The URL can be used to link to this page

03/15/2004 - Packet POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. AGENDA City of Tigard Connw ity Detdcpn t TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION slapingA BetterConvnrnity MARCH 15, 2004 7:00 p.m. TIGARD CIVIC CENTER—TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. LAND USE TRAINING WITH CITY ATTORNEY City Council and Planning Commission 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Purpose of Comprehensive Plan Update — President Mark Padgett 5. APPROVE MINUTES 6. CITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM AND COMPLIANCE WITH METRO TITLE 7 (URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTION PLAN) 7. GOAL 5 — ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ENERGY (ESEE) ANALYSIS 4 Comments and Recommendation 8. METRO PERFORMANCE MEASURES SURVEY DISCUSSION 9. OTHER BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 15, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER President Padgett called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Padgett; Commissioners Bienerth, Buehner (arrived late), Caffall, Haack, Meads Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Munro, Sutton, and Webb Staff Present: Barbara Shields, Planning Manager; Duane Roberts, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. APPROVE MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the February 23, 2004 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Commissioner Caffall abstained; Commissioner Buehner arrived after the vote was taken. 4. LAND USE TRAINING WITH CITY ATTORNEY Mayor Craig Dirksen and Councilors Sydney Sherwood, Tom Woodruff, and Nick Wilson were present for the training along with the Planning Commission. City Attorney Gary Firestone provided a PowerPoint presentation on Planning Commission issues and procedures related to land use decisions (Exhibit A). The training covered legislative and quasi-judicial decisions, substantive issues in quasi-judicial decision making, the hearing procedure, Commission participation in the decision process, and takings. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS President Padgett spoke about the purpose of updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. Initially the Comprehensive Plan was put together as a "blue print" as to what the City would be like after everything was developed. Now the question is if we want the City to turn out the same way as we wanted 20 years ago. If so, will the existing Comprehensive Plan get us there with perhaps a little fine-tuning. If not, what changes need to be made to the Comprehensive Plan to get us to what we want. If it's decided that we want the City to turn out differently from what we wanted 20 years ago, we will need to determine what changes, if any, need to be made to the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -March 15,2004-Page 1 • 6. CITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM AND COMPLIANCE WITH METRO TITLE 7 (URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTION PLAN) Associate Planner Duane Roberts advised that he would be returning to'the Commission soon with a Comp Plan amendment which is required to bring the City into compliance with Metro's Title 7. He referred to a chart outlining Tigard's affordable housing program (Exhibit B). He advised that none of the implementing measures listed in the program are mandatory. Barbara Shields reported that Statewide Goal #10 contains mandatory compliance issues related to affordable housing. The City must address maintaining the supply of existing affordable housing and increasing opportunities for new dispersed affordable housing. 7. GOAL 5 — ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ENERGY (ESEE) ANALYSIS Duane Roberts advised that the Commission needs to make a recommendation to City Council on the adoption of the ESEE decisions. He provided a brief overview of the Goal 5 effort to develop protection programs for riparian and upland wildlife habitat resources. There are 3 steps involved: inventory, ESEE analysis (identifying conflicts between protecting the resources and allowing development and deciding how conflicts should be resolved), and developing a program for protecting the resources. Metro has given Washington County the responsibility for completing the second two steps in the Goal 5 process. By the end of March, a County policy committee will make its decision regarding the ESEE conceptual decisions. Roberts briefly reviewed the Title 3 Hydrologic Features map, the Allow-Limit- Prohibit (ALP) map, and the Goal 5 Riparian (final scoring) map. He also explained the ALP recommendation chart (Exhibit C). President Padgett agrees with the criteria and philosophy being used, however, he is not comfortable with the program if it means some other body will have sole discretion on determining how much and what kind of development can occur in the areas. Roberts advised that County jurisdictions must present a program to Metro that we can document will improve environmental conditions. Metro will review and approve or deny the program. The Commission wants to ensure that the cities in Washington County (Basin Partners) will be able to determine what the development levels will be in their final proposal to Metro. Commissioner Buehner moved and Commissioner Haack seconded the motion to make a recommendation to City Council to support the adoption of the Goal 5 ALP general recommendation, conditional upon Metro making the Allow-Limit- Prohibit map accurate, the City understanding what the designations will really mean (e.g., limited development), and the program developed by the Basin Partners reflecting Basin decisions. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -March 15,2004-Page 2 8. METRO PERFORMANCE MEASURES SURVEY DISCUSSION Commissioner Buehner volunteered to attend the March 16th City Council meeting to clarify the Planning Commission's comments in their letter to Metro regarding physical attributes of Tigard's sense of place. 9. OTHER BUSINESS President Padgett is reviewing the ODOT 99W Corridor Study for information relating to funding for alleviating traffic on Hwy. 99W. The next meeting is scheduled for March 29th at 6:00 p.m. The Commission will also meet April 26th and May 24th for Comprehensive Plan workshops. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m. rre aynor, Pl.nnin•f ommission Secretary ,Af AT ST: 'sident Mark Padgett PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -March 15,2004-Page 3 • Overview of Presentation PLANNING COMMISSION Legislative/Quasi-judicial ISSUES AND PROCEDURES Legislative Decisions Substantive Issues in Quasi-Judicial Decision Timothy V.Ramis Making Gary Firestone Hearing Procedure Ramis Crew Corrigan&Bachrach Participation in Decision City Attorneys • •kings(tatan) RESPONSIBILITIES LEGISLATIVE • LEGISLATIVE - Land use legislation • In most cases,the Planning • Comprehensive Plan(Text,Inventories and Maps) Commission makes a recommendation • Community Development Code to the City Council, which adopts the • Annexations Comprehensive Plan amendment,zone • QUASI-JUDICIAL change,or CDC amendment - Hearings on land use applications • Applicable standards include • Quasi-judicial may include site-specific Comprehensive constitutional and statutory provisions, Plan map and Zoning Map changes statewide land use planning goals,and _ Comprehensive Plan LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS COMPREHENSIVE PLANS • Even legislative decisions must be based on • ORS 197.175(2)requires each city and applicable standards and criteria and on county to prepare,adopt and amend substantial evidence comprehensive plans in compliance with the • Findings are not absolutely required,but are statewide land use planning goals always • If a local government has an acknowledged lways advisable to help explain decision, comprehensive plan,the statewide goals do and a lack of findings may result in a remand no apply directly to develop findings to explain consistency • Goal 2 requires that plans include factual with applicable standards and criteria data,including inventories and other information 1 0 • PERIODIC REVIEW/ _ PLAN AMENDMENT comprehensive local government may amend its UBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN comprehensive plan at any time by following the post-acknowledgment plan amendment UASI JUDICIAL procedures of ORS 197.610—197.625 • LCDC may require comprehensive plan t.,ECISION MAKING amendments or changes to implementing regulations as part of periodic review,but comprehensive plan amendments may be adopted outside of periodic review • With cuts to DLCD,periodic review _ opportunities will be limited in the future I l APPLICABLE LAW DECISION STANDARDS Primary Law Governing Decisions: - Community Development Code • CDC is main source of standards and Other criteria - CDC 18.210.030 provides:"Each development and - CDC requires compliance with applicable land use application...Shall be consistent with the federal and state laws and regulations adopted comprehensive plan of the City of Tigard as Implemented by this title and with applicable -CDC must be construed in conformity with state and federal laws and regulations. All the Comprehensive Plan provisions of this title shall be construed In conformity with the adopted comprehensive plan." rilk p plicability of Law other than CDC _ STANDARDS AND CRITERIA -, State and Federal Constitutions - - Always • Mandatory standards and criteria in • State statutes and regulations CDC must be followed - Usually. Some statutes/regulations apply only until • Failure to make decision based on Implemented in the CDC,after which CDC controls. • Goals mandatory standards or criteria may - Do not apply directly once Implemented by acknowledged provision lead to reversal at LUBA in CDC • Comprehensive Plan • Failure to follow procedure will result in - Not directlyapplicable--applicationsmustcomplywith reversal only if substantial rights Comprehensive Plan as implemented by the CDC • Metro Plans and Rules affected - Normally are not applicable in quasl•ludiclal context. 2 • DEFERENCE TO CITY EVIDENCE • The City Council's interpretation of its Decisions must be based on substantial own code evidence in the whole record o ode is entitled to deference by own c and the courts • If evidence is presented on both sides, LUBA decision maker must decide which evidence • The Planning Commission's is more persuasive and explain why that interpretation is not entitled to deference evidence is more persuasive • The City Council's interpretation of state • Evidentiary standard is less onerous than in Y p court trial statutes is not entitled to deference • Staff report and comments are evidence that can support a decision PROCEDURE _ Due process requirements • Notice of hearing must be provided HEARING PROCEDURE • Present and rebut evidence • Decision must be based on the record • Issue must be raised • Impartial decision maker • Burden of proof(on applicant) I I HEARING PROCESS Planning Commission/City Council Order of Hearing _ Role at Hearing • Ask questions • Staff Presentation • Applicant • Give instructions to staff • Those in support • Neutral • Deliberate • Those opposed • Rebuttal by Applicant • Make decision - Applicant has burden so is entitled to go first and last 3 110 • ORS 197.763 FINDINGS Statutory procedural requirements for hearing • Raise It or waive It • Notice of hearing must be provided • Decisions must be based on findings, • Documents available to public which must be based on evidence in the • Opening statement at hearing record • Substantive criteria • Testimony must be directed at criteria • Findings are statements of facts,and • Failure to raise an Issue waives II explanations of how the decision is • Right to continuance/submission of additional evidence on request ex p • Additionaihearing based on the facts • Submittal of written evidence • Findings must address all relevant • Right to respond to additional evidence • Applicant has right to argument after all evidence In criteria • If record reopened,all have right to raise new Issues relating to new evidence CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 120 Day Rule Conditions of approval may be imposed: • Local government has 120 days from • When authorized by code date of application to make final land use decisions • When application could be denied if • Applies to most quasi-judicial conditions not imposed applications • To insure compliance with applicable • Does not apply to Comprehensive Plan criteria text or map changes or CDC text amendments EFFECT OF 120 DAY RULE EXPEDITED LAND DIVISIONS • Applicant can seek writ of mandamus • Expedited land divisions are governed by statutes from Circuit Court that are mandatory on local governments -Court will order application approved • Heard by a referee,not the Planning Commission (usually without conditions)if applicant is • Apply to entitled to approval - Residential subdivisions outside of designated natural and historical resource areas that satisfy street connectivity standards and minimum density(80%of maximum) • City required to refund fees and deposit - Partitions that meet the standards for subdivisions other than the minimum density standard • Optional procedure--Applicant may choose either _ _ standard procedure or expedited land division 4 • • <<''«JBLIlC MEETINGS ]t` l annin(tt Commission and eto ty eouncso Meetings etmrmgs .are Public Meetings tingas Mu st be noticed Area crapes to the public Must be c,essrinalaa PARTICIPATION IN Interpreter to be prrtatmrimted for C<ar,lring DECISION >ION impaired d llmpon request Written minutes are required A qurrrxrnrrrum cannot meet except aapt at ,a noticed public meeting PARTICIPATION IN DECISION (MR''/,°\R (11Gx LI i Y Conflict of Interest stt(Financial) • Actual conflict trfi'interest if decision would • )true process requires an impartial have a financial ial e„trect on decision-maker tribunal£slfl0(4i a decision based on the Must announce e,.<<nflli t and I not participate in decision(amide s vote needed o I to decide matter) record • financial Pote nti al conflict o interest i could have a effect on decision-maker - Must announce potential conflict but may participate ini decision IMPARTIALITY ((( oliiliiliiaut;ttl)) EX PAR I: CONTACTS Bias • Decisions must be on the record • Political it view r Oriumost cases does s not constitute bias • Any y information obtained by a • Bias is based mini a personal relationship(positive or Commissioner outside the record must negative)with a party l be disclosed • Bi s(personal relationships)should r disclosed decision maker should not participate in a Ctil(,cision All communications with the applicant or if sa personal relationship with a party makes it any person other than City staff about the impossible Orals for'that person to decide fairly and application or the property Impartially -Any site visit 5 • DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE CONTACTS • Ex parte contacts do not prevent participation in a decision by a Commissioner if they are disclosed on TAKINGS the record • The disclosure must state the circumstances of the contacts,who the contact was with,and the contents of the communication CONSTITUTIONAL BASES TAKINGS IN THE LAND USE _ CONTEXT Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution • Article I,section 18 of the Oregon • Regulatory takings Constitution • Both require governments to pay for property they have taken • Exactions • Takings: -Eminent domain(condemnation) - Regulatory Takings - -Exactions - REGULATORY TAKINGS EXACTIONS • • land use reguiatlon ttlat daprivest - property owner of all reasonable use of the Requirement to dedicate property or to allow property others on property is an exaction • In Oregon,the"property"may be less than an Requirement to build public improvements is existing lot an exaction under Oregon law,especially if • Measure 7 provided that,if a land use off-site regulation restricts the use of property and Setbacks,height limitations,design the restriction reduces the value of the standards,and similar regulations are not property,compensation for the lost value exactions,but may together result in a would be required. Measure 7 was declared regulatory taking if they prevent all use of the invalid,but similar provisions may be passed property _ in the future - 6 • RULES GOVERNING EXACTIONS _(Nollan/Dolan Rules) • Government may exact property at time of land use approval • If exaction is roughly proportional to(or less than) and directly related to an Impact of the development on a matter of public interest,no compensation is required • If the exaction exceeds the rough proportionality standard,compensation is required 7 ® ® et Tigard Affordable Housing Program Land Use Strategies • An updated and streamlined development review process • Reduced parking requirements for affordable housing projects • Allowance of accessory dwelling units Non-Land Use Strategies • Tax abatement for affordable housing • A budget set-aside to reduce fees and charges imposed on affordable housing development • Support for the sale or donation of tax foreclosed properties to non-profit housing providers • Financial support for the operation of the Tigard-based Good Neighbor Center homeless shelter • Rent-free office space for a Tigard-based affordable housing provider • Identification and pursuit available grants to finance needed on- and off-site public improvements, such as sidewalks, streets, and storm sewers, serving affordable housing areas or projects • The Housing Inspection Program to maintain the quality of the City's existing housing stock • The Housing Emergency Fund to assist occupants of housing declared to be unsafe or uninhabitable • The Enhanced Safety Program, administered through the Tigard Police Department, to improve the safety of rental properties • Membership in the County-wide Housing Advocacy Group Y y t }s� , ...„ General _: f , __,,z_,r:,,..:,_,„,...„„„,.. Conflicting lase Category r High Other Future No� � :: � �,��a Resource Value,,_, y Y` intensity Urban Urban Urban 7 _�1'� Y urban ban Class I resource ML SL SL SL Class II resource LL ML SL ML r 1 3 '. Class III resource LL LL ML ML Y ,�z x Inner Impact Area LL LL LL LL : T $= Outer I fact Area A A A A Ph.r 'S- ,inn i J Ye `N5'. a < 3 19 • 1 414 CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL HEARING DATE: 3 Q STARTING TIME: " C3'L7 COMMISSIONERS: MARK PADGETT (PRESIDENT) JODIE BIENERTH GRETCHEN BUEHNER REX CAFFALL BILL HAACK V KATHY MEADS JUDY MUNRO SCOT SUTTON EILEEN WEBB STAFF PRESENT: _. DICK BEWERSDORFF JIM HENDRYX BRAD KILBY BARBARA SHIELDS MORGAN TRACY JULIA HAJDUK MATT SCHEIDEGGER DUANE ROBERTS KIM MCMILLAN BETH ST. AMAND GUS DUENAS Nan Sly --C • • 4004 It sal sUll CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Planning Commission FROM: Duane Roberts, Associate Planner DATE: 3/8/04 SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Comprehensive Plan Amendment In 2001, Metro adopted Title 7, "Housing and Affordable Housing", as an amendment to the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. This title requires local jurisdictions to adopt comprehensive plan amendments encouraging affordable housing and to consider a variety of techniques to meet regional and local affordable housing needs. The attached Affordable Housing Program describes the city's efforts to address the affordable housing policies and strategies included in Title 7. The City program was developed over an eighteen-month period and included four public meetings. The report describes current conditions in Tigard and on-going City efforts to encourage affordable housing. In addition to addressing all the land use and non-land use tools and strategies to increase affordable housing related to Title 7, the Affordable Housing Program was intended to fulfill the 2002 Council goal of"Supporting the provision of affordable housing"within the community. To monitor local Title 7 progress, Metro designed a three-year reporting schedule. Metro's recent evaluation of Tigard's second-year compliance report indicates that Tigard needs to address three items in order to achieve compliance with Title 7. The City has responded with a letter questioning two of the items. These relate to Council (1.) consideration of a density bonus and the transfer of development rights and (2.) consideration of replacement and inclusionary housing in urban renewal areas. The City's position is that Council did meet the requirement of considering and taking final action, which was to decline to adopt each of these particular strategies. No response from Metro to the City letter has been received as yet. The City does not dispute Metro's listing as an "Outstanding Item" a required comprehensive plan amendment aimed at maintaining the supply and increasing new dispersed affordable housing (3.07.730. A.2 in the attachment). As such, shortly after its 3/15 work session, staff will be returning to Planning Commission with a proposed comprehensive plan amendment, based on a Metro-approved Tualatin housing policy, for review and consideration. In accordance with City decision making procedures, the Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to Council for final decision. i/Irpin/dr/housing.plancom TITLE 7: AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3 .07 . 710 Intent The Regional Framework Plan stated the need to provide affordable housing opportunities through: a) a diverse range of housing types, available within the region, and within cities and counties inside Metro's Urban Growth Boundary; b) sufficient and affordable housing opportunities available to households of all income levels that live or have a member working in each jurisdiction and subregion; c) an appropriate balance of jobs and housing of all types within subregions; d) addressing current and future need for and supply of affordable housing in the process used to determine affordable housing production goals; and e) minimizing any concentration of poverty. The Regional Framework Plan directs that Metro' s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan include voluntary affordable housing production goals to be adopted by local jurisdictions in the region as well as land use and non-land use affordable housing tools and strategies . The Regional Framework Plan also directs that Metro' s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan include local governments' reporting progress towards increasing the supply of affordable housing. Title 1 of this functional plan requires cities and counties to change their zoning to accommodate development at higher densi- ties in locations supportive of the transportation system. Increasing allowable densities and requiring minimum densities encourage compact communities, more efficient use of land and should result in additional affordable housing opportunities . These Title 1 requirements are parts of the regional affordable housing strategy. (Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1 . Amended by Ordinance No. 00-882C, Sec. 2 . ) 3 .07 . 720 Voluntary Affordable Housing Production Goals Each city and county within the Metro region should adopt the Affordable Housing Production Goal indicated in Table 3 . 07-7 for their city or county as a guide to measure progress toward meeting the affordable housing needs of households with incomes between 0% and 50% of the regional median family income. (Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1 . Amended by Ordinance No. 00-882C, Sec. 2; Ordinance No. 03-1005A. ) (Effective 9/24/03) 3 . 07 - 41 3. 07 .730 Requirements for Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinance Changes A. Cities and counties within the Metro region shall ensure that their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances: 1 . Include strategies to ensure a diverse range of housing types within their jurisdictional boundaries . 2 . Include in their plans actions and implementation measures designed to maintain the existing supply of affordable housing as well as increase the opportunities for new dispersed affordable housing within their boundaries . 3. Include plan policies, actions, and implementation measures aimed at increasing opportunities for households of all income levels to live within their individual jurisdictions in affordable housing. B. Cities and counties within the Metro region shall consider amendment of their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances with the following affordable housing land use tools and strategies identified below. Compliance with this subsection is achieved when the governing body of a city or county considers each tool or strategy in this subsection and either amends its comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances to adopt the tool or strategy or explains in • writing why it has decided not to adopt it. 4 1 . Density Bonus. A density bonus is an incentive to facilitate the development of affordable housing. Local jurisdictions could consider tying the amount of bonus to the targeted income group to encourage the development of affordable units to meet affordable housing production goals . 2 . Replacement Housing. No-Net-Loss housing policies for local jurisdictional review of requested quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Map amendments with approval criteria that would require the replacement of existing housing that would be lost through the Plan Map amendment. 3 . Inclusionary Housing. a. Implement voluntary inclusionary housing programs tied to the provision of incentives such as Density Bonus incentives to facilitate the development of affordable housing. (Effective 9/24/03) 3 . 07 - 42 AMMMOMMEP • • b. Develop housing design requirements for housing components such as single-car garages and maximum square footage that tend to result in affordable housing. c. Consider impacts on affordable housing as a criterion for any legislative or quasi-judicial zone change . 4 . Transfer of Development Rights. a. Implement TDR programs tailored to the specific conditions of a local jurisdiction. b. Implement TDR programs in Main Street or Town Center areas that involve upzoning. 5 . Elderly and People with Disabilities . Examine zoning codes for conflicts in meeting locational needs of these populations . 6 . Local Regulatory Constraints; Discrepancies in Planning and Zoning Codes; Local Permitting or Approval Process. a. Revise the permitting process (conditional use permits, etc. ) . b. Review development and design standards for impact on affordable housing. c. Consider using a cost/benefit analysis to determine impact of new regulations on housing production. d. Regularly review existing codes for usefulness and conflicts . e. Reduce number of land use appeal opportunities . f. Allow fast tracking of affordable housing. 7 . Parking. a. Review parking requirements to ensure they meet the needs of residents of all types of housing. b. Coordinate strategies with developers, transportation planners and other regional efforts (Effective 9/24/03) 3 . 07 - 43 so as to reduce the cost of providing parking in affordable housing developments . (Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1 . Amended by Ordinance No. 00-882C, Sec. 2; Ordinance No. 03-1005A, Sec. 1 . ) 3 .07 . 740 Requirements for Progress Report Progress made by local jurisdictions in amending comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances and consideration of land use related affordable housing tools and strategies to meet the voluntary affordable housing production goals shall be reported according to the following schedule: A. By January 31, 2002, cities and counties within the Metro region shall submit a brief status report to Metro as to what items they have considered and which items remain to be considered. This analysis could include identification of affordable housing land use tools currently in use as well as consideration of the land use tools in Section 3 . 07 . 730 (B) . B. By December 31, 2003, each city and county within the Metro region shall provide a report to Metro on the status of its comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances explaining how each tool and strategy in subsection 3 . 07 . 730B was considered by its governing body. The report shall describe comprehensive plan and implementing ordinance amendments pending or adopted to implement each tool and strategy, or shall explain why the city or county decided not to adopt it. C. By June 30, 2004, each city and county within the Metro region shall report to Metro on the outcome of the amendments to its comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances pending at the time of submittal of the report described in subsection B of this section and on the public response, if any, to any implementation adopted by the city or county to increase the community' s stock of affordable housing, including but not limited to the tools and strategies in subsection 3.07 . 730B. (Ordinance No. 00-882C, Sec. 2 . Amended by Ordinance No. 03-1005A, Sec. 1 . ) 3 . 07 .750 Metro Assessment of Progress A. Metro Council and MPAC shall review progress reports submitted by cities and counties and may provide comments to the jurisdictions . (Effective 9/24/03) 3. 07 - 44 i 1 B. Metro Council shall: 1 . In 2003, estimate 2000 baseline affordable housing units affordable to defined income groups (less than 30 percent, 31-50 percent, 51-80 percent of the region' s median family income) using 2000 U. S. Census data; 2 . By December 2004, formally assess the region' s progress made in 2001-2003 to achieve the affordable housing production goals in Table 3. 07-7; 3 . By December 2004, review and assess affordable housing tools and strategies implemented by local governments and other public and private entities; 4 . By December 2004, examine federal and state legislative changes; 5 . By December 2004, review the availability of a regional funding source; 6. By December 2004, update the estimate of the region' s affordable housing need; and 7 . By December 2004, in consultation with MPAC, create an ad hoc affordable housing task force with representatives of MPAC, MTAC, homebuilders, affordable housing providers, advocate groups, financial institutions, citizens, local governments, state government, and U. S . Housing and Urban Development Department to use the assessment reports and census data to recommend by December 2005 any studies or any changes that are warranted to the existing process, tools and strategies, funding plans or goals to ensure that significant progress is made toward providing affordable housing for those most in need. (Ordinance No. 00-882C, Sec. 2 . Amended by Ordinance No. 03-1005A, Sec. 1 . ) 3 . 07 . 760 Recommendations to Implement Other Affordable Housing Strategies A. Local jurisdictions are encouraged to consider implementation of the following affordable housing land use tools to increase the inventory of affordable housing throughout the region. Additional information on these strategies and other land use strategies that could be considered by local jurisdictions are described in Chapter (Effective 9/24/03) 3 . 07 - 45 Four of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy and its Appendixes . 1 . Replacement Housing. Consider policies to prevent the loss of affordable housing through demolition in urban renewal areas by implementing a replacement housing ordinance specific to urban renewal zones . 2 . Inclusionary Housing. When creating urban renewal districts that include housing, include voluntary inclusionary housing requirements where appropriate. B. Local jurisdictions are encouraged to analyze, adopt and apply locally-appropriate non-land use tools, including fee waivers or funding incentives as a means to make progress toward the Affordable Housing Production Goal . Non-land use tools and strategies that could be considered by local jurisdictions are described in Chapter Four of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy and its Appendixes. Cities and Counties are also encouraged to report on the analysis, adoption and application of non-land use tools at the same intervals that they are reporting on land-use tools (in Section 3 . 07 . 740) . C. Local jurisdictions are also encouraged to continue their efforts to promote housing affordable to other households with incomes 50% to 80% and 80% to 120% of the regional median household income. D. Local jurisdictions are encouraged to consider joint coordination or action to meet their combined affordable housing production goals . (Ordinance No. 00-882C, Sec. 2 . ) (Effective 9/24/03) 3 . 07 - 46 0 • Table 3.07-7 Five-Year Voluntary Affordable Housing Production Goals (Section 3.07.720) 2001-2006 Affordable Housing Production Goals Jurisdiction Needed new housing units for Needed new housing units for households earning less than households earning 30-50%of Total 30%of median household income median household income Beaverton 427 229 656 Cornelius 40 10 50 Durham 6 4 10 Fairview 42 31 73 Forest Grove 55 10 65 Gladstone 43 10 53 Gresham 454 102 556 Happy Valley 29 28 57 Hillsboro 302 211 513 Johnson City 0 0 0 King City 5 0 5 Lake Oswego 185 154 339 Maywood Park 0 0 0 Milwaukie 102 0 102 Oregon City 123 35 158 Portland 1,791 0 1,791 Rivergrove 1 1 _ 2 Sherwood 67 56 123 Tigard 216 103 319 Troutdale 75 56 131 Tualatin 120 69 189 West Linn 98 71 169 Wilsonville 100 80 180 Wood Village 16 1 17 Clackamas County,Urban, 729 374 1,103 3 Unincorporated . Multnomah County,Urban, 81 53 134 Unincorporated* Washington County,Urban 1,312 940 2,252 Unincorporated _ Total 6,419 2,628 9,047 I *Strategies and implementation measures addressing these housing goals are in the Progress Reports of the Cities of Portland,Gresham and Troutdale. (Ordinance No. 00-882C, Sec. 2 . ) (Effective 9/24/03) 3. 07 - 47 • • • CITY OF TIGARD CITY OP TIGARD . • - ; LE H irk / Juall NC PR.. ØJGLfrIM SEPTEMBER 2002 • • • • • CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON RESOLUTION NO.02-5% A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A STAFF REPORT AS A COMPREHENSIVE DELINEATION OF THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM WHEREAS,one of the 2002 Tigard City Council goals is to "Consider ways to support the provision of affordable housing";and WHEREAS, during 2001-02, Council considered potential new affordable housing measures in four workshops and one budget committee meeting;and WHEREAS, the City's efforts in the area of affordable housing are directed to serve the income group with the greatest need, households earning 50% or less or area median income;and • WHEREAS,the attached report titled Affordable Housing Program is intended to serve as a • comprehensive delineation of the City's program to emphasize and encourage affordable housing in the community;and WHEREAS, these efforts include Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies and Beyond Tomorrow community vision goals and strategies as well as specific land use and non-land use measures;and WHEREAS,this program reflects the level of support for affordable housing determined by Council to be appropriate for Tigard based on local conditions and resources, NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City of Tigard City Council does hereby find and declare that the report entitled "Affordable Housing Program", attached as "Exhibit A," serves as a complete and official statement of the City's overall affordable housing program. RESOLUTION NO.02-55 Page 1 • • SECTION 2: The City of Tigard City Council does hereby find and declare that the said report also is a definitive'statement of how the City is addressing the Council Goal of "Consider ways to support the provision of affordable housing." SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This_2 y day of S24 _,2002. r ayor-City • Tigar j ATTEST: -•�= _ _ City Recorder-City of Tigard • RESOLUTION NO.02-5 Page 2 ® , • table of CONTENTS • I. Executive Summary 3 II. Introduction 5 III. Affordable Housing Need 6 IV. State and Regional Policies 8 V. Local Housing Providers 12 VI. Policies, Goals, & Strategies 15 VII. Affordable Housing Program 18 VIII. Conclusion 23 IX. Next Steps 25 S I . executive SUMMARY • Why is affordable housing an important issue? Having a home is one of the most fundamental human needs. A home represents shelter, safety, and security. While Washington County is one of the most affluent areas of the state, many families find it difficult to obtain safe, decent, and affordable housing. Housing cost burdens are especially severe among households with low incomes. Elderly and large family renters are the most likely to experience housing problems, such as living in unaffordable, overcrowded, or substandard housing. The lack of sufficient affordable housing opportunities reduces overall livability and economic viability for all residents. What is affordable housing? The accepted definition of affordable housing found in federal and state programs is housing that costs a household no more than 30% of its gross income for rent and utilities. The shortage of affordable housing most affects households earning 50% or less of the region's median income. Tigard's twenty-year, 1997-2017, Metro-determined need for affordable housing among this income group is 3,205 new units. Does Tigard meet state and regional affordable housing mandates? Tigard complies with all state and regional policies that relate to affordable housing. These include, most importantly, Statewide Planning Goals 10-Housing and 14- Urbanization, the State Metro Housing Rule; and the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Title 7). Who provides affordable housing in Tigard? The Washington County Housing Authority owns and manages 224 public housing units within the Tigard city limits. The agency also administers key federal rent voucher and low-interest loan housing assistance programs within Tigard as a local government unit. The State Housing and Community Services Division administer a federal tax credit program to private housing providers, including the providers of some 600 units in Tigard. Two non-profit affordable housing corporations own and manage a combined 262 units within and adjacent to Tigard. The majority of households served by these various public and private affordable housing activities have incomes at 50% or below of median income. Affordable Housing Program • 3 • How has Tigard addressed the issue of affordable housing? Various Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies and Tigard Beyond Tomorrow community vision goals and strategies support the provision of affordable housing. The City of Tigard program to address the Council Goal of Consider(ing) ways to support the provision of affordable housing includes these policies and vision statements and specific land use and non-land use program measures. These measures include pre-existing measures and new measures adopted by Council during a comprehensive, four-meeting review of potential policies and strategies to improve opportunities for the development of affordable housing. The following are the steps Tigard has taken to address the affordable housing issue. Affordable Housing Program Land use strategies adopted • An updated and streamlined development review process completed • Reduced parking requirements for affordable housing projects implemented • Allowance of accessory dwelling units, which benefit the elderly and disabled Non-land use strategies implemented • Tax abatement for affordable housing instituted • A budget set-aside to reduce fees and charges imposed on affordable housing development established • Support for sale or donation of tax foreclosed and surplus County and City-owned properties to non-profit housing providers initiated • Financial support for the operation of the Tigard-based Good Neighbor Center homeless shelter established • Identification and pursuit of available grants to finance needed on- and off-site public improvements, such as sidewalks, streets, and storm sewers, serving affordable housing areas or projects instituted • The Housing Inspection Program to maintain the quality of the City's existing housing stock developed • The Housing Emergency Fund to assist occupants of housing declared to be unsafe or uninhabitable established • The Enhanced Safety Program, administered through the Tigard Police Department, to improve the safety of rental properties instituted • Membership in the County-wide Housing Advocacy Group initiated Affordable Housing Program • 4 • II . INTRODUCTION One of the 2002 Tigard City Council goals is to: Consider ways to support the provision of affordable housing. The present report describes the approach the City is taking to address this goal. The first part of the report provides basic information on: the local need for affordable housing, state and regional housing promotion policies, and the present providers of affordable housing in Tigard. The main part of the report is a description of the range of existing City policies and past and present actions related to the provision of affordable housing in the Tigard community. The policies discussed include relevant Comprehensive Plan policies and Tigard Beyond Tomorrowgoals and strategies. The actions discussed include land use and non-land use measures taken to implement the affordable housing policies and goals. The report also includes a description of approaches considered but not taken by Council to facilitate affordable housing. Taken together, the various adopted policies, goals, and actions describe how the City is supporting the provision of affordable housing in the community. These efforts make up the City's official affordable housing program. Affordable Housing Program 5 • • Ill . affordable housing NEED The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines affordable housing as costing a household no more than 30% of its gross income. For renters, housing costs include rent and utilities. For homeowners, it includes principal, interest, taxes, and property insurance, if applicable. A household is defined as all of the people, including unrelated people, who occupy a house, apartment, or mobile home. According to 2000 Census data for Tigard, 2,775, or 41%, of renter households and 2,030, or 23%, of homeowner households spend more than 30% of their incomes on housing costs. In terms of the HUD national standard, these figures reflect the overall need for affordable housing in Tigard for all income levels. A profile of regional and local level affordable housing needs at particular income levels is scheduled to be tabulated from the 2000 Census by the PSU Population Research Center and made available early next year. According to Washington County and Metro housing studies, the income group with the greatest need for affordable housing are those earning 50%or less of median income. Rents affordable to households at different income levels and sizes are available from HUD published tables. The 2002, 50% of median income standard established by HUD for the Portland metropolitan area is shown in the chart below, along with the corresponding rents that would be affordable to households at those income levels and persons per household. By way of comparison, Tigard's 2000 median income for households of all sizes was $51 ,581 . Median household size was 2.5. Affordable Housing Standards for Low income Households Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2002 Number of Persons in 50% of Median Income Affordable Monthly Household Rent/Mortgage plus Utilities (30% of Income) 1 $20,000 $500 2 22,900 573 3 25,750 644 4 28,600 715 _ 5 30,900 773 6 33,200 830 Affordable Housing Program • 6 Number of Persons in 50%of Median Income Affordable Monthly Household Rent/Mortgage plus Utilities (30% of Income) 7 35,450 886 8 37,750 944 Metro is the elected regional government that covers Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties. Metro's Urban Growth Management Plan provides the basis for coordination of local comprehensive plans and implementing regulations. In January 2001, Metro Council amended the Urban Growth Management Plan to include an affordable housing section (Title 7). The section focuses on the 50% of median group. According to the resource information upon which this section is based, Tigard's twenty- year, 1997-2017, Metro-determined unmet need for affordable housing among this income group is 3,205 new units. This number is in the nature of a "fair share" estimate based on the regional housing need and the City's percentage of regional population. Another indicator of local housing need is the waiting list for housing units owned and managed by the Washington County Housing Authority. In June 2002, the list included 677 households with Tigard-area zip codes and the estimated wait for eligible new applicants was six to eight years. These data indicate the magnitude of the local need for affordable housing. The policies and actions of Tigard in response to this need are described below, after a discussion of existing state and regional housing promotion policies and a description of local public and non-profit housing providers. • Affordable Housing Program 7 S 9 IV . state & regional POLICIES • Several state and regional policies address affordable housing. These include, most importantly, Statewide Planning Goals 10 - Housing and 14 - Ubanization, the State Metro Housing Rule, and the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Title 7). Statewide Goal 10: Housing, "To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the State", was adopted in 1973 as part of the Statewide Planning Program. The basic requirements of this rule are: • Buildable lands inventory must ensure that there is sufficient residential land available. • Comprehensive plans shall encourage adequate number of housing units at price and rent levels that are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type, and density Statewide Goal 14 - Urbanization, "to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use", also was adopted in 1973. This goal mandates that: • Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries will be based on consideration of the need for housing as well as jobs and other urban land uses. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan has been formally acknowledged to be consistent with the statewide rules. The City complies with this goal by allowing smaller single family housing and options for attached and manufactured housing. The State Metropolitan Housing Rule, adopted in 1981 , requires that all Portland metropolitan area jurisdictions allow for a mix of housing types and meet minimum residential development density. The rule requires Metro to: • Coordinate local comprehensive plans to meet the projected housing need. • Provide for an appropriate housing mix and range of affordability. • Maintain minimum average densities and mixes to provide for the efficient use of buildable lands. • Designate sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new residential units to be attached single family or multi-family housing. • Meet minimum residential development density, which, as applied to Tigard, is 10 units per net buildable acre. Affordable Housing Program • 8 • In order to comply with the rule, the City amended its Comprehensive Plan and implementation ordinance to allow residential development densities of ten units per net developable acre and an overall 50/50 single family/multi-family housing mix. As mentioned, in January 2001, the Metro Council amended the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan to include Title 7: Housing and Affordable Housing. The Title recommends changes to City and County policies related to affordable housing. It also establishes mandatory requirements that local governments must undertake as part of Metro's regional planning effort. The focus of this effort is on households earning 50% or less of median household income. In order to monitor local goal progress, Metro has designed a three-year reporting schedule: January2002. Local governments are required to consider adoption of: /. A voluntary housing production goal established by Metro for each jurisdiction within the region; //. Comprehensive plan changes that ensure a diverse range of affordable housing types, maintain the existing supply of affordable housing, and increase opportunities for new affordable housing; ///. Seven specific tools and strategies identified in the Regional Housing Strategy Plan. These include: 1 . allowing density bonuses 2. providing for replacement housing 3. encouraging voluntary inclusionary zoning 4. allowing for transfer of development rights 5. addressing elderly/disabled housing needs 6. correcting existing regulatory constraints 7. reviewing surface parking requirements /V Other land use and non-land use tools that promote affordable housing. January2003. Local governments are required to submit a report on the status of comprehensive plan amendments and adoption of land use related affordable housing tools. • Affordable Housing Program ♦ g ® • January2004. Local governments are required to report on the amendments to the comprehensive plan, the outcomes of affordable housing tools implemented, and developed, or expected affordable housing. The City has fulfilled its first year or 2002 obligations under Title 7. It has submitted the required progress report that describes how the City meets or could meet each of the four 2002 objectives. Within the report is a discussion of five Metro-recommended tools and strategies considered but not adopted by Council. The following is a description of the approaches that Council decided were not appropriate for Tigard: 1. Affordable Housing Production Goal During 2001-02, City Council considered the utility of setting a voluntary affordable housing goal for the community, but took no formal action regarding the adoption of such a goal. Council's view was that, while adoption of a benchmark goal might help highlight the need for more affordable housing, it would not in and of itself result in the production of additional units. 2. Density Bonus A density bonus is a land use incentive that allows a developer to construct more units than otherwise would be allowed in a specified residential zone in exchange for the provision of affordable housing units. In order to implement a density bonus program, a City/developer agreement and periodic monitoring would be needed to make sure the units are rented at affordable rates and rented to households who have incomes falling.within the range established by the City. Also, periodic updating of the income levels would be necessary. The administration and monitoring requirements of a density bonus program would require considerable staff time and expertise. For this and other reasons, Council considered, but did not adopt this tool. 3. Transfer of Development Rights Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is a zoning strategy designed to direct development from one site to another in order to preserve a publicly valued (and typically natural) resource. As applied to housing, it allows the transfer of unused density or development potential from one site to another. Affordable Housing Program *10 • • Council has discussed the TDR concept, but taken no action with regard to its implementation. In addition to presenting administrative difficulties, this measure does not appear to be needed at this time. 4. Replacement Housing Replacement housing is the concept that affordable housing units lost through demolition or conversion must be replaced by an equal number of similarly sized, priced, and located units by the agency or individual deemed responsible for the loss of the original units. An inventory of existing housing would be required to implement this tool. As a practical matter, the City does not have an inventory of affordable housing and the creation of such an inventory would require considerable staff time. Moreover, a replacement housing requirement could discourage individuals from undertaking in-fill development. Council considered, but did not endorse this tool. 5. Inclusionary Housing In its various forms, inclusionary housing is a mandatory requirement or voluntary objective that assigns a percentage of housing units in new residential developments to be sold or rented to lower or moderate-income households at an affordable levels. Most inclusionary housing programs rely on a combination of incentives. These can include a density bonus, fee waivers, or reduced impact fees. In 1999, the State enacted a law prohibiting mandatory inclusionary housing in Oregon. Council has declined to support a voluntary program. Affordable Housing Program *1.1 • V. local housing PROVIDERS The City does not itself develop or acquire affordable housing within the community. The public body responsible for providing affordable housing opportunities for the low- income residents of Tigard and the County as a whole is the Washington County Housing Authority. Tigard has a renewable, ten-year cooperative agreement with the Housing Authority that allows the agency to build and/or purchase and manage affordable housing inside the City. Currently, the agency owns and manages 224 units located within the City limits. Along with smaller projects, these include the Colonies Apartments, acquired in late-2001 , and the Bonita Villa Apartments, formerly Tiffany Court, acquired in mid-2002. (It is of interest that as of July 2002 the agency was proposing to invest $800,000 in the rehabilitation of the second mentioned complex, which is located along Bonita Road opposite a new grant-funded City park, proposed for development during 2002-03.) In addition to its role as a public housing developer, the agency administers two key federal housing assistance programs within Washington County. These programs involve the provision of rent vouchers to low income households and of low-interest loans to non-profit housing providers for affordable housing development. The rent vouchers can be used for the rental of any safe and sanitary housing unit. The program pays the difference between the rent level and 30% of income, up to a reasonable rent standard. A third key federal housing program is administered by the State Housing and Community Services Division and provides tax credits to private housing providers. As of early 2002, Tigard's inventory of subsidized affordable housing included the following units and programs. As indicated, because a rent voucher holder may live anywhere, including in a public housing or privately-owned tax credit unit, some overlap exists between the number of rent voucher holders and number of housing units. An important qualification in terms of target population is that whereas almost all rent voucher holders have incomes at or below the 50% of median level, Housing Authority units serve a variety of income levels. On average, somewhat more than half of these units are rented to households with incomes at 50% of median or lower. The federal tax credit program is targeted at households earning at or below 60% of median income. • Washington County Housing Authority/State Housing Division - single family & duplex housing 32 units -The Colonies 96 Affordable Housing Program '12 • • - Bonita Villa 96 - Rent vouchers to households 180 vouchers - State administered Federal tax credits to private providers 600 units Total units/vouchers/credits 1 ,004 Other affordable housing providers who own and manage units in Tigard include the private non-profit housing corporations Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) and the Tualatin Valley Housing Partners (TVHP). As of early 2002, Tigard's inventory of private non-profit affordable housing included the following. It should be noted that one of the apartments, Metzger Park, is not located in Tigard but is adjacent to the City limits. The majority of rent levels in the non-profit units are set to be affordable to the 50% of median and below group. m Non-Profit Housing Corporations 1. CPAH - Greenburg Oaks 84 units - Metzger Park (unincorporated Metzger) 32 - Village at Washington Square 26 - Single family house 1 2. TVHP - Hawthorn Villa 119 Total 262 units As suggested, because of lack of available data on the overlap between voucher and tax credit programs, on the one hand, and public and private housing units, on the other, it is not possible to determine the number of unduplicated assisted units located in Tigard. However, despite the difficulty of putting together a spreadsheet of the City's housing stock and of whom it serves, it is very significant to note that during the 12-month period from mid-2001 to mid-2002, the inventory of Housing Authority and private non- profit units increased dramatically from 286 to 505 units, in the form of three new housing projects. Affordable Housing Program •13 0 0 VI . policies, goals , & STRATEGIES • Tigard has adopted Comprehensive Plan policies, Community visioning goals and implementation strategies intended to improve opportunities for development of affordable housing. These various policies, goals, and strategies are described below. Comprehensive Plan The Tigard Comprehensive Plan includes two policies, 6.1 .1 and 6.2.1 , that address housing. Under each policy are implementing strategies designed to fulfill the City's housing objectives. 6.1.1 The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. Implementation strategies include: • Establish a "broad range of zoning districts that allow for a variety of housing types, and comply with the Metropolitan Housing Rule". • • Allow for manufactured homes in all the zoning districts. • Provide for opportunities for proposals to develop specialized housing for the area's senior citizens and handicapped based on the needs of these groups by allowing special needs housing for these groups in all development districts. • Coordinate with the Washington County Housing Authority, HUD, and other agencies for the provision of the subsidized housing programs. 6.2.1 The City shall develop clear and concise development regulations and standards to facilitate the streamlining of development proposals, and will eliminate unnecessary provisions which could increase housing costs without corresponding benefit. Implementation strategies include: • The Tigard Code shall include a clear and concise process for the review and approval of development proposals. Affordable Housing Program •14 • • • The City shall seek ways to minimize the cost of housing by encouraging a variety of home ownership alternatives, such as, but not limited to, townhouses and condominiums. In brief, the City's Comprehensive Plan contains policies and a range of implementation strategies designed to fulfill the City's housing objectives. Highlights are that the City establishes 1-, 2-, 3.5-, 4.5-, 7-, 12-, 25-, 40- unit per acre residential land use districts that provide development opportunities ranging from detached single-family to high-density multi-family units.* Manufactured homes are a type of detached housing that are more affordable than site built housing. The City allows this type of housing in all the residential zoning districts. Specialized housing to meet the needs of the elderly and handicapped also is allowed in all the residential zoning districts. These are groups that generally need access to affordable housing. In addition, the City allows transitional housing (public or non- profit group housing with tenancy of less than one month) in most residential zones. Community Vision Goals Tigard Beyond Tomorrowis a detailed community-visioning document that defines the City's long term goals. It includes direction statements and goals for each of six "target areas". One of the six target areas is "Growth and Growth Management", defined as what Tigard will look like twenty years from now. Under this target area is a major goal that relates to affordable housing. Growth and Growth Management, Goa/#3: Partnerships for advocacy for development of additional units and preservation of affordable housing are encouraged and supported by the City and the community. Under the goal are strategies, action plans, and progress details. The following list of strategies and action plans includes updates contained in the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow, 2001 Progress Report. *It should be noted that the City's supply of vacant land zoned R-40 appears to be severely depleted. This is a density required by many non-profits in order to develop projects affordable to the 50%of median group. Somewhat mitigating against this problem are Community Development Code rules that allow land designated for development at the R-25 density to be upgraded to R-40,provided applicable code criteria are met. Although more difficult to justify,the code also allows for upzoning of R-12 to R-40,subject to the applicable Comprehensive Plan criteria and approval process. This comment is not intended to minimize the importance of the multi-family land supply problem as the City becomes increasingly built out. Affordable Housing Program 415 • • 1) Strategy: Implement a program to educate Tigard citizens about the importance of affordable housing. • Action Plans: • Start community dialogue on affordable housing issues. • Define community goals for affordable housing. • Develop and implement outreach program. • Ensure that mobile homes are considered affordable housing. • Ensure the public is aware of available housing resources. 2) Strategy: Make incentive programs available to providers of affordable housing units. Action Plans: • Study committee consider targeting financial incentive to specific areas of the City. • ' Council consider and implement recommendations of study committee. • Develop outreach program to "advertise" incentives. 3) Strategy: Review City's zoning code and Comprehensive Plan policies to provide maximum opportunities for affordable housing. Action Plans: • Consider minimum densities, inclusionary zoning and density bonuses as tools to encourage affordable housing. • Develop a mechanism to track affordable housing units constructed. 4) Strategy: Incorporate affordable housing policies into study of downtown, Washington Square, and other mixed use areas. Action Plans: • None, strategy achieved 5) Strengthen ties between City, Washington County, and other Washington County cities to jointly provide affordable housing services. Action Plans: • Hold summit on affordable housing with policy makers, develop community and technical resources to identify issues. Affordable Housing Program '16 ® 0 • Summit follow-up to consider jointly providing technical assistance for affordable housing developers. • Consider increase in number of Washington County subsidy units allowed in Tigard. Briefly stated, the Progress Details portion of the community visioning progress report indicates that the City has made important advances in addressing these strategies: • The City participates in the Countywide Housing Advocacy Group, which promotes affordable housing efforts in the County, with a focus on public education. • The Community Development Code allows manufactured dwelling units in all single family residential areas. • The City provides a property tax exemption to low income housing. • The City identifies and pursues grants to improve roads and sidewalks serving affordable housing projects and areas. • A minimum density requirement in all residential districts of 80% of allowed density is in place. • The Washington Square Regional Center Plan provides the opportunity for increased density, while Citywide housing policies apply to the downtown. Affordable Housing Program 4'17 • • VII . affordable housing PROGRAM • The City has taken a number of actions in order to facilitate affordable housing in the community in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, visioning report, and Council goal of Considering)ways to support the provision of affordable housing. These include land use and non-land use actions. The major land use actions taken to date are discussed below, followed by a description of non-land use actions. Under each action is a description of the particular problem or barrier addressed. Together, these actions form the City's approved affordable housing program. LAND USE ACTIONS Elderly and disabled housing Problem: According to a recent study, half of elderly renters in Oregon spend over 35% of income on rent. A majority of people with disabilities are at 30% or less of median household income. The City historically has been and continues to be willing to consider tools that support the development of housing for the elderly and people with disabilities. In 1998, the Tigard Community Development Code was revised to allow accessory dwelling units, or so-called granny flats. Accessory dwellings often provide an affordable housing option for the elderly. Group care facilities are permitted in all of the residential districts and in the City's two mixed-use districts. Mixed-use developments provide access to key services needed by these groups. Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinance changes that remove unnecessary constraints, discrepancies, and stream line the permitting and approval processes. Problem: Delays in the permitting and approval process force builders and developers to pay extra interest on borrowed money. This increases the overall cost of housing. Discrepancies in planning and zoning codes can impact the cost of development by reducing the number of units that can be built on a parcel. A top priority of the City has been to find ways of streamlining and expediting the approval process. As a major example, in 1997-98, the City undertook a yearlong effort to re-write and improve the user-friendliness of the Development Code. A consultant was hired to assist with this effort. The Code, as currently written, contains clear and Affordable Housing Program X18 • objective standards. Staff regularly propose "housekeeping" Development Code amendments intended to remove Or revise standards that are unnecessary, conflict with other provisions, or are not as clear and objective as they were intended. The City's development permit procedures promote efficient and effective review of affordable housing projects. Parking Problem: Parking can be a large component of developing housing. Parking spaces are expensive to provide where land values are high. Parking is an important cost consideration in the provision of affordable housing. In 1998, the City changed the Community Development Code to allow adjustments to parking requirements for projects serving special resident populations, including affordable housing projects. The rationale for the affordable housing adjustment was a local study showing that low-income people generally own fewer cars and use transit more than the general population. Individual projects can apply for the exemption. NON-LAND USE ACTIONS In addition to the land use strategies described above, the City uses a number of non- land use approaches to increase the supply of affordable housing. The goal of these approaches is to reduce the cost of producing affordable housing. System Development Charges/Permit fees Problem: System Development Charges and permit fees increase the cost of building housing and are required up front which increase the amount of money a developer needs to start a project. Typical fees and charges imposed on a single family house in Tigard are in the $10-11 ,000 range. A typical multi-family housing project is assessed approximately $3,000 per unit in fees and charges. System development charges (SDCs) are collected for improvements to water and sewer systems, parks, roads, and other infrastructure. The purpose of the SDCs is to impose an equitable share of the cost of future capital facility needs upon those developments that create the need for or increase the usage of those facilities. Of the five SDCs that apply to development within Tigard, the City imposes only two, the park and water SDCs. The other SDCs are imposed by other agencies, such as Clean Water Services and Affordable Housing Program .19 • Washington County. In 2001 , the City provided a special, one-time park SDC fee reimbursement of $8,000 to a non-profit housing provider. As part of the 2002-03 budget process, Council established a set aside within the Social Services and Events Fund to offset fees and charges on affordable housing development. The first-year set- aside amount is $10,000. Property Tax Exemption Problem: Property taxes add to the cost of operating affordable housing and are passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents. Property tax exemptions allow the owners of targeted low-income housing to reduce rents or allow homeowners to reduce monthly housing costs. Tigard has provided a tax abatement program for owners or leaseholders of property used to provide affordable housing within the City since 1996. In addition to the City process, the housing provider must make separate application to overlapping jurisdictions that represent a minimum of 51% of the taxes levied on the property in question before the Washington County Tax Assessor can certify the abatement. The property tax exemption must be applied for each assessment year. As of mid-2002, three projects received the exemption. Land Cost and Availability Problem: The supply of land available to develop for housing is limited and land costs are high. One way the City is dealing with the land supply problem is by supporting the active implementation of the County's policy of re-selling at below market cost or donating tax foreclosed properties to non-profits for affordable housing development. The procedures established by the County for the disposal of these properties to eligible housing providers include a requirement that the project have the support of the affected local jurisdiction. Other Non-Land Use Strategies In addition to the non-land use actions highlighted above, Tigard has and continues to employ a number of other ongoing and one-time non-land use strategies to support and/or reduce the cost of producing affordable housing. Affordable Housing Program •20 ■• 4 AMINES .yak. • • During the five year period, 1997-2002, the City provided rent-free office space to Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH), the Tigard-based non- profit housing provider, in a City-owned building. The value of the space, which CPAH shared with Neighborshare, was estimated at $8,000 annually. • During the mid- to late-nineties, the City applied for and received three Community Development Block Grants (altogether $460,000) to improve the roads and sidewalks bordering the CPAH owned and managed Greenburg Oaks low income housing project. In 1998, the City was awarded a $60,000 grant to improve the storm drainage facilities within a low income neighborhood. The City continues to look for grant opportunities to fund needed public improvements serving low income neighborhoods and housing projects. • The City financially supports the Good Neighbor (homeless) Center located on Greenburg Road, contributing $1 5,000 annually to the agency's operating budget from the Social Service and Community Events fund. This fund is set at .5% of the prior year's operating budget. • • In the late nineties, after two years of work by a task force composed of tenant, landlord, and community representatives, Tigard implemented a Residential Property Maintenance Code, becoming only the fourth city in Oregon to do so. The City's intent in setting up the code and in hiring a full-time Housing Inspector to administer it was to insure continued safe and sanitary housing. • The "Housing Emergency Fund" was established in 1999 to assist occupants of housing declared to be unsafe or uninhabitable. For fiscal year 2002-03, the fund amount is $10,000. • Two years ago, the City established the Enhanced Safety Program (ESP). This is a three-phase program designed to reduce crime and increase the livability of rental properties. The phases include landlord training, a security assessment, and tenant crime prevention training. The CPAH owned Greenburg Oaks and Village at Washington Square apartments participate in this program. One of the proposed requirements for the new program to offset fees and charges on affordable housing development is that the project sponsor must guarantee that the project will be enrolled in the ESP and maintain certification for the life of the housing structure. Affordable Housing Program •21 • • • The City is a member of the Housing Advocacy Group (HAG), contributing $500 in annual dues. The HAG was established in late 1999 and focuses on Washington County housing advocacy issues. The group monitors affordable housing throughout Washington County and sponsors a periodic housing symposium, designed to educate the public about housing issues. Present members include the three County-based low income housing corporations; various other non-profit organizations, such as handicapped and elderly service providers; the County Housing Authority; the State Housing Agency; HUD; and the Cities of Beaverton and Tigard. City staff have participated in the HAG monthly meetings since early 2000. These meetings assist staff in staying abreast of County and regional housing issues and activities. Affordable Housing Program X22 • • VIII. CONCLUSION • This report details the approach the City is taking to meet the Council goal of Consider(ing)ways to support the provision of affordable housing. The City's guiding documents relative to affordable housing policy are the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the community visioning report, Tigard Beyond Tomorrow. The Comprehensive Plan policies reflect the City's commitment to maintaining a variety of housing choices and to removing barriers to the development of affordable housing. The community visioning goals and strategies reflect citizen support for the application of a variety of locally appropriate measures to promote affordable housing. The action program followed by the City as a means to make progress toward maintaining and increasing the supply of affordable housing includes: Land Use Measures • Allowing accessory dwelling units • An updated and streamlined development review process • Reduced parking requirements for affordable housing projects Non-Land Use Measures • Tax abatement for affordable housing • A budget set-aside to reduce fees and charges imposed on affordable housing development • Support for the sale or donation of tax foreclosed properties to non-profit housing providers • Annual financial support for the operation of the Tigard-based Good Neighbor Center homeless shelter • Rent-free office space for a Tigard-based affordable housing provider • Identifying and pursuing available grants to finance needed on- and off-site public improvements, such as sidewalks, streets, and storm sewers, serving affordable housing areas or projects • The Housing Inspection Program to maintain the quality of the City's existing housing stock • The Housing Emergency Fund to assist occupants of housing declared to be unsafe or uninhabitable • The Enhanced Safety Program to improve the safety of rental properties • Membership in the Countywide Housing Advocacy Group Affordable Housing Program •23 • Except for the first mentioned measure, allowing accessory dwelling units, all of these are voluntary actions taken by the City to support and enhance opportunities for affordable housing. These adopted policies, goals, strategies, and voluntary actions reflect the City's current level of effort to meet the affordable housing needs of the community and to improve the quality of life for its low income residents. Affordable Housing Program X24 • • s IV. next STEPS Future steps under Tigard's Affordable Housing program include the following: • Adopt standards for requests for funds from the newly-established set-aside to offset fees and charges on affordable housing development . • Complete and submit Metro-required 2003 and 2004 affordable housing progress reports. • Continue to provide support for the donation or reduced price sale of tax foreclosed and surplus properties to non-profit affordable housing providers. • • Provide yearly updates to Council on the affordable housing program. • • I/Irpn/barbara/housing.affordable housing action plan Affordable Housing Program X25 • • • AI 10 :x CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Planning Commission FROM: Duane Roberts, Associate Planner DATE: 3/8/04 SUBJECT: Goa! 5 Attached is a recent Goal 5 handout prepared by Partners for Natural Places, the county-wide Goal 5 planning group. The handout provides an update to the Goal 5 packet forwarded to Planning Commission in conjunction with its January Goal 5 agenda item. .. . 41, • • •.. - - • t •, :1.: . .. . .. • 0. ri •. .,. ... • .A..4A . • •---• :...--... -- z . . . . - • . . ,. • .. it- • , it 2 ;. .: ., . . • ::..,„,...„...-4 , . _. , • ,._ ' . , • ..• - Oil. ;;1'4i.li.1!:!,ZW:,.^. N . Af''' ' Protecting , . _ .. . -, : '.1.'7:-.V0;7:.t.'•,‘..:i6' !'v,.=,c,..P.4 . - ' ::,,i .' ..t.-.,, 4i:7'V Fi•■ Wild.. li 4•fe Habitat• .. i 4, i - .,.,,::•:-[,%7,.,:-A, ".,f,.. -Q. ' .-, Fish & abtat 5 . V:''t‘' - .! • .-..'". : ..:‘:: .,AI,':',"•r- - i "the 4A4i-t-Tt.,'''4'• n th Tualatin Basin . • , 1. .. ..:.., . . .„....,i, ...,:;., . . : . , .. • :t..4.-5v:ft.„-- % • -_ --.7446.00,-. .. 774,! ..- ..,:., : . _ • ), . • ,, . , ...„, ;:. .- ,• , ...:. ,o. .0„.,,„. :„,--,,,..sils,••••..v.• -7'.. itigv',„ - . .,_• ::•• •:- ::':.''•': -•:. •: . 1,..Aimiiiii.„_„.• . : ','' ...,----- -'' '.'• - .-?..„''.. .,:,„.. i,,'.. ,"A"A :,:•?,i,.,r,,.4.: ..,...,„.. •.,;:. , •.. ..: • :., ., . -"IumoirY-,:.:7": . :. ;1-.4; NNA, • , . - '"' •IL k, • . • - °- ::ci3::.,.,;,44:a;,,-,A:4:,,,A4,z.:.. ;:,:;..:,:(,&;.;,ii7:•:,,,,A,:iva,:a4w,:,4)fa...::::::::. .:-. &. .:. ., . -.-, _ Fish & wildlife habitat protection analysis underway Next Steps Ten Washington County cities have joined with the County, Clean Water 1 n the spring of 2004 the Paroiers will Services and the Tualatin Kills Park and Recreation District to develop a fish complete the local [SEE analysis and rec- and wildlife habitat protection program for the Thalatin River Basin.This ommend the degree of fish and wildlife collaborative effort, known as the'Ilialatin Basin Partners for Natural Places habitat protection for the Tualatin Basin. (Partners), is being completed in cooperation with Metro.The Partners' recoil,- Metro will also complete the regional mendarion to improve the environmental health of the-litalatin Basin will ES EE analysis and adopt a map showing be forwarded to Metro later this vear for Metro Council action as part of where future development may be affected their regional habitat protection efforts to meet statewide planning Coal 5 around the region. . (Natural Resources). .. The final step will be the development Because of legal requirements, Goal 5 work in the rural area will differ of a program to protect sign& from the application in the urban area. Riparian areas, floocIplains and cant habitat. Potential tools include water quality issues for the rural area will be addressed as a separate process. education, incentives, funding pro- • grams for site acquisition chgtr*und . and improvement as ' well as regu- . In 2001 Metro undertook a region-wide fish and wildlife habitat protection :. latory standards that limit the project to ensure a coordinated program for resource protection and :, impacts of new .,. development enhancement, since fish and wildlife habitat does not fit neatly into city and '': on the habitatp'.. areas.All • county boundaries.The project is guided by state- ,, potentially wide Planning Goal 5 and the federal Clean affected prop- Water and Endangered Species Acts. In 2002 •' - - , erty owners and Metro approved an inventory of regionally . . , - , ,.- ',!:,, ,:;,;.;-.,::.,6--," interested persons will '.. • significant fish and wildlife habitat. • ,,,u,•",t, be notified prior to final program adoption. : ,,, "During 2003 Metro identified the eco- , .floto.ici social,environmental and energy • ' . .. 'N‹ At this stage, recom- (ESEE) -,. consequences ) nSequences of protecting-or • . -,;:',' — mendations have been • . ,, ,-. ; not protecting-habitat on a regional scale. ',6/:' • .' ', ,i made only for lands The Tualatin Basin Partners are using Metro's ...q ::, , :: .;''!.:, N.,. .;:-,4 included in Metro's inventory • inventory to conduct a more site-specific local : ", :-i/I''''' ''''' ' . ,--'•,;;?I'4.•;I:i of natural resources, covering areas ESBEaffalysk." :- - ‘. ,,A ,, ,;;/ generally within one mile of the urban '''i.'[, growth boundary (IJGB). Rural resources ..eleah*ater-SerVices has also done extensive • ',.,.41)',:!.1 beyond the Metro inventory area will be .:-1 41 watershed data gathering and scientific analysis to ''''‘''Pi, ''',i1-i,F1 ,:' i.;,s addressed with the third and final phase of ,N ' .:t vi , - fulfill the requirements of the Endangered,,,Specie : •.' ,",.•':,,:-':-,:.'7'.. i' ,'!,, 0 • ' the TUalatin Basin's Goal 5 work. For these and CleadWaterActs. This data is being used'4"i''' ''',;''",-,I,A.:t, -:" :,?:;;'' ',:,2,; .-';''I ;' ''''''I').ktfOPPttiO,'4.parall4 program to encourage es,k;ex!sring environmental health OfTiParian.akii44:;&,':':-:, ''.'.:.: .i::;:,,'..`: ', P:,- streattilitilefirtitetriffikt strategies for improy7 , .0a;siii:as well 4.05Tdocurnent the quality of identified ignificant resources, . ,.„ ing water quality'is being considered. 1 -.'•:-';:', ... •-.2. '`. ._-!. _ • Mrl. , � � a 9 � What is Goat 5P te ' Definitions of Allow -Limit Prohibit The Partners are f reviewing the ESEE >,a. rr r z ist t �' consequences of allow- 5 = ,, } 'eY r t,f, ,ti ...--46,.,' ing,limiting or prohib- s' s� a `''' j'''#r t i ' e ,j ti e `o r 1 a 'r.f "�"P 7 t 44 iting development in or '� Goal y1� /�yy iii t V 1� �� '•`�� `��,��r ' � near significant fish and l',‘;','''' i The'Goal S'.pwoCess has � A i �, ; r. 45 e �2 ��0"" 4 m � ;`,:' wildlife habitat areas. What does , yt a i, ...•. rt.�'t y vpF�x'�''EU�,,tr � ?s- ,� .hwnx§ ur1. lml ? Phase Once: eom letedi � - 4 kd o t',�-t 3"Sr� t ,� "allow", "limit'',, or"prohibit" mean. . ##` + pig } :V.,4,2,, !' ,,,t, ) "�� Fr �.,41011- 4 �� v� • An allow decision means that Bevel- ' > �,^ .- t l P 4 4,,i"7 ` €kip { ,-it�� opment would be permitted to occur : . kid y ,s',. .5 , , t sr#;a ',a '",, for r.A .� '' lii,�4da, , ,„Ari ,� tiiii ,,,y r, � t� fix, � within or near significant fish and wild- w. Y # -,, r, 5 'a "`-',1".”'" C �'ti yes '� r, 4 '-d # " '�` , oe tt e• `�� '�� .�� ;�' � life habitat areas, subject to existing , ,r 4 ay e'4 is#,x u. m ,,nary i rra � �'* � � regulations such as Clean Water Ser ''�G t + r� is ,rfa,tf!?. p, - s #ll,,�t, -. a y �? ! vices Design and Construction Stan- P rise T t k 4 /,y �� o :� .,, g r ` , .,:, w, e;reso '" ,'~',�r � " ' ,0,,,,„,,� k ; dards and local, state and federal t i. t ,,, n�, , - ,,,s,,,te` - 'a� ' wetland regulations. arouno l� a 4 rah g f, t i;4'.,„,..-:,-1 e x « ?w , z '* T'';'," y 413;" 1 -''a''' };Fw `.� { 4 • A limit' decision means that there ' , ` 'l` 'A -- ''� #1:". ' anal ti, is a balance between allowing devel-1 Yr 4 �� -'SK cs 'x �, ' a £ . rolubittng opment within or near significant fish t 3 tp ; " �a t... uld P-: ��,$ -.-',._-‘,,,<"-,,-.7' n-ta+ c.,. - P -I E gt�4x, , ,.j 3 , t,� t ,A01.'4..`" - 3 ,, ,„ ,., „.`,l" ,, , and wildlife habitat areas and protecting w. '44,-'41',,=' ,'''',1,,-ti p 41- , a,r k� 4i ,_ , � + those areas from negative impacts that p da ra 7 , ��y 'S'„yha ar v, s-1:4.1.,...4`y v t 0,-,„5,,,,r,'t kiy t b , 4 t,, n. ed o c-, can result from development activities. t',.44,04,,„,,,,,,,,, . Y, W ,, t„ .fir , `,� if,.4 � { ., �r � rn+ � �� o r =' t6, ttkt�`�artn ir��<, f � 1,4,,,f„,'..,., gwk YkY �G ,rr .l' 1 � i-� ,, • A prohibit decision means that Phi i ,+ r �. "w,' ra , k " ,;{�s",z` ;,1' develo ment would be prohibited 1 , „. p ��.,, p p 1 y ;a v r y h n t ,,r a� tYt v R v _ v si t ' c tp'} ` a 4s `, within significant fish and wildlife 114 � '�� t ��,protectton rotecttq��► , .. � . ' i7, , �� a, ' habitat areas. "k ,,,,,. �.'.,44.., ,!-4 ,,,,,, eav, '' 4 =u»a ,i Si:.,.--._....1 ...w.,,i.,JI. ' :.Y..uv,..,.., { >?it U5 d w i .. . Phase Three: %,, 3: Phase Two: Conducting the Defining a y y ESEEAnalysis Protection `"., 'S,',,. The Partners are reviewing the economic, social, environmental and n A energy(ESEE) consequences of allowing, limitin or prohibiting develo Pro am MPlt/►Virn �,,; gy( q g limiting P g p , �, r ment in the urban portion of the Tualatin Basin,drawing upon a variety of For each resource site, information sources. These sources include Metro and local government local governments must develop a pro- ' inventories and plans. gram that allows, limits or prohibits uses that could conflict with significant Positive and negative consequences which could result from a decision to allow, fish and wildlife habitats, and incorpo- limit or prohibit development on or near significant resources have been drawn rate that program in local policies and up and are being taken out to the public for review in March 2004.Trade-offs are regulations. Draft Allow-Limit-Prohibit being discussed and possible program solutions suggested. (ALP) maps, along with the results of 1 the ESEE analysis, are being presented for public review in March 2004. <� r r' ', i a ti 4 al t Rathet�rna prrpo a oneAllow Latntt Prohibit map to which the public can react; 1 .� 4 R , y 4)which th ►,are tiahan, to the publican Open Houses in tiatth of,2004 For 4 ',4054 ,„ �'' ' orydnd non-010,latory�ap reaches are being analyzed. The'tmde of fs associate with ' � � ,,,.: and .,t'o ' „p fining 1ptf rma4on to the Metro Council as it considers where and, ' x �' x r 3 -a . a ,, - y, I ;y fie.,, 0, . o ,t, l.( 'h 4'i .... t,m' ,'k.+�t5ttt' u1C*.cA1�.,..'S.�5,.5, 2 a �t #f..�r , ,y '' iw ,. ,t i'-di ,r a, r ,i , - • v Tualatin River Basis S� nr °, r N•Allow-Limit-Prohibit 914'''','''-`,: ,,� i tf4 sp a sU ,�a }, �Mt, 0 ..,,,.,,,,, ,,,,i •4/40'.> 'alp,' )•,',:•,/,•L4',,t,,.::9-m,-,,s:.,Acvt•jiO —0.01,.Ali • of••,,,,,;,-,,,,,,, _ �3d� t It ;3 t � t .t a ill{ ,.e . ', i4.14490,,,,,v,,,,,,, . ,,,,,,,,,,„: „i21. '� z ski • .,,,:‘,4, r! t x �; , . •"' 4 a� 1 1 �< & i ' +# , t R i`14;,� {{ $ �. Y ^i°:%�t�+ t r al r p,� .�+3u{,` ,.' ;d t ,U),(5,,..*,;.�d rfr- Fi� �. S 7 1.0 :4 rN� 1 i 3 � tom'« �� f9�� .'". `°T^ .kk'4� Y •. t t Yf§".«-d r l d/ p s y,:stow . ,) J vi `. f 53�r k.Q.,?: `•••' r4:„.:4;::,,:,;...,,I,:,,.„...,,,,,,,,\v,i,,,,,,liot.,, :...t...40i4,4717:,,, ,,, .,„„, u .,,,,ti,„„,‘,1 Project c i,„4,,,,,: ..„.. �` bit' ,?, ,`.>, � 1 ry � z = ; : a air „ � ��-d Initial Open Houses,Inven ? - �� - �J °,,a a''` for review,ESEE analysis;,,,- 1`' k 4 r` ',�1 *A K, y 1r 0 n 1� �xt„ pre-program concepts a,'4r ,,, ' , 1 to .0, `t,� �'�4-t '',,=>'r. g ,IA r '� #lx t t rt r YI'M }, �s, � m , , r Ailx d� Open Houses and Public ,) 0w' �� ',.),,q1. 1,,,'0,,'...°. „r, '7,;4' r ',.� '"� � HeariHearing on draft ESEE` ' �ei.l.1 �q, y , ^-Z '. ' ,, ng yr}3' s + �z r r�l� J i,��`s ,Ur *YL��°�sOJ'�,tit dt n '"-a��ru analyses and drat Allow/ f ri x� � "";2!P`'' ' 1,4:,-,4 g "xi�aF a ,,,-\-0.4''s r Limit/Prohibit maps v '9 ,., G t'�d �f n ' %` ' ESEE-Allow/Limit/ 7 I , Prohibit decision 1 1 eii " Stnirrog, . '" "Limit"area inside Tualatin Basin Open Houses and Public 1 Hearings on Draft Prograi Metro Fish and Wildlife Study Area inside Tualatin Basin Augusl County Boundary Preliminary program,pro- ,t `,- posal finalized and:for-:' z What effect will this have can private property? a. warded to Metro for review` Much of the land being studied is already protected under existing regulations to DecentbAr for water quality and flood management(vegetated corridor rules implemented Metro Council acts o.til';�t;'1e,.- by Clean Water Services under Metro Title 3), is in public ownership (such as 7.3 regional program and.Tt parks), or is already protected under local governments' Goal 5 programs. Under 100 atin Basin Plan for fish•,atrid„'' the Partners'efforts, private owners may be offered incentives to protect their land 0 wildlife habitat protection LL: and/or they may be required to meet new regulations. Possible program tools to ad protect Goal 5 resources include: Spring • Technical assistance to landowners to adopt voluntary conservation practices , Board of County Coin'-,'11-` • Incentives for resource protection missioners and City., Education and outreach to encourage resource protection practices Councils act on local `A;' • Regulations to achieve additional resource protection implementation for the;; .;,':' • Funding programs for: new Tualatin Basin ,`. Goal 5 program -Acquisition of key resource sites FT ,,� :.„,w;.L,. -Improvements to enhance stream corridor conditions .. ., . Once the Partners have completed the Partner contacts: . t, analyses and determined which lands will ww,g .', require further protection, programs to (1, -„,;'-" k Beaverton i'r, A.,.. achieve the goal of conserving and protecting sensitive habitat will 1E be drawn u The program" ;: P P g <. proposals will be presented � : }; 4:1'‘✓' "a!, for public review and com- city of p y Forest Grout ,; ` } ment in the summer of 2004. orest , , T 1 ��, rOV� ,' Y-, x"kC er > ,:,„ : 4,4- " � , er public hearings, elected officials (the ; ,, c,,i : ��r 4 ,,rte` ''''' x P g atin Basin Natural Resource Coordi- s ,� ?l , re4io x, ;� '`� k7 C,, If • , 'tin Committee)will make final recom- '` P "- `r= .1`y< �, rn�• g �f t 4, r� $tom , cations to the Metro Council on a Goal 5 ' „ �` i ,,t 42,' {� ,� ; �'a� '• a . for the Tualatin River Basin. Follow- I°I _J'pit r `' � «` .4 „ , 'i '`I‘, etIo's approval, local governments have a r , s. ` v " u i PP g ' k : .3t,r t ��.,, ,a i „ 80 days to adopt implementing ordinances. 4 O RR'f 'r 'fir � }!, , , ' `7-c4',.' • lie input owe " ,• f .µ �, There will s 7 3 ottunities for input from the general public and directly i MO 24-ho>,tt'{'hd n 'k ' 'j affected property owners as the project progresses.You may attend Open Houses this ,o O3w79741888 oprton,2 atlso ` spring and summer 2004,where you can fill out and submit a comment card,or you 1 P g Y Y �� :cktecit.�vvw+n�,metio regiOn o'rg; may testify in person at Public Hearings. At any time before the summer hearing,you may also write to: !' ,; .t 77, Julia I-lajduk . The Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee <',.'. 503 639-4171 Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation :-julia @ci.tigard,or.us Planning Division, 155 N. 1st Avenue,Suite 350-14 Hillsboro,OR 97124 n Stacy Hopkins If your property might be affected,you will receive official notices of open houses and 503-691-3028, public hearings. If you would like to be added to this mailing list,call or e-mail your shopkins @ci.tualatin.or.us local City or the County's Planning Division(see contact information on the right). Clean Water Services If your property might be affected,you will receive official notices of open houses and Sheri Wantland public hearings. If you would like to be added to this mailing list,call your local City 503-846-3601 or the County's Planning Division,503-846-3519. wantlans @cleanwaterservices.org Our website http://www.co.washington.or.us/goal5 offers information and convenient . Tualatin Hills Park and e-mail access to local planning staff. You may also attend the Tualatin Basin Natural Recreation District Resource Coordinating Committee meetings and make comments. Call 503-846- __ - David Endres, 503-645-6433, 3519 for a schedule. dendres @thprd.com Participating Partner Agencies �°trco,, Washington County :- ' • The Cities of Beaverton, Cornelius, • Clean Water Services �"'.6-61'y, , lut 503-846-3519 or lutplan@co.washington.or.us Forest Grove, Hillsboro, • Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation P g King City, North Plains, Sherwood, District(THPRD) Tigard and Tualatin • Washington County Cities not listed, • Metro call Washington County Private organizations are also involved, adding their expertise to be sure the final , 411i programs are acceptable to and workable for the community. Some of these are: v' `t King City • Tualatin Riverkeepers • Home Builders Association • Audubon Society of Portland • Associated General Contractors -•. _ *ii,. - ... .. .. ... . • Westside Economic Alliance • SOLU Sherwood a or.g,„ and more... ..-'''--w.. wM N°RTHP::: City of Durham „r,.� .w, / r • Memo To: Tigard Planning Commission From: Barbara Shields, Long Range Planning Manager RE: Metro Survey: Physical Attributes of a Community's Sense of Place Council Discussion Follow Up Date: March 5, 2004 On February 24, 2004 Council reviewed the Planning Commission draft letter in response to the Metro Performance Measures Survey(Attachments 1 and 2). The survey would help Metro to assess how regional policies may impact local jurisdictions to develop their sense of place. As a follow up to the February 24, 2004 Council discussion, Council requested a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council (Attachment 3). The City Council would like to discuss the survey letter with the Planning Commission on March 16, 2004 (Attachment 4). As a background, Metro completed its first performance measures report in March 2003. This report was Metro's first comprehensive attempt to evaluate the regional land use, transportation, and natural resource policies adopted in various regional plans I:\LRPLN\Barbara\PC\MemoMarch]5.doc .mss • •• i • Attachment 1 yam.. METRO A Survey Concerning the Role of Metro in Enabling Local Governments to Enhance their Physical Sense of Place • Purpose The purpose of this survey is to measure local government's observations of how regional policies contribute(or could contribute)to the ability of local governments to identify and enhance attributes contributing to a sense of physical identity. The information collected with this survey will be used as part of performance measures to assess how this region is doing in relation to growth management goals and policies. A list of the attributes of a community physical identity is provided below. • Please return the survey by January 30, 2004. f i tt., :'tCf14._ :1nfn�r;'Phlrytc .;il�gy:Fj iK:a; `t;i:;i.'• , i r.iPs�tl'l' .S . • For the community of (Please give your city or county name) How to Complete this Survey • • Please use the followinq set of questions as a template to address each of the 14 physical features on the bottom of this survey(next page). • Write the name of your jurisdiction in the space above•and return a copy of this page with your completed survey, or put the title of this survey and name of your jurisdiction on the top of your completed survey. - Template of Survey Questions a) Does your jurisdiction currently have(insert a physical feature from the list below) that help define your community's physical sense of place?.YES NO b) If yes, explain these features. ..gm\long range planninglprojectslperformance measureslsurvey of igslfundamental6-draft 2004 survey.doc • • c) if no, what Metro policies and programs (if any) are presently encouraging your community to enhance these features? • d) If no, could a regional policy adopted by Metro encourage your community to promote the creation of these features? • List of Physical Features: • 1. Defining architecture • 2. Historic and other sites 3. "Original"downtown area including town plazas and squares 4. Large institutions and facilities (universities/colleges, sports and entertainment complexes, . unique parks and trails, etc.) . • 5. Major commercial/industrial complexes 6. Existing Mainstreets. . 7. Unique neighborhoods (ex. Portland's Ladd's Addition neighborhood) 8. Unique street design (ex. small blocks, dense street trees) . 9. Unique natural attributes(ex. topography, water features, etc.) 10.Significant greenspaces/open spaces 11. Unique views(ex. Mt. Hood) 12. Unique shopping centers or restaurants 13.Seasonal markets or fairgrounds 14.Regular arts or cultural festival facilities • • Please return the survey by January 30, 2004 to: Attn. Performance Measures Metro Regional Planning • • 600 NE Grand Ave. Portland, OR 97232 • • • • ..gmUong range pianninglprojectslperformange measureslsurvey of Igs\fundamental6-draft 2004 survey.doc Attachment 2 • • DRAFT February 5,2004 Gerry Uba Metro 600 NE Grand Ave. Portland,OR 97232 RE:Performance Measures Survey Dear Gerry: The City of Tigard received Metro's Performance Measures survey and request to comment upon our community's physical sense of place. In response,Tigard considered the survey questions at the Planning Commission meeting on January 26, 2004 and the City Council meeting on February 24,2004. The City's observations follow: The City of Tigard occupies a unique location in the Portland area,defined by both natural features and major transportation thoroughfares. It was built upon a traditional zoning approach with separation of uses,but also a diversity of uses (commercial, industrial,residential).Tigard also possesses a number of physical features that help define its sense of place,based on the survey's attribute list: • The City has a distinct Downtown area(without common areas)with small businesses,however the future commuter rail transit station may become a"common area." • The Fanno Creek Greenway Trail winds through Tigard,connecting neighborhoods to one another and to the Civic Center. Cook Park is the City's communal backyard,sited on the Tualatin River. • Both the Washington Square Regional Center and the Tigard Triangle are distinct commercial areas with separate development code regulations. • Although Tigard does not have Metro-designated Main Streets,state highways OR99W and Hall Blvd. are the primary"streets"in the City. OR99W in particular runs through the middle of Tigard,carrying traffic through the City. Much of this traffic is by non-Tigard residents using the street as a transportation corridor. Highway 217 has a peripheral impact on traffic patterns in the City,since a number of trips are by local residents using the highway,in effect,as a local street. • The community's street design follows typical suburban design with residential cul-de-sacs and limited connectivity. • The City gains its greatest sense of place from its diverse topography and natural features,including trees. From Bull Mountain and little Bull I:\LRPLN\beth\Planning Commission\USE THIS METRO LETTER.DOC • ® DRAFT Mountain,to the lowlands along the Tualatin River on the south,and the lower"bowl"elevation in between,Tigard residents identify with the City's strong physical presence. • Washington Square Mall is a regional shopping draw. The above list summarizes Tigard's primary elements that contribute to its sense of place.However,it should be noted that some of these features also present challenges, particularly those that are transportation-related,with respect to funding and local control.These challenges will continue as our community continues to grow and will require innovative approaches involving all of our government partners. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Best regards, Craig Dirksen Mark Padgett Mayor President City of Tigard Tigard Planning Commission I:\LRPLN\beth\Planning Commission\USE THIS METRO LETTER.DOC • Attlment 3 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Barbara Shields FROM: Jim Hendryx , r DATE: February 27, 2004 SUBJECT: Metro Performance Measures Survey As a follow up to the February 24, 2004 Council meeting, Council requested a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council be scheduled for March 16th to discuss the survey and the City's response. It was the intent that Council formally authorize the Mayor to sign the revised letter on March 24, 2004. Key points made by the City Council (not in any particular order): > People enjoy Tigard's suburban lifestyle. > The community continues to change as it becomes more urbanized. The sense of place becomes more critical with this urbanization. ➢ Greenspaces and open space are being lost with increased densities and development, again reflecting the community's sense of place. The City Council would like to discuss the survey letter with the Planning Commission. Some Council members will be present at the March 15th Planning Commission meeting. The group could discuss the letter that evening. Otherwise, Council invites the Planning Commission to their March 16th meeting to discuss the letter. Attachment 4 AGENDA ITEM# FOR AGENDA OF March 16,2004 CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Metro Performance Measures Survey PREPARED BY: Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK / 1/ A 'ITY MGR OK / I ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review draft letter to Metro on physical attributes of a community sense of place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review draft letter to Metro that will be distributed at the Council workshop meeting on the physical attributes of a community sense of place. Give direction on finalization of letter. INFORMATION SUMMARY Metro first completed its performance measures report in March of 2003. This report was Metro's first comprehensive attempt to evaluate the regional land use, transportation, and natural resource policy adopted in various regional plans. Metro is asking jurisdictions for input via the Sense of Place Survey. The Planning Commission and Council were scheduled to discuss our response to the survey at their joint meeting on February 17, 2004. Unfortunately, this matter was not discussed at that meeting. As a follow up, the draft letter was presented to Council on February 24, 2004 for Council's input and direction. Council made several key points that were to be incorporated into a revised letter. This letter will be discussed with the Planning Commission on March 15, 2004. Planning Commission comments/revisions to the draft letter are scheduled to return to the March 16th Council meeting and again on March 23`d for finalization. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST None DRAFT e February 5,2004 `� t V Gerry Uba Metro • 600 NE Grand Ave. Portland, OR 97232 RE: Performance Measures Survey Dear Gerry: The City of Tigard received Metro's Performance Measures survey and request to comment upon our community's physical sense of place. In response,Tigard considered the survey questions at the Planning Commission meeting on January 26, 2004 and the City Council meeting on February 24, 2004. The City's observations follow: The City of Tigard occupies a unique location in the Portland area, defined by both natural features and major transportation thoroughfares. It was built upon a traditional zoning approach with separation of uses, but also a diversity of uses (commercial, industrial,residential). Tigard also possesses a number of physical features that help define its sense of place, based on the survey's attribute list: ■ The City has a distinct Downtown area (without common areas) with small businesses, however the future commuter rail transit station may become a "common area." ■ The Fanno Creek Greenway Trail winds through Tigard, connecting neighborhoods to one another and to the Civic Center. Cook Park is the City's communal backyard, sited on the Tualatin River. ▪ Both the Washington Square Regional Center and the Tigard Triangle are distinct commercial areas with separate development code regulations. ▪ Although Tigard does not have Metro-designated Main Streets, state highways OR99W and Hall Blvd. are the primary "streets" in the City. OR99W in particular runs through the middle of Tigard, carrying traffic through the City. Much of this traffic is by non-Tigard residents using the street as a transportation corridor. Highway 217 has a peripheral impact on traffic patterns in the City, since a number of trips are by local residents using the highway, in effect, as a local street. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\metrosul.DOC • • DRAFT • The community's street design follows typical suburban design with residential cul-de-sacs and limited connectivity. • The City gains its greatest sense of place from its diverse topography and natural features, including trees. From Bull Mountain and little Bull Mountain, to the lowlands along the Tualatin River on the south, and the lower"bowl" elevation in between,Tigard residents identify with the City's strong physical presence. • Washington Square Mall is a regional shopping draw. The above list summarizes Tigard's primary elements that contribute to its sense of place. However, it should be noted that some of these features also present challenges, particularly those that are transportation-related,with respect to funding and local control. These challenges will continue as our community continues to grow and will require innovative approaches involving all of our government partners. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Best regards, Craig Dirksen Mark Padgett Mayor President City of Tigard Tigard Planning Commission • Q\WINDOWS\TEMP\metrosu 1.DOC •