The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 03/26/2002 Doe* ;na~ CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 26, 2002 COUNCIL MEETING ILL BE TELEVISED H:yeann1e%docs%ccpk13 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Mayor rat Council Revised 3/26/02 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON q , 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 o.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with Impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, 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 - March 26, 2002 page 1 v AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 26, 2002 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW > UPDATE ON THE PROPOSED LOCAL OPTION LEVY FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES > PORTLAND POLICE DATA SYSTEM RENEWAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT > SELECT CITY MANAGER REVIEW FORMAT • 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 at Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roil Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items > SPECIAL PRESENTATION - TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL STATE CHAMPIONS - BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM • Mayor Griffith • Council Comments • Council Consideration: Resolution No. 02-19 (See script for resolution consideration on next page.) • Presentation to the Basketball Team Representatives COUNCIL AGENDA - March 26, 2002 page 2 Councilor. I move for adoption of the proposed resolution. Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor. Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor. Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. please say "aye. " Councilors: Mayor. All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. please say "nay. " Councilors: Mayor: *Resolution No. (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. 7:35 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:40 PM 3. 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: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for January 22, 2002 3.2 Adopt a Resolution Initiating Vacation Proceedings to Vacate a Portion of Public Right-of-way on SW 681 Parkway at the intersection of SW Atlanta Street (VAC2002-00001) - Resolution No. 02 - 20 3.3 Approve Budget Amendment #8 to the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget to Appropriate a $16,200 Oregon State Library Grant for the Hispanic Youth Initiative - Resolution No. 02 - 21 3.4 Approve Budget Amendment #9 to the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget to Add the Wall Street. Project to the Approved Capital Improvement Program - Resolution No. 02 - 22 3.5 Adopt a Resolution Accepting an Additional $390,000 in Priorities 2002 Federal Funding for the Greenburg Road Project - Resolution No. 02 - 23 3.6 Local Contract Review Board COUNCIL AGENDA - March 26, 2002 page 3 a. Award the Contract for the Base Bid and Bid Alternate 1 B for the Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Phase Ii Construction to Robert Gray Partners b. Award the Contract for the Construction of Fiscal Year 2001.02 Sewer Rehabilitation Program to Gelco Services, Inc. • 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. 7:45 PM 4. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.775 AND 18.797 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND VOLUME 'll, SECTION 4 OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERTAINING TO SENSITIVE LANDS AND WATER RESOURCES a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Community Development Department C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 02 - 15 Councilor: 1 move for adoption of the proposed ordinance. Councilor. I second the motion. . Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): will the CYty Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: *Ordinance No. (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. COUNCIL AGENDA - March 26, 2002 page 4 T, 8:10 PM S. CONSIDER AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DURHAM QUARRY SITE a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Motion: Should Council approve the intergovernmental Agreement regarding the Durham quarry site and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement? 8:30 PM 6. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE SPREADING THE ASSESSMENTS AMONG THE BENEFITED PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE 69T" AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 02 - 16 Councilor. 1 move for adoption of the proposed ordinance. Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor. Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder. (Reads as requested.) Mayor Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: *Ordinance No. (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. 8:40 PM 7. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Discussion COUNCIL AGENDA - March 26, 2002 page 5 =00i 8:55 PM 8. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAXES UNDER TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.5 FOR THREE NON- PROFIT, LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS OWNED AND OPERATED BY COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING a. Staff Report: Finance Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 02 - 24 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed resolution. Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. please say "aye. " Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. please say "nay. " Councilors: Mayor: *Resolution No. (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. 9:10 PM 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:20 PM 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - March 26, 2002 page 6 9:30 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. 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. 9:40 PM 12. ADJOURNMENT I: WDIMCATHYICCA\020326.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - March 26, 2002 page 7 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS FOR REVIEW MARCH 26, 2002 The Study Session is held in the Red Rock Crack Conference Roam., Enter at the back of Town Hall. The Coundl encourages Interested citizens to attend aU 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. • Study Session - City Attorney Review Update on the Proposed Local Option Levy for Washington County Cooperative Library Services Portland Police Data System Renewal of Intergovernmental Agreement - Select City Manager Review Format Administrative Items -Presentation to the Tigard High School Boys Basketball Team - Resolution No. 02- (added to agenda before the Visitor's Agenda) - Attendance at the Westside Economic Summit on April 3, 2002, 7:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. - Embassy Suites (Check with Mayor Grlffith and Councilor Moore) Community Development Director and City Manager are planning to attend. Metro - Compliance and Functional Plan Memo 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 deflned 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 (1) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660 (1) (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 (1) M - 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 (1) (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) Public Investments - to cant' 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:WDMICATFM000NCIL%CCLIST.DOCI.=WCATFM000NCIL\CCLIST.DOC Agenda Item No. 114, ~ _ MINUTES Meeting of -151)q 1 "L TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING March 26, 2002 STUDY SESSION Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla > CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW City Manager Monahan introduced this item. City Attorney Ramis overviewed the activity of the City Attorney's office last year. He noted they placed emphasis on attorney availability and responsiveness. Mr. Ramis also commented on the value of preventative law to avoid litigation. The attorneys recognize they are not the policymakers, but strive to be available to staff to determine options available and how to best implement policy. Mr. Ramis distributed and reviewed information concerning the annual billings to the City of Tigard as well as a comparison of legal service costs for other Oregon cities. This information is on file in the City Recorder's office. Council discussion followed. It was noted Tigard staff save on legal costs by first developing a draft product, which is then reviewed by the attorneys. Communication between the staff and attorney office is good. City Manager Monahan advised there might be some additional legal expenses with added juvenile court cases and also expenses if the library bond passes. Council members complimented Mr. Ramis and the law firm for their professional demeanor, openness, and acceptance of pursuing new ideas. The next City Attorney review will be in October 2003. > UPDATE ON THE PROPOSED LOCAL OPTION LEVY FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES (WCCLS) Library Director Barnes and Finance Director Prosser reviewed this agenda item. They shared the concerns expressed by the Tigard City Council about the amount of the proposed levy. Other cities expressed similar concerns. The original proposal was for $50 million for five years. The current major topic of discussion with regard to the WCCLS levy Is the manner in which the COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 2002 page i distribution of funds is calculated. The formula model Is being refigured; additional work is needed. Once the WCCLS proposal goes to the County, additional dollars will be added to fund the Regional Arts and Culture Council. In response to a question from Mayor Griffith, Mr. Prosser advised that the City of Tigard produces more revenue from its taxpayers than what the Tigard Library receives back. However, Tigard also gets support from WCCLS central services. Discussion followed on the service formula. Council members also noted concern about the addition of the Regional Arts and Culture Council funding to the library levy amount. The plan Is for the County to take action on forwarding the proposed levy amount to voters, and then the Council can give input either formally or informally. The preference for Tigard Council would be to give Input before the County has approved the ballot measure. > PORTLAND POLICE DATA SYSTEM (PPDS) RENEWAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Chief of Police Ron Goodpaster reviewed this agenda item. Tigard has been participating in this system since 1997 and the cost was $1,400 per month; the new agreement is for $2,400 per month. Since the start of the program, use has increased dramatically and upgrades have been installed. All surrounding jurisdictions, with the exception of Clackamas and Washington Counties (Sheriff offices) participate, which adds to the value of the information collected and shared. After discussion, Council consensus was to support continued use of PPDS. This item will be before Council for formal approval at the April 23, 2002, Council meeting. > SELECT CITY MANAGER REVIEW FORMAT Council discussed this agenda item. Council agreed to use the same format as last year. Councilor Moore suggested that Council set goals for the Manager this year. Council Study Session recessed: 7:28 p.m. ® EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 2002 page 2 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications ez Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items > SPECIAL RECOGNITION: TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM 2002 STATE CHAMPIONS Several Tigard High School Basketball Team members were present to receive congratulations from the City Council on behalf of the City of Tigard for winning the 2002 State Championship. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt resolution No. 02-19. RESOLUTION NO. 02-19 - A RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM AS 2002 STATE CHAMPIONS 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 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA • Mr. Marvin Diamond presented information in support of the library bond measure on the May Ballot (Measure 34-47). He also announced the upcoming "Night of Jazz," (April 5) which is being held to promote support for the measure. • Mr. Jim Kilbaugh, 11620 SW Gallo, Tigard, advised he was representing neighbors who would oppose a cell tower that might be placed in their neighborhood. City Attorney Ramis advised that, since this Is a matter that could be reviewed by Council (if appealed), the Council should not receive testimony at this time. Arguments can be brought forward during the appeal hearing. COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 2002 page 3 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for ]anuary 22, 2002 3.2 Adopt a Resolution Initiating Vacation Proceedings to Vacate a Portion of Public Right-of-way on SW 68" Parkway at the intersection of SW Atlanta Street (VAC2002-00001) - Resolution No. 02 - 20 3.3 Approve Budget Amendment #8 to the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget to Appropriate a $16,200 Oregon State Library Grant for the Hispanic Youth Initiative - Resolution No. 02 - 21 3.4 Approve Budget Amendment #9 to the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget to Add the Wall Street Project to the Approved Capital Improvement Program - Resolution No. 02 - 22 3.5 Adopt a Resolution Accepting an Additional $ 390,000 in Priorities 2002 Federal Funding for the Greenburg Road Project - Resolution No. 02 - 23 3.6 Local Contract Review Board a. Award the Contract for the Base Bid and Bid Alternate 1 B for the Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Phase 11 Construction to Robert Gray Partners b. Award the Contract for the Construction of Fiscal Year 2001-02 Sewer Rehabilitation Program to Gelco Services, Inc. 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. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.775 AND 18.797 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND VOLUME 11, SECTION 4 OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERTAINING TO SENSITIVE LANDS AND WATER RESOURCES a. Mayor Griffith opened the public hearing. b. Associate Planner Duane Roberts presented the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 2002 page 4 City Attorney Ramis, In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla regarding concerns about potential impacts of Measure 7, advised that two items are in the proposed ordinance to protect the City of Tigard: 1. The provisions of the ordinance are required by Metro. 2. The ordinance allows the City to grant a waiver in the event of a future Measure 7 claim. C. Public Testimony ® Margaret Finley, 11260 SW Gaarde, Tigard, inquired about the meaning of the term "restoration"? Mr. Roberts said it meant to "restore to a good condition" as defined by Clean Waters Services. Ms. Finley also inquired about variances and an area of her property that provides drainage. Mr. Roberts advised that requirements do not apply to existing development. Mr. Roberts also said that the rules encourage plantings, such as trees. Title 3 information can be obtained from staff members at the City's Community Development Counter at City Hall. Maps are available to determine how an individual property is affected. d. Mayor Griffith closed the public hearing. e. Staff recommended approval of the proposed ordinance. f. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinance No. 02-15. ORDINANCE NO. 02-15 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.775 AND 18.797 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND VOLUME 11, SECTION 4 OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 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 5. CONSIDER AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DURHAM QUARRY SITE COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 2002 page 5 City Manager Monahan presented the staff report, which Is on file in the City Recorder's office. Also present was Larry Eisenberg from Washington County and Bruce Woods of OPUS (member of the project development team). Mr. Woods gave a presentation of the current plans for developing the site, which will be known as "Bridgeport Village." The development will consist of retail and office space and is characterized as a "lifestyle center." Full buildout will offer 800,000 square feet of commerclal/office space, with over 500,000 square feet to be developed in the first phase. The nearby transit "park and ride" will be doubled in size. Mr. Woods reviewed the current problems with traffic and the proposed reconfiguration of traffic patterns and freeway accesses, which should raise the rating of the intersections from a level "F" to a "B" or "C." It is anticipated that the first phase will open the spring of 2004. Mr. Woods also presented picture boards illustrating samples of the building architecture. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to approve the proposed intergovernmental agreement between the City of Tigard, City of Tualatin and Washington County regarding the Durham Quarry site and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. 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 6. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE SPREADING THE ASSESSMENTS AMONG THE BENEFITED PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT City Engineer Duenas presented the staff report, which is on file with the City Recorder. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 02-16. ORDINANCE NO 02-16 - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND SPREADING THE ASSESSMENT AMONG BENEFITED PROPERTY OWNERS. COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 2002 page 6 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 7. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW City Engineer Duenas presented the staff report and a PowerPoint slide show to the Council that highlighted the responsibilities and accomplishments of the Department over the last year. A copy of the staff report and presentation are on file in the City Recorder's office. 8. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAXES UNDER TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.5 FOR THREE NON- PROFIT, LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS OWNED AND OPERATED BY COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (CPAH) Finance Director Prosser presented the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. Approximate value for the tax income to the City from the Washington Square property, when built, would be about $4-10,000 per year. City Manager Monahan advised that the exemption request is made by CPAH on an annual basis, which gives the City and CPAH an opportunity to address any issues that may have occurred. It was noted there were problems In the past at one of the CPAH projects, but through community policing activities those issues appear to be resolved. CPAH also has made efforts over the last year to keep the City informed of their activities. Finance Director Prosser confirmed that there was a past-due water bill owed by Greenburg Oaks, which is on a payment plan and they are meeting the terms of the plan. Motion by Councilor Dirksen, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Resolution No. 02-24. RESOLUTION NO. 02-24 - A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAXES UNDER TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.50 FOR THREE NON-PROFIT LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS OWNED AND OPERATED BY COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 2002 page 7 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 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None. 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS ® Mayor Griffith referred to a March 26, 2002, memorandum from Barbara Shields, Long Range Planning Manager to the Mayor and Council regarding the Washington Square Regional Center/Density Requirements - Metro's Authority to Ensure Compliance with the Functional Plan. A complaint was received from Mr. Bob Ward who contended that Metro does not have the legal authority to designate density requirements. Metro was contacted and provided an explanation of density requirements, which is attached to the above-referenced memorandum. Mayor Griffith advised he would pass this information along to Mr. Ward, so he can review and pursue the matter with Metro If he wishes. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:27 p.m. 1 'n_e GU Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder - C--41~j /L~-j - - - Zl yor , i o ' and 333\USR\DEPT M\CATHY\CCM\020326.DOC COUNCIL MINUTES - March 261 2002 page 8 INN In COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS Legal _ ► O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 Notice mT P. r tdotaco 1.0015 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 L anal Mnfir-e 6AvesPtariraaa . _ *City of Tiga r. JIGARD 1.33.25 S17 Hall Blwl. RE AFB *Tigard.Oregon 97223 ACc-ounts Pavabl e 1'he'following will be'considered-by tfieTlgardl:Clty Couacll:oi: • Tuesday, March 26,2002, at .7..30 p m. at the Tigard Civic Center' Town Hall, 13115 SW. Hall 1114 Tigard;;Oregon; E Public oral or:written_testimony is mvited.;The public hearing on this matter will be held udder Title. ,18 and rules of procedure aid913 ted by the Council and,`a~silable'at City , Hall or: the *ules ofpie set AFFIDAVIT C forth in'Sectio> 18 39t1.060E STATE OF OREGON, Further information niay. be, obtained. from the City of Tigard COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) SS. Planning Divisioa M 1,3125 SW Hall Blvd:, Tigard, Oregon 97223 or. by calling 503-6394171'. 1, Rathy Snycl r PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.: . comet NSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT being first duly sworn, depose and so Director, or his principal clerk, of thdC (CPA) 200.0.00001/. circulation a. ZONE ORDINANCE'AMENli➢WNT (ZOA)100Q~0000& a and newspaper r of published general at ' circul ion ` >.CODE AMENDMENMINCORPORA'iNGG IUSA'S,NE~Y.•, aforesaid county and state; that the WATER QUALITY-DESIGN, STANDARDS< Public Hearing/CPA 2000 : he City of Tigard is proposing a Comprehensive Plan'Amendmeltt to Volume IT inorder to:recoguize Clean.Water:Seryices (CWS) role a printed copy of which is hereto ann. M inat st"'Water:qua~ty. and, to provide additional. evidence of entire issue of said newspaper for -_9 Metro Title 3 "of the. Urban Growth Managenient,.Functional Plan consecutive in the following issues: ~mplianee..Additionally, a Zone:Ordinance Amendment is request- ed with respect, to _Community. Development Code (Title ,18), March 7 , 2 0 0 2_ Chapters.18 77S and 18.'797 in .791- 6- incorporate new CWS Design and constguction, standards governing development near streams, wetlands, and springs (collectively. called, Water Quality Sensitive Areas);. Existing standards in the Community Development Code that 6-Lu 50j provide less protecti6h than the CWS. standards will;be_deleted and a requirement. will be added that a CWS,permit be obtained. The CWS regulations have been.put into place m--response to Metro Stream and Wetland .Protection: performance,. standards and the need to better Subscribed and sworn It before me th protect streamwater'quali y and fish habitat. ! LOCATION: Citywide: ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRffFRIA:: Statewide Planning Goals ! 1; 2, 6 and 7; Mean Urban Growth Management Functional Plan My Commission Expires: Titles 3 and. 8; Comprehensive Plan policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7; and a Community Development Code Chapters l 8.380 and 18.390. is AFFIDAVIT T1710015 -Publish March; 7. 2002. , CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I,L U. l~ Fil./ begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I posted in the foil wing public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) 0al- 6z - which were adopted at the Council Meeting datedOLQ~0 copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being here o attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ _ day of.. , 204,~2 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon ✓v / Subscribed and sworn to before me this c; day of V , 20 Q:L . Notary Public for Oregon OFFICIAL SEAL DILWISE ECINOTARY PPUBUc.OREGM My Commission Expires: MMISSION NO.320882 MMISSION EXPIRES FES,11, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.02- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.775 AND 18.797 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND VOLUME 11, SECTION 4 OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the City currently protects sensitive lands under Chapter 18.775 of the Municipal Code and protects water resources under Chapter 18.797 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.775 and 18797 overlap and are not totally consistent; and WHEREAS, the City is required to comply with Title 3 of the Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan; and WHEREAS, additional protections of environmentally sensitive areas are needed to ensure a healthy environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Chapter 18.775 and 18.797 should be amended to avoid overlap and inconsistencies and to provide protection for natural resources while protecting private property rights; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Section 4 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, should be amended to add Clean Water Services to the list of government entities listed referenced in Water Quality Policy 4.2.1; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 6, 2000, on the proposed amendments to Chapter 18.775 and 18.797 of the TMC and Section 4 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and voted to forward the changes to the City Council without a recommendation; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Chapter 18.775 and 18.797 on March 26, 2002, and considered comments on the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the amendments are consistent with applicable statewide planning goals and applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, as detailed in the staff report, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.775 is amended as shown in Exhibit "A" to this ordinance. SECTION 2: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.797 is amended as shown in Exhibit "B" to this ordinance. SECTION 3: The Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Volume II Section 4 is amended as shown in Exhibit "C" to this ordinance. ORDINANCE No. 02-15 Page 1 SECTION 4: The findings in support of the amendments contained in the staff report dated November 6, 2000, are adopted by this reference. SECTION 5: In the event that a claim for just compensation is made =against the City pursuant to Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution based on the application or enforcement of Municipal Code Chapters 18.775 or 18.797, the City Council may waive, suspend, or modify application or enforcement of those chapters. In the event that the waiver, suspension, or modification results in a state statute or regulation becoming directly applicable, the City will enforce state law as required. In the event that the waiver, suspension, or modification results in any provision of the Metro code becoming directly applicable, the City will enforce the applicable provision of the Metro Code. SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By U nA11'1YMbL15 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this ao4--2ay of tnowh, , 2002. Ck-*,%Le- Catherine Wheatley, City Record APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this cZ041day of _'M98A C AL-- , 2002. es E. th, Jbr App oved as to f Attorney 3oni-. Date llcitywidc/ ide3amendmentsadoption.ord ORDINANCE No. 02- 1 j Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 18.775 SENSITIVE LANDS Sections: 18.775.010 Purpose 18.775.020 Applicability of Uses: Permitted, Prohibited, and Nonconforming 18.775.030 Administrative Provisions 18.775.040 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands 18.775.060 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits 18.779.080 E*eeptian feF Devel6pment of the 108tW113th Ravine below the 140 Feet Elevation 18.775.09080 Application Submission Requirements 118.775.090 Special Provisions for Development along the. Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball' ,Rt ~ M Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Cree 18.775100 Adjustments to Underl in .done SetbaWStandards kC 118.775.110 Density Transfer _ it~> r feg x u ° 118.775:120 Variances to Section 18.775.090 Standards K =18.775.130 Plan Amendment Option 18.775.010 Purpose A. Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and creeks. Sensitive land regulations contained in this chapter are intended to maintain the integrity of the rivers, streams, and creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality. and fish and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic quality and recreation potential. B. Implement comprehensive plan and floodplain management program. The regulations of this chapter are intended to implement the comprehensive plan and the city's flood plain management program as required by the National Flood Insurance Program, and help to preserve natural sensitive land areas from encroaching use and to maintain the September 1981 and, where revised, the March 20, 2000, zero-foot rise floodway elevations. '`Im lement Clean Water Service CWS Desi 'and Construction Standards. The regulations of this' chapter are intended to protect the beneficial uses of water within the Tualatin River Basin. i s. `',accordance with the CWS "Design and Construction Standards", as'ado ted 02/07/00. "~rcz F ^!y ',¢•'F"T1~M ggn.wkT-Y• ~in;~ t pia . 3. 1D. Implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The regulations of this chapter area n tended to protect the beneficial water uses and functions and values of resources within water' `equality and flood management areas and to implement the erformance standards of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan y,95,~e m yy a 4 .dt :sr. i.,~'.. ~ «..~r. ~..;x~.•.~~ v ,;.i'~ .:.z.,;:i~;` n3..,.*_tl.! ~.Yr.Si~~~6S~. ~E. Implement Statewide Planning Goa15 (Natural Resourcesl. The regulations in this chapter:are,` ~ ~-s ~ :;..intended to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goa15 (Natural Resources) and the safe' y'4harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule pertaining to wetland and riparian corridors.;':*:; Sensitive Lands 18.775-1 11126198 G.F. Protect public health, safety, and welfare. Sensitive land areas are designated as such to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community through the regulation of these sensitive land areas. D.G.jLocation. Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: 1. The 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater; 2. Natural drainageways; 3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the Gempreheasive Plan Fleedplain and Wetland Map City of Tigard "Wetland and Stream Corridors Map"; and 4. Steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground. 18.775.020 Applicability of Uses: Permitted, Prohibited, and Nonconforming LA. CWS Stormwater Connection permit. All proposed "development", must obtain a Stormwater Connection Permit from CWS pursuant to its " Design and Construction Standards". As used in this s , chapter, the meaning of the word development shall be as defined in the CWS Design ands s , Construction Standards" all human induced cha!es to improved or unimproved real property' " ^mcludmg t S} d ~cr ` ?f+~ l s s i {3 J -'.3K , dA x j.R t= t tY,ra' ' f t li ~Y I tr .Y ~ t S-"«'S . ..;£4., .F {`~~..nSv_. t . . ~ ~7 .~5~ ~r~ r..... "q g 11 Construction of structures requiring a building permit, if such structures are external to existin tr } (structures, yje •+'^_Wl "L~~ 12 Land divisiori,17s ,r; w.z~, tc ~'3TS ~j,'r f,; t I tti i 1-r~ t [A'i pf ix d~'r T9:•3i1,.~ t..it.~d.a. ..+:?t .,r}~,. 'Y:.r~ ~ t,1~ ~::1~4CZ~~?J k" G tiL , ^^^yY, FL l{~{ ~J' 47 .l .C. '~.pl L{ :ly r• 4Py. a} 4. y,. ..q. Y y J[„~1~JE., 1cJ Ml ai t N Ei y?yfr r? y~ H{t ~l s j as ~'??fh'~~` . a Site alterations resulting from surface mining or dredging, jr..'. 7~ T 6 7 7 1 ,g,.t 1 ' ti Z -gi .y 7A yz t`d ro~SK • t~'...a?~"~aa x ,.a +1 s'' t.. .i^-'~4'sh'{~- it'. c"Sye.+- e 6 ,Construction of earthen berms tY y R a ru r, sy~ilee,.. n f° r A ~r .yn F ' •S 1 1t~, fi ~r "}a, i 9s 1 ~Pavmg t , r x' ,~wy Q i r.y Y2 ~i { , f ~ r'•w gr z ~ } ~ * s r hj ~ ''~jx3 ■ desfi' 7~~ _ ~y.•~+ d , ~ ,c Y. 1 'X cr- .~e ' w`` d5 ~ ~ GL°5`" Excavation, Or 7 r1 t} ? +f;i'x ~i n`7ts 4i shz n ~~t rQ a~~i? try r ~ ~ t 73 f,. Y c t~ - t~3 h ~bN`$4~r2' -1a,.~,.~ '.r,'r ~ frjr>~ k i ~ ~::',E t.,. :ir......_ _.:.c F.. .c w... r63 _IV'.. s3.Si :.1 ....i ns' .J'.u `'ri •I ; _ ~1 f~r s H learing when it results in the removal of trees or vegetation which would re uire a permit from the local jurisdiction or an Oregon Department of Forestry tree removal Permit.~' Yae y.. -:.c y.n cyf. H~; 1 . J~ t t j 53''•4.a..7 7i"s ~o~-`A {~t~,w '10 The following activities are not included to the definition of development 'a. Farming activities when conducted in accordance with accepted farming practices as define dY Sensitive Lands 18.775-2 11126198 Nn ORS 30.930 and under a Senate Bill 1010 water uali .mans ement, lam; b Construction, reconstruction, or modification of a single family residence on an existing lot o record within a subdivision that was a roved b ,the Cit or County after 09/09/95 from ORS c. Any development activity for.whioh.land rise approvals have been issuedpursuant.to a ,land use la"pplication submitted to the Ci or Conn on orbefore 02/04/2000 and deerned:corn lete orbefore A~B.Outright permitted uses with no permit required. Except as provided below and by Subsections A, D, F and G bele% the following uses are outright permitted uses within the 100-year floodplain, drainageways, slopes that are 25% or greater, and unstable ground when the use does not involve paving. For the purposes of this chapter, the word "structure" shall exclude: children's play equipment, picnic tables, sand boxes, grills, basketball hoops and similar recreational equipment. 1. Accessory uses such as lawns, gardens, or play areas; except a Water-Quality Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor, as defined rn-the ".CWS "Design,and-Consti•uetion Standa"rds" or .(b) the Statewide Goal 'S vegetated :,corridor' -.established tor the Tualatin River, as ^ defined in 18.775.9'0. 2. Faun uses conducted without locating a structure within the sensitive land area; except in (a) !a Water Quality Sensitive -.Area or Vegetated::Corridor, as, defined in the CWS. "Design and Construction Standards", or (b). the.,.;Statewid.e Goal _5 vegetated corridor established for.the Tualatin River; as defined in 18.775.090. 3. Community recreation uses, excluding structures; except in (a) a Water Quality.Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor, as defined in the CWS. "Design Nand : Construction ='Standards" or (b) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin'River, as ;defined in 18.775.090. 4. Public and private conservation areas for water, soil, open space, forest, and wildlife resources; 5. Removal of poison oak, tansy ragwort, blackberry, English ivy, or other noxious vegetation; 6. Maintenance of floodway excluding re-channeling;SeXcept in (a)'a Water.QualitySensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor, as defined in'the CWS "Design, and. Construction Standards"; or (b) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, a§ defined iri 18.775.090. 7. Fences, except in: (a)jthe floodway area, (b) a Water Quality _'Serisitive Area or Vegetated Corridor, as defined in the CWS "Design and: Construction Standards",.or_(c) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established' for the Tualatin River, as defined.in.18:775.090. 8. Accessory structures which are less than 120 square feet in size, except in:; {a) the floodway area, (b) a Water Quality Sensitive Area or Vegetated .Corridor, as defined in ..the CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or (c) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in 18.775.090. 9. Land form alterations involving up to 10 cubic yards of material, except in (a) the floodway area or in (b) a Water Quality Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor, as. defined in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or (c) the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated -corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in 18.775.090. Sensitive Lands 18.775_3 1112698 0 = IIIIIIIIIINI IIIINIIII ~ j 13 C. Exemptions. When performed under the direction of the City, and:in cat"' tang with the provisions of the City of Tigard Standards and Specifications ifor Riparian . Area.. Management; on. file in the Engineering Division, the following shall, be exempt from:the,,provaiot oftlis. section: 1.. Responses to public emergencies, incliiding:emergeltcy r6 airs-,f6. pulmlic:facilities; 2. Stream and wetlands restoration and enliancement programs; 3. Non-native vegetation removal; 4. Planting of native plant species; and 15.Routine maintenance or replacement of existing,.public facilities-projects: y, A. Jurisdictional wetlands. Landform alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, Unified S..weFa„e Ageney DVS, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies, and are not designated as significant wetlarids.gn the City of_~'xgad""Wetland:and Streais Corridors Map", do not require a sensitive lands permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive land permits for areas within the 100-year floodplain, slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground, drainageways, and wetlands which are not under state or federal jurisdiction. G: E. Administrative sensitive lands review. 1. Administrative sensitive lands permits in the 100-year floodplain, drainageway, slopes that are 25% or greater, and unstable ground shall be obtained from the appropriate community development division for the following: a. The City Engineer shall review the installation of public support facilities such as underground utilities and construction of roadway improvements including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and driveway aprons by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this Chapter; b. The City Engineer shall review minimal ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations involving 10 to 50 cubic yards of material, except in the floodway area, for land that is within public easements and rights-of-way by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this Chapter; C. The Director shall review minimal ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations involving 10 to 50 cubic yards of material, except in the floodway area by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this Chapter; d. The Director shall review the repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which is less than 50 percent of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction provided no development occurs in the floodway by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this Chapter; Sensitive Lands 18.775-4 11126198 e. The Building Official shall review building permits for accessory structures which are 120 to 528 square feet in size, except in the floodway area; and f. The Director shall review applications for paving on private property, except in the floodway area by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this Chapter. 2. The responsible community development division shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a development permit, as described above, based on the standards set forth in sections 18.775.050, 18.775.070, and 18.775.080. $F (Sensitive lands permits issued by the Director. 1. The Director shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the following areas by means of a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070: a. Drainageways; b. Slopes that are 25% or greater or unstable ground; and c. Wetland areas which are not regulated by other local, state, or federal agencies and are designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streains Corridors Ml app. 2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required for the areas in Section 18.775.020 D1 above when any of the following circumstances apply: a. Ground disturbance(s) or land form alterations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; b. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction; c. Residential and non-residential structures intended for human habitation; and d. Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside floodway areas. &G. Sensitive lands permits issued by the Hearings Officer. 1. The Hearings Officer shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the 100-year floodplain by means of a Type IIIA procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070. 2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required in the 100-year floodplain when any of the following circumstances apply: a. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in all floodway areas; Sensitive Lands 18.775-5 1112698 b. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in floodway fringe locations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; c. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction provided no development occurs in the floodway; d. Structures intended for human habitation; and e. Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside of floodway areas. 1<:H. Other uses. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this chapter, all other uses are prohibited on sensitive land areas. Gd. Nonconforming uses. A use established prior to the adoption of this title, which would be prohibited by this Chapter or which would be subject to the limitations and controls imposed by this Chapter, shall be considered a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.760. 18.775.030 Administrative Provisions A. Interagency Coordination. The appropriate approval authority shall review all sensitive lands permit applications to determine that all necessary permits shall be obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is also required. q`'°O'As governed by CWS Design "and Construction Standards", the necessary Permits for all° "development", as defined in 18.775.020.A above, shall, include a CWS Service Provider Letter, E T which specifies the conditions and requirements necessar y, if any, for an applicant to compl with CWS water quality rotection standards and for the Agenc to issue a Stormwate ;.,.Connection Permit:t- -s: B. Alteration or relocation of water course. 1. The Director shall notify communities adjacent to the affected area and the State Department of Land Conservation and Development prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration; 2. The Director shall require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of a watercourse so that the flood-carrying capacity is not diminished. C. Apply Standards. The appropriate approval authority shall apply the standards set forth in Sections 18.775.040, and 18.775.070 when reviewing an application for a sensitive lands permit. D. Elevation and flood-proofing certification. The appropriate approval authority shall require that the elevations and flood-proofing certification required in Subsection E below be provided prior to ew of substantially permit issuance and verification upon occupancy and final approval. E. Maintenance of records. Sensitive Lands 18.775-6 11126198 1 I. Where base flood elevation data is provided through the Flood Insurance Study, the Building Official shall obtain and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement; 2. For all new or substantially improved flood-proofed structures, the Building Official shall: a. Verify and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level); and b. Maintain the flood-proofing certifications required in this chapter. 3. The Director shall maintain for public inspection all other records pertaining to the provisions in this chapter. 18.775.040 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas A. Permit review. The appropriate approval authority shall review all permit applications to determine whether proposed building sites will be safe ffam fleed g minimize the.potentiatfer flood damage. B. Special flood hazard. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study of the City of Tigard," dated September 1, 1981, with accompanying Flood Insurance Maps (updated February 1984), is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter; except v+there ievised by the "Fanno Creek Watershed Flood =Insurance Restudy;, Final '100 Yetar Flondplam; Zero Rite Floodway, and Base Map Elevations; City of Tigard, '3/20/00", _which;~also'is hereby ;adopted, by reference and declared to be part of this chapter. These Flood Insurance Studies are on file at the Tigard Civic Center. C. Base flood elevation data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Subsection B above, the Director shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer Subsections M and N below). D. Test of reasonableness. Where elevation data is not available either through the Flood Insurance Study or from another authoritative source, applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that the potential for flood damage to the proposed construction will be €4eeding minimized. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet above grade in these sensitive land areas may result in higher insurance rates. E. Resistant to flood damage. All new construction and substantial improvements, including i manufactured homes, shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. F. Minimize flood damage. All new construction and substantial improvements, including manufactured homes, shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. G. Equipment protection. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Sensitive Lands 18.775-7 11126,98 H. Water Supply Systems. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the system. 1. Anchoring. All new construction, all manufactured homes and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure. J. Sanitary sewerage systems. New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwater. K. On-site water disposal systems. On-site water disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. L. Residential Construction. 1. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure, including manufactured homes, shall have the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated at least one foot above base flood elevation; 2. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect, or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided; b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; and c. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices, provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. 3. Manufactured homes shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored permanent foundation system. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. M. Nonresidential Construction. New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to the level of the base flood elevation, or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: 1. Be flood-proofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; 2. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; 3. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this [mom Sensitive Lands 18.775-8 111261*98 MEENE subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the Building Official as set forth in Subsection 18.775.030 E2; and 4. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not flood-proofed, must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in 18.775.040 L2. Applicants flood-proofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified that flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the flood-proofed level (e.g., a building constructed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below that level). N. Subdivisions and partitions in 100-year floodplain. Subdivisions and partitions in the 100-year floodplain shall meet the following criteria: 1. The design shall minimize the potential for flood damage; 2. Public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems shall be located and constructed so as to minimize flood damage; 3. Adequate drainage shall be provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; and 4. For subdivisions or partitions which contain more than 50 lots or 5 acres and where base flood elevation data is not available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or another authoritative source, the applicant shall generate base flood elevation data to be reviewed as part of the application. 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands A. Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas meetixg-the-defutitieF~-e€ -H Chapter- 18.120 ef the Cemmunk., CAFIR classified; as+significatit.on°theiCity of Tigard Wetland and Streams Corridors: Mad eras-meefiffit i ' d to, a vegetated d6rnd6r..r'angmg,from, 25 to 200 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the deT31iec1 boundaries of the wetland, per `Tible -l i Vegetated Corridor.Widths" and "Appendix%C: Natural'$eSbucFe ssessi dfits" of;ihe CWS "Design and Construction Standards". Wetland locations may include but are not limited to those areas identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon," Fishman Environmental Services, 1994. B. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense. 18.775.060 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time A. Voiding of permit. Approval of a sensitive lands permit shall be void if 1. Substantial constrtfcffon of the approved plan has not begun within a one-and-one-half year period; or 2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan. Sensitive Lands 18.775-9 1112"8 mini B. Granting of 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 plan as approved by the approval authority; 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction of 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. C. Notice of the decision. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection 18.32.310.A. 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits A. ermits re uq ired. An applicant who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as defined in Chapter 18.775, must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area, either a Type H or Type III permit is required, as delineated in Section 18.775.015 D and E. The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas, e.g., floodplain, are presented in Subsections B - E below. B. Within the 100-year floodplain. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharg e; 2. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.130 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; I Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; 4. 'he land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in ccordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as untimely; 5. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood; 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and Sensitive Lands 18.775-10 11126198 7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. C. With exeessi*e steep slopes. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; 3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and.Screening. D. Within drains ea wavs. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions o. deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to the an extent greater than that required for the use; 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and Clean Water Services approvals shall be obtained; 7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area Sensitive Lands 18.775-11 11126/98 within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. E. Within wetlands. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within 25 feet e the vegetated corridor:established per "Table 3.1 Vegetated Corridor Widths" and "Appendix C:. Natural Resource Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Cor7s$.uction Standards", for such a wetland; 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; 3. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; 5. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board;':Division of State Lands, and Clean Water Services approvals shall be obtained; 6.701be provisions of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal, shall be met; -7.81Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplain and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. 18.775.080 Eiieeption for- Development of the 108th/113th ReAse below the 140 Feet Elevation A. Genditi6ns for- development. Under-the sensitive 1 ands peRnit f authority, as set feAh Seetiens 1047C 020 B. and n•e may allow pef4iens of the Favine at 108th and- ! de..ign ted are met: a 1. All oft-he land (within the re-Afte) being eensider-ed fer- development is less theft 299; + ; i 2. There are ne unstable seil eenditi-fls the laiid being eensidered fer- development; a-rid 9. Applieable previsions of Seetien 18.775.070, sensitive lands appFeval er-iter-i-A shall be met. 18.775.09880 Application Submission Requirements Sensitive Lands 18.775-12 I M6198 A. Application submission requirements. All applications for uses and activities identified in Subsections 18.775.020 B-E shall be made on forms provided by the Director and must include the following information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The specific information on each of the following is available from the Director: 11. A CWS Stormwater Connection Permit N. ;Y? f _ ' ~c tY 4-:2. A site plan; 2-3. A grading plan; and 3- 16 A landscaping plan. 18.775:090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and alon tlae? < Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork:of Ash.Creek Safdharbor: In order to address the requirements of Statewide. Planning Goal 5 .(Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal .5 administrative rule (OAl~ 660=023-0030) pertaining ,to C wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard Wetland ind'Streams'Cornidors ap'are protected. No land form altetations or developments are allowed,; within or `attiall .within a significa netland, except as allowed/a roved pursuant to 1.8:775:130. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural'Resources) and the safel `ka arbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR' 660-023=003.0). pertaining. to ,ri arian corridors, a standard setback distance or vegetated' corridor area, measured, horizontally from and! ,"parallel to the top of bank, is established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and they south fork of Ash Creek totr~ Q}g; ~ ~s+ ~ rt"r" ~ ~ e - , ~'"*1,~ ~tfi ~i ~ ~<}r<r~.•~,t,{z?).Y~ ~ y~~,.r 5~'~ ~ r?,;70.y~,yiC&~! y rr*,,_~~~ ~~i~yn ,,.~~(ia it ~ 7~', I. The standard width for "good condition" vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River is 75 feet,,+ less wider in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards, or modified ini ccordance with 18.775.130. If all or part of a locally significant wetland (a wetland identified asl rsignificant on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map) is located within the •75-' ti foot setback area, the vegetated corridor is measured from the upland edge of the associated; . o ~Fg ~ / : ' w. ril'7 ~ RM'wetland.W,'9~`W- 12.a The standard width for "good condition" vegetated corridors along Fanno Creek, Ball`Creek, and the south fork of Ash Creek is 50 feet unless wider in accordance with the CWS, Design ax id Standards, or modified in accordance with 18.775.130. If all or part of a locally }:significant wetland (a wetland identified as significant on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Stream. jCorridors Map) is located within the 50 feet setback area, the vegetated corridor :is measured from RA ta~the upland edge of the associated wetland'~ti p ' aa; rtx_ t~t sr+ r~". M1 U.Fa"aYi3 j n~ l 0. The minimum width for "marginal or degraded condition" vegetated corridors along the Tual, in O-N. River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the south fork of Ash Creek is 50% of th- standard wio-.11,i I NInless wider in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards, or modifie i in~ l accordance with 18 775.130 0' 3tr'`3 a ;~~4 ti T:V ?a r .Tf. Y ,u: ..,e,•s. i.. n . m d S.: C'..'. at IN I 4. The determination of corridor condition shall be based on the Natural Resource Assessmen „ h , )guidelmes contained~ in the CWS Design and Construction Standards r . x . 1 rn... ' Y Sensitive Lands 18.775-13 11126198 5 The standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area applies, to Al development proposed-:o i ~ ,prroperty~ located within or ~artiall~.within the ve etated. OM Mors; exce t asa Mowed below.: !a. Roads, pedestrian or bike paths crossing the vegetated-corridor from one side to,.ttie othe 'in order to provide access to the sensitive area or across the sensitive area,.as approved the City per 18.775.070 and by CWS per.the'CWS "Design and Construction Stndards' Utility/service..:provider infrastructure construction (i.e. storm, 'sari sewer; water` .phone, gas, cable, etc,), if approved by the City and CWS;g 'c. A pedestrian or bike path; not exceedin 10 feet in dthand meeting the CWS ::"Desi wand Construction Standards d. Grading for tlie- urpose of enhancing the ve etated.corridor; as, ap roved by:the,Ci ari. e Measures to remove or abate hazards, nuisances, , or 'fire. and life safe violations;' a '4approved by the regulating jurisdiction,f Y . f. Enhancement. of the vegetated 'corridor for water quality or ; uanti benefits; fish, `;o wildlife habitk, as-approved;bythe.City and,CW-,S Measures to repair, .:maintain; alter, remove, add; Yo, or replace existing stcuctW4es; oadways, driveways; utilities, accessory uses,:or other developments provrded,#htyiare onsistent with City and CWSregulations ; anddo not encroach furttier,m , the vegetat . , orridor or sensitive 'area than allowed by~ahe .CWS "Design and' :Constructio T INK Standards 6. Land form -alterations or developments located within or partially within the Goa1.5'safeliafbo M etback or vegetated'oorridor areas established for the Tualatin kiver, Fanno Creek, :Ball Creek; nd the south fork of Ash Creek that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria o he Clean Water Services, U.S.:Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, and/on othe state federal, state, or regional agencies, are not subject to the provisions of subsection 18.775.090.B, exce t,where the r i ` V 2 o ~a. Land form alterations or developments are located within or artially within' a itiofil " vegetated corridor, as defined in -18.775:090.9.1 and-2;9, b. Land form alterations or developments are located;. within or".partially within the minim', jwidth area established for marginal or a -degraded condition vegetated corridor, as defined° m _ 18775.090.9.3. w c AW, rx .F ~s ese exceptions reflect instances of the greater-protection of ri arian corridors rovided b .tIie• safe harbor provisions of the Goa15 administrative rule 180.797-110 13.775.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards in eeatT-ast te svar-ianees to the standards of the V~R ever-ley , Adjustments to dimensional standards of the underlying zone district may be approved by the Planning Director when necessary to further the intent- purpose of this section. A. Adjustment option. The Planning Director may approve up to a 50% adjustment to any dimensional standard (e.g., setback, height or lot area) of the underlying zoning district to allow development consistent with the purposes of this section. The purpose of the adjustment process is to reduce adverse impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the potential for slope of flood hazards. Sensitive Lands 18.775-14 1112"8 B. Adjustment a itgna. A special WR-eve :the standards in the zoning distric . may be requested under Type II procedure when development is proposed within or adjacent to the WR ever4W disWeE vegetated corridor, area. In order for the Director to approve a dimensional adjustment to standards in the underlying zoning district, the applicant shall demonstrate that all of the following criteria are fully satisfied: 1. The adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow a permitted use, while at the same time minimizing disturbance to a water resource, riparian setback area or water quality buffer. 2. Explicit consideration has been given to maximizing vegetative cover, minimizing excavation and minimizing impervious surface area on unbuildable land. 3. Design options have been considered to reduce the impacts of development, including but not limited to multi-story construction, siting of the residence close to the street to reduce driveway distance, maximizing the use of native landscaping materials, minimizing parking areas and garage space. 4. In no case shall the impervious surface area as a single-family residence (including the building footprint, driveway and parking areas, accessory structures, swimming pools and patios) exceed 3,000 square feet of ' a vegetate corridor area. 5. Assurances are in place to guarantee that future development will not encroach further on land under the same ownership within the VAR ever-lay distFiet vegetated'.co#ridoriar'ea. The Planning Director may impose any reasonable condition necessary to mitigate identified impacts resulting from development on otherwise unbuildable land. 18.797.120 18.775.110 Density 't'ransfer Density transfer. Density may be transferred from d-mieneetbaek v_egetated`.cofidor areas as provided in Section 18.715.020-030. 18.797.130 18.775.120 Variances to Section 18.775.090 Standards Variances to the use provisions of Section 18.797.058 18.775.090 are not permitted. Variances from measurable (dimensional) provisions of this ehapte~ section shall be discouraged and may be considered only as a last resort. A. Type III variance option. The Bearings Officer shall hear and decide variances from dimensional provisions of this chapter under Type III procedure, in accordance with the criteria in Chapter 18.370 of the zoning ordinance. B. Additional criteria. In addition tot he general variance criteria described in Chapter 18.370, all of the following additional criteria must be met to grant a variance to any dimensional provision of this chapter: 1. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable economic use of the subject parcel of land, which is owned by the applicant, and which was not created after the effective date of this chapter; Sensitive Lands 18.775-I5 11/2611'98 1111111 11 1111 2. Strict application of the provisions of this chapter would otherwise result in the loss of a buildable site for a use that is permitted outright in the underlying zoning district, and for which the applicant has submitted a formal application; 3. The applicant has exhausted all options available under this chapter to relieve the hardship; 4. Based on review of all required studies4derit1ca11t6ahoso described in Section 18.797.060 3.02.5.c Tier 2 Alternatives Analysis.of• he CAS "Design .and Construction Standards",.the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, considering the potential for increased flood and erosion hazard, and potential adverse impacts on native vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality; 5. Based on review of all required studies identical'to:those described in Section 18.797.060 3:02,5 of the CWS "Design and 'Construction :Standards' , no significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion or slope stability will result from approval of this hardship variance, or these impacts have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible; 6. • Loss of vegetative cover shall be minimized. Any lost vegetative cover shall be replaced on-site, on a 1 to 1 square foot for square'faot basis, by native vegetation. ' A4018.775.130 Plan Amendment Option Any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safehabor (1) protection of significant wetlands and/or (2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the south fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to CWS stormwater connection permit, which must'.be addressed-.separately through4ft °Alternatives Analysis; as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and.. trUctoni:Standard's". The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following: A. ESEE analysis. The applicant may prepare an Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040. 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, considering both the impacts on the specific resource site and in comparison with other comparable sites within he Tigard Planning Area; 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource; 3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use; 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis; Sensitive Lands 18.775-16 11126198 5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. B. Determination of "insignificance " In this case, the applicant must demonstrate that the weteF Fesetwee-sensitiV6 area site(s) no longer meet(s) the applicable significance threshold defined by the Goal 5 administrative rule, relative to other comparable resources within the Tigard Planning Area. 1. Significance thresholds are described and applied in the addendum to the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory adopted by reference as part of this chapter. 2. In considering this claim, the Council shall determine that the decline in identified resource values did not result from a violation of.this chapter or any other provision of the Tigard Community Development Code. r i I Sensitive Lands 18.775-17 1126198 •~ieY+~ ~g f fl~.~ ll tl f! 4t f it • f! Update. 1s.747-1 t oyeriay Distric sources (Wit) e ter ~ a 6V ~aeser-~ oerk {i LtY r RR ) e Ste' , tt , (G f) {R f ft iG (c aaa~~~.rrr~•111tt`j"'-"')!f )f ,,,000~JJJ "p"' It ' ve~ ff ~E~E ff t< (t S Update; O1/00 18.797-2 es District WR) pvertaY ources Water R ,1 ) 1 ~yia it spa ~R++'~ K et-g e~~ a e-~ feoweeeif jai ~-E - b ~t= SE update: 41/00 18.797-3 Overlay District (WR) Water Resources 5E fjpdate: Oll00 1$.797.4 pvertay IIistrict Water Resources (WR) 000a ~-t f+~ SE Update; 01!00 --I -s 97 $ tees ({i'R) Overlay District mom Resou Water wwwwwowwwommom *es ~ #e ertee~~~d9 ~ *es ~ ;e'~~~ Feed Wig; b ~~g~e 'e~Rk~}es;+ate *eg die Ves *es eevt Fes des s~~ ~ka3r~e~ ~ *es Fes :9e *eS 10 *409 'e *es - ~ sees *es eeees ~ sFes SE update: 01/00 18. 97-6 Overlay District Resources (WRY Water des e~.''~ ~ Fee ~~es ate- l4e 140 140 140 3E update: 01!00 18.797-7 Water Resources (WIRo oVertay District gem t~ o; , ~~ase SE Update: 01100 18.797-8 ~,R) Overlay District urces( Water Reso 0000 ~~e~eetef It's iT'•' f f 'y~~..F f ,~e e efely f e1~~ a~ege'~ f ~ $ ' SE UYdate' py100 18.797.9 9 rces (WR) pweriay District Water Resou Wa igafien-Plef,: i8.797.070 Deelslon Options and Go-didens A. _Q etsieA--el2Ete#ts. :M A ppr-e ...1 A . approve, appr-eile with f er- de" an -9$-R;R MIR;~_S -Af this seetieft eaft be met with apprepr-iate mitigatien measures. These measures, alefig -Mth staff f 6. nalfies., Assts anees-and penalties~ -te eemply with , engine and water- quality plans required under. this Isen ie-hall-u- g, Chapter- X30. the JAER eyer-lay distket. No appheation fer- a use identified in Seefieft 18.797.050 shall be deemed f Type H and iff develepment appheatiens must ear-ef6ily enamine upland altemativeg far- the pr-epesed use, an' 13. Minimize siting imp-gig. The pr-epesed use shall be designed, leeated and eenstmeted to fninifnize • 1 . Fer- Type 11 and M uses, the eWil engineer- with exper-ienee in water- quality must ee-vtify that ally adver-se water- quality impaets of the dewlepment pr-epesal will be fniftimized eensistent with best management pmetiees; 2. Fer- all uses, the dewlepment shall be leeated as for- fr-efn the wate 1 use as little of area, f ee water- quality and natiNcevegetatien. D. Minimize Aged damage. Above gfeund nsidefitial stmePaFes shall not be the MqR deN,elepment shall net r-eduee fleed star-age eapaefty or- raise base fleed elevatiens en er- eff si Water Resources (IVR) Overlay District 18.797-10 SE Update. 01/00 r- 1~~~~~ Ei~OV) yy mss' •"'~~le~ -10 ) c ) 0 01/ SE V . dote ) 1879711 District 9i WR) pveriaY y{~ater Resources , a. -IPA , ask ~A, ;OVA 01/00 SR Update 18.797-12 urces (~{,R) overlay District ypater peso `g T _ f r„~ oa_ by ~r e-e e-t~e-i~~~e s SE Crpdate: D1100 18.797-13 overlay District i~RI Water Resources SE Update. 01/00 I8,?g744 ~,R~ pv'rtay District Iyater Resources nee+BeWd- e~~~~~~~er-sue" fea+~~~ e neeesoffi. wAftiflvam SR Update: DII00 18.797-15 Overlay District Water Resources (WR) BONN- SE Update. 011(!4 18.797-16 Resources (WRY overlay Distric Water t EXHIBIT "C" TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Findings, Policies, & Implementation Strategies Volume II 4. AIR. WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY Specifically impacting Tigard ' Metro POLICY 4.1.1 THE CITY SHALL: a. MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF TIGARD'S AIR QUALITY AND COORDINATE WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND AGENCIES TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTIONS WITHIN THE PORTLAND-VANCOUVER AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREA. (AQMA). b. WHERE APPLICABLE, REQUIRE A STATEMENT FROM THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY, THAT ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS CAN BE MET, PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF A LAND USE PROPOSAL. C. APPLY THE MEASURES DESCRIBED IN THE DEQ HANDBOOK FOR "ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ELEMENTS OF OREGON LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS" TO LAND USE DECISIONS HAVING THE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT AIR QUALITY. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall coordinate with MSD Metro and DEQ to attain and maintain the air quality goal described in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 2. The City shall continue to utilize expertise available at the Department of Environmental Quality, t Metro, and other relevant agencies, to coordinate efforts aimed at reducing air pollution emission levels in the Tigard and entire Portland Metropolitan Area. 3. Until such time as control strategies are realized, the City of Tigard shall use measures described in the DEQ Handbook for "Environmental Quality Elements of Oregon Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans" when planning any development activities having the potential to directly (by direct emissions) or indirectly (by increasing vehicular travel) affect air quality. 4. The City shall make every effort to design municipal streets and roadways and to establish traffic flow patterns which minimize or reduce vehicular emissions. 5. The City shall consult and coordinate with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to ensure that land uses and activities in Tigard comply with Federal and State air quality standards. 6. The City shall aim to reduce the quantity of vehicle emissions by pursuing an energy-efficient urban form which reduces the number of vehicle miles traveled, and by encouraging the use of alternate modes of transportation, especially mass transit and pedestrian. 4.2 WATER QUALITY Findings • The quality of Tigard's surface waters are fair, inasmuch as the waters are not used for drinking purposes. • No major point source water polluters threaten local creeks. • Some infiltration problems exist in the sewage systems. • Reduction of open space, removal of vegetation cover, and development which increases the amount of impervious surface all contribute significantly to increases in the peak flows of urban storm runoff entering storm sewers, creeks and drainageways. • Offsetting measures can reduce the negative effects of urban development on water quality and quantity problems. Examples include on-site retention/ detention of storm water, inclusion of landscape buffer areas adjacent to new development and conservation and improvement of streamside vegetation along creeks and other water courses. • Clean Water Services (CWS) is the lead agency for water quality. management within Washington County. • By intergovernmental agreement, all the cities within the Clean Water'Services'.servlce area, Tigard included, must follow the.standards contained in CWS's;Design:and Construction Manual. POLICIES 4.2.1 ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, INCLUDING THOSE CONTAINED IN THE CLEAN WATER SERVICES' DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL. 4.2.2 THE CITY SHALL RECOGNIZE AND ASSUME ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATING, PLANNING, AND REGULATING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AS DESIGNATED IN MSD'S METRO'S WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT COMPONENT AND-2$9 GRA6-SAX. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. In order to improve the water quality and quantity in the Tigard Area, the City shall consider developing regulations in the Tigard Community Development Code or instituting programs to: a. Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private individuals can employ to help correct water quality problems; b. Improve the management of industrial and commercial operations to reduce negative water quality impacts; C. Regulate site planning for new development and construction through the Tigard Community Development Code to better control drainages and erosion and to manage storm runoff; f d. Increase storage and retention of storm runoff to lower and delay peak storm flows; e. Reduce street related water quality and quantity problems; and f. Increase public awareness concerning the use and disposal of toxic substances. 2. The City shall not permit industrial or other uses which violate State of Oregon water quality discharge standards. 3. The City shall cooperate with the Metro and other appropriate agencies to establish practices which minimize the introduction of pollutants into ground and surface waters. 4. The City shall require that new developments obtain a Stomiwater Connection Permit from Clean Water Servires-aL 4 be connected to the City's or the Clean Water Services sanitary sewerage systems. I:\Irpin\duane\compplan volt waterquality.doc 8-Feb-02 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 02- /(g AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 69' AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND SPREADING THE ASSESSMENT AMONG THE BENEFITED PROPERTY OWNERS. WHEREAS, City Council passed Resolution No. 02-07 dated January 22, 2002 approving the methods of assessment, proposed final assessment amount, and. proposed individual assessments for each of the benefited property owners in the 69th Avenue Local Improvement District (LID); and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 02-07 directed that a public hearing be conducted to hear objections to the proposed assessments and further directed that notice be given in compliance with Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Section 13.04.060; and WHEREAS, notice was given by certified mail to the benefited property owners and was further given by publication in the Tigard Times on January 31, 2002 and February 7, 2002 in accordance with the requirements of TMC Section 13.04.060; and WHEREAS, City Council conducted a public hearing on February 12, 2002 at City Hall to hear objections to the proposed assessments; WHEREAS, the Final Engineer's Report was revised twice leading up to the public hearing with revision dates January 10, 2002 and February 11, 2002; and WHEREAS, City Council, after hearing oral public testimony and reviewing written testimony, determined the final assessment amount and individual assessments for the benefited property owners; and WHEREAS, the Final Engineer's Report dated November 2001 was revised for the final time reflecting the changes directed by City Council with revision date of March 13, 2002; and WHEREAS, City Council directed the preparation of this ordinance approving the final assessment and spreading the final assessment amount to each of the benefited property owners in accordance with the final individual assessment amounts approved. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: + SECTION 1: The Final Engineers Report for the 69`h Avenue LID dated November 2001 incorporating final revisions dated March 13, 2002 is attached as Exhibit A and by this reference is incorporated as part of this Ordinance. SECTION 2: The total LID costs to be assessed against benefited property owners is $1,476,056. SECTION 3: The total LID costs to be assessed against two residential property owners is reduced by $32,256 in City participation for those two lots. ORDINANCE No. 02-~ age 1 SECTION 4: The total LID cost to be assessed less the $32,256 in City participation for the two residential lots is $1,443,800. SECTION 5: The methods of assessment and proposed assessments for each of the benefited property owners as presented in Exhibit A are hereby approved and declared final. SECTION 6: The Final Assessment amount shall be spread among the benefited property owners in accordance with the assessment amounts shown in Exhibit A. SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By t4 n a n i rn& US vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this c2Q±May of M 4&z4i, , 2002. Catherine Wheatley, City Record APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this aGt-'04day of 2002. ames E. t'i ' th, Approved as to form: • C ity Attorney .3 -ac~•o~ Date 1:\Citywide\Ord\Ordinance Spreading the Assessments for the Oh Avenue LID.doc ORDINANCE No. 02- /to Page 2 Exhibit A CITY OF TIGARD FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT LID 49 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT is available on the City's Web Site: www.ci.tjkard or.us1cite_hallIcity_counciYagenda.as.p (see Ordinance 02-16) or by contacting the City Recorder's Office at 503-639-4171, ext. 309 AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : MARCH 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 lhnlvrlv ~leW C.tb,- a-~ RI AgV (d le 6 ~r~t ZZ70 YW/ 7'i ~ a~i ~ f6du c.~ S6 C.-ell r w,e,- ✓'f w 6 ( VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 1 Agenda Item No. ,~2,nDtxN1 Meeting of -5• Cv MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder RE: City Attorney Review - Study Session Item, March 26, 2002 DATE: March 13, 2002 As part of the City's budget process, a review of City Attorney services is scheduled for the study session of March 26, 2002. Council received background information for the March 26 discussion during the March 12 study session in a memorandum from Liz Newton. I:VIDMPACKET'02t20020329tSTUDY SESSION MEMO - CITY ATTY REVIEW.DOC J~ AGENDA ITEM # Sesscm FOR AGENDA OF March 26, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update on the proposed local option levy for Washington County Cooperative Library Services. PREPARED BY:_ Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Additional discussion of the proposed local option levy for Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) and the WCCLS Funding Formula. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The purpose of this presentation is to provide City Council information on the proposed local option levy and the funding formula. INFORMATION SUMMARY Both in December 2001 and February 2002 staff presented information to the Council about the proposed $50 million, five-year WCCLS local option levy. This levy would provide operational funding for WCCLS central services and the eleven public libraries that are members of WCCLS. At prior Council meetings, Council expressed some concern over the size of the levy, the criteria used to develop the levy amount and the level of funding proposed for WCCLS central services. These concerns are shared by other member cities. The Finance Directors of those cities have met several times to clarify the issues about the proposed local option levy. They have suggested that the proposed levy be rate-based rather than dollar-based. The Cooperative Library Advisory Board (CLAB) is meeting throughout March to finalize the levy recommendation to forward to the County Board of Commissioners. The CLAB Formula Committee is also developing a new formula to determine the distribution of operational funds to the member cities. Using the existing formula for distribution of operational funds, the Finance Department has analyzed the projected operational funding the City may receive if the levy passes. It found, that under the current formula, the City of Tigard would not receive sufficient operating funds for the library. As a result of this analysis, the WCCLS CLAB Formula Committee, Finance Directors and Library Directors are meeting to develop an alternate formula to resolve this issue. Given the concerns expressed about the levy by a number of cities, the Finance Directors and Library Directors are meeting to determine and justify a levy rate. At this time, staff is prepared to update the Council on this process. OT OR AT TERNATBM C'ONSMER D N/A VISION "TA' TORE GOAT AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRAT-FS~ NIA N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A RCCB BILLINGS TO CITY OF TIGARD s-essi OVA 3166 ~Ua ANNUAL BILLINGS 1998-Present YEAR : AMOUNT 1998/99 $309,058.16 1999/2000 $262,509.77 2000/01 $184,364.65 2001/02 Actual through January: $108,271.20 Projected annual: $185.607.77' DECREASES IN BILLING Time Period Amount of Decrease Percent Decrease FY 1998/99 to FY 1999/2000 46, 548.39 15% FY 1999/2000 to FY 2000/01 78,145.12 j0% First 7 mos. FY 2000/01 to 14,942 12% First 7 mos. FY 2001 /02 MONTH-BY-MONTH COMPARISON JULY TO JANUARY 2000/01 AND 2001/02 July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Total 2000/01 22,897 11,533 27,842 22,568 6,269 18,007 14,097 123,213 2001/02 6,194 16,176 23,543 25,992 6,150 14,941 15,275 108,271 Difference 16,703 -4,643 4,299 -3,424 119 3,066 -1,178 14,942 THROUGH JANUARY, $14,942 LESS WAS BILLED IN 2001/02 THAN FOR THE SAME PERIOD IN 2000/01 'Note that in 2000-2001, the monthly billings were less in the second half than in the first half. The annualized amount therefore may overestimate the amount. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES' BUDGETED AMOUNTS CITY POPULATION. ATTORNEY PER CAPITA ATTORNEY BUDGET BUDGET Witsonvilte 13,615 $160,110 $26.45 Eugene 136,806 $2,655,506 $19.41 Newberg 18,275 $231,000 $12.64 Gresham 86,430 $1,048,000 $12.13 r Lake Oswego 35,305 $427,000 $12.09 Beaverton 70,233 $731,018 $9.60 Portland 513,325 $4,773,637 $9.02 Tuatatin 22,535 $174,046'" $7.72'" Oregon City 24,940 $171,300 $6.87 Medford 62,030 $359,080 $5.79 TIGARD 42,260 $184,000 $4.35 Corvallis 52,215 $220,000 $4.21 Albany 41,000 $164,000 $4.00 Hillsboro 72,638 $275,000' $3.79 ' Does not include all attorney costs. Not all inclusive; some attorney services paid through department budgets. MEMORANDUM Agenda Item No. Meeting of 3 •c1(0 • t)& TO: Mayor Jim Griffith City Councii FROM: Ronald D. Goodpaster Chief of Police DATE: March 13, 2002 SUBJECT: Renewal of Intergovernmental Agreement - PPDS Since 1997, Tigard Police Department has had an intergovernmental agreement with Portland Police Bureau allowing us to participate in and use the Portland Police Data System (PPDS), a records management system. The contract will expire on June 30, 2002. The new contract is attached for review. As a participant in this regional records management system, information available to Tigard Police Department is much more extensive than that available through a single agency records system. The cost has been $1400 per month, and will be going to $2480 per month. This reflects the extensive amount of information now available to us through this system. If Tigard Police Department made the decision to develop and maintain an independent records management system, the cost would be much higher than the cost of participating in PPDS. Of equal importance, the qualtity of accurate and thorough data available would be considerably less. The limited amount of data would, in turn, result in much more time required of personnel to find information through research; and much information would not be available to the Police Department at all. The contract renewal will be considered for approval by Council on April 9; 2002. Or- S- 0 . sT &n loz CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Barbara Shields, Long Range Planning Manager DATE: March 26, 2002 SUBJECT: Washington Square Regional Center/Density Requirements Metro's Authority to Ensure Compliance with the Functional Plan Enclosed please find a package (38 pages) of information we received from Metro today in response to your question related to Metro's authority in implementing/enforcing density requirements specified in the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. In general, Metro has broad authority as regional coordinator of 24 cities and 3 counties. Chapter. II, Section 5(2)(e) of the Metro Charter and ORS 268.390(5) authorize Metro to adopt a program for determining the consistency of local comprehensive plans with the Regional Framework Plan, including densities for regional centers, as specified in Metro Code 3.07.170. It should be noted that Title 8 of the Functional Plan sets forth very broad enforcement authority to ensure compliance with the Functional Plan. This authority includes, but is not limited to, remedies available in state statues, Metro Charter, Metro Code and Functional Plan, depending upon individual circumstances. i \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\LRPLN1Barbara\Mctro\citycouncil\rmbr authority.doc 03/26/02 TUB 11:53 FAIL 503 797 1792 1[MO GENERAL COUNSEL 1?1001 Metro 600 NE Greed Avenue METRO PoMand,OR 97232-2799 Date: March 26, 2002 From. Mary Weber Telephone: 503/797-1735 Community Development Manager Facsimile: 5031797-1911 To: Barbara Shields Telephone: 503/639-4171 x315 City of Tigard Facsimile: 5031684-7297 No of pages including cover sheen 43 Document attached: March 26, 2002 to memo regarding Functional Plan Requirements and Enforcement with attached: 1. Title 1 of the Regional Functional Plan Requirements 2. Ordinance No. 01-925E 3. September 2,1999 letter to Bill Blosser, LCDC Chair from Larry Shaw 4. September 14, 1999 memo to Mary Weber from Ken Heim 5. March 15, 2000 memo to Councilor Rod Park from Larry Shaw 6. September 27, 2001 memo to Councilors Rod Park et al from Richard P. Benner Message: This communication consists of attorney privileged and confidential Information Intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. 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. 03/26/92 TUB 11:53 FAX 503 797 1792 METRO GENERAL COUNSEL ~OOY M E M O R A N D U M 600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON TEL 503 797 1700 FAX 503 797 1797 METRO .DATE: March 26, 2002 TO: Barbara Shields City of Tigard FROM: Mary Weber Community Development Manager RE: Functional Plan Requirements and Enforcement At your request I. am enclosing copies of Metro's Functional Plan Requirements for Tigard regarding the Washington Square Regional Center (Title, l). Y am also enclosing a copy of recently amended provisions of Metro ordinances for enforcement of functional plan requirements and copies of memoranda from Metro's Office.of general Counsel regarding Metro's authority from the Oregon Legislature to adopt these provisions. MW:Dmkyw . M7.43.73W32692hs.001 ' 1 03/26/02 TUB 11:54 FAR 503 797 1792 XETR0 GENERAL COUNSEL f~ 003 more of the maximum number of dwelling units per net acre permitted by the zoning designation for the site; or b. Adopt minimum density standards that apply to each development application that vary from the requirements of-subsection 1.a., above. However, for the purpose of compliance with Table 3.07-1, only those dwelling units that are allowed at these.minimum density standards shall be counted for compliance with the calculated capacities of Table 3.07-1. 2. The minimum density standard may be achieved by use of a small lot district where an average lot size of 5000 to 6200 square feet allows flexibility within that range on development applications, so long as the district remains-in compliance with the minimum density standard used to calculate capacities for compliance with Table 3.07-1 capacities. 3. No comprehensive plan provision, implementing ordinance or local process (such as site or design review) may be applied and no,condition of approval may be imposed that would have the effect of reducing the minimum den- sity standard. 4. For high density zones with maximum zoned density higher than 37 dwelling units per net acre, the minimum residential density may be 30 dwelling units per net acre. 5. This minimum density requirement does not apply (1) outside the urban growth boundary, (2) inside areas designated as open space on the attached Open Spaces Map 2, and (3) inside areas designated as unbuildable on the attached Open Spaces Map. The maximum zoned den- sity does not include the density bonus for zones that allow them. B. Cities and counties shall not prohibit partitioning or sub- dividing inside the Metro urban growth boundary where existing lot sizes are two or more times that of the minimum lot size in the development code. C. Cities and counties shall not prohibit the construction of at least one accessory unit within any detached single z All "attached" documents referenced in this chapter are on file in the Metro Council office. (Effective 1/24/02) 3.07 - 7 03/26/02 TUE 11:54 FAX 503 797 1792 METRO GENERAL COUNSEL 0 004 family dwelling that is permitted to be built in any zone inside the urban growth boundary. Reasonable regulations of accessory units may include, but are not limited to, size, lighting, entrances and owner occupancy of the primary unit, but shall not prohibit rental occupancy, separate access, and full kitchens in the accessory units. {Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1.) 3.07.130' Design Type Boundaries Requirement For each of the following 2040 Growth Concept design types, city and county comprehensive plans shall be amended to include the boundaries of each area, determined by the city-or county consis- tent with the general locations shown on the 2040 Growth Concept Map: Central City--Downtown Portland is the Central City which serves as the major regional center, an employment and cultural center for-the metropolitan area. Regional Centers--Nine regional centers will become the focus of compact development, redevelopment and high-quality transit service and multimodal street networks. Station Communities--Nodes of development centered approximately one-half mile around a light rail or high capacity-transit station that feature a high-quality pedestrian environment. Town Centers--Local retail and services will be provided in town centers with compact development and transit service. Main Streets--Neighborhoods will be served by main streets with retail and service developments served by transit. Corridors--Along good quality transit lines, corridors feature a high-quality pedestrian environment, convenient access to tran- sit, and somewhat higher than current densities. Employment Areas--Various types of employment and some residen- tia-1 development are encouraged in employment areas with limited commercial uses. Industrial Areas-Industrial area are set aside primarily for industrial activities with limited supporting uses. Inner Neighborhoods--Residential areas accessible to jobs and neighborhood businesses with smaller lot sizes are inner neigh- borhoods. (Effective 1/24/02) 3.07 - 8 loll 03/26/02 TUE 11:54 FAX 503 797 1792 JEWRO GENERAL COUNSEL IM005 dential development at greater than 80 percent of maximum zoned residential density. 3. Cities and counties calculating capacity through the use of density bonus provisions may consider transfers, including off-site transfers, only upon demonstration that previous approvals of all density transfers within the past 5 years have resulted in an average of at least 80 percent of maximum zoned densities actually being built. 4. The capacity calculation shall use only those develop- ment types that are allowed in the development code. Any discretionary decision must not diminish the zoned density if it is to be counted as a part of calculated capacity; and 5. Cities and counties, in coordination with special districts, shall demonstrate that they have reviewed their public facility capacities and plans to assure that planned public facilities can be provided, to accommodate the calculated capacity within the plan period. B. Calculate the increases in dwelling unit and job capacities by the year 2017 from any proposed changes to the current comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances that must be adopted to comply with section 3.07.120 of this title and add the increases to the calculation of expected.capacities. C. Determine the effect of each of the following 'on calculated .capacities, and include any resulting increase or decrease in calculated capacities: 1. Required dedications for public streets, consistent with the Regional Accessibility Title; 2. Off-street parking requirements, consistent with this functional plan; 3. Landscaping, setback, and maximum lot coverage require- ments; 4.. The effects of tree preservation ordinances, environ- mental protection ordinances, view preservation ordinances, solar access ordinances, or any other regu- lations that may have the effect of reducing the capacity of the land to develop at the zoned density; (Effective 1/24/02) 3.07 - 11 u~i zoi u~ 'I'M 11:0b YAX b03 787 1782 HLrrRO GENERAL COUNSEL 10006 3.07.170 Design Type Density Recommendations A. For the area of each of the 2040 Growth Concept design types, the following average densities for housing and employment are recommended to cities and counties: Central City - 250 persons per acre Regional Centers - 60 persons per acre 3 Station Communities - 45 persons per acre Town Centers - 40 persons per acre Main Streets - 39 persons per acre Corridor - 25 persons per acre Employment Areas - 20 persons per acre Industrial Areas - 9 employees per acre Inner Neighborhoods*- 14 persons per acre Outer Neighborhoods - 13 persons per acre (Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1.) (Effective 1/24/02) 3.07 - 13 03/26/02 TUE 11:55 FAX 503 787 1782 )WrRO GENERAL COUNSEL 1@007 • sE~oR~ Tt~E M>irrRO covi•TC~ FOR THE PURPOSE OF AA+IMMINO ME`M0 CODE ) T I'LE 8 (COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES) AND TITLE 1 ) QMQUIREMENTS FORHOUMNG AND ) EWLOYMFNT A.CCOMMODA-HON) OF THE URBAN ) ORDINANCE NO.01 92SE GROWTH MANAGEMEUr FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND ) SIEC HON 7.5 OF THE REGIONAL FRAMEWORK ) PLAN ORDINANCE W--7158 TO REVISE TM ) PROCESS FOR ADJUDICATION AND ) DETE MflNATION OF CONS&TMCY OF LOCAI. COMPRMflWSIVB PLANS W1TH THE URBAN ) Introduced by Com=mity GROWTH MANAOF.MM1T FUNCTIONAT. PLAN, AND ) Planning Committee TO Il MSE THE PROCESSES AND CRrrIQ A FOR ) 133CC 7nONS FROM AND EXTENSIONS TO COMPLY ) WITH TIM FUNCTIONAL PLAN; AND DECLARII G ) AN F.M MOENCY ) SEAS, the success of the 2040 Growth Concept depends upon local goveat merit compliance with the Urban Growth Management motional Plan; fm Vi Eff!REAS, Chapter % Section -VXc) of the Metro Charter rcgw es, and ORS 268390(5) authorizes, Metro to adopt by ordinance a program for detennining the wnsisteacy of iacal comprehensive plans with the Regional Framework Plan; and WHEREAS, Metro's current code provisions for determining consistency of local plans with the Urban Gmwtb Management Functional Plan do not provide Mdro with all of the tools necessary to ensure overall compliance by cities and counties with the plan and accomplishment of the 2040 Gwwth Concept; and W SKEAS, Objective 53 ofthe Regional Urban Growth (coals and Objectives MUGGO"), which provides a press for resolution of inconsistencies between local comprehensive plans and functional planraquh-ements, was incorporated with all of the RUGGO into the Regional Framework Plan by Ordinance 97-715JB; now, therefore, I Page 1 of 2 - Ordinance No. 01-92SE tvua►a-sufJmwt oacwsnk...~o+nwrr~ mill Z THE METRO COUNCIL ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: I . Sections 3.07.810 to 3.47.860 of Title 8, Compliance Procedure% of the Urban Cnowth Management Functional Plan are hereby amended as indicated in Exlnbit `A!*, attached and incorporated into this ordinmwe, in order to provide Metro with a full range of tools to ensure overall local government compliance with the fWictional plan and to consolidate compliance procedures into a single title. 2. Sections 3.07:870 to 3.07.890, as indicated in Ebft-bft -B-, attached and. incorporated into this ordinance, are hereby added to Title 8, Compliance Procedures. of the Urban Growth Managed Functional Plan In order to provide Metro with a full range of tools to ensure overall local goverment compliance with the functional plan and to consolidate compliance p wcedurea into a single tile. 3. Section 7.5 of the Regional Framework Plan Ordinance 97-715D is hereby amended as indicated in ExIdibit "C attached and incorporated into this ordinance, in order to allow Metro to grant exceptions to the Urban Growth Managemmt Functional Plan. 4. Section 3.07.1 SOB of Title I (ltegairemeats for Housing and Employment Arroommodation) ofthe Urban Growth M ugenient Functional Plan is hereby repealed in order to consolidate cornpliacce procedures into Title 8. 5.' This ordinance is necessary for the immediate privation of public heattl>, wfitY and welfare because a large number of requests for exceptions fiom requirements in the Urban Growth Managenma t Functional Plan is pending before the Council. This ordinance is essential to speed impleanentation of the functional plan and to ensure its implementation- An cmergency is tl+bsrefka declared to exist. This ordinance shall take effect immediately, pursuant to Metro Charter section 39(1). ADOPTEb by the Metro Council *b 24th Jarruary, 2002. Carl Hosticka, 'ding officer ATTEST: Approved as to Form: r Daniel B. Cooper, C~l • r~ s , Page 2 of 2 - Ordinance No. 01-925B O~1rM~reoVfoloA . 03/26/02 TUE 11:56 FAX 503 797 1792 NM0 GENERAL COUNSEL (A 009 ..Z Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01_9M January 24, 2001 Amend sections 3.07.810 to 3.07.860 of Title 8 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan as follows: 3 07 810 Compliance with the Functional Plan A. The purpose of this section is to establish a processfor determining whether city or county compive plans and land use regulations eogsply with requirements of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The Council intends the p rocass to be efficient and ..use-effective and to provide an oppoduni y for the metro Co unW to interpret the r uirements of its nuwflonal plan. Where the teams "compliance" and "comply- appear in this title, the terms shall have the meaning given to "substantial compliance" in 3.07.1010(rrr). B. Cities and counties shall amend their comprehensive plans and land use regulations to comply with the functional plan within two yews after its acknowledgement by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, or after such other date specified in the functional plan. The Executive Officer shall notify cities and counties of the compliance date. C. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, cities and counties shall amend their comprehensive plans and land use regulations to comply with sections 3.07.3 10 to 3.07.340 of Ilitle 3 of the Urban Growth Management FWw&nal Plan by 3'anuary 31, 2000, and with the requirane>rts in sections 3.07.710 to 3.07.760 of Title 7 of the Urban Growth IVlanage rneit, Functional Plan by January 18, 2003. D. Cities and comities that amend their comprehensive plans or land use regulations after the effective date of the functional plan shall make the amendments in compliance with the functional plan. The Executive Officer shall'notify cities and counties of the effective date. E. Cities and counties whose compmteasave plans and land use megulatiow do not yet . comply with a functional plan requirement adopted or ameded.prior to December 12, 1997,.shall make land use decisions consistent wads that requirement-. if the functional plan requirement was adopted or amended by the Metro Council aftm December 12, 1997, cities and counties whose comprehensive plans and land use regulations do not yet comply with the requirement shall, after one year following acknowledgment ofthe requirement, make land um- decisions consistent with that requirement. The Executive Officer shall notiP,, cities and counties of the date upon which functional plan requirements become applicable to land use decisions at least 120 clays before that date. The notice shall specify which fimctional plan requirements become applicable to land use decisions in each city and county. For the purposes of this subsection, "land use decision" shall have the meaning of that terra as defined in ORS 197.015(10). Page l of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E tnwsTO4.ass EalldaAO, OOCJfifDMwQDMiN!) vaicoivc tun 11:5'/ FAA 503 787 1782 METRO GENERAL COUNSEL I M010 Z r. An amendment to a city or county comprehensive plan or land use regulation shall be deemed to comply with the functional plan if no app-.! to the Land Use Board of Appeals is made vnthin the 21-day period set forth in OILS 197.830(9), or ifthe amendment is wAmOwledged in periodic review pursuant to ORS 197.633 or 197.644. If an appeal is Made and the amendment is affirmed, the amendment shall be deemed to comply with the functional plan upon the final decision on appeal. Once the amendment is deemed to comply with the functional plan, the functional plan shall no longer apply to landvse decisions made in conformance with the amendment. G. An amendment to a city or county comprehensive plan or land use regulation shall be deemed to comply with the functional plan as provided in subsection F only ifthe city or county provided notice to the Executive Officer as required by section 3.07.820(A). 3.07.820 Compliance Red w by The Executive Officer A. At least 45 days prior to the first evidentiary baring on an amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation which a city or county must submit to the Department of Land Conservation and Development purecuant to oRs 197.610(1) or OAR 660-025-0130(1), the city or county shall submit the proposed amendment to the Executive Officer. The Executive 'Officer shall review the proposed amendment for compliance with the functional plan. 7be Executive Officer may request, and if so the city or county shall submit, an analysis of compliance of the amendment with the functional plan. If the Executive Officer submits comments on the proposed amendment to the city os county, the comment shall include analysis and conclusions on compliance and a recommendation with specific revisions to the proposed amendment, if any, that would bring it into complimtic a with functional plan requirements. The Executive Officer shall send a copy of its analysis and recommendation to those persons who have requested a copy. B. If the Executive Officer concludes that the proposed amendment does not comply with _ the functional plsn, the Executive Officer shall advise the city or county that it may (1) revise the proposed amendment as reoen mended in the Executive Officer's analysis; (2) seek an extensio6of time, pursuant tD section 3.07.850, to bring the proposed amendment into oompliance with the functional plan; or (3) seek review of the r=onc ouapliarrce by WAC and the Metro Council, pursuant to sections 3.07.830 and 3.07.940. 3.07.830 Review of Compliance by Mcttnonolitan.Policy AdviggrYCommittee A. A city or county may seek review of the-Executive Officer's conclusions of noncompliance under section 3.07.820B by WAC and thaMetro Council. The city or comity shall Mean application for MPAC review on a form provided fcr that purpose by the Executive Officer. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Executive Officer shall set the matter on the MPAC agenda and notify those persons who request notification of MPAC reviews. Page 2 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925B OOdJttAlipw(Oy)!Ip'» j viicviuc tun 11:0I VAA UVJ IaI lIVZ RIVI'KU liENEKAL LUUNSKL lQID11 B. 7" Executive Officer may seek review of city or county compliance with a functional plan requirement by MPAC and the Metro Council after the deaMna for compliance with that aequircrikent. The Executive Officer shall file an application for MPAC review on the form described in subsegtion A and shall set the matter on the MPAC agenda. The Executive Officer shall notify the city or county and those persons who request notification of MPAC reviews. C. MPAC may hold a public hearing on the issue of compliance. If MPAC holds a hearing, any person may testify. WAC shag attempt to resolve any apparent or potential inconsistency between the proposed amendment and the functional plan. MPAC shall prepare a report to the Metro Council that sets forth reasons for the inconsistency. Mie Executive Officer shall send a copy of the report to the city or county and those persons who request a copy. 2,07.840 Review by Metro Council A. Upon receipt of a report fromMPAC wider section 3.07.830, the Executive Officer shall set the matter for a public hearing before the Metro Council and notify the city or county and those persons who request notification of Council reviews. B. A person who requested a copy under section 3.07.920A may seek review by the Metro Council of an Executive Officer conclusion of compliance of a proposed amendment with tine functional plan. The person shall file an application for Council review on a form provided for that purpose by the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer shall set the matter for a public hearing before the Council and notify the city or county, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and those persons who request notification of Council reviews. C. The Council shall hold a public bearing on the matter within 90 days after receipt of a report from MPAC under subsection A or within 90 days after the filing of a complete application under subsection B. Any person tray. tesft at the hearing. The Council shall issue an order of compliance or noncompliance with its analysis and conclusion and send a copy to the city or county, MPAC, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and those persons who participated in the proceeding. D. if the Council finds that the proposed amendment does not comply with the, functional plan, the Council shall advise the city or comity that it may (1) revise and adopt the proposed amendment as reccmmcnde d in the Comedl order' (2) seek as extension of time, pursuant to section. 3.07.850, to bring the proposed amp into compliance -with the functional plan; or (3) seek an exception from the fimctiowl plan, pursuant to section 3.07.860. If the Council determines that an amendment of the functional plan is necessary to resolve-the noncompliance, the Council shall include that determination in y its order. Page 3 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925B WA X70-MERMAI&M ooaRrsk.~ pus+iot! 03/26/02 TUE 11:58 FAX 503 797 1792 HMO GENERAL COUNSEL Q012 E. Tile city or county or n person who participated in the proceeding tray seek review of the Council's order as a land use decision described in ORS 197' 015(IOXaXA). 3.07.850- FA99R!90H!2f line A. A city or county may seek an cadam! ion of time for eomstplimoc with the functional plan. The city or county shall! We an application for an extension on a forma provided for that purpose by the Executive Officer. Upon rgceipt of an application, the Executive Offices shall set the tanner for a public hearing before the Metro Council and shall notify the city or county, lvil?AC, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and those persons who request notification of applications for extennions. . B. Time Metro Council shall hold a public hearing to consider the extension. Any person may testify at the hearing. The Council may grant an extension if it finds that: (1) the city or county is making progress toward accomplishment of its compliance work program; or (2) there is good cause for failure to meet the deadline for compliance. C. The Metro Council may establish terms and conditions for the extension in order to ensure that compliance is achieved in a timely and orderly fesbion and that land use decisions made by the city or county during do extension do not undermine the ability of the city or county to achieve the purposes of the ftnrctivnal plan requirement or ofthe region to achieve the 2040 Growth Concept. A term or condition must relate to the requirement of the functional plan to which the Council grants the extension. Time Council shall incorpome the terms and conditions into its order on the extension. The Council shall not grant more than two extensions oftime to a city or a county . Tike Council shall not grant an extension of time for more than one year. D. The Metro Council shall issue an order with its commolusion and analysis and send a copy to the city or county, MPA.C, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and those persons who participated in the procceding. The city or county or a persatn who participated in the proceeding may seek review of the Council's order as a land use decision described in ORS 197.015(IOXa)(A). 3,01,86D Bxceytion from Compliance A. A city or county may seek an exception from compliance w th a functional plan requirement by filing as application on a form provided for that purpose by the Rcecutiva Officer. An application for an exception to the requirement in mbsection 3.07.150D to increase dwelling unit and job capacity to the targets set foith in 'T'able 3.07-1 must be . filed between March 1 and March 31 of each calendar yeas in order to allow the Metro Council to'consider the application concuirently with other such applications. Upon receipt of an application, the Executive Officer shall set the matter for a public, heating before the Metro Council and shall notify WAC, the Department of Land GDrIServation and Development and those persons who request notification of requests for exceptions. Page 4 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinanoe No. 01-925E kp~01 03/26/02 TUB 11:58 FAX 503 797 1792 KETRO GENERAL COUNSEL 0013 B. The Metro Council shall hold a public wring to determine, whether the exception meets the following mucria: (1) Except as provided in, paragraph (2) of this sabsmflon, the Council may grant an exception if it finds: (a) it is not possible to achiam the requirement due to topographic or other physical coustraho or an existing developmo t patsem; (b) this sueeption and l-My similar exceptions will not tender the objective of the regWrenmt unwhievable region wide; (c) ft eaweption will not reduce the ability of anotlLer city or couray to comply with tho raquit+ean=4 and (d) the city or county has adopted other ineam3res mom appropriate fiw the city or county to a6hie ve the intended result oftbe requirement. (2) The Council may grant an exception to the quirmnent in subsection 3.07.150D to inmeasc dwelling unit and job capacity to the tngeds set forth in Table 3.07-1 if it finds: (a) the city or county Bas completed the amlysis of capacity for dwelling naits and jobs required by subsections 3.07.150A, B and C ; (b) it is not possible to achieve the targets due to topographic or 9ther physical consh4ats, an existing development pattern that precludes achievement of the 2040 Cicoivth Concept, or protection. of envito lly sesasitive land; and (c) this.eaaception and other acceptions to tho targets will not render the targets unachievable region-wide. C. The Council may establish teams and conditions for the exception in order to erasure that it does not undermine the ability of tb,e region to achieve the 2040 Growth Concept. A texas or condition must =late to the requirement of ft functional plan to which the Council grants the aceeption. The Council shall ink the terns and conditions into its order on the exception. D. Tho Council shall issue an order with its eonedusion and analysis and send a copy to the city or county, MPACy the Depa tment of Land Conservation and those pons who have requested a cry of the order. The city or county or a person who pwfic4mded in the proceeding may seals review of the Council's order as a land use decision described in ORS 197.015(10XaxA). 7 Page 5 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. N425E 03/26/02 TUE 11:59 FAX 503 797 1792 IWMO GENERAL COUNSEL 0014 Exhibit B to Ordietance.No, 01925E IsmuwT 24, 2M Add the following sections 3.07.870, 3.07.880 and 3.07.890 to 71 le 8 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan: 3.07.870 Racu t of nmafional rim A. The Metro Council may initiate snfurcament proceedings wider this section ifa city-or county has failed to racd a deadline in an extension granted pursuant to action 3.07.850 or if it has good cause to believe that a city or county is engaging in'a pattern or a practice of decision-mug that is. inconsistent with the functional plan or local oudinences adopted by the city or county to implement the plan, or with the tarns or conditions in an extension. Mic Council way consider whether to initiate calorcement proceedings upon the request of the Executive Of ices or a councilor. The Counciil shall consult with the city or county before it dctmaines there is good cause to proceed to a hearing under subsection B of this section. B. If the Metro Council concludes that there is good cause pursuant to subsection A of this section, the Eacerutive Officer shall set the matter for a public hearing before the Council within 90 days of its conclusion. The Executive Officer shall publish notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or county and send notice to ties city or coutety, hWAC, the Department of hand Conservation and Development and tiny pesson who requests a copy of such anew. C. Tlec Executive Officer shall prepare a r~cpost: and r+econimendaflon on the pattern or practice, with a proposed order, for consideration by the Metro Council. the Executive Officer shalii publish the report at least 14 days prior to the public hearing and send a copy to the city or county and any person who requests a copy. D. Ifthe Metro Council concludes that the-citj or county has not engaged-inapattm or practice of decision-maidag that that is inconsistent with the functional p1m or local- ordinances adopted by the city or county to implement the plan or with terms or . conditions of an extension granted pursuant to section 3.07.850, the Council shall enter an order dismissing the matter. If the Council concludes that the city"county has engaged in suclt a pattern or practice of decision making, the Council shall.issere an order that sets forth the noncompliance and directs changes in the city of county ordinances necessa.-y to remedy the pattern. or practice. no Council shall issue its order, with analysis and conclusions, not later than 30 days following the public hewing on the matter. The Executive Oif= shall send a copy of the order to the city or county, MPAC, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and any person who requests a copy. Page 1 of 3 - Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 01-925E' W/.X"1-XW W dLM oocn~eA..pusao~ Vv.6U.v4 LUZ la:DV VAA. DU4 rap 1792 MKI'KU GENERAL COUNSEL 10015 3.07.880 Comp bnee Report and Oxdes• A. The Executive Officer shall submit a report to the MCfta Council by Deoereber 31 of each calendar year on corngliame, by cities and commies with the Urban QVWth Management Function Plan. The report shall include an aacomating of compliance with each requirement of the find and plan by each city and comity in the distdcL The report shall recommend action that would bring a city or eoway into ccmpliarrce with the functional plan requirement and shall advise the city or comity whether it mw seek an extension purmmot to section 3.07.850 or an exception pursuant to section 3.07.860. The report shall also incline an evaluation of the imnplememation of this chapter and its . effectiveness in helping achieve the 2040 Crmwth Concept. B. Upon receipt of the compliance report, the MetroCouncil shall set a public bearing for the purpose of receiving testimony on the report and detetrnining whether' a city or county has complied with the requirements of the fimctiond plan. The Bxmt iva Officer shall notify all cities and counties, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and any person who requests notification ofthe hearing of the date, time and phase of" hearing. The notification shall scarce that the Council does not l>m jurisdiction (1) to determine whetLei previous amendments of comprehensive plans or land use regulations made by a city or cotr ty comply with functional plan requireaaents if those amendments already comply pwrsaaaat to subsections F and O of section 3.07.810 or (2) to reconsider a • determination in a prior order issued pursuant to subsection C that a city or county complies with a requirement of the functional plan. Any person may testify, orally or in writing, at the public hearing. C. Following the public hearing, the Metro Council shall enter an order that deter with . . which functional plan requirements each city and county complies. The order shall be 'based upon the Executive Officer's report submitted pursuant to subsection A and upon testimony at the public hearing pursuant to subsection B. with which functional plan requirements each city and county complies. The order may rely upon the report for its findings of fact and conclusions of compliance with a functional plan rogcrhemeot. If the Council receives testimony during its public hearing that takes exceptions to the report on . the question of compliance, the order shall include supplemental f nddngs and conclusions to.address the testimony. The Executive Officer shall send a copy of its order to cities and counties and any person who testifies, orally or i a writing, at the public bmdtw, D. Omission from the order of recognition by the Council of compliance by a city or county with a functional plan requarerrrent shall not constitute, a determination under section 3.07.870A that the city or county has engaged in a pattem or practice of decWoa- malting that is inconsistent with the Mpiranmt. B. A city or county of a person who testified, omny or in writing, at the public hearing, may seek review ofthe Council's order as a•land use decision described in - ORS 197.015(IOXaXA). Page 2 of 3 -Exhibit B to Ordimw No. 01 .925B kV 00j qAI VLQ 3.09-890- Citix0. IMMbWRIM in i eAM A. Any cidzaa ntay coulad Metro sU far dw BxccWvc Offim or appear before the Met" Council to rase local fixtiond plan c =Wliawc, to =quc34 Etecusive officer partiedpadlon in the local pmcw% cr to mpied the Metro Council to aglaeal a 10=1 emotownt for which naitice % required to be given to the Dlxecudve Oil= pint to section 3.07 870A. Such contaet may be anal or in wdit and maybe made at any time dosing or at the conclusion of any city or county proceeding- to amend a c0MpreheVsive plan or inmplemeating ordinance for which notice is regcired to be & = to the Executive officsr. !Ill stwi req to partic*e or q)p6d me& in w►hft shell be hrwarded to the Micro Council. B. In addition to considedog mpests as dascrr'bed in A above, the Mj*o Ceu mcH shall at every regularly w;Ieddod comma nweft provide an opportunity for citizens to address the CMkMdl on any matter related to this functional plain. 'lino 13tcecative Over shall ' maintain a list ofpersons who request notice of reviews and copies ofseports MA MA= and shall sand Mquesud documents as provided in this chap w. C. des, counties and the Metro council shall comply with their own adopted and -acknowledged Ci&an Involvement Requaments (Citi= Involva rent) w all decisions, and actions tabu to implement and comply with this functional plan The Bcemative Officer sbadl at least a lly publish and dishibate a CYtizen lu volvcuumt fact sheet, after consultation with the Metro Committee for Cal= Involvement, chat MY dtscaibvs•all opportwitiss for eitizeniuvolvewant inbbb(O's Regional Growth DV magenrent Proms as well as the implementation and enforcement of this functional plain Page 3 of 3 - Fxlh*ft B to Ordinance No. 0195E o°°' 03/26/02 TUE 12:00 FAX 503 797 1792 NETR0 GENERAL COUNSEL 0 017 E=Idbit C to Ordinance No. 61-925E January 24, 2001 Amend section 7.5 of the Regional Framework Plan Ordinance 97-715B as follows: 75 Functional Plans Functional plans are limited purpose plans, consistent with this Framework Plan, which address designa'A areas and wtivities of wetropofitan concern. Functional plans are established in state lavi as a way Mcko may recommend or require changes in local plains. This Framework Pluea lases Amctional plans as the identified vehicle for requiring changes in local plans in order to achieve consistence and compliance with this Framework Plan. Whose functional plans or functional plan provisions containing recommendations for compseicnsive planning by cities and counties may not be final land use decisions. If a provision in a functional plan, or an action implementing a functional plan require changes in an adopted and acknowledged comprehensive Phan, then the'adoption of a provision or action will be a final land use decision. If a provision in a functional plan, or Matto action irnplemmnft a functional plan acquire changes in an adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan, they that provision or action will be adopted by Metro as a final land use action rewired to be consistent with statewide planning goals. in addition, Regional Framework Plan eomponeants will be adopted as fonctionalvlans if they contain recommendations or requirements for changes in cOmFehewive plans. These functional plans, which are adopted as part of the Regional Framework Plan, will be submitted along with other parts of the Regional Framework Plan to LCDC for ac3mowledgment of their compliance with the statewide planning goals. geca'use functional plans are the way Metro recommends or requires local plan changes, most Regional Fin. niewgork Plan components will probably be functional plans. Until Regional Framework Plan c omponents are adopted, existing or new functional plans will continue to recommend or require changes in comprehensive plans. o Ming Functional Plans. Metro shall continue to develop, amend and implement, with the assistance of cities, counties, special districts and the state, statutory-requited functional plans for air, water and transportation, as directed by ORS 268390(1) and for land use planning aspects of solid waste management as mandated by ORS Ch. 459. • New Functional Plans. New functional plans shall be proposed from one of two sources: . a MPAC may recommend that the Metro Council designate an area or activity of metropolitan concern for which a funct ional plan should be prepared; or ® the Metro Council may propose the preparation of a functional plan to designate an area or activity of metropolitan concern and refer that proposal to MPAC. The matters required by the Charter to be addressed in the Regional Framework Plan shall constitute sufficient factual reasons for the development of a functional plan under ORS 269.390. However, the actual adoption of a functional plan will be subject to the procedures specified above. Upon the Metro Council adopting factual reasons for the development of a new functional plan, MPAC shall participate in the prgaration of the plan, consistent with these goals and objectives Page I of 2 - Exhibit C of Ordinance No. 01-925E tnurrow~rxc~w a~cm►aamr~ousavs~ (goi8 .uc aa:vi rAA av0 I1l•I 1492 jwrR0 GENERAL COUNSEL Z and the reasons cited by the Mdro CounciL Alter preparation of the plan and socidng bmad public: and local government consensus, using existing citi= involvement processes established by cities, counties and Metro, NWAC dhiall review the plats and males a recomarendation to the Metre Coup. 'Isar Metro Council may act to resolve conflicts or p roblms g the development of a new funetional plan and may complete the plan if UWAC is unable to complete its review in a timely man=. The Metro Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed plan and afterwards shall: o adopt the pwposod functional plan; or • refer the proposed functional plan to MPAC in order to consider amendments to 69 proposed plan prior to adoption; or amend and adopt'the Papased functional ply or reject the preposod functional plans. 7he psaposed functional plan shall be adopted by ordinance and shish include fiDduW of consistency with these goals aw objecdves. • Functional Plan Irnplcaentation and Conflict Resolution. Adopted functional plans dud be regionally coordinated policies, facilities anther approaches to addft a designated area or activity of mctr opolitan conc an% to be considered-by cities and counties for • - hoxpomtion in their compse>ensive land use plans. If a city or ecxznty determines that a fimctiorW plan regasire neat shmAd not or canna be incootporated into its compubw is►e plan, than Metro shall review any apparent itboonsistcescies by the follovft process: s Metro and afI'eded local governments shall notify earn other of appammt or potcntd compreheasiv+e plan incof sistencies. o After Metro staff review, MPAC shall eonsdt aw affected jurisdictions and attempt to resolve any apparent or potential inconmstem m- e WAC may conduct a pubhc3vnuu g and make a report to the Metro Counsdl regarding insterzc:es and seasons why a city or ammtsr bas not adopted db=ges consistent swath reg0rements in a regional functional p1m a Tlae Metro Council shall renew the MPAC wrport and hold a public hearing on any ummived issues. 1-he Council may dodde to: annend"adofted la giG n-A aicrA Yhan; P initiate proceedings to =qW= a comp ohensive plan change; or e find them is DO.incosistency betwe the compel ve plan(s) and the functional plan; or grant an exception to the functional plan requirement Page 2 of 2 - Fxhi'bit C of 091inanm No.. 01-925B kVA3.T0"M&C,d~10I OI:C/~t9M1wagi/14bQ~ 03/26/02 TUE 12:02 FAR 503 797 1792 METRO GENERAL COUNSEL 0 019 STA" REPORT FOR TIM PURPOSE OF AMENDING MBTRO CODE TTILS 8 (CObIIUANCB PROCEDURES) AND TITLE 1 (REQUIREMENTS FOR 1E MMN(3 AND E[ gWyAHM A00011 *0DATION),QF THE URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND SECTION 7S•01F TIM REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN ORDINANCE 97-71SB TO REVISE THE PROCESS FOR AWMICATION AND DM thI A MON OF CONSISTENCY OF LOCAL C RBIIE MIVE PLANS WITH THE URBAN GROW M MANAO T FLH4CT 10NAL PLAN, AND TO REVISE SHE PROCESSES AND CRTlWA FOR EXCEPTIONS FROM AND EXTIMIONS TO COMPLY WHET THE FUNCTIONAL PLAN; AND'DECI.ARlM AN EMB G04CY Data Janu=y 9, 2002 -Presented by. Richard Benner DESCRIPTION This ordinance would amend provisions of the Metro Regional Framewoex Plan ('T'itle 8 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan) and parallel provisions of the Metro Code on comprmnce review, extensions of time, exeepdotis am enforcement . PROPOSED REVDIONS TO ORDINANCE NO.01-925 C Metro staffmet twice with MTAC and twice with a subcommittee of MTAC to consider remaining concerns with the draft ordinance. The version of the ordinance that accompanies this report includes proposed revisions to respond to those.cancerms. With two exceptim noted below, the text underlined or lined out are these revisions. Each is discussed briefly, below. Attached to this dcscripike of proposed changes is an updated version of the November 15, 2001, sa tlQn,by-section explanation of the ordain to reflect envisions. ardopted by the Council and these proposed revisiotm 1. Subsection 3.07.810F The revision makes clear that a local amendment that is submitted to DLCD in periodic review will be deemed to comply with the functional plan if it is acknowledged by the agency. 2. Subsection 3.07.8101:3 This revision changes the reference to 3.07.820A, where the requirement to submit proposed amendments lies, given the proposed elimination of 3.07.870A (see below). 3. Subsection 3.07.820A The first revision would clarify which local proposed plan or regulation amendments crust be submitted to Metro by reference to state law requirements for submission ofproposed amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and DevelopmcnL 4. The second revision changes the current code requirement that a local government submit, with the proposed amendment, an analysis of how it complies with the functional plan. If adopted, a local government would submit an analysis only if requested by the Executive Ofiioas. Cities and counties will not have to submit an analysis ifthe Metro staff has no eoncerns.with a proposed amendment. Staff Report to Ordinaam No. 01-925C 1 of 2 January 9, 2002 03/20/02 TUB 12:02 PAX 503 797 1792' KETRO GENERAL COUNSEL 0 020 5. Subsection 3.07.8408 Ibis is a clarifying revision. 6. Subsection 3.07.8608 Ito first revision establislm s separate set oferdeaia for eacept?ow from t126 housing and employment targets ire Tittle 1 of** Utb= Growth Management Functional Plan. UnIft the general criberk for cxcepttoas iii BOX the criteria for Mcpfions from the targets in B(2) would not require a d Ion that the exceptim will not reduce the ability of another city or qty to comply with a target. Bd the local government would have to show that it had completed the capacity =*sh required by Me 1. 7. The second revision clef ks the overall bunten to show that a fialrctiontil plan re:gaaement moot be met 8. Subsection 3.07.870A The revision would eliminate this subsectlom It woould no bags be needed given clari£rcatlon ofthe requirement to submit proposed amendments that would result fmm revision of 3.07.820A. 9. Subsection 3.07.8708 The revision would require the Council to consult with a local government before concluding that good ' cause exists to hold a hearing on passible violation if the CoLmoil bears of the possible violation firm a citizen. 10. Section 3.07.880 The revislow to this section would CIMM the character of fire Council's order, entered following its annual hearakS on ccxnpliance with fimalonal plan requirements. 3ho Council's order would set forth the compliance o£eacb city and county with plan regnira rents. It would not set forth instances of non- complianee. 11. Subsection 3.07.880E This revision would clarify that the annual order of the Council cannot address city or county anundamas already deemed to comply with the functional plan, fimq lh the LUBA appeal process or througlb periodic review. 12. Subsection 3.07.880D Ibis new subsection expresses the implied proposition that omission front the Council's annual compliance order does not trigger' aahbOntatiC enforceenant far non-complianm Cons 1. Ordinance, point 4: this is a correction of the reference to Idle 1 of the functional plan. 2. Subsection 3.07.810C: this is a cornxtion to include the compliance date with Title 7 (Affordable, Housing), omitted from mlier versions of Title 8. RB/000 A20D2 r e&WMtJM1D1-"5C 3R 1.9•DlAoo Staff Report to Ordinance No.01-9250 2 or2 J=uary 9, 2002 r•.. •.r •uu aY. VU 7•M ./V.7 eol 110E aC1KV 17111\13f(At. I.VUl~D11L WUzI • see A• •lAl7 GAAM0 AVINU I ►OX7t AX,O.OXICQ • 122 1121 111 so, 3,97 179: 7AX $97 717 lip N4 E'1' R O September 2, 1999 Bill Blosser, Chair Land Conservation and Development Commission 1175 Court Street, NE Salem, OR 97310-0590 RE: Metro Enforcement of Aegional'Tcquirtments" Dear Chair Blosser and Commission Members: At your June work session on Regional Framework Plan acknowledgment, you asked for a discussion of Metro's ability to assure that cities and counties amend their comprehensive plans to implement Metro 'I requirements." As we discussed at that time, February 1999 Functional Plan deadlines have been partially fret. The deadlines were not ignored. Time extensions were granted based on demonstrated progress in each jurisdiction. Cities and counties through MPAC, have recommended all of the current functional plan requirements applied to them. Coordination, not enforcement, has been Metro's emphasis. However, this letter responds to your request for a discussion of Motro's "biWorcement" ' powers. Tlae Regional Framework Plan contains both UGB amendment policies and procedures and functional plan requirements for other changes to comprehensive plans. UGB amendments amend those City and county comprehensive plans located in the vicinity of the regional UGB amendments Changes in those affected comprehensive plans are required for the plan to remain in compliance with statewide Goals. Compliance with.regionwide functional plan requirements require amendments to city. and county comprehensive plans if a particular plan is not already in compliance. Metro's UGB amendment and functional plan ordinances are regional laws, applicable to city and county comprehensive plan amendment decisions. LUBA Appeal of Reg oval Law Violation Changes in comprehensive plans which violate a functional plan requirement may be ' appealed to LUBA by Metro, or a third party participating in the decision. Therefore, Metro's position on most such amendments is. solicited by the city or county for their decision record. This is analogous to DLCD post-acknowledgment enforcement of the www.Anva-my~mola _ Recyelel Paper Lull •o.ua me aua Iii I/V2 RUPHO GENERAL COUNSEL Q022 William Blossser, Ch; September 2, 1999 Page 2 statewide Goals in comprehensive plan amendments. Metro's Functional Plan requires that cities and counties give Metro the same 45-day notice that they are required to give -DLCD under state law. Both Metro and DLCD may participate in a comprehensive plan amendment decision for a plan affected by regional UGB amendment. If any comprehensive plan amendment does not comply with the statewide Goals, either DLCD. or Metro could appeal to LUBA. Metro Council Inteipxvfation Action An aid to Metro's ability to participate in and appeal comprehensive plan amendment. decisions is the Council's inherent authority to act to interpret its own ordinances to determine applicable regional.law. Such an interpretation by Metro as the maker of a regional requirement is entitled to deference under state law. Such an interpretation action could be included in Metro participation in a comprehensive plan amendment decision record to enhance Metro's position in any LUBA appeal of the city or county's final action. Metro Coordination Action Metro has broad authority as regional coordinator of 24 cities' and three counties' comprehensive plans. Metro is "responsible for coordinating all planning activities . affecting land uses within the (region). ' ORS 195.023(1), 268.385. Following litigation in Ci-•iy of Portland v. Washington County that interpreted coordination law, the Metro Council adopted the only formal Metro caordinaisori action under this authority. It required the comprehensive plans of Portland, Beaverton and Washington County to reflect the same urban service area between Portland and unincorporated Washington County near Beaverton. That action required all three plans to be amended. If a neighboring city has complied with a functional plan requirement and a recalcitrant city or county either takes no action, or adopts a conflicting provision, Metro can act to coordinate the two or more plans. This is a proactive authority that allows Metro to require a coordinated approach to implementing regional requirements consistent with statewide Goals. This is significant because there maybe several alternative approaches that would meet the minimum requirements of applicable statewide Gals. Post-Acknowledg rx ient ramework Plan Implementation - ORS 268.39Lu5) Only regional goals and objectives (RUGGO) and the Regional Framework Plan ORM . may be acknowledged for compliance. with statewide Goals. ORS 197.015(1). Currently, Metro's Functional Plan is unacknowledged. Because the Functionai'Plan is part of the RFP, Functional Plan requirements for changes in comprehensive plans will become acknowledged by Commission actions. ME- 03/28/02 TUE 12:04 FAX 503 797 1792 METRO GENERAL COUNSEL IM 023 William Blossser, Cl ` September 2, 1999 Page 3 This acknowledgment of the RFP, including functional plans, is'the result desired by the voter-approved 1992 Metro Charter. The Charter was drafted by a citizen Charter Committee, not Metro. Statutory amendments were requited after voter approval of the Charter to allow Commission acknowledgment of a.plan other than city and county comprehensive plans. One of these amendments, in a bill requested by a Charter Committee member and adopted unanimously by the 1997 Legislature, repeats a portion of the Metro Charter on RFP implementation in ORS 268.390(5): (5) Pursuant to a regional framework plan, a district may adopt implementing ordinances that: (a) Require local comprehensive plans and implementing regulations to comply with the regional framework plan within iwo years after compliance acknowledgment. (b) Require adjudication and determination by the district of the consistency of local. comprehensive plans with the regional framework plan. (c) Require each city and county within the jurisdiction of the district and making land use decisions concerning lands within the land use jurisdiction of the district to make those decisions consistent with the regional famework plan. The obligation to apply the regional framework plan to land use decisions shall not begin until one year after the regional framework plan is acknowledged as complying with the statewide planning goals adopted under ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197. (d) Require changes in local land use standards and procedures if the district determines that changes are necessary to remedy a pattern or practice of decision-malting inconsistent with the regional framework plan. (6) The regional famework plan, ordimaces that implement the regional framework plan $nd any determination by the district of consistency with the regional framework plan are subject to review under ORS 197.274. RU Implementing Ordinance: (5)(h) Adjudication The Metro Charter and state law allow Metro to adopt ordinances implementing the RF1P which `require adjudication and determination (by Metro). of the consistency of local comprehensive plans with the regional framework plan." Metro has broad discretion in its approach and process for accomplishing: a• regional version of "regional acknowledgment" for compliance with regional requirements in the RFP, including functional plan requirements. Subsection (6) makes Metro's determinations here subject to Commission 03/26/02 TUB 12:04 FAR 503 787 1782 METRO GENERAL COUNSEL W024 William Blossser, CIL September 2, 1999 Page 4 review under ORS 197.274. Rather than a separate initial Commission acknowledgment of Metro's determination of city or county plan compliance with t1to RFP, these Metro adjudications can be added to the RFP, triggering post acknowledgment review. ORS 107.274(1)(6).. RFC' 1molerYreaiting1nance• Sfe1 Require Decisions to Corxavly With the RFP The Metro Charter and state law allow Metro to adopt ordinances requiring land use decisions, not just comprehensive plan amendments, to be made consistent with the RFP. Combined with-an interpretation of an applicable Framework Plan provision, such a Metro ordinance could be the basis for court enforcement against a city or county decision which violates regional law. This mallces clarifications of the applicability of RFP requirements important. The RFP restates RUGaos, as required by law. These policy statements are not ciurently applicable to city and county land use decisions until so required by a functional plan provision. Bee RU", Goal 1. Hopefully, this is responsive to your concern that Metro is not forced to rely on voluntary compliance with regional requirements. Sincerely, Larry S. Shaw Senior. Assistant Counsel LSS:pm cc: Jim Sitzman ildocsNO7.p&.AlIframew.orMilwImo .kftloo=doc Jill. u3/2t4/02 TUH 12:05 FAX 503 797 1792 16E'i'RO GENERAL COUNSEL Q025 IVI c m U K A N b U M METRO DATE: September 14, 1999 TO: Mary Weber - Growth Management FROM: Ken Helm - Assistant Counsel SUBJECT: Implications of Local Government Failure to Comply with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Introduction - You have asked what enforcement options exist for Metro ita local government is in violation of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan) requirement to amend comprehensive plains and implementing ordinances within two years of adoption of the Functional Plan. There are a multitude of hypothetical situations that could cause this issue to arise in which the outcome could vary depending on individual facts. As a result, this memo will discuss some tools available to Metro based on the assumption that a local government has allowed the deadline for compliance with the Functional Plan to expire and has not received an extension. Metro Options - Title 8 of the Functional Plan sets forth very broad enforcement authority to ensure compliance with the Functional Plan. Metro Code section 3.07.860(6) states; "failure to amend comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances as required by ¢i enforcement actions authorized section 3.07810 ofthis title shall be subject to anx► an by law " This authority includes, but is not limited to, remedies available in state statute, RUGGO, Metro Charter, Metro Code and Functional Plans depending upon the individual circumstances. Although there are sevexal enforcement mechanisms available to Metro, it is important to remember that in instances where a local government adopts cornprebensivo plan a~enrl,~•.:.:~ 0 6lllu JMAYiV&yiV4►I1ib G:'...-a laRs which violate the Functional Plan, Metro must act proactively to appeal those amendments. If Metro does not set to appeal such violations.the local plan and ordinance amendments would become acknowledged through the post-acknowledgment process in ORS 197.625 and thereafter be substantially insulated from future review. The remedies discussed below could be considered after an appeal was filed or where a recalcitrant local government simply refuses to make any comprehensive plan changes to comply with the Functional Plan. The first tool anticipated by the Functional Plan is the dispute resolution process set forth in Metro's Regional Growth Goals and Objectives - Objective 5.3. The dispute resolution process maybe initiated by Metro - RUGGO Objective 5.3.1. This process begins with the • _ 1 voicninc IUn 16:U0 rAA OUA /UY lrat HICIHU GUNERAL COUNSEL 19020 Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) which would hold hearings and submit a report to the full Metro Council on a local government's failure to comply with the Functional Dim The Metro Council would then hold more.hearings after which it could take one of three courses: (1) amend the Functional Plan, (2) require the local government to amend its comprehensive plan, or (3) find that no inconsistency exists between the comprehensive plan and the Functional Plan. Another tool would be for Metro to exercise its coordination authority under ORS 268385 and 195.025(1). The coordination power has been well recognized by they Land Use Board of Appeals and the Oregon Court of Appeals. Metro may require changes in a particular local government's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances to make them consistent with the plans of neighbor jurisdictions. Sec, Qy ofPortland v Washington County, 27 Or LUBA 176 (1994). Ka local government amends its comprehensive plan in violation of the Functional Plan, or refuses to make conforming amendments, Metro could require that jurisdiction to change its plan to be consistent with neighbor goverment plans which have already been amended or have received extensions to comply with the Functional Plan. Yet another consequence, if not a remedy, of failure to comply with the Functional Plan is the ability of Metro pnd third parties to appeal individual land use approvals to LUBA. for failure to comply with regional law. The potential for such appeals is likely to have the most impact on development applicants because they will no longer have certainty that the local government's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance are sufficient to comply with the regional law set forth in the Functional Plan.* Contrast to Regional Rramework Plan - Metro's statutory authorities to enforce functional plans are distinct from its authoritios to implement and enforce the Regional Framework Plan. (Seer September 2, 1099 letter to LCDC). Pursuant to a functional plan, Metro is authorized to "recommend or require" changes in local comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances. ORS 268.390(2) and (4). This authority is separate from Metro's authority to require compliance with the RFP and for Metro to adjudicate consistency of comprehensive plans with the RFP after the RFP is acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. ORS 268.390(5). The RFP is currently . pending for acknowledgment before LCDC. cc: Mike Burton, Executive Officer Dan Cooper . Larry Shaw Elaine. Wilkerson Breads Bernards ' McWfpeafore mmr 2 uvu .01 Lao& Unlnu unlYnnAL lluuMbrIL. 0U27 E M® R A N.. D M 600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE PORTLAND. OREGON 97232 2736 TEL 503 797 1700 FAX 503 797 1797 ' ID METRO DATE: March 15, 2000. TO: Councilor Rod Park FROM: Larry_ Shaw Offrco of General Counsel RE: Metro Enforcement of Regional ` Requimments" On Monday HTAC asked for a discussion of Metro's ability tb assure that cities and counties amend their comprehensive plans to implement Metro "requirements." February 1999 Functional Flan deadlines have been partially met. The deadlines were not ignored. Time eictensions have been granted based on demonstrated progress in each jurisdiction. Cities and counties through MPAC, have recommended all of the current functional plan requirements which apply. to them. Coordination, not enforcement, has been Metro's emphasis. However, this responds to requests for a discussion of Metro's "enforcement" powers. Regional Requirements The Regional Framework Plan contains both UGB amendment policies and procedures and funct onal.plan requirements for other changes-to comprehensive plans. UGB amendments amend those city and county comprehensive plans located in the vicinity of the regional UGB amendment Changes m those comprehensive plans affected by functional plan requirements and UGB amendments may be required for the local plans to remain in compliance with statewide Goals. Compliance with =81onwide functional plan requirements may require amendments to city and county comprehensive plans if a particular plan is not already in compliance. Metro's UGB amendment and functional plan ordinances are regional laws, applicable to city and county comprehensive plan amendment decisions. 03/20/02 TUB 12:08 FAX 503 797 1792 METRO GENERAL COUNSEL 0 028 Metro Enforcement of Regional "Requireinente" Memo Mach 15, 20000 Page 2 of 4 LUBA Anneal of Regional. Law Violation Changes in comprehensive plans which violate a functional plan requirement may be appealed to LUBA by Metro, or a third party participating in the decision. Therefoi-e, Metro's position on most such amendments is solicited by the city or county for their decision record. This is analogous to DLCD post acknowledgment enforcement of the state-wide Goals in comprehensive plan amendments. Metro's FUnctional Plan requires that cities and counties give Metro the same 45-day notice that they are required to give DLCD under state lave. Both Metro and DLCD may participate in a comprehensive plan amendment decision for a plan affected by regional UGB amendment. If any such comprehensive plan amendment does not comply with the statewide Goals, either DLCD . or Metro could appeal' to LUBA. Metro Council Interpretation Action ' An aid to Metro's ability to participate in and appeal comprehensive plan .amendment decisions is the doun6il's inherent authority to act to interpret its own ordinances to determine applicable regional law. Such an interpretation by Metro as the maker of a regional requirement is entitled to. deference under state law. Such an interpretation action could be included in Metro participation in a comprehensive plan amendment decision record to enhance Metro's position in any LUBA appeal of the city or county's final action. Metro Coordination Action - ORS 195.025(1) Metro has broad authority as regional coordinator of 24 cities' and three counties' comprehensive plans. Metro is "responsible for coordinating all planning activities affecting land uses within the [region]." (Emphasis added.) ORS 195.025(l),268-385. Following litigation in City ofPortland v Washington County which interpreted coordination law, the Metro Council adopted the only formal Metro coordination action under this authority. It required the comprehensive plans of Portland, Beaverton and Washington County to reflect the same urban service area between Portland and unincorporated Washington County new Beaverton. -That action required all three plans to be aimended to comply with Metro's coordination action. If a neighboring city has complied with a fmcdonal plan requirement and a recalcitrant city or county either takes no action, or adopts a conflicting provision, Metro can act to coordinate the two or more plans: Regional coordination of planning activities in state law is a proactive authority that allows Metro to require one coordinated approach- to implementing regional requirements consistent with statewide Goals. This is significant because there may be several alternative approaches.that would meet the rnini'mum requirements of applicable statewide Goals which would not be the same across the region or subregion. II 1~u40 vui a.ui us. AQJ" ♦&.U1 ,•AA UUU 101 110& 2IL•1MU "DIVAMSUTA, bUU1,.30 Metro Enforcement of Regional " Requinmcnts" Memo • March 15, 2000 Page 3 of 4 Post Acknowledgment Framework. Plan Implementation - ORS 268.390(5) Additional enforcement options were provided by Metro Chatter and codified in staterlaw Only regional goals and objectives CRUCGO") and the Regional Framework Plan CTM') may be acknowledged for compliance. with statewide Goals. ORS 197.015(1). Currently, Metro's Funcuonal Plan is unacknowledged. Because the Functional Plan is pact of the RFP, Functional Plan icquit ements for changes in comprehwsive plans will become acknowledged by Commission aetioni to acknowledge the RFP. This acknowledgment of the RFP, including functional plans, is the result desired by the voter-approved. 1992 Metro Charter. The Charter was drafted by a citizen Charter Committee, not Metro. Statutory amendments were required after votes approval of the charter to allow Commission acknowledgment of a plan other than city and county comprehensive plans. One of These amendments, in a bill requested by a Charter Committee member and adopted unanimously by the 1997 Legislature, repeats a portion of the.Metro Charter on RFP implementation in ORS 268.390(5): (5) Pursuant to a regional framework plan, a district may adopt implementing Qdroances that: (a) Require local comprehensive plans and implementing regulations to eoinply with the regional framework plan within two yeses after compliance acknowledgment. (b) Require ad' - 'cation and determination by the district of the consistoM of local cohenive plans with the regional fraareworlc elan. (c) Require a Bch city and county within the jurisdiction of the district and making land use decis i ons concerning Lands within the land use jurisdiction of the district to make those decisions consistent with the regional framework plan. 7be obligation to apply the regional framework plan to latW use decisions sball not begin until one year after the regional framework plan is acknowledged as complying with the statewide planning goals adopted under ORS chapters 195,196 and 197. (d) Rem= changes in local laird use standards and vmcedures i f the district determines that changes are amom 12 remedy a_pattem or practice n eitm.maliiv~g. ineenR' ent with lire regional fi meworlc plan. (6) The regional framework plan, ordinances that implement the regional framework plan and any determination by the district of consistency with the regional fiwwwork plan are subject to review under ORS 197.274. (Emphasis added.) 03/26/02 TUE 12:07 FAX 503 797 1792 METRO GENERAL COUNSEL ~ 030 Metro Enfor t of Regional "Req " Merw March i5, 2000. Page 4 of4 RFP fmplementina Ordinance: (5)(biAddudicati ot~ The Metro Chatter and state law provide Metro with the option to adapt ordinances I lementing'the RFP which `4voirc adjudication and determination (by Metro) of the consistency of local comprehensive plans with the regional framework plan." Metro has broad discretion in its approach and process for accomplisbing a regional version of . "regional acknowledgment" for compliance with regional requirements in the RFP, including functional plan-requirements. Subsection (6) )rakes Metro's determinations here subject to Commission review udder" ORS 197.274. Rather than a separate initial Commission ackaowledgarent of Metro's determination of city or county plan compliance with the RFP, these-Metro adjudications oar be added to the state's Periodic Review of a city or county comprehensive plan or to the Rl?P, itself, triggering post-acknowledgment review. See, ORS 197.274(l)(bj. ' RFP Imnlewenting Ordinance: 5(c) Require 31eclsions to Cort►ply V7ith the REP The Metro Charter and state law provide Metro with the option to adopt ordinances requiting land use decisions, not just conpmhensive plan amendments, to be made consistent with the RFP: Combined with an interpretation of an-applicable Framework Plan provision, such a Metro ordinance could be thc~basis for court enforcement against a. city or county decision which violates regional law. This makes clarifications of the applicability of RFP requirements important. no RFP restates RUGGOs, as required by law. These policy statements are not currently applicable to city and county land use decisions until so required by a functional plan provision. ~qeq RUGGO, Goal 1. Cc: Metro Council Mike Burton, Executive Officer Dan Cooper )Elaine Wilkerson Mark TUrpel 0GCRXS vw (0345)2=0 03/26/02 TUE 12:06 FAX 503 797 1792 HMO GENERAL COUNSEL IM031 BATE: September 27, 2001 TO: Councilor Rod Park, Mike Hoglund, Mary Weber, Brenda Bernards FROM: Richard P. Benner Senior Assistant Counsel RE: Exceptions and Extensions ORS 268.380 and 268.390 contemplate and the Metro Charter (Chapter 2, section 5(2)(e)) requires adoption by Metro of a system to ensure compliance with the Regional Framework Plan and functional plans. The system.should help Metro evaluate and adjust the plans, if necessary, following each five-year analysis of the supply of buildable land. The current code has some of the elements of such a system. But the system is not complete and the elements are disconnected. ' A compliance system should have the following elements: • Compliance review:. Metro will determine how a city or county is doing on compliance with functional plan requirements • Extensions: Metro will give a city or county more time to comply under certain circumstances and conditions • ]Exceptions: Metro will relieve a city or county of responsibility to satisfy a functional plan requirement under certain circumstances and conditions • Enforcement: Metro will take enforcement action if a city or county refuses to comply. Here are three stages of a straightforward compliance review process: (1) Metro staff review; (2) MPAC review; and (3) Metro Council review. At each stage, the local government whose plan is being reviewed may choose from two or more options.'A diagram and code language accompany this outline. Stage I: Metro Staff Review Metro Staff and the city or county evaluate the plan provisions and land use regulations proposed by the city or county to comply with a fmctional plan requirement. If Metro star' concludes that the provisions comply, Metro issues an order of compliance, subject to appeal to the Council. If Metro staff concludes the provisions do not comply, the city or county may seek an extension to do further work, may seek review by MPAC, or may choose to take no action and face enforcement. If the city or county seeks an extension, the Metro staff may grant one*, subject to appeal to the Council. Stage II: Review by Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council MPAC reviews the noncompliance in the manner set forth in RUGGO 5.3 and Policy 7.5 of the Regional Framework Plan. If the MPAC review results in agreement, Metro may issue an order 03/26/02 TUB 12:08 FAX 503 797 1792 HETR0 GENERAL COUNSEL IM 032 Of compliance, subject to appeal to the Council. If there is go agreement, the city or county.may seek an extension, may seek review by the Colmcil, or may choose to take no action and face c0omement If the city or county seeks an extension, the Metro staff'may grant one*, subject to appeal to the Council. Stage III: Review by the Metro Council The Council reviews the noncompliance, considering any recommendation from MPAC. IF the Council concludes that the provisions comply, Metro issues an order of compliance, appealable to LUBA. If the Council concludes the provisions do no. t comply, the city or county may seek an extension or an exception. The Council may grant either an extension* or an exception**, subject to appeal to LUBA, The city or county may take no action and face enforcement. Finally, the Council may conclude that the functional plan should be amended and commence the amendment process. *Under the current code, metro can grant an extension upon finding that the cityor county is making "substantial progress" toward compliance or that there is "good cause" for an extension (Section 3.07.8200 of the Codt;). "The current code provides criteria for exceptions from certain functional plan requirements. OGC(RPB E17.uross~o0rpt~piH~aaPscaol ' 03/26/02 TUB 12:09 FAX 503 797 1792 METRO GENERAL COUNSEL IM033 V DRAFT TITLE 8 - COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL. PLAN 3.07.810 Compliance with Functional Plans A. Cities and counties shall amend their comprehensive plans and land use regulations to comply with a functional plan within two years after its acknowledgement by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, or after such other date specified in the functional plan. Metro shall notify cities and counties of the compliance date. B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, cities and counties shall amend their comprehensive plans and land use regulations to comply with sections 3.07.3 10 to 3.07.340 of Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan by January 31, 2000. C. Cities and counties that amend their comprehensive plans or land use regulations after the effective date of a functional plan shall make the amendments in compliance with the functional plan. Metro shall notify cities and counties of the compliance date. D. Cities and counties whose comprehensive plans and land use regulations do not yet comply with a functional plan shall, after one year following acknowledgement of the functional plan by the Land Conservation and Development, make land use decisions consistent with the functional plan. Metro shall notify cities and counties of the compliance date. 3.07.820 Compliance Review by Metro A. Prior to adoption of an amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulations intended to comply with a functional plan, a city or county shall submit the proposed amendment to Metro for review for compliance withfmctional plans. Upon receipt of a proposed amendmentt. Metro shall publish notification in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or countythat Metro is commencing review of the amendment. Metro shall also notify persons who request notification of compliance reviews. D. Metro shall review the proposed amendment for compliance with the functional plan. Metro shall prepare and publish a written report with its analysis and conclusions and send copies to .the city or county, the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council, the Metro Council, and those persons who have-requested a copy of the report. The report shall include a recommendation with specific revisions to the proposed amendment that would bring it into compliance with applicable functional plan requirements. C. If the proposed amendment complies with the functional plan, Metro shall.issue an order of compliance. The city or county or a person who received a copy of Metro's compliance report may seek review of the order before the Metro Council. D. If the proposed amendment does not comply with the functional plan,. Metro shall advise the city or county that it may (1) seek an extension of time, pursuant to subsection of this section, to bring the proposed amendment into compliance with the functional plan; or (2) . seek review of the noncompliance by the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council. YMT' uairu/ua LUIS 1z:ua rM bU3 7437 1792 HETR0 GENERAL COUNSEL Q] 034 3.07. 830 Review of Noncompliance b Metropolitan Planning Advisory Committee A. A city or county may seek review of a finding ofnoncompliance under section 3.07.820 by the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council (MPAC). The city or county shall file an application for MPAC review on a form provided for that purpose by Metro. If a city or county seeks this review, Metro shall set the matter on the MPAC agenda and publish notice of the review in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or county. Metro shall also notify persons who request notification of compliance reviews. B. MPAC shall hold a public hearing. on the noncompliance. The city or county, Metro, and any person may testify at the hearing. Metro shall present its compliance report at the hearing. MPAC shall prepare a report to the Metro Council, with or without a recommendation, on the noncompliance. The report shall describe efforts undertaken to resolve the noncompliance. C. If Metro finds that the noncompliance is resolved following the hearing and review by MPAC, Metro shall issue an order of compliance. The city or county or a person who received a copy of Metro's compliance report may seek review of the order before the Metro Council. D. If Metro finds that the noncompliance is not resolved following the hearing and review by MPAC, Metro shall advise the city or county that it may (1) seek an extension of time, pursuant to section 3.07.850 of this section, to bring the proposed amendment into compliance with the functional plan; or (2) seek review of the noncompliance by the Metro Council. 3.07.840 Review of Noncompliance by Metro Council A. A city or county may seek review of a finding of noncompliance under section 3.07.830 by the Metro Council. The city or county shall file an application for Council review on a form provided for that purpose by Metro. Metro shall set the matter on the Council agenda and publish notice of the review in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or county. Metro shall also notify persons who request notification of compliance reviews. B. The Council shall hold a public hearing on the noncompliance. The city or county, Metro, and any person may testify at the hearing. Metro shall present its compliance report at the hearing. The Council shall prepare and publish a written report with its analysis and conclusions and send copies to the city or county, the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council, and those persons who have requested a copy of the report. C. If the Council finds that the proposed amendment complies with the functional plan, the Council shall issue an order of compliance and send copies to the city or county, the . Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council, and those persons who have requested a copy of the report. The city or county or a person who received a copy of Metro's compliance report may seek review of the order as a land use decision described in ORS 197.015(10)(A)(a). D. If the Council finds that the proposed amendment does not comply with the functional plan, the Council shall issue an order that sets forth its analysis and conclusions and send copies to the city or county, the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council, and those persons. who have requested a copy of the report. The order shall advise the city or county that it may (1) seek an extension of time, pursuant to section 3.07.850, to bring the proposed amendment into compliance with the functional plan; or (2) seek an exception from the functional plan, pursuant to section 3.07.860. If the Council concludes that an amendment'of the functional plan is necessary to resolve the noncompliance, the Council shall include that determination in its order. 03/26/02 TUE 12:10 FAX 503 797 1792 HETRO GENERAL COUNSEL 0 035 3.07.850 Extension of Compliance Deadline A. A city or county may seek an extension of time for compliance with a functional plan requirement. The city or county shall file an application for an extension on a form provided for that purpose by Metro. Upon receipt of an application, Metro shall publish notification in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or county that Metro is reviewing the application. Metro shall also notify persons who request notification of compliance reviews.. B. Metro may grant an extension of time for compliance with a functional plan if it finds that (1) the city or county is making progress toward compliance, or (2) there is good cause for failure to meet the deadline for compliance. Metro shall issue an order with its conclusion and analysis and send copies to the city or county, the Metro Council, the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council and those persons who have requested a copy of the order. C. Metro may establish terms and conditions for the extension in order to ensure that land use decisions made during the time of the extension do not undermine the ability of the city or county to achieve the purposes of the functional plan requirement or of the region to achieve the 2040 Growth Concept. Metro shall incorporate the terns and conditions into its order on the extension. D. The city or county or any person who received a copy of the order may appeal the- order to the Metro Council.. The appellant shall file an application for the appeal on a form provided for that purpose by Metro. Upon receipt of an appeal, Metro shall publish notification of the appeal in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or county. Metro shall also notify persons who request notification.of compliance reviews. E. If an appeal of an extension order is filed, the Metro Council shall hold a public hearing to consider the appeal. The Council shall issue an order with its conclusion and analysis and send copies to the city or county, the appellant, the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council and those persons who have requested a copy of the order. 3.07.860 Exception from Compliance A. A city or county may seek an exception from compliance with a fimetional plan requirement. The city or county shall file an application for an exception on a form provided for that purpose by Metro. Upon receipt of an application, Metro shall publish notification in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or county that Metro is reviewing the application. Metro shall also notify persons who request notification of compliance reviews. B. The Metro Council may grant an exception from compliance with a functional plan requirement if it finds that: (1) granting this exception and likely similar exceptions will not render the objective of the requirement unachieveable region-wide; and (2) granting the exception will not reduce the ability of another city or county to comply with the requirement; and (3) the city or county will adopt other measures more appropriate for the city or county that will achieve the intended result of the requirement; or (4) it is not possible to achieve the requirement because topographic or other physical constraints render achievement impracticable; or (5) an existing development pattern allows no practicable opportunity to make progress toward achievement of the requirement during the planning period. C. The Council shall issue an order with its conclusion and analysis and send copies to the city or county, the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council and those persons who have-requested a copy of the order. Us/Zs/UL TUG 12:11 FAX 503 797 1792 ME'T'RO GENERAL COUNSEL IM 036 D. The Metro Council may establish terms and conditions for the exception in order to ensure that the exception does not underline the ability of the city or county to achieve the purposes of the functional plan requirement or of the region to achieve the 2040 Growth Concept. Metro shall incorporate the terms and conditions into its order on the exception. 3.07.870 Enforcement of Functional Plans A. A city or county that proposes to amend its comprehensive plan or land use regulations shall notify Metro at least 45 days prior to the first public hearing scheduled by the city or county to consider the amendment. With the notice the city. or county shall submit an analysis of compliance of the proposed amendment with applicable functional plan requirements. ' ' B. The Metro Council may initiate enforcement.proceedings under this :section if it has good cause to believe that a city or county is engaging in a patter or a practice of decision-malting that is inconsistent with the Regional Framework Plan or local ordinances adopted by the city or county to implement the plan. The Council may consider whether to initiate enforcement proceedings upon the request of Metro or a councilor. C. If the Metro Council concludes that there is good cause pursuant to subsection B of this section, Metro shall set the matter for a public hearing before the Council within 90 days of its conclusion. Metro shall publish notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or county and send notice to-the city or county; the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and any person who requests a copy of such notices. D. Metro shall prepare a report and recommendation on the pattern or practice, with a proposed order, for consideration by the Metro Council. Metro shall publish the report at least 14 days prior to the public hearing and send copies to the city or county and any person who requests a copy. E. If the Metro Council concludes that the city or county has not engaged in a pattem or practice of decision-making that that is inconsistent with the Regional Framework Plan or local ordinances adopted by the city or county to implement the plan, the Council shall enter an order dismissing the matter. If the Council concludes that the city or county has engaged in such a pattern or practice of decision-making, the Council shall issue an order that sets forth the noncompliance and directs changes in the city or county ordinances necessary to remedy the pattern or practice. The Council shall issue its order, with analysis and conclusions, not later than 30 days following the public hearing on the matter. Metro shall send copies of the order to the city or county, the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Council, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and any person who requests a copy. 3.07.880 Compliance Report Metro shall prepare and publish an annual report on compliance by cities and counties with the Regional Framework Plan. The report shall describe the implementation of this chapter and evaluate its effectiveness in helping achieve the 2040 Growth Concept. The report shall include recommendations, if any, for improvement of this chapter. Metro shall submit the report to the Metro Council by December 31 of each calendar year and publish it at the Metro website. 3.07.890 Citizen Involvement in Compliance Review Metro shall facilitate citizen involvement in compliance review. Metro shall provide widespread public notice of Metro review of city and county comprehensive plans and land use regulations 03/26/02 TUE 12:11 FAX 503 797 1792 IMMO GENERAL COUNSEL IM037 for compliance with functional plan requirements. Metro shall maintain a list ofpersons who request notice of review and copies of reports and orders and shall send requested documents as provided in this chapter. Metro shall provide'an opportunity at regular Council meeting for citizens to bring matters of compliance before the Council. GGGRPD t~zu.rasx~o,ao, 03/26/02 TUB 12:11 FAX 503 797 1792 mn,,... Local Plan Metro Staff Compliance I Review o Compliance Order Extension 'Fnforcewment IVIP.AC Review n 0 . G6, ro x 4s 0 Compliance Order Extension Enforc;=Cnt Metro Council " Review Compliance Or Extension Enforcelnent Mmctianal Plan .Exception Amendment 00mokyw(ros l"l) AGENDA ITEM # _ 3.2 FOR AGENDA OF March 26.2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 68th Parkway 0, Atlanta Street Public Right-of-Way Vacation (VAC2002-00001) PREPARED BY: Mathew Scheidener DEPT HEAD OK * MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council initiate the vacation proceedings for an approximately 1,915 square foot portion of public right-of-way commonly known as SW 68th Parkway? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council initiate vacation proceedings by adopting the attached Resolution which sets a formal public hearing date on the vacation for May 28, 2002. INFORMATION SUMMARY In the City vacation process of streets, easements and other public dedicated areas, the City Council begins the process by passing a Resolution to schedule a formal public hearing to consider such requests. AKS Engineering & Forestry, the agent for the adjacent property owner Malcolm Eslinger, is requesting that the City Council initiate vacation proceedings for a portion of SW 68th Parkway at SW Atlanta Street. Their request is outlined in Attachment #2. In summary, this will make it easier for the owner of the adjacent parcel to the west (Eslinger) to develop according to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. However, a public storm line lies within the northeast corner of the public right-of-way to be vacated. A public storm water easement will be granted to the City concurrently with the right-of-way vacation, that will encompass approximately 7.5 feet on both sides of the existing stormpipe. The right-of-way width is currently 70 feet from centerline at the intersection of SW 68th Parkway and SW Atlanta Street. The Tigard Triangle standard width for SW 68th Parkway is approximatly 35 feet from centerline. Therefore, the requested vacation would meet the right-of-way width standards for the Tigard Triangle except for a 37.5 square foot portion of the Eslinger property which has been proposed by the applicant to be dedicated to the City as part of this vacation. Appropriate agencies shall be contacted for their comments prior to developing a report for Council consideration. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Take no action at this time. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachments: Attachment 1- (Resolution Initiating the Vacation including exhibits) Attachment 2 - (Letter Requesting Initiation of the Vacation) FISCAL NOTES There are no direct fiscal impacts as a result of this request as all fees have been paid by the applicant. Attachment 2 ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING FORESTRY 13910 S.W. Galbreath Dr., Suite 100 ® TELEPHONE (503) 925-8799 Sherwood, OR 97140 FAX (503) 925-8969 ENGINEERING do FORESTRY E-MAIL: aks@aks-eng.com February 15, 2002 City of Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE. Baylor Court II, Proposed Commercial Development Council: The purpose of this letter is to formally request that the City of Tigard initiate the vacation process for the public right-of-way along the frontage of SW 68`h Avenue abutting the property described as tax lot 900 (tax map IS 136DD), Washington County. The right-of-way width is wider than the City standard for SW 68`h Avenue (70 feet), as shown on the attached legal descriptions. This situation does not allow the applicant to meet the intent of the City of Tigard's Development Code for the Tigard Triangle. The Tigard Triangle rules encourage buildings to be built abutting public streets. The current right of way creates a "buffer" between the property and SW 68`h Avenue. The proposed right- of-way vacation will allow the applicant to place the building closer to SW 68`h Avenue. There is an existing public storm line that lies within the northeast corner of the public Right-of-Way to be vacated. A public storm water easement will be granted to the City of Tigard concurrently with the Right-of-Way vacation, that will encompass approximately 7.5 feet on each side of the existing storm pipe, in accordance with the attached legal description. The applicant, Malcolm & Sharon Eslinger, LLC., is requesting that the existing public right-of-way as described in the attached legal description be vacated and consolidated into tax lot IS 136DD00900. Please call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, /<111 AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC. (Applicants Representative) Alexander H. Hurley P.E., L.S.I.T. Attachment mmmmonsi AGENDA ITEM # -3.3 FOR AGENDA OF March 26, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A resolution approving budget amendment #8 to the FY 2001-02 budget to appropriate an Oregon State Library grant in the amount of $16,200 for the Hispanic youth initiative PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser _ DEPT HEAD OK CT CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council amend the FY 2001-02 City budget to allow expenditure of the Library Services Technical Act grant in the amount of $16,200. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Budget Amendment #8. INFORMATION SUNIMARY In August 2001, the Tigard City Library submitted an application for a grant from the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), administered by the Oregon State Library to help pay for enhanced services to Hispanic Youth. The Library developed a program to enhance Hispanic youth awareness of Library materials and services, provide on-line Spanish-language resources through dedicated computers, and improve the Library's Hispanic collection. These efforts are all designed to help reduce the drop-out rate among Hispanic students, who constitute the majority of drop-outs from Tigard High School. The total program developed by the Library is projected to cost $27,200. LSTA requires a local match for its grants. The Library was able to apply for a grant of $16,200 to help pay for this program. The balance of the program cost will be provided by existing library resources. The Oregon State Library awarded this grant to the Tigard Library on February 22, 2002. This resolution amends the FY 2001-02 Budget of the City of Tigard to recognize the grant revenues of $16,200 and to increase the appropriation of the Library by that same amount so that it can carry out the Hispanic Youth Initiative program. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not accept the grant or amend the Budget. The Hispanic Youth Initiative would have to be severely curtailed or eliminated. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY NA MEMO ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution FISCAL NOTES Increases the City Budget by $16,200. AGENDA ITEM # 3. 4 FOR AGENDA OF March 26, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution Approving Budget Amendment #9 to the FY 2001-02 Budget to add the Wall Street Project to the gRproved CIP. C.9 oOQ t4d"p,..-~ PREPARED BY: Craig Pi`osser/A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve the addition of a new CIP project in the Traffic Impact Fee Fund for the proposed Wall Street Project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Add the Wall Street Project to the FY 2001-02 CIP project list by passing the attached resolution approving Budget Amendment #9. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has identified a site on Hall Boulevard for the placement of a new City Library, and has signed an option to purchase that property if voters approve the issuance of General Obligation bonds for the Library project. As part of the land purchase, the City has agreed to work with the major property owner in the area to extend Wall Street from Hunziker Street to Hall Boulevard. The construction of Wall Street is eligible for Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) funding. The project is proposed for funding through formation of a Local Improvement District (LID). The City has agreed to cover the engineering and construction management costs for the project. Through Resolution No. 02-11, City Council directed the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report for the proposed LID and authorized the use of TIF fiends for the engineering and construction management of the proposed LID improvements. The Wall Street Project was not anticipated in the FY 2001-02 CEP, and the CEP must be amended to add this project. The Preliminary Engineer's Report and a significant portion of the preliminary engineering on the project are anticipated to cost $325,000. Of this amount, $50,000 is anticipated to be spent in FY 2001-02, with the balance to be budgeted for FY 2002-03. The Capital Improvement Program budget in the Traffic Impact Fee Fund needs to be amended in FY 2001-02 to add the $50,000 for the Wall Street Project. The approval of this budget amendment would allow the City Engineer to move ahead with the consultant selection process to contract with an engineering consultant for the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report. i i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. The purchase option signed with the property owner requires the City to work the major property owner towards formation of the LID. The Preliminary Engineer's Report would further determine the feasibility of forming the LID for constructing these improvements. The findings of the report would provide Council with sufficient information to decide whether or not to move ahead with the LID formation. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The proposed extension of Wall Street from Hunziker Street to Hall Boulevard meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Improve Traffic Flow by providing a new road that relieves congestion at the Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins intersections. ATTACHMENT LIST o Resolution for approval of Budget Amendment #4. s Resolution No. 02-11 FISCAL NOTES The amount of $325,000 would allow for the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report, including engineering plans in sufficient detail to provide relatively accurate cost estimates and at a level of detail required for the various permit applications. The Traffic Impact Fee is the designated source of funds for the preparation of the report. Out of this amount, $50,000 is anticipated to be spent in FY 2001-02. I:WDMIPACKET'0Z2002032MBUDGET AMEND #9 - WALL ST AIS.DOC CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.02- f A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ENGINEERING STAFF TO PREPARE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED WALL STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND DIRECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT. WHEREAS, one of two new key alternate routes identified in Tigard's Transportation System Plan (TSP) is the extension of Wall Street from Hunziker Street to Hall Boulevard; and WHEREAS, this new route is projected to carry up to 7,000 vehicles per day and relieve Hall Boulevard sufficiently to allow that street to function adequately at 3 instead of 5 lanes; and WHEREAS, one major property owner along the proposed corridor for the road project is interested in forming a Local Improvement District (LID) for construction of the new connector road; and WHEREAS, an Option Agreement executed to purchase property from this land owner for the proposed new Tigard Library requires the City to pursue formation of an LID for construction of the street; and WHEREAS, the City agreed in that Option Agreement to provide the funding for the engineering and constniction management of the LID improvements; and WHEREAS, the Engineering staff prepared a Preliminary Evaluation Report which was submitted to City Council for discussion and direction during the meeting on January 22, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Evaluation Report determined that the proposed LID appears feasible, despite various major issues that need resolution, and recommended that City Council take the next step in the LID formation process by authorizing the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Evaluation Report recognized that there is no funding currently available to move ahead with the project and recommended that City Council direct the establishment of that funding mechanism designating the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Fund as the funding source; and WHEREAS, City Council discussed the proposed LID and indicated that the LID boundary and improvements to be constructed by the LID are satisfactory as submitted; and WHEREAS, City Council has directed staff to prepare a resolution authorizing preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report and submit that resolution for adoption at the next Council business meeting. RESOLUTION NO. 02-./1 Page i NOW, THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Engineering staff is directed to proceed with preparation of Preliminary Engineer's Report for the proposed LID in accordance with the proposed LID boundary and improvements as described in the Preliminary Evaluation Report. SECTION 2: The Preliminary Engineer's Report should include the scope of work, location of the proposed improvements, proposed district boundaries. estimated costs. proposed assessment methods, and other information that may be relevant to the feasibility of the improvements and district. The report should recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial. SECTION 3: The City of Tigard shall provide the funding for preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report. The initial amount needed to prepare the report and continue with the LID formation process is approximately $325,000. SECTION 4: The City staff is directed to establish the finding mechanism in that amount .for the engineering work using the TIF as a funding source. Any budget adjustments requiring Council action and necessary for the establishment of the project funding shall be brought to Council for appropriate action. EFF'ECTI'VE DATE: This Resolution shall be effective immediately. PASSED: This ~a t~1 day of '2002. yor - City o Tigar ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard IACityMde\Res\Resolution Directing Prelirrdnary Enonwr's Report for Wall Stmet UD RESOLUTION NO.02-JJ Page 2 AGENDA ITEM # • S FOR AGENDA OF March 26, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Consider a Resolution Accepting An Additional $390,000 in Priorities 2002 Federal Funding for the GreenObuur Road Project PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas/C ,Prosser DEPT HEAD OK Gp CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall Council authorize acceptance of an additional $390,000 in Federal funding for the Greenburg Road Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council pass the attached resolution accepting the additional federal grant funding and authorizing the City Manager to sign all necessary grant documents to accept the funds. INFORMATION SUMMARY The FY 2001-02 CIP (Capital Improvement Program) includes $310,000 for improvements to Greenburg Road from Washington Square Drive to Tiedeman Avenue in the Washington Square Regional Center area. This initial funding approved in the CIP is for preliminary engineering on the project and is to be funded by $270,087 in Federal Priorities 2000 funds with the balance as a local match provided by the City's Traffic Impact Fee Fund. City Engineering staff were recently notified that this project has been approved through the Priorities 2002 process for the next phase of federal funding in the amount of $390,000 for right-of-way acquisition on the project. The additional federal funding will require an additional $45,000 in local match. The attached resolution authorizes acceptance of the additional grant funding for this project. These funds will not be spent in FY 2001-02, but will be included in the FY 2002-03 Proposed CIP Budget. No budget amendment is required at this time. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not accept the grant. The City would have to seek other funding for the Greenburg Road project. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY NA ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution accepting the additional Federal funding in the amount of $390,000. FISCAL NOTES Total cost of the right-of-way acquisition phase of the project is $435,000, of which $390,000 will come from Federal funding. The total cost of preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition for the Greenburg Road Improvement project is $745,000. Federal funds will provide $660,087 out of this amount. IACitywide\Sum\Agenda Summary for Greenburg Road Grant Acceptance.doc AGENDA ITEM # 3 • ~o d FOR AGENDA OF 3-26-2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE LCRB Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Phase II Construction PREPARED BY: John Roy DEPT HEAD OK A9~' CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board award the bid to Robert Gray Partners for the construction of Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Phase H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board award the bid to Robert Gray Partners for the construction of Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Phase H, with the award to include the base bid and bid alternate 1B, in the amount of $1,069,843.78. INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff advertised for bids in the Tigard Times and the Daily Journal of Commerce for the construction of the Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Phase H development on February 14, 2002. A mandatory pre-bid conference was held on February 21, 2002, with twenty-four persons attending. Bid opening was held on March 7, 2002, with six bids having been received. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Award the bid on the base bid only. 2. Award the bid on the base bid and bid alternate 1 A (restroom facility only). 3. Award the base bid to the next lowest responsible bidder. .4. Award the base bid and bid alternate 1B (restroom & concession ) to the next lowest responsible bidder. 5. Award the base bid and bid alternate 1A (restroom facility only) to the next lowest responsible bidder. 6. Reject all bids and give staff further direction. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY This will comply with Council Goal number 2 for 2002, Parks and Recreation - Complete master plans for parks, such as Swnmerlake Park, Cook Park, Fanno Creek Park Extension, Dog Park. ATTACHMENT LIST Bid Summary - prepared and submitted by CES, NW FISCAL NOTES The low bid proposal for this construction project is $1,069,843.78. Funding for this construction project is provided for from a remaining balance of $56,272 from the Park CIP budget for Phase I construction for FY 2001/02, in addition to the $250,000 ORPA block grant and the $2,300,000 loan from the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department that were received this fiscal year. . 1111111011111 aid CESINW Memorandum TO: John Roy, Property Manager, City of Tigard FROM: Tony Weller, P.E., P.L.S. SUBJECT: COOK PARK EXPANSION PHASE II - BID REVIEW DATE: June 8, 2001 We have completed our review of six bids submitted for the Cook Park Expansion Phase II project. The bids were opened and read on March 7, 2002 at 2:00 pm. Our review of consisted of verifying that submitted bids met the contract requirements for all of the required submittal items. In additional to the signed bid proposal, each bidder was required to submit: 1. A Bid Bond in the amount of 10% of the bid amount. 2. A copy of their completed State Prequalification Application Form. 3. A signed acknowledgement of the Addendum. 4. Submission of the First-tier Subcontractor Disclosure Form. We also reviewed each bid for mathematical accuracy. The following bids were submitted: Contragtor Base Bid Alt 1A Alt 1B Alt 2A Alt 2B Robert Gray Partners, Inc. $813,603.78 $ 41,801.00 $256,240.00 $ 41,801.00 $261,240.00 First Cascade Corporation $850,659.12 $315,000.00 $320,000.00 $315,000.00 $320,000.00 Grady, Harper & Carlson, Inc. $892,986.87 $236,999.00 $288,301.00 $241,840.00 $293,586.00 DPR Construction, Inc. $1,009,695.35 $209,258.00 $229,258.00 $209,258.00 $229,258.00 D&D Concrete & Utilities, Inc. $1,046,858.00 $240,000.00 $278,000.00 $264,000.00 $305,000.00 Carter & Company, Inc. $1,127,063.29 $230,000.00 $260,500.00 $235,000.00 $265,000.00 ' Engineer's Est. $1,152,549.00 $400,000.00 $450,000.00 $'480,000.00 $540,000.00 i CESINW, Inc. COOK PARK EXPANSION PHASE 2 Page 2 Bid Alternates Alternate 1A and Alternate 2A, consists of the Restroom/Conc;ession Building being constructed without the concession portion of the building. Alternate 1 B and Alternate 2B consists of the Restroom/Concession Building being constructed with the concession portion of the building. The only difference between the Alternate 1A & 1 B group from the Alternate 2A & 2B group is the time the City has to make the award. If Alternate 1A or 1B are awarded, the award must be made within the normal contract requirement of 45 days after bid opening. If Altemate 2A or 2B are awarded, the award must be made within 120 days after bid opening. Bid Documents The Advertisement for Bids and the Notice to Contractors both state that "Bids shall be submitted intact with the entire contract documents". Four of the six bids were submitted with the completed proposal section of the contract documents and the other required submittal items. They did not include the "entire contract document". However, neither the Bidder's Checklist, Proposal, nor anywhere else in the contract documents is it stated that submittal of the "entire contract document" is required for a responsive bid. APWA, Section 102.2.00 Contents of Proposal Form, last paragraph, states "The plan, specifications, and other documents designated in the proposal form will be considered part of the proposal whether attached or not". The City has in the past accepted bids without the entire contract documents being submitted and to our knowledge has never rejected a bid based on the this issue. We believe that the lack of "entire contract document" being submitted is an informality or irregularity that does not effect rights of any bidder or of the City and recommend waiving this requirement. Review Comments by Bidder Robert Gray Partners, Inc. Robert Gray Partners did not submit the entire contract document with their bid. Their bid had several rounding and math mistakes. Schedule 6 had several unit price changes that were not initialed by the bidder. The bid items 6.1 - 6.4, the reclaimed water piping are all low and may be a mistake. The dollar amount for Alternate 1A and 2A appears to be low and may be a mistake. First Cascade Corporation First Cascade Corporation did not submit the entire contract document with their bid. They did not turn in the Addendum Acknowledgement Form with their bid. However, they did submit full copies of each Addendum with Ford Graphics Cover Sheet that was signed in acknowledgement of receipt. The contract documents state under Notice to Contractors, Bidding Requirements, No. 3 "Bidder's Acknowledgement of project addenda", however in the Bidder's Checklist it states "Acknowledgement of CESINW, Inc. COOK PARK EXPANSION PHASE 2 Page 3 Addenda Form". We believe they complied with the requirement to acknowledge receipt of all project addenda. In Schedule 3 we found a "white out" correction that was not initialed. The bid item 1.6 Soft Spot Repair is high at $43.60/CY and the quantity could change depending on site conditions. The bid item 1.14 the bike rack is $654, which is less than what we understand the materials to cost. This may be a mistake that the bidder believes the City will provide the bike rack. The bid item 4.1 Tot Lot is low at $16,951.68 and may be a mistake where the bidder believed the City was to provide the rubber tiles. We understand the materials alone for the rubber tiles to cost more that the total bid for the tot lot. Grady, Harper & Carlson, Inc. Grady, Harper & Carlson did not submit the entire contract document with their bid. Their bid had a couple of "white-out" changes to unit prices without being initialed by the bidder. It appears that the bid numbers were written by the same person who filled out the bid proposal. The bid item 1.6 Soft Spot Repair is high at $49.30/CY and the quantity could change depending on site conditions. The bid item 1.14 the bike rack is $180, which is less than what we understand the materials to cost. This may be a mistake that the bidder believes the City will provide the bike rack. The bid item 6.12 to replant the water quality swale is high at $10,000. DPR Construction, Inc. DPR Construction did submit the entire contract document with their bid. They had one minor correction to a bid item number that was not initialed. The bid item 1.14 the bike rack is $307.50, which is less than what we understand the materials to cost. This may be a mistake that the bidder believes the City will provide the bike rack. The bid item 1.26 2" PVC water at $23.19/LF is more than twice anyone else's bid. The bid item 1.34 Trench Pavement restoration at $51.39/SY is high. The bid item 6.12 to replant the water quality swale is high at $10,000. The bid item 6.14 Trench Pavement restoration at $41.82/SY is high. D&D Concrete and Utilities, Inc. D&D Concrete and Utilities did submit the entire document with their bid. Their prequalification form states that they are qualified for building construction but none of their project experience listed in the prequalification application list building construction in the class of work. The bid item 1.1 Mobilization is $100,000 and may be unbalanced. The bid item 6.12 to replant the water quality swale is high at $8,500. Carter & Company, Inc. Carter & Company did not submit the entire contract document with their bid. Their prequalification application lists their maximum dollar amount for building construction as 1,000,000. Their bid for this project exceeds 1,000,000. CESINW, Inc. COOK PARK EXPANSION PHASE 2 Page 4 The bid item 1.1 Mobilization is $75,000 and may be unbalanced. The bid item 1.34 Trench Pavement restoration at $54.00/SY is high. The bid item 2.3 Weather station is high at $10,000. The bid item 1.34 Trench Pavement restoration at $45.00/SY is high. Bidder Rank by Base Bid and Alternate Base Bid Alt 1A Alt 1B Alt 2A Alt 2B Robert Gray Robert Gray Robert Gray Robert Gray Robert Gray (813,603.78) (855,404.78) (1,069,843.78) (855,404.78) (1,074,843.78) First Cascade Grady, Harper First Cascade Grady, Harper First Casd. (850,659.12) (1,129,985.87) (1,170,659.12) (1,134,826.87) (1,170,659.12) Grady, Harper First Cascade Grady, Harper First Cascade Grady,Harp. (892,986.87) (1,165,659.12) (1,181,287.87) (1,165,659.12) (1,186,572.87) DPR Const. DPR Const. DPR Const. DPR Const. DPR Const. (1,009,695.35) (1,218,953.35) (1,238,953.35) (1,218,953.35) (1,238,953.35) D&D Conc. D&D Conc. D&D Conc. D&D Conc. D&D Conc. (1,046,858.00) (1,286,858.00) (1,324,858.00) (1,310,858.00) (1,351,858.00) Carter & Co. Carter & Co. Carter & Co. Carter & Co. Carter& Co. (1,127,063.29) (1,357,063.29) (1,387,563.29) (1,362,063.29) (1,392,063.29) Award Recommendation Based on our review of the bids submitted and information contained in the prequalification forms, we believe Robert Gray Partners, inc. has the necessary experience for this project and has submitted the lowest responsive bid for the Base Bid and each of the Alternate Bid items. We recommend the City Council award the Base Bid and Alternate 1B to Robert Gray Partners, Inc. CESONW, Inc. AGENDA ITEM # 3. & 6. FOR AGENDA OF March 26.2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 7AGENDA1SSUEI TITLE: Award of Contract for the Construction of FY 2001-2002 Sewer Rehabilitation Pro PREPARED BY: Vannie N ei DEPT HEAD OK: A.P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahanw " ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of FY 2001-2002 Sewer Rehabilitation Program? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Geico Services, Inc. in the amount of $71,440.00. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard's television inspection reports identify more than 6,000 feet of sanitary and storm drainpipes that are seriously damaged. The line segments have numerous cracks and the pipe joints are widely split allowing water to leak through. To restore the structural and hydraulic integrity of the damaged pipes, staff proposes a yearly rehabilitation program that would provide corrective and preventative maintenance to approximately 1,000 feet of pipe per year. The rehabilitation program would use a method to install pipe that eliminates the need to excavate. The installation of Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) utilizes a trenchless construction method that prevents damage to existing pavement and minimizes disruption to traffic and underground utilities. This method is widely used by other governmental agencies and has proved effective in solving the problem. The installation of CIPP is formed by the insertion of a resin-impregnated flexible felt tube into the existing pipe. The tube is expanded with water in an inversion process to fit against the host pipe, and then heated to cure the resin. The finished product is a jointless, structural pipe that is formed to the existing pipe. The proposed sewer rehabilitation program for FY 2001-02 includes pipes on the following streets: Highway 99W (west of Garrett Street), North Dakota Street (between Gallo and 112`h Avenue), O'Mara Street (at Hill Street), Gallo avenue (south of Tigard Street), and Ventura Court. The bid opening for the sewer rehabilitation project was conducted on March 11, 2002. The bid results are: Gelco Services Salem, Oregon $71,440.00 Planned & Engineered Constructions Helena, Montana $74,387.00 Insituform Technologies Chesterfield, Missouri $89,802.00 Engineer's Estimate $89,200 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION CONBM TEE STRATEGY None ATTACHMENT LIST Project location map FISCAL NOTES This project is funded in the amount of $100,000 in the FY 2001-02 CIP Storm Drainage System Program. This amount is sufficient to award the contract of $71,440.00 to Gelco Services, Inc. i:\dbWdelsumlagenda summary for 2001-02 sewer rehabilitation.doc Elm Rum Blow 11 J I`~IL I's CWM I'll ~i p li ~I ` IIL 1 46* AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 3/26/02 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Title 3 Comprehensive Plan and Code Amendments Hearing PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK - CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City adopt certain code amendments in order to comply with Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, as required by Metro? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council adopt the amendments as presented. INFORMATION SUMMARY In mid-1998, the Metro Council adopted performance standards for the protection of streams, wetlands, and floodplains, formally known as Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Tigard and the other jurisdictions within Metro were required to amend their comprehensive plans and development codes to comply with these new standards within eighteen (later extended to twenty-four) months. In Washington County, the County and local governments, including Tigard, unanimously elected to meet Title 3 standards by building on the existing Clean Water Services (CWS) storm water management program. In late 1999, after a one-year, collaborative process, revised CWS rules reflecting the Title 3 performance standards, as well as additional standards needed by CWS in order to meet new federal Clean Water Act requirements, were completed and forwarded to the CWS board. The revisions were adopted by the CWS board after public hearings and became effective Countywide February 2000. As required by our IGA with CWS, Tigard has been enforcing the standards since that date. On November 6, 2000, the Tigard Planning Commission conducted a hearing on amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code recognizing the new CWS standards. In a five to zero decision, the Commissioners voted to abstain from forwarding a recommendation to Council concerning adoption. According to meeting minutes, the main reason was that the CWS definition of "development" was considered to be unduly vague and, for clarification purposes, a specific list or prohibited and allowed activities should be developed and made available to landowners. To partially address this concern, the lengthy, one paragraph CWS development definition originally included in the proposed Tigard Code amendments has been changed to an easier-to-read, list-type format. To further clarify the definition, one phrase has been added to the wording of the definition. A Council hearing to adopt the standards originally had been scheduled for late 2000. However, after the November 2000 passage of Ballot Measure 7, the City attorney advised the City to suspend adoption until the effects of the ballot measure were better known. The adoption process remained on hold until October 2001, when Tigard and other jurisdictions received a letter from Metro directing the City to complete Title 3 adoption. As a local unit of government within Metro, Tigard is required to follow Metro planning rules. In response to the Metro letter, the City resumed the adoption process and set the date for the Council adoption hearing. Adoption of the proposed amendments will bring the City into full compliance status with regard to Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Approximately 1,600 hearing notices have been sent to the owners of land located within mapped Title 3 resource and associated buffer areas. In January, two informal meetings for affected landowners were held to discuss the code amendments and to give examples of how they work. Summary of Amendments • The new regulations apply to new "development" near sensitive water areas. The definition of "development" generally includes the following activities: 1. land division to create new lots 2. construction requiring a building permit 3. grading and excavation requiring a permit 4. clearing of vegetation within a vegetated corridor area • Existing development located within a setback area is not subject to the new regulatory setbacks and is not required to be brought into conformity with the new rules. However, any proposed expansion of the existing use would be required to conform to the new regulations. Maintenance and repair and roads and utilities, where no alternative locations exist that would cause less disturbance, also are exempt from the regulations. • The purpose of the proposed City Comprehensive Plan and Code amendments is to add references to CWS's Design and Construction Manual and to CWS's role as a service provider whose storm/surface water management service is required as part of the land use review process. The sole policy change is the addition of CWS to the list of government entities referenced in Water Quality Policy 4.2.1 whose standards apply to development inside the City. Metro staff requested that Comprehensive Plan references to "Metro Service District" be updated to "Metro". • A related purpose of the amendments is to streamline the Sensitive Lands (18.775) and Water Resources Overlay (18.797) Chapters of the Code by eliminating conflicting standards and by integrating into the Sensitive Lands Chapter portions of the Water Resources Overlay Chapter that are more restrictive than CWS or Sensitive Lands standards and deleting all other portions of the Water Resources Overlay Chapter. • The new CWS rules require wider buffers around streams and wetlands and also require the enhancement to "good condition" of the first 15 to 50 feet of disturbed or degraded buffer areas. The CWS rules limit development within sensitive water resource areas and adjacent corridors. The corridors range in width from 15 to 200 feet depending on the nature of the sensitive area and the slope of the surrounding terrain. Very steep areas receive the widest corridors. A chart showing the standard vegetated corridor widths is attached (Attachment 1). Also attached is a chart comparing the main Title 3/ CWS standards to pre- existing City standards (Attachment 2). • To provide flexibility in the land use review process, the new standards allow for development to occur with appropriate conditions through buffer averaging and reduction and through an alternatives analysis or variance process. • The new regulations require that applicants for development near streams and wetlands prepare a site assessment and obtain a stormwater permit from CWS prior to submitting a land use application to the City. As presently administered, the City pre-screens proposed site plans to determine which applications include development that intrudes into the vegetated corridor and require CWS review. Proposals that include any intrusion are required to obtain the CWS permit. Metro, Department of Land Conservation and Development, and the City Attorney have reviewed the proposed amendments and have not offered any objections to their adoption as written. The adoption ordinance includes language provided by the City Attorney based on recent Measure 7 case law and intended to protect the City from Measure 7 claims. Adoption of the proposed code amendments will bring the City into full compliance with Title 3 and meet the City's legal obligation to follow Metro planning rules. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None considered. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Chart I: Vegetated Corridor Widths Attachment 2: Chart II: Main Title 3/USA [CWS] Requirements Compared with Existing City Standards Attachment 3: Adoption ordinance and Exhibits Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2000 Attachment 5: Staff report to Planning Commission VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth Management Goal #1, Accommodate Growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established areas (natural resource protection is identified as one of the action strategies under this goal). FISCAL NOTES No additional administrative costs are incurred by the amendments, since CWS rather than the City administer them. The City potentially could be subject to Measure 7 claims should the Oregon Supreme Court uphold the legality of Measure 7. Ucitywide/sum/title3.hearing AA ttachment 1 Chant I Vegetated Corridor Widths Sensitive Area Definition Slope Adjacent to Width of Vegetated Corridor Sensitive Area per Side Figure 3.1 - Graphic 1 • Streams with intermittent flow draining: < 25% • 10 to <50 acres 15 feet • >50 to 100 acres 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands < 0.5 acre 25 feet Figure 3.1 - Graphic 2 • Existing or created wetlands > 0.5 acre <25% 50 feet • Rivers, streams, and springs with year round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >I 00 acres • Natural lakes and ponds Figure 3.1 - Graphic 3 • Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% • 10 to <50 acres 30 feet • >50 to 100 acres 50 feet Figure 3.1 - Graphic 4 • Existing or created wetlands > 25% Variable from 50-200 ft • Rivers, streams, and springs with year Measure in 25foot increments round flow from the starting point to the top • Streams with intermittent flow draining of ravine (break in > 25% slope), >I 00 acres add 35 feet past the top of ravine 0 Natural lakes and ponds Attachment 2 7 Chart 11 Main Title 3/USA Requirements Compared vAth Existing City Standards WWI jm~9~ ~11:1 OWN Title 31USA Requirements Existing City Standards Flood Management Balanced cut and fill required Balanced cut and fill req~qe_ d in cam & indus zones Maintenance of 1' rise floodway required 1! twl~`i she 4*01 - Floor elevation 1' above floodplain, Floor elevation 1' above floodplain, measured from b4`? top of floor " No local regulation pfalbi ~ Use of flood zone data newer than existing 1981-84 Fanno Creek basin floodplain updated 2000; FEMA maps required, if available Tualatin River and tributaries not updated >3nd@` _ ' . No local regulation pli r z- . Water Quality Protection Citx im oses fixed 25-75' corridors: :5. W p~ 50' along Fanno, Ball, and Ash Creeks m;G't ittt tlk Zd iS:t I -"WIt ; 25' along Summer, N Ash, Red Rock, D Dell Cks Rpacafi'•s~igses'of5?ta~potecf(1 pp`p;cci~u City limits but does not restrict development of 25% stteai#i;.$ge slopes outside riparian buffer ` City does not protect intermittent streams; ind riipti9e ; fg prt?sects`Wtezmiitt Of,' trearns:a eorr~dor, replacement of intermittent streams by public IO46A.';acres,aii0*u'ffer facility allowed .4h6se g 50:: 4~tt. aci es.getyife Protects wetlands smaller than 0.5 acres and Same protection and buffer imposes 25' buffer Wetlands 'i, etttifi y tl pi iijii Wetlands identified by map Rospo':'tio ; , ab "tj' Restoration of first 25' of vegetated corridor vegetated tj#aE4i required Clearing or removal of vegetation within vegetated Clearing of area within 25', 50', and 75' corridors corridor prior to development prohibited prohibited av Flexibility provisions include: Flexibility provisions include: - aver ing Qf 2q%.o£;•&uiiitage by.2l}%;of ii idfli` . - 50% reduction of degraded buffer along Tualatin degraded~uffer R., Fanno, N Ash, & Ball Creeks reduction by, 20°lo of X25 D4f~' c~egradeci~bweei' - underlying zone adjustments up to 50% redrictxon o ~ oflr gfii~ h g 5, t' R hazdsW or taking variance Tiec'1iiterdaftyes le' n~Ygrs forde laded i~ue~ rnstftii gorttc`~ b with encroach up to 46m/o'ol (ea$`tli y`3Obciin"cith~gra _ e'ninacliieli0%.0 - Tier 2 Alternatives Analysis fora sensitive area W' h Eli (b) good condition buffer, and (c) degraded buffer _ encroachment beyond Tier I includes hardship variance Exception for roads, paths, utilities, hazards, safety Same ex tions relative to buffer encroachment,... violations, replacement of existing development Density transfer allowed for area within vegetated Transfer of residential units allowed far area within corridor 25-75' corridor, plus 25% slope and floodplain, if wider Multiple lot development required to place buffer Same separate tract requirement for multiple lot area m se arate tract _ development [Erosion control measures required Erosion control required U►rpn/dr/6ue3matdx Attachment 4 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes November 5, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Incalcaterra (arrived late), Mores, Padgett, and Topp Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Olsen and Scolar Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Manager; Jim Hendryx, Director of Community Development; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Matt Scheidegger, Assistant Planner; Duane Roberts, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS As set forth in his memorandum to the Planning Commission dated October 23, 2000, Bill Monahan proposed that the Commission be updated on a quarterly basis regarding transportation and parks planning issues. The purpose of these updates would be to keep the Commissioners informed about ongoing efforts in these areas and provide the background necessary in making decisions when issues are brought before them. Public Works, Engineering, and Community Development staff would present the quarterly updates to the Commission on a rotating basis. Mr. Monahan also discussed the City's "Tree City USA" application, which is currently being worked on by Ed Wegner and Matt Stine of the Public Works Department. When they have completed their review of the criteria, they will provide information to the Commission on the functions of a Tree Board to be established. It can be decided at that time whether the Tree Board will be comprised of a Commission subcommittee or if citizen members will fill that role. Jim Hendryx discussed the transportation system plan the task force has been working on for over 18 months. The intent was to schedule a series of public hearings and then look at what would be the best effort for successful adoption of a transportation system plan. They are attempting to get the plan to the Council before the end of the year. An open house held earlier tonight did not get a lot of participation. Another public meeting will be announced in Cityscape and held on December 4t'. The Planning Commission public hearing will be held on December 18''. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 6, 2000 - Page I that replaces an older run-down building will be a disincentive to rebuild if additional parking is required. He agrees that if an existing building adds square footage it should also add more parking. However, if a new building retains the existing square footage, then it should be exempt from coming up to current parking standards. President Wilson pointed out that there is already a serious disincentive to rebuild because currently an existing building must comply if the use changes. This ordinance gives more flexibility in that regard. Commissioner Padgett noted that an important distinction is that the Central Business District is a specially designated area of the City, and the City has recognized that the purpose and intent of this area is different from other general commercial areas. Because of the unique characteristics and designation of the area, it is important to clarify that this amendment only applies to the Central Business District and the same theory does not apply to other commercial areas. Matt Scheidegger reiterated that this amendment only applies to property abutting Main Street. A brief discussion followed regarding inclusion of these concerns in the recommendation for approval. Commissioner Topp moved to recommend approval to City Council of the Downtown Parking Code Amendment, Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 2000- 00004, as evidenced by Table 18.765.2 revised on 11/6/00 to include an amendment to footnote #5 that existing buildings directly abutting Main Street are not required to add additional off-street parking for a change of use or for replacement of the existing square footage except for entertainment uses. Commissioner Mores seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Padgett left at 8:10 p.m. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2000-00001/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2000-00003 CODE AMENDMENT INCORPORATING USA's NEW WATER QUALITY DESIGN STANDARDS The City of Tigard is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Volume II in order to recognize Unified Sewerage Agency's (USA) role in managing water quality and to provide additional ev'Jence of Metro Title 3 compliance. A Zone Ordinance Amendment is requ isled with respect to Community Development Code (Title 18), Chapters 18.370, 18.775 and 18.797, in order to incorporate new USA Design and Construction Standards governing development near streams, wetlands, and springs (collectively called Water Quality Sensitive Areas). All lesser standards in the Community Development Code that provide less protection than the USA standards will be deleted and a requirement will be added that a USA permit be obtained. The USA regulations have been put into place in response to Metro Stream and Wetland PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 6, 2000 - Page 4 Protection performance standards and the need to better protect streamwater quality and fish habitat. LOCATION: Citywide ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6 and 7; Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 3 and 8; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.5.3, 4.2.1, 7.1.1, 7.1.2 and 7.2.1; and Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. STAFF REPORT Duane Roberts presented the staff report on behalf of the City. In order to comply with Title 3 of the Metro Functional Plan, the City is proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code in three ways: 1) to recognize USA's role in managing water quality within the City and to reference USA's new Design and Construction Standards, 2) to add the requirement for a USA Stormwater Connection Permit, and 3) to integrate the three layers of regulations for federal, state, and regional standards into one section and make them easier to understand and administer. Mr. Roberts explained the main differences between the existing Code and the new requirements. Chart II in the staff report explains the changes. There are two types of regulations, one pertains to flood management and the other relates to water quality protection. Mr. Roberts outlined the pertinent portions of the requirements and explained how Tigard's existing flood management standards are generally more stringent than, and therefore supersede, the USA standards. He also remarked on flexibility charges in the regulations and alternative analyses provisions. Mr.' Roberts stated that Tigard's Code standards are also somewhat more restrictive or stringent than the USA regulations for protecting resources such as wetlands and stream corridors. Mr. Roberts stated that most people are concerned about existing single-family lots. He explained that the rules apply differently to small development and existing single-family lots than to large development. A single-family lot will not have to submit a detailed. assessment or hire any consultants. The main requirements are to provide a sketch plan of the proposed development, a measure of the distance from the development to the edge of the water feature, and one or more photographs of the site. A major development such as a subdivision will have to do a very detailed assessment of the vegetated corridor, may be required to perform a geotechnical study, hire consultants, and submit a very complete assessment. Commissioner Topp asked if Tigard's more stringent regulations would be deleted from the Code in favor of the less stringent USA regulations. Mr. Roberts responded that most of the more stringent standards would supersede the less stringent standards; things that could be allowed under the USA regulations will continue to be disallowed under the Tigard regulations. Some of the USA regulations will be adopted over existing regulations that are only slightly more stringent. He pointed out areas on a map where the new regulations are the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 6, 2000 - Page 5 same or almost the same as the existing regulations. Changes to the existing standards and affected areas were discussed. These regulations have been reviewed and approved by the Department of Land Conservation and Development, Metro, and the City Attorney's office. Any development will require the approval of USA. USA worked with the Washington County jurisdictions and developed the standards to comply with the regulations mandated by Metro. They will be applied by USA, not the City. There is no flexibility for the Planning Commission to adopt any changes to the new regulations. Questions and lengthy discussion continued regarding the details of and areas affected by the new regulations, the effect on the existing standards, and USA's role in enforcing the regulations. President Wilson pointed out that, as the Planning Commission does not have the ability to change the standards mandated by Metro, the purpose of public testimony on this matter is to alert Metro of public concerns. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Hazel Lyon, 10440 SW 87"' Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, advised that USA installed a larger sewer line across back of her property along Ash Creek. USA brought in fill that contained a lot of rock, which has caused a drainage problem resulting in standing water. This is a serious problem that did not exist prior to the installation and USA has not offered a satisfactory solution. She did not offer any comments regarding the proposed regulations. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Eric Davison, 11205 SW Fairhaven Street, Tigard, Oregon, stated that he considers the adoption of Title 3 a taking. He asked how this would affect his ability to make modifications to his property. The fact that most of the requirements apply to large developments instead of single-family homes is not made clear in the regulations. He also discussed his concerns about inconsistencies in the new regulations with current standards and whether there is actually any benefit to the changes. Mr. Davison explained how these concerns specifically affect his property with regard to inconsistencies in the implementation of buffers and noted that he has observed inconsistencies affecting other development with no apparent benefit. He expressed various other concerns and questions about the future affects of the new regulations both on development and on property taxes. Specific issues regarding his property were discussed. Bob Vinatied, 10440 SW Johnson Court, Tigard, Oregon, inquired about effects of the regulations on structures and what things are considered to be structures in terms of development of such things as arbors, walkways, play structures, etc. He was advised that a development is something that requires a building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 6, 2000 - Page 6 Discussion followed regarding different types of development and construction/re- construction that would or would not require approval by the City and/or by USA. Midge Finley, 11260 SW Gaarde Street, Tigard, Oregon, discussed drainage problems on her property. She does not know how this proposal affects their property. She was advised that Duane Roberts will call her after checking to see if their property is affected. Peggy Webster, 11895 SW 113"' Place, Tigard, Oregon, asked if the 50-foot setback is measured from the creek itself or from the surrounding wetland area. She was advised that it is measured either from the edge of the wetlands or from the top of the bank of the stream. The 50 feet is not related to the floodplain. Ms. Webster stated that she is in favor of preserving as much greenspace and natural habitat as possible. Discussion also was held regarding old trees being cut down in the Walnut Glen Development and problems involving the cost of planting new trees in mitigation. Ms. Webster was advised to contact either Jim Hendryx or Julia Hajduk for assistance in resolving the problems. Ken Rea, 9570 SW Tigard Street, Tigard, Oregon, asked what criteria are used to determine a major or minor development. He was advised that the determination will be made by USA. A brief discussion followed regarding development of Mr. Rea's property and the change of use from residential to commercial as the reason for the assessment by USA that it is considered a large development. Although the development was begun prior to the effects of the new regulations, the intergovernmental agreement requires the current enforcement of USA regulations. Teri Brown, 11725 SW 116"', Tigard, Oregon, quoted from a notice stating that adoption of the ordinance may affect the permissible uses and reduce the value of a property. She asked how a reduction in property value is not considered a taking. She was advised that the Supreme Court has ruled that regulations can reduce the value of a property up to almost 100% without calling it a taking. The loss of all economic value to the property is considered 'a taking. USA should be contacted to determine if a property is affected. Kevin Dung, 509 SW Sutherland Way, Beaverton, Oregon, commented about the effects on property values if Measure 7 passes. Additional discussion was held regarding the value and development of his property. He was advised to contact USA to determine the specific effects to his property. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Topp said his biggest concern is regarding USA's lack of definitions for structures, gardens, lawns, and permitted uses. Ultimately USA will have to address this issue so that the Planning Commission will know how to respond to development requests that come before it. He is also concerned about the floodplain alteration within residential zones. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 6, 2000 - Page 7 NMI President Wilson said he shares the concerns about people being able to use their property. He feels that this whole process is meaningless because the mandate is already In effect and the Planning Commission has no control over the process. He is therefore going to abstain from voting. Further discussion was held regarding disagreements with certain aspects and the inability to effect changes. Metro is insulated from the results and effects of its mandates because it does not have to face the people who are impacted. Commissioner Topp moved that the recommendation for approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2000-00001 and Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 2000-00003 be forwarded to the City Council for approval with two caveats.: 1) that staff look at USA's requirements for structures, development and construction activities for garden and lawns and developing lists with USA as to what their intent is for that to apply to, and 2) that staff look at changing the existing City standards to allow balanced cut and fill flood management to commercial, industrial, and residential zones as opposed to excepting out residential zones. The motion was not seconded. Further discussion was held and it was agreed, that the Planning Commission opposes changing the floodplain in residential zones. It is believed that Tigard's existing protections for the floodplain are sufficient. Commissioner Topp amended the motion to strike the portion regarding flood management in residential zones. Commissioner Incalcaterra seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and there were no votes in favor or in opposition to the motion. All five Commissioners abstained from voting. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ' Jerree ayn , Plannin omm' Jon Secretary I , ATTEST: resident N€ck son PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 6, 2000 - Page 8 Attachment 5 Agenda Item: %2 Hearing Date: NQvember 6.2000 Time: Zo3o PM N 'T "'lc1~~µ,.",x r i ~„jJ ~l ,y yyA},,j,y, y~ t r AFA r u :r' ; ,rte 4rY~t ~~1 a rrvOFUGAM i l:ti 1 L XStPi ` f S• Y.UCa.St"w. SECTION I APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CODE AMENDMENT INCORPORATING NEW USA WATER QUALITY DESIGN STANDARDS FILE NOS. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA2000-00001 Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ZOA2000-00003 PROPOSAL: The*City of Tigard proposes to amend Volume II of The Comprehensive Plan in order to recognize the Unified Sewerage Agency's (USA) role in managing water quality and to provide additional evidence of Metro Title 3 compliance. The City proposes to amend the Sensitive Lands Chapter (18.775) of the Community Development Code in order to incorporate by reference new USA Design and Construction Standards and to add a requirement that a USA Stormwater Connection Permit be obtained. The City also proposes to consolidate the Water Resources Overlay (18.797) and Sensitive Lands Chapters (18.775), both of which have as their primary focus stream and wetland protection, into one chapter in order to eliminate all lesser standards that provide lesser protection than the USA standards. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A Attn: Duane Roberts 13125 SW Hall Bouievard Tigard, Oregon 97223 ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: City Wide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 7; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 7.1.1, 7.1.2; and 7.2.1 and Community Development Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. ' SECTION 11, STAFF RECOMMENDATION nip f IN, Staff Report CPA 2000-0001. ZOA 2000-00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 1 r , r SECTION BACKGROUN P INFORMATION Introduction In mid-1998, the Metro Council adopted performance standards for the protection of streams, wetlands, and floodplains, known as Title 3 of the Functional Plan. Tigard and the other jurisdictions within Metro are required to amend their comprehensive plans and develop codes to comply with these new standards. In Washington County, the new protection measures are implemented through incorporation into the USA Design and Construction Standards, which all the jurisdictions within USA are required to follow. The purpose of the present amendments is to complete Title 3 by updating the City plan and code and adding references to USA's Design and Construction Manual and to USA's role as a service provider whose storm/surface water management service.is required as part of the land use review process. A closely related purpose is to eliminate conflicting standards by integrating into the Sensitive Lands Chapter, portions of the Water Resources Overlay Chapter that are more stringent than USA or Sensitive Lands standards and deleting all other portions of the Water Resources Overlay Chapter. Title 3 Overview and USA Design and Construction Standards Title 3 contains performance standards for (1) flood and erosion control and for (2) stream water quality protection. The key flood control provisions include a requirement for the balancing of cut and fill within the floodplain, a prohibition on the storage of hazardous materials, and a requirement to supplement FFMA maps with 1996 flood and other pertinent data, if available. The key provision related to water quality protection is the imposition of vegetated corridors around streams and wetlands. The width of the corridor is based on the slope of the area adjacent to the stream. For year-round streams, the width varies from 50 to 200 feet. Streams with adjacent areas of 25% slope receive the widest setback. In Washington County, the cities and the county have had a coordinated water quality program since 1990. This program, called SWM, provides one set of rules for all the jurisdictions to follow. Given the success of this program and a common desire to maintain the consistency it provides, the Washington County jurisdictions unanimously elected to meet Title 3 by building on the existing USA storm water management program. In late 1999, after a one-year collaborative planning process, the USA rules were revised to reflect the Title 3 performance standards. The revisions were adopted by the USA board after public hearings and became effective in February 2000. Thus, in Washington County, the new Title 3 standards are implemented through incorporation into the USA Design and Construction Standards, which all the cities within USA are required to follow as a minimum. New USA Standards The new USA rules require wider buffers around streams and wetlands and also require the enhancement to "good condition" of the first 15 to 50 feet of disturbed or degraded buffer areas. The USA rules limit development within sensitive water resource areas and adjacent corridors. The corridors range in width from 15 to 200 feet depending on the nature of the sensitive area and the slope .dUthe surrounding terrain. Very steep areas receive the widest corridors. A chart showing the vegetated corridor widths is attached. Also, attached is a chart comparing the salient Title 3/USA standards to existing city standards. The main Staff Report CPA 2000-0001, ZOA 2000-00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 2 1111111011111 J Chart I Vegetated Corridor Widths Sensitive Area Dermition Slope Adjacent to Width of Vegetated Corridor Sensitive Area per Side Figure 3.1- Graphic 1 • Streams with intermittent flow draining: < 25% • 10 to <50 acres 15 feet • >50 to 100 acres 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands < 0.5 acre 25 feet Figure 3.1- Graphic 2 • Existing or created wetlands ? 0.5 acre <25% 50 feet • Rivers, streams, and springs with year round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds Figure 3.1- Graphic 3 • Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% • 10 to <50 acres 30 feet • >50 to 100 acres 50 feet Figure 3.1- Graphic 4 • Existing or created wetlands > 25% Variable from 50-200 ft • Rivers, streams, and springs with year Measure in 25foot increments round flow from the starting point to the top • Streams with intermittent flow draining of ravine (break in > 25% slope); >100 acres add 35 feet past the top of ravine • Natural lakes and ponds a• Chart 11 Main Title 3/USA Requirements Compared With Existing City Standards With the more,stringent standardehighlighted Title YUSA Requirements Existing City Standards Flood Management Balanced cut and fill required Balanced cut and fill required in com & indus zones Elot dpalteratiori.pxdhj6ited4nxesiden" zones Maintenance of 1' rise floodway required Maj. iteiianea of zero-rise;floodwayrequire l Floor elevation 1' above floodplain, um~~ Floor elevation 1' above floodplain, measured from bottom of 4106'r beam top of floor forage of unctiutained liiizaio "iatecia " No local regulation p wh ited Use of flood zone data newer than existing 1981-84 Fanno Creek basin floodplain updated 2000; FEMA maps required, if available Tualatin River and tributaries not updated Encourages bridges vs. culverts:& stream crossing No local regulation perpendicular to the:stream Water Quality Protection Imposes;eariable 50-200'w' p'etiiteit.COmdor° otiwit City iTXoses fixed 25-75' corridors: , W peignnial streams, ;wetlands; I lees, ptings, 7j34$1gp :TualAb~ intCrmittent.stream" 'drainft-#txxoe than'1110., 50' along Fanno, Ball, and Ash Creeks 25' along Summer, N Ash,. Red Rock, D Dell Cks Riparian slopes of 25%o`fcotected 14p162U0''roin City limits but does not restrict development of 25% stream edge slopes outside riparian buffer Protects intermittent streams anil'imp- oses vegetated City does not protect intermittent streams; corridor: replacement of intermittent streams by public =,those drafining..10=50,acres;gei',;15'. buffer facility allowed _i,&O.se dr inn 50=100 acres et 5'.-'bi 0 i Protects wetlands smaller than 0.5 acres and Same protection and buffer imposes 25' buffer Wetlands identified by definiti6h Wetlands identified by map Restoration to good condition: of lust 50' of Restoration of first 25' of vegetated corridor vegetated corridor required required Clearing or removal of vegetation within vegetated Clearing of area within 25', 50', and 75' corridors corridor prior to development prohibited prohibited Flexibility provisions include: Flexibility provisions include: - averaging of 20% of frontage'by 20%.6f yvxOth'df - 50% reduction of degraded buffer along Tualatin degraded buffer R., Fanno, N Ash, & Ball Creeks - reduction by 20% of 125-200' degraded buffer - underlying zone adjustments up to 50% - reduction to 15' of buffeaextending 35' frojif - hardship or taking variance of ravine,-,with geotech ropoit -:oo"a ~?IA#i amcn8meat'( SB -j is) for_(a) Tier `1 Alternatives Analysis for degraded buffer seas Ib) ooc~ coniirhon comdor,"ar' 6) with encroach: up to 40% of length b 30 y % of w%ilth degrate a~fer'.eiiccoactinrent`eyoid 50%0f - Tier 2 Alternatives Analysis fora sensitive area width (b) good condition buffer, and (c) degraded buffer encroachment beyond Tier I includes hardship variance Exception for roads, paths, utilities, hazards, safety Same exceptions relative to buffer encroachment, violations, replacement of existing development PoO p plane i Ait) 0110git 9t sensitive a Cg 'Fri~ac ' t Density transfer required for area within vegetated Transfer of residential units allowed for area within corridor' 25-75' corridor, plus 25% slope and floodplain, if wider Multiple lot development required to place buffer Same separate tract requirement for multiple lot area in separate tract development ~QC11eb1eII .141n _ " . li~es~~~,~au<~evelop~gtae±f,} Erosion control measures required Erosion control required L/IgWdr/title3matrix differences include: wider buffers on some streams, the required preservation or restoration to good condition of the first 50 feet of stream buffer, the protection of intermittent streams with 15' to 50' buffers, and wider buffers around isolated wetlands larger than 0.5 acres. To provide flexibility in the land use review process and also to avoid takings in specific cases,. the new standards allow for development to occur with appropriate conditions through buffer averaging and reduction and though.an alternatives analysis or variance process. These provisions are described in Chart II. It is useful to note that along Fanno, the North. Fork of Ash, and Ball Creeks, where the existing buffer is 50 feet and gradients are low, the new regulatory buffers generally do not exceed existing City. standards. Existing development located within a setback area is not subject to the new regulatory setbacks and is not required to be brought into conformity with the new rules. However, any proposed expansion of the existing use would be required to meet the new regulations. The, new regulations require that applicants for development near streams and wetlands prepare a site assessment and obtain a stormwater permit from USA prior to submitting a land use application to the City. The Water Resource Overlay District section of the development code section was adopted in order to comply with Statewide Goal 5 for streams and wetlands. Many of its provisions are less stringent than the new USA standards. These lesser standards are removed by the code amendments. In order to maintain Goal 5 compliance, those standards that are more stringent than the USA standards are retained and, for purposes of streamlining and clarity, are integrated into the Sensitive Lands Chapter. As shown in Chart II, these more restrictive standards include a fixed 75-foot setback along the Tualatin River and the stronger protection of good condition buffers and sensitive areas. Local Title 3 Compliance Although existing intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) require Tigard and the other USA- affiliated jurisdictions to "follow and enforce the orders promulgated by the Agency", the IGAs do not specifically require that USA's standards and performance criteria be applied as criteria for land use approval. Up to now, the standards have been implemented by requiring land use applicants to obtain approvals by the City acting on behalf of USA before _ connection to the storm and surface water management system. Applicants presently are required to comply with the Design and Construction Standards as part of the development review process, in the same way that they are required to comply with design and construction standards for water lines, sanitary sewers, and streets, or with building structural code requirements, fire code requirements, and similar standards. Tigard and most of the other jurisdictions apply USA standards as part of the engineering review that accompanies permits for connection to storm water system; the City acting on-. behalf of USA pursuant to.the IGA thus functions as a storm/drainage service provider in each jurisdiction, and the land use review process requires the applicant to demonstrate that the service is available. In Tigard, USA standards are applied pursuant to the IGA, typically by the City Engineer during the development review process. If USA, as the special district planning for water quality management in the basin, has enforceable standards in place that substantially comply with the performance standards of Title 3, and if cities and the county have coordinated comprehensive plans that assure Staff Report CPA 2000-0001, ZOA 2000-00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 3 implementation of those standards, then the cities and county should substantially comply with Title 3. However, because Title 3 provides that "local codes shall require" development to conform to specific performance standards, Metro may and does require as part of substantial compliance'that specific references in land use regulations identify the service provider and assure that USA standards are applied through the land use review process. In conclusion, in order to complete Title 3 compliance, Tigard needs to adopt conforming amendments to its comprehensive plan and development code explicitly recognizing USA's role as a service provider whose storm/surface water management service is required as part of the land use review process. These required amendments are the subject of this application. SECTION IV APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, and 7; Metro 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 7.1.1, 7.1.2; and 7.21 and Community Development Chapters 18.380 and 18.390 ; and Community Development Code Section 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the 'applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by its Citizen Involvement Team structure and public hearings as listed below. The City's Citizen Involvement Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing plan and code provisions and was done so for each public hearing. Notices and information also were mailed to the owners of properties located within or partially within the regulatory boundary of a Title 3 vegetated corridor. This included approximately 1,400 property owners. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings, which follows Community Development Code procedure. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal. 3. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, is met because the proposed amendments provide greater protection for streams and wetlands than do existing regulations. These greater protections include wider buffers around sensitive water. resource area and a requirement than good condition vegetated corridors be established. 4. Statewide Planning Goal 7, addressing areas subject to natural disaster and hazards, is satisfied, because the proposed changes meet or exceed the flood management standards included in the current code. ' These more restrictive standards include requiring a higher minimum floor elevation and prohibiting the storage of uncontained Staff Report CPA 2000-0001, ZOA 2000-00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 4 hazardous materials within the floodplain. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged comprehensive plan based on the following findings: 1. Policies 1.1.1.a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to keep the development code current with local needs and recent administrative rule changes. In particular, the changes implement Title 3 of the Metro Framework Plan. 2. Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compliance with the plans of the Metropolitan Service District, is met because the amendments have been reviewed by Metro staff and have been determined to be consistent the Metro Framework Plan approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). 3. Policies 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3, citizen involvement, are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process. All owners of property within identified Title 3 areas, some 1,400 owners, were sent written notice of the proposal and hearing schedule. This mailing included a general information sheet describing the amendments with a contact number provided for those with questions or wishing additional information. Individual property site maps, depicting approximate Title 3 boundaries, were mailed to some thirty property owners at their request. The full text of the proposed amendments was posted on the City WebPages. The staff report was made available more than seven (7) days prior to the hearings along with a draft of the proposed ordinance. 4. Policy 3.1.1 is satisfied because this policy calls for development control of wetlands and these amendments provide tools consistent with recent regional Unified Sewerage Agency and Metro rules to protect these resources. 5. Policy 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, prohibiting any land from alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain that would result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year floodplain, is satisfied because the proposed amendments do not alter the existing requiring that the zero-rise floodway be maintained. 6. Policy 3.2.4 is satisfied because the amendments further restrict development within areas designated as significant wetlands and establish 25 to 200 feet setbacks from the outer edges of designated wetland areas. 7. Policy 3.4.1.a is satisfied because the Title 3 rules designate significant wetlands according to the criteria and procedures for the identification of significant wetlands established in the "Final Approved Administrative Rules for Identifying Significant Wetlands" adopted by the Division of State Lands. 8. Policy 3.4.2.x, which calls for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors, is satisfied because the proposal establishes mandatory setbacks from the top of banks and the edges of wetlands and requires that the areas within these setbacks remain undisturbed or enhanced with native vegetation. Staff Report CPA 2000-0001, ZOA 2000-00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 5 9. Comprehensive Plan Policies 4.2.1, Water Quality, and 4.2.2, Wastewater Systems, are satisfied because the proposed amendments are intended to implement stream protection performance standards adopted by Metro. At the same time, the proposed standards go beyond the Metro standards by providing increased protection for intermittent streams and by requiring the enhancement to good condition of fifty foot vegetated corridors along stream and wetlands. 10. Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.1.1.a and f, Public Facilities and Services, is satisfied because the' purpose of the amendments is to implement the rules and regulation of the United Sewerage District pertaining to the location of developments, including required stormwater retention ponds. 11. Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.1.2.a, Public Facilities and Services, is met because the new regulations require that a storm drainage connection permit be obtained from USA before development can occur. 12. Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2.1, Storm Drainage and Wastewater Management, is satisfied because.the proposed amendments stipulate that the City shall require as a pre-condition to development in sensitive water resource areas that a. site development study be submitted to USA for review and approval according to stringent standards and that natural drainage ways and intermittent streams be maintained. 13. Community Development Code Chapter 18.380, Zoning Map and Text Amendments, and 18.390, Decision Making Procedures, are satisfied because all the procedures for Type IV application and a legislative code change were followed. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Operations and Engineering Divisions has reviewed the proposal and has offered no comments or objections. The City of Tigard Current Planning Division has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: How would underground utilities, and other underground work be treated under the new code? Response: Under the proposed amendments, the review of underground utilities within vegetated corridors and sensitive areas would be conducted by the Unified Sewerage Agency according to the revised USA Design and Construction Standards. Following its review, the agency will issue a Storm Water Connection Permit for approved facility plans. City staff would not be responsible for reviewing underground utility plans within vegetated corridors. This responsibility will be delegated to USA. On the other hand, because existing Water Resources Overlay rules are more restrictive than the USA rules with regard to sensitive areas, the City would continue to be responsible for the review of underground utilities within these areas. Thus, utilities within sensitive areas will be subject to both USA and City review. Staff Report CPA 2000-0001, ZOA 2000-00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 6 What happens to wetlands discovered but not mapped? Response: According to existing City regulations, wetlands that are overlooked or otherwise not mapped on the City Significant Wetlands Inventory are not subject to City wetlands regulations. Notwithstanding this, wetlands that meet the Federal definitions of a wetland are subject to conjunctive USA, State, and Federal regulations governing wetlands. What happens if a vegetated corridor is degraded before or after a required site assessment, due to negligence or destruction on the part of the owner? Consider mitigation measures if owner causes destruction. Response: The new USA regulations prohibit any clearing within a vegetated corridor area without a permit. Any clearing that may take place prior to or inconsistent with site plan approval would be a violation of USA standards and would be subject to penalties and mitigation requirements. SECTION 9/1. AGENCY SAND CIT COMMENTS The Wetlands Conservancy, The Friends of Fanno Creek, The Tualatin Riverkeepers; The Association of Northwest Steelheaders; The Metropolitan Area Homebuilders; The. Tigard Chamber of Commerce; Metro; The Oregon DLCD; The Division of State Lands; The Washington County Dept. of Land Use & Transportation; and members of the Ciften Involvement Team. have all had the opportunity to review the -proposal and have offered no written comments or objections. Officials of Metro and the Department of Land Conservation and Development made oral comments supportive of the proposed changes. No other comments have been received. 10/27/2000 PREPARED BY: D ne Roberts DATE ssociate Planner Staff Report CPA 2000-0001, ZOA 2000-00003 USA Water Quality Design Standards Page 7 ato*RAPMIC IMt * "o. 00001 CODE AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE CPA 2000- USAS NEW WATER QUAL Y STANDARDS ® p ® ZOA 200x-00003 Sib j ® ® Tigard AOt Area of interest 1 !Urban service Area ® mop Tigard Boundaries MR "d ® Allotted Taxlots N ?DOO 3= 40M Feet d 1U00 _p- p ° 3000 feel City of Tigazd 1 map h for m au6on o* a- Inletmatlon On Vss 9 Oivisbn. tnouldlb YM6ed Tvllit tM: DsY2b 4 01neM Services ,3`125 SW BNd Tr9ar0.OR 97223 (503)639-°171 n6plnrwR.d.tgaraa.u. Plot date: Oct 4, 2000; L:1GIS\io\APRs\hvdro.aor f--mrtnity Development AGENDA ITEM # S FOR AGENDA OF March 26.2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Tigard. City of Tualatin and Washin on oun for Durham u site PREPARED BY: Julia Hajduk DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK V~~ v ISSUE BEFORE THE C UNCIL Should Council review and sign the intergovernmental agreement between Tigard, Tualatin and Washington County regarding the Durham Quarry site? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to sign the intergovernmental agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard, City of Tualatin and Washington County have been meeting for over a year to plan for development of the Durham Quarry site. In June of 2001, the City of Tigard adopted Comprehensive Plan and Development Code standards for the portion of the site in Tigard to allow mixed use development on the site. The City of Tualatin adopted similar standards. The site is located primarily in Tualatin with a portion located in Tigard. It has been the intent that the site be developed as a whole under the review of one jurisdiction. Tigard indicated that the code changes would become effective upon signing an intergovernmental agreement which would define review authority for development of the site. The IGA was developed by all 3 jurisdictions with close involvement from legal counsel. The City of Tualatin Council and Washington County Board of Commissioners are in the process of signing the agreement as well. The agreement will give Tualatin the authority to review and issue land use decisions and building permits for the whole site, including the portion in Tigard. Washington County agrees to contribute funds to cover lost permitting fees once a development proposal is submitted. In addition, further discussion on the allocation of System Development Charges (SDC) and Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) will take place once a final site plan is determined. Once initial development is complete, future permitting will be done by the respective jurisdiction. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • Provide comments and direct consideration of additional changes to the IGA. • Take no action. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1 - Intergovernmental Agreement FISCAL NOTES Upon a development proposal being submitted, Washington County will contribute funds to cover lost permitting fees to the City of Tigard. Tigard, Tualatin and Washington County will discuss the allocation of SDCs and TIF credits once a final site plan is determined for the Durham Quarry site. C URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL A EMENT BETWEEN 3! ~laz THE CITY OF TIGARD, THE CITY OF TUALATIN AND WASHINGTON COUNTY RECITALS 1. This intergovernmental agreement, hereinafter "Agreement," is entered into on the last date shown on the signature page by City of Tigard, hereinafter "Tigard," the City of Tualatin, hereinafter "Tualatin," and Washington County, hereinafter "County," all political subdivisions of the State of Oregon; and 2. ORS 190.007 provides for the furthering of economy and efficiency in local government by intergovernmental cooperation. 3. ORS 190.010 provides that units of government may enter agreements for performance of any and al I functions and activities that parties to the agreement, its officers or agencies have authority to perform. - 4. The parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of allowing better coordination between Tualatin and Tigard in response to the imminent development on approximately 28.59 acres of property currently owned by County, plus additional land that may come under County control, known as the Durham Quarry. 5. The subject Durham Quarry property, which is currently undeveloped, includes approximately 21.43 acres within Tualatin and 7.16 acres within Tigard. If the property expands to areas outside of the original 28.59 acres, the terms and conditions of this agreement shall extend to all properties included within the development project. 6. It would be to the benefit of Tualatin, Tigard and the County to coordinate planning, engineering, and permit review for the development of the subject property. 7. All parties have agreed that the Durham Quarry property should be developed as a mixed-use development project. Tualatin has developed a Mixed Use Commercial zoning regulations to support this development concept. Tigard has adopted regulations for use on the land within Tigard that are similar to the standards -Tualatin adopted. 8. County intends to lease or sell this property for purposes of future development consistent with the Mixed-Use Commercial zoning adopted by Tualatin and Tigard. Page 1 of 4 intergovernmental Agreement Between Washington County, the City of Tualatin and the City of Tigard 3/13/02 Exhibit A MJ THE TUALATIN AND TIGARD AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. AREA AFFECTED BY THIS AGREEMENT The area affected by this Agreement is the Durham Quarry property as shown on Exhibit 1 and any additional land that may become part of the project area. II. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY Tigard delegates to Tualatin the authority to review and approve all land development and building permits for that portion of the Durham Quarry property that is within the City of Tigard. III. DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND FEES a. Land Development Fees: All fees, charges and taxes for the land development and building permits for this property shall be paid to Tualatin except as provided by subsection (d) below. b. Transportation Impact Fees: Tualatin shall determine and identify the amount of TIF charged for the building(s) or portions of building(s) within the city of Tigard. Tigard, Tualatin and the County agree to work together to develop a system that will allow any TIF charges collected for development of the property to be used for TIF- eligible projects in any of the three jurisdictions, as the parties may further agree. If transportation system improvements are required that are not on the cities' transportation plans or the County TIF Base Report, the parties will initiate action to adopt those improvements into their plans or reports, subject to applicable criteria and procedure for taking such action. c. TIF Credits: For improvements to the transportation system required of the developer of the property, Tualatin shall make the determination of the amount of TIF credits to be issued for such improvements, according to the provisions of County Code Chapter 3.17. TIF credits for such improvements may be used to pay TIF charges within any portion of the property, or for any offsite improvements required by Tualatin, as the developer may request d. SDC's: Tigard charges a parks SDC, water and a sewer SDC (if applicable) for development. Tualatin has a parks SDC, but not for commercial development. An accurate determination of the SDC's and their allocation cannot be determined until a final site plan has been determined. When the site plan has been determined, the SDC's shall be allocated based generally on the percentage of development in the Tualatin and Tigard. The parties shall meet and agree to a fair allocation of those SDC's. As Tualatin does not have a park SDC that is applicable to commercial development, all park SDC's on commercial development as determined by the allocation, shall be paid to Tigard. If SDC's are owed to Tigard, Tualatin shall require the developer to pay directly to Tigard this amount. Page 2of 4 Intergovernmental Agreement Between Washington County, the City of Tualatin and the City of Tigard 3/13/02 IV. OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES The cities agree that when Tualatin has approved the ultimate design of the property, they will resolve how best to provide efficient public services to the property. This may be provided for in a separate intergovernmental agreement. V. CONSDERATION FOR LOSS OF DEVELOPMENT RELATED REVENUE In consideration of lost revenue for Tigard, County will pay Tigard $16,000 within 30 days of receipt of the first development application for the Durham Quarry by Tualatin. VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION In case of a dispute over the provisions of this Agreement, the City and County staff for each entity will immediately refer the dispute to the respective managers to resolve the dispute. VII. NOTICE OF APPLICATIONS, DECISIONS and APPEALS Tualatin shall give notice to Tigard and County of all tort claims, land use applications, hearings, decisions, building permits and any appeals of those decisions made under the authority of this Agreement. Tualatin shall have the authority of defend any claims or appeals arising from permits issued under this Agreement. Tigard and County may comment on, participate in, and intervene in any appeal of such a decision. VIII. TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be effective upon final signature and shall remain in effect for a period of three (3) years after the issuance of the last building permit for site development of the subject property. The Agreement may be extended for a subsequent three (3) year term upon mutual agreement of the parties. This Agreement may be terminated by any party upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other parties. If Tigard terminates this Agreement before the permits for the portion of the property within Tigard are final, it shall return any amounts paid by County under section V above. IX. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS Each party shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local ordinances, statutes, and regulations that are applicable to the services provided under this Agreement. X. DEBT LIMITATION This Agreement is expressly subject to the debt limitation of Oregon Counties as set forth in Article XI, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution and is contingent upon funds being appropriated therefor. Page 3of 4 Intergovernmental Agreement Between Washington County, the City of Tualatin and the City of Tigard 3/13/02 r XI. HOLD HARMLESS Subject to the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, and the Oregon Constitution, each party agrees to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify each other, including its officers, agents and employees, against all claims, demands, actions and suits (including all attorney fees and costs) arising from the indemnitor's performance of this Agreement where the loss or claim is attributable to the negligent acts of omissions of that party. XII. MODIFICATION Modifications to this Agreement are valid only if made in writing and signed by all parties. This writing is intended as the final expression of the agreement between the parties with respect to the included terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement. In WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Intergovernmental Agreement on the date set below their signatures. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON CITY OF TUALATIN, OREGON By: By: lkwafft~' Tom Brian, Chair Tony W Iler, Mayor Pro Tem Washington Co. Board of Comm. City of Tualatin Date: Date: g ~0 2 Approved as to form: Approved as to form: County Counsel City Attorney CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON r By: Approved as to form 4111, Ji Gri th yor City of Ti I Date: u Z ' City Attorney Page 4of 4 intergovernmental Agreement Between Washington County, the City of Tualatin and the City of Tigard 3/13/02 r~+lrf '''i'3:yXi~ .~i ~~1~,/' ~ti1"!r'.~' ~ ! ~ tjs.._:~ 1, {r ~ • t. J + r + + t~ .'rr. ~••,j -.i it t I •'~i 0 ' ik4 O 7• ••.M ~ II l~( - is • m.. . .i rtt rl- t _ ~+3 + 0 1~f •j •y" • x. ll u•.4w f" k1 ..9"v"' .tip xX it til i [[~~~}3111 Y (iii t t~1 _ ~ , ..4 - • ~ ! ~ J..•4 1.-, ;~,c. ~''~l a1 ~ 'r1 ~t 'n .i.~/ f::. L• ~ L'. l J'7C~-~7M to ':.1:7~t-•+J~..' i•. '~I'.:l i'• 1,i:•1: '1"i~7~r ~'n'~ii•smre--~•-( F,Xhlbit 1 AGENDA ITEM # Co FOR AGENDA OF March 26, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Consider an Ordinance Spreading the Assessments Among the Benefited Prouerty Owners in the 69th Avenue Local Improvement District ~,,~.~•s`' PREPARED BY: A.P.DDuenas DEPT HEAD OKG` - CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall Council pass an ordinance spreading the assessments among the benefited property owners in the 69`h Avenue Local Improvement District (LID)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that CiV Council pass the attached ordinance spreading the assessments among the benefited property owners in the 69 Avenue LID. INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 22, 2002, City Council approved the methods of assessment and proposed assessment amounts for the 69`h Avenue LID through Resolution No. 02-07 and directed that a public hearing be set to consider objections to the proposed assessments. City Council further directed that benefited property owners be notified of the proposed assessments in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Section 13.04.060. The benefited owners were notified by certified mail. In addition, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Tigard Times on January 31, 2002 and February 7, 2002. A Public Hearing to hear objections to the proposed assessments was conducted on February 12, 2002. Following the hearing, City Council made a tentative decision on the final assessment amounts. At its meeting on March 12, 2002, Council reaffirmed its decision and directed the preparation of an ordinance to assign a portion of the total overall project assessment to each owner in accordance with the assessment amounts determined by Council. The ordinance prepared for Council consideration sets the final overall assessment total for the district and the assessment amount for each of the benefited property owners. Approval of this ordinance allows the Finance Director to terminate the interim financing, begin the process for permanent financing of the local improvement district, and arrange for payment of the assessments with the benefited property owners. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A I =~Mj ATTACHMENT LIST S Resolution No. 02-07 without attached Exhibit A • Ordinance Spreading the Assessments Among the Benefited Property Owners • Final Engineer's Report with final revisions dated March 13, 2002 as Exhibit A to the Ordinance. FISCAL NOTES The total project cost to be assessed to the benefited properties is $1,476,056 less $32,256 City participation for two residential lots. The amount to be assessed after that deduction is $1,443,800 to be assessed in accordance with the Final Engineer's Report. IXitywidelSum\Qrdinance spreading the Assessments in the 6SP Avenue LID.doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 02- U1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE METHODS OF ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS TO BENEFITED PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, DIRECTING THAT NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS BE GIVEN TO EACH PROPERTY OWNER, AND DIRECTING THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD TO CONSIDER OBJECTIONS. WHEREAS, in Jule 1998, Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to improve certain streets in the 690i Avenue area; and WHEREAS, at the Council meeting of March 9, 1999, Ordinance 99-07 was adopted officially forming the 690i Avenue Local Improvement District (LID 49); and WHEREAS, final construction plans were prepared by DeHaas & Associates, Inc., and the project was advertised for bids; and WHEREAS, the construction contract was awarded to W.A. Jones, Co., the construction began on June June 17, 1999, and was certified as substantially complete on April 21, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is a participant in the assessed district, contributing an amount not-to- exceed $200,000.00 for land acquisition costs to permit construction of the Beveland Street Extension between 680i Avenue and 690' Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City contribution has been deducted from the total LID costs; and WHEREAS, after deduction of the City contribution, the total amount remaining to be assessed against benefited property owners is $1,589,211.00; and WHEREAS, the Final Engineer's Report was completed in November 2001 with revisions on January 10, 2002 setting out the assessment methods and spreading total costs of the Local Improvement District among the benefited property owners; and WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Section 13.04.060 requires that City Council adopt the assessment methods and proposed assessments; and WHEREAS, TMC 13.04.055 further requires that Council direct that notice of proposed assessments be given to the benefited property owners and that a public hearing be held to consider objections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RF:SOT.VFD by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Final Engineers Report for the 69 h Avenue LID dated November 2001 is attached as Exhibit A and by this reference is incorporated as part of this resolution. SECTION 2: The total LID costs to be assessed against benefited property owners is $1,589,211.00. RESOLUTION NO. 02-M Page 1 SECTION 3: The methods of assessment and proposed assessments as presented in the Final Engineer's Report are hereby approved. SECTION 4: Council hereby directs that a public hearing be held to consider objections, and that proper notice of the public hearing in accordance with TMC Section 13.04.060 be given to each of the property owners to be assessed. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Resolution shall be effective immediately. PASSED: This day of -ICA 4A 40- u -2002. ayor - Nty&bfaW ATTEST: City Recorder - City of?igard 1:\CiWMde\ResWssessn=t Resolution for the 69 h Avenue LID.doc RESOLUTION NO.02- k-1 Page, 2 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF March 26, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE En ineerin D ent Overview PREPARED BY: A.P. Dues DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK 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. 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 MIME EN I 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 3. Copies of PowerPoint slides to be used during the City Council meeting staff presentation. FISCAL NOTES N/A 1ACitywide\Sum\Engineering Department Overview.doc City of Tigard Engineering Department City of Tigard Agustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer Diane Jelderks Greg Berry, P.E. Senior Administrative Specialist Utility Engineer Capital Improvement Program Division Development Review Division Vannie T. Nguyen, P.E. Brian D. Rager, P.E. Engineering Manager Engineering Manager Edmund Tawiah John R. Hadley Shirley Treat Project Engineer Eng/SurveySpeclalist Admin. Spec. I Michael Mills Raymond Woolf Senior Eng. Tech Eng. Tech II ' John Hagman Michael White Senior Eng. Tech Senior Eng. Tech Karleen Aichele Eng. Tech It Matthew Harrell Paul Izatt Senior Eng. Tech Eng. Tech II Catherine Church Eng. Tech I February 8, 2002 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 FROM: Gus Duenas t" City Engineer DATE: February 11, 2002 SUBJECT: Engineering Department Overview Highlights of Accomplishments and Goals The Engineering Department has been involved in a wide variety of activities during the past year. Som : of the highlights include the following: o Estabtishnient of the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force to evaluate and develop alternativc sources of funding for both maintenance of the City street infrastructure and expansion of the collector system to meet current and future transportation demands. This Task Force has been meeting during the past year and is now evaluating the feasibility of implementing a Street Maintenance Fee for preventative and corrective maintenance of City streets. The Task Force is continuing to review potential sources of funds for street expansion projects. e Participation in the public process leading to the adoption of the Transportation System Plan. This plan, which was adopted by City Council in the January 8, 2002 Council meeting, provides the much needed transportation-related improvements for the next 20 to 30 years and serves as the blueprint for making transportation project choices for the coming years. • Construction of the Gaarde Street Phase 1 Improvements from Quail Hollow-West to Walnut and continuation of pavement maintenance through pavement overlays and slurry seals. • Reviewed the plans, issued permits for, and inspected the public improvements on such major subdivision projects as Quail Hollow-West, Pacific Crest, Erickson Heights, etc. • Assisted in the development of the New Tigard Library concept plan and helped develop the site plan for use in various meetings and public displays leading to the proposed bond issue coming before the voters in May 2002. The following in more specific detail are the major accomplishments of the Engineering Department during calendar year 2001 and the first month in 2002: Accomplishments Capital Improvement Program Street Projects Gaarde Street Improvements: Gaarde Street is a major collector providing a key east-west connection from Highway 99W to Walnut Street, then along Walnut Street and Barrows Road to Beaverton. The project to improve Gaarde Street and provide a continuous, upgraded connection from Highway 99W to Walnut Street is divided into two phases. Phase 1 is the construction of a new segment of Gaarde Street extending north from the Quail Hollow-West Subdivision to Walnut Street. Phase 2 is the reconstruction and widening of Gaarde Street from Highway 99w to 121St Avenue. • Gaarde Street - Phase 1 (between Walnut Street and the northerly boundary of the Quail Hollow Subdivision): Construction of this phase began in August 2000 and was completed August 2001. Because of the extensive undergrounding utility work involved, construction of this project took longer than anticipated. The new Gaarde Street Extension was used as a detour route during the period the Walnut/12151 intersection was closed for construction. However, the signalized intersection at Gaarde and Walnut Street was only partially operational until July 2001 when the Walnut/121" intersection was again opened for traffic. The entire project is now completed with the signal system at Gaarde/Walnut Street now fully operational. • Gaarde Street - Phase 2 (between 121St avenue and Hwy 99W): This project is being designed by an engineering consultant and is approximately 80% complete. In addition to street widening, this project also includes installation of a new traffic signal at the Gaarde Street/121 St Avenue intersection and improvement to the 121St Avenue approach north of the intersection. This project will be advertisement for bids in March 2002 to permit construction to begin in May of next year. Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP): The PMMP is an annual program of corrective and preventive maintenance on all paved streets in the City. In the year 2000, the City's Pavement Management System identified a backlog of $2,000,000 in corrective overlay, repairs, and slurry seals. Approximately $500,000 of this backlog is in streets that are candidates for reconstruction and widening during the next few years. However approximately $500,000 in Engineering Department Accomplishments and Goals Page 2 of 9 pavement overlays and $1,000,000 in slurry seals are required in local streets that are not programmed as part of any major project. Because of limited funding, only a few streets from the long list were addressed this year. Streets that received a combination of pavement inlay and slurry seal treatment or just slurry seal treatment include: • Kable Street (between Naeve Street and 103`d Avenue) • 121" Avenue and North Dakota Street (between Scholls Ferry Road and Springwood Drive) • Ash Street (between Scoffins and Commercial Street) • Meadow Street (east of Tiedeman Avenue) There were approximately 8,500 square yards of asphaltic concrete (AC) overlay and 10,500 square yards of slurry seal placed on these streets. Eagle Elsner, Inc. began construction in mid- September 2001 and completed the work in late November 2001. Street Striping Program: This is a program to re-stripe City streets that require re-delineation for safety and proper channelization of traffic. Two striping projects were completed in 2001: the FY 2000-01 Street Striping - Phase 2 project that includes Gaarde Street (between the Quail Hollow subdivision and 121" Avenue) and the FY 2001-02 Street Striping project that includes Walnut Street (between Barrow Road and Wilton Avenue), Gaarde Street (between 121s' Avenue and 110th Avenue) and the Dartmouth Street /72"d Avenue intersection. Approximately 21,000 feet of striping was applied on these streets. The first project was installed by Apply-A-Line Inc. The second was installed by Specialized Pavement Markings, Inc. This company began the work in early December and has most of it completed. The punch list items will be completed in January 2002. Traffic Calming Program: This program installs traffic-calming devices on minor collector and residential streets to reduce traffic speeds and volume. This year's program installed 12 speed humps on Ann Street, Commercial Street, Fonner Street, Summerfield Drive, Kable Street and Sattler Road. The program will install 2 more humps on Kable Street and 4 more humps on Spruce Street in early spring of next year to finish this fiscal year's program. The streets currently proposed for traffic-calming devices in FY 2002-03 will be installed during the summer months of 2002. These streets include 130th Avenue, 100th Avenue and Park Street. Lincoln Street Improvement: The widening of Lincoln Street between Greenburg Road and Commercial Street is a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) project. Construction of this project was divided into 2 phases: the first phase which improved the west side of the street was completed in July of last year, the second phase which widened the street on the east side was completed by Mountain Excavating, Inc. in August of this year. 121St Avenue and Walnut Street Intersection: This project widened the intersection to the ultimate width of a major collector, upgraded the existing drainage and water systems, placed the existing utilities underground, installed new sanitary sewer, and installed a traffic signal at the intersection. The project design and construction inspection were administered by Washington County. Through Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County, the City provided funds to construct the sanitary sewer extensions, upgrade the water lines, and extend the drainage system Engineering Department Accomplishments and Goals Page 3 of 9 P beyond the project limits. Kerr Contractors, Inc. began the work in February and completed the work in November of this year. Embedded Crosswalk Lights: The pilot program for the Embedded Crosswalk Lights began in FY 1999-2000. Since then, lighted crosswalks have been installed at three locations: 12151 Avenue (at Katherine/Lynn Street), Walnut Street (at Grant Avenue), and Main Street (at the existing bridge). The lighted crosswalk on 121St Avenue (at Springwood Drive) authorized under the FY 2001-02 Capital Improvement Program is currently under construction. Because of delay in the delivery of construction materials, the project completion date is extended from November 2001 to mid-January 2002. Dartmouth Street Improvement: This project widened approximately 150 feet of Dartmouth Street just south of Costco's driveway. Included in the improvements are the construction of new curb and sidewalk, extension of 2 existing culverts and installation of street trees. The low bidder, Oregon Siteworks, completed the work in 2 months between May and July 2001. Sanitary Sewer Projects Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program: This program extends sanitary sewer service into residential neighborhoods. The City initiates and completes the sewer extensions, then recoups the total cost of the design and construction via creation of a reimbursement district. As residents connect to the new sewer line, they have to pay their proportionate share of the cost of the line, plus the normal connection fee. Three reimbursement districts were constructed this year and 39 houses were included in these districts: • Walnut Street and 12151 Avenue Intersection: 24 services were provided for this district. Construction of this project was combined with the Walnut Street and 121St Avenue intersection improvement project that was administered by Washington County. Kerr Contractors, Inc. began the work in February 2001 and completed the sanitary sewer work in November of this year. • hose Vista Drive: This district project extended the main line across SW 118th Avenue, then across two residential lots before reaching SW Rose Vista Drive. The line serves 14 properties along SW Rose Vista Drive. Two easements had to be purchased for the construction. Excel Excavation, Inc. began construction in May and completed the work in August 2001. • Ilunziker Street: This proj(ct was constructed by C.R. Woods Trucking, Inc. between March and 1pril of this y-ar. This district provided one service connection to a commercial property. Citywide Sewer Extension program: During a presentation to City Council on October 19, 2000, the Enginecrin« Department proposed a 5-year program to systematically extend sanitary sewers to all developed but unserved areas Citywide. Council agreed with the Engineering Department Accomplishments and Goals Page 4 of 9 proposed 5-year plan and approved funding for the first year of that plan as part of the FY 2001-02 Capital bnprovement Program Budget. Ash Avenue and Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements: This project upsized the existing sanitary sewer line to alleviate surcharging problems during the winter months. The new line begins at Ash Street, proceeds west on Burnham Street, turns north into an easement inside private property, goes under the railroad tracks and connects to an existing line in Commercial Street. APC Underground, Inc. began the work in November of 2000 and completed the work in May 2001. Greenburg Road and Oak Street Sanitary Sewer Repair: A TV inspection report prepared by the City indicates that about 30 feet of the main sanitary sewer pipe located in the parking lot of Casa Lupita Restaurant by Greenburg Road was seriously damaged. To prevent possible overflows and sewage backups to the restaurant and other surrounding businesses, this section of pipe was removed and replaced with a new pipe. This work was completed by Wystan Brown, Inc. in September 2001. Storm Drainage Projects Washington Square Storm Runoff Pretreatment: This project removes pollutants from the Washington Square surface water runoff and is designated as a high priority project by the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan adopted by Clean Water Services (CWS) in November 1997. The scope of work includes installation of a manufactured treatment unit to receive and partially treat the flows from two culverts crossing Highway 217, which drain most of Washington Square. The treated flows continue in a ditch to Fanno Creek. Canby Excavating installed the treatment unit in June 2001. Fable Street Storm Drainage Improvements: This project replaced the existing storm drain pipe in Kable Street between 103`d and 100th Avenue with a larger pipe. The existing 12-inch pipe was undersized and incapable of receiving the entire amount of storm water from the surrounding area. D&A Contractors, Inc. began the work in May 2001 and completed the work in August after 3 months of construction. Miscellaneous Projects Fanno Creek Trails - Segment 3 (from Tiedeman to Woodard Park): This pedestrian walkway has been included, along with other trail projects, in the Parks System Program since FY 1998-99. Since July 1998, 5 trail segments, including Segment 3, have been constructed. Trail segment 3' runs in 2 directions: in an easterly direction that connects Tiedeman Avenue with Katherine Street and in a southerly direction that begins from Katherine Street, meanders through Woodard Park, and ends at the existing bridge by Johnson Street. There are approximately 1,900 feet of walkway constructed for the Segment 3 project and 5,200 feet of walkway for all 5 segments. Tri Mountain Excavating, Inc. began construction in mid-September and completed the work in mid-November. The trail has been opened for public. Engineering Department Accomplishments and Goals Page 5 of 9 K 85`h Avenue Access Road: This access road begins from the southerly end of 85th Avenue, crosses the Clean Water Services (CWS) property, and ends at Cook Park. This project is part of the Cook Park Expansion project. However, the access road was designed by the Engineering Department while the expansion of the park was designed by a consultant. The access road is approximately 12 feet wide by 1,300 feet long and was completed as part of the park expansion by Northwest Earthmovers, Inc. in December 2001. Streetlight Pole Refurbishment: The scope of work included sanding rusted poles, pole bases and mast arms, and using electrostatic force to apply primer and exterior coating to each pole. There were 68 poles painted by Electro-Static Refinishers, Inc. and Ruffin Construction, Inc. These poles are located on Summerfield Drive, Alderbrook Drive and other local streets west of 98th Avenue and north of Durham Road. Survey projects Topographic survey work and construction staking for in-house design projects were performed throughout the calendar year. Other survey projects include the following: • Right-of-way survey - Commercial Street (95th Avenue to Main Street). • Lot line adjustment - Lund property. • Locate property lines where trees may need to be removed (7 times). • Review 13 partition plats, 11 subdivision plats and various legal descriptions for Private Development projects. • Establish 3 new Benchmarks with brass disc and elevations. • Parking lot staking for the Balloon festival. • Right-of-way descriptions - Gaarde Street Improvements (Phase 1), Walnut Street/Tiedeman Avenue Intersection Realignment and North Dakota Street Improvements. Private Development Review General Update on New Timekeeping System: The Division purchased and installed new timekeeping software to track staff time on public improvement permits. This ties in with the cost recovery fee structure that was approved by the City Council in February 1999. Detailed reports are being produced on each project that shows the hours worked by staff members. The Division is in the process of making refinements to the program so that the reports are easier for general staff to understand. Construction Activity Permits Issued: As of December 2001, the Engineering Department processed 90 new permits, of which 80 have thus far been issued. Of the permits issued, 58 were Street Opening Permits (for minor work in the right-of-way) within the Tigard city limits, 6 were Street Opening Permits within the Urban Services Boundary (USB), 12 were for larger projects (street improvements, main utility line extensions, subdivisions, etc.) within the Tigard city limits, and 3 were for larger Engineering Department Accomplishments and Goals Page 6 of 9 r projects within the USB. The larger projects within the City will comprise approximately 1.7 million dollars in public improvements, while the larger project within the USB will comprise approximately 1.6 million dollars in public improvements. Construction Highlights: There were a mixture of single-family subdivisions and commercial projects this past year that have contributed, or will contribute, additional public improvements in the City this year and into next year. Pacific Crest This project currently lies within the USB and is north of SW Bull Mountain Road, south of SW Fern Street, west of SW Essex Drive. The project will consist of 65 single-family detached homes and will include the westerly extension of SW Mistletoe Drive, and an easterly extension of SW Catalina Drive. Construction of the public improvements began in September 2001, and is scheduled to be completed Spring 2002. Quail Hollow-South This project is within the City limits and is east of and adjacent to SW Greenfield Drive and south of and adjacent to SW Gaarde Street. The project features 60 single-family attached lots and will be an extension of the Brownstone Homes development in Quail Hollow West. Construction of the public improvements began in September 2001, and the improvements are nearing substantial completion. Other Accomplishments o City Council, through Resolution No. 01-06, formed the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force to evaluate alternative sources of funds for transportation-related improvements and make recommendations to City Council for implementation. At the August 28, 2001 Council meeting, the Task Force recommended approval for a Street Maintenance Fee Study. The study was authorized by Council and has been ongoing for the past five months. The initial findings of the study were reported to the Task Force at the January 17, 2002 meeting for review and discussion. The draft report is scheduled to be presented to the Task Force on February 21, 2002, and is scheduled to be presented to Council at the March 19, 2002 City Council workshop meeting. o The Transportation System Plan (TSP) had been going through the public process for adoption for over a year. The Engineering Department funded the TSP Update Study through the Capital Improvement Program. The City Engineer had been involved in the process of TSP development from the beginning of the study to its submittal to City Council for review and approval. A workshop session with City Council was held in November 2001 to review the TSP prior to adoption. Council adopted the TSP at its meeting on January 8, 2002. a The Priorities 2002 process provided the City with an opportunity to submit projects for Federal funding through the Metro approval process. The City submitted the Greenburg Road project from Washington Square Drive to Tiedeman Avenue for rights-of way acquisition and partial construction. The project was approved for rights-of way acquisition only. That project is now approved for both preliminary engineering (Priorities 2000) and rights-of-way acquisition. The project agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for Engineering Department Accomplishments and Goals Page 7 of 9 preliminary engineering is now being developed by ODOT and will be submitted to City Council for approval within the next few months. Goals e Transportation Funding Continue working with the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force to identify and develop alternative funding sources for preventative maintenance and reconstruction and widening of major streets. Prepare the Street Maintenance Fee Study for Council consideration and possible implementation. • New Library Construction Committee Continue to provide assistance to the Library Director and the Committee as needed to keep the new library process moving forward. Provide information necessary for the purchase of the selected site. Continue working with the property owner to ensure that the Wall Street Extension project moves forward such that the property for the new library can be purchased. Participate in the consultant selection for design and in the design review process. Citywide Sewer Extension Program Continue implementation of the 5-year Citywide Sewer Extension Program by initiating design projects for construction during the remainder of the fiscal year, and by selecting projects for incorporation in the next fiscal year's Capital Improvement Program. • Comprehensive Public Facility Plan Continue to prepare the components of the Public Facility Plan and bring them to Planning Commission and City Council for approval in accordance with the updated work plans. • Continue to Develop and Implement the Annual Capital Improvement Program • Continue Private Development Review Process and Inspection of Public Improvements Constructed by Private Development • Bull Mountain Annexation Evaluation Continue to support the Bull Mountain Annexation evaluation by providing information and by assisting the Community Development Director in whatever manner necessary to provide all essential information to City Council for discussion and direction. Followup on Council direction in support of whatever decision is reached regarding the potential annexation. Engineering Department AccompliAments and Goals Page 8 of 9 • Citywide Vision Support Continue to support the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow process. Review and update the action plans for the Transportation and Traffic element of the process. Coordinate with the other target areas to ensure that the goals, strategies and action plans are in harmony with those in the Transportation and Traffic target area. • Citizen Involvement Continue to stress the need to provide timely information to citizens. Provide opportunities for citizens to provide input and communicate with us on a wide variety of issues. Continue to effectively use the City's web page to provide up-to-date information regarding Engineering Department activities. Continue to publicize significant accomplishments through the web and through dedication ceremonies. • Summerlake Enhancement Followup with additional studies to determine feasibility of the concept plan proposed by the Summer Lake study consultant. Incorporate any necessary outside consultant assistance in the formulation of next fiscal year's Capital Improvement Program. • Regional Meetings Increase Tigard's presence in regional matters through attendance at the Washington County Transportation Advisory and Coordinating Committee meetings. Attend the Metro Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee (TPAC) meetings to the maximurn extent possible to stay abreast of decisions made at that level, and to make Tigard's presence felt in those meetings. I:\Eng\Gus\Council Agenda Summaries\Engineering Department Accomplishments and Goal.doc Engineering Department Accomplishments and Goals Page 9 of 9 City of Tigard Department Responsibilities Engineering *Designs and constructs Capital Department Improvement Projects t ®Reviews and inspects private Overview development projects *Provides support to other City ! Departments 4, Supports Council goals February 26.2002 city or T,r'ra Key Department Activities 6~fl~eerlaj Ueprrlae~l . 0 Evaluation of alternative funding sources for transportation projects F t • Adoption of the city's Transportation System Plan • Development and implementation of the Citywide Sewer Extension Program • Support of the proposed New Tigard Lbrary Construction I • Continuation of major Capital Improvement Projects t a Review and Inspection of major subdivisions in the City and in the Urban Services Area f p , j Capital Improvement Program Division f. Capital Improvement Program Division Project Highlights Pro'ect Highli hts I A ~t 4 Gaante Street 1 Phnsc 1 tuall ashingBtoo S9uarc Storm 6 uno[f Pretreatment Facility e.%[ to Ilollow- Walnut 1 I West .I 1 Sf L M G i i Capital Improvement Program Division Capital Improvement Program Division Project Highlights Project Highlights 1 ? I st pavement l Way ■ AvenucM'alnw Projects i Street I Intersection Meadow Street c j t i t Ash Street I t Capital Improvement Program Division Capital Improvement Program Division ; Project Highlights Project Highlights l°mhedded 121st Avenue I Crosswalk I Before project began { 12 Isl Avenue Lighting G~ SpringwoaI j Springuoal I llrive } i Drive 1 Pavement 4 Inlay + Slurry Seal troth tided r Crosswalk Lights i j Capital Improvement Program Division ; Capital Improvement Program Division Project Highlights Project Highlights I North Dakota Irom Scholls Ferrv to Springwo,xf I!I! Pavement Kahle Street i51ti• Inlay and Overlay and Speed Simrv Seal (lump Installation 1t u 2 i Capital Improvement Program Division Capital Improvement Program Division Project Highlights Project Highlights Fanno Creek Fanno Creek jt Trail System Trail System -2 Segment 3 B r c, Segment 3 B U p Upcoming Projects Gaarde Street - 99w to 121st Gaarde Street - 99W to 121 st Existing Roadway ® Existing Conditions ► Narrow, two-lane facility ► No defined shoulders *Proposed Tmiprovements : ► Three-lane facility ► Bike lanes on both sides ► Sidewalks on both sides ~b ► Streetlights t u w Gaarde Street - 99w to 121st UPCOftliflg Projects Project Status Greenburg Road Improvements s Federally funded project [order TEA- : C 0 Project design 70% completed 21 o Land acquisition currently underway w Wldenlag of Greenburg Road o Implementation (Washington Square Drive to ► Advertise for bids late 2002 Ttedernan Avenue) to b lanes ► Utility undergrounding in the spring a Project Status f 2003 ► wExecute ith ODOT in next few Intergovernmental Agreement 2003 Road work to follow in summer and fall ► Consultant selection and project design to follow 17 It 3 Upcoming Projects Upcoming Projects Greenburg Road Improvements Slgnalitation Project Durham Road/98th Avenue ~ t! Upcoming Projects Walnut Street (Design Only) 121st Avenue and 121st Avenue (Design Only) zz, Gaarde to Walnut ` *Project Status ► Design in early 2002 ► Completed projects will be ready for any future funding opportunities ► Project implementation contingent walnut street upon availability of funding ledernan to 121st Avenue Citywide Sewer Reimbursement Districts Extension Program *Established a five year program • City installs a line and sets a to provide sewer service to all reimbursement fee residential areas within the City 0 Owner pays the reimbursement *Uses City-initiated fee at time of connection reimbursement districts *No obligation to connect or pay s Includes an enhanced incentive fees until connection program to encourage residents to connect 7! N 4 { Reimbursement Districts ► Project Schedule *Reimbursement Fee- limited to s o Prioritization of projects over a 6- $6,000 (up to $15,000) for year period r ® Initial priorities based on cost per 1 owners connecting within three connection years ; o May be revised based on various a Connection Fee- currently criteria $2,335 Easements required Plumbing required to connect Street construction programmed house to sewer I Lot owner Interest Health hazards identified 1 Projects in Design Stage 1 Tigard New Library Construction 9 Construction Committee is guiding "T conceptual design process =t New library details 47,000 square feet two story building t' Site selected is east of Hall Blvd near I ' - i" City Hall e Model available for viewing at the f ~n i existing library } :b t Proposed Library Site Tigard New Library Model •i ~"°'L.Ir„r6f I 4 p r-,.~L,,.' ( M Jt'y •J 'Is. 17 i ~1'ront Vicu~ i , n 5 Tigard New Library Model New Library Site Plan I MOM/m M► 11411D IMMI 11~1'"~''l! II ~ TM~ .1 ' E 4 yx: ~.A i - Ms Rear View t 32 Private Development Review Private Development Review *Major Subdivision Projects Quail Hollow-west ► Quail Hollow-West ► Quail Hollow-East t t ► Pacific Crest Subdivision t u Quail Holtow-East ► Erickson Heights Subdivision ► Quail Hollow-South ► Meyer's Farm f ► Elkhorn Ridge k . P 33 4' u Private Development Review } Private Development Review I Erickson Ileights Erickson I lelghts t I Eagle's View F ' r ~ K 6 Private Development Review Private Development Review I - t Pacitlc Creat Meyers Fum n m Private Development Review Priorities for FY 2002-03 •i• • Gaarde Street Improvements Phase 2 Construction g i Evaluate and develop alternative sr ichoca funding sources for maintenance and Ridge's major street improvements • Additional traffic calming measures Durham School Park 0 Continue the Citywide Sewer i Extension Program 19 ' q Priorities for FY 2002-03 Priorities for FY 2002-03 ID Storm and sanitary system ' repairs *New Tigard Library *Continuation of Parks Projects ► Land acquisition of proposed site t e Land acquisition for new ► Design of new library building and r: site development pathways ► Construction of the new library ®Additional water system ® Wall Street Local Improvement improvements District Al 7 Funding Issues Funding Issues s Lack of funding for preventative and corrective pavement maintenance • Tha Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ► FY 2001-02 provided $207,000 for all funds can only finance one major streets-related work project each year ► State Gas Tax will not be a viable option t The TIF Will diminish as in one or two more years development slows *Alternative funding sources for 0 Other funding sources are needed maintenance will have to be to accelerate needed major street established in the next two years improvement projects 4] 4 What is the City What is the City Doing About it? Doing About it? ~ o Transportation Financing Strategies a Task Force actions to date Task Force formed by City Council ► Recommended Initiation of a Street to ► Evaluate reasons for failure of ) Maintenance Fee Study November 2000 bond measure ► Reviewed draft Street Maintenance Fee ► Determine funding strategies for report on February 21, 2002 Corrective and preventative maintenance ► Workshop With Council on March 19th of City Streets ► Continues to meet to evaluate Reconstruction and widening of collector alternative funding sources streets to meet current and future traffic demands u S .c Unfunded Projects City of Tigard o 121st Avenue (Walnut to North Dakota) e Walnut Street (Tiedeman to 121st) Engineering 1 0 121st Avenue (Gaarde to Walnut) j e Burnham Street (Main Street to Hall) Department t O Fonner Street (Walnut to 116th) Overview E • Tigard Street (South Side-Main to Tiedeman) I February 26, 2002 I n g AGENDA ITEM # 8 FOR AGENDA OF March 26.2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A resolution granting an exemption from property taxes under Tigard municipal code section 3.50 for three non profit low income housing projects owned and operated by Community Partners for Affordable Housing. PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK C,41_ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall three tow-income housing projects owned and operated by the Community Partners for Affordable Housing be exempted from City of Tigard property taxation for 2002? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard Municipal Code 3.50 allows certain organizations providing low income housing to be exempted from Tigard property taxation upon application by March 1 of each year and a demonstration of compliance with certain criteria listed in the Code. Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) owns and operates Greenburg Oaks (formerly Villa La Paz), located at 11875 SW 91St Avenue in Tigard. CPAH also owns a single family home located at 9330 SW Tangela Ct. in Tigard, and it is developing a low-income housing project on SW Hall Blvd. to be known as the Village at Washington Square. These projects are or will be operated as low-income housing and meet all criteria listed in Tigard Municipal Code. CPAH submitted an application for exemption from 2002 property taxes on March 1, 2002. All three of these properties were exempted from property taxation in 2001. The attached resolution gives consent from the City of Tigard for this tax abatement. Under state law, CPAH must receive similar approval from jurisdictions accounting for 51 % (or more) of the total property taxes to be levied on these properties. CPAH will also make application to the other taxing units. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve this tax exemption VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution Letter of application and back-up materials from CPAH. FISCAL NOTES The estimated assessed value of the three properties and the estimated impact of an exemption from City of Tigard property taxes are shown below. Estimated City of Tigard City of Tigard Property Assessed Value* Tax Rate Property Tax Impact Village at Washington Square $188,239 $2.51/$1,000 $472 Single family home $151,977 $2.51/$1,000 $381 9330 SW Tangela Ct. Villa La Paz $3,732,788 $2.51/$1,000 $9,369 Total Impact $10,222 # Because these properties have been exempted from property taxation in the past, Washington County does not show a current assessed value. This figure is an estimated value based on data from the County and CPAH. 1 i mom, Ollie P,AR 0 1 2002 recoluYlUT111 P.O. Box 23206 - Tigard, OR 97281-3206 FOR AFFORDABLE H O U S I N G , INC. Tel: 503-968-2724 - Fax: 503-598-8923 - www.cpahinc.org March 1, 2002 Mr. Craig Prosser, Finance Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Craig: Enclosed please find applications for tax abatement under Tigard Municipal Code section 3.50 for three properties owned by Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. (Greenburg Oaks, formerly Villa La Paz, Apartments, the single-family Tangela house and the Village at Washington Square). In addition to the applications, I have enclosed a copy of CPAH's 2000-2001 audit. We greatly appreciate the City's support of affordable housing through its tax abatement program. Feel free to contact me at 503-968-2724 if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 Jill Sherman Deputy Director, Housing Mimi M Mali ® ~ b ! FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC. viol MIM FO Box 23206 • Tigard OR 97281-3206 • Tel:503.968.2724 • Fax:503.598.8923 • www.cpahinc.org • info@cpahinc.org M I, MoaftEROMIRM P! W sum- WrTaK Greenburg Oaks (formerly Villa La Paz) Apartments 11875 SW 91 "Avenue, Tigard A. Property Description 13. Project's Charitable Purpose C. Certification of Resident Income Levels D. How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residents E. Tax Exempt Status Verification of Information Attachments: • CPAH Annual Report 2000-2001 • Community Center Cabinetry Photo • Resident Income Certification and Profile • IRS Letter a Youth IDA Program Fact Sheet A. Property Description Greenburg Oaks is located at 11875 5W 91" Avenue, just off Greenburg Road and Pacific Highway in Tigard. This 84-unit garden court apartment complex is centrally located, between Washington Square (the County's largest shopping mall) and Tigard's Main Street. The neighborhood is basically residential, although proximate to a variety of commercial and retail employers. Several major bus lines serve the area. Greenburg Oaks consists of 84 units in four buildings: 12 one-bedroom/one-bath 564 square feet units, 60 two-bedroom/one-bath units of 839 square feet, and 12 three-bedroom/one-bath units of 1,007 square feet. The buildings are two and one-half stories above ground (1/2 below grade). All arc wood frame, with stucco and concrete exteriors with pitched, composition shingle roofs, built around 1970. Forty-two of the units have fireplaces. CPAH added a new community facility in the center of the complex which houses a computer center, library, multipurpose room and property management office. The total site contains 3.01 acres and is built at a density of 28 units per acre, an allowable non- conforming use. There are 64 carports and a total of 142 parking spaces (ratio of 1.7 spaces per unit). The 1995 assessed value was $2,471,890, and 1995-96 property taxes levied were $33,874. According to Washington County's Assessor, the 1999 assessed market value of improvements: $2,744,030 and of land: $672,000. Legal Description: The site is located in the southeast'/4 of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West (Willamette Meridian). Tax Lot: The Washington County Map shows the site as tax lot 23-74-2000, Parcels I, H, and III. B. Project's Chairitable Purpose The mission of Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. (CPAH) is to promote a healthy community through the development of. permanent affordable housing, sustainable economic growth, and community-based partnerships. Greenburg Oaks was CPAH's first housing development project. Our acquisition and renovation of the complex ensured that the 84-units were brought up to and maintained in accordance with current health and life safety codes, and are affordable to low- and moderate-income residents on a permanent basis (CPAIT has committed to 40 years of affordability for those at 50 and 60% of median income; in reality average resident incomes are around 30% of median income, see attached resident profile). Partnerships with Tigard's Police Department and Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue have enhanced the safety and quality of life for residents. Partnerships with Community Action OrganizatioivTleibhborshare and Portland General Electric for significant weatherization improvements have resulted in reduced utility bills for families residing in the complex. CPAH works closely with Neighborshare, which provides information and referral as well as emergency services like food box, rent and utility assistance to qualified residents, based on resources available. CPAH partners with social service programs such as HopeSpring (a partnership of Lutheran Family Services, Tualatin Valley Centers and Community Action Organization-CAO) and SAFAH (CAO program) that provide ongoing case management to help families achieve self-sufficiency. FEBRUARY 27, 2002 APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT PAGE 2 OF 4 Greenburg Oaks is located within a census tract which has a higher than average concentration of low-income rental households (median income $25,843 vs. $35,669 citywide in 1990). The number of residents without a high school diploma is notably higher than for Tigard as a whole (15% vs. 9%). This area boasted the second highest concentration of children under 9 of the eight census tracts in Tigard. While this area represents 9% of Tigard's population base, it is home to nearly 161/o of the city's minority households. The Community Center at Greenburg Oaks is the focal point of the support, skill building and community building activities that CPAH offers through its resident services program. CPAH's on- site computer learning center currently offers six personal computers with CD-ROM drives, a networked printer and high-speed Internet access for use by residents. A recent grant allowed us to purchase additional technology resources for residents including a scanner, digital camera, and web design and desktop publishing software. The computer center is used by youth for homework, research, e-mail and educational games and by adults for job search activities and Internet access. The Tigard Library has twice obtained grant resources to purchase children's material for our on- site library. This fall, we received a grant to install built-in cabinetry in the community and computer center. The new cabinetry greatly enhances the attractiveness and efficient use of the space (see attached new cabinetry photo). CPAH also offers an Individual Development Account Program to residents. The program includes extensive financial literacy traii-iing and matched savings accounts. The savings can be used for either home ownership or higher education. In February 2002, CPAH kicked off an Individual Development Account Program for youth. Youth participants take part in financial literacy training activities and community service and receive matched savings that can be invested in an item of their choice that is academic, athletic or artistic (see attached fact sheet). C. Certffication of Resident Income Lewis Resident income levels are verified upon application. As of May 2001, the average income of households is $18,000 (see attached resident profile). Households may remain in their units as long as they income qualify at entry. Rents differ by unit size and income target, but most are in the $400-600 range, well below the market for the area. Resident income is recertified on a yearly basis (see attached resident income certification). D. How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residue Our financial analysis for the Greenburg Oaks project assumed property taxes at zero. This results in a direct reduction in rents of approximately $35,000/84 units = $416 annually per unit. Thus, tax abatement offers a direct benefit to residents who pay lower rents. Additionally, tax abatement is key to the long-term sustainability of a project operating with such low rents. We continue to make capital improvements at the property, and spent over $25,000 in 2001, primarily on interior replacements such as appliances and flooring. During our first years of operation, we made a significant investment to address exterior water penetration into the sub-grade units and though many issues were resolved, a few trouble spots still exist. We expect to make additional capital expenditures in the near future to solve these problems for the long-term. Over the past year, we have struggled with declining management performance at the site level. As a result of turnover of the onsite and site supervisory staff, the management company was no longer FEBRUARY 27, 2002 APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT PAGE 3 OF 4 performing as they had been previously. As a result, the financial performance of the property (which even under excellent management poses a significant challenge) has suffered. CPAH recognizes that it is fully our responsibility to oversee the management agent, and to that end we are working diligently to improve our asset management practices and compliance systems. We are being assisted by several entities with considerable experience in this effort, including the Housing Development Center in Portland, as well as other local and national intermediaries who work with community development corporations like CPAH. We changed management companies in January 2002 and are in the process of implementing a detailed plan of action which will result in enhanced financial performance at Greenburg Oaks. E. Tax Exempt Stars CPAH is the general partner of the Villa La Paz Limited Partnership, a single asset nonprofit corporation established for the purpose of acquiring the apartments and qualifying for low-income housing tax credits. CPAH's IRS Determination Letter is attached. CPAH undergoes a full audit of its books annually, as does Greenburg Oaks. Mark Schwing of Markusen & Schwing provides audit services for CPAH and the Villa La Paz Limited Partnership. The State of Oregon Housing and Community Services Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development both audit the project annually, visiting 50-100% ofthe 84 units. Ved n of Infonnation As CPAH's executive director, I hereby certify that the information in this application for tax abatement is accurate and complete as of this date, to the best of my knowledge. Income Property Management provides day-today management of the property and is responsible for certijl~ing income levels of each resident for compliance with program guidelines. If additional information is desired on any aspect of this application, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, CPAH Executive Director February 28, 2002 FEBRUARY 27, 2002 APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT PAGE 4 OF 4 AMOV 001 . . e .2, 200.0o au lit FOR AF ® FORDABLE+; HU§ING, I1V`G. F Ann ~.I JuiY.A.- 000 June,30;2001 ' CPAH's mission is to promote a healthy community through the development of permanent affordable housing, sustainable economic growth, and community-based partnerships. We accomplish our mission through work in the following five areas: affordable housing development, outreach and education on affordable housing issues, promotion of policy incentives which support affordable housing, partnerships with individuals and groups in our community, and increased internal organiza- tional capacity. r ~ ~y S Y Accomplishments: 2000-2001 Housing Development Village at Washington Square ✓ CPAH continued work on the Village at Washington Square, closed loans and partner agree- ment to get ready for construction start. CPAH worked with the development team to incor- porate a number of "green building" strategies in the development. ✓ Metzger Park Apartments was resided with hardi-plank, and upper decks were reinforced and repaired. Planning began for other work such as repaving and other common area improve- ments including landscaping and a new play structure. ✓ Capital improvements continued to be implemented at the Greenburg Oaks Apartments, including additional fixtures and furnishings the community space. ✓ CPAH began pre-development work on several projects, and considered service area expansion to a portion of Multnomah County along transit corridors out of Tigard. Community Outreach/Education ✓ CPAH held its third annual HotneWord Bound event. Four well-known Northwest authors joined 200 attendees for dinner at the Sweetbrier Inn in Tualatin, a silent auction, book readings and signings. CPAH held its third annual Dessert Reception to honor volunteers and contributors. These events are an excellent forum for public education. ✓ CPAH continued to participate in Tigard and Tualatin Chamber of Commerce events and other community events including the Tigard Balloon Festival, Tigard Blast and Tualatin Crawfish Festival - to get the word out about the need for affordabie housing. Staff and board members participate on a variety of local task tierces and play leadership roles in civic and religious l,rganizations. ✓ A joint marketing brochure was developed for use by the three community development corporations in Washington County and utilized in a variety of venues. Accomplishments: 2000-2001 (continued) Affordable Housing Policy Incentives ✓ CPAH continued to participate in the Washington County Housing Advocacy Group, which tackles housing issues from a holistic and broad-based perspective. A Portland State University intern was solicited to provide staff assistance, and discussion of how the HOME debt is structured in the County took place. ✓ CPAH participated on the Vision West Housing Issue Team, a countywide initiative to bring government, private and nonprofit sectors together to solve issues in creative ways. ✓ Prepared an annual request for tax abatement for projects from the City of Tigard, worked on additional incentives such as adoption of numeric targets and fee reductions. Community Based Partnerships ✓ CPAH hired a VISTA volunteer to work on the second year of an Individual Development Account (IDA)Program. IDA's offer matched savings and financial literacy to assist low income individuals to purchase high return assets like a first home or an education. Fourteen individuals completed training and four had the opportunity to open matched savings accounts. ✓ CPAH hired a resident services VISTA to assist with Neighborhood Watch, the Summer Youth Program, the computer centers, and After School Programs. ✓ A new Memo of Understanding was signed with Tualatin Valley Centers to assist those in in recovery with affordable rental housing. ✓ Enhanced computer technology through a grant from Intel, purchased a digital camera, scanner and other equipment to be utilized by middle and high school residents. Organizational Capacity ✓ Continued work to improve our financial systems, with assistance from CPA Rob Rambo, based on standards and systems recommended in recent industry- benchmarking sessions. ✓ The staff and board of directors met for an annual strategic planning session at Portland State University, and established key priorities for the coming years: enhanced asset management capacity, formalization of resident services and volunteer programs, and additional housing development. ✓ Added several board members, strengthened our committee structure, and began to work to add an Advisory Council. ✓ Upgraded technology regularly, with assistance from volunteer, Rob Cook, who { also serves as CPAH's webmaster. CPAH's strategic planning session, April 2001 Statement of Financial Position June 30, 2001 Assets Current (cash & equivalents) $ 184,054 Fixed (land, housing, equipment) $ 182,172 Other (housing & receivables) $ 921,823 TOTAL ASSETS $1,288,049 Liabilities & Net Assets Current (payables) $ 10,517 Long Term $ 62,073 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 72,590 Net Assets Unrestricted $1,040,209 Temporarily Restricted $ 175,250 TOTAL NET ASSETS $1,215,459 TOTAL LIABILITIES & NET ASSETS $1,288,049 SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR 2000-2001 getAfewis Ra{aawd 9rom Raolal Y,wmo 3% 13% itfueit 8 DlrldoKd beano 3% 3tae-a & corks* 1091 WnopaieatFooa i% Fend RWirg bided CoM,f3udan SSL CenptWom 97% EXPENSES BY PROGRAM AREA 2000-2001 otm.aa.«Kaea,oad tm ~ J II p.~a.as«.eor :^~;rr me IMrs1e, DWdW rK t~ Note: CPAH's expenses for the year were $227,636.00 A Message from the Executive Director & Board of Directors We are pleased to provide a recap of CPAH's accomplishments for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. We finished pre-development work on The Village at Washington Square-CPAH's first new construction project which will bring 26 units of affordable ? housing online in the spring (2002). The Metzger Park Apartments (32 units) received ' new siding, and a variety of capital improvements continued to be implemented at the Greenburg Oaks Apartments (84 units). A volunteer team helped complete a new land- scaping plan at our single-family rental home. We held the most successful Summer Youth Program in our history and began to incor- porate off-site enrichment activities to our youth services (field trips to play and team). Participants of the I®A program completed Our resident Neighborhood Watch group elected to adopt a portion of Greenburg Road a 6-week financial literacy course. to maintain and we welcomed assistance from over eight corporate or civic volunteer teams and over fifty individuals. We signed new Memorandums of Understanding with partners in the community, and renewed our commitments with existing partners, par- ticularly the Tigard-Tualatin Schools, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Tigard Police, Community Action Organization/Neighborshare, the Good Neighbor Center, Hope- Spring and Tualatin Valley Housing Partners. After six years in operation, we have grown from a staff of one to a staff of four, along with two full-time VISTA volunteers; from a board of eight to a board of twelve. CPAH has become a sustainable nonprofit with a solid base of local support and ambitious plans for the future. Our work is extremely difficult but immensely rewarding. In 1949, the ^^~~r~_^^ U.S. government declared a national goal: a decent home and suitable living environ- ment for every American family. An ambitious goal - and one that eludes achievement - but the one that keeps CPAH focused and moving forward! Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue brings its fire L prevention program to CPAH properties each summer. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Becky Smith Executive Director Board Chair CI'.L &H s Net Assets t 1995/96 2000/01 $108,405 $1,288,049 ab7inett Ce reenburg 0a _n ~I II !-i I ~lT 4 n ~~yp~.•. Y~ ' 1yFyr .v `i - +1 + ~ 1 Greenbur Oaks Resident Income Certification INITIAL INITIAL NEXT SQUARE Rent MOVE IN INCOME TOTAL RECERT INITIAL LAST RECERT UNIT $ TYPE FOOT Basis DATE LIMIT INCOME INCOME CERT CERT DUE 1 2X1 950 0.6 02110/01 $ 26,850 $ 22,923 $ - 02/10/01 02/10/01 02/10/02 2 2X1 950 60% 08/25/00 $ 28,980 $ 17,072 $ 8,568 08/25/00 08/25/01 08/25102 3 2X1 950 60% 01/04/00 $ 28,300 $ 18,053 $ 21,720 01/04/00 01/04/01 01104102 4 2X1 950 50% 08/03/01 $ 25,150 $ 16,120 $ - 08/03/01 08/03/01 08103102 5 2X1 950 60% 05/24/01 $30,200 $20,544 NIA 05/24/01 05/24/01 05/24/02 6 2X1 950 50% 08117/01 $ 25,150 $ 24,096 $ 08/17/01 08/17/01 08/17/02 7 2X1 950 50% 03104100 $ 26,200 $ 25,740 $ 30,740 03/04/00 03/04/01 03/04/02 8 2X1 950 50% 02/26/98 $ 22,300 $ 6,924 $ 22,258 02/23/98 02/23101 02/23/02 9 2X1 950 50% 01/17198 $ 18,500 $ 13,520 $ 21,428 01/17/98 01/17/01 01/17/02 10 2X1 950 50% 01/29/00 $ 20,950 $ 19,788 $ 5,124 01/29100 04103101 01/29/02 11 2X1 950 60% 10/28/00 $ 25,800 $ 11,536 $ - 10128100 10128100 10/28/01 12 2X1 950 60% 01127198 $ 22,200 $ 16,968 $ 17,909 01/27/98 01/27/01 01/27/02 13 2X1 950 50% 12/05100 $ 21,500 $ 19,388 $ - 12/05/00 12/05/00 12/05/01 14 3X1 1100 60% 12/22/00 $ 37,380 $ 16,640 $ - 12122/00 12122/00 12/22/01 15 2X1 950 60% 08/07/98 $ 26,760 $ 16,788 $ 11,342 08/07/98 08/07/01 08/07/02 16 3X1 1100 50% 10/07/99 $ 20,950 $ 10,680 $ 20,406 10/07/99 10/07/01 10/07/02 17 2X1 950 50% 09/19/01 $ 25,150 $ 9,940 $ - 09/19/01 09/19/01 09/19/02 18 3X1 1100 60% 01109199 $ 32,160 $ 16,400 $ 27,040 01109199 01/09/0-1 01/09/02 19 2X1 950 50% 08/09/01 $ 30,200 $ 21,024 $ - 08/09/01 08/09101 08/09/02 20 3X1 1100 50% 03/23/98 $ 28,750 $ 25,950 $ 20,600 03/18/98 03/18/01 03/18102 21 2X1 950 50% 08/31/01 $ 27,950 $ 25,480 $ - 08/31101 08/31/01 08/31102 22 3X1 1100 50% 03/17/98 $ 24,800 $ 17,680 $ 14,560 03/12198 03/17/01 03/17/02 23 2X1 950 60% 24 3X1 1100 60% 08/16/01 $ 27,950 $ 26,124 $ - 08/16/01 08/16/01 08/16/02 25 1X1 760 60% 11/28/00 $ 25,800 $ 19,164 $ - 11/28/00 11/28/00 11/28/01 26 1X1 760 50% 27 1X1 760 50% 28 1X1 760 60% 10/14198 $ 20,820 $ 20,030 $ 30,180 10/14198 10/14/00 10/14101 29 IX1 760 50% 09118/01 $ 22,350 $ 7,020 $ 09/18101 09/18/01 09/18/02 30 1X1 760 50% 12/27/00 $ 21,500 $ 17,077 $ - 12/27/00 12/27100 12/27/01 31 1X1 760 60% 04127/01 $ 26,820 $ 19,043 N/A 04/27/01 04127/01 04/27/02 32 1X1 760 50% 02/01/01 $ 18,800 $ 15,393 $ - 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01102 33 1X1 760 50% 10/01101 $ 25,150 $ 11,860 $ - 10/01/01 10/01101 10/01/02 34 1X1 760 60% 06/01/00 $ 22,600 $ 3,648 $ - 06/01/00 06/01/00 06/01/01 35 1Xi 760 60% 12/01/00 $ 22,560 $ 22,474 $ - 12/01/00 12/01/00 12/01/01 36 1X1 760 60% 02/22/01 $ 18,880 $ 6,360 $ - 02/22/01 02122101 02/22102 37 2X1 950 50% 07/16197 $ 23,150 $ 17,160 $ 24,070 07/16/97 07/16/01 07/16102 38 2X1 950 60% 12/15/00 $25,800 $16,820 $ - 12/15/00 12/15/00 12/15101 39 2X1 950 60% 09/08/00 $ 28,980 $ 17,240 $ 6,036 09/08/00 09108/01 09/08102 40 2x1 950 60% 05/21/99 $ 28,300 $ 22,248 $ 19,011 05/21/99 05121/01 05/21/02 41 2X1 950 50% 12/30/99 $ 20,950 $ 5,124 $ 18,924 12/30/99 12/30100 12/30/01 42 2X1 950 60% 07101/98 $ 19,850 $ 18,720 $ 28,627 07/01/98 07/01/01 07/01/02 43 2X1 950 60% 05/17/00 $ 25,800 $ 23,682 $ 21,320 05/17/00 05/17/01 05/17/02 44 2X1 950 50% 07115/97 $ 16,200 $ 15,395 $ 15,570 07/15197 07/15101 07/15/02 45 2X1 950 60% 05/14/99 $ 25,150 $ 10,300 $ 22,204 05114/99 05114/00 05/14/01 46 2X1 950 50% 04/17199 $ 23,600 $ 22,616 $ 16,238 04/17/99 04/17/00 04/17/01 47 2X1 950 50% 05128198 $ 19,850 $ 5,124 $ 25,316 05/28/98 05/28/01 05128/02 48 2x1 950 60% 49 2X1 950 60% 02/05/01 $ 32,200 $ 6,036 $ - 2/5/2001 02/05/01 02/05102 50 2X1 950 50% 08/24/01 $ 22,350 $ 21,764 $ - 08/24/01 08/24101 08124/02 51 2X1 950 60% 09/19/98 $ 26,760 $ 20,000 $ 20,800 09109/98 09/09/00 09/09101 52 2X1 950 60% 02/27/99 $ 25,140 $ 13,776 $ 6,372 02/27/99 02/27101 02127/02 53 2X1 950 50% 54 2X1 950 50% 10/08/01 $ 22,350 $ 21,660 $ - 10108/01 10/08/01 10/08/02 v INITIAL INITIAL NEXT SQUARE Rent MOVE IN INCOME TOTAL FIECERT INITIAL LAST RECERT LIMIT 0 TYPE FOOT Basis DATE LIMIT INCOME INCOME CERT CERT DUE 55 2X1 950 50% 04110/99 $ 23,600 $ 9,453 $ 13,645 04/10199 04101/01 04/01/02 56 2X1 950 60% 08112/00 $ 21,500 $ 20,800 $ - 08/12/00 08/12/00 08112/01 57 2X1 950 50% 12101198 $ 19,850 $ 15,070 $ 8,918 12/01/98 12/01100 12/01101 58 2X1 950 50% 05/12/99 $ 25,150 $ 10,948 $ 9,100 05/12199 05/12101 05/12/02 59 2X1 950 60% 07113194 $ 25,020 $ 23,657 $ 31,239 09/08/97 08/08101 08/08102 60 2X1 950 50% 04/10198 $ 22,300 $ 6,036 $ 20,280 04109198 04/09101 04109/02 61 2X1 950 50% 07/13197 $ 20,850 $ 12,220 $ 8,604 07/13/97 07/13/01 07113/02 62 3X1 1100 60% 63 2X1 950 50% 09/14101 $ 19,550 $ 6,620 $ - 09/14/01 09114101 09114102 64 3X1 1100 50% 10/02/01 $ 27,950 $ 19,556 $ - 10101/01 10/02101 10102/02 65 2X1 950 60% 05/01/00 $ 28,980 $ 16,341 $ - 05/01100 05/01/00 05/01/01 66 3X1 1100 50% 05129198 $ 22,300 $ 9,528 $ 22.320 05128/98 05/29101 05/28/02 67 2X1 950 50% 08131/01 $ 19,550 $ 18,726 $ - 08131/01 08/31101 08131/02 68 3X1 1100 50% 10/19/1999 $ 26,200 $ 25,033 $ 27,840 10/19199 10/19/01 10/19/02 69 2X1 950 60% 04125100 $ 25,800 $ 12,684 $ - 04/25/00 04/25100 04101101 70 3X1 1100 50% 03/01100 $ 26,200 $ 19,285 $ 20,720 03/01100 03101101 03101102 71 2X1 950 50% 09/24/01 $ 27,950 S 20,560 $ - 09/24/01 09/24101 09124102 72 3X1 1100 60% 02/27/99 $ 28,300 $ 21,011 $ 27,079 02/27/99 .02/27101 02/27/02 73 2X1 950 60% 10/01100 $ 28,980 $ 15,600 $ 5,412 10/01/00 10/01/01 10/01/02 74 2X1 950 60% 75 2X1 950 60% 10113/00 $ 32,200 $ 31,200 $ - 10/13100 10113/00 10/13/01 76 2X1 950 60% 05123/01 $ 27,950 $ 22,796 $ - 05/23/01 05/23101 05/23102 77 2X1 950 50% 11101/97 $ 18,500 $ 17,638 $ 19,568 11/01/97 11/01/01 11/01/02 78 2X1 950 50% Employee NIA NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A 79 2X1 950 60% 12/01/98 $ 14,910 $ 22,300 $ 17,680 12/01/98 12/01/00 12101/01 80 2X1 950 60% 06/24198 $ 23,820 $ 6,864 $ - 06/24/98 12/01/99 06/01/00 81 2X1 950 60% 05/16/01 $ 26,820 $ 25,124 $ - 05/16101 05/16/01 05/16/02 82 2X1 950 60% 01/28/99 $ 23,820 $ 18,859 $ 17,160 01/28/99 01/28/00 01/01/01 83 2X1 950 50% 11101/97 $ 16,200 S 3,640 $ 22,900 11101/97 04/05/01 11/01/01 84 2X1 950 60% 08!01100 S 32,200 S 19,164 S 7,404 08/01/00 08/01/01 08/01!02 d ®AkS ~ G~ Residential Profile t # # Ethnic" Famlly tYP$ _ 9 °t, 0 3 2~ 26 0 e . 4t~ ~ _ Wo 9 ~ 149 T4~ 2 3°~+ 12 16'~ Incom 50'k ° 2.A 5} 0 07+ 0 0~ 55 °1c 0 ~l 21 90"x' 24 ig 0 D'i' 0 l0 145 T3'j0 16'4 12 A2 12 78N. 12 33 146 12 5T 136 1 16 8 sur►aY 21 ~,9~• Totes # Total # INndoiu vs lh Ids rip hove0not 200 1 of add to i panoSl s 3 occasionsN n g.18,000r ~ ~ YYtii B o" a' m° tsxh~V~ln A~~gehouseholdln tnthecflanP t ..:~....~.....a~a~orpercenta98s ~~ietndtvtdu>~i$llvlnmin g 75°P°~ ah0u" one ethnialy) a9 the tndt~►td~~$ s~ ident fi+ as more than ~ and taecauso households maY Note: Because of rounding' INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY DISTRICT DIRECTOR P. O. BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OH 45201 Employer Identification Number: Date: 93-1155559 MAA 1 1 INS DLN: 17053030720009 COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE Contact Person: HOUSING THOMAS E O'BRIEN ID# 31187 PO BOX 23206 Contact Telephone Number: TIGARD, OR 97281-3206 (877) 829-5500 Our Letter Dated: February 1995 Addendum Applies: No Dear Applicant: This modifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that you would be treated as an organization that is not a private foundation until the expiration of your advance ruling period. Your exempt status under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) is still in effect. Based on the information you submitted, we have determined that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are an organization of the type described in section 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unless the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. However, if you lose your section 509(a)(1) status, a grantor or contributor may not rely on this determination if he or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to act, or the substantial or material change on the part of the organization that resulted in your loss of such status, or if he or she acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would no longer be classified as & section 509(a)(1) organization. If we have indicated in the heading of this letter that an addendum applies, the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about your private foundation status, please keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown above. Sincerely yours, e-;~e 4&Y7 District Director Letter 1050 (DO/CG) u a o ~ o • • s FOR AFFORDABLE 11OUSING, INC. PQ Box 23206 - Tigard OR 97281-3206 - Tel: 503.968.2724 • Fax: 503.598.8923 -www.cpahinc.org • info@cpahinc.org YOUTH IDA (YIDA) PROGRAM (Beginning January 2002) CPAII's mission is to promote a healthy community through the development of permanent affordable housing, sustainable economic growth, and community-based partnerships. Complementing the youth programs already in existence through Resident Services and the adult WIDA program, the youth IDA program is part of a new and innovative approach to combating poverty that focuses not just on meeting the most immediate needs of youth from low-income families, but also on the long-term benefits of giving youth opportunities for their future similar to those given to youth of middle and upper class families. It works to cultivate sustainable economic growth for these youth as they mature into adults. Goals of Youth IDA Program • To empower youth to set goals.and take personal responsibility at home and at school. • To learn about money management. • To remove financial barriers to academic, athletic, and artistic activities for youth whose families have limited incomes. • To engage youth in community service activities that benefit the community and build self-esteem. • To empower youth to see that it is possiblexo move out of poverty. What are Youth Individual Development Accounts? YIDAs are matched saving accounts designed to help youth from low-income families save for assets that are educational, artistic, or athletic. Examples of permissible assets include, a computer, class at the Portland Children's Theatre, sports fees and equipment, or a musical instrument. For every dollar a participant saves, they receive two dollars in matched savings funds. Financial Literacy Training The financial literacy component of the YIDA program consists of bi-monthly money management classes throughout the duration of participation in the program. These classes are designed specifically for youth with low-incomes and are taught in an informal way that includes i topical discussions and money management games. Topics of the classes include: history of money and banking, setting financial goals, budgeting and saving, advertising, and credit. Community Service In addition to saving earned money and depositing it into their accounts, participants can initiate and participate in community service at area organizations to receive match money. This is ideal for youth who have no work history or concept of work in that it provides a way for youth to "work." Not only does the community service element provide a foundational understanding of work, it fosters a commitment to community service and helps youth gain a wider perspective of the community around them. This broader perspective could lead to increased interest and' achievement in school. Community Need In Washington County, approximately 4,668 youth aged 10-17 live in poverty (9.3 percent). One-third of all Oregon high school students fail to earn a high-school diploma, putting our state dropout rate in the bottom twenty percent nationally. Families with limited incomes face financial barriers in providing *academic and other opportunities for their children. Budget cuts in public schools are resulting in fees for extracurricular activities. Programs outside the schools, such as summer camps, art, drama, and music classes, are often financially out of reach. These financial barriers make it difficult for youth from lower-income families to participate in programs that develop skills, build confidence, and bolster achievement in school. For more information about the YIDA program contact: Shannon Beck, ITDA VIS'T'A Program Coordinator 503.443.2117 or email at cpah.ida@verizon.net e FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC. • e PO Box 23206 • Tigard OR 97281-3206 • Tel:503.968.2724 • FaX:503.598.8923 • www.cpahinc.org • info@cpahinc.org City,00,65 Thrd village at Washington Square 11157-'11163 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard A. Property Description 13. Project's Charitable Purpose C. Certification of Resident Income Levels D. How Tax Exemption Will Benefit Residents E. Tax Exempt Status Verification of Information Attachments: 9 CPAH Annual Report 2000-2001 • Construction Photos . Marketing Flyer • Project Rent Schedule • IRS Letter a 000 173tt~ A. Prop edy DeseApHon Village at Washington Square Is located at 11157-11163 SW Hall Boulevard, between SW Spruce and SW Pfaffle in Tigard. The Village at Washington Square is CPAH's first new construction project. Construction began in August 2001 and construction completion is scheduled for the end of April 2002 (see construction photos and marketing flyer). The site is located within the Washington Square Regional Center and is proximate to many employment opportunities as well as public transportation and other services. The neighborhood has a combination of single-family and multi-family dwellings. The Village at Washington Square includes three residential buildings with a total of 26 dwelling units, and a community building all arranged around a central courtyard/play yard. The development includes one studio, seven one- bedroom, five two-bedroom, seven three-bedroom and six four-bedroom units. Eleven of the units will be traditional apartments, while the other 15 will be townhouse style units with entrances on the second floor. The development will include 31 parking spaces. The development will include a small green space with benches, a path and a butterfly garden. The total site contains .84 acres (Lot 1 is .73 acres and Lot 2 is .11 acres). The site was up-zoned to R-40. The pre-construction assessed value was $177,530 ($77,600 for Lot 1 and $99,930 for Lot 2) and 2000-2001 property taxes levied were $2,732 ($1,194 for Lot 1 and $1,538 for Lot 2). Legal Description: Partition Plat 1998-038, Lot 1 and Partition Plat 1998-038, Lot 2 in the City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon Tax Lot: 1 S135DA (04600 & 04700) 0. Projecafs Ci ble Purpwve The mission of Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. (CPAH) is to promote a healthy community through the development of: permanent affordable housing, sustainable economic growth, and community-based partnerships. The Village at Washington Square will be the first addition of affordable units to the Tigard housing stock in a decade. The 26 units will be affordable to very low-, low- and moderate-income residents on a permanent basis (The Village at Washington Square will provide affordable housing for a minimum of sixty (60) years, with maximum rents regulated by covenants on the property). Rents will be affordable to households at 30%,45% and 50% of area median income and significantly below market rents. Half of the units will be three and four bedroom units and will allow us to serve large low-income families who have often been unable to find larger, affordable units in Tigard. CPAH will expan 1 its community partnerships (with Tigard Police, Tigard Library and Tigard- Tualatin School L shict) and resident services program to the Village at Washington Square. Apartments at the Village at Washington Square will be made available to participants in the 1 lopesprii,g and SAFAH programs (self-sufficiency programs for families in recovery or escaping dot ncstic violence) and clients of Tualatin Valley Centets (for individuals in recovery). The Community Center will be the focal point of the support, skill building and community building activities offered to residents and will include small computer center. Youth programs will include homework mentoring, access to computers and high speed Internet, after-school crafts and story hours, an eleven week Summer Youth Program and a Youth Individual Development FEBRUARY 27, 2002 APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT PAGE 2 OF 4 EM Mimi Account Program (financial literacy training and matched savings so youth can invest in a item of their choice that is academic, athletic or artistic). Adult programs will include Neighborhood Watch, GED tutoring, access to computers and high speed Internet, job search mentoring and an Individual Development Account program (a financial literacy and matched savings program to help low-income families to invest in a home or in education). The Village at Washington Square is located within a census tract (309) which has a higher than average concentration of low-income rental households (median income $25,543 vs. $35,669 citywide in 1990). The number of residents without a high school diploma is notably higher than for Tigard as a whole (15% vs. 9%). This area boasted the second highest concentration of children under 9 of the eight census tracts in Tigard. While this area represents 9% of Tigard's population base, it is home to nearly 16% of the city's minority households. Q cation of Reskient Dome Levels Resident income levels will be verified upon application. Residents may remain in their units as long as they income qualify at entry. Rents will vary based on unit size and income targeted (see attached rent schedule), but most will be in the $300-600 range, well below the market for the area. Resident income will be certified on an annual basis. Del Tax Exemption Will Berreft RZesklerds Our financial analysis for the Village at Washington Square assumed property taxes at zero. For both the initial development, and long-term operations of the project, full tax abatement is essential. A rough estimate of property taxes based on the cost of the project plus the cost of the land is $55,000. This results in a direct reduction in rents of approximately ($2115 per unit per year, or increased rents of $176 per unit per month). Thus, tax abatement offers a direct benefit to residents who will pay dramatically lower rents. Tax abatement is key to the long-tern sustainability of a project operating with such low rents. Rents at these levels are the only option for families working in the surrounding retail, service sector and light industrial settings. E. Tart Exempt ohm CPAH is the general partner of the Village at Washington Square Limited Partnership, a single asset nonprofit corporation. CPAH's IRS Determination Letter is attached. CPAH undergoes full audit of its books annually, as will the Village at Washington Square. Mark Schwing of Markusen & Schwing in Beaverton provides audit services for CPAH. Blume, Loveridge & Co. provides audit services for the Village at Washington Square Limited Partnership. The State of Oregon Housing and Community Services Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development both will audit the project annually, visiting 50-100% of the 26 units. The tax credit investor (Limited Partner) also monitors the project on a monthly basis and visits on at least an i a annual basis. FEBRUARY 27, 2002 APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT PAGE 3 OF 4 d As CPAH's executive director, I hereby certify that the information in this application for tax abatement is accurate and complete as of this date, to the best of my knowledge. In== Property Management will provide the day-to-day managmart of the property and is responsible for certifying income levels of each resident for compliance with program guidelines. If additional information is desired on any aspect of this application, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sheila Greadaw-Fink, CPAH Executive Direr February 28, 2002 FEBRUARY 27, 2002 APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT PAGE 4 OF 4 ille In ur nt 11163 SW Fall Blvd a Tigard (503) 639Y-6514 lF H- ~:r: -1 .L' ~L i:. 1. a rind Amenities include: e Open, spacious floor plans ® Le si / e WID in all 3 & 4 Bedroom units e Patio or balcony with storage ®ve-i y 2 room for every unit e Beautifully landscaped with butterfly garden & play area e Community center with Energy Efficient Studios, computers 1, 2, 3 & 4~ Bedrooms ° Environmentally friendly construction e Great neighborhood Affordable rents from conveniently located near $260-$740 schools, parks and shopping 0 Four bus lines within walking Income limits apply distance Owned by Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc., a Tigard-based ® nonprofit corporation dedicated to the production and preservation of affordable ® housing. Professionally managed by Income Property Management. EQUAL HOUSING V OPPORTUNITY VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE RENT SCHEDULE Unit Type # of Units Rost % of MFI Studio 1 287 30F 1 BR/ 1 BA 2 299 30% 1 BR/ 1 BA 5 528 50% 2 BR/ 1 BA 5 525 45% 3 BR/ 11/2 BA 1 380 30% 3 BR/ 11/2 BA 1 527 40% 3 BR/ 1 1/2 BA 5 675 50% 4 BR/2 BA 0 42$ 30% 4 BR/2 BA 3 594 40% 4 BR/2 BA 3 759 50% INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY DISTRICT DIRECTOR P. O. BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OH 45201 Employer Identification Number: Date: 93-1155559 NAA 1 1 jigs DLN: 17053030720009 COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE Contact Person: HOUSING THOMAS E O'BRIEN ID# 31187 PO BOX 23206 Contact Telephone Number: TIGARD, OR 97281-3206 (877) 829-5500 Our Letter Dated: February 1995 Addendum Applies: No Dear Applicant: _ This modifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that you would be treated as an organization that is not a private foundation until the expiration of your advance ruling period. Your exempt status under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) is still in effect. Based on the information you submitted, we have determined that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are an organization of the type described in section 509(a)(1) and 1'70(b)(1)(A)(vi). Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unless the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. However, if you lose your section 509(a)(1) status, a grantor or contributor may not rely on this determination if he or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to act, or the substantial or material change on the part of the organization that resulted in your loss of such status, or if he or she acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would no longer be classified as a..section 509(a)(1) organization. If we have indicated in the heading of this letter that an addendum applies, the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about your private foundation status, please keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown above. Sincerely yours, 4&Y7 2!Cd10-`1 District Director Letter 1050 (DO/CG) P, ® e u s FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC. Miffefflull MIMI PO Box 23206 • Tigard OR 97281-3206 • Te1:503.968.2724 • Fax:503.598.8923 • www.cpahinc.org • into@cpahinc.org r 1w Ar AWN mw TM Aba6ulunt T"angela Single Family Rental Home 9330 SW °Tangela A. Property Description 13. Project's Charitable Purpose C. Certification of Resident Income Bevels D. How 'fax Exemption Will Benefit Residents E. Tax Exempt Status !Verification of Information Attachments: CPAH Annual Report 2000-2001 IRS Letter ~ \~yv \ggSy~~? X14 ~ 4 A. Property Desedption Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. acquired the single family "Tangela House" at 9330 SW Tangela in Tigard, on December 31, 1999, with assistance from the Washington County CDBG program and a loan from Washington Mutual Savings Bank It is located just two blocks from CPAH's largest multifamily project, Greenburg Oaks (formerly Villa La Paz). It is on a quiet cul-de-sac in largely single-family residential neighborhood, off Greenburg Road. The total site is 5,450 square feet and is zoned R-7 residential. The two-story structure is 1,916 square feet in size. CPAH converted an upstairs bonus room into an additional bedroom and completed other necessary repairs after initial acquisition. Legal Description: Barbee Court, Lot 1, Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon. Tax Lot: 1 S 135DC-05300. H. "eces ClarkaMe Purpose The mission of Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. (CPAH) is to promote a healthy community through the development of: permanent affordable housing, sustainable economic growth, and community-based partnerships. CPAH acquired the four-bedroom single family home in order to assist the County and the Good Neighbor Center Shelter in meeting a `replacement unit' requirement triggered by the Uniform Relocation Act when the shelter acquired its current site and demolished a single family home housing a low-income family. CPAH completed needed repairs and upgraded the home to a five- bedroom, in order to provide a rare opportunity in our community-an affordable single-family rental for a very large family. The home is proximate to CPAH's Greenburg Oaks property, where management and resident services are available. The residents of this home are very low-income and eligible for services CPAH offers and coordinates. These services include a computer center, community room, neighborhood watch, Individual Development Account and other programs. The resident services coordinator personally visits the home on a regular basis to ensure that the property is well maintained and to develop an ongoing relationship with the residents. The home is located within a census tract (309) which has a higher than average concentration of low-income rental households (median income $25,843 vs. $35,669 citywide in 1990). The number of residents without a high school diploma is notably higher than for Tigard as a whole (15% vs. 9%). This area boasted the second highest concentration of children under 9 of the eight census tracts in Tigard. While this area represents 9% of Tigard's population base, it is home to nearly 16% of the city's minority households. C. Certification of Resident Income Levels Resident income level is verified upon application, and must be less than 60% of the area's median income. Rent for this home has been set at $950, well below that set by HUD's Fair Market Rent schedule for a five bedroom ($1296). HUD's Fair Market Rents are significantly lower than the average rents in a given area, but indicate the maximum rent an individual with FEBRUARY 27002 APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT PAGE 2OF3 ,2 Section 8 rental assistance may choose under the program. Income is recertified on an annual basis. D. Fluent Tax Exemption Vill Benefft Plesklert Taxes for the year 2000-2001 were $2,100, or $175 per month. We developed our initial proforma with debt service coverage at 1.15 showing full tax abatement, and rent of $850. We rented the home for $950, and did not file a tax abatement application in the first year we operated it. Because if was our first single family home, we wanted to ensure that our operating budget performed as assumed. We commissioned a thorough inspection survey prior to purchase, and offered a reduced price in order to make additional safety repairs. During the first year of operation, we have replaced the hot water heater and fiunace components, as well as completing roof repairs. A volunteer group completed an upgrade to the landscaping in summer 2001 as part of Washington County Clean and Green. Plans to paint home through a volunteer team in spring 2001 fell through and we working on soliciting a team for spring/summer 2002. Without tax abatement, we would need to implement a rent increase of $175 monthly (based on 2000-2001 property taxes). Thus tax abatement provides a direct benefit to the low- income residents who pay a lower rent. E. Tax Exempt boas CPAH owns the Tangela property, with Washington County in first position and Washington Mutual in second on the outstanding debt. CPAH is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, which is audited annually by Mark Schwing of Markusen and Schwing. In completing CPAH's audits, Mark reviews all aspects of compliance under the County grant and Washington Mutual loan documents. VeMcatien of Infonnafl ><n As CPAH's deputy director, I hereby certify that the information in this application for tax abatement is accurate and complete as of this date, to the best of my knowledge. Income Property Management provides the day-today management of the property and is responsible for certifying income levels of each resident for compliance with program guidelines. If additional information is desired on any -„YeCt of this application, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Jill Sherman, CPAH Deputy Director February 28, 2002 FEBRUARY 27, 2002 APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT PAGE 3OF3 . ti INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY DISTRICT DIRECTOR P. O. BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OH 95201 Employer Identification Number: Date: 93-1155559 WAR 1 l 1~~ DLN: 17053030720009 COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE Contact Person: HOUSING THOMAS E O'BRIEN ID# 31187 PO BOX 23206 Contact Telephone Number: TIGARD, OR 97281-3206 (877) 829-5500 Our Letter Dated: February 1995 Addendum Applies: No Dear Applicant: _ This modifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that you would be treated as an organization that is not a private foundation until the expiration of your advance ruling period. Your exempt status under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) is still in effect. Based on the information you submitted, we have determined that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are an organization of the type described in section 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unless the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. However, if you lose your section 509(a)(1) status, a grantor or contributor may not rely on this determination if he or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to act, or the substantial or material change on the part of the organization that resulted in your loss of such status, or if he or she acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would no longer be classified as a.section 509(a)(1) organization. If we have indicated in the heading of this letter that an addendum applies, the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about your private foundation status, please keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown above. Sincerely yours, District Director Letter 1050 (DO/CG) COMMUNITYPARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IN C. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WITH INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT Year Ended June 30, 2001 With Comparative Totals For 2000 Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Audited Financial Statements Year Ended June 30, 2001 With Comparative Totals for 2000 CONTENTS Independent Auditors' Report 1 Financial Statements Statements of Financial Position 2 Statement of Activities 3 Statement of Functional Expense 4 Statements of Cash Flows S Notes to Financial Statements 6-14 Ent 4150 SW 110th Ave.. Beaverton. Oregon 97005 phone (603)5744511 tax (503)644-2157 INDEPENDENT AUDI'T'ORS' REPORT September 4, 2001 Board of Directors Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Tigard, Oregon We have audited the accompanying statements of financial position of Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. (CPAH) (a non-profit Corporation) as of June 30, 2001 and the related statements of activities, functional expense and of cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of CPAH's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. The prior year summarized comparative information has been derived from CPAH's 2000 financial statements and, in our report dated December 20, 2000, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards in the United States. Those standards. require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all i material respects, the financial position of Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. at June 30, 2001, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. Markusen & Schwing Certified Public Accountants and Consultants Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Statements of Financial Position June 30, 2001 and 2000 ASSETS 2001 2000 Current Assets Cash $ ' 106,280 $ 56,559 Cash, Tenant Security Deposits 950 950 Investments 13,002 16,211 Accounts Receivable, Grants 56,125 103,075 Accounts Receivable, Other 6,717 - Prepaid Expense 980 - Total Current Assets 184,054 176,795 Fixed Assets Land 49,000 49,000 Low-Income Housing 130,689 130,689 Furniture and Equipment 27,389 23,239 207,078 202,928 Less Accumulated Depreciation 24,906 12,705 182,172 _ 190,223 Other Assets Low Income Housing Limited Partnerships Predevelopment Costs - Washington Square 131,449 40,153 Investment 419,237 419,333 Notes and accrued interest receivable 335,538 284,559 Account Receivable, asset management fee 35,599 27,280 921,823 771,325 Total Assets $ 1,288,049 $ 1,138,343 LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $ 1,220 $ - Current Portion of Long-Term Debt 637 590 Accrued Payroll and Taxes 2,280 12,770 Tenant Security Deposits 950 950 Accrued Retirement Plan 5,430 19,816 Total Current Liabilities 10,517 34,126 Long-Term Debt, less Curent Portion 62,073 62,710 Total Liabilities 72,590 96,836 Net Assets Unrestricted 1,040,209 863,332 Temporarily Restricted 175,250 178,175 Total Net Assets 1,215,459 1,041,507 Total Liabilities and Net Assets $ 1,288,049 $ 1,138,343 See notes to financial statements -2- Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Statement of Activities Year Ended June 30, 2001 Temporarily Unrestricted Restricted Totals Revenue and Support , Grants and Contracts $ 191,720 $ 50,250 $ 241,970 Contributions 70,601 - 70,601 In-Kind Contributions 18,650 - 18,650 Fund Raising 26,813 - 26,813 Management Fees 22,914 - 22,914 Unrealized Investment Losses (3,209) - (3,209) Interest and Dividend Income 13,038 - 13,038 Rental Income 11,565 - 11,565 Other Revenue (Loss) (554) - (554) Net Assets Released from Restriction 53,175 ~53,175) - Total Revenue and Support 404,713 (2,925) 401,788 Expenses Programs Services Housing Education and Outreach 28,740 - 28,740 Resident Services 64,424 - 64,424 Housing Development 51,596 - 51,596 Asset Management 47,517 - 47,517 Support Services Management and General 13,976 - 13,976 Fundraisung 21,583 - 21,583 Total Expense 227,836 - 227,836 Change in Net Assets 176,877 (2,925) 173,952 Net Assets, Beginning of Year 863,332 178,175 1,041,507 Net Assets, End of Year $ 1,040,209 $ 175,250 $ 1,215,459 See notes to financial statements -3- N N o; a ~d' N N a w N N N N N x WS G N N Q W ^ b 00 Y Q .O Q .~+1 O. p O. •if 4~ w ~ f •f V ~ V N1 h ~ Y b • x en a ~ ~ t~.i ~ ~ N V 7 • • e'~ • < n W ~ M ~ n O N N a N N p A N ~ N a y N N P4 U Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Statements of Cash Flows Years Ended June 30, 2001 and 2000 2001 2000 Cash Flows from Operating Activities Change in Net Assets $173,952 $ 155,813 Prior Period Adjustment - - Non Cash Items In-Kind Contributions-Furniture and Equipment (4,150) (1,488) Depreciation 12,201 6,757 Partnership Loss 96 57 Investment Donated - (7,560) Unrealized Investment Losses 3,209 3,556 Net Change in Operating Assets and Liabilities Accounts Receivable 31,914 3,098 Prepaid Expense (980) - Accrued Interest Receivable (11,304) (11,072) Accounts Payable 1,220 - Accrued Retirement Plan (14,386) 10,730 Accrued Payroll and Taxes (10,490) 2,560 Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities 181,282 162,451 Cash Flows from Investing Activities Purchases of Fixed Assets - (117,315) Predevelopment Costs (91,296) (40,153) Loan to limited partnership (39,675 - Net Cash (Used) by Investing Activities (130,971) (157,468 Cash Flows from Financing Activities Payments on Long-Term Debt 590) 233 Net Increase in Cash 49,721 4,750 Cash, Beginning of Year 56,559 51,809 Cash, End of Year $ 106,280 $ 56,559 Supplemental Disclosures Cash Paid During the Year for Interest $ 4,806 $ 2,016 a Cash Paid During the Year for Income Taxes. H H Schedule of Noncash Investing and Financing Transactions Purchases of Fixed Assets $ 4,150 $ 182,336 Less: h Donated (4,150) (1,488) Amount Financed - (63,533) $ - $ 117,315 See notes to fmancial statements -5- Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2001 and 2000 (1) The Organization and Summae-y of Significant Accounting Policies The Organization Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. (CPAH) is a nonprofit Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of Oregon. CPAH has programs to provide housing, community development and community self--help projects to low and moderate income persons in Washington County. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Basis of Accounting CPAH follows the accrual basis of accounting applicable to not-for-profit organizations. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues and support are recorded as earned and expenses are recorded as incurred. Revenues for services to the public are recognized as services are provided. Support from contributors is recorded as unconditional promises to give are received. For grant and contract supported activities, revenues are recorded as expenses eligible for reimbursement are incurred.: When grant and contract payments are received prior to incurring eligible expenses, those amounts are reflected s deferred revenues. CPAH reports gifts of cash and other assets as restricted support if they are received with donor stipulations that limit the use of the donated assets. When a donor restriction expires, that is, when a stipulated time restriction ends or purpose restriction is accomplished, temporarily restricted net assets are reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported in the statement of activities as net assets released from restrictions. CPAH reports all gifts as unrestricted support unless explicit donor stipulations specify how the donated assets must be used. Gifts of long-lived assets with explicit restrictions that specify how the assets are to be used to acquire long-lived assets are reported as restricted support. Absent explicit donor stipulations about how long long-lived assets must be maintained, CPAH reports expirations of donor restrictions when the donated or acquire long-lived assets are purchased. -6- Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Motes to Financial Statements June 30, 2001 and 2000 (1) The Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies- Continued Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. Concentration of Economic Risk CPAH receives a substantial portion of its support from governmental agencies. If these funds were not available CPAH might have difficulty continuing operations. In the opinion of management, CPAH will continue to receive sufficient funding to assure its existence. Cash and Equivalents Cash and equivalents consist of cash in banks-checking and money market. Fair Value of Financial Instruments CPAH estimates die fair values of its various financial instruments do not differ materially from the aggregate carrying value of its financial instruments recorded in the accompanying Statement of Financial Position. Accounts Receivable Accounts receivable that are uncollectible are charged directly to expense. This method is not materially different in result from the allowance method required by generally accepted accounting principles. In the opinion of management receivables at June 30, 2001 and 2000 are fully collectible. Investments Investments in marketable securities are stated on the basis of current quoted market prices. Realized gains and losses are calculated based on the first-in, first-out method. Unrealized gains and losses are also included in the change in net assets -7- EM MMMOM Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2001 and 2000 (1)The Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies- Continued Fixed Assets Purchased fixed assets are stated at cost. Donated fixed assets are recorded at their estimated fair value at date of donation. CPAH generally capitalizes expenditures for fixed assets in excess of $500. Depreciation is provided using the straight-line method over estimated useful lives of four to forty years. Predeveloainent Costs Redevelopment costs related to the conversion of property at Hall Blvd. into a 26 unit low-income housing project are capitalized in the accompanying Statement of Financial Position as of June 30, 2001. The project is structured as a low-income housing tax credit limited partnership, named the Tillage at Washington Square limited partnership (see Note 4). CPAH is a .1 percent general partner in the project. Construction commenced during 2001. Compensated Absences Compensated absences for vested sick and vacation pay are charged to expense when it is earned by the employee. Donated Services Certain individuals, including Board of Directors members, donate substantial time to the operations of CPAII Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 116 significantly limits the amount of donated services that may be recorded in the financial statements. Generally accepted accounting principles require that only donated services that create non-financial assets and which would need to have been purchased if not donated, are reflected in the financial statements. When such amounts are recorded, they are valued at the equivalent market rate at which the service could have been purchased. -8- Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2001 and 2000 (1)The Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies- Continued Donated Goods Individuals and organizations, from time to time, donate goods to CPAH to benefit clients. CPAH values these based on management's judgment, at fair value at the date of donation, and records the receipt and subsequent disbursement of these goods as in-kind revenues and expenses, respectively. Certain donated rent is recorded as in-kind revenue and expense based on the donor's estimate of the fair value of the rent. Net Asset Balances Net assets are the excess of assets over liabilities. A component of net assets are the investment in fixed assets, which is the cost of fixed assets, less accumulated depreciation and amortization, and less any indebtedness related to their construction or purchase. Certain net asset balances are temporarily restricted. Functional Allocation of Expenses The costs of providing the various programs have been summarized in the statement of functional expense. Accordingly, certain costs have been allocated among the programs benefited based on time studies and management judgment. Income Tax Exemption CPAH is a tax-exempt corporation within the provisions of Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) and is not classified as a private foundation. It is management's opinion that none of CPAH's present activities are subject to unrelated business income taxes; therefore, no provisions for income taxes has been made in the accompanying financial statements. (2) Investments Investments for the years ended June 30, 2001 and 2000 consist of the following: 2001 2000 Marketable equity securities _ $13-002 6 2 -9- Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2001 and 2000 (3) Accounts Receivable - Grants and Contracts Accounts receivable for grants and contracts at June 36, 2001 and 2000 consist of the following: 2001 2000 Washington County - CHDO $20,250 $ 18,175 HUD-Metzger Park 5,875 14,900 Neighborhood Partnership Fund 30.000 M000 $56-1-25- $103,075 (4) Investment in Low Income Housing Limited Partnerships CPAH is a .1 percent general partner in both the Villa La Paz Limited Partnership (Villa) and the Village at Washington Square Limited Partnership (Washington Square). Key Bank National Association is the 99.9% limited partner in both partnerships. The partnerships were formed to build and operate housing facilities for low-income individuals in Tigard, Oregon. The limited partner contributed capital in expectation of receiving Low-Income Housing Credits allowed under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. As the general partner, CPAH is responsible for the operation of the facilities and the management of the partnerships. The partnership agreements require CPAH to assume substantially all risks of operation, and the risks that Low- Income Housing Credits will be of value to the limited partner. In the event of partnership dissolution, the net assets of the partnership are to be distributed to the partners in accordance with the balances in their partnership accounts. i At any time after the Low Income Housing Tax Credit compliance period, which is 15 years after the building is placed in service, CPAH has the option to purchase the limited partners' interest at the fair market value of such interest. The investment in Villa and Washington Square are recorded at cost and are adjusted annually to recognize CPAH's share of earnings or losses, in accordance with prevailing practices for similar types of projects. CPAH could be liable for significant payments if the partnerships do not produce financial results as expected, however management does not consider such liabilities to be likely. -104 Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2001 and 2000 (5) Notes and Accrued Interest Receivable from Low Income Housing Limited Partnership Notes and accrued interest receivable at June 30, 2001 and 2000 consist of the following: 2001 2000 3%, Notes receivable from Villa La Paz(Villa), limited partnership (See note 4); the note and accrued interest is due December 31, 2013 or upon sale or transfer of the project; the note is secured by a Trust Deed $162,300 $162,300 6%, Note receivable from Villa; related to the development fee; the note and accrued interest shall be paid from net cash flow and/or from the sale or refinancing; the balance including accrued interest is due April 1, 2011; the note is unsecured. 103,395 103,395 1%, Note receivable from the Village at Washington Square, limited partnership (See note 4); commencing in 2002 annual payments of interest only at the rate of .5% shall be paid. The remaining interest shall accrue and be payable upon maturity; the note and accrued interest is due January, 2032; the note is secured by a Trust Deed. 39,675 - Accrued interest receivable 30,168 18,864 130-5 3 5 -11- Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2001 and 2000 (6) Long - Term Debt Long-term debt at June 30, 2001 and 2000 consist of the following: 2001 2000 7.625%, Note payable in monthly installments of $450, including interest; secured by trust deed on rental property; due January, 2030 $ 62,710 $ 63,300 Less: current portion 637 590 $62.07 3 S 621Q Long-term debt at June 30, 2001 matures as follows: June 30, 2002 $ 637 2003 687 2004 741 2005 800 2006 863 Thereafter 58,982 $62.710 (7) Net Assets Net assets consist of the following: 2001 20,00 Unrestricted Unreserved - available for operations $ 118,386 $ 92,007 Limited Partnerships Predevelopment costs 131,449 40,153 Investment 419,237 419,333 Notes and accrued interest 335,538 284,559 Accrued asset management fee 35,599 27,280 0 0 OQ 8 2 -12- Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2001 and 2000 (7) Net Assets -Continued 2001 2000 Temporarily Restricted Donor imposed restrictions on Grants and Contributions Washington County CHDO $ 20,250 $ 18,175 CDBG 125,000 125,000 Neighborhood Partnership Fund 30.000 35.000 $175 $ 17 The Washington County - CHDO and Neighborhood Partnership Fund grants and contributions are restricted to be used for operating expenses in the next fiscal year. The Washington County - CDBG grant entitles the grantor to be refunded the full amount of the award if the property acquired with the grant funds is sold or transferred without the grantor's consent. This restriction terminates December 31, 2009. (8) In-Vind Contributions In-kind contributions for the year ended June 30, 2001 consist of the following: Professional Services $ 10,000 Office Space. 4,500 Furniture & Equipment 4,150 (9) Employee gBenef t Plan i CPAH has a tax deferred defined contribution retirement plan under Internal Revenue Code Section 403 (b), for its employees. Employer contributions to the I plan for the year ended June 30, 2001 were $5,430. I -13- Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2001 and 2000 (10) Contingent Liabilities Grantors may conduct audits of the expenditures of funds under the grant contracts to determine allowability, under applicable regulations. In the event unallowable expenditures have been made, a liability for repayment of those funds could exist. However, it is the opinion of management that CPAH has complied with all applicable regulations that have a material effect on the accompanying financial statements. (11) Related Party Transactions During the year ended June 30, 2001 CPAH earned revenue from the Villa La Paz Limited Partnership and the Village at Washington Square Limited Partnership (See note 4) as follows: Management Fee $ 8,434 Interest Income on Notes Receivable 11,305 Partnership loss - 96 i n ti -14-