Loading...
02/15/2017 - Packet M.— p- Completeness Review for Boards, Commissions TIGARD and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD CCAC - City Center Advisory Commission Name of Board, Commission or Committee February 15, 2017 Date of Meeting I have verified these documents are a complete copy of the official record. Joe Patton,Meeting Secretary Print Name p)Pq gnature March 9,2017 Date City of Tigard City Center Advisory Commission Agenda MEETING DATE/TIME: February 15, 2017 — 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Red Rock Creek Conference Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER Carine 6:30 2. CONSIDER MINUTES Carine 6:35 November 9, 2016 and January 18, 2017 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Carine 6:40 4. 2017 CCAC OFFICER ELECTIONS All 6:45 5. STRATEGIC PLAN: CONNECTIONS TO WALKING Buff Brown 6:50 AND PARKING 6. CCDA BUDGET PROPOSAL Sean 7:20 Action Item 7. URBAN RENEWAL SURVEY RESULTS Sean 7:35 8. PROJECT UPDATES Sean 7:45 9. CCDA/CCAC JOINT MEETING DEBRIEF Carine and Sean 7:55 10. FINALIZE CCAC GOALS AND LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS Carine 8:10 11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Carine 8:25 12. ADJOURN MEETING Carine 8:30 *EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Center Advisory Commission may go into Executive Session to discuss real property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e).All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS 192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed.No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision.Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Upcoming meetings of note: Wednesday,March 8, 6:30 p.m., Regular CCAC Meeting, Red Rock Creek Conference Room CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA— February 15, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 CITY OF TIGARD CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Meeting Minutes February 15, 2017 Members Present: Carine Arendes (Chair),Josh Kearney,Tim Myshak, Gloria Pinzon Marin, Kate Rogers (Vice Chair), and Richard Shavey. Members Absent: Cameron Anderly,Joyce Casey and Sarah Villanueva (Ex Officio). Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly, Senior Transportation Planner Buff Brown, and Administrative Specialist Joe Patton. Others Present: Councilor John Goodhouse, Council Liaison to the CCAC. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Arendes called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Red Rock Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.Joe recorded the roll call. 2. CONSIDER MINUTES The November 9, 2016 and January 18, 2017 CCAC Minutes were approved. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. 2017 CCAC OFFICER ELECTIONS Nominations took place at the previous meeting and there were no additional nominations. By a unanimous vote, Carine was re-elected as Chair and Kate was elected as Vice Chair. 5. STRATEGIC PLAN: CONNECTIONS TO WALKING AND PARKING Buff gave a presentation regarding parking noting that central city districts that thrive are those that do not provide excessive off-street surface parking. Utilizing minimum parking standards do not promote walkability. Shared parking creates efficient parking without the need for underutilized surface parking. He shared a parking chart describing the different stages of parking and discussed where downtown Tigard and the proposed Triangle Urban Renewal District are today. 6. CCDA BUDGET PROPOSAL Sean briefly discussed the CCDA budget process and the proposed budget. The budget is currently with the City Manager who serves as the CCDA Executive Director. He noted that tax increment income is one third less than initially projected at the formation of the district. 7. URBAN RENEWAL SURVEY RESULTS Sean briefly reviewed the survey results. Council revised the wording of the ballot measure for clarity. 8. PROJECT UPDATES Sean noted that ninety developers/architects/consultants received a Request for Letters of Interest for the Fanno and Main project. An ad ran in the Daily Journal of Commerce.An interview panel consisting of staff, two members each of CCDA, CCAC,TDA and the Planning Commission will conduct interviews for the top proposals on March 23 and 24. Richard and Kate volunteered to serve for CCAC. Page 1 of 2 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION February 15, 2017 9. CCDA/CCAC JOINT MEETING DEBRIEF Public Works is working on the downtown public parking signage. There is interest in facilitating shared parking agreements. It is important to share what the CCAC is working on while attending other meetings as a liaison. 10. FINALIZE CCAC GOALS AND LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS An additional goal under Communications and Engagement is work with Economic Development staff. Under Implementation for Mid/Long term projects,Park land acquisition will change to Plaza opportunities. The goals were unanimously adopted as revised. Liaison volunteers, to monitor agendas and attend other meetings when the downtown is a topic, are: PRAB—Richard and josh; SW Corridor— Carine and Tim; Council—Canine and Kate;TTAC—Joyce and Gloria. The TDA was invited to brief CCAC at least twice this year. It was noted that Economic Development staff Lloyd Purdy will be asked to provide updates on a similar basis. 11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS PRAB expressed concern over locating a splash pad at the Tigard Heritage Trail. Decisions on amenities will need to wait until the selection of a designer to determine space requirements and costs. The space will host a variety of temporary activities through the summer allowing a test drive to see what works and what needs exist. A task force on homelessness will convene in March. Anyone wishing to take part should contact Kent Wyatt. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm. JoPPatton, CCAC Meeting Secretary ATTEST: Carine Aren es, Chair Page 2of2 n :, f. 1 0 _ Parkingj,j x �r� -w5 � V � '"i' rte• i.Y �y:�s r 4 City I Tigard Ord" - " i Maud _ e ,,, I UR, 1 -- I IIl $20 $20,000 $20�000 kFj yTU ;� rV 65, mow- N The High Cost of Parking Minimums have high costs Free Parking2. 85% Rule for on-street parking DONALD SHOUT 3. Performance-based regulation/pricing City of Tigard Office TOTAL SPACES 5 1/2 - 6 per Restaurant Restaurant 1,000 Sf Entertainment TOTAL EMPTY SPACES Etertainment 21/2 - aper Office A 1,000 Sf Noon I i City / Tigard Percent of Occupied Parking in Downtown Parking Garages - Sept 26 to Oct 2, 2006 Morton & 7th (Walnut& 7th 4th St 100.0% - 75.0% --------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------- 50.Q°/o --- -------- --- ----- 25.0% - -------------- 4 Saturday Sept 30 Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Home Football Sunday Monday Sept 26 Sept 27 Sept 28 Sept 29 Game (noon) Oct 1 Oct 2 0.0% E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E M M CL CL M M CL CL M M CL CL M M 0- 0- M M n n M M CL CL m m CL CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ud7 O N M 43 O 04 C) U7 O N 61 Lo O N 63 L6 O N M U7 O N M LL7 O N 6) L.• u rl,'�ti is •�.1�4 r ' �.- a+-f i� _ IL City of Tigard i .4.� _ i r .+1-�Lu ++`fid`" 'M - 1 - Off-Street Acreage Parking spaces Parking Footprint URA 380 12652 152 F W I ' y - -r �!A v .q ! ��6•� Y 1 T g. Triangle 327 10990 128 - +;.tea!,_ , o I -. 4i1 � °a ,• •� 1' dw �. # 'Y � � 1 i s• 1 City I Tigard Gross Floor Area (GFA) 634,457 awl spaces/1000sf 4.27 25 k`LYd p eZ p Irl W15F&+ a a � p pavement sqft 945,186 Parking Spaces 2712 I �°J 147512' x °°°! x 1 p Building footprint 272,326 flAS°! A165°J Other 501,366 p a 21:33 Tuesday, Feb Wednesday, Feb ° y 24, 11:OOam 25, 2:OOpm 2:8G8°55°!134 ti occupied 1350 1295 4 3 07&1325°°!212 percentage of total 49.8% 47.8% "'6. J5T/TB11 4 2912fl995°°Yi8. '. a 5°&48225 45 occupied spaces/1000sf GFA 2.13 2.04 (not including vacant building) 2.28 2.18 + \ p 24122,455°° �51L1 calculated unused pavement 474,684 493,853 unused acres 10.9 11.3 a \) .,....2491&1414 414 pavement /space sace 349/ p used pavement-to-building footprint ratio 1.73 total pavement-to-building footprint ratio 3.47 used pavement-to-GFA ratio 0.74 total pavement-to-GFA ratio 1.49 NO+yk +�;� �! "mss. T .Y* ..A Z y,. i s �.. dim job WA fflw�i LAW aft ��' �� �„�' n �`!i-� ir��a_�.�^•��All�. �' � ��. � Y• ' I �.i.-..'! ,- •�'�w -!Y. •,� U11- OP r ~ ` ■ '_ a �* : !R` • F i� • . - �' '� 9+/ • his • \ �� Iii t rWIG -.� a �— � _ . . � ♦ 3' OWN � .� . ' ,` �� /•gyp. I � •I r �•� -.+ CIA df • s oil a Ore. v «t l I 1w r The Evolution of Public Policies for Parking Urban Form Parking Policy Parking Parking Parking Benefit Facilities Restrictions Enforcement Step 1 Off-street ITE Suburban Minimums Off-Street No Restriction No Enforcement Free(fully subsidized)Parking low-density Maximize On- Step 2 On-Street No Restriction No Enforcement Maximize Free-Parking Spaces Street Maximize On- Off-Street Step 3 No Restriction No Enforcement Maximize Free-Parking Spaces Street Public Lots Step 4 Maximize On- Off-Street Time No Enforcement Accommodates short-term visitors Street Public Lots Restrictions (usually retail areas). � Maximize On- Off-Street Time Regular Creates consistency and compliance. Step 5 Enforcement Street Public Lots Restrictions (PD) Often self-funding. Public Parking Off-Street Enforced Consolidates parking issues into a Step 6 Ordinance Public Lots (Parking Dept)Permits Department.Create Parking Permit ordinance. Public Parking Enforced Pay for use. Less punative,more Step 7 Ordinance (Parking Dept)On-Street Meters acceptable,more revenue,better at moving employees to off-street spaces. Public Parking Off-StreetEnforced Expensive,but really improves density. Ordinance Public Garage (Parking Dept) Step 8 Permits/Meter Best if shared--multi-use,unreserved parking. Neighbor On- Off-StreetEnforced Parking spilling into neighborhoods, Step 9 Permits/Meter which can either ban it or benefit Street Permits Public Garage (Parking Dept) financiallyfrom it. Step 10 Parking Privately- Parking Demand gets to the point that the garage Owned Permits/Meterg will pay for itself(no subsidy),less gov Urban Walkable Moritorium Garages Management Co involvement for off-street parking. Current * Op 2-hour � ,�� f� Unlimited of 2-hr lot NILEt / Ilef f /4-1 I Is, 4 -10 f '1►F I wp IF 44k ww410, NN+aa «� Step 2 — Maximize On-Street Parking - r i- r c,�l�� „ c� spy � �� �,'� hg ,,r� �i � �•rcib �X Go apace t�f �`F (��r✓ lop (.A saw ! Tt Arm ° a ` .YrC 10 0a c — � v Existing signs stay-> 40 4 Step Maximize On-Street Parking street location regulation before after Burnham Main to Ash unlimited 22 0 Main to Ash 2 hour 0 32 Ash to Hall unlimited 14 30 Ash South of Tracks unlimited 18 0 Ash South of Tracks 2 hour Tot 54 86 street location regulation before potential Commercial Main to Ash 2 hour 19 24 Main to Ash unlimited 19 19 Ash to Hall unlimited Tot 63 1 68 street location regulationore poten Scoffins Main to Ash 0 40 Ash Commercial to Scoffins unlimited Main St Burnham to Fanno Ck Apt 2 hour 31 31 Fanno Ck Apt to 99W 2 hour 5 5 Burnham to RR 2 hour 15 13 RR to Scoffins 2 hour 44 44 Tigard St Main to 99W bridge unlimited 7 0 2 hour 0 11 N.Burnham ROW ROW Main to 99W berm unlimited 8 11 Electric St Main to 99W berm unlimited 5 5 Symposium public off-street lot 2 hour 11 11 public off-street lot Tenant 3 3 Burnham lot public off-street lot 2 hour 20 20 Subtotal Grand To I 284 366 Current * Op 2-hour � ,�� f� Unlimited of 2-hr lot #y + I f , „'�► F I r . IF 44k ww410, +aa NN City of Tigard 1ppvm Tigard Downtown Parking Utilization - June 2015 2015 onstreet, offstreet, and combined occu pa ncies South of railroad ©On-Street(72 stalls) W Off-Street (401 stalls) MCombined (473 stalls) 100% 90% SOlrn �` a tea ° a� o P` u^Ln'Lri [€a t��c? 031 00 00L o Ln r4 0 40% - 30% 20% - 10% 0° 9:30 AM 10:30 AM11:30 AM 12:30 PM 1:30 PM 2:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM 0:.30 PM City / Tigard Occupancy N of Railroad 1 100% 2hour- NofRR 90°1 ■ unlimited - N of RR Soy() 70°1 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% j 7.00am 8:00am 9:10am 10:30am 11:40am 1:30pm 3:40pm City / Tigard Occupancy S of Railroad 100% �2hour-5 of RR 904 ■ unlimited -S of RR s4% 70A - 60% 40° 2 dura 10°1 Oaf 7.00am 8:00am 9:10am 1030am 11:40am 1:30pm 3:40pm City I Tigard Occupancy (2-hour) -S of Railroad 100% ■I Main (5 of Burnham) 90% rv, Main (Burnham to RR) 80% ■ Burnham Lot (2-hour) 70% ■ Symposium Lot (2-hour) 60% 50% 40% 30i°o 20! - — 10% 0% 7:00am 8:00am 9:10am 1030am 11:40am 1:30pm 3:40pm 0 'helhicle Parking - Length of Stay (unlimited) 20 a Burnham 149 a Commercial 16 14 12 a� 10 E 3 5 ci 7 Stay length (H ursl Vehick! Parking - Length of Stay (2-hour) 45 40 35 9 Main (5 of Burnham) I Main (13urnharn to RR) Mair (N of RR) r., ■ Burnham Lot (2-hour) 12 25 N Symposium Lot (2-hour) Q 10 t i� I 3 4 5 6 7 Stay length (hours) 110000%..14 % of Violating Users 00°✓ - - 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Main (S of Burnham) Main (Burnham to RR) Main (N of RR) Burnham Lot (2-hour) Symposium Lot (2-hour) Current * Op 2-hour � ,�� f� Unlimited of 2-hr lot #y + I f , „'�► F I r . IF 44k ww410, +aa NN Phase 1 ck 4F* O 2-hour Unlimited ,f 2-hr lot #y Y -Nk c% I F � fY N IF 44k ww410, Ar Agenda Item 6 CCDA FY 17-18 Draft Proposed Budget Resources Amount Comment Beginning Fund Balance $104,490 Previous tax increment Estimated FY 17-18 Tax Increment $536,723 From 2016 model EPA Brownfield Clean Up Grant $300,000 Balance after FY15-16 work Rental income $78,157 Ferguson Total Resources $1,019,370 Projects Saxony demolition, clean-up and site $400,000 EPA grant for cleanup and part of preparation demolition ($300,000). $100K CCDA funds for demolition and other site prep. Tigard Street Heritage Trailhead $150,000 CCDA contribution for plaza Urban Renewal Improvement Program $50,000 Opportunity fund for Strolling Street, opportunity fund Targeted Improvement, Facade Improvement Architectural Design/ Real Estate Advisors $15,000 Concept drawings for public spaces Main at Fanno public space development $100,000 Design and engineering Total Projects $715,000 Requirements Debt Service $162,329 Reserve for Future Debt Service $142,041 Total projects and requirements $1,019,370 06 4041 h—• FaftUL Portland CcrnmLlniry [callrge * 2TI Os Map K =rriamry sxua4 aTza Lake #Ikr =SecmnttarY study rwC. MARKET City of Tigard & O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H �F4�OA.10� w 5 E R V� C E s Tigard Triangle Development Survey December 2016 Methodology ► Live telephone survey of registered voters in the City of Tigard ► Conducted December 6th to 11th, 2016 ► 300 total interviews, with an overall margin of error of ±5.7 percentage points at the 95% confidence interval ► Interviewing conducted using trained, professional interviewers ► Data weighted to be demographically representative of voters in the City of Tigard ► Tigard is divided into North and South regions in analysis primarily by SW Gaarde and SW McDonald Streets Please • that due to rounding, some percentages • not •• • up to - • 1I'. -F , iwM(74. EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 12 MARKET Mood of the City & OPINION - 5ERVIIcF5 Direction of the City A majority of voters in Tigard feel optimistic about the direction of the city. Right Direction 68 Wrong Track 19/ (Don't Know) a j 14% 4. Do you feel that things in the City of Tigard are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things , iwM-, (74. have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 14 City Improvement Priorities Reducing traffic congestion is the highest priority overall and by intensity. Growth and development is clearly the second highest priority. ■ 7 - Very High Priority 6 Total High Priority Reducing traffic congestion 21% 69% Improving how we handle growth and development : ' 18% 47% Getting MAX light rail service to Tigard ' . 10% 31% Making all of Tigard more walkable JF15%15% 32% Improving bus and express bus service M12% 29% Developing a currently underdeveloped area of Tigard with12% 21% new housing, restaurants, and shopping 5-10. For each of the following items, please tell me how much of a priority you think that . item should be for the City of Tigard. EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 15 MARKET Reception of & OPINION - _ sERV���S Urban Renewal Plan Familiarity with Tigard Triangle A majority of Tigard voters are familiar with the Triangle, with over a third saying they are very familiar with it. Familiar 65% Somewhat 29% Not Familiar 32% 8% Very 36% (Don't Know/ . Refused) 3% 11. Are you familiar with an area of the City known as the Tigard Triangle? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 1 7 Familiarity with Tigard Triangle — By Subgroup Voters over the age of 50 and frequent voters are the most familiar with the Triangle, while voters under 50 and infrequent voters are the least familiar. Very Familiar Somewhat familiar Total familiar OVERALL 29% 65% Male (n=141) 24% 65% Female (n=159) 33% 65% 18-49 (n=147) 22% 52% 50+ (n=153) 35% 77% North (n=176) 30% 67% South (n=123) 28% 62% Voted in 4/4 elections (n=72) 34% 79% Voted in <4/4 elections (n=228) 27% 60% 11. Are you familiar with an area of the City known as the Tigard Triangle? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 8 Measure Support — Initial After hearing the initial ballot title, a majority of voters support the measure, at the same time, almost three-quarters of that support is soft support ("somewhat"). In addition, a large proportion are unsure initially (22%). Next May, there may be a ballot measure in Tigard to create an urban renewal area in the Tigard Triangle which reads: "Shall the City of Tigard implement an urban renewal area and plan for the Tigard Triangle?" Support 57% Somewhat 41% (Don't Know/ Oppose Refused) 21% 22% 6ii hat 11% Strongly •' � 1 ' -F , iwM(74. 12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this measure? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 19 Measure Support — Initial, By Subgroup There is relatively consistent support across demographic groups. Net support, the gap between support and opposition, is also fairly consistent across groups. Despite the fact that frequent voters are significantly more familiar with the Triangle than infrequent voters, support levels are similar. ■ Support (Don't Know) Oppose Net OVERALL ' . 22% ' . +36% Male (n=141) 23% ' . +34% Female (n=159) : ' . 21% 1 ' • +38% 18-49 (n=147) . ' . 23% . ' . +45% 50+ (n=153) ' . 21% . ' . +27% North (n=176) 20% +35% South (n=123) . ' , 25% • • . +38% Voted in 4/4 elections (n=72) : ' . 21% ' • +36% Voted in <4/4 elections (n=228) ' . 22% ' • +36% ,F M 12. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this measure? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 10 Measure Support — Informed After hearing additional information about the measures, support increases. However, the increase in support is almost exclusively among soft supporters. "This potential ballot measure would create an urban renewal area in the Tigard Triangle....Urban renewal is used throughout Oregon to help revitalize areas that are Support underperforming or that lack public 70% infrastructure. Urban renewal does not impose a new tax. However, it does reduce the amount of tax revenue that taxing districts receive for the life of the Urban Renewal Plan. It does this by giving a portion of taxes collected from within the area to the Urban Renewal Agency Somewhat to fix specific problems in the area. If an urban 54% renewal area is approved by City Council and Oppose voters, funds generated by the area would be 26% spent on improving the transportation and (Don't utility infrastructure, attracting new Somewhat Know/ businesses and housing, and developing public 14% spaces such as parks, plazas, and trails. The StrRef) maximum indebtedness under the Urban = • : 4% Renewal Plan is $188 million over a period of ' no more than 35 years." *emphasis added in report only, not during interviewing M 13. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this measure? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 11 Measure Support — Initial and Informed Initial Support Informed Support Support 70% (+13%) Support 57% Somewhat (Don't 54% Oppose 41% 26% Oppose Know) (+5%) 21% 22% (Don't know) Strongly Somewhat 11% 4% •' (-18%) LIL 12, 13. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this measure? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 112 Measure Support — Informed, By Subgroup Support increases across all demographic groups. Net support increases the most in voters under 50, infrequent voters, and those in the North, and decreases the most among frequent voters. ■ Support (Don't Know) Oppose Change From Net Initial OVERALL 700 0 . • +8% Male (n=141) . • ' , ° ' , +8% Female (n=159) ' . ° ' . +8% 18-49 (n=147) ° as +13% 50+ (n=153) . % ' , +2% North (n=176) ' , ° . • , +11% South (n=123) F 6% +3% Voted in 4/4 elections (n=72) • • , 7% ' • -10% Voted in <4/4 elections (n=228) ' . ° +13% h"M , i W -I L70. 13. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this measure? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 113 MARKET Potential Benefits of Plan & OPINION - 5ERVIIcF5 Potential Benefits ► [RESTORING THE MAIN CREEK, 61% VERYIMPORTANT] Restoring the main creek in the Triangle, which would decrease sewer damage and flooding and improve habitat, water quality, and the overall health of the Tualatin River watershed ► [NEW STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, 53% VERY IMPORTANT] Building new streets and sidewalks in the Triangle to improve safety and relieve traffic congestion ► [MAJOR SEWER LINE REPLACING, 47% VERY IMPORTANT] Replacing a major sewer line in the Triangle that the city has fixed temporarily ► [PUBLIC PARKS AND TRAILS, 34% VERY IMPORTANT] Building public parks and trails in the Triangle ► [EASIER TO WALK OR BIKE, 32% VERY IMPORTANT] Making it easier to walk or bike to nearby shops and services in the Triangle ► [STABLE FUNDING SOURCE, 30% VERY IMPORTANT] Providing a stable funding source to build or fix infrastructure in the Triangle that the city may otherwise delay or never be able to afford ► [PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DISTRICT, 26% VERY IMPORTANT] Changing the character of the Triangle from an auto-oriented district with suburban offices and big-box stores into a pedestrian-oriented district with a diverse mix of destinations and activities ► [MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, 21% VERY IMPORTANT] Attracting mixed-use development, especially around light rail stations that may be built in the Triangle in the future , M 74. EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 1 15 Potential Benefits Restoring the main creek in the Triangle is seen as the most important potential benefit of the measure, closely followed by building new streets and sidewalks and replacing a major sewer line in the Triangle. All other benefits are seen by a majority as important, but with decreased intensity. Very Important Somewhat Important % Total Important [RESTORING THE MAIN CREEK] bk 30% 91% [NEW STREETS AND SIDEWALKS] 32% 85% [MAJOR SEWER LINE REPLACING] 38% 85% [PUBLIC PARKS AND TRAILS] 40% 74% [EASIER TO WALK OR BIKE] 39% 70% [STABLE FUNDING SOURCE] 47% 77% [PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DISTRICT] 37% ' 63% [MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT] 41% ■ 62% 14-21. Now I'm going to read you some of the potential benefits of this measure. EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 16 Potential Benefits — Overall vs Movers Those who move to support the measure after this section find similar benefits to be important as the whole group of respondents, but much more so. Overall Positive Movers (n=92) % Total Important [RESTORING THE MAIN CREEK] 91% 97% [NEW STREETS AND SIDEWALKS] 85/ 97% [STABLE FUNDING SOURCE] 77/0 91% [MAJOR SEWER LINE REPLACING] 85/0 90% [PUBLIC PARKS AND TRAILS] 74/ 88% [EASIER TO WALK OR BIKE] 70% 85% [PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DISTRICT] 63% 81% [MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT] - 62/0 80 , imM, L 14-21. Now I'm going to read you some of the potential benefits of this measure. EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 117 Measure Support — After Potential Benefits Progression Total support increases slightly after respondents hear about potential benefits of the measure, but there is a significant increase in intensity of support (+11%). Initial Support Informed Vote After Potential Benefits Support Support 72% 70% (+2%) Support 57% 9 46% Somewhat (Don't 54% Oppose Oppose 41% o Oppose Know) 5% 25/0 26% 2 21% 22/ (Don't Somewh-It (Don't 11% Know) 11% Know) 3% 4% (-1%) W , 22. Given what you have just heard, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or . strongly oppose the measure to create an urban renewal area in the Tigard Triangle? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 1 18 Measure Support — Potential Benefits There is a slight increase in total support across all demographic groups. The largest gain in net support after hearing potential benefits of the measure is among frequent voters. ■ Support (Don't Know) ■ Oppose Net Change From Informed OVERALL ' , ' , +4% Male (n=141) ' , +Q% Female (n=159) ' , % ' . +7% 18-49 (n=147) ' , • ' . +4% 50+ (n=153) +4% North (n=176) ' , ' . +4% South (n=123) 1 ' . ' . +4% Voted in 4/4 elections (n=72) 68% ° 1 ' . +13% Voted in <4/4 elections (n=228) ' , ° ' . +1% 22. Given what you have just heard, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the measure to create an urban renewal area in the Tigard Triangle? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 19 MARKET Positive Messages & OPINION F-45ERVIICE5 Positive Messages ► [WOULD NOT RAISE TAXES, 35% MUCH MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT] The urban renewal area would not raise taxes. It creates its own funding source by using a portion of property taxes from within the Triangle to fix identified problems within the Triangle. ► [SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS COULD BE HELPED, 29% MUCH MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT] Many people call the Triangle home and thousands travel there every day to work and shop. Yet it has significant problems such as flooding, traffic congestion, ongoing sewer line issues caused by creek erosion, and a lack of sidewalks, paved roads, and parks, which could all be helped with funding from urban renewal. ► [MORE WALKABLE COMMUNITY, 28% MUCH MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT] The Triangle is generally unfriendly to pedestrians and cyclists. Urban renewal can help build needed sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, and trails, which would further the community's goal of becoming a more walkable, interconnected and healthy community. ► [COMPLETE COMMUNITY, 25% MUCH MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT] By fostering the creation of a complete community—one which has jobs, housing, services, and transit—urban renewal can help transform the Triangle into a place with walkable neighborhoods and commercial districts where people can live, work, and learn. ► [INCREASES TAX BASE, 24% MUCH MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT] By bringing new businesses into the Triangle, urban renewal increases Tigard's tax base over time which, in turn, helps fund city services for all Tigard residents. ► [INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE, 19% MUCH MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT] Urban renewal in the Triangle is an investment in Tigard's future, its infrastructure, and its economic stability and vitality. ► [READY FOR CHANGE, 15% MUCH MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT] By focusing on the Triangle, which is already zoned for commercial and residential density, urban renewal steers investments toward an area of the city that is the most ready for change. EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 121 Positive Messages All but one message makes a majority of voters more likely to support the measure. The most persuasive says the measure won't raise taxes. Much more likely to support Somewhat more likely to support Total more likely to support [WOULD NOT RAISE TAXES] 30% 65% [SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS COULD BE HELPED] • ' 31% 60% [MORE WALKABLE COMMUNITY] 32% 60% [COMPLETE COMMUNITY] 27% 52% [INCREASES TAX BASE] 38% 62% [INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE] •'. 32% 52% [READY FOR CHANGE] 30% 45% 23-29. Next 1'd like to read you statements from people who support the measure creating an urban renewal area `�:=•■G: in the Tigard Triangle. tiifC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 22 Positive Messages — Overall vs Movers Those who move to support the measure from the initial vote find the message that significant problems could be helped to be the most compelling, closely followed by the message that it would not raise taxes. Overall Positive Movers (n=103) % More Likely to Support [SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS COULD BE 60% HELPED] 79� 65% [WOULD NOT RAISE TAXES] 78% 60% [MORE WALKABLE COMMUNITY] 75% 62% [INCREASES TAX BASE] 70% 52% [COMPLETE COMMUNITY] 68% 52% [INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE] 4 60% J 45% [READY FOR CHANGE] 57% 23-29. Next 1'd like to read you statements from, people who support the measure creating an urban renewal area `�:='■G: in the Tigard Triangle. tiifC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 23 Measure Support — After Messages Progression After hearing the messaging, support increases another 2 points, mostly in intensity. This would suggest the additional positive messages aren't doing much to further increase support, though the structure of the poll somewhat obscures this, in either case, pairing the positive messages with the benefits will result in the largest increase in support. Initial Support Informed Vote After Potential After Positive Benefits Messages Support Support Support 75% 70/ 0 72% (+2Yo) Support 57% 0 d 46% 45% 54% Oppose Somewhat Oppose Oppose 41% Oppose (DK) 0 23/ 21% 22% 26/ 25% (_100) 14% 11% 2% (DK) (DK) (DK) '' 2% •'' 4� "' 3% �•. Y (-1%) 30. Given what you have just heard, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or , imM, Lo. strongly oppose the measure to create an urban renewal area in the Tigard Triangle? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 124 Measure Support — Positive Messages Total support continues to slightly increase across all demographic groups. Messaging leads to the largest increases in net support among voters in the South and frequent voters. Support (Don't Know) . : Oppose Net Change From Benefits OVERALL 2 " ' " +40//u- Male 4%Male (n=141) ' , ° . ' +4% Female (n=159) +3% 18-49 (n=147) 2%9 . ' , +3% 50+ (n=153) 1% +4% North (n=176) 1% +2% South (n=123) 3% +6% Voted in 4/4 elections (n=72) ' , ° +5% Voted in <4/4 elections (n=228) . ' , ' , +3% 30. Given what you have just heard, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or , iwM-, strongly oppose the measure to create an urban renewal area in the Tigard Triangle? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 25 MARKET Open- Ended Reasons for & OPINION 5ERVIA R cF5 Support or Opposition Main Reason for Measure Support After the messaging vote, we asked open-ended questions about the main reason respondents supported the measure, opposed it, or were still undecided. The measure's ability to make the area more usable, attractive, and walkable came out as the top reasons for voters' support. Make the area more usable 15% Make it more attractive/Enhance the area 14% Make a more walkable community 13% Improve the congestion 8% Sounds like a good idea (Unspecified) 8% Positive for the area (General) 7% Provide economic benefits 6% Help with the environment 5% Done without raising taxes 4% Keeping up with the area's growing population 4% Because I live here 4% Other 7% Don't know enough about the measure/Details 4% No Answer 2% ` 31. What is the main reason you support this measure?(n=224) EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 127 Main Reason for Measure Opposition Over a quarter of those who oppose the measure do so because they believe it will negatively affect taxes. Other reasons for opposition are that change is not necessary or that change could cause more congestion. It will negatively affect taxes 22% Change is unnecessary I 19% It will make the area more congested 15% Don't trust the leadership's decisions/ability 13% Not the right area for this measure - 7% It will negatively affect traffic . 5% It will increase the costs of everything in that area . 3% There are more important issues out there . 3% Other W6% Don't know enough about the measure/Details 6% ` 32. What is the main reason you oppose this measure?(n=70) EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 128 MARKET 2006 Downtown & OPINION - _ 5ERVICF5 Urban Renewal Has Downtown Urban Renewal Been Positive ? Almost two-thirds of voters see Downtown urban renewal as a positive thing for the area. As with the Triangle measure initially, most of the positivity is soft ("somewhat"). Positive 65 IF Somewhat 42% (Don't Know/ Negative Refused)19/ 16% Very Somewhat 9% Ver. . . 34. Voters approved an urban renewal area for Downtown Tigard in 2006. From what you know or have heard, has this been a very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or very negative thing for Downtown Tigard? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 130 Measure Support — Urban Renewal Comparison Although a majority of voters see urban renewal Downtown as a positive, the net effect of connecting Downtown with the Triangle is to erode support for urban renewal in the Triangle. Support 70% (-5%) 0 Somewhat 43% Oppose 27% (Don't Know/ Strongly Somewhat 12% Refused) 3% • Strongly • • (+2i) 35. Urban renewal funding has been helping Downtown's revitalization efforts. The Tigard Triangle urban renewal area is modeled after the one created for Downtown. After hearing this, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the measure to create an urban renewal area in , iwM-, the Tigard Triangle? EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 131 Measure Support Progression Measure support peaks at three-quarters support after messages, and has a slight drop-off after comparing the plan to the one implemented Downtown. Support 70% 72% 75% 70% 57% Undecided 22% 26% 25% 23% 27% Opposition 45% 2% 3% Initial Informed After Benefits After Messages Downtown Comparison E imM, EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 132 Conclusions ► Reducing traffic is the top priority in Tigard, followed by improving management of growth and development. ► Self-described familiarity with the Triangle is high (65%). ► There is majority support based on only the ballot title (57%). ► While all of the potential benefits tested are important, there are three that stand out from the rest in intensity and overall : restoring the creek, creating new sidewalks, and replacing the sewer line. ► While a majority of voters support the measure as the survey progresses, support remains mostly in the "soft" category. ► Comparing the Triangle urban renewal to Downtown actually erodes support (-5%). M(74. EMC 16-6248 Tigard Triangle 133 Contacts Y,ARKET E OPINd N I' mi RESEARCH t ' ■ aERVICES Ian Stewart Ian@emcresearch.com 206.204.8032 Alyssa Mendlein Alyssa@emcresearch.com 206.204.8037 Agenda Item 8 2/8/16 Downtown Project Updates 1. Fanno& Main (Saxony) project • Request for Letters of Interest went out on 2/8 to 90 developers/architects /consultants. Ad in Daily Journal of Commerce. • Interviews tentatively scheduled for March, interview panel need CCAC representation • Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives comment period ended. No comments received. • Demolition likely in late spring 2017 2. Tigard Transit Center/Nicoll redevelopment study(Metro CET grant) • 3 alternative concepts being studied A) Nicoli property and part of the existing Transit Center B) Ash Avenue site north of new Transit Center C)Ash Avenue site south of new Transit Center • Phase 1 and 2 reports and appraisals complete 3. Parking management • Internal parking group proposing new parking policies (2 hour limit)for Burnham Street, however dependent on new halftime position being funded • Met with TDA on Downtown parking issues • Approximately 15 new on-street spaces gained by removing no parking areas and removing space markers 4. Developer recruitment Request for Letters of Interest for developers for Fanno @ Main property S. Ash/Burnham Redevelopment Construction continues. Building 2 estimated completion-end of February 2017, Building 1 estimated completion- May 2017 6. Tigard Street Heritage Trail • ODOT Intergovernmental Agreement approved by Council • RFP for design/engineering ready to go 7. Fanno Creek Park Improvements CWS design, engineering underway. Project completion summer 2018 8. Equitable Housing Grant Draft Scope of work submitted to Metro Coordination with City of Portland/Metro on other SW Corridor grants 9. Community Engagement Website updates LETTER OF INTEREST REQUEST Main Street @ Fanno Creek Property in Tigard, Oregon ACQUISITION AND REDEVELOPMENT Issued: February 8, 2017 I Proposals Due: R►. ��!' I.° �, �� ° d � TJ ' ',�(�`a Noon, February 27, 2017 04 JI •r w t� � {�.a Tr .' �� 1".t . � art� •� � � �. I r y i+ CCDA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Main Street @ Fanno Creek Property in TinnrA nrvnnn LETTER OF INTEREST REQUEST FOR A/`/1111CIT1/1A1 AA/n r2CMC1/C11'%nftACAIT ljy ti The City Center Development Agency of the City of Tigard is offering a 17,994 square feet site in the heart of downtown Tigard for ' r g Highway 99W acquisition and redevelopment." .' The site is highly visible with frontage oni '• + Main Street, Highway 99W, and Fanno Creek. �` , Fanno Creek Trail y Main Street This property is a unique opportunity fora developer. The sitehas been "pre-entitled" by the City of Tigard for up to a 45-foot building. Tigard Transit Center Property address: 6r' 12533-12537 SW Main Street ' " Potential Light Rail Station Area Property ID: Main@Fanno Site 2S102ABO2000 and 2S102AB02100 Criteria and full details are available at WWW.TIGARD-OR.GOV/MAINFANNO Capstone Parters T y� Attwell off Main mixed use dev. (165 units) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS If you are interested, the first step is easy. By February 27 (noon) submit: J A. A Letter of Interest that describes the responder's vision for site development. B. Preliminary offer terms for acquiring the property. r These letters will be reviewed by Agency staff and selected developers will be invited to interviews on March 22 and 23 (subject to change). .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 2 Introductiolir "W "qq'1q'1q kL AL_ The Main Street @ Fanno Creek Property (a.k.a. Saxony-Pacific Properties) is located in the heart of historic Downtown Tigard on SW Main Street. The property is owned by the City Center Development Agency (CCDA) the City of Tigard's urban renewal agency. The CCDA is seeking proposals from develop- ment teams to acquire and develop the site. The site is currently approximately 20,331 square feet (after lot line adjustments the parcel available for private development will be 17,994 square feet). This property is a unique opportunity for a developer. To reduce developer risk, the site has been "pre- entitled" by the City of Tigard for up to a 45 foot building on a 7,470 square foot footprint and a 1,405 square foot deck that overlooks Fanno Creek. A recent Development Code change would allow a building up to 80 feet. Changes to some aspects of the approved development can be proposed by the developer, including the building height. Those interested in submitting a proposal in response to the solicitation should, at a minimum, address the general requirements outlined in this document. QUESTIONS? Questions regarding this solicitation may be directed to Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager, 503-718-2420 or sean@tigard-or.gov. AV e • Fl �, '� '. .`� •tib �� :��. Main Street @ Fanno Creek Property Location .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 3 DOWNTOWN TIGARD Centered around Main Street, Tigard's historic downtown has undergone a remarkable revitalization over the past 10 years. In 2005, stakeholders developed the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan to provide a roadmap to a "vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community." In 2006, Tigard voters approved an urban renewal district in Downtown to provide a funding stream to implement planned improvements. Approximately $25 million in public improvements have been completed in the urban renewal district including the Main Street Green Street project; the WES commuter rail station and park & ride; Burnham Street and Ash Avenue street improvements; intersection improvements at Pacific Highway/Main Street and Pacific Highway/Hall Blvd; and urban renewal matching grants awarded to 20 downtown business and property owners. This public investment has attracted significant private investment. In spring of 2017, Capstone Partners' $31 million,165-unit mixed use"Attwell off Main"project will be completed.Several exciting new businesses have moved to Main Street in the past 3 years, providing great new amenities for residents and employees. Downtown Tigard is both highly walkable and easily accessible by automobile.It is a transit rich environment: less than a quarter mile from the Main Street @Fanno site is the Tigard Transit Center, served by seven TriMet bus lines, WES Commuter Rail and Yamhill County Transit. In addition, all of the Southwest Corridor alignments currently being planned include a downtown light rail station that would be approximately a quarter mile from this site. The site is adjacent to the Fanno Creek Trail, an important regional cycling and walking trail, which connects communities in the metro region from Portland to Durham. Tigard's Strategic Plan, adopted in 2014 has the goal of creating, "the most walkable community in the Pacific Northwest where people of all ages and abilities enjoy healthy and interconnected lives." This plan guides the city's infrastructure investments. Proposals must be received no later than noon (12 p.m.) on February 27, 2017. SUBMIT ONE COPY OF MATERIALS TO: City of Tigard City Center Development Agency Permit Center Attn:Sean Farrelly 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Also e-mail an electronic copy to Sean@tigard-or.gov .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 4 Location I Land Use Context My f The Main Street Green Street project was completed in 2014, and added safer pedestrian amenities and crossings and green street features. IN Mr t a iii n� IT Max's Fanno Creek Brewpub, kitty corner from the Attwell off Main, a 165-unit$31 million mixed site, is an example of Main Street's development use project built by Capstone Partners is about as a commercial area of locally owned businesses. a quarter mile from the Main @ Fanno site. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 5 Aw Ic i v _ 4 No c M t Ic A AFZ Xt 1116., 3. About the PWperty A. Street Address: 12533-12537 SW Main Street B. Property Identification i. Property ID: 2S102ABO2000 and 2S102AB02100 ii. Current Owner:The City Center Development Agency of the City of Tigard C. Size: The site currently consists of two tax lots: 2000 which is 14,981 sf and 2100 which is 5,350 sf. The Agency is currently working with ODOT to acquire 2,778 sf of ROW in the rear of the building that will serve as vehicle access to the rear of the building.This ROW will be acquired by the time of the property sale and the city will complete a lot line adjustment to create the parcels shown in Attachment 1. The approved site plan consists of a private development parcel of 17,994 sf.A 5,115 sf parcel is shown as a public area including the deck overlooking Fanno Creek and the vegetated area to be restored. D. Existing improvements: The Agency will demolish the existing structures as part of the environmental cleanup. The Agency has a $400,000 EPA grant to remediate contamination on site. By the time of the property transaction,the site will be cleared and remediated consistent with the Prospective Purchaser Agreement as described in paragraph K, below. E. Property history: Historical and current uses of the Site have included multiple tenants that include a former sawmill, welding shop, printing business,fire shop, and an automotive repair shop. The site was acquired by the City Center Development Agency in 2015. The CCDA was awarded a $400,000 EPA Brownfield grant in 2016 to remediate the properties. In 2015-16, the Agency hired a consultant team, led by Resolve Architecture and Planning,to design a building and site plan that would meet the Tigard Community Development code, Clean Water Services requirements, and other agency requirements. F. Comprehensive plan designation: Most of the property is designated MU-CBD, Mixed Use Central Business District in Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. The western portion of the property is designated as OS; Open Space. The OS designation recognizes that the subject may have sensitive lands onsite but does not prohibit development. G. Zoning designation: The property is zoned Mixed Use Central Business District(MU-CBD).The MU-CBD zoning district is designed to provide a pedestrian-friendly urban village in downtown Tigard. A wide variety of commercial,civic,employment, mixed-use, multifamily and attached single-family residences are permitted. The site is located in the Main Street-Center Street sub-area of the zone. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 7 H. Utilities: A 12-inch storm sewer line together with a water line are located in Main Street and available to the subject for connection. Electricity is provided by Portland General Electric. Internet (including FIGS) is available through Frontier. Cable/internet is available through Comcast. NW Natural Gas is the natural gas service provider. I. Flood Plain Status: The site is within the FEMA 100-year Flood Plain,and partially within the Fanno Creek Floodway; see map and Appendix # 7 for details. The entitled project has received a Service Provider Letter from Clean Water Services, which provides the conditions for development in a floodplain site. The Service Provider Letter expires July 18, 2018. J. Transportation and Access: The site fronts Main Street, a collector and the most walkable commercial street in Tigard. Highway 99W, a principal arterial, runs adjacent to the site on a viaduct. Highway 99W carries an average of 50,000 vehicles a day, making this a highly visible location. A Traffic Impact Study and Traffic Engineering Technical Memorandum commissioned for the land use case are provided in the appendix. The site is less than a quarter mile from the Tigard Transit Center, which is served by seven TriMet bus lines, WES Commuter Rail and Yamhill County Transit. Vehicular driveway access will be off of Main Street. The entitled land use project has 11 surface and tuck under spaces onsite. The Parking and Transportation Demand Management Plan was commissioned and is provided in the appendix. A developer can propose new site plans that could provide more spaces. The Agency may be able to negotiate a limited number of additional offsite spaces with nearby property owners. Main Street has on-street parking with a two hour limit between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM. K. Environmental Conditions: The site has contamination present that will be remediated with the assistance of a $400,000 EPA Brownfield clean up grant. The grant funded project is currently underway with the site projected to be remediated by fall of 2017. Environmental Site Assessments were performed and are included in the Appendix.The reports found: • HVOCs have been detected in groundwater on the upland portion of the Site. The primary HVOC contaminants are PCE, trichloroethylene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), and vinyl chloride (VC). • TPH, PAHs, metals, and PCBs have been detected in sediment along Fanno Creek, but DEQ has determined this site is not a significant contributor to this contamination. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 8 The property was purchased with the protections of a Prospective Purchaser Agreement. Institutional controls in the form of an Easement and Equitable Servitudes (EES), or deed restriction, would be recorded with the Site deed.The EES requirements are: • Groundwater at the site will not be extracted for drinking water, industrial use, or other purposes. If additional groundwater investigation is determined to be necessary,then groundwater sampling may include three to four groundwater monitoring wells,which would be sampled for up to four quarters. • A vapor mitigation system may be required for any structure that may be constructed on the site. When the buildings are demolished and the slab removed, new subsurface testing will determine the need for this system. • A Contaminated Media Management Plan (CMMP) will be developed that will outline the location, and proper handling and disposal of soil and groundwater during construction activities at the Site. L. Easements: ODOT will have a maintenance easement on the back of the property for access to maintain the Highway 99W Right of Way (the embankment area). CWS and the City of Tigard have easements for sewer lines that cross the site where the parking lot is planned to be. DEQ has an easement to allow visits to inspect whether the requirements of the EES are being followed. M. Appraised Value: The Property was appraised in December 2016 and was determined to have a fair land market value of $480,000.This value will be the basis for entering into any formal negotiations between parties. N. Other designations: Vertical Housing Development Zone: The site is located in the Vertical Housing Development Zone. This locally enacted state program allows partial property tax exemption of 20 percent per floor for qualified multi-story mixed use residential buildings. See attachment 25. O. Timeline: PROPERTY CLEANUP December 2015—September 2016 ODOT SURPLUS PROCESS(for rear access property) December 2015-June 2016 SALE AND DEVELOPMENT. Letter of Interest Solicitation: February— March 2017 Developer selection: April 2017 Disposition and Development agreement Negotiation: May—September 2017 Property Sale: October—December 2017 Property Redevelopment: 2018 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 9 4. Land Use EnWlement Details To reduce some risk for developers and to expedite the redevelopment, the CCDA hired a consultant team including an architect, civil engineer, natural resource specialist, and transportation planners to put together the necessary information to obtain land use approval for a mixed use building site plan. The Tigard Hearings Officer approved the plans on September 19, 2016. The Downtown Development Review and Sensitive Lands Review decision and conditions of approval are attached.The land use approval is valid for 18 months, plus a one year extension—until March 19, 2019. A development proposal that largely adheres to the approved plans would be preferable to the Agency, however developers may propose changes to the plans that are consistent with the overall goals for a building that activates the site and Main Street and integrates with the natural resource of Fanno Creek. The upper floors were approved for office, but residential or other uses can be proposed. The approved development consists of a single building comprised of ground floor retail space and upper floor office space. 13 surface and tuck under parking spaces are provided. Ground floor leasable space totals 5,640 square feet. The plans show a 6-story building with gross square footage of 47,830, however only a 45 foot building was approved. A staff level land use review could approve changes to the approved building and site plans.A development code change (subsequent to the land use decision) allows buildings up to 80 feet in the zone. Adjacent to this private development is an area fronting on Fanno Creek which will be developed as a public plaza. The project also entitled a 1,405 public space, a deck built facing Fanno Creek. The entitled project includes utilizing one of the piers in Fanno Creek that currently support one of the buildings. All vegetated areas on the site between the proposed building and Fanno Creek will be enhanced. The CWS Service Provider Letter includes a requirement for offsite mitigation for encroaching into the vegetated corridor. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 10 Approved Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . .. FTTF-Tri Approved Building Elevation (land use approval is for 45 feet) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 11 ' . , 1 '/ ' In making the Property available for redevelopment, the City Center Development Agency anticipates advancing the following development objectives: A. The Agency is looking for the maximum site development achievable, as demonstrated on the approved plans, considering foreseeable market conditions. B. The proposal should maximize the agency's financial return. C. Active ground floor uses, particularly food and beverage businesses, are preferred. D. Creation of public space. E. Implements the vision and goals of existing plans, including those listed below and from plans referenced in the Appendix of this document. 6. City Center Aropment Agency Business Ter-m- The Tigard City Center Development Agency has invested substantial resources in preparing the site for redevelopment, including cleanup and land use entitlement. The CCDA is interested in partnering with a developer to achieve outcomes which promote an accelerated development plan and high quality building design environment. Incentives include expedited permitting and Vertical Housing Development Zone partial tax exemption. The public space in the approved plans is a key aspect of the project. Developers shall propose methods of constructing the space in conjunction with the private development.The Agency proposes that it retain the deck area and will reimburse the developer for the cost of its construction. The proposer can suggest alternate approaches. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 12 7. Submission R .. 1 Letter1 .111h, 1AII1111- The first step in the selection process is to solicit Letters of Interest so that the CCDA may gauge the level of interest in the property and select responders for an interview. Based on the level of interest and the quality of the Letters of Interest, the CCDA will select responders to be invited to submit more detailed proposals. Responders shall provide the following: A. A Letter of Interest that describes the responder's vision for site development. B. Preliminary offer terms for acquiring the property. The selection of responders to interview will be made by Agency/City staff including the Community Development Director and Redevelopment Project Manager based on the following: 1. The level of interest expressed; 2. The degree to which the responder's described vision fulfills the Development Objectives set forth in section 5. The Agency reserves the right to interview responders who suggest alternatives not considered in this solicitation provided the suggestions are generally consistent with the Development Objectives. Proposals must be received no later than noon (12 p.m.) on February 27, 2017. SUBMIT ONE COPY OF MATERIALS TO: City of Tigard City Center Development Agency Permit Center Attn:Sean Farrelly 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Also e-mail an electronic copy to Sean@tigard-or.gov .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 13 • • 1 1 . 1 1 . . The results of the interview selection will be provided to all responders in writing. Interviews will be conducted by a committee made up of City/Agency staff and downtown Tigard stakeholders. At least 21 days prior to an interview, the interviewees will be provided with the following: 1. The names and a brief description of each person on the interview committee 2. A description of the interview criteria and additional submittal requirements for the interview. The interview criteria will, at a minimum include: a. The qualifications and resources of the responder. This will include demonstrated successful experience in developing projects of the nature described in this solicitation on time and within budget; the experience and qualifications of key personnel, conformance with all legal requirements,financial resources, and overall ability to perform. b. Further details regarding the vision of the interviewee for the site and how that vision fulfills the Development Objectives, including creativity, quality, and consistency with the realities of the market. c. The demonstrated level of commitment to the development and including commitment to working with the Agency in a collaborative process to negotiate a development and disposition agreement on mutually acceptable terms. d. At a minimum a pro forma of the anticipated financial return to the agency, including the level of assurances that the return to the agency will be realized, including the level, if any, of public incentives. e. Any changes or additions to the selection process,terms or conditions. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 14 interviewee9. Selection of'Ercce's"sful The committee will select the successful interviewee based on consensus. The committee reserves the right to: select one or more interviewees and require an additional round of interviews/submittals if necessary to make its selection and to independently investigate the qualifications of the interviewee. The committee will make a recommendation to the Agency Board of Directors for a final decision. It is anticipated that the committee will recommend one interviewee but the committee reserves the right to recommend more than one for a final selection by the Board. All interviewees will be informed of the recommendation in writing. Once selected, the successful interviewee and the Agency will enter into negotiations for a Development and Disposition Agreement. OVERALL SCHEDULE (subject to change) Letter of Interest Request Issued: February 8 Letter of Interest Due: February 27 Invitation to Interview with Interview Criteria: March 1 Interviews: March 22/23 Notification of Successful Interviewees: Week of April 3 CCDA Board Approval: May/June DDA Negotiation: June—September CCDA Board Approval of DDA: October/November .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 15 , , Print 10. GENERAL PROPOSAL/CONTRACT CONDITIONS For purposes of this solicitation, "Proposal"means the Letter of Intent and information provided in advance of the interview and in the interview, unless the context requires otherwise. The CCDA reserves the right to modify these provisions prior to selection of a successful interviewee if it determines modifications are appropriate based on the Letters of Intent or other considerations. Any modifications will be provided in writing to the selected interviewees prior to the interview. A. Limitation and Award: This solicitation does not commit the CCDA to select interviewees, make a final selection or the award of a contract. Neither the CCDA, nor its agents, are liable for any cost incurred by proposers prior to execution of any Development Agreements. All prospective proposers who respond to this solicitation do so solely at their own cost and expense.The cost of preparation of a submittal and any related expenses, including travel, shall be entirely the responsibility of the proposer. B. Conflict of Interest: All persons or entities submitting certify that neither the City of Tigard/CCDA, nor any of its officers, agents or employees, has a pecuniary interest in the proposal or has participated in contract negotiations on behalf of the City of Tigard/CCDA; that the proposal is made in good faith without fraud, collusion, or connection of any kind with any other proposer for the same call for proposals;and the proposer is competing solely on its own behalf without connection with,or obligation to, any undisclosed person or firm. C. Letters of Interest and all other information must be physically received by the CCDA on or before the deadline established by the CCDA. Letters of Interest and other information received after such deadline will not be opened or considered. Letters of Interest and acceptance of an interview may be withdrawn at any time. 11. RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. The CCDA will determine, in its sole discretion,the responsiveness of each proposal to this solicitation. B. CCDA reserves the right to request additional information from any and all proposers to clarify information contained in proposals. C. CCDA reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to accept or reject any and all proposals received as a result of this solicitation, to waive minor irregularities, and to conduct discussions with all responsible proposers, in any manner necessary,to serve the best interest of CCDA. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 16 D. CCDA reserves the right at any time either before or after proposals are submitted to specify additional terms and conditions. E. CCDA reserves the right to at any time in its sole discretion to terminate the selection or terminate negotiations with the successful interviewee and in its sole discretion select another interviewee or enter into a new solicitation process. 12. SOLICITATION PROTEST A person may protest or request a change of a qualification requirement or evaluation criteria no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the due date of the Letter of Intent or the interview. No protest of a qualification decision or grant award because of a qualification requirement or evaluation criteria will be considered after such time. The protest or request for change shall include the reason for the protest or change, any proposed language, and why the proposed language would benefit the CCDA. The CCDA shall consider the protest or request for change and may reject the protest or request for change, issue an addendum or cancel the solicitation. The protest must be submitted to: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 503-718-2420 1 sean@tigard-or.gov 13. SELECTION PROTEST Proposers who disagree with the CCDA's selection decision may protest that decision to the City of Tigard Purchasing Office.Thejudgment used by individual evaluators is not grounds for appeal.No protest because of a solicitation provision, evaluation criteria, scope of work,specification or contract term that could have been raised as a solicitation protest will be considered.The selection protest must be submitted in writing within seven (7) calendar days of the Notice of Intent to Award. The protest shall be submitted to the Contracts and Purchasing Office at: Joe Barrett, Contracts and Purchasing Office 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 503-718-2477 1 joseph@tigard-or.gov The selection protest must state all the relevant facts and reasons that establish that all higher ranked proposers were ineligible for selection because their submittals were non-responsive or the proposer was not responsible. A written decision will be sent to the protester. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 17 14. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY POLICY The CCDA requires all proposers to comply with the City of Tigard's equal opportunity policies. The city's programs, services, employment opportunities, and volunteer positions and contracts are open to all persons without regard to race, religion, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, handicap or political affiliation. A copy of the city's policy is available upon request. 15. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY POLICY All information submitted by proposers shall be public records and subject to disclosure pursuant to the Oregon Public Records Act (ORS 192.410 et seq.), except such portions for which proposer requests exception from disclosure consistent with Oregon law.Any portion of a submittal that the proposer claims constitutes a "trade secret" or is "confidential" must meet the requirements of ORS 192.501(2) and ORS 192.502(4). Applicant must clearly identify such material, by marking it "CONFIDENTIAL." All information submitted by proposers are not open for public inspection until after the notice of intent to award a contract is issued. Except for exempt materials, all information submitted by proposers will be available for viewing after the evaluation process is complete and the notice of intent to award is sent to all participating parties. The CCDA reserves the right to release information requested to be kept confidential if,in its sole discretion, such release is consistent with the provisions of the Oregon Public Records Act. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 18 ,,,,Appendices 111V1qV Click her to view all the documents listed below. LAND USE ENTITLEMENT 1. Approved land use with conditions of approval 2. Site plans and elevations LAND USE ENTITLEMENT REPORTS 3. Traffic Engineering Technical Memorandum 4. Traffic Impact Study 5. Parking and Transportation Demand Management Plan 6. Clean Water Services Service Provider Letter 7. Environmental/ Floodplain Review Memorandum 8. Natural Resource Assessment (includes Sensitive Areas Certification Form) 9. No-Rise Analysis 10. Preliminary Storm Water Plan/Report 11. Arborist Report (Urban Forestry Plan) ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 12. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Saxony-Pacific Properties, dated Nov. 17, 2015 13. Site Characterization Report: Saxony-Pacific Properties, dated September 26, 2014 14. Prospective Purchaser Agreement (Consent Judgment) 15. Easement and Equitable Servitudes 16. Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives, draft OTHER PROPERTY DOCUMENTS 17. Geotechnical Report, dated April 13, 2016 18. Appraisal Report, dated December 23, 2016 19. Title report 20. Legal Description CITY AND STATE DOCUMENTS 21. Downtown Tigard Future Vision 22. City Center Urban Renewal Plan 23. Vertical Housing Development Zone information .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAIN STREET @ FANNO CREEK PROPERTY PAGE 19 1 jr Wo 79 is /,���', � C♦ ,.� r.� Vim'`\�� � '�"'` d�4 100 Nk 1'i 'k' "�Mieyr�irlILII N� t 3-. Agenda Item #10 CCAC 2017 Goals Proposed for Adoption GOALS IMPLEMENTATION Support URA Infrastructure& Key Projects: Development Projects o Attwell @Burnham implementation • Monitor,review,and provide input on key o Fanno Creek Remeander projects o Fanno@Main&associated Brownfield work o Parking management(public parking facilities) • Monitor and review Improvement o Public restrooms Programs o Tigard Street Heritage Trail&plaza development o Urban Lofts/Nicoli (transit&housing) Monitor Mid/Long-term projects located o Equitable Housing Grant downtown and/or likely to have impacts o Civic Center Facilities Planning on downtown o Main St/Green St Phase II o Sidewalk Infill (area of interest: Hall Blvd) o SW Corridor o Park land acquisition? Communications&Engagement Liaison Role&Scope • Liaisons o Attend meetings when downtown related agenda items listed o Identify liaisons for TTAC,SW Corridor CAC, PRAB. Appoint main liaison and a second. • Tigard Downtown Alliance Invite TDA to provide regular briefings • Communication appropriate for all Tigard Advocate for a variety of outreach activities and communities formats to promote inclusive communications • Communication with Council/CCDA Board Chair/Vice Chair regularly attend Council/CCDA Board meetings [when downtown related agenda items listed] and majority of Commissioners will attend/participate in Joint Meetings with CCDA • Work with Economic Development staff Engage existing Downtown business/property owners and potential developers/new businesses Walking&Parking Focus o Learn about Downtown walking and parking • Develop policy and project o Consider opportunities related to the Tigard recommendations to support the city's Street Heritage Trail Strategic Plan&the City Center Urban o Consider mobility and accessibility concerns Renewal Plan Prepared by CCAC Chair Arendes for February 15, 2017 CCAC Meeting Agenda Item 11 Update on City's Role in Homelessness ;0731 Recent Activity • The City Council discussed the city's role with homelessness at two separate meetings in the fall. • The City partnered with Just Compassion to purchase a PO Box that homeless individuals can access. • The City is an active participant in Just Compassion which is seeking to open a seven day a week day center. • The Tigard Chamber of Commerce's Leadership Tigard class spent an afternoon with city staff and elected officials discussing the city's role in homelessness. • The City Council has greenlighted the "Task Force for the Homeless." • Non-profits, businesses, and other community groups will be represented on the task force. 10 to 15 different groups will be represented. • We'll issue a call for applicants in March. • The task force will convene in March/April. • The task force will develop short and long-term recommendations for council consideration. • Interested in serving on the task force? Want to share feedback on homeless in Tigard? Contact Kent Wyatt, Senior Management Analyst, I<entw@tigard-or.gov.