18.360) to develop a site by phasing compliance
1 with the development standards established in this Chapter per Section 18.630.020.C.
3. If a pre-existing use is destroyed by fire, earthquake or other Act of God, then the use
will retain its pre-existing status under this provision so long as it is substantially
reestablished within three (3) years of the date of the loss. The reestablished use shall be
in conformance with the development standards of this Code. Projects may use the Site
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 26
IN 00
Development Review process (Chapter 18.360) to develop a site by phasing compliance
with the development standards established in this Chapter per Section 18.630.0
18.630.040 Street Connectivity
A. PMose: The standards provide a way for creating continuity and connectivity within the
Washington Square Regional Center. They provide incremental street and accessway
development that is consistent with WSRC needs and regional and state planning principles for
connectivity. The primary objective is to create a balanced connected transportation system that
distributes trips within the WSRC on a variety of streets.
B. Demonstration of standards. All development must demonstrate how one of the following
standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements
of Chapter 18.370.010 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental
constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections.
1. Design Option
a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no
more than 530 feet.
b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be
provided at intervals of no more that 330 feet.
2. Performance Option
a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street
intersections per mile.
b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a major building entrance to a
collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance.
C. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a major building
entrance to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the
straight-line distance.
18.630.050 Site Design Standards
A. Compliance. All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one
acre or larger a phased development plan may be approved demonstrating how these standards for
the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in
Section 18.370.010 C2, governing criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied.
1. Building placement on Major and Minor Arterials
a. Purpose: Architecture helps define the character and quality of a street and can
make a strong statement about the overall community and City at large. The
placement and design of buildings provides the framework for the streetsg e
and defines the edges of the public right-of--way. Architecture and ground floor
uses can activate the street, either by its design presence or by those who come
and go from it. At intersections, investing in building frontages can create
gateways and special places that add to the character of the area,
b. Standard: Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of all street frontages
along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public
street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 27
W 0
2. Building setback -
a. Pumose:_Buildings and investment in architecture is most conspicuous when it
is visible from the street. The presence of buildings closely sited at the edge of
the right-of-way creates an envelope for the street and a sense of permanence.
b. Standard: The minimum and maximum building setback from public street
rights-of-way shall be in accordance with 18.520.2.
3. Front yard setback design -
a Purpose, The front yard is the most conspicuous face of a building and
re uires special attention. Places for people and pedestrian movement helps
create an active and safer street. Higher level of landscape anticipates a_ more
immediate visual result.
b. Standard: For setbacks greater than 0', landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-
surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure
and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the
required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be
developed to an L-1 standard on public streets and an L-2 standard on
accessways. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or
modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are
encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping
requirement per Section 18.520.04013 and Table 18.520.2.
4. Walkway connection to building entrances -
a. Pll-Mole' As density increases and employee and resident populations increase,
it is expected that more people will move between businesses within the
WSRC. Provisions should be made to encourage people to walk from business
to business and housing to business rather than use automobiles.
b. Standard: A walkway connection is required between a building's entrance and
a public street or accessway. This walkway must be at least six feet wide and
be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building
entrances at a corner adiar o a public street intersection are required. These
areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section
18.520.040B, Table 18.520.2.
5. Parking location and landscape design -
a. Purpose: The emphasis on pedestrian access and a high quality streetscape
experience requires that private parking lots that abut public streets should not
be the predominant street feature. Where parking does abut public streets, _hign
quality landscaping should screen parking from adjacent pedestrian areas.
b. Standard: Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-
way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. When
buildings or phases are adjacent to more than one public street, primary
street(s) shall be identified by the City where this requirement applies. In
general, streets with higher functional classification will be identified as
primary streets unless specific design or access factors favor another street. If
located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the rtp street frontage and
must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L- I Landscape Standard.
The minimum depth of the L- I landscaped area is five feet or is equal to the
building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be
landscaped to a L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yard abuts a
public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L- I Landscape Standard.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 28
18.630.060 Building De n Standards
All new buildings constructed in the MUC. MUE and MUR zones within the WSRC shall comply with
the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in
Section 18.370.010 C2, criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied.
1. Ground floor windows -
a. Purpose: Blank walls along the street frontage tend to be neglected, and are not
pedestrian friendly. Windows help keep "eves on the street" which promotes safety
and security, and can help create a lively street frontage by displaying activities and
products within the building. Lighting at night from ground floor windows also adds
to the presence of activity and the sense that someone is home.
b. Standard: All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet)
along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area
with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall
be measured from three feet above grade to nine feet above grade the entire width of
the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met
within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level.
Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining
elevation as long as the entire requirement is located at a building corner.
2. Building facades -
a. Puroose: Straight, continuous, unarticulated walls lack interest, character and
personality. The standard provides minimum criteria for creating a diverse and
interesting streetscape.
b. Standard: Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without
providing at least one of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials;
(b) a building off-set of at least 1 foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from
other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features
that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more
than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building.
3. Weather protection -
a. Purpose: Weather protection is encouraged to create a better year-round pedestrian
environment and to provide incentive for people to walk rather than drive.
b. Standard: Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and
arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged
along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a
sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public
street or accessway.
4. Building Materials -
a. Purpose: High quality construction and building materials suggest a level of
permanence and stature appropriate to a Regional Center.
b. Standard: Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet
press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation
material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material
is not revealed for more than 2 feet.
5. Roofs and roof lines -
a. Puroose: Roof line systems that blur the line between the roof and the walls of
buildings should be avoided. This standard simply states that roofing materials
should be used on the roof and that wall finish materials should be use on building
walls. The premise is that future buildings in the WSRC should have a look of
permanence and quality.
b. Standard: Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 29
Am"
of the primary materials used for the uilding and should respect the
as an ex , stun
building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are
not permitted.
6. Roof-mounted equipment -
a Purpose: Roof ton equipment, if not screened properly, can detract from views of
adjacent properties Also roofs and roof mounted equipment can be the predominant
view where buildings are down slope from public streets.
b. Standard: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent
public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back
or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized.
Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard.
18.630.070 Signs
A. Sign standards. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code the
following standards shall be met:
1. Zoning district regulations - Residential only developments within the MUC, MUE and
MUR zones shall meet the sign requirements for the R-40 zone 18.780.13013; non-
residential developments within the MUC zone shall meet the sign requirements for the
commercial zones, 18.780.13OC; non-residential development within the NIUE zone
shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone, 18.780.130D and non-residential
development within the MUR zones shall meet the sign requirements of the C-N zone,
18.780.130E.
2. Sign area limits - The maximum sign area limits found in 18.780.130 shall not be
exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted.
3. Height limits - The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet.
Wall signs shall not extend above the roofline of the wall on which the sign is located.
No height increases will be permitted.
4. Sign location - Freestanding signs within the Washington Square Regional Center shall
not be permitted within required L- I landscape areas.
18.630.080 Entry Portals
A. Required locations. (Reserved)
18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening
A. Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable. The
locations were the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or
screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum
requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met.
1. L-1 Low Screen - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within
parking lots and along local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter
18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. In addition the L-1 standard applies to
setbacks on major and minor arterials, and where parking lots abut public streets. Where
the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a street, trees shall be
planted at 3 '/z inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a
variety that will provide a 3-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year.
Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 30
2. L-2 General andscaping - For general landscaping of lan aped and screened areas
within parking lots, and along local collectors and local streets, planting standards of
Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. In addition, trees shall be
provided at a minimum 2 %z inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall
be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two
years.
18.630.100 Street and Accessway- Standards
A. Functional Classifications and Street Sections. The Recommended Roadway Functional
Classification Map and Street Cross Sections attached shall govern the improvement and
construction of major streets within the Washington Square Regional Center.
18.630.110 Design Evaluation
The provisions of Section 18.620.090-Design Evaluation apply within the Washington Square Regional
Center.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 31
18.760.040 Criteria for onconforming Situations
A. Development of nonconforming lots of record.
1. Except as provided in Subsection A2 and Subsections B and C below, no
nonconforming lot of record at the effective date of this title or amendment thereto shall
be developed for any use, and no existing use on a nonconforming lot of record shall be
enlarged, extended or reconstructed,
except that the enlargement or expansion of a single-family residence will be allowed in
the CBD zone only;
2. If on the date of adoption of this title a lot does not meet the lot size requirements of the
applicable zoning district in which the property is located, the lot may:
a. Be occupied by one use permitted outright in a commercial zoning district, if the lot is
located within a commercial zoning district; or
b. Be occupied by single-family residential units and accessory structures if located in a
residential zoning district.
3. In any district, construction on a single nonconforming lot of record existing at the
effective date of this title or amendment thereto, notwithstanding limitations imposed by
other provisions of this title, are subject to the following:
a. The nonconforming lot shall be in a separate ownership and not contiguous with
other lots in the same ownership; and
b. All setback, height and other applicable provisions of the zoning district shall be
satisfied unless appropriate variances and/or adjustments are obtained.
4. If two or more lots, or combinations of lots and portions of lots in single ownership are of
record at the effective date of this title and are made nonconforming as to lot area, width
or depth by this title the lots involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for
the purposes of this title; and:
a. No portion of the aggregated parcels shall be conveyed, transferred or used in any
manner which violates or creates a violation of this title; and
b. No division of the parcel shall be made which creates any lot remaining with the
area, width or depth which does not meet the requirements of this title.
B. Nonconforming uses. Where at the time of adoption of this title a lawful use of land exists
which would not be permitted by the regulations imposed by this title, and where such use
involves no structure or building other than a single sign or accessory structure, the use may
be continued as long as it remains otherwise lawful, provided:
1. No such nonconforming use is enlarged, increased or extended to occupy a greater area
of land or space than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of
this title;
2. No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot
other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of
this title;
3. The nonconforming use of land is not discontinued for any reason for a period of more
than six months;
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 32
4. If the use is discontinued or abandoned for any reason for a period of six months any
subsequent use of land shall conform to the regulations specified by this title for the
zone in which such land is located; and
5. For purposes of calculating the six-month period, a use is discontinued or abandoned
upon the occurrence of the first of any of the following events:
a. On the date when the use of land is vacated;
b. On the date the use ceases to be actively involved in the sale of merchandise or the
provision of services;
c. On the date of termination of any lease or contract under which the nonconforming
use has occupied the land; and
d. On the date a request for final reading o water and power meters is made to the
applicable utility districts.
6. No additional structure, building or sign shall be constructed on the lot in connection with
such nonconforming use of land.
C. Nonconforming development.
1. Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this
title that could not be built under the terms of this title by reason of restrictions on lot
area, lot coverage, height, yard, equipment, its location on the lot or other requirements
concerning the structure, such structure may be continued so long as it remains
otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions:
a. No such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which
increases its nonconformity but any structure or portion thereof may be enlarged or
altered in a way that satisfies the requirements of this title or will decrease its
nonconformity; or
b. Should such nonconforming structure or nonconforming portion of structure be
destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 60% of its current value as
assessed by the Washington County assessor, it shall not be reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of this title; and
c. Should such structure be moved for any reason for any distance whatever, it shall
thereafter conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located after
it is moved.
D. Nonconforming use of structures.
1. If a single lawful use contained in a single structure involving that structure or structure
and premises in combination (except for a single, accessory structure) existed as of
March 16, 1983, it would not be allowed in the zoning district in which it is located, or
which is nonconforming because of inadequate off-street parking, landscaping or other
deficiency (under the terms of this title or amendment thereto), the lawful use may be
continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions:
a. No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this title in the zoning district
in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 33 imd
or structurally a ered except to accommodate a chan9 in9 of the use of the structure
to a use permitted in the zone in which it is located;
b. Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any existing parts of a building
which were manifestly arranged or designed for such use at the time of adoption or
amendment of this title, but no such use shall be extended to occupy any land
outside such building;
c. A change of use for a single use in a single structure may occur under the following
conditions:
(1) The nonconforming use status was registered with the Director in the manner
provided by Subsection 3 for the purpose of establishing the use classification
as listed in any of the permitted use subsections of this title;
(2) The new use is within the registered permitted use classification; and
(3) The new use conforms to the zoning ordinance provisions.
d. When a nonconforming use of a structure and premises is discontinued or
abandoned for six months the structure and premises shall not thereafter be used
except in full conformity with all regulations of the zoning district in which it is located.
For purposes of this section, a use shall be deemed to be discontinued or
abandoned upon the occurrence of the first of any of the following events:
(1) On the date when the structure or premises is vacated;
(2) On the date the use ceases to be actively involved in the sale of merchandise
or the provision of services;
(3) On the date of termination of any lease or contract under which the
nonconforming use has occupied the premises; or
(4) On the date a request for final reading of water and power meters is made to
the applicable utility districts.
e. Where a nonconforming use status applies to a structure and premises, removal or
destruction of the structure shall eliminate the nonconforming use status of the land:
(1) Destruction for the purpose of this subsection is defined as damage to an
extent of more than 60 percent of its current assessed value by the Washington
County assessor; and
(2) Any subsequent use shall conform fully to all provisions of the zoning district in
which it is located.
2. If a single structure or a structure and premises containing a number of lawful uses
(except for a single accessory structure) existed as of March 16, 1983, and those uses
would not be allowed in the zoning district in which they are located, or which are
nonconforming because of inadequate off-street parking, landscaping or other deficiency
(under the terms of this chapter or amendment thereto), the lawful uses may be
continued so long as they remain otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions:
a. No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this title in the zoning district.
in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 34
Ago&
or structurally ered except to accommodate a change of the use of the structure
to a use permitted in the zone in which it is located;
b. Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any existing parts of a building
which was manifestly arranged or designed for such use as of March 16, 1983, but
no such use shall be extended to occupy any land outside such building except as
limited by Subsection (e) below;
c. A change of use may occur as follows:
(1) The nonconforming use status was registered with the Director in the manner
provided by Subsection 3 below for the purpose of establishing the use
classification as listed in any of the permitted use subsections of this title;
(2) The new use is within the registered use classifications;
(3) The new use does not cause an increase in the total number of square feet in
the registered use classification; or
(4) The new use conforms to the zoning ordinance provisions.
d. Where a structure had vacant units as of March 16, 1983, such vacant spaces shall
be classified with the most restrictive use classification applicable to the structure;
and
e. When the use of the structure, including all uses, is discontinued or abandoned for
three months, the structure and premises shall not thereafter be used except in full
conformity with all regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. For
purposes of this section, a use shall be deemed to be discontinued or abandoned
upon the occurrence of the first of any of the following events:
3. The provisions of Section 18.132.040 shall not be interpreted as granting an owner of a
nonconforming use a vested right. The provisions of the section may be revised in a
manner which does not change the rights granted by this section under this chapter.
E. Non-Conforming Situations in Washington Square Regional Center. For non-conforrnin
uses and developments in the Washington Square Regional Center, the standards of
18.630.030 apply.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 35
EXHIBIT B
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
Proposed Text Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments to the comprehensive Plan to reflect changes recommended by the Task
Force are shown as bold and double underlined.
There are also several changes that were adopted after the original Washington Square
Comprehensive Plan changes were adopted. These changes were approved as part of
the Durham Quarry amendment. There are also some changes that needed to be
made to the adopted text to reflect the Durham Quarry amendments. They are
identified by bold text
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 1
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER STUDY
Final Draft
Recommendations for Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Implement the
Washington Square Regional Center Plan
August 25, 1999 (Revised 8-30-2001)
Add the,following to implementation strategies, underpolicies 1.1.1 and-1.1.2:
Implementation strategies
1. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the Official Zoning District map will
reflect the plan policies and apply land use categories in the following manner:
n. Mixed Use Commercial District - Principle development in these areas will be
high density office buildings, retail and service uses. MUC districts will
encourage larger buildings with parking under, behind or alongside the
structures There are two applicable mixed use commercial zoning districts:
MUC and MUC-1. A zoning designation o MUC will also allow mixed-use
development an housing at densities of 50 units an acre. UG is'me`s will
The Regional Center Plan recommends that land around the Washington Square
Mall and land immediately west of Highway 217 be
_MUC. A zoning designation of MUC-1 will allow mixed-
use development and housing at densities of 25 to 50 units an acre. The
MUC-1 district is applied to the Durham Quarry site.
o. Mixed Use Residential District - The MUR designation is appropriate for
predominantly residential areas where mixed uses are permitted when compatible
with the residential use. Areas will be designated high density (MUR-1) or
moderate density (MUR-2). Locations within the Washington Square Regional
Center are appropriate for this mixed-use designation.
Arid the yiloWng to policies under 5.5 - Econo r
5.5 THE CITY SHALL PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS EXCEPT:
COMPLIMENTARY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED
ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND
ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR IN COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL DISTRICTS.
(THE DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-40 DISTRICTS.) AFB;
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 2
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT
ZONE SHALL BE CONSIDERED PERMITTED USES AND NEW MULTI-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED TO DEVELOP AT
R-40 DENSITIES.; AND
WITHIN THE MUC, MUR 1 AND 2 AND MUE 1 AND 2 ZONES WITHIN THE
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER, WHERE RESIDENTIAL USES
SHALL BE PF,RMITTG.D AND ENCOURAGED AT HIGH DENSITIES RAN ING
FROM R-25 MUE 2 AND MUR 2) T R-50 MUC, MUE I AND MUR 1).
WITHIN THE MUC-1 DISTRICT, WHERE RESIDENTIAL USES SHALL BE
PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED T DEVELOP AT A MINIMUM F 25
UNITS PER ACRE T A MAXIMUM OF 50 UNIT PER ACRE. RESIDENTIAL
USES WHICH ARE DEVEL PED ABOVE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES A
ART F A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO
THESE DENSITIES.
Add a new section 11.8-9 with the following:
11.59 WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
In 1995, Metro Council adopted a visionary plan for regional development. The 2040 Growth
Concept described strategies to make the most efficient use of urban land in the face of dramatic
population growth, to create and preserve livable neighborhoods, and to promote a useful,
accessible transportation system.
One of the key elements of the 2040 Growth Concept, was the designation of regional centers.
These are areas of concentrated commerce, local government services and housing served by
high-quality transit. Washington Square is one of three regional centers in Washington County
and one of nine in the region.
The 2040 Growth Concept resulted from extensive regional discussion about the future of the
Portland metropolitan area. Metro, working with local jurisdictions, then developed the Urban
Growth Management Functional Plan in 1996 to implement the Growth Concept. Local citizens
and governments were then to determine the best way to create regional centers given the values,
interests and needs of residents and businesses of that community.
The following findings and policies summarize the results of a thorough public discussion about
the future of the Washington Square Regional Center area. It demonstrates the way the people of
Tigard and Washington County incorporated their expectations for the future into the Regional
Center Plan.
Findings
1. With the adoption of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, local governments,
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 3
businesses, residents and property owners in Washington County began a study of land
use, transportation and other functions around Washington Square.
2. In 1998, the Tigard City Council appointed 23 people to serve on the Washington Square
Regional Center Task Force. Task Force members represent neighborhoods, schools,
business and property owners, state and local governments and public interest groups.
The task force's charge was to identify issues and set general policy for recommendations
about land use, transportation, open space, aesthetics and other issues relevant to.
development around Washington Square. The Task Force also oversaw a public
involvement process.
3. The Task Force agreed on a study area that includes 1250 acres, with Washington Square
Mall approximately in the center. The area is bounded by Fanno Creek on the west, SW
Greenburg Road and Hall Blvd. on the east, Progress Downs Golf Course to the north,
and Highway 217 and Ash Creek on the south.
4. The Task Force members agreed on a set of principles that would guide development of
all recommendations. These principles are as follows:
Creation/Preservation ofArea Identity
1. Reinforce a distinctive Regional Center while recognizing and respecting the
character of the nearby residential community.
2. Retain and develop quality housing, including affordable housing, for all income
levels.
3. Facilitate transitions from one use to another; for example, single to multifamily
residential uses.
4. Preserve and enhance Metzger Park and consider additional parks.
5. Encourage environmentally friendly development.
6. Try to keep historic trees.
7. Build for our children: Have a sense of stewardship.
8. Think creatively and be innovative in improving/maintaining quality of life.
9. Consider market forces and development patterns.
10. Maintain and preserve floodplains and wetlands.
Government/Institutional Issues
1. Consider all political boundaries and facilitate cooperation among jurisdictions.
2. Maintain neighborhood schools.
3. Identify and reinforce what makes the learning (educational) environment viable.
Transportation:
1. Strive for a self-sufficient, connected transportation system.
2. Consider transportation needs for the whole study area.
3. Plan for a multi-modal transportation system that accommodates increased auto
and non-auto travel needs.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 4
4. Respect and enhance local street networks and neighborhood livability.
5. Maintain an acceptable level of service and safety on regional roads, minimizing
the effect on regional roads outside the study area.
6. Provide good transportation access to the rest of the region.
7. Make the community accessible for all people and modes with connections for
cars, bikes, pedestrians and transit.
8. Maintain a high level of accessibility within and to the regional center.
9. Use appropriate street and streetscape design.
10. Encourage attractive, high quality development.
11. Promote long-term viability for the area. Assure infrastructure is available prior
to or with development.
The Regional Center Plan Should
1. Be understandable to lay people
2. Be implementable within a reasonable, staged period of time
3. Help develop a sense of community with a common vision, hope and optimism
4. Be based on statistics and facts for population, .employment and other factors
5. Use existing resources as much as possible
6. Encourage compatible and complementary uses
7. Contain solutions to common problems
8. Avoid conflict with other regional centers.
5. The Washington Square Regional Center study area includes land within the City of
Tigard, the City of Beaverton and in unincorporated Washington County. The study
covers approximately 1,074 acres exclusive-of public rights-of-way and 1,250 total acres.
About 4.2 percent of the net land area within the study area is vacant.
6. The Task Force evaluated all lands within the study area for future development or
redevelopment capacity through 2020. Land identified as having development or
redevelopment potential if it is currently vacant, has infill capacity, holds an opportunity
for redevelopment or currently is used as a large (greater than one acre) surface parking
lot. The vast majority of growth potential will come from redevelopment of existing
structures and infill on sites currently used for surface parking. Over the next 20 years,
approximately 192 acres of land will become available to accommodate employment and
residential growth within the study area.
7. Metro' s Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan established "target
growth capacity" for each jurisdiction in the region. The goal of setting these target
numbers is for each part of the region to be prepared to accommodate housing and job
growth. The target growth capacity for the Washington Square Regional Center is based
on accommodating the following new jobs and housing units between 1998 and 2020:
Employment: 9,804 jobs
Retail: 1,188 jobs
Office: 8,436 jobs
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 5
Lodging: 180 jobs
Housing: 1,500 units
Residents: 2530 people
8. A development program for the Washington Square Regional Center provides for the
target employment and housing growth capacity. Areas including the districts around the
Washington Square Mall, the Lincoln Center office complex, and an emerging mixed-use
district south of Locust will develop at relatively high densities. Areas north of Locust
and west of Highway 217 will develop at more moderate intensities, but generally greater
than existing intensity in these areas. Density assumptions are summarized below:
Land Use: High Density: Moderate Density:
Office @ FAR 1.25 @ FAR 0.6
Retail @ FAR 0.6 @ FAR 0.3
Lodging @ FAR 1.0 @ FAR 1.0
Housing @ 50 DU/Acre @ 25 DU/Acre
9. This development program will require approximately 170-200 acres over the next 20
years. Adequate development and redevelopment capacity exists within the study area as
a whole to accommodate development as long as densities assumed above are achieved.
10. The Regional Center Task Force reached agreements on basic elements of urban
development, environmental protection, and transportation facilities. The Washington
Square Regional Center Plan describes the vision for the regional center.
11. The Task Force demonstrated an impressive amount of interest in mixed-use
neighborhoods and developments. Increasing land value and transportation costs will
contribute to the desire of workers and employers for proximity of housing and work
sites. The regional center' s urban design concept incorporates the need for improved
transportation links, higher density, variety of land uses and services and a quality of
environment necessary to create a desirable, livable community in the face of dramatic
population growth.
12. Major roadways in the study area experience significant traffic congestion during
weekday peak periods. Highway 217, Greenburg Road, Hall Boulevard and Scholls
Ferry Road are subject to traffic delays. The major capacity constraints occur at the Hall
Boulevard/Scholls Ferry Road intersection, the Scholls Ferry Road/Nimbus Avenue
intersection, and the Greenburg Road/Highway 217 ramp intersections. In addition,
Highway 217 itself is highly congested.
13. The majority of the arterial and collector streets in the study area have sidewalks. Scholls
Ferry Road and Hall Boulevard have bike lanes within the study area. Highway 217
presents a major barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists. The only connections between the
east and west sides of the highway in the study area are overcrossings on Hall Boulevard,
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 6
M M M I
Scholls Ferry Road and Greenburg Road. Of these three crossings, sidewalks are found
only on Hall Boulevard and Greenburg Road, with bicycle lanes only on Scholls Ferry
Road. The only bike lanes on the east side of the Washington Square Mall are on Hall
Boulevard.
14. The Washington Square Transit Center is located in the northeast parking area of the
Washington Square Mall. This transit center serves as a bus stop for routes 43, 45, 56,
62, 76 and 78. These routes connect Washington Square to transit centers in downtown
Portland, Beaverton, Tigard and Lake Oswego, as well as providing service to the
Tualatin area. A wider selection of transit tools could create a less congested, auto-
dependent transportation system within and connecting to the study area.
15. In the future, those areas already identified as experiencing traffic congestion will
continue to be clogged. In addition, other sections of Hall Boulevard, Greenburg Road,
and Cascade Avenue and Oleson Road will also experience congestion. Traffic estimates
do not predict congestion on local Metzger area streets directly east of Washington
Square Mall.
16. The Tigard City Council approved the Washington Square Regional Center Plan,
September 1999 (9,SRC Plan) an related Compre ensive Plan and Zoning Code
amendments, but withheld enactment o these po icies an standards until a numbef of
transportation, natural resource, stormwater, and parks and open space issues were
addressed.
17. The City provided resources and secured grants from the Transportation and Growth
Management (TGM) Program, State o Oregon, and the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD), State of Oregon, to undertake additional
technical studies to address these issues during the Phase II Inhplenhentation process.
18. The Phase II Implementation work effort focused on a number of issues that were first
articulated by the Tigard City Council, and then defined as charges to the Task Force,
Subcoinmittees. These charges were:
1. Advise whether the major transportation improvements identified in the Regional
Center Plan are physically feasible, and whether environmental or other
permitting issues represent a "fatal flaw" for project implementation.
2. Determine whether the proposed Regional Center Plan zoning creates the need for
significant additional transportation improvements compared with existing
zoning.
3. Prepare a transportation demand management strategy for the Regional Center.
4. Develop a long-range transportation inhplenhentation program that addresses
public policy, financial resources and responsibilities, and short-tenn priorities.
5. Map and con inn the hydrological characteristics (wetlands and fish habitat) of
the Fanno an Ash Creek Watersheds within the Regional Center.
6. Compi e policies an standards for these watersheds related to development
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 7
impacts, including the extent that parks and open spaces activities can exist within
the 100-year oodp ain area.
7. Recommend mo i ications (as necessary) to the City's natural resource
regulations.
8. Assess tFie stormwater management needs for the Regional Center Plan and a
recommends approach or storm water management.
9. Develop a long-term n ing strategy or storm water management.
10. Con irm the parks and open space needs or the Regions Center Plan and a
recommended approach or identifying, acquiring, improving and mamttai uig
parks an open space in the area.
11. Develop a ong-tenn funding strategy for parks/open space.
19. Based on the work of the Task Force, Technical Subcommittees, and consultation with
the public, the following findings and cone usions are made:
1. The results of the engineering and environmental analysis show that all of the
transportation recommendations from the WSR 'Pan can be imp emente ,
and none of the protects are fatally awed.
2. A comparison ol'traffic trip generation potential of current zoning within the
Regions Center to that proposed in t ie W RC Pan showed very similar
future peak hour trips, and that the transportation system required to serve the
W SRC Pan is the same as that required to serve the area under current zoning.
3. A long-term transportation implementation program is described later in this
report, including a transportation demand management strate y. A uianctng
strategy is recommended that produces sufficient revenues over a 20-year
period to implement the improvement program.
4. Detailed fic1d reconnaissance was undertaken, and cxistinl; vegetative
communities and wetlands within the Regional Center were mapped. It is
recommended that the "figar Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map be
amended to reflect this work.
5. Existing lederal, state and local regulations and impact review procedures
2pL)licable to public and private developments within the Regional Center
address the protection of identified natural resource areas. These existing
regulations and any new regulations protecting natural resources take
precedence over any local zoning designations, existing or proposed.
6. Proposed zoning designations applying to resource areas do not in and of
themselves threaten natural resource values or potentially cause environmental
impacts any more or less significantly compared to existing or less intensive`
zoning.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 8
7. Modifications to City of Tigard development standards that apply to sites that
include natural resource areas along As and Fanno Creeks are recommen e
in order to minimize enviromnenta impacts. Applicable developE-ent
standards include waiving minimum FAR and residential density standards,
adjusting building setbacks and others.
8. The results of an assessment of existing and future flooding and water quality
needs within the Regional Center showed that existing stonnwater ace i ies
are inadequate, anidenti ied regional storinwater improvements remain
unfounded.
9. A long-tenn stomiwater management program is described later in this report.
A financing strategy is recommended that produces sufficient revenues over
a 20-year period to implement t e improvement program.
10. A Greenbelt, Parks and Open Spaces Concept Plan is recommended which
rehnes the proposals made in the W SRC Plan. All elements o t e Concept
Plan were found to be feasible.
11. A long-temi greenbelt, parks and open spaces implementation program is
described later in this report A financing strategy is recommended that
produces sufficient revenues over a 20 year period to implement the
improvement program.
20. A financing strategy was developed in detail for transportation, stonnwater, and parks &
open space improvements. Based on the analysis o revenue expected from the vanety of
sources described in the strategy, adequate resources were determined to be available
during the next 20 years to adequately fiend the public improvements necessary to
implement the ff,SRC Plan. The primary elements of the financing strategy are:
1. Aggressively pursue federal highway trust fund sources through Metro's
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program MTIP). Metro estimates
that approximately 874 million in federal highway trust n money will be
allocated direct y to the Metro region during the years 2000 through 2020.
i
2. Establish priorities so that locally generated fees from existing businesses and
residents and new development activity located within the Regional Center are
focused on the transportation and infrastructure needs within the Regional
Centcr.
3. Pursue the forrnation of local improvement district(s) (LIDS) where existing
businesses and residents will directly benefit from improvements to existing
transportation and storniwater facilities, or relatively modest new
unprovements are needed that benefit mu tiple property owners.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 9
Aft AOL
4. Aggressively pursue regional, state, and national grants and funding programs
for specific improvements, and pursue dedications, donations and
contributions from the private sector.
5. Establish an urban renewal district for the Regional Center as a local funding
source for major transportation, stormwater, resource enhancement and -p-ar7s
and open space improvements that benefit the entire area. Based on the
growth projection utilized or the Washington Square Regional Center Plan,
approximately 92-162 million in accumulated urban renewal revenues would
be available for project activities within the Regional Center over a 20-year
period. An important recommendation of the financial strategy is the creation
of a new urban renewal district. It is recommended that the urban renewal
istrict be created to include areas within the City of Tigard, City o
Beaverton, and unmcorporate Washington County. This will assure that the
entire Regional Center will be eligible or urban renewal investments.
POLICIES
11.59.1 THE CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN THE WASHINGTON
SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN SHALL PROVIDE THE OVERALL
GUIDING FRAMEWORK FOR MORE DETAILED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
FOR THE AREA. THE IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS INCLUDE AT A MINIMUM:
a. Comprehensive plan map and zoning map amendments including transportation
plan.
b. A public facilities plan for the area including a financing plan.
C. A transportation improvement plan for the area including a financing plan.
d. A parks and open space plan for the area including a financing plan.
e. A recognition of the Regional Center Boundary for the purpose of establishing
local, regional and state funding priority in order to accomplish the concepts and
principles of the plan.
11.89.2 THREE DISTINCT TYPES OF MIXED USE DISTRICTS SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED FOR THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER. THESE
DISTRICTS ARE:
a. MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (MUC). THE REGIONAL
CENTER PLAN RECOMMENDS THAT LAND AROUND THE
WASHINGTON SQUARE MALL AND LAND IMMEDIATELY WEST OF
HIGHWAY 217 BE DESIGNATED A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT IN THESE AREAS WILL BE
OFFICE BUILDINGS, RETAIL AND SERVICE USES. A ZONING
DESIGNATION OF MUC WILL ALSO ALLOW MIXED-USE
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 10
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AT DENSITIES OF 50 UNITS AN ACRE.
MUC DISTRICTS WILL ENCOURAGE LARGER BUILDINGS WITH'
PARKING UNDER, BEHIND OR ALONGSIDE THE STRUCTURES.
b. MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT (MUE). MIXED USE
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS REFER TO AREAS WITH CONCENTRATIONS
OF OFFICE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND LIGHT
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL USES. COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL
SUPPORT USES ARE ALLOWED, BUT ARE LIMITED. THE ZONING
WILL PERMIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE WITH THE
DISTRICT I S EMPLOYMENT CHARACTER. LINCOLN CENTER IS AN
EXAMPLE OF AN AREA DESIGNATED MUE-1, THE HIGH DENSITY
MIXED-USE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT. THE NIMBUS AREA IS
DESIGNATED MUE-2, REQUIRING MORE MODERATE DENSITIES.
C. MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (MUR). THE MUR
DESIGNATION IS APPROPRIATE FOR PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL
AREAS WHERE MIXED USES ARE PERMITTED WHEN COMPATIBLE
WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USE. AREAS WILL BE DESIGNATED HIGH
DENSITY (MUR-1) OR MODERATE DENSITY (MUR-2).
Ti7i7 f''TTV CL7 A T 7 A Tll1DT Tub (1T T ll~S 7TTT/'TT A 1. T['Tl/lTT A TTl11.T
-z-rz~-cz rr-prrz m~~v vz-rTrrv-~c-c vv Z•r•TC?-ri7•YY~~t`tyi'c tYYl-ttft't
iMPRO I-CIMENT STRATEGY TAT ORDER TO A /''/-011 T 40D A T • PLANNED T A w
USES i TR-E 3I ACHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL !'ENT-CD .
i~.-ro-rrtt-~o-r yr c~rr-x-Lrc
a4cl-e#-b~~se~~e~-€a~e~~I9yee~-irrt~eT~~~ ogee-~e~ele~~e~li~
b
li~itnr^•~t.. t., tL,, T A C 1, A A 1 a'
::ciircv crrc-z iiiai~ircctrcci~-riri cirracT, b
eever-ed pedestrian path oF !he mall md iffipr-ek,ed eenneetiens te ether- retail and
i
eae..t. "t
iiiv ..F U„ .,..t.. :,a T« Met, :ae.,ti fle t: ,.r..
existing flew
site en Greeftbarg, I Hall.
1 •VS«
neighber-beed or-ea and
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 11
t
;t .
a
e SW Palm Bettlevar-d and the roadway ar-ound the
!ones.
g ,
designated walkways to e iists and pedestrians te the maltend
Between Lecciat^"a Oak Street, 9a k Street betweenr : "l" Street effid Hall
n ,ie ..a and ether- st' et, as the
AN,e latte feadway, and develop Hall Beu!eN,afd to a Offee lane fiteility as an initial
pphase-
Pr-evide ,eQe
n"^etibufb Read.
771r ,
Ahi" flew
f
p b b
b b
}fA }ents.
to Nimbus Avenue alld b
b
- bj'.` z-icccrv cccc-ancrf'S
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 12
y~~va aJ i via.3~va~i eenneetions to existing w-1- par-tieular-ly emphasis e.H
bikeways, H eighber-heeds and a f
Stmng
people mover- system
b
Square Regienal GenteF as shown en Figure 1. The fellewing p0lieies ftppl), to
-1- L~~ " a„a nLa.,ll 1. Fczn F +
~Nu ais v vv a u
of 600 feet.
f„
ryV7C4=., ..1,4.. .,C . ...ll 4n 41, ..4en+ ev4.+ •1,1 1, 4'l' .J F
leeal sifeet system. Right of wayvaeatiens will be eousidefed only when
all other polieies in this ubb „4'.. met.
a f
.
Proposed Amendment to Chapter 8. Transportation. Add new .Policies:
8. 1.9 THE CITY SHALL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE AND
PUBLIC TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY .IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE
EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES IN THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL
CENTER:
1. Commuter Rail Service and Station: Washington County has proposed commuter rail
services from Wilsonville to Beaverton on the existing freight line to the west of
Highway 217. The City supports a commuter rail station in the vicinity o.f the North:
Mall to Nimbus Overcrossing.
2. Pedestrian Improvements - SW Greenburg Road: Constrict pedestrian
improvements on SW Greenburg Road between SW Hall Boulevard and Highway
217 to improve pedestrian crossing opportunities and safety.
3. Pedestrian Improvements- SW Hall Boulevard: Constrict pedestrian crossing refuge
(median) on SW Hall Boulevard between SW Pfaffle Street and SW Locust Street to
improve pedestrian crossm opportunities and safety.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 13
4. Pedestrian And Bicycle Improvements- SW Locust Street: Realign SW 90th Avenue
across SW Locust Street to provide a .:our- egge intersection at Locust Street. '
Constnuct curb extensions, sidewalks an bicycle lanes to provide improve non-auto
accessibility across and along Locust Street.
5. Pedestrian Access Improvements- Washington Square Mall: Construct pedestrian
improvements e.g. sidewalks, landscaping, and connections from parking to the mall
and surrounding artenals) in the Washington Square Mall area.
6. Identify potential bicycle network alignments with connections to existing bikeways,
neighborhoods an activity centers, with particular emphasis on extending the Fanno
Creek Bikeway along As Creek.
7. Construct a pedestrian trail within and/or around the Red Tail Public Golf Course.
This presents an opportunity to provide a sae neighborhood walking/exercise area
and to serve more of the population using existing resources.
8. Provide pedestrian/bicycle connections on local streets to, from and within
new developments and redevelopments.
9. Identify potential bicycle network alignments with connections to existing bikeways,
neighborhoods and activity centers, with particular emphasis on extending the Fanno
Creek Bikeway along Ash Creek.
10. Shuttle/People Mover: Develop local area transit service operating between the
Washington Square Mal area, the Nimbus/Cascade districts and Lincoln Center. The
service could use the proposed connections across Highway 217. Initially a shuttle
bus, in the future this service con d be converted to some type of fixed route system.
11. Transit Center Improvements: Construct capacity and facility improvements (e.g. real
time transfer rnfonnation, lighting, covered connections to the Mall, and additional
bus bays) to the existing transit center at the Washington Square Mall.
12. Transit Systein Iinproveinents: The City supports transit routing and frequency
improvements in the Regional Center. Tri-Met has provided an outline of potential
service improvements and planning that would need to occur to imp ement these
nnprovements. The range of improvements include relocating the Transit Center to
provide better connections into the Mall, coordinating park and ride facilities with the
future commuter rail service, providing bus stop improvements in the Regional
Center area, and decreasing transit service headways. Tigard, Tri-Met and employers
or developers nn the district should begin to develop a transit improvement plan for
the district.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 14
13. Travel Demand Management Program: The City recognizes the importance of
eve~lopi'ng a travel demand management program or the Regional Center area. A
key features of this program will be a Transportation Management Association
TMA that coordinates the means o ecreasing demand or singe occupant vehicles
within the Regional Center area, par ing management strategies, transit system
improvements, and travel demand management programs. The City o Tigar ,
Beaverton, Washington County, Tri-Met, Metro, D T and employers in the area
should begin to work together to refine this framework into a detailed plan or t e
area.
8.1.10 THE CITY SHALL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING AUTO AND ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING AND
PLANNED LAND USES IN THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER:
1. Near Term Traffic Operations Improvements: Small-scale roadway operations
improvement projects s is 1 be implemented in the near future. These improvements
correct existing system eticiencies or provide needed pedestrian, bicycle or transit
facilities:
a. Develop signal timing improvements on Greenburg Road between Highway 217
and the Washington Square Mail.
b. onstruct a separate east ound nght turn lane from Hall Boulevard to Scholls
Ferry Road. This could require Hall Boulevard overcrossing improvements.
c. Construct pedestrian improvements throughout the district.
d. Develop a shuttle system connecting Lincoln Center, Washington Square Mall
and Nimbus Business Par
e. Evaluate an con inn that the southbound Hall Boulevard right turn only lane into
the Washington Square Mall at Pam lad Lane should be eliminated. Restripe as
appropriate.
f. Devs final timing improvements on Hall Boulevard that include capabilities
to allow buses that have fallen behind schedule to travel to the front of the queue
and travel through the signal prior to other traffic ("queue jumping capabilities
g. Develop direct access from the Washington Square Mall tot the Target Store so
that motorists do not have to travel on Hal Boulevard when traveling between the
two facilities.
h. In cooperation with the City of Beaverton and Tri-Met, identify a new Park &
Ride site to replace the existing site that was intended to be temporary.
2. Highway 217 Improvements: Identify and plan for the implementation of
improvements to Highway 217 and its interchanges between Interstate 5 and Highway
26.
3. North: Mall to Nimbus Connection: Construct a bridge over Highway 217
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 15
connecting the Washington Square Mall with the Nimbus Business Center. The
bridge would include a two-lane roadway, bike lanes, sidewalks an facilities
transit. The bridge is intended to be a facility or local travel wit in the Regional
Center.
4. SW Nimbus Avenue: There are two components of the SW Nimbus Avenue
Improvements:
a. North of Scholls Ferry Road: Modify the existing roadway (north of Scholls Feny
Road to a 3-lane facility with parking, bike lanes an sidewalks. Potentia or
streetscape improvements including solid median with specs is turn slots to
individual properties.
b. Nim us to reen urg Connection: Extend SW Nimbus Avenue to meet
Green burg Road. This wou e a 5-lane roadway with bike lanes ansidewalks,
but no on-street parking.
5. SW Lincoln Street: Modify Lincoln Street to provide a 3-lane section with parking,
bike lanes an sidewalks between SW Locust Street and SW O Street.
6. W Hall Bou evar The Washington Square Regional Center Tas Force identified
this project as the fifth priority or imp ementation in the Regional Center area T e
project would first be constructed to 3-lane standards wit si ewalks anbike anes at
five lane units etween Oleson Roa an Hig away 217. If after other project
recommen ations have been constructed, it is. our that Ha Boulevard still needs to
be a five-lane facility the roadway woul then be widened again. In the interim, an
as possible the City o Tigar or ODOT would acquire theright o way necessary for
a rive-lane section
As a three or five-lane facility, this project includes landscaped median with
designated le turn pockets that also provide for improved pedestrian crossing
opportunities. This is consistent with Metro the Regional Boulevard Designation for
Hal Boulevard.
7. SW Cascade Avenue: Iinprove the existing roadway (north and south of Scholls
Ferry Road) to 3-lane standard with parking, bike lanes an sidewalks. Potential for
streetscape improvements including solid median with specific tuna slots to m i idual
properties.
8. SW Locust Street: Modify Locust Street between Hall Boulevard and Greenburr
Road to include a three-lane section with parkin , bike lanes, sidewalks and other
streetscape improvements to maintain as a lower speed street.
9. SW Oak Street: Modify the roadway to provide 2-lane section with parking, bike
lanes and sidewalk between SW Hall Boulevard and Lincoln Street.
10. Washington Square Internal Roads: Constrict improvements to existing Washington
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL. CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 16
Square Mali internal circulation roads to public street standards with bike lanes and
sidewalks.
11. Adopt the functional classification plan for streets internal to the Washington Square
Regional Center ass own on Figure 1. The f6 flowing policies apply to local streets
within the regional center:
a. Local street spacing shall be a maximum of 530 feet.
b. Access way spacing sha be a maximum o 330 feet.
c. Spacing o signalized intersections on Mayor Arterials shall be a minimum of 600
feet.
T-Existing rights of way will, to the greatest extent possible, be utilized for a local
street system. Right of way vacations will be consi ere only when a of er -p icies
in this subsection are met.
12. The transportation projects described in this section should be added to the City of
Tigard's Transportation System Plan. The City, ODOT anMetroshould work to
include these improvements in regional and state nnp ementation programs.
11.8.3 NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES INCLUDING SEWER, WATER AND
DRAINAGE FACILITIES, SHOULD BE IN PLACE OR PLANNED TO BE
CONSTRUCTED IN TIME TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
11.8.4 NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, AS DETERMINED BY A
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT, SHOULD BE IN PLACE OR PLANNED TO BE
CONSTRUCTED IN TIME TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
Proposed Amendment to Chapter 12. Locational Criteria.
Add a new Section 12.5:
12.5 MIXED USE DISTRICTS
POLICY
12.5.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH:
a. APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES;
b. APPLICABLE PURPOSE STATEMENTS; AND
C. APPLICABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 17
1. Mixed Use Commercial
A. The purpose of the Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) land use designation is:
1. To create a dense mixed-use commercial district that forms the
commercial core of the Washington Square Regional Center;
2 To create a high quality, mixed use commercial district, in conjunctions
wit t e City o Tua ahn, on the site o the former Durham Quarry.
3-2. To provide opportunities for major retail goods and services, office
employment, and housing-in close proximity, and with good access to
transportation services;
4_3. To implement the Metro 2040 Growth Concept and Urban. Growth
Management Functional Plan for areas designated Regional Center within
the City of Tigard.
2. Mixed Use Employment
A. The purpose of the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) land use designation is:
1. To create a mixed-use employment district that is complementary to the
rest of the community and the region;
2. To provide opportunities for employment and for new business and
professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major
transportation facilities;
3. To provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general
public, and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which
works and lives within the MUE district;
4. To provide for groups and businesses in centers;
5. To provide for residential uses which are compatible with and supportive
of retail and employment uses;
6. To implement the Metro 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan for areas designated Regional Center and
Employment within the City of Tigard.
3. Mixed Use Residential
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 18
A. The purpose of the Mixed Use Residential (MUR) land use designation is:
1. To create moderate and high density mixed use residential districts in
close proximity to other mixed-use districts;
2. To provide opportunities for a variety of housing types and densities, and
to produce that housing in ways that residents have a high degree of
pedestrian amenities, recreation opportunities and access to transit;
3. To incorporate limited commercial and service uses within mixed-use
projects that provide benefits and amenities to residents, but are
compatible with residential uses.
4. To implement the Metro 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan for areas designated Regional Center within
the City of Tigard.
Policies
12.5.2 THE CITY SHALL APPLY A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR AREAS SHOWN AS REGIONAL CENTER IN THE METRO
2040 GROWTH CONCEPT OR TO OTHER AREAS IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY AS
APPROPRIATE FOR MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT..
12.5.3 THE CITY SHALL APPLY A MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR AREAS SHOWN AS REGIONAL CENTER AND
EMPLOYMENT IN THE METRO 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT.
12.5.4 THE CITY SHALL APPLY A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR AREAS SHOWN AS REGIONAL CENTER IN THE METRO
2040 GROWTH CONCEPT.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
1. The Community Development Code shall:
a. Include a two Mixed Use Commercial Districts; MUC and MUC-I
b. Include high density and moderate density Mixed Use Employment Districts;
C. Include high density and moderate density Mixed Use Residential Districts.
d. Require that:
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 19
1. Minimum residential densities and floor area ratios (FAR) be achieved;
2. Certain commercial uses be limited so that a pedestrian-oriented
development pattern is achieved;
3. Design standards for pubic improvements, site design, building design,
signs and landscaping are achieved in order to create high quality,
pedestrian-oriented developments;
4. All areas be subject to Site Development Review.
e. Provide for:
1. Limited adjustments, and phasing so that development standards can be
achieved over time;
2. Limited adjustments in development standards, including minimum
density an FAR requirements, in cases where adjustments are necessary
to avoid environments impacts;
3. Improvements to pre-existing uses and developments so that existing
residents and businesses may continue to thrive;
4. Incentives to preserve and enhance significant wetlands, streams and
floodplains.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 20
EXHIBIT C
STAFF REPORT TO THE
TIGARD CITY CODICIL CamTIGARD
,
aevelopme'nt
shapUlWA 'Setter
c
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
CASE NAME: WASHINGTON SQUARE PHASE 11
CASE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA2001-00002
Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ZOA2001-00002
PROPOSAL: Modify the adopted Development Code and Comprehensive Plan text as it relates to
the Washington Square Regional Center. The Washington Square Regional Center
Plan (Regional Center Plan) was adopted by the City Council in March of 2000,
however Council voted to delay implementation of the Plan and code changes until
an implementation plan was completed addressing specific areas of concern. The
original Task Force was reconvened to work on the Washington Square Regional
Center Plan: Phase II, Implementation (Implementation Plan). After 8 months of
work by the Task Force, staff and consultant team, the Implementation Plan was
completed and it was determined that additional amendments were needed to the
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan in order to reflect the Implementation
Plan findings. In addition, staff found several areas within the adopted text that
needed to be clarified or cross referenced in the Development Code prior to it being
used. The proposed ' amendments reflect the Implementation Plan
recommendations and minor changes identified by staff. The proposal in front of the
Planning Commission is to amend portions of. Development Code sections 18.360,
18.370, 18.520, 18.630, 18.760 and portions of Comprehensive Plan 1.1.1, 11.9
(previously numbered 11.8), 8.1.9 and 12.5.2.
APPLICANT City of Tigard OWNER: Various
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
LOCATION: The area is bounded generally by Fanno Creek on the west, SW Greenburg
Road and Hall Boulevard on the east, Red Tail Golf Course to the north, and
Highway 217, including the Ash Creek area on the southern border.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: The criteria applicable to the proposed amendments to the previously adopted
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan are: Community Development
Code Sections, 18.390.060; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2,
3.4.24 8.1.1, and 8.2.1; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, and 12; and Metro
Functional Plan Titles 1, 3, 4, and 7 and the Regional Transportation Plan.
SECTION II. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted to recommend APPROVAL of the requested Comprehensive Plan
amendment and Development Code amendments to the City Council.
CPA2001-0000220A2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 1
EXHIBIT C
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
History
In 1996, Metro adopted a visionary plan for regional development. This regional plan is known
as the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. Focusing development and growth in regional centers
represented a key aspect of supporting growth of the area and preserving livability. The
Washington Square Regional Center represents one of three regional centers in Washington
County and one of seven in the metropolitan region. The area consists of 1,250 acres of land
and includes land in Tigard, unincorporated Washington County and the City of Beaverton.
With funding from a Transportation and Growth Management Grant (TGM), a master planning
effort was undertaken by the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton and Washington County to
develop the boundaries and a plan for the regional center. A 23 member Task Force was
assembled and met for over a year to develop the plan. Once the Plan was complete and
accepted by the Task Force, the Planning Commission and City Council held hearings and
determined that there were several areas of concern that needed additional review before the
Plan and development and design standards should become effective. The original Task Force
was reconvened (with a few new members, for a 25 member Task Force) and 4 sub-
committees were formed to review the remaining issues in detail. On July 25, 2001 the Task
Force accepted the findings and recommendations from the sub-committees and passed a
resolution forwarding the Implementation Plan components to the City Council so that they
could implement the Regional Center Plan. As a piece of the Task Force findings, it was
determined that minor changes were needed to the Development Code and Comprehensive
Plan above and beyond the changes previously adopted.
A joint Planning Commission and City Council work session was held on August 21, 2001 to
review the Task Force's recommendations. At this meeting, City Council directed staff to move
forward with the implementation process for the Washington Square Regional Center and final
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code amendments. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on December 3, 2001 to consider the proposed amendments
and voted to recommend approval.
Vicinity Information
The affected parcels and street system are within the area known as the Washington Square
Regional Center. The area consists of 1,250 acres of land and includes land in Tigard,
unincorporated Washington County and the City of Beaverton. The area is bounded generally
by Fanno Creek on the west, SW Greenburg Road and Hall Boulevard on the east, Red Tail
Golf Course to the north, and Highway 217, including the Ash Creek area on the southern
border.
Proposal description
The Washington Square Regional Center consists of 1,250 acres, the majority of which is in the
City of Tigard. When the Regional Center Plan was adopted by Council in March of 2000,
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan text amendments were also adopted but
implementation was delayed. The Task Force working on the Implementation Plan identified
several additional amendments needed in order to implement the Regional Center Plan. In
addition, staff found several formatting and clarification issues that needed to be addressed before
the previously approved amendments could be effectively implemented. The proposal is to adopt
the changes to the previously approved Development Code and Comprehensive Plan to reflect
the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan recommendations.
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 2
EXHIBIT C
The following provides a summary of the Comprehensive Plan changes:
• Added findings of the section of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Washington Square
Regional Center to reflect work of the implementation plan.
Replaced the transportation improvement strategy section that was previously adopted with a
more comprehensive strategy including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. The new
transportation strategy is based on recommendation from the (Transportation Technical
Advisory Subcommittee) TTAS and Task Force.
• Staff added language in the locations criteria information to allow for additional mixed use sites
such as the Durham Quarry.
■ Included language that provides for adjustments to development standards and minimum
density when necessary to avoid environmental impacts.
The following provides a summary of the Development Code changes:
• Amended 18.360 (Site Development Review, 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments), 18.520
(Commercial zoning Districts), 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center), and 18.760
(Non-Conforming Situations) to re-format the adopted standards to fit into the existing
Development Code and to clarify and cross reference the standards throughout the code.
■ Added text, based on the Task Force recommendation, to allow for modifications to the
dimensional standards and minimum density requirements for developments abutting water
resources areas.
SECTION IV SUMMARY OF REPORT
❑ Applicable criteria, findings and conclusions
• Tigard Development Code 18.390
Statewide Planning Goals
• Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies
e Applicable Metro Standards
❑ Additional City staff and outside agency comments
SECTION V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Tigard Development Code 18.390
Chapter 18.390.060G states that for legislative map and text amendments
(Comprehensive Plan and Development Code) the recommendation by the Commission
and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors:
o The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised
Statutes Chapter 197;
Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable;
Any applicable Metro regulations;
Any applicable Comprehensive Plan policies; and
• Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances.
This report addresses the applicable standards listed auove and demonstrates that the
proposed amendments comply with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Metro regulations,
Comprehensive Plan policies and provisions of the Development Code. There are no
applicable federal or state regulations other than those previously listed.
CPA2001-0000220A2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 3
EXHIBIT C
FINDING: As discussed in detail throughout this report, the proposed amendments comply,
or can be conditioned to comply, with the standards outlined in 18.390.060.G.
Statewide Planning Goals
The following Statewide Planning Goals were found to be inapplicable to the proposed
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan amendments:
Statewide Planning Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands,
Statewide Planning Goal 4 - Forest Lands,
Statewide Planning Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resource Quality,
Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Natural Disasters and Hazards,
Statewide Planning Goal 8 - Recreational needs,
Statewide Planning Goal 9 - Economic Development,
Statewide Planning Goal 10 - Housing,
Statewide Planning Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services,
Statewide Planning Goal 13 - Energy Conservation,
Statewide Planning Goal 14 - Urbanization,
Statewide Planning Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway,
Statewide Planning Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources,
Statewide Planning Goal 17 - Coastal shorelands,
Statewide Planning Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes, and
Statewide Planning Goal 19 - Ocean Resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement:
This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive
Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements
set forth in Section 18.390. In addition, notice was mailed to all property owners within the
Washington Square Regional Center and within 500 feet of the regional center and notice was
published in the Tigard Times prior to the hearing. Two public hearings are held (one before
the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) in which an opportunity for
public input is provided.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning:
This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The
Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide
planning goals.
The Development Code implements the 'Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code
establishes a process and policies to review changes to the Development Code consistent with
Goal 2. The City's plan provides analysis and policies, with which to evaluate a request for
amending the Code consistent with Goal 2. As discussed within this report, the proposed
amendments comply with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan criteria.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Natural Resources
Requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic areas
and sites suitable for removal and processing of mineral and aggregate resources.
This goal is met because the proposed code amendment allows for flexibility of standards when
a project is adjacent to Natural Resources to protect resources above and beyond the
protections already in place on a local, regional, state and federal level.
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 4
EXHIBIT C
IMP
Statewide Planning Goal 12 - Transportation:
This goal is intended to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system. This Goal is implemented by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12,
which is also known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Section 660-12-060
states that plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall
assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
level of service of the facility.
The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the planned improvements previously
approved. The amendments refine the necessary transportation improvements based on the •
Task Force findings and provide for more multi-modal development as policy in the
Comprehensive Plan. The revised Comprehensive Plan language will continue to encourage a
safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments do not
violate applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning
goals and the regional plan adopted by Metro.
The proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as addressed above under
"Statewide Planning Goals". The proposal conforms with the applicable portions of the Metro
"Urban Growth Management Functional Plan" that was adopted in October, 1996, by Metro, as
discussed within this report.
Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen
involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be
involved in all phases of the planning process. Policy 2.1.2 states that opportunities for
citizen involvement shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort.
The Planning Commission and City Council hearings have been legally advertised. Notice has
been sent to property owners within 500' of all properties within the Washington Square
Regional Center and has been published in the Tigard Times to ensure that citizens will have
the opportunity to learn about the hearing and to participate in it.
Natural Areas: Policy 3.4.2.d states that the City shall address Goal 5 requirements
pertaining to the preservation of wetlands and that citizens will participate in making
policy recommendations.
The proposed Development Code amendments are based on recommendations from the
Washington Square Regional Center Task Force which was made up of citizens,
representatives from the business community and agency staff. The standards go further to
protect natural areas by providing for additional flexibility to underlying zoning standards in
order to protect the natural resources. In addition, there are already standards in place which
limit the density of development adjacent to the natural resource areas and regulates buffers.
Traffic ways: Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and
roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and
development.
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 5
EXHIBIT C
The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan refine the original amendments which provide a
plan for a transportation system, including alternative modes of transportation, that are safe and
efficient.
Public Transportation: Policy 8.2.1 states that the City shall coordinate with Tri-met to
provide a system that meets both the current and projected needs of the community.
Tri-met was an active participant in both phases of the Washington Square Regional Center
Plan. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan regarding transportation, transit and other
alternative modes of transportation are based on comments and input from the Task Force.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the proposed amendments comply with the
applicable Comprehensive Plan standards and criteria.
Applicable Metro standards
2040 Growth Concept/Functional Plan
The Metro 2040 Growth Concept map identifies the Washington Square area as a regional
center. The 2040 Plan required Tigard to demonstrate how it could comply with the concepts of
the 2040 plan including housing and jobs. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan has
been adopted by the City Council but implementation was delayed until further study could be
done on several areas of concern including: transportation, parks and open spaces, natural
resources and storm water. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code are in response to the additional work done to complete the implementation
plan. Because the amendments are needed to fully address the regional center plan vision and
goals, the proposed changes support the regional center plan, the 2040 Plan and the Metro
growth concept. The elements of the Functional Plan that are applicable to these code
amendments are: Title 1, Title 3, and the Regional Transportation Plan. The remaining
elements of the functional plan do not apply to the proposed Development Code or
Comprehensive Plan changes. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan and original
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan changes were previously reviewed for compliance
with the Metro Functional Plan and findings made that confirmed the plan complies with the
Metro standards.
Metro Functional Plan Title 1 - Requirements for Housing and Employment
Accommodations
Functional Plan policies in Title 1 seek ways to increase the capacity within the urban
growth boundary, such as changing local zoning to accommodate development at
higher densities in locations supportive of the transportation system.
While the proposed amendments allow for flexibility of development standards and density for
developments adjacent to natural resource areas, the City would continue to meet its target
population. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan provides an excess capacity "safety
net" for the City therefore, a possible reduction in density will not bring the City below its
required target populations.
Metro Functional Plan Title 3 - Water Quality, Flood Management, and Fish/Wildlife
Habitat Conservation protect beneficial uses and functional values of water quality and
flood management resources by limiting uses in these areas. Establish buffer zones
around resource areas to protect from new development.
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 6
' EXHIBIT C
As stated previously in this report, a portion of the Development Code is proposed to be
amended to allow flexibility for developments when they are adjacent to natural resource areas.
This is in addition to the City's, Clean Water Services (formally USA), state and federal
standards protecting natural resource areas. The Clean Water Services standards are intended
to comply with Metro's Title 3. The proposed amendments, therefore, do not conflict with Title 3
requirements.
Regional Transportation Plan - The RTP provides a regional plan for transportation
Improvements and requires City's plans to be consistent. The RTP also provides plans
for Transit, TDM and pedestrian mobility. The RTP replaces Metro Functional Plan Title
6.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments refine the necessary transportation
improvements based on the Task Force findings and provide for more multi-modal development
as policy in the Comprehensive Plan. The revised Comprehensive Plan language will continue
to encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system and is consistent with the
RTP.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the proposed amendments comply with the
applicable Metro standards.
SECTION VI. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS
The Regional Center Plan was reviewed by a 25 member Task Force which included
representatives from Washington County, Beaverton and Metro. In addition, staff sent request
for comments to the following agencies and staff for comments on the proposed amendments:
City of Tigard Engineering Department, Clean Water Services, Metro, Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department
of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon
Division of State Lands, Washington County, and the City of Beaverton. No comments
were received.
January 9. 2002
PREPARED BY: Julia Hajduk DATE
Associate Planner
January 9. 2002
APPROVED BY: Barbara Shields DATE
Long Range Planning Manager
i:\IrplnJuIIa\CPA\Washington square\wash sq. phase II CC staff report.doc
1-8-02 10:52 AM
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 7
imam
Attachment 1
To be included as Exhibit U to Ordinance
Supplemental findings to Staff Report
Statewide Planning Goals
The Washington Square Regional Center Plan and Comprehensive Plan and Development
Code changes to implement the plan were adopted by the City Council in March 2000.
Findings were made showing compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals in the staff
report adopted as an exhibit to the Ordinance (00-18) at that time. Those changes were not
challenged and are now deemed acknowledged. The findings made within this report
support the proposed amendments under consideration at this time and do not pertain'to the
adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan or Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code amendments previously approved.
The proposed amendments under consideration at this time are as follows:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan changes: 1.) Add findings of the section of the
Comprehensive Plan regarding the Washington Square Regional Center to reflect work of the
implementation plan; 2.) replace the transportation improvement strategy section that was
previously adopted with a more comprehensive strategy including pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit. The new transportation strategy is based on recommendation from the
(Transportation Technical Advisory Subcommittee) TTAS and Task Force; 3.) add language
in the locations criteria information to allow for additional mixed use sites such as the Durham
Quarry (adopted after the Washington Square Regional Center Plan in June, 2001); and 4.)
include language that provides for adjustments to development standards and minimum
density when necessary to avoid environmental impacts.
The proposed Development Code changes: 1.) amend 18.360 (Site Development Review,
18.370 (Variances and Adjustments), 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts), 18.630
(Washington Square Regional Center), and 18.760 (Non-Conforming Situations) to re-format
the adopted standards to fit into the existing Development Code and to clarify and cross
reference the standards throughout the code; and 2.) add text, based on the Task Force
recommendation, to allow for modifications to the dimensional standards and minimum
density requirements for developments abutting water resources areas.
Below is an analysis of applicability of each Statewide Planning Goal in relation to the
proposed amendments:
Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement
This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive
Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
Analysis:
This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements
set forth in Section 18.390. In addition, notice was mailed to all property owners within the
Washington Square Regional Center and within 500 feet of the regional center and notice
was published in the Tigard Times prior to the hearing. Two public hearings were held (one
before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) in which an
opportunity for public input was provided.
Conclusion: The proposed amendment process is consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The
Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the
statewide planning goals.
Analysis:
The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code
establishes a process and policies to review changes to the Development Code consistent
with Goal 2. The City's plan provides analysis and policies, with which to evaluate a request
for amending the Code consistent with Goal 2. As discussed within this report and in the
original staff report, the proposed amendments comply with the Development Code and
Comprehensive Plan criteria.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands
This goal requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to preserve
and maintain agricultural lands.
Analysis:
This goal is not applicable to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments because the amendments do not affect any designated agricultural land.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 4 - Forest Lands
This goal requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to preserve
and maintain forest lands.
Analysis:
This goal is not applicable to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments because the amendments do not affect any acknowledged forest lands.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Natural Resources
Requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic
areas and sites suitable for removal and processing of mineral and aggregate
resources.
Analysis:
This goal is met because the proposed code amendment allows for flexibility of standards
when a project is adjacent to Natural Resources to protect resources above and beyond the
protections already in place on a local, regional, state and federal level. The City has
previously adopted the required inventories and protective measures and the changes
enhance the existing protective measures by allowing additional ways to protect resources.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resource (duality
This goal is intended to maintain and improve the quality of air, water and land
resources of the state by controlling waste and process discharges.
Analysis:
The mixed use nature of the Regional Center will help maintain and improve air, water and
land resources quality by reducing vehicle trips, miles traveled, providing denser
development patterns which maximizes land and provides a population density that supports
alternate modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling and walking. This will effectively
reduce air quality impacts. In addition, existing and proposed regulations for development
adjacent to natural resources will continue to provide protections of water quality. New
development adjacent to resource areas will in some cases be required to improve resource
areas in order to get approvals for any mitigation.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Natural Disasters and Hazards
This goal is intended to protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.
Analysis:
There are areas in the Regional Center that are in the 100 year floodplain and subject to
flooding. In addition, the area is identified (as is much of the Tigard area) as having a high
earthquake hazard. The relative hazard is based on factors of ground motion amplifications,
liquefaction, and slope instability. All new developments are required to be constructed in
accordance with accepted standards regarding earthquake safety, slides, etc. In cases
where soil stability is a question, geotechnical reports may also be required. In regards to
floodplain and floodway issues, the City is currently in compliance with this goal and will
continue to be so because there are standards regulating development adjacent to and within
the floodplain which severely limit any development in the floodplains and require a "no net
increase" in the flood level. The City's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Development Code
implements the Comprehensive Plan. It should be stressed that any development will be
required to show that it is not resulting in an increase in flood level in order to do any
alteration of the floodplain. If alteration of the floodplain is proposed, the City regulations
require extensive engineering documentation, approval from Division of State Lands (DSL),
US Army Corps of Engineers and other regulating agencies, and a public hearing for any
alteration of the floodplain.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 8 - Recreational Needs
This goal requires that the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors
be considered and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary
recreational facilities including destination resorts.
Analysis:
This goal is not directly applicable to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development
Code amendments because the amendments proposed for adoption do not change any
zoning or standards applicable to recreation. The amendments are consistent with the goal
because the only amendment that relates in any way to this goal provides for reduction of
density and development standards for developments abutting water resource areas if
necessary to comply with resource protection regulations.
Conclusion: To the extent water resource areas serve recreational needs, the amendments
are consistent with the goal because they provide greater protections for those
areas.
Statewide Planning Goal 9 - Economic Development
This goal requires the provision of adequate opportunities for a variety of economic
activities.
Analysis:
The amendments proposed for adoption do not substantially change the zoning or uses from
the existing adopted text (adopted March, 2000). The existing Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code comply with Goal 9 by providing adequate opportunities for a variety of
economic activities. Those opportunities remain essentially intact. The only amendment that
could affect economic development in any way is the amendment which provides for
reduction of density and development standards for developments abutting water resource
areas if necessary to comply with resource protection regulations. Even with this
amendment, the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code still provide for a variety of
economic activities and providing additional protection of water resource areas will have
minimal effects on economic activities. There is an inherent tension between maximizing
protection under Goal 5 and maximizing economic development under Goal 9.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to
appropriately balance these goals by protecting natural resources while
encouraging economic development that has less impact on natural resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 10 - Housing
This goal requires that plans encourage the availability of adequate numbers of
needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of
housing location, type and density.
Analysis:
The amendments proposed for adoption do not change the zoning, uses or density from the
existing adopted text (adopted March, 2000) except for the amendment which provides for
reduction of density and development standards for developments abutting water resource
areas if necessary to comply with resource protection regulations. The Comprehensive Plan
and Development Code, as amended, will continue to provide substantial opportunities for
housing units of various types and prices, including housing within the Washington Square
plan area. Goal 10 must also be balanced with Goal 5, and the plan and code as amended
balance the goals by protecting natural resources while allowing the development of housing
in areas that will have less impact on natural resources.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to
appropriately balance these goals by protecting natural resources while
allowing the development of housing in areas that will have less impact on
natural resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services
This goal requires planning and development of a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for development.
Required public facilities and services are to be provided at levels necessary and
suitable for existing uses.
Analysis:
The adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan (March, 2000) included
adoption of the transportation plan and parks and open spaces plan. The Implementation
Plan components relating to these issues make additional recommendations to clarify the
plans already approved. These plans and the Tigard Transportation System Plan support the
existing land uses and the proposed land use and development potential in the Washington
Square Regional Center area.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to
comply with this goal by requiring coordination of development and the
provision of public facilities and services.
Statewide Planning Goal 12 - Transportation
This goal is intended to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system. This Goal is implemented by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-
12, which is also known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Section 660-12-060
states that plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall
assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
level of service of the facility.
Analysis:
The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the planned improvements previously
approved. The amendments refine the necessary transportation improvements based on the
Task Force findings and provide for more multi-modal development as policy in the
Comprehensive Plan. The revised Comprehensive Plan language will continue to encourage
a safe, convenient and economic transportation system and will continue to assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the transportation infrastructure. The mixed use nature
of the Regional Center, which is unaffected by the amendments, will reduce vehicle trips and
miles traveled by providing denser development patterns and provide a population density
that supports alternate modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling and walking, thereby
improving the efficiency of the transportation system. The amendments have little effect on
transportation.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to be
consistent with this goal.
AM,
Statewide Planning Goal 13 - Energy Conservation
This goal requires that land and uses developed on land shall be managed and
controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon
sound economic principles.
Analysis:
The amendments proposed for adoption do not change the zoning or uses from the existing
adopted text except for the amendment which provides for reduction of density and
development standards for developments abutting, water resource areas if necessary to
comply with resource protection regulations. The mixed use nature of the Regional Center
will reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, and provide -a population density that supports
alternate modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling and walking. These previously
adopted provisions promote energy conservation and the amendments do not change these
benefits.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code remain consistent with this
goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 14 - Urbanization
This goal requires the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.
Analysis:
This goal is not applicable because the urban growth boundary and transition from urban to
rural zoning is not part of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments. The areas affected by the amendments are already urban.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway
Required protection, conservation and enhancement of lands along the Willamette
River Greenway.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not within the Willamette River Greenway,
therefore, this goal does not apply.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources
This goal requires recognition and protection of unique environmental, economic and
social values of each estuary and associated wetlands and, where appropriate,
protect, maintain and restore the long-term environmental, economic and social values
diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center does not have any estuaries, therefore, this goal
does not apply.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelands
This goal requires conservation, protection and, where appropriate, restoration of
coastal shorelands.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not located at the beach or along a coastal
shoreland, therefore, this goal is not applicable.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes
This goal requires conservation, protection, and where appropriate, restoration of
coastal beaches and dunes.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not located at the beach and there are no dunes
within the Regional Center, therefore, this goal is not applicable.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 19 - Ocean Resources
This goal requires conservation of the long-term values, benefits, and natural
resources of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not located at the beach or along a coastal
shoreland, therefore, this goal is not applicable.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments are
consistent with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
Hrpln/julia/cpa/washington sq/CC adoption wash sq mcmoldoc
2/26/01
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF Febru y 26. 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Preview of Revisions to Resolution No. 00-08, Citvwide Personnel Policies,
Updating Family and Medical Leave Article No. 55-0 `n, ry,~n pin
PREPARED BY: Sandra Zodrow DEPT HEAD OKLf v V MGR OKSQ r l_Wt J" i
I UE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
A PREVIEW OF THE REVISIONS TO THE CITYWIDE PERSONNEL POLICIES UPDATING THE FAMILY
AND MEDICAL LEAVE POLICY
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Information Only
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City Council approved Resolution No. 00-08 in March 2000, which adopted the Citywide Personnel Policies.
These revisions updating Family and Medical Leave Article No. 55.0 are due to recent amendments in the law for
State and/or Federal Family and Medical Leave Acts. The purpose of the City's proposed changes is to assure
compliance with applicable State and Federal laws as well as applicable City policies and bargaining agreements.
All additions in the text of the policy are identified in bold. Any text being eliminated is identified by strike-out.
Scheduled for adoption on March 12, 2002.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Copy of current Citywide Personnel Policies, Family and Medical Leave Article No. 55.0, Attachment A
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
PERSONNEL POLICIES ATTACHMENT A
No. 55.0
Pg. 1 of 7
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE POLICY
This policy is established to comply with both the Oregon and Federal Family and Medical Leave Act
which entitle eligible employees to 12 weeks of job-protected leave every 12 months for family and
medical reasons. The intent of this policy and the law is to allow City employees to balance their work
and family life by taking reasonable, unpaid leave of absences for the reasons specified in these rules
and regulations.
The City's family medical leave policy combines benefits required by the federal Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA) and state law.
F11gUQ EU EL.I IBILITY
An employee must have been employed by the City for at least 180 days for an average of 25 hours of
work per week during the previous 180 days. Exception: The hourly prerequisite does not apply to
parental leave.
PERMISSIBLE F SU FOIL TAKING LEA
V
Birth of a child (also referred to as "Parental Leave").
Placement of a child under the age of 18 (or older if the child is mentally or physically disabled)
with the employee for adoption or foster care (also referred to as "Parental Leave").
Care of a family member (spouse, child, parent, same-sex domestic partner, or parent-in-law) with
a serious health condition or for a child requiring home care due to illness extending longer than
three days. Leave to care for a same-sex domestic partner or parent-in-law is only required by
State law. (This type of leave may be referred to as "Serious Health Condition Leave.")
To recover from or seek treatment for a serious health condition of the employee when the employee
is unable to perform at least one essential function of his/her regular position. Serious health
conditions include on-the-job injuries, pregnancy related disabilities, and prenatal care (may also be
referred to as "Serious Health Condition Leave").
To care for a child who suffers from an illness or injury that does not qualify as a serious health
condition but that requires home care (may also be referred to as "Sick Child Leave" and is only
required by state law). If "Sick Child Leave" is requested to care for a child who does not have a
serious health condition, the City has the right to not approve the employee's request for leave when
another family member is available to care for the child. "Sick Child Leave" applies only to the
Oregon Family Leave law.
PERSONNEL POLICIES
No. 55.0
Pg. 2 of 7
DURATION OF LEA U
Twelve work weeks during a rolling 12-month period computed forward from the date the employee
first uses FMLA leave.
Taking leave on an intermittent basis or on a reduced work schedule may be permitted by the City if
necessary to take care of an ill family member or because of the employee's own health condition. In
either case, documentation by a medical professional is necessary. Leave of this nature must be
approved in advance by the City and employees must make a reasonable effort to minimize
disruption in the work unit. Intermittent leave will be calculated on an hourly basis which computes
to 480 hours per year.
Parental leave must be taken within 12 months after the birth/placement of a child. Leave may be
taken non-consecutively, but if more than two (2) non-consecutive leaves are taken within the 12-
month period, the employee must receive prior authorization from the City Manager or Human
Resources Director.
Under the Oregon Family Leave law, eEmployees who take parental leave are also entitled to an
additional 12 weeks of family leave to care for a sick child only if the full 12 weeks of parental
leave has been exhausted during the parental leave year. Employees not using the full 12
weeks of parental leave are only entitled to the balance of their 12 week entitlement for the
purposes of sick-child or any other type of OFLA leave.
Female employees who must take leave because of a pregnancy-related disability which prevents the
employee from performing any available job duties as documented by the employee's treating
physician or health care provider, may take an additional 12 weeks for other purposes approved
under the law.
Sometimes more than one type of leave may apply to a situation. Where allowed by federal or state law,
leaves will run concurrently. This means that worker's compensation leave, leave for a non-industrial
injury or illness (including paid leave such as sick leave), leave as a reasonable accommodation for a
qualified individual with a disability, paid vacation used for a family leave qualifying reason, and
federal family medical leave and state family medical leave may all run concurrently and be counted
against the employee's annual family medical leave entitlement. All applicable leave will be governed
by City policies, bargaining agreements, State laws, and/or Federal laws.
CITY'S BLMQ SIBILITI
If the City (specifically the employee's supervisor, Human Resources, or any other management
employee) acquires knowledge that an employee may need to take FMLA leave for any of the
reasons specified in these policies, the City will inform the employee of their entitlement to request
leave within 2 working days.
PERSONNEL POLICIES
No. 55.0
Pg. 3 of 7
Human Resources will furnish the employee with a copy of this policy, a leave request form, and the
required medical certification form. This information must be completed and returned to the
employee's supervisor within the timelines stipulated under "Employee's Responsibilities."
After the supervisor has acquired all the necessary signatures on the leave request form, it should be
forwarded to. Human Resources who will determine the employee's eligibility and make a
entitlement designation within 2 working days of receipt of the completed request forms.
Notification will be in writing.
It is the City's right and responsibility to determine and designate leave as FMLA if the eligibility
standards are evident. Such a designation will be based on information obtained either from the
employee or his/her spokesperson (e.g., spouse, parent, physician, etc.) in the event the employee is
incapacitated.
If the City is unable to confirm that the requested leave qualifies as FMLA leave, it may declare a
preliminary designation regarding eligibility. However, upon receipt of the medical information, the
City must either withdraw or finalize the preliminary designation in writing to the employee.
SUPERVISOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES
When a supervisor becomes aware of a pending leave of absence which might qualify for FMLA
leave, the supervisor will provide the employee with a brief summary of their FMLA rights and
advise the employee to contact Human Resources for more details. The supervisor should
immediately advise Human Resources of this referral.
After the supervisor reviews the leave request, they must immediately forward the request form to
the appropriate signing authority (i.e., Department Head, City Manager, Human Resource Director).
It is the supervisor's responsibility to assure that all necessary signatures are acquired and that the
signed leave request form is submitted to Human Resources within one (1) working day after receipt
from the employee.
All medical documentation must be forwarded to Human Resources. No medical files shall be
retained at the supervisor's desk. It is also important to remember that the supervisor must protect the
confidentiality of the employee. Information should be shared only on "as need to know" basis and
no specifics should be shared with the employee's co-workers.
The supervisor is required to process a Personnel Action form with all the appropriate signatures for
the employee's leave of absence.
PERSONNEL POLICIES
No. 55.0
Pg. 4 of 7
The supervisor should make arrangements with the employee for the completion and submittal of
timesheets. Timesheets need to be processed by standard Payroll procedures.
The supervisor should make every effort to maintain ongoing communication with the employee
during his/her absence for the purpose of acquiring status reports especially in regards to the
employee's return to work date. Contacts should take place at least every 30 days.
The supervisor should notify Human Resources of the employee's pending return to work and
acquire any necessary medical release information prior to the employee's return to the job.
F_11IPL!2EU S F. SP® MILLTIM
The employee should notify their supervisor of any pending leave of absence and contact Human
Resources for additional details of their FMLA rights.
The employee is required to submit a completed City of Tigard "Family and Medical Leave of
Absence Request" form to their supervisor within the following time frames:
a) When leave is anticipated, written notice must be provided at least 30 calendar days prior to the
start of leave. "Anticipated" refers to an employee having knowledge at least 30 calendar days in
advance.
b) When leave is unexpected, verbal notice must be provided to the supervisor or Human Resources
within 24 hours of the leave commencement plus written notice must be forwarded to Human
Resources within 3 days after returning to work.
c) Failure to comply with providing proper notice will result in delaying the leave until proper
notice is received.
The employee should submit any required written verification from their treating physician or health
care provider based on the timeframes and guidelines identified under the "Medical Certification"
section below.
The employee should make arrangements with their supervisor for the completion and submittal of
timesheets during their leave of absence.
The employee should keep their supervisor and Human Resources apprised of their situation on a
regular basis.
y The employee should inform their supervisor and Human Resources of their intent to return to work
as soon as their treating physician has informed them of the release date.
PERSONNEL POLICIES
No. 55.0
Pg. 5 of 7
The employee should forward any required medical release documentation from their treating
physician or health care provider to Human Resources at least one day prior to returning to work.
141EDWAL C LEE _A7701V
The City requires written verification from the treating physician or health care provider at least 30
days prior to the start of the leave for an anticipated serious health condition relating to either the
employee or the employee's family member on a form furnished by the City.
In cases where the serious health condition is unanticipated, the employee has 15 days from the date
of the City's request to provide the required medical certification.
The City has the right to solicit a second and, if necessary, a third opinion to verify the health care
provider's certification of a serious health condition. This verification will be at the City's expense.
If the required medical certification does not validate the necessity for FMLA leave, the leave will
be retracted. In this situation, employees may be placed on unapproved leave of absence and the time
originally counted toward their FMLA entitlement will be revoked.
For employees on approved intermittent family medical leave, additional medical certification may
be required upon expiration of the current medical certification or every 30 days as deemed
necessary by the City.
The City also requires the employee to contact their supervisor with a status report at least every 30
days. In addition, the employee must inform their supervisor of their intent to return to work at least
one day before returning to the job.
In the case of the employee's own serious illness, a medical release form will be required before
returning to work.
If an employee has used leave to care for a sick child on more than three eeeuffe-nees separate
occasions in the past a 12 months leave period, upon request the employee must provide medical
documentation that their child was ill and required home care to support any additional use of sick
child leave.
PERSONNEL POLICIES
No. 55.0
Pg. 6 of 7
USE OF PAIL LEA EX TI11(E
The City requires the substitution of accumulated sick leave prior to or during the duration of FMLA
leave as provided by applicable City policies, bargaining agreements, State laws, and/or
Federal laws
empleye -1111-9 benefits.
After sick leave has been exhausted, employees are required to use any other accumulated paid time
(i.e., vacation, eempensateFy-fime; management leave, floating holiday, appointment leave, etc.) as
provided by applicable City policies, bargaining agreements, State laws, and/or Federal laws
during their leave of absence before being placed on unpaid leave status. Earned time (i.e.,
compensatory time and M2 time) is not eligible to be used during approved Oregon and/or
Federal Family Medical Leave unless otherwise provided by applicable City policies,
bargaining agreements, State laws, and/or Federal laws.
Employees are required to notify their supervisor of the order in which accumulated paid time (after
sick leave has been exhausted) is to be used during the period of time they are on FMLA leave as
provided by applicable City policies, bargaining agreements, State laws, and/or Federal laws.
BENEFIT CONTINUATION
The City will continue to maintain group health insurance coverage for the employee for the
duration of their leave on the same terms as if the employee is working. This includes medical,
vision, and dental. If applicable, the employee is responsible for paying their share of health
insurance premiums while on leave - arrangements will be made prior to the start of the leave.
Non-medical related benefits (i.e., LTD, Life, etc.) are the responsibility of the employee when on
leave without pay status.
Once an employee is placed on leave without pay status as a result of using all their accumulated
paid leave, the employee will not continue to accrue time and benefits associated with the
employee's length of service.
If the employee chooses not to return to the City after their FMLA leave (other than as a result of
their own serious health condition), the City has the right to recoup any health insurance costs spent
in their behalf.
If the employee does not return to work after the allotted 12 weeks (either by choice or inability),
they will be eligible for continuation of health benefits through COBRA provided the employee does
not have other Health coverage.
PERSONNEL POLICIES
No. 55.0
Pg. 7 of 7
RF MT.4
The City will make every effort to reinstate the employee in their former position.
If reinstatement to the employee's former position is not possible due to the unanticipated
elimination of the position during the time of the employee's absence, the employee will be
reinstated to an equivalent position if one exists. If the employee is covered by a collective
bargaining agreement, reinstatement will comply with the terms of the agreement.
Revised 1/02
AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2002
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues
not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager
prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
xv, cto ~F-t Nc V q. 3 - 4, 4.
fir/ 5 c~~- ! d+iro ee-l(w'F ltr4.5L.7 i
OA4 ~;A Z~F"-O
VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 1
V I SIOhQ d . C t -
6 0 0 N O R T H E A S T G R A N D A V E N U E P O R T LAN RE G O N 9 7 3 3 2 1 1 3 6
TEL 503 7 9 7 1 7 0 0 I FAX 503 7 17
1
RECEIVED C.O.T.
F E B 21 2002
February 19, 2002 METRO Administration
Mayor Jim Griffith and City Council
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mayor Griffith and Council:
I would like to clarify the intent of the Metro Council resolution referring a measure to the voters
of the region for the May ballot. Resolution 02-3163, unanimously approved by the Metro
Council on Feb. 14, 2002 would amend the Metro Charter to require the Metro Council to amend
the Regional Framework Plan to support the character of identified inner and outer
neighborhoods. Local jurisdictions identified neighborhood boundaries during the development
of the 2040 Growth Concept plan. Areas that were mapped as town centers, regional centers and
other mixed-use areas are not subject to the neighborhood protection requirements.
The referred measure would also require Metro to develop cost impact statements regarding
urban growth boundary amendments, and provide notice to neighborhoods affected by proposed
urban growth boundary amendments. A copy of the resolution and related documents is attached.
It is the strong belief of the Metro Council that this measure will support the key components of
the 2040 Growth Concept, including the encouragement of future growth into centers and along
transit routes, while supporting neighborhoods. The referred measure, if approved by voters,
simply places the neighborhood component of the 2040 Growth Concept into the Metro Charter.
By proactively supporting inner and outer neighborhood areas, this measure would reinforce the
regional strategy of increasing the efficiency of the centers, light rail station areas, main streets
and transit corridors designated in the 2040 Growth Concept.
The Metro Council's referral of Resolution 02-3163 is consistent with the policies within the
proposed Washington Square Regional Center Plan. Metro remains committed to the regional
center plan, as proposed. Let me conclude by commending the effort that the city of Tigard,
Washington County and other partners have initiated on the Washington Square Regional Center
area. As a member of the Washington Square Regional Center Steering Committee, I applaud
your hard work and the hard work of your staff. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to call
my office at (503) 797-1549.
mcerel
Carl 2sticka
Metro Council Presiding Officer
R-yiled rapt,
w .metro-region.orq
T D D 7 9 7 1 8 0 4
BEFORE THE METRO COUNCIL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING )
TO THE VOTERS AN AMENDMENT TO )
THE METRO CHARTER REQUIRING ) RESOLUTION NO. 02-3163
PROTECTION OF EXISTING SINGLE )
FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, COST )
IMPACT STATEMENTS REGARDING )
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY } Introduced by Councilor Burkholder
AMENDMENTS, AND NOTICE TO }
AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOODS )
WHEREAS, the region's residential neighborhoods are a critical ingredient in the
region's livability; and
WHEREAS, residential neighborhoods are a key component of Metro's 2040 Growth
Concept for the region; and
WHEREAS, Metro and the people of the region can achieve a more livable form of urban
development by accommodating most growth in city centers and along major transportation
corridors, without significant change in the region's existing residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, better information about the costs of growth for citizens of the region leads
to better decisions in the region about how to accommodate growth; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Metro Council hereby submits to the qualified voters of the district the
question of amending the Metro Charter to require protection of existing
neighborhoods, cost impact statements regarding urban growth boundary
amendments, and notice to affected neighborhoods and making related changes as
set forth in Exhibit "A";
Page 1 Resolution No. 02-3163
i:1R•012002-ro=-3167.009
OGGRPB/kvw (02/14/02)
MMIMMMI
2. That the measure should be placed on the ballot for the Primary Election to be
held on May 21, 2002;
3. That the district shall cause a Notice of Measure Election and Ballot Title as set
forth in Exhibit "B" to be submitted to the Elections Officer and the Secretary of
State of Oregon in a timely manner as required by law; and
4. That the Executive Officer, pursuant to Oregon Law and Metro Code
Chapter 9.02, shall transmit this measure, ballot title and explanatory statement to
the Multnomah County Elections Officer for inclusion in any county voters'
pamphlets published for the election on this measure.
ADOPTED by the Metro Council this day of 2002.
Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel B. Cooper, General Counsel
Page 2 Resolution No. 02-3163
is\R-0\2002-ro\02-3167.009
OGGRPB/kvw (02/14/02)
EXHIBIT A
Amendment To Metro Charter
Section 1. Section 5 of the Metro Charter is amended to add the following provisions:
(4) Protection of Livability of Existing Neighborhoods
(a) Livability Protection. The Regional Framework Plan shall include
measures to protect the livability of existing neighborhoods taking into
consideration air pollution, water pollution, noise, and crime as well as provision
of an adequate level of police, fire, transportation and emergency services, public
utilities, and access to parks, open space and neighborhood services.
(b) Density Increase Prohibited. Neither the Regional Framework Plan nor
any Metro ordinance adopted to implement the plan shall require an increase in
the density of single-family neighborhoods within the existing urban growth
boundary identified in the plan solely as Inner or Outer Neighborhoods.
(c) Report on Effects of Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Amendment.
Prior to approving any amendment or amendments of the urban growth boundary
in excess of 100 acres the Council shall prepare a report on the effect of the
proposed amendments on existing residential neighborhoods. Copies of the
completed report shall be provided to all households located within one mile of
the proposed urban growth boundary amendment area and to all cities and
counties within the district. The report shall address:
i. Traffic patterns and any resulting increase in traffic congestion,
commute times and air quality.
ii. Whether parks and openspace protection in the area to be added
will benefit existing residents of the district as well as future
residents of the added territory.
iii. The cost impacts on existing residents of providing needed public
services and public infrastructure to the area to be added.
(d) Implementation. The Metro Council shall implement the requirements
contained in Subsections a, b, and c within one year of adoption thereof.
Exhibit A - Resolution No. 02-3163
Amendment To The Metro Charter
is R-012002-r-o102.3I63M9
OGGRPM w(02/14/02)
Y
Section 2
(a) The amendments to the Metro Charter for which provision is made in this
measure shall be paramount, shall take effect and shall have precedence over the
amendments to the Metro Charter proposed in Ballot Measure 26-11 if both
measures are approved at the Oregon primary election conducted on May 21,
2002, and the number of affirmative votes cast for this measure is greater than the
number of affirmative votes cast for Ballot Measure 26-11. In such event, Ballot
Measure 26-11 shall not become effective.
(b) The amendments to the Metro Charter for which provision is made in Ballot
Measure 26-11 shall be paramount, shall take effect and shall have precedence
over the amendments to the Metro Charter proposed in this measure if both
measures are approved at the Oregon primary election conducted on May 21,
2002, and the number of affirmative votes cast for Ballot Measure 26-11 is greater
than the number of affirmative votes cast for this measure. In such event, this
measure shall not become effective.
Section 3
(a) Subsection 4(b) of Section 5 of the Metro Charter of this Measure is repealed on
June 30, 2015 unless at the general election held in 2014, a majority of the
electors voting on the question of whether or not to retain Subsection 4(b) of
Section 5 of the Metro Charter as part of the Metro Charter vote to retain the
subsection. If the electors vote to retain the subsection, Subsection 4(b) of
Section 5 of the Metro Charter of this measure shall remain in effect. If a
majority of the electors do not vote to retain Subsection 4(b) of Section 5 of the
Metro Charter of this measure, then that subsection is repealed on June 30, 2015.
(b) By appropriate action of the Metro Council, the question described in subsection
(a) of this section shall be submitted to the people for their decision at the general
election held in 2014.
(c) This section is repealed on January 1, 2016.
Exhibit A - R--solution No. 02-3163
Amendment To The Metro Charter
BR-0\2002-r-602-7163009
OGC/RPalkm (ov14102)
EXHIBIT B
BALLOT TITLE
CAPTION: AMENDS METRO CHARTER: PROTECTS NEIGHBORHOODS'
LIVABILITY; REQUIRES BOUNDARY AMENDMENT REPORT
QUESTION: Shall Metro Charter: protect neighborhoods' livability; prohibit Metro density
increase in single-family neighborhoods; require report on proposed boundary
amendments' effects?
SUMMARY: Amends Metro Charter's regional planning provisions to protect livability of
existing neighborhoods. Prohibits Metro from requiring density increase in
identified single-family neighborhoods. Requires report on effects of certain
proposed growth boundary amendments on existing residential neighborhoods,
including impacts on traffic and parks. Requires report be provided to households
within one mile of proposed growth boundary amendment and to all cities and
counties within Metro. Measure becomes effective instead of Ballot Measure 26-
11 if it obtains more affirmative votes. Requires revote in 2014 to remain
effective.
Exhibit B Resolution No. 02-3163
Notice of Measure Election
LM-012002•r•o102-3167.009
OGCIRPa/kvw (02/14102)
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
This measure refers to voters proposed amendments to provisions of the Metro Charter dealing
with Regional Planning Functions. It requires the Regional Framework Plan to protect the
livability of existing neighborhoods. The measure also prohibits Metro from requiring increased
density of identified existing single-family neighborhoods.
Currently, Metro performs required land-use planning activities under Oregon's land-use
planning program. Oregon law authorizes Metro to adopt "functional plans" addressing matters
that affect responsible development of greater metropolitan Portland. Metro may recommend or
require changes to local governments' comprehensive land use plans and to ordinances that
implement those plans.
In 1996, after consulting with the Region's elected officials, Metro exercised its authority by
adopting the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which sets forth performance
standards for increasing housing supplies. These standards require an increase of capacity for
housing inside the Urban Growth Boundary before considering any further boundary expansion.
The standards also allow cities and counties to increase housing densities selectively in areas that
local governments determine are most suitable for future development.
In 1997, Metro adopted the Regional Framework Plan, which contains housing supply standards
that parallel those of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and also identifies certain
neighborhoods as "inner" or "outer" neighborhoods. The Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan is now part of the Regional Framework Plan. This measure would require
certain changes to the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the Regional Framework
Plan. The Metro Council must implement those changes within one year if this measure is
adopted.
The proposed measure amends the Metro Charter to require that the Regional Framework Plan
protect the livability of existing neighborhoods. In doing so, Metro must consider factors
including air and water pollution, crime, and the provision of an adequate police, fire,
transportation and emergency services, as well as public utilities, and access to parks, open space
and neighborhood services.
The measure prohibits the Regional Framework Plan from requiring an increase in the density of
existing single-family neighborhoods inside the urban growth boundary that are identified in the
plan solely as "Inner" or "Outer" neighborhoods.
The proposed measure requires that before approving any amendment to the urban growth
boundary in excess of 100 acres the Metro Council must prepare a report on the effect of the
proposed amendment on existing residential neighborhoods. The report must address traffic
patterns, the potential addition of parks and openspace protection to benefit existing and future
residents of the added territory; and the costs to existing residents of providing public services to
the additional area. The report must be provided to all households within one mile of the
proposed urban growth boundary amendment area and to all cities and counties within Metro.
Page 1 of 2 - Explanatory Statement
i:Ut-0 2002-r.o\02.3I63.ExplanStnu.009
OGC/DBCfkm (02/14/02)
The measure provides that if both it and Ballot Measure 26-11 are approved, only the measure
with the greater number of affirmative votes will become effective. This measure is repealed on
June 30, 2015, unless a majority of voters in the 2014 general election vote to retain it.
Page 2 of 2 - Explanatory Statement
1aut-0\2002-r-o\02J163.BxpIA atmt.009
OWDBVkvw (02/14/02)
STAFF REPORT
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 02-3163, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS AN AMENDMENT TO THE METRO CHARTER
REQUIRING PROTECTION OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS,
COST IMPACT STATEMENTS REGARDING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
AMENDMENTS AND NOTICE TO AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOODS.
Date: February 13, 2002 Prepared by: Michael Morrissey
Proposed Action: Resolution 02-3163 approves the submittal to the district's voters of a
measure to amend the Metro Charter. The intention of the measure is add protection of
existing single family neighborhoods as an explicit policy driver in Metro's charter and
Regional Framework Plan.
Factual Background and Analysis: The Metro charter states in the preamble that
"planning and policy making to preserve and enhance the quality of life and the
environment for ourselves and future generations is Metro's most important service..."
The charter goes on to state that regional planning functions are the primary functions of
Metro. Enhancing quality of life for the region and its residents is clearly of high
importance in Metro policy documents, as Metro addresses matters of Metropolitan
concern. Resolution 02-3163 insures that Metro raises the visibility of existing
neighborhoods as a unit of analysis, and as a resource to be protected in the furtherance of
its charter-mandated duties.
Metro is required by state statute to analyze the capacity of the Urban Growth Boundary
at least every five years, through the Periodic Review process. If there is insufficient
capacity in the boundary to provide for a 20-year supply of housing, Metro must 1)
consider measures to increase the capacity of lands inside the boundary, and/or 2)
consider expanding the boundary. The current measures for increasing the capacity of
land inside the boundary are contained in the Urban Growth Management Functional
Plan, and the Regional Framework Plan. The plans do contain measures to increase
density, but do not require that Metro determine the exact location of the implementation
of those measures; that is the responsibility of cities and counties. In general, Metro has
emphasized that density measures should implemented in centers, corridors and around
transit centers, and that built-out neighborhoods should be protected. Resolution 02-3163
explicitly restricts Metro from requiring density increases in existing neighborhoods, as
described in the resolution.
The resolution also calls for analyzing and communicating the effects of amending the
urban growth boundary in increments in excess of 100 acres, with respect to existing
residential neighborhoods, inside the urban growth boundary.
Section 2 of the ballot measure makes a statement in relation to Ballot Measure 26-11,
which will be on the May 2002 ballot: If the ballot measure called for through Resolution
02-3163 is successful, and receives more votes than 26-11, 26-11 will not become
effective. if both are successful, and 26-11 gains more votes, it does become effective, but
this one will not.
Section 3 states the terms tinder which voters may choose to retain this charter
amendment in the year 2014. If not thus retained, this measure is repealed June 30, 2015.
If the charter amendment is successful, the Council has one year to implement its
provisions, including possible amendment of the Regional Framework Plan.
Opposition: None Known
Existing Law: Section 35 of the charter allows for amendment to the charter through
council referral to a public vote. The charter was last amended in 2000.
Budget Impacts: There is no additional cost for referring this measure to regional voters
on the May, 2002 ballot.
Costs of an unknown amount would also obtain for notice related to UGB expansions of
over 100 acres.
AGENDA ITEM # 4Z
FOR AGENDA OF 2/26/02
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Senior Center.Lease enewal
1'YI
PREPARED BY: Loreen Mi s DEPT HEAD OK 0 TY MGR OK VVW
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City have an updated lease with Loaves and Fishes for the use of the Tigard Senior Center?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the lease and authorize signature by the Mayor.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City and Loaves and Fishes (L&F) have had a long standing partnership to deliver services to senior citizens in
the Tigard community. The current lease was signed on 9/17/90 and has served us well over the last 11+ years,
however, it needs to be updated to meet today's legal environment.
Following are highlights from the lease:
❖ L&F pays $1.00 per year for the rental of the site;
Lease is for Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM;
❖ Utilities and maintenance continue to be the responsibility of the City (other than phone) with L&F
responsible for all phone utilities;
❖ Lc&F is responsible for making application to Washington County for exempt status from property taxation;
•v Insurance and indemnification language has been updated; and
•O• Lease is no longer automatically renewed each July 1st but is a fixed-term lease through 6/30/06.
Loaves and Fishes and the seniors using the Center have been good stewards of the property. In recognition of the
rising costs of utilities, there is a renewed commitment by L&F and the seniors to continue their energy efficient
practices at the Center as one way to control costs.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACIMf NT LIST
0 Transmittal letter from Joan Smith, Executive Director of Loaves and Fishes, Inc.
0 Lease document
FISCAL NOTES
It is the current (and past) practice of the City Council to approve Loaves and Fishes annual social services
budget request which includes maintenance and utilities (other than phone) to be paid by the City. This occurs
each year during the City's annual budgeting process. Should there be a change in Council practice in this area;
the lease document provides a method to address that matter.
RECEIVED
Q JAN 2 4 2002
LOAVES&FISHES
The Meals-On-Wheels People RISK MANAGEMENT
January 21, 2002
City of Tigard
Sill Monahan, City Manager
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Monahan,
Please accept the newly signed lease that ensures our on-going partnership and
services to the elders of our community. Loaves & Fishes Centers, Inc. greatly
values our relationship and the support that helps to stretch funds to meet
programming needs for the growing senior population.
Loaves & Fishes has a commitment to not only provide nutrition, outreach and
connection to services to homebound individuals, but continue to offer an exciting
and learning experience at the Tigard Senior Center. We have been an active
participant in Washington County's Vision West long-range planning and strategic
positioning for the aging of the baby boomers. Our program continues to grow in
multicultural and intergenerational offerings.
Thank you for continuing to partner with us to make this visible and valuable
program available to the seniors of our community.
Sincerely,
Joan Smith
Executive Director
C:%11D000MiClty of Tigand.doc
Loaves & Fishes Centers, Inc.
6125 SE 52nd Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97206 Visit its at:amvzv.loavesandfishesonlitie.com
503.736.6325.503.736.6322 fax
LEASE
THIS LEASE is made and entered into this 26th day of Febru , 2002, by and between the City
of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation, hereinafter called City, and Loaves & Fishes Center, Inc., a
private, non-profit Oregon corporation, hereinafter called Lessee.
WITNESSETH: In consideration of the covenants, agreements and stipulations herein
contained on the part of Lessee to be paid, kept and faithfully performed, City does hereby lease to
Lessee and Lessee hereby leases fi-om the City the premises, including all improvements located
thereon, as is, situated in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, known and
described as Tigard Senior Center, 8815 SW O'Mara Street, Tigard, Oregon.
The term of this Lease shall be for a period commencing the 1 st day of March, 2002 and ending
at midnight on the 30th day of June, 2006, at and for a rental of $1.00 for each year or portion thereof
during the said term payable in lawful money of the United States at the Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW
Hall Boulevard, City of Tigard, State of Oregon 97223, initially at signing of this lease and then some
time prior to July 1St of each year.
The Lessee contracts with Washington County to provide services to senior citizens, and desires
to use the Tigard facility. The City desires to locate Loaves & Fishes' services in the Tigard Senior
Center facility to provide services, programs and activities to Tigard-area residents.
In consideration of the above, each party hereto does hereby covenant and agree as follows:
(1) LESSEE'S ACCEPTANCE OF LEASE
Lessee accepts said letting and agrees to pay to the order of City the rental stated above for the
full term of this lease, in the manner aforesaid.
(2) USE OF PREMISES
Lessee shall use said premises for the following use and no other:
➢ Provision of nutrition and social service programs for the elderly and families.
Said use may include operation of a nutrition and social service program for the elderly,
including, but not limited to, congregate and home-delivered meals, informational, educational, and
recreational activities, transportation, information and referral, case management, health screening,
counseling, and fund-raising activities for the program, provided Lessee obtains proper land use and
other approvals as may be required prior to initiating operation of said programs.
Lessee shall have use of the facility from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday.
Lessee shall have first priority for additional use of the facility outside of the hours noted in this
paragraph.
Lease - Loaves & Fishes - Tigard Senior Center 2002-2006 PAGE I
City will have the right to use and permit the use by others of the building and the equipment,
dishes, utensils, pots, pans, etc. under the following terns and conditions:
2.1 Center Manager, or designated representative will schedule all use of the facility Monday
- Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The City shall assign a designated person to schedule
use of the facility for all time except 8 to 5 Monday through Friday. Such use shall not
interfere with the daily use by Lessee or the facility for the operation of a nutrition and
social service program for the elderly;
2.2 Lessee shall assure equipment, dishes, and utensils are left in a sanitary and safe
condition;
2.3 Lessee will provide trained kitchen personnel (Center Monitor) to supervise the use of
kitchen equipment, personnel cost to be reimbursed by the City, for any activities
scheduled by the City when the kitchen is used;
2.4 City shall be responsible for use by such other users authorized by the City and
responsible for the payment of fees necessary for supervision of the building and
equipment use. Costs incurred by Lessee resulting from other use will be reimbursed by
the City;
2.5 City shall be responsible for the replacement of any equipment, plates, glasses, cutlery,
or utensils lost or damaged by such users as the Lessee/City shall discover in its use or
supervision of such other use of the facility, and
2.6 City shall be responsible for replacement of food, cleaning compounds, paper, and the
supplies owned by Lessee and used by such other users.
Lessee will not make any unlawful, improper or offensive use of the premises; remove any
portion of the structure or fixtures, nor suffer waste thereof. Lessee will not permit anything to be done
upon or about said premises in any way tending to create a nuisance, be that at common law or by
ordinance or by statute.
Lessee shall not store gasoline or other highly combustible materials on said premises at any
time nor use said premises in such a way or for such purposes that the fire insurance rate is thereby
increased or that would prevent City from taking advantage of reduced premium rates for long term fire
insurance policies.
Lessee shall comply, at Lessee's own expense, with all laws and regulations of any municipal,
county, state, federal or other public authority respecting the use of said premises.
Lessee shall regularly occupy and use the premises for the conduct of Lessee's business, and
shall not abandon or vacate the premises for more than ten (10) days without written approval of City.
(3) FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT
In the evert of termination of this agreement, all such furnishings, equipment, and decorations
which are permanently attached to the facility shall remain in the facility in good repair, with allowance
for wear and tear, occasioned by normal use. Each of the parties hereto including the City, shall retain
ownership of any non-fixture equipment, pots, pans, dishes, utensils, and other personal property
acquired by its own funds, by funds received from grants and donations to such party for the purpose of
acquiring such personal property, or such personal property as may be donated to such party.
Lease - Loaves & Fishes - Tigard Senior Center 2002-2006 PAGE 2
(4) UTILITIES/MAINTENANCE
City shall pay for all heat, light, water, sewerage and storm drainage fees, power, sanitary
services, and other utilities used in the above premises during the term of this lease except for telephone.
Lessee will pay for all telephone utilities. City shall be responsible for janitorial and regular
maintenance of the building.
Lessee will keep the kitchen clean, in such a way as to meet the standards of Oregon State
Health Division for daily cleanliness: repairs, equipment maintenance, and seasonal cleaning are the
responsibility of the City.
(5) TAXES
Lessee agrees to pay all taxes and assessments which during the term of the Lease may
become due, become a lien or which may be levied by the state, county, city, or any other tax-levying
body upon the premises. Furthermore, Lessee agrees to pay all taxes and assessments on any taxable
interest obtained by Lessee through this Agreement or on any taxable possessory interest, which
Lessee may have in or to the premises by reason of its occupancy. Furthermore, Lessee agrees to pay
all taxes on all taxable property, real or personal, owned by it in or about the premises. Upon making
such payments, Lessee shall give the City a copy of the receipts and vouchers showing payment.
Lessee understands that City property is exempt from property taxation until leased to a
taxable entity. Should Lessee be a non-taxable entity, Lessee will be responsible for making
application to Washington County for exempt status from property taxation. Upon being granted
exempt status on the property, Lessee will file a copy of said exemption with the City.
In the event that the term of the Lease extends beyond June 30 of any year, Lessee shall be
responsible for payment of all property taxes for the entire tax year without proration, or, in the event
of any change in property tax law, for any taxes due under such law. With respect to assessments for
public improvements which are or may be payable in Bancroft installments, Lessee shall be required
to pay only those installments which become due during the tern of the Lease or this Amendment.
(6) REPAIRS AND NPROVEMENTS
City hereby agrees to maintain and keep said premises (including all interior and exterior doors,
heating, ventilating and cooling systems, interior wiring, plumbing and drain pipes to sewers or septic
tank), in good order and repair during the entire term of this lease at City's own cost and expense.
Lessee further agrees they will make no alteration, addition or improvements to or upon said premises
without the prior written consent of the City.
The City will provide light bulbs and fluorescent tubes, toilet tissue, paper towels, toilet soap
and such other supplies needed for daily operation in the restrooms and sink areas outside of the kitchen
area.
Lease - Leaves & Fishes - Tigard Senior Center 2002-2006 PAGE 3
City agrees to maintain the exterior walls, roof, gutters, downspouts and foundations of the
building and the sidewalks thereabouts. It is understood and agreed that City reserves to itself (and to at
any and all times shall have) the right to alter, repairs or improve said premises, or to add thereto and for
that purpose at any time may erect scaffolding and all other necessary structures about and upon the
premises, and City and City's representatives, contractors and their respective employees and agents for
that purpose may enter in or about the said premises with such materials as may be necessary, and
Lessee waives any claim to damages resulting therefrom.
(7) CITY'S RIGHT OF ENTRY
It shall be lawful for City, its agents and representatives, at any reasonable time to enter into or
upon the premises for the purpose of examining into the condition and use.
(8) TERMINATION OF LEASE
Failure to provide services in accordance with the contract to the satisfaction of the City, or its
designee, shall result in written notification. Such notification shall be addressed to the Loaves & Fishes
Center Director and shall delineate the inadequacies and provide specific remedies stipulating a deadline
for resolution not less than 60 days from the date notification was received by the Director. Failure to
remedy shall result in termination of the contract by the City.
(9) LIENS
Lessee will not permit any lien of any kind, type or description to be placed or imposed upon the
building in which said leased premises are situated, or any part thereof, or the real estate on which it
stands.
(10) ICE. SNOW, DEBRIS
City shall at all times keep the sidewalks in front of the premises free and clear of ice, snow,
rubbish, debris and obstruction, and will not permit rubbish, debris, ice or snow to accumulate on the
roof of the building so as to stop up or obstruct gutters or down spouts or cause damage to said roof.
(11) OVERLOADING OF FLOORS
Lessee will not overload the floors of said premises in such a way as to cause any undue or
serious stress or strain upon the building, and City shall have the right, at any time, to call upon any
competent engineer or architect whom City may choose, to decide whether or not the floors of said
premises are being properly used. The decision of said engineer or architect shall be final and binding
upon Lessee; and in the event that the engineer or architect decides that the stress or strain is such as to
imperil said building in whole or in part, Lessee agrees to immediately relieve said stress or strain in a
manner satisfactory to City.
Lcase - Loaves & Fishes - Tigard Senior Center 2002-2006 PAGE 4
(12) NO USE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
No handling, storage, generation, creation, disposal, transportation or discharge of any
Hazardous Substances shall be permitted on or about the premises by Lessee, its employees, agents,
customers or contractors. This restriction does not apply to ordinary office and janitorial supplies
available over the counter for common use by members of the general public. Nor shall this prohibition
apply to substances fully contained inside of motor vehicles if they are used in accordance with all
applicable legal requirements. As used in this section, "Hazardous Substances" shall mean any
substance, material or product defined or designated as hazardous, toxic, radioactive, dangerous or
regulated wastes by any federal, state or local regulatory agency.
(13) SIGNS
Lessee may alter the existing free-standing sign structure upon receipt of a sign permit from the
City of Tigard, but shall not, without written prior written consent of the City, use the outside walls of
said premises, or allow signs or devices of any kind to be attached thereto or suspended therefrom.
(14) FIXTURES
All partitions, plumbing, electrical wiring, additions to or improvements upon said leased
premises, whether installed by City or Lessee, shall be and become a part of the building as soon as
installed and the property of City unless otherwise herein provided.
(15) LIGHT AND AIR
This lease does not grant any rights of access to light and air over the property.
(16) DAMAGE BY FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY
In the event of any damage to the property by fire or other casualty, either party hereto may
terminate this lease as of the date of said fire or casualty.
(17) GRIEVANCES
The resolution of any grievances between the parties shall first be attempted between the City
Manager, or designee, and Loaves & Fishes Center Manager.
(18) INDEMNIFICATION
Lessee agrees to fully indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its City Council, officers
and employees from and against all losses, expenses, claims and actions (including all expenses
incidental to the investigation and defense thereof) of any kind or nature including, but not limited to,
claims or actions based upon or arising out of damages or injuries to third persons or their property,
proximately caused (or allegedly caused) through the fault of Lessee, its employees or agents in the
use and/or occupancy of the premises.
Lease - Loaves & Fishes - Tigard Senior Center 2002-2006 PAGE 5
The City shall give Lessee prompt and reasonable notice of any such claims or actions known
to the City, and Lessee shall have the obligation to investigate, compromise and defend same,
provided such claim is not caused by the negligence of the City, its employees or agents.
In the event that there is any bodily injury at, or property damage to, any portion of the
premises caused by Lessee or any third party, Lessee shall immediately notify the City's Risk
Manager and cooperate in the City's investigation of said incident. Lessee shall make all reports or
documents concerning the incident, whether in their possession or the possession of their insurance
carrier available to the City and cooperate with the City in investigating, compromising or litigating
the claim against those parties.
For any property damage done to or caused by the fault of Lessee, Lessee shall be given the
option of repairing the damage or having the City repair the damage at Lessee's expense. The City
shall give written notification to Lessee of any damage requiring repair and give Lessee thirty (30)
days to commence repair. If within that period, or such other period as may be mutually agreed upon,
no effort has been made to effect repairs, then the repairs will be performed by the City and billed to
Lessee.
For damage done to or at the property or premises by third parties for which Lessee is not
responsible, the City shall bear the initial cost of investigating, compromising or litigating the claim,
but may recover such costs if otherwise permitted by law or this Agreement.
(19) INSURANCE REQUIREMENT
Insurance requirements set forth below do not in any way limit the amount or scope of liability
of Lessee under this Agreement. The amounts listed indicate only the minimum amounts of
insurance coverage the City will accept to help insure full performance of all terms and conditions of
this Agreement. All insurance required by Lessee under this Agreement shall meet the following
minimum requirements:
(19.1) Certificates: Notice of Cancellation. On or before the Effective Date, Lessee shall
provide the City with certificates of insurance establishing the existence of all
insurance policies required under this Section. Thereafter, the City must receive notice
of the expiration or renewal of any policy at least thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration or cancellation of any insurance policy. No insurance policy may be
canceled, revised, terminated or allowed to lapse without at least thirty (30) days prior
written notice being given to the City. Insurance must be maintained without any
lapse in coverage during the entire initial Term and any extension thereof. Insurance
canceled without City consent shall be deemed an immediate Event of Default under
this Agreement. The City shall also be given certified copies of Lessee's policies of
insurance, upon request.
(19.2) Additional Insured. The City shall be named as an additional insured in each required
policy and, for purposes of damage to the Premises, as a loss payee. Such insurance
shall not be invalidated by any act, neglect or breach of contract by Lessee.
Lease - Loaves & Fishes - Tigard Senior Center 2002-2006 PAGE 6
(19.3) Primary Coverage. The required policies shall provide that the coverage is primary,
and will not seek any contribution from any insurance or carried by the City.
(19.4) Company Ratings. All policies of insurance must be written by companies having an
A.M. Rest rating of "A" or better, or equivalent. The City may, upon thirty (30) days
written notice to Lessee, require Lessee to change any carrier whose rating drops
below an A rating.
(19.5) Required Insurance. At all times during this Agreement, Lessee shall provide and
maintain the following types of coverage:'*
19.5.1 General Liability Insurance. Lessee shall maintain an occurrence form
commercial general liability policy, personal injury. liability, for the
protection of Lessee and the City, insuring Lessee and the City against
liability for damages because of personal injury, bodily injury, death, or
damage to property (including the loss of use thereto and occurring on or in
any way related to the premises or occasioned by reason of the operations of
Lessee. Such coverage shall name the City as an additional insured.
Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and
property damage for all coverage specified herein. City will also provide the
same coverage, naming Loaves and Fishes as an additional insured.
19.5.2 Fire Legal Liability Insurance. The City shall insure the building space and
all improvements affixed thereto considered to be part of premises, being
managed by Lessee. Lessee is responsible to insure all of its own personal
property, which items shall not be covered by City insurance. Furthermore,
Lessee must at all times carry Fire Legal Liability insurance coverage in an
amount not less than ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($100,000). Such coverage shall name the City as an additional insured.
19.5.3 Workers' Compensation Insurance, Lessee shall maintain in force Workers'
Compensation insurance for all of its employees. In lieu of such insurance,
Lessee may maintain a self-insurance program meeting the requirements of
the State of Oregon.
(19.6) Periodic Review. The City shall have the right to periodically review the types, limits
and terms of insurance coverage. In the event the City determines that such types,
limits, and/or terms should be changed, the City will give Lessee a minimum of thirty
(30) days notice of such determination and Lessee shall modify its coverage to comply
with the new insurance requirements of the City. Lessee shall also provide the City
with proof of such compliance by giving the City an updated certificate of insurance
within fifteen (15) days.
(19.7) Subro ag tion. Except as limited by this subsection, the parties hereto waive any right of
action that they might have against the other for loss or damage, to the extent that such
Lease - Loaves & Fishes - Tigard Senior Center 2002-2006 PAGE 7
loss or damage is covered by any insurance policy or policies and to the extent that
proceeds (which proceeds are free and clear of any interest of third parties) are received
by the parties claiming the loss or damage. This waiver of subrogation shall not extend
to any applicable deductibles under such policy or policies.
(20) DELIVERING UP PREMISES ON TERMINATION
At the expiration of said term or upon any sooner termination, Lessee will quit and deliver up
said leased premises and all future erections or additions to or upon the same to City or those having
City's estate in the premises, peaceably, quietly, and in as good order and condition, reasonable use and
wear thereof, damage by fire, unavoidable casualty and the elements alone excepted, as the same are
now in or hereafter may be put in by City.
(21) BREACH OF LEASE TERMS
If Lessee fails to keep, perform or observe any of the terns and/or conditions imposed on it by
this Lease for a period of thirty (30) or more days after written notice of said failure by the City, or
Lessee fails to surrender possession of the premises at the Lease's conclusion, then, and in either event
the City may terminate the Lease at any time thereafter without further notice or demand on Lessee,
enter the premises and lawfully repossess it, expel Lessee (as well as any others claiming through
Lessee) and remove/store Lessee's effects (all at Lessee's expense) without prejudice to any other
remedy, action or suit which the City may be entitled to for arrearage, damages to the property or its
interests and/or breach of this lease.
PROVIDED, ALWAYS, and these presents are upon these conditions, that (1) if Lessee shall
fail or neglect to do, keep, perform or observe any of the covenants and agreements contained herein on
Lessee's part to be done, kept, performed and observed and such default shall continue for thirty (30)
days or more after written notice of such failure er neglect shall be given to Lessee, or (2) if on the
expiration of this lease Lessee fails to surrender possession of said leased premises, then and in either or
any of said cases or events, City may terminate this lease and at time thereafter, without further demand
or notice, may enter said premises and repossess the same, and expel said Lessee and those claiming by,
through and under Lessee and remove Lessee's effects at Lessee's expense, and store the same, all
without being deemed guilty of trespass and without prejudice to any remedy which otherwise might be
used for arrears of rent or preceding breach of covenant.
Neither the termination of this lease by forfeiture nor the taking or recovery of possession of the
premises shall deprive City of any other action, right, or remedy against Lessee for possession or
damages, nor shall any omission by City to enforce any forfeiture, right or remedy to which City may be
entitled be deemed a waiver by City of the right to enforce the performance of all terms and conditions
of this lease by Lessee.
" (22) HOLDING OVER
I
In the event Lessee for any reason shall hold over after the expiration of this lease, such holding
over shall not be deemed to operate as a renewal or extension of this lease, but shall only create a
tenancy from month to month which may be terminated at will at any time by City.
Lease - Loaves & Fishes - Tigard Senior Center 2002-2006 PAGE 8
(23) NOTICES
Any notice required by the terms of this lease to be given by one party hereto to the other or
desired so to be given, shall be sufficient if in writing contained in a sealed envelope, deposited in the
U.S. Registered Mails with postage fully prepaid, and if intended for City herein then if addressed to
said Lessor, in care of the City Manager, at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, Tigard, Oregon 97223 and
if intended for Lessee then if addressed to, Lessee, in care of the Director, at 8815 SW O'Mara Street,
Tigard, Oregon 97223. Any such notice shall be deemed conclusively to have been delivered to the
addressee thereof forty-eight (48) hours after the deposit thereof in said U. S. Registered Mails.
(24) HEIRS AND ASSIGNS
All rights, remedies and liabilities herein given to or imposed upon either of the parties hereto
shall extend to, inure to the benefit of and bind, as the circumstances may require, the heirs, executors,
administrators, successors and, so far as this lease is assignable by the term hereof, to the assigns of such
parties.
(25) ASSIGNMENT
No part of this Agreement may be assigned, nor may a right of use to any portion of the
premises or property be conferred on any third person by any other means, without the prior written
consent of City. Any assignment or attempted assignment without the City's prior written consent
shall be void.
(26) CONDEMNATION
If the premises or any interest therein is taken as a result of the exercise of the right of eminent
domain, this Agreement shall terminate as to such portion as may be taken.
(27) NON-WAIVER
Waiver by either party of strict performance of any provision of this Agreement shall not be a
wavier of or prejudice the party's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the
future or of any other provision.
(28) ADHERENCE TO LAW
Lessee shall adhere to all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and
ordinances, including laws governing its relationship with its employees, including but not limited to,
laws, rules, regulations and policies concerning Workers' Compensation, minimum and prevailing
wage requirements and occupational safety and health requirements.
Lease -Loaves & Fishes - Tigard Senior Center 2002-2006 PAGE 9
(29) TIME OF ESSENCE
It is mutually agreed that time is of the essence in the performance of all covenants and
conditions to be kept and performed under the terms of this Agreement.
(30) WARRANTIES/GUARANTEES
Except for those warranties specifically set forth herein, the City makes no warranty,
guarantee or averment of any nature whatsoever concerning the physical condition of premises, and it
is agreed that the City will not be responsible for any loss, damage or costs which may be incurred by
Lessee by reason of any such physical condition.
(31) HEADINGS
The article and section headings contained herein are for convenience in reference and are not
intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement.
(32) CONSENT OF CITY
Whenever consent approval or direction by the City is required under the terms contained
herein, all such consent, approval or direction shall be received in writing from the City Manager.
(33) MODIFICATION
Any modification of this Agreement shall be mutually agreed upon and reduced to writing,
and to the extent it does not affect a major business term of the Agreement, may be done for the City,
by its City Manager.
(34) GOOD FAITH
The terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are for the benefit of both parties. The
parties further agree and understand that time is of the essence. In the performance of the duties and
obligations set forth herein, there is an obligation and duty of reasonable diligence and good faith
imposed on the parties to fulfill the terms, conditions and covenants in this Agreement.
(35) ATTORNEY FEES
In the event of a dispute between the parties as to the interpretation or applicability of any of
the provisions of the Agreement and the parties are unable to resolve the matters through mediation
within thirty (30) days of notice of the dispute, and thereafter a suit or action is instituted in
connection therewith, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover in addition to costs and
disbursements (including experts fees and all costs associated with discovery), such sum as the court
may adjudge reasonable as attorney fees, or in the event of appeal, such fees as may be as allowed by
the appellate court. Washington County District Court shall be the venue for an action or suit
concerning the terms of this Agreement.
Lease - Loaves & Fishes - Tigard Senior Center 2002-2006 PAGE 10
(36) ENTIRE AGREEMENT
It is understood and agreed that this instrument contains the entire Agreement between the
parties. It is further understood and agreed by Lessee that the City and its agents have made no
representations or promises with respect to this Agreement or the making or entry into this
Agreement, except as in this Agreement expressly set forth.
(37) WARRANT OF AUTHORITY
The individuals executing this Agreement warrant that they have full authority to execute this
Agreement on behalf of the entity for whom they are acting herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective parties have executed this instrument in duplicate on
this, the day and year first hereinabove written, any corporation signature being by authority of its Board
of Directors or Council.
CITY: CI'T'Y OF TIGARD LESSEE: LOAVES & FISHES CENTERS, INC.
By: By. s/Joan Smith
James Griffith, Mayor Joan Smith, Executive Director
lrn(nWh:/docs/leases/senior center lease 2002-2006..doc
Lease - Loaves & Fishes - Tigard Senior Center 2002-2006 PAGE 11
- I I Now
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF February 26, 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Resolution Recognizing Transfer of Juvenile Caseload to the Municipal Court
PREPARED BY: Judge O'Brien & N. RobinsonJDEPT HEAD OK: CITY MGR OK: `Z,
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should Council approve a resolution allowing juvenile first-time offender cases, currently cited into Washington
County Juvenile Department, to be transferred to the Municipal Court?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Give formal approval, through resolution, for the Municipal Court to process first-time juvenile offenders for
violation level offenses.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
May 2001, Judge O'Brien and the Court Manager met with Council to discuss the court's annual report. As
part of the discussion, the possibility of taking additional juvenile caseload was proposed. Council expressed
interest in the program and asked that more information be gathered and a follow-up proposal be presented. In
January 2002, Judge O'Brien and the Court Manager again met with Council to discuss the feasibility of the
Municipal Court accepting juvenile cases. The program proposed to Council would be available to first-time
juvenile offenders who are at least 14 years of age. Crimes would be treated as violations under Oregon law,
thereby circumventing the need for court-appointed counsel. The types of cases identified as appropriate for
Municipal Court include: disorderly conduct, simple assaults, minor thefts, trespass, vandalism, truancy, and
curfew violations. The Juvenile Department would continue to take the drug and alcohol violations as they
have been awarded grant money to respond to these types of cases. The program would have no impact on
current Peer Court operations.
At the January 15th, 2002 meeting, Council indicated support of the program and asked that a resolution be brought
before them that would approve the change in Municipal Court's caseload.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to provide service at the present level.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
ATTACHMENT LIST
O Resolution
• Court Rule
FISCAL NOTES
Fiscal impacts will be absorbed in the current budget.
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 2-29-02
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint Funding Agreement - Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
PREPARED BY: Ed Wegner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK f►'~
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Authorize the Joint Funding Agreement - Implementaion Plan for formation of a Bull Run Regional Drinking
Water Agency
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council approve the Joint Funding Agreement, for an amount not to exceed $25,000
INFORMATION SUMMARY
At the City Council Meeting on January 22, 2002, the City Council authorized Councilor Joyce Patton and
staff to negotiate the Joint Funding Agreement, with our local share not to exceed $25,000. The attached
agreement represents the collective agreement of the twelve participating agencies. Tigard's major concerns
were either addressed in the funding agreement or will be appropriately addressed in the Phase II report.
Also attached for your review are the elected participants meeting minutes.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Securing long term water source is both a Vision and City Council goal
ATTACHMENT LIST
e Joint Funding Agreement
• General meeting minutes of elected participants from January 31, 2002
FISCAL NOTES
The $25,000 will be paid from the Water Fund. This is a budgeted amount.
u>GZ g ~~L
Yi
t_
Sf.L(o s~,
JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR FORMATION OF A
FULL RUN REGIONAL. D G WATER AGENCY
This agreement, dated March 15, 2002, is between the City of Beaverton, City of
Gresham, City of Portland, City of Tigard, City of Tualatin, formed by the authority of
ORS; Clackamas River Water, Powell Valley Road Water District, Raleigh Water
District, Tualatin Valley Water District, West Slope Water District, formed by authority
of ORS 264 (Districts); Clean Water Services, formed by authority of ORS 451 (County
Service Districts); Sunrise Water Authority, formed by authority of ORS 450 (Water
Authorities), Rockwood Water People's Utility District, formed by authority of ORS 261
(People's Utility Districts), METRO, formed by authority of ORS 268 (Regional Service
Districts), collectively referred to as "Parties" and individually as "Party."
. RECITE
1. There are 38 providers of drinking water in the counties of Multnomah,
Clackamas, and Washington.
2. Fourteen public agencies came together in 2001 to study the preliminary
feasibility of identifying a more effective and efficient form of governance for the
supply and transmission of drinking water within the three counties.
3. Through the work completed in Phase I ofthe Regional Drinking Water Supply
1ditiative, several of the Parties agreed that there may be more effective and
efficient methods of governance in the Multnomah, Clackamas an on
counties for the supply and transmission of treated drinking water to the
residential, commercial, industrial and istitutional sectors in the tri county area.
4. The undersigned governments now wish to enter into an agreement (this
Agreement) under which the Parties shalljointly fund the second phase of this
work to develop the implementation requirements for forming a new water supply
and transmission agency.
5. The Parties, hereto have the authority to enter into this Agreement pursuant to
their applicable charters and Oregon Revised Statutes sections 190.003 through
190.030.
Page 1- Joint Funding Agreement
Implementation Plan For Formation
Of a Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Description of the Project
The project to be funded pursuant to this Agreement shall be known as the
"Implementation Plan for Formation of a Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency"
(the Plan). The Plan shall be prepared jointly by the Parties' staffs and consultants hired
by the Parties. The Plan shall include:
An in-depth examination of the legal, financial and engineering issues related to
forming and operating a new drinking water agency.
Evaluation of alternative approaches for establishing policy direction, decision-
making authority, asset ownership, water rights and legal authority of a new
agency, as well as other key issues.
® Specific recommendations for the governance structure and administrative
mechanisms for the new agency. Recommendations will include such issues as
agency structure and type, governing body membership, voting issues, asset
transfer procedures, mechanisms for incorporating new members, financing
mechanism for future improvements, rates and charges, and ancillary issues.
o An implementation plan, including the steps, costs, public involvement strategy
and schedule for the formation of a new agency.
o Development of a model agreement with proposed rates and charges to be
presented to elected officials of the participating agencies and to the public.
• The implementation plan will address issues of equity of supply and cost of
service.
The timeline for completion of this phase will be included in the detailed scope of
work for the project.
2. Plan Assumptions
In examining the issues identified above and based on the results of Phase I of the
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative, the Plan shall assume that:
• The Parties, or any of them, may become members of the new water agency.
Page 2 - Joint Funding Agreement
Implementation Plan For Formation
Of A Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
® The water sources to be used and managed by the new agency include the Bull
Run Watershed and the Columbia South Shore Wellfield.
m The members would obtain some or all of their water from the new Bull Run
Regional Drinking Water Agency.
e The new Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency would have the flexibility to
allow members to place other functional aspects of their water utility operations
within the new agency, if desired. Such aspects might include laboratories,
operations centers, distribution systems, business services, or any other aspect of
their operations that were water-related or ancillary to water services. A financial
mechanism would be created in the structure of the new agency that could isolate
costs and benefits of services other than supply, treatment and transmission, and
apportion those costs to those ratepayers receiving the service.
The new-Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency may be formed under an
ORS 190 agreement, subject to additional information identified during
development of the Plan.
e The new Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency will offer wholesale
contracts to other providers of water in the Portland metropolitan area, to the
extent water is available, and such contracts are approved by the decision-making
authority of the new agency.
3. Cost Share
The costs for development of the Plan shall be shared equally by the Parties. The
estimated total cost of the Plan is not to exceed $ 200,000. Each Party will share equally
in the cost of this Agreement. In the event Parties agree to increase the scope of this Plan
there will be a corresponding increase in the cost of the Plan to the Parties. The Parties
understand that the Plan is a second step in addressing the feasibility of forming a Bull
Run Regional Drinking Water Agency and that participation in funding the Plan does not
assume that the Parties will necessarily be the members of a new agency.
4. Project Management
a. Managing Agency
The Parties agree that the Sunrise Water Authority shall be the Managing Agency
for this Agreement. With participation from the Technical Advisory Committee, the
Managing Agency will seek, retain and manage any contracted services as may, from
Page 3 - Joint Funding Agreement
Implementation Plan For Formation
Of A Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
time to time, be deemed necessary to carry out the work of this Agreement. The
Managing Agency will seek and retain such services through its normal business
practices. The Managing Agency shall pay such bills and invoices as may be deemed
proper and appropriate and upon payment thereof shall deliver invoices to the Parties as
set forth in Section 3 above. Each Party shall pay such invoice(s) within thirty (30) days
of receipt and shall pay such invoice(s) even if there is a question to resolve with the
Managing Agency. All questions that cannot be resolved between a party and the
Managing Agency shall be submitted to all of the Parties to this Agreement for final
resolution.
b. Policy Steering Committee
The designated elected officials of the Parties shall form a Policy Steering
Committee. The Policy Steering Committee, together with the Technical Advisory
Committee will identify policy issues that need administrative and technical analysis.
The Policy Steering Committee will provide guidance to the Technical Advisory
Committee on issues related to the formation of the new Bull Run Regional Drinking
Water agency.
c. Technical Advisory Committee
The water administrators or designees of the Parties shall form a Technical
Advisory Committee. The Technical Advisory Committee shall manage the work
program and develop an agreement and implementation plan for the creation of the new
Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency.
The Committee members will report to their respective governing bodies on the
progress of the work undertaken in this Plan, and make final recommendations to their
respective governing bodies.
5. Voluntary Termination of Party
Except as otherwise indicated in this section, no Party may terminate its rights and
obligations under this Agreement until the Plan is completed.
Parties may terminate their participation in this Agreement at any time although
the tenninating Party or Parties shall remain liable for full funding of the Party's share
of costs per Section 3 of this Agreement.
Page 4 - Joint Funding Agreement
Implementation Plan For Formation
Of A Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
6. Amendments
This Agreement may be amended only if each and every Party concurs. Such
amendment must be in writing and signed by authorized representatives of all Parties.
7. Assignment
No Party to this Agreement shall have the right to assign its interest in this
agreement (or any portion thereof) without the prior written consent of all other Parties.
8. Severability
In case one or more of the provisions contained herein should be held invalid,
illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the
remaining provisions contained herein shall not in any way be affected or impaired
thereby.
9. Notices
Any notice deemed necessary shall be given in writing to the designees of each
Party by hand delivery; by United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, or by e-mail if
return is acknowledged.
10. Attorney Fees
If any dispute should arise under this Agreement the prevailing Party shall be
entitled to such reasonable attorney fees as may be awarded by any trial court or
arbitrator and including any appeal therefrom.
11. Binding Effect and Indemnity
Except for negligent acts, all acts undertaken in the course of this Agreement, by
any authorized Party, shall be deemed to be the acts of all Parties. For all other acts or
omissions each Party hereto agrees to indemnify the other, their governing bodies,
officers, agents, employees and consultants from and against all claims, demands,
penalties and causes of action of any kind or character, including the cost of defense and
attorney fees, arising in favor of any person or entity on account of personal injury, death
or damage to property resulting from the solely negligent acts or omissions of the entity
or one under its control.
Page 5 - Joint Funding Agreement
Implementation Plan For Formation
Of A Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
12. Authorship; Legal Review
This Agreement shall not be construed for or against any Party by reason of the
authorship or alleged authorship of any provision. Each Party is encouraged to obtain the
advice of legal counsel before signing this agreement.
13. Signature Page
CITY OF PORTLAND
By:
Date:
CITY OF BEAVERTON
By:
Date:
CITY OF GRESHAM
By:
Date:
CITY OF TIGARD
By:
Date
Page 6 - Joint Funding Agreement
Implementation Plan For Formation
Of A Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
CITY OF TUALATIN
By:
Date:
CLACKAMAS RIVER WATER
By:
Date:
POWELL VALLEY ROAD WATER DISTRICT
By:
Date:
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
By:
Date:
WEST SLOPE WATER DISTRICT
By:
Date:
CLEAN WATER SERVICES
By:
Date:
Page 7 - Joint Funding Agreement
Implementation Plan For Formation
Of A Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
SUNRISE WATER AUTHORITY
By:
Date:
ROCKWOOD WATER PEOPLE'S UTILITY DISTRICT
By:
Date:
i
Page 8 - Joint Funding Agreement
Implementation Plan For Formation
Of A Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
MEMORANDUM
TO: ` lHonorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
RE: Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative
DATE: February 25, 2002
On Friday, February 22, we mailed you a copy of the information to be considered on
the February 26 Council Meeting for Consent Agenda Item 4.4. Attached to those
materials were meeting notes from a January 31, 2002, regional drinking water meeting.
We discovered that these notes were copied on two sides and the copies mailed to you
were only copied on the front side. Here is a complete replacement set of notes for
your review.
Attachment
c: City Manager Monahan
City Attorney Ramis
Public Works Director Wegner
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative
General Meeting of Participants
Meeting Notes of Tanuary 31, 2002
City of Tualatin Police Dept. Conference Room
7:00 - 9:00 p.m.
City of Tualatin Mayor Lou Ogden welcomed the attendees to this meeting of elected officials,
water managers and interested citizens working on the Regional Drinking Water Supply
Initiative. The purpose of the meeting was to take citizen comment on the Progress Report -
Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative of December 12, 2001 and to hear back from elected
officials from the participating agencies as to their comments on the report and
recommendations, and their board or council's interest in participating in further work on this
issue. Mayor Ogden commented that the group "had come full circle", since the first meeting
was in this same location last May. He indicated that interested governments were here to
move ahead with this project and he hoped all would be involved. He indicated he had met
with the Portland City Council on January 30, 2002 in support of moving forward, and that the
Portland City Council was fully supportive of the work that had been done. He jokingly said
that Commissioner Sten had made "either a bold move - or laid a trap", but in seriousness
Ogden said that regionalizing water supply was a "legitimate and logical movement" and that
Tualatin would be involved.
Portland Commissioner Erik Sten also welcomed the attendees noting that good progress had
been made during the initial phase of this work. He felt there were two important notes
regarding Phase 1. First that "by looking big we could look at a wide range of options" and
second, that if there were to be a "Bull Run only agency for the region now - it would be a
stepping stone for the future." He reiterated that the Portland City Council enthusiastically
accepted the report and there was no hesitation with moving forward, as was evidenced by
their 5-0 vote on the resolution to participate in Phase II. He said the region needed a structure
that was in everyone's interest and one that determined the ownership and the customer base,
and that now the real work begins. He thought that several governments are in a good position
to proceed, but that at the end of this next period of study, a proposed ownership structure
probably would not be good for all of the initial participants. He said some governments would
form the ownership structure but that other agencies will still be able to purchase water through
the new governance structure. Mr. Sten wanted to make .clear that Portland was looking for
partners and was not interested in pushing any agency into joining in an ownership position if
they did not feel it was in their best interests.
Commissioner Sten said his hope is that by this summer the participants would be able to
present an actual plan to the elected bodies and to the citizens. He indicated he had no set
process in mind as to how options or a plan should be processed with citizens. He did say that
in the Spring there would be appointment of a region wide citizen advisory panel that would be.
asked to listen to interested citizens, review thi technical and policy work, and to advise the
Portland City Council. He was asked whether or not water agencies could join at a later time.
Erik's response was that agencies were moving forward and would be incurring costs to study
the issues and develop a plan and they would want any agency coming in later to help pay their
share of the study costs.
1
Ed Tenny, facilitating the meeting, mentioned that the group had come a long way and that
they should pat themselves on the back for the good hard work that had been done. He then
moved to take public comment on the Progress Report.
The first to speak was Charles Scott Ph.D. from Citizens For Safe Water - Wilsonville. He
commended Commissioner Sten "for not including the Willamette River in the future selection
of the regionalization water source." He referred to the Wilsonville Willamette River Treatment
Plant and the requirements of, the Oregon Health Division to collect and review water quality
data for the required Water Master Plan and that this work must be done prior to construction
for a new treatment plant. He said "Water suppliers are responsible for taking all reasonable
precautions to assure that the water delivered to its citizens meets State and EPA regulations
and is free of public health hazards." (The complete text of his comments is attached to the
original of these meeting notes and kept on file at the Portland Water Bureau.)
Tom Long was the next to speak and he read a statement from the Bull Run Alliance. In
summary, their statement said "Much work remains to be done before a comprehensive
regional plan can be in place..." and "Of the greatest importance is how this entity will be
organized." The Alliance' concern is that an inter-governmental agreement would be the basis
for the structure of a new agency. The Alliance also asked that "The Alliance and the public at
large should be recognized as equal participants in the planning process..." and that "There be
one representative for each Bull Run Alliance organization and for the public-at-large... and
they should have full planning and voting privileges." The Alliance also asked that there be
monthly reports updating the progress being made and that-each representative participant be
given full access to the supporting staff." His statement went on to say "We strongly support
the project to regionalize the Bull Run Drinking Water Supply System" and asked for a
"response in writing no later than 30 days from the date of this request". (The complete text of
his comments was distributed at the meeting and is attached to the original of these meeting
notes and kept on file at the Portland Water Bureau.)
The next to speak was Frank Gearheart, also of the Bull Run Alliance. He read a statement from
the Alliance which in summary said "Our intention is that we put you the elected officials and
the water managers on notice of our intent to be intimately involved in the evolution of the
regional planning for water management." He said the Alliance was "...prepared to move
forward in the best interest of the citizens of this region, if you choose to-not take us into the
phase 2 process (at the table) and seriously consider our proposals." They asked that "By
February 15th we want a definitive answer as to whether you will open your tables to equal
citizen representation. If we do not hear from you by then, we will initiate our own program
which will in the end make all your efforts needless." (The complete text of his comments was
distributed at the meeting and is attached to the original of these meeting notes and kept on file
at the Portland Water Bureau.)
The next speaker was John Wish. He acknowledged the Portland City Council and thanked
them for the language in their resolution that indicated Willamette River water would be
prohibited from being provided to residents of the City of Portland. He thanked Mark
Knudson of the Portland Water Bureau for his work in Phase I. He said he "...supported the
concept of the Bull Run Watershed as the regions primary source of drinking water with the
well fields as an emergency back up." He said he had concerns with the Progress Report of
December 12th saying "The seventeen criteria give too much latitude to the new organization."
He went on to say that "Citizens must be assured that the Bull Run Watershed will remain the
primary source and no Willamette or Tualatin River water will be used" and that "citizen
involvement needs to be a necessary condition for any new water entity." He also thought
2
there "should be more study of a People's Utility District and a Water Authority, or perhaps
even a new form of governance." He commented that he was not convinced there are
economies of scale in forming a new agency and that a board of elected officials should have a
narrow focus of looking for efficiencies. Fairness and equity were key he added. (The
complete text of his comments was distributed at the meeting and is attached to the original of
these meeting notes and kept on file at the Portland Water Bureau.)
Phil Dreyer, Chairman of Not In My Pipes spoke next and said that "contrary to what Frank
said, you did pay attention in your report and took out the Willamette River" and thanked the
group for the report.
Tom Boon offered a written statement. In summary he said there should be "two related, yet
distinct goals." The first was that "...any one who has an interest in forming a Bull Run Water
Authority should revere the importance of the source, the watershed itself, and insure any
Water Authority action will regard and then maintain the watershed as an inviolate
metropolitan resource. Second, any decision regarding a Bull Run Water Authority should only
be made if the individual citizen, or household in the metropolitan area, will benefit from a
regional water delivery system." He went on to say "The next phase must focus on facilitating
a dialogue where opinions are not just assimilated, but instead jointly developed, considered,
researched, and then advanced or rejected." He said the "next phase must show the community
why the Bull Run Water Authority will benefit the metropolitan area." He felt there needed to
be "continued communication and cooperation" and that "community pride in the Bull Run
should guide the participants as they go forth, much as Governor Pennoyer did a century
ago...". (The complete text of his comments is attached to the original of these meeting notes
and kept on file at the Portland Water Bureau.)
Gordon Martin of the Tualatin Valley Water District Board indicated he was speaking as a
private citizen. He said public participation was important and he asked for citizens to work
with the project's consultants to determine what the citizen participation process would be.
Scott Forrester spoke for the Friends of the Clackamas River. He said that he had turned in the
national policy of the Sierra Club and it wash t printed in the report and that he hadn't gotten a
response. He said the Friends of the Clackamas River "wanted a seat at the table, not just three
minutes." He commented that they were opposed to the Clackamas River Water/City of
Gresham/Rockwood PUD inter-governmental agreement to bring Clackamas River water to
northern Multnomah County. He said they would ask Clackamas River Water to quit the
regional initiative and that Friends of the Clackamas River had economists, chemists and an
intelligent citizen base that could participate.
Kathy Newcomb spoke next to the issue of citizen participation. She said they felt "once burned
twice shy" in reference to 1999 and being given "bad information regarding the Willamette
River and citizens then had to go out and pass initiatives." She said citizens needed water
quality information, especially on the impact on fish. She said this was "not just an issue of
pipes and concrete and that we had only had the engineering perspective and instead we
needed a water quality perspective. " She felt citizens needed to understand the limitations of
the Safe Drinking Water Act in protecting human health. She thanked Commissioner Sten and
the Portland City Council for giving citizens the chance to participate in Phase I. She also
commented that "If there are 800,000 consumers of Bull Run water at a cost of $150 million for a
filtraton treatment plant, you could pay off the treatment plant costs in five years."
3
h
With the conclusion of public input Ed Tenny indicated that informally the group knew there
were enough interested governments to proceed into a second phase but that the next agenda
item was to hear more formally from the
participants of Phase I and to know who wanted to participate in the next phase. He said that
the City of Hillsboro was a full participant in Phase I but with their water connections to the
joint Water Commission it just didn't make sense for them to participate at this level in the next
phase and they had indicated they would not be a participant in Phase II. He also indicated
that Metro was involved in Phase I and a letter had been received from Presiding Officer Carl
Hosticka. The letter indicated Metro would like to participate in Phase II but they were not sure
they could pay the full amount to participate and he would be conferring with the full Council.
Ed also reported that even though Clean Water Services could not be in attendance they were
enthusiastically proceeding with participation in Phase II.
Commissioner Sten led off by saying the Portland City Council had formally and unanimously
approved a resolution on January 30, 2002 to continue participation in this project. The
resolution directed him, as the Commissioner-In-Charge to continue in a leadership role, to
provide support to the process, and to report back in August, 2002. He said if everything can be
done financially and legally and in a cost-neutral manner then the City is interested in joining a
new agency. He said there were two futures for Portland; one was to sell less water and the
other was to share ownership of the Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Well Field. He felt
that if there are more customers then there is more "buying power", but that it was important to
be a "financial wash". He felt strongly that the region needed supply line inter-ties; if there was
a problem with the Bull Run, the well field could not meet the needs for the long term. He also
said there needed to be additional environmental protections. Regarding public involvement,
Commissioner Sten said there needed to be a full process. He said it was his preference to let
the technical specialists do their work first "so we have something to air - to bring to the
public". He said there would be all kinds of questions raised and if we had some of the work
done first, many of those questions could be answered. He said it was important for Portland to
"open the books and the rate models and we need to dig in and be able to bring a variety of
information to the process."
Dick Matthews of the West Slope Water District indicated their district wants to be a part of
Phase II and their Board had passed a resolution to that effect on January 8, 2002.
Richard Burke of the Tualatin Valley Water District indicated their Board voted 5-0 to
participate in Phase II. He said several concerns were expressed in their discussions and they
"teetered" in their consideration. They believe the scope should be limited to the Bull Run only.
They felt this process provided fantastic opportunities as well as big dangers. Citizen
involvement was a concern, but they were looking forward to moving ahead.
Joyce Patton, representing the City of Tigard as well as the cities of Durham and King City and
some unincorporated areas, said they voted unanimously to participate in Phase II. She said
they had some conditions but that only one of them "is a deal killer". Their concerns were:
6 The scope of work for Phase II need to produce a final cost to participate in the
new agency, including the buy-in costs and projections of future costs.
• Dori t abandon the concept of full regionalization that would include other water
sources. They acknowledged that the Willamette River was not to be considered
but that it was important to consider the Clackamas River and Tualatin/Trask
Rivers as part of the future.
4
• Continue efforts to produce a wholesale contract with the City of Portland. It is
important to keep on a parallel track. August 1, 2002 is a good date to focus on
for both processes.
• The scope of work for Phase II needs, as a deliverable, a working draft of an
ownership agreement.
• The new agency needs to provide for equity of supply.
• The process and structure of the new agency need to keep individual agency
options open for local decisions, which would include being able to obtain other
sources of water. Note: This condition was stated as being the "deal killer" if it
was not met.
• Don't consider including distribution systems now.
(She said that, as an attorney, she knew this would "be a huge bear to deal with",
and it needs a whole separate angle and a "firewall".)
Commissioner Sten indicated it was Portland's expectation that they would be studying how to
bring distribution systems into the agency, but that it was being approached so that each
participant could make that decision. Joyce said the "firewall" was the issue. Erik said that if
Portland didn't move distribution into the new agency now that Portland would have to
participate in two agencies and that probably wouldn't make economic sense to Portland; but
he did agree with the concept of a "firewall".
Jack Horner of the City of Gresham said that Gresham had formally voted to participate in
Phase II and they were supportive of the work that had been
done and the process that was being used. He said they were also interested in a "firewall" if
distribution, or other water services, were to be considered for the new agency.
• Bob Frentress of the Sunrise Water Authority stated the Authority wholeheartedly agreed with
the work that had been done to date and will participate in Phase 11.
Bruce Fontaine of Clackamas River Water indicated they had been an active participant in
Phase I and that their Board had not yet made a decision regarding participating in Phase II, but
that the issue would be on their February Board agenda. He indicated there were some
reservations by some Board members but they hoped to address them at the February meeting.
He also indicated they would be discussing a "sub-regional arrangement that would include
Oak Lodge, Sunrise Water Authority and North Clackamas". He said they needed emergency
inter-connections and after September 11, 2001 it became even more important. He said CRW
was committed to stewardship of the Clackamas Basin and the region. He noted that "the devil
is in the details and whether CRW is in or not, it must move forward". He also indicated that
public involvement was important.
Sandra Ramaker spoke for Rockwood Water PUD. She said their Board voted to participate in
Phase II; they had some concerns but they "wanted to be at the table."
Tony Weller of the City of Tualatin indicated that 20 years ago Tualatin made a commitment to
the Bull Run and they've made a commitment to Commissioner Sten to be a part of this process
and they were proud to be associated with such an effort and would be a participant in Phase II.
5
Tom Pokorny of the Powell Valley Road Water District sent apologies from Board Chairman ,
Huffman who could not be there because of illness. He said the Board was happy to say they'll
"be proud to continue participation in this process."
Dave Winship of the City of Beaverton also sent apologies from Councilor Forrest Soth who
could not be there because of illness. He indicated that Beaverton had formally agreed to
continue their participation.
Paul Savis of the Oak Lodge Water District (they were not a participant in Phase I) spoke and
echoed some of the concerns that had previously been stated. He said that Oak Lodge was
"looking to join this" and said there needed to be more elected official participation in the next
phase.
In conclusion, Ed Tenny said that even if this project went no further, that in looking around the
United States, no one else had come together voluntarily to consider a regional agency, and that
they should be proud of their efforts. He jokingly said this was "an ornery and visionary
bunch". He asked the elected officials to stand and they were applauded.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
6
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF February 26.2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Washington Square Phase II Irn lementation
PREPARED BY: Julia Haiduk DEPT HEAD OK iY MGR OK ~WVAVYI
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the Council implement the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, zoning and amendments and adopt
the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code changes to the previously approved Washington
Square Regional Center Plan elements?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Implement the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
Amendments by adopting the attached Resolution (Attachment 1).
Adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit A) and Development Code (Exhibit B) amendments by
adopting the attached Ordinance (Attachment 2).
INFORMATION SUMMARY
At the January 22, 2002 City Council meeting, Council heard the staff report and public testimony on the
implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and proposed minor amendments to the
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan to reflect the implementation phase recommendations. Council
allowed the record to remain open for 7 days for additional written testimony. Attached (Attachment 3) is
summary and response to the main issues raised at the hearing and in the written testimony. Attachment 4 is
copies of the written testimony received by January 29, 2002 at 5:00 PM. The following issues are addressed in
the attached memo: notice, statewide land use goals, Goal 5, upzoning/maximum density, openspace-greenbelt
concept, development in wetlands and floodplain, funding, urban renewal, boundary of the Regional Center Plan,
wideiling of Hall, Metro's target capacity and a response to the drainage issue raised by Dr. Davis at the City
Council hearing. All of the issues raised have been addressed in the attached memo or previously in the record
and Staff continues to recommend that the Regional Center Plan and associated standards be implemented and
that the proposed amendments be adopted.
At the meeting on February 26, 2002, Council is asked to consider two actions:
1. Adopt resolution implementing the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. Although Council
approved the Regional Center Plan in February, 2000, the implementation was delayed until
recommendations could be developed for transportation, stormwater, natural resources and parks and
open spaces.
2. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code amendments as recommended
by the Planning Commission on December 3, 2001.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
■ Provide additional comments or changes to the proposed Development Code and Comprehensive Plan
changes.
• Take no action at this time.
■ Adopt the proposed Development Code and Comprehensive Plan changes but continue to delay
implementation of the Regional Center Plan.
-VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Growth and Growth Management Goal #1- Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of
new and established areas, strategy 1 and 3.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment: 1 - Draft Resolution implementing the Washington Square Regional Center Plan,
including: zoning, development code, and Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted
previously by Ordinance number 00-18
2- Draft Ordinance adopting the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code Changes
for the Washington Square Regional Center (CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002)
Exhibit A - Proposed Development Code changes
Exhibit B - Proposed Comprehensive Plan changes
Exhibit C - Staff Report
3- Memo to Council summarizing issues raised
Exhibit A - Minutes from Feb 8, 2000 City Council meeting where issues were raised
and addressed
Exhibit B - February 1, 2000 memo from the Planning Division to Council
Exhibit C - Draft map showing areas adjacent to low density residential zones with no
specified maximum density
Exhibit D - August 8, 2001 Memo from City Attorney regarding urban renewal
Exhibit E - Response from Engineering regarding the issue raised by Dr. Davis
4- Written testimony received between January 22nd and January 29th, 2002
5 February 15, 2002, memo from Jim Hendryx to Mayor & Council regarding the
proposed Metro Ballot Measure
FISCAL NOTES
There are no costs associated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code amendments,
however, there will be long term costs associated with the implementation of the Washington Square Regional
Center Plan. The financing strategy is being prepared.
Llrplan/Julia/CPA/Wash sq adoption ais2.doc 2/8/02 2:40 PM
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY O~ YIG3ARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Tigard City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
DATE: February 1, 2002
SUBJECT: Response to issues raised at January 22, 2002 Public Hearing and additional
written comments.
At the public hearing on January 22, 2002, several issues were raised which will be
addressed in this memo. In general, the issues raised are not new and have been addressed
previously. Attached to this memo is a copy of the minutes from the February 8, 2000 City
Council meeting (Exhibit A) and a February 1, 2000 memo from the Planning Division (Exhibit
B) in which many of these same issues were addressed. The issue before Council, at this
time, is whether the already adopted Washington Square Regional Center Plan and Code
amendments should be implemented and whether to amend portions of: Development Code
sections 18.360, 18.370, 18.520, 18.630, 18.760 and portions of Comprehensive Plan 1.1.1,
11.9 (previously numbered 11.8), 8.1.9 and 12.5.2. to reflect the Task Force
recommendations from the Phase II implementation plan.
The following is a summary and response to the issues raised at the January 22, 2002 City
Council meeting and written comments received during the 7 day open record period after the
close of the public hearing. For the purpose of answering the diverse range of questions,
some of which were repeated, questions were grouped by category and answered
separately. For instance, notification was raised by several people. It was not the intent to
answer each person's question separately, but to group like questions and answers. The
questions dealt with notice, statewide land use goals, Goal 5, upzoninglmaximum density,
opens pace-greenbelt concept, development in wetlands and floodplain, funding, urban
renewal, boundary of the Regional Center Plan, widening of Hall Bldg., Metro's target
capacity and a response to the drainage issue raised by Dr. Davis at the City Council
hearing.
1. Notice
The issue of inadequate notice was raised on several occasions both in the oral testimony
and written comments received. The following details the extensive notice that has been
provided for this project:
Page 1 of 5
Washington Square Regional Center Plan Adoption Phase (Phase 1)
• Public events - September 1998
Notice was mailed to more than 2000 residents by direct mail, two articles were printed in
the Oregonian and the Tigard Times and notice was also announced at the Tigard Citizen
Involvement Team (CIT) meeting and in the Metzger CPO 4M newsletter.
Adoption public hearings - 2000
• One notice for 4 dates was provided to residents inside and within 500 feet of the regional
center (this included property owners in the subdivision north of the golf course). The
notice was mailed on October 22, 1999 for the following hearing dates: Planning
Commission, November 15, 1999; City Council presentation, December 14, 1999; City
Council Public Testimony, January 25, 2000; and City Council deliberation, February 8,
2000. In addition, notice was published in the Tigard Times and there were numerous
articles in the Tigard Times prior to the City Council hearings.
Washington Square Regional Center Plan Implementation Plan Phase (Phase II)
• Public events for implementation phase - 2001
Public events were held in April and June at Metzger Park Hall. Notices were distributed
to all CIT representatives, Washington Square Implementation Task Force members,
Technical Advisory Subcommittee members, and everyone who had testified at previous
hearings or indicated that they wished to receive notification during the adoption process.
Press releases were sent to the Tigard Times, The Oregonian and the Regal Courier.
Notices were posted in City Hall and the Library and were made available to Task Force
members who distributed approximately 100 flyers. Notice was posted on the City
website.
Public hearings for implementation phase - 2001
• One notice for both the Planning Commission and City Council hearing was mailed to all
property owners within the Regional Center boundary and within 500 feet. Notice was
published in the Tigard Times.
In summary, every attempt was made to provide notice to all affected property owners and
the City has exceeded all state and local notification requirements.
2. Statewide Land Use Goals
The original staff report addressed all applicable goals and the Regional Center Plan and
Comprehensive Plan amendments were acknowledged by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) whose role it is to review plans for compliance with
Statewide Land Use Goals. The c riginal staff report is not part of the issue for consideration
by the City Council. Because findings were already approved and adopted for the
Washington Square Regional Center Plan and original Development Code and
Comprehensive Plan amendme, its, it is not necessary to provide additional findings. Based
on the comments raised W the Planning Commission hearing, staff expanded upon the
findings originally provided for Goal #6, Goal #7 and Goal #11 in the memo to Council located
in the 1/22 City Council packet.
The only amendments proposed and under consideration at this time provide additional
flexibility for developments adjacent to natural resource areas in order to ensure that density
Page 2 of 5
and design standards do not conflict with regulations to protect the natural resource areas, to
reflect the implementation plan findings and to re-format the Development Code. The
applicable Statewide goals for the amendments under consideration at this time are: 1, 2, 5,
and 12. These goals are addressed in Attachment 2, Exhibit C of this council packet. Notice
was sent to DLCD regarding the proposed Development Code and Comprehensive Plan
amendments and they have no objections to the compliance with the Statewide Land Use
Goals.
3. Goal 5/Metro update
A question was raised tegarding how Goal 5 would apply to the Regional Center. This
question was in reference to current work being done by Metro. Standards are currently in
place which protect the natural resource areas. As new and more detailed standards are
adopted by the State and Metro to implement Goal 5, Tigard will continue to comply and/or
make necessary adjustments to the Development Code to incorporate the adopted
standards. Any new development will have to demonstrate compliance with the Metro Goal 5
protection measures.
4. Upzoning/Maximum Density
With the development of the Washington Square Regional Center, the City of Tigard will meet
its target capacity requirements. The residential density will be increased in some areas from
R-4.5 to densities of 25 to 50 units per acre (most of the residential zones remain the same
as the current zoning). Higher densities were assigned in the Tigard portion of the
Washington Square Regional Center area in order to capture some of the County's capacity
targets and maintain much of the existing residential neighborhoods, such as the Metzger
area, at the density they are today.
The following zoning densities do not have maximum densities defined as a number of units
per acre: MUC, MUE-1 and MUR -1. The maximum density in these zones is defined by
natural constraints and by development standards. The natural constraints of the site size,
shape, location, access and geographic features affect the maximum residential and
commercial density a site can achieve. The development standards, including site coverage
(must maintain a certain percentage of openspace/landscaping), setbacks, parking
requirements and building heights, ultimately limit the density of a development.
A majority of the Regional Center area has a zoning designation with specified limits on
maximum density. These zoning district are: R-4.5, R-5, R-7, R-12, MUE-2, MUR-2 and
Institutional. In addition, there are very few areas where a low density residential site is
adjacent to a zone that does not provide a maximum density. The attached draft map
(Exhibit C) shows the parcels with one of the zones that has no specified maximum density
adjacent to a low density residential zone. Within this group of sites, many of the lots are
already developed with businesses or multi-family structures such as the Lincoln Center.
5. Qpen space -Greenbelt concepts
The Greenbelt exists today as an incomplete green space around the Regional Center.
Fanno and Ash Creeks form a natural greenbelt around the west, south, and eastern edges
of the Regional Center study area. The greenbelt concept includes connections from the
existing Fanno Creek greenway trail to the Regional Center and to other parks and trails;
development of the Ash Creek linear park, establishing connections along Ash Creek and to
the Fanno Creek trail system and Hwy. 217 crossing; a connection over Hwy. 217 between
Page 3 of 5
the Fanno Creek greenway to Whitford School and the Red Tail Golf Course; connections
through or around the golf course; and sidewalk widening and improvements along Hall Blvd.
to Metzger Park. A continuous Greenbelt trail system will provide access and links to
residential, employment and commercial districts and provide pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity between destinations in the area. A Greenbelt trail system will also balance
increased densities with opportunities for recreation, as well as preservation of open space
and natural resources. The greenbelt concept will be developed further in master plans that
are part of a long term implementation program.
8. Development adjacent to wetlands and floodplain
Several people indicated that the Plan would allow for high density development in the
wetland or floodplain. This is not correct. The City, in compliance with Goal 7 and Goal 5
has regulations which restrict development in floodplains and wetlands. Any development in
the floodplain must demonstrate that it will result in no increase in the water surface elevation
of the 100 year flood and obtain approvals from the Division of State Lands and US Army
Corps of Engineers. Development within wetlands must be permitted by the agencies listed
above and Clean Water Services. The standards in place which regulate run off, setbacks,
and protections of Sensitive Lands are adequate to protect the existing stream and wetlands
from any additional degradation. In addition, any required mitigation would act to increase
the value of the wetlands and floodplains by following the guidelines and requirements of the
regulatory agencies. The existing regulations may change in the future in response to
regional, state or federal requirements to provide greater protection of the natural resource
areas. It should be stressed that the overall density anticipated does not include
development of the floodplain or wetland areas.
7. Funding
Several people raised the issue that funding was not in place to pay for needed
improvements identified in the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. It should be
emphasized that the improvements identified in the Plan are needed based on existing traffic
congestion and existing development potential regardless of whether or not the zoning
changes and the Plan are implemented. By having the Plan adopted and implemented, it
provides a framework from which to seek funding for the improvements that are needed.
The Implementation Plan identifies a funding strategy that shows how the needed funding
could be obtained. This is a strategy for assisting the City in obtaining funding, however, it is
not the only way in which funds may be obtained. The City, in coordination with other
jurisdictions is continuing to work towards a financing program as part of a long term
implementation program.
8. Urban Renewal
There was a question about what mechanisms could be used to establish an urban renewal
agency incorporating the Washington Square Area and whether a vote would be required.
The City Charter, Section 45, requires voter approval of an urban renewal authority. The City
Attorney's office provided a memo dated August 8, 2001 (Exhibit D) which looked at issues
relating to the establishment of an urban renewal agency, with particular attention to
consistency with the City's Charter provisions that require voter approval of any urban
renewal plan that involves tax increment financing or taxation outside the renewal area.
Page 4 of 5
9. Boundary of the Regional Center Plan
Several people continued to raise the issue of the boundary of the Washington Square
Regional Center, wanting the boundary to be changed so as to exclude their neighborhood.
The boundary was established to provide a study area from which to base assumptions.
Washington County adopted the boundary as part of their Comprehensive Plan in 2000 as
well. Being within the Regional Center boundary does not mean that a property will be taxed
differently. The design standards apply to non-single family developments, therefore, existing
single family homes will have no additional development regulations. The boundary was
adopted with the Regional Center Plan in March 2000. In order to change the boundary, it
would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment in the City of Tigard and Washington
County and would require a re-evaluation of the Plan if properties currently designated for
mixed use were removed from the study area.
10. Widening of Hall Boulevard
This issue has continued to be brought up throughout the planning process. Based on traffic
projections in the area, it appears that widening of Hall will be ultimately necessary in order to
accommodate the increased traffic. Hall is shown to be widened to 5 lanes in the City's
Transportation System Plan and the Regional Transportation System Plan. The Washington
Square Regional Center Task Force recommendation is to widen Hall to 3 lanes and obtain
right of way for 5 lanes in the event that widening to 5 lanes is necessary in the future. The
Task Force recommendation is that Hall be widened to 5 lanes only if necessary after all
other improvements have been completed
11. Additional issues/concerns
Target Capacity
A concern was expressed about reports that West Linn and Lake Oswego were asking
Metro to reconsider density requirements and, if granted, would result in Tigard having to
take more than its share. Metro does have a process for reviewing exceptions the target
capacity numbers, however there have been no formal requests for an exception and
there is no indication that it would result in Tigard absorbing more than their current target
capacity.
• Dr. Davis issue
Dr. Davis raised an issue in his testimony that the City of Tigard was dumping water onto
his property. This issue is addressed in a separate memo from the City of Tigard
Engineering Department (Exhibit E).
I:Irpln/julia/cpa/washington sq/CC adoption wash sq memo2.doc
2-I2-02
Page 5 of 5
Attachment 3, Exhibit A
Council President Moore reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
5. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FROM JANUARY 25, 2000 -
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER - CPA 1999-00002/ZON 1999-
00001/ZOA 1999-00004 WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
REQUEST: A request for approval of a legislative Comprehensive Plan map and
development code language, rezone, and text amendments to the Tigard
Development Code within the area designated as the Washington Square
regional Center. Specifically, the request includes re-designation from Low
Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential, Medium-High Density
Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Commercial
Professional, and Industrial Professional to the new designation of Mixed Use
Commercial, Mixed Use Employment-1, Mixed Use Employment-2, Mixed
Use Residential-1, Mixed Use Residential-2, and to the existing R-12 zone.
The findings of this plan will be forwarded to Beaverton City Council,
Washington County Commissioners, and Portland City Council for their
approval..
LOCATION: Generally, south and west of Hall Boulevard; north of Highway 217; the
Nimbus Business Park area between Schools Ferry Road and SW North
Dakota; Cascade retail center south of Scholls Ferry Road and north of
Greenburg Road.
ZONE: CG (General Commercial), CP (Commercial Professional), CN
(Neighborhood Commercial), IP (Industrial Professional); R-4.5 (Low-
Density Residential), R-12 (Medium-Density Residential, R-25 (Medium
High-Density Residential), R-40 (Medium High Density Residential).
APPLICABLE Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12;
REVIEW Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.6, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1,
CRITERIA: 9.1.3, 12.1.1, and 12.2.2, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.22
and 18.32, Metro Functional Plan.
a. Council President Moore reconvened the public hearing.
b. Public Testimony Portion was closed on January 25, 2000; written testimony closed
February 1, 2000
Council President Moore noted that the Council did received additional written testimony in its
packet.
Mr. Ramis reviewed the hearing procedures for the evening. He informed the Council that he
cautioned staff to stick to the evidence in the record when responding to Council questions. He
asked the Council to do the same in framing its questions. He listed the options available to Council
during its deliberations: adoption as proposed, denial, modification of the proposal or tabling the
proposal indefinitely or for a specific time. He suggested, if the Council chose to modify the
proposal, that the Councilors state what their modifications were and allow staff to return with a
draft of those modifications.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 12
l
Mr. Ramis mentioned the opportunity to adopt the proposal and to delay the implementation to a
specified date or until certain tasks were accomplished. He said that this option was similar to the
Planning Commission's recommendation of "endorsement followed by implementation steps." He
pointed out that the City did not have a legal tool called "endorsement" but the Council could delay
the implementation of an adopted plan to a date certain or indefinitely.
c. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Hendryx recalled that staff made its overall presentation on December 15 followed by a public
hearing on January 25 to hear public testimony and receive written comments. He noted that the
Council closed the oral testimony on January 25 but held the record open until February 1 to receive
written testimony. He stated that the public testimony comments that staff intended to rebut tonight
fell into three areas: the public involvement process, environmental issues, and implementation and
infrastructure issues.
0 Elaine Cogan, Cogan Owens and Cogan, addressing.the public involvement process
Ms. Cogan mentioned her 25 years of experience in a consulting firm that specialized in designing
and facilitating processes. She stated that she has rarely seen a public involvement process so
inclusive. She discussed the 25-member Citizen Task Force appointed by Council at the beginning
of the process, noting the careful selection of, representative interests and the allocation of three
representatives to .the Metzger area. She indicated that all Task Force members (except one Metzger
representative) recommended adoption of the report.
Ms. Cogan discussed the public involvement at the 18 Task Force meetings (from June 1998 to
August 1999), the four public events, and the questionnaires. She emphasized that the Washington
Square event allowed them to reach people who would not attend a meeting or fill out a
questionnaire. She stated that the Task Force listened carefully to all citizen input, weighing that
input along with the information provided by the consultants.
Ms. Cogan described the Task Force process of developing a plan based upon the guiding principles
that the members agreed upon at the start of the process. She emphasized that this was a citizen-
driven and citizen-derived plan, thoroughly discussed and reviewed by the Citizen Task Force. She
stated that the recommendation was a balance between the wishes and'the wants of a responsible
group of people who worked long and hard to deal with the issues of land use, aesthetics,
transportation and environment.
Councilor Patton noted the comment heard several times by the Council that the public events were
inadequate for the purpose of making this kind of recommendation. She asked for Ms. Cogan's
opinion on whether a more formal process (as opposed to the informal process used) would have
made a difference in the decision-making process. Ms. Cogan explained that the more formal
events, such as a City Council meeting, provided those who were well-organized and good public
speakers a better forum for stating their opinions than it did the average citizen. She said that the
informal process they used provided the average citizens with many opportunities to present their
viewpoint without the expectation of having to be a polished speaker.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 13
Ms. Cogan said that, in her experience, the informal process garnered more breadth and depth of
information than the formal process did because of the number of opportunities-to present input and
the lack of intimidation. She cited the Washington Square public event as an example of the .
informal process bringing in people who normally would have said nothing. She stated that, while
she understood the criticism of the informal process, she thought that they needed to use the
informal process when they really wanted to hear from the people.
Nadine Smith, Long )flange Planning Manager, addressing the environmental issues
Ms. Smith stated that the Task Force recommendation did not propose any development in afiy
wetlands or required wetlands'buffers. She said that staff did not count wetlands and undevelopable
sensitive areas in its distribution of housing and jobs in the area, as required by Metro. She noted
that any development proposed for the area would have to go through the same rigorous review
process that any development in sensitive areas in the City of Tigard (or the region) would have to
go through to meet the applicable federal, state and local regulations.
Ms. Smith said that staff would incorporate any changes made to federal and state regulations into
Tigard's regulations. She noted the recent adoption of Title 3 by USA into their design and
construction standards. She said that the City now had to apply those standards to development in
the city.
Mr. Hendryx confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that those standards went into effect countywide on
Friday, February 4, 2000.
Councilor Scheckla mentioned his concern with the requirement that Tigard use Metro's jobs and
housing numbers. Mr. Ramis confirmed that Metro was powerful enough to require Tigard to use
those numbers or face losing access to transportation dollars. Councilor Scheckla commented that
he did not think that Tigard received much transportation funding from Metro.
Councilor Patton noted comments made that the Task Force ended up with more density than
required by Metro. She asked for clarification from staff. Ms. Smith explained that Washington
County had identified rezoning a portion of the Metzger neighborhood to high density residential as
one way to meet the number of housing units Metro assigned to the County. She said that staff
asked the Task Force to look at adding 200 plus units to the density of the Washington Square
Regional Center area (given the vacant land and redevelopment ability available) so that the County
would not have to rezone a portion of single-family residential Metzger to-high density residential.
Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner, clarified that the County's plan to accommodate the Metro
numbers allocated 660 units as the Regional Center's share.
Councilor Patton mentioned the comments made with respect to development resulting from the
a upzoning of wetland and sensitive areas. She asked for staff clarification on the Plan
„ recommendation to upzone those areas when staff said that those areas would not be developed.
Ms. Smith explained that the upzoning was part of the mixed-use zoning concept intended to build
up with a smaller footprint than out with a larger footprint over more land area.
Ms. Smith said that the mixed-use concept also looked at developing the area as a single
development rather as a series of single-family lots. She indicated that one property owner could do
more to restore the degraded wetlands in the area than having a series of single-family lots adjacent
to a wetland.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000- Page 14
Councilor Patton asked why the Plan slated those areas for upzoning when the concern was to
preserve those sensitive areas from development. She commented that upzoning appeared to create
an incentive for development.
John Spencer, Planner, explained that the City of Tigard zoned all land for residential, commercial
or industrial uses.' The City placed other layers of zoning (called overlay zones) on top of the base
zone to create environmental and other protection zones. He confirmed that these sensitive areas
would have a new base zone but he emphasized that the environmental protection overlay zones still
prevailed with respect to development. He indicated that development would focus on the upzoned
uplands property.
Mr. Spencer said that upzoning would stimulate new development activity. He said that staff saw
that as a positive thing because a major redevelopment could bring more resources for
environmental enhancement and wetland improvement than single-family lots with backyards
abutting a wetland could. He pointed out that if growth did not go in the upzoned areas, then it
would probably go somewhere else at lower densities than proposed by the Plan. Lower densities
used more land, created impervious surface, and had more potential environmental impacts than
concentrating density in a smaller area did..
Councilor Patton asked staff to address the issue of variances to the environmental rules allowing
wetlands mitigation in other locations. Mr. Spencer conceded that wetlands mitigation in other
locations was possible. He explained that the wetlands mitigation process was a function of how the
City wanted to implement its own ordinances. He indicated that it was a federal process with
environmental protection regulations imposed on all jurisdictions in the region. He commented that
these regulations already closed some of the "loopholes" mentioned in the testimony tonight.
Mr. Ramis confirmed to Councilor Patton that the Council choosing to adopt-but not to implement
the plan immediately afforded the Council the opportunity to study the implications of the new
regulations and how to implement them with respect to the City's regulations. He said that adopting
but not implementing left the current regulations in place.
Councilor Hunt asked if Council could set a final implementation date, given that the environmental
regulations changed continually. Mr. Ramis agreed that the regulations were a moving target. He
said that Council could set an outside date for implementation or for staff to return with a completed
proposal for Council consideration.
Councilor Scheckla asked why Tigard did not ask for more time to fine-tune its plan before
adoption, as other Washington County jurisdictions did. Ms. Smith indicated that she did not think
that they needed more time to deal with Metro, as they were ready to explain how they could
accommodate the numbers. Councilor Scheckla stated that he thought that they did need more time.
Ms. Smith confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that staff recommended taking out Policy 11.8.3.
a
a Councilor Scheckla questioned the Plan's recommendation to upzone wetlands areas in residential
areas, given that the 2040 Plan no longer required that. Mr. Hendryx explained that when Metro
looked at the capacity within the Urban Growth Boundary, it deducted out the areas with wetlands
s and resources areas from their inventory of vacant land. Councilor Scheckla mentioned his concern
that people in the upzoned residential area would sell out and move.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 15
Council President Moore explained that staff's recommendation was to adopt but not implement the
plan in order to gain sufficient time to answer the types of questions raised by Councilor Scheckla
and to deal with issues on an individual basis. He emphasized that adoption without
implementation changed nothing in the City's development regulations and process.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the process would continue to allow public input. Mr. Ramis assured
the Councilor that staff could craft the ordinance to state clearly that the existing regulations
remained in effect, not the new ones, and to itemize which specific issues Council wanted
addressed. He confirmed that staff would continue to receive public input.
Mr. Hendryx stated that he took exception to the statement that the City's Safe Harbor regulations
contained loopholes. He referenced the extensive process staff went through to develop the City's
environmental protection regulations, acknowledged by the State and other agencies as meeting the
standard. He argued that staff built flexibility, not loopholes, into the Safe Harbor regulations at the
Council's request as recognition of the unique circumstances in Tigard.
Mr. Hendryx addressed the issue of implementation. He mentioned the staff recommendations to
develop a storm water drainage plan, to refine the open space opportunities, and to develop
strategies and a financial plan for public improvements. He commented that staff needed an
adopted plan in order to develop the strategies or they were shooting at a moving target.
Mr. Hendryx discussed his regret that the issue of the $80,000 grant came up because it put the
Council in an awkward position. He said that the Council should not consider the grant in making
its decision with respect to the Plan, as it was a separate issue that staff would deal with at the
appropriate time.
Mr. Hendryx discussed the staff solution outlined in the February 4, 2000, memo. He recommended
adoption of the Plan and amendments with implementation delayed until staff presented a strategy
addressing four components: developing a recommendation for storm water drainage, refining
recommendations for open space development, preparing a strategy on a financial plan for public
improvements, and leaving the interim existing land use regulations in effect.
Mr. Ramis reiterated that staff could craft the ordinance to require the public involvement wanted by
Council, to clarify that the existing regulations remained in effect, and to clarify that staff would not
implement the adopted plan until the Council satisfied itself with respect to the implementation
process. w
Councilor Patton observed that many adopted plans were never implemented. She asked what the
term "public improvements" encompassed. Mr. Hendryx explained that staff intended "public
improvements" to include all the public facility and infrastructure needs in the area, including
transportation.
Councilor Patton noted that the Plan recommended parks but did not identify any particular parks.
Mr. Hendryx pointed out that the plan could not designate properties as parks without raising legal
issues. He said that staff needed to identify the acreage and type of lands needed, and then to
develop a financial plan to acquire the land. He mentioned dedication of land from developers as a
possible tool.
Mr. Hendryx spoke to the issue of public process. He emphasized that staff would continue to
converse with the public throughout this process. He indicated that staff could revisit the public
involvement process or consider a different type of process at Council's direction.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 16
Councilor Hunt asked for a comparison of this process with the Tigard Triangle process. Mr.
Hendryx indicated that the Triangle process was more of a focus public involvement process as
opposed to the broadscale nature and issues of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. Ms.
Nicholson cited the difficulties that staff ran into during the implementation of the Triangle Plan (as
developments came through the process) as a reason why staff wanted to iron out the issues in the
Wz,r,hin,.-t0~n Square Plan before implementing it.
Councilor Scheclcla observed that a plan without maintenance would eventually fall apart.
d. Council Deliberation
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt the Washington Square
Regional Center Plan, including the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Councilor Patton thanked the Task Force for their excellent work in tackling a difficult issue. She
characterized the Plan as providing the City with a foundation to start from in addressing the issues
raised by the citizens this evening. She commented that she would not have supported adoption
with immediate implementation but she•could support the staff recommendation to-adopt the Plan as
the first step and to develop more detailed and focused implementation strategies as the second step.
Council President Moore pointed out that this area would develop with or without a plan. He spoke
to the importance of having a plan that protected the area from poor development, as has occurred in
other areas of the city developed without a plan. He supported the Plan and the amendments with
adoption without immediate implementation as a solution to their dilemma.
Motion was approved by majority voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore,
Councilors Hunt and Patton voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla voted•"no.") [3-1]
6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
Council President Moore mentioned the Transportation Bond Measure Open House tomorrow night
at Fowler Middle School at 7:30 p.m.
7. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None. ~ -
9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:22 p.m.
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recor er
Mayer-, Gity>.444gar4 Brian J. Moore, Council President
Bate: 00
I: A M\CATHM M\000208ACC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000- Page 17
Attachment 3, Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Division _
RE: Washington Square Regional Center Issues '
DATE: February 1, 2000
As indicated at the January 25' City Council meeting, staff will respond to questions
that had arisen during this meeting. We will also provide further information on general
issues that have been brought up throughout the public hearing process as part of our
rebuttal at the beginning of the hearing on February 81'.
Enclosed with this memo is additional information from Brenda Bernards, a staff planner
with Metro to answer questions of Metro and from Lidwien Rahman, TGM Grant
Manager with the Oregon Department of Transportation regarding the proposed
implementation grant.
Jere Retzer of the Tualatin Riverkeepers in his testimony indicated that "holes" existed
in the Tigard Development Code (TDC) as it relates to water resources. Standards for
protecting wetlands are applied throughout the City and our Safe Harbor standards
were accepted by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Water
resource protection standards in the TDC were adopted to comply with Safe Harbor
standards. What Mr. Retzer characterizes as "holes" were intended to provide flexibility
in development standards while protecting wetlands by providing for variances when
the appropriate criteria can be met. These standards will be applied throughout the
city. -
Additionally as of January 31, 2000, Title 3 water resource protection standards and,
through USA's design and construction standards are now in effect.
On several occasions, members of the public mentioned the Beaverton Round project
which is a public/private project funded by both developers and the City of Beaverton.
There is no proposal for the City of Tigard to be directly involved in funding
development projects in the Washington Square Regional Center. What is proposed in
the plan is to change the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the Washington
Square Regional Center area to accommodate expected future growth in the area.
Questions have been raised regarding how improvements will be implemented. As is
the case for development in Tigard, staff applies the rough proportionality standard on
development projects. Development projects are evaluated in terms of what impacts
the development will create on facilities in rough proportion to conditions that will be
placed on development. The amount of infrastructure that will be funded-by private
development will depend on the type and intensity of development that occurs.
The Transportation Growth Management Grant.(TGM) will perform planning for .
transportation projects that are regional in scope. This grant, for example, will do
detailed planning on overcrossings over Highway 217, which are part of the proposed
transportation plan for the Washington Square Regional Center. or
In response to concerns expressed by members of the pubic regarding the impact of
the plan on existing single-family neighborhoods, the Plan protects the Metzger
neighborhood. Enhancing the single-family character of the Metzger neighborhood
north of Locust Street is a major element of the Regional Center Plan. No changes to
the existing R-5 zoning are proposed, and the retention of Metzger School and play
fields is a high priority. The Task Force rejected Washington County's proposal to up-
zone this entire area to R-24, and to provide for the County's 600 unit housing
allocation in other areas of the Regional Center, primarily within the City of Tigard.
Further, the property owners support mixed-uses along Ash Creek. The Lincoln
Center-Ash Creek area south of Locust Street is proposed for mixed-use employment
and housing areas. All of the major property owners in this area participated on the
Task Force and support this recommendation. The employment and. housing growth
targeted for'this area assumed none of the wetlands and floodplain along Ash Creek
would be developed.
Concerns have been expressed about the lack of parks in the area. Neighborhood
parks are provided for in the plan. The plan calls for 8 acres of neighborhood parks
located in the Lincoln Center-Ash Creek area. Four additional acres of park and plazas
are planned for other areas in the Regional Center. Specific sites are not identified, but
upland areas were assumed for all park locations.
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
ShapingA Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: City Council
FROM: Nadine Smith fl" o
Long Range Planning Manager
DATE: January 31, 2000
SUBJECT: Attached Memo
Attached is a memo from Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner with Metro. We requested
that she respond to some of the issues that were brought up by the public that concerned Metro
and the 2040 planning process and Metro greenspace issues.
January 28, 2000
Prepared by: Brenda Bernards
Subject: Response to Metro-related issues raised at the January 25,
2000 Tigard City Council public hearing on the Washington
Square Regional Center
At the January 25, 2000 public hearing for the Washington Square Regional
Center, a number of Metro related issues were raised. These included the
designation of the area as a regional center, the redesignation of the Milwaukie
Regional Center to the Milwaukie Town Center, the assumptions made in the
September 1999 update to the Urban Growth Report and the acquisition by
Metro of property along Ash Creek. These issues are addressed below.
1. Designation of Washington Square as a Regional Center
Regional Centers are a key element of Metro's growth management strategy.
The 2040 Growth Concept, adopted by Metro Council in 1995, provides a
general approach to where and how to accommodate future growth. The
majority of the growth will be directed to mixed-use areas including centers and
main streets.
The centers and main streets are compact areas of housing and employment in
close proximity to transit service. This compact development in a walkable
environment provides efficient access to goods and services and alternatives to
auto travel such as walking, bicycling and transit. The 2040 Growth Concept
provides a hierarchy of centers that are interrelated: the Central City, Regional
Centers and Town Centers.
There are seven Regional Centers on the 2040 Growth Concept Map. These
include the downtowns of Beaverton, Hillsboro, Gresham, and.Oregon City as
well as three large regional shopping areas, Clackamas Town Center, Gateway
and Washington Square. Regional centers act as major nodes along regional
transportation routes and serve hundreds of thousands of people and include
commercial, recreational, institutional, cultural, employment and residential uses.
Metro staff in consultation with local jurisdictions and citizens recommended that
the Washington Square area be designated as a regional center. This area had
many of the characteristics of a regional center. These included the local
government zoning in place, the intensity of existing development, and its size
and location in proximity to downtown Portland, Beaverton and Hillsboro. The
possibility of commuter rail and the consideration of the area as a potential light
rail corridor were also consistent with its regional center designation.
The Washington Square area was included in the 2040 Growth Concept map
that was adopted by resolution by Metro Council in December 1994. The City
and County staff and planning commissions, the City Council and the County
Commissioners were aware of the regional center designation. Over the course
of 1995, many comments were received from local jurisdictions, citizens and
other interested groups that were affected by the 2040 Growth Concept. While
many changes were made to the original vision to respond to suggestions and
concerns, Metro received no requests to alter-the Washington Square regional
center designation. The 2040 Growth Concept map was adopted by ordinance in
December 1995. Metro Council's decision was reached through consultation and
consensus with the citizens of the region and with its partners, the cities and
counties.
2. City of Milwaukie
Redesignation to Town Center
The City of Milwaukie was originally designated as a Regional Center on the
2040 Growth Concept. In 1999, the City requested and Metro Council granted a
change in designation from Regional Center to Town Center. Milwaukie
requested the change because it was concerned about the impact of a regional
center designation on the adjacent neighborhoods and the potential loss of the
small town feel in the downtown.
Milwaukie began the process of planning for its downtown in 1995 with the
Milwaukie Vision project. The project stated a vision for the City that included a
downtown with civic, commercial and cultural activities. The next step
undertaken was the Regional Center Master Plan study. The purpose of this
study was to establish the framework for the city center envisioned by the
Milwaukie Vision statement. A key component of this study was to determine if
Metro's regional center designation was appropriate for the Milwaukie downtown.
Milwaukie's target capacities for housing and employment are as follows:
City of Milwaukie City Wide Targets Mixed-Use Areas
Housing 3,514 2,571
Employment 7,478 6,444
Through the regional center planning undertaken between June 1996 and
October 1997, the City was able to plan capacity in the downtown to reach 69
percent of the mixed-use housing target and 33 percent of the mixed-use
employment target in the Metro Code. The City anticipates that the proposed
town center will include all of the redevelopment opportunity sites of the regional
center and the planned capacity will remain the same. Milwaukie is able to meet
its citywide housing targets. This indicates that, while the City meets the overall
target, the housing will be distributed more widely with less focus on the
downtown and at an intensity that may be more appropriate for a town center.
Comparison of Town Centers and Regional Centers
Town Centers Regional Center
30 town centers 6 7 regional centers
® serve a 2-3 mile radius 0 provides services of a regional
S provides day to day services primarily character
6 can include "regional draw" activities u also provides day to day services for
but focus is on local shopping, employees and residents in the area
employment and recreational
opportunities
O emphasis on all modes of transport - • focus for regional transportation system
walking, bicycling and transit use are (roads, rail - cars, buses, light rail)
considered as important as car use . given priority for transportation
spending
Y (all modes: cars, transit, walking,
bicycle
o third level of the hierarchy of centers • second level of the "hierarchy" of
c serves tens of thousands of people centers - the first level is the central
® at this time, there are 29 town centers city - downtown Portland - serving the
throughout the region entire Metro region
• generally located in areas of existing a regional centers serve hundreds of
commercial and residential thousands of people
development • limited in number
O development is more concentrated a concentrated focus of housing and
than surrounding employment opportunities
neighborhood/employment areas
o lower density and generally smaller in
area than regional centers
3. 1997 Urban Growth Report Update - September 1999
A number of speakers at the January 25, 2000 Tigard Council meeting referred
to the update of the 1997 Urban Growth Report (UGR) to demonstrate that Metro
does not require the area around Ash Creek to be upzoned. This is an incorrect
interpretation of the Urban Growth Report.
The purpose of the Urban Growth Report is to estimate a regional capacity and
need for housing. This estimation is required by the State to ensure that there is
sufficient capacity to accommodate a 20-year housing need. The Growth Report
was completed in 1997. An update was undertaken in 1999 to refresh the data
and assumptions of the Report. Cities and Counties in the region had made
substantial progress in compliance with the requirements of the Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan; density assumptions in the Report were updated
to reflect these changes.
Zoning is a local responsibility. Now that Cities and Counties are in substantial
compliance with the 2040 Growth Concept for neighborhood densities, the
Report no longer assumes the need to upzone current densities because the
new zoning regulations recently adopted by Cities and Counties reflect the
necessary assumptions to accomplish 2040 Growth Concept goals.
However, because local compliance work is still incomplete in many of the
centers, the vacant buildable land in these regional and town centers still require
the additional step of upzoning. Until more jurisdictions come into compliance
with the Functional Plan through local code amendments, this step of assuming
up-zoning is necessary in the analysis of residential capacity for the UGR.
4. Metro Acquisition of Property Along /ash Creek
The property along Ash Creek in the southern end of the Regional Center is not
included in the target area in Metro's open spaces acquisition program. The
program objectives for the Fanno Creek area are to establish a continuous
greenway along the main stem of the river. Local jurisdictions and non-profit
groups are encouraged to participate in the protection and enhancement of the
tributaries of Fanno Creek. Metro has a challenge grant program for the
tributaries where a jurisdiction or non-profit group would have to provide a 25
percent match.
The Metreprogram is a "willing seller" program; that is, Metro cannot require an
owner to-sell. In addition, when purchasing a property, Metro cannot exceed
market value. Discussions have been held between Metro staff and the property
owner on the possible purchase of this property. To date, the asking price for the
property cannot be met by Metro.
:\gm\community_development\stafflbemards\TigarcMadine Smith.doc
Page 1 of 1
The TGM program has been asked to make a determination about eligibility of
funding the Washington Square Regional Center Plan Implementation grant even
if the City Council elects not to adopt some or all of the plan and zoning
map amendments recommended in the Plan. In essence, the City has asked for a
grant to implement the WSRC plan. Our understanding in committing to fund
this grant was and is that the Council supports and is prepared to adopt
that plan. If the Council decides not to adopt the plan, TGM is obligated
to reconsider whether the grant should proceed.
> The recommended Plan is a comprehensive plan which includes an overall -
> Vision, Urban Design Concepts, Urban Design by District, Parks and Open
> Space recommendations, new land use districts, a parkuM,b strategy, and
> recommendations for implementation. City staff has prepared specific
> Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments to implement the recommended
> Plan. Provided Council adopt the majority-of the Plan's recommendations,
> including the transportation recommendations and the new Mixed Use zones
> and associated development standards, and including plan/zone amendments
> for the majority of property in the planning area, the TGM program does
> not object to funding a follow-up grant to further implementation of the
> Plan's transportation recommendations. It has been our understanding that
> most of the transportation recommendations in the Plan would be prudent
> and necessary regardless of any changes in land use. We understand
> citizens' concern about approving any increase in density without
> assurance that the needed transportation improvements can be built, from a
> financial, environmental, and/or engineering standpoint. The follow-up
> grant is supposed to provide that assurance.
> At the same time, it has been the intent of the Regional Center Plan to
> reduce traffic by providing for a mix of uses in close proximity and at a
> density and design which can support transportation alternatives such as
> transit, carpooling, commuter rail, walking, and bicycling. Therefore, if
> Council were to defer adoption of the new mixed-use zones and development
> standards, and their application to a majority of parcels in the planning
> area, then this action would jeopardize receipt of the 1999-2001 TGM grant
> on the basis of failure to adopt the recommendations of the previous
> 1997-1999 grant. The Program acknowledges Council's responsibility to be
> responsive to the citizens of Tigard, and to make minor amendments to a
> staff and consultant proposal to reflect unique circumstances. However, if
> the deviation from the recommendations were such as to compromise the _
> integrity of the Plan and the City's ability to comply with the Metro 2040
> growth targets, then such action would constitute ground to rescind the
> TGM grant.
> Lidwien Rahman
> TGM Grant Manager
> ODOT Region I
> 123 NW Flankers
> Portland OR 97209
> phone: (503) 731-8229
> fax: (503) 731-8259
> e-mail: lidwien.rahman@odot.state.or.us
file://CAWINDOWS\TEMP\GW) 00005.1 ITM 2/1/00
1
t t
Y.
4
4
C~
B O,too
l Q
i~ ~ 1 rte, ~ " '
1.,~;.4~<,•Y'"=-~r_ V :L;~F~-°a p h z Nra""gr
no ar °«+a~
t: ~~~1 d S Exhibit C idential zones ~
- :d
res w
s t to low dens Y density
Area adlaCe specified n'ax`mum
i gazdt
1 City of Ti 1j! _ _
T~a' 1
vlr b3` ~„.n M`•"
P '
AUG 08 '01 09:27AM RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN
Attachment 3, Exhibit D
• i
RAMIS
CRE't~?' •
' CORRIGA N &
BACHRA.CH, L
Practicing as
Hibbard Caldwell Schultz
Ratnis&Crew MEMORANDUM
in Oregon City
ATTORNE'Y'S AT LAW
1717 N. W. Hoyt Stnwt
Portland. Otrgon 97209
(503) 222-4402
Fax: (503) 243-2944 '
TO: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, City of Tigard
FROM: Timothy V. Ramis, Gary Firestone, City Attorney's Office
DA'T'E: August 8, 2001
RE: Urban Renewal Agencies
BACKGROUND
There has been some discussion regarding the possibility' of creating an urban renewal agency
in the Washington Square area that would cover areas within Tigard, Beaverton and unincorporated
Washington County. One proposal is to have Washington County establish the agency to cover the
entire area. For the purposes of this memorandum, we assume that any urban renewal plan would
involve tax increment financing.
You have asked us to look at legal,issues relating to establishment of a urban renewal agency,
with particular attention to consistency with the City's charter provisions that require voter approval
of any urban renewal plan that involves tax increment financing or taxation outside the renewal area.
ISSUES
Does Washington County have authority to establish an urban renewal agency for areas that
includes part of Tigard?
Do the Tigard Charter provisions apply to action by the County?
ANSWER
A county has some authority to establish an urban renewal agency for areas within
incorporated cities. However, the statutes also restrict that authority. The statutes are unclear as
applied to the situation the County and City are faced with.
AUG 09 '01 09:27AM RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN P.3
i
• i
Memorandum re: Urban Renewal Agencies
August 8, 2001
Page 2
Although Tigard Charter provisions do not apply directly to the County, if City action is
required, the City will have to comply with the Charter.
ANALYSIS
The Applicable Statutes Are Ambiguous
A county urban renewal authority has authority "within the same area of operation given a
housing authority of the [county] under ORS 456.060." ORS 457.035(2): ORS 456.060 gives a
county housing authority to operate "[i]nside the territorial or urban growth boundary of any city
unless the city has by ordinance prohibited such operation within the city or its urban growth
boundary." It is unclear whether "such operation" refers specifically to operation by the county pr
would include any prohibition on housing authorities.
A city may prohibit operation of a housing authority because existing agency operations
address the need for housing or if there is no need for low income housing. ORS 457.060(2)(b).
Although Tigard has not passed an ordinance addressing the need for a housing authority, it has
passed a charter provision stating that there is no need for an urban renewal agency in the City.
Charter Section 45.'
Two interpretations of the relationship between ORS 457.035(2) and ORS 456.060 are
possible. Under the plain language of the two statutes, the more persuasive interpretation, as applied
to the County's authority in this situation, is that the County does have authority to operate an urban
renewal authority. First, the City Charter is not binding on County authority. Second, the City has
not specifically prohibited any operation by the County. Third, Charter Section 45 does not prohibit
any action, it only states there is no longer a need for an urban renewal agency, Fourth, Charter
Section 45 is directed to urban renewal agencies and ORS 457.060 (which is made applicable by OILS
i 457.035(2)) only mentions housing authorities, not urban renewal agencies.
However, this is not the only possible interpretation of the provisions. An opponent of the
potential urban renewal authority could argue that, under these circumstances, the County has no
authority to operate an urban renewal authority within Tigard because Tigard has prohibited the'
r
Tigard City Charter Section 45 provides in relevant pan; "The voters of the City of Tigard, exercising
their powers as the ultimate governing body of the city as reserved to them by the ordinances of the city and by the
Constitution of laws of the State of Oregon, do hereby find and determine that there no longer exists a need for an
urban renewal agency in the city. Therefore, the Tigard Urban Renewal Agency, as established or activated by
Ordinance No. 81-91, adopted in December, 1981, is terminated."
AUG 08 '01 09:28AM RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN P.4
Memorandum re: Urban Renewal Agencies
August 8, 2001
Page 3
operation of urban renewal authorities within the City without voter approval. The argument would
be that Charter Section 45 together with Sections 47 and 48 do prohibit the establishment of any
urban renewal agency without voter approval and that any references to "housing authority" in ORS
456.060 should be interpreted to mean "urban renewal agency" when the County's authority to
establish an urban renewal agency is at issue.'
Under the second possible interpretation, the County cannot establish an urban renewal
agency that includes areas within Tigard unless Charter Section 45 is withdrawn or amended. Unlike
most Charter provisions, Section 45 may be withdrawn or amended by the City. Council by ordinance,
In deciding which approach to take to the matter, the City will treed to consider not only '
which interpretation is most supportable under the statute, but the litigation risks and public opinion '
associated with each approach. Under either approach, the establishment of an urban mnnewal agency
is uncertain. Amending Charter Section 45 and seeking voter approval of an urban renewal authority
to operate in the Washington Square area creates less risk of a legal challenge but it is by no means
certain that the voters would approve the urban renewal authority. Attempting to create the authority
without voter approval could lead to litigation and a court decision that the county lacks authority ,
within the City. Our view is that the stronger legal argument favors the first interpretation and that
the County may create a district within the City. This is not a certainty, however, and does not
address potential public concerns,
Tlse Chatter Provisions Do Not Apply to County Actions
City charters, while binding on cities, do not directly apply to counties. Sections 45, 47 and
48 of the Charter apply to City urban renewal agencies and restrict only City action.
County creation of an urban renewal district within the City would only involve the Tigard
Charter only if shatter Section 45 was held to be an ORS 456.060 prohibition. In that case, no
district could be created unless Section 45 was removed.
It is within the Council's authority to make the initial interpretation of this Charter provision,
Please call me if you wish to discuss the procedure for such an interpretation.
0:1muni'\Tigard\urb snrcacwal.wpd
Ill
'The City of Tigard has decided that an urban renewal agency is not needed anywhere in Tigard. Charter
i Section 45. Although an urban renewal agency may be re-established in the City, a voter approval is required if
the urban renewal plan will involve tax increment financing or if areas outside the urban renewal area are to be
taxed. Charter Sections 47 and 48.
• i•
LM
Attachment 3, Exhibit E
A, k
CITY OF TIGARD
Engineering Department
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Phone 503-639-4171
Fax: 503-624-0752
TO: Mayor and City Councilors
Bill Monahan, City Manager I~A~
FROM: Gus Duenas
City Engineer
DATE: February 6, 2002
SUBJECT: Drainage Issue on Dr. Davis' Property Adjacent to Oak Street
During the Public Hearing on the Resolution implementing the Washington Square Regional Center
Plan, Dr. Gene Davis claimed that the City of Tigard had constructed improvements along Oak Street
that dumped storm runoff on his property south of that street. The following explains the drainage
patterns in that area and describes the improvements that the City had provided in that area during the
past eight years.
Background
The overall drainage direction in the vicinity of Oak Street from Greenburg Road on the west to Hall
Boulevard on the east is from north to south with the runoff eventually making its way to Ash Creek.
Ash Creek flows under Highway 217 through existing culverts. There is an old, abandoned railroad
right-of-way running northeast to southwest with ditches on both sides of the tracks (which have been
long since removed). The right-of-way and ditches cross Oak Street near the vicinity of the 90th
Avenue/Oak Street intersection. The ditches along the old railroad right-of-way intercept the runoff
and direct it south sheet-flowing to Ash Creek. The old right-of way is now under private ownership
with multiple owners throughout its length. Attached is an aerial photo showing Oak Street, the
adjacent properties north and south of the street, the old railroad right-of-way, and Dr. Davis'
properties crosshatched. The properties north of Ash Creek owned by Dr. Davis are located in the area
beginning at 901h Avenue and proceeding west. The rest of the properties are well east of the railroad
right-of-way and are relatively close to Hall Boulevard.
City Improvements
The City constructed the Metzger School Pathway project in 1994. This project installed a paved
shoulder on the north side of Oak Street, eliminated the existing ditch on the north side, and installed
underground drainage, which terminated at the ditch along the railroad right-of-way. The existing 12-
inch pipe crossing on the west side of the right-of-way had been looped at the south end of the crossing
to connect back to the ditch on the east side. The looped 12-inch pipe was replaced (as part of the
project) with a 15-inch line, which was then connected directly across the street to the existing ditch on
the east side of the right-of-way. The ditch south of the road was graded to drain towards the creek.
The attached As-Built drawing dated November 1994 shows the improvements made in that area. The
drainage patterns were not changed and the only additional flow that could be attributed to the project
is the 5-foot paved pathway that was installed along the north side of Oak Street. This project did not
adversely impact any of Dr. Davis' properties.
The other improvement constructed by the City was the replacement in 1996 of an existing, broken
pipe culvert crossing Oak Street slightly west of the 90th Avenue/Oak Street intersection. This work
was performed to correct a flooding problem in the street. Public Works crews installed a new pipe and
catch basin to resolve the flooding problem. Again, the drainage pattern was not altered and the
existing drainage was retained with the replacement of the broken pipe culvert. The attached aerial
photo with the improvements noted shows the work that was performed. Dr. Davis owns the lot
directly south of the culvert. However, the location of the existing culvert is between two existing
houses and is directed at a grove of trees. Again, the City did not change any drainage patterns but
merely replaced a long-existing, damaged culvert to alleviate flooding in the street.
Conclusions
The City did not alter any drainage patterns or create any new flooding problems with the work that
was performed. The existing culvert east of 90th Avenue drains into one of the lots owned by Dr.
Davis, but does not impact any existing houses. The runoff from that culvert drains directly into a
grove of trees then eventually makes its way to Ash Creek. No other work performed by the City
affects any of Dr. Davis' properties east or west of the 90th Avenue intersection with Oak Street.
There are some drainage improvements that could be constructed over the long term in that area as part
of the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan. These improvements would focus on
providing a drainage system for future developers to tie into as further growth in that area occurs. One
logical approach appears to be development of an interceptor system along the old railroad right-of-
way. This would mean dealing with multiple property owners to acquire sufficient easements to allow
for construction of those drainage improvements. These improvements should substantially reduce the
runoff that is now making its way south to Ash Creek. Until then, the runoff will continue to find its
way to Ash Creek, crossing Oak Street at several locations throughout its length and flowing overland
to the creek.
Attachments
1. Aerial photo of Oak Street and adjacent properties north and south
2. As-Built Drawing of Oak Street Culvert Replacement dated November 1994
3. Aerial photo with culvert replacement work noted east of 90th and Oak
c: James N. Hendryx
Greg Berry
1:\Eng\Gus\Memorandums\Drainage Issue on Dr. Davis' Property.doc
Memorandum on Dr. Davis' Drainage Issue
Page 2 of 2
L -1
`b'i.r j 1 sw f..► a ld ~ = ~ Ili `i;it:•ti
- S ~ ~r Y Ht H3 >
-;rte x~/) y ~'•r'
`l %__t ~1 Y %'n y~"l ~'"a'ZR. ♦..~JJY"~' F 1oJ3•,4.f3• ' n, :'~i1• ; ''r. ,t
i ♦i - . ♦ lye}' ,4~,jyls°,l, ids` j•
I ~r`~ r ,l e~~`'T7 ~T~it~s" /sy~ ~~y a",,:i" •1..~~r ~
3 , t isr d + _Y.. nr'l. j' f F cs. .d,. Ktr~ . f'.t
t7 y pa ~ t _ t~ i yr vsr}~~r~3L,r>~~,~ ~~s
t S I C . t J ,Y~
y1 L►_ - -xU .t nv s y= r113'f+r Ye q-
` 5?'QYS"f 'r Fst>i
K,
1 I ~ ~c t It s' 1• ,/fit fit ~ 1~~~' J•T~7 x d
S t v 7y~ ♦ r'zt oJ?~ +~4 ♦'r*a Fa' ~),K r r,1
' ,3r x Y s
irs~~ g ! ~'•GI, i~,-1
'iG 1' i..r i/.ta a't e~ ` s•a f ~Yyr~~ f Cy. + i
;Ve
-o
~
~ v- ` • L 11 If f 'J ° r'~ f f !°•r ~ J
t 'S ` st : ♦ stF ""t „ C 1 1 ' 14 7 -
_ i b .,3Y~. ` . l : :
t:3g, , ^ - A/ 'y r••f':~ r' J v 7"R} ¢1'G
(f'•' d~~yt~ 4+it~ eey tti(r~ w M ,,✓M.. "`:~'1+;~nr ? r i ' ti"'f.GTwk
t:A'_ + ' t tt,, J Y . Jed Y 1• Sv L~'~r:':: to ~Y ~Y S°'1tfiF c~3 R w r,,..~~. . ~ ~ r` r~ d} i.:. St'•
~ i 3 ~ ~ i~♦t i 'r ~t~ . • YI Ij ~,t SYlt rT ' ~Y!~'~✓ l •C .
14
,i s4 lets ~,J ~ ~ ~ ~ ..+'xr y~., +F~ r~+i Ts• ~ ~ a
i '
7 ~ Oe Y. t>< t~, recce yAs ri r
• y se .
A J , .
NDTES:
1. BOMW SAW CUTTING PAVE dWT 70 BEHOVE DW. 1r SWW PM P07ME AT $311 SIIOULDIX OF ROAD
TO VERIFY PPE AIJGNIAENL
2. E7QS7w SumwAOE LTTunM ARE SHOW TO THE KST OF 04OtNMM XNOK DBE. CONTRACTOR SHALL N07WY
UTILITY AOE?dC>ER. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION, TO COORMATE UTILJTY RELOCATION& ADEN 2ES TO BE CONTACTED Am
TUALA7IN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AND NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS.
INSTALL HEADWALL (SEE DETAQ R.O.WL
HATCH l/JVERTgOF/o -
12, E)
a
(SEE PR
FENCE
37
ago Icarot wsrtut
re
REMOVE EXIST. 12' STW
ss-{
OAK ST. AS WN (SEE NOTE 1) 4 E op. IF
PLUG a ABANDON AT or a
NEAREST JOINT SOUTH loran r
OF PAVED
-6s ~QC~AT 2° CAS
(E SEE ATNOTE£R2)
LL . MATCH DJVERT OF is, 5
WALL R.aW., ~7LE)
PLUG RS ABANDON 15 STORM DRAIN EASBAENT
DOST. it S116.
/ TOP OF SLOPE
.
O E OnICH DPtAS1AGE
/ EXISTING MOUg (SEE PROFLFJ
PLAN
SCALE: Y - 2DP
180 180
RRIEILOCATE r CAS EAST. GROUND
By OTHERS
2)
175 (SEE MOTE
175
_LL 173.3E a
LE. 172 80 _
INSTALL 37 L F. , e w 171.07
170 si5.3 170
REGRADE OTPCH
'B' BACILFTLL TO DRAIN
FO. S
0+00 1+00
PROFILE
SCALE. FLG6t 1--20r. VEIL 1--$
OAK STREET
CULVERT REPLACEMENT
w os vs
d'WOD>a All *am 3-0-" w -wm~ons
T NOV.
r
L A
a) E
0- CL -0
f C U d
w' kFl4 fn
q
° rig a k°L U -0-0
fII U N a'~` c r
1 511 t J CL
! t~ nr, F v F,~~ ~ ■ tti .IDs 9 ~ a"~y,
ro S.$^_fi' -'I _ - `{LY. x } 6' • 4 -u. 1 n'S X1{1
:99 R C= te•~4 r
STA."p~-':~~ ~ - -~b. I 4.nM~ ~ •y.} YvLcA
16
ac k ~ ~ i a~t .}i
l l d! NN f
ALA
r ! J`
iqm'M- 0!,44,6 41
~ T'F_
~ 4~~
Pat Whiting Attachment 4
8122 S.W. Spruce
Tigard, Oregon 97223
January 29, 2002
Mayor Jim Griffith
Tigard City Council
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
REC~`%Fr~ ►'(./,{~l~p{~d RE: Washington Square Regional
Center Plan & Phase II:
JAN 2002 ' Public Hearing 1/22/02
re: 7-day extension for
' record testimony.
a'f- T7C/-'il4D
Dear Mayor Griffith:
During my testimony Nazuary 22, 20002, before the
Tigard City Council public hearing of the Washington Square
Regional Center Plan, I was asked if I was satisfied with
Statewide Goal 5 as it applies to this regional center
planning.
Extensive work went into the application of Goal 5
to the regional center plan. The Natural Resources section
is very good.
The only problem with the the language in the section
(1) Open Spaces of the March 14,2000 City Application
Summary Exhibit F, page 7-, is the reference to Metzger
Park. Metzger Park was deleted from the center plan
during Task Force deliberation.
There is no objection to the working "...preserve...
Metzger Park" as it can be considered part of a link in
the open spaces provision. However, extensive testimony
from various communities including the Board of Directors
of Metzger Park object to the reference and wording
"...and enhance..." refering to Metzger Park. It does
not need enhancing. The concern of the community and
the Board is that this language if left in the staff
recommendations could result in changing a full functional
and successful neighborhood park.
Please amend the staff report of March 14, 2000,
page 7, by eliminating the words "...and enhance..."
on line three of 1. Open Spaces at your regional center
planning workshop on February 26, 2002.
Regarding the Historic Areas Guideline, item 3 of page
7, there are three buildings of historic value but I do
not know if they are inventoried or qualify. They are
the "log cabin home" on SW Hall B1ved between Phaffle and
Spruce (west side of Hall Blvd.), the large two-story home
(red roof) on SW 87th between Oak and Locust (the original
Metzger Post office), and the old Metzger Grocery Building.
'T
Otherwise, Statewide Goal 5 is satisfied.,-._ :;_,Y'
Pat Whiting
RECEIVED PLANNING
JAN 2 D 2002 Pat whiting
8122 S.W. Spruce
CITY OF `l iGARD Tigard, Oregon 97223
January 29, 2002
Tigard City Mayor and Council
Tigard City Hall
3125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Statewide Goals and the
Washington Square Regional
Center Plan & Phase II
Dear Mayor and Council:
As an active member of the Washington Square Regional
Center Task Force from its inception, I do not agree that
Statewide Goals 6, 7 and 11 were satisfied.
Extensive concentration and work evolved and is
evident in the staff and task force reports centering
around Statewide Goals 5 - Natural Resources and 12 -
Transportation. What is also evident is that little
attention was given to any discussion of air quality
or earthquake proneness problems.
Goals 6 and 7 speak to the carrying capacity as
does Goal 11 of conservation and development in relation
to large-scale planning which this proposal is. Deteminant
factors should be included in the planning.
The reference to compliance in the December 4, 2009
city staff report should not be based upon the City's
overall compliance in their comprehensive plan.
Task Force discussion, analysis and review as well as
public involvement should be involved in these
determinating decisions. "Carrying Capacity" and
"options" and the identification of "problems"
should be part of the plan.
The impact of this plan is so great to the socio-
economic and environmental elements that will be affected
that I urge you to not adopt this plan in its current form.
It should go back to the Task Force and to the public
through public forum for greater review.
Thank you for your work on this important matter.
Respectfully,
r /
Pat Whiting
RECD JAN 2 9 2002
1/28/02
Dear Tigard City Counselors,
It is my understanding that you are voting on the Regional
Center in the next few weeks. My wife and I live in the Washington
Square Estates (100 homes) with in several blocks of the boundary.
We would like to know what benefits Tigard residents will receive from
such a massive and rapid Increase in population? Why does Tigard
have to accept such pressure from Metro. It's our city and I'm not
aware of any citizen groups who are supporting your vote. So who are
you supporting if you vote for such a radical change? Why are we
taking the risks when others will make the profits.
There are still serious flaws in this Regional Center.
Do not vote for the Regional Center. UpZoning without the
funds for increased infrastructure will only create urban decay. We
need more time to find solutions, and not be impulsive.
You represent us. Please consider your vote carefully.
Sincerely,
CRO COIG s w. V QVA-~~G 00-to-~,
C,-C( t a2. `i Z ZZ3
Jane TemerlinMSW RECD JAN 2 9 2002
6660 SW Ventura Drive
Tigard, Oregon
Jan. 28, 2002
Dear Tigard City Counselors,
Please do not vote for the RmzimW Cc to er unW money is opined f,Qr the
iu cture to suMm t such a massive change in uanuljWon. I consider upZoning
without the funds for increased sewers, electricity, streets, schools, fire and police, even
storm water facilities- the ultimate in non-city planing. We need to fund more solutions,
be less impatient, and do it correctly.
You represent our city. Please consider your vote carefully. You could leave a
disastrous legacy to your fellow Tigard taxpayers.
f
i
Sincerely,
Jane Temerlin, MSW
MM
RECD JAN 2 9 2002
Gretchen Randolph Ph.D., P11
6690 SW Ventura Drive
Tigard, Oregon 97223
January 28, 2002
Dear Tigard City Counselors,
I would like to summarize the testimony I gave at the last meeting.
Please vote against the Regional Center and upZoning the surrounding area.
1. rea ' a Slum.. By voting to upZone the Regional boundary with no funds
currently available for the necessary infrastructure, you condemn those healthy
neighborhoods to haphazard degradation. New high rise apartments, will begin
cropping up next to single family homes. The current homeowners will not keep
their homes up, and solid owners will move out leaving their residences to
temporary renters. How long will it take for the city to find the funds for all the
sewers, streets, sidewalks. traffic lights, police, etc.? What if you can't obtain
sufficient funds? Mea-iwhile the area continues as a slum. How can you possibly
call that city planning? Or is there a plan to then label the area blighted and go for
urban development funds? This is wrong. The answer is to not upZone that area
prematurely. We should wait for the proper financial structure to be built, and if
not, Tigard will have to say no to the developers and Metro.
2. Wetlands For 22 years family and I have lived on Ash Creek which flows into
the wet lands along 217, and have seen the amount and speed of water runoff
increase from development upstream. Sometimes there are torrents of water
roaring through our back yard. Keep the wetlands as a park, and open space. Do
not change it, build on it, or mitigate this natural sponge. "Don't try to fix what
ain't broke" We need the wetlands now, more than ever.
3. Taxes and fiscal responsibLty Don't make the taxpayers take all the financial
risks,Adth other people and corporations making the profit. If the project is
valuable and financially sound then reputable investors will back it. Don't set
Tigard citizens up for massive fiscal losses, payments for flood damage or more
taxes.
4. Parking lot development If the owners of Washington Square Mall and their real
estate corporations truly want to support the Regional Center they can build
parking structures on their many acres of parking lots, and top them with
attractive mutt use- new buildings, and gardens. That would increased their
shopping population and leave the surrounding communities, and wet lands
intact.
I4. There is almost total rejection of this project by the people who live here. You
are our representatives. Your job is to protect our city from fraud and damage. If
you vote for this Regional Center, being implemented in this way, you will
personally be accountable, and will leave a legacy of shame.
Eric G. Kent, Ph.D RECD JAN 2 9 2002
6690 SW Ventura Drive
Tigard, ®r.97223
Jan. 26, 2002
Tigard City Counselors,
Vote against the Regional Center and increasing the zoning codes.
Tigard does not need a Regional Center of the magnitude you are
considering. Who's going to pay for this? Don't commit the Tigard taxpayer
to a project no one wants. Be honest with your citizens, about the costs and
who stands to make the profits.
Slow down, there is no hurry here. With all the job losses recently
people are moving out of town. Arrange the funds to develop this in a orderly
and systematic manner.
Most people in the area are unaware of your plans. Don't try to pass
such a massive city alteration without the knowledge and support of you
residents. Your job is to protect and support our fine town, and its families. If
this Regional Center is the right way to proceed, it will stand the test of time.
Vote against such excessive upzoning in the local neighborhoods. Change
doesn't have to be so extreme. Infact slower growth usually is more
sustainable, and makes fewer mistakes.
Thank you for your attention.
Eric G. Kent, Ph.D.
T~ c% /~r~ Uc,J IBS.
January 24, 2002 RECEIVED
To the Members of Tigard City Council: JAN 9 5 2007
CITY OF 11UARU
As I stated at the public hearing Tuesday, January 22, 2002, I am still opposed ]N() HIMION
implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan in its present format.
I am adamantly opposed to the increase in density that this plan calls for. This proposal
asks the Metzger community to absorb the largest Regional Center in the tri county area.
It is larger than any other regional center or town center proposed. Why do the council
members and consultant firms the city hired to help with this plan expect us as citizens of
this community to be enthusiastic about this? It will affect our livability and way of life.
So what if this is a visionary plan for twenty years from now. It will only destroy our
neighborhood. I do not want to have a gigantic commercial area around my house and
neighborhood and that is exactly what this proposal is. Where do your expect us to go?
This vision is to create jobs and businesses. Well it certainly will do that at the expense
of those who have lived in the neighborhood for years. I would like to tell all of you
right now, I will not move to Bull Mountain, Tualatin, Gresham, eastern Oregon or better
yet out of state. Oregon is my home and I am proud to live here. I visited other states
and they do not offer what I have right here. They do not offer what I have in my
backyard: wildlife, tree and, neighbors who I thoroughly love. Get with the program and
really think about what this will do. The 2040 plan that Metro envision years ago, was
designed by people who thought it would be a great thing, but forgot about the people
who live here. Well, it is up to this council not to make that same mistake
I cannot sit idly by and see the wetland/floodplain be drastically infringed on and be
expected to house the most density. No matter what safeguards and enhancement plans
pursued, it will not change or alter the course of water runoff or affect this sensitive area.
Water will naturally take its own course. That will be in our backyards, the streets and
basements of our homes. The surface water drainage problem now is not taken care of
properly. I see the sides of the road on SW Oak St. clogged with leaves and rocks which
prevent the water from draining correctly now. It floods every time it rains. How can this
council ignore nature's way of handling matters? We need a natural storm water area to
absorb water. When concrete is poured onto ground there is no sponge to absorb the
water. Where there are no trees there are no habitats for animals. When there are no
trees there is no natural ability to keep the air clean and fresh. I am not an
environmentalist; this is just what I know. Yes, I care for the earth.
What is even me a astonishing is the fact that there is no limit on how high a building or
set of buildings c-)uid reach. I don't want to live near buildings as tall or taller than the
existing ones at Lincoln Center. What a great view it will be as I am having a barbeque!
11 1 wanted thi.. type of neighborhood, I would have move to downtown Portland. Or
even bet _er I would have moved to the Lloyd Center area. The reason I moved here, like
so ►nany others was the open space, the larger backyards and rural atmosphere. It was
perfecc for raising my family and soon to be grandchildren. Please take heed in this point;
I was not the only person who said this. The preservation of our livability is what it is all
about. Think about it, would you like this in your backyard?
The other major opposition I have is the infrastructure and financial matters. This project
will cost millions and millions of dollars. A project cannot proceed without the backing
of dollars to let it go forward. I resent the fact that the city is aggressively pursuing the
money to come from the federal, state and other governing agencies. That still puts the
burden on the taxpayers shoulders. I don't want my tax dollars supporting this project,
when I did not want it in the first place. If the city wants this project so bad, pay for it
yourself. Better yet, ask the consulting firms which helped the city for the passed three
years to do so, too. You see they want this project to fly like so many others. I think that
is a fair trade off to have those entities who want it so much to pay for it.. Also, I do not
want to be involved in any Local Improvement District or Urban Renewal District.. I
want my taxpayer dollars going to more important things: fire protection, police
protection, the local park and schools. I want my money spent at the local businesses
on Hall Blvd existing now: Roy Boys, Metzger Tax Service, Sneeds' Carpet, Metzger
Grocery Store, I am very proud and satisfied with my neighborhood the way it is.
When something runs smoothly or is fine the way it is, why change it? The vision which
is portrayed in the original plan is a fairy tale account of what it might look fake. Put that
dream somewhere else.
As stated by Pat Whiting in her testimony on behalf of the local CP04M, our
neighborhood has discussed this plan to great lengths. We know development will occur.
We want it to be done in a positive way. We don't want to be alienated and dictated, too.
The CP04M approves the formation of a 3 lane Hall Blvd. The development of available
land. We don't want to see pressure placed upon us to sell, to have our property
condemned for the project to move forward. Most development notices sent to the CPO
are discussed and embraced with no major issues. Why does the City of Tigard feel we
should approve this plan, when we can't get any notification of buildings affecting our
neighborhood are ever sent to us? What is actually being built on SW Hall Blvd..across
from the nursery? Did only the adjacent property owners hear about this? If concerns
are brought out concerning a development, we usually address them. We attend the
meetings and voice them. The parties usually come to some compromise. I feel not very
many compromises have occurred pertaining to the Washington Square Regional Center
Plan.
Please consider all the statewide goals in the implementation of this plan. Do not ignore
any of them. All of them in some capacity are pertinent to the implementation of this.
There is always information on television stating the degree of earthquake preparedness
we need to take in the tri county area. There is always possibility of the flooding like the
one bestowed on us in 1996. There is and was a lack of public involvement to the total
process. . I can personally attest to this as a member of the public attending one of the
meetings. If I had not stood up and said something, the public would not have had a
chance to speak. There was lack of foresight by the people leading the meeting to allow
the public to speak. Be very conscious and sensitive to this. People want to speak and be
heard. We do not want to be ignored.
o~ Af- F
I believe I have stated all the major oppositions I have to this plan. My sign that was
shown at the meeting will go back up on my house. This matter is very important to me.
Thank you,
Trudy Knowles
PO ]Box 230275
10430 SW 82'
RECEIVED
.IAN
January 27, 2002
CITY OF fl(iARIl+
To the Tigard City Council BLUDING DMSION
Attn: Jim Hendryx
Subject: Comments and suggestions regarding the Washington Square Regional
Plan (WSRP)
Mr. Hendryx and Council Members: I am submitting this letter in the hope that council
members will acknowledge the concerns of hundreds of residents of Tigard, Metzger and
surrounding communities whose lives will be adversely affected by implementation of
the WSRP.
I have attended several public hearings on this subject and have been very disappointed
by the obvious lack of interest this council exhibits. My perception and that of many
attendees I have spoken with is that the council displays a lack of interest and almost
boredom when numerous objections and flaws have been presented at these hearings.
So-called "experts" through various task forces and committees have determined there
are no "fatal" flaws with this plan. Yet 9 out of every 10 people who testify bring up
numerous problems with the WSRP, that if implemented will lessen the quality of life in
this area for generations.
It's hard to understand how this council can sit at these hearings with straight faces and
try to convince those in the surrounding area that increased population densities, the
forcing of more jobs into the area, the resulting increase in traffic, floodwater problems,
loss of natural habitat, decreased air and water quality and ultimately higher taxes will
have no effect on livability. We are not ignorant and we know that this assumption is
simply impossible.
Many plans look good on paper. Models and data can be compiled to support almost any
scenario. But we're not dealing with statistics on paper. We are not just numbers and
plots on a map, we are real people living in a real situation and it's our lives that are
being compromised, not a researcher working in an office downtown and then going
home to some other part of the Portland area. Remember, Enron looked great on paper
not too long ago.
Here are some specific ideas to consider that would make sense and would not destroy
the area financially, physically or spiritually.
1) Widening Hall Blvd. To 3 lanes makes sense-it will help relieve some traffic
congestion. But, if population and job densities are increased according to the current
plan, any positive gains in traffic flow will be lost. Five lanes are not reasonable
financially or in regards to the existing businesses along Hall or the sensitive open spaces
directly adjacent to Hall Blvd.
2) Do not increase housing densities anywhere in the plan. People live in this area and
have moved to the area over the years specifically because they want the large lots,
breathing room and current zoning. Ask yourself a question: Would you want a 50-100
unit apartment development next to your house if the current zoning called for no more
than 3 single family houses? I think not. Yet you expect those within the WSRP to accept
this possibility. Keep the current zoning.
3) Do not build any more roads in or through wetlands or natural habitat. The Fanno
Creek Greenway was set aside for wildlife protection and the enjoyment of the local
population. Putting roads through these kinds of areas is a terrible violation of the public
trust. If the population and job growth aspects of this plan were modified to a more
reasonable level, then roads of this nature would not be necessary.
4) Expanded commercial development (outside those areas already zoned for
commercial) should occur specifically within the footprint of the Washington Square
mail.
a) Build parking garages over the existing parking lots. One level could be built
below ground if feasible, otherwise one or two levels above ground should be
sufficient for future parking needs.
b) Build retail and commercial on top of the parking structures. Two floors should
be more than adequate.
c) Create public plazas, gardens and open spaces on top of the entire structure.
This would "return" some of the lost open spaces to the public, offer workers a
place to take breaks or lunch and give visitors and shoppers to the area a place to
stroll.
Social events, musical performances and small festivals could be scheduled.
These public areas would be open during regular business hours or by special
arrangement. Take a look at the public garden/plaza at the Hatfield Federal
Courthouse downtown. It can be done.
There is enough paved over areas within the WSRP, let's use areas already compromised
instead of covering additional valuable open land.
If you want to get a good idea of how this type of plan can negatively impact a
community, I urge you to read, "Better, not Bigger-How to Take Control of Urban
Growth and Improve Your Community" by Eben Fodor. He is a consultant based in
Eugene and has done a lot of research in this area.
You council members are elected officials. Should you not be responsive to and represent
the will of your constituents? Rather than just be a rubber stamp for the plans and desires
of others not in your jurisdiction and not affected by this plan, act with some compassion,
courage and be bold enough to admit that changes to this plan must be made. Your failure
to act now will ultimately lend to a lower quality of life for you, your children, current
residents and future generations. Please, please ofcn your eyes and minds. It's not too
late.
Sincerely,
Bruce Warner
8025 SW Elmwood St.
Portland OR 97223
(503) 244-7035
RECEIVE'
G~~1 JAN 2002
mil" Gy~~.~.i°~✓~~~ ..~+G~ /Jn
14
lot
G~
e~ ~z-
~ i III'
X,
i
i
~st Linn 's y
AD®®° Q~
era enters
sec®n e
,a
A year after taking office, Mayor ~
David.Dodds and his views still
raise hackles among elopers
By AIMEE GREEN
THE OREGONIAN
WEST I. M - Gossips, around town
aren't kind.
They comment about .how he's
changed his wardrobe since:kestook of-
fice, switching frorri• polo shirts " d jeans
to dark suits andredties.--
They say;}ke'sAeveF;leiiLa>1 job, in-
stead man; gsig;liis fatictily stack-market
portioIIo m his holue computer.
sin-
>r :.,They note t}iat a,.age0 h. 'still
gle; living.witll:kiis:lriotlfer:in!lis ciuld-
hood home.
And, his critics say, 1& naive :efforts to
stop growth could cost their town every-
thing from Metro grants to upgrade a
city thoroughfare to an expensive court
fight with irate developers.
David Dodds, who became West
Unn's mayor one year ago this month,
represents the latest incarnation of the
slow-growth movement in Oregon as or-
dinary residents turn politicians to fight
their battle.
Take, for example, a peppering of
elected officials stretching from Hills-
boro to Salem to Bend who've found
that their slow-growth stance has
clicked with voters during the past half
decade. It's a statewide phenomenon
Please see MAYOR, Page B10
Mdayor*® Not too late for ~F~
Vest Linn, Dodds.says
Continued from Page B1 Sporting a low-maintenance beard 1 t ~W
that's not limited to oliticians. and frill head of tousled hair, he
P does not gesture or speak loudly.
Since 1996, voters in 31 cities have He chooses his words carefully and
passed laws requiring that they aP- slowly speaking, pausing and a s r~- y u
prove each annexation. then speaking again. Carl Hosticka Metro Council 4 n'
Dodds, who drives a surplus •M~~~~~~} ti
presiding officer, says Dodds rep- 1971 city of West Linn truck he
resents a movement that shouldn't bought at auction, looks back on
be ignored. his hometown upbringing with
"West Linn is not necessarily a fondness. He was born into a
cancer cell that needs to be isolat- ranch-style house on a quiet, STEVEN NEWTHE OREGO
ed and ejected from the body polit. woodsy road along the Willamette West Linn Mayor David Dodds (right) talks with resident Michae
1c," says the head of the council River. Meyers, who stopped by during the mayor's weekly drop-in off t
that decides on many land-use is- He remembers meadows before hours. The room at West Unn City Hail overlooks some of more
sues. "There are people who say they were grocery stores and horse than 1,000 homes built over 10 years that now cover a hillside.
(the movement) is crazy. I don't pastures and woods' before they
think it's crazy. We need to ac- were pavement, houses and
knowledge that a lot of people feel schools. There was lots of room for In January 2001, Dodds and the city manager never got o8
that way, and we need to engage a boy to roam and play back then. three other slow growth candi- ground And Dodds has gainer
them in the debate." "Nobody knew where West Linn dates took seats on the five- respect of a number of. resid
Depending upon your perspec- was," Dodds says. member council with one over- who say he pays attention tc
tive, Dodds is either a worthy con- From the time of Dodds' birth to arching theme in mind: They trust- sues, such as who should pa)
tributor in the debate over growth today, Oed population rough- ed no decision the previous, pro- sidewalks, and makes hin
or growth's worst nightmae - a ly dobled while WLinn sex- growth" council made.
buy who prefers to slam the door tupled, from 3,900 to more than Two months into their terms,
on development rather than man- 23,000 residents. Dodds and his council fired the
age it. Views of Mount Hood and the city manager and, earlier this
The Home Builders Association Willamette River catapulted the month, replaced him with one
of Metro Portland puts Dodds near once-humbler town into a sought- who's more in line with their views
the top of its list of troublemakers. after suburb, a place where CEOs on growth.
"I think (Dodds) is very mistaken and Trail Blazers move. emi build on land harder inside the
in whom he is blaming for the As half-million-dollar dream veloPrs to
problems associated with growth," homes have bumped up against . city or to get land annexed.
says Kelly Ross, governmental af- the urban growth boundary, slug- Their decisions and their style
fairs director for the association. >'ish traffic, the din of new con- haven't come without some con-
struction and the morality of devel- troversy. Former councilors say
I opers have become the talk of the they're peeved that Dodds and 1
jack up fees s fulfills,
new his development to town. some councilors can't stop talking
to give West Linn the undis-
puted highest fees in the state te - Since 1992, an entire hillside has about how developer-friendly and
been nearly covered with roads, a corrupt they think the past council
the association could seethe city in small. shopping center and more was.
court, Ross warns. than 1,000 new homes. In two But a recall.effort threatened by
As West Linn developer Herb years, the city has grown from one residents upset over the firing of
Koss sees it, Dodds steps over the Starbucks to five. Meanwhile, the
line. He says Dodds once walked city had only enough money last
into a Safeway store that Koss year to repave less than a mile of its
brought to West Linn just to tell the 98-mile road system, which be-
manager he didn't like the fact that comes more worn as population
the store was there. booms.
"He thinks he's the ling of West At some point, a community has
Linn," Koss fumes. got to say stop, Dodds says. There
But Dodds was not crowned. He is a limit, a breaking point.
was elected to the job that pays ex- "Eventually the impacts become
penes, but no salary. Running so horrendous that no one wants
,,vith a slate of three slow-growth to live there. People start to leave,"
council candidates, Dodds won an Dodds says. "Maybe we as a region
eye-opening 18 percentage-point and we as a country should talk
victory over his opponent, an in- about how much immigration we
cumbent who represented the old let in and how many kids we have.
zard. If the whole state of New Jersey
A hometown bo wants to move here, is it our job...
Y to accommodate them?" i
Dodds' quiet demeanor dimin- There is still time to save West
;;lies his 6-foot-5-inch frame. Linn, Dodds says.
0MOR°THWES'T THE OREGONIAN s MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 20032
available during weekly open office room stall. His image has been an
hours, easy attack, fie says, for those who,
y r n s? "I've been on both sides. of the don't want to talk about the Issues.
desk, and one side is definitely bet "I don't think they care about
says .
ter than the other," Dodds the truth
"You can get up and speak and be Dodds says.
the epitome of eloquence. But if To Councilor Bill Wilson, Dodds
the people behind the desk don't is someone to admire.
like what,you have to say then "He is giving more of his life to
'r you're out of luck." this town than most people would
om tg sfth the q~ even fathom," Wilson says. "If peo-
Assuming the city's highest of- Ple knew how he felt about this
town and how he felt about them,
fice has proved educational for even though he doesn't know
Three women city employees • them, people would sleep very well
last spring came forward with alle- at night.... I'd like to see David be
gations of sexual harassment. They mayor for as long as he can."
claimed the mayor made them feel In West Linn, where mayors and
STEVEN NEHUTHE OREGONIAN uncomfortable by kissing one on city councilors serve just two-year
With (right) talks with resident Michael the forehead, commenting about terms, the neg election is less than
iaering the mayor's weekly drop-in office anothees clothes and staring at an- 10 months away.
Linn My Flail overlooks some of more other's chest the latter ac cusa- . David Dodds says he's thinking
war 10 years that now cover a hillside. tion being one the mayor strongly
disputes. about running again..
Dodds says he came out of the His critics say they will be ready
cis and the city manager never got off the . episode wiser, he will be less jovial forhimnexttime.
candi- ground. And Dodds has gained the and more formal in the workplace.
Ie five- respect of a number of residents As for the detracting comments
e over- who say he pays attention to is- that.have shown up mostly on a You can reach Aimee Green at
BMW- sues, such as who should pay for community. e-mail forum,, Dodds 503-294-5969 or by e-mail at ai-
Is, "pro- sidewalks, and makes himself likens them to scrawling on a bath- meegreen@news.oregonian.com
r terms, r----
ired the
ter this
Ith one
;ir views
for.de-
Iside the
eir style
ne con-
tors say
ids and '
talking
idly and
council
:erred by
firing of
Mlz~
RECEIVED C.C.T.
JAN 2 9 2002
Tigard City Council Administration January 29, 2002
Re: Washington Square Regional Plan
Although I have submitted public testimony in the past, I want to go on record with
additional thoughts regarding the Washington Square Regional Plan. After attending the
council meeting January 22, 2002 and watching a replay on cable TV I am even more
convinced that this is a poorly conceived plan. If enacted as it is laid out it will give rise
to lawsuits, excessive taxation, degradation of the environment and°Yaality of life of
Tigard, Oregon and the unincorporated area of Metzgar.
I am still confused as to how the city council; of Tigard, Oregon can make decisions
about land that is not even in their jurisdiction i.e. Metzgar.
The very fact that the city attorney had to define what "blighted" means and how it can
be used to further the interest of out of state "stakeholders" shows me that Metro will use
any means possible to take away private property rights. The fact that Metzgar will be
designated a blighted area in order to be considered for urban renewal funds are a misuse
of the law. Robert Bartley's editorial in the Wall Street Journal on Monday 1/21/02 sums
it up best when he says: over history the greatest threat to property is government
itself, acting through immoderate taxation, suing regulation and even outright seizure. "
I see all these things being applied here and they ought not.
The financing proposals laid out last Tuesday evening were "fuzzy" with no clear plan.
We will end up paying for this through increased taxes or loss of livability.
I am a 20 year resident of Tigard and live in a house adjoining the Regional Center, yet I
was never informed about this center till two years ago, well after all the so called
"stakeholders" had their say. I had to ask to be kept informed and put on a mailing list.
Now I see the residents of Fairway area north of Redtail Golf Course were not afforded
due process. I would hope that their predicament might be the wake-up call to you that
this has not been adequately fleshed out. A regional center should have a regional
discussion. There is a reason why, as was stated at the council meeting "this plan has
generated more discussion then any other regional plan. Indeed, the Raleigh Hills plan
was more or less abandoned because people had the fortitude to say this is not right.
We have seen what rubber stamped approval does to corporations because nobody has
the fortitude to say what is right. The same happens at the local government level. We
do want to appease the out of state stakeholders like Insignia and the owners of
Washington Square.. They are bigger, wealthier and therefore smarter just like Enron.
I have found out that the land adjoining my house was rezoned sometime since I bought it
20 years ago to accommodate 80 foot six story buildings. Nobody ever asked me if I
thought it was a good idea. Yet all of my neighbors and I must risk pulling out onto
Scholls Perry Road every day with no stoplight. What have you done to alleviate
problems like this? You have proven that once a zone change is made you will allow any
developer to come in a do their own thing with out regard to improving the infrastructure.
All this just so we can be a bigger city.
There has been a tremendous glossing over of the wetlands issue, which is quite
surprising in view of Metro's new proposals to limit building near streams. They cannot
have their cake and eat it too.
4
I have attended almost all hearings and workshops since I became aware of the plan two
years ago. I am embarrassed at how Metro is trying to meet it goals for open space
within the study area by including a public gold course and a cemetery. Neither of these
is a Cook Park or a Summer Lake Park or an Englewood Park which in itself is basically
just a walking/bike path.
Taxation, wetlands, traffic, infrastructure, due process, these are all issues that can be
used to deny implementation of this plan at this time. I urge you to tell Metro what we
feel. Represent us.
Sincerely;
Sill Brewer
11344 SW Ironwood Loop
Tigard, Oregon 97223
503-590-1979
RECEIVED C.O. T Jill Tellez
9280 S.W. 80th Ave.
JAN 2 8 2002 Portland, OR 97223
Administration January 28, 2002
City Council 3. pa P,M .
The City of Tigard
3123 S.W. Hall Blvd. re: proposed Washington
Tigard, OR 97223 Square Regional Center Plan
Non-Inclusion of Oregon Statewide Goals
Before the Washington Square Regional Center is implemented, all
Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines should be adequately
researched and addressed.
Please accept this testimony regarding the non-inclusion of some
Oregon Statewide Goals in the proposed Washington Square Regional Center
plan (WSRCP.) I am requesting that it be entered into the record.
I would like to request that this document be presented to each City
Council member this week so they have time to examine and discuss the issues
I have put forth.
The staff report referred to is Exhibit F.- Ord. No. 00-18, hearing date March 14,
2000,7:30 p.m. Findings and Conclusions in Support of Washington Square
Regional Center City Council for the City of Tigard, Oregon.
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement
Non-inclusion of citizen input is indicated by the following:
Minority Report
The Minority Report is a document signed by several members of the
task force and endorsed by the Ash Creek Coalition, who represent citizen
groups. The Minority Report was intended for inclusion into the plan as an
alternative, fulfilling the requirement of State Goal 2. It was never considered
as an alternative, but instead included as Appendix material only. By not
including it as an option in the plan, it illustrates bias towards development
7 and non-inclusion of alternatives and community input.
Insufficient Notice
Throughout the entire planning process, complaints from community
members about not receiving notices for public events are chronic.
The urban renewal district boundary is not the same as the Regional
Center boundary. All affected people who will be taxed for this plan should
have been receiving notice, not just the people within 500 feet of the affected
area.
For planners and consultants to craft their own plan and explain it
countless times to the public is not in the spirit of citizen involvement.
It should be evident from the January 22, 2002 public hearing that the
community continues to not be in favor of the plan.
Goal 1 is not fulfilled.
State Goal 2: Land Use Planning
The WSRCP states that it will "try to keep historic trees."
This statement is weak and does nothing to help preserve the ancient
oaks and other native trees in the local area. They contribute great value by
providing shade which keeps water cool for fish, contribute to esthetics;
habitat for wildlife, and provide the valuable function of soaking up and
slowing runoff of storm water by keeping it from flushing debris and pollution
into rivers and streams. Building drains and basins to replace that function
would be very costly. (At whose expense?)
Trees also draw pollutants from the air helping to preserve the health of
humans and wildlife. They have value far beyond landscaping. In our local
area consisting of clay soil, they are indispensable for holding the ground in
place with their root structures. Once they are gone, the flooding dangers will
escalate and confluent tributaries will not get the filtration needed to maintain
a healthy watershed. (1).
Developments downstream will be flooded even more.
By ignoring the valuable assets of trees and existing vegetation, the
WSRCP is not in step with State Goal 2 - which states:
"All land use plans shall include identification of issues and problems,
inventories and other factual information for each applicable statewide
planning goal, evaluation of alternative courses of action and ultimate
policy choices, taking into consideration social, economic, energy and
environmental needs." (2).
2
There are no alternatives provided in the plan to fulfill the requirement
for Goal 2.
The WSRCP does not fulfill State Goal 2.
Goal 6 - Air, Water, and Land Resource (duality
Staff report's response to the non-compliance issue regarding State Goal
6 is, "The City of Tigard complies with this goal through its adopted
comprehensive plan and policies regarding water resources (Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Volume II, Chapter 4 and Tigard Development Code
standard: 18.797)."
Goal 6 states:
"4. Plans which provide for the maintenance and improvement of air,
land, and water resources of the planning area should consider as a
major determinant the carrying capacity of the air, land and water
resources of the planning area. The land conservation and development
actions provided for by such plans should not exceed the carrying
capacity of such resources." (3).
Goal 6 specifies that the planning area should consider the carrying
capacity of the air, land and water resources of the planning area. Because
there is no study referenced analyzing the impacts of increased vehicle traffic,
impacts on water and environmental quality in the planning area of the WSRC,
there was no study done relating Goal 6 to the area by staff.
Goal 6 is not fulfilled.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
State Goal 7 stares:
"A. Natural Hazard Planning.
1. Local governments shall adopt comprehensive plans (inventories,
policies and implementing measures) to reduce risk to people and
property from natural hazards.
2. Natural hazards for purposes of this goal are: floods (coastal, and
riverine), landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis,
coastal erosion and wildfires." (4).
3
MEMO
Referring to the fulfillment of the requirements of State Goal 7, staff
report states, "The City of Tigard has existing regulations that address natural
disasters and hazards. Washington Square Regional Center Plan does not
affect these provisions."
Table 6 of the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan that indicates
that the floodplain will almost triple by the year 2040 where the highest
density will occur. (5).
To not have a report to refer to by staff examining the impacts of
natural hazards on this high density development plan indicates that a study
was never done.
The WSRCP does not fulfill State Goal 7.
Goal 9 - Economic Development
Goal 9 states:
"Comprehensive plans and policies shall contribute to a stable and
healthy economy in all regions of the state. Such plans shall be based on
inventories of areas suitable for increased economic growth and activity
after taking into consideration the health of the current economic base;
materials and energy availability and cost labor and market factors,
educational and technical training programs.... current market forces...."
(6).
In regards to the economic aspect of Goal 9, there has been no economic
valuation addressed.
Planners justify that "Goal 9 has been met because the plan continues to
promote opportunities for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,
welfare and prosperity of Tigard citizens. The mix of uses will encourage a
diversity of development with emphasis on employment based uses."
The State of Oregon is currently in a recession. The unemployment rate
here is the highest in the nation. The State is suffering the largest tau-base loss
in 20 years.
To not be sensitive to market values and economic conditions is a
potential fatal flaw which could result in the same situation as the Beaverton
Round.
4
Office Vacancy Rates/Overbuilding
Office vacancy rates in the Sunset Corridor, most of which is in
Washington County along the Sunset Highway, is at 54.7 percent. Ramona
Barinaga Harrington, of Cushman & Wakefield, linked most of the empty space
to overbuilding.
Flex industrial, used by high tech companies and traditional office space
is at 60 percent. (7).
Why would a business choose this location to move to when it will be
more expensive and place their employees and personal property at risk?
With a 60% vacancy rate, they have safer alternatives to consider.
Mixed Use Development
The Washington Square Regional Center Plan will be dependent on
various mixed-use development zoning designations.
Mixed-use projects are still too new for conventional lenders to feel
comfortable with. Even in the best of tunes, multiple-use development is a
very difficult type of real estate to finance. The reason is that bankers and
lenders generally haven't had long term experience with success rates for
upper-story office space or apartments above ground-floor shops, both
components of the Beaverton Round.
Either the retail spaces remain dark and empty, or the retail is so busy
it bothers the apartment residents and vacancies occur.
There are no local mortgage lending or commercial real estate
businesses involved in the Beaverton Round. (S).
Attractiveness to new tenants
The high-risk nature of this development plan may not be attractive to
new tenants. They would be required to pay expensive flood insurance to place
their employees, families and property at risk. Without a good occupancy rate,
revenues for repayment would not be generated and could result in passing a
huge debt service onto the taxpayer.
Lack of funding at the State and Federal levels.
Urban renewal bonds are currently being challenged in court in
Portland's 10 urban renewal districts because of mismanagement and could
reduce funding for Interstate light rail and public improvements as well as
refunding as much as $30 million to property owners. (9).
5
The State of Oregon is suffering the greatest shortfall of taxes in 20 years.
Carrying Capacity
"Plans directed toward diversification and improvement of the economy
of the planning area should consider as a major determinant the
carrying capacity of the air, land and water resources of the planning
area. The land conservation and development actions provided for by
such plans should not exceed the carrying capacity of such resources."
The WSRCP does not take issue with carrying capacity.
The WSRCP does not meet State Goal 9 due to economic conditions and
carrying capacity.
Goal 10 - Housing
Goal 10 states:
"...housing elements should, at a minimum, include: (1) a comparison
of the distribution of the existing population by income with the
distribution of the existing population by income with the distribution
of available housing units by cost; (2) a determination of vacancy
rates, both overall and at varying rent ranges and cost levels;
(3) a determination of expected housing demand at varying rent ranges,
and cost levels...:' (10).
Planners state that Metzger Elementary won't be affected by this high
density plan because it won't generate school-age children. How is that
possible if the plan will provide available housing units at various price ranges
and rent levels? We can only deduce that they are focusing on a select market
and not an evenly-mixed population.
Because of the current recession and job loss in Oregon,there is a decline
in demand for high priced apartments and apartments located in the high-
tech corridor. Many renters are downsizing their rent payments to
compensate for pay cuts, layoffs and economic uncertainty. (11).
The WSRCP does not fulfill State Goal 10 until adequate provisions are
provided for the school needs of the projected population of school-age
children.
6
6M
Staff report states in its overall vision on page 3 that the WSRCP will
preserve existing residential neighborhoods. This is an incorrect statement
because an urban renewal district is being sought. Eminent domain, or
condemnation would take place. This would effectively remove property
owners from their homes, paying them current market value and not the
enhanced value of the new zoning designations. A private development
interest would step in, reap the enhanced value price and keep all profit from
the development. How is this for the greater good?
As it stands, the WSRCP will destroy an existing healthy residential
community containing small businesses, exacerbate flooding risk and rezone
our area with risky designations not attractive to commercial lending
institutions.
The deficiencies of the applications of Statewide Planning Goals needs to
be revisited by the task force, the plan revised and then put forth for public
comment.
Until all Statewide Planning Goals are studied, applied and have public
approval, this plan should not move forward and the zoning designations
should remain in their current state.
Signed;
lti
IP-L
ncl:
1. Milstein, Michael. (2001, Oct. 18). Research measures urban forests'
value. The Or g®nian. p. B12.
2. State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Statewide Plann. g Goals & Guidelines. Goal 2: Land
Ilse Planning _.OAR 66Q-015-QOQ0121 State of Oregon Government
Printing Office.
7
3. State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Statewide Planning _Goals & Guidelines. Goal 6: Air. Water
and Land Resource Ouali .OAR 660-015-0000(6). State of Oregon
Government Printing Office.
4. State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Statewide Planning Goals Guidelines. Goal 7: Areas
Subject to Natural Hazards State of Oregon Government Printing Office.
5. Unified Sewerage Agency (June, 1997). Fanno Creek Watershed
Management Plan. Section III Table 6 Watershed Peak Flo n
at Selected Locations.
6. State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Statewide Pjanning_Goals & Guidelines. Goal 9: Economic
Development OAR 660-015-0000(9) State of Oregon Government Printing
Office.
7. Harrington, P. (Dec. 20, 2001). Office building vacancies top 50 percent
in Sunset Corridor. The Oregonian-P.8.
8. Colby, R. (Dec. 6, 2001). Slow for economy, slow for Round.
he Oregonian Washington County Weekly. pp. 1, 15.
9. Oliver, G. (Dec. 21, 2001). Ruling puts urban renewal funds at risk.
The Oregonian pp. D1, D7.
10. State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Statewide Planning „Goals & Guidelines. Goal 10:
Housing OAR 660-015-0000(101 State of Oregon Government Printing
Office.
11. Stout, H.J. (January 2002). Apartment Industry Hit Hard During
Downturn. The Apartment Manager. Portland Metro Vancouver
p. 1.
' CowlHY Cr. A,Mlkan rasfn
Landsat tatellHs Images of the Vnilarnette and lower Columbia River valleys from 1972 (kf ) and
2000 show the decfino of reglonial tree cover.
Research 'measures
urban forests' value
but just 1.6 million aws now.
More than half the tree- Open land- with less than 20 per.
shaded acres around the ent~bverulldingsngt - has dUn expandVan-
-
Willamette Valley have ad from 9.9 million acres In 1972 to
vanished since 1972 T s hllheportion
of the ~region cov-
Oy MICHAEL MILSTgH ered by trees has raven from
THEOREGONIAN 46 percent In 1972 to 24 percent _
All those trees along the street Some cities, including Salem,
in the perk and outside your win- satellite mapping
dew save billions of dollars by ab- th!=re Individual tree -
so w save runoff , of g homes and at will help them tail where pro-
so nun runo r,anewstudyeays tecting and planting trees will do
d the The problem ts, are are a tot the most good. Even elementary
fewer aces in the increasingly students will be able reuse the
ppaave! WIDameae and lower Co data to o t how aav will fil-
lumbla River veileys than 30 years ter air and nserve at thetr
schatb. s ac co' Peter Guto a [or-
About 2miWon acres of the esteforthecityofSalem.
thickest trees bn the largely urban Stets inter ryrlfieation
region from Vancouver, Wash, The study calculates that tree
south to Eugene have disappeared leaves and roots throughout the
since 1972- a 56 percent dedine, WWamette and lower Columbia
according to satellite research Vptt„~s soak up and slow runoff of
American Forests is releasing to- &5-b(Won cubic feet of storm
day. That's an average of nearly water, keeping It from fiu*Ing de-
200 acres of trees - about 170 brit and pollution Into rivers and
football fields worth - lost each streams, Building drains and ba..
day. sins to control all that water would
h- sue an ecol cal ma- cost anesdrnated$202b1Bbon.
Chine that work for us, ut we're "We know salmon have to nego-
giving them up to pavement and ttate rivers and streams in Ponband
other development" said Gary wry year, and trees are a bid part
mail, vice president of American of keeping that water dean, said
Forests, a conservation group. Charlie Krebs, director of the U3.
The study Is the first to map, Forest Service's cooperative forest-
measure and attach a dollar value ry program, which helped finance
to the often-overlooked urban for- the study. "They're not going to get
ests that serve = a vast to the Mount Hood National For-
co nbbng and cieaningsystem in a est bytakingTri-Met"
region. Local. state and federal The trees lost since 19M were
agencies that helped pay for the the tough equivalent of a $2.4 b0-
work hope it will give residents Eon storm water management sys-
new respect for the trees around tem,thestudy say&Itsuggests that
them well - larmed replanting of the
Without the remaining tress, the trees could 4elp control
8o percent of Oregon's population nmoff that now oVerwheinis Port-
in the Willamette Valley drainage system during
would have to shell out another land'sdrainage
S20 billion to handle storm water, Ikewi, x the region's trees drew
$1.9 MUU million to cool homes and 178 million pounds of ozone, sul-
5119 n to teat with err list - fur dboxbde, carbon monoxide and
bon, according to the study s~cel- other pollution from the air, saving
culatlons. about $419 million in health care
Camill p shady sass and other costs, according to cal-
The $140,000 study, begun a c"onsusing earlier studies.
year ego by American Forests, an All or that does not mean home-
urban forest edvocecy g,tnup In owners should fill their lots with
Washington, D.C, tneesured trees seedlings, foresters say. Trees do
I. 63 sample plots In end around their best work only If they remain
Penland, Ettgeno, Cottellbs, Salem, healthy, with room to grow. But ur-
WUsonvllle, Tualetln Beaverton ban leaders, planners and resi-
and Albany, and In Vancouver, dents must recognize that trees
Wash Researcher then used land. have value far beyond l8ndscal)[14
scape- software to expand the find- ' 'We have requirements for re-
Ings onto regional satelite bnnges taming and plan tlnR trees, but
snapped In 1972 and 2000. Wus- everyone atke me, Mt good Is It
tracing how tree cover has changed dobng7 ' sold Elizabeth Walker,
ova s Varncouver's dry forester. 'Now
Thick trees - where foliage cov- I've got some numbers to show
ers half or more of the ground - them why we require as many
grew on 3.7mMon acres In 1972 trees as we do.'
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING
OAR 660-016-0000(2)
PART I - PLANNING public hearing and shall be reviewed
To establish a land use and, as needed, revised on a periodic
planning process and policy cycle to take into account changing
framework as a basis for all decision public policies and circumstances, in
and actions related to use of land and accord with a schedule set forth in the
to assure an adequate factual base plan. Opportunities shall be provided for
for such decisions and actions. review and comment by citizens and
City, county, state and federal affected governmental units during
agency and special district plans and preparation, review and revision of plans
actions related to land use shall be and implementation ordinances.
consistent with the comprehensive plans Affected Governmental Units
of cities and counties and regional plans are those local governments, state and
adopted under ORS Chapter 268. federal agencies and special districts
All land use plans shall include which have programs, land ownerships,
identification of issues and problems, or responsibilities within the area
inventories and other factual information included in the plan.
for each applicable statewide planning Comprehensive Plan as
goal, evaluation of alternative courses of defined in ORS 197.015(5).
action and ultimate policy choices, Coordinated— as defined in
taking into consideration social, ORS 197.015(5). (Vote: It is included in
economic, energy and environmental the definition of comprehensive plan.
needs. The required information shall be Implementation Measures are
contained in the plan document or in the means used to carry out the plan.
supporting documents. The plans, These are of two general types:
supporting documents and (1) management implementation
implementation ordinances shall be filed measures such as ordinances,
in a public office or other place easily regulations or project plans, and (2) site
accessible to the public. The plans shall or area specific implementation
be the basis for specific implementation measures such as permits and grants
measures. These measures shall be for construction, construction of public
consistent with and adequate to carry facilities or provision of services.
out the plans. Each plan and related Plans as used here
implementation measure shall be encompass all plans which guide
coordinated with the plans of affected land-use decisions, including both
governmental units. comprehensive and single-purpose
All land-use plans and plans of cities, counties, state and
implementation ordinances shall be federal agencies and special districts.
adopted by the governing body after
1
PART 11- EXCEPTIONS standards for an exception have or have
A local government may adopt an not been met.
exception to a goal when: Each notice of a public hearing
(a) The land subject to the on a proposed exception shall
exception is physically developed to the specifically note that a goal exception is
extent that it is no longer available for proposed and shall summarize the
uses allowed by the applicable goal; issues in an understandable manner.
(b) The land subject to the Upon review of a decision
exception is irrevocably committed to approving or denying an exception:
uses not allowed by the applicable goal (a) The commission shall be
because existing adjacent uses and bound by any finding of fact for which
other relevant factors make uses there is substantial evidence in the
allowed by the applicable goal record of the local government
impracticable; or proceedings resulting in approval or
(c) The following standards are denial of the exception;
met: (b) The commission shall
(1) Reasons justify why the state determine whether the local
policy embodied in the applicable goals government's findings and reasons
should not apply; demonstrate that the standards for an
(2) Areas which do not require a exception have or have not been met;
new exception cannot reasonably and
accommodate the use; (c) The commission shall adopt a
(3) The long-term environmental, clear statement of reasons which sets
economic, social and energy forth the basis for the determination that
consequences resulting from the use of the standards for an exception have or
the proposed site with measures have not been met.
designed to reduce adverse impacts are
not significantly more adverse than Exception means a comprehensive
would typically result from the same plan provision, including an amendment
proposal being located in areas to an acknowledged comprehensive
requiring a goal exception other than the plan, that;
proposed site; and (a) Is applicable to specific
(4) The proposed uses are properties or situations and does not
compatible with other adjacent uses or establish a planning or zoning policy of
will be so rendered through measures general applicability;
designed to reduce adverse impacts. (b) Does not comply with some or
all goal requirements applicable to the
Compatible, as used in subparagraph subject properties or situations; and
(4) is not intended as an absolute term (c) Complies with standards for
meaning no interference or adverse an exception.
impacts of any type with adjacent uses.
A local government approving or PART 111-- USE OF GUIDELINES
denying a proposed exception shall set Governmental units shall review
forth findings of fact and a statement of the guidelines set forth for the goals and
reasons which demonstrate that the either utilize the guidelines or develop
alternative means that will achieve the
2
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND
RESOURCES QUALITY
OAR 660-015-0000(6)
`
To maintain and Improve the quality solid waste disposal sites and sludge
of the air, water and land resources - disposal sites.
of the state. 2. Plans should designate areas
All waste and process discharges for urban and rural residential use only
from future development, when where apprevable sewage disposal
combined with such discharges from alternatives have been clearly identified
existing developments shall not threaten in such plans.
to violate, or violate applicable state or 3. Plans should buffer and .
federal environmental quality. statutes, separate those land uses which create
rules and standards. With respect to the or lead to conflicting requirements. and
air, water and land resources of the impacts upon the air, water and land
applicable air sheds and river basins resources.
described or included in state 4. Plans which provide for the
environmental quality statutes, rules, maintenance and improvement of air,
standards and implementation plans, land and water resources of the
such discharges shall not (1) exceed the planning area should consider as a
carrying capacity of such resources, major determinant the carrying capacity
considering long range needs; (2) of the air, land and Mit®r resources-of
degrade such resources; or (3) threaten the planning area. The land
the availability of such resources. conservation and development actions
provided for by such plans should not
Waste and Process Discharges exceed the carrying capacity of such
refers to solid waste, thermal, noise, resources.
atmospheric or water pollutants, 5. All plans and programs
contaminants, or products therefrom. affecting waste and process discharges
Included here also are indirect sources should be coordinated within the -
} . " of air pollution which result in emissions applicable air sheds and river basins-
of air contaminants for which the state described or included in state
has established standards. environmental quality statutes, ^rules,
standards*and implementation plan.
GUIDELINES - 6. Plans of state agencie_s-before
they are adopted should be coordinated
A. PLANNING with and reviewed by local ageneie~
1. Plans should designate with respect to the impact of theta
'plans
alternative areas suitable for use in on the air, water and land resources:in-
controlling pollution including but not the planning area.
limited to waste water treatment plants,
1
7. In all air quality maintenance
areas, plane should be based on
applicable state rules for reducing
indirect pollution and be sufi`iclently
comprehensive to include major
--lMnsportation, industrial, institutional,
commercial recreational and
governmental developments arid'
-Aacilities.
E. OMPL.EMEt4TATIION
1. Plans should take into account
methods and devices for implementing
this goal, including but not limited tolhe
following:
(1) tax incentives and
disincentives, "
(2) land use controls,.and
ordinances,
(3) multiple-use and joint
development practices,
(4) capital facility prdgramming,
(5) fee and less-than-fee.:-:..
acquisition techniques, and-
(6) enforcement of local health
and safety ordinances.
2. A management program ;that
details the respective implem"tion
roles and responsibilities for carrying out
-this goal in the planning area shouldbe
established in the comprehensive plan.
3. Programs should manage land
conservation and development activities
manner that accurately reflects the
community's desires for a qualify
environment and a healthy economy_._
and is consistent with state
environmental quality statutft'. ales,
standards and implementation plans.
2
Adopted September 28, 2001
Effective June 1, 2002
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
To protect people and property from property based on the new inventory
natural hazards. information and an assessment oh.
a. the frequency, severity and
A. NATURAL HAZARD PLANNING location of the hazard;
1. Local governments shall adopt b. the effects of the hazard on
comprehensive plans (inventories, policies existing and future development;
and implementing measures) to reduce risk c. the potential for development in
to people and property from natural hazards. the hazard area to increase the frequency
and severity of the hazard; and
2. Natural hazards for purposes of d. the types and intensities of land
this goal are: floods (coastal and riverine), uses to be allowed in the hazard area.
landslides,' earthquakes and related hazards, 2. Allow an opportunity for citizen
tsunamis, coastal erosion, and wildfires. review and comment on the new inventory
Local governments may identify and plan information and the results of the evaluation
for other natural hazards. and incorporate such information into the
comprehensive plan, as necessary.
B. RESPONSE TO NEW HAZARD 3. Adopt or amend, as necessary,
INFORMATION based on the evaluation of risk, plan policies
1. New hazard inventory and implementing measures consistent with
information provided by federal and state the following principles:
agencies shall be reviewed by the a. avoiding development in hazard
Department in consultation with affected areas where the risk to people and property
state and local government representatives. cannot be mitigated; and
2. After such consultation, the b. prohibiting the siting of
Department shall notify local governments if essential facilities, major structures,
the new hazard information requires a local hazardous facilities and special occupancy
response. structures, as defined in the state building
3. Local governments shall respond code (ORS 455.447(1)
to new inventory information on natural (a)(b)(c) and (e)), in identified hazard areas,
hazards within 36 months after being where the risk to public safety cannot be
notified by the Department of Land mitigated, unless an essential facility is
Conservation and Development, unless needed within a hazard area in order to
extended by the Department. provide essential emergency response
services in a timely manner.'
C. IMPLEMENTATION 4. Local governments will be
Upon receiving notice from the deemed to comply with Goal 7 for coastal
Department, a local government shall: and riverine flood hazards by adopting and
1. Evaluate the risk to people and
s For purposes of constructing essential facilities, and
special occupancy structures in tsunami inundation
zones, the requirements of the state building code -
' For "rapidly moving landslides," the requirements ORS 455.446 and 455.447 (1999 edition) and OAR
of ORS 195.250-195.275 (1999 edition) apply. chapter 632, division 5 apply.
"UVJ/►OAL JwpV,"&w► w, 6+VNA
a Effective June 1. 2002
implementing local floodplain regulations 2. Local governments should consider
that meet the minimum National Flood programs to manage stormwater runoff as a
Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. means to help address flood and landslide
hazards.
D. COORDINATION 3. Local governments should consider
1. In accordance with ORS 197.180 nonregulatory approaches to help implement
and Goal 2, state agencies shall coordinate this goal, including but not limited to:
their natural hazard plans and programs with a. providing financial incentives and
local governments and provide local disincentives;
governments with hazard inventory b. providing public information and
information and technical assistance education materials;
including development of model ordinances c. establishing or making use of
and risk evaluation methodologies. existing programs to retrofit, relocate, or
2. Local governments and state acquire existing dwellings and structures at
agencies shall follow such procedures, risk from natural disasters.
standards and definitions as may be 4. When reviewing development
contained in statewide planning goals and requests in high hazard areas, local
commission rules in developing programs to governments should require site-specific
achieve this goal. reports, appropriate for the level and type of
hazard (e.g., hydrologic reports,
GUIDELINES geotechnical reports or other scientific or
engineering reports) prepared by a licensed
A. PLANNING professional. Such reports should evaluate
1. In adopting plan policies and the risk to the site as well as the risk the
implementing measures to protect people proposed development may pose to other
and property from natural hazards, local properties.
governments should consider. S. Local governments should consider
a. the benefits of maintaining measures that exceed the National Flood
natural hazard areas as open space, Insurance Program (NFIP) such as:
recreation and other low density uses; a. limiting placement of fill in
b. the beneficial effects that natural floodplains;
hazards can have on natural resources and b. prohibiting the storage of
the environment; and hazardous materials in floodplains or
c. the effects of development providing for safe storage of such materials;
and mitigation measures in identified hazard and
areas on the management of natural c. elevating structures to a level
resources. higher than that required by the NFIP and
2. Local governments should coordinate the state building code.
their land use plans and decisions with Flood insurance policy holders may
emergency preparedness, response, recovery be eligible for reduced insurance rates
and mitigation programs. through the NFIP's Community Rating
System Program when local governments
B. EUPLEIENTATION adopt these and other flood protection
1. Local governments should measures.
give special attention to emergency access
when considering development in identified
hazard areas.
2
Table 6
Watershed Peak Flows at Selected Locations
Existing Future 2040
Crook Location Event Year, Cis Event Year, Cis
ID 4 Rch M12 2 10 25 100 2 10 25 100
Ash Crook RR tracks near N Dakota & AS1T A-1 428 322 491 574 685 485 738 861 1028
End of Spruce St & AS4E A-2 3.53 316 476 553 655 496 732 845 995
Hemlock & Hall Blvd & AS7T A-3 2.80 285 426 492 582 514 748 857 1072
Taylors Ferry Rd & ASSE A-6 1.34 124 187 217 257 240 348 400 470
Ball Crook RR tracks near 74th Ave & BL1 B-1 2.38 381 555 638 749 e437 629 720 841
Sol Aire Crook Bel-Aire Dr & FM5W7 SA-1 0.38 ( '62 91 105 1241 76 111 127 148
Dory Doll Creek Walnut St & DD1 DD-1 0.82 112 167 193 2281 160 233 268 315
Morgan Ct & DD3W DD-3 0.61 85 127 147 173 120 176 202 236
Fanno Crook Tualatin River Confluence TOTAL F-1 32.06 1438 2147 2501 2989 1565 2350 2744 3269
Durham Rd Bridge & F1.3SE F-1 3129 1418 2117 2468 2956 1550 2330 2711 3224
Ball Confluence & FLBL F-2 30.50 1435 2192 2563 3063 1615 2427 2829 3391
Red Rock Confluence & FLRR F-5 27.08 1339 2048 2393 2856 1508 2275 2660 3176
Deny Dell Confluence & FLDD F-9 24.32 1309 2012 2365 2824 1549 2329 2726 3276
SummerConflusnce & FLSM F•10 23.44 1264 1939 2281 2722 1472 2217 2591 3091
Ash Confluence & FMAS F-11 1720 936 1427 1667 1987 1037 1552 1808 2149
Hitson Confluence & FMHN F-12 12.70 713 1070 1249 1492 791 1184 1375 1630
Near Nimbus Drive & FM4T F-13 11.54 713 1078 1257 1499 799 1200 1395 1657
Bel Aire Confluence & FM5W F-13 9.99 701 1050 1223 1455 793 1182 1375 1632
Bohmann Parkway & FMBS F-17 8.47 783 1173 1361 1614 897 1338 1551 1835
Woods Confluence & FMWD F-19 8.16 765 1154 1340 1591 876 1313 1523 1803
Nicol Rd & FMD F-20 6.68 685 1032 1198 1419 808 1208 1400 1653
Vermont Confluence & FMVT F-21 6.42 735 1099 1272 1504 877 1301 1505 1775
PenK'seton Confluence & FUPN F-22 4.85 603 895 1035 1221 728 1071 1233 1445
Sylvan Confluence & FUSV F-22 4.46 552 821 948 1118 669 986 1136 1331
Hltoon Croak Hart Pond & HN1 H-1 0.77 121 179 206 243 144 209 239 280
Pendleton Crook Chinese Resturant PN1 0.39 55 81 93 109 63 92 106 124
Progress Crook Garden Home Rd FM9S P-1 0.14 10 14 17 201 31 44 50 59
Red Rock Crook RR tracks at Wall St & RR1 RR-1 1.62 1 277 401 459 5381 317 455 521 607
Surniner Crook Fowler Mddle School & SMt S-1 6.13 508 762 881 1050 648 951 1103 1308
Krouger Confluence & SMKR S-1 5.65 555 621 941 1112 749 1072 1251 1485
Summerlake - SM4LK S-3 4.67 465 684 780 923 645 915 1078 1293
Katherine St & KRi S-2 0.83 95 144 167 197 142 209 241 282
Sylvan Crook Sctwlls Forty & SV1 SV-1 120 1 111 169 196 2331 196 288 331 389
Votmortt Crook Oleson Rd VT1 V-1 124 i 172 254 292 3441 197 289 332 390
Woods Creek Portland Golf Club & WD7 W-1 1.37 171 253 292 344 253 369 424 497
& WD3 W-1 0.99 145 214 247 291 185 268 307 360
p Location (Node) in HEG 1 modal whets subbasin flow is Canbksed
Rdr Reach code raferenas (for Natural Resources okmenra)
Ogg Fcur•dg# METRONSA Quarter-sedfon 100
Mil Subbasln At" (square mess)
Existing Land use modeled using METRO zone coverage, with vacant and public open lends dgWted
Future 1040 Land use moddad uskrp 2000 coverage obtakwd horn METRO
Event Year Them an the design events modeled tUre 2-. 5-. 10, 25, SiY, and 100-year everts)
Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan Section 111 16
( a
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OAR 660-015-0000(9)
To provide adequate opportunities commercial uses consistent with plan
throughout the state for a variety of policies;
economic activities vital to the 4. Limit uses on or near sites
health, welfare, and prosperity of zoned for specific industrial and
Oregon's citizens. commercial uses to those which are
Comprehensive plans and compatible with proposed uses.
policies shall contribute to a stable and
healthy economy in all regions of the In accordance with ORS 197.180
state. Such plans shall be based on and Goal 2, state agencies that issue
inventories of areas suitable for permits affecting land use shall identify
increased economic growth and activity in their coordination programs how they
after taking into consideration the health will coordinate permit issuance with
of the current economic base; materials other state agencies, cities and
and energy availability and cost; labor counties.
market factors; educational and
technical training programs; availability GUIDELINES
of key public facilities; necessary
support facilities; current market forces; A. PLANNING
location relative to markets; availability 1. A principal determinant in
of renewable and non-renewable planning for major industrial and
resources; availability of land; and commercial developments should be the
pollution control requirements. comparative advantage of the region
within which the developments would be
Comprehensive plans for urban areas located. Comparative advantage
shall: industries are those economic activities
which represent the most efficient use of
1. Include an analysis of the resources, relative to other geographic
community's economic patterns, areas.
potentialities, strengths, and deficiencies 2. The economic development
as they relate to state and national projections and the comprehensive plan
trends; which is drawn from the projections
2. Contain policies concerning should take into account the availability
the economic development opportunities of the necessary natural resources to
in the community; support the expanded industrial
3. Provide for at least an development and associated
adequate supply of sites of suitable populations. The plan should also take
sizes, types, locations, and service into account the social, environmental,
levels for a variety of industrial and energy, and economic impacts upon the
resident population.
1
3. Plans should designate the
type and level of public facilities and
services appropriate to support the
degree of economic development being
proposed.
4. Plans should strongly
emphasize the expansion of and
increased productivity from existing
industries and firms as a means to
strengthen local and regional economic
development.
5. Plans directed toward
diversification and improvement of the
economy of the planning area should
consider as a major determinant, the
carrying capacity of the air, land and
water resources of the planning area.
The land conservation and development
actions provided for by such plans
should not exceed the carrying capacity
of such resources.
B. IMPLEMENTATION
1. Plans should take into account
methods and devices for overcoming
certain regional conditions and
deficiencies for implementing this goal,
including but not limited to
(1) tax incentives and
disincentives;
(2) land use controls and
ordinances;
(3) preferential assessments;
(4) capital improvement
programming; and
(5) fee and less-than-fee
acquisition techniques.
2. Plans should provide for a
detailed management program to assign
a respective implementation roles and
{ responsibilities to those private and
governmental bodies which operate in
the planning area and have interests in
carrying out this goal and in supporting
and coordinating regional and local
economic plans and programs.
2
3 ~ ^THE OREGON"
BUSINESS
b=Aung e e va vies top.
uffice-
50 percent in sbuildings was 60 percent. The high vacancy rate has
A market report blames the The total office vacancy rate caused the average lease price to
combines both traditional office . fall from $23.62 a square foot last
rise from last year on the and ilex industrial space, which re- yea tD $22.24 this year.
recession and overbuilding fers to building caned for. both Barinaga Harrington predicted
standard office use and light man. that the. Sunset. Corridor has
BY PATRICK HARRINGTON uiac0nin& High-tech companies enou6ttr office space to last 24 to 36
THE OREGONUN usually occupy flexbulldingL montrs, meaning that new waves
Compared with last year, the va- - "The bright side is that we had of construction could begin in the
cancy cue for office buildings in lease activity of 1.1 million square future, depending on how long it
=the high-tech region known as the feet," Barinaga HarrinBton'said. in Oregon's economy. to re-
Sunset Corridor has more than 2000, tenants leased 1.4 million bound.
doubled, according to the most re- square feet of space. Hopefully Oregon wont lag
cent market report released by "We really are not that far o$" behind the rest of the U.S. eeono-
- Cushman & Wakefield. she said my; she said. _
Office vacancy in the Sunset Overall, these are 38 office build- Wakefield re 1pop better
Corridor, most of which falls in ings in- the Sunset Corridor repre- on the horizon.
Washington County along the Sun- senting_ 1.8 million square feet of 'Tare consensus is that the
set Highway, is at 54.7 percent, up . space. In the fourth quarter, the va- worst may be over. In regard to the..
from 20.7 percent at the end of last cancy rate for those buildings current recession;" said broker
year. reached 413 -percent, she said, up lff in a news release.
But things aren't as bad as they from 39.6 percent in the third 'T The suburban east market ex
F look, said Ramona Barinaga Her- quarter.
perimced the highest overall va-
~rington, who focuses on the high- In the 146 flex buildings in the cancy increase for office ace in
,tech real estate market for Cush- corridor, the vacancy rate was. the fourth quarter, risin8fmm 11.8
=man & Wakeflek t She linked most much lower, 13.4 percent That's pmt to 16.2 percent The over-
,of the empty space to overbuilding up from 12.1 percent in the previ- all suburban west market in_
'6
in 2001. ous quarter. creased from 17.9 percent to 192
As evidence, she pointed to the Perhaps most dramatic is how percent
w 29 office buildings constructed in the recent numbers compare with
2001, 10 of them standard office a year ago. Office vacancy rates for
and 19 flex buildings, representing the fourth quarter of 2000 were You can reach Patrick Harrington
a a total of 1.4 million square feet of 14.5 percent; flex office was 62 . at 503-294-59134 or by e-mail at
space. The vacancy rate in those percent vacant parrington@news.oregonlan.com.
--J 4
r~J
VOL
'IW
r i 4 t
' ~ `S t t
s ~3-297-gg6t OR `'03 ~ 550
MESROWESS BISREA~
Vill"
?HVRStDAY ",)EC BER 6 2001 011 or ItL tat~~.
also'
upbea
tefowns
pteleased, mom' DOM- m~
New theloan u
dent of the Pr *jS Moo
Ola ~eNO
Remme~ Mate
joid b3 er t WeAs y'aV e l ~n t 'ae .,mot we the
onP10aect etn p
lot tow AMYT n wait for a $O deal °tdat►d platz pru1dPA Cy. bas g ~p e~ t°
~n0Io, ,Sas - m r ty offi, approve aloan . john M°trow, a DOrthue c0tnpanY to -IV ~ and ~ • tieitho ,the
bal*a to
but d 4"' wasmak- Ca h n 2 l plop -es of Cdr d week ton prol s 'but ^ it taken rate of by b o
° .
° 0 man ryha oDUV6fad ~uu - allowm~ to tested ob e ofeetof ~P~ otrow not city
}t as them auemel`J sate Prot dates d atealoan to ' unless a A ~tVitsaYhowm d sat d, identdiedtl~pt page 15
It' t0 have l the hey one asbeeu ef~
a teal jV~1XE~-use a ricW $a nudl* ~mP ,rett°n 't cinB e'
BWVCMt to Please
oun tnish
s, aresti ~ tlasttleR° d ton City Comcil the 611" open pWnedprol Wear'
is eR otth Pat
~ who prej~ tm> iniants fob outlets e
t5 a'id pre Santed a SOu °f ~mvadv' dg e t 5U pSmor" 60 ercent Pint, 7D
triVeSttri a thud 28, dte Round gom having
gy Rtc►u~9 gmN cs~''m~Der- m buy ed dovm-
Vf 0 tenders at w:rn a the long stmt
~ city and rego
Money to
B%VE1t is of ew1 0&
UvAde have lots
-Mda
•3M W-B ® 1~
Kfflunnd: m"a)*or enu 'd
-ed
--itY Faftner ne
andnuM from Page 1 916I1m very confident this will be signed and that the General Electric Pension Trust and
General Morrows firm became interest- project iWU be built If least one off ti em, MV onix~owL ha
ed in the Round last year as the said, will be involved with the
project's previous developers, Sel- UNDA ADLARD, Round. -
wyn Bingliam and SyMa Cleaver of MAYOR ROB DRAnS CHIEF OF STAff
Portland, 'fought the dty's ?ePce' 4 Pkkybndm
session.of the project in U.S. B82]kr Mack Virden, senior vice prest-
riptcy Court. Dorn-Platt, which ficial's confidence . sounds brave . mers said, is the parking available dent and market manager for U.S.
signed a contract in July'to take among observations from Rem- for apartment dwellers, retail cus- Banles commercial real estate op-
over the Round, has developed mers and others in the Portland- tomers and office tenants. eration in Portland, said that capi-
other office and retail complexes in area mortgage-lending and nom= tal market lenders "are very flush
Southern California and Texas merdal real estate elds. None is The Rounds centering on Tri- with cash, so we all need to make j
. Met's, westside light-nail line loans." But he and others remain
Morrow's enthusiasm continues involvedwiththe Round. shoiild make the. ro more vat-
to irhfuse CrtyHaIl. "E ei - in the best of times, uable P cikelihoo about detemoiziing the
he a likelihood of a sucx~fiil invest-
"rm very confident this will tie multiple-use developmen# is a very more . hxirnhue question is ment
signed, and that :the pr,oject will ire difficaili -type . of real estate to fi- whetha auto ci -easW
builf,A :said =lassie .Allard, Mayas uia" Remmers said. The reason move to and from the site north of "17uer e's way more money in the
systera than can be
Rob. Drake's chief of stA She bas is ihit bankers and other lenders Canyon Roark.
Wally Ham, senioutil "
been .-the dty'S liaison -for the generally haven't had long-term Along with three office' buIId- . agreed Round;since tbe`project's;tmnoe eacp~, rience with .success rates for Dom-Platt's revised develop- mo tg Norris division
tion:sujveral yearsago, as a way to upper-story.office space or apart- merit plan for the Round includes Portland. Organizations such as
riwtt a ttie city's coaiamemial . meats above ground-floor shops, . a combined parking and atldefic Wall.Street firms, real estate brim-
core off Southwest Carryon Road. both comporients of the Round. club building with four
The I is west=of Southwest : ''some projects, P merit trusts, pension trusts, "you
ects, he said, retail levels totaling more tian:.-700 j
name it,"- have all been looking
Watson Avenue` aria Hall Boule- spaces have remained dark and spaces. Surface and rooftop palic arorard for investment Opportimi-
ing - z, empty, "or the retail is so busy, it also are included arotand tee, they are being ih,~"
"If I thought I smelled anytliing," drives the, agamnent.residents residential structures ~ he said. i
Allard" said; T 'be- telling the nuts, and vacancies occur there." Such an organization will fund a Units.
council, sect, this point Tdon't" Another-critical success indica- Also needed for Prolecss like the . deal If it appears good, Harding
' ;HoW~eir well placed, the city of- tot for such developments, Rem- Round, Remmers said, is "a devel- said. "If it's not, theyll vanish like a
open with a lot of dough," or a 'ma- magicim"
jor equity' partner for the long
term. .
For its previous projects, Dom You can reach Richard 064 at
Platz has touted longtime relations 503-294--981 or by e-mail at dick-
with two major equity partners, the coiby@neujs.oregooM=com.
qg4e 6Api SSA 9 FE'4 f~
o pt.
F-A
g
,
I w R i
ts & ,-r I 0 1
fs^p~ 6H g7 '..1 1
~~f QV~ $q~. i7•.4~i6 N ~~t~ gP~~~~~a. ~9i'
0 0,
~ A$ 7yy G N .°E d~ O O~ n g~ OI
pg w ~ B' q, O~f. ~ ~ 'cam 5,~^ g• 'L~S'. ~ ¢ M"`~
uos~gitaz~
5
.~~~E a~ o°° ~r ~s• ~ s
a
{I8$ryN~C~me ems- o
°o cri7fla 25 .?q 6 ki
~ism
S
o rjy 7c
s~ fie gs a
3•: c
flip
6
Et 'g,
o- ti t
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 10: HOUSING
OAR 660-015-0000(10)
To provide for the housing needs of Needed Housing Units means
citizens of the state. housing types determined to meet the
Buildable lands for residential use need shown for housing within an urban
shall be inventoried and plans shall growth boundary at particular price
encourage the availability of adequate ranges and rent levels. On and after the
numbers of needed housing units at beginning of the first periodic review of a
price ranges and rent levels which are local government's acknowledged
commensurate with the financial comprehensive plan, "needed housing
capabilities of Oregon households and units" also includes
allow for flexibility of housing location, government-assisted housing. For cities
type and density. having populations larger than 2,500
Buildable Lands refers to people and counties having populations
lands in urban and urbanizable areas larger than 15,000 people, "needed
that are suitable, available and housing units" also includes (but is not
necessary for residential use. limited to) attached and detached
Government Assisted blousing single-family housing, multiple-family
means housing that is financed in housing, and manufactured homes,
whole or part by either a federal or state whether occupied by owners or renters.
housing agency or a local housing
authority as defined in ORS 456.005 to GUIDELINES
456.720, or housing that is occupied by
a tenant or tenants who benefit from A. PLANNING
rent supplements or housing vouchers 1. In addition to inventories of
provided by either a federal or state buildable lands, housing elements of a
housing agency or a local housing comprehensive plan should, at a
authority. minimum, include: (1) a comparison of
Household refers to one or the distribution of the existing population
more persons occupying a single by income with the distribution of
housing unit. available housing units by cost; (2) a
Manufactured Homes means determination of vacancy rates, both
structures with a Department of Housing overall and at varying rent ranges and
and Urban Development (HUD) label cost levels; (3) a determination of
certifying that the structure is expected housing demand at varying
constructed in accordance with the rent ranges and cost levels; (4)
National Manufactured Housing allowance for a variety of densities and
Construction and Safety Standards Act types of residences in each community;
of 1974 (42 USC 5401 et seq.), as and (5) an inventory of sound housing in
amended on August 22, 1981. urban areas including units capable of
being rehabilitated.
1
2. Plans should be developed in accordance with zoning ordinances and
a manner that insures the provision of with provisions of comprehensive plans.
appropriate types and amounts of land 4. Ordinances and incentives
within urban growth boundaries. Such should be used to increase population
land should be necessary and suitable densities in urban areas taking into
for housing that meets the housing consideration (1) key facilities, (2) the
needs of households of all income economic, environmental, social and
levels. energy consequences of the proposed
3. Plans should provide for the densities and (3) the optimal use of
appropriate type, location and phasing existing urban land particularly in
of public facilities and services sufficient sections containing significant amounts
to support housing development in of unsound substandard structures.
areas presently developed or 5. Additional methods and
undergoing development or devices for achieving this goal should,
redevelopment. after consideration of the impact on
4. Plans providing for housing lower income households, include, but
needs should consider as a major not be limited to: (1) tax incentives and
determinant the carrying capacity of the disincentives; (2) building and
air, land and water resources of the construction code revision; (3) zoning
planning area. The land conservation and land use controls; (4) subsidies and
and development actions provided for loans; (5) fee and less-than-fee
by such plans should not exceed the acquisition techniques; (6) enforcement
carrying capacity of such resources. of local health and safety codes; and (7)
coordination of the development of
B. IMPLEMENTATION urban facilities and services to disperse
1. Plans should provide for a low income housing throughout the
continuing review of housing need planning area.
projections and should establish a 6. Plans should provide for a
process for accommodating needed detailed management program to assign
revisions. respective implementation roles and
2. Plans should take into account responsibilities to those governmental
the effects of utilizing financial bodies operating in the planning area
incentives and resources to (a) stimulate and having interests in carrying out the
the rehabilitation of substandard goal.
housing without regard to the financial
capacity of the owner so long as
benefits accrue to the occupants; and
(b) bring into compliance with codes
adopted to assure safe and sanitary
housing the dwellings of individuals who
cannot on their own afford to meet such
codes.
3. Decisions on housing
development proposals should be
expedited when such proposals are in
2
nage,
A4
the
k; °0.•.F "t,'~n. e- -
y" 2002
jonuary
rculation! ®n-S' & maintenc, Pars®n
. , Assdo
dried to CI r PAann ers, Yol vl
ers A ent 0,ners,
3,500 t1evV Apa rtent Own Po rtiandldnncouver rtm Rental Association
v5 Ma led Monthly y_ iation; IREM; Clork Count)t
5.500 Pn n rhnent Assoc
Est. 1~7d5 sociation;Orego APa
& ®iarnond Producteon, Inc., M6RO Multifamily Housing -
published in association wi>}t:
Chapter 24 A;Qm Institute of
Real Estate
Management
a Apcartrnent Industry
t Hit Hard During
Downturn
LTaorrtment ow out Marcus & Millichap's
industry report. When
published in July, it reflected
continuedi oil Page !9
Y rental activity in the first half of 2001, The high-end apartment market is Although both Sunset Corridor and some rental rates and offers service
when landlords were still smiling, also taking a hit as former renters take high-priced apartments are taking a guarantees and free rent in some
"Some of the facts have definitely advantage of super:low interest rates . hit, Equity Residential Properties properties. "Portland is really embed-
changed since then," Marcus & and buy a home. Trust, a Chicago-based REIT with ded in the one month free rent, where-.
Miffichap's Portland office. These trends are forcing high-end more . than 4,000 units in the Portland as people in Norther California want
Now, the report is an out-of-date apartment owners to cut rental rates, metropolitan area, a lower base rental rate," Lavine said.
reminder of the good times, when offer premiums or free lent to remain recently purchased The corporate housing market
rents were rising and landlords didn't competitive. "When I call around, the one of the higher- has hit Equity hard-
need special offers to land tenants. higher-end apartments are the ones rent apartment Lavine estimated
Wilson said his company's next that give concessions, but the lower- complexes in a>fr F. that 15 to 20 percent
re rt-a summary is due in mid- end apartments haven't generally Hillsboro. ;•.,Y of Equity's apart-
December and a full report will be needed to do that," Wilson said. The 497- mints in the
published in January-will reflect the Randy Norgart, president of,CTL unit Palladia at yt I Sunset Corridor
decline in demand for high-priced Management Inc., said these trends 2615 N.W. were contracted
apartments and apartments located in have been generally true for. the more 194th Terrace by large
the high-tech corridor. "There's a than 5,000 units his company owns was, sold for 57.25, mil- . , employers such as Intel or Nike.
population shift frorif the higher-end and manages in the Portland metro- lion, about $103,118 per unit, which The employers paid a third-party
apartments to the apartments with politan area. might be the highest-priced apartment company to fumish the apartments
lower rents," said Wilson, explaining "As the vacancies have increased transaction in Oregon history. Bruce and stock them with dishes and
that some renters are downsizing the over the last four to six months, we Lavine, vice president of Equity's linens; the apartments were used by
amount they're willing to pay in,rent went from offering nothing in,the way Pacific Northwest region, said there's temporary workers from out of town,
to compensate for pay cuts, layoffs of discounts or concessions to offer` , no buyer's remorse. "We're long- interns and other contracted workers.
and economic uncertainty. _ ing them," Norgart said. "Now,ffs not term thinkers" he said. "We're not a But as corporations scaled back on
unusual, especially in the Sunset.. We see tllpre•ara limitgd op nrti~s projects, their contracted apartments
" - Corridor, to dffer`a free month's i'erit." for new [apaitrrieniI producMd a were no longer needed. Now Lavine
Norgart said his company has a 6„ progressive environment with busi- said "very few" of Equity's apart-
percent overall vacancy rate, higher ness and the MAX nearby. mints are still used for corporate
than the usual 4 percent, and vacancy Eventually, Intel will rebound, and we housing. "We saw, in September, that
climbs to about 8 percent in the believe that the long-term prospects these just started drying up," Lavine
Sunset Corridor. "Just as we started are very good." said. "This was happening nationally
seeing our employment growth go He described Equity's overall and industrywide. We first saw the
negative, we started to see increasing vacancy rates through June, which corporate market begin to soften in
vacancies," he said: have affected properties regardless of March and April. Portland has held
But Norgart believes his company price, as "very good," with 4 percent out longer than most markets."
will fare better than most, with well- to 6 percent of apartments vacant. In Norgart said CTL avoids major
located properties that are heavy on August and September, vacancy rose corporate apartment contracts. "We
affordable housing.He compared the to 7.5 percent, where it remains. don't want to put too many eggs in
demand. for affordable housing to ".Ironically, the Gresham area, one basket," he said.
retail sales, which have been stronger which historically has been soft, has Equity estimates 15 to 20 percent
for discount chains than for high- been strong for us," Lavine said. of their tenants leave to buy homes,
priced stores. "Vancouver has 7 percent unemploy- and Lavine agreed with Wilson that
"We're feeling the slowdown like ment and still the apartment market is home buying is impacting vacancy.
other companies, but probably to a very strong. Those markets remain "We anticipate that [renters leaving
lesser degree because we have a more above that 92 percent average:' to buy homes] will decline but it has
affordable product," Norgart said. To bring in tenants, Equity cut been on the increase this year,"
Lavine said, crediting flexible financ-
ing and lower down-payment require-
ments as well as low interest rates.. .
Although landloidds aiiD making.
fiViG nts to cope with the reces-
sion,. the good news is'Portland has
fairly stable vacancy rates, at 5.3 per-
cent overall according to Wilson.
Also good news: "There really
haven't been a lot of new apartments
built, and there really aren't a lot in
the pipeline," Wilson said.
This avoids adding too much sup-
ply to a market with waning demand.
Heidi J. Stout
Business Journal Staff Writer
Copyright 2001 American City
Business Journals Inc.
1 Printed ivith permission
AParftnene Mang. 0 Janurary 2002
Attachment 5
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
16,
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
j
FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
DATE: February 15, 2002
SUBJECT: Proposed Metro Ballot Measure
This memorandum is a response to questions raised by Joyce Patton related to the article on a
Metro ballot measure on density issues. This article was published in The Oregonian last Friday,
February 15, 2002.
On February 14, 2002 Metro Council voted to submit to the voters an amendment to the Metro
Charter requiring
(1) protection of existing single family neighborhoods by prohibiting an increase in density of
existing single-family residential neighborhoods; and
(2) reports on the effects of the proposed Urban Growth Boundary amendments on existing
residential neighborhoods (Attachment 1).
The following is a brief summary of the proposed amendments:
• Residential Density /amendment
Metro exercises its authority by following the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,
which implements the 2040 Metro Growth Concept.
The 2040 Growth Concept comprises several design concepts that need to be implemented by
local jurisdictions. These concepts are shown on the 2040 Growth Concept Map and include
the following areas: Central City, Regional Centers, Town Centers, Station Communities, Main
Streets, Corridors, Employment Areas, Industrial Areas, Inner Neighborhoods, and Outer
Neighborhoods.
The proposed measure pertains only to the Inner and Outer Neighborhoods (Attachment 1,
Exhibit A). Inner Neighborhoods are defined by the Metro Functional Plan as "residential areas
accessible to jobs and neighborhood businesses with smaller lot sizes." Outer Neighborhoods
are defined as "residential neighborhoods farther away from large employment centers with
larger lot sizes."'
• Reports on Effects of Proposed Urban Growth Boundary /Amendments
The proposed measure requires that, before approving any amendments to the Urban Growth
Boundary in excess of 100 acres, the Metro Council must prepare a report on the effects of the
proposed amendment on existing residential neighborhoods. The report must address traffic
patterns, the potential addition of parks and open space protection to benefit existing and future
residents of the added territory; and the cost to existing residents of providing public services to
the additional area. The report must be provided to all households within one mile of the
proposed Urban Growth Boundary Amendment area to all cities and counties within Metro.
In summary, with the exception of the Inner and Outer Neighborhoods, the proposed amendments
do not appear to impact any other elements of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept, such as regional
centers. The objective of the two proposed amendments is to recognize the existing
neighborhoods as a key-element of the region's livability by prohibiting any increase in density in
single-family residential areas. Regardless of the outcome of the proposed measure, regional
centers will continue to play an important role in implementation of the Metro Urban Growth
Boundary Growth Management Functional Plan.
' Specifically, the proposed amendment states that "Neither the Regional Framework Plan nor any Metro
ordinance adopted to implement the plan shall require an increase in density of single-family neighborhoods
within the existing urban growth boundary identified in the plan solely as Inner or Outer Neighborhoods.
(emphasis added).
Attachment 1
to J. Hendryx
memo of 2/15/02
BEFORE THE METRO COUNCIL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING )
TO THE VOTERS AN AMENDMENT TO )
THE METRO CHARTER REQUIRING ) RESOLUTION NO. 02-3163
PROTECTION OF EXISTING SINGLE )
FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, COST )
IMPACT STATEMENTS REGARDING )
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ) Introduced by Councilor Burkholder
AMENDMENTS, AND NOTICE TO )
AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOODS )
WHEREAS, the region's residential neighborhoods are a critical ingredient in the
region's livability; and
WHEREAS, residential neighborhoods are a key component of Metro's 2040 Growth
Concept for the region; and
WHEREAS, Metro and the people of the region can achieve a more livable form of urban
development by accommodating most growth in city centers and along major transportation
corridors, without significant change in the region's existing residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, better information about the costs of growth for citizens of the region leads
to better decisions in the region about how to accommodate growth; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Metro Council hereby submits to the qualified voters of the district the
question of amending the Metro Charter to require protection of existing
neighborhoods, cost impact statements regarding urban growth boundary
amendments, and notice to affected neighborhoods and making related changes as
set forth in Exhibit "A";
Page 1 Resolution No. 02-3163
i:\R-0\2002-r-o\02.3163.009
OGC(RPB/km (02/14/02)
EXHIBIT A
Amendment To Metro Charter
Section 1. Section 5 of the Metro Charter is amended to add the following provisions:
(4) Protection of Livability of Existing Neighborhoods
(a) Livability Protection. The Regional Framework Plan shall include
measures to protect the livability of existing neighborhoods taking into
consideration air pollution, water pollution, noise, and crime as well as provision
of an adequate level of police, fire, transportation and emergency services, public
utilities, and access to parks, open space and neighborhood services.
(b) Densijy Increase Prohibited. Neither the Regional Framework Plan nor
any Metro ordinance adopted to implement the plan shall require an increase in
the density of single-family neighborhoods within the existing urban growth
boundary identified in the plan solely as Inner or Outer Neighborhoods.
(c) Report on Effects of Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Amendment.
Prior to approving any amendment or amendments of the urban growth boundary
in excess of 100 acres the Council shall prepare a report on the effect of the
proposed amendments on existing residential neighborhoods. Copies of the
completed report shall be provided to all households located within one mile of
the proposed urban growth boundary amendment area and to all cities and
counties within the district. The report shall address:
i. Traffic patterns and any resulting increase in traffic congestion,
commute times and air quality.
ii. Whether parks and openspace protection in the area to be added
will benefit existing residents of the district as well as future
residents of the added territory.
iii. The cost impacts on existing residents of providing needed public
services and public infrastructure to the area to be added.
(d) Implementation. The Metro Council shall implement the requirements
contained in Subsections a, b, and c within one year of adoption thereof.
Exhibit .A - Resolution No. 02-3163
Amendment To The Metro Charter
is\R•O\2002•r~ \02.3163 009
0GG1LPDAvw(02/1 /02)
Section 2
(a) The amendments to the Metro Charter for which provision is made in this
measure shall be paramount, shall take effect and shall have precedence over the
amendments to the Metro Charter proposed in Ballot Measure 26-11 if both
measures are approved at the Oregon primary election conducted on May 21,
2002, and the number of affirmative votes cast for this measure is greater than the
number of affirmative votes cast for Ballot Measure 26-11. In such event, Ballot
Measure 26-11 shall not become effective.
(b) The amendments to the Metro Charter for which provision is made in Ballot
Measure 26-11 shall be paramount, shall take effect and shall have precedence
over the amendments to the Metro Charter proposed in this measure if both
measures are approved at the Oregon primary election conducted on May 21,
2002, and the number of affirmative votes cast for Ballot Measure 26-11 is greater
than the number of affirmative votes cast for this measure. In such event, this
measure shall not become effective.
Section 3
(a) Subsection 4(b) of Section 5 of the Metro Charter of this Measure is repealed on
June 30, 2015 unless at the general election held in 2014, a majority of the
electors voting on the question of whether or not to retain Subsection 4(b) of
Section 5 of the Metro Charter as part of the Metro Charter vote to retain the
subsection. If the electors vote to retain the subsection, Subsection 4(b) of
Section 5 of the Metro Charter of this measure shall remain in effect. If a
majority of the electors do not vote to retain Subsection 4(b) of Section 5 of the
Metro Charter of this measure, then that subsection is repealed on June 30, 2015.
(b) By appropriate action of the Metro Council, the question described in subsection
(a) of this section shall be submitted to the people for their decision at the general
election held in 2014.
(c) This section is repealed on January 1, 2016.
Exhibit A - Resolution No. 02-3163
Amendment To The Metro Charter
iAR-Ok2002•r-602.3163.009
OGGRPBAm (02114/02) '
2. That the measure should be placed on the ballot for the Primary Election to be
held on May 21, 2002;
3. That the district shall cause a Notice of Measure Election and Ballot Title as set
forth in Exhibit "B" to be submitted to the Elections Officer and the Secretary of
State of Oregon in a timely manner as required by law; and qo
4. That the Executive Officer, pursuant to Oregon Law and Metro Code
Chapter 9.02, shall transmit this measure, ballot title and explanatory statement to
the Multnomah County Elections Officer for inclusion in any county voters'
pamphlets published for the election on this measure.
ADOPTED by the Metro Council this day of 2002.
Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel B. Cooper, General Counsel
Page 2 Resolution No. 02-3163
MR-0\2002-r-602-3163.009
GGC/RPB/kc (02/14/02)
. Y
EXHIBIT B
BALLOT TITLE
CAPTION: AMENDS METRO CHARTER: PROTECTS NEIGHBORHOODS'
LIVABILITY; REQUIRES BOUNDARY AMENDMENT REPORT
QUESTION: Shall Metro Charter: protect neighborhoods' livability; prohibit Metro density
increase in single-family neighborhoods; require report on proposed boundary
amendments' effects?
SUMMARY: Amends Metro Charter's regional planning provisions to protect livability of
existing neighborhoods. Prohibits Metro from requiring density increase in
identified single-family neighborhoods. Requires report on effects of certain
proposed -growth boundary amendments on existing residential neighborhoods,
including impacts on traffic and parks. Requires report be provided to households
within one mile of proposed growth boundary amendment and to all cities and
counties within Metro. Measure becomes effective instead of Ballot Measure 26-
11 if it obtains more affirmative votes. Requires revote in 2014 to remain
effective.
Exhibit B Resolution No. 02-3163
Notice of Measure Election
OR-0\2002-ro\02.1161.009
OGGRPB/kvw (02/14102)
FEB.26.2002 3:58PM ODOPNVELL AM CLANG M.231 P.1
®'DONNELL CLARK LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PHONB: 503.306.0224 1706 NW GUP&n Street, Suite 6
)PAX: 503.306.0257 Portland, Oregon 97209
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY
FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW, IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE
HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY
TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.
THANK YOU.
DATE: February 26, 2002
TO: The Honorable James Grlffitltt Mayor, City of Tigard
FAIT NO.: 503-6847297 PHONE NO.: 503-639-4171
FROM: Ross Day
DOCUMENT:
COhEVMNTS:
PAGES TO FOLLOW: 5 (EXCLUDING COVER SHEET)
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLBA,SE CALL THs UNDmSIGNm AT (503) 306-0224 PauDIAmm 'Y'uANK YOU.
SIGNED: Jennifer Andarsou - Legal Assistaut
R ORIGINAL tS BUNG MAR m ~ ORIOWAL IS AVAII BLE UPON 1t UEST
FEB.26.2002 3:58PM ODONNELL AND CLARK NO.231 P.2
O'DONNILL..., (LARK L L P
ATIOARLYS Ar IAw
marl(P. O'Donnell Ross A. Day*
eniall: ►narkoC,)oande,cam email; rossclOwindc.com
Matthew D. Lowe*
Kelly Clark email; M'dulLlosu►dc.com
eiuuil: kellyc(Poaildc,co►ti Kristian S. Ro6gandorf
Llmuil: hr@owidemin
February 26, 2002
Via F4esimile and U.S. Mail
The Honorable James Griffith
Mayor, City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Proposed Amendments to the Washington Square Regional Center
Dear Mr, Mayor:
Our firm represents Mr. Bill Adams. This letter is in regards to the above referenced property. We ask
that this letter be included in the public record for Washington Square Regional Plan Amendments. For
the reasons outlined in my February 20, 2002 letter, I respectfully request the record be opened and this
letter be included as part of the record. T attach a copy of my February 20, 2002 correspondence for your
reference.
The subject property has been owned by Besley Properties for approximately 8 years. The property has
always been zoned Neighborhood Commercial. The expectations of the owners of the subject property
were that they would be allowed someday to develop the property in such a way as to maximize retail
and office development in tll-, area, To that end, Mr, Bill Adams, the principal of Besley Properties, has
met on numerous occasions with the City of Tigard Planning staff to discuss potential commercial
development options. On at least two occasions, representatives from Besley Properties have engaged in
pre-application conferences with City of Tigard staff for the purpose of commercial development of the
subject property.
The Washington Square Regional Center Planned Amendment will down-zone the subject property from
Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use Residential - 2 (MUR - 2). The City has taken contradictory
positions with respect to the effects the new zoning designation will have upon the subject property.
First, in a letter dated December 28, 2001 from Ms. Hajduk, the City of Tigard implied, if not out
outright stated, the new zoning designation would have no effect whatsoever on our client's long
standing commercial development plans for the subject property. Then, mach to our client's surprise, on
February 7, 2002, in another letter from Ms. Hajdulc, she offered a new interpretation of the effects the
MUR - 2 zone would have upon my client's property; Specifically, Ms. Hajduk now interprets the effect
MUR - 2 zone will have on the subject property to effectively prohibit any commercial development on
the subject property, Our client was only notified of the change in interpretation after the period for
public comment on the measure before the City Council was closed,
1111catc; 503.306.0224 Fax: 503.306.0257
www unndc. cmn
1706 NW Glitian 5►reet, Ulu 0, Porilwid, Oregon 97209
FEB.26.2002 3:58PM ODONNELL AND CLARK NO.231 P.3
w
O'DGNNELL&CLARKLLP
The Honorable James Griffith
February 26, 2002
Page 2
For the reasons discussed below, we respectfully request the City Council reconsider its' decision
regarding the Washington Square Regional Center Plan.
The Washington Square Regional Task Force recommended Center Plan, dated September, 1999 (herein
"Task Force Plan") identified a number of objectives the WRSC Plan Amendments sought to achieve.
These objectives have been adopted in the text of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Among to the
objectives identified by the Task Force Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Amendments applicable the
subject property are: (1) identify market forces and development patterns in an area before determining
zoning designation; (2) retain and develop quality housing including affordable for all income levels in
the WRSC; (3) the Regional Center plan should encourage compatible and complementary uses; (4)
allow existing uses to remain as they were; and (5) to provide for residences and jobs. Down-zoning the
subject property achieves none of the Task Force's objectives.
First, the subject property has always been zoned Neighborhood Commercial. This, of course, allows for
commercial, retail and office development. To that end, the surrounding parcels along Hall Boulevard
have been developed primarily for commercial uses. Zoning the subject property such that only
residential development will be permitted is not consistent with the pattern of development in the
immediate area. Further, the new zoning either restricts or outright prohibits commercial uses on the
subject parcel - forcing a use which is incompatible with the surrounding properties. Finally, with
respect to the quality housing objective contained in the Task Force Plan, the subject parcel is roughly
one acre in size, and not able to provide quality housing while conforming to the myriad of design
review criteria contained in the City of Tigard's Development Code, making it next to impossible to
meet the objective of providing quality affordable housing.
For these reasons, my client objects to the adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan
Amendment as proposed to the Tigard City Council, We respectfully request the City Council
reconsider the dawn-zoning of properties such as the above referenced property, and develop a more
flexible development zone for parcels in transition areas, compatible with the identified objectives
within the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
xOss Day
FED.26.2002 3:59PM ODONNELL AND CLARK NO.231 P.4
r
O' DONNE LL&CLARKLLP
The Honorable James Griffith
Februwy 26, 2002
Page 3
RD/j a
cc; Bill Adaras
Gary Firestone, Esq.
Brian 1. Moore, Councilor
Ken Saheckla, Councilor
Craig Dirksen, Councilor
Joyce Patton, Councilor
James Hendryx, Community Development Director
Richard Bewersdorff, Planning Manager
Mr. Kelly Clark, Esq.
FEB.26.2002 3:59PM ODONNELL AND CLARK NO.231 P.5
0'D 0 N N E L L C L A R K L L P
AtIOIR r+ Al LAW
Mark R O'Donnell Ross A. Day*
entail: niarko@uaadc.c= efimil: rossdaftiodc.com
Mattliew 1). Lowe*
Kelly Clark emull: ma1114on1)d0•c0m
email; kellycOoandcxom Kristkw S. Roggendorf
entail: ksr&Poandc.com
February 20, 2002
Via Facsimile an.d llfall
The Honorable James Griffith
Mayor, City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Proposed Amendments to the Washington Square Regional Center
Mr. Mayor:
We represent Mr. Bill Adams, who owns property at the corner of SW Hall ]Blvd. and Locust Rd.
(lot 1, block 37, Metzger AC) which is located within the limits of the City of Tigard, Mr.
Adams' property is currently within the Washington Square Regional Center and is negatively
affected by the proposed zoning changes which the City of Tigard is scheduled to hear later this
month. The purpose of this letter is to request the City re-open the record regarding the proposed
zone change amendments contained within the Washington Square Regional Center for the
reasons discussed below.
Mr. Adams' property ("the Property'), as described above, is subject to be "down-zoned" by the
proposed amendments to the Washington Square Regional Center. This is a new revelation to
Mr. Adams. On or about December 17, 2001 Mr. Adams contacted Ms. Julia Hajduk, an
Associate Planner with the City of Tigard, The purpose of his correspondence was to determine
what effect, if any, the proposed amendments would have on Mr. Adams' property. In a letter
dated December 28, 2001, the City of Tigard notified Mr. Adams that the proposed amendments
would not affect his ability to develop a commercial use upon his property. In reliance on the
representations made by the City of Tigard, contained in its December 28, 2001, Mr. Adams did
not see the need to testify, or provide written comment, to the City in opposition to the proposed
amendments which you are now considering, Attached as Exhibit 1 to this letter is a copy of the
City of Tigard's December 28, 2001 letter.
The City of Tigard closed the record on this matter on January 29, 2002. Thereafter, on February
7, 2002 the City of Tigard notified Mr. Adamsthat the earlier correspondence, containing
representations to Mr, Adams that the proposed zoning amendments would not affect his
property were incorrect.
NItmv; 543-306-4224 Nix: 503-306-4257 vwW.uuntlc,conl
1706 NW Glism Street, Sulu 6, Nonlimid, Oregon 97209
FEB.26.2002 3:99PM ODONNELL AND CLARK N0.231 P.6
O`DONNELL & CLARK LLP
The Honorable Jaynes Griffith
February 20, 2002
Page 2
Of course, the City of Tigard waited until after the record had been closed before notifying Mr,
Adams of its error. By this time, Mr. Adams lost his chance to make comments on the record in
opposition to the proposed amendments. I attach as Exhibit 2, a copy of the February 7, 2002
correspondence from the City of Tigard, While Ms. Hajduk apologized for the obvious
inconvenience the down-zoning will have to the value to Mr, Adams' property, her apology does
not resolve the fact that, based upon his justifiable reliance on the representations made by the
City of Tigard, he no longer has any redress should he seek to appeal the City's adoption of the
proposed amendments to the Washington Square Regional Center.
The actions of the City of Tigard raise several concerns for my client. Although I do not include
the citation to the relevant authorities, I do suggest that the actions of the City of Tigard raise
claims for my client based on estoppel, violations of due process, equal protection, in addition to
a potential takings claim against the City of Tigard. In the meantime, the simplest resolution is to
re-open the record and allow Mr. Adams to submit comments in opposition to the plan. Please
contact me by the close of business, Friday, February 22, 2002 to let me know if the City intends
to re-open the record for the purpose stated above.
I await your response.
Very truly yours,
Ross Day
I2D/sa
cc: Bill Adanzs
Councilor Brian Moore
Councilor Ken Scheckla
Councilor Craig Dirksen
Councilor Joyce Patton
James Hendryx, Community Development Director
Richard Bewersdorff, Planning Manager
Mr. Xelly Clark, Esq.
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Tigard City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
DATE: February 26, 2002
SUBJECT: Findings on Statewide Planning Goals
In the February 21, 2002 memo to Council and in the staff report, staff explained that the only
applicable Statewide Land Use Goals were #1, #2, #5 and #12. Staff stated that the
remaining Goals were not applicable to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development
Code amendments but did not provide specific individual findings as to why. Since the staff
report was prepared, various comments were made relating to additional goals. The City
Attorney has advised staff to prepare findings relating to all Statewide Planning Goals for
Council adoption. Attached (Attachment 1) is analysis of all of the Statewide Planning Goals
with individual findings of applicability. It is anticipated that these findings will be adopted as
a supplement to the findings in the staff report. Also attached (Attachment 2) is a revised
Ordinance which includes language adopting the supplemental findings in addition to the
findings in the staff report.
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Tigard City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
DATE: February 12, 2002
SUBJECT: Preview of memo responding to issues raised at January 22, 2002 Public
Hearing and additional written comments.
In order to provide Council with ample time to review the public testimony and staff response,
attached is a copy of a memo that provides a summary of and response to the issues raised
on the Washington Square Regional Center hearing. Also included is a copy of the letters
received after the close of the hearing on 1-22 during the 7 day open record period. Both of
these attachments will be included in the City Council packet for the February 26, 2002 City
Council meeting.
For the purpose of answering the diverse range of questions, some of which were repeated,
questions were grouped by category and answered separately. For instance, notification was
raised by several people. My memo to Council includes the heading of "notice", with detailed
response following. It was not my intent to answer each person's question separately, but to
group like questions and answers. The questions dealt with notice, statewide land use goals,
Goal 5, upzoning/maximum density, opens pace-g reen belt concept, development in wetlands
and floodplain, funding, urban renewal, boundary of the Regional Center Plan, widening of
Hall Bldg., Metro's target capacity and a response to the drainage issue raised by Dr. Davis
at the City Council hearing.
I:lrpln/julia/cpa/washington sq/CC adoption wash sq cover memo.doc
2-12-02
I
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Tigard City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director X4144
DATE: February 1, 2002
SUBJECT: Response to issues raised at January 22, 2002 Public Hearing and additional
written comments.
At the public hearing on January 22, 2002, several issues were raised which will be
addressed in this memo. In general, the issues raised are not new and have been addressed
previously. Attached to this memo is a copy of the minutes from the February 8, 2000 City
Council meeting (Exhibit A) and a February 1, 2000 memo from the Planning Division (Exhibit
B) in which many of these same issues were addressed. The issue before Council, at this
time, is whether the already adopted Washington Square Regional Center Plan and Code
amendments should be implemented and whether to amend portions of: Development Code
sections 18.360, 18.370, 18.520, 18.630, 18.760 and portions of Comprehensive Plan 1.1.1,
11.9 (previously numbered 11.8), 8.1.9 and 12.5.2. to reflect the Task Force
recommendations from the Phase 11 implementation plan.
The following is a summary and response to the issues raised at the January 22, 2002 City
Council meeting and written comments received during the 7 day open record period after the
close of the public hearing.
1. Notice
The issue of inadequate notice was raised on several occasions both in the oral testimony
and written comments received. The following details the extensive notice that has been
provided for this project:
Washington Square Regional Center Plan Adoption Phase (Phase 1)
• Public events - September 1998
Notice was mailed to more than 2000 residents by direct mail, two articles were printed in
the Oregonian and the Tigard Times and notice was also announced at the Tigard Citizen
Involvement Team (CIT) meeting and in the Metzger CPO 4M newsletter.
Pagel of 5
• Adoption public hearings - 2000
One notice for 4 dates was provided to residents inside and within 500 feet of the regional
center (this included property owners in the subdivision north of the golf course). The
notice was mailed on October 22, 1999 for the following hearing dates: Planning
Commission, November 15, 1999; City Council presentation, December 14, 1999; City
Council Public Testimony, January 25, 2000; and City Council deliberation, February 8,
2000. In addition, notice was published in the Tigard Times and there were numerous
articles in the Tigard Times prior to the City Council hearings.
Washington Square Regional Center Plan~mplementation Plan Phase (Phase II)
• Public events for implementation phase - 2001
Public events were held in April and June at Metzger Park Hall. Notices were distributed
to all CIT representatives, Washington Square Implementation Task Force members,
Technical Advisory Subcommittee members, and everyone who had testified at previous
hearings or indicated that they wished to receive notification during the adoption process.
Press releases were sent to the Tigard Times, The Oregonian and the Regal Courier.
Notices were posted in City Hall and the Library and were made available to Task Force
members who distributed approximately 100 flyers. Notice was posted on the City
website.
• Public hearings for implementation phase - 2001
One notice for both the Planning Commission and City Council hearing was mailed to all
property owners within the Regional Center boundary and within 500 feet. Notice was
published in the Tigard Times.
In summary, every attempt was made to provide notice to all affected property owners and
the City has exceeded all state and local notification requirements.
2. - Statewide Land Use Goals
The original staff report addressed all applicable goals and the Regional Center Plan and
Comprehensive Plan amendments were acknowledged by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) whose role it is to review plans for compliance with
Statewide Land Use Goals. The original staff report is not part of the issue for consideration
by the City Council. Because findings were already approved and adopted for the
Washington Square Regional Center Plan and original Development Code and
Comprehensive Plan amendments, it is not necessary to provide additional findings. Based
on the comments raised at the Planning Commission hearing, staff expanded upon the
findings originally provided for Goal #6, Goal #7 and Goal #11 in the memo to Council located
in the 1/22 City Council packet.
The only amendments proposed and under consideration at this time provide additional
flexibility for developments adjacent to natural resource areas in order to ensure that density
and design standards do not conflict with regulations to protect the natural resource areas, to
reflect the implementation plan findings and to re-format the Development Code. The
applicable Statewide goals for the amendments under consideration at this time are: 1, 2, 5,
and 12. These goals are addressed in Attachment 2, Exhibit C of this council packet. Notice
was sent to DLCD regarding the proposed Development Code and Comprehensive Plan
amendments and they have no objections to the compliance with the Statewide Land Use
Goals.
Page 2 of 5
3. Goal 5/Metro update
A question was raised regarding how Goal 5 would apply to the Regional Center. This
question was in reference to current work being done by Metro. Standards are currently in
place which protect the natural resource areas. As new and more detailed standards are
adopted by the State and Metro to implement Goal 5, Tigard will continue to comply and/or
make necessary adjustments to the Development Code to incorporate the adopted
standards. Any new development will have to demonstrate compliance with the Metro Goal 5
protection measures.
4. Upaoning/Maximum Density
With the development of the Washington Square Regional Center, the City of Tigard will meet
its target capacity requirements. The residential density will be increased in some areas from
R-4.5 to densities of 25 to 50 units per acre (most of the residential zones remain the same
as the current zoning). Higher densities were assigned in the Tigard portion of the
Washington Square Regional Center area in order to capture some of the County's capacity
targets and maintain much of the existing residential neighborhoods, such as the Metzger
area, at the density they are today.
The following zoning densities do not have maximum densities defined as a number of units
per acre: MUC, MUE-1 and MUR -1. The maximum density in these zones is defined by
natural constraints and by development standards. The natural constraints of the site size,
shape, location, access and geographic features affect the maximum residential and
commercial density a site can achieve. The development standards, including site coverage
(must maintain a certain percentage of openspace/landscaping), setbacks, parking
requirements and building heights, ultimately limit the density of a development.
A majority of the Regional Center area has a zoning designation with specified limits on
maximum density. These zoning district are: R-4.5, R-5, R-7, R-12, MUE-2, MUR-2 and
Institutional. In addition, there are very few areas where a low density residential site is
adjacent to a zone that does not provide a maximum density. The attached draft map
(Exhibit C) shows the parcels with one of the zones that has no specified maximum density
adjacent to a low density residential zone. Within this group of sites, many of the lots are
already developed with businesses or multi-family structures such as the Lincoln Center.
5. Open space - Greenbelt concepts
The Greenbelt exists today as an incomplete green space around the Regional Center.
Fanno and Ash Creeks form a natural greenbelt around the west, south, and eastern edges
of the Regional Center study area. The greenbelt concept includes connections from the
existing Fanno Creek greenway trail to the Regional Center and to other parks and trails;
development of the Ash Creek linear park, establishing connections along Ash Creek and to
the Fanno Creek trail system and Hwy. 217 crossing; a connection over Hwy. 217 between
the Fanno Creek greenway to Whitford School and the Red Tail Golf Course; connections
through or around the golf course; and sidewalk widening and improvements along Hall Blvd.
to Metzger Park. A continuous Greenbelt trail system will provide access and links to
residential, employment and commercial districts and provide pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity between destinations in the area. A Greenbelt trail system will also balance
increased densities with opportunities for recreation, as well as preservation of open space
Page 3 of 5
and natural resources. The greenbelt concept will be developed further in master plans that
are part of a long term implementation program.
6. Development adjacent to wetlands and floodplain
Several people indicated that the Plan would allow for high density development in the
wetland or floodplain. This is not correct. The City, in compliance with Goal 7 and Goal 5
has regulations which restrict development in floodplains and wetlands. Any development in
the floodplain must demonstrate that it will result in no increase in the water surface elevation
of the 100 year flood and obtain approvals from the Division of State Lands and US Army
Corps of Engineers. Development within wetlands must be permitted by the agencies listed
above and Clean Water Services. The standards in place which regulate run off, setbacks,
and protections of Sensitive Lands are adequate to protect the existing stream and wetlands
from any additional degradation. In addition, any required mitigation would act to increase
the value of the wetlands and floodplains by following the guidelines and requirements of the
regulatory agencies. The existing regulations may change in the future in response to
regional, state or federal requirements to provide greater protection of the natural resource
areas. It should be stressed that the overall density anticipated does not include
development of the floodplain or wetland areas.
7. Funding
Several people raised the issue that funding was not in place to pay for needed
improvements identified in the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. It should be
emphasized that the improvements identified in the Plan are needed based on existing traffic
congestion and existing development potential regardless of whether or not the zoning
changes and the Plan are implemented. By having the Plan adopted and implemented, it
provides a framework from which to seek funding for the improvements that are needed.
The Implementation Plan identifies a funding strategy that shows how the needed funding
could be obtained. This is a strategy for assisting the City in obtaining funding, however, it is
not the only way in which funds may be obtained. The City, in coordination with other
jurisdictions is continuing to work towards a financing program as part of a long term
implementation program.
8. Urban Renewal
There was a question about what mechanisms could be used to establish an urban renewal
agency incorporating the Washington Square Area and whether a vote would be required.
The City Charter, Section 45, requires voter approval of an urban renewal authority. The City
Attorney's office provided a memo dated August 8, 2001 (Exhibit D) which looked at issues
relating to the establishment of an urban renewal agency, with particular attention to
consistency with the City's Charter provisions that require voter approval of any urban
renewal plan that involves tax increment financing or taxation outside the renewal area.
9. Boundary of the Regional Center Plan
Several people continued to raise the issue of the boundary of the Washington Square
Regional Center, wanting the boundary to be changed so as to exclude their neighborhood.
The boundary was established to provide a study area from which to base assumptions.
Washington County adopted the boundary as part of their Comprehensive Plan in 2000 as
well. Being within the Regional Center boundary does not mean that a property will be taxed
differently. The design standards apply to non-single family developments, therefore, existing
Page 4 of 5
single family homes will have no additional development regulations. The boundary was
adopted with the Regional Center Plan in March 2000. In order to change the boundary, it
would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment in the City of Tigard and Washington
County and would require a re-evaluation of the Plan if properties currently designated for
mixed use were removed from the study area.
10. Widening of Hall Boulevard
This issue has continued to be brought up throughout the planning process. Based on traffic
projections in the area, it appears that widening of Hail will be ultimately necessary in order to
accommodate the increased traffic. Hall is shown to be widened to 5 lanes in the City's
Transportation System Plan and the Regional Transportation System Plan. The Washington
Square Regional Center Task Force recommendation is to widen Hall to 3 lanes and obtain
right of way for 5 lanes in the event that widening to 5 lanes is necessary in the future. The
Task Force recommendation is that Hall be widened to 5 lanes only if necessary after all
other improvements have been completed
11. Additional issues/concerns
Tar, eq t Capacity
A concern was expressed about reports that West Linn and Lake Oswego were asking
Metro to reconsider density requirements and, if granted, would result in Tigard having to
take more than its share. Metro does have a process for reviewing exceptions the target
capacity numbers, however there have been no formal requests for an exception and
there is no indication that it would result in Tigard absorbing more than their current target
capacity.
• Dr. Davis issue
Dr. Davis raised an issue in his testimony that the City of Tigard was dumping water onto
his property. This issue is addressed in a separate memo from the City of Tigard
Engineering Department (Exhibit E).
I:lrpln/julia/cpa/washington sq/CC adoption wash sq memo2.doc
2-12-02
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit A
Council President Moore reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
5. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FROM JANUARY 25, 2000 -
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER - CPA 1999-00002/ZON 1999-
00001/ZOA 1999-00004 WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CEN'T'ER
REQUEST: A request for approval of a legislative Comprehensive Plan map and
development code language, rezone, and' text amendments to the Tigard
Development Code within the area designated as the Washington Square
regional Center. Specifically, the request includes re-designation from Low
Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential, Medium-High Density
Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Commercial
Professional, and Industrial Professional to the new designation of Mixed Use
Commercial, Mixed Use Employment-1, Mixed Use Employment-2, Mixed
Use Residential-1, Mixed Use Residential-2, and to the existing R-12 zone.
The findings of this plan will be forwarded to Beaverton City Council,
Washington County Commissioners, and Portland City Council for their
approval.
LOCATION: Generally, south and west of Hall Boulevard; north of Highway 217; the
Nimbus Business Park area between Schools Ferry Road and SW North
Dakota; Cascade retail center south of Schools Ferry Road and north of
Greenburg Road.
ZONE: CG (General Commercial), CP (Commercial Professional), CN
(Neighborhood Commercial), IP (Industrial Professional); R-4.5 (Low-
Density Residential), R-12 (Medium-Density Residential, R-25 (Medium
High-Density Residential), R-40 (Medium High Density Residential).
APPLICABLE Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12;
REVIEW Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.6, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1,
CRITERIA: 9.1.3, 12.1.1, and 12.2.2, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.22
and 18.32, Metro Functional Plan.
a. Council President Moore reconvened the public hearing.
b. Public Testimony Portion was closed on January 25,2000; written testimony closed
February 1, 2000 - -
Council President Moore noted that the Council did received additional written testimony in its
packet.
Mr. Ramis reviewed the hearing procedures for the evening. He informed the Council that he
cautioned staff to stick to the evidence in the record when responding to Council questions. He
asked the Council to do the same in framing its questions. He listed the options available to Council
during its deliberations: adoption as proposed, denial, modification of the proposal or tabling the
proposal indefinitely or for a specific time. He suggested, if the Council chose to modify the
proposal, that the Councilors state what their modifications were and allow staff to return with a
draft of those modifications.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 12
Mr. Ramis mentioned the opportunity to adopt the proposal and to delay the implementation to a
specified date or until certain tasks were accomplished. He said that this option was similar to the
Planning Commission's recommendation of "endorsement followed by implementation steps." He
pointed out that the City did not have a legal tool called "endorsement" but the Council could delay
the implementation of an adopted plan to a date certain or indefinitely.
c. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Hendryx recalled that staff made its overall presentation on December 15 followed by a public v
hearing on January 25 to hear public testimony and receive written comments. He noted that the
Council closed the oral testimony on January 25 but held the record open until February 1 to receive
written testimony. He stated that the public testimony comments that staff intended to rebut tonight
fell into three areas: the public involvement process, environmental issues, and implementation and
infrastructure issues.
o Elaine Cogan, Cogan Owens and Cogan, addressing.the public involvement process
Ms. Cogan mentioned her 25 years of experience in a consulting firm that specialized in designing
and facilitating processes. She stated that she has rarely seen a public involvement process so
inclusive. She discussed the 25-member Citizen Task Force appointed by Council at the beginning
of the process, noting the careful selection of representative interests and the allocation of three
representatives to.the Metzger area. She indicated that all Task Force members (except one Metzger
representative) recommended adoption of the report.
Ms. Cogan discussed the public involvement at the 18 Task Force meetings (from June 1998 to
August 1999), the four public events, and the questionnaires. She emphasized that the Washington
Square event allowed them to reach people who would not attend a meeting or fill out a
questionnaire. She stated that the Task Force listened carefully to all citizen input, weighing that
input along with the information provided by the consultants.
Ms. Cogan described the Task Force process of developing a plan based upon the guiding principles
that the members agreed upon at the start of the process. She emphasized that this was a citizen-
driven and citizen-derived plan, thoroughly discussed and reviewed by the Citizen Task Force. She
stated that the recommendation was a balance between the wishes and•the wants of a responsible
group of people who worked long and hard to deal with the issues of land use, aesthetics,
transportation and environment.
Councilor Patton noted the comment heard several times by the Council that the public events were
inadequate for the purpose of making this kind of recommendation. She asked for Ms. Cogan's
opinion on whether a more formal process (as opposed to the informal process used) would have
made a difference in the decision-making process. Ms. Cogan explained that the more formal
events, such as a City Council meeting, provided those who were well-organized and good public
speakers a better forum for stating their opinions than it did the average citizen. She said that the
informal process they used provided the average citizens with many opportunities to present their
viewpoint without the expectation of having to be a polished speaker.
III
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000- Page 13
Ms. Cogan said that, in her experience, the informal process garnered more breadth and depth of
information than the formal process did because of the number of opportunities-to present input and
the lack of intimidation. She cited the Washington Square public event as an example of the .
informal process bringing in people who normally would have said nothing. She stated that, while
she understood the criticism of the informal process, she thought that they needed to use the
informal process when they really wanted to hear from the people.
Nadine Smith, Long Range Planning Manager, addressing the environmental issues
Ms. Smith stated that the Task Force recommendation did not propose any development in any
wetlands or required wetlands buffers. She said that staff did not count wetlands and undevelopable
sensitive areas in its distribution of housing and jobs in the area, as required by Metro. She noted
that any development proposed for the area would have to go through the same rigorous review
process that any development in sensitive areas in the City of Tigard (or the region) would have to
go through to meet the applicable federal, state and local regulations.
Ms. Smith said that staff would incorporate any changes made to federal and state regulations into
Tigard's regulations. She noted the recent adoption of Title 3 by USA. into their design and
construction standards. She said that the City now had to apply those standards to development in
the city.
Mr. Hendryx confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that those standards went into effect countywide on
Friday, February 4, 2000.
Councilor Scheckla mentioned his concern with the requirement that Tigard use Metro's jobs and
housing numbers. Mr. Ramis confirmed that Metro was powerful enough to require Tigard to use
those numbers or face losing access to transportation dollars. Councilor Scheckla commented that
he did not think that Tigard received much transportation funding from Metro.
Councilor Patton noted comments made that the Task Force ended up with more density than
required by Metro. She asked for clarification from staff. Ms. Smith explained that Washington
County had identified rezoning a portion of the Metzger neighborhood to high density residential as
one way to meet the number of housing units Metro assigned to the County. She said that staff
asked the Task Force to look at adding 200 plus units to the density of the Washington Square
Regional Center area (given the vacant land and redevelopment ability available) so that the County
would not have to rezone a portion of single-family residential Metzger to-high density residential.
Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner, clarified that the County's plan to accommodate the Metro
numbers allocated 660 units as the Regional Center's share.
Councilor Patton mentioned the comments made with respect to development resulting from the
upzoning of wetland and sensitive areas. She asked for staff clarification on the Plan
recommendation to upzone those areas when staff said that those areas would not be developed.
Ms. Smith explained that the upzoning was part of the mixed-use zoning concept intended to build
up with a smaller footprint than out with a larger footprint over more land area.
Ms. Smith said that the mixed-use concept also looked at developing the area as a single
development rather as a series of single-family lots. She indicated that one property owner could do
more to restore the degraded wetlands in the area than having a series of single-family lots adjacent
to a wetland.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000- Page 14
Councilor Patton asked why the Plan slated those areas for upzoning when the concern was to
preserve those sensitive areas from development. She commented that upzoning appeared to create
an incentive for development.
John Spencer, Planner, explained that the City of Tigard zoned all land for residential, commercial
or industrial uses: The City placed other layers of zoning (called overlay zones) on top of the base
zone to create environmental and other protection zones. He confirmed that these sensitive areas
would have a new base zone but he emphasized that the environmental protection overlay zones still
prevailed with respect to development. He indicated that development would focus on the upzoned
uplands property.
Mr. Spencer said that upzoning would stimulate new development activity. He said that staff saw
that as a positive thing because a major redevelopment could bring more resources for
environmental enhancement and wetland improvement than single-family lots with backyards
abutting a wetland could. He pointed out that if growth did not go in the upzoned areas, then it
would probably go somewhere else at lower densities than proposed by the Plan. Lower densities
used more land, created impervious surface, and had more potential environmental impacts than
concentrating density in a smaller area did..
Councilor Patton asked staff to address the issue of variances to the environmental rules allowing
wetlands mitigation in other locations. Mr. Spence: conceded that wetlands mitigation in other
locations was possible. He explained that the wetlands mitigation process was a function of how the
City wanted to implement its own ordinances. He indicated that it was a federal process with
environmental protection regulations imposed on all jurisdictions in the region. He commented that
these regulations already closed some of the "loopholes" mentioned in the testimony tonight.
Mr. Ramis confirmed to Councilor Patton that the Council choosing to adopt-but not to implement
the plan immediately afforded the Council the opportunity to study the implications of the new
regulations and how to implement them with respect to the City's regulations. He said that adopting
but not implementing left the current regulations in place.
Councilor Hunt asked if Council could set a final implementation date, given that the environmental
regulations changed continually. Mr. Ramis agreed that the regulations were a moving target. He
said that Council could set an outside date for implementation or for staff to return with a completed
proposal for Council consideration.
Councilor Scheckla asked why Tigard did not ask for more time to fine-tune its plan before
adoption, as other Washington County jurisdictions did. Ms. Smith indicated that she did not think
that they needed more time to deal with Metro, as they were ready to explain how they could
accommodate the numbers. Councilor Scheckla stated that he thought that they did need more time.
Ms. Smith confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that staff recommended taking out Policy 11.8.3.
Councilor Scheckla questioned the Plan's recommendation to upzone wetlands areas in residential
areas, given that the 2040 Plan no longer required that. Mr. Hendryx explained that when Metro
looked at the capacity within the Urban Growth Boundary, it deducted out the areas with wetlands
and resources areas from their inventory of vacant land. Councilor Scheckla mentioned his concern
that people in the upzoned residential area would sell out and move.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 15
Council President Moore explained that staff s recommendation was to adopt but not implement the
plan in order to gain sufficient time to answer the types of questions raised by Councilor Scheckla
and to deal with issues on an individual basis. He emphasized that adoption without
implementation changed nothing in the City's development regulations and process.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the process would continue to allow public input. Mr. Ramis assured
the Councilor that staff could craft the ordinance to state clearly that the existing regulations
remained in effect, not the new ones, and to itemize which specific issues Council wanted
addressed. He confirmed that staff would continue to receive public input.
Mr. Hendryx stated that he took exception to the statement that the City's Safe Harbor regulations
contained loopholes. He referenced the-extensive process staff went through to develop the City's
environmental protection regulations, acknowledged by the State and other agencies as meeting the
standard. He argued that staff built flexibility, not loopholes, into the Safe Harbor regulations at the
Council's request as recognition of the unique circumstances in Tigard.
Mr. Hendryx addressed the issue of implementation. He mentioned the staff recommendations to
develop a storm water drainage plan, to refine the open space opportunities, and to develop
strategies and a financial plan for public improvements. He commented that staff needed an
adopted plan in order to develop the strategies or they were shooting at a moving target.
Mr. Hendryx discussed his regret that the issue of the $80,000 grant came up because it put the
Council in an awkward position. He said that the Council should not consider the grant in making
its decision with respect to the Plan, as it was a separate issue that staff would deal with at the
appropriate time.
Mr. Hendryx discussed the staff solution outlined in the February4, 2000, memo. He recommended
adoption of the Plan and amendments with implementation delayed until staff presented a strategy
addressing four components: developing a recommendation for storm water drainage, refining
recommendations for open space development, preparing a strategy on a financial plan for public
improvements, and leaving the interim existing land use regulations in effect.
Mr. Ramis reiterated that staff could craft the ordinance to require the public involvement wanted by
Council, to clarify that the existing regulations remained in effect, and to clarify that staff would not
implement the adopted plan until the Council satisfied itself with respect to the implementation
process. -
Councilor Patton observed that many adopted plans were never implemented. She asked what the
term "public improvements" encompassed. Mr. Hendryx explained that staff intended "public
improvements" to include all the public facility and infrastructure needs in the area, including
transportation.
Councilor Patton noted that the Plan recommended parks out did not identify any particular parks.
Mr. Hendryx pointed out that the plan could not designate properties as parks without raising legal
issues. He said that staff needed to identify the acreage and type of lands needed, and then to
develop a financial plan to acquire the land. He mentioned dedication of land from developers as a
possible tool.
Mr. Hendryx spoke to the issue of public process. He emphasized that staff would continue to
converse with the public throughout this process. He indicated that staff could revisit the public
involvement process or consider a different type of process at Council's direction.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 16
Councilor Hunt asked for a comparison of this process with the Tigard Triangle process. Mr.
Hendryx indicated that the Triangle process was more of a focus public involvement process as
opposed to the broadscale nature and issues of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. Ms.
Nicholson cited the difficulties that staff ran into during the implementation of the Triangle Plan (as
developments came through the process) as a reason why staff wanted to iron out the issues in the
Washington Square Plan before implementing it.
Councilor Scheckla observed that a plan without maintenance would eventually fail apart.
d. Council Deliberation
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt the Washington Square
Regional Center Plan, including the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Councilor Patton thanked the Task Force for their excellent work in tackling a difficult issue. She
characterized the Plan as providing the City with a foundation to start from in addressing the issues
raised by the citizens this evening. She commented that she would not have supported adoption
with immediate implementation but she could support the staff recommendation to -adopt the'Plan as
the first step and to develop more detailed and focused implementation strategies as the second step.
Council President Moore pointed out that this area would develop with or without a plan. He spoke
to the importance of having a plan that protected the area from poor development, as has occurred in
other areas of the city developed without a plan. He supported the Plan and the amendments with
adoption without immediate implementation as a solution to their dilemma.
Motion was approved by majority voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore,
Councilors Hunt and Patton voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla voted* "no.") [3-1]-
6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
Council President Moore mentioned the Transportation Bond Measure Open House tomorrow night
at Fowler Middle School at 7:30 p.m.
7. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None.
9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:22 p.m.
he
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recor er
Mayor-, Gity~4 Brian J. Moore, Council President
Bate: 3//
1 AAD W CATHYACCM%000208. D DC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 17
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Division _
RE: Washington Square Regional Center Issues
DATE: February 1, 2000
As indicated at the January 25' City Council meeting, staff will respond to questions
that had arisen during this meeting. We will also provide further information on general
issues that have been brought up throughout the public hearing process as part of our
rebuttal at the beginning of the hearing on February 81.
Enclosed with this memo is additional information from Brenda Bernards, a staff planner
with Metro to answer questions of Metro and from Lidwien Rahman, TGM Grant
Manager with the Oregon Department of Transportation regarding the proposed
implementation grant.
Jere Retzer of the Tualatin Riverkeepers in his testimony indicated that "holes" existed
in the Tigard Development Code (TDC) as it relates to water resources. Standards for
protecting wetlands are applied throughout the City and our Safe Harbor standards
were accepted by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Water
resource protection standards in the TDC were adopted to comply with Safe Harbor
standards. What Mr. Retzer characterizes as "holes" were intended to provide flexibility
in development standards while protecting wetlands by providing for variances when
the appropriate criteria can be met. These standards will be applied throughout the
city.
Additionally as of January 31, 2000, Title 3 water resource protection standards and,
through USA's design and construction standards are now in effect.
On several occasions, members of the public mentioned the Beaverton Round project
which is a public/private project funded by both developers and the City of Beaverton.
There is no proposal for the City of Tigard to be directly involved in funding
development projects in the Washington Square Regional Center. What is proposed in
the plan is to change the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the Washington
Square Regional Center area to accommodate expected future growth in the area.
Questions have been raised regarding how improvements will be implemented. As is
the case for development in Tigard, staff applies the rough proportionality standard on
development projects. Development projects are evaluated in terms of what impacts
the development will create on facilities in rough proportion to conditions that will be
placed on development. The amount of infrastructure that will be funded-by private
development will depend on the type and intensity of development that occurs.
The Transportation Growth Management Grant.(TGM) will perform planning for
transportation projects that are regional in scope. This grant, for example, will do
detaileg planning on overcrossings over Highway 217, which are part of the proposed
transportation plan for the Washington Square Regional Center. If
In response to concerns expressed by members of the pubic regarding the impact of
the plan on existing single-family neighborhoods, the Plan protects the Metzger
neighborhood. Enhancing the single-family character of the Metzger neighborhood
north of Locust Street is a major element of the Regional Center Plan. No changes to
the existing R-5 zoning are proposed, and the retention of Metzger School and play
fields is a high priority. The Task Force rejected Washington County's proposal to up-
zone this entire area to R-24, and to provide for the County's 600 unit housing
allocation in other areas of the Regional Center, primarily within the City of Tigard.
Further, the property owners support mixed-uses along Ash Creek. The Lincoln
Center-Ash Creek area south of Locust Street is proposed for mixed-use employment
and "housing areas. All of the major property owners in this area participated on the
Task Force and support this recommendation. The employment and.bousing growth
targeted for-this area assumed none of the wetlands and floodplain along Ash Creek
would be developed.
Concerns have been expressed about the lack of parks in the area. Neighborhood
parks are provided for in the plan. The plan calls for 8 acres of neighborhood parks
located in the Lincoln Center-Ash Creek area. Four additional acres of park and plazas
are planned for other areas in the Regional Center. Specific sites are not identified, but
upland areas were assumed for all park locations.
CITY. OF TIGAR D
Community D tvlopmew
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD _
TO: City Council
FROM: Nadine Smith PILD
Long Range Planning Manager
DATE: January 31, 2000
SUBJECT: Attached Memo
Attached is a memo from Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner with Metro. We requested
that she respond to some of the issues that were brought up by the public that concemed Metro
and the 2040 planning process and Metro greenspace issues.
III
I.
"loll
January 28, 2000
Prepared by: Brenda Bernards
Subject: Response to Metro-related issues raised at the January 25,
2000 Tigard City Council public hearing on the Washington
Square Regional Center
At the January 25, 2000 public hearing for the Washington Square Regional
Center, a number of Metro related issues were raised. These included the
designation of the area as a regional center, the redesignation of the Milwaukie
Regional Center to the Milwaukie Town Center, the assumptions made in the
September 1999 update to the Urban Growth Report and the acquisition by
Metro of property along Ash Creek. These issues are addressed below.
1. Designation of Washington Square as a Regional Center
Regional Centers are a key element of Metro's growth management strategy.
The 2040 Growth Concept, adopted by Metro Council in 1995, provides a
general approach to where and how to accommodate future growth. The
majority of the growth will be directed to mixed-use areas including centers and
main streets.
The centers and main streets are compact areas of housing and employment in
close proximity to transit service. This compact development in a walkabie
environment provides efficient access to goods and services and alternatives to
auto travel such as walking, bicycling and transit. The 2040 Growth Concept
provides a hierarchy of centers that are interrelated: the Central City, Regional
Centers and Town Centers.
There are seven Regional Centers on the 2040 Growth Concept Map. These
include the downtowns of Beaverton, Hillsboro, Gresham, and.Qregon City as
well as three large regional shopping areas, Clackamas Town Center, Gateway
and Washington Square. Regional centers act as major nodes along regional
transportation routes and serve hundreds of thousands of people and include
commercial, recreational, institutional, cultural, employment and residential uses.
Metro staff in consultation with local jurisdictions and citizens recommended that
the Washington Square area be designated as a regional center. This area had
i many of the characteristics of a regional center. These included the local
government zoning in place, the intensity of existing development, and its size
and location in proximity to downtown Portland, Beaverton and Hillsboro. The
possibility of commuter rail and the consideration of the area as a potential light
rail :,orridor were also consistent with its regional center designation.
The Washington Square area was included in the 2040 Growth Concept map
that was adopted by resolution by Metro Council in December 1994. The City
and County staff and planning commissions, the City Council and the County
Commissioners were aware of the regional center designation. Over the course
of 1995, many comments were received from local jurisdictions, citizens and
other interested groups that were affected by the 2040 Growth Concept. While
many changes were made to the original vision to respond to suggestions and
concerns, Metro received no requests to alter-the Washington Square regional
center designation. The 2040 Growth Concept map was adopted byordinance in
December 1995. Metro Council's decision was reached through consultation and
consensus with the citizens of the region and with its partners, the cities and
counties.
2. City of Milwaukie
Redesignation to Town Center
The City of Milwaukie was originally designated as a Regional Center on the
2040 Growth Concept. In 1999, the City requested and Metro Council granted a
change in designation from Regional Center to Town Center. Milwaukie
requested the change because it was concerned about the impact of a regional
center designation on the adjacent neighborhoods and the potential loss of the
small town feel in the downtown.
Milwaukie began the process of planning for its downtown in 1995 with the
Milwaukie Vision project. The project stated a vision for the City that included a
downtown with civic, commercial and cultural activities. The next step
undertaken was the Regional Center Master Plan--study. The purpose of this
study was to establish the framework for the city center envisioned by the
Milwaukie Vision statement. A key component of this study was to determine if
Metro's regional center designation was appropriate for the Milwaukie downtown.
Milwaukie's target capacities for housing and employment are as follows:
City of Milwaukie City Wide Targets Mixed-Use Areas
Housing 3,514 2,571
Employment 7,478 6,444
Through the regional center planning undertaken between June 1996 and
October 1997, the City was able to plan capacity in the downtown to reach 69
percent of the mixed-use housing target and 33 percent of the mixed-use
employment target in the Metro Code. The City anticipates that the proposed
town center will include all of the redevelopment opportunity sites of the regional
center and the planned capacity will remain the same. Milwaukie is able to meet
its citywide housing targets. This indicates that, while the City meets the overall
target, the housing will be distributed more widely with less focus on the
downtown and at an intensity that may be more appropriate for a town center.
Comparison of Town Centers and Regional Centers
Town Centers Regional Center
• 30 town centers ® 7 regional centers
P serve a 2-3 mile radius • provides services of a regional
• provides day to day services primarily character
can include "regional draw" activities r also provides day tg day services for
but focus is on local shopping, employees and residents in the area
employment and recreational
opportunities
emphasis on all modes of transport - focus for regional transportation system
walking, bicycling and transit use are (roads, rail - cars, buses, light rail)
considered as important as car use given priority for transportation
spending
e (all modes: cars, transit, walking,
bicycle
9 third level of the hierarchy of centers • second level of the "hierarchy" of
• serves tens of thousands of people centers - the first level is the central
i at this time, there are 29 town centers city - downtown Portland - serving the
throughout the region entire Metro region .
• generally located in areas of existing a regional centers serve hundreds of
commercial and residential thousands of people
development • limited in number
development is more concentrated 0 concentrated focus of housing and
than surrounding employment opportunities
neighborhood/employment areas
• lower density and generally smaller in
area than regional centers
3. 1997 Urban Growth Report Update - September 1999
A number of speakers at the January 25, 2000 Tigard Council meeting referred
to the update of the 1997 Urban Growth Report (UGR) to demonstrate that Metro
does not require the area around Ash Creek to be upzoned. This is an incorrect
interpretation of the Urban Growth Report.
The purpose of the Urban Growth Report is to estimate a regional capacity and
need for housing. This estimation is required by the State to ensure that there is
sufficient capacity to accommodate a 20-year housing need. The Growth Report
was completed in 1997. An update was undertaken in 1999 to refresh the data
and assumptions of the Report. Cities and Counties in the region had made
substantial progress in compliance with the requirements of the Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan; density assumptions in the Report were updated
to reflect these changes.
Zoning is a local responsibility. Now that Cities and Counties are in substantial
compliance with the 2040 Growth Concept for neighborhood densities, the
Report no longer assumes the need to upzone current densities because the
new zoning regulations recently adopted by Cities and Counties reflect the
necessary assumptions to accomplish 2040 Growth Concept goals.
However, because local compliance work'is still incomplete in many of the
centers, the vacant buildable land in these regional and town centers still require
the additional step of upzoning. Until more jurisdictions come into compliance
with the Functional Plan through local code amendments, this step of assuming
up zoning is necessary in the analysis of residential capacity for the UGR.
4. Metro Acquisition of Property Along Ash Creek
The property along Ash Creek in the southern end of the Regional Center is not
included in the target area in Metro's open spaces acquisition program. The
program objectives for the Fanno Creek area are to establish a continuous
greenway along the main stem.of the river. Local jurisdictions and non-profit
groups are encouraged to participate in the protection and enhancement of the
tributaries of Fanno Creek. Metro has a challenge grant program for the
tributaries where a jurisdiction or non-profit group would have to provide a 25
percent match.
The Me r"rogram is a "willing seller" program; that is, Metro cannot require an
owner to-sell. In addition, when purchasing a property, Metro cannot exceed
market value. Discussions have been held between Metro staff and the property
owner on the possible purchase of this property. To date, the asking price for the
property cannot be met by Metro.
1:\gm\community_development\staff\bemards\TtgardWadine Smith.doc
Page 1 of i
The TGM program has been asked to make a determination about eligibility of
funding the Washington Square Regional Center Plan Implementation grant even
if the City Council elects not to adopt some or all of the plan and zoning
map amendments recommended in the Plan. In essence, the City has asked for a
grant to implement the WSRC plan. Our understanding in committing to fund
this grant was and is that the Council supports and is prepared to adopt
that plan. If the Council decides not to adopt the plan, TGM is obligated
to reconsider whether the grant should proceed.
> The recommended Plan is a comprehensive plan which includes an overall -
> elision, Urban Design Concepts, Urban Design by District, Parks and Open
> Space recommendations, new land use districts, a parking strategy, and •
> recommendations for implementation. City staff has prepared specific
> Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments to implement the recommended
> Plan. Provided Council adopt the majority of the Plan's recommendations,
> including the transportation recommendations and the new Mixed Use zones
> and associated development standards, and including plan/zone amendments
> for the majority of property in the planning area, the TGM program does
> not object to funding a follow-up grant to further implementation of the
> Plan's transportation recommendations. It has been our understanding that*
> most of the transportation recommendations in the Plan would be prudent
> and necessary regardless of any changes in land use. We understand
> citizens' concern about approving any increase in density without
> assurance that the needed transportation improvements can be built, from a
> financial, environmental, and/or engineering standpoint. The follow-up
> grant is supposed to provide that assurance.
> At the same time, it has been the intent of the Regional Center Plan to
> reduce traffic by providing for a mix of uses in close proximity and at a
> density and design which can support transportation alternatives such as
> transit, carpooling, commuter rail, walking, and bicycling. Therefore, if
> Council were to defer adoption of the new mixed-use zones and development
> standards, and their application to a majority of parcels in the planning
> area, then this action would jeopardize receipt of the 1999-2001 TGM grant
> on the basis of failure to adopt the recommendations of the previous
> 1997-1999 grant. The Program acknowledges Council's responsibility to be
> responsive to the citizens of Tigard, and to make minor amendments to a
> staff and consultant proposal to reflect unique circumstances. However, if
> the deviation from the recommendations were such as to compromise the _
> integrity of the Plan and the City's ability to comply with the Metro 2040
> growth targets, then such action would constitute ground to rescind the
> TGM grant.
> Lidwien Rahman
> TGM Grant Manager
> ODOT Region 1
> 123 NW Flankers
> Portland OR 97209
> phone: (503) 731-8229
> fax: (503) 731=8259
> e-mail: lidwien.rahman@odot.state.or.us
file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW }00005.HTM 2/1/00
l
n
~ e a
p Y
C■
Be vertarn
E
C of
e igard
J
c
t ~
a
Er- EInFzE
a Y
C i t y o f T i g a r d' s G e o r a h i c I n f o r m a t i o n Sys t em>---]
Exhibit G
Areas adjacent to !®w density residential zones with no ~StudyArea m
specified maximum density '~J""~'~`°"a'B°"tea"~'
Beaverton a
Tigard
0 400 800 1200 Feet au! VYashington County
City of Tigard
r=900 red lllo SECG -11NvX';VV
13125 SW Hall Blvd. 1P, ~'9
Tigard, OR 97223
(503 u~►S~ ,nee`m~"A6twe' ,,.arro . y. a s.
) 639-4171 T}~~ 4~4 L~'?~ ~C+ 4 .tea e.... Ye1tl..,,„m.. a~ arzvoaw.
Co (503i 39.4 meet A./ pYenS/ i/eSeG~n7~i4~ 2044
AUG 08 '01 09:27FIl RAMIS CREW CORRIGPiN
Exhibit D
RA.MI _
CRE-V
' CORRIG N &
B,A,.CHRA,CH LLP
Practicing as
Hibbard Caldwell Schul i
Rants & Crew
in Oregon City M .E M O R A N D U M
ATTORNE'Y'S AT LAW
1727 N.W. Hoyt Sueet
Portland. Oregon 97209
(503) 222-4402
FIX: (5M) 243-2444
TO: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, City of Tigard '
FROM: Timothy V. Rarnis, Gary Firestone, City Attorney's Office
DATE: August S, 2001
RE: Urban Renewal Agencies
BACKGROUND
There has been some discussion regarding the possibility' of creating an urban renewal agency
in the Washington Square area that would cover areas within Tigard, Beaverton and unincorporated
Washington County. One proposal is to have Washington County establish the agency to cover the
entire area. For the purposes of this memorandum, we assume that any urban renewal plan would
involve tax inurement financing.
You have asked us to look at legal,issues relating to establishment of a urban renewal agency,
with particular attention to consistency with the City's charter provisions that require voter approval ;
of any urban renewal plan that involves tax increment financing or taxation outside the renewal Area.
ISSUES
Does Washington County have authority to establish an urban renewal agency for areas that
includes part of Tigard?
Do the Tigard Charter provisions apply to action by the County?
ANSWER
A county has some authority to establish an urban renewal agency for areas within
incorporated cities. However, the statutes also restrict that authority. The statutes are unclear as
applied to the situation the County and City are faced with.
AW 08 '01 09:27AM RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN P.3
i
Memorandum re: Urban Renewal Agencies
August 8, 2001
Page 2
Although Tigard Charter provisions do not apply directly to the County, if City action is
required, the City will have to comply with the Charter.
ANALYSIS
The Applicable Statutes Are Ambiguous
A county urban renewal authority has authority "within the same area of operation given a
housing authority of the [county] under ORS 456.060." ORS 457.035(2). ORS 456.060 gives a'
county housing authority to operate "[i]nside the territorial or urban growth boundary of any city
unless the city has by ordinance prohibited such operation within the city or its urban growth
boundary." It is unclear whether "such operation" refers specifically to operation by the county or
would include any prohibition on housing authorities.
A city may prohibit operation of a housing authority because existing agency operations
address the need for housing or if there is no need for low income housing. ORS 457.060(2)(b).
Although Tigard has not passed an ordinance addressing the need for a housing authority, it has
passed a charter provision stating that there is no need for an urban renewal agency in the City..
Charter Section 45.'
Two interpretations of the relationship between ORS 457.035(2) and ORS 456.060 are
possible. Under the plain language of the two statutes, the more persuasive interpretation, as applied
to the County's authority in this situation, is that the County does have authority to operate an urban
renewal authority. First, the City Charter is not binding on County authority. Second, the City has
not specifically prohibited any operation by the County. Third, Charter Section 45 does not prohibit
any action, it only states there is no longer a need for an urban renewal agency, Fourth, Charter
Section 45 is directed to urban renewal agencies and ORS 457.060 (which is made applicable by ORS
457,035(2)) only mentions housing authorities, not urban renewal agencies.
However, this is not the only possible interpretation of the provisions. An opponent of the
potential urban renewal authority could argue that, under these circumstances, the County has no
authority to operate an urban renewal authority within Tigard because Tigard has prohibited the'
Tigard City Charter Section 45 provides in relevant part; "The voters of the City of Tigard, exercising !
their powers as the ultimate governing body of the city as reserved to them by the ordinances of the city and by the
Constitution of laws of the State of Oregon, do hereby find and determine that there no longer exists a need for an
urban renewal agency in the city. Thercfore, the Tigard Urban Renewal Agency, as established or activated by
Ordinance No. 81-91, adopted in December, 1981, is tomtinated,"
PUG 08 '01 09:28AM RAMIS CREW CORRIC"i P.4
Memorandum re: Urban Renewal Agencies
August 8, 2001
Page 3
operation of ueftn renewal authorities within the City without voter approval. The argument would
be that Charter Section 45 together with Sections 47 and 48 do prohibit the establishment of any
urban renewal agency without voter approval and that any references to "housing authority" in ORS
456.060 should be interpreted to mean "urban renewal agency" when the County's authority to
establish an urban renewal agency is at issue?
Under the second possible interpretation, the County cannot establish an urban renewal
agency that includes areas within Tigard unless Charter Section 45 is withdrawn or amended. Unlike
most Charter provisions, Section 45 may be withdrawn or amended by the City. Council by ordinance.
In deciding which approach to take to the matter, the City will need to consider not only
which interpretation is most supportable under the statute, but the litigation risks and public opinion
associated with each approach. Under either approach, the establishment of an urban renewal agency
is uncertain. Amending Charter Section 45 and seeking voter approval of an urban renewal authority
to operate in the Washington Square area creates less risk of a legal challenge but it is by no means
certain that the voters would approve the urban renewal authority. Attempting to create the authbrity
without voter approval could lead to litigation and a court decision that the county lacks authority
within the City. Our view is that the stronger legal argument favors the first interpretation and that
the County may create a district within the City. This is not a certainty, however, and does not
address potential public concerns,
The Charter Provisions Do Not Apply to Coutaly Ac io
City charters, while binding on cities, do not directly apply to counties. Sections 45, 47 and '
48 of the Charter apply to City urban renewal agencies and restrict only City action.
County creation of an urban renewal district within the City would only involve the Tigard i
Charter only if Charter Section 45 was held to be an ORS 456.060 prohibition. In that case, no
district could be created unless Section 45 was removed.
n It is within the Council's authority to make the initial interpretation of this Charter provision,
Please call me if you wish to discuss the procedure for such an interpretation.
p O:1munlTigardlurbanrcacwal.wpd
-I .
7
7'Me City of Tigard has decided that an urban renewal agency is not needed anywhere in Tigard. Chatter
Section 45. Although an urban renewal agency may be re-established In the City, a voter approval is required if
the urban renewal plan will involve tax incremM financing or if areas outside the urban renewal area are to be
:axed. Charter Sections 47 and 48. .
' i'
Exhibit E
A41
CITY OF TIGARD
Engineering Department
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Half Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Phone 503-639-4171
Fax: 503-624-0752
TO: Mayor and City Councilors
Bill Monahan, City Manager
FROM: Gus Duenas txp_411
City Engineer
DATE: February 6, 2002
SUBJECT: Drainage Issue on Dr. Davis' Property Adjacent to Oak Street
During the Public Hearing on the Resolution implementing the Washington Square Regional Center
Plan, Dr. Gene Davis claimed that the City of Tigard had constructed improvements along Oak Street
that dumped storm runoff on his property south of that street. The following explains the drainage
patterns in that area and describes the improvements that the City had provided in that area during the
past eight years.
Background
The overall drainage direction in the vicinity of Oak Street from Greenburg Road on the west to Hall
Boulevard on the east is from north to south with the runoff eventually making its way to Ash Creek.
Ash Creek flows under Highway 217 through existing culverts. There is an old, abandoned railroad
right-of-way running northeast to southwest with ditches on both sides of the tracks (which have been
long since removed). The right-of-way and ditches cross Oak Street near the vicinity of the 90`h
Avenue/Oak Street intersection. The ditches along the old railroad right-of-way intercept the runoff
and direct it south sheet-flowing to Ash Creek. The old right-of way is now under private ownership
with multiple owners throughout its length. Attached is an aerial photo showing Oak Street, the
adjacent properties north and south of the street, the old railroad right-of-way, and Dr. Davis'
i properties crosshatched. The properties north of Ash Creek owned by Dr. Davis are located in the area
beginning at 90`h Avenue and proceeding west. The rest of the properties are well east of the railroad
right-of-way and are relatively close to Hall Boulevard.
City Improvements
The City constructed the Metzger School Pathway project in 1994. This project installed a paved
shoulder on the north side of Oak Street, eliminated the existing ditch on the north side, and installed
underground drainage, which terminated at the ditch along the railroad right-of-way. The existing 12-
inch pipe crossing on the west side of the right-of-way had been looped at the south end of the crossing
to connect back to the ditch on the east side. The looped 12-inch pipe was replaced (as part of the
project) with a 15-inch line, which was then connected directly across the sheet to the existing ditch on
the east side of the right-of-way. The ditch south of the road was graded to drain towards the creek.
The attached As-Built drawing dated November 1994 shows the improvements made in that area. The
drainage patterns were not changed and the only additional flow that could be attributed to the project
is the 5-foot paved pathway that was installed along the north side of Oak Street. This project did not
adversely impact any of Dr. Davis' properties.
The other improvement constructed by the City was the replacement in 1996 of an existing, broken
pipe culvert crossing Oak Street slightly west of the 90th Avenue/Oak Street intersection. This work
was performed to correct a flooding problem in the street. Public Works crews installed a new pipe and
catch basin to resolve the flooding problem. Again, the drainage pattern was not altered and the
existing drainage was retained with the replacement of the broken pipe culvert. The attached aerial
photo with the improvements noted shows the work that was performed. Dr. Davis owns the lot
directly south of the culvert. However, the location of the existing culvert is between two existing
houses and is directed at a grove of trees. Again, the City did not change any drainage patterns but
merely replaced a long-existing, damaged culvert to alleviate flooding in the street.
Conclusions
The City did not alter any drainage patterns or create any new flooding problems with the work that
was performed. The existing culvert east of 90th Avenue drains into one of the lots owned by Dr.
Davis, but does not impact any existing houses. The runoff from that culvert drains directly into a
grove of trees then eventually makes its way to Ash Creek. No other work performed by the City
affects any of Dr. Davis' properties east or west of the 90th Avenue intersection with Oak Street.
There are some drainage improvements that could be constructed over the long term in that area as part
of the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan. These improvements would focus on
providing a drainage system for future developers to tie into as further growth in that area occurs. One
logical approach appears to be development of an interceptor system along the old railroad right-of-
way. This would mean dealing with multiple property owners to acquire sufficient easements to allow
for construction of those drainage improvements. These improvements should substantially reduce the
runoff that is now making its way south to Ash Creek. Until then, the runoff will continue to find its
way to Ash Creek, crossing Oak Street at several locations throughout its length and flowing overland
y to the creek.
Attachments
N
1. Aerial photo of Oak Street and adjacent properties north and south
2. As-Built Drawing of Oak Street Culvert Replacement dated November 1994
3. Aerial photo with culvert replacement work noted east of 90th and Oak
+ c: James N. Hendryx
Greg Berry
IAEng\Gus\Memorandums\Drainage Issue on Dr. Davis' Property.doc
Memorandum on Dr. Davis' Drainage Issue
Page 2 of 2
MERIN===
17
r • •a`., ~5~+"+S :J.. •v •&~,(P ryr ,4~. _ W • Y ,.tti;w
~ j fry P3~s , + All,
-irk ,J C K ~v ~ ~ ~F $'~~+vJi~iY•~~--•Gpy,1y
~.r L • ~ '""p i1 s '.ci + .iti ~ 5 Y~' +ic ?~i's'~ys'y i ~ ~alfr•~' ~A~ f. ~
iss:`~a i•s d1-t- a' Y• i~ t ti~lj ~ftas¢A[ +~t y ±'e;~ ~
t ~twr ~ 1 Al AV.
k ~ ty,~ tr,J:,.lt ?5 6~ ~ iy 1 .art~gyr~ r~t"~,~j g't^t ♦ f
VJ k .4~.A• ~,~^•Y•tiib "b. Yf~~r . !^r i. f T~""
'S:,l., ~~~~~1~~'...,... i.<.. ~ .4.~~.,,-r,. ` tr<I ~ ..5"a,,: ~r` fir' 1 i
' ~s~ ~ it ~ _ n ~.{l
F,`t . :0:~. y'•~~ f - ,,,y~~r fir - ~
..w. ~F,. s=t Jar ' s ~ ~b~_ a •f 7'y 3C
' l 44~,§ + .4 ~ •.9;"„, ''.off +~r},~ ,*r ~f:i;,
~e t ~ .q .:try O+ ~•aFrF ~,~~TJ
~ 1Z _ ~ S.. Y~ ,i - r f it +/~..6~ .i~ji,'111•~.;~/~~"F"' J`a~'t'~ ,
~ t , ~ ~ eye. .f•: ',~i ~;,Rf' ,i~ it f~•..3~~Yr"~rs3'fiJ,J~• _ . •
ro pl{~ 3p~( j~• ~ tt :~':`s`F."t<,t3.a Y .L.,t rh r,~L1V ~ P ~~~n.I J• ~ -/u~Y
,1:,;,' tftl` +Z.~'C( `~~p ► t„ t «iS:.;.Y s~~ .~4' l1 tit : t c l . F. / 'sv ^"1'.d. . ~ ryi r~ 4''~~' i;
•'t~t?~ +~c ~cljs+p~dYiaLt,4.,ti{,t 1'I$~Fj, t qt' j ~ r~'~s~~~~`;¢,".°~.s ~`z,+~-,f~~ al
it {C'~j(`if~'ryc[,y~, ~'~SY, :jl~`` 4 ')u'~'•~ S+ij ~YT •r. v
~ Y . •~Y '1'~j"}Gr y, N' 1~~ .f ~t•', r•-,r~ tl~~' ;~r•1 LY _ y
'j t• t
1607m,
1. BEFORE SAW CLTRNG PAVD RENT TO RfLOVE EMST. 1r STORM PPE, P07HOLE AT SOUTH SHOULDER OF ROAD
TO VER{FY PPE ALIGNMENT.
2. E70MM SU6gwACE UY LnIE3 ARE SHOWN TO THE BEST OF ENME MS KNOW<BDGE. CONTRACTOR S WJL NOTIFY
U71UTY AGEm= BEFORE CONSTRUOTION, TO COOR9QLATE UVJTY F,8= RONS. AGENCIES TO BE CONTACTED ARE.
TUALATN VALLEY WATER OHSMCT AND NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS.
INSTALL HEADWALL
NA.TCJI INVERT OF (SEE DETAL) RO.WL
1 • C' - PROFILE) p
O FETICE q~~7
C7 R0. WE
REMOVE 9WWN(SSEE 1r 107E 1)
OAK ST AS
ram s -i
~NEAfiESTT
JotNT SOUTH
OF PAVED Y GAS
- a w igsY4 u►A
(SEENOTES 2)
- - / RILING
/ VLALL o MpA~TC~H INVERT OF
RO.W. (SEE PR~w_ PLLIG DON EMS a!2~STU. 1 13' STORM DRAW EASEMENT
/ TOP OF SLOPE
0
POS DITCH FOR
DRAINAGE
/ E)aSTINc HOl= / `x71 (SEE PROFILE)
PLAN
SCAL& V - 20'
180 150
REUXATE r CAS COST. GROUND
BY 01HERS
(SEE M07E 2)
175 175
I.E 173.3e
H.E.17R.HL8 _
INSTALL 37 L.F. H $ W 171.87
170 GsF ts,.32X 170
R£GRAOE oITCH
PLASS 'Ir BA~fiL L TO DRAW
Imo-' B' SS
O+00 1.4.00
PROFlLE
SCALE HM 1-20'. VEIL 1*-W
OAK STREET
CULVERT REPLACE14ENT
w a ra .
~1®! Ar atar o►+w waao-~orte
AS-BMT NOV.
F3. .;Fr.
j r. 4'e -Y_0 'X~+ ,en w i7F+ r ~,1~ l:
at
, New catch basin and pipe,
Replaced old broken pipe
r t - and fixed flooding problem in street.
;IS
~J + ~ err ` F -•s.~
tap 4-05mo
4 ~
Awk 0..1
SOW
V
Pat Whiting
8122 S.W. Spruce
Tigard, Oregon 97223
January 29, 2002
Mayor Jim Griffith
Tigard City Council
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RECLV!::'~` A FN RE: Washington Square Regional
Center Plan & Phase II:
19 e JAN 2002 Public Hearing 1/22/02
re: 7-day extension for
-iC"ARD record testimony.
Dear Mayor Griffith:
During my testimony Nazuary 22, 20002, before the
Tigard City Council public hearing of the Washington Square
Regional Center Plan, I was asked if I was satisfied with
Statewide Goal 5 as it applies to this regional center
.planning.
Extensive work went into the application of Goal 5
to the regional center plan. The Natural Resources section
is very good.
The only problem with the the language in the section
(1) Open Spaces of the March 14,2000 City Application
Summary Exhibit F, page 7-, is the reference to Metzger
Park. Metzger-Park was deleted from the center plan
during Task Force deliberation.
There is no objection to the working "...preserve...
Metzger Park" as it can be considered part of a link in
the open spaces provision. However, extensive testimony
from various communities including the Board of Directors
of Metzger Park object to the reference and wording
"...and enhance..." refering to Metzger Park. It does
not need enhancing. The concern of the community and
the Board is that this language if left in the staff
recommendations could result in changing a full functional
and successful neighborhood park.
Please amend the staff report of March 14, 2000,
page 7, by eliminating the words "...and enhance..."
on line three of 1. Open Spaces at your regional center
planning workshop on February 26, 2002.
Regarding the Historic Areas Guideline, item 3 of page .
7, there are three buildings of historic value but I do
not know if they are inventoried or qualify. They are
the "log cabin home" on SW Hall Blved between Phaffle and
Spruce (west side of Hall Blvd.), the large two-story home
(red roof) on SW 87th between Oak and Locust (the original
Metzger Post Office), and the old Metzger Grocery Building.
Otherwise, Statewide Goal 5 is satisfied.5--4-,-7. 4_A-,'-
f
Pat Whiting
RECEIVE) r,I 4CtUN
JAN 2002 Pat Whiting
8122 S.W. Spruce
CITY TiG'ARD Tigard, Oregon 97223
January 29, 2002
Tigard City Mayor and Council
Tigard City Hall
3125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Statewide Goals and the
Washington Square Regional
Center Plan & Phase II
Dear Mayor and Council:
As an active member of the Washington Square Regional
Center Task Force from its inception, I do not agree that
Statewide Goals 6, 7 and 11 were satisfied.
Extensive concentration and work evolved and is
evident in the staff and task force reports centering
around Statewide Goals 5 - Natural Resources and 12 -
Transportation. What is also evident is that little
attention was given to any discussion of air quality
or earthquake proneness problems.
Goals 6 and 7 speak to the carrying capacity as
does Goal 11 of conservation and development in relation
to large-scale planning which this proposal is. Deteminant
factors should be included in the planning.
The reference to compliance in the December 4, 200,
city staff report should not be based upon the City's
overall compliance in their comprehensive plan.
Task Force discussion, analysis and review as well as
public involvement should be involved in these
determinating decisions. "Carrying Capacity" and
"options" and the identification of "problems"
should be part of the plan.
The impact of this plan is so great to the socio-
economic and environmental elements that will be affected
that I urge you to not adopt this plan in its current form.
It should go back to the Task Force and to the public
through public forum for greater review.
Thank you for your work on this important matter.
Respectfully
Pat Whiting C
RECD JAN 2 9 2002
1/28/02
Dear Tigard City Counselors,
It is my understanding that you are voting on the Regional
Center in the next few weeks. My wife and I live in the Washington
Square Estates (100 homes) with in several blocks of the boundary.
We would like to know what benefits Tigard residents will receive from
such a massive and rapid increase in population? Why does Tigard
have to accept such pressure from Metro. It's our city and I'm not
aware of any citizen groups who are supporting your vote. So who are
you supporting if you vote for such a radical change? Why are we
taking the risks when others will make the profits.
There are still serious flaws in this Regional Center.
Do not vote for the Regional Center. UpZoning without the
funds for increased infrastructure will only create urban decay. We
need more time to find solutions, and not be impulsive.
You represent us. Please consider your vote carefully.
Sincerely,
Cl (.0 00S w. V G
Jane Ternerlin MSW RECD JAN 2 9 2002
6660 SW Ventura Drive
Tigard, Oregon
Jan. 28, 2002
Dear Tigard City Counselors,
PI C= a not vo ~ for. ~ Ric waj C end until is olitA Air. for the
infractr~ re to SL G aiv in Ala ian. d consider upZoniog
without the funds for increased wooers, electricity,: streets, schiaols, fire and police; even
storm water facilities- the ultimate in non-city planing....Wq need to find more solutions,
be less impatient, and do it correctly.
You represent our city. Please consider your vote carefully. You.could leave a
disastrous legacy to your fellow Tigard taxpayers.
Sincerelyr
Jane Temerlin, MSW
RECD JAN 2 9 2002
Gretchen Randolph Ph.D., PY&W
6690 SW Ventura Drive
Tigard, Oregon 97223
January 28, 2002
Dear Tigard City Counselors,
I would like to summarize the testimony I gave at the last meeting.
Please vote against the Regional Center and upZoning the surrounding area.
1. Creating a Slum. By voting to upZone the Regional boundary with no funds
currently available for the necessary infrastructure, you condemn those healthy
neighborhoods to haphazard degradation. New high rise apartments, will begin
cropping up next to single family homes. The current homeowners will not keep
their homes up, and solid owners will move out leaving their residences to
temporary renters. How long will it take for the city to find the funds for all the
sewers, streets, sidewalks. traffic lights, police, etc.? What if you can't obtain
sufficient funds? Meanwhile the area continues as a slum. How can you possibly
call that city planning? Or is there a plan to then label the area blighted and go for
urban development funds? This is wrong. The answer is to not upZone that area
prematurely. We should wait for the proper financial structure to be built, and if
not, Tigard will have to say no to the developers and Metro.
2. Wetlands For 22 years family and I have lived on Ash Creek which flows into
the wet lands along 217, and have seen the amount and speed of water runoff
increase from development upstream. Sometimes there are torrents of water
roaring through our back yard. Keep the wetlands as a park, and open space. Do
not change it, build on it, or mitigate this natural sponge. "Don't try to fix what
ain't broke" We need the wetlands now, more than ever.
3. Taxes and fiscal resoonsjbility Don't make the taxpayers take all the financial
risks with other people and corporations making the profit. If the project is
valuable and financially sound then reputable investors will back it. Don't set
Tigard citizens up for massive fiscal losses, payments for flood damage or more
taxes.
4. Par ' lot development If the owners of Washington Square Mall and their real
estate corporations truly want to support the Regional Center they can build
parking structures on their many acres of parking lots, and top them with
attractive muti use- new buildings, and gardens. That would increased their
shopping population and leave the surrounding communities, and wet lands
intact.
4. There is almost total rejection of this project by the people who live here. You
are our representatives. Your job is to protect our city from fraud and damage. If
you vote for this Regional Center, being implemented in this way, you will
personally be accountable, and will leave a legacy of shame.
Eric G. Kent, Ph.D RECD JAN 2 9 2002
6690 SW Ventura Drive
Tigard, ®x.97223
Jan. 26, 2002
Tigard City Counselors,
Vote against the Regional Center and increasing the zoning codes.
Tigard does not need a Regional Center of the magnitude you are
considering. Who's going to pay for this? Don't commit the Tigard taxpayer
to a project no one wants. Be honest with your citizens, about the costs and
who stands to make the profits.
Slow down, there is no hurry here. With all the job losses recently
people are moving out of town. Arrange the funds to develop this in a orderly
and systematic manner.
Most people in the area are unaware of your plans. Don't try to pass
such a massive city alteration without the knowledge and support of you
residents. Your job is to protect and support our fine town, and its families. If
this Regional Center is the right way to proceed, it will stand the test of time.
Vote against such excessive upzoning in the local neighborhoods. Change
doesn't have to be so extreme. Infact slower growth usually is more
sustainable, and makes fewer mistakes.
Thank you for your attention.
~--Jv
Eric G. Kent, Ph.D.
January 24, 2002 RECEIVED
To the Members of Tigard City Council: JAN ~ 5 2002
CM OF 110ARD
As I stated at the public hearing Tuesday, January 22, 2002, I am still opposed ING F)IMON
implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan in its present format.
I am adamantly opposed to the increase in density that this plan calls for. This proposal
asks the Metzger community to absorb the largest Regional Center in the tri county area.
It is larger than any other regional center or town center proposed. Why do the council
members and consultant firms the city hired to help with this plan expect us as citizens of
this community to be enthusiastic about this? It will affect our livability and way of life.
So what if this is a visionary plan for twenty years from now. It will only destroy our
neighborhood. I do not want to have a gigantic commercial area around my house and
neighborhood and that is exactly what this proposal is. Where do your expect us to go?
This vision is to create jobs and businesses. Well it certainly will do that at the expense
of those who have lived in the neighborhood for years. I would like to tell all of you
right now, I will not move to Bull Mountain, Tualatin, Gresham, eastern Oregon or better
yet out of state. Oregon is my home and I am proud to live here. I visited other states
and they du not offer what I have right here. They do not offer what I have in my
backyard: wildlife, tree and, neighbors who I thoroughly love. Get with the program and
really think about what this will do. The 2040 plan that Metro envision years ago, was
designed by people who thought it would be a great thing, but forgot about the people
who live here. Well, it is up to this council not to make that same mistake
I cannot sit idly by and see the wetland/floodplain be drastically infringed on and be
expected to house the most density. No matter what safeguards and enhancement plans
pursued, it will not change or alter the course of water runoff or affect this sensitive area.
Water will naturally take its own course. That will be in our backyards, the streets and
basements of our homes. The surface water drainage problem now is not taken care of
properly. I see the sides of the road on SW Oak St. clogged with leaves and rocks which
prevent the water from draining correctly now. It floods every time it rains. How can this
council ignore nature's way of handling matters? We need a natural storm water area to
absorb water. When concrete is poured onto ground there is no sponge to absorb the
water. Where there are no trees there are no habitats for animals. When there are no
trees there is no natural ability to keep the air clean and fresh. I am not an
environmentalist; this is just what I know. Yes, I care for the earth.
What is even more astonishing is the fact that there is no limit on how high a building or
set of buildings could reach. I don't want to live near buildings as tall or taller than the
existing ones at Lincoln Center. What a great view it will be as I am having a barbeque!
If I wanted this type of neighborhood, I would have move to downtown Portland. Or
even better I would have moved to the Lloyd Center area. The reason I moved here, like
so many others was the open space, the larger backyards and rural atmosphere. It was
perfect for raising my family and soon to be grandchildren. Please take heed in this point;
772-et A-~i e-)zxJ IC5
I was not the only person who said this. The preservation of our livability is what it is all
about. Think about it, would you like this in your backyard?
The other major opposition I have is the infrastructure and financial matters. This project
will cost millions and millions of dollars. A project cannot proceed without the backing
of dollars to let it go forward. I resent the fact that the city is aggressively pursuing the
money to come from the federal, state and other governing agencies. That still puts the
burden on the taxpayers shoulders. I don't want my tax dollars supporting this project,
when I did not want it in the first place. If the city wants this project so bad, pay for it
yourself. Better yet, ask the consulting firms which helped the city for the passed three
years to do so, too. You see they want this project to fly like so many others. I think that
is a fair trade off to have those entities who want it so much to pay for it.. Also, I do not
want to be involved in any Local Improvement District or Urban Renewal District.. I
want my taxpayer dollars going to more important things: fire protection, police
protection, the local park and schools. I want my money spent at the local businesses
on Hall Blvd existing now: Roy Boys, Metzger Tax Service, Sneeds' Carpet, Metzger
Grocery Store, I am very proud and satisfied with my neighborhood the way it is.
When something runs smoothly or is fine the way it is, why change it? The vision which
is portrayed in the original plan is a fairy tale account of what it might look like. Put that
dream somewhere else.
As stated by Pat Whiting in her testimony on behalf of the local CP04K our
neighborhood has discussed this plan to great lengths. We know development will occur.
We want it to be done in a positive way. We don't want to be alienated and dictated, too.
The CP04M approves the formation of a 3 lane Hall Blvd. The development of available
land. We don't want to see pressure placed upon us to sell, to have our property
condemned for the project to move forward. Most development notices sent to the CPO
are discussed and embraced with no major issues. Why does the City of Tigard feel we
should approve this plan, when we can't get any notification of buildings affecting our
neighborhood are ever sent to us? What is actually being built on SW Hall Blvd..across
from the nursery? Did only the adjacent property owners hear about this? If concerns
are brought out concerning a development, we usually address them. We attend the
meetings and voice them. The parties usually come to some compromise. I feel not very
many compromises have occurred pertaining to the Washington Square Regional Center
Plan.
Please consider all the statewide goals in the implementation of this plan. Do not ignore
any of them. All of them in some capacity are pertinent to the implementation of this.
There is always information on television stating the degree of earthquake preparedness
we need to take in the tri county area. There is always possibility of the flooding like the
one bestowed on us in 1996. There is and was a lack of public involvement to the total
process. . I can personally attest to this as a member of the public attending one of the
meetings. If I had not stood up and said something, the public would not have had a
chance to speak. There was lack of foresight by the people leading the meeting to allow
the public to speak. Be very conscious and sensitive to this. People want to speak and be
heard. We do not want to be ignored.
GE: e- 3
I believe I have stated all the major oppositions I have to this plan. My sign that was
shown at the meeting will go back up on my house. This matter is very important to me.
Thank you,
Trudy Knowles
PO Box 230275
10430 SW 82nd
RECEIVED
January 27, 2002 IAN ? 4 ?QQ2 \
CITY OF TbGARD
To the Tigard City Council BUILDING DIVISION
Attn: Jim Hendryx
Subject: Comments and suggestions regarding the Washington Square Regional
Plan (WSRP)
Mr. Hendryx and Council Members: I am submitting this letter in the hope that council
members will acknowledge the concerns of hundreds of residents of Tigard, Metzger and
surrounding communities whose lives will be adversely affected by implementation of
the WSRP.
I have attended several public hearings on this subject and have been very disappointed
by the obvious lack of interest this council exhibits. My perception and that of many
attendees I have spoken with is that the council displays a lack of interest and almost
boredom when numerous objections and flaws have been presented at these hearings.
So-called "experts" through various task forces and committees have determined there
are no "fatal" flaws with this plan. Yet 9 out of every 10 people who testify bring up
numerous problems with the WSRP, that if implemented will lessen the quality of life in
this area for generations.
It's hard to understand how this council can sit at these hearings with straight faces and
try to convince those in the surrounding area that increased population densities, the
forcing of more jobs into the area, the resulting increase in traffic, floodwater problems,
loss of natural habitat, decreased air and water quality and ultimately higher taxes will
have no effect on livability. We are not ignorant and we know that this assumption is
simply impossible.
Many plans look good on paper. Models and data can be compiled to support almost any
scenario. But we're not dealing with statistics on paper. We are not just numbers and
plots on a map, we are real people living in a real situation and it's our lives that are
being compromised, not a researcher working in an office downtown and then going
home to some other part of the Portland area. Remember, Enron looked great on paper
not too long ago.
Here are some specific ideas to consider that would make sense and would not destroy
the area financially, physically or spiritually.
1) Widening Hall Blvd. To 3 lanes makes sense-it will help relieve some traffic
congestion. But, if population and job densities are increased according to the current
plan, any positive gains in traffic flow will be lost. Five lanes are not reasonable
financially or in regards to the existing businesses along Hall or the sensitive open spaces
{ directly adjacent to Hall Blvd.
2) Do not increase housing densities anywhere in the plan. People live in this area and
have moved to the area over the years specifically because they want the large lots,
breathing room and current zoning. Ask yourself a question: Would you want a 50-100
unit apartment development next to your house if the current zoning called for no more
than 3 single family houses? I think not. Yet you expect those within the WSRP to accept
this possibility. Keep the current zoning.
3) Do not build any more roads in or through wetlands or natural habitat. The Fanno
Creek Greenway was set aside for wildlife protection and the enjoyment of the local
population. Putting roads through these kinds of areas is a terrible violation of the public
trust. If the population and job growth aspects of this plan were mollified to a more
reasonable level, then roads of this nature would not be necessary.
4) Expanded commercial development (outside those areas already zoned for
commercial) should occur specifically within the footprint of the Washington Square
Mall.
a) Build parking garages over the existing parking lots. One level could be built
below ground if feasible, otherwise one or two levels above ground should be
sufficient for future parking needs.
b) Build retail and commercial on top of the parking structures. Two floors should
be more than adequate.
c) Create public plazas, gardens and open spaces on top of the entire structure.
This would "return" some of the lost open spaces to the public, offer workers a
place to take breaks or lunch and give visitors and shoppers to the area a place to
stroll.
Social events, musical performances and small festivals could be scheduled.
These public areas would be open during regular business hours or by special
arrangement. Take a look at the public gardentplaza at the Hatfield Federal
Courthouse downtown. It can be done.
There is enough paved over areas within the WSRP, let's use areas already compromised
instead of covering additional valuable open land.
If you want to get a good idea of how this type of plan can negatively impact a
community, I urge you to read, "Better, not Bigger-How to Take Control of Urban
Growth and Improve Your Community" by Eben Fodor. He is a consultant based in
Eugene and has done a lot of research in this area.
You council members are elected officials. Should you not be responsive to and represent
the will of your constituents? Rather than just be a rubber stamp for the plans and desires
of others not in your jurisdiction and not affected by this plan, act with some compassion,
courage and be bold enough to admit that changes to this plan must be made. Your failure
to act now will ultimately lend to a lower quality of life for you, your children, current
residents and future generations. Please, please open your eyes and minds. It's not too
late.
Sincerely,
Bruce Warner
8025 SW Elmwood St.
Portland OR 97223
(503) 244-7035
x
x LA
MIMI
oo~
Z~
' 0
67
i~
o ~
~S L S
LOW-
.1.e.- a enters
seen e
A year a talon8 . o Mayor
David.Dodds and haviows still i
raise' hackles amottg~" 4ers
By AIMEIE 81e6b..
THE OREGONTAN..
WEST UNN - Gossips azound town
aren't kind.
They comment-: about :ligw he's
changed his wardrobe' .6111cia took of-
fice, switching &orti•polo"shrts;nd jeans
todarksuitsafidii6a. ies:;'_ .I
They say:rs to ; job, in-
stead g: market
portfolio:fram tits dome coinpufer.
;j''Theyr~ajte'. dt;.age hes still sin-
,irying.'W!&*.Yii Mpg r.in Yt~s child-
Hood home: '
1#nd, his critics say;'t °iiaivi?;efforts to
stop growth could cost their town every-
thing. from metro grants to upgrade a
a thoroughfare to an expensive court
i
fight with irate developers
David Dodds, who becarne West
I, nWs mayor one year ago this month,
represents the latest incarnation of the
slow-growth movement in Oregon as or-
dinary residents turn politicians to fight
their battle.
Take, for example, a peppering of
elected officials stretching from Hills-
boro to Salem to Bend who've found
that their slow-growth stance has
clicked with voters during the past half
decade. It's a statewide phenomenon
Please see MAYOR, Page BIO
Mayon, Not too late for
'r 'Vest Linn, Dodds.says
Continued from Page B1 Sporting a low-maintenance beard }
that's not limited to oliticians and full head of tousled hair, he
1? does not ges:% or speak loudly.
Since 1996, voters in 31 cities have He chooses hrds carefully and
passed laws requiring that they ap- slowly - speaking, pausing and
prove each annexation, then speaking again.
Carl Hosticka, Metro Council Dodds, who drives a surplus
presiding officer, says Dodds rep- 1971 city of West Linn truck he
resents a movement that shouldn't bought at auction, looks back on
be ignored. his hometown upbringing with
'West Linn is not necessarily a fondness. He was bom into a
cancer cell that needs to be isolat- ranch-style house on a quiet,
STEVEN NEHUTHE OREGC
ed and ejected from the body pout- woodsy road along the Willamette West Van Mayor David Dodds (right) talks with resident Michat
ic," says the head of the council River. Meyers, who stopped by duffing the mayor's weekly drop-in offl
that decides on many land-use is- He remembers meadows before hours. The room at West Linn City Half overlooks some of more
sues. "There are people who say they were grocery stores and horse than 1,000 homes built over 10 years that now cover a hillside.
(the movement) is crazy. I don't pastures and woods, before they
think its crazy. We need to ac- were pavement, houses and
knowledge that a lot of people feel schools. There was lots of room for In January 2001, Dodds and the city manager never got of
that way, and we need to engage a boy to roam and play back then. three other slow-growth candi- ground And Dodds has gainer
them in the debate." "Nobody knew where West Linn dates took seats on the five- respect of a number of-resit
" member council with one over- who sa he a attention t Dodds Depending upon your perspec- was, ~Ys arching theme in mind: They trust- sues, such who should pa
live, Dodds is either a worthy con- From the time of Dodds birth h ed no decision the previous, "pro- sidewalks, and makes hu
or growth' the rsebniglover growth ly day, owhile Wesula t aLinn's seex- l owth" council made.
guy who prefers to slam the door tupled, from 3,900 to more than Two months into their terms,
on development rather than man- 23,000 residents. Dodds and his council fired the
age it Views of Mount Hood and the ctty manager and, earlier this
The Home Builders Association Willamette River catapulted the month, replaced him with one
of Metro Portland puts Dodds near once-humbler town into a sought- who s more in line with their views
the top of its list of troublemakers. after suburb, a place where CEOs on growth.
and Trail Blazers move. They've made it harder for .de-
I think (Dodds) is very mistaken veto rs to build on land inside the
in whom he is blaming for the As half-million-dollar dream or rs land annexed
problems associated with growth," homes have bumped up against ty get
says Kelly Ross, governmental af- the urban growth boundary, slug- Their decisions and their style
fairs director for the association. t;ish traffic, the din of new con- haven't come without some con-
If Dodds fulfills his romise to struction and the morality of devel- troversy. Former councilors say
p opers have become the talk of the they're peeved that Dodds and i
jack up fees on new development town. some councilors can't stop talking
- to give West Linn the undis- Since 1992, an entire hillside has about how developer-friendly and
puted highest fees in the state - been nearly covered with roads, a corrupt they think the past council
the association could see the city in small. shopping center and more was-
court, Ross warns. than 1,000 new homes. In two But a recall.effort threatened by
As West Linn developer Herb years, the city has grown from one residents upset over the firing of
Koss sees it, Dodds steps over the Starbucks to five. Meanwhile, the
line. He says Dodds once walked city had only enough money last
into a Safeway store that Koss year to repave less than a mile of its
brought to West Linn just to tell the 98-mile road system, which be-
manager he didn't like the fact that comes more worn as population
the store was there. booms.
"He thinks he's the king of West At some point, a community has
Linn, Koss fumes. got to say stop, Dodds says. There
But Dodds was not crowned. He is a limit, a breaking point
was elected to the job that pays ex- "Eventually the impacts become
penses, but no salary. Running so horrendous that no one wants'
,nrith a slate of three slow-growth to live there. People start to leave,"
council candidates, Dodds won an Dodds says. "Maybe we as a region
eye-opening 18 percentage-point and we as a country should talk
victory over his opponent, an in- about how much immigration we
cumbent who represented the old let in and how many kids we have.
guard. If the whole state of New Jersey
A homefotvtt bo wants to move here, is our job .
9 to accommodate diem.
Dodds' quiet demeanor dimin- There is still time to save West
i,hes his o-foot-5-inch frame. Linn, Dodds says.
O/NORTHWEST THE OREGONIAN ♦ MONDAY JANUARY 28 2002
r available during weekly open office room stall. His image has been an
;'s; vS ~6 wy t5
ti< ft hours. easy atmck he says, for those who
"I've been on both sides. of the don't want to talk about the lssues.
' desk, and one side b definitely bet- "I don't think they care about
ter than the other," Dodds says the truth," Dodds says.
"You can get up and speak w.d be
the epitome of eloquence. But if To Councilor Bill Vffison, Dodds
- the people behind the desk don't is someone to adrnim
like what.you have to say... then "He is giving more of his lifie to
you're out of luck." this gown than most people would
Dedne Wn do qotw even fathom," Wilson says. "If peo-
Assuming the c1ty's highest of- ple knew how he felt about this
Tice. has proved educational for town and how he fett about them. .
Dod& even though he doesn't know
Three women city employees • them, people would deep'verywell
last spring came forward with alle- at night..; I'd like to see David be
gations of sexual harassment. They mayor for as long as he can.",
claimed the mayor made them ifrel In West Min, where mayors and
STEVEN NERUTHE OREGONIAN unCOmfOrtable' by k WW9'One on city councilors serve just two-year
:idds (dot) talks with resident fVlichael. the forehead, commenting about terms, the neg election Is less than
:`4urh no the mayor's weekly drop-in office anther's clothes and staring at an- 10 months away.
t Ism City Hall overlooks sonee of, more other's chest - die latter accucsa- David' Dodds '
rer.10 years that now cover a hillside. lion being one the mayor strongly says hes thinking
disputes. about running again...
Dodds says he came out of the His critics say they will be ready
ds and the city manager never got off the episode wiser, he viiii be less jovial %rhimnesttime.
candi- ground. And Dodds has gained the and more formal in the workplace.
le five respect of anumber of- residents As for the detraddrig comments
.e over- who say he pays attention to is- that,have shown up mostly on a You can reach Aimee Green at
W trust- sues, such as who should pay for community :e-mail fiorum, -Dodds ,5W.294-5969 or by e-mail at ai-
us, "pro- sidewalks, and makes himself likens them tq sciawliug on a bath- meegreeri@news.omgontan.com
r terms,:
[red the
ier this
ith one
;ir views
for.de-
fside the
eir style
me con-
fors say
Ids and
talking
idly and
: council
:erred by
firing of
RECEIVED 0-0.T
JAN ~ 9 r_U
Tigard City Council AdmiriT- tnztxe.) n January 29, 2002
Re: Washington Square Regional Plan
Although I have submitted public testimony in the past, I want to go on record with
additional thoughts regarding the Washington Square Regional Plan. After attending the
council meeting January 22, 2002 and watching a replay or cable TV I am even more
convinced that this is a poorly conceived plan. If enacted as it is laid out it will give rise
to lawsuits, excessive taxation, degradation of the environment and quality of life of
Tigard, Oregon and the unincorporated area of Metzgar:
I am still confused as to how the city council; of Tigard, Oregon can make decisions
about land that is not even in their jurisdiction i.e. Metzgar.
The very fact that the city attorney had to define what "blighted" means and how it can
be used to further the interest of out of state "stakeholders" shows me that Metro will use
any means possible to take away private property rights. The fact that Metzgar will be
designated a blighted area in order to be considered for urban renewal funds are a misuse
of the law. Robert Bartley's editorial in the Wall Street Journal on Monday 1/21/02 sums
it up best when he says: ".....over history the greatest threat to property is government
itself, acting through immoderate taxation, stifling regulation and even outright seizure. "
I see all these things being applied here and they ought not.
The financing proposals laid out last Tuesday evening were "fuzzy" with no clear plan.
We will end up paying for this through increased taxes or loss of livability.
I am a 20 year resident of Tigard and live in a house adjoining the Regional Center, yet I
was never informed about this center till two years ago, well after all the so called
"stakeholders" had their say. I had to ask to be kept informed and put on a mailing list.
Now I see the residents of Fairway area north of Redtail Golf Course were not afforded
due process. I would hope that their predicament might be the wake-up call to you that
this has not been adequately fleshed out. A regional center should have a regional
discussion. There is a reason why, as was stated at the council meeting "this plan has
generated more discussion then any other regional plan. Indeed, the Raleigh fulls plan
was more or less abandoned because people had the fortitude to say this is not right.
We have seen what rubber stamped approval does to corporations because nobody has
the fortitude to say what is right. The same happens at the local government level. We
do want to appease the out of state stakeholders like Insignia and the owners of
Washington Square.. They are bigger, wealthier and therefore smarter just like Enron.
I have found out that the land adjoining my house was rezoned sometime since I bought it
20 years ago to accommodate 80 foot six story buildings. Nobody ever asked me if I
thought it was a good idea. Yet all of my neighbors and I must risk pulling out onto
Scholls Ferry Road every day with no stoplight. What have you done to alleviate
problems like this? You have proven that once a zone change is made you will allow any
developer to come in a do their own thing with out regard to improving the infrastructure.
All this just so we can be a bigger city.
There has been a tremendous glossing over of the wetlands issue, which is quite
surprising in view of Metro's new proposals to limit building near streams. They cannot
have their cake and eat it too.
I have attended almost all hearings and workshops since I became aware of the plan two
years ago. I am embarrassed at how Metro is trying to meet it goals for open space
within the study area by including a public gold course and a cemetery. Neither of these
is a Cook Park or a Summer Lake Park or an Englewood Park which in itself is basically
just a walking/bike path.
Taxation, wetlands, traffic, infrastructure, due process, these are all issues that can be
used to deny implementation of this plan at this time. I urge you to tell Metro what we
feel. Represent us.
Sincerely;
Bill Brewer
11344 SW Ironwood Loop
Tigard, Oregon 97223
503-590-1979
RE7CE I;,FO C.. ID s. Till Tellez
9280 S.W. 80th Ave.
JAN 2 8 2002 Portland, OR 97223
Admini-sii.atlon January 28, 2002
City Council 3, pp P..K .
The City of Tigard
3125 S.W. Hall Blvd. re: proposed Washington
Tigard, OR 97223 Square Regional Center Plan
Non-Inclusion of Oregon Statewide Goals
Before the Washington Square Regional Center is implemented, all
Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines should be adequately
researched and addressed.
Please accept this testimony regarding the non-inclusion of some
Oregon Statewide Goals in the proposed Washington Square Regional Center
plan (WSRCP.) I am requesting that it be entered into the record.
I would like to request that this document be presented to each City
Council member this week so they have time to examine and discuss the issues
1 have put forth.
The staff report referred to is Exhibit F.- Ord. No. 00-18, hearing date March 14,
2000,7:30 p.m. Findings and Conclusions in Support of Washington Square
Regional Center City Council for the City of Tigard, Oregon.
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement
Non-inclusion of citizen input is indicated by the following:
Minority Report
The Minority Report is a document signed by several members of the
task force and endorsed by the Ash Creek Coalition, who represent citizen
groups. The Minority Report was intended for inclusion into the plan as an
alternative, fulfilling the requirement of State Goal 2. It was never considered
as an alternative, but instead included as Appendix material only. By not
including it as an option in the plan, it illustrates bias towards development
and non-inclusion of alternatives and community input.
Insufficient Notice
Throughout the entire planning process, complaints from community
members about not receiving notices for public events are chronic.
The urban renewal district boundary is not the same as the Regional
Center boundaa y. All of ccted people Who ::^ll be tamed for this plate should
have been receiving notice, not just the people within 500 feet of the affected
area.
For planners and consultants to craft their own plan and explain it
countless times to the public is not in the spirit of citizen involvement.
It should be evident from the January 22, 2002 public hearing that the
community continues to not be in favor of the plan.
Goal 1 is not fulfilled.
State Goal 2: Land Use Planning
The WSRCP states that it will "try to keep historic trees."
This statement is weak and does nothing to help preserve the ancient
oaks and other native trees in the local area. They contribute great value by
providing shade which keeps water cool for fish, contribute to esthetics;
habitat for wildlife, and provide the valuable function of soaking up and
slowing runoff of storm water by keeping it from flushing debris and pollution
into rivers and streams. Building drains and basins to replace that function
would be very costly. (At whose expense?)
Trees also draw pollutants from the air helping to preserve the health of
humans and wildlife. They have value far beyond landscaping. In our local
area consisting of clay soil, they are indispensable for holding the ground in
place with their root structures. Once they are gone, the flooding dangers will
escalate and confluent tributaries will not get the filtration needed to maintain
a healthy watershed. (1).
Developments downstream will be flooded even more.
By ignoring the valuable assets of trees and existing vegetation, the
WSRCP is not in step with State Goal 2 - which states:
"All land use plans shall include identification of issues and problems,
inventories and other factual information for each applicable statewide
planning goal, evaluation of alternative courses of action and ultimate
policy choices, taking into consideration social, economic, energy and
environmental needs" (2).
2
There are no alternatives provided in the plan to fulfill the requirement
for Goal 2.
The WSRCP does not fulfill State Goal 2.
Goal 6 - Air, Water, and Land Resource Quality
Staff report's response to the non-compliance issue regarding State Goal
6 is, "The City of Tigard complies with this goal through its adopted
comprehensive plan and policies regarding water resources (Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Volume II, Chapter 4 and Tigard Development Code
standard: 18.797)."
Goal 6 states:
N. Plans which provide for the maintenance and improvement of air,
land, and water resources of the planning area should consider as a
major determinant the carrying capacity of the air, land and water
resources of the planning area. The land conservation and development
actions provided for by such plans should not exceed the carrying
capacity of such resources." (3).
Goal 6 specifies that the planning area should consider the carrying
capacity of the air, land and water resources of the planning area. Because
there is no study referenced analyzing the impacts of increased vehicle traffic,
impacts on water and environmental quality in the planning area of the WSRC,
there was no study done relating Goal 6 to the area by staff.
Goal 6 is not fulfilled.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
State Goal 7 states:
"A. Natural Hazard Planning.
1. Local governments shall adopt comprehensive plans (inventories,
policies and implementing measures) to reduce risk to people and
property from natural hazards.
2. Natural hazards for purposes of this goal are: floods (coastal and
riverine), landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis,
coastal erosion and wildfires." (4).
3
Referring to the fulfillment of the requirements of State Goal 7, staff
report states, "The City of Tigard has existing regulations that address natural
disasters and hazards. Washington Square Regional Center Plan does not
affect these provisions."
Table 6 of the Panno Creek Watershed Management Plan that indicates
that the floodplain will almost triple by the year 2040 where the highest
density will occur. (5).
To not have a report to refer to by staff examining the impacts of
natural hazards on this high density development plan indicates that a study
was never done.
The WSRCP does not fulfill State Goal 7.
Goal 9 - Economic Development
Goal 9 states:
"Comprehensive plans and policies shall contribute to a stable and
healthy economy in all regions of the state. Such plans shall be based on
inventories of areas suitable for increased economic growth and activity
after taking into consideration the health of the current economic base;
materials and energy availability and cost labor and market factors,
educational and technical training programs.... current market forces...."
(6).
In regards to the economic aspect of Goal 9, there has been no economic
valuation addressed.
Planners justify that "Goal 9 has been met because the plan continues to
promote opportunities for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,
welfare and prosperity of Tigard citizens. The mix of uses will encourage a
diversity of development with emphasis on employment based uses."
The State of Oregon is currently in a recession. The unemployment rate
here is the highest in the nation. The State is suffering the largest tax-base loss
in 20 years.
To not be sensitive to market values and economic conditions is a
potential fatal flaw which could result in the same situation as the Beaverton
Round.
4
Office Vacancy Rates/Overbuilding
office vacancy rates in the Sunset Corridor, most of which is in
Washington County along the Sunset Highway, is at 54.7 percent. Ramona
Barinaga Harrington, of Cushman & Wakefield, linked most of the empty space
to overbuilding.
Flex industrial, used by high tech companies and traditional office space
is at 60 percent. (7).
Why would a business choose this location to move to when it will be
more expensive and place their employees and personal property at risk?
With a 60% vacancy rate, they have safer alternatives to consider.
Mixed Use Development
The Washington Square Regional Center Plan will be dependent on
various mixed-use development zoning designations.
Fixed-use projects are still too new for conventional lenders to feel
comfortable with. Even in the best of times, multiple-use development is a
very difficult type of real estate to finance. The reason is that bankers and
lenders generally haven't had long term experience with success rates for
upper-story office space or apartments above ground-floor shops, both
components of the Beaverton Round.
Either the retail spaces remain dark and empty, or the retail is so busy
it bothers the apartment residents and vacancies occur.
There are no local mortgage lending or commercial real estate
businesses involved in the Beaverton Round. (8).
Attractiveness to new tenants
The high-risk nature of this development plan may not be attractive to
new tenants. They would be required to pay expensive flood insurance to place
their employees, families and property at risk. Without a good occupancy rate,
revenues for repayment would not be generated and could result in passing a
huge debt service onto the taxpayer.
Lack of funding at the State and Federal levels.
Urban renewal bonds are currently being challenged in court in
Portland's 10 urban renewal districts because of mismanagement and could
reduce funding for Interstate light rail and public improvements as well as
refunding as much as $30 million to property owners. (9).
5
The State of Oregon is suffering the greatest shortfall of taxes in 20 years.
Carrying Capacity
"Plans directed toward diversification and improvement of the economy
of the planning area should consider as a major determinant the
carrying capacity of the air, land and water resources of the planning
area. The land conservation and development actions provided for by
such plans should not exceed the carrying capacity of such resources."
The WSRCP does not take issue with carrying capacity.
The WSRCP does not meet State Goal 9 due to economic conditions and
carrying capacity.
Goal 10 - Housing
Goal 10 states:
"...housing elements should, at a minimum, include: (1) a comparison
of the distribution of the existing population by income with the
distribution of the existing population by income with the distribution
of available housing units by cost; (2) a determination of vacancy
rates, both overall and at varying rent ranges and cost levels;
(3) a determination of expected housing demand at varying rent ranges,
and cost levels...:' (10).
Planners state that Metzger Elementary won't be affected by this high
density plan because it won't generate school-age children. How is that
possible if the plan will provide available housing units at various price ranges
and rent levels? We can only deduce that they are focusing on a select market
and not an evenly-mixed population.
Because of the current recession and job loss in Oregon,there is a decline
in demand for high priced apartments and apartments located in the high-
tech corridor. Many renters are downsizing their rent payments to
compensate for pay cuts, layoffs and economic uncertainty. (11).
The WSRCP does not fulfill State Goal 10 until adequate provisions are
provided for the school needs of the projected population of school-age
children.
6
Staff report states in its overall vision on page 3 that the WSRCP will
preserve existing residential neighborhoods. This is an incorrect statement
because an urban renewal district is being sought. Eminent domain, or
condemnation would take place. This would effectively remove property
owners from their homes, paying there current market value and not the
enhanced value of the new zoning designations. A private development
interest would step in, reap the enhanced value price and keep all profit from
the development. How is this for the greater good?
As it stands, the WSRCP will destroy an existing healthy residential
community containing small businesses, exacerbate flooding risk and rezone
our area with risky designations not attractive to commercial lending
institutions.
The deficiencies of the applications of Statewide Planning Goals needs to
be revisited by the task force, the plan revised and then put forth for public
comment.
Until all Statewide Planning Goals are studied, applied and have public
approval, this plan should not move forward and the zoning designations
should remain in their current state.
Signed;
r
ncl:
1. Milstein, Michael. (2001, Oct. 18). Research measures urban forests'
value. The Oregonian. p. B12.
2. State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines. Goal 2: Land
v
Use Plannin,g_QAR 660-O1S-0000(2) State of Oregon Government
Printing Office.
7
S. State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines. Goal 6: Air. Water
and Land Resource Ouality.OAR 660-015-0000(6). State of Oregon
Government Printing Office.
4. State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines. Goal 7: Areas
iubbJect to Natural Hazards State of Oregon Government Printing Office.
5. Unified Sewerage Agency (June, 1997). Fanno Creek Watershed
Management Plan. Section III Table 6 Watershed Peak Flows
at Selected Locations.
6. State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines. Goal 9: Economic
Development OAR 660-015-0000(9) State of Oregon Government Printing
Office.
7. Harrington, P. (Dec. 20, 2001). Office building vacancies top 50 percent
in Sunset Corridor. The Oregoni~ 'an- .R.
8. Colby, R. (Dec. 6, 2001). Slow for economy, slow for Round.
The Oregonian Washington County Weekly. pp. 1, 15.
9. Oliver, G. (Dec. 21, 2001). Ruling puts urban renewal funds at risk.
The Oregonian pp. D1, D7.
10. State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines. Goal 10:
Housing OAR 660-015-00000 State of Oregon Government Printing
Office.
11. Stout, H.J. (January 2002). Apartment Industry Hit Hard During
Downturn. The Apartment Manager. Portland Metro Val, Uv r
p. 1.
;a
sa e' s
~~~°a s~E ff-9 gD1 fill
•p ° E ° r ~.QS a. m E ~ S3 y 8g'~
g o Qi S E73,i s~ `o V gc'L7 ~c R Q
F~ P! u ~ S 2S ~ o '2 E ~
' ~Sj~ I'r Ra7~ ~
Al Eoa~b' E •S E~4 ~E y xqA= MNNUM
h/v.23i$Tm
9 5 P:' D'o a vm •v a
S.. ® g°$m 03.48 5 I
9A 2 rs
72 gi -jf P, . I ~ It 279 bl 581
$.811-5141 1.1 °=gym 1 g
y [6S
44 Q .1 i qG e ; m p Cdi5 $ k ra s o i o o
4 t*9 5 mi a c _ 5Q~ tf 8~
G-. G 1 t 'I .1 °'o~e. oo 9m p m8 88 S~mG°•~ o I CQ
~~yy a 93
av 6I`ww°~ '3 a a' 'x_05 3 = s3-ao• u~o
Y 02 E
P~ _ 5 w 8g e d- en
n $ 4 8m~ ~pr~ $v °3s m o" s., 0 5~ orb 2 °o933Bo °y,~4 0
mole 11
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING
OAR 660-015-0000(2)
DART 1- PLANNING public hearing and shall be reviewed
To establish a land use and, as needed, revised on a periodic
planning process and policy cycle to take into account changing
framework as a basis for all decision public policies and circumstances, in
and actions related to use of land and accord with a schedule set forth in the
to assure an adequate factual base plan. Opportunities shall be provided for
for such decisions and actions. review and comment by citizens and
City, county, state and federal affected governmental units during
agency and special district plans and preparation, review and revision of plans
actions related to land use shall be and implementation ordinances.
consistent with the comprehensive plans Affected Governmental Units
of cities and counties and regional plans are those local governments, state and
adopted under ORS Chapter 268. federal agencies and special districts
All land use plans shall include which have programs, land ownerships,
identification of issues and problems, or responsibilities within the area
inventories and other factual information included in the plan.
for each applicable statewide planning Comprehensive Plan as
goal, evaluation of alternative courses of defined in ORS 197.015(5).
action and ultimate policy choices, Coordinated-- as defined in
taking into consideration social, ORS 197.015(5). Note: It is included in
economic, energy and environmental the definition of comprehensive plan.
needs. The required information shall be Implementation Measures are
contained in the plan document or in the means used to carry out the plan.
supporting documents. The plans, These are of two general types:
supporting documents and (1) management implementation
implementation ordinances shall be filed measures such as ordinances,
in a public office or other place easily regulations or project plans, and (2) site
accessible to the public. The plans shall or area specific implementation
be the basis for specific implementation measures such as permits and grants
measures. These measures shall be for construction, construction of public
consistent with and adequate to carry facilities or provision of services.
out the plans. Each plan and related Plans as used here
implementation measure shall be encompass all plans which guide
coordinated with the plans of affected land-use decisions, including both
governmental units. comprehensive and single-purpose
All land-use plans and plans of cities, counties, state and
implementation ordinances shall be federal agencies and special districts.
adopted by the governing body after
9
PART II o EXCEPTIONS standards for an exception have or have
A local government may adopt an not been met
exception to a goal when: Each notice of a public hearing
(a) The land subject to the on a proposed exception shall
exception is physically developed to the specifically note that a goal exception is
extent that it is no longer available for proposed and shall summarize the
uses allowed by the applicable goal; issues in an understandable manner.
(b) The land subject to the Upon review of a decision
exception is irrevocably committed to approving or denying an exception:
uses not allowed by the applicable goal (a) The commission shall be
because existing adjacent uses and bound by any finding of fact for which
other relevant factors make uses there is substantial evidence in the
allowed by the applicable goal record of the local government
impracticable; or proceedings resulting in approval or
(c) The following standards are denial of the exception;
met: (b) The commission shall
(1) Reasons justify why the state determine whether the local .
policy embodied in the applicable goals government's findings and reasons
should not apply; demonstrate that the standards for an
(2) Areas which do not require a exception have or have not been met;
new exception cannot reasonably and
accommodate the use; (c) The commission shall adopt a
(3) The long-term environmental, clear statement of reasons which sets
economic, social and energy forth the basis for the determination that
consequences resulting from the use of the standards for an exception have or
the proposed site with measures have not been met.
designed to reduce adverse impacts are
not significantly more adverse than Exception means a. comprehensive
would typically result from the same plan provision, including an amendment
proposal being located in areas to an acknowledged comprehensive
requiring a goal exception other than the plan, that;
proposed site; and (a) Is applicable to specific
(4) The proposed uses are properties or situations and does not
compatible with other adjacent uses or establish a planning or zoning policy of
will be so rendered through measures general applicability;
designed to reduce adverse impacts. (b) Does not comply with some or
all goal requirements applicable to the
Compatible, as used in subparagraph subject properties or situations; and
(4) is not intended as an absolute term (c) Complies with standards for
meaning no interference or adverse an exception.
impacts of any type with adjacent uses.
A local government approving or PART III - USE OF GUIDELINES
denying a proposed exception shall set Governmental units shall review
forth findings of fact and a statement of the guidelines set forth for the goals and
reasons which demonstrate that the either utilize the guidelines or develop
alternative means that will achieve the
2
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL G: AIR, WATER AND LAND
RESOURCES QUALITY
OAR 660-015-0000(6) To maintain and Improve the quality solid waste disposal sites and sludge
of the air, water and land resources disposal sites.
of the state. 2. Plans should designate areas
All waste and process discharges for urban and rural residential use only
from future development, when where apprevable sewage disposal
combined with such discharges from alternatives have been clearly identified
existing developments shall not threaten in such plans:
.
to violate, or violate applicable state or 3. Plans should buffer and
federal environmental quality statutes, separate those land uses which create
rules and standards. With respect to the or lead to conflicting requirements-and
air, water and land resources of the impacts upon the air, water and land
applicable air sheds and river basins resources.
described or included in state 4. Plans which provide for the
environmental quality statutes, rules, maintenance and improvement of air,
standards and implementation plans, land and water resources of the
such discharges shall not (1) exceed the planning area should consider as a
carrying capacity of such resources, major determinant the carrying capacity
considering long range needs; (2) of the air, land and water resources•of
degrade such resources; or (3) threaten the planning airea. The land
the availability of such resources. conservation and development actions
provided for.by such plans should not
Waste and Process Discharges exceed the carrying capacity of su-C}1
refers to solid waste, thermal, noise, resources.
atmospheric or water pollutants, 5. All plans and programs
contaminants, or products therefrom. affecting waste and process discharges
Included here also are indirect sources should be coordinated within the -
of air pollution which result in emissions applicable air sheds and river basins
of air contaminants for which the state described or included in state
has established standards. environmental quality statutes, irides,
standards-and implementation plan.
GUIDELINES - 6. Plans of state agencie..s-before
s they are adopted should be coordinated
A. PLANNING with and reviewed by local agencies.-
1. Plans should designate with respect to the impact of these 'plaris
alternative areas suitable for use in on the air, water and land resources:in-
controlling pollution including but not the planning area.
limited to waste water treatment plants,
1
7. In all air quality maintenanoe
• - . areas, plans should be based on -
applicable state rules for reducing
Indirect pollution and be sufficiently
comprehensive to include major
"4rgnsportation, industrial, institutional,
commercial recreational and
governmental developments and.
•-facilities. w
B. IMPL.EMEi4TATION
1. Plans shou9d tape into account
methods and devices for implementing
this goal, including but not limited tolhe
following:
(1) tax incentives-and
disincentim, -
(2) iandi useconrols.and
ordinances, .
(3) multiple-use and joint
development practises,
(4) capital facility pi6gramming,
(5) fee and less-than-fee:-
acquisition techniques, and-
(6) enforcement of local health
and safety ordinances.
2. A management progranthat
- '7~etails the respedtive amplernentation
roles and responsibilities for carrying out
- -#his goal in the planning area shouidbe
='established in the comprehensive plan.
3. Programs should manage land
conservation and development activities
-...,4ma manner that accurately reflects the=
community's desires for a quality
environment and a healthy economy_
- and is consistent with state .
environmental quality statutes,"(Wes,
standards and implementation plans.
2
Adopted September 28,2WI
Effective June 1, 2002
Oregon's Statewide Planning Gals and Guidelines
GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
To protect people and property from property based on the new inventory
nataral hazards, information and an assessment of:
a. the frequency, severity and
A. NATURAL HAZARD PLANNING location of the hazard;
1. Local governments shall adopt b. the effects of the hazard on
comprehensive plans (inventories, policies existing and future development;
and implementing measures) to reduce risk c. the potential for development in
to people and property from natural hazards. the hazard area to increase the frequency
and severity of the hazard; and
2. Natural hazards for purposes of d. the types and intensities of land
this goal are: floods (coastal and riverine), uses to be allowed in the hazard area.
landslides,' earthquakes and related hazards, 2. Allow an opportunity for citizen
tsunamis, coastal erosion, and wildfires. review and comment on the new inventory
Local governments may identify and plan information and the results of the evaluation
for other natural hazards. and incorporate such information into the
comprehensive plan, as necessary.
B. RESPONSE TO NEW HAZARD 3. Adopt or amend, as necessary,
E ORMATION based on the evaluation of risk, plan policies
1. New hazard inventory and implementing measures consistent with
information provided by federal and state the following principles:
agencies shall be reviewed by the a. avoiding development in hazard
Department in consultation with affected areas where the risk to people and property
state and local government representatives. cannot be mitigated; and
2. After such consultation, the b. prohibiting the siting of
Department shall notify local governments if essential facilities, major structures,
the new hazard information requires a local hazardous facilities and special occupancy
response. structures, as defined in the state building
3. Local governments shall respond code (ORS 455.447(1)
to new inventory information on natural (a)(b)(c) and (e)), in identified hazard areas,
hazards within 36 months after being where the risk to public safety cannot be
notified by the Department of Land mitigated, unless an essential facility is
Conservation and Development, unless needed within a hazard area in order to
extended by the Department. provide essential emergency response
services in a timely manner.
C. EUPLEMENTATION 4. Local governments will be
Upon receiving notice from the deemed to comply with Goal 7 for coastal
Department, a local government shall: and riverine flood hazards by adopting and
1. Evaluate the risk to people and
m For rmposes of constructing essential facilities, and
special occupancy structures in tsunami inundation
zones, the requirements of the state building code -
' 1 br "rapidly moving landslides," the requirements ORS 455.446 and 455.447 (1999 edition) and OAR
of ORS 195.250-195.275 (1999 edition) apply. chapter 632, division 5 apply.
Z%UVFtw J%.VWUAwL W, LANt
P Fffecdve June 1. 2002
~
implementing local floodplain regulations 2. Local governments should consider
that meet the minimum National Flood programs to manage stormwater runoff as a
Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. means to help address flood and landslide
hazards.
D. COORDINATION 3. Local governments should consider
1. In accordance with ORS 197.180 nonregulatory approaches to help implement
and Goal 2, state agencies shall coordinate this goal, including but not limited to:
their natural hazard plans and programs with a. providing financial incentives and
local governments and provide local disincentives;
governments with hazard inventory b. providing public information and
information and technical assistance education materials;
including development of model ordinances c. establishing or making use of
and risk evaluation methodologies. existing programs to retrofit, relocate, or
2. Local governments and state acquire existing dwellings and structures at
agencies shall follow such procedures, risk from natural disasters.
standards and definitions as may be 4. When reviewing development
contained in statewide planning goals and requests in high hazard areas, local
commission rules in developing programs to governments should require site-specific
achieve this goal. reports, appropriate for the level and type of
hazard (e.g., hydrologic reports,
GUIDELINES geotechnical reports or other scientific or
engineering reports) prepared by a licensed
A. PLANNING professional. Such reports should evaluate
1. In adopting plan policies and the risk to the site as well as the risk the
implementing measures to protect people proposed development may pose to other
and property from natural hazards, local properties.
governments should consider. 5. Local governments should consider
a. the benefits of maintaining measures that exceed the National Flood
natural hazard areas as open space, Insurance Program (NFIP) such as:
recreation and other low density uses; a. limiting placement of-fill in
b. the beneficial effects that natural floodplains;
hazards can have on natural resources and b. prohibiting the storage of
the environment; and hazardous materials in floodplains or
c. the effects of development providing for safe storage of such materials;
and mitigation measures in identified hazard and
areas on the management of natural c. elevating structures to a level
resources. higher than that required by the NFIP and
2. Local governments should coordinate the state building code.
their land use plans and decisions with Flood insurance policy holders may
emergency preparedness, response, recovery be eligible for reduced insurance rates
and mitigation programs. through the NFIP's Community Rating
System Program when local governments
D. IMPLEMENTATION adopt these and other flood protection
1. Local governments should measures.
give special attention to emergency access
when considering development in identified
hazard areas.
2
Table 6
Watershed Peak Flows at Selected Locations
Existing Future 2040
Crook Location Event Year, Cis Event Year. Cie
ID a Rch M12 2 10 25 100 2 10 26 100
Ash Crook RR tracks near N Dakota & AS1T A-1 428 322 491 574 e85 485 738 861 1028
End of Spam St & AS4E A-2 3.53 316 476 553 655 496 732 845 995
Hemlock & Hall Blvd & AS7T A-3 2.80 285 426 492 562 514 748 857 1002
Taylors Ferry Rd & ASSE A-6 1.34 124 167 217 257 240 348 400 470
Ball Crook RR tracks near 74th Ave & BL1 8-1 2.38 361 555 638 749 437 629 720 841
Bed Aire Croak Bel-Aire Dr & FM5W1 BA-1 0.38 62 91 105 1241 76 111 127 148
Derry Dell Creek Wahm St & DDt DD-1 0.82 112 167 193 228f 160 233 268 315
Morgen Ct & DD3W DD-3 0.61 85 127 147 1731 120 176 202 236
Fanno Crook Tualatin River Confluence TOTAL F-1 32.06 1438 2147 2501 2989 1565 2350 2744 3269
Duftm Rd Bridge & FL3SE F-1 3129 1418 2117 2468 2958 1550 2330 2711 3224
Ball Confluence & FLBL F-2 30.50 1435 2192 2563 3063 1615 2427 2829 3391
Red Rock Confluence & FLRR F-5 27M 1339 2048 2393 2856 1508 2275 2660 3176
Deny Dell Confluence & FLDD F-9 24.32 1309 2012 2365 2824 1549 2329 2726 3276
Summer Confluence & FLSM F-10 23.44 1264 1939 2281 2722 1472 2217 2591 3091
Ash Confluence & FMAS F-11 1720 936 1427 1667 1967 1037 1552 1808 2149
Nilson Confluence & FMHN F-12 12.70 713 1070 1249 1492 791 1184 1375 1630
Near Nimbus Drive & FM4T F-13 11.54 713 1078 1257 1499 799 1200 1395 1657
Bel Aire Confluence & FM5W F-13 9.99 701 1050 1223 1455 793 1182 1375 1632
Bohmann Parkway & FMBS F-17 8.47 783 1173 1361 1614 897 1338 1551 1835
Woods Confluence & FMWD F-19 8.16 765 1154 '1340 1591 876 1313 1523 1803
Nicol Rd & FMD F-20 6.68 685 1032 1198 1419 808 1206 1400 1653
Vermont Confluence & FMVT F-21 6.42 735 1099 1272 1504 877 1301 1505 1775
Pendleton Confluence & FUPN F-22 4.85 603 895 1035 1221 728 1071 1233 1445
Sylvan Confluence & FUSV F-22 4.46 552 821 948 1118 669 986 1136 1331
Hltoon Croak Hart Pond & HN1 ' H-1 0.77 121 179 20S 243 144 209 239 280
Pendleton Crook Chinese Resturant _ PN1 0.39 55 81 93 109 63 92 106 124
Progress Crook Garden Home Rd FM9S P-1 0.14 1 10 14 17 201 31 44 50 59
Rod Rock Crook RR tracks at Wall St & RR1 RR-1 1.62 1 277 401 459 5381 317 455 521 607
Summer Crook Fowler Middle School & SM1 S-1 6.13 508 762 881 1050 648 951 1193 1308
Krouger Confluence & SMKR S-1 5.65 555 621 941 1112 749 1072 1251 1485
Sunmerlake - SM4LK S-3 4.67 465 884 780 923 645 915 1078 1293
Kadwrine St & KRi S-2 0.83 95 144 167 197 142 209 241 282
Sylvan Crook Scholia Ferry & 8V1 SV-1 120 1 111 169 196 2331 196 288 331 389
Vomwnt Crook Oleson Rd VT1 V-1 124 1 172 254 292 3441 197 289 332 390
Wooden Crook Port" Go" Club 8 WD1 W-1 1.37 171 253 292 344 253 369 424 497
& WD3 W.1 0.99 145 214 247 291 185 268 307 360
Location (Node) in NEG t noel where subb-aslet flow Is eonrbbmed
Rch Reach code reference (for Natural Resources elements)
Oso Four-60 METi MSA quartersedion 100
Mil Subbasin Arm (square miles)
EAUVng Land use vwdded using METRO zone coverage, **h vacant and pubic oven dandy deleted
Future 2040 Land use modeled using 2040 covrt;rrape odfak ed ftm METRO
e Event Year 1w am the despn events modeled (the 2-,5-.106,2S-. 50-, and 100year events)
Fnaao Creek Watershed Managetneni Plan Section III 16
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OAR 560-015-0000(8)
To provide adequate opportunities commercial uses consistent with plan
throughout the state for a variety of policies;
economic activities vital to the 4. Limit uses on or near sites
health, welfare, and prosperity of zoned for specific industrial and
Oregon's citizens. commercial uses to those which are
Comprehensive plans and compatible with proposed uses.
policies shall contribute to a stable and
healthy economy in all regions of the In accordance with ORS 137.180
state. Such plans shall be based on and Goal 2, state agencies that issue
inventories of areas suitable for permits affecting land use shall identify
increased economic growth and activity in their coordination programs how they
after taking into consideration the health will coordinate permit issuance with
of the current economic base; materials other state agencies, cities and
and energy availability and cost; labor counties.
market factors; educational and
technical training programs; availability GUIDELINES
of key public facilities; necessary
support facilities; current market forces; A. PLANNING
location relative to markets; availability 1. A principal determinant in
of renewable and non-renewable planning for major industrial and
resources; availability of land; and commercial developments should be the
pollution control requirements. comparative advantage of the region
within which the developments would be
Comprehensive plans for urban areas located. Comparative advantage
shall: industries are those economic activities
which represent the most efficient use of
1. Include an analysis of the resources, relative to other geographic
community's economic patterns, areas.
potentialities, strengths, and deficiencies 2. The economic development
as they relate to state and national projections and the comprehensive plan
trends; which is drawn from the projections
2. Contain policies concerning should take into account the availability
the economic development opportunities of the necessary natural resources to
in the community; support the expanded industrial
3. Provide for at least an development and associated
adequate supply of sites of suitable populations. The plan should also take
sizes, types, locations, and service into account the social, environmental,
levels for a variety of industrial and energy, and economic impacts upon the
resident population.
1
o
3. Plans should designate the
type and level of public facilities and
services appropriate to support the
degree of economic development being
proposed.
4. Plans should strongly
emphasize the expansion of and
increased productivity from existing
industries and firms as a means to
strengthen local and regional economic
development.
5. Plans directed toward
diversification and improvement of the
economy of the planning area should
consider as a major determinant, the
carrying capacity of the air, land and
water resources of the planning area.
The land conservation and development
actions provided for by such plans
should not exceed the carrying capacity
of such resources.
B. IMPLEMENTATION
1. Plans should take into account
methods and devices for overcoming
certain regional conditions and
deficiencies for implementing this goal,
including but not limited to
(1) tax incentives and
disincentives;
(2) land use controls and
ordinances;
(3) preferential assessments;
(4) capital improvement
programming; and
(5) fee and less-than-fee
acquisition techniques.
2. Plans should provide for a
detailed management program to assign
respective implementation roles and
responsibilities to those private and
governmental bodies which operate in
the planning area and have interests in
carrying out this goal and in supporting
and coordinating regional and local
economic plans and programs.
2
i
= 3.r-~7~9-i~-:(3R~Gi0l~6IKt'J"_♦ ~'HIQA'e':-DECE6V?~`1
,
@Ile
Office-buitom- vacancies,, t9p.
5 percent Sunset Cor0dor
buildings was 60 percent, The high .Vacancy rate has
A market report blames the .Tice., total office vacancy race caused the
nse average lease pnoe to
om last the :combines both traditional. office . fall from $23 62;a square foot last
Year On and flax industrial space, Which re- year to $2224 this yeas
recession and overbuilding fern ;to^burdins zoned'.for;both • ~-Barinaga.:Harrington predicted
standard:offiee:use and light man- that the,:.Sunset; Corridor -.has
By PATRICK HARRINGT®N high-tech . companies enough office space to last 24 to 36
THE onzEGoxurr
months meaning that new waves
usually,occupyflexbirildings:
Compared with last year, the va- "Ilre bright side is that we had of construction could begin in the
cancy rate for office buildings in lease, activity of I milllion square fiitiire, depending on hoW long it
the high-tech,region (mown as the feet," Barinaga Harrington said:In takes Oregon's economy io ~
r Sunset Corridor has more than 2000, tenants leased 1.4 million bound.
doubled, according to the most re- squaref.ed of space. "Hopefully Oregon: won't : lag
behind the rest of the U.S: econo-
:cent market report,released by "We : pm, y ,are not that far o$" my," she said.
w Cus man & Wakefield. she said.
y Office. - vacancy in the Sunset Oveiali, there are 38 office build- Wakefield general, the Cushman &
Corridor, most of which falls in ings"iri: the Sunset Corridor repre- Wak report predicted better
Washington County along the Sun- senting things on the horizon..
.X.8 million square feet of "The consensus is that the
:set Highway, is at 54.7 Percent; up : space; In thefourth quarter, the va- worst may be over,in regard to the..
from 20.7 percent at the. end of last . cancq.; rate :.for , those . buildings current recession;" said broker
year.. reacliec141.3'pe+aent .she said, up Gary Griff in a news release.
But things aren't as bad as they frogr. 39.6 percent in the thud The suburban east market ex-
; look, said- Ramona Barinaga Har- : quarp~r• perienced the highest overallva-
tiington; who focuses on..the high- In'the 146 ffeii buildings in the cancyr increcse for office space-fn
4.tech real estate. market for. Push- ` corridor; the. vacancy rate was. the fourdiquarter,:rlsingfnom 11.8
Zman & Wakefield. She linked most much=lower; ;13.4 percent That's percent to.162.. pei;c . Tlie over-
- Hof the empty space to overbuilding up from 121 percent in the previ- west
irr200i:. ous'quarter creased from 17.9 percent to 192
As evidence, she pointed to the -Perhaps most dramatic is how percent
29 office buildings constructed in the recent numbers compare with
4 2004 10 of them standard office a year ago. Office vacancy rates for
and 19 fleas buildings, representing the fourth quarter of 2000 were You can reach Patrick Harrington
a. total of 1.4 p*on square feet of 14.5 percent; flex office was 62 , at 503-294-5934 or by e-mail at
space:'"m vacaiicjr`:rate in ;those percentvacant pharringtonfnews.oregoniamcom.
.Y
Q
1
p
1 21111
^....r _rt
29T.gg61 OR SO3''r'
rr1ECR-WEST 4UREALP SC
TiitIRSDA' o DECEMBER 6 2001
IBM
All for
ME Ara
slow
Dom pi= als0hast8bMa`e'
ct s space pteleased. metes Diormwrmt~ upbeat
lor roect p
said Larry mmm ercent of R ro ea senior RealFstate mpnew
obs vice Group pres% aboutce theloana
townrevily= °f _
none j by late this -mo
ervers say, but the uildeconomic reces- offiaais wait for a a Southern dent oe~ Pao m
inWash- As city a loan do Patdand rinci can resutue a'tn d years
lion and an office bing Slut to mak Callfomia bm*xr to r6pe pal
}rave contributed ra of Glen lohn Morrow, a Dom'Piatz P cy us until the
prpjects, such as ington County about fiDom P1atz Propem that the company -The city has to and we h* aped mixed them e reonelY cautious allowingDo ifl restart the proje said this week n roject has &oerton he said. s
's, are stl ~ a new game nnaancing complex real estate p 1 . dale; observers MY some of the Bearce s P released, but 28dt " of by Neiftr 'are , Beaverma Central. Portland-ate loan rna unless a square feet of office spate P have it taken . offidals have Ply Morrow nor cay to knders, who prefer proven sitchasthNeeic. e Roudw B
dat eaverton City Council the.fnancinB tines are to have justthe hewouldtitsayhowmuch he tvelendet•
t5
yet said
-paces investments and preleased ~ a Southern Cal forma d o) planned project appears No one has been s`8ned
t3y RICHARD COL BY a third extension of its cot financing; he ~tingredti such ingredients is for the Round's 120,000 square h of to p see ttaut+D+ P art- from the g0 percent, even 70 tell outlets or the pattlY.fihed
TtteoxeGorom city, until Dec. to comp t~50percen
ha B
stalled down-
N Co nunescial tenders n buy the he longRound
BFA~TG offer, city and resutna ,
nationwide have lots of money to
Boom"
-3M -W-B
R0und:---M^a)-`or eq u. i
ptoo-ed, ty.,
a Iner r e
Cmtinued from Page 1 4LPm very confident this Will be signed and that the General i s Pensiori'irust and ?
M Investment ~ j
General Electdc Morrow's flan become interest- project-will~bg build"
least,one of
ed in the Round last year as the said; will .'be inwlved 'with . the
project's previous developers, Sel- UNDA AWARD, Round.
Wyrl$ingliam 8[rd SylWatjieaVef Of MAYOR ROD DAAlCB'S CHIEF OF STAFF
Fortis id, fopg h ihe' dty's rr'pos- 0 ~Vl=#Q!Y
sessiortofthe' Project ki U.S. Mark V den.. seaiar. vine Pte- r
nrptcy :Court, Dom= whicdr ficisl's confidence . sounds brave . mers said, is the pariking availabl's . manager dentadm ket for MS.
signed: a'contract ia'ptily'to take among observations from Rem- for apartment dwellers, retail cus- Banks commercial real estate op- i
over• thi- Round, has, developed mers and others in the Portland- tourers and office tenants. elation in Portland, said that caps- I
other offige and retail complexes in arrea' mo e- len ' and`~oom ' tal •marbet:lerrders "are very:$ush
so California and Teiras. S The Rounds cer►tering Trl- with cash, ro we all need to maim
mer«al real estate fields None is Met's westslde light rail line loans." But he and others remers
iyiormvfs ti1trASra 00IItInliE4 Involved With the Round. . should make tbe5project alorazval cautious . about
Lt+„y~ , ;s; sti r "even tan :tire best of titaes, ueb7e eventualfyke'sai, lnt a Lod of'a sudrrl.-
` 7A bg m`utppfe treeteveloprnent is a very .more , ei~e ;que§tiorry #s meat
k
an t OW, IF
vViII dithcailt of real estate`to fi whether
34'Ya x ~>}arlee," it Mb said Then eon wave to o Bite s 'Ther+e's waymorentoney in fire
's h bankers and nther.,lendezv CanyonRoaiL system than car be, vAh4
lien ?eYeneiaIly lcaven't had long=term w O"~` .Waltli:Hardirrg,':senior vk~e
-Atop
president for Noms Beggs & Sfriip-
RQ ceo~ ence'wth juocess rates for
in$§,Dom-Platz'srevlsedd
vray to upper storyo space or apart- ment labs for t#ie;torincl ind son !s mortgage lentlaig division in
P . Pbi&h : ns, sr h =as
4, _ r h>xrr coal metif§ aim 'ground floor shops, - a combined paddtigfsand at i W4S o
Road. both co amts of the Roun real estate iave5t=
- z club builclirrg with four +"pezldr went"iiusts, pension tnrsts, °you
Bow Iii some projeds,.1 said, retail; levels totaling hone Ott N7flt!
5 ~A~ Hama it;' have Al been. looking
Boole- spaces have =zemained dark and. spaces. Surfaceand tgoftopa around for investment o muri-
1~, empty. or the rail is so busy, it ing 8140 are melon ato 00 ties; "but are PPS
%e4 604 "
residential they
~if i ll t I it}elleii atlyttiltig, drives die' trnent 'residents iresaid:
"l~'{1 > telling the nuts, and vatahdes occur fliere °
Such-an organization will fiord a
c%ptlnr , a ` ' Pc►int, sion`t Another cchlcal success . indlca-. ' Also needed fot '
u ~ ~ s r PLO F' - deal :if itappears good, Aarding
#iowe er w~ placed, the cr~t}i of- t "Ouch developments, Rem- Round, Remmers said, is "a level said Ties Hat; theyI[ vanish li&e a
ash <=j... oper with a lot of dougb," or a maw. inagidan.".
jor equity paltrier , for the long
term..
Por its prnvious_ :projects, Dorn- You :can. mrch .Rfclwd Colby d t,
Platt has touted-longtime relations 50-294-S961 or.by e-mail at,dick=
with two major:eiluity partners; the colby@newsoregonicur c»m.
.Ag $111
_ ~m$ $
41
a.
o @ g
g ` E
~ES~EZ2v ~
o~a
h $ ~"Lqq~ 8.W ~7 Fib :El P~iS H s
His
y °N ;,age l .qy 8. ~ A apt l^ .CI ,p(SgpL. ~~q G
~9pp~., ~
- :L 'G S ~ ~ ~A~r~ Ff.:;~~ ~•GG~ `$W 7',, .aaa+~pgiii~~~~y; ~ p~'C.g~y~B W }?$q~. :i
Hig-RIMN
XNA a°•5 So € as a R m ~TS.[7 8".:''a3 • rs 7 :g" :25
13,13. 51,
,-O a e
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 10: HOUSING
OAR 660-015-0000(10)
To provide for the housing needs of /Needed Housing Units means
citizens of the state. housing types determined to meet the
Buildable lands for residential use need shown for housing within an urban
shall be inventoried and plans shall growth boundary at particular price
encourage the availability of adequate ranges and rent levels. On and after the
numbers of needed housing units at beginning of the first periodic review of a
price ranges and rent levels which are local government's acknowledged
commensurate with the financial comprehensive plan, "needed housing
capabilities of Oregon households and units" also includes
allow for flexibility of housing location, government-assisted housing. For cities
type and density. having populations larger than 2,500
Buildable Lands refers to people and counties having populations
lands in urban and urbanizable areas larger than 15,000 people, "needed
that are suitable, available and housing units" also includes (but is not
necessary for residential use. limited to) attached and detached
Government-Assisted Housing single-family housing, multiple-family
means housing that is financed in housing, and manufactured homes,
whole or part by either a federal or state whether occupied by owners or renters.
housing agency or a local housing
authority as defined in ORS 456.005 to GUIDELINES
456.720, or housing that is occupied by
a tenant or tenants who benefit from A. PLANNING
rent supplements or housing vouchers 1. In addition to inventories of
provided by either a federal or state buildable lands, housing elements of a
housing agency or a local housing comprehensive plan should, at a
authority. minimum, include: (1) a comparison of
Household refers to one or the distribution of the existing population
more persons occupying a single by income with the distribution of
housing unit. available housing units by cost; (2) a
Manufactured Homes means determination of vacancy rates, both
structures with a Department of Housing overall and at varying rent ranges and
and Urban Development (HUD) labs! cost levels; (3) a determination of
certifying that the structure is expected housing demand at varying
constructed in accordance with the rent ranges and cost levels; (4)
National Manufactured Housing allowance for a variety of densities and
Construction and Safety Standards Act types of residences in each community;
of 1974 (42 USC 5401 et seq.), as and (5) an inventory of sound housing in
amended on August 22, 1981. urban areas including units capable of
being rehabilitated.
1
r 2. Plans should be developed in accordance with zoning ordinances and
a manner that insures the provision of with provisions of comprehensive plans.
appropriate types and amounts of land 4. Ordinances and incentives
within urban growth boundaries. Such should be used to increase population
land should be necessary and suitable densities in urban areas taking into
for housing that meets the housing consideration (1) key facilities, (2) the
needs of households of all income economic, environmental, social and
levels. energy consequences of the proposed
3. Plans should provide for the densities and (3) the optimal use of
appropriate type, location and phasing existing urban land particularly in
of public facilities and services sufficient sections containing significant amounts
to support housing development in of unsound substandard structures.
areas presently developed or 5. Additional methods and
undergoing development or devices for achieving this goal should,
redevelopment. after consideration of the impact on
4. Plans providing for housing lower income households, include, but
needs should consider as a major not be limited to: (1) tax incentives and
determinant the carrying capacity of the disincentives; (2) building and
air, land and water resources of the construction code revision; (3) zoning
planning area. The land conservation and land use controls; (4) subsidies and
and development actions provided for loans; (5) fee and less-than=fee
by such plans should not exceed the acquisition techniques; (6) enforcement
carrying capacity of such resources. of local health and safety codes; and (7)
coordination of the development of
E. IMPLEMENTATION urban facilities and services to disperse
1. Plans should provide for a low income housing throughout the
continuing review of housing need planning area.
projections and should establish a 6. Plans should provide for a
process for accommodating needed detailed management program to assign
revisions. respective implementation roles and
2. Plans should take into account responsibilities to those governmental
the effects of utilizing financial bodies operating in the planning area
incentives and resources to (a) stimulate and having interests in carrying out the
the rehabilitation of substandard goal.
housing without regard to the financial
capacity of the owner so long as
benefits accrue to the occupants; and
(b) bring into compliance with codes
adopted to assure safe and sanitary
housing the dwellings of individuals who
cannot on their own afford to meet such
codes.
3. Decisions on housing
development proposals should be
expedited when such proposals are in
2
the
a
~tj I$ a r- 2002
Vdi. f .
. A Sri
onne4
on.stte Maintenance Pers
Circuoat~on many ers,
rs Added to pro r 155we 1
3 artrnentAwn®~'
,500 [dew Apert~ltient 0wne er A
rx Mailed Mon hl to pordand/Vancotm~
Clark County Rentol Association
15,30i9 Po ation;lREM; C,
Or Oregon Apartment
Inc Est. 1996 Assoc
R~rociuctian' Multifamily Noo
A ®i ~annon d -
Published in association sing Association; e9
wish: M1:780 Mu
q Chapter 29
I~ Institute of
a -14 Real Estate
Management
a Apartment Indus"
t Hit Hard During
Downturn
t
LP out Marcus & Millichap's
ment industry report. When
blished in July, it reflected
continued on page 14
r rental activity in the find half of 2001, Taw high-end apartment market is Although both Sunset Corridor and some rental rates and offers service
when landlords were still smiling. also taking a hit as former renters take high-priced apartments are taking a guarantees and tree rent in some
"Some.ofthe facts have definitely advantage ofsuper low interesf.rates hit, Equity Residential Properties properties. "Portland is really embal-
chenpcd since then," Marcus 8c and buy s htarrte: Tnut, a Chicago-bawd REI I with ded in the one month free tent, where-.
Millichap's Portland office, Tiiese`trends ale forcing high-end mo%than 4,000 units In the Portland as people in Northern California yvant
Now, the report is an out-of-date ' epeitittChf owners to cut rental rates, metropolitan area, a lower base rental rate," Lavine said.
reminder of the good times,' when offer premiums or free lent to remain recently purchased Aftfta- The corporate housing market
rents were rising and landlords didn't competitive. "When I call around; the one of the higher- has hit Equity hard--
need special offers to land tenants: higher-end apartments are the ones rent apartment Lavine estimated
Wilson said his company's next that give concessions, but the lower- complexes in that 15 to 20 percent
report--a summary is due,in mid- end apartments haven't generally Hillsboro. of Equity's apart-
December and a full report will be needed to do that," Wilson said." The,497- merits in the
published in January-will reflect the Randy Norgart, president ofCTL unit Palladia at. Sunset Corridor
decline in demand fpr high-priced Manageeient Inc., said these trends 2615 N. W; ; ; were contracted
¢partments and apaM.nents located in have been generally true for- the piore' 194th Tertace__gg. by large
the high-teed' corridor -'•!"Iliere's a than 5,000 units his company awns ; was sold for X51.2; rrtrk; : , employers such as Intel or Nike.
population shift froi#the higher-end and manages in the Portland me'`bo= lion, about 5103,118 per unit, which The employers paid a third-party
apartments to the apartments with politan area. might be the highest-priced apartment company to furnish the apartments
lower rentssped; Wilson, explaining "As the vacancies have increased transaction in Oregon history. Brine and stock them with dishes and
that some tcnfe'rs are downsizing the over the last four to six months, we Lavine, vice pmsident of Equity's linens; the apartments were used by
SfiO,Ll7L th 'r,:e Wrlhng.to ply m, nt. vent from offmug:•gplhrs2$ jn the1Way Pacifp.Noowest region,•said,there's temporary workers from out of town,
fo:mpensateifI y carts, layq( s of drscot7nts or codce$srons:to often ` no buyer's remorse. "We're long- interns and other contracted .workers.
and ecbnoml'a tincL airity. zing them," Norgart said. "Now iftt t7{t term thinkers," he said. "We're not a But'as corporations scaled back on
unusual, es iabjy.Jne Satinet o, m i limitgd op rti projects, their contracted, apartments
.
Corridor, to dfFe 'a~ free i6o'A's'-anC" ne en raduc ' and a were no longer needed., Now Lavine
,(.tin ] p
Norgart said,his:cgmparry has a 6 . progressive environment with busi- said "very few" of Equity's apart-
percenl'overall iaeageyrate,'higher ness and the MAX nearby. ments are still used for corporate
"than the usual 4 percent, and dacancy Eventually, Intel will rebound, and we housing. "We saw in September, that
: chmb§ toabout.8`pi`rcent: in'the believe that the long-tern prospects these just started drying up," Lavine
Sunset;Co'mdir. "Just as we staital are very good " said. "This was happening nationally
seeing our efiployment growth go He described Equity
's overall and industrywide. We first-saw the
negative, we started.to•sce increasing vacancy rates through June, which corporate market begin to soften in
vacancies," he:said.' have affected, properties regardless of March and April. Portland has held
"But Norgart believes his company price, as "very good,". with 4 percent out longer than most markets."
will fare better than most, with well- to 6 percent of apartments vacant. In Norgart said CTL avoids major
located properties that are heavy on August and September, vacancy rose corporate apartment contracts. "We
affordable housing,Hp compared the to 7.5 percent, where it remains. don't want to put too many eggs in
demand.for a!I'ocdpb,O", lousing t8 ".Ironically, the Gresham area, one basket," he said.
retail sales, which have been stronger which historically has been soft, has Equity estimates IS to 20 percent
for discount chains than "for high _ been strong for us," Lavine said. of their tenants leave to buy homes,
priced stores. "Vancouver has 7 percentunemploy- and Lavine agreed with.Wi[son that
"We're feeling the slowdown like ment and still the apartment market is home buying is impacting vacancy.
other companies, but probably to a very strong..Those.markets remain "We anticipate that [renters. leaving
lesser degree because we have a more above that 92. percent average." to buy homes] will decline but it has
affordable product," Norgart said. To bring in tenants, Equity cut been on.the increase this year,"
Lavine said, crediting flexible financ-
ing and lower down-payment require-
Althoe ~iat►d[orf§`'iiiakti$.~.
""°Is dJi°is m rite roc Pb with the.reccs,
sion, the goad news is Porti4,ad has
arly sihble':vacaiicytges;;at 5:3. per-
cent overall according io Wilson.
Also good news: "There really
haven't been a lot of new apartments
built, and there realty aren't a lot in
the pipeline," Wilson said.
This avoids adding too much sup-
ply to a market with waning demand,
Heidi J. Stout
Business Journal Staff Writer
Copyright 2001 A,- rfrarr City
Business Journals Inc.
Printed ivith permission
AParhrNnf M ancmW. 0 Janumary 2002
FROM :METRO COUNCIL OFFICE FAX NO. :503 797 1793 Feb. 19 2002 04:27PM P1
000 ho n TN S AST Off pp0 AVEN VI ro RTLAN P. o R060N 97x57 2775
TEL ,05 757 1700 rAx 505 7/7 1757
Copies to:
' Mayor/Council Other:
City Manager
' Council File
X---
February 19, 2002 M F-TR O
Mayor Jim Griffith and City Council
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223 ` C [
Dear Mayor Griffith and Council:
J. would like to clarify the intent of the Metro Council resolution referring a measure to the voters
of the region for the May ballot'. Resolution 02-3163, unanimously approved by the Metro
Council on Feb. 14, 2002 would amend the Metro Charter to require the Metro Council to amend
the Regional Framework Plan to support the character of identified inner and outer
neighborhoods. Local jurisdictions identified neighborhood boundaries during the development
of the 2040 Growth Concept plan. Areas that were mapped as town centers, regional centers and
other mixed-use areas are not subject to the neighborhood protection requirements.
The referred measure would also require Metro to develop cost impact statements regarding
urban growth boundary amendments, and provide notice to neighborhoods affected by proposed
urban growth boundary amendments. A copy of the resolution and related documents is attached.
Tt is the strong belief of the Metro Council that this measure will support the key components of
the 2040 Growth Concept, including the encouragement of future growth into centers and along
transit routes, while supporting neighborhoods. The referred measure, if approved by voters,
simply places the neighborhood component of the 2040 Growth Concept into the Metro Charter.
By proactively supporting inner and outer neighborhood areas, this measure would reinforce the
regional strategy of increasing the efficiency of the centers, light rail station areas, main streets
and transit corridors designated in the 2040 Growth Concept.
The Metro Council's referral of Resolution 02-3163 is consistent with the policies within the
proposed Washington Square Regional-Center Plan. Metro remains committed to the regional
center plan, as proposed. Let me conclude by commending the effort that the city of Tigard,
Washington County and other partners have initiated on the Washington Square Regional Center
area. As a member of the Washington Square Regional Center Steering Committee, I applaud
your hard work and the hard work of your staff. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to can
my office at (503) 797-1549.
nccrel
Carl H6sticka
Metro Council Presiding Officer
ReeYet-4 r.r••
V"W. Verepton.wp
Too 79T Igoe
FROM :METRO COLHCI L OFFICE FAX NO. :503 797 1793 Feb. 19 2002 e4 : 27PM P2
BEFORE THE METRO COUNCt '
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMI'J" 1'ING )
TO THE VOTERS AN AMENDMENT TO )
THE METRO CHARTER REQITUUNG ) RESOLUTION NO. 02-3163
PROTECTION OF EXISTING SINGLE )
FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, COST )
IMPACT STATEMENTS REGARDING )
URBAN GROWTH BOONDARY ) Introduced by Councilor Burkholder
AMENDMENTS, AND NOTICE TO )
AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOODS )
WHEREAS, the region's residential neighborhoods are a critical ingredient in the
region's livability; and
WHEREAS, residential neighborhoods arc a key component of Metro's 2040 Growth
Concept for the region; and
WHEREAS, Metro and the people of the region can achieve a more livable form of urban
development by accommodating most growth in city centers and along major transportation
corridors, without signifieaut change in the region's existing residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, better information about the costs of growth for citizens of the region lei
to better decisions in the region about how to accommodate growth; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Metro Council hereby submits to the qualiSed voters of the district the
question of amending the Metro Charter to require protection of existing
neighborhoods, cost impact statements regarding urban growth boundary
amendments, and notice to affected neighborhoods and making related changes as
set forth in Exhibit "A";
Page 1 Reaolutian No. 02-3163
i:1A4Z20W...o%0J4 J w. aw
0WMD&VW(03/14m) .
FROM :METRO COUNCIL OFFICE FAX NE). :5W 797 1793 Feb. 19 2002 704*28PM P3
2. That the measure should be placed on the ballot for the Primary Election to be
held on May 21, 2002;
3. That the district shall cause a Notice of Measure Election and Ballot Title as set
forth in Exhibit "B" to be submitted to the Elections Officer and the Secretary of
State of Orcgon in a timely manner as required by law; and
4. That the Executive Officer, pursuant to Oregon Law and Metro Code
Chapter 9.02, shall transmit this measure, ballot title and explanatory statement to
the Multnomah County Elections Officer for inclusion in any county voters'
psmphlets published for the election on this measure.
ADOPTED by the Metro Council this day of 2002.
Carl lHfosticka, Presiding Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel B. Cooper, General Counsel
Page 2 Resolution No. 02-3163
t:VP-~hloi.~ftlF,,10.~.OOP
OOCWBAVW (02114M)
FROM :METRO COUNCIL OFFICE FAX NO. :503 797 1793 Feb. 19 2002 04 : 2BPM P4
EXFiQBIT A
Amendment To Metro Charter
Section 1. Section 5 of the Metro Charter is amended to add the following provisions:
(4) grotec 'on of Liv,8bility of Existing NoiftgdL09-4
(a) Liyabiiit ►LProtection. The Regional Framework Plan shall include
measures to protect the livability of existing neighborhoods taking into
consideration air pollution, water pollution, noise, and crime as well as provision
of an adequate level of police, fire, transportation and emergency services, public
utilities, and access to parks, open space and neighborhood services,
(b) Dens& Increase Prohibited. Neither the Regional Framework Plan nor
any Metro ordinance adopted to implement the plan shall require an increase in
the density of single-family neighborhoods within the existing urban growth
boundary identified in the plan solely as Inner or Outer Neighborhoods.
(c) Report on Effects of Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Amendment.
Prior to approving any amendment or amendments of the urban growth boundary
in excess of 100 acres the Council shall prepare a report on the effect of the
proposed amendments on existing residential neighborhoods. Copies of the
completed report shall be provided to all households located within one mile of
the proposed urban growth boundary amendment area and to all cities and
counties within the district. The report shall address:
i. Traffic patterns and any resulting increase in traffic congestion,
commute times and air quality.
ii. Whether parks and openspace protection in the area to be added
will benefit existing residents of the district as well as future
residents of the added territory.
iii. The cost impacts on existing residents of providing needed public
services and public infrastructure to the area to be added. _
(d) Implementation. The Metro Council shall implement the requirements
contained in Subsections a, b, and c within one year of adoption thereof.
Fxhibit A - Resolution No. 02-3163
Amendment To The Metro Chatter
lAP, 200br-dV2- 167.=
OOc/Rr"m (6Ll!
MM
MI FROM :METRO COL!NCIL OFFICE FAX NO. :503 797 1793 Feb. 19 2002 04:28PM P5'
ec o 2
(a) The amendments to the Metro Charter for which provision is made in this
measure shall be paramount, shall take effect and shall have precedence over the
amendments to the Metro Charter proposed in Ballot Measure 26-11 if both
measures ate approved at the Oregon primary election conducted on May 21,
2002, and the number of affirmative votes cast for this measure is greater than the
number of affirmative votes cast for Ballot Measure 26-11. In such event, Ballot
Measure 26-11 shall not become effective.
(b) The amendments to the Metro Charter for which provision is made in Ballot
Measure 26-11 shall be paramount, shall take effect and shall have precedence
over the amendments to the Metro Charter proposed in this measure if both
measures are approved at the Oregon primary election conducted on May 21,
2002, and the number of affirmative votes cast for Ballot Measure 26-11 is greater
than the number of affirmative votes cast for this measure. In such event, this
measure shall not become effective.
Section
(a) Subsection 4(b) of Section 5 of the Metro Charter of this Measure is repealed on
June 30, 2015 unless at the general election held in 2014, a majority of the
electors voting on the question of whether or not to retain Subsection 4(b) of
Section 5 of the Metro Charter as part of the Metro Charter vote to retain the
subsection. If the electors vote to retain the subsection, Subsection 4(b) of
Section 5 of the Metro Charter of this measure shall remain in effect. If a
majority of the electors do not vote to retain Subsection 4(b) of Section 5 of the
Metro Charter of this measure, then that subsection is repealed on June 30, 2015.
(b) By appropriate action of the Metro Council, the question described in subsection
(a) of this section shall be submitted to the people for their decision at the general
election held in 2014.
(c) This section is repealed on January 1, 2016.
1
Exhibit A - Resolution No. 02-3163
Amendment To Tha Metro Charter
t%R.ou M-rowan163.OG9
000JrtrrAcw(ov14 M
FROM :MFTRO COUNCIL OFFICE FAX NO. :503 797 1793 Feb. 19 2002 04:29PM P6
EXHIBIT B
BALLOT TITLE
CAPTION: AMENDS METRO CHARTER: PROTECTS NE10HBORHOODS'
LIVABILITY; REQUIRES BOUNDARY AbfflM (2NT REPORT
QUESTION: Shall Metro Charter: protect neighborhoods' livability; prohibit Metro density
increase in single-family neighborhoods; require report on proposed boundary
amendments' effects?
SUMMARY: Amends Metro Charter's regional planning provisions to protect livability of
existing neighborhoods. Prohibits Metro from requiring density increase in
identified single-family neighborhoods. Requires report on effects of certain
proposed growth boundary amendments on existing residential neighborhoods,
including impacts on traffic and parks. Requires report be provided to households
within one mile of proposed growth boundary amendment and to all cities and
counties within Metro. Measure becomcs effective instead of Ballot Measure 26-
11 if it obtains more affnmative votes. Requires revote in 2014 to remain
effective.
Exhibit D Resolution No. 02-3163
Notice of Mcawo sloction
LVt-G%Xa2w-*%W.3 ~w.oos
00=Mlkr. iosiiao~
FROM :METRO COUNCIL OFFICE FAX NO. :503 797 1793 Feb. 19 2002 04:29PM P7
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
This measure refers to voters proposed amendments to provisions of the Metro Charter dealing
with Regional Planning Functions. It requires the Regional Framework Plan to protect the
livability of existing neighborhoods, The measure also prohibits Metro from requiring increased
density of identified existing single-family neighborhoods.
Currently, Metro performs required land-use planning activities under Oregon's land-use
planning program. Oregon law authorizes Metro to adopt "functional plans" addressing matters
that affect responsible development of greater metropolitan Portland, Metro may recommend or
require changes to local governments' comprehensive land use glans and to ordinances that
implement those plans.
In 1996, after consulting with the Region's elected officials, Metro exercised its authority by
adopting the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which sets forth performance
standards for increasing housing supplies. These standards require an increase of capacity for
housing inside the Urban Growth Boundary before considering any further boundary expansion.
The standards also allow cities and counties to increase housing densities selectively in areas that
local governments determine are moat suitable for future development.
In 1997, Metro adopted the Regional Framework Plan, which contains housing supply standards
that parallel those of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and also identifies certain
neighborhoods as "inner" or "outer" neighborhoods. The Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan is now part of the Regional Framework Plan. This measure would require
certain changes to the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the Regional Framework
Plan, The Metro Council must implement those changes within one year if this measure is
adopted.
The proposed measure amends the Metro Charter to require that the Regional Framework Plan
protect the livability of existing neighborhoods. In doing so, Metro must consider factors
including air and water pollution, crime, and the provision of an adequate police, fire,
transportation and emergency services, as well as public utilities, and access to parks, open space
and neighborhood services.
The measure prohibits the Regional Framework Plan from requiring an increase in the density of
existing single-family neighborhoods inside the urban growth boundary that are identified in the
plan solely as "Inner" or "Outer" neighborhoods. '
The proposed measure requires that before approving any amendment to the urban growth
boundary in excess of 100 acres the Metro Council must prepare a report on the effect of the
proposed amendment on existing residential neighborhoods. The report must address traffic
patterns, the potential addition of parks and openspace protection to benefit existing and future
residents of the added territory; and the costs to existing residents of providing public services to
the additional area. The report must be provided to all households, within one mile of the
proposed urban growth boundary amendment area and to all cities and counties within Metro.
Page l of 2 - Explanatory Statement
12c° wa~~ oo~
"I"
"IN
FROM :METRO COUNCIL OFFICE MAX NO. :503 797 1793 Feb. 19 2002 04:29PM PG
The measure provides that if both it and Ballot IVtommm 26-11 are approved, only the•messure
with the greater number of affirmative votes will become effective. This measmv is repealed on
June 30,2015, unless a majority of voters in the 2014 general election vote to retain it.
Pago 2 of 2 - Explanatory$tatemnnt
te-0voos.ro~uaa
. ooc~nmcn~.wcoyi~+w)
FROM :METRO COUNCIL OFFICE FAX N0. :503 797 1793 Feb. 19 2002 04:29PM P9
STAFF REPORT
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 02-3163, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS AN AMENDMENT TO THE METRO CHARTER
REQUIRING PROTECTION OF EXISTING SINGLE .FAMI.LY NEIGHBORHOODS,
COST IMPACT STATEMENTS REGARDING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
AMENDMENTS AND NOTICE TO AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOODS.
Date: February 13, 2002 Prepared by: Michael Morrissey
Proposed Action: Resolution 02-3163 approves the submittal to the district°s voters of a
measure to amend the Metro Charter. The intention of the measure is add protection of
existing single family neighborhoods as an explicit policy driver in Metro's charter and
Regional Framework Plan.
Factual Background and Analysis: The Metro charter states in the pioamble that
"planning and policy making to preserve and enhance the quality of life and the
environment for ourselves and future generations is Metro's most important service..."
The charter goes on to state that regional planning functions are the primary tbrictions of
Metro. Enhancing quality of life for the region and its residents is clearly of higb
importance in Metro policy documents, as Metro addresses matters of Metropolitan
concern. Resolution 02-3163 imires that Metro raises the visibility of existing.
neighborhoods as a unit of analysis. and as a resource to be protected in the furtherance of
its charter-mandated duties.
Metro is required by state statute to analyze the capacity of the Urbrum Growth Boundary
at least every five years. through the Periodic Review process, If there is insufficient
capacity in the boundary to provide for a 20-year supply of housing, Metro inust 1)
consider measures to increase the capacity of lands inside the boundary, and/or 2)
consider expanding the boundary. The current measures for increasing the capacity of
land inside the boundary are contained in the Urban Growth Management Functional
Plan, and the Regional Framework Plan. The plans do contain measures to increase
density, but do not require that Metro determine the exact location of the implementation
of those measures; that is the responsibility of cities and counties. In general, Metro has
emphasized that density measures should implemented in centers, coixidors and around
transit centers, and that built-out neighborhoods should be protected. Resolution 02-3163
explicitly restricts Metro from requiring density increases in existing neighborhoods, as
described in the resolution.
FROM :METRO COUNCIL OFFICE FAX NO. :503 792 1793 Feb. 19 2002 04:30PM P10
w
The resolution also calls for analyzing and communicating the ef#'ects of amending the
urban growth boundary in increments in excess of 100 acres, with respect to existing
residential neigbborhoods, inside the urban growth boundary.
Section 2 of the ballot measure makes a statement in relation to Ballot Measure 26-11,
which will be on the May 2002 ballot: If the ballot measure called for through Resolution
02-3163 is successful, and receives more votes than 26-11, 26-11 will not become
effective. If both sire successful, and 26-11 gains more votes, it does become effective, but
this one will not.
Section 3 states the tetras under which voters may choose to retain this charter
amendment in the year 2014, If not thus remained, this measure is repealed June 30. 2015.
If the charter amendment is successful, the Council has one year to implement its
provisions, including possible amendment of the Regional F. mnework Plan.
Opposition: None Known
Existing Low: Section 35 of the charter allows for amendment to the charter through
council referral to a public vote. The charter was last amended in 2000.
Budget Impacts: Thera is no additional cost for referring this measure to regional voters
on. the May, 2002 ballot.
Costs of an unknown amount would also obtain for notice related to UGB expansions of
over 100 acres,
A
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Councilor Ken Scheckla
FROM: Bill Monahan
DATE: April 12, 2002
SUBJECT: Council Meeting Packets
As I was completing the memo to council regarding the annual maintenance of the council
laptops, it occurred to me that we are providing you with both a disk which contains the
packet for use in the laptop along with a paper copy of the council agenda. Cathy
Wheatley has made efforts to reduce the number of paper packets so we may reduce City
costs. I have been informed that at this point we are only making three paper packets, one
for me, one for you, and one for the library. Since the packet is available on the City's
Website, citizens have access on a twenty-four-hour basis to the materials. In addition,
anyone coming to the Community Development counter wishing to view the packet is able
to use the computer in our lobby to access the packet.
I have noticed that you have not had occasion to bring your laptop to a council meeting. As
a result, you have had to rely on a paper agenda packet. If you have not found that the
laptop is useful for your purposes, would you please consider allowing me to use the
laptop for the remainder of your term. In that way, I could eliminate the need for a paper
agenda packet and become familiar with the application of the laptop. I would then be able
to determine if I need an additional laptop in city administration for my use at the time that
your laptop would become available to your successor in January 2003.
I would appreciate your consideration of this request as we continue to try to maximize the
use of City resources. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
c: Paul deBruyn
IA AMBILLWEMOSWAVOR & =200MAPTOP•SCHECKLAAOC
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Tigard City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
DATE: February 26, 2002
SUBJECT: Findings on Statewide Planning Goals
In the February 21, 2002 memo to Council and in the staff report, staff explained that the only
applicable Statewide Land Use Goals were #1, #2, #5 and #12. Staff stated that the
remaining Goals were not applicable to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development
Code amendments but did not provide specific individual findings as to why. Since the staff
report was prepared, various comments were made relating to additional goals. The City
Attorney has advised staff to prepare findings relating to all Statewide Planning Goals for
Council adoption. Attached (Attachment 1) is analysis of all of the Statewide Planning Goals
with individual findings of applicability. It is anticipated that these findings will be adopted as
a supplement to the findings in the staff report. Also attached (Attachment 2) is a revised
Ordinance which includes language adopting the.supplemental findings in addition to the
findings in the staff report.
i
Attachment 1
To be included as Exhibit D to Ordinance
Supplemental findings to Staff Report Statewide Planning Goals
The Washington Square Regional Center Plan and Comprehensive Plan and Development
Code changes to implement the plan were adopted by the City Council in March 2000.
Findings were made showing compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals in the staff
report adopted as an exhibit to the Ordinance (00-18) at that time. Those changes were not
challenged and are now deemed acknowledged. The findings made within this report
support the proposed amendments under consideration at this time and do not pertain to the
adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan or Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code amendments previously approved.
The proposed amendments under consideration at this time are as follows:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan changes: 1.) Add findings of the section of the
Comprehensive Plan regarding the Washington Square Regional Center to reflect work of the
implementation plan; 2.) replace the transportation improvement strategy section that was
previously adopted with a more comprehensive strategy including pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit. The new transportation strategy is based on recommendation from the
(Transportation Technical Advisory Subcommittee) TTAS and Task Force; 3.) add language
in the locations criteria information to allow for additional mixed use sites such as the Durham
Quarry (adopted after the Washington Square Regional Center Plan in June, 2001); and 4.)
include language that provides for adjustments to development standards and minimum
density when necessary to avoid environmental impacts.
The proposed Development Code changes: 1.) amend 18.360 (Site Development Review,
18.370 (Variances and Adjustments), 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts), 18.630
(Washington Square Regional Center), and 18.760 (Non-Conforming Situations) to re-format
the adopted standards to fit into the existing Development Code and to clarify and cross
reference the standards throughout the code; and 2.) add text, based on the Task Force
recommendation, to allow for modifications to the dimensional standards and minimum
density requirements for developments abutting water resources areas.
Below is an analysis of applicability of each Statewide Planning Goal in relation to the
proposed amendments:
Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement
`n This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive
Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
Analysis:
This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements
set forth in Section 18.390. In addition, notice was mailed to all property owners within the
Washington Square Regional Center and within 500 feet of the regional center and notice
was published in the Tigard Times prior to the hearing. Two public hearings were held (one
before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) in which an
opportunity for public input was provided.
Eli
Conclusion: The proposed amendment process is consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The
Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the
statewide planning goals.
Analysis:
The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code
establishes a process and policies to review changes to the Development Code consistent
with Goal 2. The City's plan provides analysis and policies, with which to evaluate a request
for amending the Code consistent with Goal 2. As discussed within this report and in the
original staff report, the proposed amendments comply with the Development Code and
Comprehensive Plan criteria.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands
This goal requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to preserve
and maintain agricultural lands.
Analysis:
This goal is not applicable to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments because the amendments do not affect any designated agricultural land.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 4 - Forest Lands
This goal requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to preserve
and maintain forest lands.
Analysis:
This goal is not applicable to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments because the amendments do not affect any acknowledged forest lands.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Natural Resources
Requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic
areas and sites suitable for removal and processing of mineral and aggregate
resources.
Analysis:
This goal is met because the proposed code amendment allows for flexibility of standards
when a project is adjacent to Natural Resources to protect resources above and beyond the
protections already in place on a local, regional, state and federal level. The City has
previously adopted the required inventories and protective measures and the changes
enhance the existing protective measures by allowing additional ways to protect resources.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resource Quality
This goal is intended to maintain and improve the quality of air, water and land
resources of the state by controlling waste and process discharges.
Analysis:
The mixed use nature of the Regional Center will help maintain and improve air, water and
land resources quality by reducing vehicle trips, miles traveled, providing denser
development patterns which maximizes land and provides a population density that supports
alternate modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling and walking. This will effectively
reduce air quality impacts. In addition, existing and proposed regulations for development
adjacent to natural resources will continue to provide protections of water quality. New
development adjacent to resource areas will in some cases be required to improve resource
areas in order to get approvals for any mitigation.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Natural Disasters and Hazards
This goal is intended to protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.
Analysis:
There are areas in the Regional Center that are in the 100 year floodplain and subject to
flooding. In addition, the area is identified (as is much of the Tigard area) as having a high
earthquake hazard. The relative hazard is based on factors of ground motion amplifications,
liquefaction, and slope instability. All new developments are required to be constructed in
accordance with accepted standards regarding earthquake safety, slides, etc. In cases
where soil stability is a question, geotechnical reports may also be required. In regards to
floodplain and floodway issues, the City is currently in compliance with this goal and will
continue to be so because there are standards regulating development adjacent to and within
the floodplain which severely limit any development in the floodplains and require a "no net
increase" in the flood level. The City's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Development Code
implements the Comprehensive Plan. It should be stressed that any development will be
required to show that it is not resulting in an increase in flood level in order to do any
alteration of the floodplain. If alteration of the floodplain is proposed, the City regulations
require extensive engineering documentation, approval from Division of State Lands (DSL),
US Army Corps of Engineers and other regulating agencies, and a public hearing for any
alteration of the floodplain.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 8 - Recreational Needs
This goal requires that the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors
be considered and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary
recreational facilities including destination resorts.
Analysis:
This goal is not directly applicable to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development
Code amendments because the amendments proposed for adoption do not change any
zoning or standards applicable to recreation. The amendments are consistent with the goal
because the only amendment that relates in any way to this goal provides for reduction of
density and development standards for developments abutting water resource areas if
necessary to comply with resource protection regulations.
Conclusion: To the extent water resource areas serve recreational needs, the amendments
are consistent with the goal because they provide greater protections for those
areas.
Statewide Planning Goal 9 - Economic Development
This goal requires the provision of adequate opportunities for a variety of economic
activities.
Analysis:
The amendments proposed for adoption do not substantially change the zoning or uses from
the existing adopted text (adopted March, 2000). The existing Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code comply with Goal 9 by providing adequate opportunities for a variety of
economic activities. Those opportunities remain essentially intact. The only amendment that
could affect economic development in any way is the amendment which provides for
reduction of density and development standards for developments abutting water resource
areas if necessary to comply with resource protection regulations. Even with this
amendment, the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code still provide for a variety of
economic activities and providing additional protection of water resource areas will have
minimal effects on economic activities. There is an inherent tension between maximizing
protection under Goal 5 and maximizing economic development under Goal 9.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to
appropriately balance these goals by protecting natural resources while
encouraging economic development that has less impact on natural resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 10 - Housing
This goal requires that plans encourage the availability of adequate numbers of
needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of
housing location, type and density.
Analysis:
The amendments proposed for adoption do not change the zoning, uses or density from the
existing adopted text (adopted March, 2000) except for the amendment which provides for
reduction of density and development standards for developments abutting water resource
areas if necessary to comply with resource protection regulations. The Comprehensive Plan
and Development Code, as amended, will continue to provide substantial opportunities for
housing units of various types and prices, including housing within the Washington Square
plan area. Goal 10 must also be balanced with Goal 5, and the plan and code as amended
balance the goals by protecting natural resources while allowing the development of housing
in areas that will have less impact on natural resources.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to
appropriately balance these goals by protecting natural resources while
allowing the development of housing in areas that will have less impact on
natural resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services
This goal requires planning and development of a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for development.
Required public facilities and services are to be provided at levels necessary and
suitable for existing uses.
Analysis:
The adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan (March, 2000) included
adoption of the transportation plan and parks and open spaces plan. The Implementation
Plan components relating to these issues make additional recommendations to clarify the
plans already approved. These plans and the Tigard Transportation System Plan support the
existing land uses and the proposed land use and development potential in the Washington
Square Regional Center area.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to
comply with this goal by requiring coordination of development and the
provision of public facilities and services.
Statewide Planning Goal 12 - Transportation
This goal is intended to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system. This Goal is implemented by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-
12, which is also known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Section 660-12-060
states that plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall
assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
level of service of the facility.
Analysis:
The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the planned improvements previously
approved. The amendments refine the necessary transportation improvements based on the
Task Force findings and provide for more multi-modal development as policy in the
Comprehensive Plan. The revised Comprehensive Plan language will continue to encourage
a safe, convenient and economic transportation system and will continue to assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the transportation infrastructure. The mixed use nature
of the Regional Center, which is unaffected by the amendments, will reduce vehicle trips and
miles traveled by providing denser development patterns and provide a population density
that supports alternate modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling and walking, thereby
improving the efficiency of the transportation system. The amendments have little effect on
transportation.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to be
consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 13 - Energy Conservation
This goal requires that land and uses developed on land shall be managed and
controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon
sound economic principles.
Analysis:
The amendments proposed for adoption do not change the zoning or uses from the existing
adopted text except for the amendment which provides for reduction of density and
development standards for developments abutting water resource areas if necessary to
comply with resource protection regulations. The mixed use nature of the Regional Center
will reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, and provide a population density that supports
alternate modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling and walking. These previously
adopted provisions promote energy conservation and the amendments do not change these
benefits.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code remain consistent with this
goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 14 - Urbanization
This goal requires the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.
Analysis:
This goal is not applicable because the urban growth boundary and transition from urban to
rural zoning is not part of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments. The areas affected by the amendments are already urban.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway
Required protection, conservation and enhancement of lands along the Willamette
River Greenway.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not within the Willamette River Greenway,
therefore, this goal does not apply.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources
This goal requires recognition and protection of unique environmental, economic and
social values of each estuary and associated wetlands and, where appropriate,
protect, maintain and restore the long-term environmental, economic and social values
diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center does not have any estuaries, therefore, this goal
does not apply.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelands
This goal requires conservation, protection and, where appropriate, restoration of
coastal Shorelands.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not located at the beach or along a coastal
shoreland, therefore, this goal is not applicable.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes
This goal requires conservation, protection, and where appropriate, restoration of
coastal beaches and dunes.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not located at the beach and there are no dunes
within the Regional Center, therefore, this goal is not applicable.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 19 - Ocean Resources
This goal requires conservation of. the long-term values, benefits, and natural
resources of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not located at the beach or along a coastal
shoreland, therefore, this goal is not applicable.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments are
consistent with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
1 I:Upln/julia/cpa/washington sq/CC adoption wash sq nxrnoldoc
i 2/26/01
i
1
i
i
A techment 2
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 02- (Revised)
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHANGES FOR THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER (CPA2001-
00002/ZOA2001-00002).
WHEREAS, The City Council adopted the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, Zone change,
Comprehensive Plan text changes and Development Code text changes in March, 2000 but delayed
implementation until recommendations on several areas of concerns could be developed; and
WHEREAS, The Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Task Force has met to discuss
the recommendations and has prepared a report which includes conclusions and recommendations for
the successful implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force recommended several changes to the Development Code and
Comprehensive Plan text that was previously adopted; and
WHEREAS, Staff has prepared findings which show that the proposed amendments to the Development
Code and Comprehensive Plan comply with Community Development Code Section, 18.390.060;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 3.4.2.13, 8.1.1, and 8.2.1; Statewide Planning Goals 1,
2, 5, and 12; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 3, 4, and 7 and the Regional Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance with the
City standards, on December 3, 2001 and voted to recommend approval of the requested amendments to
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance with City
standards, on January 22, 2002, and continued to February 26, 2002, and voted to approve the proposed
amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The adopted Comprehensive Plan text amendment and Development Code text
amendments, are shown in Exhibits A and B.
SECTION 2: The requested amendments are approved based on the analysis and findings in the
staff report (Exhibit C) and supplemental findings (Exhibit D).
SECTION 3: The approved amendments shall be effective on the date that the Washington Square
Regional Center Plan and associated amendments become effective, but no less than
30 days after its passage by the City Council.
ORDINANCE NO.02-
Page l of 2
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and
title only, this day of , 2002.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 22002.
James E. Griffith, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
ORDINANCE NO. 02-
Page 2 of 2
i 1
FEB.26.2002 3.58PM O1ONNELL AND CLARK NO.231 P.1
O'1DONNELL CLARK LLP
ATMRNM AT LAW
PHONE: 5089306.0224 1706 NW 01isan Street, Suite 6
R AX. 503.306.0257 Portland, Oregon 97209
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY
FOR THP USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED OF-LOW, IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOTTHF INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR TI{E EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER, IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE
HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY
TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.
THANK YOU.
DATE: February 26, 2002
TO: The Honorable James Oriff>ith, Mayor, City of Tigard
FAX NO.: 503-684-7297 PRONE NO,: • 503-639-4171
FROM: Ross Day
DOCUMENT:
COMIMENTS:
PAGES TO FOLLOW: 5 (EXCLUDING COVER SKEET)
N YOU DO NOT Rficam ALL 09 nm PAGFA, PUW19 CALL, UM UNDMUMNED AT (503) 306-0224 ID2IdmwmY. TuAMYOU.
SIGNED: Jemifew Andmon - Legal Assistant
n ORKIINAL 19 BEING MAELSU ~ ORIOD"L 19 AVAR ABLE UPON R8QUBST
FEB.26.2002 3:58PM ODONNEI-L AND CLARK 140.231 P.2
0 'D0NN£LL CL~RKLLP
Anoltutrti er lbw
Mark P. O'bonnell Ross A. Day*
eniail: markoChoandcxoni email: ross(I@oandc.com
Mattliew D. Lowe"
Kelly Clark email: manlLloande.cum
enuail: kellyc@)oaildC.com Kenriil:tlcSs~r@u dc,cou
February 26, 2002
Via Facsimile and U.S Mail
The Honorable James Griffith
Mayor, City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Proposed Amendments to the Washington Square Regional Center
Dear Mr. Mayor:
Our firm represents Mr. Bill Adams. This letter is in regards to the above referenced property. We ask
that this letter be included in the public record for Washington Square Regional Plan Amendments. For
the reasons outlined in my February 20, 2002 letter, I respectfully request the record be opened and this
letter be included as part of the record. T attach a copy of my February 20, 2002 correspondence for your
reference.
The subject property has been owned by Besley Properties for approximately 8 years. The property has
always been zoned Neighborhood Commercial. The expectations of the owners of the subject property
were that they would be allowed someday to develop the property in such a way as to maximize retail
and office development in the area. To that end, Mr, Bill Adams, the principal of Besley Properties, has
met on numerous occasions with the City of Tigard Planning staff to discuss potential commercial
development options. On at least two occasions, representatives from Besley Properties have engaged in
pre-application conferences with City of Tigard staff for the purpose of commercial development of the
subject property.
The Washington Square Regional Center Planned Amendment will down-zone the subject property from
a Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use Residential - 2 (MUR - 2). The City has taken contradictory
positions with respect to the effects the new zoning designation will have upon the subject property.
First, in a letter dated December 28, 2001 from Ms. Hajduk, the City of Tigard implied, if not out
i outright stated, the new zoning designation would have no effect whatsoever on our client's long
standing commercial development plans for the subject property. Then, much to our client's surprise, on
February 7, 2002, in anothar letter from Ms. Hajduk, she offered a new interpretation of the effects the
MUR - 2 zone would have upon my client's property: Specifically, Ms. Hajduk now interprets the effect
MUR - 2 zone will have on the subject property to effectively prohibit any commerci al development on
the subject property, Our client was only notified of the change in interpretation after the period for
public comment on the measure before the City Council was closed,
Mimic: 503.306.0224 Fax: 50i•306.0257 www.(guldc.cont
1706 NW (lllynn Street, Suite 6, Portituid, Oregon 97209
FEB.26.2002 3: SUM ODONNELL AND CLARK NO.231 P.3
r
O'DONNELL&CLARK LLP
The Honorable James Griffith
February 26, 2002
Page 2
For the reasons discussed below, we respectfully request the City Council reconsider its' decision
regarding the Washington Square Regional Center Plan.
The Washington Square Regional Task Force recommended Center Plan, dated September, 1999 (herein
'Task Force Plan') identified a number of objectives the WRSC Plan Amendments sought to achieve.
These objectives have been adopted in the text of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Among to the
objectives identified by the Task Force Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Amendments applicable the
subject property are: (1) identify market forces and development patterns in an area before determining
zoning designation; (2) retain and develop quality housing including affordable for all income levels in
the WRSC; (3) the Regional Center Plan should encourage compatible and complementary uses; (4)
allow existing uses to remain as they were; and (5) to provide for residences and jobs. Down-zoning the
subject property achieves none of the Task Force's objectives.
First, the subject property has always been zoned Neighborhood Commercial. This, of course, allows for
commercial, retail and office development. To that end, the surrounding parcels along Hall Boulevard
have been developed primarily for commercial uses. Toning the subject property such that only
residential development will be permitted is not consistent with the pattern of development in the
immediate area. Further, the new zoning either restricts or outright prohibits commercial uses on the
subject parcel - forcing a use which is incompatible with the surrounding properties. Finally, with
respect to the quality housing objective contained in the Task Force Plan, the subject parcel is roughly
one acre in size, and not able to provide quality housing while conforming to the myriad of design
review criteria contained in the City of Tigard's Development Code, making it next to impossible to
meet the objective of providing quality affordable housing.
For these reasons, my client objects to the adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan
Amendment as proposed to the Tigard City Council, We respectfully request the City Council
reconsider the down-zoning of properties such as the above referenced property, and develop a more
flexible development zone for parcels in transition areas, compatible with the identified objectives
within the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
oss Day
FE13.26.2002 3:59PM ODON ELL AND CLARK IV0.231 P.4
M
O' DONNE LL&CLARK LLP
The Honorable James Griffith
February 26, 2002
Page 3
RD/ja
cc; Bill Adams
Gary Firestone, Esq.
Brian J. Moore, Councilor
Ken Scheckla, Councilor
Craig Dirksen, Councilor
Joyce Patton, Councilor
James Hendryx, Community Development Director
Richard Bewersdor#f, Planning Manager
Mr. Kelly Clark, Esq.
FED.26.2002 3s59pM ODONNEIl AND CLARK W.231 P.5
0 'D0NNLLL CLARKLLP
ArIUINlrs Al LAW
Mark 11. O'Donnell J Foss A. Day*
email: iiiarko@oatide.com ernall: rossdCdusuidc.com
Matthew 1). Lowe',
Kelly Clark email: m:utl-cPuan4ac0m
eni:tll: kellycCc nandc.com Kem~alnksrrd owdc com
February 20, 2002
Via Facsimile and Mail
W
The Honorable James Griffith
Mayor, City of Tigard
13125 SW Tall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Proposed Amendments to the Washington Square Regional Center
Mr. Mayor:
We represent Mr. Bill Adams, who owns property at the corner of SW Hall Blvd. and Locust Rd.
(lot 1, block 37, Metzger AC) which is located within the limits of the City of Tigard, Mr.
Adams' property is currently within the Washington Square Regional Center and is negatively
affected by the proposed zoning changes which the City of Tigard is scheduled to hear later this
month. The purpose of this letter is to request the City re-open the record regarding the proposed
zone change amendments contained within the Washington Square Regional Center for the
reasons discussed below.
Mr. Adams' property ("the Property"), as described above, is subject to be "down-zoned" by the
proposed amendments to the Washington Square Regional Center. This is a new revelation to
Mr. Adams. On or about December 17, 2001 Mr. Adams contacted Ms. Julia, Hajduk, an
Associate Planner with the City of Tigard, The purpose of his correspondence was to determine
what effect, if any, the proposed amendments would have on Mr. Adams' property. In a letter
dated December 28, 2001, the City of Tigard notified Mr. Adams that the proposed amendments
would not affect his ability to develop a commercial use upon his property. In reliance on the
representations made by the City of Tigard, contained in its December 28, 2001, Mr. Adams did
not see the need to testify, or provide written comment, to the City in opposition to the proposed
amendments which you are now considering. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this letter is a copy of the
City of Tigard's December 28, 2001 letter.
The City of Tigard closed the record on this matter on January 29, 2002. Thereafter, on February
7, 2002 the City of Tigard notified Mr. Adams-that the earlier correspondence, containing
representations to Mr, Adams that the proposed zoning amendments would not affect his
property were incorrect.
t'hornv: 503-306-0324 P.m 503.306-0257 wanV.uandc.co.n
1706 NW 011san Stmvi, Salve 6, Purdand, Oregon 97209
FEB.26.2002 3:59PM ODONK LL AM CLPRK NO. 231 P.6
O'DONNELL & CLARK LLP
The Honorable James Griffith
February 20, 2002
Page 2
Of course, the City of Tigard waited until after tho record had been closed before notifying Mr.
Adams of its error. By this time, Mr. Adams lost his chance to make comments on the record in
opposition to the proposed amendments. I attach as Exhibit 2, a copy of the February 7, 2002
correspondence from the City of Tigard, While Ms. Hajduk apologized for the obvious
inconvenience the down-zoning will have to the value to Mr. Adams' property, her apology does
not resolve the fact that, based upon his justifiable reliance on the representations made by the
City of Tigard, he no longer has any redress should he seek to appeal the City's adoption of the
proposed amendments to the Washington Square Regional Center.
The actions of the City of Tigard raise several concerns for my client. Although Y do not include
the citation to the relevant authorities, I do suggest that the actions of the City of Tigard raise
claims for my client based on estoppel, violations of due process, equal protection, in addition to
a potential takings claim against the City of Tigard. In the meantime, the simplest resolution is to
re-open the record and allow Mr. Adams to submit comments in opposition to the plan. Please
contact me by the close of business, Friday, February 22, 2002 to let me know if the City intends
to re-open the record for the purpose stated above.
I await your response.
Very truly yours,
Ross Day
RD/sa
cc: Bill Adams
Councilor Brian Moore
Councilor Ken Scheckla
Councilor Craig Dirksen
Councilor Joyce Patton
James Hendiyx, Community Development Director
Richard Bewersdorff, Planning Manager
Mr. Kelly Clark, Esq.
.III
Notice
Statewide land use oats
Coal 5
U zonin /maximum density
ens ace reen belt concept
Development in wetlands and flood lain
Funding
Urban renewal
Bounds of the Regional Center Plan
Widening of Hall
Metro's target capacity
Drainage issue raised b Dr. Davis at the City Council hearin .
AGENDA ITEM # 6
FOR AGENDA OF February 26. 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update from the New Tigard Library Construction Committee
PREPARED BY: Margaret-Barnes DEPT HEAD OK z2~L- CITY MGR OK ez _ cyi io~
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Presentation by the New Tigard Library Construction Committee to update the City Council on the proposed new
library.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of this presentation is to provide City Council information about this project.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Since the Fall of 2000, the Construction Committee has provided regular updates to the Council and the community
about the proposed new library project. In December 2001, the Council approved an option for purchase of the site
of the proposed new library. Also in December, the Council voted to place a $13 million bond measure on the May
21, 2002 ballot. The bond measure would help fund construction of a new library.
Since the Fall of 2001, Committee members have made numerous presentations throughout the community about
this project. The architectural model of the proposed new library has often accompanied them. Recent examples of
the Committee's efforts to inform the community about this project include presentations to the Tigard-Tualatin
School Board, the Tigard Chamber of Commerce and local service organizations. The model has recently been on
display at several local businesses and at Washington Square Mall.
To continue community participation in this project, the Committee has scheduled a community meeting for
Tuesday, March 5 at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall. This meeting will be a facilitated discussion, offering community
members an opportunity to provide input on the design of the natural areas surrounding the proposed new library
site.
Committee members are prepared to answer questions at this meeting.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal #3: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all
ages.
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Set of PowerPoint Slides
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
Proposed New Tigard
Library Update
February 26, 2002
Grace Tigard Houghton
Neva Root
F
1
Proposed New Tigard Library
• 2. story. 47,000 square loot building
• Approved site at Hall and O'Mara a-~
ti
,JF
a.,.., 8 TE or PROP03E0=,
.HEWJIGARO: EI®
. ~.Ierg~rclllylm~liicCitl
p Bond Information
_y ► Estimated cost:
EWI $14.2 million
► $13 million bond
► May 21, 2002
ballot
F,r ► 31 cents per
1 thousand
assessed value
2
Details about Bond
Measure 34-47
• $13 million bond measure to _
construct a new library
• General obligation bonds would
mature in 20 years of less
• would be repaid from a property
tax increase
Details about Bond
Measure 34-47
• An owner of a $200,000 home
would pay about $5/month the first
year-or about the cost of two
hardback books
• That amount is expected to
decrease over the life of the bonds
as assessed values rise and new
properties are added to the city.
Front Entrance View
A new Library "would help Tigard realize a
vibrant future." --Curtis Tigard
3
Site Master Plan
i~
I . f S:
Citizen's group to explore greenspace and
trail opportunities
jy1 ° ~`r tir
Community Meeting for
Proposed New Tigard
Library Site
Tuesday, March Sat 7 p.m.
Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall
For More Information call 503 664.5537
4
ANA
' I
vnovoem iv['r rw.Rc iea~nr ~
!1 't. a
J pe
5
t
ter, A•
nr L 7 s r'Ft~SCY .
:t r r'Zc~~~ .yap a. 4nr>
;~~1~.~ew. of#he.`pro~erty~ fror~.~k~a I l~ Blvd...
rte. t
Ali,
i
Looking towards Halh~r
r Q~ Ahe property.
• `..•)~`y.y iii l d t - ~ 4 ~Y F"1fT~'tri~~ ~1"
.p.,t~~wi • 1r_j~ °-u^.: 'fie.`
G
Project Updates
www.ci.tigard.or.us
7
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 2/26/02
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Insurance tions U ate
PREPARED BY: Loreen Mills EPT HEAD OK-/ *"TY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City self-insure at this time? Receive self-insurance review results.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive verbal update on City's self-insurance options review.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Due to anticipated large property and casualty premium increases, the City of Tigard has been exploring
alternative risk financing options over the past several months. Council authorized this review at their meeting
of 9/18/01.
JBL&K Risk Services, our "Insurance Agent of Record" has completed an actuarial report resulting in a detailed
self-insurance feasibility review. The results of this review conclude that the City's most cost effective risk
transfer solution, at this time, is still the "traditional" insurance marketplace.
Ron Graybeal, JBL&K's Public Entity Division Manager, will be presenting the results of this review. He will
also provide Council with an update regarding the commercial insurance marketplace for Oregon's public
sector, and will suggest how the City should prepare for the challenges that will occur over the next several
years.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
No change in insurance carrier. Insurance premiums are budgeted year fiscal year and costs spread to all
departments.
City of T'igaxd
Self Insurance Review
10 N 0,
JBI!N
RISK SERVICES
Insurance Market Conditions
• Hardening of Pre /Casualty
Market Mid-2001
* 9-®®11 Incident "Record Large Less
E~penvy
• Reduction In supply and "Capacity"
ected Premium Increases from
25%105%
1
Tigard Liahili lusuranCe C®StS
Premiums
s150,000
$100,000
2001- $50,000 °
2002
data as
®f 7/1/01 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001-
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
+Premiums $45,681 $41,981 $49,200 $113,018 $102,984 $118,612 $138,649
Actuarial Review
Richard E Sherman a Associates
[via 1RLW
PurPoSe: WNW LOSS FroiectionS
and Funding Projections
Various "Confidence Levels"
= Various "Self-Insured Retentions"
"use $18081
Mans $25089
2
Decision Factors
• Loss Projections: Gets Trended and
Developed
• Funding Requirements Based on
ConDdence Levels
• Insurance Costs Including
Projected Increases
• Premium Projected Less Then
"Expected Losses"
Conclusion
3
AGENDA ITEM # B
FOR AGENDA OF February26, 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Engineering Department Overview
PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK G Vy'
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
informational briefing to provide an overview of the Engineering Department, including overall responsibilities,
accomplishments during the past year, and goals and objectives for the next few years.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Informational Briefing. No Council action required.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Engineering Department designs and constructs capital improvement projects, provides review of proposed
private development projects, and inspection of public improvements performed by private developers to ensure
compliance with City standards. The Department is directed by the City Engineer and is composed of a Capital
Improvement Program Division, a Development Review Division, and staff support for storm and sanitary sewer
projects and administration. Attached is an organizational chart showing the structure of the Department.
The Capital Improvement Program Division is managed by an Engineering Manager. This Division manages the
capital improvement program for public streets and utilities and prepares facilities plans for future improvement
needs. The Development Review Division is likewise managed by an Engineering Manager. This Division
provides technical review and issues permits for proposed private development projects, provides inspections on
the public improvements constructed through these developments, and maintains records relating to these public
facilities.
In addition, the Engineering Department provides engineering support to the other City departments as needed. The
Development Review Division works in close coordination with the Community Development Department in the
review of proposed new developments in the City and in the Urban Services Area. The Capital Improvement
Program Division works with other departments in the development of the capital improvement projects for parks,
' water, storm and sanitary sewer improvements.
i
The Engineering Department strives to support and achieve Council goals each calendar year. The City Engineer
stays abreast of regional issues, participates in the Washington County Coordinating Committee Transportation
Advisory Committee, attends Metro's Transportation Policy Advisory Committee meetings whenever possible, and
submits projects for funding whenever Federal or state funding becomes available for various projects. The City
Engineer is likewise coordinating the efforts of the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force to evaluate and
develop alternative sources of funding for transportation-related projects.
The attached memorandum dated February 11, 2002 summarizes the Engineering Department's significant
accomplishments during the past year and describes some of the key overall goals for the next few years.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Engineering Department Organizational Chart
2. Memorandum dated February 11, 2002 summarizing the Engineering Department's accomplishments
and goals
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
1ACitywide\Sum\Engineering Department Overview.doc
Exhibit A
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
Proposed Text Amendments to the Tigard Development Code
Amendments to the following sections of the development code are necessary in order to
implement the Washington Square Regional Center Plan:
18.360 - Site Development Review
18.370 - Variances and Adjustments
18.520 - Commercial Zoning Districts
18.630 - Washington Square Regional Center
18.760 - Non-Conforming Situations
Following is the proposed text which reflects a combination of changes. When the Washington
Square Regional Center Plan was adopted, a new code section, 18.630 was adopted at that time as
well but not implemented and incorporated into the development code since the implementation of the
Plan was delayed. Since that time, changes were made to the code and staff identified the need for
formatting and clerical changes to allow the adopted language to better fit into the existing
development code. In addition, the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan Task
Force identified the need for additional code amendments. In order to visualize the impetus behind
each change, staff has identified each change as follows:
Previously adopted Washington Square standards that have been re-formatted to fit into the existing
development code is highlighted (No changes to the content, just moved around within the
development code).
Text that has been added to cross-reference with the WSRC standards, to clarify existing adopted
standards or to fix clerical errors is double underlined. (New text but no major content changes, just
added language to clarify the original intent and to cross reference for easier usage of the code).
Task Force recommended changes to previously adopted Washington Square text is bold and
italicized (New text and content that was not previously provided for).
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE I
18.360
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIVEW
18.360.030 Approval Process
A. New developments and maior modifications. Site development review for a new development or major
modification of an approved plan or existing development, as defined in Section 18.360.030A, shall be
processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria
contained in Section 18.360.090.
S. Minor modifications. Minor modifications of an approved plan or existing developments, as defined in
Section 18.360.060, shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using
approval criteria contained in Section 18.360.060.
C. Approval period. Site development review approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of 1-1/2
years from the date of approval. The site development review approval by the Director shall lapse if:
1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within a one-and-one-half years period; or
2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan.
D. Extension. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant
an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year; provided that:
1. No changes are made on the original site development review plan as approved by the Director;
2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction on the site within the one year extension period;
and
3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions
on which the approval was based.
E. Phased development.
1. The Director shall approve a time schedule for developing a site in phases over a period of time of one
year, but in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than three years without
reapplying for site development review.
2. The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal is that all of the following are
satisfied:
a. The public facilities are constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase;
b. The development and occupancy of any phase is not dependent on the use of temporary public
facilities. A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed to the applicable City or district
standard;
c. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct
public facilities that were required as part of the approved development proposal; and
d. The Director's decision may be appealed as provided by Subsection 18.390.040.G. No notice need
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 2
be given of the Director's decision.
3. The Director may waive or modify the approval period for projects within the Washington
Square Regional Center in accordance with 18.630.020.C.
[,W,ASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 3
Chapter 18.370
VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS
Sections:
18.370.010 Variances
18.370.020 Adjustments
18.370.010 Variances
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide standards for the granting of variances from the
applicable zoning requirements of this title where it can be shown that, owing to special and unusual
circumstances related to a specific property, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the applicable
zone would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship, except that no use variances shall be granted.
B. Applicability of provisions.
1. The variance standards are intended to apply to individual platted and recorded lots only.
2. An applicant who is proposing to vary a specification standard for lots yet to be created through a
subdivision process may not utilize the variance procedure unless otherwise specified in Section
18.730.030, Zero Lot Line Setback Standards, or Chapter 18.430, Subdivisions.
C. Approval process and standards.
1. Variances shall be processed by means of a Type 11 procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040,
using standards of approval contained in Subsection 2 below.
2. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on
finding that the following criteria are satisfied:
a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other
applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity;
b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or
other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other
properties in the same zoning district;
c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be
maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic
use of the land;
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land
forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were
developed as specified in the title; and
e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would
alleviate the hardship.
3. The Director shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny an application for a subdivision
variance subject to the criteria set forth in Section 18.160.120.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 4
18.370.020 Adjustments
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish two classes of special variances:
1. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within
proscribed limits. Because such adjustments are granted using "clear and objective standards," these
can be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of
approval and procedure for variances.
2. "Special adjustments" which are variances from development standards which have their own approval
criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for variances contained in Section 18.370.010C.
B. Development adjustments.
1. The following development adjustments will be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as governed
by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection B2 below:
a. Front yard setbacks. Up to a 25% reduction of the dimensional standards for the front yard setback
required in the base zone. Setback of garages may not be reduced by this provision.
b. Interior setbacks. Up to a 20% reduction of the dimensional standards for the side and rear yard
setbacks required in the base zone.
c. Lot coverage. Up to 5% increase of the maximum lot coverage required in the base zone.
2. Approval criteria. A development adjustment shall be granted if there is a demonstration of compliance
with all of the applicable standards:
a. A demonstration that the adjustment requested is the least required to achieve the desired affect;
b. The adjustment will result in the preservation of trees, if trees are present in the development area;
c. The adjustment will not impede adequate emergency access to the site;
d. There is not a reasonable alternative to the adjustment which achieves the desired affect.
C. Special adjustments.
1. Adjustments to development standards within subdivisions (Chapter 18.430). The Director shall
consider the application for adjustment at the same time he/she considers the preliminary plat. An
adjustment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied provided the Director finds:
a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar
to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated;
b. The adjustment is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision;
c. The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or
injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 5
d. The adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations
of this title.
2. Adjustment to minimum residential density requirements (Chapter 18.510). The Director is authorized
to grant an adjustment to the minimum residential density requirements in 18.510.040, by means of a
Type I procedure, as governed by 18.390.030 as follows:
a. For development on an infill site as follows:
(1) In the R-25 zone, sites of .75 acre or smaller.
(2) In the R-40 zone, sites of .75 acre or smaller.
b. For development on sites larger than those contained in 1 above, if the applicant can demonstrate
by means of detailed site plan that the site is so constrained that the proportional share of the
required minimum density cannot be provided and still meet all of the development standards in the
underlying zone.
c. To be granted an adjustment in either Subsections a or b above, the applicant must demonstrate
that the maximum number of residential units are being provided while complying with all applicable
development standards in the underlying zone. There is nothing in this section which precludes an
applicant for applying to a variance to these standards, as governed by Section 18.370.010.
3 For adjustments to density, requirements in the Washington Square Regional Center, the standards of
18.630.020.E apply,.
4 For Modifications to dimensional and minimum density requirements for developments within the
Washington Square Regional Center that include or abut designated Water Resource overlay areas,
the standards of 18.630.020.F apply.
5. Adjustment to access and egress standards (Chapter 18.705).
a. In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to
Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be
considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the
Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type
II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in
Subsection 2b below.
b. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from
the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the following criteria:
(1) It is not possible to share access;
(2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another
street;
(3) The access separation requirements cannot be met;
(4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access;
(5) The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access;
and
(6) The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 6
6. Adjustments to landscaping requirements (Chapter 18.745)
a. Adjustment to use of existing trees as street trees. By means of a Type I procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.030, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a
request for the use of existing trees to meet the street tree requirements in Section 18.745.030
providing there has been no cutting and filling around the tree during construction which may
lead to its loss, unless the following can be demonstrated:
(1) The ground within the drip-line is altered merely for drainage purposes; and
(2) It can be shown that the cut or fill will not damage the roots and will not cause the tree to
die.
b. Adjustment for street tree requirements. By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by
Section 18.390.030, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for
the adjustments to the street tree requirements in Section 18.745.030, based on the following
approval criteria:
(1) If the location of a proposed tree would cause potential problems with existing utility
lines;
(2) If the tree would cause visual clearance problems; or
(3) If there is not adequate space in which to plant street trees.
7. Adjustments to parking standards (Chapter 18.765).
a. Reduction from minimum parking requirements. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed
by Section 18.390.040, the Director may authorize up to a 20% reduction in the total minimum
vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070H when an applicant for a development
permit can demonstrate in a parking study prepared by a traffic consultant or in parking data
from comparable sites that:
(1) Use of transit, demand management programs, and/or special characteristics of the
customer, client employee or resident population will reduce expected vehicle use and
parking space demand for this development, as compared to standards Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) vehicle trip generation rates and minimum city parking
requirements, and
(2) A reduction in parking will not have an adverse impact on adjacent uses.
b. Reductions in minimum parking requirements in new developments for transit improvements.
The Director may authorize up to a 20% reduction in the total minimum vehicle parking spaces
required in Section 18.765.070H by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.040, when the applicant:
(1) Incorporates transit-related facilities such as bus stops and pull-outs, bus shelters,
transit-oriented developments and other transit-related development; and
(2) Documents operational characteristics indicating the number of transit users, or number
of non-auto users for a particular facility.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 7
c. Reductions in minimum parking requirements in existing developments for transit improvements.
The Director may authorize up to a 10% reduction in the total minimum vehicle parking spaces
required in Section 18.765.070H at a conversion ratio of one space per 100 square feet of transit
facility by means of a Type I procedure as governed by Section 18.390.030, when the applicant:
(1) Incorporates transit-related facilities such as bus stops and pull-outs, bus shelters, transit-
oriented developments and other transit-related development; and
(2) Meets the following requirements:
(a) A transit facility must be located adjacent to a street with transit service. The facility should
be located between the building and front property line, within 20 feet of an existing transit
stop, or the facility may include a new transit stop if approved by Tri-Met.
(b) A transit facility shall include a covered waiting or sitting area.
d. Increases in the maximum parking requirements. The Director may approve off-street parking in
excess of the maximum allowed parking spaces in Section 18.765.070G by means of a Type II
procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, when the applicant can demonstrate that all of the
following criteria are met:
(1) The individual characteristics of the use at that location requires more parking than is generally
required for a use of this type and intensity;
(2) The need for additional parking cannot be reasonably met through provision of on-street parking
or shared parking with adjacent or nearby uses; and
(3) The site plan shall indicate how the additional parking can be redeveloped to more intensive
transit-supportive use in the future.
e. Reduction in required bicycle parking. The Director may approve a reduction of required bicycle
parking per Section 18.765.050E by means of Type II procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.040, if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use by its nature would be
reasonably anticipated to generate a lesser need for bicycle parking.
f. Use of alternative parking garage layout. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.040, the Director may approve an alternative design of parking garage which differs from the
dimensional standards contained in Figure 18.765.2 when it can be shown that 1) the proposed
structure meets design guidelines of the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Dimension of Parking. Current
Edition (199X); or 2) a similar structure functions efficiently using proposed modified layout,
circulation and dimensions.
g. Reduction in length of stacking lane. By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by 18.390.030,
the Director may allow a reduction in the amount of vehicle stacking area required in 18.765.040 D2
if such a reduction is deemed appropriate after analysis of the size and location of the development,
limited services available and other pertinent factors.
8. Adjustments to sign code (Chapter 18.780).
a. By means of a Type If procedure, as governed by 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the sign code based on findings that at least
one of the following criteria are satisfied:
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 8
(1) The proposed adjustment to the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign
visible from the street because of the topography of the site, and/or a conforming building or
sign on an adjacent property would limit the view of a sign erected on the site in conformance
with Chapter 18.780, Signs;
(2) A second freestanding sign is necessary to adequately identify a second entrance to a business
or premises that is oriented towards a different street frontage;
(3) Up to an additional 25% of sign area or height may be permitted when it is determined that the
increase will not deter from the purpose of Chapter 18.780, Signs. This increase should be
judged according to specific needs and circumstances which necessitate additional area to
make the sign sufficiently legible. The increase(s) shall not conflict with any other
non-dimensional standards or restrictions of this chapter;
(4) The proposed sign is consistent with the criteria set forth in Subsection 18.780.130 G;
(5) The proposed exception for a second freestanding sign on an interior lot which is zoned
commercial or industrial is appropriate because all of the following apply:
(a) The combined height of both signs shall not exceed 150% of the sign height normally
allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed
the height normally allowed in the same zoning district;
(b) Neither sign will pose a vision clearance problem or will project into the public right-of-way;
and
(c) Total combined sign area for both signs shall not exceed 150% of what is normally allowed
for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the
height normally allowed in the same zoning district.
b. In addition to the criteria in Subsection a above, the Director shall review all of the existing or
proposed signage for the development and its relationship to the intent and purpose of Chapter
18.780, Signs. As a condition of approval of the adjustment, the Director may require:
(1) Removal or alteration of nonconforming signs to achieve compliance with the standards
contained in Chapter 18.780, Signs;
(2) Removal or alteration of conforming signs to establish a consistent sign design throughout the
development; and
(3) Application for sign permits for signs erected without permits or removal of such illegal signs.
9. Adjustments to setbacks to reduce tree removal (Chapter 18.790). By means of a Type I procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.030, the Director may grant a modification from applicable setback
requirements of this Code for the purpose of preserving a tree or trees on the site of proposed
development. Such modification may reduce the required setback by up to 50%, but shall not be more
than is necessary for the preservation of trees on the site. The setback modification described in this
section shall supersede any special setback requirements or exceptions set out elsewhere in this title,
including but not limited to Chapter '18.730, except Section 18.730.040.
10. Adjustments to wireless communication facilities (Chapter 18.798).
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 9
a. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the requirement that a wireless
communication tower be set back at least the height of the tower from any off-site residence based
on findings that at the following criteria are satisfied:
(1) The proposed location of the tower complies with the setback requirements for the underlying
zone in which the property is located;
(2) A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within itself;
(3) Because of topography, vegetation, building orientation and/or other factor, a site closer to an
off-site residence will equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon
the off-site residence.
b. By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by 18.390.030, the Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the requirement that a wireless
communication tower be located 2,000 feet from another tower in a residential zone or 500 feet
from another tower in a non-residential zone based on findings that the following criteria are
satisfied:
(1) The applicant has fully complied with the collocation protocol as provided in 18.797.080; and
(2) A registered radio engineer certifies that a more distant location is not technically feasible and/or
sites at a more appropriate location are not available; or
(3) A location closer than the required separation will reduce visual or other impacts on surrounding
uses better than sites beyond the required separation.
11. Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type II procedure,
as governed by 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for
an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is
satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing
development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or
existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that
the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 10
Chapter 18.520
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.520.010 Purpose
18.520.020 List of Zoning Districts
18.520.030 Uses
18.520.040 Development Standards
18.520.050 Special Limitations on Uses
18.520.060 Additional Development and Design Guidelines
18.520.010 Purpose
A. Provide range of commercial services for City residents One of the major purposes of the regulations
governing development in commercial zoning districts is to ensure that a full range of retail and office uses
are available throughout the City so that residents can fulfill all or most of their needs within easy driving
and, ideally within easy walking and/or biking distance of their homes. The location of land within each
commercial district must be carefully selected and design and development standards created to minimize
the potential adverse impacts of commercial activity on established residential areas. At the same time, it
is important to create more opportunities for mixed use, including residential, commercial and institutional
activities, in new and re-developing commercial areas.
B. Facilitate economic goals. Another purpose of these regulations is to ensure that there is a full range of
economic activities and job opportunities within the City limits, in compliance with the economic goals of the
City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
18.520.020 List of Zoning Districts
A. C-N: Neighborhood Commercial District. The C-N zoning district is designed to provide convenience
goods and services within a small cluster of stores adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Convenience
goods and services are those which. are purchased frequently, i.e., at least weekly; for which comparison
buying is not required; and which can be sustained in a limited trade area. Such uses include convenience
markets, personal services and repair shops. A limited number of other uses, including but not limited to
restaurants, gas stations, medical centers, religious institutions, transit-related park-and-ride lots and
facilities with drive-up windows, are permitted conditionally.
B. C-C: Community Commercial District. The C-C zoning district is designed to provide convenience
shopping facilities which meet the regular needs of nearby residential neighborhoods. With a service area
of about 1.5 miles, such commercial centers typically range in size from 30,000 - 100,000 gross square feet
on sites ranging from 2 - 8 acres. Separated from other commercially-zoned areas by at least one-half
mile, community commercial centers are intended to serve several residential neighborhoods, ideally at
the intersection of two or more major collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and collector
street. Housing is permitted on or above the second floor of commercial structures at a density not to
exceed 12 units/net acre, e.g., the maximum density permitted in the R-12 zone. A limited number of other
uses, including but not limited to car washes, gas stations, religious institutions, and transit-related park-
and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and
development standards in the C-C zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-
integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE I I
C. C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of
retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming,
residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted
use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair
and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline
stations, are permitted conditionally.
D. C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to
accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience
retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation
facilities. Within the Tigard Triangle and Bull Mountain Road District, residential uses at a minimum density
of 32 units/net acre, i.e., equivalent to the R-40 zoning district, are permitted in conjunction with a
commercial development. Heliports, medical centers, religious institutions and utilities are permitted
conditionally. Developments in the C-P zoning district are intended to serve as a buffer between residential
areas and more-intensive commercial and industrial areas.
E. CBD: Central Business District. The CBD zoning district is designed to provide a concentrated central
business district, centered on the City's historic downtown, including a mix of civic, retail and office uses.
Single-family attached housing, at a maximum density of 12 units/net acre, equivalent of the R-12 zoning
district, and multi-family housing at a minimum density of 32 units/acre, equivalent to the R-40 zoning
district, are permitted outright. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment,
utilities, facilities with drive-up windows, medical centers, major event entertainment and gasoline stations,
are permitted conditionally.
F. MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land
within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy.
99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods
and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing
at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. A wide range of uses,
including but not limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools,
utilities and transit-related park-and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. Although it is recognized that the
automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to and within the Triangle, it is still important to 1)
support alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible; and 2) encourage a mix of uses
to facilitate intra-district pedestrian and transit trips even for those who drive. The zone may be applied
elsewhere in the City through the legislative process.
G. (MUE-1 and MUE-2): Mixed Use Employment Districts. The MUE 1 and 2 zoning district is
designed to apply to areas where employment uses such as office, research and development
and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but
are limited, and residential uses are permitted which are compatible with employment character of
the area. Lincoln Center is an example of an area designated MUE-1, the high density mixed use
employment district. The Nimbus area is an example of an area designated MUE-2 requiring
more moderate densities.
H. M~ UC): Mixed Use Commercial District. The MUC zoning district includes land around the
Washington Square Mall and land immediately west of Highway 217. Primary uses permitted
include office buildings, retail, and service uses. Also permitted are mixed-use developments and
housing at densities of 50 units per acre. Larger buildings are encouraged in this area with
parking under, behind or to the sides of buildings.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 12
I. MUC-1: Mixed Use Commercial - 1. The MUC-1 zoning district, which is designed to apply to that portion
of the Durham Quarry site within the City of Tigard, is a mixed-use commercial district bounded by 72"d
Avenue, Findlay Street and the Tigard, Tualatin and Durham city limits. This site is the subject of an
intergovernmental agreement between the cities of Tigard and Tualatin. Pursuant to that agreement the
City of Tualatin shall furnish all planning, building and associated development review/permit services for
the property. This zoning district is intended to mirror the City of Tualatin's Mixed Use Commercial Overlay
District (TDC, Chapter 57). It permits a wide range of uses including commercial lodging, general retail,
offices and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a minimum density of 25 units/acre and a
maximum of 50 units/acre. Additional uses, including but not limited to major event entertainment and
motor vehicle retail fuel sales, are permitted conditionally. In addition to the standards of this chapter,
development within this zone is subject to the standards of 18.640.
J. (MUR): Mixed Use Residential : Districts.. The*; MUR zor inb distncHs designed to apply `to
peddorriinantly' residential areas where'' mixed-uses .are .permitted when compatibie viiith the
residential use. A 'high density (MUR=4) and`_tncderate ,density;.(IVIUR:2) designation ;ls available
within the MUR zoning district:
18.530.030 Uses
A. Types of uses. For the purposes of this chapter, there are four kinds of use:
1. A permitted (P) use is a use which is permitted outright, but subject to all of the applicable provisions of
this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the
provisions of Chapter 18.130.030;
2. A restricted (R) use is permitted outright providing it is in compliance with special requirements,
exceptions or restrictions;
3. A conditional use (C) is a use the approval of which is at the discretion of the Hearings Officer. The
approval process and criteria are set forth in Chapters 18.370. If a use is not listed as a conditional
use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.130.030;
4. A prohibited (N) use is one which is not permitted in a zoning district under any circumstances.
B. Use table. A list of permitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in Commercial zones is presented in
Table 18.520.1.
C. Accessory structures.
1. Accessory structures are permitted in all commercial zones providing the site is still in compliance with
all development standards, including but not limited to setbacks, height, lot coverage and landscaping
requirements, of the base zone. All accessory structures shall comply with all requirements of the
Uniform Building Code. All accessory structures except those less than 120 square feet in size require
a building permit.
2. All freestanding and detached towers, antennas, wind-generating devices and TV receiving dishes,
except as otherwise regulated by Wireless Communication Facilities (Chapter 18.798), shall have
setbacks equal to or greater than the height of the proposed structure. Suitable protective anti-climb
fencing and a landscaped planting screen, in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and
Screening, shall be provided and maintained around these structures and accessory attachments.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 13
Isom
TABLE 18.520.1
USE TABLE: COMMERCIAL ZONES
MuE ~
2a'
USE CATEGORY C-N C-C C-G C-P CBD MUE IuC-1 end 2z8 1.atUR
H R R P P P F
RESIDENTIAL
N R R R C R JC R..JC R. /C
ousehold Livin C
Grou Livin N N C C N N C 'C C
R P R R R
Transitional Housing N N C N N P
R R R R R
rHONG me Occu ation
USITYPES N!A NP
le Units, Attached N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R R. R
Sin el Units, detached N!A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A R R R
Accesso Units N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A R R P
Du lexes N/A N/A NJA N/A N/A N/A N/A P p P
Multi-famil Units N/A N!A N/A N/A N/A N/A NJA N N
NIA N N N
Manufactured Units NIA N/A NlA NIA N/A NIA N
Mobile Home Parks, Subdivisions N/A N/A N/A NJA NIA NJA
C C C C. C• C
CIVIC TIONAL) Z32
C C C
Colle Basic es Utilities C N N N N N C N N C C C C
Communit Recreation N P N N P C N P P P P P P N
Cultural Institutions P P P P P P P p p P P P p
p
Da Care P P P I'
Emer enc Services P P p p C C C C C C
C
Medical Centers GP N P P P C P P P P Q N
P Q
Postal Service P p p p P P P P
C C
Public ort Facilities C C p k-, P G P C.
P P
Reli h ioools N us ns Institutions N N C C C
Sc
F?
F
Sch
Social/Fraternal ClubslLod es C N C pN p P P p P. C
COMMERCIAL P P P N
R P P
P P p P
Commercial Lod in N N P
P p R p
Eatin and Drinkin Establishments C C. N
Entertainment-Oriented C N C N C N N
Major Event Entertainment N N Res P N N C
- Outdoor Entertainment N N p P
P
Indoor Entertainment p p p p P P P
N N C N C N N N N
- Adult Entertainment PAGE IA
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES
General Retail
- Sales-Oriented P P7 P R16 P R22 R25 P R22 R3ard5
- Personal Services P P P P P R22 R25 P R2? R34JS5
- Repair-Oriented P P P N P R22 R25 a R22 N
- Bulk Sales N N P N N R22 R25 R22 R22 N
- Outdoor Sales N N P N N N N N N N
- Animal-Related N N N N N P P N N N
Motor Vehicle Related
- Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental N N P/C12 N C N N R24 R24 N
- Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair N C8 P/C12 N R18 R22 R25 N N N
Vehicle Fuel Sales C C C N C N C C C N
Office P R P P P P P P P R
Self-Service Storage N N C N N N N N N N
Non-Accesso Parkin C C P P P P P P P N
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial Services N N N N N N N N N N
Manufacturing and Production
- Light Industrial N N N N N R23 N N Rx{ N
- General Industrial N N N N N N N N N N
- Heavy Industrial N N N N N N N N N N
Railroad Yards N N N N N N N N N N
Research and Development N N N N N R R N R N
Warehouse/Frei ht Movement N N N N N R N N R N
Waste-Related N N N N N N N N N N
Wholesale Sales N N N N C N N N R N
OTHER
A ricultureMorticulture N N N N N N N
Cemeteries N N N N N N N
Detention Facilities N N C N C N N
Heliports N N C C C N N
Mining N N N N N N N
Wireless Communication Facilities P/R P/R P/R P/R P/R P/R P/R
Rail Lines/Utility Corridors P P P P P P P
Other C C NA NA C NA NA
P=Permitted R=Restricted C=Conditional Use N=Not Permitted
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 15
EXHIBIT A
'All permitted and conditional uses subject to special development standards contained in
18.520.050A.
2Permitted subject to requirements Chapter 18.742.
3See Chapter 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities, requirements for permitted and
restricted facilities.
4Uses operating before 7:00 AM and/or after 10:00 PM are conditional uses.
5AII permitted, limited and conditional uses must meet special development standards in
18.520.0508.
6Residential units permitted by right, as a mixed use in conjunction with a commercial
development, on or above the second floor of the structure, at densities not to exceed 12
units/net acre.
'Limited to 10,000 gross square feet in size, except retail food and beverage outlets, which are
limited to 40,000 gross square feet or less.
81-imited to motor vehicle cleaning only.
'When combined in single structure, each separate establishment shall not exceed 5,000 gross
square feet.
10Uses operating before 6:00 AM and/or after 11:00 PM; or drive-up windows are conditional
uses.
"A single-family unit providing that it is located on the same site with a permitted or conditional
use in and is occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of the permitted or
conditional use. Multi-family housing is permitted as part of a PD, subject to Chapter 18.350.
12Cleaning, sales and repair of motor vehicles and light equipment is permitted outright; sales
and rental of heavy vehicles and farm equipment and/or storage of recreational vehicles and
boats permitted conditionally.
13Multi-family residential units, developed at R-40 standards, as a mixed-use in conjunction with
commercial development on or above the second floor of the structure, only in the C-P District
within the Tigard Triangle and Bull Mountain Road district.
14 Restaurant permitted with restriction in size in conjunction with and on the same parcel as a
commercial lodging use.
15 As accessory to offices or other permitted uses, the total space devoted to a combination of
retail sales and eating/drinking establishments may not exceed more than 20% of the entire
square footage within the development complex.
16May not exceed 10% of the total square footage within an office complex.
"Single-family attached and multi-family residential units, developed at R-40 standards, except
the area bounded by Fanno Creek, Hall Boulevard, O'Mara, Ash Avenue and Hill Street, within
which property zoned for CBD development which shall be designated R-12 PD and shall be
developed as planned developments in conformance with the R-12 District standards.
"Motor vehicle cleaning only.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 16
19Drive-up windows permitted conditionally.
20AII permitted and conditional uses subject to special development standards contained in
18.520.050C.
21 Multi-family residential, at 25 units/gross acre, allowed outright. Pre-existing detached single-
family dwellings are permitted outright.
22 New Retail and sales uses may not exceed 60,000 gross leasable area per building within the
Washington Square Regional Center or Tigard Triangle, except for those areas zoned C-G at
the time the MUE zoning district was adopted in the Tigard Triangle.
23 All activities associated with this use, except employee and customer parking, shall be
contained within buildings.
24 Permitted as accessory to a permitted use as long as this use is contained within the same
building as the permitted use, and does not exceed the floor area of the permitted use.
25 Permitted provided the use is no larger than 60,000 square feet of gross floor area per building
or business.
261-lousehold living limited to single units, attached, and multi-family including but not limited to
apartments, attached condominiums, townhouses and rowhouses at a minimum density of 25
dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre.
27Wireless only as attached to structure within height limit - see Chapter 18.798
26AII Permitted and Conditional Uses subject to special development standards contained in
18.630
29Group living with five or fewer residents permitted by right; group living with six or more
residents permitted as conditional use.
30 Pre-existing housing units permitted. Conversion of pre-existing housing units to other uses is
subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.630
31 Permitted for pre-existing housing units, subject to requirements Chapter 18.710.
32 Except water, storm and sanitary sewers, which are allowed by right.
33 In-home day care which meets all state requirements permitted by right; freestanding day care
centers which meet all state requirements permitted conditionally.
i
34This use is allowed only in mixed-use developments in the Washington Square Regional
Center. Commercial uses shall occupy no more than 50% of the total floor area within the
mixed-use development, and shall be permitted only when minimum residential densities are
met.
35The maximum building footprint size permitted for any building occupied entirely by a
commercial use or uses shall be 7,500 square feet.
I
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 17
18.520.040 Development Standards
A. Compliance required. All development must comply with:
1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district,
except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with
Chapters18.370.
2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title.
B. Development standards. Development standards in commercial zoning districts are
contained in 'Fable 18.520.2 below:
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 18
EXHIBIT A
t
TABLE 18.520.2
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CBD MUE
RESIDENTIAL R-25
STANDARD C-N C-C191 C-G C-P CBD R40 R-12 C-G MFDU* MUC-1 MUC A1UE ;1 MUE2 MUR-z I AtUR2
R?7[rs! [rnlrh [~~ul P~!t1 [~~fi
Minimum Lot Size 5,000 sq ft 5,000 sq ft None 6,000 sq ft None None None None - None None None Non6 None Now
- Detached unit - - - - - - - 1,480 sq ft -
- Boarding, lodging, rooming house - - - - - - - 6,100 sq ft - -
Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft None None None 50 ft None None None None Node None Nome
Minimum Setbacks
- Front yard 20 ft 020 3 D01 0 ft [nl 0 ft 1"1 0/30 ft D'1 20 ft 20 ft 0 ft [ul 20 ft See O'11s1 O'Rrl 0'<? r? I0 ?q
- Side facing street on comer & 20 ft - - - 0/30 ft ["I 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 18.640. 0,lm 6:211 6vpq 5Ipll W RI!
through lots ['l 050 (B)
- Side yard 020 ft 020 ft [°I 020 ft [°I 020 ft 1°I 0/30 ft [121 loft'", loft[", 020 ft I°] loft - 0-11w q 0,1M 0't??1 Q'. OJ 0'.R0?
- Side or rear yard abutting more - - - - - - 30 ft
restrictive zoning district -
-'Rear yard 020 fl [°I 020 ft [`1 020 ft [°1 020 ft [°1 0/30 ft ("l 20 ft ["1 20 ft D'1 020 ft [°I 20 ft - 0,1rsYrw 6+Lr% 6•l?~l p+[??I ! 6
- Distance between front of garage & - - - - - 20 ft 20 ft - 20 ft N/A IV%A NIA 1 UUA
property line abutting a public or -
private street- -
Ma»mum building height N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 stories 2 stories Nwb 2 stories None
Maximum height 35 ft 35 ft 45 ft 45 ft 80 ft ["1 60 ft 60 ft 45 ft 45 ft 70 ft 200' 200. 60! 75' 45'.
Maximum Site Coverage 1'I 85% 80% 85% 85% 85% 80% 80% 85% 80%111) 901/0 85% 85% 8~ 8096 8fl5f
Minimum Landscape Requirement 15% 20% 15% 15% 15% 20%- 20%1"1 15% 20% 10°/1 i5% 1596 19:4 20% 24%
Mfi&mtmFAR.. NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA WA NIA 1225 125 (1G M6 03
lUlini!lnom1Residsettial Density _ _ N/A WA NIA NIA NIA NIA WA NIA NIA NIA 50 50 25 50 25
ir~Nacre irrmticne omslaae niaiitaaie imitfrec
e
Ma~tiragit'` _R ideetial Den3ity NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA WA NIA NIA WA None Naas 50 None 9D
f ~ttiat rz~ss
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 19
EXHIBIT A
[1] The provisions of Chapter 18.795 (Vision Clearance) must be satisfied.
[2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces.
[3] Applies to all non-residential building development and mixed use development which includes a
residential component. In mixed use development, residential floor area is included in the calculations of
floor area ratio to determine conformance with minimum FAR.
[4] Notwithstanding the requirements of 18.715.020, minimum and maximum density shall be determined
for residential only projects using the number of residential units per acre shown in the above table. The
provisions for density transfer described in 18.715.030.B apply, using the minimum and maximum
density shown in the above table. An mixed-use or commercial only development does not have a
minimum density requirement.
[5] For purposes of determining floor area ratio and residential densities, the net development area shall
be uses to establish the lot area, determined per Section 18.715.020.A
6 Adjustments to minimum densi in the Washin on Square Regional center area subject to the
standards set forth in 18.630.020.E
[7] The maximum density requirements for developments that include or abut designated Water
Resources Overlay district Riparian setbacks per 18.797 are described in 18.630.020.D
[8] No setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a
residential zoning district.
[9] See Section 18.520.050B for site and building design standards.
[10] No front yard setback shall be required, except a 20 foot front yard setback shall apply
within 50 feet of a residential district.
[11] There shall be no minimum front yard setback requirement; however, conditions in Chapters 18.745
and 18.795 must be met.
[12] There are no setback requirements, except 30 feet where a commercial use within a district
abuts a residential zoning district.
[13] The maximum height of any building in the CBD zone within 100 feet of any residential
zoning district shall not exceed 40 feet.
[14] Where the side or rear yard of attached or multiple-family dwellings abut a more restrictive
zoning district, such setbacks shall not be less than 35 feet.
[151 Landscaped areas on existing developed property in the CBD shall be retained. Buffering
and screening requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745 shall be met for existing and new
development.
[16] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces.
[171 Modifications to dimensional and minimum density requirements for developments that
include or abut designated Water Resources Overlay District Riparian setbacks per Section
18.797 are described in Section 18.630.040(f).-
[18] The requirements contained in the Buffer Matrices in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be
used in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvement s to be installed
between proposed uses in the MUC, MUE and MUR zones within the Washington Square
Regional Center (WSRC) and abutting zoning districts not included within the WSRC, or zoning
districts within the WSRC which are not mixed-use. For MUC and MUE zones, the
requirements for Commercial Zones apply. For MUR zones, the requirements for the
Neighborhood Commercial Zone apply.
[19] For Commercial and Mixed-use developments, the maximum front and street side yard
setback is 10 feet. For Residential only developments, the maximum front and street side yard
setback is 20 feet
[20] Side and rear yard setbacks shall be 20' when the zone abuts residential districts shown in
18.510.020 except R-25 and R-40.
[21] The maximum setback is 20 feet
[22] The maximum setback is 10 feet
*Multiple-family dwelling unit
C-N - Neighborhood Commercial District MUC1 - Mixed Use Commercial
C-C - Community Commercial District MUC - Mixed Use Commercial
C-G - General Commercial District MUE 1 - Mixed Use Employment/high density
C-P - Professional/Administrative Office Commercial MUE 2 - Mixed Use Employment/medlum density
CBD - Central Business District MUR 1 - Mixed Use Residential/high density
MUR 2 - Mixed Use Residential/medium density
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 20
18.520.050 Special Limitations on Uses
A. In the C-N zone. Special limitations In the C-N zoning district are as follows:
1. The use shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed structure, except as allowed in
Section 3 below;
2. No use shall have a gross floor area greater than 4,000 square feet;
3. Accessory open-air sales, display and/or storage shall be permitted for horticultural and
food merchandise only and shall constitute no more than 5% of the gross building floor
area of any individual establishment; and
4. Uses operating before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM shall be subject to the conditional
use provisions, as governed in Chapter 18.330.
8. In the C-C zone. Special limitations in the C-C zoning district are as follows:
1. Such centers shall be developed preferably as a single unit and occupy only one
quadrant of the intersection at which it Is located;
2. The use shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed structure, except for outside play
areas for children's day care facilities, and as allowed in Sections 3 and 4 below;
3. No use shall have a gross floor area greater than 5,000 square feet except for the retail
sales of food and beverages, when the maximum floor area shall not exceed 40,000
gross square feet, and all other sales-oriented retail, where the maximum floor area shall
not exceed 10,000 gross square feet;
4. Accessory open-air sales, display and/or storage shall be permitted for horticultural and
food merchandising uses only shall constitute no more than 5% of the gross building
floor area of any individual establishment;
5. Accessory open-air dining or drinking areas shall be permitted for approved eating and
drinking establishments or retail food stores only. Outside dining areas are not permitted
within 200 feet of any developed residential area. Public or private sidewalk areas
around dining areas may not be reduced to less than five feet of clear walkway; and
6. Uses operating before 6:00 AM and/or after 11:00 PM and drive-up windows are subject
to conditional use provisions, as governed by Section 18.330.
C. In the MUE zone. Special limitations in the MUE zoning district are as follows:
1. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types and
mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40. Residential use types, including
transient lodging, shall not be subject to this requirement;
2. On lots greater than three acres, general retail sales uses are limited to 30,000 square
feet of gross leasable area plus one additional square foot of gross leasable area of
general retail sales use for each additional four square feet of non-general retail sales
use.
D. In the MUC-1 gong. In addition to the standards of this Chapter, development in the MUC-1
zone Is subject to Chapter 18.640 and an Intergovernmental Agreement between the cities
of Tigard and Tualatin.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 21
E. In the MUC. MUE-1 MUE-2 MUR-1 and MUR-2 zones within the Washington 8-quare
egiona en er t o Stan ar s o a er
8.630 small also a
18.520.060 Additional Development and Design Guidelines
C. Washin ton S uare Regional Center
ee ection 18.630 or additional evelopment and Design Guidelines
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 22
CHAPTER 18.630
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER DESIGN STANDARDS
Sections:
18.630.010 Purpose and Applicability
18.630.020 Development Standards
18.630.030 Pre-existing Uses
18.630.040 Street Connectivity
18.630.050 Site Design Standards
18.630.060 Building Design Standards
18.630.070 Signs
18.630.080 Entry Portals
18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening
18.630.100 Street and Accessway Standards
18.630.110 Design Evaluation
18.630.010 Purpose and Applicability
A. Purpose
1. This Chapter will implement the vision, concepts and principles contained in the
Washington Square Regional Center Plan, and the recommendations contained in the
Phase HImplementation Plan Summmy Report, prepared by a Task Force appointed by
the City of Tigard.
2. Metro's Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan target growth capacity for
the Washington Square Regional Center will be met by permitting mixed use
development within the Regional Center at densities appropriate for an urban center.
3. A mixed use Regional Center will contain a variety of districts that vary in scale,
predominant use, and character. Distinct districts, connected to each other and to the rest
of the region by a multi-modal transportation system, will provide a range of working,
living and shopping opportunities.
4. Improved multi-modal transportation links, higher densities, variety of land uses, and
enhanced environmental qualities will all contribute to create a desirable, livable
community in the face of dramatic population and employment growth.
5. New mixed-use zoning districts, along with existing residential zoning districts in
established areas, are appropriate for the Regional Center.
B. Design principles. Design standards for public street improvements and for new development
and renovation projects have been prepared for the Washington Square Regional Center. These
design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Washington Square
Regional Center, including creating a high-quality mixed use area, providing a convenient
pedestrian and bikeway system, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the
area.
C. Development conformance. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation
projects resulting in new non single family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the
character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below
and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes,
developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities
such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation
and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 23
D. Permitted and Conditional Uses. Permitted and Conditional uses are those uses permitted
outright, with restrictions, or conditionally within the MUC, MUE 1, MUE 2, MUR 1 or MUR2
zones pursuant to 18.520.030.
E. Conflicting standards. The following design standards apply to all development located within
the Washington- Square Regional Center within the MUC, MUE and MUR zones. If a standard
found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this
section shall govern.
18.630.020 Development Standards
A. Compliance Required. All development must comply with:
1. All applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except
where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters
18.370, and Sub-Sections C through E of this Section;
2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title.
B. Development Standards. Development standards which apply within mixed-use zones in the
Washington Square Regional Center are contained in Table 18.520.2. Existing developments
which do not meet the standards specified for a particular district may continue in existence and
be altered subject to the provisions of Section 18.630.030.
C. Phasing of Development Standards. Projects may use the Site Development Review process
(Chapter 18.360) to develop a site by phasing compliance with the development standards
established in this Chapter. Such projects must demonstrate how future development of the site,
to the minimum development standards established in this Chapter or greater, can be achieved at
ultimate build out of the site. The Planning Director may waive or modify the approval period
(Section 18.360.030 C) and phased development time schedule (Section 18.360.030 E.1) for
projects approved under this section. I a time period greater than that specified in 18.360.030.C
is necessary, it must be requested at the time of original application with a detailed time line for
completion.
D. Density Requirements for Developments Including or Abutting Riparian Setback
Notwithstanding the density requirements in Table 18.520.2, the maximum residential density
and mixed-use and non-residential floor area ratio for developments that include or abut Riparian
Setbacks shall be no greater than 110 percent of the minimum residential density and floor area
ratios in all Mixed Use Zones, except when the following are met:
1. Wetlands within the development are expanded or enhanced in conformance with the
Oregon Division of State Lands Wetlands Restoration and Enhancement Program, and if
applicable
2. Fish Habitat within the development is enhanced in conformance with the Oregon
Division of State Lands Fish Habitat Enhancement Program, and if applicable
3. The overall flood storage capacity of the 100-year floodplain within the development is
increased by 10 percent.
If the enhancements described above are approved, or if enhancements are already in existence,
the maximum residential density standards shown in Table 18.520 and no maximum floor area
ratio standards for mixed use and non-residential developments shall apply.
E. Adjustments to Density Requirements in the Wash in4ton Square Regional Center. The
density requirements shown in table 18.52 are designed to implement the goals and
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 24
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. These requirements apply throughout the
Washington Square Regional Center zoning districts, but the City recognizes that some
sites are difficult to develop or redevelop in compliance with these requirements. The
adjustment process provides a mechanism by which the minimum density requirements
may be reduced by up to twenty five percent (25%) of the original requirement if the
proposed development continues to meet the intended purpose of the requirement and
findings are made that all approval criteria are met. Adjustment reviews provide
flexibility for unusual situations and allow for alternative ways to meet the purpose of the
code.
1. Approval Criteria. Adjustment requests will be approved if the review body finds
that the applicant has shown that approval criteria 1 through 4 below, are met.
a. Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the
regulation to be modified; and
b. The proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area; and
c. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of
the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the
overall purpose of the zone;
d. Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the maximum
extent possible.
2. Procedure. Requests for an adjustment are processed as a Type I application,
along with the development proposal for which the application has been filed.
3. Ineligible regulations. Adjustments are prohibited for the following items:
a. To allow a primary or accessory use that is not allowed by the
regulations;
b. As an exception to any restrictions on uses or development which contain
the words "prohibited" or "not allowed";
C. As an exception to a qualifying situation for a regulation, such as zones
allowed or items being limited to new development.
d. As an exception to a definition or classification
e. As an exception to the procedural steps of a procedure or to change
assigned procedures.
F. Modifications to Dimensional and Minimum Denstp Requirements for Develonments That
Include or Abut Designated Water Resources Overlay District Riparian Setbacks.
Notwithstanding the dimensional and minimum density requirements in Table 18.520.2, the
minimum and maximum dimensional requirements and the minimum residential density and
mixed-use and non-residential floor area ratio for developments that include or abut Riparian:
Setbacks shall be subject to modification when modification is necessary to assure that
environmental impacts are minimized. Modification reviews provide flexibilityfor unusual
situations and allow for alternative ways to meet tl:e purpose of the code, while assuring
potentfal environmental impacts are minimized.
1. Approval Criteria. Modification requests will be approved if the review body finds that
the applicant has shown that approval criteria a through d below, are met.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAC=E 25
a. Evidence is provided that the modification(s) are necessary in order to secure
approval under any of the following applicable regulations: federal
Endangered Species Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit, Section 404 or 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, and Oregon
Removal-Fill Law, and
b. The proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area as
specified in the Plan; and
C. If more than one modification is being requested, the cumulative effect of the
modifications results in a projeeNhat is still consistent with the overall purpose
of the zone;
d The modification(s) proposed are the minimum required to grant the applicable
permit(s) listed in criteria a.
2. Procedure. Requests for a modification are processed as a Type Hprocedure along
with the development proposal for which the application has been filed.
3. Eligible regulations. Modifications are only available for the dimensional
requirements and minimum: density requirements shown on Table 18.520.2 and do not
circumvent or supercede any local, regional, state or federal requirements in regards to
natural resources.
18.630.030 Pre-Existing Uses and Developments within the Washington Square Regional
Center Mixed Use Districts
A. Applicability. Pre-existing housing units in mixed use districts are permitted. Conversion of
pre-existing housing units to other uses is subject to the requirements of this Chapter.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18.760.040, uses prohibited and structures that would
be nonconforming in any of the Regional Center Mixed Use zoning districts that were lawfully in
existence at the time of adoption of the Regional Center Mixed Use districts are considered to be
approved uses and structures. However, future additions, expansions, or enlargements to such
uses or structures, shall be limited to the property area and use lawfully in existence at the time of
adoption of this ordinance (date).
1. An addition, expansion, or enlargement of such lawfully preexisting uses and structures
up to twenty (20%) of the gross floor area lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of
this ordinance will be allowed provided the applicant of such proposed addition,
expansion or enlargement demonstrates substantial compliance with all appropriate
development standards in this Code, or that the applicant demonstrates that the purposes
of al nlicable development standards are addressed to the extent that the proposed
addi-, on, expansion or enlargement allows.
2. All additions, expansions, or enlargements of existing uses or structures that take place
after using the 20 percent addition, expansion, or enlargement exception shall be in
conformance with the development standards of this Code. Projects may use the Site
Development Review process (Chapter 18.360) to develop a site by phasing compliance
with the development standards established in this Chapter per Section 18.630.020.0.
3. If a pre-existing use is destroyed by fire, earthquake or other Act of God, then the use
will retain its pre-existing status under this provision so long as it is substantially
reestablished within three (3) years of the date of the loss. The reestablished use shall be
in conformance with the development standards of this Code. Projects may use the Site
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 26
Development Review process (Chapter 18.360) to develop a site by phasing compliance
with the development standards established in this Chapter per Section 18.630.0"0
18.630.040 Street Connectivity
A. Pumose: The standards provide a way for creating continuity and connectivity within the
Washington Square Regional Center. They provide incremental street and accesswav
development that is consistent with WSRC needs and regional and state planning principles for
connectivity. The primary objective is to create a balanced, connected transportation system that
distributes trips within the WSRC on a variety of streets.
B. Demonstration of standards. All development must demonstrate how one of the following
standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements
of Chapter 18.370.010 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental
constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections.
I. Design Option
a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no
more than 530 feet.
b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be
provided at intervals of no more that 330 feet.
2. Performance Option
a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street
intersections per mile.
b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a major building entrance to a
collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance.
C. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a maior ~building
entrance to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the
straight-line distance.
18.630.050 Site Design Standards
A. Compliance. All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one
acre or larger a phased development plan ma X be approved demonstrating how these standards for
the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in
Section 18.370.010 C2, governing criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied.
1. Building placement on Major and Minor Arterials
a. Pumose: Architecture helps define the character and quality of a street and can
make a strong statement about the overall community and City at large. The
placement and design of buildings provides the framework for the streetscape
and defines the edges of the public right-of-way. Architecture and ground floor
uses can activate the street, either by its design presence or by those who come
and go from it. At intersections, investing in building frontages can create
gateways and special places that add to the character of the area.
b. Standard: Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of all street frontages
along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public
street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 27
2. Building setback -
a. Purpose: Buildings ar}d investment in architecture is most conspicuous when it
is visible from the street. The presence of buildings closely sited at the edge of
the right-of-way creates an envelope for the street and a sense of permanence.
b. Standard: The minimum and maximum building setback from public street
rights-of-way shall be in accordance with 18.520.2.
3. Front yard setback design -
a Purpose: The front yard is the most conspicuous face of a building and
requires special attention. Places for people and pedestrian movement helps
create an active and safer street. Higher level of landscape anticipates a more
immediate visual result.
b. Standard: For setbacks greater than 0', landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-
surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure
and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the
required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be
developed to an L-1 standard on public streets and an L-2 standard on
accessways. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or
modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are
encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping
requirement per Section 18.520.040B and Table 18.520.2.
4. Walkway connection to building entrances -
a Purpose: As density increases and employee and resident populations increase,
it is expected that more people will move between businesses within the
WSRC. Provisions should be made to encourage people to walk from business
to business, and housing to business rather than use automobiles.
b. Standard: A walkway connection is required between a building's entrance and
a public street or accessway. This walkway must be at least six feet wide and
be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building
entrances at a corner adiacent to a public street intersection are required. These
areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section
18.520.040B, Table 18.520.2.
5. Parking location and landscape design -
a. Purpose: The emphasis on pedestrian access and a high quality stree„ is
experience requires that private parking lots that abut public streets should not
be the predominant street feature. Where parking does abut public streets, high
quality landscaping should screen parking from adiacent pedestrian areas.
b. Standard: Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-
way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. When
buildings or phases are adjacent to more than one public street, primary
street(s) shall be identified by the City where this requirement applies. In
general streets with higher functional classification will be identified as
primary streets unless specific design or access factors favor another street. If
located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the nU street frontage and
must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L- I Landscape Standard.
The minimum depth of the L- I landscaped area is five feet or is equal to the
building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be
landscaped to a L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yard abuts a
public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L- I Landscape Standard.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 28
18,630.060 Building Design Standards
All new buildings constructed in the MUC MUE and NlIUR zones within the WSRC shall comply with
the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in
Section 18.370.010 C2, criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied.
1. Ground floor windows -
a. Purpose: Blank walls along the street frontage tend to be neglected, and are not
pedestrian friendly. Windows help keen "eves on the street" which promotes safety
and security. and can help create a lively street frontage by displaving.activities and
products within the building. Lighting at night from ground floor windows also adds
to the presence of activity and the sense that someone is home.
b. Standard: All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet)
along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area
with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall
be measured from three feet above grade to nine feet above grade the entire width of
the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met
within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level.
Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining
elevation as long as the entire requirement is located at a building corner.
2. Building facades -
a _Purpose• Straight continuous unarticulated walls lack interest, character and
personality. The standard provides minimum criteria for creating a_ diverse and
interesting streetscape.
b. Standard: Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without
providing at least one of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials;
(b) a building off-set of at least 1 foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from
other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features
that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more
than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building.
3. Weather protection -
a. Purpose: Weather protection is encouraged to create a better year-round pedestrian
environment and to provide incentive for people to walk rather than drive.
b. Standard: Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and
arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged
along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a
sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public
street or accessway.
4. Building Materials -
a. Purpose: High quality construction and building materials suggest a level of
permanence and stature appropriate to a Regional Center.
b. Standard: Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet
press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation
material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material
is not revealed for more than 2 feet.
5. Roofs and roof lines -
a. Purpose: Roof line systems that blur the line between the roof and the walls of
buildings should be avoided. This standard simply states that roofing materials
should be used on the roof and that wall finish materials should be use on building
walls. The premise is that future buildings in the WSRC should have a look of
permanence and quality.
b. Standard: Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 29
as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the
building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are
not permitted.
6. Roof-mounted equipment -
a Purnose• Roof ton equipment if not screened properly, can detract from views of
adjacent properties. Also roofs and roof mounted equipment can be the predominant
view where buildings are down slope from public streets.
b. Standard: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent
public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back
or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized.
Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard.
18.630.070 Signs
A. Sign standards. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code the
following standards shall be met:
1. Zoning district regulations - Residential only developments within the WC, WE and
MUR zones shall meet the sign requirements for the R-40 zone 18.780.13OB; non-
residential developments within the WC zone shall meet the sign requirements for the
commercial zones, 18.780.1300; non-residential development within the MUE zone
shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone, 18.780.130D and non-residential
development within the MUR zones shall meet the sign requirements of the C-N zone,
18.780.130E.
2. Sign area limits - The maximum sign area limits found in 18.780.130 shall not be
exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted.
3. Height limits -The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet.
Wall signs shall not extend above the roofline of the wall on which the sign is located.
No height increases will be permitted.
4. Sign location - Freestanding signs within the Washington Square Regional Center shall
not be permitted within required L- I landscape areas.
18.630.080 Entry Portals
A. Required locations. (Reserved)
18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening
A. Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable. The
locations were the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or
screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum
requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met.
1. L-I Low Screen - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within
parking lots and along local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter
18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. In addition the L-1 standard applies to
setbacks on major and minor arterials, and where parking lots abut public streets. Where
the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a street, trees shall be
planted at 3 '/,inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a
variety that will provide a 3-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year.
Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 30
2. L-2 General Landscaping - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas
within parking lots, and along local collectors and local streets, planting standards of
Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. In addition, trees shall be
provided at a minimum 2 inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall
be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two
years.
18.630.100 Street and Accessway Standards
A. Functional Classifications and Street Sections. The Recommended Roadway Functional
Classification Map and Street Cross Sections attached shall govern the improvement and
construction of major streets within the Washington Square Regional Center. °
18.630.110 Design Evaluation
The provisions of Section 18.620.090-Design Evaluation apply within the Washington Square Regional
Center.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 31
18.760.040 Criteria for Nonconforming Situations
A. Development of nonconforming lots of record.
1. Except as provided in Subsection A2 and Subsections B and C below, no
nonconforming lot of record at the effective date of this title or amendment thereto shall
be developed for any use, and no existing use on a nonconforming lot of record shall be
enlarged, extended or reconstructed,
except that the enlargement or expansion of a single-family residence will be allowed in
the CBD zone only;
2. If on the date of adoption of this title a lot does not meet the lot size requirements of the
applicable zoning district in which the property is located, the lot may:
a. Be occupied by one use permitted outright in a commercial zoning district, if the lot is
located within a commercial zoning district; or
b. Be occupied by single-family residential units and accessory structures if located in a
residential zoning district.
3. In any district, construction on a single nonconforming lot of record existing at the
effective date of this title or amendment thereto, notwithstanding limitations imposed by
other provisions of this title, are subject to the following:
a. The nonconforming lot shall be in a separate ownership and not contiguous with
other lots in the same ownership; and
b. All setback, height and other applicable provisions of the zoning district shall be
satisfied unless appropriate variances and/or adjustments are obtained.
4. If two or more lots, or combinations of lots and portions of lots in single ownership are of
record at the effective date of this title and are made nonconforming as to lot area, width
or depth by this title the lots involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for
the purposes of this title; and:
a. No portion of the aggregated parcels shall be conveyed, transferred or used in any
manner which violates or creates a violation of this title; and
b. No division of the parcel shall be made which creates any lot remaining with the
area, width or depth which does not meet the requirements of this title.
B. Nonconforming uses. Where at the time of adoption of this title a lawful use of land exists
which would not be permitted by the regulations imposed by this title, and where such use
involves no structure or building other than a single sign or accessory structure, the use may
be continued as long as it remains otherwise lawful, provided:
1. No such nonconforming use is enlarged, increased or extended to occupy a greater area
of land or space than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of
1 this title;
Jl 2. No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot
other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of
this title;
3. The nonconforming use of land is not discontinued for any reason for a period of more
than six months;
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 32
M 1J
4. If the use is discontinued or abandoned for any reason for a period of six months any
subsequent use of land shall conform to the regulations specified by this title for the
zone in which such land is located; and
5. For purposes of calculating the six-month period, a use is discontinued or abandoned
upon the occurrence of the first of any of the following events:
a. On the date when the use of land is vacated;
b. On the date the use ceases to be actively involved in the sale of merchandise or the
provision of services;
c. On the date of termination of any lease or contract under which the nonconforming
use has occupied the land; and
d. On the date a request for final reading o water and power meters is made to the
applicable utility districts.
6. No additional structure, building or sign shall be constructed on the lot in connection with
such nonconforming use of land.
C. Nonconforming development.
1. Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this
title that could not be built under the terms of this title by reason of restrictions on lot
area, lot coverage, height, yard, equipment, its location on the lot or other requirements
concerning the structure, such structure may be continued so long as it remains
otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions:
a. No such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which
increases its nonconformity but any structure or portion thereof may be enlarged or
altered in a way that satisfies the requirements of this title or will decrease its
nonconformity; or
b. Should such nonconforming structure or nonconforming portion of structure be
destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 60% of its current value as
assessed by the Washington County assessor, it shall not be reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of this title; and
c. Should such structure be moved for any reason for any distance whatever, it shall
thereafter conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located after
it is moved.
D. Nonconforming use of structures.
1. If a single lawful use contained in a single structure involving that structure or structure
and premises in combination (except for a single, accessory structure) existed as of
March 16, 1983, it would not be allowed in the zoning district in which it is located, or
which is nonconforming because of inadequate off-street parking, landscaping or other
deficiency (under the terms of this title or amendment thereto), th.3 lawful use may be
continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions:
a. No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this title in the zoning district
in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 33
or structurally altered except to accommodate a changing of the use of the structure
to a use permitted in the zone in which it is located;
b. Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any existing parts of a building
which were manifestly arranged or designed for such use at the time of adoption or
amendment of this title, but no such use shall be extended to occupy any land
outside such building;
c. A change of use for a single use in a single structure may occur under the following
conditions:
(1) The nonconforming use status was registered with the Director in the manner
provided by Subsection 3 for the purpose of establishing the use classification
as listed in any of the permitted use subsections of this title;
(2) The new use is within the registered permitted use classification; and
(3) The new use conforms to the zoning ordinance provisions.
d. When a nonconforming use of a structure and premises is discontinued or
abandoned for six months the structure and premises shall not thereafter be used
except in full conformity with all regulations of the zoning district in which it is located.
For purposes of this section, a use shall be deemed to be discontinued or
abandoned upon the occurrence of the first of any of the following events:
(1) On the date when the structure or premises is vacated;
(2) On the date the use ceases to be actively involved in the sale of merchandise
or the provision of services;
(3) On the date of termination of any lease or contract under which the
nonconforming use has occupied the premises; or
(4) On the date a request for final reading of water and power meters is made to
the applicable utility districts.
e. Where a nonconforming use status applies to a structure and premises, removal or
destruction of the structure shall eliminate the nonconforming use status of the land:
(1) Destruction for the purpose of this subsection is defined as damage to an
extent of more than 60 percent of its current assessed value by the Washington
County assessor; and
(2) Any subsequent use shall conform fully to all provisions of the zoning district in
which it is located.
2. If a single structure or a structure and premises containing a number of lawful uses
(except for a single accessory structure) existed as of March 16, 1983, and those uses
would not be allowed in the zoning district in which they are located, or which are
nonconforming because of inadequate off-street parking, landscaping or other deficiency
(under the terms of this chapter or amendment thereto), the lawful uses may be
continued so long as they remain otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions:
a. No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this title in the zoning district.
in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 34
or structurally altered except to accommodate a changing of the use of the structure
to a use permitted in the zone in which it is located;
b. Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any existing parts of a building
which was manifestly arranged or designed for such use as of March 16, 1983, but
no such use shall be extended to occupy any land outside such building except as
limited by Subsection (e) below;
c. A change of use may occur as follows:
(1) The nonconforming use status was registered with the Director in the manner
provided by Subsection 3 below for the purpose of establishing the use
classification as listed in any of the permitted use subsections of this title;
(2) The new use is within the registered use classifications;
(3) The new use does not cause an increase in the total number of square feet in
the registered use classification; or
(4) The new use conforms to the zoning ordinance provisions.
d. Where a structure had vacant units as of March 16, 1983, such vacant spaces shall
be classified with the most restrictive use classification applicable to the structure;
and
e. When the use of the structure, including all uses, is discontinued or abandoned for
three months, the structure and premises shall not thereafter be used except in full
conformity with all regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. For
purposes of this section, a use shall be deemed to be discontinued or abandoned
upon the occurrence of the first of any of the following events:
3. The provisions of Section 18.132.040 shall not be interpreted as granting an owner of a
nonconforming use a vested right. The provisions of the section may be revised in a
manner which does not change the rights granted by this section under this chapter.
E. Non-Conforming Situations in Washington Square Regional Center. For non-conforming
uses and developments in the Washington Square Regional Center, the standards of
18.630.030 apply.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED CODE CHANGES PAGE 35
EXHIBIT B
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
Proposed Text Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments to the comprehensive Plan to reflect changes recommended by the Task
Force are shown as bold and double underlined.
There are also several changes that were adopted after the original Washington Square
Comprehensive Plan changes were adopted. These changes were approved as part of
the Durham Quarry amendment. There are also some changes that needed to be
made to the adopted text to reflect the Durham Quarry amendments. They are
identified by bold text
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL. CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 1
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER STUDY
Final Draft
Recommendations for Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Implement the
Washington Square Regional Center Plan
August 25, 1999 (Revised 8-30-2001)
Add the following to implementation strategies, under policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2:
Implementation strategies
1. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the Official Zoning District map will
reflect the plan policies and apply land use categories in the following manner:
n. Mixed Use Commercial District - Principle development in these areas will be
high density office buildings, retail and service uses. MUC districts will
encourage larger buildings with parking under, behind or alongside the
structures. There are two applicable mixed use commercial zoning districts:
MUC and MUC-1. A zoning designation o MUC will also allow mixed-use
development and housing at densities of 50 units an acre. T ~ G distr- et.. will
The Regional Center Plan recommends that land around the Washington Square
Mall and land immediately west of Highway 217 be designated a mixed use
veemmer-eial distwet MUC. A zoning designation of MUC-1 will allow mixed-
use development and housing at densities of 25 to 50 units an acre. The
MUC-1 district is applied to the Durham Quarry site.
o. Mixed Use Residential District - The MUR designation is appropriate for
predominantly residential areas where mixed uses are permitted when compatible
with the residential use. Areas will be designated high density (MUR-1) or
moderate density (MUR-2). Locations within the Washington Square Regional
Center are appropriate for this mixed-use designation.
Add the following to policies under 5.5 - Economy:
5.5 THE CITY SHALL PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS EXCEPT:
COMPLIMENTARY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED
ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND
ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR IN COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL DISTRICTS.
(THE DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-40 DISTRICTS.) Ate;
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 2
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT
ZONE SHALL BE CONSIDERED PERMITTED USES AND NEW MULTI-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED TO DEVELOP AT
R-40 DENSITIES-; AND
WITHIN THE MUC, MUR 1 AND 2 AND MUE I AND 2 ZONES WITHIN THE
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER. WHERE RESIDENTIAL USES
SHALL 13E PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED AT HIGH DENSITIES RANGING
FROM R-25 (MUE 2 AND MUR 2) TO R-50 (MUC, MUE 1 AND MUR 1).
WITHIN THE MUC-1 DISTRICT, WHERE RESIDENTIAL USES SHALL BE
PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED TO DEVELOP AT A MINIMUM F ZS
NIT PER ACRE TO A MAXIMUM OF 50 UNIT PER A RE. RESIDENTIAL
USES WHICH ARE DEVELOPED ABOVE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES A
PART UP -A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO
THESE DENSITIES.
Add a new section 11.5-9 with the following:
11.89 WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
In 1995, Metro Council adopted a visionary plan for regional development. The 2040 Growth
Concept described strategies to make the most efficient use of urban land in the face of dramatic
population growth, to create and preserve livable neighborhoods, and to promote a useful,
accessible transportation system.
One of the key elements of the 2040 Growth Concept, was the designation of regional centers.
These are areas of concentrated commerce, local government services and housing served by
high-quality transit. Washington Square is one of three regional centers in Washington County
and one of nine in the region.
The 2040 Growth Concept resulted from extensive regional discussion about the future of the
Portland metropolitan area. Metro, working with local jurisdictions, then developed the Urban
Growth Management Functional Plan in 1996 to implement the Growth Concept. Local citizens
and governments were then to determine the best way to create regional centers given the values,
interests and needs of residents and businesses of that community.
The following findings and policies summarize the results of a thorough public discussion about
the future of the Washington Square Regional Center area. It demonstrates the way the people of
Tigard and Washington County incorporated their expectations for the future into the Regional
Center Plan.
Findings
1. With the adoption of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, local governments,
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 3
businesses, residents and property owners in Washington County began a study of land
use, transportation and other functions around Washington Square.
2. In 1998, the Tigard City Council appointed 23 people to serve on the Washington Square
Regional Center Task Force. Task Force members represent neighborhoods, schools,
business and property owners, state and local governments and public interest groups.
The task force's charge was to identify issues and set general policy for recommendations
about land use, transportation, open space, aesthetics and other issues relevant to
development around Washington Square. The Task Force also oversaw a public
involvement process.
3. The Task Force agreed on a study area that includes 1250 acres, with Washington Square
Mall approximately in the center. The area is bounded by Fanno Creek on the west, SW
Greenburg Road and Hall Blvd. on the east, Progress Downs Golf Course to the north,
and Highway 217 and Ash Creek on the south.
4. The Task Force members agreed on a set of principles that would guide development of
all recommendations. These principles are as follows:
Creation/Preservation of Area Identity
1. Reinforce a distinctive Regional Center while recognizing and respecting the
character of the nearby residential community.
2. Retain and develop quality housing, including affordable housing, for all income
levels.
3. Facilitate transitions from one use to another; for example, single to multifamily
residential uses.
4. Preserve and enhance Metzger Park and consider additional parks.
5. Encourage environmentally friendly development.
6. Try to keep historic trees.
7. Build for our children: Have a sense of stewardship.
8. Think creatively and be innovative in improving/maintaining quality of life.
9. Consider market forces and development patterns.
10. Maintain and preserve floodplains and wetlands.
Goverrunendlnstitutional Issues
1. Consider all political boundaries and facilitate cooperation among jurisdictions.
2. Maintain neighborhood schools.
3. Identify and reinforce what makes the learning (educational) environment viable.
Transportation
1. Strive for a self-sufficient, connected transportation system.
2. Consider transportation needs for the whole study area.
3. Plan for a multi-modal transportation system that accommodates increased auto
and non-auto travel needs.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 4
4. Respect and enhance local street networks and neighborhood livability.
5. Maintain an acceptable level of service and safety on regional roads, minimizing
the effect on regional roads outside the study area.
6. Provide good transportation access to the rest of the region.
7. Make the community accessible for all people and modes with connections for
cars, bikes, pedestrians and transit.
8. Maintain a high level of accessibility within and to the regional center.
9. Use appropriate street and streetscape design.
10. Encourage attractive, high quality development.
11. Promote long-term viability for the area. Assure infrastructure is available prior
to or with development.
The Regional Center Plan Should
1. Be understandable to lay people
2. Be implementable within a reasonable, staged period of time
3. Help develop a sense of community with a common vision, hope and optimism
4. Be based on statistics and facts for population, employment and other factors
5. Use existing resources as much as possible
6. Encourage compatible and complementary uses
7. Contain solutions to common problems
8. Avoid conflict with other regional centers.
5. The Washington Square Regional Center study area includes land within the City of
Tigard, the City of Beaverton and in unincorporated Washington County. The study
covers approximately 1,074 acres exclusive -of public rights-of-way and 1,250 total acres.
About 4.2 percent of the net land area within the study area is vacant.
6. The Task Force evaluated all lands within the study area for future development or
redevelopment capacity through 2020. Land identified as having development or
redevelopment potential if it is currently vacant, has infill capacity, holds an opportunity
for redevelopment or currently is used as a large (greater than one acre) surface parking
lot. The vast majority of growth potential will come from redevelopment of existing
structures and infill on sites currently used for surface parking. Over the next 20 years,
approximately 192 acres of land will become available to accommodate employment and
residential growth within the study area.
7. Metro' s Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan established "target
growth capacity" for each jurisdiction in the region. The goal of setting these target
numbers is for each part of the region to be prepared to accommodate housing and job
growth. The target growth capacity for the Washington Square Regional Center is based
on accommodating the following new jobs and housing units between 1998 and 2020:
Employment: 9,804 jobs
Retail: 1,188 jobs
Office: 8,436 jobs
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 5
Lodging: 180 jobs
Housing: 1,500 units
Residents: 2530 people
8. A development program for the Washington Square Regional Center provides for the
target employment and housing growth capacity. Areas including the districts around the
Washington Square Mall, the Lincoln Center office complex, and an emerging mixed-use
district south of Locust will develop at relatively high densities. Areas north of Locust
and west of Highway 217 will develop at more moderate intensities, but generally greater
than existing intensity in these areas. Density assumptions are summarized below:
Land Use: High Density: Moderate Density:
Office @ FAR 1.25 @ FAR 0.6
Retail @ FAR 0.6 @ FAR 0.3
Lodging @ FAR 1.0 @ FAR 1.0
Housing @ 50 DU/Acre @ 25 DU/Acre
9. This development program will require approximately 170-200 acres over the next 20
years. Adequate development and redevelopment capacity exists within the study area as
a whole to accommodate development as long as densities assumed above are achieved.
10. The Regional Center Task Force reached agreements on basic elements of urban
development, environmental protection, and transportation facilities. The Washington
Square Regional Center Plan describes the vision for the regional center.
11. The Task Force demonstrated an impressive amount of interest in mixed-use
neighborhoods and developments. Increasing land value and transportation costs will
contribute to the desire of workers and employers for proximity of housing and work
sites. The regional center' s urban design concept incorporates the need for improved
transportation links, higher density, variety of land uses and services and a quality of
environment necessary to create a desirable, livable community in the face of dramatic
population growth.
12. Major roadways in the study area experience significant traffic congestion during
weekday peak periods. Highway 217, Greenburg Road, Hall Boulevard and Scholls
Ferry Road are subject to traffic delays. The major capacity constraints occur at the Hall
Boulevard/Scholls Ferry Road intersection, the Scholls Ferry Road/Nimbus Avenue
intersection, and the Greenburg Road/Highway 217 ramp intersections. In addition,
Highway 217 itself is highly congested.
13. The majority of the arterial and collector streets in the study area have sidewalks. Scholls
Ferry Road and Hall Boulevard have bike lanes within the study area. Highway 217
presents a major barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists. The only connections between the
east and west sides of the highway in the study area are overcrossings on Hall Boulevard,
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 6
Scholls Ferry Road and Greenburg Road. Of these three crossings, sidewalks are found
only on Hall Boulevard and Greenburg Road, with bicycle lanes only on Scholls Ferry
Road. The only bike lanes on the east side of the Washington Square Mall are on Hall
Boulevard.
14. The Washington Square Transit Center is located in the northeast parking area of the
Washington Square Mall. This transit center serves as a bits stop for routes 43, 45, 56,
62, 76 and 78. These routes connect Washington Square to transit centers in downtown
Portland, Beaverton, Tigard and Lake Oswego, as well as providing service to the
Tualatin area. A wider selection of transit tools could create a less congested, auto-
dependent transportation system within and connecting to the study area.
15. In the future, those areas already identified as experiencing traffic congestion will
continue to be clogged. In addition, other sections of Hall Boulevard, Greenburg Road,
and Cascade Avenue and Oleson Road will also experience congestion. Traffic estimates
do not predict congestion on local Metzger area streets directly east of Washington
Square Mall.
16. The Tigard City Council approved the Washington Square Regional Center Plan,
September 1999 (6i'SIZC; Plan) and related Comprehensive Plan and Zonis Code
amendments, but withheld enactment of these policies an standards until a numbef of
transportation, natural resource, stormwater, and parks and open space issues were
addressed.
17. The City provided resources and secured grants from the Transportation and Growth
Management (TGM) .Program, State of Oregon, and the Department or-Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD), State o Oregon, to undertake additional
technical studies to address these issues during the Phase 1.1 Implementation process.
18. The Phase 11 Implementation work effort focused on a number of issues that were first
articulated by the Tigard City Council, and then defined as charges to the Task Force,
Subcommittees. These charges were:
1. Advise whether the major transportation improvements identified in the Regional
Center Plan are physically Feasible, and whether environmental or other
permitting issues represent a "fatal flaw" Yor project imp enhentation.
2. Determine whether the propose Regional Center Plan zoning creates the need for
significant additional transportation improvements compared with existing
zoning.
3. Prepare a transportation demand managenhent strategy for the Regional Center.
4. Develop a long-range transportation implementation program that addresses
public policy, inancia resources and responsibilities, and short-term priorities.
5. Map and con inn the hydrological characteristics (wetlands and fish habitat) of
the Fanno an Asli Creek Watersheds within the Regional Center.
6. Co p Te policies and standards or these watersheds rd ate td o Fevelopment
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 7
impacts, including the extent that parks and open spaces activities can exist within
the 100-year oodp ain area.
7. Recommend mo i ications (as necessary) to the City's natural resource
regulations.
8. Assess the stormwater management needs for the Regional Center Plan and a
recommends approach or storm water management.
9. Develop a long-term funding strategy or storm water management.
10. Con inn the parks and open space needs or the .Regional Center Plan and a
recommends approach or identifying, acquiring, improving and maintaining
parks and open space in the area.
11. Develop a long-tenn funding strategy for parks/open space.
19. Based on the work of the Task Force, Technical Subcommittees, and consultation with
the public, the following findings and conclusions are made:
1. The results of the engineering and environmental analysis show that all of the
transportation recommendations from the WSRCPhan can be implemented,
and none of the projects are fatally flawed.
2. A comparison of traffic trip generation potential of current zoning within the
Regional Center to that proposed in the FVSRC Plan showed very similar
future peak hour trips, and that the transportation system required to serve the
WSW Plan is the same as that required to serve the area under current zoning.
3. A long-term transportation implementation program is described later in this
report, including a transportation demand management strategy. A unancmg
strategy is recommended that produces sufficient revenues over a 20-year
period to implement the improvement program.
4. Detailed field reconnaissance was undertaken, and existing vegetative
communities and wetlands within the Regional Center were mapped. It is
recommended that the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map be
amended to reflect this work.
5. Existing federal, state and local regulations and impact review procedures
applicable to public and private developments within the Regional Center
address the protection of identified natural resource areas. These existing
regulations and any new regulations protecting natural resources take
precedence over any local zoning designations, existing or proposed.
6. Proposed zoning designations applying to resource areas do not in and of
themselves threaten natural resource values or potentially cause environmental
impacts any more or less significantly compared to existing or less intensive
zoning.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 8
7. Modifications to City of Tigard development standards that apply to sites that
inc u e natural resource areas along As -and Fanno Creeks are recommen e
in order to minimize environments impacts. Applicable development
standards include waiving minimum FAR and residential ensrty standards,
a dusting building setbacks and others.
8. The results of an assessment of existing and future flooding and water quality
needs within the Regions Center showed that existing stormwater act rties
are inadequate, and identified regional stonnwater improvements remain
un founded.
9. A loner teen stormwater management program is described later in this report.
A financing strategy is recommended that produces sufficient revenues over
a 20-year period to implement the improvement program.
10. A Greenbelt, Parks and Open Spaces Concept Plan is recommended which
refines the proposals made in the WSRC Plan. All elements of the Concept
Plan were found to be feasible.
11. A long-term greenbelt, parks and open spaces implementation program is
described later in this report A .financing strategy is recommended that
produces sufficient revenues over a 20 year period to implement the
improvement program.
20. A financing strategy was developed in detail for transportation,_stormwater, and parks R.
open space improvements. Based on the analysis o revenue expected from the variety of
sources described in the strategy, a equate resources were determined to be available
during the next 20 years to adequately fund the public improvements necessary to
implement the H'SRC Plan. The primary elements o the financing strategy are:
1. Aggressively pursue federal highway trust fund sources through .Metro's
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (.MTIP). Metro estimates
that approximately 874 million in federal highway trust fund money -w-111 -5-c
allocated directly to tile Metro region during the years 2000 through 2020.
2. Establish priorities so that locally generated fees from existing businesses and
residents and new development activity locate within the Regional Center are
lo-` cured on the transportation an infrastructure needs within the Regional
Ccntcr.
3. Pursue the formation of local improvement district(s) (LIDS) where existing
businesses and residents will directly enefrt from improvements to existing
transportation and stormwater facilities, or relatively modest new
improvements are needed that benefit nett tiple property owners.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 9
4. Aggressively pursue regional, state, and national grants and funding programs
or specific improvements, an pursue dedications, onations ancontributions from the private sector.
5. Establish an urban renewal district for the Regional Center as a local funding
source or major transportation, stormwater, resource en nancetnent an )arks
an open space improvements that benefit the entire area. Based on the
growth projection utilized or the Was higion Square Regional Center Plan,
approximate y 92-162 mi lion in accumulated urban renewal revenues would
be available or project activities within the Regional Center over a 20-year
period An important recommendation o the financial strategy is the creation
o a new urban renewal district. It is recommended that the urban renewal
district be created to include areas within the City of Tigard, City F
Beaverton, and unincorporated Washington County. This will assure that the
entire Regional Center will be eligible for urban renewal investments.
POLICIES
11.59.1 THE CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN THE WASHINGTON
SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN SHALL PROVIDE THE OVERALL
GUIDING FRAMEWORK FOR MORE DETAILED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
FOR THE AREA. THE IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS INCLUDE AT A MINIMUM:
a. Comprehensive plan map and zoning map amendments including transportation
plan.
b. A public facilities plan for the area including a financing plan.
C. A transportation improvement plan for the area including a financing plan.
d. A parks and open space plan for the area including a financing plan.
e. A recognition of the Regional Center Boundary for the purpose of establishing
local, regional and state funding priority in order to accomplish the concepts and
principles of the plan.
11.59.2 THREE DISTINCT TYPES OF MIXED USE DISTRICTS SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED FOR THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER. THESE
DISTRICTS ARE:
a. MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (MUC). THE REGIONAL
CENTER PLAN RECOMMENDS THAT LAND AROUND THE
WASHINGTON SQUARE MALL AND LAND IMMEDIATELY WEST OF
HIGHWAY 217 BE DESIGNATED A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT. PRINCIPAL, DEVELOPMENT IN THESE AREAS vJILL BE
OFFICE BUILDINGS, RETAIL AND SERVICE USES. A ZONING
DESIGNATION OF MUC WILL ALSO ALLOW MIXED-USE
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 10
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AT DENSITIES OF 50 UNITS AN ACRE.
MUC DISTRICTS WILL ENCOURAGE LARGER BUILDINGS WITH
PARKING UNDER, BEHIND OR ALONGSIDE THE STRUCTURES.
b. MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT (MUE). MIXED USE
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS REFER TO AREAS WITH CONCENTRATIONS
OF OFFICE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND LIGHT
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL USES. COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL
SUPPORT USES ARE ALLOWED, BUT ARE LIMITED. THE ZONING
WILL PERMIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE WITH THE
DISTRICT I S EMPLOYMENT CHARACTER. LINCOLN CENTER IS AN
EXAMPLE OF AN AREA DESIGNATED MUE-1, THE HIGH DENSITY
MIXED-USE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT. THE NIMBUS AREA IS
DESIGNATED MUE-2, REQUIRING MORE MODERATE DENSITIES.
C. MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (MUR). THE MUR
DESIGNATION IS APPROPRIATE FOR PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL
AREAS WHERE MIXED USES ARE PERMITTED WHEN COMPATIBLE
WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USE. AREAS WILL BE DESIGNATED HIGH
DENSITY (MUR-1) OR MODERATE DENSITY (MUR-2).
44
YTTT-THE C-TTY S!4 A T T ADOPT THE F01 T 03AIING TRANSPORTATION
lll,A ROI.IEMENT STD A TEGY IN ORDER TO A CC-OMAi OD, TC DT A AI` ED 1 A~,D
USES ITT TL!E WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL GE~i-F
t
- vCl7 LT~S7""l7"r0'Cf.TJG'P"TG~.-COTI.-CCfFJIVpGZ~-~7"ITrC'[71.~1TIGTQr. V l.Ztr ~i1TGTIL. Tl
S177s
6ivability study. begin .
e--i: ee .a,o.. ,.':,1, the Ck `FDy ,.d., and T,. nA"t ,1`"'i;(: .,e: ,r,
existing site that was intended t6 be teiiipffiif~.
and
an GFeenbkii-,
Hall.
~~,.,.T.,..t..:.,., t...,:1 .,.aL.: l/,.~,..~t>_„~fh~D,•.~..•o~~ Il,U.,hi: !'_„If(''.,,.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 11
!
04
!
feeo~
. UL
16*
~ ~~tpac~aaE~~~' ,
r
r.
--~t3` v V . ~r;ri~'~'f S1VE PAN ADEN pAGET12
p 'OPOSED GOMPRENEN
SQUARE REGIONAL- GENIE
SH►N(`'TON
REVISES 10"Q~_p1
.,h par-tietilar-ly emphasis.
v: toin-ndiHt4ke Farnnvcreeic-aritcw yzriEmig cis r cr°c
b
:Alalff
1 1 streets within the regional ee.nter--.
4- r t street -figs It h~ o~s~n r e«
L :~JV-1 Cr
A., ..h..lt ho ..f'2'2/l F of
oerr ~ V e
C t' _ 1 t E . .11 ♦1,, .r .,t.~~t o~rto.,t_,, ~,l,l0 1,v ..t.l... e
all other- pelieies in this subseetion afe et
b i
.
Proposed Amendment to Chapter 8. Transportation. Add new Policies:
8.1.9 THE CITY SHALL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND
PUBLIC TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY IN ORDER TO ACCO.MMODAT.E
EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES IN THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL
CENTER:
1. Commuter Rail Service and Station: Washington County has proposed commuter rail
services from Wilsonville to Beaverton on the existing freight line to the west of
Highway 217. The City supports a commuter rail station to the vicinity of the North:
Mall to Nimbus Overcrossing.
2. Pedestrian Improvements - SW Greenburg Road: Constnuct pedestrian
improvements on SW Greenburg Road between SW Hall Boulevard and Highway
217 to improve pedestrian crossing opportunities and safety.
3. Pedestrian Improvements- SW Hail .Boulevard: Construct pedestrian crossing refuge
(median) on SW Hall Boulevard between SW Pfatfle Street and SW Locust Street to
improve pedestrian crossing opportunities and sa ety.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 13
4. Pedestrian And Bicycle improvements- SW Locust Street: Realign SW 90th Avenue
across SW Locust Street to provide a tour- egge intersection at Locust Street.
Constrict curb extensions sidewalks an bicycle lanes to provide improve non-auto
accessibility across and along Locust Street.
5. Pedestrian Access Improvements- Washington Square Mall: Construct pedestrian
improvements (e g. sidewalks landscaping, and connections from parking to the mall
and surrounding arterials) in tile Washington Square Mall area.
6. Identify potential bicycle network alignments with connections to existing bikeways,
neighborhoods and activity centers, with particular emphasis on extending the Fanno
Creek Bikeway along Ash Creek.
7. Construct a pedestrian trail within and/or around the Red Tail Public Golf Course.
This presents an opportunity to provide a safe neighborhood walking/exercise area
and to serve more of the population using existing resources.
8. Provide pcdestrian/bicycle connections on local streets to, from and within
new developments and redevelopments.
9. Identify potential bicycle network alignments with connections to existing bikeways,
neighborhoods and activity centers, with particular emphasis on extending the Fanno
Creek Bikeway along Ash Creek.
10. Shuttle/People Mover: Develop local area transit service operating between the
Washington Square Mall area, the Nimbus/Cascade districts and Lincoln Center. The
service could use the proposed connections across Highway 217. Initially a shuttle
bus in the future this service could be converted to some type of fixed route system.
11. Transit Center Improvements: Construct capacity and facility improvements (e.g. real
time transfer information, lighting, covered connections to the Mall, and additional
bus bays) to the existing transit center at the Washington Square Mall.
12. Transit System Improvements: The City supports transit routing and frequency
improvements in the Regional Center. Tri-Met has provided an outline of potential
service improvements and planning that would need to occur to implement these
improvements. The range of improvements include relocatin g the Transit Center to
provide better connections into the Mall, coordinating park and ride facilities with the
luturc commuter rail service, providing bus stop improvements in the Regional
Center area and decreasing transit service headways. Tigard, Tri-Met and employers
or developers in the district should begin to develop a transit improvement plan or
the district.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 14
13. Travel Demand Management Program: The City recognizes the importance of
developing a trave deman management program or t e .Regiona enter area. A
key features of this program will be a Transportation Management Association
(TMA) that coordinates the means o decreasing demand or singe occupant vehicles
within the Regional Center area, parking management strategies, transit system
improvements, and travel demand management programs. Tile City of Tigard,
Beaverton, Washington County, Tri-Met, Metro, OD OT and employers in the area
should begin to work to Tether to refine this framework into a detailed plan or the
area.
5.1.10 THE CITY SHALL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING AUTO AND ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING AND
PLANNED LAND USES IN THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER:
1. Near Tenn Traffic Operations Improvements: Small-scale roadway operations
improvement projects shall be implemented in the near future. These improvements
correct existing system deficiencies or provide needed pedestrian, bicycle or transit
facihhes:
a. Develop signal timing improvements on Greenburg Road between Highway 217
and the Washington Square Mall.
b. Construct a separate east ound n ht turn lane from Hall Boulevard to Scholls
Ferry Road. This could require Hall Boulevard overcrossing improvements.
c. Construct pedestrian improvements throughout the district.
d. Develop a shuttle system connecting Lincoln Center, Washington Square Mall
and Nimbus Business Park.
e. Evaluate and confirm that the southbound Hail Boulevard right turn only lane into
the Washington Square Mall at Palmblad Lane should be eliminated. Restripe as
appropriate.
f. Deve-lop signal timing improvements on Hall Boulevard that include capabilities
to allow buses that have fallen behind schedule to travel to the front of the queue
and travel through the signal prior to other traffic ("queue jumping capabilrttes"
g. Develop direct access from the Washington Square Mall to the Target Store so
that motorists do not have to travel on Hall Boulevard when traveling between the
two tacilities.
h. In cooperation with the City of Beaverton and Tri-Met identify a new Park &
Ride site to replace the existing site that was intended to be temporary.
2. Highway 217 Improvements: Identify and plan for time implementation of
improvements to Highway 217 an its interchanges between Interstate 5 and Highway
26.
3. North: Mall to Nimbus Connection: Construct a bridge over Hi Thway 217
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 15
connecting the Washington Square Mall with the Nimbus Business Center. Time
bridge would include a two-lane roadway, i e lanes, sidewalks and facilities for
transit. The bridge is untended to be a facility or local travel within the Regional
Center.
4. SW Nirnbus Avenue: There are two components of the SW Nimbus Avenue
Improvements:
a. North of Scholls Ferry Road: Modify the existing roadway (north of Scholls Ferry
Road) to a 3-lane facility with parking, bike lanes and sidewalks. Potential or
streetscape improvements including solid median with specific turn slots to
individual properties.
b. Nimbus to Greenberg Connection: Extend SW Nimbus Avenue to meet
Greenburg Road. This would be a 5-lane roadway with bike lanes and sidewalks,
but no on-street parking.
5. SW Lincoln Street: Modify Lincoln Street to provide a 3-lane section with parking,
bike lanes and sidewalks between SW Locust Street and SW Oak Street.
6. SW Hall Boulevard: The Washington Square Regional Center Task Force identified
this protect as the fifth priority Ior implementation in the Regional Center area. The
protect would first be constructed to 3-lane standards with sidewalks and bike lanes at
rive lane limits between Oleson Road and Highway 217. If after other project
recommendations have been constructed, it is found that Hall Boulevard still needs to
be a five-lane facility the roadway would then be widened again. In the interim, and
as possible the City of Tigard or O.DOT woe d acquire the right of way necessary for
a five-lane section
As a three or five-lane facility, this project includes landscaped median with
designated left, turn pockets that also provide for improved pedestrian crossing
opportunities. This is consistent with Metro the Regional Boulevard Designation for
Hall Boulevard.
7. SW Cascade Avenue: Improve the existing roadway (north and south of Scholls
Ferry Road) to 3-lane standard with parking, bike lanes and sidewalks. .Potential for
streetscape improvements including solid median with specific turn slots to individual
properties.
8. SW Locust Street: Modify Locust Street between Hall Boulevard and Greenberg
Road to include a three-lane section with parking, bike lanes, sidewalks and other
streetscape improvements to maintain as a lower speed street.
9. SW Oak Street: Modify the roadway to provide 2-lane section with parking, bike
lanes and sidewalk between SW Hall Boulevard and SW Lincoln Street.
10. Washington Square Internal Roads: Construct improvements to existing Washington
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 16
Square Mall internal circulation roads to public street standards with bike lanes and
sidewalks.
11. Adopt the functional classification plan for streets internal to the Washington Square
Regional enter ass own on Figure 1. The following policies apply to local streets
within the regional center:
a. Local street spacing shall be a maximum of 530 feet.
b. Access way spacing shall be a maximum o 330 set.
c. Spacing o signalized intersections on Mayor Arterials shall be a minimum of 600
feet.
d. Existing rights of way will, to the greatest extent possible, be utilized for a local
street system. Right of way vacations will be considers only when all other p--_
in this subsection are met.
12. The transportation projects described in this section should be added to the City of
Tigard's Transportation System .Plan. The City, ODOT an Metro should work to
include these improvements in regional and state implementation programs.
11.8.3 NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES INCLUDING SEWER, WATER AND
DRAINAGE FACILITIES, SHOULD BE IN PLACE OR PLANNED TO BE
CONSTRUCTED IN TIME TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
11.8.4 NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, AS DETERMINED BY A
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT, SHOULD BE IN PLACE OR PLANNED TO BE
CONSTRUCTED IN TIME TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
Proposed Amendment to Chapter 12. Locational Criteria.
Add a new Section 12.5:
12.5 MIXED USE DISTRICTS
POLICY
12.5.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH:
a. APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES;
b. APPLICABLE PURPOSE STATEMENTS; AND
C. APPLICABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS.
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 17
1. Mixed Use Commercial
A. The purpose of the Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) land use designation is:
1. To create a dense mixed-use commercial district that forms the
commercial core of the Washington Square Regional Center;
40.
2 To create a high quality, mixed use commercial district in conjunctions
with the City o Tualatin, on the site o the former Durham Quarry.
32. To provide opportunities for major retail goods and services, office
employment, and housing in close proximity, and with good access to
transportation services;
43. To implement the Metro 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan for areas designated Regional Center within
the City of Tigard.
2. Mixed Use Employment
A. The purpose of the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) land use designation is:
1. To create a mixed-use employment district that is complementary to the
rest of the community and the region;
2. To provide opportunities for employment and for new business and
professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major
transportation facilities;
3. To provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general
public, and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which
works and lives within the MUE district;
4. To provide for groups and businesses in centers;
5. To provide for residential uses which are compatible with and supportive
of retail and employment uses;
6. To implement the Metro 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan for areas designated Regional Center and
Employment within the City of Tigard.
3. Mixed Use Residential
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 18
A. The purpose of the Mixed Use Residential (MUR) land use designation is:
1. To create moderate and high density mixed use residential districts in
close proximity to other mixed-use districts;
2. To provide opportunities for a variety of housing types and densities, and
to produce that housing in ways that residents have a high degree of
pedestrian amenities, recreation opportunities and access to transit;
3. To incorporate limited commercial and service uses within mixed-use
projects that provide benefits and amenities to residents, but are
compatible with residential uses.
4. To implement the Metro 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan for areas designated Regional Center within
the City of Tigard.
Policies
12.5.2 THE CITY SHALL APPLY A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR AREAS SHOWN AS REGIONAL CENTER IN THE METRO
2040 GROWTH CONCEPT OR TO OTHER AREAS IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY AS
APPROPRIATE FOR MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT..
12.5.3 THE CITY SHALL APPLY A MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR AREAS SHOWN AS REGIONAL CENTER AND
EMPLOYMENT IN THE METRO 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT.
12.5.4 THE CITY SHALL APPLY A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR AREAS SHOWN AS REGIONAL CENTER IN THE METRO
2040 GROWTH CONCEPT.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
1. The Community Development Code shall:
a. Include a two Mixed Use Commercial Districts; MUC and MUC-1
b. Include high density and moderate density Mixed Use Employment Districts;
it
C. Include high density and moderate density Mixed Use Residential Districts.
d. Require that:
LMJ WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
IREVISEDD 10-04-01 PAGE 19
I. Minimum residential densities and floor area ratios (FAR) be achieved;
2. Certain commercial uses be limited so that a pedestrian-oriented
development pattern is achieved;
3. Design standards for pubic improvements, site design, building design,
signs and landscaping are achieved in order to create high quality,
pedestrian-oriented developments;
4. All areas be subject to Site Development Review.
e. Provide for:
1. Limited adjustments, and phasing so that development standards can be
achieved over time;
2. Limited adjustments in development standards, including minimum
density an FAR requirements, in cases where adjustments are necessary
to avoid environmental impacts;
3. Improvements to pre-existing uses and developments so that existing
residents and businesses may continue to thrive;
4. Incentives to preserve and enhance significant wetlands, streams and
fleodplains.
i
H
Q~
7
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REVISED 10-04-01 PAGE 20
EXHIBIT C
STAFF REPORT TO THE
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TIGARD
commanay
'Development'
ShaptnWA Better
c
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
CASE NAME: WASHINGTON SQUARE PHASE it
CASE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA2001-00002
Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ZOA2001-00002
PROPOSAL: Modify the adopted Development Code and Comprehensive Plan text as it relates to
the Washington Square Regional Center. The Washington Square Regional Center
Plan (Regional Center Plan) was adopted by the City Council in March of 2000,
however Council voted to delay implementation of the Plan and code changes until
an implementation plan was completed addressing specific areas of concern. The
original Task Force was reconvened to work on the Washington Square Regional
Center Plan: Phase II, Implementation (Implementation Plan). After 8 months of
work by the Task Force, staff and consultant team, the Implementation Plan was
completed and it was determined that additional amendments were needed to the
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan in order to reflect the Implementation
Plan findings. In addition, staff found several areas within the adopted text that
needed to be clarified or cross referenced in the Development Code prior to it being
used. The proposed ' amendments reflect the Implementation Plan
recommendations and minor changes identified by staff. The proposal in front of the
Planning Commission is to amend portions of. Development Code sections 18.360,
18.370, 18.520, 18.630, 18.760 and portions of Comprehensive Plan 1.1.1, 11.9
(previously numbered 11.8), 8.1.9 and 12.5.2.
APPLICANT City of Tigard OWNER: Various
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
LOCATION: The area is bounded generally by Fanno Creek on the west, SW Greenburg
Road and Hall Boulevard on the east, Red Tail Golf Course to the north, and
Highway 217, including the Ash Creek area on the southern border.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: The criteria applicable to the proposed amendments to the previously adopted
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan are: Community Development
Code Sections, 18.390.060; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2,
3.4.2.d, 81.1, and 8.2.1; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, and 12; and Metro
Functional Plan Titles 1, 3, 4, and 7 and the Regional Transportation Plan.
SECTION If. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted to recommend APPROVAL of the requested Comprehensive Plan
amendment and Development Code amendments to the City Council.
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 1
EXHIBIT C
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
History
In 1996, Metro adopted a visionary plan for regional development. This regional plan is known
as the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. Focusing development and growth in regional centers
represented a key aspect of supporting growth of the area and preserving livability. The
Washington Square Regional Center represents one of three regional centers in Washington
County and one of seven in the metropolitan region. The area consists of 1,250 acres of land
and includes land in Tigard, unincorporated Washington County and the City of Beaverton.
With funding from a Transportation and Growth Management Grant (TGM), a master planning
effort was undertaken by the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton and Washington County to
develop the boundaries and a plan for the regional center. A 23 member Task Force was
assembled and met for over a year to develop the plan. Once the Plan was complete and
accepted by the Task Force, the Planning Commission and City Council held hearings and
determined that there were several areas of concern that needed additional review before the
Plan and development and design standards should become effective. The original Task Force
was reconvened (with a few new members, for a 25 member Task Force) and 4 sub-
committees were formed to review the remaining issues in detail. On July 25, 2001 the Task
Force accepted the findings and recommendations from the sub-committees and passed a
resolution forwarding the Implementation Plan components to the City Council so that they
could implement the Regional Center Plan. As a piece of the Task Force findings, it was
determined that minor changes were needed to the Development Code and Comprehensive
Plan above and beyond the changes previously adopted.
A joint Planning Commission and City Council work session was held on August 21, 2001 to
review the Task Force's recommendations. At this meeting, City Council directed staff to move
forward with the implementation process for the Washington Square Regional Center and final
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code amendments. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on December 3, 2001 to consider the proposed amendments
and voted to recommend approval.
Vicinity Information
The affected parcels and street system are within the area known as the Washington Square
Regional Center. The area consists of 1,250 acres of land and includes land in Tigard,
unincorporated Washington County and the City of Beaverton. The area is bounded generally
by Fanno Creek on the west, SW Greenburg Road and Hall Boulevard on the east, Red Tail
Golf Course to the north, and Highway 217, including the Ash Creek area on the southern
border.
Proposal description
The Washington Square Regional Center consists of 1,250 acres, the majority of which is in the
City of Tigard. When the Regional Center Plan was adopted by Council in March of 2000,
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan text amendments were also adopted but
implementation was delayed. The Task Force working on the Implementation Plan identified
several additional amendments needed in order to implement the Regional Center Plan. In
addition, staff found several formatting and clarification issues that needed to be addressed before
the previously approved amendments could be effectively implemented. The proposal is to adopt
the changes to the previously approved Development Code and Comprehensive Plan to reflect
the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan recommendations.
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 2
EXHIBIT C
The following provides a summary of the Comprehensive Plan changes:
Added findings of the section of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Washington Square
Regional Center to reflect work of the implementation plan.
■ Replaced the transportation improvement strategy section that was previously adopted with a
more comprehensive strategy including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. The new
transportation strategy is based on recommendation from the (Transportation Technical
Advisory Subcommittee) TTAS and Task Force.
■ Staff added language in the locations criteria information to allow for additional mixed use sites
such as the Durham (quarry.
■ Included language that provides for adjustments to development standards and minimum
density when necessary to avoid environmental impacts.
The following provides a summary of the Development Code changes:
■ Amended 18.360 (Site Development Review, 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments), 18.520
(Commercial zoning Districts), 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center), and 18.760
(Non-Conforming Situations) to re-format the adopted standards to fit into the existing
Development Code and to clarify and cross reference the standards throughout the code.
■ Added text, based on the Task Force recommendation, to allow for modifications to the
dimensional standards and minimum density requirements for developments abutting water
resources areas.
SECTION IV SUMMARY OF REPORT
❑ Applicable criteria, findings and conclusions
• Tigard Development Code 18.390
• Statewide Planning Goals
• Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies
• Applicable Metro Standards
❑ Additional City staff and outside agency comments
SECTION V APPLICABLE CRITERIA. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Tigard Development Code 18.390
Chapter 18.390.060G states that for legislative map and text amendments
(Comprehensive Plan and Development Code) the recommendation by the Commission
and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors:
o The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised
Statutes Chapter 197;
Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable;
Any applicable Metro regulations;
Any applicable Comprehensive Plan policies; and
s Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances.
This report addresses the applicable standards listed above and demonstrates that the
proposed amendments comply with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Metro regulations,
Comprehensive Plan policies and provisions of the Development Code. There are no
applicable federal or state regulations other than those previously listed.
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 3
EXHIBIT C
FINDING: As discussed in detail throughout this report, the proposed amendments comply,
or can be conditioned to comply, with the standards outlined in 18.390.060.G.
Statewide Planning Goals
The following Statewide Planning Goals were found to be inapplicable to the proposed
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan amendments:
Statewide Planning Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands,
Statewide Planning Goal 4 - Forest Lands,
Statewide Planning Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resource Quality,
Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Natural Disasters and Hazards,
Statewide Planning Goal 8 - Recreational needs,
Statewide Planning Goal 9 - Economic Development,
Statewide Planning Goal 10 -Housing,
Statewide Planning Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services,
Statewide Planning Goal 13 - Energy Conservation,
Statewide Planning Goal 14 - Urbanization,
Statewide Planning Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway,
Statewide Planning Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources,
Statewide Planning Goal 17 - Coastal shorelands,
Statewide Planning Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes, and
Statewide Planning Goal 19 - Ocean Resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement:
This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive
Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements
set forth in Section 18.390. In addition, notice was mailed to all property owners within the
Washington Square Regional Center and within 500 feet of the regional center and notice was
published in the Tigard Times prior to the hearing. Two public hearings are held (one before
the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) in which an opportunity for
public input is provided.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning:
This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The
Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide
planning goals.
The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code
establishes a process and policies to review changes to the Development Code consistent with
Goal 2. The City's plan provides analysis and policies, with which to evaluate a request for
ame -,ding the Code consistent with Goal 2. As discussed within this report, the proposed
amer -lments comply with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan criteria.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Natural Resources
Requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic areas
and sites suitable for removal and processing of mineral and aggregate resources.
This goal is met because the proposed code amendment allows for flexibility of standards when
a project is adjacent to Natural Resources to protect resources above and beyond the
protections already in place on a local, regional, state and federal level.
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 4
EXHIBIT C
Statewide Planning Goal 12 -Transportation:
This goal is intended to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system. This Goal is implemented by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12,
which is also known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Section 660-12-060
states that plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall
assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
level of service of the facility.
The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the planned improvements previously
approved. The amendments refine the necessary transportation improvements based on the
Task Force findings and provide for more multi-modal development as policy in the
Comprehensive Plan. The revised Comprehensive Plan language will continue to encourage a
safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments do not
violate applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning
goals and the regional plan adopted by Metro.
The proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as addressed above under
"Statewide Planning Goals". The proposal conforms with the applicable portions of the Metro
"Urban Growth Management Functional Plan" that was adopted in October, 1996, by Metro, as
discussed within this report.
Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen
involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be
involved in all phases of the planning process. Policy 2.1.2 states that opportunities for
citizen involvement shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort.
The Planning Commission and City Council hearings have been legally advertised. Notice has
been sent to property owners within 500' of all properties within the Washington Square
Regional Center and has been published in the Tigard Times to ensure that citizens will have
the opportunity to learn about the hearing and to participate in it.
Natural Areas: Policy 3.4.2.d states that the City shall address Goal 5 requirements
pertaining to the preservation of wetlands and that citizens will participate in making
policy recommendations.
The proposed Development Code amendments are based on recommendations from the
Washington Square Regional Center Task Force which was made up of citizens,
representatives from the business community and agency staff. The standards go further to
protect natural areas by providing for additional flexibility to underlying zoning standards in
order to protect the natural resources. In addition, there are already standards in place which
limit the density of development adjacent to the natural resource areas and regulates buffers.
Traffic ways: Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and
roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and
development.
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 5
EXHIBIT C
The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan refine the original amendments which provide a
plan for a transportation system, including alternative modes of transportation, that are safe and
efficient.
Public Transportation: Policy 8.2.1 states that the City shall coordinate with Tri-met to
provide a system that meets both the current and projected needs of the community.
Tri-met was an active participant in both phases of the Washington Square Regional Center
Plan. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan regarding transportation, transit and other
alternative modes of transportation are based on comments and input from the Task Force.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the proposed amendments comply with the
applicable Comprehensive Plan standards and criteria.
Applicable Metro standards
2040 Growth Concept/Functional Plan
The Metro 2040 Growth Concept map identifies the Washington Square area as a regional
center. The 2040 Plan required Tigard to demonstrate how it could comply with the concepts of
the 2040 plan including housing and jobs. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan has
been adopted by the City Council but implementation was delayed until further study could be
done on several areas of concern including: transportation, parks and open spaces, natural
resources and storm water. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code are in response to the additional work done to complete the implementation
plan. Because the amendments are needed to fully address the regional center plan vision and
goals, the proposed changes support the regional center plan, the 2040 Plan and the Metro
growth concept. The elements of the Functional Plan that are applicable to these code
amendments are: Title 1, Title 3, and the Regional Transportation Plan. The remaining
elements of the functional plan do not apply to the proposed Development Code or
Comprehensive Plan changes. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan and original
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan changes were previously reviewed for compliance
with the Metro Functional Plan and findings made that confirmed the plan complies with the
Metro standards.
Metro Functional Plan Title 1 - Requirements for Housing and Employment
Accommodations
Functional Plan policies in Title 1 seek ways to increase the capacity within the urban
growth boundary, such as changing local zoning to accommodate development at
higher densities in locations supportive of the transportation system.
While the proposed amendments allow for flexibility of development standards and density for
developments adjacent to natural resource areas, the City would continue to meet its target
population. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan provides an excess capacity "safety
net" for the City therefore, a possible reduction in density will not bring the City below its
required target populations.
Metro Functional Plan Title 3 - Water Quality, Flood Management, and Fish/Wildlife
Habitat Conservation protect beneficial uses and functional values of water quality and
flood management resources by limiting uses in these areas. Establish buffer zones
around resource areas to protect from new development.
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 6
EXHIBIT C
As stated previously in this report, a portion of the Development Code is proposed to be
amended to allow flexibility for developments when they are adjacent to natural resource areas.
This is in addition to the City's, Clean Water Services (formally USA), state and federal
standards protecting natural resource areas. The Clean Water Services standards are intended
to comply with Metro's Title 3. The proposed amendments, therefore, do not conflict with Title 3
requirements.
Regional Transportation Plan - The RTP provides a regional plan for transportation
improvements and requires City's plans to be consistent. The RTP also provides plans
for Transit, TDM and pedestrian mobility. The RTP replaces Metro Functional Plan Title
6.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments refine the necessary transportation
improvements based on the Task Force findings and provide for more multi-modal development
as policy in the Comprehensive Plan. The revised Comprehensive Plan language will continue
to encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system and is consistent with the
RTP.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the proposed amendments comply with the
applicable Metro standards.
SECTION VI. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS
The Regional Center Plan was reviewed by a 25 member Task Force which included
representatives from Washington County, Beaverton and Metro. In addition, staff sent request
for comments to the following agencies and staff for comments on the proposed amendments:
City of Tigard Engineering Department, Clean Water Services, Metro, Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department
of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon
Division of State Lands, Washington County, and the City of Beaverton. No comments
were received.
January 9. 2002
PREPARED BY: Julia Hajduk DATE
Associate Planner
January 9. 2002
APPROVED BY: Barbara Shields DATE
Long Range Planning Manager
is\Irplnyulia\CPA\Washington square\wash sq. phase II CC staff report.doc
1-8-02 10:52 AM
CPA2001-00002/ZOA2001-00002 WASHINGTON SQUARE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 7
Attachment 1
To be included as Exhibit D to Ordinance
Supplemental findings to Staff Report Statewide Planning Goals
The Washington Square Regional Center Plan and Comprehensive Plan and Development
Code changes to implement the plan were adopted by the City Council in March 2000.
Findings were made showing compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals in the staff
report adopted as an exhibit to the Ordinance (00-18) at that time. Those changes were not
challenged and are now deemed acknowledged. The findings made within this report
support the proposed amendments under consideration at this time and do not pertain to the
adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan or Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code amendments previously approved.
The proposed amendments under consideration at this time are as follows:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan changes: 1.) Add findings of the section of the
Comprehensive Plan regarding the Washington Square Regional Center to reflect work of the
implementation plan; 2.) replace the transportation improvement strategy section that was
previously adopted with a more comprehensive strategy including pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit. The new transportation strategy is based on recommendation from the
(Transportation Technical Advisory Subcommittee) TTAS and Task Force; 3.) add language
in the locations criteria information to allow for additional mixed use sites such as the Durham
Quarry (adopted after the Washington Square Regional Center Plan in June, 2001); and 4.)
include language that provides for adjustments to development standards and minimum
density when necessary to avoid environmental impacts.
The proposed Development Code changes: 1.) amend 18.360 (Site Development Review,
18.370 (Variances and Adjustments), 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts), 18.630
(Washington Square Regional Center), and 18.760 (Non-Conforming Situations) to re-format
the adopted standards to fit into the existing Development Code and to clarify and cross
reference the standards throughout the code; and 2.) add text, based on the Task Force
recommendation, to allow for modifications to the dimensional standards and minimum
density requirements for developments abutting water resources areas.
Below is an analysis of applicability of each Statewide Planning Goal in relation to the
proposed amendments:
Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement
This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive
Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
Analysis:
This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements
set forth in Section 18.390. In addition, notice was mailed to all property owners within the
Washington Square Regional Center and within 500 feet of the regional center and notice
was published in the Tigard Times prior to the hearing. Two public hearings were held (one
before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) in which an
opportunity for public input was provided.
Conclusion: The proposed amendment process is consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The
Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the
statewide planning goals.
Analysis:
The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code
establishes a process and policies to review changes to the Development Code consistent
with Goal 2. The City's plan provides analysis and policies, with which to evaluate a request
for amending the Code consistent with Goal 2. As discussed within this report and in the
original staff report, the proposed amendments comply with the Development Code and
Comprehensive Plan criteria.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands
This goal requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to preserve
and maintain agricultural lands.
Analysis:
This goal is not applicable to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments because the amendments do not affect any designated agricultural land.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 4 - Forest Lands
This goal requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to preserve
and maintain forest lands.
Analysis:
This goal is not applicable to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments because the amendments do not affect any acknowledged forest lands.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Natural Resources
Requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic
areas and sites suitable for removal and processing of mineral and aggregate
resources.
Analysis:
This goal is met because the proposed code amendment allows for flexibility of standards
when a project is adjacent to Natural Resources to protect resources above and beyond the
protections already in place on a local, regional, state and federal level. The City has
previously adopted the required inventories and protective measures and the changes
enhance the existing protective measures by allowing additional ways to protect resources.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resource Quality
This goal is intended to maintain and improve the quality of air, water and land
resources of the state by controlling waste and process discharges.
Analysis:
The mixed use nature of the Regional Center will help maintain and improve air, water and
land resources quality by reducing vehicle trips, miles traveled, providing denser
development patterns which maximizes land and provides a population density that supports
alternate modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling and walking. This will effectively
reduce air quality impacts. In addition, existing and proposed regulations for development
adjacent to natural resources will continue to provide protections of water quality. New
development adjacent to resource areas will in some cases be required to improve resource
areas in order to get approvals for any mitigation.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Natural Disasters and Hazards
This goal is intended to protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.
Analysis:
There are areas in the Regional Center that are in the 100 year floodplain and subject to
flooding. In addition, the area is identified (as is much of the Tigard area) as having a high
earthquake hazard. The relative hazard is based on factors of ground motion amplifications,
liquefaction, and slope instability. All new developments are required to be constructed in
accordance with accepted standards regarding earthquake safety, slides, etc. In cases
where soil stability is a question, geotechnical reports may also be required. In regards to
floodplain and floodway issues, the City is currently in compliance with this goal and will
continue to be so because there are standards regulating development adjacent to and within
the floodplain which severely limit any development in the floodplains and require a "no net
increase" in the flood level. The City's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Development Code
implements the Comprehensive Plan. It should be stressed that any development will be
required to show that it is not resulting in an increase in flood level in order to do any
alteration of the floodplain. If alteration of the floodplain is proposed, the City regulations
require extensive engineering documentation, approval from Division of State Lands (DSL),
US Army Corps of Engineers and other regulating agencies, and a public hearing for any
alteration of the floodplain.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 8 - Recreational Needs
This goal requires that the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors
be considered and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary
recreational facilities including destination resorts.
Analysis:
This goal is not directly applicable to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development
Code amendments because the amendments proposed for adoption do not change any
zoning or standards applicable to recreation. The amendments are consistent with the goal
because the only amendment that relates in any way to this goal provides for reduction of
density and development standards for developments abutting water resource areas if
necessary to comply with resource protection regulations.
Conclusion: To the extent water resource areas serve recreational needs, the amendments
are consistent with the goal because they provide greater protections for those
areas.
Statewide Planning Goal 9 - Economic Development
This goal requires the provision of adequate opportunities for a variety of economic
activities.
Analysis:
The amendments proposed for adoption do not substantially change the zoning or uses from
the existing adopted text (adopted March, 2000). The existing Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code comply with Goal 9 by providing adequate opportunities for a variety of
economic activities. Those opportunities remain essentially intact. The only amendment that
could affect economic development in any way is the amendment which provides for
reduction of density and development standards for developments abutting water resource
areas if necessary to comply with resource protection regulations. Even with this
amendment, the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code still provide for a variety of
economic activities and providing additional protection of water resource areas will have
minimal effects on economic activities. There is an inherent tension between maximizing
protection under Goal 5 and maximizing economic development under Goal 9.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to
appropriately balance these goals by protecting natural resources while
encouraging economic development that has less impact on natural resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 10 - Housing
This goal requires that plans encourage the availability of adequate numbers of
needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of
housing location, type and density.
Analysis:
The amendments proposed for adoption do not change the zoning, uses or density from the
' existing adopted text (adopted March, 2000) except for the amendment which provides for
reduction of density and development standards for developments abutting water resource
areas if necessary to comply with resource protection regulations. The Comprehensive Plan
and Development Code, as amended, will continue to provide substantial opportunities for
housing units of various types and prices, including housing within the Washington Square
plan area. Goal 10 must also be balanced with Goal 5, and the plan and code as amended
balance the goals by protecting natural resources while allowing the development of housing
in areas that will have less impact on natural resources.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to
appropriately balance these goals by protecting natural resources while
allowing the development of housing in areas that will have less impact on
natural resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services
This goal requires planning and development of a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for development.
Required public facilities and services are to be provided at levels necessary and
suitable for existing uses.
Analysis:
The adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan (March, 2000) included
adoption of the transportation plan and parks and open spaces plan. The Implementation
Plan components relating to these issues make additional recommendations to clarify the
plans already approved. These plans and the Tigard Transportation System Plan support the
existing land uses and the proposed land use and development potential in the Washington
Square Regional Center area.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to
comply with this goal by requiring coordination of development and the
provision of public facilities and services.
Statewide Planning Goal 12 - Transportation
This goal is intended to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system. This Goal is implemented by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-
12, which is also known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Section 660-12-060
states that plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall
assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
level of service of the facility.
Analysis:
The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the planned improvements previously
approved. The amendments refine the necessary transportation improvements based on the
Task Force findings and provide for more multi-modal development as policy in the
Comprehensive Plan. The revised Comprehensive Plan language will continue to encourage
a safe, convenient and economic transportation system and will continue to assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the transportation infrastructure. The mixed use nature
of the Regional Center, which is unaffected by the amendments, will reduce vehicle trips and
miles traveled by providing denser development patterns and provide a population density
that supports alternate modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling and walking, thereby
improving the efficiency of the transportation system. The amendments have little effect on
transportation.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as amended, continue to be
consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 13 - Energy Conservation
This goal requires that land and uses developed on land shall be managed and
controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon
sound economic (principles.
Analysis:
The amendments proposed for adoption do not change the zoning or uses from the existing
adopted text except for the amendment which provides for reduction of density and
development standards for developments abutting* water resource areas if necessary to
comply with resource protection regulations. The mixed use nature of the Regional Center
will reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, and provide a population density that supports
alternate modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling and walking. These previously
adopted provisions promote energy conservation and the amendments do not change these
benefits.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code remain consistent with this
goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 14 - Urbanization
This goal requires the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.
Analysis:
This goal is not applicable because the urban growth boundary and transition from urban to
rural zoning is not part of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments. The areas affected by the amendments are already urban.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway
Required protection, conservation and enhancement of lands along the Willamette
River Greenway.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not within the Willamette River Greenway,
therefore, this goal does not apply.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources
This goal requires recognition and protection of unique environmental, economic and
social values of each estuary and associated wetlands and, where appropriate,
protect, maintain and restore the long-term environmental, economic and social values
diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center does not have any estuaries, therefore, this goal
does not apply.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelands
This goal requires conservation, protection and, where appropriate, restoration of
coastal shorelands.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not located at the beach or along a coastal
shoreland, therefore, this goal is not applicable.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes
This goal requires conservation, protection, and where appropriate, restoration of
coastal beaches and dunes.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not located at the beach and there are no dunes
within the Regional Center, therefore, this goal is not applicable.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
Statewide Planning Goal 19 - Ocean Resources
This goal requires conservation of the long-term values, benefits, and natural
resources of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf.
Analysis:
The Washington Square Regional Center is not located at the beach or along a coastal
shoreland, therefore, this goal is not applicable.
Conclusion: This goal is not applicable.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments are
consistent with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
Li pln/julia/cpa/washington sq/CC adoption wash sq memoldoc
2/26/01